The URL can be used to link to this page

2006.12.19 CC Agenda PacketAGENDA Edmonds City Council Meeting Council Chambers 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds December 19, 2006 7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute 1.Approval of Agenda 2.Consent Agenda Items A.Roll Call B.Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2006. C.Approval of claim checks #92836 through #93002 for December 14, 2006 in the amount of $334,043.72. D.Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Sandy Callender (amount undetermined). E.Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their liquor licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board. F.Confirmation of committee members for the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee for 2007. G.Ratify Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Snohomish County Fire District #1. H.Professional Services Agreement for Legal Representation of Indigent Defendants. I.Approval of three year Subscriber Agreement with Public Safety Testing, Inc. J.Appropriation of $40,183 additional funds and authorization for Mayor to sign contract change order number 3 for 2006 Citywide Storm Improvements project. K.Approval of Findings of Fact regarding the public hearing held 10/17/06 on the Planning Board's recommendation of denial on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone for Jennifer Mantooth, located at approximately 97th Avenue West and 231st Place Southwest. (File No. CDC-05-3 and R-06-67) L.Approval of annual award by the Edmonds Arts Commission of budgeted Cultural Tourism Promotion contracts to local arts organizations to promote events that bring visitors to Edmonds. M.Proposed Ordinance granting to Clearwire, LLC a Right-of-Way Use Permit, to install, operate, and maintain communication facilities within a certain designated public right-of-way of the City of Edmonds, Washington, prescribing certain rights, duties, terms, and conditions with respect thereto, and establishing an effective date. N.Proposed Ordinance granting to T-Mobile West Corporation, a Right-of-Way Use Permit, to install, operate, and maintain communication facilities within a certain designated public right-of-way of the City of Edmonds, Washington, prescribing certain rights, duties, terms, and conditions with respect thereto, and establishing an effective date. O.Proposed Ordinance - Utility Tax Rate Increase. P.Proposed Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code to repeal existing Chapter 16.77 MPOR Zone and replacing it with a new Chapter 16.77 OR-Office-Residential. Q.Proposed Ordinance adopting the 2006 amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan relating to economic AgendaQuick©2005 - 2006 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved Packet Page 1 of 448 Q.Proposed Ordinance adopting the 2006 amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan relating to economic development, capital facilities, sanitary sewers, Port of Edmonds strategic and master plan, neighborhood districts, streetscapes and land use element and comprehensive plan map. R.Proposed Ordinance enacting a new Chapter 16.43 relating to BD-Downtown Business Zoning, amending the City's Zoning Map to rezone certain property specified therein to BD categories, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. S.Proposed Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 3608 establishing a moratorium within the City's central business district, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. T.Proposed Resolution thanking Student Representative Kisa Nishimoto for her service. 3. (5 Min) Presentation of Resolution and Plaque to Student Representative Kisa Nishimoto. 4.(15 Min) Update - Edmonds Center for the Arts 5. (10 Min) Presentation of the 2007 legislative agenda for the Association of Snohomish County Cities & Towns. 6. (10 Min) Presentation of Housing Halo Award to the City of Edmonds by the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County. 7.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person) 8.(5 Min)Mayor's Comments 9.(15 Min)Council Comments 10.Adjourn AgendaQuick©2005 - 2006 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved Packet Page 2 of 448 AM-770 2.B. Approval of 12/12/06 Council Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2006. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Please refer to the attached copy of the draft December 12, 2006 City Council Minutes. Recommendation Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Draft Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 05:12 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/15/2006 10:09 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2006 10:13 AM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/14/2006 05:11 PM Final Approval Date: 12/15/2006 Packet Page 3 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES December 12, 2006 Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a legal matter, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Deanna Dawson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Kisa Nishimoto, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Orvis requested Item J be removed from the Consent Agenda and Council President Dawson requested Item K be removed. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNAIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 2006. C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 2006. D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #92491 THROUGH #92652 FOR NOVEMBER 30, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $514,720.49, AND #92653 THROUGH #92830 FOR DECEMBER 7, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $433,413.74. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #44242 THROUGH #44290 FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 16 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $757,903.85. Packet Page 4 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 2 E. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED NOVEMBER 30, 2006 FOR THE 2005 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION, INC. ($1,380,020.98). F. MIKE DOUBLEDAY INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES CONTRACT. G. POLICE TOWING CONTRACTS FIRST AMENDMENT. H. CONTRACT FOR DECEASED ANIMAL DISPOSAL SERVICES WITH THE S. MORRIS COMPANY. I. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH JEANNIE DINES. L. RESOLUTION NO. 1135 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ON THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PACKAGE BEING DEVELOPED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT DISTRICT IN CONJUNCTION WITH SOUND TRANSIT, EXPRESSING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY. ITEM J: CONTRACT FOR ANIMAL KENNELING SERVICES WITH ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND CATS. Councilmember Orvis advised he would vote against approving the contract with Adix as he was not comfortable with their adoption process. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM J. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows: J. CONTRACT FOR ANIMAL KENNELING SERVICES WITH ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND CATS. ITEM K: ORDINANCE NO. 3615 - APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE CLOSED RECORD REVIEW HELD ON 11/21/06 ON THE APPLICATION BY MICHEL CONSTRUCTION TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-6) TO MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-2.4). THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 546 PARADISE LANE. (FILE NO. R-06-77) Council President Dawson explained she would not support the proposed ordinance for the same reasons she voted against approving the rezone application at the November 6 public hearing,. Councilmember Orvis advised he also noted no at the November 6 meeting and would not support the proposed ordinance. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM K. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, MARIN, WAMBOLT, MOORE AND OLSON IN FAVOR; COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows: K. ORDINANCE NO. 3615- APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE CLOSED RECORD REVIEW HELD ON 11/21/06 ON THE APPLICATION BY MICHEL CONSTRUCTION TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-6) TO MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-2.4). THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 546 PARADISE LANE. (FILE NO. R-06-77) Packet Page 5 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 3 3. WATER RATE INCREASE PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained for the past two years Financial Consulting Services Group had been conducting a rate study for water, sanitary sewer and stormwater utilities. A 3% water rate increase was included in the 2007 and 2008 budget with no increase in the sanitary sewer and stormwater rates. The impact on an average residential customer would be approximately $1.45 for the two month billing period in 2007 and $1.49 for the same billing period in 2008. He explained the primary drivers for the rate increase were approximately $4.6 million in water line replacements, $100,000 for replacement of the Five Corners pump station, $100,000 for replacement of a pressure reduction valve, $90,000 for reservoir security and $150,000 for seismic improvements. Councilmember Orvis clarified the 3% increase was on the water portion of the utility only, thus the increase on a resident’s total utility bill would be less than 3%. Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE WATER RATE INCREASE FOR 2007, ORDINANCE NO. 3616. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Moore found it remarkable that the City’s infrastructure could be strengthened for approximately 75 cents per month per household. She pointed out the recent flooding illustrated the importance of keeping the City’s infrastructure sound. She expressed her appreciation to staff for the proposal. 4. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD'S FINDINGS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED REFURBISHMENT OF OLD MILLTOWN, LOCATED AT 201 5TH AVENUE SOUTH Mayor Haakenson recalled that following the Council’s previous discussion, he had contact with many citizens, the developer, and City staff. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested he be the clearing house for anyone wanting to discuss the issue as the quasi judicial nature did not allow the Council to talk with citizens. Therefore he recused himself from any discussion of the matter and had not participated in Executive Sessions related to this matter. On the advice of the City Attorney, although he could not vote on the matter, he recused himself, turned the meeting over to Council President Dawson, and left the building. Council President Dawson recalled when the Council previously reviewed the ADB’s decision regarding the refurbishment of Old Milltown on October 17, 2006, the Council remanded it back to the ADB to develop specific finding with regard to how the project complied/did not comply with the required criteria in the code and the Comprehensive Plan. The ADB held a special meeting on November 30 in response to the Council’s remand and after much deliberation and discussion, the project was approved with minor changes. The ADB’s recommendation is now before the Council for deliberation and a decision. As this was a quasi judicial matter, under the Appearance of Fairness Act, Council President Dawson asked whether any Councilmember had any conflict or ex parte communication they wished to disclose. Councilmember Plunkett advised he received several emails which he did not open because the subject indicated they were related to this matter. During a telephone call from Roger Hertrich regarding an Packet Page 6 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 4 unrelated matter, Mr. Hertrich asked whether he had received the emails. He informed Mr. Hertrich he could not hear any substance from him regarding the matter and ended the conversation. Councilmember Olson advised she received the same emails Councilmember Plunkett received but did not read them. Councilmember Orvis advised he also received the same emails but did not read them. Councilmember Moore advised he received the same emails and did not read them. Councilmember Wambolt advised he received one email which he forwarded to Mr. Snyder. He received two telephone calls from Mr. Hertrich, one encouraging him to obtain the tapes of the ADB meeting because there was content not included in the meeting minutes, and the second asking whether he received the emails. Council President Dawson advised she received an email from Councilmember Wambolt regarding the emails Mr. Hertrich referred to. She also received the same emails other Councilmembers received. She received emails from Finis Tupper regarding the timing of the ADB hearing which she discussed with Mr. Snyder. She summarized none of these affected her ability to make a fair and impartial decision. She advised whether the Councilmembers felt they could proceed and make a fair and impartial decision. Councilmembers Plunkett, Olson, Orvis, Moore and Wambolt answered yes. Council President Dawson asked whether there were any objections to any Councilmember’s participation based on their disclosures. A member of the audience began to object and Council President Dawson clarified only parties of record could voice an objection. Mr. Snyder listed the parties of record as Mr. Gregg, the applicant; Mr. Hertrich; and Ms. Larman. He explained under State Statute only the people who participated in the initial hearing were parties of record. Council President Dawson asked Mr. Snyder to describe the procedural challenges made at the ADB meeting. Mr. Snyder explained Ms. Larman, Mr. Hertrich and Mr. Gregg raised objections to staff in three categories: 1. Public notification of the special meeting – RCW 42.30.080 establishes the requirements for a special meeting. Staff and the City Clerk provided an affidavit to the Council showing the postings and that notice was provided. Mr. Snyder explained a special meeting notice required only minimal notice; 24 hours in advance of a meeting to parties who have requested special notice and to the parties of record. It was not a generalized notice nor was it the same as notice of application; it was very specific notice and only matters listed on the notice could be considered at the special meeting. 2. References made at Council hearing or at the ADB to matters outside the record. Mr. Gregg provided an extensive list via email to Mr. Bullock. He advised the findings the Council adopted for remand to the ADB limited matters to the four elements stated in Ms. Larman’s initial complaint to the Council. The items raised at the Council outside the appeal were not considered or used by the Council in its remand decision. Ms. Larman and Mr. Hertrich in separate communications made specific complaints regarding reference by the Chairman during the ADB’s deliberations to a walking tour brochure of historic buildings in Edmonds. As this was not contained in the original record, he recommended the Council by motion exclude it from consideration. Packet Page 7 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 5 COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO EXCLUDE THE BROCHURE REGARDING HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN EDMONDS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Ms. Larman and other citizens who were not parties of record alleged the doors to City Hall were locked. He provided an affidavit from Diane Cunningham, the Planning Director, stating she staffed the door from 5:30 – 6:30 p.m. He noted approximately 25- 30 people attended the ADB meeting and members of the Council were also in the building for other reasons. There was no direct evidence that the door was locked and Ms. Larman was not in the country at the time. He advised if true, it would be a violation of the Open Meetings Law but it was outside the scope of this proceeding. Any person who was excluded had the right to bring a separate legal challenge to invalidate the proceeding. He outlined the two options for the Council, 1) remand to the ADB to hold a new deliberation or 2) proceed with considering the matter. Council President Dawson asked Councilmembers who were in the building that night to comment. Councilmember Olson advised she arrived approximately 6:15 p.m. for a South Snohomish Cities meeting at 6:30 p.m. and was at the door admitting people and recalled Diane Cunningham was also there. She advised there were people who arrived after 6:30 for the South Snohomish Cities meeting who were able to get in. Councilmembers Marin and Moore advised they also attended the South Snohomish Cities meeting. Councilmember Wambolt was also at the meeting and agreed with Councilmember Olson’s description. Mr. Snyder advised this was a matter for Council discretion whether to proceed or remand to the ADB. The only direct evidence was that the door was open. Council President Dawson advised that barring any evidence other than that the door was unlocked, the Council would proceed. Mr. Snyder reviewed issues contained in a complaint submitted by Mr. Hertrich, first whether the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance had been complied with in regard to square footage. He recalled a question was raised at the first hearing whether the square footage of new construction was less than the SEPA threshold and therefore properly noticed. The second issue was a challenge to the information in the record; the ADB’s recommendations as based on staff notification and decision rather than a direct square footage measurement. He suggested the Council address this during its deliberations – whether there was sufficient evidence. The third issue Mr. Hertrich raised was the ADB confirmed by their comments that the building was boxy, long, and monotonous and that the ADB redesigned the building. Mr. Snyder advised the ADB could condition approval and the Council on appeal, under Chapter 20.05.040, had the right to affirm, modify or reverse the actions of the Hearing Examiner or ADB. Again, he recommended this be addressed during the Council’s deliberations. The fourth issue raised by Mr. Hertrich was the ADB’s decision was in error because new information was accepted. He referred to the Council’s motion to exclude evidence regarding the walking tour. He suggested the Council’s deliberations and Findings of Fact address these issues. He summarized the matter was before the Council for a final decision and the record was closed. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the application would be handled differently if the square footage of new construction was over 4,000. Mr. Snyder answered there would be a different hearing process, different public notification and different land owner notification. Council President Dawson remanded to Council for deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO APPROVE THE ADB’S RECOMMENDATIONS AS WRITTEN. Packet Page 8 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 6 Councilmember Plunkett recalled at the October 17 meeting his focus was on the historic preservation aspect. The existing code requires an application be sensitive to the historic character of downtown; however, as much as he would like to hold an applicant to the term “sensitive” it was an inexact, undefined word. He recalled he also referenced open space at the October 17 meeting and via discussions with Mr. Snyder, realized the standards for open space also were not sufficient. He referred to ECDC 20.10.070 which requires long, massive, unbroken design of buildings be avoided. He recalled asking the applicant whether the proposal reduced or maintained open space and found it decreased the amount of open space. He referred to existing open space on 5th Avenue and on Dayton that had been moved out to the sidewalk. He noted this was important under 20.10.070 as it increased the long, massive, unbroken lines of the building. For that reason, he found the application failed to meet the expectations of the code and he would not support the motion. Councilmember Orvis referred to the criteria that long, massive, unbroken design of buildings be avoided. He referred to page 40 of the packet which illustrated the north side of the existing building and the proposed building, noting the existing building appeared to be two buildings, one with a flat roof and the other a taller building with a pitched roof. The drawing of the proposed building appeared to be a two- floor, single color building with a continuous flat roof, that actually concealed the alley. The photograph and drawing on page 41 of the existing building illustrated the bay window that broke up the façade had been eliminated in the proposed building. He concluded the building design was long and unbroken. Councilmember Wambolt observed the ADB’s deliberation on December 1 was more comprehensive and allowed him to determine he could not support the motion. He objected to the massing of the building and agreed with the ADB’s minority report authored by Mr. Michel who voted against approval because of the massing. He disagreed with the three ADB members who supported the proposal and did not believe there was massing. He noted the proposal to fill in the west side of the building along 5th would make it 70% longer than it was today with less modulation via the removal of the bay window. He preferred adding more modulation rather than removing modulation, finding the same for the Dayton side of the building due to the elimination of the open space on the first level and the addition of a second level on the northeast corner. He concluded the building would look more like it did in 1913 when it was renovated; what people liked was the appearance of the building as it had existed since being renovated in 1973. He did not support the motion. Councilmember Moore commented it was not a matter of what people liked, it was a matter of whether the proposal complied with the law. She noted the minority on the ADB was only one member; the remainder of the members agreed that every criterion in the code had been met. She encouraged the Council to uphold the law and approve the application. Councilmember Olson commented the ADB stated the proposed project avoids long, massive, unbroken and monotonous facades. Facades are broken up by new windows and doors in addition to variations in building material used on the exterior. Windows are used and arranged in such a way to allow light and air into the occupants of the project. Different styles of windows are used to add variety to the façade but are used in such a manner to add symmetry and balance to the façade. There are planter boxes on the street level to allow for landscaping while still enhancing the pedestrian experience on the street level. She pointed out three ADB members found the proposal was not massive. She agreed with Councilmember Moore, Councilmembers could not vote based on their personal opinion whether they liked a building; the decision must be based on whether it complied with the code. Councilmember Marin was troubled that the applicant was being penalized by the size of the lot; a building on a larger lot would naturally be bigger. He objected to the requests to reduce the mass by cutting the building into small pieces. He noted the applicant was attempting to remodel and retain a landmark building; one of the options was to demolish the building. He found the applicant’s proposal Packet Page 9 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 7 reasonable and that it addressed the issues of breaking up the length and height of the building with interesting architectural features. Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Marin, pointing out that in addition to lacking a definition of open space and sensitive to historic character, the City did not have a definition of massing; therefore that was not adequate to reject an application. With regard to Councilmember Orvis’ comment that the building appeared to be all one color (page 40), Councilmember Moore noted it was a black & white picture. She objected to making an important decision on redevelopment in the downtown area of a 2-story building that would revitalize the retail core based on a black & white artist’s rendering. Councilmember Wambolt disagreed with Councilmember Marin’s comment that some Councilmembers wanted the building broken up into smaller buildings, noting he had not heard that statement made. He pointed out it was possible to provide the appearance of small buildings. He concluded the Council was complying with the law when stating the building was too massive and referenced ECDC 20.10.070(4) which states long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter to allow light and air to occupants of the development and to provide space for landscaping and recreational facilities. He found the proposal to be a long, massive, unbroken, monotonous building. Councilmember Moore referred to the portion of the code regarding light and air to resident of the building, noting there was plenty of light and air reaching the residents. Council President Dawson commented her perspective had not changed as a result of the ADB’s review; she did not find the proposal complied with the code. She referred to ADB Member Michel’s comments on page 89, finding the building long and monotonous. She noted the question before the ADB and the Council was not how the design could be tweaked to comply but whether the proposal complied with the code. She referred to the criteria that long, massive, unbroken or monotonous building be avoided, finding the proposal did not comply with that criterion. She disagreed that building of this size could not be designed to avoid monotony, noting the photographs of the existing building illustrated a building that was not monotonous or too massive and that had excellent modulation. She did not support the motion. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN, OLSON AND MOORE IN FAVOR; COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, PLUNKETT AND ORVIS OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT TO AFFIRM THE APPEAL AND REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BASED ON FAILURE TO MEET THE CRITERIA IN ECDC 20.10.070 WITH REGARD TO LONG, MASSIVE, UNBROKEN AND MONOTONOUS BUILDINGS. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT WAMBOLT, AND ORVIS IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, MARIN, AND MOORE OPPOSED. Council President Dawson declared a brief recess and Mayor Haakenson returned to the dais. 5. CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND ACTION ON THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 ON THE DRAFT "BD - DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONES" INTENDED TO BE APPLIED TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Planning Manager Rob Chave pointed out the Council was in continued deliberation on the BD zones as well as the downtown plan language amendments. He recommended once the Council completed their discussion regarding the BD zones, they revisit the plan language to ensure it was consistent. Packet Page 10 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 8 COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO ADOPT THE PLAN AS PRESENTED. Councilmember Plunkett proposed allowing drive-up windows as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) downtown. He recalled the Council’s preference not to allow any more drive-ups and suggested uses such as pharmacies or banks have the opportunity to persuade the Council and community that they should be allowed a drive-up via a CUP. He concluded the result would be there would not be any more drive-up downtown unless the applicant met the burden of proof via a CUP process. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO AMEND THE PLAN TO ALLOW DRIVE-UPS DOWNTOWN AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Mayor Haakenson pointed out CUPs were reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Moore advised she would not support the amendment, recalling the original intent was to make the downtown pedestrian friendly. The Planning Board also expressed concern with conflicts between curb cuts/cars and pedestrians. She preferred there eventually be no drive-throughs in the downtown core. She noted this core was a small area and there were other zones that allowed drive-in businesses. Council President Dawson commented there may circumstances where a drive-in may be beneficial. She noted there were existing businesses downtown with drive-throughs that worked well. She agreed with requiring stringent regulation via a CUP. She expressed support for the motion. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER MOORE OPPOSED. Councilmember Plunkett noted art galleries were slated for the 4th Avenue corridor; he preferred they be allowed in all BD zones. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO ALLOW ART GALLARIES AND MUSEUMS OF LOCAL CONCERN AS AN OUTRIGHT PERMITTED USE IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Orvis referred to his previous presentation illustrating his concern with the proposed height exceptions. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO AMEND THE PLAN AS FOLLOWS: 1) DELETE 16.43.030.C.5a REGARDING HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR BUILDING CORNICES, 2) DELETE 16.43.030.C.5b REGARDING HEIGHT ROOF OR DECK RAILINGS, 3) CHANGE 16.43.030.5c TO INSERT THE WORD “SINGLE” BEFORE “DECORATIVE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT,” 4) DELETE 16.43.030.C.5d REGARDING PITCHED ROOFS, AND 5) DELETE 16.43.030.C.5e. Councilmember Orvis explained the intent of the amendment was to eliminate all exceptions except the current exceptions for pipes, chimneys and elevator penthouses and allow an exception for a single architectural element. Councilmember Marin advised he would vote against motion, expressing concern that eliminating the exceptions removed options for designing an interesting looking building and would result in buildings that all looked the same. Packet Page 11 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 9 Councilmember Moore did not support the amendment, finding it too restrictive. She commented it was the Council’s intent to provide flexibility in the code so that architects and builders could submit their concepts to the ADB for review. Councilmember Olson recalled staff developed the exceptions as a compromise to higher buildings but allow for interesting design such as a roof garden and a parapet. She agreed the proposed amendment was too restrictive as it would eliminate that opportunity. Councilmember Moore noted none of the proposed amendments had been through a public hearing like all the other concepts had been. If the Council was interested in eliminating height exceptions, the Council should approve the plan with the exceptions and then seek the public’s input regarding further changes. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, ORVIS AND WAMBOLT IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, MARIN AND OLSON OPPOSED. Councilmember Orvis referred to the direction given to the Planning Board with regard to 30-foot building height in the retail core with a maximum of two floors and requiring a 15-foot first floor. He recalled the 30-foot building height was allowed with a 15-foot first floor to accommodate two stories on a site that sloped down. He noted the proposed ordinance did not contain the two floor criteria. He recalled a citizen questioned why 30 feet was necessary for 3 additional feet on the first floor, suggesting for the additional 3 feet on the first floor a building height of 28 feet be allowed. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO CHANGE 16.43.030.C.2 TO READ, “WITHIN THE BD1, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 28 FEET. Councilmember Moore found this the most onerous of Councilmember Orvis’ amendments, pointing out a 28-foot building height negated nearly three years of work. She recalled the Planning Board’s first recommendation was 33 feet with a 12-foot first floor which the Council rejected. The 30-foot building height with a 15-foot first floor, which has had four public hearing versus Councilmember Orvis’ amendment which has had none, was a compromise she supported. She found it ill advised, unfair and illogical to arbitrarily eliminate 2 feet from the building height from the most expensive commercial area in the City and an area that was vital to the City’s economic development with no public or Planning Board input. Councilmember Moore pointed out the Chanterelle building was 33 feet tall; a proportion that gave it charm, grace and historic significance. If the Council wanted to prohibit buildings such as that, it would be advisable to get some public input. With regard to two stories versus three stories, she noted there had not been any evidence presented in the past three years that two stories were better or more attractive than three. The evidence provided actually said redeveloping to two stories was not economically feasible. The Council decided on a 30-foot maximum building height; what happened within the building envelope should be determined by design guidelines and the ADB, property owner and architect. She preferred to step-back the third floor or anything over 25 feet to protect the pedestrian scale of narrow streets and preserve the continuous commercial experience. She did not support the proposed amendment. Mayor Haakenson agreed there had not been any public hearing or public input on changing the height limit to 28 feet. From staff’s perspective, changing the maximum building height to 28 feet negated the last two years of work. He agreed with Councilmember Moore that changing the height limit tonight was ill conceived and ill advised. Packet Page 12 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 10 Councilmember Wambolt concurred the Council had agreed to a 30-foot building height and he would not support the amendment. Council President Dawson commented the issue of building height had been discussed a lot and there had been a great deal of public input. She recalled the consultant recommended 25-feet in the BD1 zone. If the intent was to preserve buildings like Chanterelle, she preferred to preserve existing buildings in the BD1 such as the Chanterelle. She commented higher building heights in the fountain square area that made redevelopment economically feasible would result in existing buildings being demolished and new buildings constructed. However, a lower building height such as suggested by Councilmember Orvis’ amendment of 28 feet was more likely to result in redevelopment that maintained existing structures in the BD1 zone. She agreed if the first floor ceiling height was increased from 12 feet to 15 feet, the maximum building height should only be additional 3 feet. She concluded this was the best way to preserve the historic character of the BD1 zone. She found the 28 foot building height a compromise; she preferred a 25-foot building height. She expressed her support for the amendment. Councilmember Marin commented on the Port Commissioners’ reference to mixed signals they received from the Council with regard to building heights for Harbor Square redevelopment, noting this was another example of the Council sending mixed signals. He did not support the proposed amendment. Councilmember Moore commented no one had ever said they wanted to preserve all the building in downtown Edmonds; there were many that were inadequate and did not meet fire or building codes, many were cinder block construction and there was nothing charming, history or beautiful about them. She had heard people say they were interested preserving the charm of downtown. She reiterated there had been no public input on 28-foot building heights. She recommended the change to 28 feet be considered as a future amendment after the plan had been approved. Councilmember Wambolt recalled the direction the Council gave to the Planning Board at the March 28 meeting was 15-foot first floor ceiling heights and a maximum of two floors in the retail core and a 30- foot building height. Council President Dawson pointed out she voted against providing that direction to the Planning Board. Councilmember Plunkett commented heights from 25 to 33 feet had been discussed for the past three years. He did not agree there had not been adequate public input just because there had not been input on this specific amendment. He was satisfied with the amendment, finding the citizens’ had provided adequate input over the past three years. Mayor Haakenson agreed there had been enough public comment on height limits; however, the Council’s direction to the Planning Board was a 30-foot height limit and tonight was the first time a height of 28 feet had been discussed. Council President Dawson pointed out the direction to the Planning Board included a requirement for two stories which was not included. She concluded 28 feet was viewed by at least three Councilmembers as a compromise to requiring two stories. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the packet contained his proposed amendment regarding two stories. Packet Page 13 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 11 Councilmember Olson referred to staff’s comment in the agenda memo that a 28-foot height limit would not allow a building like Chanterelle. She concluded even staff had concerns with this amendment. She did not support the proposed amendment. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, WAMBOLT, MOORE AND MARIN OPPOSED. Councilmember Orvis noted the code contained an open space requirement but the threshold was 12,000 square feet; he proposed a threshold of 6,000 square feet. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO AMEND 16.43.030.E TO START OUT BY SAYING “FOR BUILDINGS LARGER THAN 6,000 SQUARE FEET…” Councilmember Moore commented there had not been any public input on this amendment; therefore, she could not support it. MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, MARIN, WAMBOLT, MOORE AND OLSON OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDEDBY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO AMEND 16.43.030.C.2 TO READ: “WITHIN THE BD1 ZONE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 30 FEET WITH NO MORE THAN TWO FLOORS ABIVE THE STREET LEVEL AND THE GROUND FLOOR MUST BE AT LEAST 15 FEET IN HEIGHT.” Councilmember Orvis commented this would restore the original intent of the direction to the Planning Board; therefore, he would support the proposed amendment. Councilmember Moore asked staff to comment on the proposed amendment. Mr. Chave commented overall this would not have an effect except in a small portion of the BD1 on 5th where there is an uphill slope. In that area it may be possible to get an extra floor with a 30-foot building height. He noted that was the reason for discussing step-back. Councilmember Moore expressed concern with the use of stories and floors interchangeably. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised definitions were the next task in the code rewrite. He envisioned the language two floors above street level and the ground floor must be 15 feet in height could be read as ground floor synonymous with the street level and two floors above that which he was certain was not Councilmember Wambolt’s intent. Councilmember Moore commented for that reason and others, she would not support the amendment. Council President Dawson preferred staff’s recommendation regarding step backs with regard to how the streetscape looked. She did not support the motion as currently worded. MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT AND ORVIS IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, MOORE, OLSON, AND WAMBOLT, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, IN THE TABLE OF PERMITTED USES, DELETE “NEW” FROM AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVCIE. Packet Page 14 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 12 Councilmember Wambolt pointed out this would allow the sale of used vehicles in addition to new. He noted automotive sales and service was not allowed in the BD1, BD4 or BD5 zones but was allowed in the BD2 and BD3 zones. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Dawson proposed the step-back rules in the BD1 be consistent with the step back rules in the other areas so that the building did not have the appearance of additional height. Her concern was that there was the ability in the BD1 to have buildings that are and appear to be taller than the rest of downtown, something she found surprising in the fountain square area. She referred to staff’s note in the packet that as an alternative to a 28-foot height limit in the BD1 zone and to address the concern about the interaction of slope and building height, the Council could establish a step-back rule for the BD1 zone, requiring a step-back for any portion of the building that exceeded 30 feet above the street or 30 feet above average grade. Although she was still uncomfortable with a 30-foot building height, she found this an acceptable compromise. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, MOVED TO ADD THE BD1 ZONE TO THE STEP-BACK RULES IN 16.43.030.C.3. Councilmember Marin advised he would support the amendment but did not believe it would ever be used as that area was fairly level. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out 16.43.030.C.2 had to be changed as the existing wording, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet when the ground floor is at least 15 feet in height, was misleading because the ground floor in the BD1 was required to be 15 feet. Mr. Chave explained the reason it was worded that way was the base height was 25 feet. Mr. Snyder pointed out that wording was necessary to prevent an existing building that was remodeled less than 50% of its value from increasing the building height without increasing the first floor height. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION TO LIFT THE MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN THE BC ZONE. Citing the Council’s recent quasi judicial review of a building that many people had feelings about and the Council’s inability to overturn the ADB’s recommendation based on historical character because the City’s standards relied on the term “sensitive” which was a general term and difficult to enforce, he suggested the Council begin a process that involved the Historical Preservation Commission (HPC) to develop historical standards for buildings in the BD1 zone. Mayor Haakenson suggested Councilmember Orvis’ concept would need to be separate from the current moratorium. Councilmember Orvis was concerned with lifting the moratorium on the BD1, expressing interest in a moratorium on development in the BD1 until a historical review process could be developed to ensure new buildings in BD1 zone had a historical flavor via either maintaining the existing historical building or redeveloped to look like a historical building. Mayor Haakenson suggested the proper process would be to lift the current moratorium and adopt a new moratorium on the BD1 zone for historical purposes. Packet Page 15 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 13 Mr. Snyder suggested if the motion passed, another motion could be made directing him to draft another moratorium on the BD1 zone. He pointed out that would be a broader moratorium; the one proposed to be lifted was only on development over 25 feet. Mayor Haakenson asked how long the City could continue to have a moratorium. Mr. Snyder answered it had been a long time, a duration he was not comfortable with. He suggested lifting the current moratorium and as Councilmember Orvis described, establish a moratorium on the issuance of all building permits for new construction and demolition permits in the downtown area. Council President Dawson asked when the current moratorium ended. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised it had been extended recently and expired May 17. Mayor Haakenson explained Councilmember Marin’s motion was to repeal the current moratorium; Councilmember Orvis’ suggestion was for a different moratorium with a different legislative rationale. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED. Councilmember Orvis explained his hope was that the Council would direct the HPC to develop ordinances to hold buildings in the BD1 to tighter historical standards than currently existed; the moratorium would protect the buildings in the BD1 zone until the ordinances could be adopted. He hoped this could be done in a timely manner so that the moratorium would be short lived. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, THAT THE COUNCIL DIRECT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO DEVELOP ORDINANCES THAT HOLD BUILDINGS TO TIGHTER HISTORICAL STANDARDS. Councilmember Moore commented she did not understand what the tighter historical standards would be and again, this suggestion needed public input. She pointed out a moratorium was a very serious thing and she did not believe anyone would file an application for a building in the BD1 because of the restrictions the Council placed on that zone. She emphasized the term “historic” needed to be defined before a moratorium was adopted as historic was something more than nostalgic. Council President Dawson clarified the motion was for the HPC to begin working on historic standards and did not include a moratorium. She supported the concept of historic preservation downtown to ensure the buildings the community believed were historic were preserved. She expressed her support for the motion. Mayor Haakenson assumed whatever the HPC developed would be forwarded to the Planning Board for their consideration. Council President Dawson agreed it would have to be reviewed by the Planning Board. Councilmember Moore commented she misunderstood the motion to include a moratorium. Councilmember Orvis commented that would be his next motion. Councilmember Plunkett agreed specific language needed to be developed so that the community was satisfied that new construction and remodeled structures met historic standards that reflected the character and the will of the community. That could be achieved via the HPC developing language for input by the Council and review and hearings by the Planning Board. He expressed his support for the motion. Councilmember Marin commented the work of the HPC to date made it optional for the property owner to have their building declared historic and providing the owner with options. He was hesitant to support Packet Page 16 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 14 the motion as worded in the fear it would lock owners in and tell them what they could/could not do with their building. Councilmember Plunkett commented the intent of the motion was not to establish an historic district such as Pioneer Square in downtown Seattle. He agreed the only process for historic structures today was voluntary; the motion addressed specific design guidelines so that new construction or a remodel would meet the intent of sensitive to historic character. Councilmember Moore commented the Council still had not passed design guidelines although they had been a Council priority for some time. She questioned how a process to develop historic design guidelines would be dovetailed with the design guidelines that were already in process. Councilmember Plunkett was hopeful they would dovetail, that would be a good objective. The HPC’s objective would be to move as fast as possible. For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board was holding a hearing tomorrow night. Councilmember Moore envisioned those design guidelines would come to the Council before the HPC could begin their work and if the HPC developed historic design guidelines, the process would need to begin again. Councilmember Wambolt indicated he would support the motion due to his belief the issue of historic buildings needed to be reviewed because most citizens had a different ideas of what it meant – they believed historic buildings were protected and that the owner could not demolish a building designated as historic. Councilmember Orvis agreed it would be preferable if the processes dovetailed. If a conflict arose between the design guidelines, his preference would be to side with the historic standards due to the importance of preserving the historic nature of downtown. He pointed out the importance of the City’s historical character to economic development. Councilmember Moore agreed with better defining historic standards. She pointed out the downtown had been developed over decades and only a few building could be identified as having a historic look. She would support the motion so that the HPC could hear from the public what they believed was historic and why. Councilmember Olson recommended this effort be fast-tracked and incorporated into the design guidelines currently being processed. Mr. Snyder pointed out the motion did not refer to a specific zone. Councilmember Orvis advised his intent was to limit it to the BD1 zone. Mr. Snyder inquired whether his intent was only architectural features. Councilmember Orvis clarified his intent was an open-ended process for the HPC to determine how the history of downtown could be preserved. Councilmember Marin questioned what date would be frozen as “historic.” He pointed out in Pioneer Square, there were a sufficient number of buildings constructed in that era that satisfied an architectural style and it was appropriate to freeze that time. Conversely, Edmonds’ downtown has evolved over a long period of time. He objected to freezing buildings that were no longer viable. Mayor Haakenson clarified the motion was for the HPC to study historic buildings and what historic buildings mean and make a recommendation to the Planning Board. Packet Page 17 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 15 Mr. Chave commented if the Council charged the HPC with analyzing options for preserving downtown, there were many different options. He suggested the HPC decide on an approach and present it to the Council before forwarding it to the Planning Board to develop ordinances. Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows: DIRECT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING HOW THEY WOULD PROCEED WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE BD1 ZONE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Snyder asked whether Councilmember Orvis was interested in a moratorium on building and demolition permits and if so, in what zones. Councilmember Orvis answered building and demolition permits in the BD1 zone. Mr. Snyder commented there were other vesting requirements in the code; he clarified Councilmember Orvis did not want any vested right to demolish or construct a building in the BD1 zone. Councilmember Orvis agreed that was his intent. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON BUILDING PERMITS AND DEMOLITION PERMITS IN THE BD1 ZONE WITH THE VESTING PROVISIONS OUTLINED BY MR. SNYDER. Councilmember Marin indicated he could not support the motion because the historic preservation provisions currently in place allowed a person to decide whether or not they wanted to utilize the tools available to a historic building. The proposed motion would handcuff those property owners. Councilmember Plunkett expressed his support for the motion, pointing out he did not want anything to occur in the downtown core until the community had an opportunity to define historically sensitive so that buildings would be designed and constructed to those standards. Councilmember Moore pointed out the most important issues were design guidelines and economic development. She recalled Councilmembers Plunkett and Orvis voted against development on Hwy. 99 and were not in favor of much development in neighborhood centers and asked where they planned to support economic development in Edmonds. She noted the budget kept increasing, tonight water rates were increased and it would get worse unless there was some economic development in the City. She summarized the more moratoria the Council enacted and the longer they dragged their feet, the longer it would be before any economic development occurred and the more property taxes would increase or services would decrease. She would not support the proposed moratorium, commenting it was doubtful any applications would be filed for redevelopment in the downtown area in view of the restrictions the Council placed on development. She reiterated the need for design guidelines. Mayor Haakenson commented the Council had had a moratorium in this area for a long time and if this motion passed, there would be another moratorium on a section of downtown for another reason. He asked at what point someone would reach the point of saying enough’s enough. Council President Dawson suggested Mr. Snyder provide any legal advice to the Council in Executive Session. Mr. Snyder suggested he address the process and offered to describe the risks in Executive Session. He pointed out the moratoria were two separate issues and would need separate legislative findings and reasons. The first moratorium was a result of the Bauer decision and a consistent interpretation of the 25+ foot height limit. That was overturned by the court and a moratorium was put in place on construction over 25 feet until that issue was addressed. This was a different moratorium, enacted for different reasons in a Packet Page 18 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 16 different geographical area. He offered to prepare a memorandum for discussion in Executive Session before the next Council meeting. Councilmember Plunkett commented some believed that preserving the charm and character of downtown was economic development. He pointed out the General Fund budget had increased $10 million in the past ten years, sales tax revenues had increased from $2.4 million to $5.4 million in the past ten years, and merchants’ gross receipts over the past ten years have doubled from $30 million to $60 million, all without taller buildings. That additional revenue and economic development was from preserving the charm and character of the community. He summarized that was good policy, good economic development and what the people of Edmonds wanted. Councilmember Olson expressed concern that there were more and more empty spaces downtown. She found the moratorium onerous as a property owner with a building that was not historic such as a cement cinderblock building, could not do anything with the moratorium in place. Council President Dawson agreed with Councilmember Plunkett regarding economic development, commenting people came to downtown to shop because of its historic nature. She agreed there were some buildings downtown that were not historic but she preferred to error on the side of protecting too much versus protecting too little. She commented the recent process illustrated the code did not provide clear guidance on being sensitive to historic structures and did not require redevelopment to be sensitive to existing structures. She noted that came as a surprise to many although that was certainly the intent of the drafters of the original code, to preserve the historic nature of the downtown area. She discounted the concern with a enacting a brief moratorium while the HPC developed language regarding historic preservation, anticipating it may only require tightening up design guidelines to define sensitive to historic structures. She pointed out there was currently nothing in the code that prevented the demolition of Old Milltown; if the Council cared about preserving that structure, a moratorium was necessary until it could be determined how historic structures could be preserved. Councilmember Olson observed the original moratorium was only supposed to be for a few months and ended up being two years. She emphasized moratoria had a huge impact on property owners because they could not do anything with their property while the moratorium was in place. She objected to enacting a moratorium that had such a large impact on property owners and not seeking input from the public and the property owners. She concluded enacting moratoria often had unforeseen consequences. Councilmember Wambolt indicated he was not comfortable voting on this motion tonight. He suggested further discussion occur in Executive Session. Mr. Snyder agreed the risks could be discussed in Executive Session. He recalled Washington Cities Insurance Authority’s (WCIA) indication that moratorium were the largest source of municipal liability and as such asked to be notified of any moratoria. The Council’s direction was to prepare an ordinance to impose a moratorium for Council consideration at the next meeting. A public hearing must then be held within 60 days and the moratorium was limited to six months absent Council action to extend it via separate action. He clarified regardless of the Council’s action tonight, applications for permits could be accepted until the Council passed the moratorium ordinance. Council President Dawson pointed out the moratorium could be lifted by the Council at any time during the process. The moratorium would assist in preserving existing buildings until language could be developed with regard to historic preservation. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether construction could begin on the AM-PM property. Mr. Snyder answered anyone with a vested permit right who had filed a fully complete building permit or filed a fully completed demolition permit or had vested under the ADB vesting process could continue with Packet Page 19 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 17 construction. Anyone could file any of those permits until the Council imposed a moratorium via ordinance. He summarized the motion instructed him to draft an ordinance and did not do anything legislatively. Mayor Haakenson asked whether the Bank of Washington had filed any building permits. Mr. Chave answered they received a Conditional Use approval for a drive-in; he was not certain whether they had submitted for a building permit. For Mayor Haakenson, Mr. Snyder explained any individual could vest by filing a permit under the current ordinances at any time until a moratorium was enacted. Mayor Haakenson commented realistically no one could design a building and apply for a building permit in a week’s time unless they happened to be ready to go. Mr. Snyder advised the City’s building code had a specialized vesting permit procedure to allow individuals who were concerned an avenue for vesting their right. Councilmember Plunkett advised the HPC had already drafted a recommendation in anticipation of the Council’s frustration with the word sensitive. The HPC’s intent was to vet their recommendation with Mr. Snyder and Mr. Chave and then bring them to the Council. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, MARIN, OLSON AND MOORE OPPOSED. Mr. Chave referred to revised language that was distributed to the Council, explaining the intent was to ensure the language was aligned with decisions made with regard to downtown zoning. He referred to page 38, vehicular access and parking, and suggested the second sentence be eliminated. He noted this language was provided by the Planning Board consistent with their recommendation there be no drive- through businesses, and that there also not be any new curb cuts downtown. Since the Council allowed the potential for new drive-in businesses downtown, that language should be removed. He advised the revisions would require Council adoption of an ordinance. Council President Dawson suggested language strongly discouraging new curb cuts except when a CUP was granted for a drive-through. Council President Dawson suggested the Council read through the changes for discussion and adoption next week. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Alan McFarland, Edmonds, commented one of the City’s greatest draws was Old Milltown, particularly the south half bordering on 5th Avenue South, which filled the need for a sit-down place where residents and visitors could talk, eat, hang out and enjoy this unique space. Besides being a fun place to go, it brought a lot of tourist dollars to the City. He emphasized the south end of Old Milltown was too wonderful in its present state for the Mayor, Council, Planning Board or ADB to allow its present footprint to be changed and “Greggorize” it. He envisioned if it were destroyed, residents and visitors would lose one of the single most important historic attractions in downtown. He urged the Council to slow down, do it right and involve the public in maintaining this unique piece of history. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, provided numerous photographs that illustrated the Council’s legacy, photographs of several buildings on 5th Avenue and on Main Street that needed revitalization. He also provided photographs of the unsightly condition of the rear of several of the same buildings. He pointed out the action the Council took tonight would allow these conditions to continue. He displayed photographs of other areas that were not being developed due to restrictive codes including the former Albertson’s store, the strip mall across the street, a vacant lot on Sunset and Firdale Village. He provided Packet Page 20 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 18 a photograph of a ravine in his neighborhood that was cleared and filled and replaced with houses. He urged the Council to be leaders so that their legacy would be meaningful. Bob Gregg, Edmonds, thanked the Council for culminating a length process, commenting his feeling was “win some, lose some.” He noted the process over the last three months for Old Milltown had been a lighting rod for bringing the community together to develop ideas. He pointed out what was historic needed to be resolved, whether it was 1913 or 1978. He commented as a result of Council comments regarding the loss of open space, they were willing to make revisions to retain that gathering space, but the quasi judicial process did not allow any dialogue. Mr. Snyder cautioned the Findings of Fact had not yet been adopted with regard to the Council’s decision on Old Milltown. Mr. Gregg offered to meet with staff after next week. He advised the moratorium which he believed was aimed at 201 5th Avenue was unnecessary as he was willing to work with the City. Lynn McFarland, Edmonds, reported the November 30 ADB meeting was poorly run and the Chair was rude and threatening and his behavior was beyond belief. She did not feel he was a person that should be in a position of public trust, recalling he even invited a person who disagreed with him to go outside to settle it. She requested something be done to remove Mr. Utt from the ADB. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled a question was raised at the ADB with regard to phasing and how the square footage of the remainder of Old Milltown would be considered. The answer was there were no rules with regard to phasing, staff would determine whether the new square footage constituted phasing and whether the two together resulted in a larger square footage, creating more requirements. The answer also revealed there was no time requirement. He requested the Council create a new rule regarding phasing that included a time limit to ensure the decision was not left to staff. He preferred the entire Old Milltown project had been done under a master plan so that the entire renovation could be reviewed at one time. Next, Mr. Hertrich expressed concern with the material choices on the exterior of the building under construction by Mr. Gregg, recalling it was originally brick and now included brick, shingle, horizontal and vertical siding. He suggested Mr. Gregg revisit the design. James Clauson, Edmonds, commented he had participated in 21 jurisdictions over the past 39 years and had never heard a Councilperson state what Council President Dawson did, that the financial opportunities of some property owners would be limited, a statement that was supported by Councilmember Orvis, Plunkett and Wambolt. He asked whether this was getting close to a Council taking, the Council ruling out any development in a major section of downtown that encompassed many properties. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered he did not understand Council President Dawson or any other Councilmembers to say that. The Council expressed a desire to take a legislative action but not any plans to take any property. Any action the Council took would be in conformance with the requirements of State law, the Comprehensive Plan, and zoning code. Any citizen who did not agree with the Council’s actions could appeal in Superior Court or to the Growth Management Hearings Board. Any zoning moratoria would also be subject to challenge and must be enacted with appropriate legislative findings and an opportunity for public hearing. 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH REID MIDDLETON, INC. FOR THE FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER SEISMIC STRUCTURAL RETROFIT PROJECT -PHASE 2- DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $169,299 Public Works Director Noel Miller explained in 2002 following the Nisqually earthquake, staff applied for a FEMA grant; the cost estimate at that time was $860,000. Unfortunately due to the number of grant requests, the project was not funded. In 2005 when staff was notified of another grant opportunity, the cost estimate was revised to slightly over $1 million. Unfortunately the FEMA cost estimating Packet Page 21 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 19 methodology did not allow for the normal practice of a construction contingency for project escalation due to inflation or unforeseen conditions. Once the City received the grant, Reid Middleton was selected to begin pre-design work of developing an engineering approach and a revised cost estimate. Typically a 30% construction cost contingency is added to a project; thus there is a strong likelihood the project will cost $1.5 million. Mr. Miller pointed out the seismic retrofit included strengthening the roof which requires removal of the existing roof, eliminating the need to replace the roof in the future, a cost of approximately $250,000. Approximately three weeks ago Mayor Haakenson, Administrative Services Director Dan Clements, Parks Director Brian McIntosh, and he met to discuss the project. They concluded there was good value and benefit to the community from this project. There are sufficient funds in the Parks Improvement Fund 125 to finance the project. He relayed staff’s recommendation to authorize a professional services contract with Reid Middleton for the design of the Frances Anderson Center seismic structural retrofit project. Once the design was complete, staff would return to the Council prior to going out to bid. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH REID MIDDLETON, INC. FOR THE FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER SEISMIC STRUCTURAL RETROFIT PROJECT – PHASE 2 – DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $169,299. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Community Service/Development Services Committee Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee continued their discussion regarding temporary sign regulations. The matter was referred to the full Council for further discussion. Finance Committee Councilmember Wambolt reported the Committee discussed the utility tax ordinance which was recommended as a Consent Agenda item for December 12. The Committee also discussed Mike Doubleday’s intergovernmental contract and recommended approval of the contract and a 3.3% increase as a consent item. Public Safety Committee Councilmember Marin reported the Committee had a follow-up discussion regarding court security; a tentative solution has been reached and the matter was left to Judge Fair and the President of the Edmonds Police Officers Association. The Committee had its final discussion on barking dogs and concluded there were adequate mechanisms in place. With regard to cat enforcement, the Committee requested the City Attorney draft language for the Committee’s review to protect adjacent property owners, the animal and the owner. The Committee then discussed and recommended approval of a professional services contract with Jeannie Dines, discussed and recommended approval of four police towing contracts, and discussed and recommended approval of a contract with S. Morris Company for deceased animal disposal; these items were approved on tonight’s consent agenda. The final item was consideration of the contract for animal kenneling services with Adix’s Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats. Following discussion it was agreed to forward the contract to Council with no recommendation as a consent item and Councilmember Orvis could pull the item to voice his opposition. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson requested Council President Dawson appoint Councilmembers to a EMS Blue Ribbon Committee and a panel to interview candidates for the Hearing Examiner position. Councilmember Wambolt volunteered to serve on the EMS committee. Packet Page 22 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 20 Mayor Haakenson explained on September 3 Jay Clements, the son of Administrative Services Director Dan Clements, was gunned down in a yard in Brier. The suspect arrested in that shooting has been in jail in Snohomish County awaiting trail in March under $1 million bail. He was astounded to learn that Superior Court Judge reduced the suspect’s bail to $250,000 and allowed him to go home for the holidays to be with his family after overwhelming evidence showed he committed this act and he admitted to firing a gun into a crowd of 50 people. The suspect was placed on home detention and ordered not to have any contact with visitors or phone calls but computer access or text messaging was not addressed. The suspect’s mother told the Judge her son did not commit this crime and believed he would be found innocent. Mayor Haakenson commented while he was happy for the suspect’s mother that her son would be home for the holidays, he emphasized Jay Clements was never coming home for the holidays. He was appalled and astounded that the judicial system that allowed this to happen. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Dawson referred to Councilmember Marin’s report regarding court security, advising that issue had been resolved. She recalled the court’s position was that security was within the court’s budget and a court hiring decision, it was within the court’s responsibility to make this decision. Mr. Snyder suggested a professional services contract between the court and whomever the court chose to contract with for security services. She relayed this was satisfactory to the Edmonds Police Officers Association. Council President Dawson requested Councilmembers contact her this week regarding participating on the EMS Blue Ribbon Committee and a panel to interview candidates for the Hearing Examiner position. Councilmember Orvis thanked the Council for their patience during his multiple amendments. Councilmember Moore suggested the public correspond with the judge who reduced the bail for the suspect in the murder of Jay Clements and planned to write him herself. Councilmember Wambolt provided an update on the Harbor Square redevelopment. He reported Al Dykes, the owner of the old Safeway property, convened a meeting of his group; representatives of the Port, Mayor Haakenson, Community Services Director Stephen Clifton he also attended the meeting as well as a consultant who talked about the redevelopment of the property. He explained the property owners were hesitant to divulge the details of their discussion and the only way he could participate was by signing a non-disclosure agreement which would limit what information he could relay to the Council. He relayed Mr. Snyder’s advice that he could not sign a non-disclosure agreement. Mayor Haakenson relayed his conversations with Mr. Snyder and his concern with signing a confidentiality agreement. While he was in a different position than Councilmember Wambolt who was on the committee to report to the Council, Mr. Snyder felt if Mayor Haakenson signed a confidentiality agreement, he would be required to recuse himself from any further discussion. He advised Mr. Snyder was still studying the issue. Councilmember Wambolt reported he was pleased with what he heard at the meeting; Mr. Dykes was proceeding in the right direction. Mayor Haakenson was impressed with the consultant’s ideas for amenities and concepts, particularly since he had only had three weeks to review the property. If the other consultants were anything like this one, the project was going in the right direction. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Mayor Haakenson and staff would be involved in secret conversations with the property owners. Mayor Haakenson advised Mr. Dykes and the Port Commissioners were trying to create a concept that they would then present to the public. He noted one of Councilmember Wambolt’s options was to stay on the committee although he could not report to the Packet Page 23 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 21 Council and it may impact his ability to vote on future development. He noted Councilmember Marin and others who served on the Hwy. 99 taskforce had made decisions regarding that area and were not required to recuse themselves. He concluded the process seemed to be on the right track and a “quiet period” to allow the property owners to develop a plan was not unreasonable. Councilmember Wambolt agreed. Mayor Haakenson pointed out if the development were proposed as a contract rezone, it would be reviewed by the Council. Councilmember Olson reported the South Snohomish Cities, comprised of a representative of the Port and City Councilmembers from eight cities, met recently with Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon. She thanked the Edmonds Councilmembers who also attended the meeting. Councilmember Marin volunteered to serve on both the EMS Blue Ribbon Committee and the panel to interview candidates for the Hearing Examiner position. At the request of Student Representative Kisa Nishimoto who had to leave early, he advised the Edmonds-Woodway High School food drive had been extended to December 14. Last weekend they held a 24-hour food drive at Top Foods, raising $900 and collecting 2,000 cans. Their toy drive ends tomorrow; toys will be donated to the Ryder House and the food will be donated to Edmonds Food Bank. Mayor Haakenson added that Meadowdale High School was also conducting a food drive. Mayor Haakenson advised next week’s agenda included a presentation from the Cities and Towns legislative committee regarding a legislative agenda for the cities and towns in Snohomish County. He had made presentations to Lynnwood, Mukilteo and Woodway Councils. He noted it was appropriate for the cities in Snohomish County to come together to do work in Olympia to counteract the work done by King County and Pierce County. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Packet Page 24 of 448 AM-767 2.C. Approval of Claim Checks Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Debbie Karber, Administrative Services Submitted For:Dan Clements Time:Consent Department:Administrative Services Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subject Approval of claim checks #92836 through #93002 for December 14, 2006 in the amount of $334,043.72. 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. Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2006 Revenue: Expenditure: $334,043.72 Fiscal Impact: Claim Cks $334,043.72 Attachments Link: Claim Cks 12-14-06 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 12/14/2006 12:48 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 01:51 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/15/2006 10:09 AM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2006 10:13 AM APRV Form Started By: Debbie Karber Started On: 12/14/2006 11:41 AM Final Approval Date: 12/15/2006 Packet Page 25 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92836 12/14/2006 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 8154 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES FOR NOV MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES FOR NOV 411.000.654.534.800.340.00 87,392.92 Total :87,392.92 92837 12/14/2006 014940 ALL BATTERY SALES & SERVICE 110424259 UNIT 11 - BATTERIES UNIT 11 - BATTERIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 215.85 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.21 UNIT 113 - BATTERY110424260 UNIT 113 - BATTERY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 65.95 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.87 Total :306.88 92838 12/14/2006 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 82.96 Public Works Facility197-0800897 Public Works Facility 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 20.74 Public Works Facility 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 78.80 Public Works Facility 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 78.80 Public Works Facility 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 78.80 Public Works Facility 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 78.80 Public Works Facility 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 78.77 1Page: Packet Page 26 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92838 12/14/2006 (Continued)061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES INVOICE #197-0801132 garbage for F/S #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 100.08 INVOICE #197-0829729 garbage for MCC 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 53.21 Total :650.96 92839 12/14/2006 069565 AMERICAN LAFRANCE NW LLC CR010662 RETURNED TIP SPEAKER, INTERCOM BASE RETURNED TIP SPEAKER, INTERCOM BASE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -1,788.45 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -159.17 UNIT 476 - TIP SPEAKER, INTERCOM BASEP53075 UNIT 476 - TIP SPEAKER, INTERCOM BASE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2,384.61 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 212.23 Total :649.22 92840 12/14/2006 065378 APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECH 40320830 UNIT 70 - ELASTOMERIC COUPLING UNIT 70 - ELASTOMERIC COUPLING 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 48.32 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.16 Total :52.48 92841 12/14/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3771087 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.410.00 36.66 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.410.00 3.26 Total :39.92 92842 12/14/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3769684 FLEET - UNIFORM SVC 2Page: Packet Page 27 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92842 12/14/2006 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK FLEET - UNIFORM SVC 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 17.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.55 PW ADMIN MATS512-3769685 PW ADMIN MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38 PW ADMIN MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW ADMIN MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW ADMIN MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24 PW ADMIN MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24 PW ADMIN MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26 WATER UNIFORM SVC 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 11.75 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.12 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 1.03 3Page: Packet Page 28 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92842 12/14/2006 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK STREET/STORM - UNIFORM SVC512-3769686 STREET/STORM - UNIFORM SVC 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24 STREET/STORM - UNIFORM SVC 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC512-3771088 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 33.69 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.00 Total :105.55 92843 12/14/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3771089 18386001 UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 86.22 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 7.67 Total :93.89 92844 12/14/2006 071120 ASHLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICALS 2500020542 113009/0702 POLYMER 411.000.656.538.800.310.51 3,875.00 113009/07022500020543 POLYMER 411.000.656.538.800.310.51 1,937.50 Total :5,812.50 92845 12/14/2006 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 352564 FLEET - DIESEL 207 GAL 4Page: Packet Page 29 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92845 12/14/2006 (Continued)071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM FLEET - DIESEL 207 GAL 511.000.000.141.120.000.00 471.48 WA ST SERVICE FEE 511.000.000.141.120.000.00 60.00 ST EXCISE DIESEL TAX, WA OIL SPILL 511.000.000.141.120.000.00 74.36 Sales Tax 511.000.000.141.120.000.00 5.28 Total :611.12 92846 12/14/2006 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 345089 75179 DIESEL FUEL 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 4,132.56 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 363.67 Total :4,496.23 92847 12/14/2006 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM PARKS FAX MODEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 31.90 Total :31.90 92848 12/14/2006 064343 AT&T 425-774-0944 STATION #20 FAX STATION #20 FAX 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 25.37 Total :25.37 92849 12/14/2006 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 38307 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS 5Page: Packet Page 30 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92849 12/14/2006 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER UB Outsourcing area #600 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 30.89 UB Outsourcing area #600 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 30.89 UB Outsourcing area #600 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 30.97 UB Outsourcing area #600 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 90.10 UB Outsourcing area #600 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 90.10 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 2.69 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 2.69 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 2.78 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS38397 UB Outsourcing area #300 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 149.42 UB Outsourcing area #300 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 149.42 UB Outsourcing area #300 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 149.88 UB Outsourcing area #300 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 417.84 UB Outsourcing area #300 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 417.84 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 13.03 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 13.03 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 13.43 Total :1,605.00 6Page: Packet Page 31 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92850 12/14/2006 064706 AWC 12/5/06 2007 Drug/Alcohol Testing Consortium 2007 Drug/Alcohol Testing Consortium 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 192.00 2007 Drug/Alcohol Testing Consortium 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 336.00 2007 Drug/Alcohol Testing Consortium 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 336.00 2007 Drug/Alcohol Testing Consortium 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 336.00 2007 Drug/Alcohol Testing Consortium 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 384.00 2007 Drug/Alcohol Testing Consortium 001.000.640.576.800.410.00 144.00 2007 Drug/Alcohol Testing Consortium 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 145.00 Total :1,873.00 92851 12/14/2006 060502 BERG, COLIN BERG7354 TAI CHI TAI CHI #7354 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 324.00 Total :324.00 92852 12/14/2006 068032 BLANCH, ANN BLANCH7348 TAI CHI CLASSES TAI CHI #7348 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 67.50 Total :67.50 92853 12/14/2006 067084 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR SUPPLIES V18524 FLASHLIGHTS FLASHLIGHTS 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 67.80 Total :67.80 92854 12/14/2006 065142 CASCADE WEAR LTD 17461 INV#17461 EPD - TRAFFIC 7Page: Packet Page 32 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92854 12/14/2006 (Continued)065142 CASCADE WEAR LTD MOTO/TRAFFIC GORETEX JACKETS 001.000.410.521.710.240.00 860.00 MOTO/TRAFFIC GORETEX PANTS 001.000.410.521.710.240.00 302.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.710.240.00 72.00 Total :1,234.00 92855 12/14/2006 003780 CEAW Gebert 2007 Dave Gebert Renewal 2007 Dave Gebert Renewal 2007 001.000.620.532.200.490.00 50.00 Total :50.00 92856 12/14/2006 067446 CEM CORPORATION 278859 466915 ANNUAL SERVICE/MICROWAVE 411.000.656.538.800.410.22 605.53 Total :605.53 92857 12/14/2006 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN11061025 GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BIRTHDAY PARTIES 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 7.50 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 0.67 Total :8.17 92858 12/14/2006 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN11061023 FLEET SHOP - CYLINDER RENTAL FLEET SHOP - CYLINDER RENTAL 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 7.50 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 0.67 SEWER DEPT - CYLINDER RENTALRN11061026 SEWER DEPT - CYLINDER RENTAL 411.000.655.535.800.450.00 7.50 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.450.00 0.67 8Page: Packet Page 33 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92858 12/14/2006 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY WATER DEPT - CYLINDER RENTALRN11061028 WATER DEPT - CYLINDER RENTAL 411.000.654.534.800.450.00 30.00 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.450.00 2.67 Total :49.01 92859 12/14/2006 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN11061027 2954000 ARGON/NITROGEN/OXYGEN 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 30.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 2.67 Total :32.67 92860 12/14/2006 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT7231 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT FRIDAY NIGHTS OUT #7231 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 114.80 Total :114.80 92861 12/14/2006 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 150421551X12042006 425.418.8755 Replacement phone pkg 001.000.310.514.100.350.00 380.09 10/28-11/27/06 Admin Serv Dir Cell 001.000.310.514.100.420.00 235.91 Total :616.00 92862 12/14/2006 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 425-418-5733 ROB CHAVE - WIRELESS CHARGES FOR ROB CHAVE - WIRELESS CHARGES FOR 001.000.620.558.600.420.00 16.71 Total :16.71 92863 12/14/2006 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 047-43598473 OPS COMMUNICATIONS vehicles' wireless 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 55.82 Total :55.82 9Page: Packet Page 34 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92864 12/14/2006 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 206-409-2502 047-50052570 PLANT CELL PHONES 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 15.71 Total :15.71 92865 12/14/2006 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460508743 UNIFORMS Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 44.72 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 3.98 OPS UNIFORMS460508744 Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 93.92 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.35 UNIFORMS460509800 Stn. 17 - ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 96.47 Stn. 17 - Ops 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 96.47 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 8.59 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.58 UNIFORMS460509828 Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 118.51 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.54 UNIFORMS460513996 Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 44.72 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 3.98 10Page: Packet Page 35 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92865 12/14/2006 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION OPS UNIFORMS460513997 Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 93.92 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.35 Total :641.10 92866 12/14/2006 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I06002754 WATER DEPT - LAB SAMPLE ANALYSIS WATER DEPT - LAB SAMPLE ANALYSIS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 2,635.20 Total :2,635.20 92867 12/14/2006 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 4972 MAINT./OPERATIONS SEWER - NOV 2006 MAINT./OPERATIONS SEWER - NOV 2006 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 13,800.83 MAINT./ OPERATIONS SEWER DEC 20064976 MAINT./ OPERATIONS SEWER DEC 2006 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 13,800.83 Total :27,601.66 92868 12/14/2006 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 2-533584-460571 WATER USEAGE FOR DEC 06 WATER USEAGE FOR DEC 06 411.000.654.534.800.340.00 480.00 Total :480.00 92869 12/14/2006 068116 CLIFTON, STEPHEN 12132006 CS DIRECTOR MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT Comm Services Director mileage 001.000.610.519.700.430.00 321.29 Total :321.29 92870 12/14/2006 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES E1721815 SUPPLIES DISH SOAP 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 134.50 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.84 11Page: Packet Page 36 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :146.349287012/14/2006 004095 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES 92871 12/14/2006 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES E1724126 FAC MAINT - JON-WOOD WATERBORNE WOOD FAC MAINT - JON-WOOD WATERBORNE WOOD 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1,087.18 RECOAT ADHESION 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 464.88 FLOOR COATER 24" REFILL 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 27.78 20" MA BETWEEN COAT PAD 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 146.20 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 152.11 FAC MAINT - CITY SUPPLIES - TT, KITCHENE1725671 FAC MAINT - CITY SUPPLIES - TT, KITCHEN 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1,436.44 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 126.63 Total :3,446.22 92872 12/14/2006 062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC 005769 UNIT 476- REPAIRS UNIT 476- REPAIRS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 363.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 32.31 Total :395.31 92873 12/14/2006 065891 CONLEY, LISA CONLEY7253 CLASSES PINT SIZED GINGERBREAD HOUSE~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 123.20 PRESCHOOL ASSISTANT @ MEADOWDALE 001.000.640.575.560.410.00 122.50 12Page: Packet Page 37 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :245.709287312/14/2006 065891 065891 CONLEY, LISA 92874 12/14/2006 068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT 7615 SEWER DEPT - OIL RESISTANT STATOR SEWER DEPT - OIL RESISTANT STATOR 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 533.31 IMPELLER ASSEMBLY 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 138.22 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.69 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 59.77 RETURNED -OIL RESISTANT STATOR7681 RETURNED -OIL RESISTANT STATOR 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 -533.31 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 -46.93 Total :158.75 92875 12/14/2006 068161 COSCO/FEDERAL FIRESAFETY INC 100004237 FAC - SERVICE AND REPAIR TO FIRE ALARM FAC - SERVICE AND REPAIR TO FIRE ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 380.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 33.82 Total :413.82 92876 12/14/2006 065183 COSMOPOLITAN ENGINEERING GROUP2006187 C-045 C-045 OUTFALL PROJECT 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 11,982.91 Total :11,982.91 92877 12/14/2006 069848 CRAM, KATHERINE CRAM7303 IRISH DANCE CLASSES 13Page: Packet Page 38 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92877 12/14/2006 (Continued)069848 CRAM, KATHERINE IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #7303 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 134.40 IRISH DANCE #7305 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 235.20 IRISH DANCE #7307 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 67.20 IRISH DANCE 13+ #7309 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 201.60 IRISH DANCE 13+ #7317 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 89.60 Total :728.00 92878 12/14/2006 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3186583 E6DB.RFQ Caspers/Ninth Walkway Design E6DB.RFQ Caspers/Ninth Walkway Design 112.200.630.595.330.650.00 185.50 Total :185.50 92879 12/14/2006 067794 DALCO INC 35526 REPAIR PRESSURE WASHER REPAIR PRESSURE WASHER 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 108.37 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 9.64 Total :118.01 92880 12/14/2006 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING concealed pistol State Share of Concealed Pistol State Share of Concealed Pistol 001.000.000.237.190.000.00 1,086.00 Total :1,086.00 92881 12/14/2006 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 121206 WATEWATER OPERATOR CERTF. WATEWATER OPERATOR CERTF. 