2006.10.03 CC Agenda PacketAGENDA
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Council Chambers
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
October 03, 2006
7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute
1.Approval of Agenda
2.Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B.AM-623 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 26, 2006.
C.AM-628 Approval of claim checks #91034 through #91182 for
September 28, 2006 in the amount of $183,812.56.
D.AM-618 Approval of Taxi Operator's License for Low Fare Airport and
Local for Hire Vehicles.
E.AM-626 Proposed Resolution opposing Initiative 933 entitled "An act
relating to providing fairness in government regulation of
property."
F.AM-621 Non-Represented 2007-2008 Compensation Plan.
G.AM-622 Pierce storm water billing adjustment.
3.AM-620
(5 Min)
Proclamation in honor of Change a Light Day in Edmonds,
October 4, 2006.
4.AM-629
(5 Min)
Proclamation in honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month,
October 2006.
5.AM-596 Public Hearing on proposed development agreement regarding a
Page 1 of 230
5.AM-596
(20
Min)
Public Hearing on proposed development agreement regarding a
private development known as the McCormick Medical Building,
635 Paradise Lane.
6.AM-619
(30
Min)
Public hearing on proposed amendment to Edmonds City Code
Chapter 8.64.030, Section 13, prohibiting parking at all times on
both sides of 220th Street SW from 100th Avenue W to 84th
Avenue W, and updating reference to a certain street to reflect
correction in name.
7.AM-624
(30
Min)
Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan adopting the Port of Edmonds Strategic Plan
and Master Plan.
8.AM-625
(45
Min)
Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan adopting amended goals and policies for
Neighborhood Business Districts, incorporating specific proposals
for the Firdale and Five Corners Neighborhood Centers.
9.AM-627
(45
Min)
Continued Council deliberation and action on the public hearing
held on September 18, 2006 on the draft "BD - Downtown
Business Zones" intended to be applied to the downtown area to
implement the Comprehensive plan.
10.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)
11.(5 Min)Mayor's Comments
12.(15
Min)
Council Comments
13.Adjourn
Page 2 of 230
AM-623 2.B.
Approval of Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/03/2006
Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 26, 2006.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Please refer to the attached draft minutes.
Recommendation
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Draft Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 11:19 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/28/2006 11:31 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 11:32 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/28/2006 11:18 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2006
Page 3 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
September 26, 2006
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Deanna Dawson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Kisa Nishimoto, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
6:00 P.M. - JOINT MEETING WITH THE PORT COMMISSION
TOPIC: EDMONDS WATERFRONT AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Port Commissioners Mary Lou Block, Marianne Burkhart, Fred Gouge, and Jim Orvis were present;
Commissioner Bruce Faires was absent. Port Executive Director Chris Keuss was also present.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the purpose of the joint meeting between the
City Council and the Port Commission was to discuss the Edmonds Waterfront Area Redevelopment
Program, the area between downtown and the waterfront. He advised this area was designated as a
Master Plan area.
Mr. Bowman displayed a map of the waterfront, identifying the primary study area comprised of a portion
of Harbor Square and the Antique Mall/old Safeway property and a secondary study area comprised of
the Washington State Ferries (WSF) parking lot, Skipper’s property and the railroad station. He recalled
in April 2006, the Council and Port Commission conducted a joint meeting to review the status and
history of Harbor Square and Antique Mall properties and discuss public/private partnership
opportunities. The meeting also included a presentation by Maritime Trust regarding development at Port
Gardner on the Everett waterfront. The Council and Port Commission also reviewed the current
Downtown Waterfront Plan and potential for a railroad quiet zone. At the conclusion of the joint
meeting, the City and Port officials agreed to create a Redevelopment Committee and to focus their
efforts on redeveloping the study area. Ron Wambolt and Bruce Faires serve as the primary City and Port
committee representatives.
Mr. Bowman stated redevelopment of the study area was a high priority and was identified in the
Comprehensive Plan. The area contains large, under-utilized properties, structures with utilitarian
architecture, large areas of concrete and unfriendly streetscape and the haphazard arrangement of uses are
not reflective of the site’s significant potential value and strategic location. The study area has strong
Page 4 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 2
economic and public access components and the ability to provide connections. Redevelopment would
have a direct impact on the economic future of Edmonds as it promotes improvements focused on growth
and enhancement of the community. If redeveloped properly, this area could provide the missing link
between downtown and the waterfront and spur redevelopment in the community.
Mr. Bowman reviewed benefits of redevelopment such as: the positive affects reach beyond the
boundaries of the study area and create an attractive citywide destination; improved the quality of life for
residents, visitors and businesses; and improvement in the City’s favorable image in economic and social
climates. Benefits that could occur as a result of redevelopment include encouraging others to invest in
future development; wider range of available jobs; increased opportunities for shopping and recreation;
improved infrastructure, public facilities and open space; new and renovated housing opportunities;
diversified and increased tax base; improved appearance and circulation of the project area; improved
connectivity between the downtown, waterfront and Port. He noted the committee was not interested in
development that was in competition with downtown but rather development that would link the
waterfront and downtown.
Mr. Bowman explained the process for redeveloping the study area could be commenced and completed
very quickly or over a longer period of time. The timeline would depend on a variety of factors including
the level of political and public support, receptivity and participation of property owners, amount of
public participation, availability and experience of professional consultants and the community’s vision
for the area. He noted the public involvement component was essential to ensure redevelopment was
supported by the community.
He reported that during the past few months, the committee had been meeting monthly to define a scope
of work that could potentially lead to the redevelopment of the study area. In order to gain an
understanding of the level of involvement that may be necessary to transform the study area, the
committee invited staff and officials from the Port and City of Everett to the first redevelopment program
meeting who shared their experience working on the Port Gardner development with Maritime Trust. The
committee recognized property owners as major partners in this endeavor and believed it was important to
structure the process to include them in all steps leading to eventual redevelopment. The committee has
also spent time discussing the need to establish a vision, reviewing existing conditions and opportunities,
the Master Planning process, public involvement, engaging stakeholders, project milestones, determining
the financial feasibility of redevelopment, and interactions between the Port, City, property owners,
citizens and development communities.
He noted one of the differences between the study area and Port Gardner was that Port Gardner has one
ownership, whereas the Edmonds Waterfront study area is a combination of private and public ownership
which would likely require a partnership. For example, the parking lot at the railroad station was an
opportunity where air rights for a parking garage could be considered. He pointed out the high water
table in the study area prohibits underground construction. The committee believes a collective effort
between City, Port officials and staff, property owners, residents, business owners, investors, developers,
engineers, and architects will be necessary to redevelop the study area in such a way as to achieve
positive results. As such, it is necessary to develop a process/plan that allows the involvement of these
entities and recognition of the design parameters on the property.
Mr. Bowman described the Master Planning process, envisioning Phase 1 would include a public
workshop that would profile existing conditions and opportunities, identify user group needs and
concerns and identify alternate use and development strategies. A second public workshop would present
preferred land use and development strategies and the development of preliminary concepts and/or
designs. A third public workshop would present Master Plan alternatives and provide an overview of the
economic feasibility and employment impact. Planning Board approval of concepts would occur next,
followed by Port of Edmonds Commission review and approval of concepts and City Council approval of
Page 5 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 3
concepts. Phase 2 would include environmental review and permitting and Phase 3 would be a phased
site redevelopment. The committee envisioned Phase 1 would be redevelopment of the Antique Mall
property and potentially some of the Harbor Square property (owned by the Port).
Mr. Bowman relayed the committee’s recommendation for the creation of a Redevelopment Plan, via a
Master Planning process with a private-sector firm leading the planning effort. The committee would
discuss costs associated with preparing and soliciting a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), costs associated
with conducting the three phases, and options for funding the work. The Committee would then return to
the City Council and Port Commissioners to report on their findings. If the City and Port officials agreed,
a RFQ could be issued requiring any successful responder to have experience conducting public/private
partnerships, community outreach, developing mixed use projects and be capable of undertaking the
development following the master plan’s completion.
Commissioner Burkhart referred to Mr. Bowman’s comment about recognizing the design parameters on
the site. Mr. Bowman commented parameters include the high water table that may require increased
building height, the site topography, surrounding uses such as the WSF parking lot and train station. He
commented on the potential to use staggered building heights on the property, pointing out one of the
tallest buildings downtown, the Ebbtide, was in the center of the property. He explained consideration
could be given to taller buildings on the center of the site with other buildings stair-stepping down toward
the street to preserve view corridors.
Councilmember Marin advised Sound Transit planned to redevelop the parking lot into 240 spaces. In
other cities, if the local entity wanted a parking structure, the local entity must provide the necessary
funds. Councilmember Marin inquired about the cost of the proposed phases. Councilmember Wambolt
responded the cost had not yet been quantified, that would be the next step.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out the Port and property owners were the primary partners, the City was only
a facilitator. Commissioner Orvis advised the property owner of the Antique Mall, Al Dykes, was
committed to providing funds if development was determined to be feasible. The next step will be to
convince the partners to provide funds for the first phase. In order to do so, the property owners needed
some assurance from the City. Mr. Bowman advised the committee did not have detailed information
regarding costs; the committee recommended authorization of a redevelopment plan via a Master Plan
process and for a private-sector firm to lead that effort. If the City and Port officials agreed, prior to
issuing a RFQ, the committee would investigate costs. Councilmember Marin clarified the next steps
would require funds. He relayed his interest in redevelopment but preferred to develop a range of
possibilities rather than a consultant developing a preferred alternative.
Councilmember Plunkett commented density, uses and open space could be determined but the “elephant
in the room” – acceptable building heights – needed to be resolved first. He recommended reaching some
conclusion with regard to an acceptable height as early in the process as possible. Commissioner Gouge
commented the developer and the Port Commission needed to know what limitations with regard to
heights and uses the City would impose on the property before substantial funds were expended on a
Master Plan process. He noted the contract rezone on the Harbor Square property allowed increased
heights; the Antique Mall property had different height limits.
Councilmember Marin proposed redevelopment of the area include a variety of building heights, noting
varying elevations and architecture made an area look interesting. He commented a fixed height likely
would result in buildings of all one height and he preferred to develop a formula that would allow a
percentage of buildings above and below a certain height. He summarized some taller buildings would be
acceptable if there were some lower buildings to balance them.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested incorporating a decision mechanism into the process to get questions
answered early in the process.
