2011.03.08 CC Committee Meetings Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
MARCH 8, 2011
The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the public but are not
public hearings. The Committees will meet in separate meeting rooms as indicated below.
Please note that the Community Services/Development Services Committee will begin at 6:30 p.m. and the Finance Committee will begin at
6:00 p.m.
1.Community Services/Development Services Committee - 6:30 p.m.
Meeting Room: Council Chambers
A. (30 Minutes)Proposed Ordinance amending Edmonds Community Development Code 20.20, Home Occupations.
B. (10 Minutes)Report on bids opened February 15, 2011 for the Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir Improvement Project, award a
contract in the amount of $224,286.66 to Omega Contractors, Inc. and appropriate an additional $164,000 to the
2011 412-100 Water Utility Fund to construct the project.
C. (10 Minutes)Report on bids opened February 17, 2011 for the 2010 Waterline Replacement Project, award contract in the amount
of $1,834,833.02 to Kar-Vel Construction Company and appropriate an additional $273,922 to the 412-100 Water
Utility Fund to construct the project.
D. (5 Minutes)Resolution authorizing the Mayor and staff to dispense with competitive bidding requirements to allow for an
emergency repair on the stormwater pipe in Dayton Street.
2.Finance Committee - 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Room: Police Training Room
A. (10 Minutes)Requesting authorization to salvage surplus and obsolete parts and equipment for the Wastewater Department.
B. (5 Minutes)Monthly General Fund Update.
C. (15 Minutes)Review and approval of the Agreement for Legal Representation of Indigent Defendants.
D. (15 Minutes)Discussion of Woodway Police Services Contract.
E. (10 Minutes)Amend Equipment Rental Fund Ordinance to allow Fire asset transfers.
F. (10 Minutes)Public comments (3-minute limit per person)
Packet Page 1 of 113
3.Public Safety and Human Resources Committee
The Public Safety and Human Resources Commitee will not meet this evening.
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 113
AM-3790 Item #: 1. A.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 03/08/2011
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Proposed Ordinance amending Edmonds Community Development Code 20.20, Home Occupations.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Provide direction to staff and the City Attorney to prepare a final ordinance for consideration by the full Council.
Previous Council Action
The Community Services/Development Services Council Committee met on May 11, 2010 to discuss the issues involved with
the current home occupation code (contained in Exhibit 3) and referred the issue to the Planning Board for study. The Planning
Board met on July 17, October 13, and November 10 and they recommended a draft code for the Council's review. The
Council held a public hearing on January 4, 2011, and directed staff to prepare a final ordinance for Council consideration. On
February 15, 2011, Council voted to refer the updated staff draft of the ordinance to Committee for review.
Narrative
The attached draft ordinance was drafted by staff in response to the hearing and Council direction from January 4, 2011. Since
then, Council referred the issue to the Committee on February 15, 2011 for further review. The draft contained in Exhibit 1 is
the current draft ordinance, and is different than what has been portrayed in recent public comments.
The overall intent of the amendment is to support home-based work while preserving the residential character of
neighborhoods. Problems with the existing code include (1) an inordinately high cost for applying for some home occupations
(applying to the Hearing Examiner costs a total of $1550, which is disproportionate to the amount of activity associated with a
typical home occupation), (2) no provision for art studios or limited home farm produce sales, and (3) unclear guidance
concerning what types of home occupations are generally permissible.
Based on the Council's deliberations on January 4, 2011, the current draft ordinance contained in Exhibit 1 provides for the
following:
1. The basic types of home occupations permitted with no public notice are not being changed, and are not at issue. These are
the typical ones where there is simply someone working in their own home with no additional client or employee visits.
2. Whenever a home occupation is proposed that involves an employee or client visit, the Hearing Examiner requirement is
replaced with a lower-cost process (Type 2 staff decision, costing $585). The Type 2 application requires public notice to be
given to properties within 300 feet of the property. A notice of application is provided, along with a comment period, before
any decision is issued. Conditions of approval may be applied to an application. An appeal of the staff decision may be made
to the Hearing Examiner.
3. New limitations are placed on visits to a home occupation. A maximum of one employee is allowed, and client visits are
limited to one per hour. There is no provision to exceed these limits; this is more limiting than the current code, which provides
no objective upper limits on either employees or visits.
We believe that the provisions outlined above are consistent with the Council discussion on January 4, 2011, and provide for a
more affordable, slightly streamlined process in exchange for more limitations on the types of home occupations that are
approvable in a neighborhood setting. The updated regulations also address emerging city priorities of encouraging
locally-based economic activity (e.g. local produce and art studios supporting the arts community) consistent with city
sustainability goals.
It is worth noting that the current draft can in no way be thought of as allowing 'strip malls' in neighborhoods. Retail sales are
still prohibited, as they always have been, and the proposed draft actually proposes an upper limit to activity that is not part of
Packet Page 3 of 113
still prohibited, as they always have been, and the proposed draft actually proposes an upper limit to activity that is not part of
the current code.
We look forward to the discussion and receiving additional Council direction.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Staff draft of ordinance
Exhibit 2: Summary of provisions
Exhibit 3: Meeting minutes
Exhibit 4: Existing ECDC home occupations code
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/03/2011 04:03 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 03/04/2011 10:38 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/04/2011 11:23 AM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 03/03/2011 03:03 PM
Final Approval Date: 03/04/2011
Packet Page 4 of 113
{WSS848837.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 -
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
1/11/11
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
REPEAL AND REENACT CHAPTER 20.20 HOME
OCCUPATIONS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City is in the process of reviewing the provisions of the Edmonds
Community Development Code in order to update appropriate sections, and
WHEREAS, the provisions relating to home occupations was referred by the
Edmonds City Council Community Services/Development Services Committee to the staff and
Planning Board for review on May 22, 2010, and
WHEREAS, this matter was discussed by the Planning Board at its meetings of
July 14 and October 14, 2010, and a public hearing was held by the Planning Board on
November 10, 2010, and
WHEREAS, revisions to the chapter were forwarded to the City Council with the
recommendation that certain changes referenced in the Planning Board minutes of November 10,
2010 be enacted, and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest and consistent
with its Comprehensive Plan to make certain changes to the Home Occupations revisions to
allow and encourage certain limited business activities in residential zones subject to the
restrictions set forth in the proposed chapter, NOW, THEREFORE,
Packet Page 5 of 113
{WSS848837.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 -
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 and reenactment of chapter 20.20 Home Occupations to read as follows:
Chapter 20.20
HOME OCCUPATIONS
Sections:
20.20.000 Purpose.
20.20.010 Home occupation.
20.20.020 General regulation.
20.20.030 Permit.
20.20.000 Purpose.
A home occupation is generally an economic enterprise
operated within a dwelling unit, or buildings accessory to
the dwelling unit which are incidental and secondary to the
residential use of the dwelling unit, including the use of the
dwelling unit as a business address in the phone directory
or as a post office mailing address. The purpose of this
chapter is to allow residents to carry on home occupations
on their property while guaranteeing neighboring residents
freedom from excessive noise, excessive traffic, nuisance,
fire hazard and other possible potential negative impacts
from the maintenance of a commercial use within a
residential neighborhood. The purpose of this chapter is to
permit two types of home use occupations while
prohibiting other commercial uses in residential
neighborhoods. Commercial enterprises employing only the
residents of a structure which are operated entirely within
the structure are intended to be permitted activities. The
City’s Community Sustainability Element of the
Comprehensive Plan encourages local business and
reductions in the city’s overall greenhouse gas emissions,
so this chapter seeks to encourage home-based work and
business activities while preserving the character of
residentially-zoned neighborhoods by limiting the number
of customers and employees permitted to visit the home
occupation.
Packet Page 6 of 113
{WSS848837.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 -
20.20.001 Home occupation.
A home occupation may be conducted as a permitted
secondary use in any residential zone of the city subject to
the following regulations:
A. A home occupation shall be a permitted use if it:
1. Is carried on exclusively by a family member
residing in the dwelling unit; and
2. Is conducted entirely within the structures on the
site, without any significant outdoor activity; and
3. Uses no heavy equipment, power tools or power
sources not common to a residence; and
4. Has no pickup or delivery by business related
commercial vehicles which exceeds 20,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight (except for the U.S. Mail and standard
UPS/FedEx sized delivery vehicles); and
5. Creates no noise, dust, glare, vibration, odor, smoke
or other impact adverse to a residential area beyond that
normally associated with residential use; and
6. Does not include any employees outside of the
family members residing at the residence, including but not
limited to persons working at or visiting the subject
property; and
7. Complies with all performance criteria established
pursuant to ECDC 17.60.010.
8. Does not park or store more than one commercial
vehicle or any commercial vehicle over 10,000 pounds
licensed gross vehicle weight per dwelling unit pursuant to
ECDC 17.50.100.
B. A home occupation which does not meet one or
more of the requirements of subsection (A) of this section
may be approved as a staff approval (Type II decision) if
the home occupation will not harm the character of the
surrounding neighborhood as evidenced by meeting all of
the following criteria:
Packet Page 7 of 113
{WSS848837.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 4 -
1. The temporary and permanent keeping of animals
associated with a home occupation must comply with all
provisions of Chapter 5.05 ECC (Animal Control) and
ECDC Title 16; and
2. The home occupation will not include storage,
display of goods, building materials and/or the operation of
building machinery, commercial vehicles or other tools,
unless it meets all of the following criteria:
a. Is wholly enclosed within a structure or
building,
b. Does not emit noise, odor or heat, and
c. Does not create glare or emit light from the
site in violation of the city’s performance criteria;
and,
3. Does not create a condition which injures or
endangers the comfort, or pose health or safety threats to
persons on abutting properties or streets; and
4. Does not include visits to the site from more than
one non-resident employee per day; and
5. Does not include visits from customers in excess of
one vehicle per hour; and
6. Does not include visits from customers between the
hours of 9:00 pm and 8:00 am; and
7. If visits to the site are to be made by either an off-
site employee or customer, on-site parking shall be
provided for at least three (3) vehicles; and
8. No parking or storage is provided for more than one
commercial vehicle or any commercial vehicle over 10,000
pounds licensed gross vehicle weight per dwelling unit
pursuant to ECDC 17.50.100.
C. Urban farming.
1. Urban farming is defined as the display or sale of
edible farm products or fresh produce grown on-site.
Packet Page 8 of 113
{WSS848837.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 5 -
2. A home occupation for urban farming not meeting
the criteria of ECDC 20.20.010(A) may be approved as a
Type II decision if it meets all of the criteria contained in
ECDC 20.20.010(B), except that:
a. Condition 20.20.010(B)(5) does not apply.
An applicant for a home occupation for the sale of on-site
farm products or produce shall be required to submit a site
plan showing how any visitors to the site can be
accommodated without creating a traffic hazard or nuisance
to adjoining properties.
b. The general prohibition of the display of
goods and requiring the business to be wholly enclosed
within a building in ECDC 20.20.010(B)(2) do not apply to
the display or sale of edible farm products or produce, so
long as the display is removed during non-operating hours.
D. Artist Studio.
1. An artist studio is defined as the display or sale of
hand-made products (artwork) that is produced on-site.
Items or artwork created off site is not included in this
definition.
2. A home occupation for an artist studio not meeting
the criteria of ECDC 20.20.010(A) may be permitted as a
Type II decision if it meets all of the criteria contained in
ECDC 20.20.010(B), except that:
a. Condition 20.20.010(B)(5) does not apply.
An applicant for a home occupation for an artist studio
shall be required to submit a site plan showing how any
visitors to the site can be accommodated without creating a
traffic hazard or nuisance to adjoining properties.
b. The display or sale of hand-made artwork
shall remain completely enclosed within a building
pursuant to ECDC 20.20.010.A.2.
20.20.020 General regulation.
A. Sale or Display of Goods. No goods shall be sold or
rendered on the premises except instructional materials
pertinent to the home occupation (e.g., music books), or as
Packet Page 9 of 113
{WSS848837.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 6 -
described above in ECDC 20.20.010(C) for Urban Farming
or ECDC 20.20.010(D) for Artist Studio. Display or
storage of goods outside the premises or in the window
thereof is prohibited, except related to an Urban Farming
display located entirely on the subject property. Such farm
or produce display shall be removed during the hours it is
not in operation.
B. Signs. A sign is permitted in conjunction with a
home occupation approval and shall not exceed four square
feet in size. The sign area shall be calculated as part of, not
in addition to, the total sign area permitted on the site. A
building permit and a Type II conditional use permit are
required for any proposed commercial signage in a
residential zone.
C. Reasons for Denial. A home occupation is a special
exception to the zoning ordinance and the applicant has the
burden of persuasion that he/she comes within the stated
purposes and criteria of this chapter. The following are
among common reasons for denial but are not intended to
be exclusive:
1. The on-street or on-site parking of trucks or other
types of equipment associated with the home occupation;
2. The littered, unkempt and otherwise poorly
maintained condition of the dwelling site;
3. Visits to the site are made by more than one vehicle
per hour, such as a contractor or business operation that
includes multiple employees meeting at the site to collect
materials or equipment that will be used at another location.
4. Noncompliance with the criteria of this chapter or
conditions of approval or other provisions of city
ordinance; and/or
5. The proposal cannot be conditioned in order to meet
the criteria and findings of the chapter.
20.20.030 Permit.
All permits for home occupations are personal to the
applicant and shall not be transferred or otherwise assigned
to any other person. The permit will automatically expire
Packet Page 10 of 113
{WSS848837.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 7 -
when the applicant named on the permit application moves
from the site. The home occupation shall also automatically
expire if the permittee fails to maintain a valid business
license or the business license is suspended or revoked. The
home occupation shall not be transferred to any site other
than that described on the application form.
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 MIKE COOPER
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 11 of 113
{WSS848837.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 8 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, 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 THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REPEAL
AND REENACT CHAPTER 20.20 HOME OCCUPATIONS, 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 ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 12 of 113
Ho
m
e
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
Ho
m
e
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Staff
Co
d
e
D
r
a
f
t
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Ho
m
e
oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
no
vi
s
i
t
s
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
wi
t
h
no
vi
s
i
t
s
Co
s
t
~ $1
,
5
5
0
~ $5
8
5
Pu
b
l
i
c
No
t
i
c
e
/
Co
m
m
e
n
t
Ye
s
Y
e
s
He
a
r
i
n
g
Ye
s
Ye
s
(o
n
ap
p
e
a
l
)
He
a
r
i
n
g
Ye
s
Ye
s
(o
n
ap
p
e
a
l
)
Li
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
(h
o
u
r
s
,
vi
s
i
t
s
,
No
–
Se
t
by
he
a
r
i
n
g
Ye
s
–
U
p
p
e
r
limits
bl
h
d
d
(h
o
u
r
s
,
vi
s
i
t
s
,
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
)
No
Se
t
by
he
a
r
i
n
g
es
t
a
bl
is
h e d in co d e
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
13
of
11
3
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 5
unsightly and in danger of collapse. The building was declared a total loss by the insurance company and
there is apparently a dispute regarding value. She was hopeful the City Council could assist them in
remedying the situation.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, asked how the 11 applicants for City Attorney were reduced to the 4 the
Council interviewed. He has been unable to determine what other firms applied or what process was used.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON RECONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING HOME
OCCUPATIONS, EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 20.20.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Council held a public hearing on Home Occupation
amendments on January 4, 2011. Following the public hearing, the Council provided direction to staff and
staff has been drafting amendments for further Council discussion. On January 14, the Council voted to
reconsider and hold a public hearing to reconsider the January 4 vote.
He provided a comparison of the current code and the current draft amendment
Current code Current Staff Draft
Amendment
Home Occupation with no visitors Permitted Permitted
Cost $1550 $585
Public Notice/Comment Yes Yes
Hearing Yes Yes (on appeal)
Limitations (hours, visits, employees) No (set by Hearing Examiner) Yes (upper limits established
in code)
Mr. Chave explained in the current process, because the code is silent with regard to conditions, staff
must develop a “rule of thumb” to assist the Hearing Examiner in applying conditions. At the January 4
public hearing there was interest in establishing standard conditions for home occupations. Under the
proposed draft amendments, the upper limits would be codified. The proposed amendments also address
art studios and small urban farms. Under the current code they are allowed as a home occupation but none
of the art work or produce could be sold on site. For example, if the City held an art studio tour, people
could visit the art studio but the artist could not sell their artwork. He clarified the amendments were not
before the Council for consideration tonight.
He noted there were several misconceptions as a result of the public hearing. The goal is to streamline and
simplify the process as well as provide more certainty for home occupations.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether home occupations could locate anywhere in the City. Mr.
Chave answered yes, the code applies citywide. Local circumstances are considered for specific home
occupations; that would not change. It is possible in some locations if there is not adequate parking that
additional conditions will be applied or a home occupation denied.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed if staff’s recommendation is not approved, there will be no
change to the current situation. The only change will be the cost. Mr. Chave responded the amendments
provided by staff provide a more streamlined process (staff decision rather than Hearing Examiner),
public notice will be the same, ability to comment on an application remains the same, and additional
standards (upper limits) will be established in the code. If the Council does not approve amendments, the
situation with regard to art studios and urban farms continues to exist.
Packet Page 14 of 113
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 6
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Council voted to reconsider their January 4 motion and that
motion is now on the table (to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to implement the Planning
Board’s recommendations as amended). If the vote on the motion fails, the Council will proceed with the
public hearing and the Council can make a new motion and proceed with deliberations. Mayor Cooper
clarified if the motion is approved, the agenda item is concluded and staff will proceed as directed on
January 4.
Councilmember Wilson summarized the process: On January 4 the Council amended the Planning Board
recommendation and directed staff to prepare an ordinance implementing the Planning Board’s
recommendations. The Council then passed a motion to reconsider the motion. The Council is now voting
again on the January 4 motion.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained she brought the motion to reconsider because January 4 was not a
good time for a public hearing. Subsequent to the Council’s decision she received at least 25 emails
objecting to the amendments to home occupation regulations and 1 email in support of the amendments.
She assumed citizens were not aware the home occupation regulations were being expanded.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he opposed this the first time and was happy to vote again.
Councilmember Wilson commented he typically was deferential to public comment when so many emails
were received on a topic. However, whoever was organizing the opposition was providing poor
information because the comments and concerns were not reflective of the proposed amendments. For
example the amendments will not turn every residential neighborhood into a strip mall as has been
suggested. The amendments clarify what can already occur and propose limitation such as the number of
employees. He summarized many of the concerns raised by the public were wholly unfounded.
Council President Peterson echoed Councilmember Wilson’s comments. He agreed the timing of the
public hearing may have added to the sense of misinformation. As Mr. Chave explained, the amendment
will make it easier for the average citizen to access the process via a staff decision rather than the Hearing
Examiner. The proposed process provides more direct communication with staff, notice will still be
provided to neighbors as well as the fee reduced from $1550 to a more reasonable $585.
Student Representative Gibson referred to Exhibit 1 that states no vehicles can visit the property or
business between 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. He asked whether someone could park their vehicle and walk
to the residence between those hours.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the community has not been sufficiently educated regarding
the amendments if the Council is receiving numerous emails.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised the emails and telephone calls she received were from people who
watch City Council meetings on TV. She preferred the home occupation regulations remain as they
currently exist until the public can be better educated.
Mayor Cooper restated the motion now on the table:
TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE
PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED.
Mayor Cooper clarified a yes vote reaffirms the action the Council took on January 4 to direct staff to
bring back the ordinance as amended. A no vote starts the process over.