411.000.656.538.800.490.00 330.00 Total :330.00 92882 12/14/2006 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 585702 Employer Contribution for Roberts, James 14Page: Packet Page 39 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92882 12/14/2006 (Continued)029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Employer Contribution for Roberts, James 001.000.620.532.200.230.00 119.87 Total :119.87 92883 12/14/2006 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 06-1060.2 E7JA.2007 Waterline Replacement Survey E7JA.2007 Waterline Replacement Survey 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 11,108.19 Total :11,108.19 92884 12/14/2006 007253 DUNN LUMBER 09219176 STREET DEPT - 4X4'S STREET DEPT - 4X4'S 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 43.20 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 3.84 Total :47.04 92885 12/14/2006 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER 198725 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.501.490.01 83.10 INTERPRETER FEE198726 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.490.01 55.00 Total :138.10 92886 12/14/2006 069605 EAGLE EYE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2006147 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - BLDG. DEPT. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - BLDG. DEPT. 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 5,262.32 Total :5,262.32 92887 12/14/2006 065045 EAGLE POINT SOFTWARE 0217353-IN Eagle Point VIP service renewal Eagle Point VIP service renewal 001.000.620.532.200.480.00 2,250.00 Total :2,250.00 92888 12/14/2006 065892 EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL EAFF0206 BIRD FEST FACILITY RENTAL 15Page: Packet Page 40 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92888 12/14/2006 (Continued)065892 EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL FACILITY RENTAL FOR 2006 BIRD FEST ON 001.000.240.513.110.450.00 160.00 Total :160.00 92889 12/14/2006 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 73823 SUPPLIES MISC. FASTENERS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.50 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.67 SUPPLIES73851 BRUSH SET 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.98 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.53 SUPPLIES74117 MISC. FASTENERS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.50 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.13 Total :16.31 92890 12/14/2006 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 11249 Yearly membership 1/1/07-1/1/08 Yearly membership 1/1/07-1/1/08 001.000.390.519.900.490.00 425.00 Total :425.00 92891 12/14/2006 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 8578 UPS/VWR UPS/VWR 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 10.60 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 0.94 16Page: Packet Page 41 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92891 12/14/2006 (Continued)070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL UPS/AM TEST8601 UPS/AM TEST 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 38.65 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 3.44 UPS/ANALYSIS PLUS8660 UPS/ANALYSIS PLUS 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 7.46 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 0.66 Total :61.75 92892 12/14/2006 008475 EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 11/14-12/12/06 HR - HOLIDAY BREAKFAST HAM 17Page: Packet Page 42 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92892 12/14/2006 (Continued)008475 EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS DEPT HR - HOLIDAY BREAKFAST HAM 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 121.96 HR - HOLIDAY BREAKFAST PANCAKE MIX 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 35.00 HR- HOLIDAY BREAKFAST SWEETENER 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 5.88 PW - 25 YR PLAQUE ENGRAVING 001.000.650.519.910.490.00 4.36 FAC MAINT - PRINTING 001.000.651.519.920.490.00 4.36 FAC MAINT - FUSES STOCK FOR TRUCK 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.26 PW BATTERIES FOR PAGERS, ETC. 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.92 PW BATTERIES FOR PAGERS, ETC. 411.000.652.542.900.310.00 7.68 PW BATTERIES FOR PAGERS, ETC. 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 7.68 PW BATTERIES FOR PAGERS, ETC. 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.68 PW BATTERIES FOR PAGERS, ETC. 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.68 PW BATTERIES FOR PAGERS, ETC. 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.93 PW - DVD PLAYER FOR CONF RM 411.000.652.542.900.350.00 15.23 PW - DVD PLAYER FOR CONF RM 111.000.653.542.900.350.00 15.23 PW - DVD PLAYER FOR CONF RM 411.000.654.534.800.350.00 15.23 PW - DVD PLAYER FOR CONF RM 411.000.655.535.800.350.00 15.23 PW - DVD PLAYER FOR CONF RM 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 15.23 18Page: Packet Page 43 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92892 12/14/2006 (Continued)008475 EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS DEPT CDL ENDORSEMENT - J WHATMORE 111.000.653.542.900.490.00 30.00 PW - NOV 06 MILEAGE S FISHER 411.000.654.537.900.430.00 7.12 WATER - VINEGAR FOR SAMPLES 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.58 WATER - HEADPHONES 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 16.32 SEWER - DOOR HOLDERS FOR UNIT 16 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 11.52 Total :369.08 92893 12/14/2006 062212 EDWARDS, CLIFF EDWARDS121306 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL TO WCFA 2006 130.000.640.536.200.430.00 784.91 Total :784.91 92894 12/14/2006 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 021520 Canon 5870 copier maint. 11/7 - 12/7/06 Canon 5870 copier maint. 11/7 - 12/7/06 001.000.610.519.700.480.00 12.75 Canon 5870 copier maint. 11/7 - 12/7/06 001.000.220.516.100.480.00 12.75 Canon 5870 copier maint. 11/7 - 12/7/06 001.000.210.513.100.480.00 12.75 Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.480.00 1.13 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.480.00 1.13 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.480.00 1.14 Total :41.65 92895 12/14/2006 008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES ENGLAND7325 SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE CLASSES 19Page: Packet Page 44 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92895 12/14/2006 (Continued)008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES DANCE #7325 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 216.00 DANCE #7323 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 324.00 DANCE #7322 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 189.00 DANCE #7321 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 135.00 Total :864.00 92896 12/14/2006 065789 ESTES, KEN 339 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 001.000.390.517.220.230.00 239.00 Total :239.00 92897 12/14/2006 009332 EVERETT TENT & AWNING 9075 TARPS VINYL TARPS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 190.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.34 Total :206.34 92898 12/14/2006 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 11302006 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 7,630.00 Total :7,630.00 92899 12/14/2006 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0763665 17983 VALVE REPAIR KIT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 398.70 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.65 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 36.25 Total :443.60 20Page: Packet Page 45 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92900 12/14/2006 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0736246 37355 PIPE FITTINGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 113.26 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.08 Total :123.34 92901 12/14/2006 063181 FITTINGS INC 595426 UNIT 476 - HOSE, CLAMPS, PIPES UNIT 476 - HOSE, CLAMPS, PIPES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 202.34 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.25 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.80 Total :232.39 92902 12/14/2006 069090 FITZGERALD, WAVERLY FITZGERALD1007 WRITE ON THE SOUND PRESENTER BEFRIENDING REJECTION: THE FOUR R'S 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 125.00 Total :125.00 92903 12/14/2006 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 87769 Section 132 plan fees - Nov. 2006 Section 132 plan fees - Nov. 2006 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 42.70 Section 125 plan fees - November 200687771 Section 125 plan fees - November 2006 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 51.80 Total :94.50 92904 12/14/2006 010600 FOG TITE INC 234439 WATER DEPT - 5/8 SR II BOTTOM PLATE, WATER DEPT - 5/8 SR II BOTTOM PLATE, 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 51.90 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.57 Total :56.47 92905 12/14/2006 067232 GERRISH BEARING COMPANY 2069003-01 EDMCIT 21Page: Packet Page 46 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92905 12/14/2006 (Continued)067232 GERRISH BEARING COMPANY PUMP PARTS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 110.65 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.21 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.55 BALL BEARING2069145-01 BALL BEARING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 19.60 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.72 Total :151.73 92906 12/14/2006 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER7344 TAI CHI TAI CHI #7344 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 243.00 QIGONG #7982 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 189.00 Total :432.00 92907 12/14/2006 012199 GRAINGER 9241949099 SUPPLIES LUBE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 85.32 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.51 Total :92.83 92908 12/14/2006 012199 GRAINGER 9231204554 CITY PARK BLDG - 3 POSITION SWITCH CITY PARK BLDG - 3 POSITION SWITCH 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.01 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.06 22Page: Packet Page 47 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92908 12/14/2006 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER PS - ACCESS DOOR9237018735 PS - ACCESS DOOR 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 117.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.06 Total :140.13 92909 12/14/2006 071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC 06713.00-2 E6DA.76th Ave/75th Pl Walkway Design E6DA.76th Ave/75th Pl Walkway Design 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 2,353.91 Total :2,353.91 92910 12/14/2006 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY INC 921916508 STREET DEPT - HAPCO 40' POLE W/15' ARM STREET DEPT - HAPCO 40' POLE W/15' ARM 111.000.653.542.630.310.00 2,250.00 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.630.310.00 198.00 Total :2,448.00 92911 12/14/2006 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 338 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 001.000.390.517.220.230.00 81.00 Total :81.00 92912 12/14/2006 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 337 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 001.000.390.517.220.230.00 94.00 Total :94.00 92913 12/14/2006 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 17251 E6FB.2006 Citywide Storm Materials E6FB.2006 Citywide Storm Materials 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 3,229.18 Total :3,229.18 92914 12/14/2006 071380 ICHIMURA-HAYASHI, ITSUKO HAYASHI7397 JAPANESE CLASSES 23Page: Packet Page 48 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92914 12/14/2006 (Continued)071380 ICHIMURA-HAYASHI, ITSUKO JAPANESE FOR KIDS #7397 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 252.00 Total :252.00 92915 12/14/2006 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 71355277 CANON IMAGE RUNNER 9070 LEASE Canon Image Runner 9070 Lease~250-00126 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 919.17 Total :919.17 92916 12/14/2006 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 16246111 Copies/maintenance CO copier 10/21 to Copies/maintenance CO copier 10/21 to 001.000.110.511.100.480.00 8.33 Total :8.33 92917 12/14/2006 068814 INDUSTRIAL FABRICS CORP 354316 5840 DUROTEX BELT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3,567.10 Total :3,567.10 92918 12/14/2006 065397 JOHNSON, ANDREW AJOHNSON1213 3-ON-3 BASKETBALL 3-ON-3 BASKETBALL LEAGUE @ ANDERSON 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 55.00 Total :55.00 92919 12/14/2006 064400 KOHO, STEPHEN 1458 MILEAGE/KOHO FOR TRAINING/KOHO 411.000.656.538.800.430.00 136.17 Total :136.17 92920 12/14/2006 016600 KROESENS INC 71997 UNIFORM/PROT CLOTHING 24Page: Packet Page 49 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92920 12/14/2006 (Continued)016600 KROESENS INC DE uniform 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 207.20 DE protectv clothng 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 207.20 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 18.24 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 18.23 Total :450.87 92921 12/14/2006 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 311567-001 Smarttool 120 CM Rail 47-1/4" Smarttool 120 CM Rail 47-1/4" 001.000.620.532.200.350.00 536.85 Estwing sledge 4 LB 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 116.52 Spiral Notebook Transit 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 5.95 Sales Tax 001.000.620.532.200.350.00 47.78 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 10.90 Total :718.00 92922 12/14/2006 017060 L & O DISTRIBUTING CO 69197 PS - NORTON SUPPLIES PS - NORTON SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 120.61 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.84 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.22 Total :138.67 92923 12/14/2006 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 0020189 810 WALNUT ST - ENVIRONMENTAL 810 WALNUT ST - ENVIRONMENTAL 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 2,512.25 25Page: Packet Page 50 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :2,512.259292312/14/2006 017135 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 92924 12/14/2006 070478 LANE COMMUNICATIONS INC 1138 SR99 Fiber Placement 238th-212th St SW SR99 Fiber Placement 238th-212th St SW 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 1,913.22 SR99 Fiber Placement 238th-212th St SW 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 3,348.14 SR99 Fiber Placement 238th-212th St SW 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 4,304.75 SR99 Fiber Placement 238th-212th St SW 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 3,826.44 SR99 Fiber Placement 238th-212th St SW 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 3,826.44 SR99 Fiber Placement 238th-212th St SW 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 1,913.22 Total :19,132.21 92925 12/14/2006 070289 LANG, KERRI LANG1208 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR~ 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 60.00 Total :60.00 92926 12/14/2006 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 092157 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 81.22 Total :81.22 92927 12/14/2006 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 092300 Office Chairs for Cress & Sharp Office Chairs for Cress & Sharp 001.000.310.514.230.350.00 1,109.98 Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.350.00 98.79 26Page: Packet Page 51 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92927 12/14/2006 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS Window Envelopes092346 Window Envelopes 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 320.00 Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 28.48 Total :1,557.25 92928 12/14/2006 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 092310 OPERATIONS SUPPLIES Stn's date stampers 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 128.70 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 11.45 ADMIN REPAIR092357 replace dater bands 001.000.510.522.100.310.00 53.90 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.310.00 4.80 Total :198.85 92929 12/14/2006 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 546077 SUPPLIES FUEL KIT 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.77 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.69 Total :8.46 92930 12/14/2006 060855 LYNNWOOD TROPHY CENTER 16441 2006 - Employee of the Year & Dist. 2006 - Employee of the Year & Dist. 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 90.80 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 8.08 27Page: Packet Page 52 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92930 12/14/2006 (Continued)060855 LYNNWOOD TROPHY CENTER Plaques16442 Plaques 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 131.80 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 11.73 Total :242.41 92931 12/14/2006 061900 MARC 0316989-IN 00-0902224 INDUSTRIAL CLEANERS 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 1,688.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 150.27 Total :1,838.77 92932 12/14/2006 070876 MAROHN, TINA MAROHN7244 MADALA WORKSHOP MANDALA WORKSHOP #7244 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 24.00 Total :24.00 92933 12/14/2006 065829 MARTINSON, LINDA MARTINSON7335 BELLY DANCE CLASSES BELLY DANCE #7335 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 84.00 Total :84.00 92934 12/14/2006 064047 MCCONNELL & ASSOCIATES 848 HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES FOR NOVEMBER HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES FOR NOVEMBER 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 3,376.36 Total :3,376.36 92935 12/14/2006 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 54918314 1123106800 GAUGE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 52.80 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.50 28Page: Packet Page 53 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92935 12/14/2006 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 12310680055135347 AIR FILTERS/LADDER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 346.82 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 79.69 Total :483.81 92936 12/14/2006 069285 MERCER MD, JAMES 1011-06 ALS PRO SERVICES Nov Med Prgm Dir 001.000.510.526.100.410.00 1,644.75 Total :1,644.75 92937 12/14/2006 068662 MINNIHAN, TERRY 335 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 001.000.390.517.220.230.00 276.00 Total :276.00 92938 12/14/2006 061689 MINUTEMAN PRESS 37177 TROOP 367 - 2800 DOOR HANGERS TROOP 367 - 2800 DOOR HANGERS 411.000.654.537.900.490.00 227.26 TROOP 312 - 3250 DOOR HANGERS 411.000.654.537.900.490.00 258.68 TROOP 300 - 6000 DOOR HANGERS 411.000.654.537.900.490.00 462.29 Sales Tax 411.000.654.537.900.490.00 84.39 Total :1,032.62 92939 12/14/2006 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA02-150606 100900-01 FILTERS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 47.43 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 42.89 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.94 29Page: Packet Page 54 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :98.269293912/14/2006 069923 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC 92940 12/14/2006 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0187909-IN SUPPLIES CONES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 442.50 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 21.50 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 40.84 Total :504.84 92941 12/14/2006 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0185592-IN SEWER DEPT - HARNESS SEWER DEPT - HARNESS 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 101.30 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 10.52 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 9.84 Freight0186898-IN Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 9.75 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.86 WATER/SEWER BOMBER JACKETS0187076-IN WATER/SEWER BOMBER JACKETS 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 84.75 WATER/SEWER BOMBER JACKETS 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 84.75 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 7.46 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 7.46 Total :316.69 92942 12/14/2006 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0309471 FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS 30Page: Packet Page 55 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92942 12/14/2006 (Continued)024302 NELSON PETROLEUM FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS 511.000.000.141.170.000.00 99.69 Sales Tax 511.000.000.141.170.000.00 8.57 Total :108.26 92943 12/14/2006 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S1144760.002 2091 C-161 SCREENING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 631.80 Sales Tax 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 54.33 Total :686.13 92944 12/14/2006 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 0074419 SODIUM BISULFITE SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 877.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 78.10 SODIUM BISULFITE0074567 SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 697.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 62.08 Total :1,715.18 92945 12/14/2006 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0376007 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 166.81 Total :166.81 92946 12/14/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 857137 Counter pens, toner, staple removers Counter pens, toner, staple removers 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 162.83 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 14.32 31Page: Packet Page 56 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :177.159294612/14/2006 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 92947 12/14/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 799651 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 728.89 CHAIR FOR JEANIE MCCONNELL. 001.000.620.558.800.350.00 450.66 King County Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 64.14 King County Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.350.00 39.66 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - BACK ORDER.814207 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - BACK ORDER. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 27.83 King County Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 2.45 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - BACK ORDER814208 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - BACK ORDER 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 27.83 King County Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 2.45 Total :1,343.91 92948 12/14/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 785009 OPS SUPPLIES Statns' office supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 77.10 King County Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 6.78 Total :83.88 92949 12/14/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 732182 520437 COPIER PAPER/FRAME/LOG BOOK/DIVIDERS 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 105.60 King County Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 9.29 32Page: Packet Page 57 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :114.899294912/14/2006 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 92950 12/14/2006 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 655006 ATTORNEY FEES THRU NOVEMBER 2006 Attorney Fees thru November 2006 001.000.360.515.100.410.00 23,596.35 RETAINER FEES THROUGH NOVEMBER 2006655007 Retainer Fees through November 2006 001.000.360.515.100.410.00 14,299.00 Total :37,895.35 92951 12/14/2006 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00044124 UNIT 55 - SPRAY WATER PUMP, FILTERS UNIT 55 - SPRAY WATER PUMP, FILTERS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1,052.42 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.25 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 94.66 UNIT 24 - HOSES, FOOTAGE COUNTER00044153 UNIT 24 - HOSES, FOOTAGE COUNTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 821.77 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 44.36 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 76.22 Total :2,112.68 92952 12/14/2006 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 40559 STORM DEPT - DUMP FEES STORM DEPT - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 131.07 STORM DEPT - DUMP FEES40584 STORM DEPT - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 131.07 STORM DEPT - DUMP FEES40590 STORM DEPT - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 131.07 Total :393.21 33Page: Packet Page 58 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92953 12/14/2006 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.484128 FAC MAINT - PAILS AND LIDS FAC MAINT - PAILS AND LIDS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 20.88 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.86 FAC- KILZ, MASKING TAPE485553 FAC- KILZ, MASKING TAPE 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.91 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.88 PS - WHITE BASE489679 PS - WHITE BASE 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.23 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.55 Total :40.31 92954 12/14/2006 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK7390 STRETCH & SCULPT STRETCH & SCULPT #7390 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 184.80 STRETCH & SCULPT #7391 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 58.80 Total :243.60 92955 12/14/2006 070624 PIONEER DOOR INC 30654 CITY HALL - FIRE DOOR REPAIR CITY HALL - FIRE DOOR REPAIR 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 427.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 38.05 Total :465.55 92956 12/14/2006 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 0003870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER Pier Electricity for NOV 06 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.87 DEC 06 Stormwater Rent & Leasehold tax 411.000.652.542.900.510.00 472.83 34Page: Packet Page 59 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92956 12/14/2006 (Continued)029117 PORT OF EDMONDS UNIT F1 B1 FUEL04371 Fire Boat - Fuel 511.000.657.548.680.320.00 296.60 Total :801.30 92957 12/14/2006 070257 POSTINI INC 255863 INTERNET ANTI-VIRUS & SPAM MAINT FEE 12/06 Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 432.50 Total :432.50 92958 12/14/2006 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING -CITY HALL 24 hour alarm monitoring-CH 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 35.00 Total :35.00 92959 12/14/2006 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 20070344 14063 2007 REGISTRATION FEE 411.000.656.538.800.510.00 6,185.00 Total :6,185.00 92960 12/14/2006 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 5322323139 Fire Station # 16 Fire Station # 16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,556.51 Total :1,556.51 92961 12/14/2006 065579 QUIKSIGN 54902 ADB-06-122 SIGN INSTALLATION ADB-06-122 SIGN INSTALLATION 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 156.00 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 13.73 Total :169.73 92962 12/14/2006 064291 QWEST 206-Z02-0478 332B FLOW METERING STATIONS FLOW METERING STATIONS 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 137.80 35Page: Packet Page 60 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :137.809296212/14/2006 064291 064291 QWEST 92963 12/14/2006 068916 RAYMOND, CARLA 12/6/06 2006 Holiday Breakfast food purchase 2006 Holiday Breakfast food purchase 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 282.18 Total :282.18 92964 12/14/2006 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 0609118 Sheehan Retaining Wall Review Sheehan Retaining Wall Review 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 1,034.91 Total :1,034.91 92965 12/14/2006 068484 RINKER MATERIALS 9411598362 STREET DEPT -SAND STREET DEPT -SAND 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 776.60 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 60.43 Total :837.03 92966 12/14/2006 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 4720 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 125.00 PUBLIC DEFENDER4727 PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 125.00 Total :250.00 92967 12/14/2006 071007 SAWDON, MANDY SAWDON1209 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR~ 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 120.00 Total :120.00 92968 12/14/2006 061482 SEA-WESTERN INC 111598 OPS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING Commando coat, pant, etc. 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 830.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 73.04 36Page: Packet Page 61 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92968 12/14/2006 (Continued)061482 SEA-WESTERN INC OPS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING111599 commando coat, pant, etc. 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 1,375.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 121.00 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING111600 Commando coat, pant, etc. 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 870.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 76.56 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING111601 Commando coat, pant, etc. 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 505.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 44.44 OPS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING111607 commando coat, pant, etc. 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 1,445.95 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 127.24 Total :5,468.23 92969 12/14/2006 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 06-28 SUPPLIES HOSE & PLUG 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 52.90 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.50 Total :61.40 92970 12/14/2006 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0054051 UNIT 55 - TIRES UNIT 55 - TIRES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 376.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.01 37Page: Packet Page 62 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :392.019297012/14/2006 068489 068489 SIRENNET.COM 92971 12/14/2006 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 2-362723 UNIT 488 -SUPER Z CHAIN UNIT 488 -SUPER Z CHAIN 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 128.06 FUEL SURCHARGE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.44 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.01 Total :149.51 92972 12/14/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2110016462 IRRIGATION CONTROL IRRIGATION CONTROL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 28.28 IRRIGATION SYSTEM5070014260 IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 28.28 Total :56.56 92973 12/14/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 3050047152 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 309.83 TRAFFIC SIGNAL4510017488 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 28.28 TELEMETRY SYSTEM4640017416 TELEMETRY SYSTEM 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 28.52 STREET LIGHTING6000013000 STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 8,407.81 STREET LIGHTING6100013009 STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 7,944.24 38Page: Packet Page 63 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92973 12/14/2006 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 STREET LIGHTING6100013306 STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 170.07 STREET LIGHTING6200013008 STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 1,814.76 Total :18,703.51 92974 12/14/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 173010688 206-001-485-5 24409 HIGHWAY 99 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 30.23 620-001-500-3609015101 VARIOUS LOCATIONS 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 7.16 463-001-671-7712016253 8421 244TH ST SW 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 30.23 463-001-867-1878011229 9805 EDMONDS WAY 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 31.21 Total :98.83 92975 12/14/2006 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 47713 5101 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 411.000.656.538.800.490.00 117.00 Total :117.00 92976 12/14/2006 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT C000106 FAC MAINT - 4 HEP B FAC MAINT - 4 HEP B 001.000.651.519.920.410.00 256.00 Total :256.00 92977 12/14/2006 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03587 WASTE DISPOSAL WASTE DISPOSAL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 576.16 39Page: Packet Page 64 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :576.169297712/14/2006 038300 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 92978 12/14/2006 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03584 RECYCLING RECYCLING 411.000.656.538.800.475.66 23.38 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.475.66 1.40 Total :24.78 92979 12/14/2006 064137 SQUIRE, LARRY SQUIRE7249 UKULELE CLASSES UKULELE #7249 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 162.00 Total :162.00 92980 12/14/2006 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10470336 SUPPLIES SCREWS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.37 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.93 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.56 Total :6.86 92981 12/14/2006 065710 THE CHAMBERS MULTIMEDIA 000521 INTERNET ACCESS CEMETERY SEXTON INTERNET ACCESS 130.000.640.536.200.420.00 17.95 Total :17.95 92982 12/14/2006 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1457222 E5MC.RFQ Woodway Elementary Park E5MC.RFQ Woodway Elementary Park 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 52.44 Total :52.44 92983 12/14/2006 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1459439 CDC-05-18/CITY OF EDMONDS - LEGAL CDC-05-18/CITY OF EDMONDS - LEGAL 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 35.88 40Page: Packet Page 65 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :35.889298312/14/2006 009350 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 92984 12/14/2006 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION C/A 10015556 C/A 10015556 Subscription 1/5/07-1/5/08 Finance 001.000.310.514.230.490.00 141.00 Total :141.00 92985 12/14/2006 040924 TMG SERVICES INC 0026564-IN 0504131 SENSOR CLEANING SOLUTION 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 268.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 52.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 28.16 Total :348.16 92986 12/14/2006 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 12700 UNIT 89 - KEYS UNIT 89 - KEYS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.50 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.40 Total :4.90 92987 12/14/2006 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA0156935-WA FLEET- DOT FLEET- DOT 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 58.00 Total :58.00 92988 12/14/2006 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 6119168 utility locates~ utility locates~ 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 77.81 utility locates~ 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 77.81 utility locates~ 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 77.83 Total :233.45 41Page: Packet Page 66 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92989 12/14/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 42.69 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 43.34 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1691 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 42.69 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL 001.000.640.575.560.420.00 55.08 EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY425-771-4741 EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.200.420.00 47.90 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM425-776-5316 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 103.14 Total :334.84 92990 12/14/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-640-8169 PT EDWARDS SEWER PUMP STATION MONITOR Phone line for Sewer Lift Station at Pt 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 33.79 LIFT STATION #1425-673-5978 Lift Station #1 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 47.34 FS # 16425-771-0158 FS #16 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 227.59 LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE425-776-1281 LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 43.34 CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-6829 CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 114.43 42Page: Packet Page 67 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92990 12/14/2006 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 1ST & PINE CIRCUIT LINE PT EDWARDS425-AB9-0530 1st & Pine Circuit Line for Pt Edwards 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.30 Total :506.79 92991 12/14/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425 NW1-0155 23303 CIRCUIT 23303 CIRCUIT 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 215.74 03 0210 1014522641 07425-771-5553 AUTO DIALER 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 61.94 Total :277.68 92992 12/14/2006 068265 VERIZON ONLINE 63545932 ACCT #8372119 City of Edmonds Internet 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 667.00 Total :667.00 92993 12/14/2006 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 269992985-1 425-308-9867 cell phone-water watch 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 35.93 425-870-0617469985965-1 Cell phone-Jim Waite 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 25.30 Cell phone-Jim Waite 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 25.30 Total :86.53 92994 12/14/2006 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 28639735 1066294 SCREW 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 29.65 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 2.65 43Page: Packet Page 68 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 44 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 92994 12/14/2006 (Continued)069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 106629428639738 TIP MACRO PIPETT 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 138.97 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 12.37 106629428677290 CREDIT MEMO/TUBES 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 -107.02 Total :76.62 92995 12/14/2006 061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH 007298 WATER WORKS CERTF/CLAY WATER WORKS CERTF/CLAY 411.000.656.538.800.490.00 42.00 Total :42.00 92996 12/14/2006 045912 WASPC 110138 ELECTRONIC HOME MONITORING ELECTRONIC HOME MONITORING 001.000.230.523.200.510.00 971.75 Total :971.75 92997 12/14/2006 061395 WASTE MANAGEMENT NW 0717111-2677-2 202-0001256-2677-0 ASH DISPOSAL 411.000.656.538.800.474.65 4,121.63 Total :4,121.63 92998 12/14/2006 069125 WASTE NEWS 2007 SUBSCRIPTION ANNUAL RENEWAL ANNUAL RENEWAL 411.000.654.537.900.490.00 49.00 Total :49.00 92999 12/14/2006 049500 WEST PUBLISHING 812568888 COURT RULE BOOKS COURT RULE BOOKS 001.000.230.512.500.310.00 123.06 Total :123.06 93000 12/14/2006 049902 WHITMAN, TIMOTHY 336 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 44Page: Packet Page 69 of 448 12/14/2006 Voucher List City of Edmonds 45 11:38:22AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 93000 12/14/2006 (Continued)049902 WHITMAN, TIMOTHY LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 001.000.390.517.220.230.00 253.00 Total :253.00 93001 12/14/2006 068203 WJA PLLC 06-1048 2006-1048 Professiona Services for 2006-1048 Professiona Services for 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 589.49 OATES/2006-0654-PROF. SVCS. FOR1-06-0654 OATES/2006-0654-PROF. SVCS. FOR 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 287.50 ED. PROF CTR/06-1195 PROF. SVCS. FOR1-06-1195 ED. PROF CTR/06-1195 PROF. SVCS. FOR 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 3,315.66 HARBOR SQ.ATHLETIC/06-854 PROF. SVCS.2-06-854 HARBOR SQ.ATHLETIC/06-854 PROF. SVCS. 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 517.50 Total :4,710.15 93002 12/14/2006 061047 WWCPA 1219 COLLECTION CETRF/SEBERS COLLECTION CETRF/SEBERS 411.000.656.538.800.490.00 10.00 Total :10.00 Bank total :334,043.72167 Vouchers for bank code :front 334,043.72Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report167 45Page: Packet Page 70 of 448 AM-755 2.D. Claim for Damages Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Linda Hynd, City Clerk's Office Submitted For:Sandy Chase Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Sandy Callender (amount undetermined). Previous Council Action Not applicable. Narrative A Claim for Damages has been received from the following individual: Sandy Callender 1735B 24th Avenue Seattle, WA 98122 (Amount Undetermined) Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Callender Claim Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/12/2006 02:30 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/12/2006 02:37 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/12/2006 02:54 PM APRV Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 12/12/2006 02:07 PM Final Approval Date: 12/12/2006 Packet Page 71 of 448 Packet Page 72 of 448 Packet Page 73 of 448 Packet Page 74 of 448 AM-763 2.E. Liquor Control Board Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Linda Carl, Mayor's Office Submitted For:Linda Carl Time:Consent Department:Mayor's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their liquor licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The City Clerk's Office, the Police Department, and the Mayor's Office have reviewed the attached lists of businesses and have no concerns with renewing their liquor licenses, except for the following businesses that don't have a current City of Edmonds business license: BCD Tofu House (Sept. list), Kero's Food Market (Oct. list), La Galleria (Nov. list), and Good Friends and Candlelit Moments (Dec. list). The WSLCB has been informed of the City's concerns regarding these businesses. Once these businesses have a valid City business license, the Mayor's Office will notify the WSLCB and recommend approval of their liquor license. Recommendation Please approve the attached lists of businesses (excluding the exceptions listed above) for recommendation of their liquor license. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: WSLCB list Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 10:52 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/14/2006 11:04 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 11:38 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 12/14/2006 09:12 AM Final Approval Date: 12/14/2006 Packet Page 75 of 448 Packet Page 76 of 448 Packet Page 77 of 448 Packet Page 78 of 448 Packet Page 79 of 448 Packet Page 80 of 448 Packet Page 81 of 448 Packet Page 82 of 448 Packet Page 83 of 448 Packet Page 84 of 448 Packet Page 85 of 448 AM-764 2.F. LTAC Member Confirmation Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Linda Carl, Mayor's Office Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent Department:Mayor's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Confirmation of committee members for the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee for 2007. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Members of the LTAC are appointed by the City Council for one year, renewable annually. The current committee members have all requested reappointment for 2007. They are: Jan Conner (Harbor Inn), Chris Burdett (Colliers International Hotels), Hellon Wilkerson (Maple Tree B&B), Bobby McBride (Cascade Symphony), Cami Smith (Washington State Arts Commission), and Frances Chapin (Edmonds Parks & Rec Cultural Program). Recommendation Please confirm the current committee members for 2007. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 10:52 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/14/2006 11:05 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 11:38 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 12/14/2006 09:49 AM Final Approval Date: 12/14/2006 Packet Page 86 of 448 AM-759 2.G. Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Ratify Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Snohomish County Fire District #1. Previous Council Action After a competitive bid process, Council unanimously approved and authorized the purchase of one, new, UL-rated Class A pumping engine (1,500 GPM) from H&W Emergency Services in the amount of $393,916 on July 26, 2005. Narrative RCW 39.34 allows the cooperative purchase of apparatus, equipment, supplies, and materials by one public agency under the terms and conditions of another public agency's competitive bid process. Cooperative purchasing agreements are useful public tools that build good will between government agencies. When an interlocal agreement exists, the public agency seeking to make the cooperative purchase contracts for the purchase directly from the provider without going through a competitive bidding process. The cooperative purchaser executes their own contract with the provider for its requirements, and there is no cost to the agency that allowed the cooperator to purchase through the former's bid process. Cooperative purchasing agreements are common in the Washington State fire service for fire engines, aid, and medic units. At the request of Snohomish County Fire District No. 1, and after review by the City and Fire District attorneys, the City and the District executed an interlocal cooperative purchasing agreement allowing the District to purchase a fire engine on January 17, 2006, and January 20, 2006, respectively, from H&W under the City's competitive bidding process for substantially the same product at substantially the same price. Interlocal Agreements require ratification by the City Council. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council ratify the Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Snohomish County Fire District #1. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Interlocal Agreement Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Fire Department Tom Tomberg 12/13/2006 12:49 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 10:51 AM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/14/2006 11:04 AM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 11:38 AM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/13/2006 11:32 AM Final Approval Date: 12/14/2006 Packet Page 87 of 448 Packet Page 88 of 448 AM-760 2.H. Professional Services Agreement Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Debi Humann, Human Resources Time:Consent Department:Human Resources Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subject Professional Services Agreement for Legal Representation of Indigent Defendants. Previous Council Action Narrative This agenda item requests Council approval for a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Edmonds and James Feldman, Attorney at Law (Feldman and Lee, P.S., Inc.). This agreement is the same as the one currently in effect including all costs. With the expiration of the current agreement on December 31, 2006, it became necessary to update the agreement to reflect the new terms of the contract which are January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2010. Recommendation Respectfully request Council approval of the "Agreement for Legal Representation of Indigent Defendants" for the term of January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2010. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Professional Services Agreement Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 10:51 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/14/2006 11:04 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 11:38 AM APRV Form Started By: Debi Humann Started On: 12/13/2006 11:45 AM Final Approval Date: 12/14/2006 Packet Page 89 of 448 AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENT DEFENDANTS 1. RECITALS A. Parties: The parties to this agreement are the City of Edmonds (hereinafter "EDMONDS") and James Feldman and Feldman & Lee, P.S., Inc. (hereinafter "DEFENSE COUNSEL"). Service by any person other than Mr. Feldman shall be approved by the Mayor. B. Purpose: Constitutional law requires that those individuals who lack sufficient funds to pay for their attorney in criminal prosecutions with a possibility of a jail sentence upon conviction shall have representation by legal counsel at the partial or complete expense of the governmental agency prosecuting the case. This Agreement provides for such legal service. DEFENSE COUNSEL, rather than a rotating list of interested and qualified attorneys, is used, thereby adding more efficiency to the system of court-appointed legal representation without sacrificing the quality of representation to individual defendants. 2. DEFINITIONS A. Appointment: "Appointment" means formal referral to DEFENSE COUNSEL of a case under formal referral procedures established by the City through its court system for all services contemplated by this contract. A defendant's failure to qualify shall be reviewable exclusively by the EDMONDS Municipal Court or Snohomish County Superior Court and such review shall in no way constitute an appointment under the terms of this contract unless so ordered retroactively by the EDMONDS Municipal Court or Snohomish County Superior Court in which event compensation shall be paid pursuant to Article V, paragraph (D) of this contract. B. Case: "Case" means representation by DEFENSE COUNSEL commencing upon post-arraignment formal referral of an indigent defendant by the EDMONDS Municipal Court for single or multiple counts arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, and terminating upon entry of the final appealable order by the EDMONDS Municipal Court; PROVIDED, that (1) post-trial sentencings, (2) reviews of sentence specifically ordered by the court in the original judgment and sentences which are held within one year of the original sentencing, and (3) probation violations and revocations shall be considered part of the "case". Interlocutory appeals and writs initiated by the defendant prior to entry of a final appealable order by the EDMONDS Municipal Court shall also be included in a "case". Case services shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, appearance at post-arraignment hearings for pre-trial release from confinement, including jail cases preparation for and representation of the indigent defendant at the trial and sentencing and representation at hearings for modification or revocation of suspended or deferred sentences. No fee shall be paid for an appointment which is not terminated by entry of a trial order. C. Indigency: "Indigency" means an individual defendant is unable to pay all or a part of the costs of an attorney as determined exclusively by the EDMONDS Municipal Court {WSS647130.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 1 Packet Page 90 of 448 system, or such other agency as EDMONDS may determine pursuant to guidelines and standards acceptable to EDMONDS and the EDMONDS Municipal Court; provided that DEFENSE COUNSEL shall promptly notify the Court or the City Prosecuting Attorney's office in writing of any situation as it becomes known which might foreseeably affect an indigent defendant's eligibility for the appointment of counsel at public expense or which might foreseeably affect an indigent defendant's ability to reimburse EDMONDS for all or some part of DEFENSE COUNSEL'S fees under this contract. D. Special Appearances: "Special appearances" means any services not within the definition of a "case" including, but not necessarily limited to, legal assistance during investigative stages by the EDMONDS police or the City Prosecuting Attorney which may include presence at line-ups, interrogations, interviews by police, and physical examinations in which the suspect participates, appearance at hearings for pre-trial release from confinement, post-sentencing appearances not included within a "case", and reviews of denial of indigent status. 3. ETHICAL STANDARDS AND CONSIDERATIONS A. Standards: DEFENSE COUNSEL shall exercise independent professional judgment with respect to representation of each client and shall perform all legal services in accordance with the professional and ethical standards of the Washington State Bar Association. B. Conflict of Interest: In the case of an appointment for which DEFENSE COUNSEL cannot provide legal representation due to an ethical conflict, an indigent defendant shall be referred back to the EDMONDS Municipal Court at no charge to EDMONDS. 4. SCOPE OF AND PAYMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES TO BE RENDERED A. Fee Per Case: EDMONDS shall pay the sum of one hundred thirty dollars ($130.00) per case, as defined in Article II, paragraph (B) above, for services rendered. B. Consolidation of Cases: EDMONDS and DEFENSE COUNSEL shall cooperate, in concert with EDMONDS Municipal Court, to insure that cases referred to DEFENSE COUNSEL under this contract shall, to the greatest extent practical and possible, be consolidated on regular EDMONDS trial calendars. C. Arraignment Calendar: EDMONDS shall pay to the DEFENSE COUNSEL a flat fee of two hundred dollars ($200.00) per arraignment calendar appearance. D. Special Appearances: EDMONDS shall pay to DEFENSE COUNSEL a fee, in addition to the case fee above specified, of forty dollars ($40.00) for each special appearance required to be made by DEFENSE COUNSEL; provided, that if one or more special appearances are made on the same day, only one such additional fee shall be payable by EDMONDS to DEFENSE COUNSEL. {WSS647130.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 2 Packet Page 91 of 448 E. Appeals: EDMONDS shall pay to DEFENSE COUNSEL an additional fee of seventy five dollars ($75.00) for each stage of appeal in the event of an appeal from a final order of the EDMONDS municipal Court, the Snohomish County Superior Court, or Court of Appeals, if, by order of reviewing court, an indigent defendant is to have court-appointed counsel. 5. MANNER of BILLING AND PAYMENT On or before the 10th day of each month, DEFENSE COUNSEL shall present to EDMONDS a billing statement specifying (1) the name of each defendant, (2) the case number of case, (3) the time in tenths of hours expended on the appointment, (4) the billing categories into which the appointment fits under paragraph V of this contract, and (5) fees charged, (a) on each completed case, (b) for each special appearance, and (c) for all completed appeals. EDMONDS shall have thirty (30) days within which to review the billing statement and pay DEFENSE COUNSEL in full for all billed items which are not the subject of a good-faith objection and shall also notify DEFENSE COUNSEL in writing within thirty (30) days of any items which are the subject of a good-faith objection and of the basis of the objection. 6. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY EDMONDS A. Records Regarding the Defendant: EDMONDS shall supply DEFENSE COUNSEL with police reports and documents which describe the basis of the charges in the same detail available to the City Prosecuting Attorney, including a copy of the abstract of the indigent defendant's driving record if EDMONDS has such a record in its possession. DEFENSE COUNSEL may request EDMONDS to obtain a copy of the driving record of any indigent defendant from the Department of Licenses, Motor Vehicle Division in Olympia, Washington; provided, that such a request is made by DEFENSE COUNSEL and received by the EDMONDS Prosecuting Attorney at least fourteen (14) days prior to trial or sentencing. Failure of EDMONDS to provide such an abstract shall not constitute, or be raised as, a defense to the prosecution of the action, but shall provide stipulated grounds for excluding consideration of the driving record at the time of sentencing. B. Municipal Code: EDMONDS shall provide DEFENSE COUNSEL with a copy of its municipal code pertaining to traffic and criminal ordinances and all amendments as they are adopted by the City Council. 7. NON ASSIGNABILITY No assignment or transfer of this contract nor of any interest in this contract, shall be made by either party. DEFENSE COUNSEL's duty of representation shall not be delegated or assigned to another person, firm, employee or associate without prior written Notice to, and oral or written approval of, the Mayor of EDMONDS. All employees and associates used by DEFENSE COUNSEL shall be at DEFENSE COUNSEL's sole expense. {WSS647130.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 3 Packet Page 92 of 448 8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR DEFENSE COUNSEL shall be and is an independent contractor providing professional services under this contract. DEFENSE COUNSEL shall not be considered an agent, officer or employee of EDMONDS for the purposes of any federal or state statute nor under any City ordinance, including but not limited to Chapter 2.06 of the Edmonds City Code. 9. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS All files and other documents maintained by the DEFENSE COUNSEL shall be the property of EDMONDS and accessible to EDMONDS to the extent permitted by the attorney/client privilege, constitutional law, applicable rules of ethics or any other applicable law. Subject to the same rules and laws, any and all files maintained by DEFENSE COUNSEL shall be tendered to EDMONDS or to an attorney designated by EDMONDS at the request of EDMONDS. 10. INDEMNIFICATION 10.1 DEFENSE COUNSEL expressly promises to indemnify and hold harmless EDMONDS, its officers, agents and employees from any claim or loss arising from or out of the act, error or omission of DEFENSE COUNSEL in the provision of services under this contract, provided, however, that nothing herein shall be interpreted to require the DEFENSE COUNSEL to indemnify or hold harmless EDMONDS, its officers, agents and employees from loss or claim arising from its/their sole negligence. 10.2 The DEFENSE COUNSEL shall also indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, loss or liability arising out of a claim or assertion that the DEFENSE COUNSEL is not an independent contractor. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall extend to claims by contractors or employees of DEFENSE COUNSEL. 10.3 The provisions of these indemnity provisions 10.1 and 10.2 shall survive termination of the contract. 11. MERGER, SEVERABILITY, WAIVER AND BINDING EFFECT This document incorporates the entire agreement between the parties. If any provision of this contract or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the contract or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. No modification or waiver of any of the terms of this contract shall be valid as between the parties unless in writing and executed with the same formality as this contract. No waiver of any breach or default hereunder shall be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach or default of the same or similar nature, no matter how made or how often recurring. This contract will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. {WSS647130.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 4 Packet Page 93 of 448 12. TERM OF CONTRACT This term of this Contact shall run for four (4) years commencing January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2010. The Contract may be renewed for additional terms with the express written consent of the parties. It is the anticipation of the City Council at the date of execution of this Contract that the services of the Defense Counsel shall be reviewed on a four (4) year basis in concert with the contracts and appointment of its municipal judge, hearing examiner, prosecutor and city attorney. 13. TERMINATION The attorney/client relationship is a personal one involving the ability of the parties to communicate and maintain credibility. Therefore, the City Council reserves in its sole legislative discretion the right to terminate this Agreement upon reasonable notice during its term. Defense counsel agrees that he may also terminate the Agreement, but will not terminate the Agreement without providing for a reasonable period of transition mutually agreed upon by the parties. DATED this ______ day of ___________________, 20___. CITY OF EDMONDS: DEFENSE COUNSEL: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON JAMES FELDMAN ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: W. SCOTT SNYDER {WSS647130.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 5 Packet Page 94 of 448 AM-761 2.I. Subscriber Agreement Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Debi Humann, Human Resources Time:Consent Department:Human Resources Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subject Approval of three year Subscriber Agreement with Public Safety Testing, Inc. Previous Council Action Narrative Both the Police and Fire Departments currently have agreements with Public Safety Testing, Inc. to provide qualified candidates for entry level police and fire positions. Public Safety Testing, Inc. provides a valuable service that would be difficult and more expensive to do in-house. This particular agreement represents service that has been ongoing in the Police Department. The current agreement expires on December 31, 2006, and after reviewing with the Police Department, it has been verified that this service should continue for the next three year period beginning January 1, 2007. Recommendation Respectfully request Council approval of the "Subscriber Agreement" with Public Safety Testing, Inc. for Police for a new three year term beginning January 1, 2007. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Subscriber Agreement Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 10:52 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/14/2006 11:04 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 11:38 AM APRV Form Started By: Debi Humann Started On: 12/13/2006 02:19 PM Final Approval Date: 12/14/2006 Packet Page 95 of 448 Packet Page 96 of 448 Packet Page 97 of 448 Packet Page 98 of 448 Packet Page 99 of 448 Packet Page 100 of 448 AM-762 2.J. 2006 Citywide Storm Improvements, Change Order No. 3 Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Dave Gebert, Engineering Time:Consent Department:Engineering Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subject Appropriation of $40,183 additional funds and authorization for Mayor to sign contract change order number 3 for 2006 Citywide Storm Improvements project. Previous Council Action On September 18, 2006, Council awarded a construction contract to Earthworks Enterprises, Inc. for the 2006 Citywide Storm Improvements project. Narrative On September 18, 2006, Council awarded a construction contract to Earthworks Enterprises, Inc. for the 2006 Citywide Storm Improvements project. Council also approved a project budget of $262,252. Subsequent to award of this construction contract, Engineering Division staff completed the design for storm drainage improvements to correct another significant drainage problem that requires attention near Sierra Park. This storm drain extension in 190th Street SW is required to provide drainage for the road and road shoulder, as well as to allow for future City improvements to address groundwater drainage problems at Sierra Park. It will also provide for an extension to the public storm drainage system in the City right of way for a private development to connect to. This extension is beyond the length that could be reasonably required of the developer to construct. The City is fortunate to have a quality contractor currently working on the Citywide Storm Improvements project, with established competitively bid and reasonable unit prices to complete the additional work. Staff has determined that it is most cost effective, expedient, and in the best interest of the City to accomplish this additional work by change order to the current contract. The additional work is the same type of work as is required by the basic contract. Two change orders have been issued to date on the contract for a total of $17,490 that include additional work resulting from construction field changes discovered during the construction phase. Staff and the contractor have negotiated an amount of $30,214 for change order number 3 to complete the additional storm drainage improvements on 190th Street SW. See Attachment 1. On September 18, 2006, Council approved a total budget of $262,252 for the 2006 Citywide Storm Improvements project. The total estimated funds required for this project to issue change order number 3 to construct the additional storm drainage improvements at 190th Street SW and allow a modest contingency to complete the contract is approximately $302,435 as follows: $ 16,000 - Amount Previously Expended $219,684 - Contract Award $ 350 - Advertising $ 2,197 - 1% For Art $ 6,500 - Testing $ 17,490 - Change Orders1 and 2 $ 30,214 - Change Order 3 (190th Street SW drainage) $ 10,000 - Contingency $302,435 - Total Staff recommends that Council appropriate an additional $40,183 from the Drainage System Projects Capital Fund 412-200 ending cash balance, for a new project budget of $302,435, to fund these additional storm drainage improvements. Sufficient cash balance is available in Fund 412. Recommendation Council appropriate $40,183 in additional funds from the Drainage System Projects Capital Fund 412-200 ending cash balance and Packet Page 101 of 448 Council appropriate $40,183 in additional funds from the Drainage System Projects Capital Fund 412-200 ending cash balance and authorize the Mayor to sign contract change order number 3 to Earthwork Enterprises for the 2006 Citywide Storm Project. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Change Order 3 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 10:52 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/14/2006 11:04 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 11:38 AM APRV Form Started By: Dave Gebert Started On: 12/13/2006 03:47 PM Final Approval Date: 12/14/2006 Packet Page 102 of 448 L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0018_762_2006 citywide storm, chg ord 3.doc CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 December 13, 2006 PROJECT NAME: Contract No.: E6FB/c239 2006 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements Owner: Contractor: City of Edmonds Earthwork Enterprises, Inc 121 Fifth Avenue North P.O. Box 726 Edmonds, WA 98020 Mukilteo, WA 98275 Under contract for the 2006 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements, your contract is hereby revised as follows: Original Contract Amount: $ 219,683.99 Current Contract Amount (adjusted by previous change orders): $ 237,173.49 Net Change This Change Order: $ 30,214.00 Revised Contract Amount (including tax): $ 267,387.49 CHANGE ORDER DESCRIPTION: 1. Add Schedule F. 190th Street SW. Install two Type II CB’s, one Type I CB, approximately 282 LF PVC storm pipe per attached drawings labeled 190th Street SW. Installation includes potholing for unmarked utilities, over excavation, connection into existing system, as-built drawings, CB knockout breaks, equipment, mobilization, traffic control, shoring and safety, restoration, import backfill, export waste, labor and all materials required to perform the work. The actual contract amount will be adjusted up or down based on actual quantities installed at the agreed upon price. 21 additional calendar days SCHEDULE F - Sierra Park 190th St SW Bid Item Approx. Quant. Unit Description Unit Price Total Price 1 1 LS MOBILIZATION $1,000.00 $1,000.00 2 1 LS SHORING AND TRENCH SAFETY $500.00 $500.00 3 1 LS TRAFFIC CONTROL $2,000.00 $2,000.00 4 1 EA CATCH BASIN, TYPE 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 5 2 EA CATCH BASIN, TYPE 2 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 6 282 LF STORM DRAIN - 12" $52.00 $14,664.00 7 110 CY IMPORTED BACKFILL $30.00 $3,300.00 8 15 TN ASPHALT RESTORATION, 2" $150.00 $2,250.00 SUBTOTAL $30,214.00 SALES TAX @ 8.9% N/A TOTAL $30,214.00 CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME: As a result of this change, the contract time is extended by a total of: 21 ( calendar days or working days). The revised required contract completion date is January 5, 2007. In accordance with WSDOT Standard Specifications 1-04.5, by his/her signature below, the contractor accepts all requirements of this change order and agrees that this change order constitutes full payment and final settlement of all claims for contract time and for all costs of any kind, including costs of delays, related to any work either covered or affected by the change. Packet Page 103 of 448 L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0018_762_2006 citywide storm, chg ord 3.doc Accepted by Contractor: Earthwork Enterprises, Inc. Date Printed Name, Title Approval Recommended Approved David K. Gebert, PE Date Gary Haakenson, Mayor Date City Engineer, City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Packet Page 104 of 448 L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0018_762_2006 citywide storm, chg ord 3.doc Packet Page 105 of 448 AM-772 2.K. Findings of Fact - Denial of Plan Amendment Application (J. Mantooth) Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Rob Chave, Planning Submitted For:Rob Chave Time:Consent Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Approval of Findings of Fact regarding the public hearing held 10/17/06 on the Planning Board's recommendation of denial on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone for Jennifer Mantooth, located at approximately 97th Avenue West and 231st Place Southwest. (File No. CDC-05-3 and R-06-67) Previous Council Action City Councli held a public hearing on the proposal on October 17, 2006, and voted to deny the application. Narrative Proposed findings of fact have been prepared by the City Attorney to implement the Council's action of October 17, 2006. Recommendation Adopt the proposed findings of fact (Exhibit 1). Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Proposed Findings of Fact Link: Exhibit 2: City Council minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2006 11:21 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/15/2006 11:28 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2006 11:41 AM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 12/15/2006 11:03 AM Final Approval Date: 12/15/2006 Packet Page 106 of 448 {WSS646127.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 1 BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL In Re the Application of ) File Nos. CDC-05-3 and ) R-06-67 JENNIFER MANTOOTH ) ) I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY This matter came on for hearing before the Edmonds City Council for October 17, 2006. The applications relate to two separate actions. The first is an amendment of the City’s Comprehensive Plan map. The second is a rezone. The first matter is legislative in nature, the second is quasi-judicial. II. FINDINGS 1. An open record and a public hearing were heard on the rezone and plan amendment respectively by the Edmonds Planning Board. The Planning Board recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment due to their findings that the request did not comply with the criteria for approval. Based upon that denial, the Planning Board further recommended denial of the proposed rezone request. 2. This application relates to properties located in an area in and around 97th Avenue West and 231st Place SW in the City of Edmonds. The properties lie south of Edmonds Way, east of 97th Avenue West and north of 231st Place SW. The application seeks to have Comprehensive Plan designation changed from Single-family - Urban 1 to Multi-family - Medium density. 3. If the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved, the Applicant requests that the properties be rezoned from its current Single-family classification, RS-8 to Multi-family, RM-2.4. 4. Applicant’s representative reviewed the topography and location of the area proposed for Comprehensive Plan change and rezone. Mr. Bissell noted that due to topography and orientation, the area proposed for review logically relates to the Edmonds Way planning corridor, and provided his analysis of the topography, orientation and trip generation. 5. The proposal includes property located at 9601 231st Place SW. The portion subject site which includes this area, is accessed through an adjacent single-family residential neighborhood. The property at the referenced location already contains non-conforming density greater than that of the surrounding neighborhood. Packet Page 107 of 448 {WSS646127.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 2 III. CONCLUSIONS 1. The property at 9601 231st Place SW in this application is significantly different than the remainder of the one under consideration. The analysis provided by Applicant’s representative has some merit as it relates to the bulk of the area proposed for Comprehensive Plan change and rezone. The property on 231st Place SW is accessed by streets which exit through a single family residential neighborhood and is inappropriate for a Comprehensive Plan change. There has been no change in circumstances and the City Council believes that the area is better served by the eventual abatement of the non-conforming use in accordance with City ordinance and restoration of single-family property use. 2. Due to the inclusion of the property on 231st Place SW, the proposed change does not satisfy the criteria of ECDC 20.00.050 in that: 2.1 The proposed amendment is not in the public interest in that it encourages the existence of multi-family properties accessed through single family residential neighborhoods; 2.2 The proposed amendment would therefore be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety and welfare; 2.3 The property on 231st Place SW is physically suited to its current designation for single-family uses, and any change in the use to provide higher density is incompatible with existing access for the property. 3. If the City Council denies the Comprehensive Plan change, the proposed rezone would fail to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore would not be in conformance with the requirements of ECDC 20.40.010. IV. DECISION The Edmonds City Council denies the application to amend the Comprehensive Plan to designate property described in File Nos. CDC-05-3 as to Multi-family - Medium Density. This denial is based upon the inclusion of property located on 231st Place SW in the application. Having denied the Comprehensive Plan change, the City Council finds that it lacks authority under ordinance criteria to approve the rezone request because it would therefore be inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. DONE this _______ day of _____________, 2006. CITY OF EDMONDS By: Mayor Gary Haakenson Packet Page 108 of 448 {WSS646127.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 3 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: By: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: W. Scott Snyder, City Attorney Packet Page 109 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 4 While there are no major program initiatives scheduled for 2007 or 2008, I have asked staff to begin working on two tasks. First, the City has completed a major up-grade of its systems for billing and paying for services. I have requested that, by mid-year 2007, staff present me with a proposal for discounting utility bills for customers who choose to be billed, and pay, electronically. It makes sense that as we reduce our cost of doing business these savings are passed along to our residents and businesses. Second, if Council approves the budget proposals contained in this document, and voters approve an EMS levy effective in 2008, we will have survived another two years of difficult budgeting. In the 2009-2010 biennium, however, the budget wolves are right back at our door. I am requesting that, in 2007, my management team and their staffs perform a rigorous review of our business practices, and identify specific ways in which our General Fund expenditures can be reduced by $500,000 annually by 2009. The most favorable time to closely examine how we do business is not when we are faced with immediate budget cuts, but in an orderly, thoughtful fashion before we are in a crisis situation. Closing Comments I would like to thank Councilmembers Dawson and Wambolt for taking the time to participate as members of our budget review committee. Their questions and comments have been excellent, and many have been incorporated into the preliminary budget. My staff and I look forward to working with the Council over the next few weeks, and responding to any budget related question that may arise from you or interested citizens. City Clerk Sandy Chase distributed budget books to the Council. Councilmember Plunkett advised merchants on 5th and on Main Street were looking for $75,000 for lighting. Mayor Haakenson advised that was not included in the budget. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Historic Preservation Commission’s request for $2,000 was in the budget. Mayor Haakenson replied it was not. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the removal/replanting of trees on Main that were causing damage was in the budget. Mayor Haakenson responded he believed that was in the budget, commenting that was an ongoing program. Councilmember Plunkett recalled when he joined the Council, Public Safety comprised approximately 48-49% of the budget; it now comprised approximately 60%. He inquired if the increase was due to program changes such as paramedics, two-in/two out, or the use of battalion chiefs. Mayor Haakenson responded labor contracts were the biggest contributor to the increase. Councilmember Moore referred to the inclusion of sales tax sourcing in the 2008 budget. Mayor Haakenson relayed Administrative Services Director Dan Clements’ assurance the legislature would pass the bill this year. If sales tax sourcing did not pass, that revenue source would need to be revised. Council President Dawson advised a budget work session was scheduled at the October 24 meeting, a public hearing on November 6 and another public hearing and possible adoption of the budget on November 21. In the past the Council had held weekend budget sessions which could be done if the Council found that necessary. She noted the Council could also schedule an additional budget session on November 14 if necessary. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FOR JENNIFER MANTOOTH, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 97TH AVENUE WEST AND 231ST PLACE SOUTHWEST. (FILE NO. CDC-05-3 AND R-06-67) Mayor Haakenson advised this was a Comprehensive Plan amendment which was legislative. If the Council approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment, a hearing on the rezone would follow which was quasi judicial. City Attorney Scott Snyder clarified unless the Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved, the Council could not approve the rezone. Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone – 97th Ave W & 231st Pl SW Packet Page 110 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 5 Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained this request had been before the Council previously. The request was a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone for properties located at approximately 97th Avenue West and 231st Place Southwest. He advised the Comprehensive Plan amendment was a map amendment to change this block of seven properties from a single family designation to a multi family medium density designation. Mr. Bullock displayed Comprehensive Plan maps, identifying current development on the property and the potential increase in density if the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone were approved. He displayed a map identifying where the properties gained access, explaining the two northern properties gained access from a driveway onto 97th, the next three properties shared a joint driveway accessing onto 97th, one property accessed directly on 97th and the property in the southeast corner accessed onto 231st. He referred to three letters that were provided to the Council with regard to this item. Mr. Bullock explained the Planning Board held a hearing, took testimony and deliberated as documented in the Planning Board minutes contained in the packet. The Planning Board voted to unanimously deny the Comprehensive Plan amendment, finding it did not comply with the criteria for approving a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out there was a gap between 2003 and 2006 and again following the Planning Board’s decision in June 2006. Mr. Bullock responded a separate Comprehensive Plan amendment application was submitted in 2002-2003. That application went through a similar Planning Board and City Council process and was denied. The applicant modified her proposal and submitted it again. He explained the City had a December 31 deadline for submitting Comprehensive Plan amendments. Comprehensive Plan amendments were not subject to the regulatory reform timeline of 120 days; it was a legislative item and was considered with other Comprehensive Plan amendments via an annual process. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the potential for this amendment to increase the number of dwelling units from 12 to 36. Mr. Bullock clarified the total of 36 units considered the potential of each individual lot. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the density on one individual lot could not be increased to 36; that amount was only if the density were maximized on every lot. Councilmember Plunkett commented the southeast lot contained a duplex. He asked how many units would be allowed on that lot if the Comprehensive Plan amendment were approved. Mr. Bullock replied if the lot were rezoned to RM 3, three units would be allowed; a rezone to RM 2.4 would allow four units. The applicant has requested RM 2.4 zoning. Councilmember Marin asked what was different about this application and how were they proposing to overcome the obstacles the Council identified previously. Mr. Bullock suggested that question be posed to the applicant. He recalled the applicant previously proposed RM 3 zoning. Councilmember Orvis recalled the last application included the area on the map identified as the triangular area. Mr. Bullock advised a Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved for that area, changing the Comprehensive Plan designation for the lot on Edmonds Way to Edmonds Way Corridor designation and rezoning to RM 1.5. Councilmember Plunkett asked the square footage of the lots along 231st. Mr. Bullock advised they were in the RS-8 zone; the lots ranged in size but are all less than 16,000 square feet and none of the lots were large enough to subdivide. Council President Dawson noted the Comprehensive Plan was amended to reflect RM 1.5 on the triangular property; this request was for RM 2.4. Bullock clarified there were two separate requests, first Packet Page 111 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 6 the Comprehensive Plan amendment followed by a rezone. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the triangular property was changed from single family to Edmonds Way Corridor which allowed a range of zoning including RM 1.5. The current request is to change the Comprehensive Plan designation of the identified properties to multi family medium density designation which equates to RM 3 or RM 2.5 zoning. The Council first needed to make a decision with regard to the Comprehensive Plan designation which if approved would lead to the rezone discussion. Council President Dawson asked what Comprehensive Plan designation equated to RM 1.5 zoning. Mr. Bullock answered multi family high density as well as Edmonds Way Corridor. A Comprehensive Plan designation of residential high density equated to RM 2.4 or RM 1.5. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Council approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment, did the Council have the option to rezone the southeast lot to RM 3 or RM 2.4. Mr. Bullock stated the applicant’s request was to rezone to RM 2.4; it was a legislative matter and the Council had the option to approve alternate zoning. Mr. Snyder pointed out the rezone was a quasi judicial decision. The Council could take the action contained in the record and advertised; the Council could not take an action outside the advertised options. Mr. Bullock acknowledged the Council could not rezone to a higher density but could approve a rezone to a lower density. Councilmember Plunkett asked, if in the future all the lots were purchased, could the City stipulate that the entrance to 231st be eliminated. Mr. Snyder answered not as part of this process; access could be conditioned via a contract rezone. He summarized the Council could not impose additional zoning requirements as part of the rezone. Councilmember Wambolt asked why the application was denied previously. Mr. Bullock answered the Planning Board and Council found the Comprehensive Plan amendment request was not consistent with the criteria for an amendment. Once the Comprehensive Plan amendment was denied, the rezone was moot. Councilmember Wambolt noted the current request was to a higher density. Mr. Bullock clarified the Comprehensive Plan amendment request was the same; the zoning density was higher. Councilmember Orvis summarized the Council’s options, 1) deny the Comprehensive Plan amendment or 2) approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment and then proceed with the rezone process and accept or deny the proposed rezone. Mr. Snyder clarified the first decision was legislative and at the Council’s discretion; the second decision must be based on the record and the rezone criteria. Applicant John Bissell, Higa Burkholder Associates, distributed letters from the first application that were supportive of the first application. He then reviewed the Comprehensive Plan change criteria, advising he would describe how the proposed amendment was in the best interest of the public safety, health and welfare, worked for the neighborhood and was appropriate for the type of use proposed. He displayed an aerial photograph identifying the residential neighborhood to the east of the site that was most likely to be impacted and that had voiced the most opposition at the Planning Board. Using the City’s Lidar information, topographical contours were added to the aerial map and their engineer drew a line identifying the top of the slope. He pointed out the houses in the cul-de-sac were above the top of the slope. He explained Edmonds Way was in a canyon, identifying the property on the edge of the slope of the canyon. He displayed a plat map illustrating the line identifying the top of the slope through these and surrounding properties. He summarized to the north and east of these properties, the top of the slope line migrates to the RM zone where a Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved earlier and where multi family development occurred prior to annexation. Packet Page 112 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 7 He pointed out the Comprehensive Plan designation below the steep slope was Edmonds Way Corridor with the exception of this property. Properties across Edmonds Way to the north were also designated as Edmonds Way Corridor to the top of the slope last year via a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Edmonds Way Corridor designation was intended to provide a buffer between high traffic levels on Edmonds Way and single family on the plateaus surrounding Edmonds Way with the sides of the canyon buffering the single family from high level traffic along Edmonds Way. Mr. Bissell displayed a comparison of Hwy. 99 and Edmonds Way, pointing out buffering along Hwy. 99 and Edmonds Way except for the subject property, which he noted was contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan throughout the rest of the City. He recalled when displaying the comparison between Hwy. 99 and Edmonds Way at the Planning Board hearing, Mr. Bullock countered there was more commercial use on Hwy. 99. He agreed, pointing out buffering on Edmonds Way was provided via the steep slopes, the topography on Hwy. 99 was flat. He asserted they were similar, comparing traffic volumes – 34,000 average daily trips on Hwy. 99 between SR 104 and 196th and 21,000 average daily trips on Edmonds Way at 95th Place. He summarized 21,000 average daily trips represented high traffic volumes that were not appropriate for single family development. He identified traffic volumes on local access, collector, and arterial streets. Mr. Bissell explained staff recommended denial due to increased traffic from increased density and impact on inadequate roads. He pointed out one single family residence or duplex generated approximately 10 average daily trips, one apartment generated approximately 6.2 average daily trips, and 5.86 average daily trips for a condominium. He summarized the likelihood of increased trips was not great. The total current average daily trips was 124 from these properties, compared to 164 – 188 with apartments or condominiums if the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning were changed. He summarized the average daily trips would not increase substantially. Mr. Bissell pointed out this site had not been developed as RS-8 although it was zoned RS-8; several of the sites have duplexes that were constructed in Snohomish County and annexed into Edmonds as legal nonconforming. Retaining the RS-8 zoning and single family Comprehensive Plan designation perpetuates the nonconforming condition. The nonconforming condition was not supported by the topography, location, proximity to high intensity traffic or the marketplace. He recommended the application be approved as the Comprehensive Plan and zoning principles support it, traffic impacts would be minimal and the current development already supports RM 3. He concluded the application complied with the criteria and should be approved. Councilmember Moore inquired about access from the property. Mr. Bissell explained one property accessed from 231st, the remainder from 97th. It was not possible to guarantee that as properties redeveloped the same access would be retained. He acknowledged access was the neighborhood’s primary concern. It was conceivable that redevelopment could access from 97th but that was unknown. Councilmember Moore asked how many dwelling units existed on the lot in the southeast corner and how many would be allowed if the Comprehensive Plan and zoning were changed. Mr. Bissell answered there were currently two and four would be allowed. Councilmember Plunkett commented the southeast lot could have another family accessing from 231st. He asked whether Lot 7 could have an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Bissell answered any of the single family lots on that street could have an accessory dwelling unit. Councilmember Wambolt asked if there was a traffic signal at 97th and SR 104. Mr. Bissell responded no. Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing. He advised the Council received three letters, one from Mary McCloskey and Tim Doyle who recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, a Packet Page 113 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 8 letter from Tom and Lin Hillman recommending approval and a letter from the Lindstrom Family recommending denial. Jacqueline Barnes, Edmonds, advised her property was Lot 1 on 231st. She asserted Ms. Mantooth’s property did not belong to the multi family properties but rather to the single family properties. The multi family buffer was the properties that abut the rear of Ms. Mantooth’s property. She explained every property on 231st had one residence with the exception of Ms. Mantooth’s property which contained a duplex and a detached garage accessory dwelling unit that was built illegally and that Ms. Mantooth was trying to have rezoned so that she could legally rent it. She objected to a multi family zoned property in the middle of their cul-de-sac. She commented on problems with Ms. Mantooth’s tenants and multiple vehicles, concluding that allowing increased density would be detrimental to their neighborhood. Tim Doyle, Edmonds, advised his property was Lot 7 on 231st. He suggested the Council look at the line Mr. Bissell depicted, pointing out Ms. Mantooth’s property was at the same level on the street as his property, and there was no drop-off. He urged the Council to uphold the Planning Board’s decision. Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, suggested the Council, either with staff’s assistance or on their own, review the background and history of the previous application. He was disappointed the Council did not review the information provided three years ago. Lin Hillman, Edmonds, commented the proposed amendment appeared to meet the criteria for buffering between very high density, RM 1.5, and single family and that a buffer was an appropriate use for this property. She recalled at the Planning Board hearing, there was a great deal of negativity that could be classified as character assassination rather than based on zoning criteria. She noted there were people in favor of zoning changes, particularly with the GMA requirements to accommodate increased density. She pointed out people living in multi family housing were not “hooligans,” many people choose to live in multi family housing and should not be discriminated against. She urged Council to approve the proposed amendment. Jennifer Mantooth, Edmonds, explained last year a Comprehensive Plan amendment changed the designation of the properties on Edmonds Way from single family to Edmonds Way Corridor and rezoned those properties from single family to RM 1.5. That designation and zoning was not in place when she submitted her first application. She requested RM 2.4 zoning as it was the highest density under that Comprehensive Plan designation and RM 2.4 zoning would maximize the opportunity for the seven properties in this area. She pointed out the size of the units were restricted by parking. For example if her property which currently has a duplex and garage guesthouse were rezoned from single family, she would be allowed to add two 1-bedroom units. She noted most of the properties could not add a 2- bedroom unit due to lack of parking. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Mr. Bullock referred to Findings of Fact and Conclusions contained in a memorandum from the Planning Board to the City Council in 2003 regarding the first application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment that documented the reasons the Planning Board recommended denial. He pointed out the steep grade on 97th, recalling one of the Planning Board’s reasons for recommending denial previously was their discomfort with approving a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation and subsequent change in the zoning which would potentially allow additional units on a street as steep as 97th. Mr. Bullock pointed out the duplexes located in this area were developed in Snohomish County prior to annexation. Snohomish County has a provision that allows a lot 1½ times the size of the minimum required lot size to have a duplex constructed on the property. Those properties were annexed to the City Packet Page 114 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 9 as legal single family with comparable zoning. In regard to Mr. Bissell’s assertion that no development had occurred in that area, Mr. Bullock commented all the properties were developed and maintained and the zoning code would not allow additional units. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO DENY THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. Councilmember Marin explained he was uncomfortable approving a change whereby the lot on the southeast corner would encroach into the neighborhood, finding it would change the character of the neighborhood. He recalled the Hwy. 99 Task Force was sensitive to providing a buffer between the commercial and high density zones on the highway and the adjacent residential neighborhood. He pointed out the need to be sensitive to the demarcation between those zones and found this demarcation clumsy as the southeast corner would encroach on the single family neighborhood. Council President Dawson commented it may have been a closer call if the proposed amendment did not include the southeast corner lot that accessed from 231st. She found the proposed designation inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She pointed out as developed, these properties provided a buffer. Although a greater level of density may not be detrimental to some of the lots, it was not advisable for all the lots in the proposed area. Councilmember Orvis recalled when the Council reviewed this previously he voted against denial and would do so again. He supported the proposed change, commenting this area was essentially multi family adjacent to an area that was zoned multi family. Councilmember Plunkett appreciated the sentiment of the neighborhood, commenting on recent changes that had occurred in his neighborhood. He explained the proposal would allow the property on the southeast corner which accessed from 231st to increase by one dwelling unit which he did not find would create a situation that failed to meet the Comprehensive Plan criteria. He pointed out GMA required the City to accept more population and additional density and to create more modest income housing. He did not find any argument by the maker of the motion that the proposal did not meet the test. He concluded many of the issues of concern could be addressed in another phase. Councilmember Wambolt agreed it was clearly a single family residential neighborhood. Although only one more unit would be allowed on the lot on the southeast corner, it would make a difference to that neighborhood. He agreed rental units generated more traffic. He pointed out access from 97th onto SR 104 was not very safe. He would support the Planning Board’s recommendation to deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Councilmember Olson commented it may be different if the proposal was for only the lower houses of that area, but changing the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property on the southeast corner would change the neighborhood. She agreed 97th was a very dangerous street and was not appropriate for a great deal of traffic, particularly in poor weather. She planned to support the motion. Councilmember Moore advised she would vote against the motion. Although she agreed with Council President Dawson that there was one property that was questionable, she agreed with Councilmember Plunkett regarding the standards of the Comprehensive Plan and bringing nonconforming uses into conformance. She pointed out the Planning Board found that this would not be detrimental to the public’s health, safety or welfare. She noted traffic impacts would not be significant, it represented an appropriate land use and could provide affordable housing via additional rental units. She noted many of the rental units were disappearing and there were good people who needed/wanted rental housing. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, MARIN AND OLSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, MOORE AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. Packet Page 115 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 10 COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO DENY THE REZONE BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WAS NOT APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.77, MPOR ZONE Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board recommended changes to the existing MPOR zone. He noted there was currently a moratorium on development in the MPOR zone as it was felt during the Council’s review of the zone that the standards were vague. The Planning Board was asked to consider the standards. The Planning Board’s initial intent was to have the MPOR zone apply to areas of the City in addition to Sunset south of Bell that had a similar need for a transitional zone. During the Planning Board consideration, the property owners and neighbors met and developed a proposal for the Sunset properties only. Their proposal was presented to the Planning Board with a recommendation for approval from staff. Given the difficulties the Planning Board was experiencing developing a zone that would apply to multiple areas of the City, it agreed this was the best proposal. He explained the proposed amendment removed much of the vagueness and instituted specific rules that limited the height to the standard calculation and required 15 foot setbacks from the street and 5 foot side setbacks in an attempt to strike a balance between what could be built on the property and compatibility with the neighborhood. The amendment would allow some office as well as residential development and required parking but also provided some flexibility. Council President Dawson commented this appeared to be an excellent idea that had been worked out among the neighbors. She suggested changing the name from MPOR to Office/Residential (OR) as it no longer required a master plan. Mr. Chave agreed, advising all the provisions requiring a master plan were removed from the ordinance. Councilmember Moore expressed her appreciation to Mr. Chave for this compromise. Mr. Chave answered the neighbors and property owners deserved the credit. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He noted the Council received four emails in support of the amendment from Gail Olson, Eric Sonett, Alan Young and Shaun Drew. Martha Braun, Edmonds, urged the Council to approve the updated language for the MPOR zone and remove the moratorium currently in place on the properties subject to the MPOR zoning. Eric Sonett, Edmonds, thanked everyone involved. He commented it was a pleasure to be at the Council meeting in a non-adversarial role. Harold Huston, Edmonds, recommended revising the language so that the east and west side of the street on Sunset south of Bell Street both were zoned MPOR. He found it appropriate for properties on both the east and west sides of the street to have the same zoning. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, supported the proposal developed by the property owners and neighbors. He suggested removing the MPOR zone from the code and determining an alternate designation insofar as the Planning Board was unable to identify any other suitable locations for the zone in the City. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. ECDC Chapter 16.77 – MPOR Zone Packet Page 116 of 448 AM-740 2.L. 2007 Cultural Tourism Promotion Contracts Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Frances Chapin, Parks and Recreation Time:Consent Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Approval of annual award by the Edmonds Arts Commission of budgeted Cultural Tourism Promotion contracts to local arts organizations to promote events that bring visitors to Edmonds. Previous Council Action Narrative The Edmonds Arts Commission Tourism Promotion Awards Committee and staff reviewed eight applications requesting a total of $12,310 for 2007 funding. Contract awards totaling $9,000 were recommended and approved by the Arts Commission at their December 4, 2006 meeting. The funding for these contract awards is from the portion of the Lodging Tax Tourism Promotion Fund allocated to the Arts Commission per Resolution #630. The $9,000 expenditure is part of the approved 2007 budget for the 123 fund. Each applicant organization awarded meets the requirements set forth by the Edmonds Arts Commission. The following contract awards are recommended for Council approval: Olympic Ballet - $1650 for promotion of two sets of performances at ECA; Cascade Symphony Orchestra - $1650 for radio promotion of three concerts at ECA; Driftwood Players - $1500 for promotion through their season; Jazz Connection - $1400 for advertising posters; KSER - $700 for promotion of Edmonds arts events regionally on the radio; Edmonds Chamber of Commerce - $750 for promotion of Third Thursday Artwalks through brochures distributed in Seattle; Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation - $750 for promotion of the fall Artist Studio Tour; Choir of the Sound - $600 for ads and flyers to promote winter concert at ECA. Recommendation Approve Edmonds Arts Commission recommended Tourism Promotion Award contracts. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2007 Revenue: Expenditure: $9,000 Fiscal Impact: Budgeted expenditure from the 123 Fund. Attachments Link: Application Link: Contract form Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 02:47 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/15/2006 10:09 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2006 10:13 AM APRV Form Started By: Frances Chapin Started On: 12/05/2006 02:05 PM Final Approval Date: 12/15/2006 Packet Page 117 of 448 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Contracts for Cultural Tourism Promotion - 2007 GUIDELINES OBJECTIVE: To award contracts for services to promote cultural/art events/programs that strengthen community based arts organizations and contribute to economic vitality through attracting audience from outside of Edmonds. This objective is accomplished through funding provided to the Edmonds Arts Commission by the City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Fund. Generally no more than $2,000 will be awarded to any one organization. ELIGIBILITY: Projects for promotion of cultural events/programs to attract visitors to Edmonds are eligible. Projects could include advertising, publicizing, or otherwise distributing information on activities or events for the purpose of attracting and welcoming visitors to Edmonds. Proposals that are exclusively for an organization’s membership or other exclusive group will not be considered. DEADLINE: The deadline is Monday, November 20, 2006 - 5 p.m. Incomplete or late applications will not be considered. Applications will be reviewed by the Arts Commission and awards will be voted on at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting. Contract awards are recommended pending City Council approval. Applicants will be notified by February 16, 2007 PROCEDURES: Applications must be submitted on the attached form. We do not anticipate that you will need more space than the amount allowed to answer questions. Cover letters may be added but will not substitute for an application form. Please send or deliver FOUR (4) copies including original of your completed application to: Edmonds Arts Commission, 700 Main Street, Edmonds WA 98020 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please contact the Cultural Services/Arts Office, Frances Chapin or Kris Gillespie, Edmonds Arts Commission, 425-771-0228, or chapin@ci.edmonds.wa.us REVIEW CRITERIA In awarding these contracts for services to promote cultural tourism the Edmonds Arts Commission uses the following criteria to evaluate the applicant organization: (40%) 1. Promotion of artistic quality: the degree of professionalism exhibited in events/programs sponsored by the organization; the extent to which these events/programs attract visitors to the community and improve the community's reputation for and appreciation of the arts. (15%) 2. Community Cultural Plan: the extent to which the organization supports the goals or implements strategies of the Community Cultural Plan. (15%) 3. Public participation: the degree to which the public is involved in organizing, implementing and evaluating the projects of the organization; attendance by the public. Packet Page 118 of 448 (15%) 4. Financial need: the demonstration of financial need is reflected in a realistic budget, reasonable ratio of program expenditures to administrative costs and evidence of other funding sources, i.e. donations. (15%) 5. Management capabilities: demonstration of the ability to complete and evaluate the project successfully, i.e. board resources, skilled personnel, previous successful programs and final reports. Promotion Contract Award Application Form Edmonds Arts Commission FISCAL YEAR 2007 January 1 - December 31, 2007 1. Applicant Organization Legal Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________________________________ Address: _____________________________________________________________________________________ City: ______________________________________ State: _____________________Zip: __________________ Organization Contact: __________________________________________Phone: _________________________ Board President: ______________________________________________________________________________ Incorporation date: _______________ IRS Determination #: _________________________________________ 2. Organization Profile: Briefly describe the mission and goals of your organization and your programs and services. 3. Event/Program Information (what event or program you are promoting) Program title: _________________________________________ Program start date: _________________________ Program end date: ___________________________ 4. Project Description (Be specific, this is what you will spend the money on, not necessarily the overall event. For example, radio advertising, print advertising, banner, etc.) Packet Page 119 of 448 TOTAL REQUEST $ __________ 5. Project Evaluation – Please answer the following questions with regard to the specific project you are requesting funds for (e.g. brochure, radio ads, poster etc.). Include additional information on your overall programming if applicable. a. How can you demonstrate that this project encourages people to come to Edmonds? 2007 EAC Promotion Award Application 2 b. Who is your intended audience? (e.g. radio ads reach what geographic area?) What is your anticipated attendance (#)? How will you report on and evaluate the effectiveness of the project in attracting visitors to Edmonds this year? c. How are volunteers and the greater public involved in organizing, implementing and evaluating this proposed project? d. How does your specific project and your overall program further the goals of the Community Cultural Plan (for a copy of the plan, call the Arts Office, 771-0228)? 6. Organization Budget Overview Fiscal year starting and ending dates: ________________ to _______________ Most recently completed fiscal year actuals: Revenue _____________ Expense ______________ Current fiscal year projected: Revenue _____________ Expense ______________ Packet Page 120 of 448 7. Please provide the following supportive documentation with your application: __ 1. I.R.S. Determination Letter (501(c)(3) Status) or WA State non-profit designation __ 2. A current copy of your approved Operating Budget __ 3. Current Board List (with contact information) __ 4. Three letters of support for the project. These letters may be from up to two board members, plus participants and/or recipients of your program/services attesting to the value/need of your proposal and your ability to complete the project. Remember to include 4 complete copies of your application (one original and three copies). > NOTE: incomplete grant requests will not be considered < Packet Page 121 of 448 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT Edmonds Arts Commission City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department THIS AGREEMENT is entered into the day of December, 2006 by and between the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation (“City”) and (local arts/culture organization). (“Promoter”). RECITALS A. The City established a Tourism Promotional Fund (“Fund”) under Resolution Number 630, dated December 10, 1985 (“Resolution”). The proceeds in the Fund are derived from a portion of the lodging tax imposed pursuant to Chapter 4.85 of the Edmonds City Code and Chapter 67.28 RCW. B. The Fund was created to promote tourism in the City by providing promotional and advertising subsidies to local cultural and artistic events. C. Under the Resolution, the Edmonds Arts Commission (“Commission”) administers the Fund. The Commission reviews and recommends, to the City Council, proposals for funding, advertising and promotion of cultural and artistic events/activities in the City. D. The Commission has recommended, and the City Council has reviewed and approved, funding to Promoter for promoting (the event) (described in the attached Exhibit A - hereinafter the “Event”) through the following method(s) (e.g. banners, radio & print advertising). (“Promotion”). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and obligations hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Funds. The City grants the amount of (no more than $2,000) Dollars ($x) (“Grant”) to Promoter and Promoter accepts the Grant. The City shall issue a check to Promoter for the Grant within three weeks after the City receives the documented receipts for the work performed as agreed to in Exhibit A of the executed original of this Agreement. 2. Scope of Use. Promoter may only use the Grant for cultural and artistic activities designed to increase tourism and tourist activity in the City and to promote the Event. The Promoter may use the Grant for: a) advertising, publicizing or otherwise distributing information for the purpose of attracting visitors and encouraging tourist expansion in the City; b) funding Marketing of the Event in the City. 3. Time of Performance. Promoter shall complete Promotion of the Event no later than December 31, 2007 . {CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/} Promotion Agreement 1 Packet Page 122 of 448 4. Credit to City. Any publications produced as a result of the Grant will include the Edmonds Arts Commission logo where possible and will prominently feature the following message: FUNDED IN PART BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND 5. Intellectual Property Rights. Where activities supported by the Grant produce original books, articles, manuals, films, computer programs or other materials, the promoter may copyright or trademark such materials upon obtaining the prior written approval of the City; provided, that the City receives a royalty-free, non-exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or use such materials. Where such license is exercised, appropriate acknowledgement of Promoters contribution will be made. 6. Modifications. This Agreement may only be modified by a written amendment to be executed by both parties. 7. Access to Books/Records. The City may, at reasonable times, inspect the books and records of the promoter relating to the performance of this Agreement. 8. Hold Harmless. The Promoter shall protect, hold harmless, indemnify, and defend, at its own expense, the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of the performance of this Agreement and the use of the Grant, including claims by Promoter's, employees or third parties, except for those damages solely caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City. 9. Legal Requirements. The promoter shall comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws in performing this Agreement; including but not limited to, State, Federal and local laws regarding discrimination. 10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and venue shall be in an appropriate court in Snohomish County. 11. Termination. (a) If the Promoter breaches any of its obligations under this agreement, and fails to cure the same within five (5) days of written notice to do so by the City, the City may terminate this Agreement, in which case the Promoter shall return of the unused portion of the Grant within five (5) business days after termination. (b) The City may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) written days notice to the Promoter for any reason other then that stated in subsection (a) of this section, in which case, the Promoter shall return of the unused portion of the Grant within five (5) business days after termination. {CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/} Promotion Agreement 2 Packet Page 123 of 448 12. Waiver. The failure of a party to insist upon strict adherence to any term of this Agreement on any occasion shall not be considered a Waiver thereof or deprive that party of the right thereafter to insist upon strict adherence to that term or any other term of this Agreement. 13. Assignment. This Agreement is personal in nature and shall not be assigned by the Promoter. 14. Records. The Promoter must maintain adequate records to support its use of the Grant in accordance with the terms of this Agreement Chapter 67.28 RCW, the ECC and the Resolution. Promoter’s records shall be maintained for a period of five (5) years after termination of this Agreement. The City or any of its duly authorized representatives shall have access to any books, documents, or papers and records of the Promoter that are directly related to this Agreement for the purposes of audit examinations, excerpts, or transcripts. 15. Reimbursement. Use of the Grant by the Promoter that is determined not to be in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, Chapter 67.28 RCW, the ECC and the Resolution must be reimbursed to the City. The Promoter shall reimburse the requested funds within five (5) business days after the City sends its request for reimbursement. 16 Independent Contractor. Promoter is an Independent Contractor and not an agent, employee or servant of the City. The Promoter is not entitled to any benefits or rights enjoyed by employees of the City. Promoter has the right to direct and control its own activities in using the Grant in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 17. Recitals. The Recitals of this Agreement are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference. 18. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties executed this Agreement as of the date first shown above. CITY OF EDMONDS PROMOTER _____________________________________ ____________________________________ Gary Haakenson, Mayor 121 – 5th Avenue Edmonds, WA 98020 ____________________________________ Print Name Print Address Approved as to Form: ____________________________________ W. Scott Snyder, City Attorney {CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/} Promotion Agreement 3 Packet Page 124 of 448 AM-768 2.M. Ordinance Granting to Clearwire, LLC a Right-of-Way Use Permit Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Linda Klein, Public Works Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:Consent Department:Public Works Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subject Proposed Ordinance granting to Clearwire, LLC a Right-of-Way Use Permit, to install, operate, and maintain communication facilities within a certain designated public right-of-way of the City of Edmonds, Washington, prescribing certain rights, duties, terms, and conditions with respect thereto, and establishing an effective date. Previous Council Action None Narrative Attached is a proposed ordinance entering into a Right-of-Way Use Permit with Clearwire, LLC for the use of certain public right-of-way. City Attorney, Scott Snyder, has been working with Clearwire, LLC along with the City Engineer and Public Works Director in negotiating the terms of this agreement. The form of the agreement is substantially the same and compensation is the same as the Council has approved for other wireless carriers. Mr. Snyder requested that this ordinance be placed on the Consent Agenda for approval by the City Council. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Clearwire Ordinance Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 03:16 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/15/2006 10:09 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2006 10:13 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Klein Started On: 12/14/2006 02:01 PM Final Approval Date: 12/15/2006 Packet Page 125 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 1 00006.9000000 WSS/gjz 12/04/06 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, GRANTING TO CLEARWIRE US, LLC A RIGHT-OF-WAY USE PERMIT, TO INSTALL, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN A CERTAIN DESIGNATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PRESCRIBING CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Clearwire US, LLC has requested that the City grant it the right to install, operate, and maintain structures and facilities within the public ways of the City; and WHEREAS, in case of a monopole or other communications facilities such request to install a monopole has been approved by the Architectural Design Board and hearing examiner when required by ordinance, and WHEREAS, the City Council has found it desirable for the welfare of the City and its residents that such a Right-of-Way Use Permit be granted to Clearwire US, LLC; and WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority under RCW 35A.47.040 to grant Right- of-Way Use Permits and franchises for the use of its streets and other public properties; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to grant the rights requested subject certain terms and Conditions, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Packet Page 126 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 2 Section 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Right-of-Way Use Permit, the following terms, phrases, words, and abbreviations shall have the meanings ascribed to them below. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense, words in the plural number include the singular number and words in the singular number include the plural number. a. “Affiliate” means an entity which owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership with the Permittee. b. City” means the City of Edmonds, Washington. c. “Communication Service” shall mean any telecommunications services, telecommunications capacity, or dark fiber, provided by the Permittee using its Communication System or Facilities, either directly or as a carrier for its subsidiaries, Affiliates, or any other person engaged in Communication Services, including, but not limited to, the transmission of voice, data or other electronic information, facsimile reproduction, burglar alarm monitoring, meter reading and home shopping, or other subsequently developed technology which carries an electronic signal over fiber optic cable. However, Communications Services shall not include the provision of cable television, open video, or similar services, as defined in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, for which a separate franchise would be required. d. “Communication” or “Facilities” shall mean the Permittee’s (or other valid right of way use permit holder’s) facilities and attendant structures constructed and operated within the City’s Public Way, and shall include all cables, wires, conduits, ducts, pedestals, and any associated converter, equipment, or other facilities within the City’s Public Way, designed and constructed for the purpose of providing Communication Service. The terms shall also include such additional facilities as the parties by mutual agreement shall designate in the future and incorporate by written addendum. A general description of the Facilities currently planned by Permittee is set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. e. “FCC” means the Federal Communications Commission, or any successor governmental entity hereto. f. “Permittee” means Clearwire US, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, or the lawful successor, transferee, or assignee thereof. g. “Person” means an individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, corporation, or governmental entity. h. “Public Way” shall mean the surface of, and any space above or below, any public street, highway, freeway, bridge, path, alley, court, boulevard, sidewalk, parkway, lane, drive circle, or other public right-of-way, including, but not limited to, Packet Page 127 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 3 public utility easements, utility strips, or rights-of-way dedicated for compatible uses and any temporary or permanent fixtures or improvements located thereon now or hereafter held by the City in the Service Area which shall entitle the City and the Permittee the use thereof for the purpose of installing, operating, repairing, and maintaining the Facility. Public Way shall also mean any easement now or hereafter held by the City within the Service Area for the purpose of public travel, or for utility or public service use dedicated for compatible uses, and shall include other easements or rights-of-way as shall within their proper use and meaning entitle the City and the Permittee to the use thereof for the purposes of installing or transmitting the Permittee’s Communication Services over poles, wires, cable, conductors, amplifiers, appliances, attachments, and other property as may be ordinarily necessary and pertinent to the Communication System. Section 2. Authority Granted. The City hereby grants to the Permittee, its heirs, successors, legal representatives, and assigns, subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the right, privilege, and authority to construct, reconstruct, upgrade, operate, maintain, replace, and use all necessary equipment and Facilities thereto for the Permittee’s Communication System. However, the Permittee is only authorized to place its communication Facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along, or below the Public Way of the City described in Exhibit A hereto. Section 3. Construction Right-of-Way Use Permits Required. A. Prior to site-specific location and installation of any portion of its communication Facilities within a public way, the Right-of-Way Use Permittee shall apply for and obtain a Construction Right-of-Way Use Permit pursuant to ECDC Chapter 18.60. B. Unless otherwise provided in said Right-of-Way Use Permit, the Permittee shall give the City at least 48 hours notice of the Permittee’s intent to commence work in the Public Ways. The Permittee shall file plans or maps with the City showing the proposed location of its communication Facilities and pay all duly established Right-of-Way Use Permit and inspection fees associated with the processing of the Right-of-Way Use Permit. In no case shall any work commence within any public way without said Construction Right-of-Way Use Permit, except as otherwise provided in this Right-of-Way Use Permit. Section 4. Grant Limited to Occupation. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to grant or convey any right, title, or interest in the Public Ways of the City to the Permittee, nor shall anything contained herein constitute a warranty of title. Section 5. Term of Right-of-Way Use Permit. The first term of this Right-of-Way Use Permit shall be for a period of ten (10) years from the date of acceptance as set forth in Section 32, unless sooner terminated. This Right-of-Way Use Permit shall automatically renew for one (1) additional ten (10) year term. Provided, however, that either party may notify the other of its desire to renegotiate any of the terms set forth herein or of its desire to add to or delete any such terms not later than 180 days prior to expiration of the initial term hereof or any subsequent Packet Page 128 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 4 renewal terms. If either party makes such a request, this Right-of-Way Use Permit shall not renew unless and until the City and Permittee reach agreement on said modification, addition, and/or deletion, and said agreement is approved by ordinance of the City Council. In the event that agreement cannot be reached, this Right-of-Way Use Permit shall terminate at the end of the then current term. Nothing in this Section prevents the parties from reaching agreement on renewal earlier than the time periods indicated. In addition, the Permittee may, upon ninety days notice terminate the Right of Way Use Permit with no further obligation, except as specifically set forth herein, beyond the lease payment for the then current calendar year. Section 6. Non-Exclusive Grant. This Right-of-Way Use Permit shall not in any manner prevent the City from entering into other similar agreements or granting other or further Right- of-Way Use Permits or franchise in, under, on, across, over, through, along or below any of said Public Ways of the City. However, the City shall not permit any such future Permittee or Franchisee to physically interfere with the Permittee’s communication Facilities. In the event that such physical interference or disruption occurs, the Public Works Director may assist the Permittee and such subsequent Permittee or Franchisee in resolving the dispute. Further, this Right-of-Way Use Permit shall in no way prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its Public Ways or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them, and the City shall retain power to make all necessary changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishment, improvement, dedication of the same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new Public Ways, and in compliance with Section 7, below. Section 7. Relocation of Communication Facility. A. The Permittee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate, or remove from any public way any portion of its communication Facilities when so required by the Public Works Director by reason of traffic conditions, public safety, dedications of new Public Ways and the establishment and improvement thereof, widening and improvement of existing Public Ways, street vacations, freeway construction, change or establishment of street grade, or the construction of any public improvement or structure by any governmental agency acting in a governmental capacity; provided that the Permittee shall in all cases have the privilege to temporarily relocate, in the authorized portion of the same or similar public way upon approval by the Public Works Director, any section of cable or any other facility required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. Upon the reasonable request of the Public Works Director and in order to facilitate the design of City street and right-of-way improvements, the Permittee agrees to, at its sole cost and expense, locate, and if reasonably determined necessary by the City, to excavate and expose portions of its communication Facilities for inspection so that the location of same may be taken into account in the improvement design, PROVIDED that, Permittee shall not be required to excavate and expose it’s Facilities unless the Permittee’s as-built plans and maps of it’s Facilities submitted pursuant to Section 9 of this Right-of-Way Use Permit are reasonably determined by Packet Page 129 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 5 the Public Works Director to be inadequate for purposes of this paragraph. The decision to relocate said Facilities in order to accommodate the City’s improvements shall be made by the Public Works Director upon review of the location and construction of the Permittee’s Facilities. If the Public Works Director determines that the project necessitates the relocation of the Permittee’s then existing Facilities, the City shall: 1. Within a reasonable time, which shall be no less than 30 days, prior to the commencement of such improvement project, provide the Permittee with written notice requiring such relocation. In the event that such relocation requires land use approvals by the City, such notice period shall be extended by an additional 90 days. Provided, however, that in the event an emergency posing a threat to public safety, health or welfare, or in the event of an emergency beyond the control of the City and which will result in severe financial consequences to the City, the City shall give the Permittee written notice as soon as practicable; and 2. Provide the Permittee with copies of information for such improvement project and a proposed location for the Permittee’s Facilities so that the Permittee may relocate its Facilities in other Public Ways in order to accommodate such improvement project. 3. The Permittee shall complete relocation of its Facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project at least 10 days prior to commencement of the project. In the event of an emergency as described herein, the Permittee shall relocate its Facilities within the time period specified by the Public Works Director. The Permittee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its Facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise the Permittee in writing if one or more of the alternatives is suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the Facilities. If so requested by the City, the Permittee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by the Permittee full and fair consideration, within a reasonable time, so as to allow for the relocation work to be performed in a timely manner. In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, the Permittee shall relocate its Facilities as otherwise provided in this Section. The provisions of this Section shall in no manner preclude or restrict the Permittee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its Facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the Facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City-owned, operated or maintained Facilities provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. Packet Page 130 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 6 B. Except as provided in Section 16(E), the Permittee will indemnify, hold harmless, and pay the costs of defending the City against any and all claims, suits, actions, damages, or liabilities for delays on City construction projects caused by or arising out of the failure of the Permittee to relocate its Facilities in a timely manner; provided, that the Permittee shall not be responsible for damages due to delays caused by the City or circumstances beyond the control of the Permittee. C. The parties understand that the relocation of Facilities placed in the right-of-way is partially governed by Chapter 35.99 RCW, and to the extent that the provisions of this section are not in compliance with the terms of Chapter 35.99 RCW (or successor statute), the provisions of the statute shall control and the terms of this section shall be amended to be in conformance thereto. Section 8. The Permittee’s Maps and Records. After construction is complete, the Permittee shall provide the City with accurate copies of all as-built plans and maps in a form and content prescribed by the Public Works Director. These plans shall be provided at no cost to the City, and shall include hard copies and digital copies in a format specified by the Public Works Director. Section 9. Work in Public Ways. During any period of relocation, construction, or maintenance, all surface structures, if any, shall be erected and used in such places and positions within said Public Ways and other public properties so as to interfere as little as possible with the free passage of traffic and the free use of adjoining property. The Permittee shall at all times post and maintain proper barricades and comply with all applicable safety regulations during such period of construction as required by the ordinances of the City or the laws of the State of Washington, including RCW 39.04.180 for the construction of trench safety systems. During the progress of the work, the Permittee shall not unnecessarily obstruct the passage of proper use of the Public Ways, and all work by the Permittee in the area covered by this Permit and as described in this Section shall be performed in accordance with City of Edmonds Public Works Construction Standards and warranted for a period of 1 year. If either the City or the Permittee shall at any time after installation of the Facilities plan to make excavations in areas covered by this Permit and as described in this Section, the party planning such excavation shall afford the other, upon receipt of written request to do so, an opportunity to share such an excavation. PROVIDED THAT: A. Such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the party causing the excavation to be made or unreasonably increase its costs; B. Such joint use shall be arranged and accomplished on terms and conditions satisfactory to both parties; and Packet Page 131 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 7 C. Either party may deny such request for safety reasons or if their respective uses of the trench are incompatible. D. Such joint use shall not necessarily interfere with operation of the communication facility. The joint use provisions of this Section shall apply only to joint use by the City and the Permittee. Nothing in this Section is intended to require the Permittee to afford other similar users the opportunity to share the Permittee’s excavations. Section 10. Restoration after Construction. The Permittee shall, after installation, construction, relocation, maintenance, removal, or repair of its communication Facilities within the Public Ways, restore the surface of said Public Ways and any other City-owned property which may be disturbed by the work, to at least the same condition the public way or City-owned property was in immediately prior to any such installation, construction, relocation, maintenance, or repair, reasonable wear and tear excepted. The Development Services Department shall have final approval of the condition of such Public Ways and City-owned property after restoration, all in accordance with the Edmonds City Code and Public Works Construction standards. All survey monuments which are to be disturbed or displaced by such work shall be referenced and restored, as per WAC 332-120, as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended, and all pertinent federal, state and local standards and specifications. The Permittee agrees to promptly complete all restoration work and to promptly repair any damage caused by such work to the Public Ways or other affected area at its sole cost and expense according to the time and terms specified in the Construction Right-of-Way Use Permit issued by the City all in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Edmonds City Code, as the same now exists or as it may hereafter be amended or superseded. All work and restoration by the Permittee pursuant to this Section shall be performed in accord with City of Edmonds Public Works Construction standards and warranted for a period of 1 years. Section 11. Emergency Work – Right-of-Way Use Permit Waiver. In the event of any emergency in which any of the Permittee’s communication Facilities located in, above, or under any public way breaks, are damaged, ceases to provide service, or if the Permittee’s construction area is otherwise in such a condition as to immediately endanger the property, life, health, or safety of any individual, the Permittee shall immediately take the proper emergency measures to repair its Facilities, to cure or remedy the dangerous conditions for the protection of property, life, health, or safety of individuals without first applying for and obtaining a Right-of-Way Use Permit as required by this Right-of-Way Use Permit. However, this shall not relieve the Right- of-Way Use Permittee from the requirement of notifying the City of the emergency work and obtaining any Right-of-Way Use Permits necessary for this purpose after the emergency work. The Right-of-Way Use Permittee shall notify the City by telephone immediately upon learning of the emergency and shall apply for all required Right-of-Way Use Permits not later than the second succeeding day during which the Edmonds City Hall is open for business. Packet Page 132 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 8 Section 12. Dangerous Conditions, Authority for City to Abate. Whenever construction, installation, or excavation of the communication Facilities authorized by this Right-of-Way Use Permit has caused or contributed to a condition that appears to substantially impair the lateral support of the adjoining public way, street, or public place, or endangers the public, street utilities, or City-owned property, the Public Works Director may reasonably require the Permittee, at the Permittee’s own expense, to take action to protect the public, adjacent public places, City-owned property, streets, utilities, and Public Ways. Such action may include compliance within a prescribed time. In the event that the Permittee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public, the adjacent streets, utilities, Public Ways, to maintain the lateral support thereof, or actions regarded as necessary safety precautions; and the Permittee shall be liable to the City for the reasonable costs thereof. Section 13. Recovery of Costs. The Permittee shall be subject to all Right-of-Way Use Permit fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this Right-of- Way Use Permit or under the laws of the City. Where the City incurs costs and expenses for review, inspection, or supervision of activities undertaken through the authority granted in this Right-of-Way Use Permit or any ordinances relating to the subject for which a Right-of-Way Use Permit fee is not established, the Permittee shall reimburse the City directly for any and all reasonable costs, after receipt of an itemized bill. In addition to the above, the Permittee shall promptly reimburse the City for any and all reasonable costs the City incurs in response to any emergency involving the Permittee’s communication Facilities, after receipt of an itemized bill. The time of City employees shall be charged at their respective rate of salary, including overtime if applicable, plus benefits and an overhead charge of six percent (6%) of salary. All billings will be itemized as to specifically identify the costs and expenses for each project for which the City claims reimbursement. The billing may be on an annual basis, but the City shall provide the Right-of-Way Use Permit with the City’s itemization of costs at the conclusion of each project for information purposes. Section 14. Compensation for Use of the Right-of-Way. A. In consideration for the use of the Right-of-Way, Permittee shall commit to providing an annual site-specific charge under RCW 35.21.860(1)(e) for each Facility approved in the future by a Right-of-Way Use Permit. The amount of the annual payment for any partial year (prorated) and for future calendar years and thereafter shall be as follows: 1. Separate support structure (such as monopole or lattice tower) erected solely for wireless antennas, equipment cabinets are in the Right-of-Way, annual payment is Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000). Packet Page 133 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 9 2. Antennas placed on an existing structure or replacement of an existing structure, equipment cabinets are in the Right-of-Way, annual compensation is Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000). 3. Antennas placed on an existing structure owned by the City or replacement of an existing structure, equipment cabinets are not within the Right-of-Way, annual compensation is Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000). B. For the purposes of this section, "existing support structures" mean existing utility poles, light poles or other approved structures that exist in the Right-of-Way that can be used to support wireless antennas. C. For the purpose of this section, "replacement poles" mean replacing an existing support structure with a like structure that is either taller and/or stronger than the existing structure for purposes of placement of wireless antennas. D. The compensation provided for in Subsection A shall be adjusted annually each year of the first ten year term by an increase of five (5) percent. The parties shall meet in the tenth year to readjust the provisions of this section and Section 17 Insurance to establish levels of compensation, annual adjustments thereto and insurance consistent with that charged by comparable jurisdictions. E. In the event that the Facilities of the Permittee are out of service due to a relocation under the provisions of Section 7 for the convenience of the City, a credit equal to the prorated value of the time the Facility or Facilities are out of service shall be given on the next years compensation. F. In addition, the Permittee shall pay an amount to the City equal to the Washington States Leasehold tax applicable to a site specific charge levied under subsections A (1), (2), or (3) above. The Leasehold tax shall not apply to the administrative fee charge under Section 15 below. Section 15. Grant Fee. As additional consideration for the right and privileges granted hereunder, the Permittee agrees to pay, at the time of acceptance of this Right-of-Way Use Permit, a one time grant fee of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) to defray the City’s legal and administrative costs and expenses associated with negotiating and approving this Right-of-Way Use Permit, provided that such expenses shall not be included in the reimbursement provisions set forth in Section 14 of this Right-of-Way Use Permit. Section 16. Indemnification and Waiver. A. Permittee hereby releases, covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person arising from injury, sickness, or death of any person or damage to property: Packet Page 134 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 10 1. For which the negligent acts or omissions of Permittee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by this Right-of-Way Use Permit are the proximate cause; 2. By virtue of the Permittee’s exercise of the rights granted herein; 3. By virtue of the City’s permitting Permittee’s use of the City’s Public Ways or other public property; 4. Based on the City’s inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by Permittee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized on the Public Ways or property over which the City has control pursuant to this Right-of-Way Use Permit or pursuant to any other Right-of-Way Use Permit or approval issued in connection with this Right-of-Way Use Permit; 5. Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Permittee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction, or work upon the Public Ways, in any public way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under this Right-of-Way Use Permit. B. The provisions of Subsection A of this Section shall apply to claims by Permittee’s own employees and the employees of the Permittee’s agents, representatives, contractors, and subcontractors to which Permittee might otherwise be immune under Title 51 RCW. This waiver of immunity under Title 51 RCW has been mutually negotiated by the parties hereto, and Permittee acknowledges that the City would not enter into this Right-of-Way Use Permit without Permittee’s waiver thereof C. Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by the Permittee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided that Permittee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised with Permittee’s consent prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim, and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such claim, provided that Permittee shall not be liable for such settlement or other compromise unless it has consented thereto. D. In the event that Permittee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this Section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to the matter), to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of the Permittee, then Permittee shall pay all Packet Page 135 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 11 of the City’s costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorney’s fees , the reasonable costs of the City, and reasonable fees of recovering under this Subsection. E. The obligations of Permittee under the indemnification provisions of this Section shall apply regardless of whether liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property were caused or contributed to by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors except to the extent that such claims, actions, damages, costs, expenses, and attorneys fees were caused by the negligence or any willful or malicious action on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that this Right-of-Way Use Permit is subject to the provisions RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided therein. F. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, Permittee assumes the risk of damage to its communication Facilities located in the Public Ways and upon City-owned property from such activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the negligence or any willful or malicious action on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Permittee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Permittee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of Permittee’s Facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Permittee’s Facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Section 17. Insurance. The Permittee shall procure and maintain insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to the Permittee, its agents, representatives or employees. The Permittee shall provide to the City an insurance certificate naming the City as an additional insured for its inspection prior to the commencement of any work or installation of any Facilities pursuant to this Right-of-Way Use Permit. Such insurance certificate shall evidence: A. Comprehensive general liability insurance, written on an occurrence basis, including contractual liability coverage, with limits not less than: (1) $3,000,000.00 for bodily injury or death to each person; and (2) $3,000,000.00 for property damage resulting from any one accident. Packet Page 136 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 12 B. Automobile liability for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles with a limit of $3,000,000.00 for each person and $3,000,000.00 for each accident. C. Worker’s compensation within statutory limits and employer’s liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00. The liability insurance policies required by this Section shall be maintained by the Permittee throughout the term of this Right-of-Way Use Permit, and such other period of time during which the Permittee is operating without a Right-of-Way Use Permit hereunder, or is engaged in the removal of its Communication System. Payment of deductibles and self-insured retentions shall be the sole responsibility of the Permittee. The insurance certificate required by this Section shall contain a clause stating that the coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability. The Permittee’s insurance shall be primary insurance with respect to the City. Any insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, consultants, agents, and volunteers shall be in excess of the Permittee’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. In addition to the coverage requirements set forth in this Section, the insurance certificate required by this Section shall contain language which provides that the policy may not be canceled, reduced in coverage, nor the intention not to renew be stated until at least 30 days after receipt by the City of written notice of the same via U.S. mail. Within 15 days after receipt by the City of said notice, and in no event later than 5 days prior to said cancellation or non- renewal, the shall obtain and furnish to the City replacement insurance certificate(s) meeting the requirements of this Section Section 18. Abandonment and Removal of the Permittee’s Communication Facilities. Upon the expiration, termination, or revocation of the rights granted under this Right-of-Way Use Permit, the Permittee shall remove all of its communications Facilities from the Public Ways of the City within 90 days of receiving notice from the Community Services Public Works Director. Provided, however, that the City may permit the Permittee’s improvements to be abandoned and replaced in such a manner as the parties shall agree, subsequent always to the City’s standard construction requirements for Right-of-Way use. Upon permanent abandonment, and Permittee’s agreement to transfer ownership of the communication Facilities to the City, the Permittee shall submit to the City a proposal and instruments for transferring ownership to the City. Any such Facilities which are not permitted to be abandoned in place which are not removed within ninety (90) days of receipt of said notice shall automatically become the property of the City. Provided, however, that nothing contained within this Section shall prevent the City from compelling the Permittee to remove any such Facilities through judicial action when the City has not permitted the Permittee to abandon said Facilities in place. Section 19. Construction Bond. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this Right-of-Way Use Permit, the Permittee shall furnish a street repair or sidewalk bond written by a corporate Packet Page 137 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 13 surety acceptable to the City equal to at least 125% of the estimated cost of restoring the Public Ways of the City to the pre-construction condition required by Section 11 of this Right-of-Way Use Permit. Said bond shall be required to remain full force until 60 days after completion of the construction of Permittee's communication Facilities and other improvements from the Public Ways of the City, and said bond, or separate bond acceptable to the City, shall warrant all such restoration work for a period of two years. In the event that a bond issued to meet the requirements of this Section is canceled by the surety, after proper notice and pursuant to the terms of said bond, Permittee shall, prior to expiration of said bond, be responsible for obtaining a replacement bond which complies with the terms of this Section. Section 20. Modification. The City and the Permittee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this Right-of-Way Use Permit upon the written agreement of both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification. Said modifications shall be approved by the City by ordinance and accepted by the Permittee consistent with Section 32 hereof. Section 21. Forfeiture and Revocation. If the Permittee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the material provisions of this Right-of-Way Use Permit, or through willful misconduct or gross negligence fails to heed or comply with any notice given the Right-of-Way Use Permittee by the City under the provisions of this Right-of-Way Use Permit, then the Permittee shall, at the election of the City Council, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this Right-of-Way Use Permit may be revoked, terminated or annulled by the City Council after a hearing held upon reasonable written notice to Permittee. The City Council may decide, after consideration of the reasons for the Permittee’s failure to comply with the Right-of-Way Use Permit, to allow the Permittee additional time to cure before such termination or revocation. The City may elect, in lieu of the above, and without prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the superior court having jurisdiction compelling the Permittee to comply with the provisions of this Right-of-Way Use Permit and to recover reasonable and documented damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of the Permittee’s failure to comply. Section 22. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City’s ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this Right-of-Way Use Permit, including any valid ordinance made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the locations, elevation, manner or construction and maintenance of any Facilities by the Permittee, and the Permittee shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause the Permittee to violate other requirements of the law. Section 23. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions, and requirements of this Right- of-Way Use Permit shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities the Permittee may have to the City at common law, by statute, or by contract. The provisions, conditions, and requirements of Sections 7, Relocation of Communication System; 9, Work in Packet Page 138 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 14 Public Ways; 10, Restoration after Construction; 12, Dangerous Conditions, Authority for City to Abate; 16, Indemnification and Waiver; 17, Insurance; 18, Abandonment and Removal of the Permittee’s Communication Facilities, and 19, Construction Bond, shall survive the expiration or termination of this Right-of-Way Use Permit, and any renewals or extensions thereof and remain effective until such time as the Permittee removes its communication Facilities from the Public Ways, transfers ownership of said Facilities to a third party, or abandons said System in place, all as provided herein. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this Right-of-Way Use Permit shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of the Permittee and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of the Permittee shall inure to its heirs, successors, and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned wherever the Permittee is named herein. Section 24. Severability. In any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Right-of-Way Use Permit should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Right-of-Way Use Permit. Section 25. Assignment. This agreement may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, except that the Permittee may freely assign this Right-of-Way Use Permit in whole or part to a parent, subsidiary, or affiliated corporation or as part of any corporate financing, reorganization or refinancing. In the case of transfer or assignment as security by mortgage or other security instrument in whole or in part to secure indebtedness, such consent shall not be required unless and until the secured party elects to realize upon the collateral. The Permittee shall provide prompt, written notice to the City of any such assignment. Section 26. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given to the parties under this Right-of-Way Use Permit may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified: City: Permittee: City of Edmonds Clearwire US LLC Public Works Director Attn: Site Property Manager 121 5th Avenue N. 5808 Lake Washington Blvd. NE Edmonds, WA 98020 Suite 800 425-771-0235 Kirkland, WA 98033 Fax: 425-744-6057 425-216-7600 Fax: 425-216-7900 Notice shall be deemed given upon receipt in the case of personal delivery, three days after deposit in the United States Mail in the case of regular mail, or the next day in the case of overnight delivery. Packet Page 139 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 15 Section 27. Entire Right-of-Way Use Permit. This Right-of-Way Use Permit constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings, written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon approval and acceptance of this Right-of-Way Use Permit. Section 28. Attorney’s Fees. If any suit or other action is instituted in connection with any controversy arising under this Right-of-Way Use Permit, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all of its costs and expenses including such sum as the court may judge reasonable for attorney’s fees, including fees upon appeal of any judgement or ruling. Section 29. Non-waiver. Failure of the City to declare any such breach or default immediately upon the occurrence thereof, or delay in taking any action in connection therewith, shall not waive such breach or default, but the City shall have the right to declare any such breach or default at any time. Failure of the City to declare one breach or default does not act as a waiver of the City’s right to declare another breach or default. Section 30. Governing Law/Venue. This Right-of-Way Use Permit shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The venue and jurisdiction over any dispute related to this Right-of-Way Use Permit shall be with the Snohomish County Superior Court. Section 31. Acceptance. Within 60 days after the passage and approval of this ordinance, this Right-of-Way Use Permit may be accepted by Permittee by its filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of the Permittee to so accept this Right-of-Way Use Permit within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the 60 day period, absolutely cease and determine, unless the time period is extended by ordinance duly passed for that purpose. Section 32. 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 5 days after the passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 140 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 16 APPROVED AS TO FROM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: By: W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: SIGNED BY THE MAYOR: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: Packet Page 141 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 17 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2006, 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, GRANTING TO CLEARWIRE, LLC A RIGHT-OF-WAY USE PERMIT, TO INSTALL, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN A MONOPOLE AND OTHER FACILITIES WITHIN A CERTAIN DESIGNATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PRESCRIBING CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2006. SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Packet Page 142 of 448 AM-769 2.N. T-Mobile West Corporation Right-of-Way Use Permit Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Linda Klein, Public Works Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:Consent Department:Public Works Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subject Proposed Ordinance granting to T-Mobile West Corporation, a Right-of-Way Use Permit, to install, operate, and maintain communication facilities within a certain designated public right-of-way of the City of Edmonds, Washington, prescribing certain rights, duties, terms, and conditions with respect thereto, and establishing an effective date. Previous Council Action None Narrative Attached is a proposed ordinance entering into a Right-of-Way Use Permit with T-Mobile West Corporation for the use of certain public right-of-way. City Attorney, Scott Snyder, has been working with T-Mobile along with the City Engineer and Public Works Director in negotiating the terms of this agreement. The form of the agreement is substantially the same and compensation is the same as the Council has approved for other wireless carriers. Mr. Snyder requested that this ordinance be placed on the Consent Agenda for approval by the City Council. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: T-Mobile Ordinance Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 03:16 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/15/2006 10:09 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2006 10:13 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Klein Started On: 12/14/2006 02:24 PM Final Approval Date: 12/15/2006 Packet Page 143 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 1 00006.9000000 WSS/gjz 12/04/06 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, GRANTING A RIGHT-OF-WAY USE PERMIT TO T-MOBILE WEST CORPORATION, TO INSTALL, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN COMMUNICATION FACILITIES WITHIN A CERTAIN DESIGNATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PRESCRIBING CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, T-Mobile West Corporation has requested that the City grant it the right to install, operate, and maintain structures and communication facilities within the public ways of the City; and WHEREAS, in the case of a monopole or other facilities such request to has been approved by the Architectural Design Board and hearing examiner when required by City ordinance, and WHEREAS, the City Council has found it desirable for the welfare of the City and its residents that such a Right-of-Way Use Permit be granted to T-Mobile West Corporation ; and WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority under RCW 35A.47.040 to grant Right- of-Way Use Permits and franchises for the use of its streets and other public properties; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to grant the rights requested subject certain terms and Conditions, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Packet Page 144 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 2 Section 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Right-of-Way Use Permit, the following terms, phrases, words, and abbreviations shall have the meanings ascribed to them below. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense, words in the plural number include the singular number and words in the singular number include the plural number. a. “Affiliate” means an entity which owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership with the Permittee. b. City” means the City of Edmonds, Washington. c. “Communication Service” shall mean any telecommunications services, telecommunications capacity, or dark fiber, provided by the Permittee using its Communication System or Facilities, either directly or as a carrier for its subsidiaries, Affiliates, or any other person engaged in Communication Services, including, but not limited to, the transmission of voice, data or other electronic information, facsimile reproduction, burglar alarm monitoring, meter reading and home shopping, or other subsequently developed technology which carries an electronic signal over fiber optic cable. However, Communications Services shall not include the provision of cable television, open video, or similar services, as defined in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, for which a separate franchise would be required. d. “Communication” or “Facilities” shall mean the Permittee’s (or other valid right of way use permit holder’s) facilities and attendant structures constructed and operated within the City’s Public Way, and shall include all cables, wires, conduits, ducts, pedestals, and any associated converter, equipment, or other facilities within the City’s Public Way, designed and constructed for the purpose of providing Communication Service. The terms shall also include such additional facilities as the parties by mutual agreement shall designate in the future and incorporate by written addendum. A general description of the Facilities currently planned by Permittee is set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. e. “FCC” means the Federal Communications Commission, or any successor governmental entity hereto. f. “Permittee” means T-Mobile West Corporation, a Delaware Corporation , or the lawful successor, transferee, or assignee thereof. g. “Person” means an individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, corporation, or governmental entity. h. “Public Way” shall mean the surface of, and any space above or below, any public street, highway, freeway, bridge, path, alley, court, boulevard, sidewalk, parkway, lane, drive circle, or other public right-of-way, including, but not limited to, Packet Page 145 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 3 public utility easements, utility strips, or rights-of-way dedicated for compatible uses and any temporary or permanent fixtures or improvements located thereon now or hereafter held by the City in the Service Area which shall entitle the City and the Permittee the use thereof for the purpose of installing, operating, repairing, and maintaining the Facility. Public Way shall also mean any easement now or hereafter held by the City within the Service Area for the purpose of public travel, or for utility or public service use dedicated for compatible uses, and shall include other easements or rights-of-way as shall within their proper use and meaning entitle the City and the Permittee to the use thereof for the purposes of installing or transmitting the Permittee’s Communication Services over poles, wires, cable, conductors, amplifiers, appliances, attachments, and other property as may be ordinarily necessary and pertinent to the Communication System. Section 2. Authority Granted. The City hereby grants to the Permittee, its heirs, successors, legal representatives, and assigns, subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the right, privilege, and authority to construct, reconstruct, upgrade, operate, maintain, replace, and use all necessary equipment and Facilities thereto for the Permittee’s Communication System. However, the Permittee is only authorized to place its communication Facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along, or below the Public Way of the City described in Exhibit A hereto. Section 3. Construction Right-of-Way Use Permits Required. A. Prior to site-specific location and installation of any portion of its communication Facilities within a public way, the Right-of-Way Use Permittee shall apply for and obtain a Construction Right-of-Way Use Permit pursuant to ECDC Chapter 18.60. B. Unless otherwise provided in said Right-of-Way Use Permit, the Permittee shall give the City at least 48 hours notice of the Permittee’s intent to commence work in the Public Ways. The Permittee shall file plans or maps with the City showing the proposed location of its communication Facilities and pay all duly established Right-of-Way Use Permit and inspection fees associated with the processing of the Right-of-Way Use Permit. In no case shall any work commence within any public way without said Construction Right-of-Way Use Permit, except as otherwise provided in this Right-of-Way Use Permit. Section 4. Grant Limited to Occupation. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to grant or convey any right, title, or interest in the Public Ways of the City to the Permittee, nor shall anything contained herein constitute a warranty of title. Section 5. Term of Right-of-Way Use Permit. The first term of this Right-of-Way Use Permit shall be for a period of ten (10) years from the date of acceptance as set forth in Section 32, unless sooner terminated. This Right-of-Way Use Permit shall automatically renew for one (1) additional ten (10) year term. Provided, however, that either party may notify the other of its desire to renegotiate any of the terms set forth herein or of its desire to add to or delete any such terms not later than 180 days prior to expiration of the initial term hereof or any subsequent Packet Page 146 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 4 renewal terms. If either party makes such a request, this Right-of-Way Use Permit shall not renew unless and until the City and Permittee reach agreement on said modification, addition, and/or deletion, and said agreement is approved by ordinance of the City Council. In the event that agreement cannot be reached, this Right-of-Way Use Permit shall terminate at the end of the then current term. Nothing in this Section prevents the parties from reaching agreement on renewal earlier than the time periods indicated. In addition, the Permittee may, upon ninety days notice terminate the Right of Way Use Permit with no further obligation, except as specifically set forth herein, beyond the lease payment for the then current calendar year. Section 6. Non-Exclusive Grant. This Right-of-Way Use Permit shall not in any manner prevent the City from entering into other similar agreements or granting other or further Right- of-Way Use Permits or franchise in, under, on, across, over, through, along or below any of said Public Ways of the City. However, the City shall not permit any such future Permittee or Franchisee to physically interfere with the Permittee’s communication Facilities. In the event that such physical interference or disruption occurs, the Public Works Director may assist the Permittee and such subsequent Permittee or Franchisee in resolving the dispute. Further, this Right-of-Way Use Permit shall in no way prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its Public Ways or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them, and the City shall retain power to make all necessary changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishment, improvement, dedication of the same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new Public Ways, and in compliance with Section 7, below. Section 7. Relocation of Communication Facility. A. The Permittee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate, or remove from any public way any portion of its communication Facilities when so required by the Public Works Director by reason of traffic conditions, public safety, dedications of new Public Ways and the establishment and improvement thereof, widening and improvement of existing Public Ways, street vacations, freeway construction, change or establishment of street grade, or the construction of any public improvement or structure by any governmental agency acting in a governmental capacity; provided that the Permittee shall in all cases have the privilege to temporarily relocate, in the authorized portion of the same or similar public way upon approval by the Public Works Director, any section of cable or any other facility required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. Upon the reasonable request of the Public Works Director and in order to facilitate the design of City street and right-of-way improvements, the Permittee agrees to, at its sole cost and expense, locate, and if reasonably determined necessary by the City, to excavate and expose portions of its communication Facilities for inspection so that the location of same may be taken into account in the improvement design, PROVIDED that, Permittee shall not be required to excavate and expose it’s Facilities unless the Permittee’s as-built plans and maps of it’s Facilities submitted pursuant to Section 9 of this Right-of-Way Use Permit are reasonably determined by Packet Page 147 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 5 the Public Works Director to be inadequate for purposes of this paragraph. The decision to relocate said Facilities in order to accommodate the City’s improvements shall be made by the Community Services Director upon review of the location and construction of the Permittee’s Facilities. If the Public Works Director determines that the project necessitates the relocation of the Permittee’s then existing Facilities, the City shall: 1. Within a reasonable time, which shall be no less than 30 days, prior to the commencement of such improvement project, provide the Permittee with written notice requiring such relocation. In the event that such relocation requires land use approvals by the City, such notice period shall be extended by an additional 90 days. Provided, however, that in the event an emergency posing a threat to public safety, health or welfare, or in the event of an emergency beyond the control of the City and which will result in severe financial consequences to the City, the City shall give the Permittee written notice as soon as practicable; and 2. Provide the Permittee with copies of information for such improvement project and a proposed location for the Permittee’s Facilities so that the Permittee may relocate its Facilities in other Public Ways in order to accommodate such improvement project. 3. The Permittee shall complete relocation of its Facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project at least 10 days prior to commencement of the project. In the event of an emergency as described herein, the Permittee shall relocate its Facilities within the time period specified by the Community Services Director. The Permittee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its Facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise the Permittee in writing if one or more of the alternatives is suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the Facilities. If so requested by the City, the Permittee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by the Permittee full and fair consideration, within a reasonable time, so as to allow for the relocation work to be performed in a timely manner. In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, the Permittee shall relocate its Facilities as otherwise provided in this Section. The provisions of this Section shall in no manner preclude or restrict the Permittee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its Facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the Facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City-owned, operated or maintained Facilities provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. Packet Page 148 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 6 B. Except as provided in Section 16(E), the Permittee will indemnify, hold harmless, and pay the costs of defending the City against any and all claims, suits, actions, damages, or liabilities for delays on City construction projects caused by or arising out of the failure of the Permittee to relocate its Facilities in a timely manner; provided, that the Permittee shall not be responsible for damages due to delays caused by the City or circumstances beyond the control of the Permittee. C. The parties understand that the relocation of Facilities placed in the right-of-way is partially governed by Chapter 35.99 RCW, and to the extent that the provisions of this section are not in compliance with the terms of Chapter 35.99 RCW (or successor statute), the provisions of the statute shall control and the terms of this section shall be amended to be in conformance thereto. Section 8. The Permittee’s Maps and Records. After construction is complete, the Permittee shall provide the City with accurate copies of all as-built plans and maps in a form and content prescribed by the Public Works Director. These plans shall be provided at no cost to the City, and shall include hard copies and digital copies in a format specified by the Public Works Director. Section 9. Work in Public Ways. During any period of relocation, construction, or maintenance, all surface structures, if any, shall be erected and used in such places and positions within said Public Ways and other public properties so as to interfere as little as possible with the free passage of traffic and the free use of adjoining property. The Permittee shall at all times post and maintain proper barricades and comply with all applicable safety regulations during such period of construction as required by the ordinances of the City or the laws of the State of Washington, including RCW 39.04.180 for the construction of trench safety systems. During the progress of the work, the Permittee shall not unnecessarily obstruct the passage of proper use of the Public Ways, and all work by the Permittee in the area covered by this Permit and as described in this Section shall be performed in accordance with City of Edmonds Public Works Construction Standards and warranted for a period of 1 year. If either the City or the Permittee shall at any time after installation of the Facilities plan to make excavations in areas covered by this Permit and as described in this Section, the party planning such excavation shall afford the other, upon receipt of written request to do so, an opportunity to share such an excavation. PROVIDED THAT: A. Such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the party causing the excavation to be made or unreasonably increase its costs; B. Such joint use shall be arranged and accomplished on terms and conditions satisfactory to both parties; and Packet Page 149 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 7 C. Either party may deny such request for safety reasons or if their respective uses of the trench are incompatible. D. Such joint use shall not necessarily interfere with operation of the communication facility. The joint use provisions of this Section shall apply only to joint use by the City and the Permittee. Nothing in this Section is intended to require the Permittee to afford other similar users the opportunity to share the Permittee’s excavations. Section 10. Restoration after Construction. The Permittee shall, after installation, construction, relocation, maintenance, removal, or repair of its communication Facilities within the Public Ways, restore the surface of said Public Ways and any other City-owned property which may be disturbed by the work, to at least the same condition the public way or City-owned property was in immediately prior to any such installation, construction, relocation, maintenance, or repair, reasonable wear and tear excepted. The Development Services Department shall have final approval of the condition of such Public Ways and City-owned property after restoration, all in accordance with the Edmonds City Code and Public Works Construction standards. All survey monuments which are to be disturbed or displaced by such work shall be referenced and restored, as per WAC 332-120, as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended, and all pertinent federal, state and local standards and specifications. The Permittee agrees to promptly complete all restoration work and to promptly repair any damage caused by such work to the Public Ways or other affected area at its sole cost and expense according to the time and terms specified in the Construction Right-of-Way Use Permit issued by the City all in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Edmonds City Code, as the same now exists or as it may hereafter be amended or superseded. All work and restoration by the Permittee pursuant to this Section shall be performed in accord with City of Edmonds Public Works Construction standards and warranted for a period of 1 years. Section 11. Emergency Work – Right-of-Way Use Permit Waiver. In the event of any emergency in which any of the Permittee’s communication Facilities located in, above, or under any public way breaks, are damaged, ceases to provide service, or if the Permittee’s construction area is otherwise in such a condition as to immediately endanger the property, life, health, or safety of any individual, the Permittee shall immediately take the proper emergency measures to repair its Facilities, to cure or remedy the dangerous conditions for the protection of property, life, health, or safety of individuals without first applying for and obtaining a Right-of-Way Use Permit as required by this Right-of-Way Use Permit. However, this shall not relieve the Right- of-Way Use Permittee from the requirement of notifying the City of the emergency work and obtaining any Right-of-Way Use Permits necessary for this purpose after the emergency work. The Right-of-Way Use Permittee shall notify the City by telephone immediately upon learning of the emergency and shall apply for all required Right-of-Way Use Permits not later than the second succeeding day during which the Edmonds City Hall is open for business. Packet Page 150 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 8 Section 12. Dangerous Conditions, Authority for City to Abate. Whenever construction, installation, or excavation of the communication Facilities authorized by this Right-of-Way Use Permit has caused or contributed to a condition that appears to substantially impair the lateral support of the adjoining public way, street, or public place, or endangers the public, street utilities, or City-owned property, the Public Works Director may reasonably require the Permittee, at the Permittee’s own expense, to take action to protect the public, adjacent public places, City-owned property, streets, utilities, and Public Ways. Such action may include compliance within a prescribed time. In the event that the Permittee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public, the adjacent streets, utilities, Public Ways, to maintain the lateral support thereof, or actions regarded as necessary safety precautions; and the Permittee shall be liable to the City for the reasonable costs thereof. Section 13. Recovery of Costs. The Permittee shall be subject to all Right-of-Way Use Permit fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this Right-of- Way Use Permit or under the laws of the City. Where the City incurs costs and expenses for review, inspection, or supervision of activities undertaken through the authority granted in this Right-of-Way Use Permit or any ordinances relating to the subject for which a Right-of-Way Use Permit fee is not established, the Permittee shall reimburse the City directly for any and all reasonable costs, after receipt of an itemized bill. In addition to the above, the Permittee shall promptly reimburse the City for any and all reasonable costs the City incurs in response to any emergency involving the Permittee’s communication Facilities, after receipt of an itemized bill. The time of City employees shall be charged at their respective rate of salary, including overtime if applicable, plus benefits and an overhead charge of six percent (6%) of salary. All billings will be itemized as to specifically identify the costs and expenses for each project for which the City claims reimbursement. The billing may be on an annual basis, but the City shall provide the Right-of-Way Use Permit with the City’s itemization of costs at the conclusion of each project for information purposes. Section 14. Annual Compensation for Use of the Right-of-way. A. In consideration for the use of the Right-of-Way, Permittee shall commit to providing an annual payment for each approved Facility shown on Exhibit A. The amount of the annual payment for the partial year (prorated) and for future calendar years shall be as follows: 1. Separate support structure (such as monopole or lattice tower) erected solely for wireless antennas, equipment cabinets are in the Right-of-Way, annual payment is Five-thousand dollars ($5,000). 