Page 6 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 4
Councilmember Olson asked the height of the buildings on the Port property. Mr. Bowman answered
they were up to 35 feet; he estimated the height of the Ebbtide at 50 feet. He pointed out the Master Plan
process would establish design parameters.
Council President Dawson commented the process was somewhat of “chicken and egg.” A Master Plan
and design work would allow greater control over the end result to incorporate open space and setback
and avoid gigantic buildings. She suggested investing a small amount upfront to discuss what
redevelopment might look like which she noted may increase the public’s comfort with the concept. She
acknowledged the concern with embarking on a Master Plan process without some assurances and
suggested seeking input from the public and property owners regarding redevelopment before substantial
amounts were invested in the process. She noted the Council had discussed redevelopment of this area at
the retreat and were comfortable with some flexibility in height.
Council President Dawson asked whether there was a vision for the property. Councilmember Wambolt
answered a vision had not yet been developed. Mr. Bowman recalled the committee discussed basic
policy issues such as connectivity and limitations imposed by soil conditions. He advised the committee
was interested in stair-stepped buildings in recognition of the issues on the site rather than a uniform
building height. He noted the center of the site may accommodate 3-4 floors with little impact.
Council President Dawson pointed out the need to determine what would be necessary to make
redevelopment feasible. Mr. Bowman stated that had not yet been determined. He explained in the Port
Gardner example, Maritime Trust evaluated what would be necessary to make redevelopment financially
feasible. The process for redevelopment of Port Gardner had been very public and he stressed the
importance of seeking public input regarding redevelopment of the Edmonds waterfront area. In response
to a comment by Council President Dawson regarding what building heights may be acceptable, Mayor
Haakenson commented nothing higher than the Ebbtide was envisioned.
Councilmember Plunkett, observing this was a legislative action, suggested review by the Port
Commission and City Council prior to review by the Planning Board follow the third public workshop
(before it was reviewed by the Planning Board).
Councilmember Moore recalled Maritime Trust described the use of balloons to illustrate building
heights. The Port Commission, City, property owners and public needed some way to visualize potential
heights. She supported redevelopment of this area.
Councilmember Marin suggested developing profiles from various vantage points such as 4th & Dayton of
buildings with an average building height of 35 or 30 feet, 2-3 buildings similar in height to the Ebbtide
and others with a lower building height to offset the higher buildings. Profiles would assist the
community in determining if increased heights were palatable before a great deal of money was
expended.
Commissioner Orvis referred to Councilmember Plunkett’s comment regarding the “elephant in the
room,” asserting the Council and the public had height limits in mind for the site. He recalled the
Maritime Trust representative consideration of 45 foot building heights and their determination that 55-60
foot building heights were necessary to accommodate parking. He emphasized the need for review by
private property owners.
Commissioner Block asked whether Councilmember Marin was suggesting profiles for the Harbor Square
property as well as the Antique Mall property. Councilmember Marin answered he was. Commissioner
Block agreed that concept could be helpful. She pointed out a major consideration was economics;
Maritime Trust determined what building heights would be necessary to make redevelopment feasible.
She envisioned flexibility in height and use such as mixed use residential would be necessary to make
Page 7 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 5
redevelopment of Harbor Square feasible. She pointed out another consideration for the Port Commission
was the financial impacts to the Port of losing the revenue from the existing tenant during redevelopment.
Commissioner Burkhart recalled in the first joint meeting there was discussion regarding a quiet zone and
asked whether there had been any work done on that. Mayor Haakenson advised the City was working on
a quiet zone unrelated to redevelopment.
Mr. Bowman commented one of the difficulties with profiles is that the drawings were of little use if the
project was not financially feasible. He suggested the more critical information at this point was
determining the amount of square footage and uses that would be necessary to make redevelopment
financially viable. From that, consideration could be given to how to distribute it on the property. He
summarized unless a development was financially feasible, it would not be built. He noted the private
property owner wanted to move ahead on development of the site, thus the importance of planning versus
allowing the market to determine how development occurred.
Councilmember Moore suggested the committee provide an estimate for the first stage of planning and
the City’s portion of that amount. She agreed time was of the essence as construction costs were
continually escalating.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2006.
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #90890 THROUGH #91029 FOR SEPTEMBER 21,
2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $463,904.73. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT
DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #43824 THROUGH #43900 IN THE AMOUNT OF $781,767.85
FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 15, 2006.
(D) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH GRAY & OSBORNE, INC. FOR THE 76TH AVENUE WEST/75TH
PLACE WEST WALKWAY PROJECT AND THE 162ND STREET SW PARK PROJECT.
3. INTRODUCTION OF NEW STEVENS HOSPITAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
Councilmember Moore introduced Stevens Hospital Chief Executive Officer Michael Carter, advising of
his 28-year healthcare executive background and reputation for turning around organizations. She also
introduced Beth Engel, Director of Marketing and Public Relations.
Page 8 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 6
Mr. Carter advised he joined Stevens Hospital on July 10, 2006, providing him time to transition with the
Interim CEO John Todd who was now retired. He described his family background and interest in the
Northwest after a one year assignment at Good Samaritan Hospital in Puyallup. He described the need to
modernize the Stevens campus, advising much of it was constructed in the 1960-1970s. Most of Stevens’
core services – emergency department, ICU, progressive care, operating rooms, and imaging – were
located in the oldest building constructed in 1964. He planned to identify the right mix of programs and
services to meet the community’s needs as well as to produce a financially strong organization.
He emphasized the need for effective partnerships, envisioning an improvement in the relationship
between the administrative staff and medical staff’s relationship. To accomplish this, he planned to work
with the medical staff as well as the community. He pointed out the quality of care at Stevens was good
but that may not be the perception of the community. He referred to the Strategic Plan developed last
year, the first in the 42-year old organization’s history. The Strategic Plan is a three-year, broad-based
plan; the 2007 business plan will focus on revenues, expenses, market share by product line, quality and
customer service and from that a short series of objectives for 2007 will be developed.
He advised Stevens had approximately 33 days of cash on hand, 1/5th of what a strong hospital of their
size should have, placing the hospital in a vulnerable cash position although it was better than last year.
The hospital made a modest profit over the past six months and intended to meet their budget this year,
the first time in 10 years the hospital had a positive bottom line. He planned for the following year to be
slightly better and to include putting capital into the buildings and campus as well as savings with a goal
of 40 days of cash on hand. Long term goals include reconstructing the balance sheet and financing,
increasing reserves and developing a vision for a new tower. A new tower was not feasible with the
current financial position; the organization had to get stronger before they could request debt financing.
Councilmember Olson pointed out Stevens Hospital was the largest employer in the City and it was
important to the community that the hospital be successful. Mr. Carter remarked he did not take that
responsibility lightly, acknowledging there were many people depending on his decisions.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Mr. Carter’s assessment regarding the community perception of
Stevens Hospital but was surprised by its poor reputation. He explained most people who spoke poorly
about Stevens Hospital have not had a bad experience themselves, they had only heard about it.
Councilmember Wambolt commented on the excellent care his wife received at Stevens Hospital
following a heart attack.
Councilmember Moore commented she had also had a great experience at Stevens Hospital. She urged
Stevens not to overlook emergency planning, noting the hospital would be a key player in an emergency.
Mr. Carter advised emergency services were the core of what the community wants and needs from
Stevens and that will be one of their focuses. Councilmember Moore suggested he provide another status
report in 1-2 years.
Councilmember Marin advised the Hwy. 99 Task Force was anxiously awaiting plans for redevelopment
of the hospital. He suggested as soon as Stevens began to explore a new tower or other facilities, they
involve the Hwy. 99 Task Force. Mr. Carter acknowledged the uncomfortable orientation of the hospital
to 76th Avenue and the opportunity to orient toward Hwy. 99.
4. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL ARTS AND HUMANITIES MONTH, OCTOBER
2006
Mayor Haakenson read a proclamation in honor of National Arts and Humanities Month and Arts
Commission Chair Mary Monfort and Richard Suico, Sno-Isle Library, accepted the proclamation. On
behalf of the Edmonds Art Commission, Ms. Monfort thanked Mayor Haakenson and the Council,
Page 9 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 7
cultural organizations and the citizens of Edmonds for their past, present and future support of the arts.
Mr. Suico invited the public to attend one of the programs enumerated in the proclamation as well as
share their favorite book by filling out the “Judge a Book by It’s Lover” book review card.
Next, Mayor Haakenson presented a special recognition to artists Rose Morgan and David Murphey, the
founders and mentors for the artist co-op Sculptor’s Workshop at the Frances Anderson Center in honor
of their 30 years of leadership and dedication.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON INITIATIVE 933. THE BALLOT TITLE READS AS FOLLOWS:
INITIATIVE MEASURE 933 CONCERNS GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY. THIS MEASURE WOULD REQUIRE COMPENSATION WHEN GOVERNMENT
REGULATION DAMAGES THE USE OR VALUE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, WOULD FORBID
REGULATIONS THAT PROHIBIT EXISTING LEGAL USES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND
WOULD PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS OR PAYMENTS. SHOULD THIS MEASURE BE ENACTED
INTO LAW? (PUBLIC COMMENTS BOTH IN FAVOR AND OPPOSED TO THE INITIATIVE
WILL BE RECEIVED.)
Mayor Haakenson advised on November 7, 2006 the voters of the State of Washington would have an
opportunity to vote on Initiative 933. This ballot measure would alter the regulation of development on
private property in the State of Washington. Tonight’s public hearing would give residents the
opportunity to comment on the initiative. Invitations had been extended to both the proponents and
opponents to make presentations on I-933 after which the public would be allowed to voice opinions on
the initiative. He introduced Paul Roberts who would speak in opposition to I-933 and Preston Drew who
would speak in favor of I-933. Mayor Haakenson advised each would have ten minutes to speak,
followed by the public hearing and a brief rebuttal by each speaker. Following a coin toss, Mr. Drew
chose to make his presentation after Mr. Roberts.