Packet Page 15 of 113
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 7
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND BERNHEIM
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO,
PLUNKETT, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Dr. Jonathan Bannister, Edmonds, Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Budo Association,
requested the Council support the changes proposed by staff to ECDC 20.20 with regard to home
occupations. He has been an instructor of Japanese martial and cultural arts for more than 30 years. He is
internationally accredited to teach Aikido, classical swordsmanship, calligraphy and flower arranging and
would like to share his knowledge and enthusiasm for the arts by offering private, one-on-one instruction
in his home. Instruction would be limited to one person per hour 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. He is located on
an arterial street, requires no signage, has ample off-street parking, and his facilities are modern and up to
code. The arts he teaches are practiced in silence and he will not offer regular classes. The scale of
activity contemplated is modest and in keeping with the sensibilities of the community. In January 2010
he applied for a Type IIIB conditional use permit but was deterred by the $1550 application fee. He urged
the Council to support the staff’s and Planning Board’s recommendation for a home occupation
administrative permit. The proposal is the result of more than a year of careful discussion and
consideration by many parties that included ample opportunity for public review and comment. The
amendment streamlines the process, reduces fees and facilitates the licensing of home occupations that
likely would be permitted under any circumstance.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented the issue was dollars versus neighbors’ rights. He anticipated the
previous speaker would have groups of people visiting his home which results in additional traffic. He
referred to Councilmember Bernheim’s comment that remedies were available if problems developed or
the character of the neighborhood changed, advising he had not found any remedies in the code to address
problems. He anticipated if problems arose, the business would get their way after talking to staff and
neighbors would be forced to appeal, costing them more than the original applicant paid. He suggested
appeals be to the City Council and have no fee. Next, he objected to the hours of operation, commenting
the hours in the construction noise ordinance were more restrictive. He preferred to retain the existing
regulations that allow one office, one employee, and no signs, as such businesses were not visible to the
neighborhood. He feared the proposed amendments would result in residential neighborhoods that
function like a commercial zone. He objected to any change that altered the character of his
neighborhood.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, pointed out on February 17, 2009 the Council increased fees. He inquired about
the cost of a home occupation application in 2009.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was supportive of generating tax dollars for Edmonds and did not want
to prevent citizens from creating a business in their home. She was concerned that at least the 15-40
people who provided comment have been given the wrong impression. She was uncertain how to educate
the public. She received emails from citizens expressing concern with businesses locating in their
neighborhood, however, businesses can already locate in neighborhoods.
Council President Peterson agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas regarding the difficulty
educating the public. Two public hearings have been held and three people spoke at each one; Dr.
Bannister and Mr. Hertrich spoke at both, Mr. Rutledge spoke at one and Mr. Spellman spoke at one.
There were also public hearings at the Planning Board. He was uncertain how the Council could further
educate the public; the Council is elected to study issues and make decisions. He did not think it was
Packet Page 16 of 113
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 8
feasible to hold meetings in neighborhoods throughout the City in an effort to educate the public. He was
frustrated the Council made a decision and was now changing its mind based on a couple dozen emails.
He preferred to educate the people who had expressed concerns one at a time rather than allow them to
derail the process.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON,
TO ADOPT THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
As the original Planning Board ordinance was not included in the packet, Councilmember Wilson
suggested delaying further discussion and amendments to a future meeting. His goal by making the
motion was to put the matter back in play and not let it drop.
Mr. Chave agreed with continuing the ordinance to a future date, explaining the Council has not yet seen
the ordinance that was drafted in response to the public hearing. Staff tried to take the suggestions
regarding reducing the cost of the application and streamlining the process, retaining public notice and
addressing art studios and urban farms. He asked whether the Council wanted to have another public
hearing.
Councilmember Wilson commented if there were four votes to not talk about this anymore, he was open
to that option as well.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE STAFF-RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE WITH THE
CHANGES MR. CHAVE REFERENCED ON A FUTURE DATE.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
REFER THE ORDINANCE TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COMMITTEE FIRST.
Mayor Cooper ruled that Councilmember Buckshnis’ motion took precedence over Councilmember
Wilson’s motion.
Councilmember Plunkett was intrigued by the idea of reducing the cost of an administrative review.
However, along the way it became something else that he was unable to support. He looked forward to an
opportunity for the Community Services/Development Services (CS/DS) Committee to review the
proposed amendments.
Council President Peterson reiterated this is the second public hearing before the Council and the matter
has been reviewed by the CS/DS Committee at least once before as well as reviewed by the Planning
Board. He was uncertain what new light would be shed by two Councilmembers reviewing it again. He
preferred the ordinance be presented to the full Council.
Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated a lot of light would be shed on the issue. After received 25 emails,
she felt it was important to listen to the public.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out there are different Councilmembers on the CS/DS Committee than
were on the Committee when the matter was reviewed previously. He did not recall that the Council was
provided a strike out version comparing the original code to the changes recommended by the Planning
Packet Page 17 of 113
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15, 2011
Page 9
Board. He questioned how the intent to reduce the $1550 fee to $585 became amendments that would
significantly impact residential communities.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas anticipated having the matter reviewed by the CS/DS Committee would
allow consideration of options, the appeal process, etc.
Councilmember Bernheim supported staff developing an ordinance on January 4; the ordinance simply
expands the use of home occupations and gives people living in residential areas more flexibility to use
their home for a business in order to maximize economic development. He viewed the amendments as
economic development. He disagreed the issue was dollars versus neighbor’s rights, noting often
neighbor’s rights are associated with dollars. Some of the complaints about the proposal were that it
would reduce property values. He viewed it as neighbor’s rights against neighbor’s rights; no one has a
right to prevent a neighbor from using their home as a home occupation, subject to the City’s regulations.
He believed the critics of the amendments were exaggerating the negative consequences. With regard to
remedies, if negative consequences arise and neighborhoods are crowded with cars, children are
prevented from playing in the street, neighborhood character changes and there are signs everywhere,
they can be addressed via additional amendments. He summarized this was a good, progressive idea and
although the opposition was heartfelt, the negative consequences are exaggerated.
Councilmember Wilson encouraged the CS/DS Committee to present the Council a work product and not
just let it languish.
MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
Council President Peterson advised this will be scheduled on the March 8 CS/DS Committee agenda.
7. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT AND APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES.
Human Resources Director Debi Humann explained the City’s previous Land Use Hearing Examiner
elected not to renew their contract at the end of 2010. The City created an RFQ/RFP and advertised for a
new Hearing Examiner. Four applicants applied for the position, two applicants moved forward to the
interview phase, Olbrechts & Associates and Sound Law Center. Interviews were held November 29,
2010. The interview panel selected Olbrechts & Associates as the City’s new Land Use Hearing Examiner
pending contract approval and confirmation by City Council.
The Council packet contains a copy of the Professional Service Agreement with Olbrechts & Associates.
The contract has been reviewed by legal and Planning. The main change from the previous contract is a
change in the fee structure from a fixed flat monthly fee to an hourly rate with an annual cap in an attempt
to lower contract costs. She requested Council approval of the Professional Services Agreement.
Councilmember Petso referred to Mr. Olbrechts’ comment in his application materials that he intended to
use Mr. Snyder as a backup Hearing Examiner. Ms. Humann advised that was discussed with Mr.
Olbrechts and he does not plan to use Mr. Snyder. Mayor Cooper referred to his memo to Council today
clarifying that Mr. Olbrechts raised that issue during the interview and stated because Ogden Murphy
Wallace was the City Attorney, he would not use him as a backup.
Councilmember Petso advised that fact was not reflected in the contract document. Mr. Snyder advised
Mr. Olbrechts left Ogden Murphy Wallace approximately six months ago and did not ask him whether he
wanted to serve as backup Hearing Examiner. The contract does not mention his acting as a backup. The
Packet Page 18 of 113
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2011
Page 17
wonderful as it would be to have a demonstration project, she did not want to do it at the cost of an
enormous amount of Mr. Snyder’s time.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how much time Mr. Snyder would spend on the negotiations. Mr. Snyder
estimated he has spent 5-6 hours to date and estimated another 4-5 hours would be required,
approximately $1100.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO AND PLUNKETT
VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS
BUCKSHNIS AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
8. AUTHORIZATION TO EVALUATE SITE FOR PURCHASE FOR STORM WATER OR PARK
USE.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Council has discussed this matter in executive session several
times. There is an agreement until the end of February to consider an offer. This is a difficult valuation
because the property was about to be placed on the market when the flooding event occurred at the height
of the market. The Karlstens have offered to sell the site to the Stormwater Utility at a significant discount
from what they planned to ask plus the damage sustained. He distributed assessed valuation information.
He suggested a desktop appraisal from a local appraiser who could provide an assessment would be more
valuable than a $10,000 MAI appraisal. He sought Council direction on the type and cost of the valuation
that the Council needs for its deliberation on the settlement offer.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
DIRECT STAFF TO PURSUE THE LOW COST ALTERNATIVE, AN INFORMAL
EVALUATION OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BASED ON 2006 VALUE PRIOR TO
FLOODING EVENT AND AUTHORIZE COSTS UP TO $1500. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
8A. VOTE REGARDING PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO HOME OCCUPATIONS ECDC
20.20.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she had received a number of emails and telephone calls
regarding the Council’s decision on amendments to the home occupation provisions.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDINANCE REGARDING HOME
OCCUPATIONS ECDC 20.20.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained if the motion is approved, the matter will be re-advertised to inform
the public that the Council has changed its decision. The earliest an advertised public hearing can be
scheduled is February 15. Mayor Cooper clarified this is a motion to reconsider and the actual
reconsideration happens at a different meeting.
Councilmember Wilson suggested a final ordinance be provided at the next public hearing for the public
and Council to consider. He asked whether the intent was to reconsider the direction the Council provided
or to give the public an opportunity to comment and then consider those comments during the Council’s
review of the final ordinance. Mr. Snyder advised there was a placeholder for this item on next week’s
agenda. He recalled during the last public hearing Planner Gina Coccia mentioned a portion of the
ordinance needed to be reworked. Currently all home occupations must occur within an enclosed
Packet Page 19 of 113
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2011
Page 18
building; however, the amendments allow urban farms. A final ordinance has been prepared that
addresses that issue.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO.
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas left the meeting at 10:07 p.m.)
9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JANUARY 11, 2011
Finance Committee
Councilmember Bernheim reported the Finance Committee reviewed proposed amendments and updates
to ECC Section 2.05.010, Legal Counsel, Professional Services Contract. An important part of the
selection process code was repealed 10-15 years ago and the remaining provisions had not revised. The
Committee forwarded a proposed revision to the Council. The City Attorney selection process will
proceed without the change to the process. The Committee was also provided the General Fund update for
December 2010 and a quarterly report on fiber optics.
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Plunkett reported Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was selected as Chair. He reported the
Committee reviewed the following:
• Proposed ordinance amending ECC 8.48.190 to update parking provisions in designated bike
lanes. If there are no significant changes, it will be placed on the Consent Agenda for Council
approval.
• Amendment to the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum. Approved on the Consent
Agenda.
• Scope of work for engineering services on the 2011 water main replacement project. Approved
on the Consent Agenda.
• An Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood to fund the Recycling Coordinator for 2011
and 2012. Approved on the Consent Agenda.
• Report on final construction costs for Talbot Road emergency culvert repair project. Will be
scheduled on a future Consent Agenda.
• Report on final construction costs for the 2009 asphalt overlay project. Will be scheduled on a
future Consent Agenda.
• Community Solar Agreement
• Addendum to professional services agreement for the Shell Valley Emergency Access project.
Staff will schedule a public meeting to receive comments from Shell Valley residents.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper welcomed Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite who started work last week.
Mayor Cooper invited the Council to attend an informational meeting regarding a Regional Fire Authority
on January 31 in the Bracket Room. Fire Commissioners and City Councilmembers from all South
Snohomish County cities have been invited to attend the informational meeting. Representatives from
Kent will describe their experience. If a quorum of Councilmembers plans to attend, it will need to be
noticed as a special meeting.
Mayor Cooper reported a portion of the Haines Wharf building collapsed onto the pier over the weekend.
Staff is exploring next steps to address the issue including whether the State Department of Ecology,
Department of Natural Resources and Department of Fish and Wildlife need to be involved. The owners
Packet Page 20 of 113
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
January 4, 2011
At 6:15 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
threatened litigation and labor negotiations. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public
Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected
officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett,
Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder,
Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at
7:05 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Peter Gibson, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Gina Coccia, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Cooper requested Item 13, Discussion and Potential Action on a Proposed Resolution Creating a
Planning Committee to Consider a Regional Fire Authority, be moved to Item 8A.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 21, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #123003 THROUGH #123023 DATED DECEMBER
21, 2010 FOR $389,972.56, AND #123024 THROUGH #123171 DATED DECEMBER 29,
2010 FOR $247,255.55. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS
#50107 THROUGH #50135 DATED DECEMBER 20, 2010 FOR $621,822.20.
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 21 of 113
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 4
Council President Peterson suggested since a great deal of Councilmember Buckshnis’ time is taken by
her leadership of the Citizen Levy Committee and both issues are on parallel tracks, another
Councilmember be appointed to the RFA planning committee.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1243, REPLACING COUNCILMEMBER
ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS WITH COUNCILMEMBER LORA PETSO.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether more than three people could serve on the planning committee
such as citizens. Mayor Cooper answered the statute that created RFAs is very clear that the planning
committee consist of three elected officials from each jurisdiction. Their meetings are subject to the Open
Public Meetings Act. He remarked Fire District 1 has three Fire Commissioners on the planning
commission, Fire Chief Widdis and other staff routinely attend the meetings. Because three members of
the Fire District Board of Commissioners constitutes a quorum, the planning committee meetings are
noticed as a special meeting. Citizens cannot be voting members of the committee but it is beneficial to
have citizen input at the planning committee meetings.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. PUBLIC HEARING ON HOME OCCUPATIONS (ECDC 20.20) - A PROPOSED CODE
AMENDMENT THAT ADDRESSES THE ISSUES OF PERMIT TYPE, PROCESS AND COST,
INCLUDING THE DEGREE THAT CUSTOMERS, EMPLOYEES OR SIGNAGE SHOULD BE
PERMITTED FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES (FILE NO.
AMD20100016).
Planner Gina Coccia explained ECDC was currently under review and amendments are proposed to meet
the following purposes: streamline the home occupation process, reduce fees to small business owners,
support home based work and preserve the residential character of neighborhoods.
On May 11, 2010 the Community Services/Development Services Committee directed staff to work with
the Planning Board on this issue. The Planning Board discussed this item at their July 14 and October 14
meetings and the Code Enforcement Officer provided his opinions at the October 14 meeting. Minutes of
the Planning Board meetings are contained in Exhibit 4. The Planning Board held a public hearing on
November 10 and forwarded a recommendation to the Council which is contained in Exhibit 1.
ECDC 21.40.040 defines home occupation as an economic enterprise operated within a dwelling unit or
buildings accessory to a dwelling unit incidental and secondary to the residential use of the dwelling unit
including the use of a dwelling unit as a business address in the phone directory or as a post office mailing
address. Currently when home occupation applications are submitted to the City Clerk’s office, they are
routed to various departments for consideration of compliance with applicable codes. Under the current
process, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is available for any business that does not meet all the home
occupation criteria in Title 20.20. A CUP requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner and costs
$1,550. One of the proposed changes is an Administrative CUP, a Type II administrative staff decision
with a fee of $585.
Ms. Coccia reviewed existing criteria for permitting a home occupation contained in Exhibit 2:
1. Is carried on exclusively by a family member residing in the dwelling unit; and
2. Is conducted entirely within the structures on the site, without any significant outside activity; and
3. Uses no heavy equipment, power tools or power sources not common to a residence; and
4. Has no pickup or delivery by business related commercial vehicles (except for the U.S. Mail)
which exceeds 20,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and
5. Creates no noise, dust, glare, vibration, odor, smoke or other impact adverse to a residential area
beyond that normally associated with residential use; and
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 22 of 113
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 5
6. Does not include any employees outside of the family members residing at the residence,
including but not limited to persons working at or visiting the subject property; and
7. All performance criteria established pursuant to ECDC 17.60.010
Ms. Coccia referred to a matrix in Exhibit 3 that compares other cities’ home occupations review
processes. For example, Shoreline allows one non-family employee, Lynnwood allows one customer per
hour between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. but no employees or vehicles on or near the site, and Mercer Island
does not have a land use process for home occupations, it is complaint driven.
The Planning Board also considered new definitions; a home occupation for urban farming is defined as
the display or sale of edible farm products or fresh produce grown onsite, an artist studio, defined as the
display or sale of handmade products, artwork that is produced on site. Items or artwork created offsite
are not included in the definition.
She proposed the following process change: staff would evaluate proposals to ensure adequate parking for
customers and employees, appropriate signage scale and design, protect the neighborhood from
degradation from vehicles parking offsite, indiscrete signage. The administrative CUP Type II
application process is currently used for accessory dwelling units and tree cutting permits.
When evaluating how the code could/should be changed she suggested the Council and citizens consider
more examples of home occupation such as a construction company, part-time music teacher, busy
massage therapist, part-time hair dresser, an accounting firm, or a martial arts instructor with a home
studio. The Planning Board asked themselves several questions – which types of businesses would a
neighbor or passerby notice? Which types of impacts are important to consider in a neighborhood setting?
How could the code be rewritten so that neighbors do notice an impact to the residential quality? How
should the City regulate home occupations? What is the difference between visits from employees and
customers? What impacts would urban farmers and artist studios have?
Home occupation is a permitted secondary use in all R zones; the primary use must still be residential.
The Planning Board and staff agree a $1,550 Type III-B CUP heard by the Hearing Examiner is not
necessarily appropriate. Staff can conduct the same review via a Type II permit to analyze proposals on a
case-by-case basis. Public notice, public comment periods and a sign are still required as part of the Type
II process.
Ms. Coccia explained the intent of residential zones was to protect residential uses from noise, odor, dust
and heavy truck traffic that may result from more intense uses. The proposed changes would outright
allow employees, customers and signage. The Planning Board considered whether that would fit with
residential zones.
She summarized the proposed changes in Exhibit 1 would allow some things to be permitted outright
such as customers and employees which would streamline the process. Under the current process, a home
occupation that included employees and/or customers would require a CUP. Another option would be to
retain the current code and only change the process.
Ms. Coccia reviewed the changes proposed in Exhibit 1:
1. Reference to the City’s Community Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan was
added to the Purpose section (20.20.000).
2. One employee would be permitted outright (20.20.010.A.6). Currently no employees are
permitted to visit the site. This is a major change to the code.
3. Reference to the commercial vehicle standards from ECDC 17.50.100 was inserted, warning
folks that a separate review process is required if they would like to have a commercial vehicle
in excess of 10,000 pounds GVW.
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 23 of 113
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 6
4. The home occupation could have one visit by a vehicle per hour between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 9:00 p.m. (20.20.010.A.9). This implies that the vehicle could contain more than one
customer. Currently no customers are permitted to visit the site. This is a major change to the
code.
5. A section was deleted that explains how a business license can be revoked if it is found that a
customer visited the premises, because it is recommended that the code be amended to allow
customers.
6. If a business can not meet the permitted use criteria outright, then a conditional use permit is
required. The process was changed (ECDC 20.20.010.B) so that the conditional use permit
review is administrative and conducted by staff as a “Type II” permit ($585) instead of going to
the Hearing Examiner for review ($1,550). This is a major change to the code.
7. A section was deleted that describes how traffic from customers should not be generated from
outside the neighborhood (ECDC 20.10.010.B.5). This is impossible to document and enforce.
8. Regulations added that require not more than one employee to visit per day, not more than one
customer vehicle per hour, and prohibits customers from coming to visit at night between 9:00
p.m. and 8:00 a.m. The Code Enforcement Office stated at the Planning Board meeting this is on
the honor system and impossible to enforce.