2. Antennas placed on an existing structure or replacement of an existing Packet Page 151 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 9 structure, equipment cabinets are in the Right-of-Way, annual payment is Three-thousand dollars ($3,000). 3. Antennas placed on an existing structure or replacement of an existing structure, equipment cabinets are not within the Right-of-Way, annual compensation is Two- thousand dollars ($2,000). Four said payments shall be made as follows: the first prorated payment prior to proceeding with pole attachments and annual payments thereafter on or before January 15th of each year. B. For the purposes of this section, "existing support structures" mean existing utility poles, light poles or other approved structures that exist in the Right-of-Way that can be used to support wireless antennas. C. For the purpose of this section, "replacement poles" mean replacing an existing support structure with a like structure that is either taller and/or stronger than the existing structure for purposes of placement of wireless antennas. D. The compensation provided for in Subsection A shall be adjusted annually each year of the first ten year term by an increase of five (5) percent. The parties shall meet in the tenth year to readjust the provisions of this section and Section 17 Insurance to establish levels of compensation, annual adjustments thereto and insurance consistent with that charged by comparable jurisdictions. E. In the event that the Facilities of the Permittee are out of service due to a relocation under the provisions of Section 7 for the convenience of the City, a credit equal to the prorated value of the time the Facility or Facilities are out of service shall be given on the next years compensation. F. In addition, the Permittee shall pay an amount to the City equal to the Washington State Leasehold tax applicable to a site specific charge levied under subsections A(1), (2) or (3) above. The Leasehold tax shall not apply to the administrative fee charged under Section 15 below. Section 15. Grant Fee. As additional consideration for the right and privileges granted hereunder, the Permittee agrees to pay, at the time of acceptance of this Right-of-Way Use Permit, a one time grant fee of One-thousand dollars ($1,000) to defray the City’s legal and administrative costs and expenses associated with negotiating and approving this Right-of-Way Use Permit, provided that such expenses shall not be included in the reimbursement provisions set forth in Section 14 of this Right-of-Way Use Permit. Section 16. Indemnification and Waiver. A. Permittee hereby releases, covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person arising from injury, sickness, or death of any person or damage to property: Packet Page 152 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 10 1. For which the negligent acts or omissions of Permittee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by this Right-of-Way Use Permit are the proximate cause; 2. By virtue of the Permittee’s exercise of the rights granted herein; 3. By virtue of the City’s permitting Permittee’s use of the City’s Public Ways or other public property; 4. Based on the City’s inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by Permittee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized on the Public Ways or property over which the City has control pursuant to this Right-of-Way Use Permit or pursuant to any other Right-of-Way Use Permit or approval issued in connection with this Right-of-Way Use Permit; 5. Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Permittee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction, or work upon the Public Ways, in any public way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under this Right-of-Way Use Permit. B. The provisions of Subsection A of this Section shall apply to claims by Permittee’s own employees and the employees of the Permittee’s agents, representatives, contractors, and subcontractors to which Permittee might otherwise be immune under Title 51 RCW. This waiver of immunity under Title 51 RCW has been mutually negotiated by the parties hereto, and Permittee acknowledges that the City would not enter into this Right-of-Way Use Permit without Permittee’s waiver thereof C. Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by the Permittee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided that Permittee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised with Permittee’s consent prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim, and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such claim, provided that Permittee shall not be liable for such settlement or other compromise unless it has consented thereto. D. In the event that Permittee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this Section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to the matter), to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of the Permittee, then Permittee shall pay all Packet Page 153 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 11 of the City’s costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorney’s fees , the reasonable costs of the City, and reasonable fees of recovering under this Subsection. E. The obligations of Permittee under the indemnification provisions of this Section shall apply regardless of whether liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property were caused or contributed to by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors except to the extent that such claims, actions, damages, costs, expenses, and attorneys fees were caused by the negligence or any willful or malicious action on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that this Right-of-Way Use Permit is subject to the provisions RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided therein. F. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, Permittee assumes the risk of damage to its communication Facilities located in the Public Ways and upon City-owned property from such activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the negligence or any willful or malicious action on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Permittee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Permittee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of Permittee’s Facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Permittee’s Facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Section 17. Insurance. The Permittee shall procure and maintain insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to the Permittee, its agents, representatives or employees. The Permittee shall provide to the City an insurance certificate naming the City as an additional insured for its inspection prior to the commencement of any work or installation of any Facilities pursuant to this Right-of-Way Use Permit. Such insurance certificate shall evidence: A. Comprehensive general liability insurance, written on an occurrence basis, including contractual liability coverage, with limits not less than: (1) $3,000,000.00 for bodily injury or death to each person; and (2) $3,000,000.00 for property damage resulting from any one accident. Packet Page 154 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 12 B. Automobile liability for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles with a limit of $3,000,000.00 for each person and $3,000,000.00 for each accident. C. Worker’s compensation within statutory limits and employer’s liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00. The liability insurance policies required by this Section shall be maintained by the Permittee throughout the term of this Right-of-Way Use Permit, and such other period of time during which the Permittee is operating without a Right-of-Way Use Permit hereunder, or is engaged in the removal of its Communication System. Payment of deductibles and self-insured retentions shall be the sole responsibility of the Permittee. The insurance certificate required by this Section shall contain a clause stating that the coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability. The Permittee’s insurance shall be primary insurance with respect to the City. Any insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, consultants, agents, and volunteers shall be in excess of the Permittee’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. In addition to the coverage requirements set forth in this Section, the insurance certificate required by this Section shall contain language which provides that the policy may not be canceled, reduced in coverage, nor the intention not to renew be stated until at least 30 days after receipt by the City of written notice of the same via U.S. mail. Within 15 days after receipt by the City of said notice, and in no event later than 5 days prior to said cancellation or non- renewal, the shall obtain and furnish to the City replacement insurance certificate(s) meeting the requirements of this Section Section 18. Abandonment and Removal of the Permittee’s Communication Facilities. Upon the expiration, termination, or revocation of the rights granted under this Right-of-Way Use Permit, the Permittee shall remove all of its communications Facilities from the Public Ways of the City within 90 days of receiving notice from the Public Works Director. Provided, however, that the City may permit the Permittee’s improvements to be abandoned and replaced in such a manner as the parties shall agree, subsequent always to the City’s standard construction requirements for Right-of-Way use. Upon permanent abandonment, and Permittee’s agreement to transfer ownership of the communication Facilities to the City, the Permittee shall submit to the City a proposal and instruments for transferring ownership to the City. Any such Facilities which are not permitted to be abandoned in place which are not removed within ninety (90) days of receipt of said notice shall automatically become the property of the City. Provided, however, that nothing contained within this Section shall prevent the City from compelling the Permittee to remove any such Facilities through judicial action when the City has not permitted the Permittee to abandon said Facilities in place. Section 19. Construction Bond. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this Right-of-Way Use Permit, the Permittee shall furnish a street repair or sidewalk bond written by a corporate Packet Page 155 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 13 surety acceptable to the City equal to at least 125% of the estimated cost of restoring the Public Ways of the City to the pre-construction condition required by Section 11 of this Right-of-Way Use Permit. Said bond shall be required to remain full force until 60 days after completion of the construction of Permittee's communication Facilities and other improvements from the Public Ways of the City, and said bond, or separate bond acceptable to the City, shall warrant all such restoration work for a period of two years. In the event that a bond issued to meet the requirements of this Section is canceled by the surety, after proper notice and pursuant to the terms of said bond, Permittee shall, prior to expiration of said bond, be responsible for obtaining a replacement bond which complies with the terms of this Section. Section 20. Modification. The City and the Permittee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this Right-of-Way Use Permit upon the written agreement of both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification. Said modifications shall be approved by the City by ordinance and accepted by the Permittee consistent with Section 32 hereof. Section 21. Forfeiture and Revocation. If the Permittee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the material provisions of this Right-of-Way Use Permit, or through willful misconduct or gross negligence fails to heed or comply with any notice given the Right-of-Way Use Permittee by the City under the provisions of this Right-of-Way Use Permit, then the Permittee shall, at the election of the City Council, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this Right-of-Way Use Permit may be revoked, terminated or annulled by the City Council after a hearing held upon reasonable written notice to Permittee. The City Council may decide, after consideration of the reasons for the Permittee’s failure to comply with the Right-of-Way Use Permit, to allow the Permittee additional time to cure before such termination or revocation. The City may elect, in lieu of the above, and without prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the superior court having jurisdiction compelling the Permittee to comply with the provisions of this Right-of-Way Use Permit and to recover reasonable and documented damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of the Permittee’s failure to comply. Section 22. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City’s ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this Right-of-Way Use Permit, including any valid ordinance made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the locations, elevation, manner or construction and maintenance of any Facilities by the Permittee, and the Permittee shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause the Permittee to violate other requirements of the law. Section 23. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions, and requirements of this Right- of-Way Use Permit shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities the Permittee may have to the City at common law, by statute, or by contract. The provisions, conditions, and requirements of Sections 7, Relocation of Communication System; 9, Work in Packet Page 156 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 14 Public Ways; 10, Restoration after Construction; 12, Dangerous Conditions, Authority for City to Abate; 16, Indemnification and Waiver; 17, Insurance; 18, Abandonment and Removal of the Permittee’s Communication Facilities, and 19, Construction Bond, shall survive the expiration or termination of this Right-of-Way Use Permit, and any renewals or extensions thereof and remain effective until such time as the Permittee removes its communication Facilities from the Public Ways, transfers ownership of said Facilities to a third party, or abandons said System in place, all as provided herein. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this Right-of-Way Use Permit shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of the Permittee and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of the Permittee shall inure to its heirs, successors, and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned wherever the Permittee is named herein. Section 24. Severability. In any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Right-of-Way Use Permit should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Right-of-Way Use Permit. Section 25. Assignment. This agreement may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, except that the Permittee may freely assign this Right-of-Way Use Permit in whole or part to a parent, subsidiary, or affiliated corporation or as part of any corporate financing, reorganization or refinancing. In the case of transfer or assignment as security by mortgage or other security instrument in whole or in part to secure indebtedness, such consent shall not be required unless and until the secured party elects to realize upon the collateral. The Permittee shall provide prompt, written notice to the City of any such assignment. Section 26. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given to the parties under this Right-of-Way Use Permit may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified: City: Permittee: City of Edmonds T-Mobile West Corporation Public Works Director 19807 North Creek Parkway North 121 5th Avenue N. Bothell, WA 98011 Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Lease Administration 425-771-0235 cc: T-Mobile West Corporation Fax: 425-744-6057 129 SE 38th Street Bellevue, WA 980026 Attn: PCS Lease Administration Notice shall be deemed given upon receipt in the case of personal delivery, three days after deposit in the United States Mail in the case of regular mail, or the next day in the case of overnight delivery. Packet Page 157 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 15 Section 27. Entire Right-of-Way Use Permit. This Right-of-Way Use Permit constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings, written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon approval and acceptance of this Right-of-Way Use Permit. Section 28. Attorney’s Fees. If any suit or other action is instituted in connection with any controversy arising under this Right-of-Way Use Permit, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all of its costs and expenses including such sum as the court may judge reasonable for attorney’s fees, including fees upon appeal of any judgement or ruling. Section 29. Non-waiver. Failure of the City to declare any such breach or default immediately upon the occurrence thereof, or delay in taking any action in connection therewith, shall not waive such breach or default, but the City shall have the right to declare any such breach or default at any time. Failure of the City to declare one breach or default does not act as a waiver of the City’s right to declare another breach or default. Section 30. Governing Law/Venue. This Right-of-Way Use Permit shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The venue and jurisdiction over any dispute related to this Right-of-Way Use Permit shall be with the Snohomish County Superior Court. Section 31. Acceptance. Within 60 days after the passage and approval of this ordinance, this Right-of-Way Use Permit may be accepted by Permittee by its filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of the Permittee to so accept this Right-of-Way Use Permit within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the 60 day period, absolutely cease and determine, unless the time period is extended by ordinance duly passed for that purpose. Section 32. 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 5 days after the passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 158 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 16 APPROVED AS TO FROM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: By: W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: SIGNED BY THE MAYOR: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: Packet Page 159 of 448 {WSS647105.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 17 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2006, 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, GRANTING A RIGHT-OF-WAY USE PERMIT, TO INSTALL, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN A __________________ WITHIN A CERTAIN DESIGNATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PRESCRIBING CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2006. SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Packet Page 160 of 448 AM-741 2.O. Utility Tax Rate Increase Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Kathleen Junglov, Administrative Services Time:Consent Department:Administrative Services Type:Action Review Committee:Finance Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subject Proposed Ordinance - Utility Tax Rate Increase. Previous Council Action Finance Committee 12/05/06. Passage of 2007-2008 Budget. Narrative The 2007-2008 budget presented to Council on October 17, 2006 and approved by Council on November 21, 2006 included a utility tax increase from an average rate of 5.75% to the 6% statuatory maximum. Additional information as to the estimated annual impact was provided to Councilmembers in an email dated October 19, 2006. The attached Ordinance formally enacts the tax rate increase. Recommendation Approve attached Ordinance. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Utility Tax Rate Increase Ordinance Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Dan Clements 12/06/2006 01:09 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/12/2006 02:30 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/12/2006 02:37 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/12/2006 02:54 PM APRV Form Started By: Kathleen Junglov Started On: 12/06/2006 09:39 AM Final Approval Date: 12/12/2006 Packet Page 161 of 448 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 3.20.050 TO SET OCCUPATION TAX ON TELEPHONE, WATER, GAS, AND CABLE TELEVISION AT SIX PERCENT, AND TO ADD A NEW SECTION IMPOSING OCCUPATION TAX OF SIX PERCENT ON THE GROSS INCOME OF THE CITY’S STORM WATER UTILITY, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 7.30.030 TO REMOVE REFERENCE TO WATER CONSUMPTION SURCHARGE, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City’s occupation tax for cable television service, telephone service, water service and gas service is less than six percent; and WHEREAS, the City Council has passed the City’s budget for fiscal years 2007 and 2008; and WHEREAS, said budget includes a new occupation tax on storm water and uniformly establishes occupation tax on utilities at six percent; WHEREAS, reference to water consumption surcharge in ECC 7.30.030 is no longer necessary in light of provisions in ECC 3.20.050 relating to water utility tax; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subsections B, C, D, E and H of Edmonds City Code Section 3.20.050, Occupation Subject to Tax - Amounts. are hereby amended to read as follows: L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0030_741_Utility Tax Increase Ord.DOC - 1 - Packet Page 162 of 448 3.20.050 Occupation Subject to Tax - Amounts. Sellers of electricity, gas, water, sewer, cable television and telephone services shall be subject to the taxes imposed by this chapter. There are levied upon, and shall be collected from, every person, firm, corporation or other entity on account of the business activities, license and occupation taxes in the amounts to be determined by the application of the rates against gross income as follows: … B. Natural or Manufactured Gas and Service. Upon every person, firm, corporation or other entity engaged in or carrying on the business of transmitting, distributing, selling and furnishing natural and/or manufactured gas, a tax equal to six percent of the total gross income from the sale of gas within the corporate limits of the city during and for the term for which the occupation license is required. C. Brokered Natural Gas – Use Tax in Lieu of Occupations Tax. There is imposed under the authority of RCW 35.21.870 a use tax on the consumers of brokered natural gas. Such tax shall be in lieu of the tax imposed by subsection B of this section when consumers receive natural gas directly from a producer of manufactured natural gas outside of the state of Washington. Such tax shall be the same as that imposed on a natural manufactured gas utility by subsection B of this section, equal to six percent of the customer’s monthly purchases or other use charge by the broker of out-of-state natural gas. D. Telephone Business. A tax equal to six percent of the gross subscribers’ exchange monthly service charges billed to business and residence customers located within the corporate limits of the city, together with six percent of gross income derived from intrastate toll service provided to business and residential customers located within the corporate limits of the city. E. Cable Television. - 2 - Packet Page 163 of 448 Pursuant to Chapter 4.68 ECC, Community Antenna Television Systems, commonly known as cable television franchisees, pay a franchise tax of three percent. In addition thereto, a tax is hereby levied equal to three percent of the gross receipts collected by the franchisee from the sale of its services in the city of Edmonds. This additional three percent is intended, when combined with the franchise tax of three percent, to provide a total of franchise fees and utility tax equalization amounts equal to six percent of the gross revenues of the franchisee derived from the sale of its cable television services within the city of Edmonds. Services shall include the sale of all broadcast services to subscribers, but shall not include revenues derived from the sale of advertising or other minor miscellaneous, incidental revenue unrelated to the sale of subscriber services or equipment rental. … H. City Water Utility. The City of Edmonds, as the seller of water services, shall be subject to the tax imposed by this chapter. The water utility shall pay a license tax or fee equal to six percent on the gross income from the City’s water utility. I. City Storm Water Utility. The City of Edmonds, as the seller of storm water services, shall be subject to the tax imposed by this chapter. The storm water utility shall pay a license tax or fee equal to six percent on the gross income from the City’s storm water utility. Section 2. Subsection E of the Edmonds City Code 7.30.030, Water rates - Meter installation charges. is hereby repealed. Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum as set forth in RCW 35.21.706. Any duly qualified person may file a referendum petition with the city clerk - 3 - Packet Page 164 of 448 within seven (7) days after the passage of this ordinance. In the event that such a petition is filed, the city clerk shall, within ten (10) days, confer with the petitioner regarding the form and style of the petition, secure an accurate, concise, and positive ballot title from the city attorney, and assign an identification number to the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner shall have thirty (30) days within which to gather signatures from not less than fifteen percent (15%) of the city's registered voters as of the last municipal general election. In the event that no referendum petition is filed, this ordinance shall take effect on the latter date of 01/01/2006 or eight (8) days after its passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. - 4 - Packet Page 165 of 448 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2006, 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 THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 3.20.050 TO SET OCCUPATION TAX ON TELEPHONE, WATER, GAS, AND CABLE TELEVISION AT SIX PERCENT, AND TO ADD A NEW SECTION IMPOSING OCCUPATION TAX OF SIX PERCENT ON THE GROSS INCOME OF THE CITY’S STORM WATER UTILITY, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 7.30.030 TO REMOVE REFERENCE TO WATER CONSUMPTION SURCHARGE, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, 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 ________________,2006. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE - 5 - Packet Page 166 of 448 AM-765 2.P. Ordinance Adopting New OR - Office-Residential Zone Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Rob Chave, Planning Submitted For:Rob Chave Time:Consent Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Proposed Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code to repeal existing Chapter 16.77 MPOR Zone and replacing it with a new Chapter 16.77 OR-Office-Residential. Previous Council Action Council adopted Ordinance #3581 on January 3, 2006, establishing a moratorium on applications to rezone or develop under the current version of the MPOR zone. On October 17, 2006, a public hearing was held by City Council on the recommendation of the Planning Board to amend the MPOR zone. Council approved the proposed MPOR changes in the form of a new "OR" zone to replace the existing MPOR zone in the zoning code. Narrative On October 17, 2006, a public hearing was held by City Council on the recommendation of the Planning Board to amend the MPOR zone. The recommendation was a result of input from the property owners, neighbors, and staff. Council approved the proposed MPOR changes in the form of a new "OR" zone to replace the existing MPOR zone in the zoning code. The ordinance implementing this change is attached as Exhibit 1. Recommendation Approve the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1). Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Proposed ordinance Link: Exhibit 2: Council minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 10:52 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/14/2006 11:05 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 11:38 AM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 12/14/2006 10:22 AM Final Approval Date: 12/14/2006 Packet Page 167 of 448 {WSS647339.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 12/6/06 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REPEAL EXISTING CHAPTER 16.77 MPOR ZONE AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 16.77 OR-OFFICE-RESIDENTIAL, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of its Planning Board recommending amendment of the existing Master Plan Office Residential zone to provide greater specificity for a zone which is a unique transitional area between the downtown business zone and adjacent residential neighborhoods east and north of Sunset Avenue and Bell Street; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed ordinance is the result of extensive interaction between neighbors and property owners in the area and provides a balanced solution to neighborhood and development concerns in a manner which is consistent with the best interests of the citizens of the City of Edmonds, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended by the repeal of Chapter 16.77 MPOR Master Plan Office Residential and the enactment of a new Chapter 16.77 OR-Office-Residential to read as follows: Packet Page 168 of 448 {WSS647339.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Chapter 16.77 OR –OFFICE-RESIDENTIAL Sections: 16.77.000 Purposes. 16.77.010 Uses. 16.77.020 Site development standards. 16.77.030 Operating restrictions. 16.77.000 Purposes. A. The office-residential (OR) zone is intended to be applied to areas designated in the comprehensive plan for “Planned Residential-Office” development on the west side of Sunset Avenue south of Bell Street. B. This area is appropriate for development which provides for a mix of small-scale office and residential uses which provide a transition between the more intensive commercial uses along Main Street and the residential uses along Sunset Avenue. Because the area of this designation is located adjacent to commercial development to the south, the railroad to the west, and is near both multiple family and single-family residential development, this area should act as a transition between theses uses. C. To restrict commercial and multiple residential uses in scale and intensity so as to reduce noise, parking and traffic impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood. D. The height and setback limits established for this zone have been adopted after full consideration of the topographical constraints of sites within the zone. Variances are not available under current city code provisions in order to make more profitable use of a property. In adopting these provisions, the city council has specifically provided for, and made allowances for, the site constraints and topographical features inherent in development of the designated OR sites. Therefore, no other height variance would typically be available absent a special showing of constraints unanticipated on the date of adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter. 16.77.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. Any combination of the following uses is permitted: 1. Single-family dwellings. Packet Page 169 of 448 {WSS647339.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - 2. Office uses. 3. Multiple dwelling unit(s). 4. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted or conditional use. 2. All permitted secondary uses allowed in the RS – Single Family Residential zone, as listed in 16.20.010.B. C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Local public facilities subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 16.77.020 Site development standards. A Table. SUB DISTRIC T MINIMUM LOT AREA MINIMUM STREET SETBACK 1 MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK MINIMUM REAR SETBACK MAXIMUM HEIGHT MAXIMUM COVERAGE OR None 15’ 5’ None 25’ No maximum 1 The minimum street setback of 15 feet applies to a building which is no wider than 110 feet. For any part of a building that exceeds 110 feet in width, an additional setback of 15 feet shall apply so that no more than 110 feet of building width is closer than 30 feet to the street lot line. For the purposes of this section, “building width” shall be the total horizontal dimension of that portion of the building facing the street measured parallel to the street. B Parking requirements. See Chapter 17.50 ECDC for specific parking requirements for allowed uses. No parking spaces may be located within the street or side setbacks. C. Signs, Landscaping and Design Review. See Chapters 20.10, 20.12 and 20.60 ECDC for regulations on design review and signage. Signage shall be regulated as in an RM zone. Signage for office uses shall be regulated as in a BN zone, except that no free standing signs shall be permitted. Packet Page 170 of 448 {WSS647339.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 4 - D. Satellite Television Antennas. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050. E. Setback Encroachments. Eaves and chimneys may project into a required setback not more than 30 inches. Uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may project into a required setback not more than one-third of the required setback, or four feet, whichever is less; provided that they are no more than 30 inches above the ground level at any point. Section 2. 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 GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 171 of 448 {WSS647339.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 5 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2006, 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 THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REPEAL EXISTING CHAPTER 16.77 MPOR ZONE AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 16.77 OR-OFFICE- RESIDENTIAL, 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 ________________, 2006. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 172 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 10 COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO DENY THE REZONE BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WAS NOT APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.77, MPOR ZONE Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board recommended changes to the existing MPOR zone. He noted there was currently a moratorium on development in the MPOR zone as it was felt during the Council’s review of the zone that the standards were vague. The Planning Board was asked to consider the standards. The Planning Board’s initial intent was to have the MPOR zone apply to areas of the City in addition to Sunset south of Bell that had a similar need for a transitional zone. During the Planning Board consideration, the property owners and neighbors met and developed a proposal for the Sunset properties only. Their proposal was presented to the Planning Board with a recommendation for approval from staff. Given the difficulties the Planning Board was experiencing developing a zone that would apply to multiple areas of the City, it agreed this was the best proposal. He explained the proposed amendment removed much of the vagueness and instituted specific rules that limited the height to the standard calculation and required 15 foot setbacks from the street and 5 foot side setbacks in an attempt to strike a balance between what could be built on the property and compatibility with the neighborhood. The amendment would allow some office as well as residential development and required parking but also provided some flexibility. Council President Dawson commented this appeared to be an excellent idea that had been worked out among the neighbors. She suggested changing the name from MPOR to Office/Residential (OR) as it no longer required a master plan. Mr. Chave agreed, advising all the provisions requiring a master plan were removed from the ordinance. Councilmember Moore expressed her appreciation to Mr. Chave for this compromise. Mr. Chave answered the neighbors and property owners deserved the credit. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He noted the Council received four emails in support of the amendment from Gail Olson, Eric Sonett, Alan Young and Shaun Drew. Martha Braun, Edmonds, urged the Council to approve the updated language for the MPOR zone and remove the moratorium currently in place on the properties subject to the MPOR zoning. Eric Sonett, Edmonds, thanked everyone involved. He commented it was a pleasure to be at the Council meeting in a non-adversarial role. Harold Huston, Edmonds, recommended revising the language so that the east and west side of the street on Sunset south of Bell Street both were zoned MPOR. He found it appropriate for properties on both the east and west sides of the street to have the same zoning. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, supported the proposal developed by the property owners and neighbors. He suggested removing the MPOR zone from the code and determining an alternate designation insofar as the Planning Board was unable to identify any other suitable locations for the zone in the City. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. ECDC Chapter 16.77 – MPOR Zone Packet Page 173 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 11 In response to Mr. Huston’s comment, Mr. Chave explained the proposed zoning was intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan which targeted a specific area on Sunset for zoning of this type. Mr. Huston’s suggestion would require a change to the Comprehensive Plan designation for the east side of Sunset in order to change the zoning in that area. He agreed the Council should remove the moratorium and suggested staff initiate an administrative rezone of the property to the new OR zone. Councilmember Wambolt questioned the use of “transition” in the language, commenting there were other areas in the city where residential and commercial uses abut and there was no transition language. He agreed with the proposal but suggested reference to “transition” be eliminated. Mr. Chave explained the genesis of this zone was recognizing there were significant topographical issues and that some flexibility in use was appropriate but not the traditional commercial uses that would intrude into the residential area. He concluded the zone was a transition in that there was a reduction in the intensity of commercial uses and it maintained setbacks and height limits compatible with single family. Council President Dawson commented the property next to Rory’s was zoned BC, however, it was developed residential. She suggested that property could provide a transition and the uses allowed by the OR zoning may be appropriate for that property. Mr. Chave pointed out next week the Council would be discussing downtown zoning; the current plan included that property in the downtown commercial area. To do what Council President Dawson suggested would require a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation. He suggested the Council could refer that to the Planning Board for consideration for a Comprehensive Plan amendment next year. Council President Dawson agreed with Mr. Hertrich’s comment, suggesting the name of the zone be changed to Sunset Avenue Office Residential Zone. Mr. Chave commented the purposes were so specific it was unlikely it would apply elsewhere in the City. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED LANGUAGE FOR THE OR ZONE AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE APPROPRAITE COUNCIL ACTION TO LIFT THE MPOR ZONING MORATORIUM TO COINCIDE WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE OR CODE AMENDMENT. Councilmember Moore thanked the neighboring land owners for doing the difficult and sophisticated work to reach this agreement and hoped they appreciated staff’s professionalism. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO REFER TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO RORY’S TAVERN FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN APPOPRIATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FOR THAT PROPERTY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 7. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF AN APPEAL BY ELISABETH LARMAN ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD APPROVAL OF THE REFURBISHMENT OF OLD MILLTOWN, LOCATED AT 201 5TH AVENUE SOUTH. (FILE NO. APL-20060003 AND PLN- 20060094) Mayor Haakenson advised a petition was received regarding the above referenced Closed Record Review that was not part of the record and therefore could not be considered by the Council. The petition would be distributed to the Council following the conclusion of the matter. Closed Record Review – Refurbishment of Old Milltown Packet Page 174 of 448 AM-766 2.Q. 2006 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Rob Chave, Planning Submitted For:Rob Chave Time:Consent Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Proposed Ordinance adopting the 2006 amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan relating to economic development, capital facilities, sanitary sewers, Port of Edmonds strategic and master plan, neighborhood districts, streetscapes and land use element and comprehensive plan map. Previous Council Action The City Council held public hearings on various comprehensive plan amendments throughout the year 2006. These are summarized in the body of the proposed ordinance (see Exhibit 1) and in the combined minutes from the various Council hearings (see Exhibit 2). Narrative Except for amendments to the Capital Facilities Element (usually referenced as the "CIP"), Comprehensive plan amendments are required to be adopted at one time each year. The City Council held public hearings on various comprehensive plan amendments throughout the year 2006. All of the approved plan amendments for 2006 are referenced in the proposed ordinance and its attached Exhibits (A-F). Note that Exhibit B, the Sanitary Sewer Plan, just includes the cover page as a reference to the plan; the original document is on file with the City Clerk and the Engineering Division, but is unable to be reproduced electronically to include with this packet. Note also that the amendments to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center portion of the plan -- to assure consistency with the plan and the new downtown BD zones -- are included in Exhibit F. Recommendation Approve the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1). Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Proposed Ordinance Link: Ordinance Exhibit A Link: Ordinance Exhibit B Link: Ordinance Exhibit C Link: Ordinance Exhibit D Link: Ordinance Exhibit E Link: Ordinance Exhibit F part1 Link: Ordinance Exhibit F part2 Link: Exhibit 2: Combined City Council hearing minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 01:51 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/15/2006 10:09 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2006 10:13 AM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 12/14/2006 10:50 AM Final Approval Date: 12/15/2006 Packet Page 175 of 448 Packet Page 176 of 448 {WSS647374.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 12/6/06 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2006 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATING TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, CAPITAL FACILITIES, SANITARY SEWERS, PORT OF EDMONDS STRATEGIC AND MASTER PLAN, NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS, STREETSCAPES AND LAND USE ELEMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a) provides that amendments or revisions to the City’s Comprehensive Plan may be considered by the Edmonds City Council no more frequently than once each year; and WHEREAS, this ordinance along with one contemporaneous action represents the City of Edmonds’ annual amendments to its Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan was considered as a part of this process and rejected by the City Council by contemporaneous adoption of findings of fact and conclusions in the Mantooth application, File No. CDC-05-3 and R-06-67; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held regarding adoption of an Economic Development element of the Comprehensive Plan on April 18, 2006, the matter having come on before the City Council on the recommendation of its Planning Board; and WHEREAS, on May 16, 2006, a public hearing was held regarding amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to replace an existing “Public Urban Design Plan” with an updated “Streetscape Plan”; and Packet Page 177 of 448 {WSS647374.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - WHEREAS, on October 3, 2006, a public hearing was held to adopt the Port of Edmonds Strategic Plan and Master Plan with the recommendation of the City’s Planning Board as a part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on October 3, 2006, a public hearing was held regarding proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan relating to amended goals and policies for neighborhood business districts with specific proposals for the Firdale and Five Corners neighborhood centers, such matter having come on with the recommendation of the City’s Planning Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 6, 2006 regarding a Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan update which came to the City Council with the recommendation of its Planning Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 21, 2006, regarding several minor adjustments to the Comprehensive Plan Map and Land Use Element, including adjustments to the map and policy guidance for the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center, which came to the City Council with the recommendation of its Planning Board; and WHEREAS, having separately considered and improved each Comprehensive Plan change as meeting the criteria of City Code, the requirements of state law, and being in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Edmonds, the City Council does hereby approve such Comprehensive Plan amendments and contemporaneously adopted plan amendments referenced above, as the City’s 2006 Comprehensive Plan amendments, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Packet Page 178 of 448 {WSS647374.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - Section 1. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to incorporate the following amendments, additions or revisions to the City’s Comprehensive Plan: A. An Economic Development element as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. B. The September 2006 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan as set forth on the attached Exhibit B, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. C. The Port of Edmonds’ Strategic and Master Plan as such amendment is set forth in the attached Exhibit C incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. D. Amendments to the Neighborhood District Plan as set forth on the attached Exhibit D incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. E. Repeal of a Public Urban Design Plan and its replacement by a Streetscape Element, as shown on the attached Exhibit E, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. F. Amendments of the City’s land use element and comprehensive plan map as shown on the attached Exhibit F, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Section 2. The Edmonds Community Services Director is hereby authorized to incorporate such plan amendments in the City’s Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the adopted elements. 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. Packet Page 179 of 448 {WSS647374.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 4 - APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 180 of 448 {WSS647374.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 5 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2006, 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 THE 2006 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATING TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, CAPITAL FACILITIES, SANITARY SEWERS, PORT OF EDMONDS STRATEGIC AND MASTER PLAN, NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS, STREETSCAPES AND LAND USE ELEMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, 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 ________________, 2006. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 181 of 448 City of Edmonds Economic Development Element DRAFT 6-12-06 Packet Page 182 of 448 1 Edmonds Economic Development Comprehensive Plan Element The purpose of the Economic Development Element is to state the city’s economic development policies clearly in one place, thereby guiding local policymakers and informing the public about issues relating to the local economy. The chapter is divided three major sections: Introduction and Approaches to Economic Development, The Edmonds Economy, and Economic Development Goals and Policies. I. Introduction and Approaches to Economic Development A. Why do economic development? Economic development in Edmonds can be defined as “the city’s policies and services for growing the local economy in order to enhance the quality of life”. Economic development is essential to preserving the existing level of service and attaining long-range goals for sustainable growth and community vitality. In general, economic development affects the local economy by broadening and strengthening the local tax base and by providing meaningful employment and entrepreneurial opportunities. An increasing number of communities around the region have economic development policies and staff. Community economic development priorities vary widely, but may include: creating affordable housing, adding employment, downtown or commercial revitalization, small business assistance, business recruitment and site selection help, community marketing, historic preservation, tourism generation, public relations, streamlining permit processes, and special development or streetscape projects (including public art). Communities are realizing that there is no such thing as a “static” or fixed economy; local economies are always changing. They are also impacted by countless forces: national and state economic cycles, competition from surrounding cities for desirable businesses, local and regional land use changes, residential and commercial real estate market trends, and other forces. Without change and adaptability, a community can become stagnant or even decline. Successful communities today acknowledge their past and allow a vision for the future to guide them through the changes needed to prosper. Packet Page 183 of 448 2 B. Past economic development efforts and local stakeholders The Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development was formed in 1995 as a coalition of businesspeople and property owners to promote the city and recruit businesses. It undertook analysis, strategic planning, and projects through 2004. In 1996, the City of Edmonds, the Port of Edmonds, and the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce crafted the “Edmonds Economic Development Strategic Action Plan”, which was adopted by reference. This element updates and replaces that work. The city’s economic development efforts continued to focus primarily on the downtown, and in 1999, downtown economic development specialists Hyett-Palma were selected for a downtown study. The study, Edmonds Downtown Economic Enhancement Strategy – 1999, outlined several strategies for dealing with economic development in downtown Edmonds. They noted that the future of downtown Edmonds should not be “boiled down to an either or decision”, but instead Hyett-Palma identified the challenge for downtown as follows: “Keep Downtown “the same” — by maintaining its charm, quaintness, and small town ambiance — while at the same time managing change in a way that allows Edmonds to take advantage of economic opportunities that will benefit the community.” 1 They concluded that avoiding change will, in fact, not keep downtown “the same”. That will only result in a downtown that will not stay the same or flourish to be more attractive.2 They also identified several recommended actions, such as: • Reserving the first floor, by city zoning ordinance, in a downtown core specialty cluster for retail; • Developing a large number of housing units in the downtown through mixed-use developments; • Adding design guidelines; • Helping existing businesses to expand and open additional ventures; and • Ensuring that aesthetics add to the downtown ambiance through high quality public and private signage, art and streetscape elements. 1 Hyett Palma. Edmonds Downtown Economic Enhancement Strategy. P. 11 2 Hyett Palma. Edmonds Downtown Economic Enhancement Strategy. P. 12 Packet Page 184 of 448 3 Many of the Hyett Palma conclusions resurfaced during a 2004-2005 Downtown Plan Comprehensive Plan Update, for which additional study was completed by Heartland LLC and by Mark Hinshaw at LMN Architects. In 2004, the City also added the first Economic Development Director on staff under the Mayor. This position works in close collaboration with local and regional economic development stakeholders. Prior to the development of the Economic Development Element, initial staff priorities were set involving: business recruitment and retention, tourism development, creating a more business-friendly regulatory environment, and addressing barriers to development in business districts around the entire city. This Economic Development Element will provide further guidance for staff and council on economic development priorities. C. Current national thinking in economic development Across the country, many past economic development efforts focused either on providing major tax breaks to entice large corporations or on government provision of significant infrastructure projects geared towards assisting industry. Today’s general outlook on economic development recommends a more balanced approach with an emphasis on long-term planning for a vital, sustainable community. Support locally-owned businesses States and municipalities are increasingly establishing policies to bolster smaller, locally-owned businesses. Economic development expert Michael Shuman, an economist and attorney, focuses on creating self-reliant communities. In his book “Going Local”, Shuman highlights ways in which municipalities can bolster locally-owned companies and increase local spending. Recent research has begun to highlight the positive “multiplier effect” associated with prioritizing the growth of local companies. The multiplier effect describes how the expenditure of a dollar generates more than a dollar of activity. A worker who receives a check might spend a portion of it at a local restaurant or shop, thereby resulting in more transactions within that community. The local multiplier effect stops when the transaction leaves the local community. Shuman writes, “The primary virtue of import substitution, community corporations, and local investment is that these strategies increase the likelihood of the economic multiplier’s staying at home.”3 3 Shuman, Michael. Going Local. P. 50 Packet Page 185 of 448 4 While it is impossible today to substitute many of our “imports” locally, many improvements are achievable. Some examples of common practices in line with this school of thought include procurement policies that favor local companies (if within a range of price competitiveness) and “shop local” programs. Create vibrant places Another movement in economic development has produced a shift towards creating vibrant places where today’s workforce will want to live, as documented by public policy and economic development expert Richard Florida. Florida’s research demonstrates how today’s “creative class” of workers choose location first, and employment second. In this line of thinking, corporations are increasingly forced to locate to where the desirable, educated workforce resides, not necessarily whichever locale offers the largest tax break. In the following segment, Florida describes what today’s workforce seeks in a place to live. ”What’s there: the combination of the built environment and the natural environment; a proper setting for pursuit of creative lives Who’s there: the diverse kinds of people, interacting and providing cues that anyone can plug into and make life in that community What’s going on: the vibrancy of the street life, café culture, arts, music, and people engaging in outdoor activities – altogether a lot of active, exciting creative endeavors”4 4 Florida, Richard. The Rise of the Creative Class, p.232 Packet Page 186 of 448 5 Consequently, municipalities and regions engaged in economic development must think about nurturing environments for businesses and people in order to grow a local economy. II. The Edmonds Economy A. Analysis of local economy A good understanding of the local economy helps a community to effectively guide policies, investments, staff resources, and future plans. The analysis completed for the Economic Development Element offers a background on local business characteristics and a summary of city revenues. Local business characteristics Edmonds is home primarily to a small business economy. In 2005, City records counted 1,791 licensed businesses located in Edmonds. Claritas consumer research, which provides detailed information not collected locally, recorded 1,526 businesses. Some summary employment statistics are listed below. Table 1: Median # of employees: 3 Average # of employees: 8 Total employees: 12,693 Source: Claritas While most Edmonds businesses employ a small number of workers, larger local employers include Stevens Hospital, the Edmonds School District, and the City of Edmonds. Stevens Hospital, with 217 beds and 888 full-time employees, serves as an anchor to the greater health care industry in Edmonds. In 2005, there were 209 related health care and social assistance businesses. Edmonds is also home to a large number of retail and professional service businesses, ranging from small shops and restaurants to nationally-known architectural, engineering and technical firms. Table 2 shows the number of Edmonds businesses by NAIC code. Packet Page 187 of 448 6 Table: 2 Number of Businesses in Edmonds by NAIC Code in 2005 NAIC Business Description Code Count Retail 44-45 231 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 54 229 Health Care and Social Assistance 62 209 Other Services (except Public Administration) 81 172 Construction 23 114 Finance & Insurance 52 107 Accommodation and Food Services 72 102 Real Estate & Rental Leasing 53 72 Administrative, Support & Waste Management & Remediation Svs 56 58 Wholesale Trade 42 53 Educational Services 61 41 Manufacturing 31-33 33 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 29 Public Administration 92 21 Transportation and Warehousing 48-49 18 Information 51 18 Utilities 22 2 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 11 2 NAICs Total 1,511 All businesses in Edmonds 1,526 *15 businesses were non-classifiable Source: Claritas North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) replaced the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. Edmonds is also home to many businesses in fields that are experiencing dramatic growth in self-employment across the nation. Nationally, the number of businesses with no paid employees grew from 17.6 million in 2002 to more than 18.6 million in 2003, a growth rate of 5.7 percent, according to a report issued by the U.S. Census Bureau. This represents the biggest rate of increase in self-employment since the Census Bureau began releasing such statistics in 1997. If Edmonds is indeed experiencing the same trend locally, it may be part of the reason why Edmonds has a relatively high percent of workers who live and work within Edmonds. According to the 2000 Census, 18.5% of Edmonds’ working population chose to live and work in Edmonds. Comparatively, that figure was only 10.8% for Lake Forest Park, 15.1% for Mukilteo, 9% for Mountlake Terrace and 12.8% for Mill Creek. Perhaps due to its large amount of commercially zoned land and therefore number of businesses, 23.4% of Lynwood’s workers worked and lived within the city. Packet Page 188 of 448 7 New business development in Edmonds will likely continue to be dominated by small businesses and self-employed persons, unless significant land use changes are made to encourage the development of larger office buildings or other commercial uses. Geographically, employment is currently spread throughout the city’s downtown, neighborhood business districts and along Highway 99. Packet Page 189 of 448 8 Services Quality of Life Revenues City revenues & sustainability Each year, budget season arrives and usually some difficult choices are made about what to fund and what to cut. Throughout the year, land use decisions are also made, according to staff reports, regulations, public testimony, and other factors. Rarely do we stop to consider the bigger picture: the linkage between each year’s budgetary constraints and the ongoing land use decisions. This connection affects the revenues generated, the services the city is able to offer, and the quality of life enjoyed by residents and businesses. Edmonds is heavily reliant on taxes as a source of General Fund income. In 2005, roughly 73% of General Fund revenues were generated from three tax sources: property, sales, and utility. While this dependence on taxes is not new, one percent property tax limitations on local governments have acted as a major fiscal drain in largely residential communities such as Edmonds. In conformity with I-747, Edmonds is limited to a one percent annual property tax increase. Prior to I-747, property taxes could rise up to six percent annually. This has led Edmonds and many other municipalities to pursue economic development agendas to diversify their revenue base, including but not limited to increasing sales taxes. The city receives sales tax from two main sources: the sale of consumer goods and construction materials. Sales tax revenues vary from city to city, depending on commercial development patterns, construction activity and other factors. In Bothell, for example, sales tax is the city’s largest revenue source. In Lynnwood, it accounts for 46% of general fund revenues. In Edmonds, it accounts for roughly 19.3 % of the General Fund. A table with sample cities and their sales tax revenues is listed Packet Page 190 of 448 9 below. The per capita sales tax generated is also included, although a more detailed analysis would need to be done to determine how much of the sales tax revenue is generated by local residents versus visitors. It is simple to state the goal of increasing sales tax revenues, but somewhat more complex when determining how to implement that goal. Many cities have focused on development because of its positive impact on sales and property taxes. Quality development/ redevelopment increases: • Property values, resulting in additional property tax revenues. • Construction activity, which subsequently adds sales tax revenues. • The number of utility customers, resulting in higher consumption and additional utility tax revenues.5 Because Edmonds is largely built out, emphasis in the business districts should be on redevelopment, where appropriate. This does not imply a need for “wholesale” redevelopment of entire districts, but rather an emphasis on realizing growth around important but limited opportunities, such as the Harbor Square and Edmonds Shopping Center areas. On a smaller scale, the recent closure of a gas station at 5th Avenue South and Dayton Street presents an opportunity to close the gap between neighboring uses and encourage pedestrian linkages. Moreover, increased mixed-use development would also benefit the city because “more density equals more customers”, as Hyett Palma pointed out in 1999.6 5 City of Bothell budget revenue narrative 6 Hyett Palma. Edmonds Downtown Economic Enhancement Strategy. P. 16 Table 3: Selected Mid-Size and Small Cities 2005 Population Sales Taxes Per Capita Shoreline 52,740 $ 6,016,940 114$ Kirkland 45,800 $ 14,309,796 312$ Edmonds 39,620 $ 4,746,814 120$ Lynnwood 34,540 $ 17,419,531 504$ Bothell 30,930 $ 8,885,688 287$ Mountlake Terrace 20,390 $ 1,360,097 67$ Mukilteo 19,220 $ 1,814,520 94$ Arlington 14,700 $ 3,683,440 251$ Snohomish 8,585 $ 2,383,186 278$ Port Townsend 8,535 $ 1,591,514 186$ Source: WA State Dept. of Revenue Packet Page 191 of 448 10 The strategy of encouraging redevelopment in all of the business districts falls in line with the geographic distribution of business revenues around the city. Downtown, successful restaurants and retailers occupy many of the ground level commercial units. In the neighborhood business districts, grocery stores, drug stores and convenience retail dominate. On Highway 99, larger “box” retailers, car dealerships, and restaurants bring in substantial revenues. It is important to recognize the significance of the city’s boundaries and commercial districts in and directly adjacent to the city. In the past, Edmonds was given the opportunity to annex large neighboring commercial areas such as the Aurora Village and James Village shopping center developments. In hindsight, this would have been a wise decision from a revenue perspective. While a recent annexation effort in the Esperence section of Snohomish County failed, there may be property owners interested in annexing by petition, such as along Highway 99. This would increase continuity to an important commercial area with complex municipal boundaries. Another consideration pertaining to sales tax generation involves the level of “leakage” in consumer spending, or in other words, what local residents purchase outside of Edmonds. As part of the Berk & Associates consultant study performed for the Highway 99 Task Force in 2004, consumer spending in the collective trade area of Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace was analyzed. They found that residents in the Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace areas combined spend roughly $550 million in other cities each year on retail items (all retail, excluding autos and groceries). 7 While consumer spending patterns are influenced by national economic trends, local municipalities can nonetheless work to address compatible areas of spending leakage. A 1999 survey conducted by Hyett Palma of primary trade area residents found that people chose to come downtown primarily for eating in the restaurants and shopping. The needs of special consumption categories such as these should help guide corresponding recruitment and land use policies in order to maximize the effectiveness of efforts to recapture local spending dollars. For example, design guidelines should ensure that first floor commercial units in the downtown and throughout the city are able to physically accommodate restaurant and retail uses. Parking regulations can further “make or break” a retail and dining district. 7 Edmonds Highway 99 Enhancements Market Assessment, 10-04, page vi Packet Page 192 of 448 11 In 1999, only 5% of the consumer survey respondents reported to come downtown for entertainment8. However, a modest “nightlife” might help attract young professionals, a conclusion drawn by Hyett Palma as well. The arts have a vital role to play; evening “artwalks” and performing arts events are significant draws. Creating business districts with activity into the evening can add a critical mass of potential consumers during the time of the day when Americans spend most of their money. In turn, this might encourage local retailers to stay open later. B. Important regional trends A major regional economic development agenda has been developed by collaboration through the Puget Sound Regional Council. “The Prosperity Partnership” identifies strengths and weaknesses in the Puget Sound economy, and calls for specific “foundation initiatives”: education, technology commercialization, new and small business support, social capital and quality of life, tax structure, and transportation. Edmonds staff and council members have attended meetings of “The Prosperity Partnership”, as Edmonds residents and businesses could clearly benefit from progress in several of these foundation initiatives. While regional efforts continue, many cities around the region are undertaking ambitious economic development projects, from new town centers to transit oriented developments (TOD). These projects typically contain a mix of retail, office and residential uses. For example, Kent Station is a 470,000 square foot retail, entertainment, education, office, and residential project located along the Sounder commuter rail line. The City of Kent had an active role in the development of this project by purchasing property, implementing necessary zoning and land use changes, and soliciting developers. 8 Hyett Palma. Edmonds Downtown Economic Enhancement Strategy. Packet Page 193 of 448 12 C. Developments in neighboring cities Nearby, several major developments will likely affect the Edmonds economy by providing additional consumer options and more competition for businesses. In addition to the actual amenities offered at these locations, sophisticated “branding” and marketing campaigns accompany many of today’s center developments. In 2005, Lynnwood’s Alderwood Mall added a “lifestyle village”, an outdoor shopping area that features upscale stores and dining options. The streetscape setting mimics older, authentic downtowns, such as Edmonds, and represents a widespread trend in mall development today. Lynnwood is also planning to take on significant additional density, and has a 20-year plan for a City Center. Buildings in the entire City Center area would house retail businesses, offices and homes, with heights up to 26 stories or 350 feet. Most of the property is privately held. The city will buy the land for the parks and a promenade, and then allow the zoning and market forces to drive development. Just south of Edmonds, the Aurora Corridor Project is the City of Shoreline’s plan to redesign and redevelop the three miles of Aurora Avenue North (State Route 99) that run through Shoreline. The goal of the plan is to improve pedestrian and vehicle safety, pedestrian and disabled access, vehicular capacity, traffic flow, transit speed and reliability, nighttime visibility and safety, storm water quality, economic investment potential and streetscape amenities. While in an immediate sense, it may result in the dislocation of some businesses, in the long term it will likely result in more center-oriented development and the aggregation of small parcels. While not immediately adjacent to Edmonds, the Mill Creek Town Center has proved to be a significant draw to businesses and consumers from the Edmonds area. The Mill Creek Town Center Plan was initiated by the City in 1993 to implement the City’s Comprehensive Plan for a new mixed-use center in the City’s central core area. The Town Center provides for multi-storied buildings, strategically placed pedestrian plazas and parking facilities organized around a new street pattern that provides connections to adjacent neighborhoods and the existing commercial core. Today, several hundred thousand feet of retail and office space have been constructed, with anchor tenants such as Central Market and the University Book Store. Packet Page 194 of 448 13 III. Economic Development Goals and Policies A. Edmonds’ current strengths, weaknesses and opportunities (SWOT) relating to economic development In preparation of considering the goals and policies for economic development in Edmonds, a SWOT analysis was used as a planning tool to provide direction. Strengths { Picturesque waterfront community { Identifiable neighborhoods and business centers { Mass transit { Downtown specialty retailers and food establishments { Events and festivals { Historic buildings { Reputation as an arts community { Stevens Hospital { International business community { Strong social capital/ community pride { Generally low rates of unemployment and poverty Weaknesses { Limited trade area due to waterfront location { State B&O tax structure implications on small business communities { Land use and parking regulations in the business districts { Multiple property owners and small lots in commercial areas outside the downtown BC zone Opportunities { Use location and “character” to leverage additional economic development, nurturing and recruiting locally-owned, unique businesses to enhance our advantage. { Build on the existing transit hub and future Edmonds Crossing multi- modal station with transit-oriented development. Packet Page 195 of 448 14 { Maximize the impact of the Edmonds Center for the Arts by developing the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, by linking it to Main Street shops and restaurants. { Leverage telecommunication/ technology assets to provide better service for customers and new revenue sources for the city. { Plan and implement improvements in regulation around the business districts. Threats { Lifestyle villages and new town centers in nearby cities { Wider variety of housing options and more commercial space elsewhere { Lack of design guidelines/ regulations to protect quality first floor commercial space { Business recruiters from other cities targeting Edmonds businesses. { Lack of a long-term vision for sustaining or improving the Edmonds quality of life with projected revenues. B. Goals and Policies Goal: 1. Foster a healthy business community that provides employment and other economic opportunities. Policies 1a. Promote a results-oriented permit and licensing process, which consolidates review timelines, eliminates unnecessary steps, and maintains a strong customer service approach. 1b. Develop or maintain business recruitment programs, and create a tool box of incentives to encourage retail and other commercial development. 1c. Encourage and expand business expansion and retention programs. 1d. Develop a local purchasing policy that gives prioritizes doing business with locally-owned companies, if within a range of price competitiveness. 1e. Consider public relations tools to increase awareness of the local business community, such as annual small business awards. Packet Page 196 of 448 15 1f. Continue to partner with business and economic development organizations, and address feedback from the business community. Goal: 2. Revitalize the city’s business districts, balancing redevelopment, preservation and the need for consumer amenities. Policies 2a. Adopt land use policies, zoning, and design guidelines that are supportive of responsible economic development. 2b. Strengthen neighborhood business centers through community planning and commercial revitalization, resulting in new regulations that will spur development. 2c. Revise parking requirements, especially downtown, to encourage business development. 2d. Develop land use regulations that will encourage Transit Oriented Development (T.O.D.) in the Harbor Square and “Old Safeway” area. 2e. Explore options such as Business Improvement Districts/ Areas (special assessment districts) as a way to help shopping areas fund marketing and beautification in a sustainable fashion. 2f. Continue to support an historic preservation program that works to identify and preserve historic architectural, archeological and cultural resources for future generations. 2g. Utilize incentives and the historic preservation building code to encourage property owners to register eligible historic buildings. 2h. Work to identify and “brand” distinct business districts, where there is a natural synergy, such as the Highway 99 International District, the Stevens Hospital Medical Corridor, and the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor. 2i. Create synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, by implementing a “retail core” area in the downtown. 2j. Provide a quality environment with character for patrons and residents to enjoy. Packet Page 197 of 448 16 Goal 3. Diversify the tax base and increase revenues to support local services. Policies 3a. Address barriers to redevelopment in the business districts, and encourage mixed-use development. 3b. Leverage technology assets, such as existing fiber connections, to pursue new revenue streams. 3c. Implement regulations and/or design guidelines that will ensure the development of quality retail and commercial space that can physically accommodate a variety of future users. 3d. Focus recruitment and “buy local” community marketing on consumer spending segments in which there is significant “leakage”, and also a strong possibility of recapturing spending. 3e. Pursue private and public grant or sponsorship funding for programs, where possible. 3f. Encourage longer hours of business operation and/or more evening uses in the business districts to add options during “peak” hours of consumer spending. 3g. Expand tourism efforts to take advantage of regional trends, such as nature tourism. Goal 4. Strengthen the quality of life and vitality of the community for residents, workers and visitors to enjoy. Policies 4a. Develop a housing strategy that plans for a variety of housing options, both in design and affordability, around the city. Consider housing options for artists. 4b. Promote the visitor/tourism sector. Sustain and develop facilities that attract tourists, conferences, professional training, sporting events and other recreational opportunities. Packet Page 198 of 448 17 4c. Consider building incentives that may encourage environmentally-friendly construction (or LEED certified), a percent set-aside for the arts, public spaces, and affordable housing. 4d. Provide leadership on technology issues in order to ensure that Edmonds residents and businesses have fast, affordable service. 4e. Foster an open and accepting community culture that respects diversity. 4f. Expand social, cultural, artistic, recreational and other learning activities for all generations. 4g. Strive to improve communications with the public. Packet Page 199 of 448 18 C. Implementation The policies in this document were constructed to provide a supportive foundation for future economic development projects, legislation and decisions. Implementing the city’s policies will require cooperative involvement on the part of the City Council, Mayor, commissions and boards, committees, and staff. In the past, several studies have recommended a number of strategies for implementation, and yet few of these recommendations have actually been realized. At the same time, the city’s long term financial outlook has only worsened. It is therefore imperative that real progress be made in setting the course for economic development in Edmonds. Phased implementation could be achieved through a series of legislative actions and ongoing administrative services. Legislative The City Council ultimately decides on many land use and other regulations that greatly affect the ability for economic development to take place. As the policy-making body, the City Council must also act in the best interest for Edmonds residents and businesses today - and far into the future. This involves balancing immediate community feedback, the results of expert studies, staff recommendations, and the need for long term vision and planning for Edmonds’ future financial picture and quality of life. In the spring of 2006, the City Council formed an Economic Development Committee, which acts as the liaison between the City Council and the Economic Development Director. The Committee works to ensure that the Council as a whole has a deeper understanding of the economic development issues facing the City. As described in this Economic Development Element, a great deal of economic development involves “setting the stage” for economic growth to occur in a way that will enhance the community. Currently, a number of studies and community planning efforts are either underway or were recently completed that recommend revisions to various zoning regulations. Below are the short term implementation action items for the City Council. • Adopt design guidelines that ensure quality commercial space; • Resolve downtown zoning and height regulations consistent with an expressed vision; Packet Page 200 of 448 19 • Approve recommended reforms stemming from the work of the Highway 99 Task Force; • Study and approve updated Comprehensive Plan language and zoning regulations for the neighborhood business districts; • Study and adopt a package of incentives for use in business recruitment and retention efforts; and • Adopt a local purchasing policy, setting a priority for doing business with local companies, if within a specified range of price competitiveness. Services While staffing at the City of Edmonds has been streamlined significantly due to budgetary constraints in recent years, the city also recognizes that economic development contributes positively to the revenue outlook, local employment, and the quality of life for residents. The city should provide adequate resources for the following services to implement economic development in Edmonds: • Long-range planning for commercial areas • Site selection assistance and business recruitment • Community marketing • Business expansion and retention efforts • Public relations involving economic development • Data collection and analysis In cooperation with the city, the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce is also involved in economic development through a special subcommittee and the many festivals and business networking services that contribute positively to the local economy. Where relevant, the City of Edmonds should work in collaboration with the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, local economic development stakeholders, and regional alliances to further the economic development policies outlined in this Economic Development Element. Packet Page 201 of 448 Packet Page 202 of 448 ! " # $ % # &' ( ! ) ) * ! ! # ! ! ' ( ) ) ' ) # + , ! # - ' . ! ) ! ) # $ ) ! / ) 0 " " ! - - # - " ' " ) " ) - $ # ) $ - ) - #' ) $ - - ! ) $ # 0 " ) - $ " , ! # - ' $ - # - - - " + $ $ - ) - ' ! ! ) $ 0- " - - ) ! # 1 - + # ) ) ) # " - ' ! - ) ! / ) " ) " 1 ! - ) ! ) ! ) # $# # - )) - &' ( " - 0 ) 0 " ) $ * ! -/ " ) $ - - ' ) " ) ! ) - # ! ' # " - ) - # $ )) ! - " - )) - #' Packet Page 203 of 448 ! " $ ) # ) . - * #$ # % & $ ! $# - # ) " # - ! - - #2 ' " ) ) 2 ! $ / " - )) ) " ) " - " - - ) ' ! ' () ( )) ! $ ! / " " " 1# ) - . - ' . - ! " " 0 " ) - ) ! - . - " 0 0 ) - " / - 0 ' * + & , ' & )) ! - 0 ! - ) - " ! ) ' - # - 0 ) $ ! / " $ - 3 ! ! ! " ! ) ! #' &% $& ! - ! / " ! # ) ! ) , ! # 3 - ! ) ' # - * " ! ! , ) " $ -#- -/ " " -# " - " # ) , " ) " - - ) " . - ' & ( ( (- ,#( ,& ! " / ) " $ ' )) ! ! " 0 - - - $ " - #' + ( # ( # ! - ! " ! / ! / " - 0 " " - " . - - # ! #' Packet Page 204 of 448 . / 0 / 1 " - ! ) ) ) ) ) 4' ( $ " ! ) ) ' ) ! $# - - $ - ) - - ! -- $ ! 1 4' - ) ! $# " ) " - - $ 5 $ # ' - ! ) ) - - ) - " $ " ' - ! ) # ) . ) $ " " - ' 2 / / 3 ) ! # )) - - $ " - - ! $ ) ! # -- " ! ) ) ' $ " ) 0 $ - ! $ " $ ' 6 ) - $ # ) , ! # / ! ! ! " ! ! / " ! ! # $ ) ' 7 ! " / + " " - $ ) ) ) ' ( $ " - - / $ ! )) - $ -' / 0 0 0 / / 3 8 - " $# ! - $# ) , ! # " $ - - - " ' $ ) ! # ! - $ - - $ $ - ) ' " $ - - ) $ - + - ' " - # ) " 5* ' ' ) $ " 994 , #' . - ) " # - ! ' ( " - . - ! / " # - $ " ' - - - ) ) !1 $ " ! $ - - / - - + ' $ $ " ) ) - " - ' Packet Page 205 of 448 , $ 0 ) $ - - - ! $ )) ' 1 $ - - $ " $ ' 0 ) " - ! " ) ) - " ! :, ! # - # ' - 3 2 # - ) ) " - ' $ ) ! - # ) ! - - ) ) ' / ) - ! - ) / . - $ $ - " " ! ) ' # $ ) - 2 - # . - " " ) - 0 ) : . - # - ' Packet Page 206 of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acket Page 207 of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acket Page 208 of 448 ! - " ) = $ + ' ! - - ! = $ + - )) - ) - " ' ( + ( # &&7 & ! / $ ) " )) - ) - - ) ' ( - ! $ - - " " ) : ! - - ' Packet Page 209 of 448 : . ; 5 ' < ; ' ' / 3 #$ # % ( ( 8 )) ! " : 4 - " ) ! " " * -- $ / ) ) - - # # ' $ " # - "' " $# ' 7 " < -- " ) ! ' /(* * * # &7 &7 && )) ! - " $# % 9 - $ 9& 4' ; ,( 7$$( ! - - " " - + " / " ' ! - 0 ! /# - ' /(* * * # &7 &7 && > 2 -- ! $ $# - ! / " - $ ' , /# ? # ! - # # # - ' 7& (# + )) ! " - - - ) ' /(* * * # &7 &7 && )) ! - " - < ' - ! $ - $ " ) : 4' -- ! $ $# " " " - ) - ' * + & , ' & - # ( - # # ' ( , 1 # ) $ " - #' ( @ " # ' 0 - ) - ) $# $ " - #' Packet Page 210 of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acket Page 211 of 448 , / ! # ) 0 ) " -# -- ! ) ' , / ! / 8 " # ) ! ) , ! # ) - ' , / ! # ) ! " $ ! / ! # $ 8 -/ ; " 8 - /' , / ! # ) ) " - ) ) - $ ' - ) " . - ! # ) ! ) , ! # , " ) ' /(* * * # &7 &7 &&* . - ! - -- " )) ) " " $ ) ! ) , ! #' Packet Page 212 of 448 : ; ; ( (# + ($# ( # ! - - - ! - # ! ) ! " ) - ) ) " ' / 4( 67 , + ($# = $ + ) 2 # - - ' ! - 0 ) = $ + ' " - # 0 3 # ' 8 (- ,#( ,& ( (# + ($# ! # ) " ) - - ' & ( ( (- ,#( ,& ! " / ) " $ ' : " 9 ' < 9 0 / (##7 ( * % ( & & , & ! - - - )) ! - " 4' ! - ! - ) - - " # - " - * - # $ /) " ! " $ ) $ - ! / ' (##7 ( * % ( &9 + ,( &9 , & %( , & ! - - ! - ' # - $ - ) - - - " - ) - # ! " # ! ' ! - ! ! # 0 2 , $ - ) - ) 4' Packet Page 213 of 448 = / 0 3 : 3 * $ + ! ! # ) ! ) , ! # # " 0 ) $ # ) $ " ! - ' ( (# + ($# $$( 7 & ! 0 : $ ' ! - # " " - ! ) " ) $ ) - ' , & 53 8 + $ && ! ! / ! # ) ) :$ -#- -/ ' ' 8 # /( , & ! ! / ! # ) " ) ) ) # $ ! # ) ! # - ! # $ - ' + ($# (- ( 0 & ! ! / ! ! ) , ! # # ! 0 # $ ) - ) ) , ' >$ & ( , ! ( - 7 ( ! 0 $ # ) 0 " : 1- ) " " ' Packet Page 214 of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acket Page 215 of 448 )) ! - ! + ) - - - ! " " ) - ' - " # - ) ! ! - ! C ' " - 0 " ! $ $# - ) !' ! - - . - ! " ) - # - - ) !* = $ + " $ /! - ) ! : $ ! ' Packet Page 216 of 448 ' 3 ' 0 C9 5E C4 0 C&5 ( ( - C& ; ( ; , CD 4E& ' 0 . - C E<4 $ - C < ) C & C& 9 # 8 ) F 0 C9E4 ) C9 ( - 7 C&4 C&D C< - C5 - - CD ( C 95 C&9D ; 7 ; , C4 < < ( ) ! ' ) ! AC E B Packet Page 217 of 448 / / & ( 8 (- % ( (- ,#( ,& ) ) - &<DE ! ) - # ) $ $ " ' 7 " ) &E< &< &' ) - ! ) - #2 8 ) " ) $ 0 " - ' " - - - - $ " - # ) $ ) - ' 8# ) &< & ! ) " - # ' ) $ " $ $ ! ) - #' - ! - $# - $ 5 &<DE' 0 # ) ) - - - ! ) ' . - - " $ ! ! -/ ) - ) $ ) ! ' - - - # " " $ # ) $ $ /! ' " - ! / " 3 #' ( - $ $# G "1 - # $# < ! $# " ' - 2 1 ! 0 ) < ' $ ) - - - ) - - $# ' ! - 0 # % # & ' ) # ) ! -+ ) $ $ ' 0 # - ) ! -+ ) ! ' 8# &<4 - ! ) - ) - 0 # &E - ) ' $ " - - ) ! ! - 8 = $ &<4&' " ) - - . - ! $ /! - " "' , ! - ! - - &<4 ' $ /! ! - &<4<' , " - - # ! 5D& ' - " ) -/ $ /! ! - - &<E9' " &<4 - " ) $ H #I " ' ! &<E # " " &<54 &4 ! # ! ' ( &<< - " ) - # &<<E # ) &<4 ' - # 0 # Packet Page 218 of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acket Page 219 of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acket Page 220 of 448 '7 ( @ & 1" ) / ! ) ) ) ' 1 )1 # ! - ) " ) ) ' E - ! - ) # " + ) -- ) D #' = ) ) ) -/ " # - ! ) - " ! 1 )) -/ " / / $ " ' ( ) " )) $ ) 1 - ) # ) ) - $ ! ! + $ ' + - , 3( 0 ( @8 , $ ! /# ) # ! / )) ) " ! " $ -/ " $ ! /# ' 8 - ! ) $# ' $ $# ) # ' ) + 1 - $ ) " $ ! $ ! # ) ! ' ! ) -/ # 0 ) $ $ - $ ) - #' = - # ) $ ! /# ) $ ) 1 / " ) ' ! " - - $ ! /# ) $ ) ) $ " $ -' (( ( # " " ! " ) $ - # $ ' ! - # $ ' ) 1 )) $ - " ) " ! - ) " / ' 9 5 $ - ) " J 2 J 2 -/ ) " $ - ! - ! " # - ' ! " # ) D * Packet Page 221 of 448 ( 8 (+ , $ ( & &D2 L 42 5E & E2 L 9 2 9E && 9DE 9D2 L D 2 5E 45 &D DD2 L 2 D 4D D2 &4 &4 94 9&9 459 ! " ) - " ) $ ' - ! " ) " " ) 1& # ' ! " ) 42 L9 2 $ - ' 8 @ ( # -/ " " ) " # ' " ) - " ! &<<E ! ! # -/ ) - # # - - # ! - - ' " ! ) 1 )) ! $ ) " - " $ - + ' )) $ $ " ! - . - ! /' - # ) $ ) D # -/ ) ! * ( 8 7#4 7 I & 2 E2 & E2 9 2 99 9 2 9 2 5 ( = " $ - # -/ " $ ' # - $ -- ' Packet Page 222 of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acket Page 223 of 448 2 - # )) ! - $ " . - " 0 ) # ' C 'E $ ) ! , ) . - / " ) $ " C 'D ' . - - - ) ! $ , 8 /! ' . - ) - #2 = ) - - ) $ - 3 - " 8 "' " ) ) - - ) ) / ) " $ - ) - - - - "# ' Packet Page 224 of 448 ; ; / 0 0 " ) - ) "# ) - - ) , ! # - ' )) " " - - ! $ - " - " 3 # ! $ - # - - " 3 ' # ) " - - - " $ - ' $ 0 ) - # # $# " ! - - ) ) " 8 - /' ! /! # ! $ ! ! - - &<<51&<<E 0 # $# , ! # ' # ) 2 ! ) ) - - ) ! $ /! ! /! # ) # -/ " ' " ) ! $ ) - " " - ) - ' " ! &<< ! " - " $ ' ) ! " $ ! - - ' " ) $ # ! ! / ! # ) ) ! ! , ) ' ! / " ! / H 'I ! $ - ! $ ) - $ - # ' $ ) . ) - # ) ' - * ( - # - $ " > " ! " $# = - - #' Packet Page 225 of 448 PORT OF EDMONDS Master Plan Commission Approved June 27, 2005 INTRODUCTION This Master Plan provides a 20-year development blueprint for the use of the Port’s property. It builds on existing investments the Port has made and offers new ideas for use of the underutilized upland portions of the site. The Master Plan also includes the physical development to adjacent properties and their plans. This Plan complements the Port’s Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan includes the Port of Edmonds Mission Statement and describes in broad terms how that mission will be accomplished. It also specifies the Port’s two year implementation plan, incorporating programmatic and physical actions that the Port will pursue. The Master Plan is a document that references the Port’s long- term strategies and its vision for the future and shows how they will be physically implemented. Specific elements of the Master Plan relate to current and long- term development, public access and safety. Both the Master Plan and Strategic Plan are reviewed and updated each year. MASTER PLAN AREA 1. Port of Edmonds Vicinity The Port complex incorporates approximately 64 acres including the Port shore based operations, marina, leased property and property held jointly by the Port and the City of Edmonds. See Vicinity Map, Exhibit A. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) tracks run north and south on the east side of Admiral Way and the Port proper. The Port has a lease agreement with BNSF for a stretch of property to accommodate part of the Dry Storage Program in the southeast portion of Port property. The Harbor Square Business complex which is located east of the railroad tracks along Dayton Street and SR104 is also situated on Port property, but is administered by a private property manager. The Harbor Square Athletic Club is also on Port property and is managed separately. Packet Page 226 of 448 2 The former UNOCAL property, located east of the railroad tracks is south and southeast of Port property. The upper portion of the UNOCAL site was purchased by TRIAD Development for condominium development. The Washington State Department of Transportation and the City of Edmonds have recently purchased the lower site for the future Edmonds Crossing Project and Marina Beach Park from UNOCAL for the City’s Parks and Recreation Programs. The Port also owns a small parcel of land south of Marina Beach Park/Dog Park which was purchased from U. S. West in February of 1996. The old Safeway site, situated to the northeast of Port property, is recognized as under-developed. The Port has an interest in working with the property manager on a possible private/public development, or as a broker in future development of the property. The parking area adjacent to the old Richards Building immediately north of the Port property is jointly owned by the Port and the City of Edmonds. This area provides public parking for visitors to Olympic Beach Park and the public Fishing Pier. The Edmonds Marsh is east of the railroad tracks and lies between the Harbor Square Business Complex and the UNOCAL site. This property is owned and managed by the City of Edmonds and provides unique habitat and wildlife viewing opportunities as a result of the confluence of saltwater and freshwater environments. Preliminary discussions have taken place regarding the possibility of a Cultural and Interpretive Center in the vicinity of the marsh area and Deer Creek Hatchery. A walking trail with interpretive signs borders a portion of the marsh on the north side. The harbor area encompasses 25 acres which are utilized for the Port’s marina. The Port has a management agreement with the Department of Natural Resources for use of the waterway on the inside of the marina for the purpose of providing marina moorage and other marine related programs. The Master Plan recognizes the importance of planning for Port owned property, such as the Harbor Square area. The Port also recognizes the potential of a master development plan that might include the “old Safeway” property and Harbor Square. The Port is committed to working with the appropriate parties in realizing this potential. 