Paul Roberts, representing the “NO on 933” campaign, and a member of the Everett City Council,
explained his background included many years in the public and private sector addressing land use and
environmental law, although he was not a lawyer. He also had a background in the history of GMA,
Shoreline Management Act, State Environmental Policy Act and other land use policies in Washington
State. Land use law evolved over a number of years and I-933 presumed a very different legal structure
than anything that existed in Washington State or the nation. I-933 presumed there were not already
safeguards in place for the taking or inappropriate exercise of diminishment of value in the law which was
not true; Washington had one of the most conservative constitutional structures in the United States. He
referred to recent litigation regarding the exercise of eminent domain before the U.S. Supreme Court,
commenting the decision was irrelevant in Washington because Washington State’s constitution and
statutory structure prohibited the type of things that had been litigated before the Supreme Court.
Washington case law has been very conservatively interpreted by the courts to protect property rights.
Mr. Roberts commented the issue that led to the initiative, critical area protection measures in King
County, had not yet been litigated and was currently before District 1 court of appeals. I-933 would
remove cities’ ability to regulate land use and protect the environment in their community. For example,
if I-933 passed, the issue of downtown heights would be resolved as the City would not have the ability to
enforce a height regulation of any sort because it would represent a potential taking. The language in I-
933 provides cities three options, all three of which place the city and taxpayers at a disadvantage, 1) pay
claims, 2) relax regulations, 3) fight the claim and pay the cost of attorneys fees for the action brought
under the claim.
He explained I-933 dramatically and vastly expanded the basis of claims. I-933 provides an opportunity
to bring action against the city for real property but expands the definition of property to include personal
property as well as intellectual property. He encouraged the Council to read the definition. He
commented in the past the Council has likely been advised to settle claims for their nuisance value as the
Page 10 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 8
cost of pursing it was not worth the fight. He invited the Council to imagine any claimant who brought a
claim under I-933, which expanded the basis of the claim, taxpayers were left to pay the claim, fight the
claim and pay the costs, or waive the regulation.
He referred to a comparison of I-933 to Referendum 37 in Oregon, pointing out there were significant
differences. Although many believe Referendum 37 was a radical proposal; comparisons with I-993
made Referendum 37 appear tame. He pointed out the expanded definition of property in I-933 did not
compare to Referendum 37. Referendum 37 provided an exception for federal law which I-933 did not.
Referendum 37 provided protection for government in the exercise of actions required by State law; I-933
did not. Referendum 37 did not require compensation; I-933 required compensation. Property left in its
natural state under Referendum 37 did not have to be compensated; it did under I-933. He advised I-933
did not provide an exception for nuisance claims; Referendum 37 did. He summarized under I-933, the
city’s ability to exercise its responsibilities under State and federal law placed the city “between a dog and
a lamppost.” For example the city was required by the State to administer the Shoreline Management Act
as well as under federal law comply with mandates such as the Clean Water Act; under I-933 the city’s
application of those acts would place it at risk for claims as there were no exceptions for those actions.
He noted one of his responsibilities has been to run utilities. He asked the Council to imagine the
challenge of providing schools, water, sewer, transportation or any other public services if the city could
not control/regulate the intensity/density of use on land. He urged the Council to take action to reject I-
933.
Councilmember Moore asked for an example of a claim for intellectual property. Mr. Roberts answered a
claim could arise as a result of a citizen not being allowed do something as a result of regulations such as
developing software from a residence, operating an internet business from a residence, etc. He
summarized claims were not limited to only real property, there was potential for an abundance of claims
particularly because attorneys fees would be paid regardless of the outcome.
Preston Drew, Vice President, Citizens Alliance for Property Rights, a Carnation resident,
commented his understanding of I-933 was totally different than Mr. Roberts’. He explained I-933 arose
after decades of land use and heavy-handed regulation that resulted in the severe restriction of traditional
use of private property and therefore property values. I-933 would roll back existing land regulations to
the January 1, 1996 threshold and from that point on, if government wanted to regulate, they must
document the cost and consider other alternatives to address the issue or if government wanted to impose
regulations that were detrimental to property value, there would be a compensatory claim.
Mr. Drew commented many of the things Mr. Roberts saw, the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights did
not see such as presumptions of takings, eminent domain, and nuisances. He explained in 1988 King
County passed the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, one of the strictest land use codes in the nation at the time,
creating 50 and 75 foot buffers from sensitive areas. He commented although many property owners
objected to the buffers, people got used to them. In the more recent past, King County adopted the
Critical Areas Ordinance that expanded buffers to 100, 200 and 300 feet from critical areas and expanded
the definition of critical areas.
He explained development on his 20 acre parcel in the Snoqualmie Valley was 100% constrained due to
its location atop a critical aquifer recharge area which he characterized as any place water soaked into the
ground. Critical areas also now include wildlife corridors and he cited several examples where the
inability to locate a house on property to take advantage of a view significantly reduced the value of the
property.
He acknowledged the difficulty explaining I-933 to cities as much of it was the result of rural land use.
With regard to nuisances, Mr. Drew explained there was nothing in I-933 that prevented a city from
Page 11 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 9
enforcing a nuisance ordinance such as junk cars as it had not been legal in most jurisdictions prior to
1996 to collect junk cars on property. Similarly, enacting and enforcing surface water regulations did not
reduce a property’s value.
He explained landowners did not want the money; the reason a compensatory clause was included in I-
933 was to provide for an ability to negotiate with government to force them to act in good faith. He
acknowledged “greedy” lawyers might want the money. Rural landowners wanted traditional use and
value; in King County he could do virtually nothing on this property without permission. For example, if
a property owner and King County disagreed about the existence of a landslide hazard area, the property
owner must hire an expert. He concluded regulation had gone to ridiculous levels; I-933 was the result of
thousands of landowners who had seen a heavy-handed government go too far in land use regulation.
With regard to Referendum 37, Mr. Drew pointed out there had been no claims paid under Referendum
37. He was familiar with Referendum 37 as his family owned a farm in Oregon for 75 years. They lost
the farm in 1982 because under the new land use regulation, they were unable to sell a portion of the land
to resolve financial issues due to the LCDC in Oregon and SP100 land use code which Referendum 37
repealed. Because they lost the property, they did not have a claim. He advised further information was
available in a paper developed by the Washington Policy Center that analyzed the situation in Oregon
following the passage of Referendum 37.
Councilmember Moore asked why January 1, 1996 was selected. Mr. Drew answered the Citizens
Alliance wanted to go back further but the Farm Bureau who were sponsoring I-933 had agricultural
zoning they did not want destroyed by the date and insisted on 1996. Councilmember Moore observed it
was not just the GMA they were trying to repeal. He answered their goal was not to repeal the GMA. He
pointed out the GMA had 13 goals, one of which was private property rights and another was
environmental protection. The problem with the GMA was environmental protection received all the
favor and private property rights were ignored. He noted the GMA placed equal weight on the goals;
implementation of that has failed.
Councilmember Moore observed his main concern was rural areas; Edmonds was a city that was nearly
totally built out and had expanded their Critical Areas Ordinance to protect environmentally sensitive
areas. If the issue was rural land versus King County, she asked why was I-933 a statewide issue. Mr.
Drew answered jurisdictions statewide were affected by changes in land use regulations. He commented
they had been at the legislature “forever” with no results. Councilmember Moore asked if he and the
Citizens Alliance for Property Rights were aware of the impact I-933 would have on cities. Mr. Drew
questioned the impact on cities, envisioning most land use actions since 1996 had been to up-zone
property for greater development. He explained I-933 would set a threshold of 1996 and any down-
zoning after that date would be compensatory.
Councilmember Orvis commented this appeared to start with a confrontation between King County and
farmers over regulatory issues. He recalled the farmers in King County tried to have an election by using
the referendum process. Mr. Drew advised their organization had the referendum case before the
Supreme Court. He explained the referendum was qualified for election and King County Superior Court
disallowed it. He explained the Critical Areas Ordinance conflict in King County was not about farming,
it was about extreme regulation. He explained the reference to takings in I-933 was due to the 65% taking
in King County. For example, a property owner in rural King County, to build a residence on a 10 acre
parcel must first sign over 7 acres to King County and never develop it.
Councilmember Orvis clarified the rural land owners gathered sufficient signatures for an election. Mr.
Drew agreed, explaining King County stopped it based on the fact that they were trying to overturn State
law with a referendum. They disagreed because the Sensitive Area Ordinance met all the GMA
requirements and the Critical Areas Ordinance was an addendum. He noted that issue was being
Page 12 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 10
considered by the Supreme Court. He advised of other litigation including a lawsuit by Pacific Legal
Foundation against King County that the Critical Areas Ordinance was unconstitutional on its face. He
noted if I-933 passed, the Critical Areas Ordinance would be eliminated. He pointed out their polling
indicated very strong support for I-933 and they had easily gathered 350,000 signatures to place the
initiative on the ballot. He summarized property rights were very important and there was a great deal of
angst over regulations.
Regardless of his feelings about I-933, Councilmember Orvis agreed they deserved to have an election on
the referendum.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council
received a letter from Steve Butler, President, American Planning Association, urging the Council to
join other cities in recognizing I-933 would be a disastrous choice for the State and adopting a resolution
opposing I-933.
Janet Chalupnik, President, League of Women Voters of Snohomish County, expressed the League’s
opposition to I-933 for all the reasons Mr. Roberts expressed. She explained the League was a good
government organization whose goal was making democracy work and supporting public participation.
As a result they participated in land use decisions at the county and city level and in their experience, land
use decisions were not made without public participation but made in a fair and orderly process that
involved the public before a decision was made. If I-933 passed, she envisioned a wild, out of control
process that would turn the process on its head. She also pointed out the danger that the passage of I-933
posed to environmental protection.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Mr. Drew pointed out in Jefferson County there was a default buffer around Class 1 critical areas of 450
feet. He explained that was enacted because the Washington Environmental Council negotiated with
Jefferson County and to avoid a lawsuit that the 25,000 person county could not afford, Jefferson County
enacted Washington Environmental Council’s recommended buffer. He questioned whether that
represented good government. Once the public learned about the negotiations, a lengthy public process
was begun to debate the merits. In King County, the Critical Areas Ordinance would extend the Class 1
Critical Area buffer from the 75 foot buffer in the Sensitive Area Ordinance to 300 feet. He stated there
was not good government in King County and the rural population did not have adequate representation.