9. Regulations added that require the applicant to prove there is sufficient parking (for three
vehicles) if they would like to have customers or employees.
10. Two new definitions were created: “Urban Farming” and “Artist Studio” along with associated
regulations (20.10.010.C and 20.10.010.D).
11. A section on prohibited home occupations was deleted.
12. Commercial signage in residential zones was discussed. Currently, the sign code allows
residents to erect a 4 square foot sign in residential zones (e.g. “The Smith Family”) without a
building permit, but the home occupation code did not allow commercial signs outright (e.g.
“Smith’s Accounting Services”). A section was changed to clarify that commercial signage
would be allowed, so long as the total residential signage does not exceed the allowed 4 square
feet. Also, that a building permit is required so review can be conducted.
13. The current code allows for an applicant to ask the Hearing Examiner for anything that isn’t
outright permitted with their conditional use permit application. The Planning Board agreed that
the process should be changed to allow staff to conduct the conditional use permit review.
Ms. Coccia explained one detail may have been overlooked during the last draft revision. As written, the
recommended code does not allow the applicant to ask staff for anything that is not outright permitted;
Sections 20.20.010.B.4, 2020.010.B.5 and 20.20.010.B.6 place limitations on customers and employee
visits.
Staff recommends the City Council hold a public hearing on this topic to discuss the pros and cons of
each potential change, and at the conclusion of the public hearing, direct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance to implement the Planning Board’s recommendation.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there was a standard for the number of customers per hour under
the existing CUP process. Ms. Coccia answered no, it was part of the review.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the proposed change that would require the applicant to prove there
is sufficient parking. He asked how an applicant proved they had sufficient parking, what is the definition
of sufficient parking and was the parking required to be off-street. Ms. Coccia answered under the current
CUP process, the applicant submits a site plan and identifies where vehicles could be parked onsite. At
the public hearing additional on-street parking may be referenced. Under the proposed administrative
CUP, she anticipated an applicant could submit with their business license application a site plan that
shows available parking.
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 24 of 113
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 7
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether under the proposed staff review the parking could be onsite or
offsite. Ms. Coccia answered parking was required to be provided onsite. Councilmember Plunkett
clarified the requirement was parking for three vehicles onsite.
Councilmember Plunkett anticipated making three amendments and asked whether this item would need
to be referred back to the Planning Board. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered following the public
hearing, the Council could refer changes to the Planning Board or the Council could approve changes as
long as they were within the range of alternatives considered by the Planning Board.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the proposed changes would affect all zones. Ms. Coccia answered
only R zones, single family and multi family residential. Councilmember Buckshnis observed
enforcement was complaint based or the honor system. Ms. Coccia stated that is the current process.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented other areas promote co-op artist studios and shared office space.
She asked how this issue arose, if it was an effort to reduce greenhouse emissions or promote home
businesses. Ms. Coccia stated the City frequently has to inform home occupation applicants that they are
unable to have customers unless they complete the $1,550 CUP process. Councilmember Buckshnis
asked how many people have objected. Ms. Coccia referred to testimony at the Planning Board public
hearing.
Student Representative Gibson inquired about the height limit for signage. Ms. Coccia advised the sign
code chapter, ECDC 20.60 contains sign regulations. Student Representative Gibson referred to the
proposed restriction on vehicles visiting the residence from 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. and asked if customers
could walk to the residence during those hours. Ms. Coccia answered the Planning Board discussed
customers and it was changed to vehicles. She agreed that was unclear.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Jonathan Bannister, Edmonds, Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Budo Association, expressed
his support for the changes proposed by staff to ECDC 20.20 with regard to home occupations. As stated
in his remarks to the Planning Board, he has been a martial arts and cultural arts instructor for many
years. Until two years ago, he operated a very successful school in Seattle which collapsed due to the
economic downturn. He now has a small number of students who would like to continue practicing in his
home studio. He described his practice of martial arts since the age of 8, traveling the world teaching tens
of thousands of people. He wanted to bring students to Edmonds because it is a remarkable place for
those interested in artistic endeavors and he would like to bring the refined arts he has studied to
Edmonds. The practices he engages in are very self-disciplined, quiet and would contribute to the quality
of life in Edmonds. He expressed his gratitude to the efforts of staff and the Council who brought this
issue forward. He also expressed his admiration and satisfaction with the Planning Board’s process.
Rick Spellman, Edmonds, expressed his vehement opposition and great concern with the proposed
changes to the home occupation section of the ECDC. The changes have the potential over time to
completely and permanently erode the single family residential zones which also devalue Edmonds
neighborhoods. He found it unfair to residents who purchased homes in single family zones for the
purpose of what the zones have to offer – single residential, family-friendly neighborhoods – to abruptly
change the zone to allow business-oriented traffic, noise and pollution. He disagreed that limiting the
number of trips to home occupation businesses will preserve the character of residentially zoned
neighborhoods, finding the proposal would disrupt the peace, quiet and clean air of single family, friendly
residential areas and not preserve its character. The proposed change would allow 13 vehicles to visit a
home occupation between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. plus one employee vehicle. If there were three allowed
businesses in a neighborhood that would equate to 84 trips per day. The proposal does not limit the
number of home occupation businesses allowed in a neighborhood; a single block, dead-end street or cul-
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 25 of 113
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 8
de-sac could be greatly impacted. He posed several questions such as 13 customers arriving in the first 4
hours, how a business would be closed to customers if the number of vehicles were exceeded for the day,
and whether most homes had driveway space for three vehicles. With only one Code Enforcement Officer
in the City he anticipated affected neighbors would be required to provide enforcement, pitting neighbors
against each other. He was dismayed that the Planning Board had allowed such a vague a proposal with
such questionable benefit to be approved. He summarized it may be called home occupation zoning but
he felt it was commercial zoning.
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas left the meeting at 8:00 p.m.)
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Spellman’s comments. He recalled concern in the past with
customers visiting a dentist who operated his practice in Talbot Park. He suggested Councilmembers
consider how they would react if a home occupation were located in their neighborhood. He suggested
this be the beginning of the discussion, publicizing the matter and holding a second public hearing,
anticipating more citizens would testify in the future. He questioned the size of vehicles that would be
allowed to visit the residence, the size of allowed signage, and groups visiting a business versus one
customer per hour. He suggested this topic needed further review.
Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the comment that this was an abrupt change, pointing out there were
permitted home occupations in neighborhoods today. Ms. Coccia explained the proposed changes would
allow customers and employees outright. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether a home occupation
could currently have customers. Ms. Coccia explained they could not without an approved CUP.
Councilmember Plunkett commented a citizen such as Dr. Bannister could have a home occupation with
customers today as long as he obtained a CUP.
Councilmember Plunkett explained this topic began with a conversation he had with Dr. Bannister
regarding the $1,550 expense of a CUP. The original concept was to allow staff review of a CUP to
reduce the cost. He asked whether the existing code could be retained and simply change it to a staff-
equivalent CUP. He asked what constituted a staff-equivalent CUP. Ms. Coccia explained a Type II
administrative staff decision is a CUP and property owners within 300 feet of the property are notified, a
sign is placed on the property and notice is published the same as a public hearing. If a neighbor wanted
to appeal the staff decision, it would be heard by the Hearing Examiner at a public hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the applicant would be required to pay an appeal fee to the
Hearing Examiner. Ms. Coccia answered the appellant would pay the appeal fee.
Councilmember Plunkett summarized a home occupant applicant would pay a $585 fee for the Type II
review and the neighbors would be notified. Ms. Coccia explained neighbors with concerns/comments
could contact staff before the close of the comment period. Staff would analyze their concerns in the staff
report and reach a decision. If any party of record disagrees with the decision, they have the right to
appeal. Councilmember Plunkett observed the Council could theoretically retain the provisions in the
existing code and the Type II review would lower the cost from $1,550 to $585. Ms. Coccia agreed.
Councilmember Petso asked if a CUP could be revoked if “something went wrong” such as groups of
customers visiting a business. Ms. Coccia stated it would become a code enforcement issue at that point.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how revising the fee could be accomplished. Mr. Snyder advised fees
were established via resolution; if the Council instructed, staff could revise the fee and schedule it on a
future agenda.
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 26 of 113
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 9
Councilmember Bernheim commented in spite of comments regarding negative effects of home
occupations, he was supportive of expanding the availability of a home occupation to residents. He
remarked the agenda memo was one of the best he had seen and included a redline version of the code,
background materials, etc. If problems developed such as vehicles interfering with the neighborhood
character or too many businesses opening that changed the character, there were remedies available. He
commented the reason for increasing the availability of home occupations was due to the number of
people out of work who are unable to legally have a home occupation that has an employee. He
experienced that difficulty himself. He anticipated residential neighborhoods would have more
professional activities in the future.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Bernheim’s comments.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE
PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATIONS.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 2, ITEM 6 TO DELETE THE AMENDED LANGUAGE SO THAT IT
READS, “DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY EMPLOYEES…”
Councilmember Wilson recalled he originally started his business in his home. He did not have any
customers but hired an employee and an intern who worked in an extra room. When he learned he could
no longer operate a successful business with an employee and an intern working in a room, he rented an
office but he was able to grow his business by starting with one employee and an intern in his home. His
neighbors on both sides have home occupation businesses. He acknowledged the intent of the amendment
was good but in his experience, if a business was doing well enough to have 13 customer visits a day,
they would need an outside office to serve more customers. He did not want to prohibit people from
growing their business by prohibiting employees. The concerns are legitimate but in his experience were
more likely theoretical than practical.
Councilmember Petso did not perceive the amendment as prohibiting people from growing their business.
The code states a home occupation can be approved outright without employees; for a person to grow
their business and add an employee would require a Type II review process.
Councilmember Bernheim stated he would not support the amendment as one employee was a small
number and in these difficult economic times, home occupations were important. He doubted neighbors
would be asking staff to review the impact of one employee on their neighborhood’s character.
Mayor Cooper stated his wife has a home occupation but has no customers that visit their residence or any
employees.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TIED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, PLUNKETT AND
BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND BERNHEIM VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas was not present for the vote.)
MAYOR COOPER VOTED NO, AND THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4).
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED TO AMEND EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 2, ITEM 9 TO READ,
“DOES NOT INCLUDE VISITS FROM CUSTOMERS IN EXCESS OF ONE VEHICLE EVERY
TWO HOURS PER HOUR…” MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO AMEND EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 3, ITEM 7, TO READ, “IF VISITS TO THE SITE ARE TO BE
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 27 of 113
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 10
MADE BY EITHER AN OFF-SITE EMPLOYEE OR CUSTOMER, ON-SITE PARKING SHALL
BE PROVIDED FOR AT LEAST TWO (2) THREE (3) VEHICLES; AND”
Student Representative Gibson asked if the change assumed the homeowner had another parking space as
the proposal for three parking spaces provided parking for the homeowner, one employee and one
customer. Ms. Coccia explained any single family residential zone was required to provide two onsite
parking spaces which may be stacked. The intent of the proposal was to allow two stacked spaces in the
driveway and one additional space for a total of three. Councilmember Plunkett summarized the intent of
the proposed language was to accommodate a total of three vehicle regardless of who they belonged to.
Ms. Coccia agreed.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Exhibit 1, page 5, Item B regarding signs and asked if signs remained
a CUP, could Item B be changed to a Type II review. Ms. Coccia agreed it could.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 5, ITEM, B TO READ, “A SIGN IS PERMITTED IN CONJUNCTION
WITH A TYPE II PERMIT.”
Councilmember Wilson asked if the proposed language allows a sign with a home occupation permit and
continues the existing authority under the CUP to allow a sign. Ms. Coccia explained a commercial sign
is currently not permitted outright; a sign can be allowed via a CUP. Councilmember Plunkett clarified
the proposed language would allow a sign outright. Ms. Coccia agreed, noting it also clarifies the
difference between a commercial sign in a residential zone. Councilmember Plunkett summarized his
amendment split the difference and would allow a sign via a Type II administrative staff decision.
Councilmember Wilson supported home occupations but did not support allowing signs. The current code
states a sign can be permitted via the CUP process which costs $1,550. The proposed language allows a 4
square foot sign and Councilmember Plunkett’s proposal is to split the difference. He preferred not to
allow any signs for a home based business without a CUP process.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed his opposition to the amendment, commenting a 4 square foot sign
was very small.
Councilmember Plunkett explained he proposed the amendment assuming the main motion would pass. If
the Council was willing to give more scrutiny to signs as Councilmember Wilson suggested, he preferred
to be more stringent.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT
OF THE SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND TO RETAIN THE EXISTING LANGUAGE IN EXHIBIT 1, PAGE 5, ITEM B, “A
SIGN IS PERMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.”
Planning Manager Rob Chave pointed out the existing language allows via a CUP a home occupation to
have an additional 3 square feet allocated to the home occupation sign. The proposed language states a
home occupation sign is permitted but it is counted as part of the total 4 square feet allowed on residential
property. The proposed language expanded the ability for a home occupation sign but restricted the total
to 4 square feet and would not allow a total of 7 square feet of signage. Councilmember Wilson observed
under the existing language a home occupation could have a total of 7 square feet of signage via a CUP.
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 28 of 113
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 4, 2011
Page 11
Councilmember Wilson suggested the Council vote on the intent of the amendment and staff revise the
ordinance accordingly, not allowing a total of 7 square feet and limiting signage to 4 square feet and
require a CUP process.
Council President Peterson clarified under the proposed language a home occupation could have a 4
square foot sign and could request a larger sign via a CUP. Under the existing language and the
amendment, no sign was allowed without a CUP process. He asked whether the intent was to limit all
residential home occupation signs. Councilmember Plunkett answered yes; his intent was to limit signs to
a total of 4 square feet.
Council President Peterson asked whether the amendment would also require an amendment to the sign
code to limit a home occupation sign to 4 square feet. Councilmember Plunkett agreed that was his intent.
Mr. Snyder relayed his understanding of the motion was to allow a home occupation sign via a CUP.
There was not a proposal to change the last sentence in that item nor was there a proposal to change the 4
foot maximum in the sign code. The 4 square foot maximum would continue to apply and a portion of the
sign could be used to reference a business if approval was granted via the CUP process. Councilmember
Plunkett agreed that was his intent. Mr. Snyder summarized there would still be a 4 square foot limit
regardless but the business could only be mentioned in the sign with a CUP.
Councilmember Bernheim commented a homeowner could have a 4 square foot sign now; the only
change was making it illegal to have the home occupation on that sign without a CUP. He was opposed to
the amendment, preferring that people be allowed to have small signs that state anything they want
including advertising their home business.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified a sign advertising a home business would not be illegal, it would be
conditional.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS,
PLUNKETT, WILSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON
AND COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not
present for the vote.)
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether neighbors were notified of a home occupation. Ms. Coccia
answered there would be notification via a Type II administrative staff decision. The change was from a
public hearing before the Hearing Examiner to a staff review; there would still be notification.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT AND
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for
the vote.)
10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, referred to Councilmember Wilson’s questions of the Public Works Director
Phil Williams following his comments at the last Council meeting regarding leakage from the City’s
water system. He referred to the 2009 Water Efficiency Reports available on the Washington State
Department of Health website that indicates Edmonds annual water leakage is 7.6%. He disputed Mr.
Williams’ contention that the water leakage rates of other water purveyors were similar; Olympic View
reported 4.4%, Alderwood Water reported 6.6% and Everett reported 2.3%. He asserted that in 2002 the
City Council asked staff to look for leaks; he has been unable to ascertain who the City hired to look for
the leaks. Next, he referred to the approval of an addendum to the Hearing Examiner service agreement
on the December 21 Consent Agenda. The agreement has a non-assignment clause; he disagreed with the
City Attorney’s determination that the new corporation was a successor entity, explaining if the old
corporation was being dissolved and had no property or liabilities the new corporation was not a
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 29 of 113
APPROVED DECEMBER 8TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
November 10, 2010
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
John Reed, Vice Chair
Kevin Clarke
Todd Cloutier
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Mike Clugston, Planner
Gina Coccia, Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2010 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Chair Lovell added three items to the agenda under New Business: Planning Board Guidelines, Planning Board Student
Representative, and Planning Board Vacancies.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ON HOME OCCUPATIONS (ECDC 20.20) – A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT THAT
ADDRESSES THE ISSUES OF PERMIT TYPE, PROCESS AND COST, INCLUDING THE DEGREE THAT
CUSTOMERS, EMPLOYEES OR SIGNAGE SHOULD BE PERMITTED FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS IN
RESIDENTIAL ZONES. (FILE NUMBER AMD20100016)
Ms. Coccia reviewed the attachments in the Staff Report as follows:
Attachment 1 – Draft Code Amendments
Attachment 2 – Planning Board Meeting Minutes of October 13, 2010
Attachment 3 – Public Hearing Notice
Attachment 4 – Map of Arterial and Collector Streets
Ms. Coccia recalled that on May 11th the City Council’s Community Services/Development Services Committee directed
staff to work with the Planning Board to amend the home occupation code language. The intent of the proposed changes is
to streamline the home occupation permit process, reduce fees to small business owners, support home-based work as a way
for the City to be more sustainable, and preserve the residential character of the neighborhoods. The Planning Board
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 30 of 113
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
November 10, 2010 Page 2
discussed the proposed amendments previously on July 14th and October 13th. The purpose of tonight’s hearing is to solicit
public comment regarding the proposed amendments. At the conclusion of the public hearing and the Board’s deliberation,
staff would invite the Planning Board to forward a recommendation to the City Council for action. She noted that the Home
Occupation chapter (ECDC 20.20) was last revised 17 years ago under Ordinance 2951.
Ms. Coccia reviewed the current definition for “home occupation” and explained that the current process requires a person
who wants to operate a business out of their home to submit an application for a home occupation business license, which
carries a fee of $100. A conditional use permit would also be required for any business that does not meet all of the home
occupation criteria. A conditional use permit costs $1,550 and requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The
proposed amendments include evaluating whether an administrative conditional use permit, which costs $585, would be
equally as effective. Ms. Coccia further explained that, as per the current code, a home occupation shall be permitted if it
meets the following criteria:
Is carried on exclusively by a family member residing in the dwelling unit.
Is conducted entirely within the structures on the site without any significant outside activity.
Uses no heavy equipment, power tools or power sources not common to a residence.
Has no pickup or delivery by business related commercial vehicles (except for the U.S. Mail) which exceeds 20,000
pounds gross vehicle weight.
Creates no noise, dust, glare, vibration, odor, smoke or other impact adverse to a residential area beyond that normally
associate with residential uses.
Does not include any employees outside of the family members residing at the residence, including but not limited to
persons working at or visiting the subject property.
Meets all performance criteria established pursuant to ECDC 17.60.010.
Ms. Coccia reported that staff researched how home occupations are regulated in other jurisdictions and learned the
following:
Shoreline allows one non-family employee to visit the site.
Lynnwood allows one customer per hour and no employees or vehicles are permitted on or near the site.
Mercer Island has no land use process for home occupations. Their regulations are complaint driven.
Woodinville allows limited customers and employees.
Mukilteo allows one employee.
Edmonds allows no employees and no customers.
As discussed earlier by the Commission, Ms. Coccia said staff is proposing two new definitions:
Urban Farming – A home occupation for urban farming is defined as the display or sale of edible farm products or fresh
produce grown on site. Selling products that are produced off site would not be permitted.
Artist Studio – A home occupation for an artist studio is defined as the display or sale of hand-made products (artwork)
that are produced on site. Items or artwork created off site would not be included in the definition.