2. Port Property - Site Opportunities The core of the Port property is located on a narrow strip of land between Puget Sound and the BNSF tracks. Uses of the site are limited as a result of this situation. Much of the available property is currently used as general parking space that is covered with impervious surface. The Master Plan identifies two major mixed use sites on the east and west sides of Admiral Way for future development opportunities. Packet Page 227 of 448 3 Any development on Port property will take into consideration: public access to the waterfront, provision for a greenbelt and other landscaped areas, and view corridors from walkways and Admiral Way. MASTER PLAN VISION The Master Plan vision, when fully implemented, will realize the following: 1. Public Access The Port will provide physical and programmatic amenities to encourage the public to visit the Port. Landscaping, signage and the walking promenade will be a year-round attraction permitting the public to visit and enjoy the seasonal flowers, the marina, Puget Sound and the beauty of the Olympic Mountains. The waterfront is defined as the area between Brackett’s Landing Park to the north and from Marina Beach Park on the south, west of Admiral Way. The public promenade extends from Brackett’s Landing at the Ferry Terminal, south through Olympic Beach Park and connects via Port property to Marina Beach Park. Harbor Square Business Park and the Edmonds Marsh are situated east of the railroad tracks. A partial trail system encompasses the business park and the marsh. It is part of the Port’s vision to expand this connection along the marsh to the fish hatchery. The vision also includes a Cultural and Interpretive Center highlighting the marsh and marine environment in partnership with the City of Edmonds, Edmonds Community College and others. The Port will work with the City of Edmonds to encourage public access from the uplands Point Edwards, across the railroad tracks, to the waterfront. 2. Programs The Port’s in-water marina is currently filled to capacity. There could be opportunities for marina expansion in concert with the Edmonds Crossing Project or through partnerships with the Town of Woodway and the owner of the Point Wells property. The Dry Storage facility is at full capacity during much of the year and emphasis is being placed on maximizing capacity year-round and exploring expansion opportunities in the future. Due to the decline in fishing over the past ten to fifteen years, activity at the public launch facility has decreased significantly. The cost center has not been profitable for the last decade. The public launch was financed partially by the State of Washington, which requires that the Port continue to operate the launch facility. The Commission considers the public launch to be a public amenity and will continue to fully support the program. The Port’s travelift/work yard is an important marine related program. There may be opportunities for expansion, depending upon utilization and enhancement to the environmental programs, especially as state and federal regulations are updated and implemented. Packet Page 228 of 448 4 Parking is not a major concern with current programs; however, with program expansion, parking could be more of a concern and parking structures may be a consideration. This will depend upon development in certain areas of Port property. 3. Facilities Building structures currently include the Landing Building which houses Armies Restaurant, a Deli, and Charter Operations; the Port’s Administration Building which includes the Edmonds Yacht Sales office; and Anthony’s HomePort Restaurant/Beach Café building, which is owned by the Port and also houses the Edmonds Yacht Club and Marina Operations Programs. The Port has a ground lease with the Landing Partnership. The Anthony’s HomePort building is owned by the Port, and the Port has a building lease with Mad Anthony’s Incorporated. The Port has a ground lease with Harbor Square Associates and the Harbor Square Athletic Club, both of which are located at the Harbor Square Business Complex. The Master Plan has identified two mixed-use areas on the east side and west side of Admiral Way where new structures could be built. Currently these two areas are used for parking. These areas could provide space for future marine retail and services operations, a new Edmonds Yacht Club building, mixed use buildings, which might house Port Administration functions, or a community use facility. Restrooms and facilities for guest moorage patrons are currently located in the Marina Operations complex. Restrooms are also available at the City owned Beach Ranger facility at the north end of the marina and there are also restrooms beneath the Port Administration offices. Restrooms at the Administration building are open 24 hours a day. Facilities for tenant use are located at the south end of the marina. A new restroom and public amenities complex may be constructed near the public launch and guest moorage area. The Port will pursue grant opportunities to build this complex GUIDING PRINCIPLES These guiding principles are not listed in any order of priority, but are intended to provide guidance for site development. • Conserve and protect the shoreline and environmental quality. • Maintain a quality marina and marina related services. • Support Port tenants. • Provide for public safety. • Increase or enhance public access. Packet Page 229 of 448 5 • Encourage new waterfront related uses, for example: new marine related retail, new vendors, cultural arts programs and new opportunities for small craft such as kayaks. • Incorporate new public space that can be used for celebrations, public events, passive and active recreation (viewing, sitting, walking, and jogging). • Decrease impervious surfaces and spaces throughout the site, increase green areas, and provide for liberal landscaping. • Provide an overall design theme for the Port that will be evident in architecture and landscaping. The overall design should relate to the Port’s history, location, and maritime role and should incorporate cultural and fine arts elements. • Infrastructure should be an integral part of the waterfront experience; i.e., signage should be coordinated and focused; utilities must be underground; roof tops that are part of the City of Edmond’s view should be aesthetically attractive; refuse containers, benches, fences, railings, utility hole covers, and pedestrian crossing paving should be integrated in an overall master design. When possible, these latter facilities should be thematically consistent and esthetically pleasing; they should encourage the incorporation of art and sculpture. • View corridors from Admiral Way and from buildings on the east side of Admiral Way shall be incorporated into the planning process when considering new buildings, landscape, and public amenities. • Circulation on the site should be improved, including access for cars, public safety vehicles and pedestrian connections. • To the extent practical, parking should be located between Admiral Way and the BNSF tracks, freeing the area near the waterfront for increased public amenities, public use and green areas. DESCRIPTION OF FEATURES AND PROGRAMS 1. Programs The Port’s largest program provides marine related service to the public and the boating community. The Port will strive to maintain high standards in existing services, as well as to seek new programs that complement the existing operations of the Port. These programs may include the following: • Wet moorage and dry storage programs • Public access to the shoreline including the promenade with access to Marina Beach and Olympic Beach Parks • Accommodations for fishing and other types of charters out of the Port • Landscape and flower programs • Well maintained roads and sidewalks • Provision of an interpretive center near the marsh and/or fish hatchery Packet Page 230 of 448 6 2. Facilities To accommodate the programs of the Port the following facilities will be provided: • Boat launch apparatus for the public launch and dry storage programs • Work yard accessible by the public, that meets environmental standards • Travelift in support of the Port’s work yard • Pressure wash and wastewater treatment facility • Marine fuel dock, guest moorage and bait shop • Fishing Pier managed by the City of Edmonds • Load and unload areas, and public parking areas • Restrooms and related programs for the public and guest moorage patrons • Commercial, light industrial, marine oriented businesses • Retail establishments including shops and restaurants • Yacht sales establishment • Mix of office facilities • Private yacht club facility • Accommodations for the Sea Scout Program • Facilities for recycling and disposal of refuse 3. Access and Safety The two points of vehicle entry to the waterfront and the marina are via Main Street and Dayton Street, both of which cross the BNSF tracks. Due to these limited access points, the Port and the City of Edmonds have concerns about emergency access when a long train is stopped and blocking access on Dayton Street and Main Street. Currently, the Port has an agreement with the City to provide personnel and a vehicle to help transport equipment and supplies across the tracks, if such a situation were to occur. Pedestrian access across the rail tracks is planned to be provided as part of a multimodal station. The Edmonds Crossing project team will also examine, during the final design and permitting phase of the project, whether an emergency only at-grade crossing could be incorporated into the Edmonds Crossing Project. A primary mission of the Port is to provide quality services and facilities for the public, tenants, and the boating community. In keeping with this mission, the Port maintains a high level of maintenance of the facilities and amenities for both the enjoyment of the visitors to the Port and for their safety. The Port’s in-house Safety Committee is constantly reviewing the grounds and facilities for ways to make improvements to ensure the safety of its staff and for visitors who walk the grounds, the boardwalk, and through the facilities. Many improvements to the facilities have been completed over the last several years. Packet Page 231 of 448 7 NEW OR EXPANDED ELEMENTS OF THE MASTER PLAN The following elements are the physical plans for the Port property over the next twenty years. Some of the elements are in the planning phase and may be implemented in the short term. Other elements are longer range. See Port Site Map, Exhibit B. Public Plaza The Port is proceeding with design and construction of a public plaza to be located in the parking area on the west side of the Anthony’s Homeport Restaurant Building. The plaza area will be a landscape and hard surface area designed for the public. There may be an opportunity for a weather station in or near this area to provide educational and meteorological information to visitors and boaters of the region. Parking Parking is essential to meet the needs of the Port programs and the businesses located on Port property. Parking will be provided on both the east and west side of Admiral Way. It shall be the policy of the Port to locate parking to the east side of Admiral Way as opportunities present themselves, but still maintain enough parking on the west side to accommodate the programs and businesses. The Port will review the need for an increase in parking or parking structures as development occurs on Port property or as adjacent development occurs such as the “old Safeway” site, Harbor Square or the Edmonds Crossing project. North Boardwalk Improvements Improvements have been made to the north boardwalk including view cutouts, inclusion of benches and tables, and landscape planters. Additional improvements may include a landscape strip, shelters to contain the recycle and refuse containers, and interpretive signage. Mixed Use Area – Waterfront This area is currently parking and landscape. Additional potential uses might include, open space, load/unload space, an office and retail building, Edmonds Yacht Club building and a building for community facility use. Mixed Use Area – East of Admiral Way This area is currently a support area for the existing work yard and storage area. Possible uses might include parking, Port office and/or maintenance complex, Packet Page 232 of 448 8 marine retail and services complex; Edmonds Yacht Club building, expanded boatyard operations and a building for community facility use. Mixed Use Area – South of Workyard This area is currently an informal parking area and storage/recycling area for the Port and Anthony’s HomePort Restaurant and dry storage boats. Possible uses might include parking, storage, marine retail and services complex, expanded boatyard operations and a building for community facility use. Dry Storage Expansion Expansion may occur to the north of the existing dry storage facility if program needs demand such an expansion. The area impacted by such an expansion is currently used for parking. Elimination of parking in this area would require additional parking be provided in another area. Marina Expansion If an opportunity presents itself, the Port may want to study the feasibility of expanding the south marina in light of the Edmonds Crossing project. Guest Moorage/Visitor Restroom Facility The Port may consider constructing a new guest moorage and visitor restroom facility in the area of the public launcher and pursue the opportunity for grant funding. This facility would include restrooms, laundry, showers and other appropriate amenities. The elements as they are outlined and implemented in this Master Plan will keep the Port of Edmonds one of the best marinas in the region. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map - Exhibit A 2. Site Map - Exhibit B Packet Page 233 of 448 1 Draft new language for Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Recommended by the Planning Board on 6/28/2006 D. Goals for Neighborhood Commercial Areas. Neighborhood commercial areas are intended to provide a mix of services, shopping, gathering places, office space, and housing for local neighborhoods. The scale of development and intensity of uses should provide a middle ground between the more intense commercial uses of the Highway 99 Corridor/ Medical area and the Downtown Activity Area. Historically, many of the neighborhood commercial areas in Edmonds have developed as classically auto-oriented commercial “strip malls” with one- and two-story developments primarily including retail and service uses. Throughout the region, neighborhood commercial areas are departing from this historical model by being redeveloped as appealing mixed-use clusters, providing attractive new pedestrian-oriented development that expands the uses and services available to local residents. The neighborhood commercial areas share several common goals: D.1. Neighborhood commercial development should be located at major arterial intersections and should be designed to minimize interference with through traffic. D.2. Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local neighborhood. Mixed use development should be encouraged within neighborhood commercial areas. D.3. Provide for transit and pedestrian access, with the provision of facilities for local automobile traffic. Provide for pedestrian connections to nearby residential neighborhoods. D.4. Allow a variety of architectural styles while encouraging public art and sustainable development practices that support pedestrian activity and provide for appealing gathering places. D.5. Significant attention should be paid to the design of ground level commercial spaces, which must accommodate a variety of commercial uses, have street-level entrances, and storefront facades that are dominated by transparent windows. D.6. Encourage neighborhood commercial areas to reflect the identity and character of individual neighborhoods, thus strengthening their importance as neighborhood centers. Neighborhood commercial areas may set additional specific goals for their community in order to further refine the specific identity they wish to achieve. Goals and policies for specific neighborhood centers are detailed below. Packet Page 234 of 448 EDMONDS STREETSCAPE PLAN City of Edmonds Department of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services New Appendices Prepared in 2006 by CREÄ Affiliates Original Urban Design Study Prepared in December 2002 by MacLeod Reckord Packet Page 235 of 448 ii STREETSCAPE PLAN MARCH 2006 City of Edmonds Department of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Original 2002 study prepared by MacLeod Reckord 2006 appendices prepared by CREÄ Affiliates Packet Page 236 of 448 iii Acknowledgments The update for the Streetscape Plan would not have been possible without the assistance of a great number of individuals. We would like to thank the following people for their time and input: CITY OF EDMONDS Mayor and City Council Gary Haakenson, Mayor Deanna Dawson, Council President Michael Plunkett Peggy Olson Mauri Moore Ron Wambolt Richard L. Marin David J. Orvis Planning Board Janice Freeman, Chairperson John Dewhirst, Vice Chair James (Jim) Crim Virginia Cassutt Cary Guenther Judith Works Jim Young Don Henderson Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Brian McIntosh, Director Frances White Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Richard Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager Dave Timbrook, Park Maintenance Lead City Staff Rob Chave - Planning Manager Steve Bullock - Planning Meg Gruwell - Planning Stephen Clifton - Community Services Director Duane Bowman - Development Service Director David Gebert - City Engineer Lyle Chrisman - Engineering Noel Miller - Public Works Director Jim Kammerer - Street Manager Jennifer Gerend - Economic Development Director CONSULTANT - CREÄ Affiliates Anindita Mitra, Principal Matt Mathes, Landscape Architect Davidya Kasperzyk, Architect/Natural Resource Planning Pam Beyette, Public Artist 2002 Consultant - MacLeod Reckord Terry Reckord, Principal Lauren Perry, Landscape Architect Charlene Bujacich, Staff Packet Page 237 of 448 iv PAGE SUMMARY PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Goals Scope Code and Comprehensive Plan Organization 2 ISSUES STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 DESIGN ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . Safety Security Comfort Traffic Circulation Planting Aesthetics 10 RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDED ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Traffic Improvements Connections Bikeways Corners Crosswalks Medians Parking Pavement Marking Signing Landscaping Seasonal Planting Sidewalk Design Gateways Highway 99 DISTRIBUTION (MATRIX) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 39 CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. STREET FURNITURE & CITY DESIGN STANDARDS B. HIGHWAY 99 - International District C. GATEWAYS/INTERSECTIONS D. WAY-FINDING SIGNS E. 4TH AVENUE ARTS CORRIDOR F. STREET TREES 45 46 48 58 67 75 114 Packet Page 238 of 448 1 SUMMARY PREFACE The City of Edmonds is a community notable for its location on Puget Sound, its comfortable neighborhoods and pedestrian-friendly downtown character. This study is intended to build upon the strengths of the commu- nity by suggesting ways to add continuity and identity in its public spaces through new design elements and standards, and by making streets and pub- lic thoroughfares more attractive, safer, and more convenient. Packet Page 239 of 448 2 INTRODUCTION In 2002 the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department completed a preliminary study of Urban Design in public spaces which included a revised Street Tree Plan. The goal was to initiate development of an urban enhancement program. The study primarily addressed the downtown area of Edmonds. The Urban Design Study was updated and renamed the Streetscape Plan in 2006. Since the original study was done, the City has completed a major update of the Comprehensive Plan including specific recommendations and new concepts such as the 4th Ave. Arts Corridor designated by the Planning Board in the revised Downtown/Waterfront Plan and the International District on Highway 99 called out in the 2004 Highway 99 Enhancement Project Report. In an effort to support and move forward these concepts for public space the Parks Department updated the initial Study. The Streetscape Plan was expanded and revised to provide an overall picture of the public realm for the downtown and waterfront area and key arterials and feeder streets throughout the City; to highlight and focus on improvements and requirements in specific target areas; and to establish priorities. The focus of this effort was on developing more specific concepts for future implementation that are included in the Streetscape Plan as appendices. The six appendices are: Street Furniture & City Design Standards, Highway 99, Gateway/Intersections, Way-Finding Signs, 4th Ave. Arts Corridor, and Street Trees. The core document summarizes a series of suggested improvements for the downtown, for commercial areas, for gateways and for the City‘s frontage on State Highway 99. These recommendations were based upon a sequential process, carried out in the context of a series of consultant team/staff workshops and meetings and later revisions by City staff. The process included establishing a set of GOALS, identifying and understanding the underlying ISSUES and then recommending a series of (design) ACTIONS to satisfy those goals. These actions are intended to occur in public spaces (primarily street right-of-ways) and this document is a companion piece and complementary to the CITY OF EDMONDS DESIGN GUIDELINES, which focus on development of private property, and the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The actions recommended will be implemented over time as appropriate (pro-actively as capital projects, and also as standards to be applied as other related street/infrastructure projects are implemented over time). The discussion of issues and recommendations is based upon the following general assumptions: ♦ Research shows that residents and businesses city-wide realize tangible economic and social benefits when the downtown area thrives. ♦ Edmonds enjoys a strong history, a good pedestrian “feel“ Packet Page 240 of 448 3 (particularly downtown), solid flower, beautification and art programs, desirable “Main Street” character and small town scale, and proximity to the waterfront. ♦ The goal of maintaining and building upon those strengths is broadly shared. ♦ The downtown consists of a variety of assets and components that are not always well-connected in an integrated way. ♦ The circulation system emphasizes the needs of auto/truck traffic at the expense of pedestrians. Traffic congestion makes some streets seem perilous to cross, and many sidewalks are narrow, congested and/or in poor condition. ♦ There is a demonstrated need for a series of appropriate streetscape design “standards“ and details to strengthen character and continu- ity. ♦ The City of Edmonds‘ situation and identity within the south Snohomish County region should be strengthened. Packet Page 241 of 448 4 GOALS The establishment of a set of study goals is intended to address the needs of the City and its citizens in a way that reflects these assumptions, and the real meaning of the City‘s streetscape to its culture, history and self-image. The Team and Staff worked to establish the following Goals for the original study and subsequent update: Enhance the street environment for pedestrians; Enhance the economic viability of the downtown; Establish a stronger connection between downtown and the waterfront; Create a pedestrian connection between the Edmonds Center for the Arts and Main St.; Enhance commercial areas outside the downtown core; Identify and enhance gateways; Enhance the City‘s presence on Highway 99; Provide guidance for street tree planting and maintenance. A balanced mix of components will best accomplish these goals, and there is no single best-design solution. Success may be difficult to quantify, but successful projects usually begin with a clear vision of what is to be accomplished, make the best of what there is to work with, and reflect local history and uniqueness. There are potentially several indicators of success: More people on the street–especially children; An increase in walking and bicycling; Lower crime and vandalism rates; Economic vitality. Successful projects will require collaboration among all stakeholders, in- cluding the general public, residents, business and building owners, associa- tions, merchant/business organizations and the City (staff, departments, etc.). “Children are…an indicator of urban health. Children are small and vulnerable and need to be protected. If a city (downtown) lacks children…such a place must present an environment that is uncomfortable, noisy and dangerous.” ~David Sucher Packet Page 242 of 448 5 SCOPE The Study is focused primarily on urban design/streetscape issues, and in- cludes three primary areas of study: the downtown core, gateways, and Highway 99. The Downtown area was the primary focus of the core study and source of most of the streetscape recommendations. The recommendations are intended to improve circulation, enhance the pedestrian environment, add elements of continuity to the physical environment and enhance the retail/commercial circumstances throughout Edmonds. The study also reflects potential impacts such as the recent development of the Edmonds Center for the Arts, the future shifting of the ferry terminal to a new location, and development of the Interurban Trail. Many people view/experience Edmonds while passing through, and the Gateway element is intended to identify those geographic “entries“ to Edmonds that could be enhanced to reflect the City‘s character and identity in a recognizable way. One of the primary gateways/entries to Edmonds is from the west by Ferry. The eastern boundary of Edmonds is situated along a major commercial corridor, Highway 99, and this plan suggests ways to address that “edge“ condition in a positive way that also recognizes the City‘s identity. While the core document contains references to connections in the downtown, gateways, and Highway 99, the appendices expand on specific concepts that supplement the original study. Packet Page 243 of 448 6 CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE P LAN The City of Edmonds Codes include several sections which address urban design issues, both on public and private lands. These recommendations provide additional direction to staff in addressing design issues that are supported by Code for public right-of-way. Code Section 15.15 Environment Code Section 15.30 Downtown Parking and Development Code Section 18.80 Streets and Driveways Code Section 18.90 Sidewalks Code Section 18.95 Parking Lot Construction ORGANIZATION This document is organized into Sections covering Summary, Issues, Recommendations, Conclusions and Appendices. Within the Recommenda- tions section is a set of specific recommended actions, including a descrip- tion of the issue, the intent, and the recommended action. Several actions may be suggested, as options, to allow flexibility in achieving the Goals over time. The six appendices include detail on street furniture and design standards, design concept for the Highway 99 International District, a prototype Gateway/intersection, Way-finding signs, the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, and the Street Tree Plan with information on City standards and recommended species. Packet Page 244 of 448 7 ISSUES This section describes the geographic scope of the Study, and summarizes the underlying issues addressed. STUDY AREA The study includes discussion of design in public spaces throughout the City of Edmonds. The primary focus of the core study, for purposes of identifying issues of interest, is the downtown “bowl,” bounded on the north and south by Caspers Street and Howell Street, on the west by the waterfront, and on the east by 8th Avenue. Appendix A addresses issues of street furniture and design mainly in the downtown; Appendix E focuses on design concepts for the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor; and the Street Tree Plan, Appendix F, also focuses on the downtown area, but includes references to major intersections and arterials citywide. Packet Page 245 of 448 8 In evaluating any commercial/downtown area, it is important to identify the streets, corridors and intersections of significance, and recognize primary patterns of circulation, destinations, public spaces and views. Recommended improvements can then be focused on those areas where they can have the most physical and visual impact. Influencing factors include the following: Packet Page 246 of 448 9 Development of functional categories for the various streets in the downtown helps to establish a rationale for the distribution of proposed improvements: The Highway 99 section addresses enhancement of the City‘s eastern commercial edge and Appendix B provides a specific concept for the International District between 224th and 236th. The gateway discussion identifies a series of intersections/entry points recommended for improvements, with Appendix C focusing on a prototype example at Westgate. Appendix D develops a concept for key way-finding signs that could be implemented citywide. Packet Page 247 of 448 10 DESIGN ISSUES There are a series of fundamental underlying issues that must be thoroughly understood in order to be successful. These focus on the downtown, but ap- ply in varying degrees to outlying commercial areas. • SAFETY Safety, both real and perceived, is one of the most important aspects of street design. When people feel unsafe, what is at the heart of the prob- lem? How is a street unsafe? Are there too many cars, or are they going too fast? Are there too many driveways? Are sidewalks too narrow? Are crossings difficult? Good design can improve citizen safety through: 1. Increased Awareness – pedestrian visibility – better sight distance – clear expectations 2. Reduced Conflicts – separated modes of travel – adequate clearances – fewer points of contact News/Advertising boxes impede circulation and visibility. 3. Lower Traffic Speeds – traffic calming tools – regulation Quoting from AASHTO, “. . . it is often extremely difficult to make adequate provisions for pedestrians. Yet this must be done, because pedestrians are the lifeblood of our urban areas, especially in the downtown and other retail areas. In general, the most successful shopping sections are those that provide the most comfort and pleasure for pedestrians.” Packet Page 248 of 448 11 • SECURITY People should feel secure and unthreatened in order for streets to be suc- cessful. This feeling of security is created through visibility (meaning enough people on the street, good lighting, elimination of hiding spots, telephones, wide sidewalks, etc.) and ownership (pride in the down- town, where bad behavior is not accepted). Canopies may conflict with street trees at sidewalks. “Urban streets need to serve all users as well as possible, but pedestrians are the priority when safety and space allocation must be balanced between modes.“ ~ Main Street Handbook p.20 Packet Page 249 of 448 12 • COMFORT Comfort is related to security, but goes further, and includes a variety of factors: Is it lively but not too noisy? Will there be someplace to sit? Is there shade? Can I find a parking space? Will my wheelchair roll easily? There are two main elements: DESIGN The important design factors related to comfort are (1) a rec- ognizable identity; (2) interesting views; (3) comfortable sur- roundings; and (4) quality materials and execution. Curb extension planting can enhance sidewalks. SCALE For a street to be comfortable and successful, things need to be considered at a human scale. Details are important. Things look different close-up, walking at 2 mph, than they do from behind a windshield at 30 mph. Comfortable height-to-width ratios fall between 1:3 and 1:2 as measured from the building fronts or large trees. Comfortable human-scale ratios fall between 1:3 and 1:2 as measured from building fronts or trees. Packet Page 250 of 448 13 • TRAFFIC Safety, security and comfort can be improved with traffic calming devices. While a balance must be struck between the needs of pedestrian and auto/truck traffic, the urban streetscape can be greatly enhanced by slowing, or “calming“ motorized traffic. Speed –impacts the reality/and perception of safety; Noise–creates discomfort; Congestion –creates noise; diminishes visibility and access. A major gateway at the waterfront/ferry. “Nobody goes there anymore–it‘s too crowded.“ ~Yogi Berra Packet Page 251 of 448 14 • CIRCULATION Efficient, effective circulation, for both vehicles and pedestrians, is criti- cal to a successful downtown. There are several aspects to good circula- tion: ACCESS Access to destinations should be clear and reasonable. Good vehicle access is provided by on-street parking, driveways and side streets; pedestrian access by sidewalks and other walkways. Keys are proximity, clarity and comfort. - (“Too many vehicular access points can put pedestrians at risk, and driveway cuts can make it difficult to meet ADA standards.” ~Main Street Handbook) Packet Page 252 of 448 15 CONNECTIONS Major destinations should be well-connected within the cir- culation system. Connecting the downtown to the waterfront/ferry area (on Main and Dayton Streets) and, connecting Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the Arts on 4th Avenue are key pedestrian corridors. Strengthen the connection between downtown and the waterfront, ferry. CROSSINGS Improved street crossings can greatly enhance pedestrian safety and security. Design elements can serve to increase pedestrian visibility, shorten crossing times, calm traffic and offer more crossing opportunities. Packet Page 253 of 448 16 • PLANTING The thoughtful use of planting in urban areas, particularly street trees, can add significantly to the character of the pedestrian environment and reinforce elements of circulation, separation from traffic, comfort, and security. ‘Bulb-out’/planting should extend entire parking lane width. Tree selection should be based upon the tree‘s characteristics of growth, durability, branching habit, visual appeal and maintenance requirements (refer to Appendix F - Street Tree Plan). Tree selection should consider branching habit, etc., and should anticipate growth. Packet Page 254 of 448 17 • AESTHETICS Citizens have expressed, in a variety of venues, a clear interest in build- ing upon the City‘s established reputation as an arts community. It is important, in considering urban design issues for the public space, to understand the value of building upon that tradition by continuing to create opportunities/venues for public art. Streetscape design elements can, in themselves, consciously reflect the City‘s history, character and identity. The Plan seeks to expand elements of continuity that are consistent with Edmonds‘ identity, while adding elements of diversity to make the streets and public spaces even more visibly active and comfortable – and strengthening the City‘s unique character and sense of place. Identification and design gateways, or entries, into Edmonds can solidify that sense of place, and clarify the City‘s location and identity within south Snohomish County in the minds of citizens and visitors alike. Packet Page 255 of 448 18 RECOMMENDATIONS The development of a set of recommended design solutions intended to ad- dress specific issues is integral to this Plan. Good site planning and design enhances public safety and security, improves circulation, reinforces com- munity character and identifies and builds a more cohesive and coherent ur- ban environment. Following herein is a set of Recommended Actions. These are intended to provide a set of design tools or standards that will address the issues de- scribed earlier in a unified way that is consistent with Edmonds‘ goals. It is assumed they will be implemented over time, as opportunities arise, and are complementary to and coordinated with the City‘s Comprehensive Plan and related documents. The Recommendations Section format contains a brief summary of the ISSUE being addressed, the INTENT of the recommendations, followed by specific ACTIONS designed to satisfy the intent. TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS CONNECTIONS BIKEWAYS CORNERS CROSSWALKS MEDIANS PARKING PAVEMENT MARKINGS SIGNING LANDSCAPING SEASONAL PLANTING SIDEWALK DESIGN Curb extensions Driveways Paving Widths Furniture Utilities GATEWAYS HIGHWAY 99 Packet Page 256 of 448 19 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS ISSUE Service/delivery traffic in downtown or commercial areas, with ran- dom access and multiple access points, in combination with automobile traffic results in noise and congestion. INTENT Reduce noise and congestion by calming traffic, re-routing service traffic, and reducing the number of driveways (while still maintaining access). ACTION ♦ Develop a planned set of “Services Routes“ downtown and improve those side streets/routes/alleys for access; ♦ Reduce/modify the number of existing service driveways by eliminating duplication/redundancy and providing shared service access; ♦ Modify turning/traffic movements to enhance efficiency and reduce congestion. Divert truck/service to alleys and side entries to reduce real and perceived conflicts with pedestrians. 18.80.060 Driveway and curb cut requirements B. Location 1. No driveway shall be located as to create a hazard to pedestri- ans, bicyclists or mo- torists or invite or compel illegal or un- safe traffic move- ments. City of Edmonds Packet Page 257 of 448 20 CONNECTIONS ISSUE Pedestrian connections to important destinations are not well de- fined. Particularly important are the connections between downtown and the waterfront, between Main St. and the Edmonds Center for the Arts (Appendix E), and between other public buildings. INTENT Make physical improvements, in concert with the Downtown/Waterfront Plan and the Community Cultural Plan, to visually and physically strengthen the connections to major destinations. (Coordinate with the Street Tree Plan-Appendix F, the Transportation Plan, and adopted Walkway Plan.) ACTION ♦ Develop an integrated system of paving and signing details (which may include Public Art elements) to clearly mark Main and Dayton Streets as connections to the waterfront and 4th Avenue as an Arts Corridor (Appendix E); ♦ Coordinate with the Street Tree Plan (Appendix F) to strengthen those connections through street tree selection and placement; ♦ Explore opportunities to reduce the impact of ferry (automobile) traffic on the pedestrian environment, both now and in the fu- ture (after relocation of the WSDOT Ferry Terminal). Packet Page 258 of 448 21 BIKEWAYS ISSUE Random bicycle traffic adds to congestion and impinges upon pedes- trian space. Also, opportunities for bicycle travel through and within downtown are limited. INTENT Reduce congestion and conflicts by allocating specific routes/ corridors for bicycles within the travel R.O.W. Also, provide incen- tives for increased bicycle use. (Coordinate with adopted Bicycle Plan and coordinate connections with development of the Interurban Trail.) ACTION ♦ Where traffic volumes, speed and available width allow, provide bicycle lanes within the street corridor. Designate bicycle space or clear regulatory direction within all corridors. (Generally, designating sidewalks for bicycle use is not recommended.) ♦ Provide incentives for bicycle use (racks, storage, access, etc.) both for users and for private/commercial enterprise to provide these amenities. Bicycle lanes at curb where possible. Shared roadway (designated routes). Bicycling incentives, racks/parking, access, etc. Packet Page 259 of 448 22 CORNERS ISSUE Pedestrian safety, visibility and comfort is impacted by large turning radii which allow faster turns and diminish visibility. INTENT Balance auto/truck turning requirements against pedestrian needs. Control speed and calm traffic by reducing turning radius at corners. (See also SIDEWALK DESIGN.) ACTION Reduce corner radii while maintaining minimums for anticipated traffic types. (See also SIDEWALK DESIGN regarding curb extensions.) Packet Page 260 of 448 23 CROSSWALKS ISSUE Poorly marked and misaligned crosswalks diminish pedestrian safety and comfort. INTENT Enhance pedestrian safety, visibility and comfort by improving crosswalk visibility (for both pedestrians and motorists) and align- ment. ACTION ♦ Make crosswalks more visible through the use of (white) ther- moplastic or different paving materials/colors; ♦ Align crosswalks with sidewalks to clarify movement patterns; ♦ Increase lighting at crosswalks; ♦ Shorten crossing distances where possible (see CORNERS, MEDIANS and SIDEWALK DESIGN). Increase crosswalk visibility to enhance pedestrian safety. Packet Page 261 of 448 24 MEDIANS ISSUE Wider streets may negatively affect pedestrian safety and comfort by increasing crossing distance and time (exposure to conflicts). INTENT In cases where other solutions such as bulb-outs and wider sidewalks are not feasible: ♦ Enhance pedestrian safety and comfort by: o Reducing crossing exposure (provide a “refuge”); o Crossing one direction of traffic at a time; o Reducing (calming) traffic speeds. ♦ Provide “access management“ by discouraging/eliminating mid- block left turns thus reducing auto/sidewalk conflicts. ♦ Enhance aesthetics and scale by providing median plantings and street trees where it is possible to safely provide maintenance or provide designed hardscape (see Appendix C). ACTION Provide street medians in cases where pedestrians would benefit and where space and traffic conditions allow. Right in only, right out only. Eliminate some driveways. Median -refuge -planting -traffic calming Packet Page 262 of 448 25 PARKING ISSUE Inefficient and ill-managed on-street parking can cause congestion and consume space that could otherwise be utilized for bicycle lanes, planting or wider sidewalks. INTENT Make downtown on-street parking more efficient, and use the re- claimed space to make the pedestrian (and bicycle) experience safer, more comfortable and more enjoyable. ACTION Relocate individual stalls or consolidate on-street (individual) parallel parking stalls to make more efficient use of available space. Consolidate/reduce wide driveways to create more space. Utilize the space created for expanded sidewalk, curb extensions and/or planting. Encourage parking in back of buildings with alley access where feasible. Removal/relocation of individual stalls can create significant opportunities for sidewalk expansion. Packet Page 263 of 448 26 PAVEMENT MARKING ISSUE Faded, unclear or missing pavement marking for crosswalks and other circulation needs can diminish safety and result in confusion, disorientation and misdirection. INTENT Intensify and clarify pavement markings for crosswalks, directional marking, lane marking, etc. ACTION Apply new thermoplastic/paint to markings in urban areas. Consider changing paving materials and/or color at crosswalks to increase visibility. Intensify maintenance/replenishment to maintain visibility. Stamped colored concrete crosswalks, installed 2005. Packet Page 264 of 448 27 SIGNING – see Appendices A & D ISSUE There is a need to keep people informed about what is expected of them in what may be unfamiliar surroundings, and about where they are within retail/commercial districts. INTENT Provide clear, consistent signing for both motorists and pedestrians to inform, warn and regulate and to reflect the City’s identity. ACTION Develop standards for a signing system in Edmonds that is clear, consistent, pedestrian friendly, and reflects the identity and character of Edmonds. ♦ Provide a clear, simple and informative street sign system that includes: o Street signs that provide neighborhood identifiers, such as the use of “art” motif street signs shown in Appendix A; o Use unique street signs to identify jurisdiction boundaries; o Enhance street sign visibility such as names on buildings or street names in pavement corners; o Consolidate traffic/parking signs to reduce impeded visibility for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. ♦ Provide a clear and informative way-finding sign system that includes: o Pedestrian signs lower, smaller than auto signs; o Directions to key destinations (see Appendix D, Way- finding Signs) Schools, Library, Post Office, Ferry, etc.; o Locations at: Kiosks, Posts, Building corners. ♦ Identify special cultural and natural features with an informational sign system: o Historic Landmarks; o Natural Features such as beaches and parks; o Public Art/Cultural Elements. ♦ Promote events with community event signage such as over- the-street banners at suggested sites where space permits: o Caspers (existing) Packet Page 265 of 448 28 o S. 5th Ave. (existing) o Across 212th, east of 72nd (Public Works) o East of 5th Ave., north of Rt. 104 (Paradise Lane end) o East of Rt. 104 along City Park north of Pine o Five Corners intersection The intent of these limited locations is to provide event announcement opportunities and still preserve the existing character of the community. In particular, the City places a high value on its distinctive flower program and landscaping within the Downtown Business District and its reputation as an “Arts” community. Flags, banners and similar items, except for existing permitted uses, may detract from the established character of Downtown and should be strongly discouraged in the Downtown unless they are part of an approved arts program or other permitted uses. Information/direction signs on building corners. Street names inlaid in paving at corners. Kiosk Pedestrian oriented street signs on buildings. Provide clear, consistent, informative signing systems at a pedestrian scale. Packet Page 266 of 448 29 LANDSCAPING – see Appendix F ISSUE Thoughtful, cohesive planting can reinforce urban character and comfort. INTENT Enhance the street/pedestrian environment in downtown Edmonds and unique districts through careful selection and placement of street trees and plant beds. ACTION ♦ Follow a comprehensive Street Tree Plan (Appendix F) for the City of Edmonds which provides for species selection, planting techniques and maintenance standards. Implement a cohesive planting policy for islands, medians, and curb extensions. ♦ Provide incentives to abutting (private) owners to expand upon public landscaping in a way that is complementary and consistent. Street tree planting can greatly affect street character. Packet Page 267 of 448 30 SEASONAL PLANTING ISSUE Edmonds‘ identity and pedestrian environment is significantly af- fected by seasonal color plantings. INTENT Continue and expand upon seasonal planting programs in a system- atic and comprehensive way. ACTION Maintain a comprehensive seasonal planting program for downtown Edmonds which includes: Prescribed procedures for locating and installing seasonal color plantings in: o At-grade plant beds, o Raised planters, o Hanging baskets. Development of uniform details/materials for hangers, baskets, poles, planters, etc, with the possibility of design variation to reflect unique districts e.g. 4th Avenue Arts Corridor. Continue potential expansion to other commercial areas. Packet Page 268 of 448 31 SIDEWALK CORRIDOR DESIGN ISSUE Sidewalk corridor design elements can contribute to, or detract from, an urban community‘s character, comfort, identity and “sense of place“. Many existing sidewalks are narrow, crowded, or in poor repair. Congested overhead wiring can detract from views. INTENT Enhance the street/pedestrian environment in Edmonds through thoughtful, consistent design. Provide an expanded, standardized set of design elements/details that, when implemented over time, will provide continuity and cohesiveness. ACTION Sidewalk corridor design is complex, and there are several specific design elements to be considered, each indicated by a ￭ “bullet” below. ￭ CURB EXTENSIONS Curb extensions (bulb-outs) should be added/expanded at appropriate intersections in order to: ♦ shorten (pedestrian) crossing distance/exposure; ♦ improve pedestrian visibility; ♦ calm (slow) traffic; ♦ provide more space for ramps, poles, furniture, signs, etc.; ♦ provide more (crossing) pedestrian waiting space. Shortened crossing, aligned ramps, better visibility, room for poles & signs. Packet Page 269 of 448 32 ￭ DRIVEWAYS Improve pedestrian safety, (possibly) increase available on-street parking and reduce traffic congestion by modifying mid-block driveways: ♦ Eliminate (redundant) driveways; o shift access/parking to alleys, side streets; ♦ Reduce overbuilt driveways to appropriate widths; ♦ Limit/regulate movements (e.g. right-in, right-out only). ￭ PAVING (SIDEWALK) Utilize paving materials and patterns to enhance circulation, identify entries, provide pedestrian scale, etc. ￭ WIDTHS (SIDEWALK) The wider the sidewalk, the more comfortable and pleasant the pedestrian experience. Wider (12´ preferred in the downtown) walks allow comfortable circulation (side-by-side and passing), room for street furniture, window shopping, cafés, bus stops, etc. Provide wider sidewalks where possible by maximizing available ROW and working with abutting owners. Develop standards for sidewalk width for new development or replacement citywide. Packet Page 270 of 448 33 etc. space. ￭ FURNITURE (see Appendix A) One of the keys to continuity, efficiency, and character is a common vernacular for downtown street furniture. Every block should have some components. Seating, for example, can add to pedestrian security and comfort throughout the downtown. An effort should be made to reduce the “clutter” of traffic/parking signs along the streets in the downtown by consolidating where possible. Basic elements include: ♦ Seating/benches o every block should have some: might include planters, art elements; ♦ Lighting o illuminate sidewalks and crosswalks for pedestrian safety, security and character; ♦ Poles for hanging flower baskets o opportunity for unique art elements; might serve as sign poles as well to reduce signage “clutter” ♦ Transit Shelters; ♦ Public Restrooms* o important for a friendly downtown; ♦ Public Telephones o retain existing ones for convenience and safety; ♦ Miscellaneous o trash receptacles, drinking fountains, electrical outlets (seasonal lighting), etc. ￭ OVERHEAD WIRES Multiple, congested overhead utility wires, and associate poles, can detract from views and impede circulation. As street/ sidewalks construction or renovation occurs, opportunities may exist to place wiring underground in order to: ♦ Eliminate wires in view areas; ♦ Reduce conflicts with street trees; ♦ Reduce/eliminate poles in sidewalk areas. *Public restrooms downtown can be expensive, difficult to site and require intensive maintenance, but do add significantly to the comfort of visitors downtown. Alternately, provide clear direction to existing public/civic facilities (i.e. at nearby Packet Page 271 of 448 34 parks, city facilities, etc.). Packet Page 272 of 448 35 Develop a palette of details/solutions to use throughout the downtown to establish cohesion and continuity. Movable pots ience, safety art) locations Consistent transit shelters Drinking fountains Newsracks reduce clutter Flower baskets Low walls screen parking Street clock Packet Page 273 of 448 36 GATEWAYS – see Appendix C ISSUE The City of Edmonds‘ situation in a rapidly growing, and urbanizing south Snohomish County makes it difficult to discern the edges of the City and diminishes the sense of arrival common to most com- munities. INTENT More clearly mark the City‘s edges and entries (both at perceived entry “nodes“ and at political boundaries) in a positive, recognizable way. Develop opportunities for “welcome/thank you“ signing, over- the-street-banner event signing, unique street signing, etc. ACTION Identify and enhance a series of gateways at logical entry points which reflect the City‘s identity, history and character. ♦ Identify and map the logical gateways (located typically at arterial intersections-not necessarily at the actual city limits). ♦ Establish a basic palette of design elements for gateways (signs, art elements, landscaping, etc.) that can be configured to suit unique intersections. See Appendix C. ♦ More clearly mark the political boundaries on all arterials and streets, use distinctive street signs to mark jurisdiction change. As the community grows, and traffic and development patterns change, the list of gateway opportunities will increase, particularly at arterial intersections. The enhancements suggested here can be expanded and modified as additional gateway intersections are identified. This study identifies an initial group of gateways for future treatment. Suggested Gateways: ♦ Ferry access to Edmonds at Main Street (existing sign) ♦ Five Corners ♦ Firdale ♦ Perrinville ♦ Hwy 99 Intersections (International District) ♦ SR 104 at 76th (Interurban Trail) ♦ SR 104 near Westgate (existing sign at 5th) Packet Page 274 of 448 37 Recognizing that the scale will vary for different gateways, specific potential design elements are recommended, where ROW space and conditions allow, to enhance the identified gateway intersections as follows:* Five Corners ♦ Roundabout in middle of intersection with planting and/or art feature; ♦ Redesign sidewalks and/or provide refuge islands to shorten crossing distances for pedestrians and provide waiting space; ♦ New sidewalk design with street trees in front of retail/commercial properties; ♦ Possible over-the-street banner location; ♦ Encourage new retail development to locate frontages at sidewalk edge, and encourage retail shop entrances to locate on property corners at the roundabout; ♦ Street lights and street signage, possibly unique, ♦ Flower program where sidewalk redesigned; ♦ Special street trees at roundabout area; ♦ Signage which identifies “Five Corners” and “City of Edmonds.”; ♦ Directional signage at roundabout; ♦ Make crosswalks more readable (color, pattern, texture); ♦ Underground wires at roundabout; ♦ Texture pavement to slow traffic at roundabout; ♦ Provide sidewalks between crosswalks at outside edge of roundabout. Westgate (see Appendix C) ♦ Planted medians where possible in Hwy 104 and 100th in back of turn lanes, limit left turns into driveways; ♦ Signage which identifies “Westgate” and “City of Edmonds” at corners.; ♦ Directional signage at corners; ♦ Flower program at corners and median ends; ♦ Provide more waiting space for pedestrian crossings as much as possible and make crosswalks more readable (color, pattern, texture). Perrinville (multi-jurisdictional intersection)** ♦ Low seating or decorative walls at intersection and between sidewalks and parking lots; ♦ Make crosswalks more readable (color, pattern, texture); ♦ Express natural character of this gateway; ♦ Directional signage at corners; ♦ Signage which identifies “City of Edmonds”; ♦ Street trees around intersection and in sidewalks fronting retail/ commercial uses; ♦ Install sidewalks where retail/commercial uses abut the street, and extend beyond if possible. *Modifications to State Routes will require WSDOT cooperation/approval. **Modifications will require federal, state and Lynnwood and Edmonds collaboration. Packet Page 275 of 448 38 HIGHWAY 99 – see Appendix B ISSUE The eastern boundary of Edmonds is situated along Highway 99, a major commercial/retail corridor. There is no visual designation/ recognition of Edmonds although the 2004 Highway 99 study identified several distinct districts including the International District.* INTENT Establish a recognizable presence or edge of Edmonds along High- way (within the available Hwy 99 R.O.W., which is minimal, at best) and create a unique identity for each district. ACTION Develop a set of design elements, visible/recognizable to the travel- ing motorist, that identify Edmonds. Coordinate with Gateway elements and identified districts e.g International District, as well as with WSDOT. ♦ Create a linear design element that could follow Hwy 99 along edge or R.O.W. that tells a story or creates strong Edmonds identity. This could be fence-like (two-dimensional) design ele- ment at property line, design element on tops of poles, along sidewalk, or low walls at property lines with design element in- corporated; ♦ Unique bold crosswalk and hardscape design/colors; ♦ Edmonds street signage on a larger scale, distinct from Hwy 99 signs; ♦ Put directional signage and “City of Edmonds“ signage at cor- ners within Edmonds; ♦ Near 212th intersection, place a banner across 212th, near Public Works with poles in R.O.W. as space allows. *Modifications/additions on State Routes will require WSDOT cooperation, approval. Packet Page 276 of 448 39 DISTRIBUTION Using the downtown core as an example, this section describes a methodol- ogy for characterizing/categorizing commercial/retail streets, and applying the various streetscape improvements. The street map in this Section assigns use zones or functional categories to the various downtown streets. These categories are based on field observa- tion of existing conditions and probable near term development. The catego- ries are not based on current zoning, and have been developed to provide a more practical criteria for the location/distribution of recommended im- provements. Eight categories are identified: ♦ Major Retail (75% - 100% retail uses at street level) ♦ Minor Retail (25% - 75% retail uses at street level) ♦ Pedestrian Mixed Use (Less than 25% retail uses at street level, mixed with office, commercial and residential uses) ♦ Auto Oriented Retail/Commercial (Large parking lots front on the street; retail/commercial is set back from street or is internal to the lot) ♦ Residential (primarily single and multifamily dwellings) ♦ Civic (Public buildings) ♦ Park/Open Space (public park or open space) ♦ Institutional/Other (church, school, etc.) The matrix of recommendations suggests design elements for specific streets, categories and/or types of streets. The actual application and implementation of specific elements is dependent upon site conditions, and a more detailed and site-specific design process as opportunities arise. Packet Page 277 of 448 40 Waterfront is indicated in dark blue. (Updated in 2006) Packet Page 278 of 448 41 Bike Racks/Storage Transit Shelter 2 Street Clock Seating Walls/Art Sites Newsracks Drinking Fountain Pedestrian Lighting Seating/Benches Widen Sidewalk New Paving Pattern/Materials Eliminate Driveway(s) Curb Extension(s) Planting Pots Planters Street Trees Feature and Event Signs Directional sign(s) Inlaid Street Names Kiosk Signs (street) on Buildings Modify Parking on Street Median 1 Color Crosswalk Thermoplastic crosswalk Reduce Corner Radii St r e e t T y p e Ma j o r R e t a i l S t r e e t Mi n o r R e t a i l S t r e e t Pe d e s t r i a n M i x e d - U s e Au t o - O r i e n t e d C o m m e r c i a l Re s i d e n t i a l Ci v i c Pa r k / O p e n S p a c e In s t i t u t i o n a l /O t h e r St r e e t P l a n s M a t r i x 1 Wh e r e c i r c u m s t a n c e s / R O W a l l o w 2 On t r a n s i t r o u t e s w h e r e s p a c e a l l o w s o u t s i d e s i d e w a l k ( c o o r d i n a t e w i t h a w n i n g s / o t h e r w e a t h e r p r o t e c t i o n ) Packet Page 279 of 448 42 CONCLUSION The goals of enhancing Edmonds in order to create a more pedestrian- friendly environment, enhance economic viability, and build upon the com- munity's assets can be addressed, at least in part, by developing a set of agreed upon streetscape design principles and guidelines for public space. The design elements and tools suggested here are directed at developing a unified approach, which over time will add greatly to a cohesive, unified ur- ban character in Edmonds while still encouraging flexibility to create unique areas identified in other planning processes. IMPLEMENTATION These recommendations are intended as a guide only, and it is assumed that the application of these elements in specific locations will occur as part of the project-specific design process. The specific concept appendices provide the next step toward implementation for Highway 99 International District, 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, Gateway intersections, and Way-Finding signs. Upon adoption by Council and inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan (and thus reference in the CIP, TIP documents), the recommendations may be implemented over time through a series of mechanisms and/or events as follows: 1 As specific improvements added immediately (as appropriate) to specific current Capital Improvement and Maintenance projects or projects in the (short-term) Capital Plans of the various Departments and Divisions; As improvements included in potential upcoming urban (master plan- ning) projects as recommended in the Study; and As general guidelines which are reflected in revised Standard Details referenced in department review processes and within the Comprehen- sive Plan, thus distributed among (and implemented by) the various De- partments and Divisions; As guidelines provided to private developers to use in their work in, or adjacent to, public areas (thus becoming a “check off“ item in the design review process). 1 Edmonds City Council has adopted through the budget process the Street Beautification – Fund 114. This fund provides for the continued enhancement of corner parks, street tree planting, historic lamp installation. Funding received is through City Council appropriation from the General Fund. Underground Wiring – Fund 115 was established by Resolution No. 195 in 1968 to provide for under-grounding of existing wires. In 1987-1988, the City had a special lighting consultant prepare a comprehensive aesthetic and technical evaluation of downtown undercounting and lighting. Historic-style street lights were installed in 1989 and overhead wires were under-grounded on Main Street from Fifth to Third Avenues. Packet Page 280 of 448 43 FUND ACCOUNTS / RESOLUTIONS / ORDINANCES STREET BEAUTIFICATION – FUND 114 The City council established this Fund in 1984 to provide underground sprinkler systems in the corner planters. In 1987 the City Council transferred Council Contingency funds for the corner parks in the downtown. The 1988 budget added funds for implementation of the Centennial Downtown Beautification Improvements identified in a comprehensive plan prepared in 1987. In 1989, this Fund was used in conjunction with Fund 115 to underground wires and install 20 decorative historic lights at Fifth Avenue and Main Street. In 1994, trees were replaced and added in the downtown area as per the Edmonds Street Tree Plan, with emphasis along Second and Third Avenues. UNDERGROUND WIRING – FUND 115 In 1968, the City Council passed Resolution No. 195, which established a policy to make every effort to provide a budget to allow for under grounding existing wires. In 1987-88, the City had a special lighting consultant prepare a comprehensive aesthetic and technical evaluation of downtown under grounding and lighting. Historic-style Street light was installed in 1989 and overhead wires were under grounded on Main Street from Fifth to Third Avenues. PUBLIC ARTS ACQUISITION PROGRAM – FUND 117-200 Established by ordinance 1802 this fund requires that one-percent of municipal construction projects be allocated for visual art either for that particular project of for a different site in the City. PARKS IMPROVEMENT – FUND 125 This fund is for improvement, renovation, planning and development of park sites to maintain high quality and varied parks, open space, and beautification in the City. Revenue includes the second one fourth percent excise tax on real estate sales (REET 2). GIFTS CATALOGUE – FUND 127-000 This fund provides an opportunity for individuals or groups to donate funds for site specific items (such as benches, tables, bike racks) for use in the City’s Park system. Contributions to the city for “exclusive public purposes” may be considered tax deductible. RESOLUTION 195 A Resolution of the City of Edmonds, Washington, providing a program for placing any extended or existing overhead electric, telephone, telegraph (hereafter termed utilities) underground within the City of Edmonds , and coordinating a program with all private or public agencies owning these utilities with the City’s street, water, gas, sewer, or any beautification program. RESOLUTION 418 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, establishing and formalizing a policy for tree trimming or removal on public property. Packet Page 281 of 448 44 BIBLIOGRAPHY American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Task Force on Geometric Design. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facil ities. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO 1999. Arendt, Randall. Growing Greener: Putting Conservation into Local Plans and Ordinances. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1999. Berens, Gayle and Gravin, Alexander. Urban Parks and Open Space. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Lands Institute, 1997. Brown, Catherine R. and Morrish, William T. Planning to Stay. Minneapolis: Design Center for American Urban Landscape, 1994. City of Edmonds. 2000 Bikeway Comprehensive Plan. Edmonds: City of Edmonds, 2000. _________________ Design Guidelines: 3rd Public Hearing Draft: August 8, 2001. Edmonds: City of Edmonds, August 2001. _________________ Comprehensive Plan. Edmonds, WA: City of Edmonds, 2000. City of Edmonds Arts Commission and Edmonds Arts Festival Association & Museum Board. Community Cultural Plan. Edmonds: City of Edmonds, December 1994, Update March 2001. City of Edmonds Planning Division. Shoreline Master Program: Annotated Draft: June 20, 2000. Edmonds: City of Edmonds, June 2000. City of Seattle Urban Forest Coalition. A City Among Trees: An Urban Forestry Guide. Seattle: AcademyPress, Inc., October 1998. Forester, John. Bicycle Transportation: A Handbook for Cycling Transportation Engineers. 2nd ed. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1984. Handbook for Walkable Communities. Prepared by Dan Burden and Michael Wallwork, P.E. Washington State Pedestrian Facilities Panning & Design Courses. Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960. Oregon Department of Transportation and Oregon Department of Lands Conservation and Development. Main Street. . . when a highway runs through it: A handbook for Oregon Communities . Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program, November 1999. Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook: Incorporating Pedestrians Into Washington‘s Transportation System. Pre-pared by OTAK, September 1997. Pedestrian Federation of America. Walk Tall: A Citizen‘s Guide to Walkable Packet Page 282 of 448 45 Communities. Emmaus: Rodale Press 1995. Pittsburgh Streetscape Component Catalog: The Walkable City Project. Compiled by the Department of City Planning. Pittsburgh: Department of City Planning, September 1998. Residential Streets Task Force. Residential Streets, Second Edition. New York, NY: American Society of Civil Engineers; Washington, D.C.: National Association of Home Builders; Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 1990. Untermann, Richard K. Accommodating the Pedestrian: Adapting Towns and Neighborhoods for Walking and Bicycling. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1984. Washington State Energy Office. Municipal Strategies to Increase Pedestrian Travel. Olympia: Energy Outreach Center, August 1994. Packet Page 283 of 448 45 APPENDICES Page Appendix A Street Furniture & City Design Standards 46 Appendix B Highway 99 – International District 48 Appendix C Gateways/Intersections 58 Appendix D Way-Finding Signs 67 Appendix E 4th Avenue Arts Corridor 75 Appendix F Street Trees 114 Packet Page 284 of 448 46 Appendix A - Street Furniture & City Design Standards The following details have been established as street furniture standards to the extent that they represent a particular style, color, etc. These may evolve over time, as the recommendations are implemented, and may be modified to allow specific minor additions (i.e. planter hangers, sign brackets, etc.). ♦ Street Furniture Standards ♦ Street Design Standards ♦ City of Edmonds Standards Details (see Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.00.040) STREET FURNITURE STANDARDS Post type bike racks selected due to Street Tree Grates shall be square 4’x4’. limited space downtown All tree grates must use ADA accessible grate frame. Decorative bench, black Trash Receptacle, on left, with dome lid, black Packet Page 285 of 448 47 STREET DESIGN STANDARDS Standards may vary for specific districts to reflect the unique character of those areas, e.g. 4th Avenue Arts Corridor. Downtown brick pavers selected for key pedestrian Example of decorative Street Sign using walkways. Public Art Motif. Downtown stamped concrete crosswalk. Downtown Historic Street Light. Packet Page 286 of 448 48 Appendix B - HIGHWAY 99 – International District Conceptual Master Plan Stark appearance and expanse of Highway 99. STREETSCAPE Washington State Highway 99 is located along the eastern edge of the City of Edmonds. It is the historic north-south route of Western Washington. From its early days of roadhouses and rural travel it has evolved into a complex blend of transportation and commerce. The cities that have incorporated along its length are each attempting to provide identifying markers to celebrate their unique cultures and locations. These are most often seen in gateway monuments and signage, city specific lighting and banners along the corridor, and highlight elements which may be commercial centers, civic buildings and amenities, or cultural characteristics. The City of Edmonds developed the “Highway 99 Enhancement Project – Report” of April 2004. Through a series of focus groups and charrettes with business and citizens, a set of “key concepts and objectives were identified” for this corridor. One of the recommendations from the study is the development of a visible “International District Commercial Core.” Suggested improvements include the addition of automobile signals at multiple locations, improved pedestrian crossings and character, and the development of cultural “elements” within the International District. This Conceptual Master Plan takes those recommendations to a higher level of resolution. The plan assesses the physical environment and makes recommendations for improving the character and appearance of the corridor in the following three categories. There is minimal LANDSCAPING along Highway 99. What is evident now lies primarily on private property. Unlike typical practice, the landscape along 99 is not a buffer between the fast moving traffic and pedestrians. Rather it lies on the exterior side of the sidewalk. ART can be incorporated into the streetscape to suggest gateways or as thematic elements that can become the Edmonds identity. This master plan identifies unique opportunities for Art Anchors as well as ways that art elements can be repeated along the Highway to create a unique Edmonds identity within its International District. Highway 99 in Edmonds is inadequately lit for pedestrian safety. The overhead cobra lights create dark gaps in the street that can put pedestrians’ safety in peril. This master plan suggests the use of additional pedestrian scale LIGHTS to not only light sidewalks but also illuminate pedestrian crossings across driveways and street intersections. Packet Page 287 of 448 49 CIRCULATION Though well maintained and in good condition, the sidewalks represent a hostile pedestrian environment. ZONING The large SIGNS on Highway 99 play an important role in defining its character. Their disparate appearance however can detract from the corridor’s urban character and appearance. The master plan makes specific recommendations for recognizing the potential of the signs to become iconic elements in the highway’s streetscape within Edmonds. The City of Edmonds initiated a traffic study for 99 that will help illustrate safety concerns, improvements and pedestrian opportunities. This Concept Master Plan does not make any specific recommendations in this regard, other than to recommend that as redevelopment takes place, the PEDESTRIAN environment needs to be reviewed for connectivity, lighting, safety and comfort. The Master Plan recommends that in the future, the City should review the value of a FRONTAGE ROAD where cars can access properties without affecting Highway 99 traffic. This report anticipates that as a part of the traffic study on Highway 99 (scheduled to be completed in 2006), stretches of the center MEDIAN could be identified for closure. These areas are targeted for landscaping improvements in this plan. The Master Plan recommends that the City of Edmonds work with property owners to gradually rezone Highway 99 to accommodate a higher intensity of uses. This new zoning could also be designed to place greater emphasis on good urban design practices such as the relationship of building façade to the street; mix of uses (in particular an integration of higher concentration of residential uses); way-finding; integration of bike paths, transit stops and pedestrian paths; and appropriate height to street width dimensions. Packet Page 288 of 448 50 CONSISTENT STANDARDS FOR HIGHWAY 99 LIGHTING LANDSCAPING This new Java shop has a landscaped edge of approximately 12 ft towards the sidewalk along the Highway 99 ROW. It has trees and plantings which provide natural infiltration, and scale to the sidewalk and street. The building parallels the street and abuts the adjoining service road. This is a drive- through establishment; though in all other ways the site design approach sets a notable standard. Edmonds is well on its way to the transformation of historic Highway 99 to a modern and diverse transportation, commercial, and community resource. It is important that the momentum created through the “Highway 99 Enhancement Project – Report” of April 2004, and through this work “The Streetscape Plan Update” be maintained. A set of very pragmatic recommendations for next steps and action strategies is suggested that Edmonds can apply, which over time would recreate the Highway 99 Corridor. Some specific corridor improvements include: Guide pedestrians along safe and protected sidewalks to safe and well-lit crosswalks across and along Highway 99 Upgrade the lighting along the corridor to a consistent standard: both the major Highway 99 lights and the proposed smaller scale pedestrian art/light fixtures. The appearance of the corridor can be greatly enhanced with landscaping. Boulevard trees can lend consistency, while low level shrubs and ground cover can provide variety and possibly, seasonal color. The trees selected need to be at a scale that befits the breadth and expanse of Highway 99 and the relatively fast pace of traffic. The lower level landscaping is critical in providing a human scale to the pedestrian environment. The location of trees and shrubs should reflect this understanding. Similarly the placement of Cobra lighting for traffic and lower lights to illuminate pedestrian paths needs to reflect the same approach. Develop a palette of tree types and shrub specimens that would thrive in the harsh pollutive environment along 99. Conduct additional “Found Ground” studies for new opportunities for intensive landscaping treatment. Consider Landscape Development Standards for the whole corridor at three scales: whole, auto, pedestrian. Create bioswales and a natural drainage “green edge’s” where historic drainage and slopes suggest. Packet Page 289 of 448 51 SIGNAGE This sign sets a good example for the design, location and orientation of signs to the highway. It is complimented well by generous landscaping. ART PEDESTRIAN CORNERS Well-maintained and wide landscaping edge allows mature trees to branch out and lend a pedestrian scale to the exposed sidewalks. The signage along Highway 99 is often times large. As oversized objects in the roadscape, their design can be directed to becoming striking iconic images in the street environment. Sign standards for the Corridor can be reviewed and revised such that several design elements are incorporated in each sign: Cross Section (specify depth and breadth); discourage triangular cross section Height (to top of sign) Orientation (specify angle – perpendicular or otherwise to 99) Specify material and color Discourage back lit signs and encourage signs that are lit by night-sky sensitive lamps or that use energy efficient LED technology Allow flexibility in font type face and font color options to better reflect local business identity. The Master Plan proposes an art element that might uniquely mark Edmonds. This element should be vertical and possibly incorporated into other streetscape elements such as light poles. This element could be designed to reinforce the pedestrian scale of the street. Crossing Highway 99 is a daunting task. The speeds attained by cars in the long un-signaled stretches and the horizontal scale and width of the highway are not pedestrian-friendly. The 2004 Report identified additional cross streets for signalization with the goal of creating safe pedestrian crossings, also linking Edmonds neighborhoods and cross-99 commercial districts. The Appendix C Gateway/Intersection Study @ Westgate has a description of a typical “Pedestrian Friendly Corner” that we feel could be adapted to the larger scale of Highway 99. We would suggest the super arterial scale of Highway 99 be enhanced and altered by smaller scale lighting and “iconic” art as a repetitive element developed by a commissioned artist. See our Highway 99 Corner (Typ.) Plan and Section A diagram. The design of the pedestrian environment along 99 is critical since it is a major regional transit corridor. Safe sidewalks and pedestrian crossings are some of the mainstays of a successful transit system. Packet Page 290 of 448 52 Plan of a typical Highway 99 edge condition with a section showing a landscape setback standard and pedestrian scale art light fixture. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION Traffic along Highway 99 is at a relatively high speed and is accommodated in a two-way six-lane roadway, with a center turning lane. This model is based on a suburban typology and is not pedestrian friendly. Our recommendation is that as the area becomes more traditionally “urban” with “zero-setback” buildings and frontage roads, the design of Highway 99 needs to respond to the slower speed and greater number of pedestrian crossings that are also associated with “urban environments.” Guide traffic to major intersections and close left-turn lanes where advisable with the help of landscaped medians. Introduce through-roads between properties and a frontage road along Highway 99 for internal circulation. Reduce curb-cuts and locate them away from the intersections as far as practical. Packet Page 291 of 448 53 BUILDING MASS AND ORIENTATION Develop the major and minor corners recommended in the corridor with signalization and pedestrian friendly entities including art. Over the next decade or so, particularly as conditions along 99 improve in Shoreline, real estate interest in properties along 99 will increase considerably. While the above strategies create significant changes in the public realm of the corridor there are many opportunities for improving the participation of private properties in defining, keeping a close eye on and contributing to the public realm. This is best managed through zoning and design guidelines. If history is any indication there will be an increasing interest in higher density development such as those that were constructed during the 1990s along Highway 99 by South Lake Union in Seattle. The potential for increasing the height limit to a reasonable degree should be studied. Also needing further investigation is the circulation to and from the different businesses and how that relates to safety and access control. Lastly, efforts are needed to improve and make safe the pedestrian circulation along and across 99. There are many factors that go into making successful urban environments. We list the top five strategies for possible incorporation into the zoning along 99, or possibly as an Overlay zone. If possible, 50% or more of a building’s main façade must parallel Highway 99’s right-of-way. Put as much parking as possible towards the rear of properties. Align all complex signs at the same height and angle to Highway 99. Introduce through-roads from the front to the rear of properties. Guide pedestrians to safe and well-lit crossings across Highway 99. Packet Page 292 of 448 54 INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT Gateways This study looks at some conceptual approaches to providing “iconic” elements within the designated International District Area, responding to the immediate opportunity of Edmonds “STEP Program Award”, and looking at a long term “thematic” scenario to perceptually unite the Edmonds portion of Highway 99. Pedestrian crossings would be particularly important in creating a sense of a unified International District in the 224th St. SW to 230th St. SW Section that was identified. It can also be used further south in the 234 th St. SW to 238th St. SW Section. Our perception is that this is a potential “Growth Area” for the Corridor, and that it has a significant “International Quality” with the Seoul Plaza and large Korean United Presbyterian Community west on 238th St. SW. Our suggested Planning Strategies include gateway identification and an art anchor. Gateways to the International District and the Edmonds City limits were identified in the 2004 Report. Our recommendation is that a proliferation of “gateways” can reduce the impact, and even clutter a busy corridor such as Highway 99. We have developed a “character study” of complementary elements of International District Gateway and Art Anchor elements that are suggestive of what might be developed if the community feels they are necessary to establish this District. Character Study of complementary Gateway and Art Anchor light units. Packet Page 293 of 448 55 An Art Anchor Looking South East across Highway 99 from 76th Ave. W. – “Found Ground” for an Art Anchor. The opportunity to improve safe access to Highway 99 at both its east and west intersections with 76th Ave. W. coincides with a unique “cultural cross section” between significant commercial developments: Ranch 99 and the Boohan Plaza. Our “found ground studies” look at two conceptual routes that a future artist commission might reference when a final concept is developed. The Art Anchor idea at this location would use a future median as a third staggered art location. The site is in a small depression and would clearly have the chance to be a notable and iconic marker. Our concept references the colors and forms of some traditional Asian cultures. The final product should be a modern iteration that serves as a unifying signature for a diverse commercial culture. One example could be a series of repetitive but changing elements called a “Reed Cohort”. This consists of colored reeds made of fiberglass which could be dispersed along the corridor within the narrow ROW remaining outside the sidewalks. The colors would be meaningful to specific cultures within the ID. Then the “cohort reeds” would be arrayed in varying patterns of size and color, perhaps lit, perhaps clustered in noteworthy locations. The diagram to the left shows how the art might be accommodated in an existing property (Boohan Plaza). Possible locations for this “cohort reeds” are noted in the attached plan. Packet Page 294 of 448 56 Specific Thematic Concepts for the STEP Project – The grant requirements seem to be fairly specific in its implementation. There are clear opportunities however in the definition and design of Art elements. These art elements could either be specific to the lighting fixtures as to an initial International District project. Our goal would be to provide some guidance in thinking about how the light pole and the pedestrian light might be used to create a pedestrian scale character that celebrates the district’s international heritage. Conceptual Illustrated Plan for “Found Ground” Art Anchor in the International District. Existing sidewalk to remain Proposed concrete sidewalk New landscaping in “found ground” Landscaping on private property Boulevard trees on private property match those in the median New landscaping in the median New curb in median New gateway light pole in median Packet Page 295 of 448 57 Highway 99 International District showing north end near 224th on the top and south end at 238th on the bottom right. Packet Page 296 of 448 58 Appendix C – Gateway/Intersection Study @ Westgate The gateways to the city may be at political boundaries or may be at perceived entry “nodes”. These entries or major intersections perceived as entries should be identified in a positive and recognizable way. A prototype of design elements is developed for the Westgate intersection as an entry to the city, and additional recommendations are included about SR 104 medians. Westgate Corners is a busy arterial crossing of Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue West. Westgate is characterized by an evolving Business District with new development close to the streets which is more dense than businesses from earlier periods. The District has one fairly successful entry sign east of the Robin Hood Bowling Lane’s which appears to be within the public R.O.W. The scope of this element did not allow us to define property lines and we provide general recommendations for this District. Because of the varied qualities of the directional entries we are suggesting the following general guidelines. Improvements begin with the four corners that mark the district. Pedestrian Friendly Corners (PFC’s) should be the priority. The characteristics of the PFC’s are corner sanctuaries with setbacks of hard-scaped landings and road crossings of similar character. This may include common color admixtures and texture. Bollards are a key to both the safety of the pedestrians and control of the automobiles turning safely. Landscaping should be coordinated at all corners to have a similar planting palette and low scale. Signage marking the corner should be coordinated to fit within the public R.O.W. if possible, and in locations visible to automobile traffic. This includes both entry and directional signage. Existing Entry Signage heading West on Edmonds Way. Packet Page 297 of 448 59 The existing Westgate Corners have some common elements. The central location of commercial signs and a pattern of landscape treatment in the view triangle can be built upon. WESTGATE’S 4 EXISTING CORNERS: Northwest Corner. Southeast Corner. Packet Page 298 of 448 60 WESTGATE EXISTING CORNERS (CONTINUED) Southwest Corner. Northeast Corner. Packet Page 299 of 448 61 This Plan Study shows the general planning idea’s for enhancing the “4 Corners” with consistent treatments at each corner and landscape triangles. Cooperation of the Westgate business district in coordinating plantings and signage are the key to a clear Westgate at Edmonds identity. Packet Page 300 of 448 62 The signage study (Appendix D) shows characteristics for signage including standard heights and landscape backgrounds to provide consistency. It is our observation that “Westgate’s Gateway” locations have two existing types of commercial signage: low and high as shown in the site pictures and the “Comparable Corner Elements” drawing. Perhaps a mid-height element might draw attention to itself through a future design element while remaining consistent with new City Signage Standards. This would be a natural next design step for Edmonds –engaging a public artist to create an original “gateway design”. The following images are of a typical arterial corner treatment. With the heavy traffic at the Westgate Gateway, pedestrian are intimidated by both the volume and the intensity of rush hour and ferry traffic. Strategic actions are needed to calm and signal drivers that this is a pedestrian district; that they must observe extra precautions and safety. The pedestrian needs to feel safe waiting at the corner as well as in the crosswalks. Packet Page 301 of 448 63 A comparable corner crossing from Kansas City, Missouri. Packet Page 302 of 448 64 SR 104 Medians Recommendation The maintenance for SR 104 medians with existing planting can benefit from design examples in other cities with well maintained state highway corridors with medians (SR 516, I-5 N Vancouver, I-90 in Mercer Island approved by WSDOT) and arterial boulevard medians with landscape programs (City of Covington, WA on SE 272nd Street / SR 516, NE 8th Street, 140th & 148th Ave SE corridors in Bellevue, WA as well as several in Santa Clara, CA). Direct observation by the consultant suggests that there no adequate spaces for maintenance vehicle parking or for workers to access the SR 104 medians. This existing condition leads to a reduced level of maintenance, resulting in poor overall appearance of the planted medians along SR 104 as part of the overall entry and arrival experience to the City of Edmonds. The lifespan and quality of presentation of the trees, shrubs and groundcover in the median is compromised compared to other landscape environments. As a result of the study under this contract, City of Edmonds can benefit from looking at several existing median street conditions, with an eye toward improvements. Here are the key issues: Existing median with no on-street parking for maintenance vehicle Existing median with no space for maintenance staff access New materials can reduce collection of windblown litter New surfaces can reduce water demand for “edge” areas not suitable for plants. The existing SR 104 medians experience a number of problems related directly or indirectly to inadequate maintenance space. The existing conditions typically found along SR 104 between Westgate and the cutoff to the ferry and Downtown Edmonds are shown on the drawing. Some of the specific SR 104 median identified problems are: Short lived and poorly maintained trees, shrubs and groundcover Sidewalk and curb edges that experience frequent debris collection Inadequate soil moisture due to bare unplanted mulch areas not well maintained No plant growth and bare planting areas along median edges, due to exhaust, heat, wind, wheel spray created by passing vehicles Competition for soil moisture in the upper portion of the 12” root zone by shrubs and groundcover that consume limited soil moisture during dry periods needed for trees. Packet Page 303 of 448 65 Gateway Corridor Median @ SR 104 Proposed median improvements include access for maintenance. Packet Page 304 of 448 66 PARKING To address the identified problem of inadequate parking, a concept is presented as a retrofit to reduce the length of the current median. Alternatively, unused paved median areas can be striped to create a single marked parking space along with an approved WSDOT type sign designating an authorized maintenance vehicle parking space in line with the median. It is suggested that the proposed parking space be created on the west approaches of the medians only, so first time visitors and tourists headed to the ferry do not see the sign or the parking space when first approaching via SR 104 from the east as they drive toward the west. ACCESS STRIP The retrofit proposal requires limited soil removal for a linear trench in the range of 18” to 22” wide that will be covered by round washed river rocks (3” to 4” diameter graded mix) set in a concrete mortar setting bed from the back of the existing curbs towards the center of the median. This “paved berm” detail is used by National Parks Service in major parks and by many cities located in the western states. Planting will remain in the center protected pocket of the median. The root zone area of major trees will be protected during installation by the proposed lighting / irrigation common trench located along one side that will be excavated by hand or by washing while leaving existing roots and backfilled with prepared soil mix that includes 8% to 11% organic material (compost) mixed in a 3 way mix with sand and regular native soil. ACCESS STRIP SLOPE AS DESIGN FEATURE The sloped rock access strip can be placed at the existing median slope (where slope exists) up to a 4:1 maximum slope. To unify the appearance of the medians, a 4:1 slope face is recommended even if existing soil level in the medians is currently below the top of the rock slope face toward the center of the median. The access strip conserves water, protects deeper tree roots from dry out and cleans up the curb edge condition in a unified manner. SOLAR POWERED NIGHT LIGHTING The access strip trench will also provide a location for new conduit for a new underground low voltage electrical site lighting system powered by photovoltaic solar electric cell. A small solar panel can be positioned in the center of the median with a small controller. Lights will be limited to (1 minimum, 2 maximum per tree) direct burial type canister uplights aimed upward with shields to avoid any impact to drivers. IRRIGATION The existing trees do not have any irrigation system. Unless a budgeted and funded City program exists for manual periodic watering of the median is provided during excessively dry periods, then a low volume low pressure underground irrigation system may be considered and provided. The system will feature a solar powered automatic irrigation controller and low voltage electrical irrigation valves. Trenching with cut and patch of road pavement to the existing water service line would be required to the existing median as well as installation of a water meter and a backflow prevention device. The largest cost of irrigation system is staff labor to maintain and adjust water schedules, not water costs, so a well designed system should be considered to conserve water while enhancing the landscape appearance and health of the planted medians. SUMMARY The proposed design compared to the existing condition provides significantly better and adequately sized parking and access, as well as other benefits, summarized as follows: Existing - Poor condition of medians for first time visitors & residents - Add parking Safe access for regular maintenance Add rock edge Provides 18” to 22” safe walking access for workers Reduces water demand in hot periods Reduces litter debris pile up at curb and gutter Reduces frequency of fog line repainting Add lighting Adds night time feature to uplight trees Add irrigation Better overall plant condition, more options for seasonal plants. Packet Page 305 of 448 67 Appendix D - Way-finding Sign Program The purpose of this section of the report is to summarize a limited review of the existing directional and orientation signs located on public streets in Edmonds and provide suggestions for a new design standard for informational way-finding signs that is accessible for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The series of photographic views in this Appendix reflects the range of existing conditions for the signs maintained by City of Edmonds. There are handwritten notes on the photos that include observations and suggestions on how to make the overall sign program more effective for drivers, pedestrians, visitors and residents. There is also a preliminary concept sketch elevation of how the City might respond to the comments to change a particular sign over time with regular maintenance. This approach would not require a major capital improvement investment. An example of the format used is shown above on this page for 5th & Main Street sign location in the downtown area. The range of suggestions and observations for all suggested sign upgrades falls into several categories as follows: Effectiveness of signs for drivers responses (location, text size, number of signs) Readability for pedestrians (distance, size, location) Safety concerns for visibility at intersections and driveways (clear zones) Unified format and image Consolidation to simplify and reduce the number of images on the sign face Need to update the overall image of Edmonds to enhance tourism and economic development Retention of the “low tech” basic sign fabrication system (routed painted wood sign plates fabricated by city employees) Differences in sign viewing times windows (drivers vs. pedestrians) Differences in information needs (city residents vs. first time) Packet Page 306 of 448 68 WHAT MATTERS MOST AT EACH SIGN LOCATION? For each sign location, the analysis identifies the key factors that apply to that particular sign location and purpose. At the Westgate gateway entrance to the city, along SR 104, generally the existing sign shown above is well sited for a pedestrian walking in the crosswalk headed north across SR 104. There is a possibility that the sign diverts pedestrian attention away from looking at the automobile traffic and possible turning movements by cars at this busy intersection. There is a good landscape background to keep the viewer’s focus on the sign information at all times of day and all seasons. However, there are too many individual sign plates to absorb - even for a pedestrian facing the sign and crossing a state highway. The driver or passenger in vehicle eastbound or westbound would not typically even see this sign at all, because the existing sign is located parallel to the major flow of traffic along SR 104. Turning the sign 90 degrees would change the major purpose of the sign to drivers for the ferry and Downtown Edmonds, as a “gateway sign” addressed in Appendix C. If the goal is to retain all of the sign text at this location for a primarily pedestrian sign, then some streamlining could be done. For example, one could drop the word “Memorial” and only include the word “Cemetery”. Also, color coding (blue for left, green for right, etc.) and grouping all signs that head in the same direction could greatly simplify and enhance the existing sign format, through normal replacement of sign plates over time. These general comments apply to nearly all of the sign locations reviewed. Packet Page 307 of 448 69 Several locations at busy intersections represent possible sight visibility hindrances to drivers, or information on directions that are in located in the expected places. These sign locations would benefit from removing sign plates within the general 3’- 6” to 6’-0” height zone (if the sign remains at the current locations) or if the sign is relocated away from intersections. Generally, the signs should not be located within 25 feet of the intersections of paving edges (curb and gutter line or edge of pavement) at two major streets, or at the intersection of a street and driveway. Packet Page 308 of 448 70 BACKGROUNDS FOR SIGNS Some signs would benefit from creation of a dark background or separation between blocks of sign plates. This upgrade could easily be done at sign locations that have few sign plates, or at locations where sign plates can be reduced and consolidated. The contrast and visibility of the sign is also affected by seasonal factors (shade in summer, sun in winter) under deciduous tree canopies at certain locations. Packet Page 309 of 448 71 LANDSCAPE BACKGROUND Generally speaking, the existing signs not located in the downtown area can benefit from the introduction of a landscape background. The suggested planting would consist of evergreen broad leaf or evergreen coniferous hedge type plantings. (Specified in Appendix C for the Westgate location.) At Sunset & Dayton NW Corner looking south, there is a sight visibility hazard that may need to be addressed first before adding background screening to the north or south side of the sign. Since the sign is primarily driver oriented, the sign needs to be greatly simplified into “right turn” and “left turn” destinations, if only one sign location will be maintained. Packet Page 310 of 448 72 The above sign at 3rd & Bell was found to be one of the best examples for several reasons. The sign maintains a “clear zone” for good driver visibility, works for pedestrians, and keeps the number of sign plates to a manageable number and consolidates the movement to one direction. A major recommendation would be to provide a single arrow (instead of 5 arrows) and perhaps reduce the amount of text on individual sign plates (Example: “Visitor Info” rather than ‘Visitor Information”) while maintaining the essence of the sign message. Packet Page 311 of 448 73 Packet Page 312 of 448 74 PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER FOR CHANGES As a summary of what might be done by the City of Edmonds for the Street Sign Program within the available budgets and resources for sign program, the drawing above has been prepared to reflect the key concepts observed at several locations. It is suggested to eventually update the “City of Edmonds” name at all locations when the top sign needs to be replaced in a more contemporary type font, by elimination of the serif type font. Four suggested type fonts appear on the page below. A subtle change in the type font will reflect the City of Edmonds keeping up with other new communities as well as providing continuity for long time residents and regular visitors who are accustomed to the general look of the current “City of Edmonds” identity. Packet Page 313 of 448 75 Appendix E - 4th Avenue Arts Corridor INTRODUCTION NORTH SITE ANALYSIS "Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever- growing insistency." Daniel Burnham, (1864-1912) The City of Edmonds in 2005 adopted a Downtown /Waterfront Plan in which 4th Avenue North was listed as a potential Arts Corridor. This master plan investigates and builds upon the idea of 4th Avenue North becoming a stretch of public right-of-way that celebrates the Arts heritage in Edmonds. The concept is presented starting on p. 88, with the introduction providing background on how it was developed. The project area stretches for a block on either side of 4th Avenue, from its intersection with 3rd Avenue North to the north to its intersection with Dayton Street to the south (see diagram). The project frequently solicited the opinions and direction from the community and city staff. In discussing their goals for the master plan the community clearly expressed their preference as follows: Enhance the experience of attending the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA); Capitalize on and direct ECA attendees to downtown to help stimulate its economic development; Maximize the opportunity to create a unique pedestrian connection dedicated to walking, the arts and community; Integrate the Arts Corridor concept into the downtown framework; Celebrate variety and encourage mixed- use development with a partiality towards upper story residential 1 uses; Instill a fine-grained 2 development pattern; and Line the street wall with facades crafted with relief, recesses and dimension. 