He referred to the statement in the Washington State constitution that private property shall not be taken
or damaged before having made just compensation. However, the Supreme Court had never defined just
compensation; I-933 would address that.
Mr. Roberts pointed out Edmonds was not in King County. He described his background, including
serving on the Technical Committee of the Governor’s Task Force on Regulatory Reform and the
Governor’s Task Force on Land Use. A vision was developed out of those task forces that was
incorporated into the 1996 GMA dealing with Best Available Science (BAS). He noted the reason for
selecting January 1, 1996 is that was when BAS was incorporated into the GMA.
He reiterated the matter had not yet been litigated and resolved, the matter was currently before the
courts. Case law in Washington was clear and had generally been decided in favor of property owners.
He agreed with Mr. Drew that this was a rural issue and not a city issue; however, most people in
Washington live in cities and regulations protect cities, the environment and public health, safety and
welfare. He referred to a memo from Preston Gates & Ellis to the Government Affairs Director of the
Association of General Contractors that concluded beyond the imposition of significant administrative
costs, adoption of I-933 would create potentially significant State and local financial liabilities if
Page 13 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 11
governments choose to continue to enforce basic regulatory programs and thereby encounter significant
claims for compensation.
Mr. Roberts pointed out land use regulations provided certainty and predictability for development.
Developers who invest money in a project want certainty that compatible development would occur on
adjacent lots. Under I-933 cities could not control what would be built. He explained I-933 was bad for
business and that was why business did not support it; funds for I-933 were from out-of-state interests.
Hearing no further questions of the speakers, Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for
action.
Council President Dawson explained in the past, with few exceptions, she had advocated against the
Council taking a positive on ballot measures as she felt it was the responsibility of the voters to make
their own decisions. Only in instances when the impact to the City would be real and dramatic did she
support the Council taking a position; this was one of those instances. She explained if this initiative
passed, although it could be beneficial to some rural areas of the State, it would be absolutely devastating
to the residents, tax payers and property owners of Edmonds. It would be devastating financially and
environmentally as well as devastating to the community character. She referred to the Council’s review
of the Critical Areas Ordinance, the downtown plan, etc., noting all that work would be wiped out by the
passage of I-933.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTRONEY TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO
INITIATIVE 933.
Councilmember Marin expressed support for the motion. Although he appreciated the passion that drove
the initiative and had respect for the problems they were facing, this was not the right answer and he
hoped they would discover an appropriate vehicle that would provide some relief. He shared his
experience with the eminent domain process as a board member of Sound Transit, commenting there were
some benefits to property owners when eminent domain was exercised. Although it was preferable not to
exercise eminent domain, it was an essential tool to obtaining property.
Councilmember Orvis expressed his support for the motion. He viewed this as a King County issue that
had spilled outside their borders due to King County Council’s decision to deny its citizens a voice.
Although he disagreed with I-933 and would support the motion, he did not fault their methods and
sympathized with their plight.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. REVIEW OF QUASI-JUDICIAL AND PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS
Mike Walter, Keating, Bucklin & McCormack, explained their firm represented cities throughout
Washington via Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) as well as did direct assignment work for
cities and counties. He has been providing land use training for local government entities since 1990.
Mr. Walter provided a summary of problem areas in land use decision making for local government
elected officials. He explained Washington State law allowed Councils to wear two hats – act as a
legislative body via law making and act as a quasi judicial decision-making body making decisions on
adjudicative types of land use applications (plats, rezones, permits, etc.) He noted the Edmonds Council
may not be responsible for all these quasi judicial matters but Councils in many cities throughout the
State made decisions on a wide range of land use matters. Regardless of the Council’s authority, he
pointed out there was a huge risk to Councilmembers personally as well as the City in making quasi
judicial decisions, which is the reason WCIA has him provide this training. He advised the information
Page 14 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 12
he would provide would assist in reducing the risk of lawsuit, reduce potential legal exposure and assist
the Council to make good, defensible and appropriate decisions in the quasi judicial context.
Mr. Walter displayed a quote from a 1965 Supreme Court decision, “The conduct of government should
always be scrupulously just in dealing with its citizens…” He commented this quote set the stage for
what courts expected of elected officials and government decision-makers in land use matters. While the
standard was the same for the City Council, Hearing Examiner and Planning Commission, courts
implicitly expected more from elected officials in land use decisions and looked at whether the Council
was following the law, acting fairly, and avoiding bias or prejudgment.
Mr. Walter explained he often heard when providing training that the problem was not the Council, it was
staff, the Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission that was causing all the land use mistakes that
prompted litigation. He pointed out unfortunately that was not the case. His experience in land use
litigation was the highest risk for local government decision making in the land use context was quasi
judicial decision-making. There are three types of actions – legislative, quasi judicial and ministerial –
quasi judicial had a very high risk, legislative had a low risk and ministerial had a moderate risk. He
estimated 80-90% of the land use lawsuits arose from quasi judicial decisions on a specific permit or land
use application; it was rare that he defended a legislative decision. Statistically, Council decisions in the
context of quasi judicial decisions constituted 95% of the lawsuits.
Mr. Walter identified activities that could lead to a lawsuit, first playing politics with quasi judicial
applications. One of the most difficult tasks for Council in their capacity as legislators and quasi judicial
decision-maker was combining the two standards. Political influence and decision-making should apply
only to legislative decision making. Another activity that could lead to a lawsuit was meddling in the
province of staff. He provided an example of large, controversial or high risk projects where there was a
great deal of political pressure and elected officials who feel beholden to their constituents try to direct
staff to make certain decisions on quasi judicial activities and applications. He concluded elected officials
should stay out of staff decision making on quasi judicial applications and allow each level of government
to make their own independent decision free of influence from elected officials.
Arbitrary and capricious decision-making was another activity that could lead to a lawsuit. He explained
this was the legal standard by which the Council’s decisions was measured. If a court determined that a
land use decision the Council made was arbitrary and capricious (without good reason/cause), the court
could invalidate the decision and entitle the applicant to damages. Other activities that could lead to a
lawsuit included misapplying the law and ignoring the law. He noted these frequently arose because
elected officials were thinking like legislators when the matter before them was a quasi judicial
application. He reiterated the need to keep legislative and quasi judicial decision-making separate.
Mr. Walter listed high risk Council land use actions that included the following:
• Making assurances/representation regarding 1) utility service or capacity, 2) zoning
boundaries/restrictions, 3) boundaries of sensitive areas, historic districts or “overlay districts”, or
4) property boundaries or utility lines
• Zoning, regulations and permitting/licensing of 1) adult entertainment businesses, 2) group
homes, 3) alcohol/drug rehabilitation facilities, 4) work release facilities, 5) sexual predator
release facilities, 6) assisted care facilities, and 7) gambling casinos/card rooms
• Approvals for large and/or controversial and/or politically sensitive projects like: 1) shopping
centers, 2) strip malls, 3) large subdivisions, 4) essential public facilities, 5) environmentally or
historically sensitive projects, 6) mobile homes/mobile home parks, and 7) “big box” commercial
projects
• Ignoring or violating vested rights
• Adoption of and/or implementation of moratoria
Page 15 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 13
• Regulation and/or permitting of cellular/telecommunication facilities
• Failure to plan for utility capacity, service or infrastructure
• Imposing off-site development mitigation requirements
• Design review criteria and decisions
• Reasonable use exceptions/exemptions
Next Mr. Walter described and compared the Council’s role in legislative versus quasi judicial use
decision-making. Legislative “policy making” actions, the predominant decisions made by the Council,
include capital improvements, Comprehensive Plan/amendments, zoning maps, establish development
standards, adoption of general application ordinances, long-term planning, general infrastructure
planning/financing/extensions, annexations, contracts and Interlocal Agreements. Quasi judicial “judge-
like decisions” include subdivision/short plat approvals, conditional/special use permits, site plan
approvals, PUDs/PRDs/PDDs, appeal of administrative decisions, variances, reasonable use exceptions,
shoreline permits, boundary line adjustments, site-specific rezones, and property-specific approvals. He
reiterated when making a quasi judicial decision, the Council must adopt Findings and Conclusions, not
be influenced by their constituents, and follow and apply the appropriate laws and standards.
Mr. Walter provided a summary of the big rules for good quasi judicial decision making:
• Get and follow the City Attorney’s advice
• Follow your code and state law
• No policy-making, “visioning” or city goals
• Recognize and enforce vested rights
• Consider all of the evidence
• Make decisions timely (120 day rule)
• Always have good written findings and conclusions
• Don’t let citizen complaints or community displeasure influence decision
• Use a Hearing Examiner for all final (or appeal) quasi judicial decisions
• Do not base decisions on “what’s good for the community” or on “the best interests of the city”
• Base decisions on “substantial evidence” in the record
• Don’t promise, guarantee or assure results or decisions
• Don’t wave code requirements or standards
• Treat all classes of applicants equally and consistently
• Don’t let citizens “taint the record” through comments on specific projects during “citizen
comments” portions of Council meetings or workshops
Councilmember Moore asked whether each Councilmember must state his/her own findings in a quasi
judicial decision. Mr. Walter answered it was usually done as a group reflecting the majority decision.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the Edmonds City Council stated their reasons during the hearing
process; he collated the findings and presented Findings of Fact for adoption on a later date.
Council President Dawson recalled in one instance when there was a 3-3 tie, the Council adopted two sets
of findings. Mr. Walter advised the intent was to build a consensus for the Findings of Fact. If that issue
arose, he urged the Council to defer to the advice of the City Attorney.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the Council could consider public comment that referenced the legal
standards versus a comment that a citizen simply did not like a proposal. Mr. Walter advised the Council
could consider public comment during the public hearing that applied to the legal standards versus just
citizen complaints.
Mr. Walter explained decisions were tested using an arbitrary and capricious standard. The definition
provided by the court is that a decision was “arbitrary and capricious” if it was made willfully and
Page 16 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 14
unreasonably, without consideration and in disregard of the facts or circumstances. He displayed several
examples of arbitrary and capricious decision-making, such as failure to make findings of fact and
conclusions of law for quasi judicial decisions, making quasi judicial decisions based on political agenda
or motives, ignoring/not applying the law, ignoring evidence or testimony, making quasi judicial
decisions based on the number of proponents or opponents, basing quasi judicial decisions on community
desires/community displeasure/public sentiment or complaints, making quasi judicial decisions based on
economic viability of a project, and ignoring the City Attorney’s advice.
Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Walter to comment on Councilmembers’ personal liability such as to
what extent a Councilmember would need to go to make themselves liable to a lawsuit. Mr. Walter
commented he saw individuals named as defendants in approximately 20% of the lawsuits he defended.
Of the 20%, almost uniformly the reason the individual was named and incurred personal liability was
because they made outrageous or reprehensible statements in open public meetings or during the decision-
making process that illustrated a bias for or against a project or statements showing personal animosity,
prejudgment or bias. Individual decision-makers could be held personally liable for the wrongful
decision under RCW 64.40 and Civil Rights violations pursuant to the federal Civil Rights statute.
Although individual decision-makers could be held legally liable, he advised individuals were not named
in the overwhelming majority of cases because there was no personal animosity illustrated. If an
individual decision maker could show they acted in good faith and honestly believed that what they were
doing was honest and proper, the court would dismiss him/her from the lawsuit. On cases where he
asserted that, approximately 70-80% of the motions were granted and the individual was dismissed. Mr.
Walter encouraged Council to review the Mission Springs v. Spokane case, a classic example of how
individuals were sued in land use decisions. In Mission Springs v. Spokane, several Spokane
Councilmembers were personally sued because they overtly disregarded the City Attorney’s advice.
Councilmember Plunkett stated he on occasion may be vulnerable as he recalled making a statement that
he disagreed with Mr. Snyder’s advice. Mr. Walter explained he was not saying Councilmembers had to
agree with the City Attorney at all times. However, if the City Attorney did what Spokane’s attorney did,
stating in an open public forum that if the Council took that action they were acting illegally, it would not
be a defensible case. Several Councilmembers said they would take their chances in court and if the court
agreed with the City Attorney, they would give back the permit, otherwise it was what their constituents
wanted them to do. They were subsequently sued, Councilmembers tried to get out of it on qualified
immunity which the trial court denied. The case went to the Supreme Court who wrote a scathing opinion
on the conduct of the Councilmembers in rejecting and ignoring the City Attorney’s advice.
Mr. Walter clarified there was a difference between what Spokane’s City Attorney said and when the City
Attorney advises the Council that a case is a close call or the facts support a different conclusion. He
cautioned if the City Attorney gave strongly worded advice in Executive Session or open session that an
action would be illegal or arbitrary and capricious, the Council disregarded that advice at their own peril.
Mr. Snyder recalled advising the Council when something was a close call and he usually attempted to
provide different ways for the Council to make their decision. He rarely asked the Council to go into
Executive Session in the course of a quasi judicial hearing because, in his experience, that made the
public suspicious. Although somewhat of a risk, he preferred to give the Council a straight answer in
open session. He summarized the best advice was not to play to the crowd; be neutral, and wait until the
hearing was closed to show their cards. He also recommended the Council avoid “playing Perry Mason”
by asking a series of loaded, pointed, directed, leading questions because although it may play well to the
crowd, a judge could clearly see a Councilmember’s intent when reading the transcript.
Mr. Snyder reviewed public meeting requirements, explaining under the Open Public Meetings Act, a
Council meeting was a meeting at which an action was taken. An action was the transaction of public
Page 17 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 15
business by a majority of the Council or a subcommittee of the Council to which action has been
delegated. He explained the statute defined action to include public testimony, deliberations, discussions,
considerations, reviews, evaluations as well as final action; all the things that lead up to an action.
He noted another complicating factor was the Council had the ability to hold meetings with one or more
members participating telephonically; not all Councilmembers had to be physically present to have a
meeting and a meeting could occur even though the Council was not together and taking action at the
same time such as by telephone, round robin emails, and a rolling quorum where the discussion of
Council business occurred 2-3 at a time. He emphasized as soon as a majority of Councilmembers were
discussing or deliberating an issue, inside or outside the Council Chambers, it was a meeting. He recalled
earlier this year three Councilmembers were invited to meet with a group of citizens. Although it was not
a majority of the Council, the group would be discussing City business. His reservation was that if any of
the three Councilmembers talked to a fourth Councilmember about the information, it could be
considered a meeting.
Mr. Snyder described what did not constitute a meeting including social occasions, travel, or the passive
receipt of an email. He pointed out if while traveling in a car or at a party Councilmembers began
deliberating city business, it could be considered a meeting. Several other Councils had been chastised in
the past year for social meetings at a bar. He acknowledged in the old days that may have been how
business was transacted but other Councils had been called to task recently for such continued
deliberation or discussion of public business. Meetings must be open to the public, noticed via
establishing a regular meeting date or providing special notice. He explained special notice could be
provided 24 hours in advance to those members of the public who have requested notice of a special
meeting through the City Clerk.
He learned when developing this presentation that a provision of State law not contained in the Open
Public Meetings Act provided that special meetings could be called by the Mayor, the Council President
or by three Councilmembers. He pointed out if three Councilmembers called a meeting and none of the
other four attended, there would not be a quorum. The Council also must provide minutes of the meeting
but only transactional minutes were required. The minutes could be a summary of the deliberations and
discussions and record final votes and actions.
Next Mr. Snyder provided a list of topics authorized for Executive Session including matters of national
security; selection or acquisition of real property; minimum price real estate offered for sale or lease;
issues regarding public bid contracts; export trading company financial/commercial information;
receive/evaluate complaints/charges against a public officer or employee; qualifications of applicants for
public employment/review of performance of employee, etc. (but not salaries); evaluate qualification of
elected official candidates; discuss with legal counsel agency enforcement actions, “litigation” or
“potential litigation,”, etc; or union negotiations. He advised an Executive Session must occur at a public
meeting and if an Executive Session occurred at a special meeting, the Council was limited to precisely
the subject indicated in the public meeting notice. At a regular meeting a Council could call an Executive
Session on any of the authorized topics.
He pointed out topics that were not appropriate for an Executive Session including personnel, deliberation
on quasi judicial matters, discussion of public finances/salaries outside union contracts with the exception
of leases, purchases, or sales; and any contract that was not publicly bid. The Open Public Meeting Law
and the Open Public Record Law did not necessarily match up; there were things that did not need to be
released in a public document that could not be discussed in Executive Session and there were topics that
could be discussed in Executive Session that if contained in a public document were subject to release. If
there was ever a doubt whether a topic was authorized for Executive Session, he recommended it be
discussed in an open public meeting.
Page 18 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 16
If the Council violated the Open Public Meetings Act, civil penalties could be levied against each
Councilmember individually and/or a citizen could recover attorney fees and expenses. He pointed out
the Council was protected by the City Attorney’s advice; if he told the Council they could take an action,
the Council could not be sued for taking that action. He pointed out if a Council took action based on
deliberation or information obtained at an illegal meeting, the action could be voided by the court.
He explained although publishing an agenda was helpful to the public, if the circumstance arose, the
Council could amend their agenda and consider anything they wished at a regularly scheduled Council
meeting other than certain topics that were required to be noticed as a requirement of City ordinance or
State law. At a special meeting, the Council was limited to precisely the subject matters that appeared on
the special meeting notice. Executive Sessions could be held at a regular or special meeting; at a special
meeting, the subject, length and whether action was anticipated must be in the notice and the Council was
limited to that. Before the Council recessed to Executive Session, the Mayor must announce the subject,
the length and whether the Council planned to adjourn or return following the Executive Session.
Executive Sessions could be extended unless the Mayor had stated the Council planned to adjourn. No
final decision could be made in an Executive Session; the Council could reach consensus or give direction
to staff, but any final action must occur in the open public meeting.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Snyder explained three Councilmembers could schedule a special
meeting by asking the City Clerk to give notice to the other Councilmembers.
Councilmember Plunkett observed Councilmembers could attend a social event. He clarified three or
more Councilmembers should not attend a meeting designed to discuss politics even if they sat passively
in the audience. Mr. Snyder clarified participation was the issue. For example if while attending a Rotary
meeting and discussion occur regarding a site specific rezone, a Councilmember either needed to leave or
plan to disclose it at the start of the hearing. He commented if a Councilmember attended a meeting
where an impassioned plea was made and the Councilmember disclosed that information, he/she may still
lose his/her right to vote because the Appearance of Fairness Act was based on what would appear fair to
a neutral third party at a later date.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled a meeting that Councilmembers wanted to attend that was not in regard
to a quasi judicial matter. Mr. Snyder explained his concern was if three Councilmembers were involved
in a collective process and wanted to talk with a fourth Councilmember outside a public meeting, it would
potentially be a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. If the Councilmembers wanted to discuss the
information they learned, it should be done at a public meeting. Mr. Snyder explained the issue arose
when Councilmembers attended a meeting intended to present a specific agenda and Councilmembers
emailed each other regarding the subject. He pointed out all Council emails were public documents.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled this arose at a meeting where the attendees wanted the Council to take
very direct action. Mr. Snyder explained the problem was the meeting was intended to present specific
information to Councilmembers which was different from passive receipt of information in a legislative
context which would not generally be viewed as a violation.
Councilmember Orvis stated he often wrote emails to the entire Council, copying staff to ensure it was a
public document. His understanding was as long as the emails were public, it was acceptable. Mr.
Snyder stated a Councilmember sending information to other Councilmembers did not give rise to a
violation. The problem arose with a round robin discussion; one Councilmember replied to another who
replied to another and once a fourth Councilmember entered the discussion, it was considered deliberation
via email. Ideally a Councilmember’s email would only be the passive forwarding of information or to
raise a topic and indicate he/she would like to have it scheduled for Council discussion. The danger was
“reply to all;” once a fourth Councilmember was involved, the Open Public Meetings Act was violated.
Page 19 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 17
Councilmember Orvis asked if a discussion group that was publicized and at which the public could state
their opinions would allow a free email exchange. Mr. Snyder stated it could be structured via a chatroom
that was noticed as a special meeting on the website with a specific date and time. Councilmember Orvis
envisioned a more free form discussion. Mr. Snyder advised a 24/7 discussion would be problematic.