Ms. Coccia referred to Attachment 4, which is a map identifying all of the collector and arterial streets in the City. She
explained that staff considered options for mitigating potential traffic impacts associated with home occupations. The
current code requires a conditional use permit for home occupations that include employees or customers. Conditional Use
Permit applications are heard by the Hearing Examiner, and the fee is $1,550. If the goal is to ensure that customers and
employees visiting a home occupation do not create a significant impact to the surrounding neighborhood, another option is
to allow one employee outright if the home occupation is located on an arterial or collector street. Ms. Coccia asked that the
Board consider the following questions:
What types of businesses would they notice if they were a neighbor or passerby?
What types of impacts are important in a neighborhood setting?
How could the code be rewritten so that neighbors do not notice an impact to their residential quality of life?
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 31 of 113
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
November 10, 2010 Page 3
How should the City regulate home occupations?
What are the differences between visits from employees and customers?
A home occupation is a permitted secondary use in single-family zones. The primary use is still residential. How much
should the permits cost?
To help the Board review the above questions, Ms. Coccia shared examples of how the proposed code language would be
applied in various scenarios:
Scenario 1 – A Massage Therapist with Customers. This home occupation would be permitted outright on Olympic
View Drive because it is a minor arterial. However, if the use were located on Talbot Road, an administrative conditional
use permit would be required. The cost of the conditional use permit would be $585, and a public notice would be
required. The administrative decision would be appealable to the Hearing Examiner.
Scenario 2 – Urban Farmer. This type of home occupation would be allowed to have customers in excess of one vehicle
per hour if located on 196th Street. The application would be reviewed through the business license process as long as a
site plan can demonstrate that sufficient parking would be available. The regulations would be the same if the home
occupation were located on Bowdoin Way.
Scenario 3 – Accountant and One Employee, Occasional Customers, and Signage. If this type of home occupation
were located on 220th Street, it would be permitted outright as a secondary use, but the commercial sign would require a
conditional use permit. If the home occupation were located on Olympic Avenue, an administrative conditional use permit
would be required for employees, customers and signage.
Ms. Coccia advised that the Board still needs to consider whether employees should be permitted the same as customers.
They should also discuss whether commercial signs should require an administrative conditional use permit. She requested
specific feedback regarding the following proposed changes:
Allowing home occupations on arterials and collectors to have a single employee and/or one customer per hour. If the
Board feels this is appropriate, the draft proposal must be revised to reflect the change.
Otherwise requiring staff-approved conditional use permit for home occupations seeking customers, employees, and/or
signage in residential areas not on a collector or arterial street. Staff could evaluate the proposal to ensure that there is
adequate parking for customers/employees and that the signage is appropriate in scale and design. This would help
protect the neighborhood from degradation by vehicles parking off site or by indiscreet signage, while saving the business
owner extra time and $965 in permitting fees.
Allowing urban farmers and artist studios as long as a site plan, which is submitted with the business license application,
can sufficiently reflect that the site should be able to accommodate additional vehicles (more than the two required for the
primary residential use) in order to reduce impacts to the neighbors.
Allowing commercial wall signage through a home occupation staff-approved conditional use permit and subsequent
building permit. Currently, one would have to apply for review by the Hearing Examiner in order to have signage.
However, section 20.20.020.B of the current draft proposal could be clearer on the process for obtaining a commercial
sign.
In response to Chair Lovell’s request for clarification, Ms. Coccia explained that, as per the current code, home occupations
are permitted as secondary uses if they meet all the criteria in ECDC 20.20.010.A. Only a business license ($100) would be
required. Home occupations that do not meet all of the criteria are required to obtain a conditional use permit ($1,550). As
per the draft proposal, applicants would be required to obtain an administrative conditional use permit ($585) if the use does
not meet all of the criteria. The application would only go before the Hearing Examiner for review if an appeal to the
administrative conditional use permit is filed. She noted that administrative conditional use permits cost much less than a
conditional use permit that is heard by the Hearing Examiner.
Chair Lovell referred to the matrix comparing the home occupation requirements for various jurisdictions. He noted that
Woodinville has a process that costs $5,305. Ms. Coccia noted that the matrix was actually included as part of the October
13th Staff Report. She explained that a planner from Woodinville was unable to clearly explain their complicated process,
and he noted that no one actually applies for this particular permit. Vice Chair Reed reminded the Board that setting fee
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 32 of 113
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
November 10, 2010 Page 4
amounts is not within their purview. Ms. Coccia clarified that if the Board recommends approval of the amendment to
change home occupation permits from Type IIIB (Hearing Examiner) to Type II (Administrative) decisions, the cost would
be reduced from $1,550 to $585. Vice Chair Reed emphasized that the proposed amendment does not identify a fee amount.
Vice Chair Reed referred to Section 20.20.010.A, which lists the criteria a home occupation application must meet in order to
be permitted outright without a conditional use permit, and noted that only a business license would be required for these
uses. Section 20.20.010.B outlines the process for reviewing home occupation applications that do not meet the criteria
found in Section 20.20.010.A. He noted that Type II (administrative) decision are appealable to the Hearing Examiner. He
questioned why the proposed language calls out the type of permit (Type II) rather than using the term administrative
conditional use permit. Mr. Chave explained that staff tries to use the permit type reference wherever possible to avoid
confusion in the code. However, the matrix in ECDC 20.02 identifies Type II decisions as staff approved conditional use
permits that are appealable to the Hearing Examiner.
Board Member Stewart referenced Sections 20.20.101.A.9, 20.20.010.B.5 and 20.20.020.C.3, which are inconsistent in how
they describe the number of vehicles and/or people allowed to visit a home occupation. She reminded the Board that one
goal of the proposed amendments is to minimize potential traffic impacts to neighborhoods. She also reminded them of the
City’s Community Sustainability Element, which encourages alternative modes of transportation. She suggested the real
intent is to limit the number of vehicle trips to a home occupation, and not the number of people. Therefore, she
recommended the language in these three sections be changed to be consistent and to make the intent clear. The remainder
of the Board concurred.
Board Member Johnson suggested the Board consider following the example provided by Mercer Island, which regulates the
employees and customers on a complaint basis. She recalled that at a previous meeting, the City’s Code Enforcement
Officer, Mike Thies, indicated that he does not go out and count the number of visitors that come to a home occupation.
Instead, issues are addressed on a complaint basis. She referred to the map provided in the Staff Report (Attachment 4) to
identify collector and arterial streets in Edmonds. She noted that the functional classification map in the packet is out of
date. It as updated and adopted in 2009 as part of the Transportation Element. Bowdoin Way is actually a collector street,
and there are areas on 220th Street Southwest where parking is not allowed. Therefore, staff’s theory that the impacts would
be less on arterial and collector streets that have higher functional classifications is illogical because there is an inverse
relationship between land use and mobility. The higher the functional classification, the less likely there will be adequate on-
street parking space to serve a home occupation. Since the home occupation code is enforced on a complaint basis, she
suggested it would be appropriate to provide a qualitative measure that speaks about impacts to the residential neighborhood
quality and addresses what actually occurs in the City. For example, to maintain a neighborhood quality, no more than two
on-site vehicles at a time may visit the home occupation during business hours.
Mr. Chave explained that qualitative standards are difficult to implement because there is no consistency and predictability.
The City cannot tell someone that a home occupation is acceptable in one neighborhood and not another. Some residents
may feel a home occupation fits into the neighborhood and some will not. The notion of limiting visitors to one per hour for
home occupations is intended to keep traffic volumes commiserate with what is expected for a single-family residence (10
trips per day). Because there is already more traffic on collector and arterial streets than typical neighborhood streets, staff
believes it would be appropriate to allow one visitor and one employee per hour without requiring an administrative
conditional use permit. He summarized that the issue is less about available parking and more about traffic and the overall
level of activity. He noted that a home occupation would be required to provide three off-street parking spaces regardless of
the type of street it is located on.
Board Member Johnson observed that allowing one visitor per hour could potentially triple the number of trips per day for a
single-family residence. From her personal experience, she believes that some types of home occupations, such as a piano
teacher, would not create significant impacts, even if located on cul-de-sacs. She reminded the Commission that the City’s
intent is to encourage and promote home occupations.
Board Member Clarke observed that it is challenging to have flexible codes that recognize different social and economic
trends. Originally, the City consisted of the urban downtown core, with the occasional merchant living above his/her shop.
This morphed into suburbia where residential neighborhoods were developed outside of the urban areas. The single-family
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 33 of 113
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
November 10, 2010 Page 5
neighborhoods were designed for residential uses and did not allow business uses. In many cases, the infrastructure is very
residential in character and designed to be residential friendly to allow children to play risk free, etc. Residential
development on arterial and/or collector streets is a different type of arrangement and these property owners recognize that
the volume and speed of traffic is much different.
Board Member Clarke observed that residential neighborhoods have changed in recent years. It is not uncommon for
electricians, plumbers, etc. to park their vehicles in residential neighborhoods. They either work from an office in their
home, or they bring their vehicles home after work. He has also observed situations where truck drivers actually park their
rigs in residential neighborhoods. Ms. Coccia emphasized that large trucks are not permitted to park in residential
neighborhoods. Trucks that are under 20,000 pound gross weight are allowed. A conditional use permit would be required
for a home occupation to park larger vehicles. Board Member Clarke agreed but noted that the code is only enforced on a
complaint basis. He suggested that the weight of a vehicle has no relationship to its nuisance value. He noted that the
impacts are the same whether a person works out of their home and commutes to various jobs or works from a different
location and brings the vehicle home in the evenings. Therefore, the standards should be consistent for both types of uses.
As proposed, only an electrician who works out of his/her home would be required to obtain a business license. Ms. Coccia
pointed out that a business license is required for all home occupations. Board Member Clarke agreed but noted that is the
only distinguishing factor between the two uses. The nuisance or size of the vehicle would likely be the same in both cases.
Board Member Clarke also referred to a situation where a single-family property owner works on cars as a commercial
enterprise. Ms. Coccia noted that this would not meet the criteria for a home occupation unless the activity takes place
within an enclosed structure. Mr. Chave explained that an individual would be allowed to work on a car on his property
without obtaining a business license, as long as he/she does not accept payment for the work. If they receive payment for
their work, a business license would be required. He agreed that the impact to the neighborhood would be the same in both
situations.
Board Member Clarke expressed his belief that a subdivision with only one way in and out and with no clear street pattern is
not really appropriate for commercial vehicles. Sometimes even mail carriers have difficulty getting through because there is
no parking available on the streets. When there are open ditches, narrow streets, and very little on-street parking, it will be a
real challenge for commercial vehicles to safely maneuver. He referred to the Capital Hill and Green Lake neighborhoods in
Seattle where it is difficult to drive a car through much less park on the street because many of the single-family residential
structures are now rented out to numerous individuals. He concluded that the home occupation standards must be balanced
with what is going on in the community.
Vice Chair Reed recalled the Board’s previous discussion about the nuisance regulations, which is a separate set of
regulations that deal with some of the issues raised by Board Member Clarke regarding parking and how many people can
live in a single-family residential unit. The nuisance ordinance is enforced on a complaint basis.
Chair Lovell said Board Member Clarke’s point is well taken that there is a delicate balance between the rights of an
individual private property owner and mitigating impacts of certain uses on the surrounding property owners. Mr. Chave
said this issue is one reason staff introduced the idea of allowing home occupations on arterial and collector streets to have
one employee without requiring a conditional use permit. He referred to Section 20.20.010.B.7, which states that three on-
site parking spaces must be provided if visits to the site are made by either an off-site employee or customer. The standard
off-site parking requirement for single-family residential development is two spaces per unit.
Ms. Coccia noted the Board’s discussion has focused on how the amendments would be applied in single-family zones, but
they should keep in mind that, as proposed, the home occupation section would also apply in multi-family zones.
Michelle Noble, Edmonds, said she has been a massage therapist for 13 years and moved to Edmonds 1½ years ago, just a
few months before her first child was born. Some people can argue that she should have checked the code first, but she
assumed she would be allowed to operate a massage business out of her home. Now that she is ready to go back to work, she
discovered she would not be allowed to do so unless she obtains a conditional use permit at a cost of $1,550, which is
prohibitive for her family at this time. She said she is glad the Board is considering changes that make home occupations
more achievable in Edmonds.
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 34 of 113
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
November 10, 2010 Page 6
Ms. Noble referred to Board Member Clarke’s earlier comments about how residential and commercial areas have changed
over the years. She said the current trend is towards home occupations that allow people to live and work in the same
structure. She said she understands that traffic and signage are issues of concern, and that the small town charm of the
community should be preserved. However, having the ability to obtain needed services from her neighborhood makes for a
rich community. She said she hopes her business can be part of that. She said it would be difficult for her to get back into
her business if she has to rent space outside of her home. She noted that she has space to park at least four cars on site, and
she anticipates she would see up to five clients, three to four days per week. She suggested that since there is already a
process in place for reviewing business licenses, it should not cost significantly more for staff to look at the factors
associated with her home occupation and approve a conditional use permit to allow her to serve one customer at a time.
Dr. Jonathan Bannister, Executive Director, Non-Profit Pacific Northwest Budo Association, said he is a four-year
resident of Edmonds. He stated his full support for the changes proposed by staff related to home occupations. The
proposed amendments are a move in the right direction. He also went on record as support the provision that home
occupations visitors should be locate don arterial and collector streets. He said he was opposed to home occupation signage
in excess of 24” x 48” in single-family residential zones. He said he supports the proposal that home occupations be allowed
one customer per hour, but that one additional off-street parking space must be provided. He said he feels the hours of
operation should match the noise ordinance restrictions that apply to any other type of activity in single-family residential
zones (8 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
Mr. Bannister explained that he has been a Japanese martial and cultural arts instructor for 27 years and has won numerous
awards from arts organizations and civic leaders for his efforts to promote the arts and friendship between the people of the
United States, Canada and Japan. He said he currently teaches two days a week at the Spartan Center in Shoreline, primarily
the peaceful art of Aikido and a non-combative martial discipline of laido (Japanese swordsmanship). He also offers
specialty classes in bonsai, Japanese traditional flower arranging, and Japanese brush calligraphy. Up until two years ago, he
had a thriving school in Seattle, which graduated 74 black belts and introduced thousands of students to the beautiful
traditional culture of Japan. However, he was forced to close his school due to the economic downturn, and he remains only
partially employed. He said his students continue to train as best they can in recreation department classes in Shoreline, and
they have managed to remain dedicated to their arts. Their small club continues to field artists who win awards and
recognition in both national and international events.
Mr. Bannister said he is dedicated to the personal mission of sharing the arts that have given him so much joy with the
community. Japanese martial and cultural arts offer wonderful recreational opportunities, as well as fostering a social and
civic mission that encourages character development, harmonious cooperation, peaceful conflict resolution, global
citizenship, and abiding appreciation for natural and artistic beauty. He said he would like to support his small club of
dedicated members by offering private instruction in his home in Edmonds. He explained that the scope of his endeavor
would be something akin to that of a music teacher. Individual instruction would be offered at a rate of one person per hour.
His home is connected to an arterial street, and they would require no signage. In addition, there is ample off-street parking
and the facility is modern and up to code. Also, the formal cultural arts are practiced in relative silence, and he can foresee
no negative impacts to the neighborhood.
Mr. Bannister summarized that he is eager to bring his life-long experience in Japanese cultural arts to Edmonds in the form
of a home occupation. He attempted to apply for a Type III-B Conditional Use Permit last year, but he was advised that the
application would cost $1,500. Because their club is a non-profit that has been starved nearly to death during the recessions,
they do not have the resources to put in to the application process. Cultural arts education is not able to command high rates
for instructional services. With their limited student base, it would take nearly a year to recoup such an expense. He said he
wants to obtain the property permits, and he strongly supports the proposal to offer Type II administration conditional use
permits to small home occupations such as he envisions. The $585 cost would be more manageable and would allow them to
recoup the investment in a few months.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 35 of 113
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
November 10, 2010 Page 7
Vice Chair Reed recalled that the Board has discussed the proposed amendments on two previous occasions, and they
received good input from the public. He expressed his belief that the Board should be able to formulate a recommendation to
the City Council at the conclusion of their discussion unless they want to make significant changes.
Chair Lovell complimented staff for doing a good job of preparing draft language for the public hearing. He suggested the
Board forward a recommendation of adoption to the City Council, with the recommendation that they consider reducing the
fee for an administrative conditional use permit to $200. This would be similar to the fee charged by other jurisdictions for
similar types of permits. He expressed his support for the proposed amendments given the economic conditions and the fact
that the City is trying to promote home occupations as an element of sustainability.
Board Member Cloutier suggested that before a motion is made to forward the amendments to the City Council, the Board
should address the questions raised by staff. He summarized that the Board previously agreed that the language should be
consistent as it relates to customers and vehicles. He suggested it would be appropriate to allow one vehicle per hour and
then let common sense be the enforcement. The Board agreed that Sections 20.20.010.A.9, 20.20.010.B5, and 20.20.020.C.3
should all be changed to read, “visits from customers in excess of one vehicle per hour.”
Vice Chair Reed referred to Board Member Johnson’s earlier recommendation and explained that one reason to set limits is
to give people an idea of what the City expects. If the City does not have any qualifications, they will be stuck with what
they get. Limiting customers to one vehicle per hour communicates to citizens regarding the amount of additional traffic that
would be allowed. It provides guidance to people who want to establish home occupations. Board Member Cloutier pointed
out that, in the end, code enforcement is complaint driven.
Board Member Johnson said she is not opposed to some quantifiable measures, but those proposed in the draft amendments
are not logical and not enforceable. The measures should be more directly tied to the residential nature of the neighborhood.
She recommended the language be based more on current reality, which is that the code is enforced on a complaint-driven
basis. If a home occupation is found to be incompatible with a neighborhood, people should be invited to contact the City to
share their concerns, which could be defined in terms of nuisances or impacts. Unless you can actually measure what you
are trying to regulate, it does not seem like a good way to go. Chair Lovell expressed his belief that removing the limit on
the number of vehicles per hour would be counterproductive. Board Member Johnson countered that if the City wants to
encourage the regulation of home occupations, they should take out this measure and replace it with a measurable standard
that is fair and can be applied consistently and equally. Chair Lovell observed that if the language does not specifically limit
the number of vehicles per hour, the City would not have the ability to address complaints they receive about a home
occupation creating too much traffic.
Board Member Johnson recalled that Mr. Thies previously indicated that the majority of complaints the City receives
regarding home occupations are related to contractors and landscapers who have employees that tend to congregate at the
start of the work day. He also discussed that homeowners could have Tupperware parties out of their homes, but they cannot
be distributors unless they obtain a business license. She referred to Section 20.20.020.C, which lists the types of uses they
want to avoid. She suggested that this section could be used as a basis for determining the appropriateness of a home
occupation permit.
Chair Lovell shared his belief that limiting customers to one vehicle per hour would set a reasonable benchmark for
measurement. If the City does not have something to measure against, staff will not have clear direction as to what they are
trying to create. He noted that Section 20.20.020.C is a list of reasons for denial, and he presumes that this same list could be
used as a basis for revoking a home occupation permit. However, he felt it would be unreasonable to allow a neighboring
property owner to cite Item C.3 (more than one vehicle per hour) as a reason to revoke a permit just because occasionally the
vehicles coming to the business overlap. Board Member Johnson said that, currently, the code does not allow a home
occupation to have any vehicles, customers or employees associated. This is too strict, and the current proposal should be
revised to address complaints the City receives most frequently.
Board Member Stewart summarized that Board Member Johnson is suggesting a subjective approach related to residential
quality. The problem with that approach is that everyone has a different perception of quality and what they want to occur
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 36 of 113
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
November 10, 2010 Page 8
on their neighborhood street. It is important to have guidelines to serve as a benchmark so staff can base their ruling on the
code requirements.