1 Residential uses on upper stories provide the additional benefit of oversight and ownership of adjoining streets for the full 24-hour period. Therefore, such mixed-use areas are better maintained and safer as residents provide onsite vigilance. 2 ‘Fine grained development pattern’ refers to the traditional footprints of historic cities, where the blocks are small and allow for frequent pedestrian access across a block. Studies have shown that successful pedestrian environments are based on a fine-grained development pattern. People are reluctant to walk along long (more than 200’) blocks or a single block expanse of building. Packet Page 314 of 448 76 ISSUES Meeting with City Staff. DESIGN OPPORTUNITIES Community members and staff review boards at the first public meeting. The community made a list of issues that they wanted the master plan to be cognizant of and address: Parking is perceived as a problem The street is asymmetrical in certain sections The appearance of the street needs to improve There are a number of dog walkers Foot traffic is high at Rick Steve’s building during special events Street life after 7pm is presently low and needs to be encouraged There is a lack of affordable housing There are some properties that have access directly off of 4th Avenue N. though almost all properties have rear alley access Consider real estate investments of homeowners. Through several moderated discussions, the community directed the design. They suggested: Create a transition between public/private spaces Keep space for outdoor use Provide access to toilets Would like space for “Plop Artists” Encourage outdoor cafes Facilitate developments that can accommodate artist studios Allow for street artists Preferred uses along the street include Arts/ Crafts Shops, cafes, galleries and museums Incorporate places for resting such as swings/seats Perhaps zoning could allow for adjacent buildings to host Bed and Breakfasts Use existing building setbacks for plazas Re-configure 4th Avenue N into one-way, north-bound, with occasional angle parking Introduce more greenery, perhaps planters and public pocket parks Access from the fire station to 4th Avenue must be maintained along Edmonds Street. Packet Page 315 of 448 77 SITE ANALYSIS Dramatic Topography and Views View towards the Sound from 4th Avenue N. at Bell. View towards Sound from 4th Avenue S. at Dayton. Armed with the above observations, the design team did an elaborate site reconnaissance through several walking tours and photo sessions. Several key themes emerged during these site visits that began to inform the evolution of the final design. There is a subtle drama in the topography that can be played up. The intersections of 4th with Main Street and Daley are at the same elevation. The stretch of 4th in between gradually dips to 6 feet below this elevation at the Edmonds Street intersection. This slope is more prominent between Daley and Edmonds Street. The topography also slopes gradually towards the Sound, and terminates at a spectacular cliff above the water. This affords a stunning view towards the Puget Sound from Dayton, Main, Bell and Edmonds Streets. A stretch of 4th Avenue from several hundred feet south of Main Street up to Daley Street is straight. Beyond these intersections, the road bends at both ends. This creates a viewshed that terminates at the ECA in the north and at the mixed use development south of the public parking towards the southern end of the 4th Avenue project area. Packet Page 316 of 448 78 Barren Streetscape Asphalt covers most of the right-of-way along 4th Avenue N. Circulation and Parking City Federal Road Classification Newer developments that want to make full use of their property under current zoning put parking facilities underneath. If well designed, these garages are accessible from the alley, and yet allow for commercial uses at the street level. Much of 4th Avenue’s right-of-way is asphalt. Buildings north of Bell Street are set back and low in scale. Sidewalks are narrow and vary from 5-8 feet in width. There is a noticeable lack of trees along 4th Avenue as shown in the Site Analysis Diagram above. Any significant greenery is on private property. Recent projects have planted street trees. 4th Avenue N. is a local street and basically serves traffic to and from adjacent establishments. It is designed with two-way lanes and parallel parking on both sides. Main Street is a Minor Arterial and serves the circulation needs of the Downtown/Waterfront area. Dayton Street is a collector from the Waterfront to 9th Avenue and as such provides for smaller movements with the downtown/ waterfront sub-area. Third Avenue N. is the only Principal Arterial within the project area as classified under federal standards. Its function is to allow for movement across downtown with the maximum number of trips being “through-trips” and a small percentage of trips serving adjoining uses. Under the City of Edmond’s classification, the road is a Minor Arterial. There are large parking lots at City Hall and at the Public Safety complex, and several more that are owned by private businesses. These have all been identified in the above site analysis. The renovation of the ECA will create 90 parking stalls on site. The completion of Phase II of its site development will yield a parking garage with a total of 248 stalls Some developments have placed their parking facilities below street level. This allows for full redevelopment of the property, as currently allowed through zoning in the downtown core. Packet Page 317 of 448 79 Note the well-designed pedestrian access from the parking to 4th Avenue North. Distribution of Uses A historic Church is juxtaposed with the headquarter building of the well known travel expert, Rick Steve. Utilities All streets within the project area allow for on-street parking. Currently, the length of 4th Avenue accommodates approximately 141 unmarked parking stalls. Several businesses have converted older homes for commercial use. These establishments have redesigned their rear yards to accommodate much of the parking needs of the business. These rear parking lots are connected to 4th Avenue via pedestrian walkways. These set up an excellent precedence for future development in the area. This pattern of development is extremely pedestrian friendly and allows for a “fine-grained” redevelopment of the area. Accessing parking from the alley places a greater emphasis on their design and maintenance. There are a variety of uses along 4th Avenue. These vary from Commercial, Mixed-Use, Public, Semi- Public and Residential. The commercial uses are generally aggregated around Main Street. North of Bell Street there are primarily residences with some older homes being used for commercial purposes. There are several key public facilities and institutions along 4th Avenue such as the Edmonds Conference Center and the ECA. Along 5th Avenue there are a Fire Station and City Hall, Historic Museum and Visitors Center. There are few utility lines on 4th Avenue N., mainly a major storm drain between Main and Bell Streets. Edmonds Street is a major utility corridor. Road repaving over the years has created an inappropriate road profile along 4th. The profile peaks in the center such that it rises at places nearly 1 to 2 feet above the level of the sidewalk. The road has not been re-engineered or seen any significant improvements for over 75 years. Packet Page 318 of 448 80 Alternative Design Scenarios On November 10, 2005, approximately 30 residents gathered for a workshop hosted and facilitated by City staff and the design team. Here are the results of the interactive public meeting. Three alternatives for the 4th Avenue project area (5 blocks long x 2 blocks wide) were shown. Color presentation boards depicted each of the 3 alternative plans with sections and photographs, to display a wide range of choices. To help explain the design concepts, a one-page handout compared and contrasted 5 major considerations for each of the 3 alternatives – Public Realm (sidewalks), Transportation, Buildings, Design Features, and Cost / Phasing. The three basic plan alternatives were described. Three Pauses – a plan that features 3 segments: with wider sidewalks on the east side of the street in the south segment, a curvilinear boulevard treatment in the middle section, and on- street parking with traditional sidewalks in the northern most section. Meandering Channel – a fluid plan for a paved “plaza” street where pedestrians – not cars – rule; a truly European street in Edmonds. String of Beads – a “conventional wisdom” plan for evenly dispersed site amenities based on the current parking and traffic patterns. The goal of the workshop was for the design team to get a better understanding of preferences and thereby get direction from 4th Avenue stakeholders – residents, tenants, property owners, civic activists, etc. Packet Page 319 of 448 81 THREE PAUSES Public Realm (sidewalks) and Art Circulation Buildings Landscaping Cost Sidewalks on both sides, with the east side wider Sidewalk meanders in mid section of Corridor Midblock crossings and public pedestrian mews are allowed for access to district parking Based on existing two way traffic access and parking pattern No on-street parking Parking is accommodated in district parking lots Building character differs in the three sections Based on existing zoning and height limits and pattern – zero setback building facade New infill development is anticipated to maximize the envelope allowed in zoning Large historic district Artist residency on 4th Avenue encouraged. Public art emphasis at entrance to ECA Art also highlights the path as vertical features Landscaping treatment is differentiated in the three sections, with the middle section having generous medians on both sides. Street tree pattern is rhythmic in the southern and northern sections of street and random in the middle Moderate Packet Page 320 of 448 82 MEANDERING CHANNEL Public Realm (sidewalks) and Art Circulation Buildings Landscaping Cost Based on European sidewalk pattern of “woonerfs” with the public parking lot south of Main and the Edmonds Street intersections converted into piazzas The entire right of way is open to pedestrians enabling multi-directional walking “Mews” or pedestrian access to rear parking is encouraged on private property Two way traffic or one-way north with one lane of parking Changes driver expectancy and requires driver to yield to pedestrian Rear of property or rear ground floor of buildings accommodate parking needs Setbacks allowed if used for public open space/uses Planned redevelopment features lesser historic preservation in mid section of project area Major public art and plaza at entrance to ECA and at proposed two plazas Less street tree coverage than other proposals, but more than existing condition Special pavers for the full curbless right-of-way High, requires project phasing Packet Page 321 of 448 83 STRING OF BEADS Public Realm (sidewalks) and Art Circulation Buildings Landscaping Cost Based on existing sidewalk pattern but sidewalks on both sides of streets are widened to 11 feet Public pedestrian mews provide access to alleys Vertical art elements are placed at regular intervals within the bulb-outs Public art is emphasized at entrance to ECA and at the Edmonds Street Park site Based on existing two-way access and parking pattern Some parking stalls are replaced with landscaped bulb-outs Based on existing zoning and height limits and pattern Historic preservation is less of a priority and buildings are redeveloped with zero-setbacks Bulb-outs accommodate landscaping and art Street tree pattern (1 tree / 20 feet; 1 large tree / 100 feet) allows for maximum shade Special paving design at key intersections The Edmonds Street intersection is reconstructed into a park such that traffic has direct access from 5th Avenue North to Sprague Street Moderate Packet Page 322 of 448 84 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Most attendees participated in the preference scoring exercise. The high level of participation can be interpreted to indicate that residents and property owners really do care about the future of 4th Avenue . TOP 3 ISSUES ON NOVEMBER 10 Three topics were identified as “top issues” which received the most comments from meeting attendees. Put the Parking in the Back For serving access from cars and the pattern of parking, the “alley parking” concept was a very decisive preference over the current on-street parallel parking. The wide margin of preference for “alley parking” was the largest spread of any idea presented and queried by CREÄ. Dispersed Art There is no question that the role of artists and art will be central to any proposal for 4th Avenue. When asked how best to feature art, there was a slight preference for dispersed public art opportunities rather than just a few major art pieces at selected locations along 4th Avenue. The dispersed art concept is successful in downtown Portland, OR and other great downtown areas including major Arts Districts located in Fort Lauderdale Arts & Science District & Riverwalk, Dallas Arts District, and Santana Row in San Jose, CA. Possible New Open Space The consultants identified a triangular shape of private property located between Sprague Street and Edmonds Street that can make a very strong urban design feature, if developed as a public open space. The bold new concept now referred to as “Art Park” has the potential to be a major new public open space initiative linking Civic Playfields and 4th Ave., and the support was very broad. For the possible design and layout of the new “Art Park” open space concept, the preference was decidedly for a “central park” concept with a large open space or a park along one side, rather than a hardscape “piazza” or “plaza.” Methods to make this idea a reality might include public acquisition, public/private development, or possibly a donation of currently private lands at such a strategic location. OTHER ISSUES Other 4th Avenue Arts Corridor topics attracted interest, with a variety of comments by attendees about what they liked. Packet Page 323 of 448 85 Making Pedestrians In Charge of 4th Avenue When asked about preferred patterns for the use of public land (street right-of-way) portion, the paved streetscape with some trees in a European pattern (the Meandering Channel alternative) came up as the most preferred. In such a plan, pedestrians would have the top priority for right-of-way use, and vehicle traffic and parking would come second. Such a plan recognizes that many residents with a great love of travel and walking, along with the local arts community, can celebrate a great people place called 4th Avenue in Edmonds. Building Profile In looking at the details for redevelopment of existing buildings located on private property, the “cottage” style character and patterns based on retaining more residential structures with new uses was just about evenly split with those who preferred new modern infill development. This pattern would replicate current development in other areas of downtown under the current zoning limits. This pattern features residential and/or office uses on second floors with retail, food or activities located on first or ground floors, with parking in the building, under ground or behind the building served by an alley or access drives from 4th Street. However, there was an overall preference for mixed use development, even in the older structures. Change & Continuity Perspectives When specifically asked to focus on the on how much to retain of the existing residential structures located between Edmonds Street and Sprague Street, changing toward new zero setback mixed use buildings seemed to be preferable over keeping one story residential buildings with large front yards along the street. Each city has its own unique balance of keeping the past and making the future. Clearly, there is consent to make some changes in Edmonds along 4th Avenue, while retaining some of the character of the area at a few existing sites. For Pedestrian Flow Patterns – Broader is Better When asked about wide areas with uni-directional walking opportunities compared to the status quo of 2 parallel sidewalks along the east and west side of 4th Avenue, the attendees preferred the European example that makes the car and drivers second in priority to the pedestrian. This pattern is preferred for several reasons – maximum public use areas for displays at events, opportunities for random patterns of trees and art along the street, freedom to walk diagonally and cross street at closer than street intersections and more creative “place making” opportunities to make a visit to Edmonds memorable. Packet Page 324 of 448 86 People Want More Green When it comes to green space, more is better. The two plans that create wider planting areas at major locations (such as the ECA site or new locations) were viewed more favorably. Clearly, when thinking about the current need for adding trees for shade, plantings for ground eye level interest and seasonal interest, the wide preference is to make 4th Avenue more “green”. The green space issue is second only to the parking layout, for clarity of preference. Varied Character There seems to be an overall preference for varying the character of the street along its length. Whether that is differentiated as two or three districts or one district with a variation in character along its length does not seem to be very relevant. The greater concern is that the street should not appear monotonous and repetitious or “typical” in anyway. For Auto Traffic & Access, Use Alleys Usually in a project like this, traffic is the number 1, 2 and 3 issue. For 4th Avenue, the other issues are more important – design, layout, art, etc. When asked about traffic patterns, given 2 basic choices, the attendees were consistent with other issues (alley access, making pedestrian areas wider, etc.) when they selected using alleys east and west of 4th Avenue for more circulation and access, compared to the status quo of parallel parking in front of properties. In addition to the Team’s interpretation of the preference marking exercise, it received many written comments and suggestions. Incorporating all the above comments, the Design Team laid the Top 10 Principles that would guide the final design. They are: Put the parking in the rear of properties and accessible through the alley Disperse art in addition to the major pieces at the two termini Capture possible open space at Edmonds Street Prefer a park at Edmonds Street over a plaza Make pedestrians in charge of 4th Avenue N. Vary building profile Encourage redevelopment over preservation Introduce more greenery Vary building use Reduce auto access. Packet Page 325 of 448 87 4th Avenue Arts Corridor Conceptual Master Plan The 4th Avenue Concept Master Plan assimilates the direction provided by the community, merchants, City Staff and Planning Board. It includes the major ideas that emerged through Design Team’s discussions with these stakeholders. The overall theme for the Master Plan is “Unity and Diversity.” The Plan recommends that while efforts are made to bring some consistent level of improvements and design to the street, its varying character needs to be respected and enhanced. As such, it is not recommended that this plan be realized through the intervention of a single developer or development plan. Rather, the plan relies on the continued and gradual transformation of the Downtown/ Waterfront area in Edmonds. While the diagram does not focus on the details, it provides some clear direction in terms of elements and functions of the street that need to change over the course of this transformation. In creating a distinct environment and experience in Downtown, the plan recommends that residents and businesses explore new ways of maximizing the use of the public right-of-way. This includes an examination of how each building relates to the public right-of-way and how the street ambience succeeds in drawing residents and customers to Edmond’s Downtown. The public right-of-way is currently dedicated primarily to the circulation of vehicles in the area. This has occurred at the expense of attractive and healthy landscaping, interesting places for people to congregate in small groups and a pleasant pedestrian experience. Recently, there have been a number of studies that have traced and measured the benefits of a “green” pedestrian experience. A 2003 study of Urban Forest in the Delaware region concluded that the environmental benefits of urban forests, including air pollution control, storm water management and carbon sequestration, amount to billions of dollars. New Jersey forests included in this study provided annual benefits of $4.1 billion for air purification, $3.3 billion of avoided costs in storm water reconstruction, and 5,200 tons of sequestered carbon. Researchers have found that every $1 invested in watershed protection can save from $7.50 to $200 in costs for new filtration and water treatment facilities. Packet Page 326 of 448 88 A ground-breaking study from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania now offers solid evidence that investment in greening yields significant economic returns, specifically, dramatic increases in real estate values. The study, called “The Determinants of Neighborhood Transformation in Philadelphia: Identification and Analysis—The New Kensington Pilot Study, was developed and produced by Susan Wachter, professor of real estate, finance, and city and regional planning at the Wharton School. The organization, New Economics, states that good quality environments can also have business benefits, both in terms of attracting business investment and increasing trade, as people obviously prefer to shop in pleasant and safe environments. Research shows that in the US, small businesses in particular rate green and open spaces as their highest priority when choosing their location. The Georgia Forestry Commission recounts studies that show that trees increased business value. Trees also enhance community economic stability by attracting businesses and tourists. Customers are willing to pay as much as 10 percent more for certain goods and services if businesses are located on tree-lined streets. Consumer product testing in shopping areas with large numbers of shade trees were rated 30 percent higher than identical products rated in shopping areas that were barren of trees. Tree-lined business and retail districts encourage patrons to linger and shop longer. Increased retail business districts attract new businesses to these districts, which helps to attract more convention business to a region. The presence of trees has a positive effect on occupancy rates and residential home sales. Neighborhood green spaces or greenways typically increase the value of properties located nearby. Healthy trees can add up to 15 percent to residential property value. Packet Page 327 of 448 89 Ultimately the Master Plan implementation will require an honest discussion of the City’s vision for its future and an exploration of the tradeoffs that need to occur for the plan to be realized. How vehicles are accommodated in an environment that gives precedence to pedestrians is a crucial part of this equation. A similar concern is how sidewalk clutter will be managed in the future. Often times, street signs and poorly placed furniture can be disincentives for a pleasant walking experience. There are many developments that need to occur for the vision in the Master Plan to be successful. Above all, the surrounding blocks need to generate a higher level of activities. A critical mass of residents and draws along the corridor are important for a pedestrian space to be successful. It might be prudent to wait or actively solicit the development of this “critical mass”. Economic development interventions that include publicity, Local Improvement District (LIDs) to generate funds for short term improvements, low interest improvement loans to building owners to expand their establishments for mixed use, and extensive programming of activities on the corridor are among some of the activities that can expedite the transformation. At the same time, the downtown business community can also contribute to the immediate and long term benefit of this project. By collaborating with large events, businesses could take advantage of the large crowds and keep their businesses open after hours. Event planners can also coordinate with and direct visitors to businesses that are open after hours. Lastly, the success of this project can only be assured by continuing the relationship and open communication established through this project. It is recommended that the City establish a permanent 4th Avenue Arts Corridor Steering Committee consisting of project supporters and plan for regular meetings, programs and updates with the group. Packet Page 328 of 448 90 Master Plan Principles CELEBRATE THE ARTS PLAY UP ITS STRENGTHS 4th Avenue North is uniquely situated to celebrate Edmonds’ arts heritage. Proximity to the ECA and the annual events in the Civic Playfields defines the street’s importance in the City’s cultural landscape. It is in light of this opportunity that the redesign of 4th Avenue N. is set within the context of and is a celebration of the Arts. The Master Plan suggests emphasizing and preserving the unique characteristics of the street, including the natural topography along its length as well as the views into the Sound. Viewsheds of the Sound along Dayton, Main, Bell and Edmonds Streets should be protected. The Plan revolves around a focal point at the Edmonds/ Sprague intersection which is a natural dip in the road’s profile. It suggests using streetscape improvements to emphasize the focal point. At the same time the Plan captures the two visual termini at either ends of the street with spectacular open space, landscaping and art enhancements. Packet Page 329 of 448 91 CREATE VARIETY UNIFY THE EXPERIENCE AND APPEARANCE CELEBRATE SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES The Master Plan responds to the three distinct characters of 4th Avenue in the Project Area. The plan recommends that the street’s existing character is emphasized in a way that divides the street into three distinct sections: Foyer (Dayton to Bell) Arena (Bell to Daley) Forecourt (Daley to 3rd). Vary the landscaping configuration and lighting in these sections to create interest and a variety of “outdoor rooms.” These street sections are discussed in greater detail below. The Master Plan suggests there should be unifying elements in the landscape within the variety of 4th Avenue’s three sections. Proposals include a single surface paving treatment and a string of light/art elements. Strategies that govern parking could imbue some uniformity and consistency along the corridor. For instance, a parking district or a zoning revision that requires most or all parking to be placed and accessible to vehicles from the rear of properties, can also help introduce some standard expectations and practice along the corridor. Similarly, changing zoning to support pedestrian walkways that connect rear parking to 4th Avenue every 150-200’ or so can create a unique yet repetitive element along the street. Several new mid-block crossings along 4th as shown in the Master Plan can help support walking and encourage frequent pedestrian connections through the blocks. In redesigning the corridor, it is critical that the new interventions improve the street’s performance. This includes improving storm water runoff quantity and quality through the following: Amount of permeable surface Amount of ground cover to cleanse runoff. At the same time the redesign can initiate an Urban Forestry program in the Downtown/ Waterfront area. This will affect: The amount of shade for summer cooling The exposure to sunlight for solar technology and winter heat gain in buildings Healthy and thriving urban wildlife, e.g. birds The selection of plants towards species that are native and require minimal artificial irrigation. Lastly, the redesign can set a precedent for the use of renewable fuel sources such as solar energy in the city’s infrastructure. This technology is non-pollutive, quiet and spares the expenses of laying electrical conduits. Packet Page 330 of 448 92 SECTION I: FOYER Looking towards the possible location of a new plaza. A portion of this private parking lot could reflect the plaza across 4th Avenue S. This Section is anchored by downtown retail The streetscape is organized around large outdoor rooms for gathering/milling around Landscape details are clustered and organized around generous bio swales Trees become anchors for social interaction A large public space is captured by the public parking lot just south of Main St. This plaza is marked by a major art gesture, perhaps vertical as well as surface art Some of the public parking lot could be converted to an arts-related facility at a later date Perhaps, the plaza spills into all or a portion of the private parking lot across the street Buildings front their property line with limited setbacks Entry markers are placed along Main Street at its intersection with 4th Avenue Packet Page 331 of 448 93 PLAZA ALTERNATIVES These diagrams demonstrate a number of ways that a grand public space could be created in the block south of Main on 4th Avenue S. Option A is split across 4th Avenue by a continuous canopy of trees. With a large new building taking up the full public parking site, the grand space is actually quite small on the west of 4th and is emphasized on the east. In Option B, the space is developed equally on either side of 4th Avenue. On the west, a new museum that comes up fairly close to the curb still leaves a generous expanse of public space in front. Similarly on the east side, the existing parking is reconfigured and a few of the parking spaces are sacrificed to create a generous expanse of public plaza. Option C is a single curbless grand space that spans across 4th Avenue and is wrapped by a new building in the public parking lot and spills gracefully into the private parking lot across the street. The large expansive plaza is celebrated through surface art and landscaping. Trees are placed casually in the plaza. Typical Street Section within the Foyer Packet Page 332 of 448 94 SECTION II: ARENA The edge between lawns and the sidewalk will evolve into attractive transition spaces. The Edmonds-Sprague Street intersection can be transformed into a memorable open space feature in downtown. This Section is centered around a “stage” or arena at Edmonds Street The landscaping treatment gradually intensifies towards this intersection Landscaping creates small rooms for events such as performers or art exhibits Bio swales increase amount of ground cover and separate pedestrians from moving traffic The public right-of-way at the Edmonds and Sprague Street intersection is realigned for a large park Park design allows for unimpeded vehicular traffic from the Fire Station on 5th Avenue to 3rd Avenue Pedestrian and visual connection from 6th Avenue N. is strengthened Buildings with historic facades retain their relationship to the street while new spaces are set back - front yards merge with the sidewalk realm New buildings should be mixed-use and have residences on the upper floors in order to lend to a 24-hour environment Packet Page 333 of 448 95 ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B The proposed future Edmonds Street Park can be developed in a number of ways using a variety of traffic solutions. It is recommended that as much as possible on-street parking be retained unless it significantly impacts the size and nature of the park. Two such solutions are discussed below: In Alternative A, Edmonds Street is entirely closed and Sprague Street is maintained as a two-way with parking on both sides The street is accessed from the alley along a paved strip through the park Private properties west of the Fire Station are purchased. This allows 5th Avenue to run straight through and connect with Sprague Street providing emergency vehicle access as well as a larger open space Restrooms are located at one corner of the park in a new structure In Alternative B, Sprague Street runs one-way west and Edmonds Street runs one-way east The private property west of the Fire Station is purchased and makes way for a better connection from 5th Avenue to Sprague Street for emergency vehicle access The private property further west is also purchased and the house is retained and renovated to accommodate some public facility such as restrooms, a Visitors Center or possibly a museum/gallery space Access from adjoining alleys allows only one-way traffic flow – east or west Packet Page 334 of 448 96 Typical Street Section in the ”Arena” SECTION III: FORECOURT Packet Page 335 of 448 97 There is no view of the Sound along Daley. The ECA makes a grand terminus toward the north. Redesign the front of the ECA for a dramatic landscape entry that is commemorative of its Art Deco heritage Allow for on-street parallel parking on the north- bound side of 4th Avenue N Maintain a minimum width of 8’ for the sidewalk on the east side of the street Emphasize pedestrian access by highlighting crosswalks across Daley and 4th Avenue Landscaping on the east side of the street should not block views of the ECA façade from either 3rd Street or 4th Avenue or the viewshed along 4th Avenue Capture the termini of the 4th Avenue viewshed with Art The properties on the west of 4th Avenue are ideally situated for institutional uses, given that 3rd Avenue is a bike and bus corridor and the properties’ proximity to the ferry. These could be artist lofts with an arts studio or senior housing Reconstruction of the western properties should include a 10 - 15’ densely landscaped strip along 4th Avenue with tall trees that define the view from the ECA Packet Page 336 of 448 98 Street Section along the “Forecourt” Packet Page 337 of 448 99 A Conceptual Art Plan Beliz Brother, Artist. Andrew Leicester, Artist. Stacy Levi, Artist. The integration of art into the public right-of-way is vital to molding 4th Avenue as an arts corridor leading to the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The Conceptual Art Plan capitalizes on the Edmonds Center for the Arts as a destination and 4th Avenue’s unique street character with its access to spectacular open spaces and dynamic views of Puget Sound. In this plan, art unifies the corridor experience, embraces the community’s culture, creates artistic diversity and most of all celebrates the performing arts. Three main themes are identified for organizing art: Light the Way: Art celebrates the role that the corridor plays in connecting destinations, this art gesture is directional and linear in its organization and intent. Examples include: Artist designed solar lights that guide the pedestrian through the corridor Vertical and dramatic art element that stands proud in the narrow streetscape Performance art that activates the corridor for singular events. Highlight the Destination: Art in the two proposed grand spaces where 4th Avenue bends, not only defines the viewshed but is an important element in marking the space. Examples include: Bold art gesture for the approach to the Edmonds Center for the Arts Grand civic art installation in the open space near Main Street, permanent or temporary Major gesture central to the “Edmonds Street Park”. Mark the Path: Art offers many opportunities to for visitors to pause, rest and reflect during their experience of 4th Avenue. Examples include: Artist designed surface paving treatment repeated as a unifier and place maker Art moments that draw the pedestrian along the path to pause, sit or mingle Miniature artwork that appears in quirky places Artist designed building parts that mingle great “Form + Function” Sidewalk street name inlays with character references Embedded prose walk, poetry podium and poetry poles. Packet Page 338 of 448 100 Norie Sato & Design Team, Artists. The Master Plan responds to the three distinct characters of 4th Avenue. The following are a range of art possibilities for each area. Note that these are just suggestions and too numerous for all to be implemented. SECTION I: FOYER (DAYTON TO BELL) This plaza, adjacent to the two small houses on 4th Ave. S, is marked by a major art gesture, perhaps vertical as well as surface art. Bold, simple and versatile is the key to capturing this first of two visual termini at either end of 4th Avenue. Wall or plaza surface projection that is permanent or temporary in nature Plaza hardscape design using sustainable practices SECTION II: ARENA (BELL TO DALEY) The focal point of this section is centered around a “stage” or arena at Edmonds Street. Temporary art such as digital, mechanical, disposable, musical, literary, performance art and participatory community events Poetry podium, prose walk and art garden Art benches and other artist designed street furniture Site specific signature sculpture Creative place holders (for future art) as the park develops Packet Page 339 of 448 101 Jody Pinto, Artist. The streetscape through this section should utilize art simply and sparingly Artist designed solar lights that guide the pedestrian through the corridor Vertical art elements are placed at intervals within the bulb- outs SECTION III: FORECOURT (D ALEY TO 3RD) This section captures the termini of the 4th Avenue viewshed with art. Major site specific sculpture or installation that references the Edmond Center for the Arts designed by a public artist of national recognition Possibly use this artist as lead artist, creating the art plan for the corridor to maintain consistency while still bringing artist diversity Public art is emphasized at entrance but could also move boldly into the streetscape as surface treatment Artwork should be an anchor seen easily through the corridor The Vision: Maintaining the Guiding Principles This conceptual art plan sets the tone for the art program while exploring ways in which artists can assist in the realization of the vision and goals of the 4th Avenue Concept Master Plan. The first step in the process of integrating artwork is commissioning a detailed Public Art Plan that parallels the realization of the 4th Avenue Corridor development. The Art Plan: Laying the Foundation The 4th Avenue Concept Master Plan core goals and vision grew out of multiple meetings, events and careful study. The commissioned Public Art Plan should draw from this foundation to distinguish a community’s aspirations, vision and uniqueness and fold it into an inspirational, visionary and directive document. Create an arts activated 4th Avenue focusing on the Edmonds Center for the Arts as a destination Reference the performing arts as metaphor to inspire the public artist in the development of their proposals Reinforce the Edmonds’ commitment to its arts heritage Packet Page 340 of 448 102 The Planner: Seeking the Unexpected The Public Art Planner should build on the open space concepts and developing designs for the 4th Avenue Corridor. Based on these design principles and goals, the planner should seek art opportunities that over reach the expected; and should provide inspiration for the community and participating artists alike. Explore and respond to the qualities that are defined in the 4th Avenue Concept Master Plan Respond to the evolving future development of the corridor by promoting new ideas and contemporary attitudes Seek experienced public artists and/or a lead artist who could innovatively shape the artistic direction of the corridor Program temporary art such as digital, mechanical, disposable, musical, literary, performance art, earthworks and participatory community events The Implementation: Outlining the Nuts & Bolts The commissioned Public Art Plan should establish standards for the creation of artwork: Establish polices, procedures, contract models based on national arts standards Emphasize the quality of the relationship between the artwork and the site is as important as the artwork itself Propose all artwork be commissioned for the 4th Avenue Corridor Discourage accepting of gifts of pre-existing artwork and purchase of pre-existing artwork The Artist Selection Process: Delineate and Implement Structure a selection process that draws the most qualified artist for each situation and creates an opportunity for each artist to make their finest work Develop sound criteria for evaluating artists and proposals Include artist and design professional panelists with national public art experience in addition to local or regional representation Choose a panelist to represent the community that is knowledgeable and committed Packet Page 341 of 448 103 Invite a guest curator for temporary projects or select by a jury of arts professionals through an open competition or invitational The Outcome: The first and last “act of art” The first “act of art” will set the tenor for the artistic future of the 4th Avenue Corridor. The commissioned Public Art Plan can play a determining role in the success of long term outcome. Each art opportunity should speak to the whole experience, no matter how discrete the work. Large and small special moments alike can unify the 4th Avenue Corridor experience to embrace the community’s spirit, create artistic diversity, and most of all celebrate the Edmonds’ arts heritage. Packet Page 342 of 448 104 Light Element Example Packet Page 343 of 448 105 Packet Page 344 of 448 106 Street Trees SIGNATURE TREES Red Oak 60 feet diameter; 80-90’ tall, trunks are 2-4’; Leaf: Alternate, simple, 5 to 8 inches long, oblong in shape with 7 to 11 bristle-tipped lobes, sinuses extend 1/3 to 1/2 of the way to midvein, generally very uniform in shape, dull green to blue-green above and paler below. Flower: Monoecious; males in yellow-green slender, hanging catkins, 2 to 4 inches long; females are borne on short axiliary spikes, appearing with the leaves in spring. A medium sized to large tree that reaches up to 90 feet tall, develops a short trunk and round crown when open grown, straight with a clear, long bole when grown with competition. Rivers Purple Beech Fagus sylvatica 'Riversii' Planting strip: 8.5 Feet and Greater. Likes loose, moist, well-drained, acidic soil and full sun. Very low maintenance tree with no insect or disease problems. A medium-sized tree with a stocky trunk and a round crown . Alternate, simple, ovate or elliptical, 2 to 4 inches long, pinnately-veined (7 to 9 pairs), with a nearly entire to somewhat toothed margin. Fine hairs present on margin with tomentum on veins. Leaves deep purple to purple bronze foliage. Broadly oval; Height 60'; Width 40' Norway Maple Few species are more widely planted as trouble free, urban street-trees; every major temperate city where the climate allows, has Norway maples in its downtown core. Norway maple combines the requisite size, strength, thriftiness and ease of propagation to an admirable degree. It also varies usefully, so we have mushroom- shaped dwarfs, columnar sentries, ovals, purple leaved freaks, and even cut leaved varieties. It isn't as stirring in silhouetted beauty or as enchanting in fall color as sugar maple, but it is a better choice for difficult sites. Packet Page 345 of 448 107 Street Trees BOULEVARD TREES Chanticleer Flowering Pear ; Pyrus calleryana, 'Chanticleer' A rapidly growing upright conical tree which likes full sun exposure and is heat and drought tolerant. It is widely adaptable to soil type. Flowers in spring are white, with dark green foliage turning red in the fall for color. Height: 40-60 feet with a spread of 15-20 feet. Red Sunset Maple (Acer rubrum 'Franksred') It is one of the best maples for outstanding fall color. Red Sunset retains its brilliant red to orange-red autumn color longer than most varieties. It is upright and spreading when young, developing an oval head as it matures. Lustrous green summer foliage and silvery bark for winter interest complete it's attributes. A 2000 Iowa Tree of the Year. Red Sunset attains a height of 50 feet and a width of 35- 40' at maturity. Plant in full sun and evenly moist well- drained soil for optimum growth. Frontier Elm; Ulmus carpinifolia x U. parvofolia 'Frontier' Planting Strip: 4 to 5 Feet. Resistant to Dutch elm disease, phloem necrosis and both elm leaf and Japanese beetles. Long-lived. Best in moist, well-drained, fertile soil. Adapts to urban conditions.Lustrous, dark green leaves. Beautiful reddish-purple to burgundy in fall. Broadly oval vase shape; Height: 40'; Width: 30' Packet Page 346 of 448 108 Street Trees EVERGREEN TREES The Little Gem Magnolia is a slow-growing hybrid (cultivar) of the Magnolia grandiflora that is sometimes called a "dwarf". It will get tall (up to 40', usually less), but not nearly as tall as the M. grandiflora (which can get over 80' tall), and it grows very slowly. It may grow to be 8 - 10' wide. It has blooms on it when it is very young, as opposed to the original Magnolia grandiflora growing in the wilds which sometimes takes 15-20 years to bloom. They bloom when very small, and often bloom in off seasons. It looks a little different from the traditional Magnolia Grandiflora that is the "Southern Magnolia". They don't share quite the branch spread as a M. grandiflora. The leaves are smaller and some have more "golden rust" color on the underside. The blossoms are smaller, also, although they look like the blossoms on the M. grandiflora. The Little Gem Magnolia grows in a more compact and upright form than other Magnolias; with elliptic to oval dark green leaves with characteristic long rusty-brown undersides. The small, white flowers bloom profusely in the early and late summer. The Little Gem Magnolia grows to be 20-25 feet in height and 10-15 feet in width. Hardiness: Zones 7-9 Exposure: Full Sun Water Requirements: Medium Source: http://www.metrotrees.com.au/treehandbook/page- listings/magnolia-grandiflora-little-gem.html Packet Page 347 of 448 109 Grasses Bouteloua Gracilis Blue grama grass is a warm season tufted perennial grass. It is native to the short and tall grass prairies, and makes up 75% to 90% of the grasses found there. Blue grama is 6 to 12 (15-30 cm) inches high. Blue grama likes to grow in full sun with well-drained good soil, and can stand drought, heat, cold, and mowing. Although it doesn't like shade, it can grow in open piñon forests. Schizachyrium Scoparium A native, strictly clumping, prairie grass. The bottom shoots are bluish colored, thus the common name, Little Bluestem. Most of the height of the plant is made up by the plumes, which appear in late summer. The ripening seed heads have a fluffy, feathery appearance and look beautiful with a bronze to copper fall color. Little Bluestem is effective in masses or naturalized. Most characteristic grass of the American tall grass prairie. Does not do well in highly fertile soils, excessively moist conditions, or crowded by mulch. Sun: 1/2 to Full Sun, Full Sun for Maximum Performance; Moisture: Well drained soil, average to very dry; Foliage Color - Summer: Burgundy/Red 10% Fall: Burgundy/Red 10% Winter: Tan/Light Brown Andropogon Gerardi Big Bluestem is a clump forming warm season native perennial grass usually growing 3 to 6 feet tall but occasionally up to 9 feet. The lower stems are a purplish or bluish color and the leaves are 1/2 inch wide and up to 20 inches long. The arrangement of the flowers in three dense elongate clusters is the reason for the common name of turkey-foot grass. It grows best in moist well drained soil in full sun and is a major component of the tallgrass prairie. Habitat Sun to Lt Shade; Bloom Period July and August; Flower Color red to copper; Height Inches36 to 72; Moisture Average to Moist; Lifespan Perennial Packet Page 348 of 448 110 Implementation Strategy CONSERVATION CREATION The Implementation of the Master Plan sets in motion four different activities. Conservation Creation Imagination Construction Most likely, these four will have to be carried out in conjunction. There are many positive attributes of 4th Avenue that need to be protected as the surrounding area is redeveloped and new building permits are processed. There needs to be a zoning overlay over the existing zoning along 4th Avenue. This overlay zone can better incorporate and reflect the setback and building relief recommendations in the three sections of the street. Celebrate the opening of the street as a “Corridor for the Arts” Create design guidelines that encourage retention of facade character of buildings in the Arena Section Designate Edmonds Street, Bell Street and Main Street as “Scenic View Corridors” There are also many opportunities for innovation and creativity along 4th Avenue. These creative endeavors can occur relatively independently of each other, as long as they generally adhere to the principles and direction within this Concept Master Plan Begin with a tangible first “act of art” such as a single prominent element, or a repetitive series of elements Develop a detailed Public Art Plan for the thematic design, development, financing, siting and maintenance of art within the corridor Consider alternative uses for the Edmonds Apartments or “Roadhouse” that support resident artists and the overall concept for the Arts Corridor Commission a detailed Master Plan for 4th Avenue Packet Page 349 of 448 111 IMAGINATION CONSTRUCTION For the Master Plan Diagram to be realized, Edmonds citizens need to have unflinching interest and commitment to it. There are ways that the diagram, or a version thereof, can be publicized. Placing it in a prominent location within the project area as a metal plaque, surface art or banner provides a constant reminder of the Plan’s potential to transform 4th Avenue N and Downtown in general. Develop marketing material that captures the key ideas of the Master Plan in a precise and yet attractive package Manufacture illustrated maps or templates of the “master plan diagram” painted on the sidewalk Create interim “mock-ups” of future elements such as the “plazas” with paint, chalk, sets, or live art A very effective way to set the notion of an Arts Corridor is by beginning new Community Traditions within the corridor. These could include any or all of the following: Monthly art walks, Children’s annual “chalkathon”, Permitting performing artists stalls; Extending the crafts festivals, Annual “installation night” of new art. Ultimately for the concept to be constructed, there are a number of approaches to herding and managing the necessary tasks. Initially, the Plan needs to be assigned to a Project Liaison/Advocate among City Staff This Liaison needs to shepherd a full survey of the street The design guidelines and zoning for the Corridor need to be reviewed/revised (if necessary) The final Master Plan as referred to earlier needs to reflect or inform a revision to the Project Costs and Funding Strategy The Liaison needs to identify and pursue fundraising through grant applications and other creative means Packet Page 350 of 448 112 PHASING IMPLEMENTATION Short Term Interim The above strategy can be translated into an Implementation Strategy that starts to distinguish and prioritize necessary steps to realize the plan. Within each category, the actions are not listed in any order of preference or priority. Formalize 4th Avenue Steering Committee as an advisory group to the City Prepare publicity material to promote the concept Master Plan Erect way-finding elements Install solar lamps Commission surface art at Edmonds Street, and within the public right of way at ECA and the public parking lot Consider temporary Art on lamp poles Allow vendors on 4th Avenue Organize art events/ parades and other programs throughout the year along 4th Avenue Develop and adopt view protection mandates Develop design guidelines for new construction Develop public-private partnerships that cater to increased evening clientele in the downtown area Collaborate with planned utility upgrades or road improvement projects in the project area to implement the plan Commission a survey of the street Commission a Master Plan for 4th Avenue that takes the vision from concept to constructability Erect more solar lamps Streetscape improvement for ”Arena” reconstruction Add greenery Eliminate driveways Reduce parking dependence on 4th Avenue N. Adopt a Downtown Parking Management Plan; tie this to a way-finding program from major arterials to downtown Broker creative transportation solutions for large events Packet Page 351 of 448 113 Long Term Collaborate with owners as properties are redeveloped to create more rear parking lots Install major art pieces at the plazas Establish mid-block crossings and pedestrian through-fares as shown in the plan Purchase properties between Edmonds and Sprague Streets, and 4th and 5th Avenues to expand the footprint of the park Purchase some or all of the private parking lot to expand the south plaza Consider financing mechanisms to offset some of the initial costs for this project such as Impact Fees or creating a Local Improvement District around 4th Avenue N. within the project area Consider Small Revolving Loans for property improvements Fully reconstruct 4th Avenue N. Establish new park at Edmonds and Sprague Street intersection Develop a new Arts facility / museum by south public plaza Improve pedestrian link from Civic Playfields It should be noted that the above sequence is only suggestive and the City should continue to be on the lookout for opportunities not considered above or perhaps at a later stage of project development to move a strategy forward. Packet Page 352 of 448 114 Appendix F – Street Tree Plan City of Edmonds Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services 2002 Street Tree Plan prepared by MacLeod Reckord Updated by City of Edmonds staff in 2006 Packet Page 353 of 448 115 CONTENTS Page SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116 VISION ORGANIZATION INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 CONTEXT EXISTING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS RELATED PLANNING EFFORTS GOALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118 DESIGN SPECIES SELECTION MAINTENANCE REGULATORY IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120 STREET TREE PLAN Existing trees View corridors waterfront connections Retail streets Overhead wires Underground utilities Downtown Plan Gateways Plans Key Routes Plan TREE PLANTING P ROCEDURES STREET TREE MAINTENANCE Procedures Responsibility REGULATORY LINKAGES Coordination with Existing Plans & Codes Design Review Procedure STREET TREE LIST 127 STREET TREE PLANTING DETAILS 129 Packet Page 354 of 448 116 SUMMARY Vision The Edmonds Street Tree Plan exists to benefit the local community and business climate through enhancement of the identity and character of the downtown, gateways, neighborhoods and primary routes of travel. Street trees provide seasonal interest, summer shade, and a transition between the street and adjacent buildings and properties. The plan recommends species which provide these benefits and are hardy, relatively easy to maintain, and tolerant of urban conditions. The City may modify or amend tree species selection in the future. Organization This plan provides a brief overview of the existing physical context and regulatory requirements, as well as previous planning efforts which relate to street trees. Goals and objectives are identified relevant to street trees as urban design elements, tree species selection, maintenance, regulatory guidelines and plan implementation. Suggested actions for the street tree plan are discussed including these components: Street tree list Tree location plan Planting standards Maintenance responsibilities Regulatory linkage with this plan Packet Page 355 of 448 117 INTRODUCTION Context The City of Edmonds is gifted with a picturesque setting offering magnificent views of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. Enhancement of these views is an important consideration of the street tree plan. The City is also a destination for people seeking enjoyment of the strong arts community, its waterfront, and its small-town character. Edmonds is also a stopping point for many who commute to Kitsap County via ferry. Street trees could contribute to a stronger sense of place and city edge definition and enhance the pedestrian environment. Existing Regulatory Requirements The City of Edmonds currently defines acceptable street tree species, planting methods, tree locations, and planting and maintenance responsibilities through a variety of means. Primarily, planting and maintenance of street trees in the city has been in response to a mixture of regulatory requirements, legal proceedings and decisions by City Staff and public utility employees. Responsibility for planting and maintaining the trees is not clearly defined and sometimes conflicting. Edmonds currently relies on the following regulatory guidelines: Street Tree Plan, revised 2006 and adopted, including a street tree list and recommended tree locations in the downtown retail core area (subject to future amendment). Resolution 418, adopted 1978, governing maintenance of trees in public areas. Ordinance 1952, created in 1977, regulating planting, maintenance and removal of trees on City owned property. City of Edmonds Community Development Code (CDC), Chapter 18.85 regulating street trees. Some references to street tree planting are also made in the comprehensive plan and the Shoreline Master Program. The City’s Architectural Design Board (ADB) reviews and approves planting plans for new development seeking a permit, including street tree planting as part of private development. Related Planning Efforts Several previous and current planning documents identify goals and design recommendations which directly relate to this street tree plan: Edmonds Downtown Economic Enhancement Strategy, dated 1999. City of Edmonds Design Guidelines. Design guidelines for private development except for single-family zone and projects with up to two residential units. Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan, dated January 1994, revised 2005. Guidelines for downtown waterfront development. Edmonds Streetscape Plan core document defines guidelines for streetscape development within the public right-of-ways for Edmonds gateways, and key routes of travel. Packet Page 356 of 448 118 GOALS Design Within the City of Edmonds rights-of-way, location of street trees should make the following contributions and meet these criteria: Clarify the edges of the City. Enhance City gateways at key intersections and retail/commercial centers. Distinguish key routes of travel through Edmonds. Define separate street identities within the downtown retail core. Frame views of Puget Sound and the mountains from key viewpoints and right-of-ways. Due to narrow street right-of-ways, species on view streets should be somewhat narrow in form. Placement of trees shall not obscure or impede vehicular sight distance at intersections. Reinforce the sense of safety for pedestrians by providing an element of separation between pedestrians and vehicles. In retail/commercial areas, plant trees with handicapped accessible tree grates flush with adjacent pavement to maximize width of "walking zone" on sidewalks. Avoid raised planters that interfere with the “walking zone”.. Allow walking and window shopping to occur next to retail/commercial frontage and allow space for weather protection over sidewalk walk zone. Avoid overhead power lines. The City of Edmonds should recommend undergrounding power lines in the downtown core and in the smaller retail/commercial centers. Avoid blocking visibility of business signage, marquees and window displays. Species Selection Criteria for the tree species recommended in the Edmonds Street Tree List are listed below: Resistant to pests and disease Hardy to local weather conditions Produces minimal litter Non-invasive roots Resistant to breakage Thornless Fruitless Resistant to drought and heat Does not sucker Tolerates air pollution Readily available in adequate installation size and branching height Provides seasonal interest, such as flowers and fall color Upward branching habit Appropriate mature size and form for their location Packet Page 357 of 448 119 Maintenance Several suggested maintenance procedures are relevant as well: Institute planting procedures and tools (such as root barriers) to discourage lifting of pavement by tree roots by encouraging roots to grow downward. Use of equipment in the right-of-way other than hand tools will require a City Right-of-Way permit prior to street tree pruning. Prune to maintain the natural form of the trees. Avoid leaving branch stubs. Prune to direct branch growth around obstructions. Do not top trees or pollard trees unless approved by the City. Prune frequently so that cut branches are not substantial in size. Consider branching pattern in relationship to potential obstructions when choosing orientation of tree at time of planting. Contact the City Parks Division for guidelines on maintenance of street trees. Contact the City Engineering Division to obtain a Right-of-Way permit. Regulatory Except where otherwise defined by the City, the adjacent property owner is responsible for tree planting and maintenance. Require coordination for any work within the City right-of-ways. Institute appropriate public and private funding mechanisms to achieve goals and implement recommended actions. Provide incentives for private property owners to preserve substantial trees. Implementation When possible, plant entire blocks or series of blocks at the same time that sidewalks are reconstructed. This will provide some uniformity in tree size and form. Undergrounding of overhead wire could occur simultaneously if species compatibility is assessed. Conform to the City of Edmonds adopted “Standard Details”, for example tree grates and tree spacing. Packet Page 358 of 448 120 ACTIONS Existing Trees Preservation of existing landmark trees and specimens of significant size and age is encouraged on both public and private properties as long as they are healthy and any negative impacts on utilities and sidewalks can be reasonably managed. Trees which do not conform to the street tree plan should be phased out over time. Allow new trees to reach significant size before culling out unwanted specimens. Installation of new trees at larger caliper size will quicken this process. Because new planting is recommended to occur over one or several blocks at one time, removal of existing trees would occur simultaneously in the same areas. Removal of trees in the "prohibited" category on the street tree list should take priority over others. View Corridors and Waterfront Connections In the downtown retail core area, views of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains occur along streets which are perpendicular to the waterfront and where there are high points and steeper slopes toward the water. The key downtown streets in this category are: Main St., Dayton St., and 5th Ave. south of Main. Primary waterfront connections occur along Main Street and Dayton Street; and along Pine Street (when the ferry terminal is relocated). Other key view corridors in the downtown include Edmonds and Bell Streets. Trees along these streets should be more narrow in form in order to frame but not block the views and visual connections to the waterfront. Retail Streets Streets with retail and commercial uses along them benefit from clear visibility from vehicles and sidewalks to store frontage. These frontages can also provide weather protection for pedestrians in the form of canopies. Parking may also occur directly adjacent to the sidewalk along these streets. Trees should therefore have branching high enough to avoid awnings and allow visibility under the canopy. High branching also avoids conflict with tall vehicles. Overhead Wires Some streets or blocks in the downtown, gateway areas and along key routes have overhead wires. The street tree plan recommends eventual undergrounding or relocation to alleyways of all overhead wires in the downtown retail core area. Ideally overhead wires in the downtown should be undergrounded simultaneously with new street tree planting, otherwise, unsightly pruning of the new trees by utilities may occur to keep branches clear of wires. Underground Utilities Tree roots sometimes invade and damage city sewer and storm drainage lines. These underground utilities occur on at least one side of the street throughout the downtown, gateway areas and along key routes. For this reason, non-invasive species were chosen for the street list. Installation of root barriers will help direct roots away from underground utilities. Downtown Plan Specific street tree species are identified for planting on particular stretches of street in the downtown. A map showing the species locations is shown on the next page. All trees shown on the map shall be minimum 3 inch caliper unless otherwise approved. Packet Page 359 of 448 121 Downtown street tree distribution map. Packet Page 360 of 448 122 Gateways to Edmonds Gateways to Edmonds are defined in the body of the Streetscape Plan. They are key intersections or series of intersections, and key retail/commercial nodes. All trees shall be minimum 3”. caliper, as indicated, unless otherwise approved by the City. Recommendations for specific street trees at these gateways are as follows: FIVE CORNERS (212th Street SW at Main Street, Bowdoin Street, and 84th Avenue West) A roundabout is recommended in the Streetscape Plan for the center of the 5-way intersection. If trees are placed in the roundabout, the tree(s) should have large size and high branching to allow safe sight distance for drivers across the planted area under the trees. Installation size should be minimum 3” caliper with branching at 10 ft. height. These are possible good choices: Quercus rubra / Red Oak Quercus palustris .Crownright. / Crownright Pin Oak Cercidiphyllum japonicum / Katsura Tree Ginko biloba .Autumn Gold. / .A.G.. Maidenhair Tree Tree plantings along the five streets or spokes which extend out from the intersection should have the same tree species planted to surround the roundabout with a unifying element. A good choice for this tree would be Prunus serrulata Kwansan, which is the same tree used on Main Street in downtown. Eventually planting of this tree should extend all the way from Five Corners to downtown to accent that important connection. WESTGATE (Highway 104 or Edmonds Way at 100th Avenue West) See Appendix C for gateway concept at Westgate. Medians are recommended as well as planting at the four corners of this intersection. Median planting should match the tree selection for Highway 104. Planting at the four corners should accent this as a special intersection. Due to space limitations, if trees are planted, they should allow for safe vehicular sight distance and visibility of storefronts or store signage. These trees could be one of the following species: Prunus serrulata .Amanagawa. / Amanagawa Cherry Prunus sargentii .Columnaris. / Columnar Sargent Cherry Acer rubrum ’Bowhall’ / Bowhall Maple PERRINVILLE (Olympic View Drive at 76th Avenue West) This intersection has native planting influences as well as retail/commercial elements. Tree selection at the four corners of this intersection could be one selected from the following species: Acer rubrum ’Karpick’ / Karpick Maple Acer rubrum ’Bowhall’ / Bowhall Maple Fraxinus pennsylvancia ’Summit’ / Summit Ash There is also space for a large tree species here which could be: Cercidiphyllum japonicum / Katsura Tree Ginkgo biloba ’Autumn Gold’ / ’A.G.’ Maidenhair Tree HIGHWAY 99 INTERSECTIONS (at 212th Street SW, 220th Street SW, 228th Street SW, and 236th Street SW) Tree selection should be the same for these intersections and should match tree selections for Highway 99 between the intersections. Due to space limitation, if trees are planted at the intersections, they would need to go on private property in back of the current limited right-of- way adjoining the sidewalk. Plantings within the right-of-way would need to consider lighting and bus stop visibility issues and be coordinated with the State. The species selected should have strong form, and should not block safe vehicular sight distance and views to signage identifying businesses. A medium to large columnar tree would work best such as: Packet Page 361 of 448 123 Acer platanoides ’Columnare’ / Columnar Norway Maple Acer rubrum ’Armstrong’ / Armstrong Maple Nyssa sylvatica / Tupelo Key Routes The Edmonds Streetscape study identifies important key routes through the City. Street trees could be planted along these corridors as an element of continuity. All trees shall be 3 inch caliper minimum unless otherwise approved. Recommendations for specific street trees along these routes are as follows, but may also require WSDOT approval: SR 104 Median planting could be groupings of a mixture of small to medium formal type trees such as: Acer platanoides ’Globosum’ / Globe Maple Pyrus calleryana ’Capital’ / Capital Pear Carpinus betulus ’Fastigiata’ / Pyramidal European Hornbeam Planting at sides could be larger boulevard type trees such as: Liriodendron tulipifera / Tulip Tree Cercidiphyllum japonicum / Katsura Tree Quercus rubra / Red Oak HIGHWAY 99 Planting at sides of Highway 99 should have a strong form and should allow views of business signage. A medium to large narrow tree is recommended selected from this list: Acer rubrum ’Armstrong’ / Armstrong Maple Acer platanoides ’Columnare’ / Columnar Norway Maple Nyssa sylvatica / Tupelo 220TH STREET SW Continue planting to match existing Amanagawa Cherry Trees from Highway 99 to 100th Street (9th Ave. S.). 212TH STREET SW / MAIN STREET Continue planting of Pyrus calleryana .Glens Form. from downtown through Five Corners to Highway 99. 196TH STREET SW A medium to large size tree is recommended for this stretch of roadway. The following would work: Tilia cordata ’Greenspire’ / Greenspire Linden Fraxinus pennsylvanica ’Marshalls Seedless’ / Marshall Ash OTHER ARTERIALS Check with City for recommendations. Packet Page 362 of 448 124 Tree Planting Procedures Planting procedure recommendations address reducing tree stress, avoiding conflict of roots with underground utilities and pavement, and minimizing conflict between tree branches and various obstructions. Street tree planting details are included at the end of this document.. Also refer to City of Edmonds “Standards”. In order to survive well in an urban environment trees need an adequate supply of water, nutrients and air to the roots, as well as good drainage. Street trees are often planted in paved areas with highly compacted, poorly drained soils. The pavement and soil compaction limits the supply of water and air to the roots. Tree roots, which typically tend to be located in the top 1 foot of soil, will often invade utility lines and follow the crushed rock base installed under pavements in order to get the air and water they need. Tree grates allows some soil surface area to be exposed to air while protecting it from compaction. Root barriers should be installed to direct roots downward and prevent uplifting of surrounding pavement. In addition, by installing a few perforated pipes sloping downward into the soil from each tree pit, and pea gravel drainage trenches under the tree pits, roots will be encouraged to grow down and the soil around the tree will not become too saturated. An automatic irrigation system is recommended to supplement water supply. Slow release fertilizer tablets should be added to the tree pit at installation time to assist with tree establishment. Trees should be isolated from gas lines as gas is toxic to them. Sharp transitions between soil types in the plant pit can discourage roots from growing out of the pit. This can cause the tree to become root bound, thus unstable within the pit. For this reason native soils should be mixed with planting soil in the pit. Tree pits should be large enough in size to allow for a minimum of 6" of this soil mixture around the sides and bottom. According to the American Standard for Nursery Stock, the root ball for a 3" caliper tree should measure 32" minimum diameter with a depth of approximately 20". The minimum tree pit size for a 3" caliper tree with standard rootball dimensions should be 44" diameter by 26" deep. If trees are planted during the summer or early fall, antidessicants should be used to prevent water loss through the leaves. Measures should be taken by the installer to protect the tree roots, trunk and branches from physical damage. At planting, the tree should be oriented in the best way possible so that branching is not aimed toward obstructions such as awnings, buildings, signage and overhead wires. Installation size and branching height should be chosen to maximize the trees survival rate, resistance to vandalism, vehicle clearance under branches and aesthetic impact. The following guidelines are suggested: In retail/commercial and mixed use areas, install minimum 3” caliper street trees with minimum 7 foot branching height unless otherwise approved by the City. Narrow and columnar trees could have lower branching height as approved. In areas zoned by single family and multiple residential use, street trees should be minimum 2” caliper with minimum 6 foot height branching unless otherwise approved. Choose large shrubs or City approved small scale trees when planting underneath power lines. Guidelines for street tree location, spacing and clearances are defined below: Spacing: Space trees to allow adequate area for mature crown spread. Space small scale and narrow trees about 30 to 40 feet on center, medium scale trees about 40 to 50 feet on center, and large scale trees about 40 to 60 feet on center. Tree Grates: In retail/commercial and mixed use area, install trees with a 4 foot square ADA accessible cast iron tree grate per City standards. Larger or smaller 3 foot grates may be used as approved by the City. Tree grates are not required in areas zoned for single family residential use unless determined to be needed by City staff. Location: o In the Downtown Activity Center (excluding Sunset Avenue): Center trees 2-1/2 feet back from the face of curb. A larger dimension from the face of curb may be used with a larger tree grate as Packet Page 363 of 448 125 approved by the City. Maintain the same setback from face of curb on each street so that trees will be in a straight line. Do not plant trees in the .walking zone. of the sidewalk. o In Commercial/Business/Mixed Use/Medical Use/Public Use/Multiple Residential zones outside the Downtown Activity Center: If the majority of the block already has an existing sidewalk and landscape strip, any new development shall conform to the existing pattern. Otherwise, center trees 2-1/2 feet back from the face of the curb. A larger dimension from the face of curb may be used with a larger tree grate as approved by the City. Maintain the same setback from face of curb on each street so that trees will be in a straight line. Do not plant trees in the “walking zone” of the sidewalk. o In Single-Family Residential Zones: Trees shall be installed 2.5 foot back from the face of the curb within a landscape strip. The maximum size of the landscape strip shall not exceed four feet unless otherwise approved by the City. A five-foot sidewalk shall be constructed, behind the designated landscape strip, in accordance with the current sidewalk policy within the city’s Transportation Element. If one of the following apply, the sidewalk may be placed adjacent to the curb: Right-of-way width is not adequate to allow for both a sidewalk and a landscape strip; Topography would require retaining walls to construct the sidewalk; The majority of the block has already had the sidewalk placed in a different location (in which case the new should match the existing); The street has low traffic volume, or has a parking strip between the sidewalk and the lane of traffic. Maintain the following minimum clearances: 5 feet from underground utilities unless adequate protection is provided for the tree and the utility line as approved by the City. Call 1-800-424-5555 to request location of underground utilities, 10 feet from power poles, 7-1/2 feet from driveways, 20 feet from street lights, 20 feet from other existing trees, 30 feet from street intersections except at intersections with special design treatment and/or as approved by the City. Exceptions from the above guidelines may be administratively approved as described below. To request a different type of tree or different size tree, when the type of tree or required size of tree is not available, please contact the Parks Department. To request a location other than as recommended above, when maintaining the minimum clearances would reduce the number of trees that could be installed, please contact the Engineering Division. Street Tree Maintenance Procedures Provisions for adequate water and nutrients, proper pruning practices, and reducing competition from other plants will help the street trees be more resistant to pests and disease. WATERING Newly planted trees need supplemental water during the dry summer months. During the first 2 years after planting an application of about 5 gallons per week is recommended during the month of May through October. This amount may be decreased as the tree matures except during severe Packet Page 364 of 448 126 drought. An automatic irrigation system is recommended for street trees in retail/commercial areas where individual residents/owners would be less likely to maintain the trees. The resident/owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of their irrigation system pipe installed in the City right-of-way. Irrigation control and back flow system shall always remain on private property. FERTILIZER Newly planted trees make poor use of fertilizer during the first growing season. A minimal application of a slow release fertilizer is recommended during the first one or two years of growth. A moderate application of slow release fertilizer may be applied after that for a few years. It should be applied according to manufacturer’s instructions. PRUNING All pruning done by private contractors on Edmonds street trees shall conform to International Society of Arboriculture standards and American Association of Nurserymen standards. A City issued right-of-way permit should be acquired when equipment other than hand tools are used in the public right-of-way to prune street trees. Pruning should maintain the natural form of the tree. Do not top trees and do not remove more than 40% of the tree canopy. Exceptions must be approved by the City of Edmonds. Branches should be pruned when small to reduce shock to tree, and avoid unnatural branch angles or a hacked off look. Frequent annual or biannual pruning, especially during the first 5 years of growth, will allow maintenance of a more natural growth pattern while directing limbs away from buildings, street lights, overhead wires, vehicular traffic, awnings and pedestrian walking zones. Prune branches according to the following guidelines: Avoid pruning when tree is forming or losing its leaves, Cut the branch directly next to the branch "collar", Do not make cuts flush with the trunk, or another branch, which remove the "collar", Do not leave branch stubs extending out beyond the "collar". REDUCE PLANT COMPETITION Keep competing lawn and weeds away from the tree trunk for the first 3 to 4 years after planting. Provide a 4 to 6 foot diameter clear area around the trunk and maintain a 2" to 3" depth of mulch in this clear area. Keeping lawn away also helps reduce damage to the trunk by lawn mowers. AVOID DAMAGE Cuts or nails into tree bark provides place for disease and decay to enter. Nailing of signs, peeling bark off, carving of initials in the bark and tying of objects such as bicycles to trees can be harmful and should be discouraged. Tree grates should be broken out or removed before the trunk grows into them. When a tree is wounded, use of tar or paint on the wound is not recommended. Instead, clean the wound and remove rough edges from the bark. TREAT FOR DISEASE Sometimes it is necessary to apply appropriate sprays to treat insects, fungus and other problems. First it is important to identify the problem, then to treat the specific problem in the least toxic way possible. For more information about pests and possible treatment contact the King County Extension Service (206) 296-3900 or the Master Gardner Program at (206) 296-3440. Many chemicals are toxic. Follow manufacturer’s instructions. Notify neighbors and nearby schools prior to application. Packet Page 365 of 448 127 Responsibility Unless otherwise indicated the adjacent property owner is responsible for maintenance of street trees and any owner/resident installed irrigation system for those trees. The City may need to explore various sources of funding to supplement the current maintenance budget, such as formation of a Local Improvement District (L.I.D.), or other supplemental funding source. Regulatory Linkages The Street Tree Plan should be coordinated with existing plans and codes and the current design review procedure. CITY OF EDMONDS STREET TREE LIST Street tree selections shall be taken from this list unless otherwise approved by the City of Edmonds. List subject to amendment in the future. Recommended Street Trees Small, Spreading Trees (<25'ht) Botanical name/Common name Height (ft.) Spread (ft.) Flowers/Fruit/Fall Color/Remarks Acer platanoides ’Globosum’/Globe Maple 20’ 18’ - yellow Graft at 6’ on Acer. p. understock Fraxinus pennsylvanica ’Johnson’/Leprechaun Ash 18’ 16’ - yellow Limited availability. Acer ginnala ’Flame’/Amur Maple 20’ 20’ yellow red Select for single stem, flowers fragrant. Small, Narrow Trees (<25'ht) Botanical name/Common name Height (ft.) Spread (ft.) Flowers/Fruit/Fall Color/Remarks Prunus serrulata ’Amanagawa’/Amanagawa Cherry 20’-25’ 6-8’ light pink bronze Fragrant flowers, Limited availability in adequate size. Small / Medium, Spreading Trees (25-35' ht) Botanical name/Common name Height (ft.) Spread (ft.) Flowers/Fruit/Fall Color/Remarks Tilia cordata ’De Groot’/De Groot Linden 30’ 20’ yellow Limited availability. Acer truncatum x Aplatanoides/’Warrens Red’ Pacific Sunset 30’ 25’ yellow yellow . orange-red Limited availability. Small / Medium, Narrow Trees (25-35' ht) Botanical name/Common name Height (ft.) Spread (ft.)/Flowers/Fruit/Fall Color/Remarks Carpinus betulus 'Columnanis'/Columnar European Hornbeam 30-35’ 15-20’ - - Narrower than ’Fastigiata’, and with strong central trunk. Limited availability in adequate size. Pyrus calleryana ’Capital’/Capital Pear 35’ 12’ white/1/2" diam. red . purple Medium / Large, Spreading Trees (35-50' ht) Botanical name/Common name Height (ft.) Spread (ft.)/Flowers/Fruit/Fall Color/Remarks Packet Page 366 of 448 128 Acer rubrum ’Karpick’/Karpick Maple 35-50’ 20’ – yelloworange Acer rubrum ’Scarsen’/Scarlet Sentinel Maple 40’ 20’ - yelloworange Acer rubrum ’Red Sunset’/Red Sunset Maple 45’ 35’ - red/orangered Acer rubrum ’October Glory’/October Glory Maple 40’ 35’ - deep red/red-purple Acer pseudoplatanus ’Atropurpureum’/Spathii Maple 40’ 30’ - - Foliage green with purple underside. Carpinus betulus ’Fastigiata’/Pyramidal European Hornbeam 35’ 25’ - yellow Locate only in SF residential areas and in medians as approved by City. Fraxinus oxycarpa ’Raywood’/Raywood Ash 35’ 25’ – reddish purple Fraxinus pennsylvanica ’Summit’/Summit Ash 45’ 25’ - yellow Fraxinus pennsylvanica ’Marshalls Seedless’/Marshall Ash 50’ 40’ - yellow Fraxinus pennsylvanica ’Urbanite’/Urbanite Ash 50’ 40’ - bronze Gleditsia triacanthos ’Skyline’/Skyline Locust 45’ 35’ - golden Tilia cordata ’Greenspire’/Greenspire Linden 40’ 30’ - yellow Medium / Large, Narrow Trees (35-50' ht) Botanical name/Common name Height (ft.) Spread (ft.)