Council President Dawson asked about groups such as Snohomish County Cities and Towns that were
moving away from being social groups that had general discussions to more focused discussion on topics
with public officials taking some action. Mr. Snyder explained direction could be derived from a
Columbia River Gorge Commission comprised of 40 jurisdictions; because there was not a majority for
any jurisdiction and the body could only make recommendations, there was not violation. He advised
meetings of staff and/or the Mayor were not subject to the Open Public Meetings Act, only meetings of
the Council. Council President Dawson requested Mr. Snyder draft an opinion with regard to groups like
Snohomish County Cities and Towns taking action.
Councilmember Moore observed if a Councilmember sent an email containing his/her thoughts on an
issue and each Councilmember responded with their reaction, the Councilmember was counting votes and
asked if that constituted a rolling quorum. Mr. Snyder answered that would constitute deliberation. He
explained this often arose when a Councilmember wanted to raise a new idea and get Councilmembers’
thoughts; unfortunately that was deliberation, vote counting and public business and must occur during an
open public meeting. Councilmember Moore asked how the Legislature handled this as they counted
votes continually. Mr. Snyder answered the Open Public Meetings Act did not apply to the Legislature.
Councilmember Moore asked how citizens should lobby Councilmembers. Mr. Snyder answered the best
way was one at a time. He advised Councilmembers needed to act on topics at an open public meeting.
Councilmember Moore observed in the past to add an item to the agenda, Councilmembers needed to
obtain approval of the Council President. Mr. Snyder explained Edmonds delegated the function of
establishing the agenda to the Council President. Via voice motion at a meeting, the agenda could be
amended or three Councilmembers could call a meeting but a quorum was required to take action.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled he had raised the issue of a rolling quorum many times in the past,
noting it was easy to obtain email records via the City Clerk. His questioned whether the expenditure of
public funds was an appropriate topic for Executive Session once a decision had been made. He
suggested there was more discussion during Executive Sessions than there should have been with regard
to the purchase of the old Woodway Elementary School site. Mr. Snyder advised the discussions at the
Executive Sessions he attended were focused on negotiation points including the amount of land, the
price, and the terms of the agreement. He advised setting a purchase price was always an appropriate
topic for Executive Session. Mr. Hertrich advised in his experience as a Councilmember, Executive
Sessions were short and sweet; it was his understanding that recent Executive Sessions that Mr. Snyder
did not attend were not short and sweet.
Norma Bruns, Edmonds, advised she provided a written copy of the comments she made to the Council
last week to the City Clerk. She requested the Council consider action to address the issue she raised
[conversion of rental units to condominiums]. She relayed information Mr. Bowman provided that a
large number of units had been converted in Snohomish County.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, relayed the next chapter of the “Ferry Terminal Farce” ferry tale, “Oregon
Trail Revisited.” She referred to a small, simple, efficient ferry terminal in Edmonds which the ferry
system called unique, located on Main Street and was 600 feet long. The Edmonds Crossing terminal
would be 2,120 feet long with natural dangers at both ends - exposure that ferry captains indicated would
make landing difficult and holding lanes in a landslide hazard area. 920 feet east of the BNSF tracks, the
access road/holding lanes traversed the Unocal hillside at an angle to clear the tracks. Drivers parked in
Page 20 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 18
the holding lanes would be faced uphill. At the top, drivers would observe a dark pool of water below
and the decent would exceed a 3% grade, making riding the ferry an adventure. Pedestrian passengers
would be required to walk 1200-1300 feet, a distance comparable to walking from the Main Street
terminal to 4th Avenue, a distance WSDOT indicated exceeded any pedestrian standard. The ferry access
road that would cross the north end of Marina Park was long, wide and uncomfortably low in places –
114 feet wide at its narrowest point. Heights under the access road would be 14-19 feet in places and
only 10-12 feet over the pedestrian walkway. The Council overlooked these dangers, dimensions and
distances and proceeded blindly ahead. She advised the next chapter entitled, “Where Did Those Pilings
Go?” would be about deep water.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, described bulldozing of trees in the ravines and hills surrounding a
neighborhood, asking how a site with steep slopes and a watershed could be developed. He relayed that a
Planned Residential Development (PRD) was proposed and would contain houses that are too close
together, lots that are too small, a road that is too narrow and driveways that are not level with the street.
The anticipated destruction of Perrinville Woods was the most recent in a long line of PRDs in Edmonds,
30 in total. Via the use of the PRD process, the neighborhood hills and ravines were being cut and filled
throughout Edmonds without Environmental Impact Statements and the Council was ultimately
responsible. He noted the City must plan for growth, however, the Council apparently decided it was
acceptable for developers to cut trees in ravines and hillsides. It would be better for Edmonds to allow
more mixed use housing on arterials with transit service such as Hwy. 99 and SR 104 rather than
impacting neighborhoods with more cars, traffic and people. If Council allowed 5+ stories on Hwy. 99
and/or SR 104, developers would redevelop those areas instead of cutting the trees in neighborhoods. He
referred to the goals and policies section of the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive
Plan where the former Economic Development Director recommended the Council set a policy that would
stimulate transit oriented development. He encouraged citizens to contact Council with concerns.
Rowena Miller, Edmonds, expressed her pleasure with the Council’s approval of a resolution in support
of the Kyoto Protocol on emissions and endorsing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. She
urged the Council to heed Mr. Kreiman’s plea, pointing out as the Council considered development of
Five Corners, Firdale, Hwy. 99 and Perrinville, the best way to decrease carbon dioxide and increase air
quality was to retain trees and plant more trees.
Council President Dawson asked Mr. Snyder to describe the Council’s requirements with regard to
confidentiality of information discussed in Executive Session. Mr. Snyder explained Councilmembers
were obligated by State Statute to maintain confidence regarding information received in Executive
Session. The Edmonds City Council had a practice of maintaining minutes of Executive Sessions. When
the reason for denying access to minutes passed, the minutes of the Executive Session became public
record with the exception of legal advice.
Council President Dawson inquired about the Council’s ability to talk to the public about what occurred
in Executive Session. Mr. Snyder answered once the reason for the Executive Session passed, the
Council was free to discuss it. He offered to research a potential rule of procedure such as once the
minutes were released Councilmembers would be notified and provided a copy of the minutes. Council
President Dawson inquired what the penalty was for violating confidentiality of Executive Sessions. Mr.
Snyder recalled there was a criminal penalty and a potential violation of public duties, making the
Councilmember subject to recall.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson announced the Council would hold continued deliberation and potentially take action
on the downtown zones at the October 3rd meeting. He also reported that when speaking to the public
recently, many had questions regarding Old Mill Town. Therefore, he asked the developer to post his
plans in the window of Old Mill Town, and encouraged anyone with questions to visit Old Mill Town to
look at the plans.
Page 21 of 230
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2006
Page 19
9. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Councilmember Marin reported last week the Sound Transit Finance Committee saw the drawings of the
Edmonds interim Sounder station which shifted the station south to Dayton and expanded the parking lot
to 240 spaces. Ultimately the existing Amtrak station would be modified because the double track would
be located between the existing track and the Amtrak station.
Councilmember Orvis advised he would provide a report on the Lodging Tax Advisory Tax Committee
meeting next week.
Councilmember Olson reported on the SeaShore forum, advising Sound Transit and RTID planned to
hold a series of open houses; the closest one to Edmonds was at the Everett Events Center on October 3
from 4:30 – 7:30 p.m.
Councilmember Olson reported the PFD received their occupancy permit and selected new chandeliers
for the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The first performance will be the Cascade Symphony on October 23
and a grand opening was planned for January 2007. She also reported the South Snohomish Cities group
was holding a dinner with the Legislators in the 1st, 21st, 32nd and 44th Districts to discuss the upcoming
legislative session.
Councilmember Wambolt welcomed Rowena Miller back to the Council meeting. He reported at the
September 11 Port meeting, Commissioners updated the Port regulations and approved an economic
development budget that is approximately 10% less than the amount expected to be spent in 2006 as they
did not plan to use a consultant. At the September 25 meeting, the Port Commission heard an appeal of
the Executive Director’s decision to terminate a tenant’s moorage agreement due to overdue payments;
his decision was upheld. The Commission also discussed the progress being made by Landau &
Associates on the development of a stormwater pollution prevention plan, noting it was very difficult to
meet the benchmark concentration for copper even with effective source control measures and practices.
Councilmember Moore asked Councilmember Plunkett to schedule Ms. Bruns’ concerns on the
Community/Development Services Committee’s next agenda. Councilmember Plunkett agreed and
invited Ms. Bruns to attend the October 10 meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Councilmember Moore reported she made a presentation at the Snohomish County Economic
Development Council meeting on behalf of Edmonds Community College regarding the drive to locate a
university in Snohomish County that would serve Snohomish, Island and Skagit counties. A request
would be made to the Legislature in January. She offered to provide a full report at a future meeting.
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER / POTENTIAL LITIGATION.
At 10:15 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a one hour Executive Session regarding a legal
matter and potential litigation. He advised the Council would adjourn immediately following the
conclusion of the Executive Session.
Page 22 of 230
AM-628 2.C.
Approval of Claim Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/03/2006
Submitted By:Debbie Karber, Administrative Services
Submitted For:Dan Clements Time:Consent
Department:Administrative Services Type:Action
Review
Committee:
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Agenda Memo
Subject
Approval of claim checks #91034 through #91182 for September 28, 2006 in the amount of $183,812.56.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896
delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of
expenditures.
Recommendation
Approval of claim checks.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2006 Revenue: Expenditure: $183,182.56
Fiscal Impact:
Claim Cks $183,812.56
Attachments
Link: Claim Cks 9-28-06
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 09/28/2006 01:18 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 01:19 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/28/2006 02:09 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 02:31 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie Karber Started On: 09/28/2006 12:36 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2006
Page 23 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91034 9/28/2006 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL AARD0831 RODENT CONTROL
RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 73.51
Total :73.51
91035 9/28/2006 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 231794 1-13992
PEST CONTROL
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 57.50
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 5.12
Total :62.62
91036 9/28/2006 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 0906989 SOFTBALL CHAMPION T SHIRTS
SOFTBALL T-SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 62.40
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 5.55
Total :67.95
91037 9/28/2006 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND OCTOBER 2006 KENNELING SERVICES/OCTOBER 2006-EDMONDS
KENNEKLING SERVICES~
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 1,895.07
Total :1,895.07
91038 9/28/2006 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 06-707 JANITORIAL SERVICE
JANITORIAL SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00
JANITORIAL/FLOORS06-708
JANITORIAL/FLOORS
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 273.33
Total :607.33
91039 9/28/2006 065568 ALLWATER INC 092106123 COEWASTE
1Page:Page 24 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91039 9/28/2006 (Continued)065568 ALLWATER INC
DRINKING WATER
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 14.95
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 0.89
Total :15.84
91040 9/28/2006 068330 AMERICAN PRINTING 41838 Forms for Bldg.