Board Member Clarke suggested the issue is not as simple as the proposed amendments make it seem. The home occupation
regulations apply to both single-family and multi-family residential zones, and some condominium and neighborhood
associations have private covenants that prohibit business uses. People who purchase homes in these developments have an
expectation that the covenants will be enforced. He expressed concern about allowing certain types of uses in all residential
zones, when they are specifically prohibited by some neighborhood covenants. Mr. Chave agreed that some private
covenants run counter to what the City’s code allows, but this is not something the City can regulate. The City does not
enforce private covenants.
Board Member Clarke also expressed concern that if home occupations are allowed in multi-family residential zones, there
could be, in theory, home occupations in most or all of the condominiums in a development. Mr. Chave agreed that would
be true as per the current proposal. He advised that the Board could decide that the rules for home occupations in multi-
family residential zones should be different than those for single-family residential zones. For example, because a higher
density is already allowed and traffic is more significant, they could restrict home occupations in the multi-family residential
zones from having customers.
Ms. Coccia requested the Board consider the following points as they continue their discussion:
Is it necessary to allow both customers and employees outright, and what are the differences between these two types of
visitors? She recommended the Board include the provision that allows employees or customer visits outright if a home
occupation is located on an arterial or collector street. This provision was not included in the current proposal because it
had not yet been discussed by the Board.
What is the importance of signage to the business owner and the impacts to the neighbors? The current code does not
allow commercial signage in single-family residential zones without a conditional use permit. Perhaps commercial signs
should be prohibited in order to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Chave recalled that, at their
last meeting, the Board discussed that it would be appropriate to allow commercial signage for home occupations, as long
as it is no greater than 4 square feet in size. This would be consistent with the size of residential signage already allowed
by code in single-family residential zones. Ms. Coccia noted that this concept was incorporated into the draft proposal.
If the Board is unhappy with the threshold proposed by staff (arterial and collector streets), they could require an
administrative conditional use permit for all home occupations. If this were the case, staff would review all home
occupation permit applications. Those that would not have employees or customers would be approved outright.
Board Member Clarke said he is concerned about allowing wall signs in single-family residential zones. He also asked if the
code would allow the signs to be illuminated. Mr. Chave explained that the current code requires a conditional use permit
for commercial signs in single-family residential zones, and the content is limited to business identification. The single-
family residential zone allows residential signage of up to four square feet in size and the content is not regulated. Board
Member Stewart expressed her belief that it is not in keeping with the character of the residential neighborhood to allow
commercial signage. She expressed her belief that signage would not really be necessary in a residential community.
Vice Chair Reed pointed out that the words “conditional use permit” should be deleted from the first sentence of Section
20.20.020.C. Mr. Chave agreed.
Board Member Johnson asked staff to explain the fee associated with a business license to operate an artist studio or urban
farm as a home occupation. Ms. Coccia answered that an applicant would apply for a business license, which has an
associated fee of $100. The home occupation permit request would be reviewed by staff as part of the business license
process. If an application meets all of the criteria in Section 20.20.010.A, staff would approve the permit without a
conditional use permit. The total cost of the permit would be $100. If an application does not meet the criteria in Section
20.20.010.A, an administrative conditional use permit would be required at a cost of $585.
Board Member Cloutier voiced his belief that it would be appropriate to allow home occupations to have one employee,
regardless of whether it is located on an arterial/collector street or not. He felt it would be no different than having someone
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 37 of 113
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
November 10, 2010 Page 9
visit a single-family home. He also said he is comfortable that staff’s proposal to allow one customer per hour without a
conditional use permit if the home occupation is located on an arterial or collector street would adequately address traffic
issues. He suggested that Section 20.20.010.A.6 be changed to read, “Does not include more than one employee outside of
the family members residing at the residence.” To address the Board’s concern about the definition of “family,” Mr. Chave
advised that the code defines “family” as “related individuals or up to five unrelated individuals.” He noted that this
definition is based on the Federal Fair Housing Law requirements.
Board Member Johnson said she does not want to tie the “one customer per hour” provision to the type of street it is located
on. She shared her experience with an artist studio that is located off Talbot Road. The owner has a long driveway and
sufficient parking space to accommodate customers without impacting the neighbors. Board Member Cloutier pointed out
that, as proposed, art studios and urban farmers would be allowed one customer per hour regardless of location.
Board Member Johnson suggested the Board eliminate Section 20.20.010.A.9, which requires an administrative conditional
use permit for home occupations with customers that are not located on arterial or collector streets. She reminded the Board
of their desire to encourage home-based businesses, and having a lower fee would be a step in the right direction. The
remainder of the Board concurred.
Board Member Cloutier suggested that small commercial signs be allowed for home occupations because he felt traffic
would be reduced if people could easily locate their destination without having to circle back around. He felt that a
limitation of 4 square feet in size would be sufficient to identify a business. He recommended the word “wall” be removed
from the first sentence in Section 20.20.020.B to read. The majority of the Board concurred. Mr. Chave advised that he
would double check the code to make sure illuminated signs are prohibited in residential zones.
Board Member Cloutier noted that the Board previously agreed to change the threshold for requiring a conditional use
permit. Therefore, staff’s third question is no longer an issue. Home occupation applications that do not meet the criteria in
Section 20.20.010.A (as modified) will be required to obtain an administrative conditional use permit, which would provide
an opportunity for public input regarding the application.
Board Member Clarke recalled staff’s earlier request for direction regarding temporary structures associated with home
occupations. Ms. Coccia said her comments were related to an urban farmer type of home occupation, in which the business
owner sets up a small stand to sell items they produce on site. Mr. Chave pointed out that permits would not be required for
temporary stands, and they would not have to meet the setback requirements. However, they would have to be taken down
each night. He noted that these standards are found in the “temporary structure” section of the code. Permanent structures
would only be allowed if the structure can meet all of the requirements of the zone.
VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC
20.20 (HOME OCCUPATIONS) TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS REVISED WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Johnson recalled that when the Board initially discussed the proposed amendments, they talked about several
exceptions to the rule, one being the annual artist tour and art sales that result in more than one customer per hour. She asked
what the City’s positions would be on these types of events. Ms. Coccia noted that these uses are temporary and sponsors do
not typically apply for a business license. Therefore, the City does not regulate the uses. Chair Lovell agreed that these
types of events would not be construed as home occupations. Instead, they would be one-time events.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chair Lovell recommended the Board forward a recommendation to the City Council asking them to consider reducing the
administrative conditional use permit fee, which is currently set at $585. Mr. Chave explained that fees are set at an amount
that allows the City to recover their administrative costs. A Hearing Examiner process is more costly than a staff decision,
but there is a cost associated with staff decisions, as well.
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 38 of 113
APPROVED OCTOBER 27TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 13, 2010
Vice Chair Reed called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
John Reed, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Philip Lovell, Chair (Excused)
Kevin Clarke
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Gina Coccia, Planner
Mike Clugston, Planner
Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Mike Thies, Code Enforcement Officer
Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Item 7c (Home Occupations) was placed before Item 7a (Wireless Telecommunication Facilities). The remainder of the
agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one present to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE STREET TREE PLAN ELEMENT
OF THE EDMONDS STREETSCAPE PLAN
Mr. McIntosh reviewed that on July 14, 2010 staff presented recommendations, and the Planning Board provided input for
updating the Street Tree element of the Streetscape Plan. A hearing was held on August 11, 2010. Due to the number of
suggestions, the Board agreed to continue the hearing to a later date so that the document could be updated prior to the
Board’s final recommendation to the City Council. He reminded the Board that the Street Tree Element was approved by the
City Council in 2006 as part of the Edmonds Streetscape Plan.
Mr. McIntosh explained that, in response to concerns regarding removal and replacement of street trees, particularly in the
downtown, the City Council requested a review of the Street Tree Plan element. This review was held on May 26, 2009 and
concluded with the City Council recommending changes to better reflect current practices in removing and replanting trees,
specifically the caliper of replacement trees. Subsequent to the May 26th meeting, the question of replacing or retaining the
mature trees at and near 5th Avenue and Dayton Street was discussed several times throughout the last summer and fall. At
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 39 of 113
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2010 Page 4
recognized that the main thrust of the proposed amendments is to address trees in the downtown that have gotten so large
they are damaging the sidewalks, yet people do not want them to be removed. He referred to the list contained in the
proposed Street Tree Plan, which provides guidelines for where street trees can be located. He expressed his belief that these
guidelines would severely limit a property owner’s ability to plant trees. He recommended the Board start over and create a
simpler document that identifies the goal, as well as the types of trees that are allowed and those that are not. If too much
language is included in the plan, the average citizen might not take the time to review the document.
THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
THEREFORE, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Vice Chair Reed referred to the last sentence in the “Design” section on Page 120, which states that blocking of business
signage, marquees and window displays should be avoided.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES
TO THE STREET TREE PLAN ELEMENT OF THE STREETSCAPE PLAN AS PROPOSED, WITH A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Cloutier reminded Mr. McIntosh that he agreed to review the written recommendations submitted by Ms.
Paine and determine if any of them are appropriate for inclusion at this time. Board Member Johnson commended Mr.
McIntosh for doing an excellent job of incorporating all of the issues and concerns raised at the last public hearing.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
On behalf of the Board, Vice Chair Reed expressed appreciation for the years of service Mr. McIntosh has provided to the
City and the Parks Department. He wished him success in his retirement. Mr. McIntosh commented that the current Board,
as well as previous Boards, has always been advocates for parks, recreation, and cultural services, and he appreciates their
efforts as a Parks Board.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON HOME OCCUPATIONS (FILE NUMBER AMD20100016)
Ms. Coccia explained that the purpose of the proposed amendments is to streamline the process and criteria and to support
home-based businesses while preserving the residential character of the neighborhoods. As requested by the Board, she
announced that Mr. Thies, Code Enforcement Officer, was present to answer questions from the Board and to give examples
of the types of businesses for which he receives the most complaints. She referred the Board to the draft document, which
was recently updated to incorporate the Board’s comments from their last discussion. She specifically invited the Board to
comment regarding the following:
A new definition was added for the term, “urban farming.” An example of an urban farmer is someone who has
chickens and wants to sell eggs.
Staff is leaning towards limiting the number of customers and the time frame for which they would be allowed to visit
home occupations. She suggested they review the various types of potential home businesses (piano teachers, massage
therapists, real estate agents, etc.), and identify how this type of limitation would impact these activities.
Should employees be allowed to visit the home occupation site? If so, what should the parking requirement be to ensure
there is adequate space for customers and employees to park without impacting the neighborhood? The current code
requires three parking spaces for home occupations, but tandem parking spaces will be counted.
The current draft adds criteria for which a home occupation could be approved. All applications that meet the criteria
found in Section 20.20.010.A would be outright permitted and a business license would be issued. All other home
occupation applications could be approved as a staff decision based on the criteria in Section 20.20.010.B. Staff
decisions are appealable to the Hearing Examiner. The current code requires home occupations in the latter category to
go before the Hearing Examiner for approval, and the application cost is $1,500.
Section 20.20.010.A.4 indicates that no pickup or delivery by business-related commercial vehicles is allowed, except
for the U.S. Mail and standard UPS/Fed Ex sized delivery trucks. It also states that residents would not be allowed to
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 40 of 113
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2010 Page 5
park more than one commercial vehicle or any commercial vehicle over 10,000 pounds licensed gross vehicle weight per
dwelling unit. The language makes reference to ECDC 17.60.010, which relates to commercial vehicles.
Section 20.20.015 was deleted to avoid creating a long list of prohibited businesses.
ECDC 20.60 is related to signs and allows up to four square feet of signage in residential zones. She questioned if the
Board wants to address the issue of signage as part of the home occupations chapter. As currently drafted, a home
occupation would be allowed a sign that does not exceed three square feet in size, but it can only contain the name and
address of the residence. She questioned if the Board wants to restrict the content of signs associated with home
occupation businesses.
Ms. Coccia invited the Board to share their comments and suggestions so that the draft document could be finalized and
forwarded to the SEPA review process. Once the SEPA review has been completed, the draft proposal would come before
the Board for a public hearing as early as next month.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City Council directed them to consider options to reduce the cost of home occupation
permits. At this time, the process has three levels of review: those that are permitted outright, those that are staff decisions,
and those that require Hearing Examiner review. The proposed change would eliminate the Hearing Examiner as one of the
permitting bodies, but there would still be the option of appealing some home occupation decisions to the Hearing Examiner.
The purpose of the proposed language is to reduce the cost of obtaining a home occupation permit by eliminating the
requirement for Hearing Examiner review, which is a costly process.
Mr. Chave referred to ECDC 20.20.015, which is a list of home occupations that are presumed to be inappropriate, but not
necessarily prohibited. He said it is often awkward for staff to explain why certain types of uses have been singled out. He
suggested the existing code language is out of date and inconsistent with the current trend of people moving their offices into
home settings. However, he suggested the new code language should specifically prohibit retail uses, which are not
appropriate in home occupation settings, with two possible exceptions. Urban farmers should be allowed to sell the produce
they grow on their property, which would be consistent with the City’s Community Sustainability Element that encourages
the production of locally grown produce. They should not be allowed to sell produce that is grown off site. In addition to
urban farmers, the code could allow art studios, which are not uncommon in residential areas in other jurisdictions. He
reminded the Board that art is prominently mentioned in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and this would be a good time to
incorporate it as a potential home occupation if the Board deems it appropriate. Board Member Stewart questioned if the
Board would be in favor of allowing an artist to sell jewelry or some other type of art from a home occupation. Board
Member Cloutier expressed his belief that this type of use would be appropriate, as long as they do not have studio tours,
which invite certain parking and noise issues. Mr. Chave suggested the City could require home occupations to show plans
for how they would provide ample parking to accommodate visitors to the site. In addition, they could require that displays
come down during non-operating hours.
Mr. Chave has considered the option of limiting the hours of operation for home occupations from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.,
recognizing that businesses such as music teachers are not limited to normal working day hours. He suggested it seems
reasonable to allow only one customer per hour, since this would not likely cause a disturbance in the neighborhood. Board
Member Stewart suggested that rather than limiting a home occupation to one customer per hour, it would be more
appropriate to limit the number of vehicles per hour. She shared an example of a family therapist who may have more than
one client in an hour, but not more than one vehicle.
Board Member Johnson said she would like to hear from Mr. Thies about the more practical aspect of code enforcement and
what the history has been related to home occupations. Mr. Thies explained that there are very few violations associated
with most home occupations, but there are some that are problematic. The number of vehicles coming to a site is regulated
based on the honor system because staff cannot sit in front of a site to count the number of vehicles that visit a home
occupation each day and determine if a code violation is occurring. He said the City has more ability to enforce parking
requirements. Vice Chair Reed questioned if limiting the number of visitors is a waste of time if the City cannot enforce the
provision. Mr. Thies answered that most people follow the regulations, but they do receive complaints when neighbors think
a home occupation exceeds the number of vehicles allowed. When staff explains how difficult it is to enforce the
requirement, people often question why it even exists in the code.
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 41 of 113
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2010 Page 6
Board Member Johnson asked Mr. Thiess to share examples of code enforcement issues related to home occupations. Mr.
Thies said that just a few weeks ago, someone complained about an electric company that is operated out of a home. The
business owner eliminated his office space and moved the business into his home. The neighbors complained because it
appears he is running a large business in a residential neighborhood. This situation was easier to enforce. A more confusing
situation occurred three weeks ago when a man and his friends were building a recreational vehicle in his driveway. While it
appeared to be a home occupation, he had no proof. The most he could do was ask the man to tone it down and finish the job
quickly.
Vice Chair Reed asked how many code enforcement violations Mr. Thies receives each year related to home occupations.
Mr. Thies answered that he receives between 10 and 15 each year. Usually, they are related to construction type businesses
(tree removal, landscaping, etc.) because they typically have larger equipment. Mr. Chave said that, in his experience, the
more obvious violations tend to have a higher nuisance value for the neighborhood. The City does not typically receive
complaints about home occupations that are quiet, such as music teachers.
Board Member Johnson suggested that the code should be more specific about things they do not want to see and less
specific on home occupations that are considered the norm. She cautioned that they should not over regulate something that
isn’t a problem, yet they need to address the things that are truly neighborhood concerns. Mr. Chave said that is generally
what staff is trying to do. There may be some ability to identify certain home occupations that are simply not permitted such
as contractor operations where a number of people gather and there is storage of equipment. But they also should consider
limiting the number of vehicles allowed per hour, even if it is difficult to enforce. If they identify a standard, most people
will adhere to the regulations. If they have no standard, some people may abuse the situation. He said Mr. Thies has had
good success in addressing problems by reminding people of the rules. The issue is how heavy handed should the City be
and what are the goals. The Community Sustainability Element encourages more local and home-based activities.
Board Member Johnson pointed out that, as currently written, the code does not allow even one customer to come to a home
occupation. Mr. Chave answered that a home occupation that has customers or clients would require a higher level of permit
review. If the permitting process is too onerous, people may decide not to obtain the required permits. Making it easier to
obtain the permits encourages people to meet the requirements of the code.
Board Member Stewart asked staff to explain the difference between the two types of home occupation permits proposed in
the draft document. Mr. Chave answered that certain types of home occupations (those that meet the criteria in Section
20.20.010.A) would be permitted outright as a business license, and others would require a conditional use permit, which
would involve a more extensive review by staff based on the criteria in Section 20.20.010.B. Staff decisions require public
notice and can be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Board Member Stewart expressed concern that the $500 charge for the
staff review may discourage some businesses from obtaining the required licenses. She suggested that if the City wants to
encourage home occupations, they could make the criteria in Section 20.20.010.A more generous, such as allowing
employees or more than one customer per hour. This would result in fewer home occupation applications that require a
conditional use permit. Mr. Chave agreed that is one option the Board could consider.
Vice Chair Reed questioned if Section 20.20.020.A (sale or display of goods) adequately addresses the issue of retail sales
associated with home occupations. Mr. Chave pointed out that Section 20.10.010.B.2 regulates the display of goods
associated with home occupations and would adequately address the types of retail sales discussed earlier (urban farming and
art studios). He explained that a general prohibition on retail sales would have a broader application. The code should be
written so that retail uses are not allowed, regardless of the type of home occupation permit, unless they are associated with
urban farming or art studios.
Vice Chair Reed referred to Section 20.20.020.B, which states that while signs would be allowed in conjunction with a home
occupation, they cannot exceed three square feet and can only contain the name and address of the residence. Board Member
Cloutier expressed his belief that sign content should not matter, as long as the size is limited to three square feet. It would
be helpful if a home occupation were allowed to identify its location so people can find the right house. Mr. Chave
explained that the current code allows residential property owners to have up to four square feet of signage. Section
20.20.020.B would allow up to three square feet of the allowed signage to be related to the home occupation. The Board
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 42 of 113
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2010 Page 7
agreed that the content of the sign should not be limited, as long as the total sign area remains small. Mr. Chave agreed that
it would be easy to enforce this type of regulation.
Vice Chair Reed pointed out that it is not within the Board’s purview to recommend approval of changes in the permit fee
structure. Mr. Chave agreed but added that the Board could certainly forward a recommendation to the City Council that
they consider a change if they believe it is appropriate.
Board Member Johnson referred to Section 20.20.010.A.8 related to parking and storing of commercial vehicles. She asked
if this provision would speak to Board Member Clarke’s previously-mentioned concern about large vehicles parking on the
street in his neighborhood. Mr. Thies pointed out that large vehicles are not allowed to park on the streets in residential
neighborhoods between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. However, residents are allowed to park one large vehicle in
their driveway. Board Member Cloutier questioned the difference between a 10,000 pound commercial vehicle and a very
large recreational vehicle. Mr. Thies said the issue is usually related to signage. Only large vehicles that are used for
commercial purposes are regulated as such.