/Flowers/Fruit/Fall Color/Remarks Acer platanoides ’Columnare’/Columnar Norway Maple 35’ 15’ - yellow Dense foliage. Acer rubrum ’Bowhall’/Bowhall Maple 40’ 15’ - orange-red Acer rubrum ’Armstrong’/Armstrong Maple 45’ 10-15’ - red-yellow Sometimes poor fall color. Ginkgo biloba ’Princeton Sentry’/’P.S. Maidenhair Tree 40’ 15’ - yellow Limited availability. Pyrus calleryana ’Glens Form’/Chanticleer Pear 40’ 15’ white/1/2" diam. red-purple Thornless. Prunus sargentii ’Columnaris’/Columnar Sargent Cherry 35’ 15’ pink/red Limited availability, bronze young foliage. Quercus robur ’Fastigiata’/Skyrocket Oak 45-50’ 15’ - / acorns - Tilia cordata ’Corzam’/Corinthian Linden 45’ 15’ - yellow Limited availability. Large, Spreading Trees (<50' ht) Botanical name/Common name Height (ft.) Spread (ft.)/Flowers/Fruit/Fall Color/Remarks Quercus rubra/Red Oak 50’ 45’+ -/acorns rusty red Cercidiphyllum japonicum/Katsura Tree 40-100’ 40’+ - yellowscarlet Select single stem. Quercus palustris ’Crownright’/Crownright Pin Oak 80’ 40’ -/acorns rusty orange-red Quercus frainetto ’Schmidt’/Forest Green Oak 50’+ 30’+ -/acorns yellowbrown Ginko biloba ’Autumn Gold’/’A.G.’ Maidenhair Tree 45-120’ 35’+ - yellow Large, Narrow Trees (<50' ht) Botanical name/Common name Height (ft.) Spread (ft.)/Flowers/Fruit/Fall Color/Remarks Liriodendron tulipfera ’Fastigiatum’/Columnar Tulip Tree 50-70’ 15-25’ -/ pods greenyellow Limited availability; pods are 2-3". Fagus sylvatica ’Dawyckii’/Dawyk Purple Beech 45-70’ 15-25’ Deep purple foliage. Limited availability in adequate size. Nyssa sylvatica/Tupelo 70-90’ 20’ - apricot-red Select male. Packet Page 367 of 448 129 STREET TREES APPROVED WITH RESERVATIONS: Albizia julibrissin/Silk Tree, Mimosa Betula spp./Birch Catalpa spp./Catalpa Crataegus oxycantha (aka C. laevigata)/English Hawthorn Gleditsia triacanthos (with thorns)/Honey Locust Juglans nigra/Black Walnut Juglans regia/English Walnut Liquidambar styraciflua/Sweetgum Platanus spp./London Plane, Sycamore Quercus paulustris/Pin Oak (except ’Crownright’) Sophora japonica/Pagoda Tree Ulmus americana/American Elm Ulmus parvifolia/Chinese Elm Ulmus pumila/Siberian Elm Aesculus hippocastanum/Horse Chestnut Coniferous trees STREET TREES PROHIBITED: Acer negundo/Box Elder Acer saccarinum/Silver Maple Acer macrophyllum/Big Leaf Maple Ailanthus altissima/Tree of Heaven Alnus rubra/Red Alder Malus(fruiting var.)/Apple Prunus (fruiting var.)/Cherry, Plum Pyrus (fruiting var.)/Pear Populus spp./Polar Robinia pseudoacacia/Black Locust Salix spp./Willow Packet Page 368 of 448 130 Packet Page 369 of 448 16 Land Use Land Use Element Scope Whenever there are references in this plan to categories of land use, they shall apply to areas shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map as follows: Plan Map Designation Land Use Type Compatible Zoning Classifications Density Units/Acre Activity Center Mix of uses; refer to specific plan designations within activity center See appropriate category below; also refer to specific activity center discussion in plan Corridor Development Mixed use development corridor; refer to specific plan designations within corridor See appropriate category below; also refer to specific corridor discussion in plan Designated Park or School Site Public Facility P-zone or appropriate R-zone compatible with neighborhood. Single Family, Resource Single Family, Urban 3 Single Family, Urban 2 Single Family, Urban 1 Single family RSW-12, RS-12, RS-20 RS-10 RS-8 RS-6, RS-8 < 4 < 4.4 < 5.5 5-8 Multi Family - High Density Multi Family – Medium Density Multi family RM-1.5, RM-2.4 RM-2.4, RM-3.0 18-30 < 18 Mixed Use Commercial Community Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Highway 99 Corridor Edmonds Way Corridor Westgate Corridor (Planned Business) Commercial Mixed Use Commercial or mixture of zones BC, BN, or equivalent BN or equivalent based on neighborhood plan CG, CG2; transitional zones as appropriate BP, BN, or BC, or similar commercial zone; RM zones BP, BN Hospital / Medical Special Use District Hospital or Medical zone Master Plan Development Master Plan Master Plan Overlay or equivalent classification Public Use or Park/Open Space Public or Parks P, OS, or equivalent classification Packet Page 370 of 448 Land Use 33 into downtown. Redevelopment of this area should be done in a manner that is sensitive to and enhances the views down Main Street and from the adjoining parks and public areas. 8. Redevelop the area from the east side of SR-104 to the railroad tracks, from Harbor Square to Main Street, according to a mixed use master plan. This area could provide a significant opportunity for public/private partnerships. Under the right circumstances, consolidated parking or a pedestrian crossing to the waterfront could be possible as part of a redevelopment project. Every opportunity should be taken to improve the pedestrian streetscape in this area in order to encourage pedestrian activity and linkages between downtown and the waterfront. Uses developed along public streets should support pedestrian activity and include amenities such as street trees, street furniture, flowers and mini parks. Main and Dayton Streets should receive special attention for public art or art integrated into private developments to reinforce the visual arts theme for downtown. Redevelopment of this area should also take advantage of the ability to reconfigure and remove the ferry holding lanes paralleling SR-104 once the Edmonds Crossing project is developed. 9. Support redevelopment efforts that arise out of planning for the long term needs of the senior center. These plans should reinforce the center’s place in the public waterfront, linking the facility to the walkways and parks along the shoreline. 10. New development and redevelopment in the downtown waterfront area should be designed to meet overall design objectives and the intent of the various “districts” described for the downtown area. Downtown Waterfront Plan Policies. The following policies are intended to achieve the goals for the downtown waterfront area: E.1. Ensure that the downtown waterfront area continues – and builds on – its function as a key identity element for the Edmonds community. E.2. Future development along the waterfront should support the continuation and compatible design of three regional facilities: Edmonds Crossing at Pt. Edwards; the Port of Edmonds and its master plan; and the regional parks, beaches and walkways making up the public shoreline. E.3. Utilize the Point Edwards site to its best community and regional potential by developing a multimodal transit center with compatible development in the surrounding area. In addition to the regional benefits arising from its multi modal transportation function, an essential community benefit is in removing intrusive ferry traffic from the core area which serves to visually and physically separate downtown from the waterfront. E.4. Establish a Point Edwards multimodal transportation center which provides convenient transportation connections for bus, ferry, rail, auto, pedestrians and bicycle riders and makes Edmonds an integrated node in the regional transportation system. The new terminal should be planned to reduce negative impacts to downtown Edmonds – such as grade separation/safety concerns and conflicts with other regional facilities – while providing the community with unique transportation resources and an economic stimulus to the larger community. E.5. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed-use development and pedestrian-oriented amenities and streetscape improvements, particularly along Packet Page 371 of 448 34 Land Use Dayton and Main Streets. Development in this area should draw on historical design elements found in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an architectural tie throughout the Downtown Area. Pursue redevelopment of SR-104 and the existing holding lanes once the ferry terminal moves to Point Edwards. E.6. Enhance Edmonds’ visual identity by continuing its pedestrian-scale of downtown development, enhancing its shoreline character, and protecting and building on the strong visual quality of the “5th and Main” core. E.7. Improve traffic conditions by removing ferry traffic impacts from the downtown core. E.8. Improve and encourage economic development opportunities by providing space for local businesses and cottage industries and undertaking supporting public improvement projects. Of particular significance is the enhancement of economic development opportunities resulting from the Edmonds Crossing project and the enhancement of Edmonds as an arts and water-oriented destination. E.9. Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, natural features (such as the Edmonds Marsh), and marina facilities. Improve public access to the shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous esplanade along the shoreline. The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master Program requirements placed on private development. E.10. Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring improved bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and adequate streets and parking areas. E.11. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. E.12. Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. E.13. Support the development and retention of significant public investments in the downtown waterfront area, including government and cultural facilities that help draw residents and visitors to downtown. E.14. Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds’ attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources. These historic structures are a key component of the small town character of Edmonds and it’s economic viability. Height limits that reinforce and require pedestrian-scale development are an important part of this quality of life, and should be implemented through zoning regulations and design guidelines. E.15. Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population. E.16. Provide for the gradual elimination of large and inadequately landscaped paved areas. Packet Page 372 of 448 Land Use 35 E.17. Provide pedestrian-oriented amenities for citizens and visitors throughout the downtown waterfront area, including such things as: • Weather protection, • Street trees and flower baskets, • Street furniture, • Public art and art integrated into private developments, • Pocket parks, • Signage and other way-finding devices, • Restrooms. E.18. Strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles whenever possible. E.19. Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation. E.20. Develop sign regulations that support the pedestrian character of downtown, encouraging signage to assist in locating businesses and public and cultural facilities while discouraging obtrusive and garish signage which detracts from downtown pedestrian and cultural amenities. E.21. Provide lighting for streets and public areas that is designed to promote comfort, security, and aesthetic beauty. E.22. Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with pedestrian activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed use areas in the downtown area. Downtown Waterfront Districts. In addition to the goals and policies for the downtown waterfront area, the Comprehensive Plan Map depicts a number of districts in the downtown waterfront area. These districts are described below. Fountain SquareRetail Core. The area immediately surrounding the fountain at 5th and Main and extending along Main Street and Fifth Avenue is considered the historic center of Edmonds and building heights shall be pedestrian in scale and compatible with the historic character of this area. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses and the entry situated at street level. Uses are required encouraged to be retail-compatible (i.e. retail or compatible service – e.g. art galleries, restaurants, real estate sales offices and similar uses that provide storefront windows and items for sale to the public that can be viewed from the street). The street front façades of buildings must provide a high percentage of transparent window area and pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian-scale design features, differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. Packet Page 373 of 448 36 Land Use Buildings situated around the fountain square must be orientated to the fountain and its associated pedestrian area. Arts Center Corridor. The corridor along 4th Ave N between the retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Performing Arts. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses, with commercial entries being located at street level. Buildings cannot be built to the property line, but must set back at least five (5) feet from any property line. Building design and height shall be compatible with the goal of creating a pedestrian oriented arts corridor while providing incentives for the adaptive reuse of existing historic structures. Building entries for commercial buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian-scale design features, differentiating the lower floor from the upper floors of the building. The design of interior commercial spaces must allow for flexible commercial space, so that individual business spaces can be provided with individual doorways and pedestrian access directly to the public sidewalk. The streetscape should receive special attention, using trees, landscaping, and public art to encourage pedestrian activity. Private development projects should also be encouraged to integrate art into their building designs. Where single family homes still exist in this area, development regulations should allow for “live-work” arrangements where the house can accommodate both a business and a residence as principal uses. Uses supporting the arts center should be encouraged – such as restaurants, cafés, galleries, live/work use arrangements, and B&Bs. Downtown Mixed Commercial. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses., with commercial entries at street level. Buildings can be built to the property line. Building heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian scale development. The first floor of buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian-scale design features, differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. The design of interior commercial spaces must allow for flexible commercial space, so that individual business spaces can be provided with individual doorways and pedestrian access directly to the public sidewalk. When the rear of a property adjoins a residentially-designated property, floor area that is beyond 90 feet from the located behind commercial street frontage can may be used appropriate for residential use. Where single family homes still exist in this area, development regulations should allow for “live-work” arrangements where the house can accommodate both a business and a residence as principal uses. Downtown Mixed Residential. In this area, commercial uses would be allowed but not required (i.e. buildings could be entirely commercial or entirely residential, or anything in between). Height and design of buildings shall conform to the standards of the Downtown Mixed Commercial District. Buildings facing the Dayton Street corridor should provide a pedestrian- friendly streetscape, providing pedestrian amenities and differentiating the ground floor from upper building levels. Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site), and extending past the Commuter Rail parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for design-driven master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site's situation at the bottom of “the Bowl,” could enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors. Any redevelopment in this area should be oriented to the Packet Page 374 of 448 Land Use 37 street fronts, and provide pedestrian-friendly walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets. Development design should also not ignore the railroad side of the properties, since this is an area that provides a “first impression” of the city from railroad passengers and visitors to the waterfront. Art work, landscaping, and modulated building design should be used throughout any redevelopment project. Shoreline Commercial. The waterfront, west of the railroad tracks between the public beaches and the Port (currently zoned CW). Consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, this area should allow a mix of public uses, supporting commercial uses, and water-oriented and water-dependent uses. Building heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian scale development while providing incentives to encourage public view corridors. Roof and building forms should be an important consideration in design guidelines for this area, because of its high sensitivity and proximity to public open spaces. Redevelopment should result in singular, landmark buildings of high quality design which take advantage of the visibility and physical environment of their location, and which contribute to the unique character of the waterfront. Pedestrian amenities and weather protection must be provided for buildings located along public walkways and street fronts. Master Plan Development. The waterfront area south of Olympic Beach, including the Port of Edmonds and the Point Edwards and multi modal developments. This area is governed by master plans for the Port of Edmonds, Point Edwards, and the Edmonds Crossing project as described in an FEIS issued on November 10, 2004. These areas are also developed consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, as it applies. Downtown Convenience Commercial. This is the south end of 5th Ave, south of Walnut. Commercial uses would be required on the first floor, but auto-oriented uses would be permitted in addition to general retail and service uses. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses. Weather protection would still be required, but to a lesser degree than the retail core and only when the building was adjacent to the sidewalk. Height and design of buildings shall conform to the standards of the Downtown Mixed Commercial District. When the rear of a property adjoins a residentially-designated property, floor area that is located behind beyond 90 feet from the commercial street frontage can may be used appropriate for residential use. Planned Residential-Office. Several properties lie along the railroad on the west side of Sunset Ave between existing commercial zoning and Edmonds Street. This area is appropriate for master planned small-scale development which provides for a mix of small-scale limited office and residential uses which provide a transition from between the more intensive commercial uses along Main Street and the residential uses along Sunset Ave. Because the area of this designation is located adjacent to commercial development to the south, the railroad to the west, and is near both multiple family and single-family residential development, this area should act as a transition between theses uses. Building design for this area should be sensitive to the surrounding commercial, multiple family and single-family character. Due to the steeply sloping nature of the properties, building heights shall generally be limited to two stories above Sunset Avenue. Packet Page 375 of 448 38 Land Use Downtown Design Objectives. As a companion to the districts outlined above, general design objectives are included for the downtown waterfront area. These objectives are intended to encourage high quality, well designed projects to be developed in the downtown waterfront area that reflect the values of the citizens of Edmonds. 1. SITE DESIGN The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment. Vehicular Access and Parking a. Minimize the number of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety by reducing the number of potential points of conflict. When alleys are present, these are the preferred method of providing vehicular access to a property and should be used unless there is no reasonable alternative available. b. Design site access and circulation routes with pedestrians’ comfort and ease of access in mind. c. Create Provide adequate parking for each development, but keep cars from interfering with the pedestrian streetscape. d. In the Retail Core, adopt a “park and walk” policy to reinforce pedestrian safety and ease of access. Within the Retail Core, new curb cuts should be discouraged and there should be no requirement to provide on-site parking. de. Create parking lots and building service ways that are efficient and safe for both automobiles and pedestrians, but that do not disrupt the pedestrian streetscape. ef. Provide safe routes for disabled people. Pedestrian Access and Connections a. Improve streetscape character to enhance pedestrian activity in downtown retail, general commercial, and residential areas. b. Improve pedestrian access from the street by locating buildings close to the street and pedestrian sidewalks, and defining the street edge. Cross walks at key intersections should be accentuated by the use of special materials, signage or paving treatments. c. In all of the retail and commercial downtown districts, pedestrian access to buildings should be maximized, enabling each retail or commercial space at street level to be directly accessed from the sidewalk. d. Encourage the use of mass transit by providing easy access to pleasant waiting areas. Building Entry Location a. Create an active, safe and lively street-edge. b. Create a pedestrian friendly environment. c. Provide outdoor active spaces at the entry to retail/commercial uses. d. Commercial building entries should be easily recognizable and oriented to the pedestrian streetscape by being located at sidewalk grade. Building Setbacks a. Provide for a human, pedestrian-friendly scale for downtown buildings. Packet Page 376 of 448 Land Use 39 b. Create a common street frontage view with enough repetition to tie each site to its neighbor. c. Provide enough space for wide, comfortable and safe pedestrian routes to encourage travel by foot. d. Create public spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and encourage outdoor interaction. Building/Site Identity a. Do not use repetitive, monotonous building forms and massing in large mixed use or commercial projects. b. Improve pedestrian access and way-finding by providing variety in building forms, color, materials and individuality of buildings. c. Retain a connection with the scale and character of the Downtown Edmonds through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. d. Encourage new construction to use design elements tied to historic forms or patterns found in downtown. Weather Protection a. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians traveling along public sidewalks in downtown. b. Protect shoppers and residents from rain or snow. c. Provide a covered waiting area and walkway for pedestrians entering a building, coming from parking spaces and the public sidewalk. Lighting a. Provide adequate illumination in all areas used by pedestrians, including building entries, walkways, bus stops, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces to ensure a feeling of security. b. Special attention should be paid to providing adequate public lighting to encourage and support nighttime street activity and safety for pedestrians. c. Minimize potential for light glare to reflect or spill off-site. d. Create a sense of welcome and activity. Signage a. Protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered. b. Minimize distraction from the overuse of advertisement elements. c. Provide clear signage to identify each distinct property or business and to improve orientation and way-finding downtown. d. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large letters. e. Lighting of signs should be indirect or minimally backlit to display lettering and symbols or graphic design instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign. f. Signage and other way-finding methods should be employed to assist citizens and visitors in finding businesses and services. g. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or contributes to the historic character of sites on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Packet Page 377 of 448 40 Land Use Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical a. Hide unsightly utility boxes, outdoor storage of equipment, supplies, garbage, recycling and composting. b. Minimize noise and odor. c. Minimize visual intrusion. d. Minimize need for access/paving to utility areas Art and Public Spaces a. Public art and amenities such as mini parks, flower baskets, street furniture, etc., should be provided as a normal part of the public streetscape. Whenever possible, these elements should be continued in the portion of the private streetscape that adjoins the public streetscape. b. Art should be integrated into the design of both public and private developments, with incentives provided to encourage these elements. c. In the Arts Center Corridor, art should be a common element of building design, with greater design flexibility provided when art is made a central feature of the design. 2. BUILDING FORM Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms, minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance with policies in the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building entries as well as street views to the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of Edmonds character and urban form. Height1 a. Maintain the human, pedestrian scale and character of historic Edmonds. b. Create and preserve a human scale for downtown buildings. Unless more specific provisions are contained in the descriptions for specific downtown districts, buildings shall be generally two stories in exterior appearance, design and character. However, height incentives or design standards may be adopted which are consistent with the pedestrian scale of downtown Edmonds and which provide allow for additional height that does not impact the generally two-story pedestrian-scale appearance of the public streetscape.– not to exceed three stories in appearance – in exchange for a clear public benefit such as dedicated public spaces, amenities or design features which enhance the public streetscape or preserve, create or enhance views from public property. Note that the Downtown Master Plan district described on pages 36-37 could allow a design which provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors. c. Preserve public view corridors along east-west downtown streets – such as Main Street and Dayton Street – that afford views to the mountains and Puget Sound to the west. 1 The downtown area of Edmonds is the city’s signature commercial and public core and helps define the character of our community. Change is necessary to balance mixed use development and achieve high quality retail and commercial spaces while not losing the city’s character. Therefore, the program of height incentives referenced above will be developed during 2005 for final implementation in conjunction with the City’s 2005 comprehensive plan updates. The development process will include planning sessions in which the public, business persons, design professionals and developers all participate. Packet Page 378 of 448 Land Use 41 Massing a. Large building masses shall be avoided in the downtown waterfront activity center. Large building masses should be subdivided vertically and/or horizontally to replicate the smaller scale streetscape elements found along downtown’s pedestrian streets. b. Require human scale elements in building design that reinforce the difference between the pedestrian streetscape and the upper levels of a building. c. Use combinations of other techniques, such as roof and wall modulation or combinations of different wall materials with windows and trim, to break up apparent building masses into smaller elements. When the size or configuration of a site does not lend itself to varying building mass, these alternative techniques should be employed to obtain a pedestrian-friendly result. Roof Modulation a. Use combinations of roof types and decorative elements such as parapets or architectural detailing to break up the overall massing of the roof and add interest to its shape and form. b. Create and reinforce the human scale of the building. c. Use roof forms to identify different programs or functional areas within the building. d. Provide ways for additional light to enter the building. e. Encourage alternate roof treatments that improve and add interest to building design. Features such as roof gardens, terraces, and interesting or unique architectural forms can be used to improve the view of buildings from above as well as from the streetscape. Wall Modulation a. Create a pedestrian scale appropriate to Edmonds. b. Break up large building masses and provide elements that accentuate the human scale of a facade. c. Avoid blank, monotonous and imposing building facades. d. Design the building to be compatible with the surrounding built environment. e. Encourage designs that let more light and air into the building. 3. BUILDING FAÇADE Building facade guidelines ensure that the exterior of buildings, the portion of buildings that defines the character and visual appearance of a place, is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds. Facade Requirements a. Improve the pedestrian environment in the Downtown retail/commercial area by differentiating the pedestrian-oriented street level of buildings from upper floors. b. Ensure diversity in design. c. Reinforce historic building patterns found in Downtown Edmonds. d. Provide a human scale streetscape, breaking up long façades into defined forms that continue a pattern of individual and distinct tenant spaces in commercial and mixed use areas. e. Improve the visual and physical character and quality of Downtown Edmonds. f. Create individual identity in buildings. Packet Page 379 of 448 42 Land Use Window Variety and Articulation a. Windows help define the scale and character of the building. In the retail and mixed commercial districts, building storefronts must be dominated by clear, transparent glass windows that allow and encourage pedestrians to walk past and look into the commercial space. b. Upper floors of buildings should use windows as part of the overall design to encourage rhythm and accents in the façade. Building Façade Materials A. The materials that make up the exterior facades of a building also help define the scale and style of the structure and provide variation in the facade to help reduce the bulk of larger buildings. From the foundation to the roof eaves, a variety of building materials can reduce the scale and help define a building’s style and allows the design of a building to respond to its context and client’s needs. It is particularly important to differentiate the lower, street level of a building from the upper floors that are less in the pedestrian’s line of sight. Accents/Colors/Trim A. Applied ornament and architectural detail, various materials and colors applied to a façade as well as various decorative trim/surrounds on doors and windows provide variation in the scale, style and appearance of every building facade. Awnings and canopies also add to the interest and pedestrian scale of downtown buildings. The objective is to encourage new development that provides: • Compatibility with the surrounding environment, • Visual interest and variety in building forms, • Reduces the visual impacts of larger building masses, • Allows identity and individuality of a project within a neighborhood. Packet Page 380 of 448 76 T H A V E W 220TH ST SW MAIN ST E D M O N DS W AY 212TH ST SW PINE ST 1 0 0 T H A V E W 9 T H A V E N 8 0 T H A V E W 8 T H A V E S 9 6 T H A V E W DAYTON ST 9 8 T H A V E W9TH A V E S 244TH ST SW/LAKE BALLIN GER WAY DALEY ST MAPLE ST WALNUT ST 238TH ST SW T ALB O T RO A D 224TH ST SW 240TH ST SW ALDER ST 7 T H A V E N 7 T H A V E S PUGET DRIVE O L Y M P I C A V E FIR ST 1 2 T H A V E N 9 5 T H P L W 3 R D A V E N B O W D O I N W A Y 9 3 R D P L W 232ND ST SW 2 N D A V E N 7 2 N D A V E W 7 1 S T A V E 158TH P L S W 7 5 T H P L W 7 3 R D P L W 1 6 1ST PL SW 160TH PL SW 6 6 T H P L S W 161ST ST SW 162ND PL SW 162ND ST SW 7 0 T H P L S W 7 2 N D A V E W 163RD PL SW 164TH ST SW 6 6 T H A V E W 163RD PL SW 162ND 163RD PL SW 165TH PL SW MAGNOLIA LN CEDAR ST WALNUT ST ALDER ST 7 5 T H A V E W 9 0 T H A V E W 242ND ST SW A A V E S N. 205TH ST 9 2 N D A V E W 1 0 4 T H A V E W 6 T H A V E N 234TH ST SW 1 0 T H A V E N CASPERS ST C A V E S M A P L E W O O D D R N W T R A C T I O N R /W CEDAR ST 184TH ST SW S U N S E T A V E N 1 0 6 T H A V E W ELM ST 4 T H A V E N 210TH ST SW MEADOWDALE ROAD 206TH ST SW 231ST ST SW 222N D ST SW 8 1 S T P L W 8 1 S T A V E W 9 7 T H P L W SPRAGUE ST F I R D A L E A V E 165TH PL SW 7 6 T H A V E W MEADOWDALE RD 6 7 T H A V E W 6 6 T H A V E W 6 5 T H A V E W MEADOWDALE BEACH RD 74TH PL W B U R L I N G T O N N O R T H E N R A I L R O A D B E R T O LA RD 17 1 S T S T S W 7 5 T H P L W 7 6 T H A V E W 1 69 TH PL W 7 3 R D P L W 6 8 T H A V E W O L Y M P I C V I E W D R MEADOWDALE BEACH R D O L Y M P I C V I E W D R 1 75 TH PL 174TH ST SW B RA EMAR DR SIER RA DR 8 0 T H A V E W 8 3 R D A V E W 196TH ST SW MAPLE ST 7 2 N D P L W 233rd St SW 9 T H A V E S FREDERICK PL 179TH ST SW SIERRA DR A D M I R A L W A Y 7 8 T H A V E W 7 7 T H P L W MAPLE LANE 15TH ST SW 8 6 T H A V E W 8 2 N D A V E W 9 7 T H A V E W HOLLY LANE SPRUCE ST 1 0 2 N D P L W 2 37 TH PL SW CHERRY ST 217TH ST SW 199TH ST SW HI G H ST 175TH ST SW JAMES ST 9 5 T H A V E W ELM PL 8 3 R D A V E W 174TH ST SW B U R L I N G T O N N O R T H E N R A I L R O A D T A L B O T R D T A L B O T RD 7 6 T H A V E W 6 9 T H A V E W S O U ND VIEW D R SO U N D V I E W LN 180TH ST SW 7 4 T H A V E W 7 3 R D A V E W 1 79TH ST SW H O M E V IE W D R R ID G E WAY O L Y M P I C V I E W D R OLYMPI C V I E W D R O L Y M P I C VIEW DR T A L B O T R D K A I R E Z D R 9 1 S T P L W 184TH ST SW 7 6 T H A V E W OLYMPIC VIEW DR E O L Y M P I C V I E W D R 7 6 T H A V E W186TH ST SW 188TH ST SW 84 T H A V E W 81 S T A V E W 8 5 T H P L W 9 2 N D A V E W H I G H S T O L Y M P I C V I E W D R 9 4 T H A V E W 188TH ST SW S O U N D V I E W P L 8 6 T H A V E W 8 8 T H A V E W 9 1 S T A V E W O L Y M P I C V I E W D RDRIFTWOOD LANE HINDLEY LANE W I L L O WIC K LN 9 1 S T A V E W R A I L R O A D A V E 202ND PL SW 1 0 T H P L N MAD RON A LANE 5 T H A V E N 1 0 7 T H P L W 201ST ST SW 1 0 6 T H P L W CAROL WAY 172ND ST SW HINDLEY LANE 8 3 R D P L W 1 0 1 S T A V E W 240TH PL SW 1 0 4 T H P L W HEMLOCK WAY P I O N E E R W A Y 8 4 T H A V E W HOWELL WAY 169TH PL ROBBERS ROOST/235TH PL SW S U N S E T A V E S 1 7 0 T H P L S W ELM WAY PA R A DIS E L A N E GLEN ST A N D O V E R S T 8 9 T H P L W 1 0 T H A V E S S O U N D V I E W D R 241ST PL SW B U R L I N G T O N N O R T H E R N R A I L R O A D 191ST PL SW 8 8 T H A V E W 8 9 T H A V E W 192ND ST SW 8 4 T H A V E W 192ND ST SW DELL W O O D D R 191ST ST SW 7 6 T H A V E W 7 6 T H A V E W 196TH ST SW 8 0 T H A V E W VIEWLAND WAY 8 T H A V E N I N T E R S T A T E 5 188TH PL SW 6 8 T H A V E W 8 8 T H P L W HEMLOCK ST 8 0 T H P L W 6 T H P L S 7 4 T H P L W 8 5 T H A V E W CY RUS P L 2 3 1S T P L S W 2 3 8 T H P L S W 8 2 N D P L W ALOHA ST W HA RF ST 2 N D A V E S PINE ST 8 T H P L S 1 1 T H P L N SIERRA PL HOLLY DR 213TH PL SW 9 4 T H P L W 9 2 N D P L W 8 8 T H A V E W 7 5 T H P L W 9 9 T H P L W 8 7 T H A V E W 190TH PL SW LAUREL ST 14TH ST SW 9 3 R D A V E W 207TH PL SW 205TH PL SW 6 9 T H A V E W 194TH ST SW 13TH WAY 1 0 5 T H P L W S E A V I S T A P L 94TH PL PUGET D R I V E 8 8 T H A V E W 198TH ST SW 7 6 T H A V E W 200TH ST SW 202ND ST SW 201ST ST SW 200TH ST SW 8 0 T H A V E W 8 4 T H A V E W BLAKE PL O C E A N A V E 216TH PL SW 164TH PL SW 214TH PL SW PUGET LANE 7 8 T H P L W 229TH PL SW BIRCH ST 9 8 T H P L W C O R O N A D O P L 208TH PL SW NOTTINGHAM LANE SHELL VALLEY ROAD 198TH ST SW DRIFTWOOD PL MAPLE WAY 187TH PL SW LUND'S GULCH ROAD 215TH ST SW 173RD ST SW EU CLID AVE 191ST PL SW 7 3 R D P L W 7 9 T H P L W 7 9 T H A V E W 8 5 T H P L W 1 0 2 N D A V E W S E A L A W N D R 20 7T H S T S W 6 9 T H P L W 186TH PL SW 209TH PL SW 243RD PL SW 8 9 T H A V E W SOMERSET LANE 9 6 T H P L W 176TH PL SW 177TH ST SW CAROL WAY VISTA PL O L Y M P I C A V E 8 T H A V E N BROOKMERE DR B R O O K M E R E D R C A R Y R O A D H A N N A P A R K 2 N D A V E N 2 N D A V E N 3 R D A V E N CAROL WAY 3 R D A V E N BELL ST MAIN ST 6 T H A V E N DAYTON ST FORSYTH LANE D A L E Y P L HOMELAND DR 195TH ST SW 8 4 T H P L W MELODY LANE 242ND PL SW MOUNTAIN LANE BROOKMERE DR 8 7 T H P L W 168th PL S W S O U N D V I E W P L H I L L C R E S T P L S ATER LANE 229TH ST SW PUGET WAY 179TH PL SW CASCA DE DR WATER ST 9 0 T H P L W 1 5 7 T H P L S W 12TH PL N GRAN DVIEW ST 218TH PL W 201ST PL SW NORTHSTREAM LANE 19 8TH PL SW PARK RO AD EMERALD HILLS DR 20 4TH PL SW W DAYTON ST 3 R D A V E S 4 T H A V E S E D M O N D S W Y /S R 1 0 4 6 T H A V E S 5 T H A V E S 7 T H A V E N WALNUT ST 5 T H A V E S 7 T H A V E S HEMLOCK WAY SEAMONT LN ER BEN DR 3 R D A V E S PINE ST ELM WAY B A V E S BELL ST 1 0 T H A V E N 1 0 1 S T P L W SHELL PL FIR PL 228TH PL SW 77 T H A V E W R A I L R O A D S T 7 T H P L S VISTA WAY 157TH ST SW 199TH PL 227TH PL SW 8 5 T H A V E W SKYLINE DR GILTNER LANE POPLAR WAY 14TH WAY 8 9T H P L 221ST PL SW 235th ST SW 224th PL SW BOAT LAUNCH VIEWLAND WAY D U R B I N S T 215TH PL SW 182ND PL SW 240TH ST 158TH ST W O O D L A K E D R DRIFTWOOD LN 6 T H P L 220TH PL SW V I E W P L H I G H L A N D D R A L A N A D A L E P L 1 0 T H P L S EXCELSIOR PL ALOHA WAY 1 0 T H P L N DALEY ST 9 T H A V E N 1 2 T H P L N 1 2 T H A V E N HIG HLA ND DR S K Y L I N E D R MAIN ST 8 5 T H P L W 8 8 T H A V E W M A P L E W O O D D R MAIN ST P A R K R D M A I N S T S H E L L V A L L E Y W Y 8 3 R D AV E W 8 2 N D A V E W 211TH PL 8 0 T H A V E W 8 2 N D A V E W 8 1 S T A V E W 8 0 T H A V E W 8 0 T H A V E W 7 6 T H A V E W 7 7 T H A V E W 208TH ST SW 7 2 N D A V E W H W Y 9 9 6 8 T H A V E W 212TH ST SW H W Y 9 9 N W TR A C TIO N R /W 216TH ST SW 233RD PL SW SIERRA ST SE AL A W N PL SPRUCE PL 7 6 T H P L W BIRCH PL 8 0 T H W Y FOREST DELL DR 233RD ST SW Su ns et W a y CASCADE LANE 209TH ST SW LINDSAY PL LA UR EL WAY 196TH PL SW 1 5 T H W A Y S W 1 0 5 T H A V E W 203RD PL SW 184TH PL SW 210TH PL SW LAUREL LANE A L O H A P L VIEWMOOR PL 217TH PL SW 206TH PL 205TH ST L ITTL E 180TH PL 8 7 T H P L 7 6 T H P L W 7 0 T H P L W 9 1 S T A V E W 219TH ST SW 20 3R D ST SW 6 8 T H A V E W 7 0 T H A V E W H W Y 9 9 220TH ST SW 226TH ST SW 22 7TH PL L A K E V I E W D R I V E 7 4 T H A V E W 7 2 N D A V E W 229TH ST SW 230TH ST SW 229TH PL SW 7 5 T H A V E W 7 4 T H A V E W 236TH ST S W M C ALE E R WAY 23 7T H ST S W 7 4 T H A V E W 7 4 T H A V E W B E E S O N P L 240TH PL SW 225TH ST 8 6 T H P L W 187TH ST SW 8 6 T H P L W 8 0 T H P L W 90TH PL W 8 T H A V E N 7 4 T H P L W 7 0 T H A V E W 215TH ST SW 7 8 T H A V E W 226TH PL 242ND PL SW 8 T H P L S 7 3 R D A V E W 8 9 T H A V E W 7 6 T H A V E W 8 0 T H L N 238TH ST SW H W Y 9 9 7 6 T H A V E W H W Y 9 9 8 1 S T P L W H W Y 9 9 8 0 T H A V E W 226TH ST SW 225TH PL SW 7 6 T H A V E W 224TH ST SW 223RD ST SW 8 2 N D P L W 21 8T H ST SW 8 0 T H A V E W 7 6 T H A V E W 23 9TH ST SW 237TH PL SW GLEN ST 7 T H PL S EDMONDS ST 1 0 1 S T A V E W 1 6 4 T H PL SW 7 1 S T P L W ELM PL 7 4 T H P L W 204TH ST SW 8 8 T H P L W 181ST PL 7 0 T H A V E W 231ST ST SW 191ST ST SW 2 42 N D P L 7 2 N D A V E W 9 5 T H A V E W 7 7 T H P L W 203RD ST SW 7 8 T H A V E W 9 3 R D P L W 234TH PL 181ST PL SW 8 0 T H P L 241ST ST SW S U M M I T L N 8 6 T H P L W 87T H P L W 8 8 T H A V E W 8 8 T H P L W 220TH ST SW 8 4 T H A V E W 8 8 T H A V E W 9 0 T H A V E W 8 5 T H A V E224TH ST SW 8 7 T H P L W 8 7 T H A V E W 224TH ST SW 8 6 T H A V E W 2 28TH ST SW 8 8 T H A V E W 9 0 T H A V E W 2 3 2 N D S T S W 231ST PL SW E D M O N D S W A Y 8 4 T H A V E W 240TH ST SW 8 9 T H P L W 8 9 T H P L W 9 0 T H A V E W 8 7 T H P L W 2 N D A V E S 189TH PL 78TH P L W 7 8 T H P L W 18 1ST PL SW 2 02 ND P L SW 7 3 R D A V E W 8 5 T H P L W 8 1 S T P L W EDMONDS ST 8 7 T H A V E W 182ND ST 7 7 T H A V E W 7 9 T H A V E W 8 4 T H A V E W 236TH ST SW 237TH PL SW 189TH PL SW 219TH ST SW 9 0 T H P L W 7 8 T H P L W 238TH ST SW 8 0 T H P L W 242ND PL SW 1 2 T H P L N 182ND PL SW 244TH ST SW/205TH ST NW 2 4 2 N D P L S W 242 N D S T 9 2 N D A V E W 242ND ST SW 9 7 T H P L W 9 2 N D A V E W 8 1 S T A V E W 7 T H A V E S 9 0 T H A V E W 6 6 T H P L W 8 4 T H A V E W 211TH PL 7 2 N D P L W 8 T H A V E S 8 1 S T A V E 226TH PL S W 7 8 T H P L W 230TH ST SW 7 9 T H P L W 8 6 T H P L W 221ST PL CASCADE DR 236TH ST SW 234TH ST SW9 4 T H P L W 9 9 T H P L W 235TH PL 236TH PL 9 7 T H P L W 231ST PL SW 9 4 T H A V E W 9 8 T H A V E W 9 6 T H A V E W 9 5 T H P L W 228TH ST SW 227TH PL SW 226TH PL SW 9 9 T H A V E W 9 9 T H P L W 9 3 R D P L W 9 2 N D A V E W 9 8 T H A V E W 220TH ST SW 9 6 T H A V E W 9 3 R D A V E 9 2 N D A V E W 216TH ST SW 77 T H P L W 207TH PL SW BELL ST 193RD PL SW 194TH PL SW 197TH ST 8 2 N D P L W 202ND PL SW 190TH ST SW 9 9 T H P L W 192ND ST SW 8 5 T H A V E W 241ST PL SW 243RD PL SW 6 T H A V E S ALDER ST 238TH ST SW 218TH ST SW 8 4 T H P L W 7 8 T H A V E W 9 6 T H P L W 9 3 R D P L W B U R L I N G T O N N O R T H E R N R A I L R O A D 219TH ST SW 6 8 T H A V E W PINE ST 9 2 N D A V E W 9 2 N D P L W 9 5 T H P L W BOWDOIN WAY96TH A V E W E D M O N D S W A Y E L M W AY 8 T H A V E S E D M O N D S W A Y 14TH WAY 1 4 T H W A Y 1 0 6 T H P L W E D M O N D S W A Y 1 0 0 T H A V E W 231ST ST SW J O H N C T 232ND ST SW ROBIN HOOD DR H U M B E R L N W E S T G R E Y S T O N E L N 1 70T H P L S W 9 4 T H P L W 9 5 T H P L W 9 7 T H P L W 209TH ST SW 6 8 T H A V E W 190TH ST SW 236TH ST SW 7 7 T H P L W 189TH PL SW 240TH PL SW 7 7 T H A V E 223RD ST SW 8 3 R D P L W 213TH ST SW 7 2 N D A V E W 242ND PL SW 8 0 T H A V E W 228TH ST SW FRIAR T U C K L N R O B I N H O O D D R 237TH PL SW 1 0 1 S T P L W 1 0 1 S T A V E W 1 0 0 T H A V E W 1 0 2 N D P L W 1 0 0 T H A V E W 244TH ST SW 1 0 1 S T A V E W 1 0 4 T H A V E W 244TH ST SW/205TH ST NW E A S T G R E Y S T O N E L N TO TEM PO LE LN EAGEL LN/242ND ST SW BERRY LN/243RD PL T I M B E R L N 1 1 4 T H A V E W IVY RD/240TH ST SW 239TH PL SW W E S T W O O D W A Y L N 239TH PL SW 7 8 T H A V E W 7 1 S T A V E W 8 4 T H P L W 8 5 T H P L W 204TH ST SW ALOHA ST 192N D PL S W 7 8 T H P L W BROOKMERE DR 7 5 T H P L W 1 0 6 T H P L W 7 8 T H A V E W 8 3 R D A V E W 7 4 T H A V E W 7 8 T H A V E W 8 2 N D P L W SPRUCE ST 7 9 T H A V E W 9 2 N D A V E W 2 N D A V E S 238TH ST SW 236TH PL SW 1 1 1 T H P L W 1 1 0 T H P L W 1 1 3 T H P L W 1 1 5 T H P L W 1 1 2 T H P L W 236TH PL SW WOODHAVEN PL 1 1 0 T H P L S WWOODWAY P A R K R D T I M B E R L N B U R L I N G T O N N O R T H E R N R A I L R O A D 1 1 6 T H A V E W B U R L I N G T O N N O R T H E R N R A I L R O A D WACHUSETT ROAD W A C H U S E T T R O A D W O O D W A Y P A R K R D W O O D W A Y P A R K R D NORTH DEER D R SOUTH DEER D R 1 0 8 T H A V E W D O G W O O D P L SO UT H D O G W O O D LN N O R T H D E E R D R D O G W O O D L N D OG W O O D L N ALGONQUIN RD W O O D W A Y P A R K R D KUSHAN RD NORTH DOGWOOD LN N OR TH DO GW O OD LN M A K A H R D WH ITCOM PL W O O D W A Y P A R K R D 3 R D A V E S 7 3 R D P L W 191ST ST 181ST PL SW 9 9 T H A V E W 2 36 TH PL SW 185TH PL SW 225TH P L SW ELM WAY 7 8 T H P L W 222ND ST SW 194TH ST SW 7 9 T H P L W 8 5 T H P L W 217T H S T S W 180TH ST SW S E A V I S T A P L ELM ST BELLA COOLA RD C H I N O O K P L /1 1 7 T H P L W N O O T K A R D M A K A H R D MAKAH RD POINT EDWARDS PL 216TH ST SW 3 R D A V E S 4 T H A V E S 7 T H A V E S 6 T H A V E S 6 T H A V E S 9 T H A V E S 8 T H A V E S 2 N D A V E S 3 R D A V E S 4 T H A V E S 8 2 N D P L W 230TH ST SW P I O N E E R W Y 235TH ST SW 6 9 T H P L W 1 0 7 T H P L W 7 8 T H P L W 8 1 S T A V E W 232ND PL SW 160TH ST SW 7 7 T H P L W 229TH ST SW 8 2 N D A V E W 185TH ST SW 193RD PL SW 8 8 T H A V E W 8 6 T H P L W 240TH ST SW BIRCH ST 18 3RD PL SW 9 7 T H A V E W 207TH PL 8 6 T H A V E W 9 4 T H A V E W 236TH ST SW 185TH PL SW 8 0 T H P L W QUAIL LN 164TH PL SW 164TH PL SW 6 4 T H A V E W 6 3 R D A V E W 6 2 N D A V E W 6 3 R D A V E W 6 2 N D A V E W 6 6 T H A V E W 168TH ST SW 6 8 T H A V E W 225TH PL 156TH ST SW 8 2 N D A V E W 9 3 R D A V E W 8 7 T H A V E W 242ND ST SW 6 7 T H A V E W 7 7 T H P L W 206TH ST SW 230TH ST SW 7 4 T H A V E W 9 1 S T A V E W 2 27TH PL SW 9 0 T H P L W 8 0 T H P L W 7 5 T H P L W 244TH ST SW/205TH ST NW 226TH PL SW PIN E ST 208TH ST SW 170TH PL SW 171ST PL SW 172ND PL SW172ND PL SW M E A D O W D A L E D R 173RD ST SW 172ND ST SW M E A D O W D A L E D R 165TH PL SW 6 2 N D A V E W O L Y M P I C V I E W D R 167TH PL 1 69 TH P L W 1 7 0 T H P L W 175TH ST SW 173RD PL SW 8 6 T H A V E W 204TH ST SW 8 6 T H P L W 182ND PL 236TH PL 8 9 T H P L W 7 6 T H P L W EDMONDS ST 198T H S T S W VISTA WAY 186TH ST SW 217TH ST SW 9 5 T H P L W 233RD PL 1 0 1 S T P L W 8 7 T H A V E W 173RD ST SW 1 0 7 T H P L W 7 8 T H P L W 8 2 N D P L W 228TH ST SW 7 1 S T P L W 168TH ST SW 173RD ST SW 174TH ST SW 176TH ST SW 6 6 T H P L W 175TH PL 232ND ST SW 8 2 N D P L W 214TH PL SW 222ND ST SW 176TH ST SW 242 ND PL S W 243RD PL SW 235TH PL O L Y M P I C V I E W D R 7 4 T H A V E W 204TH PL SW 7 0 T H P L W SPRAGUE ST 8 3 R D A V E W 229TH PL SW 8 0 T H P L W FIR PL M A PL EWO O D L N 172N D P L S W 13TH WAY 6 4 T H A V E W 6 2 N D A V E W 6 5 T H P L W 6 5 T H A V E W 6 6 T H P L W 6 7 T H P L W 6 4 T H A V E W 6 5 T H A V E W 6 2 N D P L W 177TH PL SW 1 7 8 T H P L SW178TH PL SW 180TH ST SW 225TH PL SW 8 3 R D A V E W 8 3 R D A V E W 192ND PL SW O L Y M P I C V I E W D R 8 9 T H A V E W 7 9 T H A V E W 178TH PL SW PUGET WAY 8 1 S T P L W 172ND ST SW 215TH ST SW 1 0 5 T H P L W 9 1 S T A V E W 8 5 T H P L W 8 9 T H P L 7 7 T H A V E W VISTA PL 7 T H P L S 8 6 T H P L W 188TH ST SW 185TH PL SW 18 1 PENNY LN 6 4 T H A V E W 6 6 T H A V E W 6 7 T H A V E W 6 1 S T P L W 189TH PL SW 190TH ST SW 191ST PL SW 171ST ST SW 184TH ST SW 9 5 T H P L W 8 6 T H P L W 194TH PL 8 5 T H P L W 185TH ST SW 218TH ST SW 198TH PL SW 8 2 N D A V E W 229TH PL 224TH ST SW 240TH PL SW 8 1 S T P L W 227TH ST SW 8 1 S T P L W 4 T H A V E S 180TH ST SW 9 0 T H A V E W 8 1 S T A V E W VIEWLAND WAY 9 4 T H A V E W 187TH PL SW 8 T H A V E N 228TH ST SW 6 5 T H P L W 6 4 T H A V E W 6 2 N D P L W 186TH ST SW 185TH 6 1 S T P L W 6 6 T H P L 185TH ST SW185TH ST SW 183RD PL SW 182ND ST SW 183RD PL 181ST PL SW 183RD PL SW 182ND PL SW 183RD ST SW 182ND ST SW 6 3 R D C T 6 2 N D P L W 6 7 T H A V E W 181ST ST SW181ST ST SW 6 3 R D P L 6 7 T H A V E F I R E R D 6 9 T H P L W 7 1 S T A V E W 192ND ST SW 191ST PL SW 191ST ST SW 7 2 N D A V E W 9 2 N D A V E W 8 6 T H A V E W 8 6 T H P L W 215TH PL SW 9 7 T H A V E W 200TH ST SW 7 8 T H A V E W 226TH PL SW 8 T H A V E N PUGET DR 205TH PL SW 8 2 N D A V E W 164TH ST SW 226TH ST SW 7 7 T H P L W 202ND ST SW 9 6 T H A V E W 2 3 9 T H P L S W 160TH ST SW 8 2 N D A V E W 2 29 TH ST SW 6 8 T H A V E W 6 8 T H A V E WBLUE R I D G E D R 7 0 T H A V E W 7 1 S T A V E W 185TH ST SW 185TH PL SW 187TH PL SW 186TH 188TH ST SW 7 9 T H P L W 226TH ST SW 7 9 T H A V E W 240TH PL 202ND ST SW 8 3 R D P L 7 4 T H P L W 7 2 N D A V E W 14TH WAY 2 15 TH ST SW 1 7 5T H ST SW 7 7 T H A V E 182ND PL SW 9 8 T H P L W 8 6 T H A V E W 1 0 6 T H P L W 241ST ST 214TH PL SW 9 0 T H A V E W 8 0 T H A V E W 8 2 N D A V E W 2 2 1 ST S T SW 174TH ST SW 21 5TH ST SW 8 3 R D P L 225TH PL SW 6 9 T H P L W 6 8 T H P L W 7 0 T H A V E W 7 5 T H A V E W 1 9 1 S T ST SW 7 4 T H A V E W 192ND PL SW 192ND PL SW 6 9 T H P L W 7 0 T H A V E W 7 1 S T P L W 7 2 N D P L W 7 3 R D A V E W 193RD PL SW 194TH PL SW 194TH PL SW 193RD PL SW 7 3 R D P L 194TH ST SW 7 2 N D P L 19 190TH ST SW 191ST ST SW 192ND PL SW 6 6 T H P L W 1 0 2 N D P L W 7 7 T H A V E W 216TH ST SW 8 4 T H A V E W 7 2 N D A V E WEDMONDS W A Y /S R 1 0 4 1 2 T H A V E N 182ND ST SW 187 T H PL SW 7 2 N D A V E W 1 0 1 S T A V E W 8 1 S T A V E W 194TH ST SW 8 6 T H A V E W 187TH ST SW 8 6 T H P L W 8 1 S T A V E W 221ST PL SW 216TH ST SW 224TH ST SW 7 3 R D P L W 8 3 R D A V E W 7 4 T H P L 6 1 S T P L W 6 3 R D P L W PARK WY DALE WY 189TH PL SW 189TH PL SW 6 7 T H A V E W 193RD ST SW 193RD ST SW 194TH ST SW 195TH PL SW 196TH ST SW 6 6 T H A V E W 196TH ST SW 197TH ST SW HE I N Z P L 6 9 T H P L W 7 1 S T P L W 7 3 R D A V E W 189T H S T S W 6 8 T H A V E W 7 5 T H A V E 201ST PL 7 4 T H P L W 7 5 T H P L W 7 3 R D A V E W 204TH ST SW 203RD PL SW GLEN ST H W Y 9 9 204TH ST SW 6 3 R D P L W 6 1 S T P L W 6 3 R D A V E W 6 1 S T A V E W 60TH AVE W 208TH ST SW 210TH ST SW 212TH ST SW 6 6 T H A V E W 6 7 T H A V E W NW T RA CT N W T R A C T I O N R /W 214TH ST SW 213TH PL SW 215TH ST SW 6 7 T H A V E W 6 6 T H A V E W 6 1 S T P L W 6 1 S T P L W 216TH ST SW 218TH ST SW 219TH ST SW 6 6 T H A V E W 6 4 T H A V E W 220TH ST SW 6 8 T H P L W 6 8 T H A V E W 222ND ST SW 224TH ST SW 224TH ST SW 220TH PL 221ST PL 221ST PL SW 223RD PL 223RD PL SW 6 7 T H P L W 6 8 T H A V E W 6 6 T H A V E W 6 5 T H A V E W 6 4 T H A V E W 6 7 T H P L W 6 6 T H P L W 226TH ST SW 225TH PL 22 5T H PL SW 225TH PL SW 226TH ST SW 227TH PL SW 6 7 T H P L W 6 3 R D P L W 6 2 N D A V E W 6 2 N D A V E W 6 1 S T A V E W 2 2 7 TH ST SW 6 8 T H A V E W 6 7 T H P L W 6 6 T H P L 6 5 T H P L 6 4 T H P L W 6 1 S T A V E W 228TH ST SW 229TH PL 230TH ST SW 2 2 68TH AVE W 230TH ST SW 231ST ST SW 6 3 R D A V E W 6 3 R D P L 6 6 T H A V E W 6 7 T H P L W 6 6 T H A V E W 6 7 T H P L W 232ND ST SW 232 ND PL SW 232 233 PL 234TH PL 233RD ST SW 234TH ST SW 234TH ST 6 4 T H A V E W 6 3 R D A V E W 6 3 R D A V E W 6 6 T H A V E W 234 TH PL 23 4T H P L 23 5T H PL 65TH PL W67TH A V E W 234 TH ST S W235TH ST SW 231ST ST SW 9 2 N D A V E W 9 1 S T A V E W N W T R A C T I O N R /W 7 8 T H P L W 236TH ST SW 8 T H A V E N A l b i o n W a y 8 5 t h A v e W 5 T H A V E S 6 T H A V E S A A V E S 7 T H A V E S B A V E S C AVE S 178TH PL SW 6 9 T H P L W I N T E R S T A T E 5 B U R L I N G T O N N O R T H E R N R A I L R OA D W e st g a t e C o rri d o r Downtown / Waterfront Activity Center Medical / Highway 99 Activity Center H i g h w a y 9 9 C o r r i d o r E d m o n d s W a y C o rri d o r Westgate Five Corners Perrinville Puget Drive Former Edmonds Woodway High School Old Woodway Elementary Sherwood Elementary Madrona K-8 School Woodway Elementary Edmonds Memorial Cemetery Edmonds Woodway High School Stevens HospitalChase Lake Elementary Maplewood K-8 Co-op School Westgate Elementary Holy Rosary Private School Edmonds Elementary Seaview Elementary Southwest County Park Meadowdale Beach County Park Seaview Park Hutt Park Sierra Park Maplewood Hill Park Pine Ridge Park Yost Park Pine St Park Park City Park Frances Anderson Center Edmonds Marsh Edmonds WastewaterTreatment Plant Point Edwards Port of Edmonds Harbor Square Edmonds PublicSafetyCity Hall Ferry Terminal Meadowdale Play Fields Lynndale Park / Skatepark College Place Elementary College Place Middle School Edmonds Community College Lake Ballinger Edmonds Centerfor the Arts Olympic Beach Brackett's LandingNorth Brackett's LandingSouth Lynnwood Treatment Plant Firdale Village Ed m o nds W ay C orridor Plan Designations Retail Core Arts Center Corridor Downtown Mixed Commercial Downtown Convenience Downtown Mixed Residential Downtown Master Plan Shoreline Commercial Downtown Residence-Office Single Family - Urban 1 Single Family - Urban 2 Single Family - Urban 3 Single Family - Resource Single Family Master Plan Multi Family - Medium Density Multi Family - High Density Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Planned Business / Neighborhood Business Mixed Use Commercial Highway 99 Corridor Edmonds Way Corridor Hospital / Medical Master Plan Development Public Park / Open Space Plan Overlays Activity Center Corridor Development Park School Hi-Rise Node Edmonds City Limits Note: This is a reduction of the official Comprehensive Plan Map on file at the City of Edmonds. A full size 36" x 60" map can be obtained from the Edmonds Planning Division. ² This map is a representation of the official Comprehensive Plan Map of the City of Edmonds. Please check with the City of Edmonds Planning Division before relying on the information described on this map. Map revision date: December 19, 2006 1,000 0 1,000500 Feet City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map Packet Page 381 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Meglathery commented on the friendly and focused staff, involved parents and children with pride, spirit, energy and enthusiasm for the school. He described fundraising efforts including donations from the Hubbard Foundation, the PTA, Stars Foundation, Edmonds in Bloom, Washington Mutual, Mayor Haakenson, Windermere Real Estate, and funds raised via a student Jog-a-Thon, Spaghetti feed, boxtops for education, and miscellaneous fundraising efforts for a total of $50,572.79. Ms. White displayed a photograph of the current dilapidated playground equipment, plans to replace baseball benches with 3-tier bleachers, and join the two playgrounds. She also displayed a drawing of the playground structure that was selected and a drawing of the playfield improvements with the location of the ballfield, walking path, new playground, existing soccer field, outdoor classroom, relocated basketball court, and improved pickup/drop-off area. Items remaining to do included obtaining the City Council’s approval for matching funds, submitting final plans for city permits, ordering playground equipment by May 31, 2006 (to qualify for a discount), beginning playground construction July 2006 culminating with a community dedication/thank you ceremony. Ms. White reviewed the proposed budget for the playground, basketball court, ballfields, and walking path that total $170,050, identifying the portion funded by Edmonds Elementary (25%), City (25%) and District (50%). She noted the parking improvements and the outdoor classroom did not meet the criteria for the city matching funds. Councilmember Moore commended the Committee on their presentation, recognizing this as an amazing community effort. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO REQUEST STAFF DEVELOP AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THIS PROJECT AND PLACE IT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL AT AN UPCOMING CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Councilmember Marin commented one of the most difficult things as a Councilmember was to determine how to pay for everything that needed to be done with the limited resources available. He recognized the community for this partnership opportunity and the value of the project to the community. He noted the local match was budgeted in the CIP. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson echoed Councilmember Moore’s comments about the presentation and complimented the cupcakes. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend advised the Economic Development Element was a new chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The development of this element began at the 2005 Council Retreat followed by work sessions in Fall 2005 and early 2006 as well as review by the Planning Board. The current draft is available on the Economic Development page of the City’s website. Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing. Jan Vance, Executive Director, Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, relayed the Chamber’s strong support of the new Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan, commenting this new chapter provided a much needed analysis and overview of the local economy. The Chamber appreciated the candid summary of the city’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The Chamber found the general policy approach and implementation items to be moderate and struck a good Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan Packet Page 382 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2006 Page 5 balance between quality of life goals and more traditional business interests. The Chamber appreciated the City’s commitment to economic development, finding this a plan they could easily endorse. Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, referred to an inaccuracy in the element regarding the amount of sales tax revenue, reported on page 8 as $5.2 million and as $4.7 million on page 9. He acknowledged economic development was necessary to maintain the tax base but cautioned against out-of-control growth as it would destroy quality of life. He referred to the old Woodway Elementary School as an example of open space becoming more expensive as the population increased. He referred to the bulleted items on page 9, noting there was no accounting in the element of the cost of economic development and redevelopment such as increased police and fire expenses, regulatory expenses, traffic, etc. He preferred to slow down economic development and take better care of what currently exists. He objected to land use, parking regulations, multiple property owners and small properties as weaknesses in the SWOT (strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats) analysis, finding those were actually strengths. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled when the SWOT analysis was discussed, the Council instructed staff to remove land use, parking regulations, multiple property owners and small lots as weaknesses and suggested consideration be given to removing those. He questioned the meaning of a statement on page 9 that the gas station on 5th Avenue South presented an opportunity to close the gap between neighboring uses and encourage pedestrian linkages. Next, he recommended the element address the need to change the non-conforming section of the code. He suggested the Council make revisions to the non-conforming provisions its top priority. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Ms. Gerend agreed to confirm the sales tax revenue figures. Council President Dawson recalled at the Council retreat it was agreed to form an Economic Development Committee. She distributed a memo identifying the scope of work for the Committee – act as liaison between the City Council and the Economic Development Director; work to ensure the Council as a whole has a deeper understanding of the economic development issues facing the city; and work with the Director to improve the quarterly reporting to the Council and the public and report back to the Council with recommended changes to the City Code, processes and policies with regard to land use, business recruitment/retention, marketing and permitting. She suggested reference to the committee be included in the Economic Development element. Ms. Gerend agreed, suggesting page 18 as an appropriate location. Council President Dawson advised for 2006 Councilmember Olson and she were selected to serve on the committee. She looked forward to working with Ms. Gerend, the Council and the public to better understand the economic development issues facing the City. In response to Mr. Hertrich’s comment regarding the gas station, Ms. Gerend referred to Mark Hinshaw’s idea of downtowns traditionally having a constant frontage of activity, shops, restaurants, etc., explaining the gas station downtown has been a gap in that activity and presented an unsafe condition for pedestrians. Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Bernheim’s comment regarding economic development and increasing population resulting in additional costs, commenting a profit and loss analysis would reveal additional population was profitable for the City. Hearing no further questions for staff, Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. Packet Page 383 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2006 Page 6 Councilmember Plunkett commented once a structure was listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Properties, there were non-conforming protections. Non-conformance provisions for other buildings would be addressed in the code rewrite. He advised Development Services Director Duane Bowman was asked to present to the next Community Services/Development Services meeting a discussion regarding non-conformance to determine whether it should be addressed independently from the code rewrite. Councilmember Plunkett and Council President Dawson suggested incorporating the Economic Development Committee’s scope of work into the Economic Development element. Councilmember Plunkett questioned why land use and parking were viewed as weaknesses, noting parking regulations and land use in the business district are strengths. He also found multiple property owners and small lots to be strengths rather than weaknesses. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO AMEND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT SO THAT LAND USE AND PARKING REGULATIONS IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND MULTIPLE PROPERTY OWNERS AND SMALL LOTS IN COMMERCIAL AREAS WERE MOVED FROM WEAKNESSES TO STRENGTHS. Council President Dawson supported removing those as weaknesses, noting they could be viewed as either strengths or weaknesses. She envisioned the Economic Development Element would be part of the Comprehensive Plan for some time and if efforts were ongoing to improve parking regulations to better serve the community, it may then not be a weakness. However, for economic development purposes those items were not yet strengths either. Councilmember Moore agreed parking regulations, land use, multiple property owners and small lots were not necessarily strengths or weaknesses. Councilmember Wambolt commented parking regulations were included as a weakness as they currently restricted some development. Ms. Gerend clarified the Economic Development Element included areas outside of downtown. She agreed efforts were being made on land use and parking regulations in the business district but they could not yet be viewed as strengths, particularly in neighborhood centers and/or Hwy. 99. She noted multiple property owners and small lots in commercial areas was the biggest challenge on Hwy. 99. Council President Dawson agreed small lots and multiple property owners were a challenge on Hwy. 99. She suggested modifying the language to add “in the Hwy. 99 area.” Councilmember Olson pointed out one of the challenges with the Albertson’s property was it had three owners, thus multiple property owners was a challenge in areas other than Hwy. 99. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD “IN THE BC ZONE.” UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND ORVIS IN FAVOR, COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN, WAMBOLT, MOORE, AND OLSON OPPOSED. THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND ORVIS IN FAVOR, COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN, WAMBOLT, MOORE, AND OLSON OPPOSED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO INSERT “OUTSIDE THE BC ZONE” AT THE END OF THE PHRASE. MOTION CARRIED (5- 2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, WAMBOLT, MOORE, AND ORVIS IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON AND MARIN OPPOSED. Packet Page 384 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2006 Page 7 Council President Dawson suggested Councilmembers provide staff any additional comments regarding the Economic Development Element, noting there may be additional changes necessary following the Planning Board’s review. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP). Assistant City Engineer Don Fiene presented the 2006-2011 CIP, explaining the CIP was a long range planning tool and a requirement of the State Growth Management Act. He displayed a sample CIP spreadsheet that detailed the revenue and expenditures for each of the ten funds. He referred to the 2006- 2011 Capital Project Description Book that provided the name of each project, cost data, project description, benefit rationale, etc. noting this information was also available on the City’s website. Fund 112 - Transportation Project Fund Mr. Fiene explained this fund financed a wide variety of projects including street overlays, road improvements/widening, traffic signals, road stabilization, traffic calming, bikeways and walkways. He displayed sample projects such as the 220th Street improvement project and the 100th Avenue road stabilization. He explained prior to I-776, this fund had a stable local funding source; the loss of vehicle registration fees via I-776 in November 2002 resulted in the loss of approximately $350,000 per year in local funding. He displayed a chart illustrating the fund before and following I-776. He explained due to lack of funding, the City was falling behind its goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the adopted Transportation Plan. He referred to substantial project cuts and delays in non-motorized projects, signal projects, pedestrian lighting, and extension of overlays to a 70 year cycle rather than the optimum cycle of 30 years. He commented on the impact of a 70-year overlay cycle such as the need to rebuild roads that deteriorated to a severe condition which increased the cost 3-4 times. He noted the City did not have many roads in the severe category but many were in the category below severe. Mr. Fiene recalled a Fund 112 financing plan was presented to the Council as a result of a request at the 2004 Council Retreat. He displayed a graph illustrating the annual local funding gap of $834,000, noting if those funds were available the City could receive an additional $576,000 in state and federal grants. Although a Traffic Impact Fee was adopted and Utility Fund transfers increased, the remainder of the financing plan was deferred awaiting State legislative action. State legislative action to date has been limited to a new gas tax that provided approximately $56,000 annually that equates to a 1/3 mile overlay. Due to the funding shortfall in Fund 112 and 116, the Planning Board’s 2005 recommendation was to deny approval of the CIP. The Council approved the 2005-2010 CIP with the addition of language reiterating the Council’s goals and policies acknowledging although the CIP did not have adequate funding to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the Council was committed to seeking additional funding sources. He summarized there was not a significant change in Fund 112 from last year; the serious funding shortage continued. If the State legislature did not take action, additional funding must be identified. Fund 113 – Multimodal Transportation/Edmonds Crossing The intent of Fund 113 is to provide funds for the Edmonds Crossing multimodal transportation project at the Pt. Edwards site. Fund 116 – Building Maintenance Fund The revenue source for this fund, the General Fund, has been impacted by I-695 and I-747. This fund finances maintenance of City buildings which include the Anderson Center, City Hall, fire stations, Capital Improvement Program Packet Page 385 of 448 Packet Page 386 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 7 inquiries from the public and the developer and directing staff; therefore, Mr. Snyder advised he should not participate in the quasi judicial proceeding. Mr. Snyder explained one of the Mayor’s responsibilities was the day-to-day administration and direction of employees; questions were posed to staff from the developer and interested citizens and he needed to be able to respond to both. He noted it was rare that the Mayor could vote on a decision as most were made via ordinance, this was an instance when he could be required to vote. His advice was if Mayor Haakenson discussed this matter outside the record, he should recuse himself from participation. He summarized the goal was to maintain very clear separation between the Mayor’s discussions and the Council’s action. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT WITH THE INSERTION OF THE DECEMBER 19, 2006 DATE. Councilmember Moore commented she preferred not to refer the matter to the ADB; however, since it had been, she recommended the ADB hold a special meeting. She would vote against the proposed motion but would vote in favor of motion that required a special ADB meeting. Development Services Director Duane Bowman advised a special meeting was suggested to the ADB and they preferred to schedule it on their December 6 agenda. Mr. Snyder commented the ADB had only five members; they may be unable to get a quorum on another date. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson commented the Council could have a special meeting following Council committee meetings on December 12. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson pointed out the wording in the findings was “on or before,” which would allow the ADB to hold a meeting sooner than December 6 if possible. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE SANITARY SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Assistant City Engineer Don Fiene explained the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan was a requirement of GMA. Goals and objectives included identifying problems for the system based on feedback from the Sewer Division, hydraulic analysis, lift station run time information and flow meter information; ensuring the City was in compliance with Federal & State laws; and identifying and prioritizing projects and other actions to meet these objectives. Mr. Fiene displayed a map of the existing service area, explaining most of the City limits was served by the City of Edmonds sewer utility although there were areas in the south served by Olympic View. He explained the current system consisted of approximately 168 miles of sewer pipe, approximately 3,200 manholes, over 9,200 service connections, and 14 lift stations. Over half of the pipe was constructed between 1959 and 1968 and over 85% of the pipe was concrete. The system had sufficient capacity for treatment at the Edmonds and Lynnwood treatment facilities. He explained analysis identified problems with inflow and infiltration associated with storm and groundwater entering the sewer system which can cause sewer backups and raw sewage overflows. High flow rates observed during January 2006 storms raised concern warranting flow monitoring/smoke testing, small works projects to connect inflow and infiltration sources to the storm system, and embarking on the CIP Rehabilitation Program. Mr. Fiene explained the consultant analyzed operations and maintenance. He displayed a chart identifying sewer maintenance worker utilization. He reviewed problem areas and recommendations, advising the problems were prioritized by Engineering and Public Works staff. Projects include rehabilitation or replacement of all sewer lift stations, replacement of many sewer mains with bellies and poor grade, inflow and infiltration study and projects, and the Cured in Place Pipe Restoration Program. Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Packet Page 387 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 8 Mr. Fiene displayed a map identifying the location of problem areas throughout the City that were analyzed and prioritized. He displayed a sample CIP project description. Next, he reviewed the financial program analysis that found sewer rates had increased only 6% between January 2002 and January 2006, well below inflation and that rates had been supplemented by connection charges since January, 2001 in the amount of $730 per equivalent residential unit. The proposed sewer rates for 2007-2012 would only increase a total of 10% (5% in 2008, 5% in 2009) which included funding for one additional staff – a Utilities Engineer in 2008. Mr. Fiene displayed a chart illustrating sewer utility spending 2002-2007, noting the treatment plant debt would be retired in 2008, making funds available for a more proactive capital program while maintaining low rates. He displayed a comparison of sewer rates, noting Edmonds was near the bottom. Mr. Fiene advised the Planning Board reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and held a public hearing. The Planning Board forwarded the Plan to Council with a recommendation for approval and strongly recommended approval of the Utilities Engineer position beginning in 2008 to facilitate and accomplish Plan recommendations. He explained the position would be funded entirely by utility rates, however, it was not currently included in the 2007-2008 budget. Mr. Fiene recommended the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan and authorize the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for amendment to the Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan in conjunction with the annual Comprehensive Plan update. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the rate consultant. Mr. Fiene answered the City hired FCS as the rate consultant. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Utilities Engineer position would be discussed during the budget presentations. Mr. Fiene advised the position was proposed in a decision package but had not been included in the budget by Mayor Haakenson. Councilmember Moore asked why the position was not included in the 2007-2008 if it was funded by utility taxes. Administrative Services Director Dan Clements answered it would require an increase in utility rates and it was preferred to keep rates as low as possible as well as limit the number of capital projects. He noted the only proposed increase was a 3% increase in water in 2007 and 3% in 2008. The primary reason for not including the Utilities Engineer position was additional engineering could accomplish more capital projects which would increase rates. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson asked whether there was a conflict with adoption of the Plan if the Council did not intend to include the Utilities Engineer position in the 2008 budget. Mr. Fiene commented a consultant could be used instead of an in-house engineer although that was likely to be more expensive. Another advantage of an in-house engineer was the Cured in Place Pipe Restoration Program that would begin in 2008 and would improve older pipes at a lower cost than trenching. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson asked whether adoption of the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan would require hiring a Utilities Engineer in 2008. Mr. Fiene answered not necessarily; those tasks could be done by a consultant. Councilmember Marin asked whether neighborhoods were notified before inflow and infiltration smoke tests were conducted. Mr. Fiene answered yes. Councilmember Marin suggested by notifying residents in advance of the test it would allow them to fix any problems and avoid the stiff fines associated with a violation. Public Works Director Noel Miller advised a fine was rarely levied; homeowners were allowed a reasonable amount of time to fix any defects that were identified. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson opened the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Pro Tem Dawson closed the public hearing. Packet Page 388 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 9 COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE SANITARY SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE UTILITIES ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of the motion, suggesting the Council consider the Utilities Engineer position in the future. He referred to a section in the Plan that identified deficiencies in the system, noting the City’s system was old and built when there were few safeguards. Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Marin’s suggestion, noting the Utilities Engineer position was strongly recommended by the Planning Board. Councilmember Wambolt suggested asking Mayor Haakenson why the decision package was not included in the 2007-08 budget. He commended Mr. Fiene on the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Plunkett also commended Mr. Fiene on the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. He recalled in 1998/99, the rate structure did not provide sufficient funds for maintenance of the sewer system and staff proposed the idea of a rate structure study. The result was an increase in rates although the rates remained below the State average and a system that could handle the current and additional flow, and a maintenance/repair schedule. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson requested further information regarding the Utilities Engineer position be provided at the November 14 budget workshop. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2007-08 BUDGET AND REVENUE SOURCES. Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained the purpose of the public hearing was to receive public comment on the proposed budget and provide information about revenues and potential property tax increases. He noted the Council packet contained responses to questions raised by the Council. Mr. Clements advised the 2007 budget totals $70.5 million, less than a 1% increase over the 2006 budget. He explained there was a $2.5 million increase in operations in the General and Utility Funds which was offset by decreases in several capital funds. The 2008 budget totals $65.9 million, a 6.5% decrease over the 2007 budget. The 2007 General Fund totals $31.9 million, a 4.8% increase over the 2007 budget due to State pension rate increases, a full year of the Street Crime Unit and court and incarceration charges. The 2008 General Fund totals $33.2 million, a 4% increase over 2007. The preliminary 2007-08 budget recommends a 1% statutory increase in property taxes, and recapture of 1.6% remaining banked capacity. The 2007 budget includes a .25% utility rate increase and a 3% water rate increase in 2007 and 2008 to fund the capital replacement program. The proposed budget recommends an Emergency Medical Services Levy election in 2007 with funding in place for 2008. Next he reviewed property tax distribution – 15% to the City and 3.7% to EMS, the remainder is distributed to schools (64%); Port, Library and Hospital (6.9%) and the County (9.8%). He summarized there were no staffing increases in the 2007-2008 budget other than the transition of one Police Sergeant from grant funding to General Fund. The 2007-2008 budget includes miscellaneous 2007-08 Budget and Revenue Sources Packet Page 389 of 448 Packet Page 390 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 11 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved reads as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 8.64.030 SECTION 13; PROHIBITING PARKING AT ALL TIMES ON BOTH SIDES OF 220TH STREET SW FROM 100TH AVENUE W TO 84TH AVENUE W; UPDATING REFERENCE TO A CERTAIN STREET TO REFLECT CORRECTION IN NAME; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. At Mayor Haakenson’s request, Mr. Gebert explained the design as constructed did not include a left turn lane for traffic traveling south on 9th and turning left onto 220th. Modifications will be necessary to include a left turn lane which unfortunately will require widening the street and reconfiguring the sidewalks. He acknowledged this was an unfortunate situation but the best approach was to fix it. Councilmember Plunkett asked why a left turn lane was not included in the original design and what the cost would be to construct it now. Mr. Gebert answered that was a topic of discussion with the designer. Staff feels it is a design error and the designer should bear the cost; the cost sharing is being negotiated. 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTING THE PORT OF EDMONDS STRATEGIC PLAN AND MASTER PLAN. Chris Keuss, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, advised the Strategic Plan was reviewed and adopted by the Port Commission in April 2005 and the Master Plan was reviewed and approved by the Port Commission in June 2005. The Planning Board reviewed both plans earlier this year. The Strategic Plan includes the Port’s mission statement, strategic actions, budget and financial information, history and current operations, and the Port’s current capital program. The Master Plan includes the Port’s vision, guiding principles, features and programs, and elements of the Master Plan. He displayed a vicinity map of the Port property, identifying the marina, the boundaries of the Port, the Harbor Square complex, Admiral Way, Dayton Street, railroad right-of-way, former US West parcel the Port purchased, and a parcel behind the Richards building jointly owned by the City and Port for fishing pier parking. He identified facilities on Port property including the Landing building that houses Arnie’s Restaurant, the Port Administration building, Anthony’s Restaurant, dry stack facility, docks and marina. He advised the Port had approximately 730 boats in wet moorage and 300 boats in dry storage. He reviewed the Port’s mission – to operate the Port on behalf of the residents of the Port District; be a responsible financial steward; be a responsible environmental steward; provide and foster quality services and facilities for tenants and the boating community; play a leadership role in ensuring that the waterfront is a vibrant, active centerpiece for the Edmonds and Woodway communities; provide opportunities in economic development; and communicate openly, frequently and consistently with Port District residents and tenants. Mr. Keuss reviewed the seven elements of the Port’s Master Plan: • North boardwalk improvements –improvements made in the past several years including view cutouts, benches, tables, planters. Consideration is being given to widening the boardwalk in the future, installing a landscape buffer and relocating the refuse containers into enclosures. • Mixed use area – currently used for parking and the Port Administration building. The Edmonds Yacht Club has proposed a new building on this site; the Port is working on a lease agreement with the Yacht Club. The timeline for construction would be 2009. Review and possible approval is scheduled on the Port Commission’s October 9 agenda. Ord# 3605 – No Parking on 220th SW Port of Edmonds Strategic Plan and Master Plan Packet Page 391 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 12 • Mixed Use area – currently the northeast gravel parking lot/open storage area. If the Yacht Club facility is constructed, this area would be developed for parking, as a community use facility or for Port programs. • Mixed Use area (south) – currently used for parking for Anthony’s and for dry storage. Possible future uses include parking, marine retail/marine services, or Port programs. • Dry Storage expansion – currently no immediate need for expansion but with a marketing program, the Port Commission felt could be a need for expansion. Currently used for parking. • Restroom complex – new facility to house restrooms, laundry facility, and storage lockers with possible funding in 1-2 years via IAC grants. • Public Plaza – permit process completed last year. Converts 12-13 parking spaces behind the Edmonds Yacht Club and Anthony’s into a landscaped public use area. Project delayed last year due to funding and a legal dispute. Discussion is scheduled on the Port Commission’s October 9 agenda. One element of the project, the weather center, has been completed. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, posed several questions: were there any plans to expand the Port’s boundaries by acquiring additional property, the Port’s plans for the old ferry dock if the ferry moved, the status of moving Admiral Way onto the Port property, and whether there were any plans for a small boat ramp. He recommended the Master Plan designate an emergency access route and suggested an emergency access route be a priority for the Fire Chief. John Heighway, Edmonds, recommended in order to improve the view of the skyline from the ferry, buildings not have flat roofs regardless of the height. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. In response to questions raised by the public Mr. Keuss advised the Port had no plans to expand their current boundaries. With regard to the old ferry dock, he recalled in the Downtown Waterfront Plan when the ferry terminal was moved, a portion of the existing dock was removed. He noted some consideration has been given to day moorage in that location. With regard to relocating Admiral Way, he advised research indicated the expense outweighed the benefit. In response to the question about a small boat ramp, Mr. Keuss explained the Port partnered with the State in the 1980s to build the existing sling launch. A ramp was not feasible at this time as it required a considerable amount of land as well as an increase in parking to accommodate vehicles and trailers. Mr. Keuss advised emergency access across the railroad tracks was an important issue to the Port Commission and City staff and it was anticipated it would be addressed via the Edmonds Crossing which may include a pedestrian crossing and a railroad crossing further south. With regard to the skyline, he advised buildings would be constructed in accordance with the City’s codes. Mayor Haakenson advised the new fire boat, moored at the Port, had the same equipment as an aid unit and the firefighters could cross a stalled train to reach the Port to provide aid as well as fight fires. Mr. Keuss advised the Port had an Interlocal Agreement with the City to provide personnel and a vehicle when the train was stopped to assist with getting personnel and equipment across the tracks. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND DIRECT STAFF TO INCLUDE THEM IN THE ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2006 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Packet Page 392 of 448 Packet Page 393 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 13 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTING AMENDED GOALS AND POLICIES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICTS, INCORPORATING SPECIFIC PROPOSALS FOR THE FIRDALE AND FIVE CORNERS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS Council President Dawson advised the Council was emailed additional information but may not have had time to review it in detail. She suggested staff make their presentation and the Council take public comment but no action be taken until the Council had an opportunity to review all the materials. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this effort was initiated by the City’s Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend last year. She held several public workshops in January 2006 to assess uses in the Firdale Village and Five Corners commercial centers and initiate discussion regarding future development. She followed up with workshops in April 2006 that focused on draft Comprehensive Plan policies that were reviewed at a Planning Board public hearing in June 2006. Her intent was a neighborhood planning process to develop a vision for the commercial centers. Mr. Chave explained what prompted this issue was many of the neighborhood centers in Edmonds and throughout the region were established as strip malls; however, more recent developments reflect a significant change in what neighborhood centers provide. Property owners have also expressed interest in considering what could be developed in the neighborhood centers. He advised the Comprehensive Plan amendments recommended by the Planning Board were intended to provide a way to include neighborhood-based plans in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and provide a framework for follow-up zoning and land use. The next phase would include more detailed discussions with the neighborhood about design, uses, arrangement of buildings, setbacks, heights, etc. That process would begin next year if the Comprehensive Plan amendments are approved. Mr. Chave provided questions posed at the workshops: Q2: Many new developments in the region provide a mix of uses…assuming that traffic and parking improvements were made, do you believe that a mix of uses should be encouraged? Q3: What should be the range of building stories above ground level retail/service uses? Q4: Some cities offer a height incentive, such as an extra story, if a builder provides a special benefit in the project such as a percentage set aside for public art, environmentally friendly design, public gathering spaces, or affordable/middle income housing. Should this concept be incorporated? Mr. Chave displayed and reviewed the survey results: Five Corners Q2: Mix of Uses? Q3: Max # Stories Q4: Height Incentive? Responses 66 Responses 70 Responses 65 Yes 56 Median 3.0 Yes 44 No 10 Average 2.9 No 21 Firdale Village Q2: Mix of Uses? Q3: Max # Stories Q4: Height Incentive? Responses 33 Responses 38 Responses 30 Yes 21 Median 4.0 Yes 18 No 12 Average 3.5 No 12 Next Mr. Chave compared the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to the survey results: Plan vs. Survey Firdale Village Five Corners Mix of Uses? Plan: Yes Plan: Yes Neighborhood Business Districts Packet Page 394 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 14 Survey: Yes Survey: Yes Building Heights? Plan: 4 Survey 3.5-4 Plan: 4 Survey: 3 Incentive for added floor? Plan: Yes Survey: Yes Plan: Yes Survey: Yes Councilmember Orvis pointed out the question regarding building heights offered a range of building stories above the ground floor: 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and 7-8. Mr. Chave explained in tabulating the data, staff used the highest number in the range, assuming the response meant up to the higher number. Councilmember Moore asked what would happen if the Comprehensive Plan amendments were approved, noting zoning would follow as well as design guidelines, ADB review of any proposals, etc. Mr. Chave agreed, explaining the intent of the draft language was to provide a policy framework for the next steps to prevent rehashing the same issues again. He acknowledged the difficult part would be the zoning and design issues as there were a variety of opinions. Although it was clear that residents wanted the neighborhood centers improved, the specifics would be more difficult. Councilmember Moore referred to Planning Board Member Henderson’s comment that the Zoning Code could identify height limitations and the Comprehensive Plan should describe the neighborhood centers as a village-style development and should define village-style. Mr. Chave stated the Board felt the concept of a village was workable but that the specifics could be addressed in the zoning and design standards. For Council President Dawson, Mr. Chave displayed and reviewed the survey form. He offered to provide Councilmembers the raw survey data. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Chave explained the draft language for building heights for Five Corners and Firdale Village was up to four stories with incentives for one additional story. Councilmember Orvis noted both were zoned BN currently and asked whether the BN zone had setback and open space requirements. Mr. Chave answered BN had only setback requirements. Councilmember Orvis asked whether residential use was allowed in the BN zone. Mr. Chave responded the residential use allowed in the BN zone was one unit above the commercial development per lot. Councilmember Plunkett asked how much weight Ms. Gerend gave to the survey results in drafting the language. Mr. Chave advised he was unable to answer that question. Councilmember Plunkett asked how much weight the Planning Board gave to the survey results. Mr. Chave was uncertain whether the Planning Board saw the detailed survey data; they reviewed the staff reports, etc. He emphasized this was not a scientific survey, only a survey of those who attended the workshop. Council President Dawson asked how much of the language was written prior to the neighborhood meetings. Mr. Chave advised Ms. Gerend used the surveys provided at the first workshops to draft the language. The language was then presented at the second set of workshops. He referred to the comparison of the Comprehensive Plan language and the survey results, commenting they tracked fairly well. He clarified that the first set of meetings was where surveys were completed; the language was then drafted; the language was presented at the second set of meetings; and followed by Planning Board review. Councilmember Moore commented the Council was being asked to approve language for development of zoning by the Planning Board working with property owners and neighborhoods. She agreed the language was guidance for improving the neighborhood centers; the actual heights could be worked out later although the language did establish an upper limit to heights. She referred to a statement in the proposed amendment regarding Five Corners – development should be oriented to the street and respond Packet Page 395 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 15 to the unique character of the intersection, including a planned intersection improvement, asking whether “unique” referred to the intersection or the neighborhood. Mr. Chave answered it referred to the intersection. Although there was agreement at the workshops that the intersection needed to be improved, there was disagreement regarding exactly what should be done. Council President Dawson asked why the term “stories” was used when the Council was told when discussing the downtown zoning that language was unworkable. Mr. Chave agreed “stories” was difficult in code language but was appropriate at the conceptual level in the Comprehensive Plan. Council President Dawson questioned how it was presented to residents at the workshops, noting four stories above a grocery was different than above some other uses. Mr. Chave recalled Ms. Gerend’s indication that to encourage a grocery store to locate in a neighborhood center there may need to be some flexibility in the building heights. Mr. Bowman advised he attended the workshops and recalled Ms. Gerend displayed several photographs of mixed used development to provide a visual of the concept. He felt residents understood the concept of stories. Council President Dawson questioned if the residents’ vision translated to the draft language. Mr. Bowman stated the draft language was not inconsistent with the residents’ vision, pointing out the draft language was presented at the second workshop. The details would be resolved in the code language. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council received three letters, one from Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, in support of the amendments, a letter from Ron Knowles in support of the amendments which would provide affordable multi family dwellings and business space outside the bowl area, and a letter submitted by Joe Gnagey who saw no need for multi- story commercial/residential space in the Five Corners or Firdale Village areas. Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, commented the vote on this item was an indicator of whether Edmonds was an open, welcoming community or self-centered and inward looking with people more concerned about the past than the future. He pointed out change was a fact of life. He asserted the Council had closed the bowl to new construction; there were areas outside the bowl such as Five Corners and Firdale Village that needed to be redeveloped. Although most people think of Edmonds as downtown, the majority of people who pass through Edmonds see areas outside the bowl where there were dilapidated houses, vacant or rundown commercial areas, etc. He pointed out development occurring around the region such as Mill Creek Town Center where there were multi-story buildings with multi family development abutting the commercial zone. He disagreed taller buildings could not coexist adjacent to residential, pointing out Whistler Village and New Orleans Square in Disneyland as examples. Another factor to consider is residents’ children cannot afford to live in downtown Edmonds; enabling land outside the bowl to be developed with 3-4 story buildings would reduce the proportionate cost of land to a more affordable level. Warren Schweppe, Edmonds, advised he missed the last Planning Board meeting but understood heights as high as 50 feet were discussed. He preferred buildings be no higher than 2-3 stories or that the 30-33 foot guideline in downtown be used. He did not want another building like the Gregory. He remarked a good example of appropriate development was the Montclair condominiums which were limited to 2-3 stories. He summarized he was in favor of progress but it needed to be done the right way. Robert Bretz, Edmonds, was opposed to 45-50 foot heights in the Five Corners neighborhood, advising the infrastructure was currently overburdened and the proposed zoning changes would increase the burden and bring gridlock at rush hour. Parking was already an issue on 84th, Main, 212th and Bowdoin and density in the Five Corners area had increased dramatically in the past five years with the development of the Montclair condominiums, the Madrona Cove PRD, and the condominium on the former fire station property. He noted there is currently no zoning that would provide transition between the proposed high-rise commercial/residential and single family residential although City plans mandate Packet Page 396 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 16 transitional zoning to alleviate conflicts. The Five Corners area is very flat with no natural barriers to provide relief from the sight pollution a 45-foot building would impose on single family residences. Diane Hill, Edmonds, found the survey on height confusing and was certain the average citizen also found it confusing. She objected to the use of the term ground story and floors above and was not certain the survey respondents understood the question. She objected to the use of a range in the survey and staff’s decision to use the higher number when tabulating the results. She volunteered to hand-deliver a new survey to every house in the Five Corner’s neighborhood. She commented the Five Corners neighborhood was home to two schools and she was concerned with the street becoming a raceway. She recommended if the City wanted to change height limits, it be done citywide, not in just a few neighborhoods. She viewed Montclair as a tastefully done development and would support something like that. She did not support heights above 33 feet including the first floor. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out a BN zone meant it was located within a residential neighborhood; the intent was to protect the neighborhood. He suggested a property owner in a BN zone, who was restricted by the current regulations to one residential unit above commercial would be satisfied with mixed use without a height increase. He envisioned a property owner would be ecstatic if they could have two stories of residential above commercial and according to downtown studies, the economics would allow for redevelopment. He disagreed that 4-5 stories were necessary and objected to allowing an additional story for an amenity, commenting the amenities were usually not enough. He disagreed with requiring buildings in the BN zone to be located close to the street with parking behind, suggesting instead to buffer the noise for residences, locating the parking in front and buildings in back. He disagreed with providing an incentive for redevelopment, remarking most people who completed the survey did not realize the building height was number of stories above the ground floor. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, recalled several Councilmembers and Planning Board Members attended the workshops in Firdale Village. Firdale Village was an underutilized facility where numerous businesses have failed due to the poor design. He referred to a nearby ravine where trees were removed to make way for 14 houses on small lots, questioning the amount of tax revenue the City received from that development as well as from an underutilized neighborhood center. He summarized Firdale Village needed to be redeveloped. The surveys revealed what the residents of these neighborhoods wanted. Ted Kim, Edmonds, did not support any additional buildings or increased building height in the Five Corner commercial area as the uncontrolled intersection could not handle any additional traffic. He remarked on the cars that back up at the intersection during rush hour. He concluded additional development would destroy the ambiance of the neighborhood. The reason they moved to Montclair was the ability to walk to nearby stores and services; that ability would be eliminated by increased traffic. John Heighway, Edmonds, advised he attended the Firdale Village meeting and felt Ms. Gerend did a good job. He recalled the people who attended the meeting were local residents and were enthusiastic about redevelopment of Firdale Village. He supported moving forward but with more accurate information. He recalled one of the uses residents attending the Firdale Village meeting were most interested in was a beer pub. He preferred to delay adoption of the amendments if necessary. Kevin Grossman, Shoreline resident and Edmonds property owner, pointed out the difference between a Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning. The Council was being asked to embrace a big picture concept, not develop the details. The subsequent process would include more specifics about design issues, building appearance, heights, etc. If the Council liked rundown, one story retail centers, he suggested the Council not adopt the proposed amendments. Conversely, he encouraged the Council to support the amendments if they wanted developers to reinvest in these areas so that residents had better retail, better designed structures, etc. He pointed out the proposed amendments would also provide a Packet Page 397 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 17 variety of housing options, allowing residents’ children and the elderly to continue to live in this community. He referred to the City’s obligation under GMA to accommodate increased density, pointing out concentrating density where land use and transportation dovetailed provided synergy for retail and minimized traffic impacts as well as decreased the density in neighborhoods. Brad Butterfield, Edmonds, explained the proposed amendment was the culmination of over 12 months of work by Ms. Gerend, planning staff and the Planning Board. He commented the current BN zoning did not work for many of the large properties at Firdale Village, Westgate, Five Corners and Perrinville. He recalled unanimity among the residents attending the Firdale Village neighborhood meetings that something needed to be done with the buildings in Firdale Village that were constructed in the 1940s. He pointed out the amendments laid the groundwork for sensitive zoning and more neighborhood and Planning Board meetings to discuss how development should occur. He encouraged the Council to adopt the draft amendments to allow the discussion to move forward. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY OLSEN, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 1½ HOURS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Eric Anderson, Edmonds, owner of the Five Corners Shopping Plaza, commented he was the only property owner at the Five Corner’s meeting. The proposed amendments were the result of two neighborhood meetings and a year of discussions. He viewed the amendments as a basic proposal that did not obligate the City but would move the issue ahead. If the amendments were adopted, the Planning Board would begin working with property owners and the neighborhood to develop zoning to implement the plan. As a property owner, he assured the current configuration – a strip mall built in the 1960s – was all there would be under the current zoning. The strip mall has had many cosmetic remodels but has reached the end of its economic life. He pointed out every city in the greater Seattle area was developing retail mixed use/urban villages that included housing. If the Council approved the draft amendments, redevelopment could bring that same energy to Five Corners. Cheryl Ahlen, Edmonds, commented she moved to Edmonds because it is quiet and she wanted it to stay that way. If she wanted activity, she could drive to a place nearby where there was activity. She was opposed to a lot of development in Five Corners. Kelly Picasso, Edmonds, commented her neighborhood at 84th & 210th received notice of tonight’s public hearing but neither she nor her neighbors were aware of the neighborhood meetings. Although she understood progress was to be expected, she found 4-5 story buildings at Five Corners incompatible with the neighborhood. She stated because this neighborhood was not in the bowl did not mean it was less worthy of the same small town feel of Edmonds. She was aware mixed use could be done successfully but prefer it respect the residential areas via heights that were sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood. She also pointed out the need for transition, and looked forward to more discussion on this issue. Douglas Alfi, Edmonds, asked how the City planned to accommodate increased heights in Five Corners, commenting additional stories or buildings would increase traffic. He pointed out cars already backed up to the high school on 212th in the late afternoon. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Mr. Chave commented the survey was not scientific, it was only a questionnaire used by Ms. Gerend in drafting the proposed language. He agreed many residents and property owners wanted to move forward with something more positive than currently exists. Councilmember Plunkett referred to comments such as “move forward, this was not locked in stone, future planning could be done down the road, this is just a concept, forward it, more discussion.” If that Packet Page 398 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 18 was an acceptable premise, he suggested replacing the statement that development should not be more than four stories with mixed use multi floors. Mr. Chave stated leaving the specifics in the language provided additional guidance. Without reference to a number of stories, that issue be rehashed in the future. He noted although the Council heard negative comments tonight, the problem with this process was that the people who were satisfied tended not to continue participating whereas the people with concerns tended to continue with the process to ensure their concerns were addressed. Mr. Chave observed there appeared to be a fair amount of comfort in the survey with the 3-4 story range although there may have been some misunderstanding regarding whether that was on top of the ground floor. He suggested leaving the language regarding a maximum of four stories and incentives for additional height and allow the next step to determine how that should be arranged. Councilmember Marin suggested establishing three stories as a starting point and a fourth story with incentives. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE PLAN AMENDMENT LANGUAGE AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR FORMAL ADOPTION AS PART OF THE 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. Councilmember Moore explained this concept was a launching pad; it was clear everyone wanted something done in the neighborhoods. The preponderance of evidence in the packet points to the wording the Planning Board forwarded. She acknowledged traffic was bad everywhere, particularly during rush hour. The intent was to develop neighborhoods and villages so that people could walk to local stores and services and not use their cars as much. She acknowledged traffic amelioration would be necessary at Five Corners but that would be discussed as zoning changes were made. To the comments that this was against the concept of Edmonds, she pointed out the concept of Edmonds was ever-changing. She agreed more affordable housing was important, commenting the reason many bought at Montclair was because it was affordable. The proposed neighborhood concept may facilitate more affordable housing that would allow residents’ children to remain in the community. She pointed out the housing provided by Montclair was similar to what projections indicate cities needed to provide – housing for the four Ss – singles, single parents, seniors and starter homes. Councilmember Olson advised she attended both the Five Corners meetings and recalled the people were less concerned about heights and more concerned with traffic and were excited about having something done. She agreed traffic as well as other issues would be addressed in the upcoming process. She concluded if Edmonds did not begin making some progress, other cities would pass Edmonds by. Council President Dawson commented the language in the draft amendment and in the survey was confusing. She preferred to have an opportunity to review the survey data. She doubted anyone at the Five Corners meeting was comfortable with a five story building and she was not comfortable with five story buildings at Five Corners, particularly if the plan was to move the buildings toward the street. She was comfortable with moving forward for further discussion if the specific language were removed. Councilmember Orvis opposed the language as written or a range of 4-5 stories. He agreed with the need for further review. He recognized even a three floor option would create a sizable economic driver. He preferred to take the time necessary to develop specific enough language so that the process could move forward without needing to rehash the number of stories in the future. Councilmember Wambolt advised he attended all the neighborhood meetings and felt perhaps too much weight was being given to the surveys. He recalled leaving the meetings feeling there was no consensus; as many people were in favor of a concept as were against it. He did not believe further review of the Packet Page 399 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 19 surveys would be productive. His impression was four total floors, not four floors above the ground level and he did not support allowing a fifth floor with incentives. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO AMEND THE MOTON TO SPECIFY A FOUR FLOOR MAXIMUM AND REMOVE THE INCENTIVE FOR ADDITONAL FLOORS. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, MARIN, MOORE, AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. UPON ROLL CALL, THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, MARIN, WAMBOLT, AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND ORVIS OPPOSED. 9. CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND ACTION ON THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 ON THE DRAFT "BD - DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONES" INTENDED TO BE APPLIED TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Council President Dawson relayed Councilmember Marin’s suggestion that due to the late hour and anticipated need for a lengthy discussion, this item be rescheduled. She suggested rescheduling it to the October 24 work session. Councilmember Wambolt agreed. Councilmember Orvis requested Councilmember Plunkett’s and his amendments be included in the packet. Councilmember Moore requested this item be scheduled at the beginning of the agenda. Council President Dawson agreed, pointing out it was later on the agenda tonight due to the public hearing that preceded it. She preferred to schedule it on the October 24 week session due to the public hearings on the October 17 agenda. The Council discussed the number of items on upcoming agendas and the possibility of scheduling a special meeting. Mayor Haakenson requested the annual reports from the Public Defender and the Prosecutor be scheduled before this item on October 24. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE OCTOBER 24, 2006 WORK SESSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Dawson apologized to the audience, advising the Council did not expect the preceding items to be this lengthy. 10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, relayed the next chapter of the “Ferry Terminal Farce” ferry tale entitled “Where Did the Pilings Go?” She recalled when the Council asked its consultant about the depth of the water at the Edmonds Crossing project, they were warned that the water at Edmonds Crossing would be the deepest of the 20 ferry terminals in the State and would push technology to construct landing structures. The water depth was 150-160 feet deep, the wing walls would be in water 60-120 feet deep, concrete steel buffers along the east side of the third slip would be in water 120-200 feet deep, and a total of 306 steel pilings pounded into a steep slope of unknown stability. She summarized the problems with the Edmonds Crossing – an exposed site, a distance between the terminal and the landing that exceeded all pedestrian standards, water depth that pushes technology, and holding lanes on a hillside in a landslide Draft “BD – Downtown Business Zones” Ferry Terminal/ Edmonds Crossing Packet Page 400 of 448 Packet Page 401 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 16, 2006 Page 5 Mayor Pro Tem Dawson clarified this would extend the current moratorium which prohibited acceptance of applications for a building over 25 feet. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved reads as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING A ZONING MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD APPLICATIONS OR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS, NOT OTHERWISE VESTED PURSUANT TO STATE LAW PRIOR TO DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE WHICH SEEK TO UTILIZE MODULATED DESIGN IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A BUILDING HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF THE TWENTY-FIVE FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION ESTABLISHED BY ECDC 15.40.020(A)(2), AND PROVIDING FOR EXPIRATION. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXTENSION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3577, A ZONING MORATORIUM ON THE APPLICATION OF ECDC 20.10.070 (C)(3) RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF SPECIAL HEIGHT LIMITS TO PROTECT VIEWS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EXPIRATION DATE. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised this was a companion to the ordinance discussed in Agenda Item 3. A report would be provided to the Council on June 6 regarding the potential new process and Council would be asked to provide direction to the Planning Board for development of a final ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the audience who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Pro Tem Dawson closed the public hearing and remanded to Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3596. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved reads as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING A ZONING MORATROIUM ON THE APPLICATON OF ECDC 20.10.070(C)(3) RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF SPECIAL HEIGHT LIMITS TO PROTECT VIEWS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EXPIRATION DATE. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REPLACING THE EXISTING "PUBLIC URBAN DESIGN PLAN" WITH AN UPDATED "STREETSCAPE PLAN." Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin explained over the past nine months the Public Urban Design Plan, originally adopted in 2002, was updated as the new Streetscape Plan. Staff made minor revisions to the Plan and consultants prepared new appendices. The plan addresses issues related to design of the public right-of- way through the City. The updated plan expands on the original plan to highlight improvements in specific target areas and establish implementation priorities. The original study or core document focuses on the recommendation for the public right-of-way intended to improve circulation, enhance the pedestrian environment and add elements of continuity. The focus of the original plan was on the downtown area but most of the recommendations were applicable citywide. Ms. Chapin explained the new appendices were developed by CREA Affiliates and expanded on specific concepts that supplement the original studies including the 4th Avenue Art Corridor concept and the Hwy. 99 International District. The update process included three public meetings on 4th Avenue, a variety of consultant meetings with City staff, meetings with the Planning Board, a Planning Board public hearing, and draft review by Council. Anindita Mitra, Project Lead, CREA Affiliates, provided an overview of the new elements added to the Streetscape Plan. She explained their review included how to improve the pedestrian experience and public space on Hwy. 99. Their focus was on pedestrian connections across Hwy. 99, landscape, art and signage Ord# 3595 Extend Zoning Moratorium – Building Height Zoning Moratorium - Views Ord# 3596 Extend Zoning Moratorium - Views Streetscape Plan Packet Page 402 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 16, 2006 Page 6 opportunities on the corridor and creating a sense of identity on Hwy. 99. Their emphasis was the creation of a continuous green pedestrian friendly environment on either side of the corridor, exploring opportunities for the creation of a median and identifying opportunities to recover right-of-way for landscaping. One of the focuses on Hwy. 99 was an International District. She displayed conceptual sketches of lighting elements, signage and art for the corridor. She described opportunities for art, landscaping and a gateway at the “found ground” at 76th Avenue and provided sketches of potential street orientation and landscaping. Ms. Mitra described how commercial intersections could be made more pedestrian friendly, displaying a sketch of expanded landing space at intersections and bollards to protect pedestrians. She explained they were also asked to consider how to incorporate landscaping into the SR104 median which has already been accomplished. She also described opportunities for wayfinding signs such as aggregating directional signage and easy to read wording possibly with icons. Ms. Mitra described the concept Master Plan for 4th Avenue, noting the reference in the Downtown Plan to this area as an Arts Corridor due to its termini at the Edmonds Center for the Arts and opportunity to draw visitors into downtown. She described efforts to unify the corridor experience and celebrate the existing diversity and pedestrian experience. She described the opportunity for a curbless street that would allow pedestrians to dominate the corridor unencumbered by curbs during times of high activity and allowing vehicles to be guided by trees and bollards. She described paving and lighting treatments for the corridor, cross block pedestrian movements, and moving parking from the corridor to the alleys. She described how the streets were aggregated into three amenities – the Arena (Bell to Daley), the Foyer (Dayton to Bell) and Forecourt (Daley to 3rd). She noted lighting treatment and landscaping in these three sections would be distinct with open spaces/art/park elements at two places in the corridor. She described the performing arts theme envisioned for the corridor and methods of integrating art into the corridor. Ms. Mitra described elements of each section of the corridor. In the Foyer, the buildings would have zero setback, there would be signature trees, meeting areas, mid-block pedestrian walkways and possibly bioswales for stormwater. She displayed the potential plaza area, explaining the intent was to create outdoor rooms. She described the Arena in the center of the corridor. The distance from the Edmonds Center for the Arts was approximately 1300 feet; therefore, it was important to create an experience to draw the audience to downtown. She displayed a view of the Area and described the opportunity for a plaza at the intersection of Edmonds and Sprague. She described the Forecourt that surrounds the Edmonds Center for the Arts where on- street parking would be encouraged and where there were opportunities for creating broad sidewalks and a boulevard experience. She displayed a view of the Forecourt. Ms. Mitra stated short term strategies for implementation include exploring programs in the corridor that established it as an Art Corridor, capital improvements such as lighting at the Edmonds Center for the Arts to draw visitors to downtown, and wayfinding elements into and through downtown. Interim strategies include a parking strategy for downtown such as rear access from alleys, reducing curb cuts on 4th Avenue, and acquiring additional right-of-way for greenery. Long term strategies include full reconstruction of 4th Avenue to tie in with Edmonds Center for the Arts, a new park to connect 5th Avenue to the art corridor, and a new arts facility south of Main Street. Councilmember Marin commented it appeared 4th Avenue was viewed as a park rather than a street. Ms. Mitra agreed, pointing out 4th Avenue was not a major public street. Councilmember Moore commented this was a visionary plan and she did not want it to become dormant. Ms. Chapin commented staff was moving forward with implementing some of the strategies for the Hwy. 99 International District via the Transportation Enhancement Grant obtained by the Economic Development Department. At the suggestion of CREA, a group of 4th Avenue residents would continue to be involved in the Packet Page 403 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 16, 2006 Page 7 planning process. She emphasized the Plan was a concept although there were some concepts that could be implemented in the near term. Councilmember Moore clarified staff would bring pieces of the plan to Council for approval of short term improvements. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, a member of the Transportation Advisory Committee, expressed concern with the concept of pedestrian friendly on Hwy. 99 when that roadway was owned by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). He envisioned conflicts between the Transportation Committee’s consideration of safety issues on Hwy. 99 and the vision for the corridor in the Streetscape Plan. He cautioned if inconsistencies were not addressed, the result could be similar to Shoreline where businesses and WSDOT were in conflict. He recommended the Traffic Engineer and WSDOT review the Streetscape Plan to ensure it complied with WSDOT’s requirements. Joan Archer, Edmonds, local artist and co-operator of the Artists Studio Gallery, commended the Streetscape Plan, envisioning it would be beneficial to merchants, residents and visitors. She commented on the success of visual arts and performing arts in the area. She requested consideration be given to additional lighting from the fountain to the Frances Anderson Center particularly on the north side of the street. Scott Chapman, Edmonds, commented the concepts in the Streetscape Plan were great but without funding, few of them would be realized. He cautioned the Council against adopting a plan without identifying funding. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, questioned the new style of lighting shown in the Plan, recommending the historical lighting used on 5th & Main be utilized instead. He suggested the hanging flower basket program also be extended into the 4th Avenue corridor. He referred to the proposal for trees outside businesses, noting the businesses may object due to the potential to block the public’s view of their business. He encouraged the City to include businesses in discussions regarding trees, signage, and medians which had the potential to block access to businesses. He also requested the cost of installation and maintenance of landscaping including irrigation be addressed. He pointed out the concept of a highway was to move traffic and cautioned against impediments to moving traffic efficiently through the City. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Pro Tem Dawson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson relayed Councilmember Plunkett’s and her agreement with the concern about changing the lighting style. Ms. Chapin advised the existing lighting style was referenced in several areas of the Streetscape Plan. Different lighting was envisioned for 4th Avenue to create a distinctive identity for that corridor. She advised the lights that were shown were merely an example, cautioning this was a concept plan and concepts may change over time. She noted lighting and the flower baskets were identified in the core plan as items to be extended into the corridor. With regard to Mr. Kreiman’s comment about Hwy. 99, Ms. Chapin advised the City’s new Traffic Engineer was a former WSDOT employee and had been involved in the Plan as were all City departments. City Engineer Dave Gebert advised the Streetscape Plan was being considered as part of the Hwy. 99 Traffic, Circulation and Safety Study. With regard to funding, Ms. Chapin advised staff would be considering various ways to fund items in the Plan. One consultant provided several funding options; some improvements may be funded via a private/public partnership and staff would continue to seek grants such as the $319,000 grant the Economic Development Department obtained for enhancement of Hwy. 99. Packet Page 404 of 448 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 16, 2006 Page 8 Councilmember Moore requested staff comment on irrigation and maintenance. Ms. Chapin advised there had been discussion regarding installing an irrigation system on 4th Avenue. She assured landscaping would not be installed in areas where they could not be maintained. Park Manager Rich Lindsay recommended underground irrigation on 4th Avenue as well as a drip system on the poles for hanging baskets. Councilmember Moore referred to the request for lighting on the north side of Main Street. Ms. Chapin recommended that be addressed by Public Works. With regard to the flower baskets, Ms. Chapin assured it was envisioned the flower baskets would be expanded as part of the 4th Avenue corridor. Councilmember Marin referred to page 6 of the Hwy. 99 appendix and the reference to 50% or more of the building main façade must parallel Hwy. 99 right-of-way and suggested adding “if possible” prior to “50% or more…” He described his concern that there were a number of smaller properties where 50% of the building parallel to Hwy. 99 may not be possible. Ms. Chapin was agreeable to the amendment. Councilmember Moore referred to the statement on page 28 that flags, banners and similar items that detract from the established character of downtown should be strongly discouraged unless part of an approved arts program. She noted numerous merchants currently use flags/banners. Ms. Chapin explained this referred to other than the established practice. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested adding to the end of the sentence, “and other permitted uses.” Mayor Pro Tem Dawson remanded to Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REPLACING THE EXISTING “PUBLIC URBAN DESIGN PLAN” WITH THE UPDATED “STREETSCAPE PLAN” AND TO INCLUDE THE AMENDMENT ON PAGE 6 OF THE HWY. 99 APPENDIX ADDING “IF POSSIBLE” PRIOR TO “50%” AND THE AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE ON PAGE 28 REGARDING FLAGS AND BANNERS. Councilmember Marin commended the vision in the Streetscape Plan, cautioning against being hampered by funding. Councilmember Moore agreed the Streetscape Plan was a great vision, pointing out the residents’ willingness to pay for things they wanted. With regard to the comments about funding, Councilmember Plunkett recalled when the performing arts center was nothing more than a vision, noting its inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan and the Council’s endorsement of that vision assisted in moving it forward. He assured the funds could be cobbled together if it was the community’s will. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS. Human Resources Manager Debi Humann recalled on May 2 the Citizens’ Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials presented their recommendations to the Council. Following their presentation, the Council requested additional information regarding the Commission’s compensation recommendation for the Mayor and Council and the potential issue of compensation increases during the current term of Councilmembers. With regard to compensation increases during Councilmembers’ current terms, Ms. Humann noted a recommendation was not provided by the Commission as this issue was not within their scope. She referred to a memo from City Attorney Scott Snyder on this issue. Mr. Snyder explained the Constitutional principle was Citizens Commission - Compensation of Elected Officials Packet Page 405 of 448 Packet Page 406 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 8 II. 2007 PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained Council President Dawson requested staff provide three property tax scenarios; #3 was included in the budget. He explained #3 contained a 2.64% regular property tax levy which includes a 1.64% recapture of banked capacity and a 1% regular property tax increase. He noted it also included a 1% increase in the EMS levy. He explained this would generate additional revenue of slightly over $200,000 to the General Fund, a minor increase per household. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE VERSION #3, ORDINANCE NO. 3614. Councilmember Wambolt commented developing the budget was a long process that began in the summer. He served on the budget review committee with Council President Dawson who began meeting in September to hear presentations from department heads as well as ask questions of staff. Since that time he had exchanged numerous emails with Mr. Clements and his staff who had done an excellent job educating him. Mayor Haakenson also removed over $1 million from department wish lists also known as decision packages, essentially reducing the decision packages by half. He was disappointed he had been unable to do due diligence on EMS expenses, noting this was one of the City’s biggest cost centers – $5 million in expenses. He was hopeful a better review could be conducted early in 2007 when discussing the proposed increase in the EMS levy, tentatively scheduled for a vote in May 2007. He clarified he was not saying EMS expenses were too high, simply that he did not know. He pointed out the average property in Edmonds in 2006 appreciated 22% in value. Property owners would see an increase in their property taxes due to the school district voter approved bonds. He planned to support the proposed ordinance which included the 1.64% banked capacity and 1% property tax increase, noting inflation was much higher than 2.64%. Council President Dawson advised she would not support version #3. She had voted against accessing banked capacity last year, noting although it was small amount, $138,000, it was a matter of principle. Since the passage of I-747 which limited cities to a 1% per year property tax increase, she felt it important to stay within those guidelines. If the Council was able to add $150,000 in budget amendments funded from ending cash balance, the Council should be able to live without the additional $138,000 as well. She preferred version #2. Councilmember Marin explained he participated on the budget review committee for three years in the past including listening to directors make presentations regarding decision packages. He noted the decision packages were not self-serving but legitimate additions to address the City’s needs; unfortunately many of the decision packages could not be funded. He expressed his appreciation to staff for presenting only legitimate decision packages and their ability to live on a smaller budget. Councilmember Plunkett recalled he made a promise to voters in 1997 that he would not vote for a property tax increase above the rate of inflation. As version #3 was below the rate of inflation, he would support the motion. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT RECONFIGURING THE PLAN DESIGNATIONS OF PROPERTIES ON THE WEST SIDE OF 76TH AVENUE WEST BETWEEN 242ND AND 244TH STREET SW. APPLICANT: TONY SHAPIRO / FILE NO. CDC-05-96. Senior Planner Steve Bullock advised, Ron Knowles, represented by Tony Shapiro, made application to change the Comprehensive Plan designation on 76th between 242nd and 244th. There were two hearings at the Planning Board and the Board encouraged the applicant to talk with the neighbors. A number of neighborhood meetings were held in an effort to reach a consensus about how this area would be identified on the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent change in the zoning. Packet Page 407 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 9 Mr. Bullock displayed a map of the existing Comprehensive Plan, explaining the properties that front on 205th/244th are identified on the Comprehensive Plan as Highway 99 Corridor and the properties down the hill that front on 76th and have access on 76th are designated Neighborhood Commercial. When the Comprehensive Plan was approved along zone district lines, the boundary between Highway 99 Corridor and Neighborhood Commercial bisected the two southern properties. This split designation creates problems as the zoning designations have different bulk regulations, uses, heights and setbacks. At the final neighborhood meeting, the applicant and neighbors reached a consensus and made a presentation to the Planning Board to include the entire property that fronts on 76th in the Highway 99 Corridor designation and the entire property to the west as Neighborhood Commercial. The Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the proposal. He explained the proposal would not change the zoning although that would be a future proposal to ensure the zoning was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Haakenson asked staff to respond to a letter provided by Pastor Cox from Seattle Baptist Church. Mr. Bullock relayed his understanding of Pastor Cox’s letter was that he agreed with his entire parcel being identified as Neighborhood Commercial; the majority of his property is currently zoned Neighborhood Business. Tony Shapiro, AD Shapiro Architects, explained his client, Ron Knowles, made application late last year for a change to the Comprehensive Plan on his property, the southeast corner of the block, to make it one designation. When they presented a proposal to the Planning Board in June, the Board felt the entire block should be addressed in light of the work being done with regard to Five Corners and Firdale Village and the NB zone designation. They subsequently met with neighbors twice to ask what they would like to see developed on the property. His office was also retained by the property at the northeast corner of the block at the intersection of 242nd and 76th, Planting Design. Planting Design plans to rebuild their facility to a mixed use. They currently operate a nursery and landscape design business out of a former gas station. Although Planting Design has rehabilitated the property and the neighbors are satisfied with the status of the property, Mr. Knowles’ property has been vacant for a number of years due to the difficulty finding a short term tenant, rehabilitating the building, and obsolete use due to the mini-mart at the corner of 76th and 244th. Mr. Shapiro explained the neighbors were concerned with the eastern portion of the block, fronting on 76th, becoming entirely Neighborhood Business. The proposal in mid-summer was to designate the eastern portion of the block which was more conducive to mixed use type redevelopment. In a meeting with the neighbors and staff this fall, the neighbors were concerned with that configuration. Although Planting Design would ultimately like to build out their site and perhaps in the future will propose a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation on their corner, they agreed with the proposal to change the designation on only the southeast corner. The Planning Board accepted this compromise reluctantly; a number of Boardmembers were concerned about the continuation of the Highway 99 designation northbound on 76th. He acknowledged although it was unusual to extend that designation to this property, considering the topography on the site and the slope that continues onto Mr. Knowles’ property, it was felt to be a reasonable compromise. Mr. Shapiro explained the proposed change was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as mixed use was encouraged in the BN zone, zoning that may ultimately be proposed for the site which would comply with the Highway 99 Corridor designation. The proposal was also consistent with the existing and proposed land uses. This is a transition zone as 76th is a fairly busy street and a small mixed use building would provide transition. The property immediately to the south, also owned by Mr. Knowles, is essentially mixed use with storage on the ground floor and residential above. A number of neighbors have expressed satisfaction with the manner in which that property was developed. The character of the Packet Page 408 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 10 area is evolving and the NB zone is outdated and needs to updated, yet still work with the residential properties to the north and west. The proposed change is more economically viable than the current commercial use. The proposed change would provide benefit to the public health, safety and welfare by providing more housing units on the site as well as opportunity for a small service-type business. Responding to Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Shapiro advised they held two neighborhood meetings, one in July and a second in August. During the first meeting they discussed goals of the project and green characteristics they hoped to incorporate into the buildings. He noted they discussed more building specific issues at that meeting as they had originally proposed both a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation as well as a rezone. It was agreed at the September Planning Board meeting to separate the change in the Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning with the intent of presenting the rezone in the future. He explained the mixed use would be conducive to the neighborhood as the mixed use would include approximately 75% residential and would not differ much from the single family nature of existing properties. Traffic was the primary concern; concern was also expressed with church traffic on Sundays and meeting days, additional traffic generated by the commercial component and the loss of parking that Mr. Knowles allows the church to utilize on his property. After two meetings with the neighbors, they were not forcefully opposed to the proposal; at the September Planning Board meeting they were overwhelmingly opposed to changing the destination on both parcels. At a subsequent Planning Board meeting in October, they changed their proposal. Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing. Scott McPherson, Edmonds, commented regretfully Highway 99 Corridor was the only designation for the property that satisfied the neighborhood, Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Knowles. He wished there was another designation for the property. His only concern was what type of businesses might be located on the property but the most important issue was limiting the building height to 25 + 5 feet. The neighbors were concerned with the amount of traffic on 76th Avenue particularly during rush hour. Although 76th was busy, it was not equivalent to the traffic volumes on 205th. He relayed the neighbors’ interest in limiting residential development to the top two stories on the site. He advised the proposal was more or less acceptable to him as a neighbor, provided development was consistent with the neighborhood. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Council President Dawson asked what building height would be allowed if the property were rezoned under the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation. Mr. Bullock answered the property was currently zoned BC on the southern half and BN on the northern half. Changing the designation on the entire property to Highway 99 Corridor would allow the entire property to be zoned BC. The maximum height for the BC zone was 25 feet with an additional 5 feet for an approved modulated design. He advised the ability to achieve the additional 5 feet was under moratorium. Council President Dawson observed the height limit would be what the Council voted on next week. Mr. Bullock explained the Council would be voting on BD zoning for downtown; however, there were still some scattered BC zoning throughout the City where the existing BC zoning would continue until the Council chose to change it. Council President Dawson asked what the height limit on existing BC property would be when the moratorium was lifted. City Attorney Scott Snyder offered to research and provide a response next week. Councilmember Orvis commented Highway 99 Corridor was generally CG or CG2 plus transitional zoning. Mr. Bullock advised the Comprehensive Plan provides a list of appropriate zones including BC. This area would be appropriate for that zoning as it was a transition from the higher intensity uses. Councilmember Orvis observed if the applicant were to propose a rezone to CG2, they would be subject to the rezone criteria. Mr. Bullock agreed. Packet Page 409 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 11 COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO MAKE THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON MISCELLANEOUS MINOR TEXT UPDATES AND MAP CORRECTIONS TO THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. (FILE NO. CDC-06-4) Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed the following minor corrections and updates to the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Minor amendments proposed by Planning Board Vice Chair John Dewhirst via working with the City’s Engineering Department to improve the language in the Walkway Plan. 2. Minor wording changes in the Downtown Plan that needed to be addressed as the Council discussed the downtown BD zones next week. He suggested holding the public hearing on these changes but continuing deliberation until next week. He noted there were a few tweaks to the language suggested by staff to make it consistent with the Planning Board’s recommendation. He suggested when discussing the BD zone changes next week, the Council also keep in mind the Comprehensive Plan language it needed to be consistent with. Also included with the downtown amendments was bringing the downtown Comprehensive Plan map into consistency with the downtown zoning proposal. 3. Minor changes to the land use and zoning compatibility table (page 16) to reflect ongoing neighborhood planning efforts. 4. When the Comprehensive Plan map was updated last year, the lots adjoining Lake Ballinger should have been designated Single Family Resource instead of Urban 1 on the plan map. The existing zoning is consistent with this change. 5. A map correction in the downtown area for lots erroneously labeled as high density multi family when the zoning was RM3, equivalent to medium density multi family. Staff recommends the Council accept public testimony and approve amendments 1, 3, 4 and 5 and continue deliberation on 2 until next week. Council President Dawson asked for further information regarding the Single Family Resource designation. Mr. Chave answered it was for larger lots, RS-12 and RS-20, properties associated with critical area and environmentally sensitive areas, the justification for retaining the large lot designation. For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave explained when the old Comprehensive Plan’s color designations were translated into GIS, a couple of locations were transferred as high density that should have been medium density. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented one of the reasons for the policy changes was there were new funds for pedestrian improvements. He was concerned engineering would simply identify projects to keep their office busy. He referred to a proposed change to Policy 1.1 that would require pedestrian facilities on both sides of all streets and highways, questioning whether the City wanted to enforce construction of sidewalks on both sides. He noted there had been an effort via Safe Routes to Schools to install a walkway on one side of the street which provided safety within reasonable financial limits. He was concerned there was no distance requirement with regard to the Safe Route to Schools as compared with the 1200 feet indicated for parks and playgrounds. He suggested retaining “should” rather than “shall” in Policy 1.1. Next he referred to the Policy 1.9 with regard to ADA curb cuts and side ramps, that states “any object located within the sidewalk shall not impede pedestrian safety, circulation, and Packet Page 410 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 12 access,” suggesting this be enforced retroactively to address existing problems. He then referred to Policy 1.11 which stated “pedestrian safety includes physical and psychological safety considerations,” questioning what “psychological safety considerations” referred to. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Moore inquired about psychological safety considerations. City Engineer Dave Gebert answered the language was developed by Planning Board Vice Chair Dewhirst. He speculated it referred to the use of sidewalks for enjoyment, exercise, etc. Councilmember Moore asked staff to comment on “should” versus “shall,” commenting she was in favor of installing sidewalks whenever possible but not necessarily on both sides of the street. Mr. Gebert answered the Planning Board had a fair amount of discussion on this issue; Vice Chair Dewhirst’s original proposal was much more directive and included several more “shalls.” Staff was concerned that the “shalls” represented unfunded mandates. He explained Policy 1.11 represented a compromise and staff was satisfied with “shall” in the context with the wording “within the limits of available funding and in consideration of other priorities.” Councilmember Moore asked why the distance for Safe Routes to Schools was unlimited and only 1200 feet to a park or playground. Mr. Gebert was uncertain why Vice Chair Dewhirst did not include a distance. Councilmember Moore asked staff to respond to Mr. Hertrich’s comment regarding items within the sidewalk that currently impeded pedestrian safety. Mr. Gebert answered there were specific ADA requirements such as sidewalk widths. When a mailbox is located in the sidewalk, ADA standards require the sidewalk be widened behind the mailbox. There are places in the City where sidewalks constructed in the past that contained utility poles, trees, etc. that did not comply with ADA requirements. Staff is in the process of developing an implementation plan for ADA ramps and will be addressing those issues as funds permit; the City did not have the resources to correct everything in the City. Councilmember Moore asked how the remainder of the paragraph in Policy 1.1 would be revised if “shall” were changed to “should.” Mr. Gebert answered it could stay the same. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised for all new construction, the language in Policy 1.9 was consistent with the City’s obligation under federal law. This would be addressed further when amendments to the City’s sign code were discussed with regard to sandwich board signs downtown. With regard to changing “shall” to “should,” he reminded that any exercise of staff discretion needed to have standards. Mr. Chave commented a better word for Vice Chair Dewhirst’s proposed “psychological safety considerations” may be “perceived,” envisioning he was referring to situations such as a walkway along a high volume street where it may be perceived as safer if there were plantings between the walkway and the driving lane. He noted this did not necessarily increase the physical safety but may increase the perceived safety. Councilmember Moore commented “perceived” was also quite vague. Council President Dawson referred to language in Policy 1.1, “classified as safe walking routes to school,” asking who classified the routes. Mr. Gebert answered schools typically identified their walking routes. Council President Dawson suggested adding language such as safe walking routes as defined by the school. Mr. Gebert agreed, noting when the City submitted a grant application for a walkway related to a school, staff obtained and submitted the school’s identified walking routes. Council President Dawson referred to Policy 1.9 and suggested referencing ADA requirements. Mr. Snyder commented there may also be engineering standards. Mr. Gebert explained there were a number Packet Page 411 of 448 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 13 of requirements such as curb height and sidewalk width in the City’s standards that generally exceeded ADA requirements. Mr. Snyder suggested adding “pursuant to law or ordinance” which would cover the City’s and federal standards. Council President Dawson suggested adding wording that this applied only to new construction. Mr. Gebert stated staff intended to identify deficiencies such as ADA curb ramps. The City had an obligation as projects occurred such as street overlays to upgrade ADA ramps within the project limits. Council President Dawson was concerned the policy implied the City would be making corrections that it did not intend to do. Mr. Snyder suggested adding wording “as required by federal law or City ordinance.” Council President Dawson requested staff provide the existing language in Policy 1.11 so that she could compare it to the proposed language. She was concerned “psychological safety considerations” was not clear. Councilmember Moore suggested rewording Policy 1.11 to include examples and further specificity. Mr. Snyder reminded the Comprehensive Plan contained accurate general descriptions; the zoning regulations would contain specifics. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS 3, 4 AND 5. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Dawson advised the Council would discussion amendment 2 next week as part of the downtown zoning. She asked staff to return amendment 1 with appropriate language next week or at the December 5 meeting. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO CONTINUE AMENDMENT 1 TO NEXT WEEK AND AMENDMENT 2 TO WHEN STAFF COULD PROVIDE ALTERNATE LANGUAGE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 6. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION BY MICHEL CONSTRUCTION TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-6) TO MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-2.4). THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 546 PARADISE LANE. AFTER TWO TIED VOTES (3-3), THE PLANNING BOARD WAS UNABLE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE APPLICATION. (FILE NO. R-06-77) As this was a closed record review, a quasi judicial proceeding, Mayor Haakenson asked whether under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine any Councilmember had any conflicts or ex parte communication they wished to disclose. Councilmember Plunkett disclosed in 2005 the applicant contributed approximately $250 to his reelection campaign. Councilmember Marin disclosed he also received a campaign contribution from the applicant. Council President Dawson disclosed during the break a member of the audience asked her whether audience comments would be allowed and she had a brief conversation with her regarding the procedures but nothing of substance. Councilmember Wambolt disclosed the applicant built his building. Councilmember Orvis disclosed Rob Michel contributed $249 to his campaign. Packet Page 412 of 448 AM-771 2.R. Enacting New "BD - Downtown Business" Zones and Rezoning Downtown Properties Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Rob Chave, Planning Submitted For:Rob Chave Time:Consent Department:Planning Type: Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Proposed Ordinance enacting a new Chapter 16.43 relating to BD-Downtown Business Zoning, amending the City's Zoning Map to rezone certain property specified therein to BD categories, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. Previous Council Action City Council held a public hearing on the recommendation from the Planning Board on October 3, 2006, and completed deliberations on December 12, 2006. Narrative The City Councli completed its deliberations on the proposed extablishment of new BD - Downtown Business zones and the rezoning of certain downtown properties to the new zones on December 12,2006. The proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1) implements the Council's direction. Note that the item Councilmember Wambolt desired to clarify during the December 12th deliberations has been deleted from the final draft. The item formerly was included as C.2 (top of page 10 of the ordinance) and read: "2. Within the BD1 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet when the ground floor is at least 15 feet in height." Including the BD1 zone in the step-back provisions means that the above provision is no longer needed -- the step-back rules dictate how a 30-foot height limit is achieved. In other words, the BD1 zone works the same way as the other zones, with the 15-foot ground floor requirement being specified in the site development standards table (page 6 of the ordinance). The new zoning map for downtown is included as Exhibit A of the proposed ordinance. Recommendation Adopt the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1). Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Proposed Ordinance Link: Ordinance Exhibit A Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2006 11:03 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/15/2006 11:28 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2006 11:41 AM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 12/15/2006 10:27 AM Final Approval Date: 12/15/2006 Packet Page 413 of 448 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 12/14/06 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 16.43 RELATING TO BD-DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONING, AMENDING THE CITY’S ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY SPECIFIED THEREIN TO BD CATEGORIES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of its Planning Board and held public hearings regarding draft BD zone proposals on September 18, 2006 and deliberated regarding those amendments on October 3 and December 12, 2006, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendment enacting new BD- Downtown Business zones complies with the criteria of the Edmonds Community Development Code in consideration of criteria or in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and are in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Edmonds, and WHEREAS, the City Council has also received the recommendation of the Planning Board and held public hearings regarding amendments to the City’s zoning map to enact certain changes to the zoning of properties within the BD-Downtown business zone, and WHEREAS, following public hearings on the aforementioned dates and the deliberation of City Council, the Council adopts the recommendation of its Planning Board, finding that the amendment of the City’s zoning map and the rezone of the properties specified therein in the attached Exhibit A are in conformance with the requirements and decisional criteria of the Edmonds Community Development Code, are consistent with the City’s Packet Page 414 of 448 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Comprehensive Plans and are in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Edmonds, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended by the enactment of a new Chapter 16.43 BD-Downtown Business zone to read as follows: Chapter 16.43 BD – DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Sections: 16.43.000 Purposes. 16.43.010 Sub-districts. 16.43.020 Uses. 16.43.030 Site development standards. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. 16.43.000 Purposes. The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC. A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity. C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multi-family residential uses. 16.43.010 Sub-districts. The “Downtown Business” zone is subdivided into five (5) distinct sub-districts, each intended to implement specific aspects of the Comprehensive Plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each sub-district contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The five sub-districts are: Packet Page 415 of 448 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - BD1 – Downtown Retail Core BD2 – Downtown Mixed Commercial BD3 – Downtown Convenience Commercial BD4 – Downtown Mixed Residential BD5 – Downtown Arts Corridor 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A Offices A A A A A Service uses A A A A 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 X X X 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 A A A A Automobile sales and service X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents C A A A X Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code A A A A A Packet Page 416 of 448 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 4 - Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Residential Uses Single family dwelling A A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A Primary and high schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) A A A A A Local public facilities subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C C A C Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A A A A A Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B B B B X Commercial parking lots C C C C X Wholesale uses X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C C C C C Drive-in businesses C C A C X Laboratories X C C C X Packet Page 417 of 448 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 5 - Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X C X X Day-care centers C C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums X C C A X 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 A A A 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 C C C A Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers X C C A X Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C C C C C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D D D D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC D D D D D A=Permitted Primary Use B=Permitted Secondary Use C=Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit D=Secondary Uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit X=Not Permitted Packet Page 418 of 448 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 6 - For Conditional Uses listed in Table 16.43-1, above, 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 criteria are met: 1. Access and parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall be only be provided consistent with Chapter 18.80.060 ECDC. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four (4) feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50% open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use, shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. architectural features or details; b. artwork; c. landscaping. 16.43.030 Site development standards. A. Table 16.43-2. Site Development Standards BD1 5 BD2 5 BD3 5 BD4 3 5 BD5 5 Minimum Lot Area 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Lot Width 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Street Setback 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Side Setback 1 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Rear Setback 1 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum Height 2 25’ 25’ 25’ 25’ 25’ Minimum Height of Ground Floor 4 15’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 1 The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. 2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in Chapter 16.43.030.C ECDC. 3 Within the BD4 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground floor consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 60 feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement (e.g. an entirely residential building is proposed), then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030.B.4 for further detail. Packet Page 419 of 448 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 7 - 4 “Minimum height of ground floor” means the height measured from the base of the ground floor to the top of the ground floor ceiling plate, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the ‘finished’ ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height so long as the addition or remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25%. 5 Site development standards for single family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone. Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of buildings in the BD zones. 1. When a commercial use is located on the ground floor, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within 7 inches of the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. “Grade” shall be as measured at the entry location. 2. When the street frontage of a building is on a slope which does not allow both the elevation of the entry and ground floor to be entirely within 7 inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, the building may be designed so that either: a. The entry for the commercial portion of the ground floor is located within 7 inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the commercial portion of the ground floor is within 7 inches of the grade level of the entry; or, Packet Page 420 of 448 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 8 - b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground floor combination is within 7 inches of the grade of the sidewalk. c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary entry shall always be on 4th Avenue. 3. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses. Within the BD2, and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses to a minimum building depth of 60 feet, as measured from the street front of the building. 4. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in ECDC 16.43.030.B.3, above. As a second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground floor does not meet the commercial use requirements described in Chapter 16.43.030.B.3, above, then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required, the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over four (4) feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50% open, such as in a lattice pattern. 5. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in ECDC 16.43.030.B.3, above. When development of the ground floor does not conform to these requirements, then development within the BD5 zone shall meet the following requirements: a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. “Orientation to 4th Avenue” shall mean that: i. At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue. ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add interest at the pedestrian (i.e. ground floor) level. iii. If the building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be located between the building and the street front. b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work space is required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is provided on-site. i. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground floor, the building shall incorporate live/work space into the ground floor design in such a way as to enable building occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or art/fabrication use. Live/work space means a structure or portion of a structure that combines a commercial or manufacturing activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner's employee, and that person's household. The live/work space shall be designed so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation use can be established within the space. Packet Page 421 of 448 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 9 - Figure 16.43-_: BD5 Development Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street. Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses, and the entry oriented to the street. 6. Exceptions and clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in ECDC 16.43.030.B.1-5 (above) apply with the following exceptions or clarifications. a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is allowed as a permitted secondary use. b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single-family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property. c. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the ground floor commercial use requirement (i.e. when the first 60 feet of the building, as measured perpendicular to the street, is required to be in commercial use, parking may not be located within that 60 feet). However, for properties with less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rear-most 30 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 60 feet of the building. In no case shall the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30 feet. d. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 60 feet of the building as measured perpendicular to the street consists only of commercial uses and permitted secondary uses, then permitted multiple family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial uses. e. Within the BD1 zone, ground floor windows parallel to street lot lines shall be transparent and unobstructed by curtains, blinds, or other window coverings intended to obscure the interior from public view from the sidewalk. This provision does not apply to any residential uses located behind commercial uses. Packet Page 422 of 448 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 10 - f. Within the BD1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk. C. Building Height Regulations. 1. The basic height limit is 25 feet (see definition of “height” detailed in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC). 2. Step-back rules. The following rules apply when calculating the maximum building height for any building in the BD1, BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones (see Figures 16.43-2 and 16.43-3 for illustrated examples). a. An additional 5 feet of building height, not to exceed 30 feet, may be obtained if the building is designed to meet all of the following conditions: i. A building step-back is provided within 15 feet of any street front. Within the 15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade at the property line (e.g. normally the back of sidewalk) or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC. For corner lots, a 15-foot step-back is required along both street fronts. If a building located on a corner lot has insufficient lot width (i.e. less than 40 feet of lot width) to enable it to provide the required step- back on both street fronts, then the step-back may be waived facing the secondary street. This waiver may not be granted for building step-backs required from Fifth Avenue, Dayton, or Main Streets. ii. A 15-foot step-back is provided from the property line opposite the street front. Within the 15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC. For corner lots for which a 15-foot step-back is required on more than one street front, there is no 15-foot step-back required from the property line opposite each street front. For the purpose of determining step-back requirements, alleys are not considered to be streets. iii. A building setback, in which the entire building is set back from the property line, may be substituted on a foot-for-foot basis for the required building step-back. For example, a 5-foot building setback can be combined with a 10-foot building step-back to meet the 15-foot step-back requirement. Packet Page 423 of 448 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 11 - Packet Page 424 of 448 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 12 - 3. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building through the use of differences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms. a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch of all portions of the roof are at least 6-in-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments. b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in (a), above, step backs shall be required the same as for the BD2 zone, as described in ECDC 16.43.030.C.2. 4. Height exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC, the following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this Chapter. a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may extend a maximum of 5 feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral architectural feature of the roof and/or façade of the building. The decorative architectural element shall not cover more than 5% of the roof area of the building. D. Off-Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the requirements of this Chapter and the provisions contained in ECDC 17.50 – Off-Street Parking Regulations, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply. 1. No parking is required for any permitted uses located within the BD1 zone. Within the BD1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street. 2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within the BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones. 3. No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of less than 4,800 square feet. E. Open Space Requirements 1. For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least 5% of the lot area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10%. Open space shall be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such open space may be provided as any combination of: a. outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for restaurants or food service establishments); b. public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public; c. landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public. [Note: minimum % or sq. ft. requirement?] Packet Page 425 of 448 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 13 - 2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story. 3. In overall dimension, the width of required open space shall not be less than 75% of the depth of the open space, measured relative to the street (i.e. width is measured parallel to the street lot line, while depth is measured perpendicular to the street lot line). F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Buildings. 1. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project, the staff may modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of staff shall be processed as a Staff decision – Notice required, as provided for in ECDC 20.95.050. a. Building step backs required under ECDC 16.43.030.C.2. b. Open space required under ECDC 16.43.030.E. 2. No off-street parking is required for any permitted uses located within a building listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Buildings. Note that additional parking exceptions involving building expansion, remodeling or restoration may also apply, as detailed in 17.50.070.C. Packet Page 426 of 448 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 14 - 3. Within the BD5 zone, if a building listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Buildings is retained on site, no off-street parking is required for any additional buildings or uses located on the same property. To obtain this benefit, an easement in a form acceptable to the City shall be recorded with Snohomish County protecting the exterior of the historic building and ensuring that the historic building is maintained in its historic form and appearance so long as the additional building(s) obtaining the parking benefit exist on the property. The easement shall continue even if the property is subsequently subdivided or any interest in the property is sold. G. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units. H. Screening. The required setback from R zoned property shall be landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback, except for that portion of the BD zone that is in residential use. I. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. Sign standards shall be the same as those that apply within the BC zone. [Note: update of sign code is required] J. Satellite Television Antennas. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and reviewed by the architectural design board. [Note: update required to 16.20.050 to reflect 2 meters for commercial antennas.] 16.50.030 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public uses such as utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Seasonal farmers’ markets; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC. 7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.70.040 ECDC. 8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. Section 2. The official zoning map of the City of Edmonds is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown on the attached Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Such incorporated changes amend the zoning of certain downtown properties to rezone such properties in conformance with the attached Exhibit A. The Development Services Packet Page 427 of 448 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 15 - Director or his designee is hereby authorized to effectuate such changes to the official zoning map of the City. 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 GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 428 of 448 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 16 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2006, 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, REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 16.43 RELATING TO BD-DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONING, AMENDING THE CITY’S ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY SPECIFIED THEREIN TO BD CATEGORIES, 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 ________________, 2006. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 429 of 448 3 R D A V E N 2 N D A V E N MAGNOLIA LN 6 T H A V E N S U N S E T A V E N 4 T H A V E N JAMES ST R A I L R O A D A V E 5 T H A V E N HEMLOCK WAY HOWELL WAY S U NS E T A V E S GLEN ST HOLLY DR 2 N D A V E N 2 N D A V E 3 R D A V E N CAROL WAY 3 R D A V E N BELL ST MAIN ST 6 T H A V E N DAYTON ST HOMELAND DR SATER LANE W D A Y T O N S T 3 R D A V E S 4 T H A V E S E D M O N D S W Y /S R 1 0 4 6 T H A V E S 5 T H A V E S WALNUT ST 5 T H A V E S HEMLOCK WAY SEAMONT LN ERBEN DR 3 R D A V E S R A I L R O A D S T GILTNER LANE D U R B I N S T ALOHA WAY 2 N D A V E S EDMONDS ST 6 T H A V E S ALDER ST A D M I R A L W A Y 2 N D A V E S 3 R D A V E S 4 T H A V E S PINE ST 4 T H A V E S E D M O N D S W A Y /S R 1 0 4 4 T H A V E S MAPLE ST DAYTON ST ALDER ST MAIN ST BELL ST EDMONDS ST DALEY ST SPRAGUE ST 5 T H A V E S BELL ST MAIN ST Planning Board Recommendation 7/26/2006 BD1 = Downtown Retail Core BD2 = Downtown Mixed Commercial BD3 = Downtown Convenience Commercial BD4 = Downtown Mixed Residential BD5 = Downtown Arts Corridor RM-1.5 = Multi Family RM-1.5 BD1BD2 BD2 BD2 BD2BD4 BD3 BD5 BD2 BD2 BD4 Proposed New Downtown Zones RM-1.5 BD2 B D 2 Packet Page 430 of 448 AM-773 2.S. Proposed Ordinance repealing the moratorium within the City's central business district. Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Rob Chave, Planning Submitted For:Rob Chave Time:Consent Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Proposed Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 3608 establishing a moratorium within the City's central business district, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. Previous Council Action Proposed Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 3608 establishing a moratorium within the City's central business district, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. Narrative On December 12, 2006, with adoption of the new BD - Downtown Business zones, the City Council voted to remove the current moratorium on buildings exceeding 25 feet within the existing BC zone. The draft ordinance included in Exhibit 1 has been drafted by the City Attorney to implement this action. Recommendation Approved the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1). Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Proposed Ordinance Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2006 11:41 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/15/2006 11:43 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2006 11:48 AM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 12/15/2006 11:13 AM Final Approval Date: 12/15/2006 Packet Page 431 of 448 {WSS648051.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 12/14/06 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3608 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM WITHIN THE CITY’S CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, pursuant to series of ordinances, the City Council established and has maintained a moratorium on construction in certain designated downtown business districts above 25 feet in order to resolve building height calculations, and WHEREAS, by the enactment of a contemporary ordinance, the City Council has amended the City Code to clarify height restrictions, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 3608 is hereby repealed. Section 2. 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 GARY HAAKENSON Packet Page 432 of 448 {WSS648051.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 433 of 448 {WSS648051.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 3 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2006, 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, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3608 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM WITHIN THE CITY’S CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, 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 ________________, 2006. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 434 of 448 AM-735 2.T. Resolution Thanking Student Representative Kisa Nishimoto. Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Jana Spellman, City Council Submitted For:Deanna Dawson Time:Consent Department:City Council Type:Action Review Committee: Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subject Proposed Resolution thanking Student Representative Kisa Nishimoto for her service. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Proposed Resolution thanking Student Representative Kisa Nishimoto for her service. Recommendation Approval Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Nishimoto Resolution Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/13/2006 09:35 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/13/2006 10:38 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/13/2006 11:17 AM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/04/2006 11:08 AM Final Approval Date: 12/13/2006 Packet Page 435 of 448 Resolution No: 1136 A Resolution of the Edmonds City Council Commending Kisa Nishimoto for Her Service as a Student Representative on the Edmonds City Council Whereas, Kisa Nishimoto, a student at Edmonds-Woodway High School, was selected to serve as a Student Representative of the Edmonds City Council; and Whereas, Kisa Nishimoto, served as a student member of the City Council from September 18 through December 19, 2006; and Whereas, during her tenure as Student Representative, Kisa Nishimoto demonstrated interest in the work of the body while at the same time participating in a multitude of school activities including being a D.A.R.E. Role Model, Senior Class President, Leadership Student, EWHS Cheerleader, and International Baccalaureate Student; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that Kisa Nishimoto be commended for her involvement in city government in Edmonds during her term as Student Representative while continuing her rigorous school schedule and managing two jobs; and Be It Further Resolved that the City Council and the Mayor hereby extend their best wishes to Kisa in her future endeavors and express the hope that she will continue to contribute her infinite talents to the democratic process of government in the City of Edmonds and elsewhere. Now, Therefore, Be It Passed, Approved, and Adopted this 19th day of December, 2006. Gary Haakenson, Mayor Deanna Dawson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Richard L. Marin, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Attest: City Clerk City of Edmonds Incorporated 1890 Packet Page 436 of 448 AM-756 3. Presentation of Resolution to Student Representative Kisa Nishimoto Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Jana Spellman, City Council Submitted For:Deanna Dawson Time:5 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Information Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Presentation of Resolution and Plaque to Student Representative Kisa Nishimoto. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Presentation of Resolution and Plaque to Student Representative Kisa Nishimoto. Recommendation N/A Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/13/2006 09:35 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/13/2006 10:38 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/13/2006 11:17 AM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/12/2006 03:11 PM Final Approval Date: 12/13/2006 Packet Page 437 of 448 AM-747 4. Edmonds Center for the Arts Update Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Stephen Clifton, Community Services Time:15 Minutes Department:Community Services Type:Information Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Update - Edmonds Center for the Arts Previous Council Action Narrative Joe McIalwain, Edmonds Center for the Arts Executive Director, will provide an update on Edmonds Center for the Arts construction and operational activities. Recommendation Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/12/2006 02:30 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/12/2006 02:37 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/12/2006 02:54 PM APRV Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 12/06/2006 04:59 PM Final Approval Date: 12/12/2006 Packet Page 438 of 448 AM-757 5. Cities & Towns legislative presentation Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Linda Carl, Mayor's Office Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:10 Minutes Department:Mayor's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Presentation of the 2007 legislative agenda for the Association of Snohomish County Cities & Towns. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The legislative committee of the Association of Snohomish County Cities & Towns has developed a list of legislative priorities to lobby in Olympia in the coming year. Key to this strategy is generating a strong consensus within the Cities & Towns organization. Tonight, Robert Amenn (Gold Bar City Councilmember and 2006 Cities & Towns president) and Marko Liias (Mukilteo City Councilmember and a member of the legislative committee) will make a presentation of the commitee's proposed agenda. They will request feedback and support from the Council. Attached are the legislative agenda fact sheet, the committee's mission statement, and a contact list of committee members. Also on the legislative committee are Peggy Pritchard Olson (chair), Gary Haakenson, Joe Marine (Mayor-Mukilteo), and Jennifer Gregerson (Councilmember-Mukilteo). Recommendation The legislative committee is requesting the Council's support of their 2007 legislative agenda. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Legislative agenda Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/12/2006 04:00 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/12/2006 04:06 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/13/2006 11:17 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 12/12/2006 03:39 PM Final Approval Date: 12/13/2006 Packet Page 439 of 448 Packet Page 440 of 448 Packet Page 441 of 448 Packet Page 442 of 448 AM-758 6. Presentation of Housing Halo Award to the City of Edmonds by the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/19/2006 Submitted By:Jana Spellman, City Council Submitted For:Deanna Dawson Time:10 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Information Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subject Presentation of Housing Halo Award to the City of Edmonds by the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County. Previous Council Action On November 6, 2006 the Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance No. 3610 which requires, in the event of a condominium conversion, the declarant to pay Five Hundred Dollars ($500) per unit for relocation assistance to tenants and subtenants who elect not to purchase the unit and who are in lawful occupancy for residential purposes of a unit, and whose monthly household income from all sources, on the date of the notice of conversion, was less than an amount equal to eighty percent (80%) of the monthly median income for comparably sized households in the Seattle-Everett Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined and established by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Narrative Ms. June Robinson, Executive Director of the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County is here this evening to present the City of Edmonds with the Housing Halo Award for the passage of Ordinance 3610. Recommendation N/A Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Ordinance No. 3610 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 10:51 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/14/2006 11:04 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/14/2006 11:38 AM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/13/2006 09:53 AM Final Approval Date: 12/14/2006 Packet Page 443 of 448 Packet Page 444 of 448 Packet Page 445 of 448 Packet Page 446 of 448 Packet Page 447 of 448 Packet Page 448 of 448