Forms for Bldg.
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 500.94
Forms for Eng.
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 181.13
Forms for bldg
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 181.15
Forms for Planning
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 181.13
Total :1,044.35
91041 9/28/2006 065419 ANIMAL CARE EQUIP & SERV INC 1058868-IN INV#1058868-IN CUST#WA00168 EDMONDS PD
REPLACEMENT CABLE - CATCH POLE
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 24.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 4.88
Total :28.88
91042 9/28/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3720025 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.410.00 36.30
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.410.00 3.23
Total :39.53
91043 9/28/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3715579 18386001
2Page:Page 25 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91043 9/28/2006 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 90.79
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.08
Total :98.87
91044 9/28/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3709826 PW MATS
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26
WATER UNIFORMS HIGHLAND
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 11.75
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.12
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.47
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.47
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.47
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.47
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.47
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 1.03
3Page:Page 26 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91044 9/28/2006 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
FLEET - UNIFORMS512-3709828
FLEET - UNIFORMS
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 17.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.55
FAC MAINT UNIFORMS512-3715578
FAC MAINT UNIFORMS
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 35.09
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.12
4Page:Page 27 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91044 9/28/2006 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
PW - MATS512-3718658
PW - MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38
PW - MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24
PW - MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24
PW - MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24
PW - MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24
PW - MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26
WATER UNIFORMS HIGHLAND
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 11.75
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.12
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.47
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.47
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.47
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.47
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.47
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 1.03
FLEET MAINT - UNIFORMS512-3718660
FLEET MAINT - UNIFORMS
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 17.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.55
5Page:Page 28 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91044 9/28/2006 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
FAC MAINT - UNIFORMS512-3720026
FAC MAINT - UNIFORMS
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 35.09
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.12
Total :200.02
91045 9/28/2006 071120 ASHLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICALS 2500014509 113009/0702
POLYMER
411.000.656.538.800.310.51 1,937.50
Total :1,937.50
91046 9/28/2006 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 337120 75179
DIESEL FUEL
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 6,294.50
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 503.56
Total :6,798.06
91047 9/28/2006 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 340623 FLEET INVENTORY - 300 GAL DIESEL
FLEET INVENTORY - 300 GAL DIESEL
511.000.000.141.120.000.00 576.87
WA STATE SERVICE FEE
511.000.000.141.120.000.00 60.00
ST EXCISE DIESEL TAX, WA OIL SPILL
511.000.000.141.120.000.00 107.16
Sales Tax
511.000.000.141.120.000.00 4.80
Total :748.83
91048 9/28/2006 064343 AT&T 730386050200 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS
6Page:Page 29 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91048 9/28/2006 (Continued)064343 AT&T
PUBLIC WORKS
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 2.49
PUBLIC WORKS
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 12.43
PUBLIC WORKS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 10.20
PUBLIC WORKS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 10.20
PUBLIC WORKS
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 14.41
Total :49.73
91049 9/28/2006 064343 AT&T 425-771-0152 STATION #16 FAX
STATION #16 FAX
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 27.43
Total :27.43
91050 9/28/2006 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 65827 TROPHY
1ST PLACE TROPHY
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 28.10
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 2.50
Total :30.60
91051 9/28/2006 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2006224 INV#2006224 EDMONDS PD - 9/21/06 EXAM
PRE-EMPLOY SCREEN 9/21/06
001.000.410.521.400.410.00 150.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.400.410.00 6.00
Total :156.00
91052 9/28/2006 002203 BEN KO MATIC 00043487 SEWER DEPT - JET HOSE
7Page:Page 30 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91052 9/28/2006 (Continued)002203 BEN KO MATIC
SEWER DEPT - JET HOSE
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1,396.80
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 122.92
Total :1,519.72
91053 9/28/2006 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 515961-02 INV#515961-02 EDMONDS PD - ROSS SUTTON
BALLISTIC VEST FOR SUTTON
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 649.95
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 57.20
INV#533037 EDMONDS PD - FALK533037
SHORT SLEEVE SHIRT - FALK
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 59.95
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.28
INV#536302 EDMONDS PD - JONES536302
SERVICE BARS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.20
SEW BARS ON CUSTOMER-PROVIDED SHIRT
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 2.00
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 0.63
Total :780.21
91054 9/28/2006 002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC IE01194 UNIT 91 - OIL FILTERS
UNIT 91 - OIL FILTERS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.19
UNIT 8 - FILTERS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.78
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.95
Total :49.92
91055 9/28/2006 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 1438580 C-249 PROCESS CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS
8Page:Page 31 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91055 9/28/2006 (Continued)066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL
C-249 PROCESS CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 717.77
Total :717.77
91056 9/28/2006 063459 BYRNE SPECIALTY GASES INC 268396 00674
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 106.70
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 9.39
Total :116.09
91057 9/28/2006 070903 CALENCE LLC 97707884 REPLACEMENT POWER SUPPLIES PER QUOTE~
Replacement Power Supplies per Quote~330-00306
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 3,558.12
Freight
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 122.00
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 327.53
Total :4,007.65
91058 9/28/2006 067084 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR SUPPLIES T84544 FLASHLIGHTS/TIES/SCREWDRIVER SET
FLASHLIGHTS/TIES/SCREWDRIVER SET
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 209.30
Total :209.30
91059 9/28/2006 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY97767 ALS SUPPLIES
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 8.93
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 0.79
ALS SUPPLIESLY97768
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 8.93
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 0.79
9Page:Page 32 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :19.44910599/28/2006 003510 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
91060 9/28/2006 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT7223 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #7223
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 60.20
Total :60.20
91061 9/28/2006 071305 CHIEF 071923 CREDIT- 2 BAGS RETURNED
Sent two extra bags in error
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 -25.98
OPS COMMS455321
bags for headsets
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 64.95
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 10.99
Total :49.96
91062 9/28/2006 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 206-369-4557 CELL PHONE FLEET
cell phone fleet
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 8.56
Total :8.56
91063 9/28/2006 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460450736 UNIFORMS
Volunteers uniforms
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 44.72
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 3.98
OPS UNIFORMS460450737
Stn. 16
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 102.19
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.09
10Page:Page 33 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91063 9/28/2006 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
OPS UNIFORMS460451764
Stn 17 - Ops
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 96.47
Stn 17 - ALS
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 96.47
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.59
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 8.58
OPS UNIFORMS460451790
Stn. 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 110.24
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.81
Total :490.14
91064 9/28/2006 063902 CITY OF EVERETT HAWLEY K-9 QUARRY SEMINAR - S.HAWLEY/EDMONDS
S.HAWLEY/K9 QUARRY SEMINAR~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 35.00
Total :35.00
91065 9/28/2006 067186 CLEAR IMAGE INC 59963 INV#59963 EDMONDS PD
REPRINTS 03-750
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 7.08
REPRINTS 03-2334
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 7.08
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 1.27
Total :15.43
91066 9/28/2006 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES E1690907 005302
11Page:Page 34 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91066 9/28/2006 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES
PAPER TOWELS/TP/TISSUE
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 197.17
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 2.50
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 17.57
005302E1690907-1
GARBAGE LINERS
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 144.64
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 12.73
Total :374.61
91067 9/28/2006 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES E1691201-1 FAC MAINT SUPPLIES - WIPER AP 10X13"
FAC MAINT SUPPLIES - WIPER AP 10X13"
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 208.40
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.34
Total :226.74
91068 9/28/2006 071308 COLELLA, TERESA COLELLA0925 BASKETBALL SCOREKEEPER
BASKETBALL SCOREKEEPER @ EDMONDS
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 27.00
Total :27.00
91069 9/28/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715 6306 8856 9757 TRAINING/KOHO
TRAINING/KOHO
411.000.656.538.800.490.71 130.00
Total :130.00
91070 9/28/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630649063718 Economic Dev. Director Ad
12Page:Page 35 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91070 9/28/2006 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
Economic Dev. Director Ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 150.00
Storm Water Engineer ad
001.000.620.558.800.490.00 258.00
CORR OF 7/10/06 BILLING4715630649063718
Diploma Tech-Return of items
001.000.220.516.100.350.00 -26.40
Total :381.60
91071 9/28/2006 060914 CUMMINS NORTHWEST LLC 001-47629 UNIT LS6 - LUBE FILTER, FUEL WATER SE
UNIT LS6 - LUBE FILTER, FUEL WATER SE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.50
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.25
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.27
Total :28.02
91072 9/28/2006 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING Monthly State Share of Concealed Pistol
State Share of Concealed Pistol
001.000.000.237.190.000.00 789.00
Total :789.00
91073 9/28/2006 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 06-2668 MINUTE TAKING
Council Minutes 9/18
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 420.00
Total :420.00
91074 9/28/2006 065173 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY W03030290001 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
MISC. MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 389.42
Total :389.42
91075 9/28/2006 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 71067 SUPPLIES