Board Member Johnson referred to Section 20.20.010.A.9, which limits a home occupation to no more than one customer
per hour. She recalled that her music lessons were only ½ hour long, which means her teacher could teach two students in
one hour. She suggested that if the regulation is not going to be enforced, they should explain the guideline differently.
Perhaps they should allow two customers per hour, except for urban farming and art home occupations. Board Member
Cloutier said another option would be to allow only one customer at a time. Mr. Chave explained that engineering standards
estimate that single-family dwelling units generate approximately 10 trips per day, so a limit of one customer per hour would
not be out of line with what currently takes place in single-family neighborhoods. However, two or three customers per hour
could generate more than the neighborhood residents are willing to tolerate. He said he anticipates that customers for urban
farms and art studios would likely come from pass-by traffic. He said one option is to allow a few more vehicles per hour if
a home occupation is located on an arterial where there is already a higher level of traffic. However, allowing two or more
vehicles per hour on a cul-de-sac would create a noticeable impact. Board Member Johnson questioned if it would be
appropriate to regulate the number of customers per day rather than per hour. Mr. Chave cautioned against making the
requirements too complicated. Vice Chair Reed suggested it would be more appropriate to regulate the number of visits or
vehicles rather than the number of customers, and the remainder of the Board concurred.
Board Member Johnson pointed out that Section 20.20.010.B.7 requires an applicant to provide at least three on-site parking
spaces if they anticipate customers and/or employees would come to the site. Mr. Chave pointed out that the standard
parking requirement for single-family residential zones is two parking spaces per unit. However, tandem parking can be
counted in the total number of spaces. Board Member Johnson pointed out that houses built in the 1960’s and earlier
typically have one-car garages, and property owners utilize on-street parking spaces to meet their additional parking needs.
The Board directed staff to bring the draft document back for a public hearing on November 10th.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 18.05 AND 20.50 CLARIFYING
DEFINITIONS AND PROCESSES FOR REGULATION OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES
(FILE NUMBER AMD20100004)
Mr. Clugston referred the Board to the attachments in the Staff Report. He also referred to the new document submitted by
Richard Busch, President of the Northwest Wireless Association, titled “Integrated Site Code Classifications,” which
document would replace Attachment 2 in the Staff Report. He reminded the Board that, at their last meeting, they agreed to
participate in a self-guided driving tour to see the Edmonds wireless communication sites for themselves. He provided a
PowerPoint presentation of each of the sites on the tour, as well as examples from other municipalities. He pointed out the
good and bad qualities of each one. He noted that most of the wireless facilities in Edmonds are monopoles, retrofits on
existing utility poles and on buildings. Some are camouflaged. Although not required by the current code, the Board could
consider a provision that requires the facilities to be camouflaged.
Mr. Clugston explained that the AT&T wireless facility located on the building at 546 Alder Street (Commodore
Condominiums) is not a permitted use based on the existing code. He suggested the Board should discuss whether or not it
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 43 of 113
APPROVED JULY 28th
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
July 14, 2010
Vice Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair
Kevin Clarke
Todd Cloutier
Kristiana Johnson
John Reed
Valerie Stewart
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Gina Coccia, Planner
Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Michael Bowman, Chair
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2010 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 20.110.040(f) RELATING TO MONETARY
PENALTIES TO COMPLY WITH CHANGES IN WASHINGTON LAW BY PROVIDING NOTICE TO ALL
PENALTY ASSESSMENTS AND ECDC 20.110.040(D) TO CLARIFY APPEAL PROCEDURES TO SUPERIOR
COURT (FILE NUMBER AMD20100005)
Mr. Chave pointed out that City Attorney Snyder discussed the proposed amendments previously with the Board, and the
outline of the intent of the amendments was provided in his memorandum. The intent is to bring the code language up to
date with current Washington State law and Superior Court procedures.
Board Member Reed questioned if the 3rd and 4th “whereas” statements on the second page of the draft ordinance
(Attachment 2) are really necessary. He suggested that these may no longer be accurate statements. Mr. Chave said the
language was contained in the original interim ordinance that was adopted by the City Council. If the Board recommends
that the content of the proposed amendment is appropriate, the City Attorney would update the ordinance before it is
forwarded to the City Council.
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 44 of 113
non-conforming, big issues come up when an owner wants to make improvements or changes. He observed that because of
the irregular platting that has occurred in some neighborhoods in the City, there has been significant hostility amongst
neighbors. There can be significant impacts to surrounding properties when lots are allowed to subdivide as a result of the
zoning change that occurs with annexation. He suggested they must carefully balance all of the concerns. Ms. Coccia
reminded the Board that the public would be invited to comment on any subdivision applications that are submitted. Mr.
Chave pointed out that the difference in size between the current RS-9600 zoning and the proposed RS-8 zoning is small
enough and the lots are large enough that the lots could be subdivided with either designation.
Board Member Clarke agreed with Board Member Reed that the adjacent properties that are part of Edmonds are zoned
differently than the proposed RS-8. Therefore, the City would not be criticized if they were to zone the subject property
using the same pattern. Mr. Chave referred to the zoning map and noted that there are small sections of RS-8 sprinkled
throughout the northern portion of the City. He suggested that the plotting pattern of the subject properties is different
enough to merit a different zoning designation.
Board Member Clarke said that prior to the annexation of his neighborhood, the response for emergency service from the
County was terrible. They would have done anything to annex into a City that could provide faster response. He
summarized that taxation is not typically an issue; those who are interested in annexation are seeking better service and the
opportunity to elect their own local government representatives.
DISCUSSION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS (FILE NUMBER
AMD201000016)
Ms. Coccia explained that when home occupation applications are submitted to the City, various departments review the
proposed scope of work and how it complies with applicable City codes. As long as a proposed business meets the criteria in
ECDC 20.20, the Planning Division can sign off on the business license application as it relates to the zoning standards.
Businesses that cannot meet all the basic home occupation criteria must change their proposal to meet the code or apply for
and obtain a conditional use permit. She noted that the standard fee for a home occupation business license is $100.
However, if a conditional use permit and public hearing is required, the fee for the process jumps to about $1,500.
Ms. Coccia said the chief complaint heard by staff about home occupation requirements is the fee. She suggested one option
for addressing the concern is to change the process so that home occupations that require more review are handled as staff-
approved conditional use permits rather than a conditional use permit requiring Hearing Examiner review. This would
reduce the fee to about $500. She noted that administrative conditional use permits are also used for accessory dwelling unit
permits and tree cutting permits. Public notice would still be required and a permit could be conditioned, but the decision
would ultimately be made by staff.
Ms. Coccia said another option would be to streamline the permitting of home occupations that should logically fit within
neighborhood settings by clarifying the standards for approvable home occupations. For example, home occupations that
have only a single off-site employee or not more than one customer coming to the site per hour could be permitted as part of
a normal home occupation review.
Ms. Coccia suggested the Board review the current codes and processes related to home occupations, compare them to other
jurisdictions, and determine if an administrative conditional use review process would be more appropriate than a conditional
use permit that requires a public hearing at three times the cost. She noted that the City Council’s Community
Services/Development Services Committee has recommended further discussion about streamlining the process and keeping
it simple. Staff is seeking feedback from the Board in order to proceed toward a public hearing proposal.
Vice Chair Lovell requested more information about the breaking point where staff determines a conditional use permit
would be required. Mr. Chave referred to ECDC 20.20.010 (A), which outlines the criteria used to evaluate a home
occupation application. If an application does not meet all of the criteria, a conditional use permit would be required. ECDC
20.20.010(B) identifies the criteria used to evaluate conditional use permits. He observed that it would be difficult for many
home occupations to strictly comply with all of the criteria.
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 45 of 113
Board Member Stewart reminded the Board that based on the Community Sustainability Element, the City is trying to create
a more favorable environment for home occupations. She hopes the regulations can be made more flexible. Mr. Chave said
music teachers and accountants are good examples of typical home occupations that receive little or no objection from
adjacent property owners. These could be approved via an administrative conditional use permit process. However, the City
has had enforcement problems with home occupations that employ multiple people such as real estate offices. These types of
home occupations could require a conditional review and public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The key is to
establish a threshold such as one visitor per hour or a certain number of clients per hour. He suggested the threshold be tied
to the typical traffic that is generated by a single-family home, which is about 10 trips per day.
Board Member Johnson said the current code language contains a provision that says if you have evidence of even one
visitor, the business license could be revoked. She asked how many licenses have been revoked for this reason. Mr. Chave
said he could not think of a situation of this type. The most common case is that a home occupation license would be denied
for this reason. He noted that very few home occupation applications have been sent to the Hearing Examiner. He said he
suspects that many home occupations are “flying under the radar” and have not created a problem in the neighborhood.
Board Member Stewart said that given the current economy and City goals related to sustainability, they need to make it
possible for people to work out of their home. She suggested that limiting the clients to one per house may be too restrictive.
Perhaps a better approach would be to allow no more than one car per hour. Mr. Chave cautioned that it is important to hold
down the scale of home occupation uses to a reasonable level and to avoid negative impacts such as noise. He observed that
more and more people are working from home a certain number days a week rather than going into the office. Home
occupation regulations that are too restrictive do not encourage flexible work hours, etc. Ms. Coccia said Attachment 2 is a
matrix comparing the City’s current regulations with those of other jurisdictions in the region. She noted that most of them
allow one non-family employee or customer.
Board Member Clarke said he finds it extremely frustrating that he lives in a neighborhood that has covenants, conditions
and restrictions that prohibit commercial uses from being conducted inside the homes, but the City has taken the position that
it will not interpret private covenants. As part of the proof of application, an individual should be required to prove that
there are no private restrictions on the property that prohibit home occupations. Even though people read the title and
understand the restrictions when they purchase their property, they often break the rules knowing that the only way to
enforce the requirement is for a neighbor to sue. He said it is unfair for the City to allow a use that is not legally permitted
by the covenants associated with the property. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City does not enforce private
covenants.
Board Member Johnson asked if the City has an enforcement process for home occupations. Mr. Chave answered
affirmatively, but the City does not enforce private covenants. Board Member Clarke suggested that his concern could be
addressed if the criteria for a home occupation permit requires an applicant to prove there are no private restrictions or
conditions that prohibit home occupations. Mr. Chave agreed to solicit a response from the City Attorney regarding this
issue.
Board Member Clarke said he knows of a situation in his neighborhood where a home occupation cannot meet any of the
criteria in ECDC 20.20.010(A). The business transports recreational vehicles with a large capacity pick up truck which is
often parked in front of his living room window. The use violates several covenants such as storage of recreational vehicles,
but it is being permitted by the City. Across the street from him is an electrician who parks his commercial vehicle on his
property. In subdivisions with small lots and very little setback requirements, these types of uses can be very imposing to
surrounding property owners. He suggested they look more carefully at the code requirements rather than simply making
them broader. He further suggested that staff provide examples so the Board can determine whether or not the criteria is
adequate to address most situations in the City. Mr. Chave suggested the Board invite the Code Enforcement Officer to
participate in the discussion. He observed that Board Member Clarke’s concerns are more nuisance issues than problems
with the home occupation provisions.
Board Member Johnson said she learned a lot about the home occupation provisions by reading the Staff Report. She
learned that in her particular neighborhood a piano teacher went through the process to obtain a conditional use permit, yet
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 46 of 113
another neighbor was illegally operating a business that has many people coming and going. She stressed that education and
enforcement issues must be addressed.
Board Member Cloutier observed that cost is the number one factor that discourages people from applying for the necessary
home occupation permits. He suggested that if the financial cost were lower and the guidelines were clearer, more people
would submit applications for the required permits. This would allow the City to have a better understanding of what is
going on and they could start to see the correlation between approved home occupations and the associated uses to identify
necessary changes. A proper checklist would be helpful to applicants, as well. He summarized his belief that the City
should do what they can to encourage applications to be submitted. Mr. Chave said it would be less costly for the City to
have a simpler process rather than increasing enforcement.
Board Member Reed asked if every home occupation is required to obtain a permit. Ms. Coccia said they are required to
obtain a business license through the City Clerk’s office. However, a conditional use permit would only be required if the
use cannot meet the criteria set forth in ECDC 20.20.010(A). Board Member Reed said he found the document confusing
because the word “permit” is used over and over again, and it is not meant to refer to a document, but to what is allowed. He
suggested the term be changed to “allowed” if it is not talking about an actual permit. Board Member Reed said it is
important to preserve the sanctity of neighborhoods in the City, but it is also important to encourage opportunities for
economic development. He said he finds the current regulations to be too tight, but he is not sure how far they should be
loosened. Mr. Chave suggested a discussion with the Code Enforcement Officer would be helpful in this regard.
Board Member Clarke observed that with changes in technology, companies are downsizing their office space and having
their employees work from home. As the economic base evolves to a service employment base, they will see more and more
of these situations. Board Member Johnson said it is important for the City to encourage people to have their businesses at
home legally. They should encourage them to apply for the correct licenses and permits. This can be done by having
reasonable rules that allow them to work without impacting the neighborhood. Technology and economic circumstances
have changed significantly since the current code language was written 17 years ago. She suggested the Board could be
creative and come up with code language that allows an administrative process that can readily adapt to current situations.
This would also avoid situations where people have to either go before the Hearing Examiner for a conditional use or operate
the home occupation without the required permits.
Ms. Coccia pointed out that delivery services such as UPS, Federal Express, etc. cannot be regulated by the City. The
deliveries referred to in the code language are related to those that require vehicles larger than a standard UPS truck. She
noted that more and more people are trying to operate web-based businesses from their home. They don’t have products
stored in their homes, but they coordinate the shipment of merchandise from one site to another.
Board Member Stewart said another reason to encourage home businesses is that they want to reduce the number of vehicle
trips to reduce emissions. One positive step is to encourage home occupations so people do not have to drive to work. She
encouraged the Board to keep this positive aspect in mind. The code language should be flexible, yet also protect the
character of the neighborhoods. She expressed her position that if she lived in a neighborhood with covenants, she would
like the City to honor the requirements. Board Member Johnson expressed her belief that the existing code requirements are
so restrictive that they force people to disobey or ignore them.
Board Member Clarke inquired if any consideration is given to the street patterns. Trucks associated with home occupations
could create circulation issues. While some residential neighborhoods have free flowing traffic and capacity for street
parking, most residential plats do not have wide enough streets to accommodate on-street parking, particularly for large
vehicles. Ms. Coccia agreed and said that the Engineering Department reviews conditional use applications and provides
feedback regarding traffic. Mr. Chave said the code could probably include rules that accomplish the same thing. For
example, home occupations above a certain threshold could be required to locate on a collector or arterial streets.
The Board agreed that the next step would be to discuss their issues and concerns with the Code Enforcement Officer, and
then provide direction to staff to develop a proposal. Staff agreed to provide some alternatives for the Board to consider
when they continue their discussion. Vice Chair Lovell summarized that the goal of the proposed amendments it to make
the process simpler without requiring Hearing Examiner review. Mr. Chave said that rather than requiring a Hearing
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 47 of 113
Examiner review, a conditional use application could be a staff decision with notice. He noted that most business licenses do
not require notice, but another alternative would be to require notice only for businesses that propose to have people coming
to the home. He summarized that staff supports an amendment that would move away from automatically sending home
occupation applications to the Hearing Examiner since this is a costly process.
Board Member Clarke asked about the penalty for operating a home occupation without a license. Mr. Chave said it
becomes a code enforcement issue. There is no automatic monetary penalty. The person would be required to apply for a
business license, and the City has the ability to increase fees up to five times for violations. If the situation is the result of an
inadvertent mistake, they do not assess a higher fee. But if they know that a person blatantly violated the permit requirement,
a higher fee would be assessed. Board Member Clarke said that if they are going to make it easier to obtain a home
occupation permit, they should also increase the penalty for those who try to avoid the permit requirement.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
The Board did not provide any comments regarding the extended agenda.
ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS
BOARD MEMBER STEWART NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER LOVELL AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED
UNANIMOUSLY, WITH BOARD MEMBER LOVELL ABSTAINING.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER REED AS VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD.
BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED
UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell did not provide any comments during this portion of the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Reed announced that the public/private Washington State Ferry Partnership’s deadline for proposals for the
lot adjacent to Skippers was June 30th, and no proposals were received for an overhead crossing in exchange for the lot. The
appraisal of the property was approximately $1.5 million and was based on a statement from the bank that they received two
offers of $1 million for the Skippers property. It was determined that the best option is to hold the property until the
economy improves. He said he would like the City to work with the Washington State Department of Transportation and
Burlington Northern Santa Fe to create a walking avenue from downtown to the waterfront that does not go in front of the
ferry.
Board Member Clarke advised that his employment requires a lot of travel that he has no control over. This has resulted in
his absence from a number of Board meetings. He said he reviews the Commission materials that are distributed for each
meeting. He said he loves being part of the Board and appreciates the opportunity to work with such a talented group of
people. He indicated he does not intend to resign at this time. He observed that when he first joined the Board, previous
Board Member Guenther missed several meetings for work related responsibilities, yet Mr. Rutledge never commented on
his absences. He suggested that Mr. Rutledge appears to have a personal issue with him.
Board Member Clarke recalled previous comments made by Al Rutledge regarding the issue of naming parks and putting up
plaques to recognize people who submit potential names for parks. He explained that Mr. McIntosh has worked diligently to
try and communicate the issues surrounding Mr. Rutledge’s concerns. The bottom line is that the park naming policy is very
specific, and both times the committees followed the letter of the law. They have named two parks after individuals rather
than groups of people. When Hickman Park was named and dedicated, there was a ceremony that recognized individuals
EXHIBIT - 2
Packet Page 48 of 113
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
9
o
f
1
1
3
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
0
o
f
1
1
3
Chapter 20.20
HOME OCCUPATIONS
Sections:
20.20.000 Purpose.
20.20.010 Home occupation.
20.20.015 Prohibited home occupations.
20.20.020 General regulation.
20.20.030 Permit.
20.20.000 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to allow residents to carry on home occupations on their
property while guaranteeing neighboring residents freedom from excessive noise,
excessive traffic, nuisance, fire hazard and other possible potential negative impacts from
the maintenance of a commercial use within a residential neighborhood. The purpose of
this chapter is to permit two types of home use occupations while prohibiting other
commercial uses in residential neighborhoods. Commercial enterprises employing only
the residents of a structure which are operated entirely within the structure and which
require no deliveries or other traffic are intended to be permitted activities. Other
occupations such as music teachers, newspaper delivery and other commercial activity
which are intended to serve the neighborhood and which promote traffic only within the
neighborhood as opposed to attracting traffic to the neighborhood from outside, are also
intended to be permitted uses. A home occupation is generally an economic enterprise
operated within a dwelling unit, or buildings accessory to the dwelling unit which are
incidental and secondary to the residential use of the dwelling unit, including the use of
the dwelling unit as a business address in the phone directory or as a post office mailing
address.
20.20.010 Home occupation.*
A home occupation may be conducted as a permitted use in any residential zone of the
city subject to the following regulations:
A. Home occupation shall be a permitted use if it:
1. Is carried on exclusively by a family member residing in the dwelling unit; and
2. Is conducted entirely within the structures on the site, without any significant
outside activity; and
3. Uses no heavy equipment, power tools or power sources not common to a
residence; and
4. Has no pickup or delivery by business related commercial vehicles (except for the
U.S. Mail) which exceeds 20,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and
5. Creates no noise, dust, glare, vibration, odor, smoke or other impact adverse to a
residential area beyond that normally associated with residential use; and
EXHIBIT - 3
Packet Page 51 of 113
6. Does not include any employees outside of the family members residing at the
residence, including but not limited to persons working at or visiting the subject
property; and
7. All performance criteria established pursuant to ECDC 17.60.010.
Any permit granted to such an occupational use shall be immediately voidable upon proof
of any visit to the site in excess of the standards provided in paragraphs A(4) and A(6) of
this section or any visits by a customer, client or other persons purchasing goods or
services from the home occupation. Proof of one such occurrence shall be sufficient to
void the permitted use provided under this section and thereby requiring the home
occupation to meet the permitting provisions hereinafter contained in this chapter. An
example of an out right permitted home occupation is a writer or artist who develops a
book or art work and does not show the work from the home.
B. A home occupation which does not meet one or more of the requirements of
subsection (A) of this section may be approved as a conditional use permit (Type III-B
decision) pursuant to Chapter 20.05 ECDC and the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.06
ECDC, if the home occupation:
1. Will not harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood;
2. The temporary and permanent keeping of animals associated with home
occupation must comply with all provisions of Chapter 5.05 ECC (Animal Control)
and ECDC Title 16;
3. Will not include storage, display of goods, building materials and/or the operation
of building machinery, commercial vehicles or other tools, unless it meets the
following criteria:
a. Is wholly enclosed within a structure or building,
b. Does not emit noise, odor or heat, and
c. Does not create glare or emit light from the site in violation of the city’s
performance criteria;
4. Does not create a condition which injures or endangers the comfort, or pose
health or safety threats of persons on abutting properties or streets; and
5. Will not generate traffic from outside of the neighborhood nor excessive intra-
neighborhood traffic or necessitate excessive parking beyond that normally
associated with a residential use; and all performance criteria established by ECDC
17.60.010 are met. Any permit granted to such a home occupation shall be
immediately voidable upon proof of any visit to the site by any client, patient or
customer in excess of the standard established through the conditional use permit
process, and proof of one such occurrence shall be sufficient to void such permit in
any proceeding under ECDC 20.100.040 relating to review of approved permits.
[Ord. 3783 § 10, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 10, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 52, 2009].
EXHIBIT - 3
Packet Page 52 of 113
*Code reviser’s note: Ordinance 3783 amends interim Ordinance 3775 amending ECDC
20.20.010(B). Ordinance 3775 expires July 5, 2010.
20.20.015 Prohibited home occupations.
Certain home occupations depend for their economic viability upon the sale or provision
of services to persons throughout the city or the regional community rather than the
neighborhood in which they reside thereby attracting to a neighborhood traffic beyond
that generally associated with the neighborhood or intra-neighborhood traffic. Such home
occupations which depend upon travel to the site by customers, clients or patients are
specifically prohibited.
A. The following occupational uses shall be presumed to generate such traffic:
1. The offices of any doctor of medicine, dentist, orthodontist, chiropractor or other
health care professional licensed under the state of Washington (excluding licensed
massage therapists);
2. The offices of any person engaged in the practice of law;
3. The offices of any veterinarian; and/or
4. Any structure used for the retail sale of goods, except as expressly permitted by
ECDC 20.20.020(E) as an adjunct to a permitted use.
B. The presumption established by subsection A of this section shall be rebuttable, but
the applicant shall have the burden of proving that no commercial traffic will be generated
by clients, patients or customers. Any permit granted to such an occupational use shall
be voidable upon proof of any visit to the site by a client, patient or customer, and proof
of one such visit shall be sufficient to void such permit and any proceeding under ECDC
20.100.040 relating to the review of approved permits.
C. The limited sale of services on site by occupations other than those listed in
subsection A of this section shall be permitted so long as:
1. All performance criteria established by ECDC 17.60.010 are met and the
conditional use permit issued pursuant to ECDC 20.20.010(B) and Chapter 20.05
ECDC are met; and
2. The home occupation is advertised, intended and/or in fact attracts traffic only
from the residential neighborhood in which it is located, does not create traffic in
excess of normal residential levels, and is not intended or designed to create
additional traffic into the neighborhood by attracting clients or customers from
beyond the neighborhood.
Examples of home occupations which might qualify for a permit include the musical
instruction of pupils in clearly defined and limited numbers which does not generate traffic
from outside of the residential neighborhood in which it is located nor in excess of normal
residential levels or operating as a news carrier from a residential home in which the only
outside traffic is delivery of papers to the site by the news agency.
EXHIBIT - 3
Packet Page 53 of 113
D. Home occupations which employ any individual outside of resident family where the
employee(s) work at or visit the subject property shall be prohibited in any planned
residential development or individual lot thereof. [Ord. 3465 § 4, 2003].
20.20.020 General regulation.
A. Sale or Display of Goods. No goods shall be sold or rendered on the premises except
instructional materials pertinent to the home occupation (e.g., music books). Display or
storage of goods outside the premises or in the window thereof is prohibited.
B. Signs. A sign is permitted in conjunction with conditional use permit approval and does
not exceed three square feet in size and shall contain only the name and address of the
residence.
C. Reasons for Denial. A home occupation conditional use permit is a special exception
to the zoning ordinance and the applicant has the burden of persuasion that he/she
comes within the stated purposes and criteria of this chapter. The following are among
common reasons for denial but are not intended to be exclusive:
1. The on-street or on-site parking of trucks or other types of equipment associated
with the home occupation;
2. The littered, unkempt and otherwise poorly maintained condition of the dwelling
site;
3. Noncompliance with the criteria of this chapter or conditions of approval or other
provisions of city ordinance; and/or
4. The proposal cannot be conditioned in order to meet the criteria and findings of
the chapter.
20.20.030 Permit.
All permits for home occupations are personal to the applicant and shall not be
transferred or otherwise assigned to any other person. The permit will automatically
expire when the applicant named on the permit application moves from the site. The
home use occupation shall also automatically expire if the permittee fails to maintain a
valid business license or the business license is suspended or revoked. The home
occupation shall not be transferred to any site other than that described on the
application form. [Ord. 2951 § 1, 1993].
This page of the Edmonds City Code is current through
Ord. 3792, passed April 20, 2010.
Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the
Edmonds City. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for
ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
City Website: http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
City Telephone: (425) 771-0245
Code Publishing Company
EXHIBIT - 3
Packet Page 54 of 113
AM-3777 Item #: 1. B.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 03/08/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Pam Lemcke Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Report on bids opened February 15, 2011 for the Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir Improvement Project, award a contract in
the amount of $224,286.66 to Omega Contractors, Inc. and appropriate an additional $164,000 to the 2011 412-100 Water
Utility Fund to construct the project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward the item to consent agenda and award the project and appropriate the additional water utility funds at the March 15,
2011 Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
On November 16, 2010, Council authorized staff to call for bids for the Aldewood Intertie and Reservoir Improvement Project.
Narrative
On February 15, 2011 the City received 6 bids for the Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir Improvement Project. The bids ranged
in price from $224,287 (low) to $275,073 (high). The design consultant's engineers estimate is $259,126. The bid tabulation
summary is attached as Exhibit 1. Omega Contractors, Inc. submitted the low responsive bid in the amount of $224,286.66
including sales tax. Staff completed a review of the low bidder's record and references and found them to be acceptable.
The project was included in the 2010 Water Comprehensive Plan and will improve the intertie station with Alderwood Water
District and upgrade existing reservoir vents and access points at the Seaview and Yost Reservoirs. The improvements will
provide more efficient operation of the intertie supply station during peak demand periods when the City's Five Corners Pump
Station is operating in conjunction with the supply station. In addition to the construction improvements, the design consultant
will provide software programming and training, and a control plan that will be implemented after the intertie improvements
are completed. The Seaview and Yost Reservoir improvements will replace existing vents and install new locking access
hatches to improve security.
Below is a summary of the estimated construction budget:
Construction Contract $ 224,287
Inspection/Construction Management $ 22,000
Testing Lab Services $ 5,000
Software Programming/Training $ 29,000
Contingency (10%)$ 23,000
Total Construction Budget $303,287
The 2011 budget includes $140,000 in the 412-100 Water Utility Fund for this project. Staff recommends Council approve an
additional budget appropriation of $164,000 to the 412-100 Water Utility Fund to complete the project. The additional funds
were estimated to be expended as part of the 2010 budget, but were not used since the project was not advertised until January,
2011.
Attachments
Exhibit 1-Bid Tab
Form Review
Packet Page 55 of 113
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 03/02/2011 05:07 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 03/03/2011 04:15 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/03/2011 04:23 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 03/04/2011 10:38 AM
Finance Lorenzo Hines 03/04/2011 11:17 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/04/2011 11:23 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 03/02/2011 09:37 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/04/2011
Packet Page 56 of 113
3/4/2011 L:\Productiondb\AGENDA\CCOUNCIL\Item1.B._Att1_Exhibit 1-Bid Tab.xls,Bid Tab
City of Edmonds
Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir Improvements EOIA c324
Item Description Units Quantity Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price
1
Mobilization, Demobilization, Site
Preparation and Cleanup LS 1 20,935$ 20,935$ 7,000$ 7,000.00$ 1,000$ 1,000.00$ 8,600$ 8,600.00$ 19,300$ 19,300.00$ 24,000$ 24,000.00$ 15,000$ 15,000.00$
2 Project Traffic Control LS 1 4,360$ 4,360$ 1,000$ 1,000.00$ 1,000$ 1,000.00$ 3,000$ 3,000.00$ 4,000$ 4,000.00$ 7,500$ 7,500.00$ 3,500$ 3,500.00$
3 Mechanical LS 1 81,700$ 81,700$ 86,000$ 86,000.00$ 100,000$ 100,000.00$ 89,700$ 89,700.00$ 80,000$ 80,000.00$ 94,000$ 94,000.00$ 93,209$ 93,209.00$
4
5 Corners BPS 8” Backpressure/Solenoid
Control Valve Modifications LS 1 7,000$ 7,000$ 11,000$ 11,000.00$ 12,000$ 12,000.00$ 10,000$ 10,000.00$ 11,000$ 11,000.00$ 12,000$ 12,000.00$ 13,000$ 13,000.00$
5
Yost and Seaview Reservoirs Vent and
Hatch Improvements LS 1 30,000$ 30,000$ 43,000$ 43,000.00$ 35,000$ 35,000.00$ 37,800$ 37,800.00$ 44,000$ 44,000.00$ 35,000$ 35,000.00$ 71,000$ 71,000.00$
6 Electrical LS 1 25,000$ 25,000$ 14,000$ 14,000.00$ 18,000$ 18,000.00$ 13,500$ 13,500.00$ 23,000$ 23,000.00$ 25,000$ 25,000.00$ 16,000$ 16,000.00$
7 Automatic Control LS 1 60,650$ 60,650$ 40,000$ 40,000.00$ 40,000$ 40,000.00$ 45,700$ 45,700.00$ 36,000$ 36,000.00$ 45,000$ 45,000.00$ 32,000$ 32,000.00$
8 As-builts LS 1 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000.00$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000.00$ 2,000$ 2,000.00$ 2,000$ 2,000.00$ 2,000$ 2,000.00$
9 Testing, Startup and Training LS 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 828$ 828.00$ 1,000$ 1,000.00$ 2,800$ 2,800.00$ 1,500$ 1,500.00$ 5,000$ 5,000.00$ 5,500$ 5,500.00$
Subtotal (Base Bid)236,645.00$ Subtotal 204,828.00$ Subtotal 210,000.00$ Subtotal 213,100.00$ Subtotal 220,800.00$ Subtotal 249,500.00$ Subtotal 251,209.00$
Tax 9.5%22,481.28$ Tax 9.5%19,458.66$ Tax 9.5%19,950.00$ Tax 9.5%20,244.50$ Tax 9.5%20,976.00$ Tax 9.5%23,702.50$ Tax 9.5%23,864.86$
Total Base Bid 259,126.28$ Total Base Bid 224,286.66$ Total Base Bid 229,950.00$ Total Base Bid 233,344.50$ Total Base Bid 241,776.00$ Total Base Bid 273,202.50$ Total Base Bid 275,073.86$
Council Bid Tab - Exhibit 1
McClure and SonsEngineers Estimate Omega Contractors, Inc.RAZZ Construction Gary Harper Const.Equity Builders LLC Interwest Construction
Packet Page 57 of 113
AM-3778 Item #: 1. C.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 03/08/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Mike De Lilla Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Report on bids opened February 17, 2011 for the 2010 Waterline Replacement Project, award contract in the amount of
$1,834,833.02 to Kar-Vel Construction Company and appropriate an additional $273,922 to the 412-100 Water Utility Fund to
construct the project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward item to the consent agenda and award the project and appropriate the additional water utility funds at the March 15,
2011 Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
On November 16, 2010, Council authorized staff to call for bids for the 2010 Waterline Replacement Project.
Narrative
On February 17, 2011, the City received nine bids for the 2010 Waterline Replacement Project. The bids ranged from a low of
$1,834,833 to a high of $2,456,773. The bid tabulation summary is attached as Exhibit 1. Kar-Vel Construction Company
submitted the low responsive bid in the amount of $1,834,833.02, including sales tax. The engineer’s estimate was
$2,064,127.75. Staff completed a review of the low bidder's record and references and found them to be satisfactory.
This project is part of the City’s program to replace and upgrade existing waterlines at various locations around the City that
are reaching the end of their useful service life, are undersized and unable to meet current requirements, or have some other
existing system deficiency. The project will replace approximately 10,000 linear feet of waterline piping with associated
meters, fire hydrants and two Pressure Reducing stations. In addition, the project will install one new Pressure Reducing
station to improve flow and pressure regulation between pressure zones 596 and 420.
Below is a summary of the estimated construction budget:
Construction Contract $1,834,833
Engineering & Construction Management $95,000
Testing Lab Services $49,000
Contingency (Approximately 10%) $184,000
1% for the Arts $2,153
Total Construction Budget $2,164,986
The following funding sources will be used to pay for the project:
2011 Budget 412-100 Water Utility Fund $ 1,786,494
Appropriation to 412-100 Water Utility Fund $ 273,922
General Fund Transfer to 412-100 Water Utility Fund $ 104,570
Total $2,164,986
Packet Page 58 of 113
The 2011 Budget includes $3,606,000 in the 412-100 Water Utility Fund for replacement of waterlines and pressure reducing
stations. This amount was budgeted for the 2010 and 2011 waterline replacement programs. Staff recommends using
$1,786,494 of the 2011 budget and adding an appropriation of $273,922 to complete the 2010 project. The $273,922 was
estimated to be expended as part of the 2010 budget, but was not used since the project was not advertised until January,
2011. The remaining $1,819,506 in 412-100 Water Utility Fund will be reserved for the 2011 waterline replacement project
scheduled for later this year. Issuance of a capital utility bond is planned in 2011 to provide revenue for the 412-100 Water
Utility Fund to pay for both waterline replacement projects.
The General Fund Transfer of $104,570 represents the estimated project cost to install fire hydrants. This transfer will be
funded by the 8.7% water utility tax that is collected by the general fund for fire hydrant improvements.
Attachments
Council Bid Tab
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 03/03/2011 04:27 PM
Finance Lorenzo Hines 03/03/2011 04:55 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 03/03/2011 05:00 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/03/2011 06:05 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 03/04/2011 10:38 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/04/2011 11:23 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 03/02/2011 11:58 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/04/2011
Packet Page 59 of 113
Exhibit 1
Bid Tabulation Summary for:
2010 Waterline Replacement Project
1. Kar-Vel Construction, $1,834,833.02
2. Tri State Construction, $1,951,093.10
3. Titan Earthwork, $1,986,264.90
4. DPK, Inc., $2,029,969.04
5. Plats Plus., $2,055,468.19
6. Laser Underground & Earthwork, $2,090,738.25
7. Interwest Construction, $2,116,721.35
8. Johansen Excavating, $2,395,962.22
9. Marshbank Construction, $2,454,773.74
Engineer’s estimate: $2,064,127.75
Packet Page 60 of 113
AM-3787 Item #: 1. D.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 03/08/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and staff to dispense with competitive bidding requirements to allow for an emergency
repair on the stormwater pipe in Dayton Street.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward item to the March 15, 2011 Council Meeting for approval.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The City became aware of a sink hole in Dayton Street between the BNSF railroad tracks and Admiral Way on February 25,
2011. Upon excavation and dewatering, the City found a hole in the existing 24-inch diameter stormwater pipe that resulted
in the undermining of soil beneath Dayton Street. A temporary repair was made on the pipeline and shoring was installed to
stabilize the street.
The City is proceeding with completing an emergency repair and has negotiated a not to exceed contract of $67,500 with ICI
Construction to complete the work. The repair work will be paid on a time and material basis and may cost less than the
contract amount. The scope of work includes replacing approximately 65 lineal feet of pipe between two existing manholes.
Staff has determined that a permanent repair must be completed as soon as possible since the pipeline must continue to operate
and convey stormwater runoff to Puget Sound.
The Resolution provides the authority to eliminate the public bid process and select ICI Construction to complete the
emergency repair work.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Resolution
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 03/03/2011 05:04 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 03/03/2011 05:06 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/03/2011 06:05 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 03/04/2011 10:38 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/04/2011 11:23 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 03/03/2011 12:57 PM
Final Approval Date: 03/04/2011
Packet Page 61 of 113
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND STAFF TO DISPENSE WITH
COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO RESTORE A FAILING
STORM SEWER ON DAYTON STREET WEST OF THE BNSF RAILROAD TRACKS
WHEREAS, based upon the presentation of staff and the information contained in the
public record, the City Council finds that the imminent failure of a public storm sewer line,
within the right of way of Dayton Street, constitutes an emergency within the meaning of
RCW 39.04.280(1) (c); and
WHEREAS, RCW 39.04.280(1) (c) authorizes the City to waive competitive bidding
requirements in the event of an emergency, and
WHEREAS, an emergency is defined by RCW 39.04.280(3) to mean an unforeseen
circumstance beyond the control of the municipality that either: (a) presents a real immediate
danger to the proper performance of an essential function; or (b) will likely result in material loss
or damage to property, bodily injury or loss of life if immediate action is not taken, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the staff report of the Public Works Director
and staff describing the storm sewer emergency brought about by broken 24-inch concrete storm
sewer line; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and concludes that the immediate restoration of city
utility systems on Dayton Street by contractors through negotiation rather than competitive
bidding or selection is in the public interest, now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
The Edmonds City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor and his designees to waive competitive
bidding requirements in order to contract for the restoration/replacement of approximately 65
feet of the existing 24-inch storm sewer on Dayton Street.
Packet Page 62 of 113
RESOLVED this _____ day of ______, 2011.
APPROVED:
____________________________________
MAYOR, Mike Cooper
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
_____________________________________
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
Packet Page 63 of 113
AM-3749 Item #: 2. A.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 03/08/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:Steve Koho
Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Requesting authorization to salvage surplus and obsolete parts and equipment for the Wastewater Department.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Recommend placing this request for authorization to salvage surplus and obsolete parts on the next available City Council
agenda for approval.
Previous Council Action
City Council approved the surplus of utility equipment on February 2, 2010.
Narrative
The City currently owns certain assets that were originally acquired for utility purposes and that have been determined by the
Public Works Director (and staff) to be no longer required for providing continued public utility service. RCW 35.94.040
provides that the City may, by resolution of its legislative body after a public hearing, declare such assets surplus and
thereafter cause such assets to be leased, sold, or conveyed.
The list of surplus items includes items that are not worth repairing or no longer needed, as well as a list of items that were
previously approved by Council for auction. Some items did not sell when auctioned, therefore Council authorization is
needed to dispose of them as scrap.
If the Committee recommends approval, staff will place an agenda item and Public Hearing on a future Council meeting.
Following the public hearing, a resolution can be adopted by Council to complete the administrative steps necessary to surplus
utility equipment. This is the same process used in February 2010.
Attachments
Surplus resolution
Equipment list
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works Phil Williams 02/17/2011 04:04 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/28/2011 11:37 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 03/02/2011 05:14 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/02/2011 05:15 PM
Form Started By: Steve Koho Started On: 02/15/2011 02:51 PM
Final Approval Date: 03/02/2011
Packet Page 64 of 113
{BFP760362.DOC;1\00006.900175\ } - 1 -
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DECLARING CERTAIN
PROPERTIES ORIGINALLY ACQUIRED FOR UTILITY
PURPOSES TO BE SURPLUS TO THE NEEDS OF THE CITY
AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO
SELL SUCH SURPLUS PROPERTIES.
WHEREAS, the City currently owns certain properties that were originally
acquired for utility purposes and that have been determined by the Public Works Director to be
no longer required for providing continued public utility service, and
WHEREAS, RCW 35.94.040 provides that the City may, by resolution of its
legislative body after a public hearing, declare such properties surplus and thereafter cause such
property to be leased, sold, or conveyed, and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council held a public hearing on such surplus
property on and, after considering any and all testimony received, determined
to enact this resolution declaring the properties surplus and authorizing their sale, now therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Properties Declared Surplus. That certain properties described
on Exhibit A to this resolution, which were originally acquired for utility purposes, are no longer
required for providing continued public utility service and are hereby declared to be surplus to
the City’s needs.
Section 2. Authority of Public Works Director. The Public Works Director
of the City of Edmonds is hereby authorized and directed to sell the property described on
Packet Page 65 of 113
{BFP760362.DOC;1\00006.900175\ } - 2 -
Exhibit A in any commercially reasonable manner of his/her choosing, including without
limitation sealed bid, auction, or private sale, so long as the City receives, in return for each item
sold, no less than fair market value or rent or consideration as listed on Exhibit A. Every sale
made pursuant to this resolution shall be on an “as is” basis and shall include an express
disclaimer by the City of any and all warranties or liability.
RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2011.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
Packet Page 66 of 113
Packet Page 67 of 113
Packet Page 68 of 113
Packet Page 69 of 113
Packet Page 70 of 113
Packet Page 71 of 113
Packet Page 72 of 113
Packet Page 73 of 113
Packet Page 74 of 113
Packet Page 75 of 113
AM-3792 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 03/08/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Monthly General Fund Update.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
None
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
General Fund Overview – February 2011
Attachments
February 2011 Report
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/04/2011 11:56 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 03/04/2011 12:43 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/04/2011 01:42 PM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 03/04/2011
Final Approval Date: 03/04/2011
Packet Page 76 of 113
2011 Annual
Budget YTD Actuals Variance
%
Rec/Exp
BEGINNING WORKING CAPITAL 2,815,313 0 2,815,313
REVENUES
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9,506,114 45,754 9,460,360 0.48%
EMS PROPERTY TAX 3,233,038 16,958 3,216,080 0.52%
VOTED PROPERTY TAX 877,984 4,160 873,824 0.47%
LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4,524,195 808,205 3,715,990 17.86%
NATURAL GAS USE TAX 16,667 2,362 14,305 14.17%
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 530,130 101,412 428,718 19.13%
GAS UTILITY TAX 890,000 237,495 652,505 26.68%
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 698,865 0 698,865 0.00%
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,563,454 195,886 1,367,568 12.53%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,532,043 306,514 1,225,529 20.01%
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 285,918 47,352 238,566 16.56%
WATER UTILITY TAX 764,082 67,752 696,330 8.87%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 41,951 428,049 8.93%
STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 237,600 17,622 219,978 7.42%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 250,938 54,241 196,697 21.62%
PULLTABS TAX 61,043 12,506 48,537 20.49%
LICENSES AND PERMITS 1,484,829 478,726 1,006,103 32.24%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL 837,256 85,649 751,607 10.23%
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES 3,637,480 544,940 3,092,540 14.98%
FINES AND FORFEITURES 667,100 51,926 615,174 7.78%
MISCELLANEOUS 339,073 41,451 297,622 12.22%
NONREVENUES 0 0 0 0.00%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 104,464 0 104,464 0.00%
TOTAL REVENUES 32,512,273 3,162,862 29,349,411 9.73%
EXPENDITURES
SALARIES/WAGES 12,813,121 1,968,339 10,844,782 15.36%
BENEFITS 4,408,629 677,088 3,731,541 15.36%
SUPPLIES 531,004 45,022 485,982 8.48%
SERVICES 3,644,274 888,800 2,755,474 24.39%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL 8,825,569 2,056,932 6,768,637 23.31%
CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 0 0.00%
DEBT SERVICE PRINCIPAL 1,111,369 0 1,111,369 0.00%
DEBT SERVICE INTEREST 340,759 5,106 335,653 1.50%
INTERFUND SERVICES 646,172 64,924 581,248 10.05%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 32,320,897 5,706,211 26,614,686 17.65%
CHANGE IN WORKING CAPITAL 191,376 -2,543,349 2,734,725
ENDING WORKING CAPITAL 3,006,689 -2,543,349 5,550,038
City of Edmonds
General Fund Update
February 2011
Packet Page 77 of 113
CURRENT FORECAST 774,060
2011 BUDGET 700,000
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast %7.79%5.06%6.55%8.36%8.00%10.19%9.31%10.84%9.65%9.82%7.83%6.61%
Cumulative Forecast %7.79%12.85%19.40%27.76%35.76%45.95%55.26%66.10%75.74%85.56%93.39%100.00%
Monthly Forecast $54,509 35,415 45,854 58,548 55,975 71,363 65,138 75,882 67,525 68,726 54,798 46,268
Cumulative Forecast $54,509 89,923 135,777 194,325 250,300 321,663 386,801 462,683 530,208 598,934 653,732 700,000
Actual Collected $64,450 26,992 54,216 69,226 66,184 84,378 77,017 89,722 79,840 81,260 64,792 54,707
Cumulative Collection $64,450 91,442 145,658 214,885 281,069 365,447 442,464 532,186 612,026 693,286 758,079 812,785
YEAR END FORECAST 827,667 711,822 750,944 774,060 786,048 795,281 800,735 805,152 808,019 810,274 811,732 812,785
Projected YE Variance 127,667 11,822 50,944 74,060 86,048 95,281 100,735 105,152 108,019 110,274 111,732 112,785
Budget Variance %18.24%1.69%7.28%10.58%12.29%13.61%14.39%15.02%15.43%15.75%15.96%16.11%
City of Edmonds
2011 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2011 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
Actuals/Trend Budget
R:\Taxes\Major Revenue Projections 11 CHARTS Page 1 of 5 3/4/2011 11:33 AMPacket Page 78 of 113
2011 OUTLOOK 4,459,150
2011 BUDGET 4,524,195
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast %7.98%10.14%7.08%7.51%8.67%7.78%7.81%9.33%8.31%8.38%9.33%7.69%
Cumulative Forecast %7.98%18.12%25.20%32.71%41.38%49.16%56.96%66.30%74.61%82.98%92.31%100.00%
Monthly Forecast $361,138 458,856 320,307 339,615 392,188 351,881 353,139 422,201 376,021 378,930 421,884 348,035
Cumulative Forecast $361,138 819,994 1,140,302 1,479,916 1,872,104 2,223,985 2,577,124 2,999,325 3,375,345 3,754,276 4,176,160 4,524,195
Actual Collected $358,415 449,791 317,892 337,053 389,230 349,227 350,476 419,017 373,185 376,072 418,702 345,411
Cumulative Collection $358,415 808,205 1,126,097 1,463,150 1,852,380 2,201,607 2,552,083 2,971,099 3,344,284 3,720,357 4,139,059 4,484,470
YEAR END FORECAST 4,490,075 4,459,150 4,467,837 4,472,940 4,476,529 4,478,672 4,480,235 4,481,620 4,482,562 4,483,320 4,484,002 4,484,470
Projected YE Variance (34,120) (65,045) (56,358) (51,255) (47,666) (45,523) (43,960) (42,575) (41,633) (40,875) (40,193) (39,725)
Budget Variance %-0.75%-1.44%-1.25%-1.13%-1.05%-1.01%-0.97%-0.94%-0.92%-0.90%-0.89%-0.88%
City of Edmonds
2011 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model
SALES AND USE TAX
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2011 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
Actuals/Trend Budget
R:\Taxes\Major Revenue Projections 11 CHARTS Page 2 of 5 3/4/2011 11:33 AMPacket Page 79 of 113
2011 OUTLOOK 825,854
2011 BUDGET 890,000
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast %13.97%14.79%13.39%10.91%9.32%7.00%5.14%3.62%3.36%3.67%6.27%8.56%
Cumulative Forecast %13.97%28.76%42.15%53.06%62.38%69.37%74.51%78.13%81.50%85.16%91.44%100.00%
Monthly Forecast $124,297 131,645 119,196 97,069 82,945 62,262 45,728 32,251 29,930 32,637 55,825 76,215
Cumulative Forecast $124,297 255,942 375,138 472,207 555,152 617,413 663,141 695,392 725,322 757,960 813,785 890,000
Actual Collected $118,216 119,279 113,365 92,320 78,887 59,216 43,491 30,673 28,466 31,041 53,094 72,486
Cumulative Collection $118,216 237,495 350,860 443,180 522,067 581,283 624,774 655,447 683,913 714,953 768,048 840,534
YEAR END FORECAST 846,460 825,854 832,401 835,291 836,960 837,918 838,507 838,876 839,189 839,502 839,979 840,534
Projected YE Variance (43,540) (64,146) (57,599) (54,709) (53,040) (52,082) (51,493) (51,124) (50,811) (50,498) (50,021) (49,466)
Budget Variance %-4.89%-7.21%-6.47%-6.15%-5.96%-5.85%-5.79%-5.74%-5.71%-5.67%-5.62%-5.56%
City of Edmonds
2011 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model
GAS UTILITY TAX
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2011 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
Actuals/Trend Budget
R:\Taxes\Major Revenue Projections 11 CHARTS Page 3 of 5 3/4/2011 11:33 AMPacket Page 80 of 113
2011 OUTLOOK 1,291,816
2011 BUDGET 1,563,454
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast %5.64%9.53%9.56%6.30%8.58%6.51%9.54%8.94%6.22%11.08%5.56%12.54%
Cumulative Forecast %5.64%15.16%24.73%31.03%39.61%46.12%55.67%64.61%70.82%81.90%87.46%100.00%
Monthly Forecast $88,105 148,971 149,501 98,560 134,154 101,832 149,200 139,777 97,178 173,153 86,900 196,123
Cumulative Forecast $88,105 237,076 386,576 485,136 619,291 721,123 870,323 1,010,100 1,107,278 1,280,431 1,367,331 1,563,454
Actual Collected $119,046 76,840 202,003 133,173 181,267 137,594 201,597 188,864 131,306 233,962 117,418 264,998
Cumulative Collection $119,046 195,886 397,888 531,061 712,328 849,922 1,051,520 1,240,384 1,371,689 1,605,651 1,723,069 1,988,067
YEAR END FORECAST 2,112,514 1,291,816 1,609,205 1,711,457 1,798,336 1,842,702 1,888,957 1,919,892 1,936,797 1,960,560 1,970,217 1,988,067
Projected YE Variance 549,060 (271,638) 45,751 148,003 234,882 279,248 325,503 356,438 373,343 397,106 406,763 424,613
Budget Variance %35.12%-17.37%2.93%9.47%15.02%17.86%20.82%22.80%23.88%25.40%26.02%27.16%
City of Edmonds
2011 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX
-
250,000
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
1,500,000
1,750,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2011 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
Actuals/Trend Budget
R:\Taxes\Major Revenue Projections 11 CHARTS Page 4 of 5 3/4/2011 11:33 AMPacket Page 81 of 113
2011 OUTLOOK 1,400,895
2011 BUDGET 1,532,043
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast %10.07%11.81%10.51%10.53%9.28%7.62%7.22%6.33%6.62%5.79%7.34%6.87%
Cumulative Forecast %10.07%21.88%32.39%42.93%52.21%59.83%67.05%73.38%80.00%85.79%93.13%100.00%
Monthly Forecast $154,344 180,865 161,039 161,397 142,207 116,798 110,597 96,931 101,381 88,779 112,474 105,231
Cumulative Forecast $154,344 335,209 496,248 657,645 799,852 916,651 1,027,247 1,124,178 1,225,559 1,314,338 1,426,812 1,532,043
Actual Collected $163,770 142,743 170,875 171,254 150,892 123,932 117,351 102,851 107,572 94,201 119,343 111,658
Cumulative Collection $163,770 306,514 477,388 648,643 799,535 923,467 1,040,818 1,143,669 1,251,241 1,345,443 1,464,786 1,576,444
YEAR END FORECAST 1,625,612 1,400,895 1,473,818 1,511,071 1,531,435 1,543,435 1,552,283 1,558,605 1,564,148 1,568,300 1,572,818 1,576,444
Projected YE Variance 93,569 (131,148) (58,225) (20,972) (608) 11,392 20,240 26,562 32,105 36,257 40,775 44,401
Budget Variance %6.11%-8.56%-3.80%-1.37%-0.04%0.74%1.32%1.73%2.10%2.37%2.66%2.90%
City of Edmonds
2011 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX
-
250,000
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
1,500,000
1,750,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2011 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
Actuals/Trend Budget
R:\Taxes\Major Revenue Projections 11 CHARTS Page 5 of 5 3/4/2011 11:33 AMPacket Page 82 of 113
AM-3785 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 03/08/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Debi Humann
Department:Human Resources
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Review and approval of the Agreement for Legal Representation of Indigent Defendants.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Mayor and staff request the approval of the attached Agreement with consensus to move the document forward to full City
Council for review and approval.
Previous Council Action
The current Agreement for Legal Representation of Indigent Defendants between Feldman & Lee, P.S., Inc. and the City of
Edmonds expired December 31, 2010. An interim agreement was approved by Council allowing for the continuation of this
service until a new Agreement could be negotiated and approved. The new Agreement is attached for Finance Committee
review and consideration.
Narrative
As stated above, our Public Defender is Feldman & Lee, P.S., Inc. As also stated above, the Agreement with Feldman & Lee,
P.S., Inc. expired December 31, 2010. As a result, a new Agreement has been negotiated and is being brought forward for
Finance Committee's review and possible approval.
The new Agreement is identical to the former with two exceptions; (1) to the "Scope of and Payment For Legal Services To Be
Rendered" language, and, (2) to amendments being considered regarding court rules CrR3.1, CrRLJ3.1, JuCR9.2, and, as it
relates to the rule for the assignment of a lawyer (see the memorandum dated December 15, 2010 from Mr. Feldman).
The former Agreement was funded on a "per case basis" with additional charges for special appearances and appeals. As the
letter (dated October 27, 2010) from James Feldman states, two additional arraignment calendar dates per week have been
added to his schedule at $200 per arraignment. These two additional dates will add approximately $20,800 annually. In
looking at 2010 expenses, Feldman & Lee, P.S., Inc. handled 969 cases at $130 per case. With the other fees allowed under
the contract, the City funded the Public Defender $134,100 last year. If the $20,800 for the additional arraignment dates ($200
per arraignment twice a week) are added, the new annual estimated cost for this contract could be $154,900 (estimated using
the same number of cases as 2010).
Mr. Feldman would agree to continue his Agreement on a "per case" basis but suggests that the City may want to go with a flat
monthly amount that would be all inclusive of other costs and fees. Mr. Feldman has agreed that an appropriate monthly flat
rate would be $12,625. On an annual basis that would equate to approximately $151,500 resulting in a slight savings over the
per case fee structure with additional fees/costs and, additionally, would allow for containment of costs since the monthly
amount would be all inclusive of other fees and appearances. The attached Agreement reflects the monthly flat rate model (see
4.A).
The new language regarding possible changes to Washington State Supreme Court rules has also been included in this new
Agreement for your review (see 4.B).
Attachments
Agreement and Associated Materials
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/03/2011 12:14 PM
Packet Page 83 of 113
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/03/2011 12:14 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 03/04/2011 10:38 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/04/2011 11:23 AM
Form Started By: Debi Humann Started On: 03/03/2011 10:41 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/04/2011
Packet Page 84 of 113
Packet Page 85 of 113
Packet Page 86 of 113
Packet Page 87 of 113
Packet Page 88 of 113
Packet Page 89 of 113
Packet Page 90 of 113
Packet Page 91 of 113
Packet Page 92 of 113
Packet Page 93 of 113
Packet Page 94 of 113
Packet Page 95 of 113
Packet Page 96 of 113
Packet Page 97 of 113
Packet Page 98 of 113
Packet Page 99 of 113
Packet Page 100 of 113
Packet Page 101 of 113
Packet Page 102 of 113
Packet Page 103 of 113
AM-3784 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 03/08/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Gerry Gannon
Department:Police Department
Committee:Finance Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Discussion of Woodway Police Services Contract.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
None at this time.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
During this year's Council Retreat the topic of the Woodway Police Services Contract was discussed. The Council asked that
the topic of the current contract be brought forward to the Finance Committee for discussion.
Attachments
Woodway Police Services Contract
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/03/2011 09:33 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 03/04/2011 10:38 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/04/2011 11:23 AM
Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 03/03/2011 08:48 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/04/2011
Packet Page 104 of 113
Packet Page 105 of 113
Packet Page 106 of 113
Packet Page 107 of 113
Packet Page 108 of 113
Packet Page 109 of 113
AM-3791 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 03/08/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:
Information
Subject Title
Amend Equipment Rental Fund Ordinance to allow Fire asset transfers.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve
Previous Council Action
On 09/21/2010, Council voted to modify the 2009-2010 Mid Year Budget amendment to: 1) transfer residual Fire vehicle
funds from the Equipment Rental fund to the Public Safety Reserve.
On 10/05/2010, Council passed the 2009-2010 Mid Year Budget amendment (AM-3424) as amended on 09/21/2010.
Narrative
On 10/05/2010, Council passed the 2009-2010 Mid Year Budget amendment (AM-3424) which transfered monies related to
Fire assets from the Equipment Rental Fund to the Public Safety Reserve Fund. However, under current law, monies in the
Equipment Rental Fund are restricted. This amendment codifies Council intent and actions by allowing the transfer as it
relates to Fire assets only.
A draft of the proposed ordinance is attached. It is currently under review by the City Attorney for final form.
Attachments
ERR Amended Ordinance
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works Phil Williams 03/04/2011 11:17 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/04/2011 11:23 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 03/04/2011 12:43 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/04/2011 01:42 PM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 03/04/2011 10:25 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/04/2011
Packet Page 110 of 113
{WSS766983.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE
EDMONDS CITY CODE, SECTION 3.05.110, RELATED TO
TRANFER AUTHORITY WITHIN THE EQUIPMENT RENTAL
FUND, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds contracted for Fire Protection services with
Snohomish County Fire District 1 effective January 1, 2010.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has restricted monies related to vehicles and
equipment related to the City’s former Fire Department in the Equipment Rental Fund
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to transfer monies related to the former Fire
Department to other funds. NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds City Code Section 3.05.110, Retention of monies, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 3.05.110 Retention of monies.
All monies in the equipment rental fund shall be retained there from year to year
and shall not be transferred to any other fund or expended for any other purpose.
However, due to the outsourcing of the city’s Fire Services in January 2010, all
monies associated with equipment and vehicles owned by the former City of
Edmonds Fire Department may be transferred to other funds at the discretion of
the City Council.
Packet Page 111 of 113
{WSS766983.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 -
Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City
legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and
publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFFREY B. TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 112 of 113
{WSS766983.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 3 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, 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 THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, SECTION 8.48.190 RELATING TO
PROHIBITED PARKING UPON DESIGNATED BIKE LANES 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 ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 113 of 113