13Page:Page 36 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91075 9/28/2006 (Continued)007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
ENGINE PAINT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.44
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.48
Total :5.92
91076 9/28/2006 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 7559 UPS/ANALYSIS
UPS/ANALYSIS
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 7.97
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 0.71
UPS/NSI SOLUTIONS7629
UPS/NSI SOLUTIONS
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 36.47
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 3.25
UPS/BROWN & CALDWELL7862
UPS/BROWN & CALDWELL
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 15.97
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 1.42
Total :65.79
91077 9/28/2006 008350 EDMONDS PARKS & RECREATION PCASH0927 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
14Page:Page 37 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91077 9/28/2006 (Continued)008350 EDMONDS PARKS & RECREATION
WATER FOR HEKINAN DELEGATION
623.200.210.557.210.310.00 4.00
ICE AND WATER FOR HEKINAN DELEGATION
623.200.210.557.210.310.00 6.18
PHOTO PRINTS - SISTER CITY
623.200.210.557.210.490.00 12.73
GYMNASTICS BIRTHDAY PARTY SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 62.86
SUMMER CAMP CRAFT SUPPLIES FOR
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 19.31
MAILING TUBE
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 3.69
SUMMER CAMP CRAFT SUPPLIES FOR
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 13.27
2007 CALENDAR
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 35.93
FILM PROCESSING FOR PLAZA ROOM
001.000.640.574.100.490.00 10.57
SUPPLIES - DISCOVERY PROGRAM BIRD
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 15.00
WRITE ON THE SOUND SUPPLIES
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 16.34
CLEANING SUPPLIES FOR GYMNASTICS
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 14.72
SUMMER CAMP CRAFTS FOR GYMNASTICS
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 6.95
GYMNASTICS BIRTHDAY PARY SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 20.07
Total :241.62
91078 9/28/2006 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 146602 INV#146602 CLIENT#3713 EDMONDS PD
EUTHANIZE LAB/PIT X #06-1440
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 26.00
Total :26.00
15Page:Page 38 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91079 9/28/2006 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 019929 5870 Copier Maint - BW Meter Chrg
5870 Copier Maint - BW Meter Chrg
001.000.610.519.700.480.00 1.89
5870 Copier Maint - BW Meter Chrg
001.000.220.516.100.480.00 1.89
5870 Copier Maint - BW Meter Chrg
001.000.210.513.100.480.00 1.89
Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.480.00 0.17
Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.480.00 0.17
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.480.00 0.16
5870 Copier Maintenance Color Meter Chrg019930
5870 Copier Maintenance Color Meter Chrg
001.000.610.519.700.480.00 21.51
5870 Copier Maintenance Color Meter Chrg
001.000.220.516.100.480.00 21.51
5870 Copier Maintenance Color Meter Chrg
001.000.210.513.100.480.00 21.50
Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.480.00 1.91
Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.480.00 1.91
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.480.00 1.92
Total :76.43
91080 9/28/2006 008965 EMPLOYEE DATA FORMS 07-21188 INV#07-21188 EDMONDS PD
VACATION SCHEDULES 2007
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 15.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 5.25
Total :20.25
91081 9/28/2006 071009 EYER, ADAM EYER0925 BASKETBALL REFEREE
16Page:Page 39 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91081 9/28/2006 (Continued)071009 EYER, ADAM
BASKETBALL REFEREE @ EDMONDS COMMUNITY
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 40.00
Total :40.00
91082 9/28/2006 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0063309 WATER DEPT - CONCRETE VALVE MARKERS
WATER DEPT - CONCRETE VALVE MARKERS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 116.18
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 10.34
Total :126.52
91083 9/28/2006 062193 FIELD INSTRUMENTS & CONTROLS 131997 PANEL METER
PANEL METER
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 478.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 10.55
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 42.50
Total :531.05
91084 9/28/2006 009835 FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS INTL 9371 LEASE FOR CROWN VIC
LEASE FOR 2004 CROWN VIC TRAFFIC CAR
511.000.657.548.680.450.00 711.75
511.000.657.548.680.450.00 65.49
MONTHLY LEASE; 5 CROWN VICS9372
Monthly Lease for 5 2004 Crown Vics~
511.000.657.548.680.450.00 3,358.33
511.000.657.548.680.450.00 308.96
Total :4,444.53
91085 9/28/2006 066746 FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE 6766422-R4 ADMIN MISC
07-08 subscrptn
001.000.510.522.100.490.00 52.00
17Page:Page 40 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :52.00910859/28/2006 066746 066746 FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE
91086 9/28/2006 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 77377 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT
4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent for Oct-06
001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00
Total :300.00
91087 9/28/2006 071275 GANG PREVENTION SERVICES D. HONNEN GAN TRAINING - D. HONNEN/EDMONDS PD
D.HONNEN - REGISTRATION~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 200.00
Total :200.00
91088 9/28/2006 012199 GRAINGER 9192952274 SUPPLIES
PADLOCK
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 77.64
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.83
Total :84.47
91089 9/28/2006 012199 GRAINGER 9178369030 837944131
GFCI/ ELECTRICAL TAPE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 92.09
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 8.11
Total :100.20
91090 9/28/2006 012199 GRAINGER 9176884931 FAC MAINT- SMOKE DETECTOR TESTER, HAND
FAC MAINT- SMOKE DETECTOR TESTER, HAND
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 151.75
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.05
PS - V BELTS9184440304
PS - V BELTS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 37.31
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.21
18Page:Page 41 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91090 9/28/2006 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER
FAC MAINT - MULTI BIT SCREWDRIVER9184906957
FAC MAINT - MULTI BIT SCREWDRIVER
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 24.99
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 2.15
FAC - BOILER FEED VALVE9184906965
FAC - BOILER FEED VALVE
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 28.67
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.47
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES9190949264
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 221.40
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.04
FAC MAINT - LATEX GLOVES9191166736
FAC MAINT - LATEX GLOVES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 442.80
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 38.96
Total :985.80
91091 9/28/2006 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 00780265 036570
PVC PIPE GLUE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 40.96
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3.60
Total :44.56
91092 9/28/2006 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 5278-18 RESPIRATORY REVIEW
RESPIRATORY REVIEW
411.000.656.538.800.490.00 320.00
Total :320.00
91093 9/28/2006 071304 HIGH COUNTRY CONTRACTORS INC Ref000163123 BUSINESS LICENSE OVERPMT
19Page:Page 42 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91093 9/28/2006 (Continued)071304 HIGH COUNTRY CONTRACTORS INC
Refund overpmt of Bus Lic
001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00
Total :40.00
91094 9/28/2006 071306 HSUS DISASTER SERVICES DAVIS, ANGELA REGISTRATION - A. DAVIS/EDMONDS PD
ANGELA DAVIS/REGISTRATION~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 25.00
Total :25.00
91095 9/28/2006 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 70583353 COPIER LEASE
COPIER LEASE: ~
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 460.90
Total :460.90
91096 9/28/2006 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 70554504 INV#70554504 ACCT#467070-COMBINED
COPIER RENTAL 9/13-10/12/06
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 651.56
ADDITIONAL COPIES
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 166.77
LATE CHARGE ON DISPUTED AMOUNT
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 47.91
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 71.40
Total :937.64
91097 9/28/2006 069894 ITT SHARED SERVICES 25013429 088364
SENSOR PROBE
411.000.656.538.800.480.22 894.00
Total :894.00
91098 9/28/2006 065397 JOHNSON, ANDREW AJOHNSON0929 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT
SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT @ MEADOWDALE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 528.00
Total :528.00
91099 9/28/2006 015270 JONES CHEMICALS INC 318858 54278825
20Page:Page 43 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91099 9/28/2006 (Continued)015270 JONES CHEMICALS INC
HYPOCHLORITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,042.27
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 267.72
Total :3,309.99
91100 9/28/2006 070260 KOPP'S KOPIERS 10684 INV#10684 EDMONDS PD
CASE OF DAHLE SHREDDER OIL
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 36.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 3.06
Total :39.06
91101 9/28/2006 070289 LANG, KERRI LANG0922 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR~
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 60.00
Total :60.00
91102 9/28/2006 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 9006-217 SUPPLIES
ATLAS GLOVES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 189.60
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.11
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.06
SUPPLIES9006-230
ENGINE OIL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 74.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.59
Total :289.36
91103 9/28/2006 068258 LIFE RESCUE INC LR485 TRAINING MISC
Rescue Rigging PH & DS
001.000.510.522.400.490.00 1,120.00
21Page:Page 44 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,120.00911039/28/2006 068258 068258 LIFE RESCUE INC
91104 9/28/2006 066064 LISTEN AUDIOLOGY SERVICE INC 1492 HEARING TESTING
HEARING TESTING
411.000.656.538.800.490.00 415.00
Total :415.00
91105 9/28/2006 066719 MCKENZIE & ADAMS INC 0066337 GLOVES
ATLAS GLOVES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 140.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.46
Total :152.46
91106 9/28/2006 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 49747239 123106800
FILTER VACUUM
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 34.86
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 5.38
12310680049827484
STEEL DOOR
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 438.32
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 70.58
Total :549.14
91107 9/28/2006 069592 METROCALL P0298897I INV#P0298897I EDMONDS PD
PAGER SERVICE 9/27-10/26/06
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 79.72
Total :79.72
91108 9/28/2006 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 13391 MICROFILMING SERVICES
MICROFILMING FOR CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.200.410.00 219.12
Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.200.410.00 19.28
22Page:Page 45 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :238.40911089/28/2006 069053 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD
91109 9/28/2006 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 13389 MICROFILM
Microfilming records
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 526.96
King County Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 46.37
Total :573.33
91110 9/28/2006 071274 MOSAIC THREAT ASSESSMENT SYS 99M-082306-01 INV#99M-082306-01 - A.GREENMUN/EDM PD
A.GREENMUN - RGISTRATION~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 2,500.00
Total :2,500.00
91111 9/28/2006 022009 MOTOROLA INC 13532932 FIRE DEPT RADIO FUND - PORTABLE
FIRE DEPT RADIO FUND - PORTABLE
511.100.657.548.680.350.00 2,277.15
Sales Tax
511.100.657.548.680.350.00 202.66
Total :2,479.81
91112 9/28/2006 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0182436-IN WATER/SEWER DEPT - SUPPLIES
WATER/SEWER DEPT - SUPPLIES
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 110.00
WATER/SEWER DEPT - SUPPLIES
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 110.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 9.68
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 9.68
Total :239.36
91113 9/28/2006 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0293804-IN FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS
FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS
511.000.000.141.170.000.00 52.22
Sales Tax
511.000.000.141.170.000.00 4.49
23Page:Page 46 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :56.71911139/28/2006 024302 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
91114 9/28/2006 070788 NETRIVER INC 33956 BIRDFEST BILLING
E MAIL BILLING: BIRDFEST
001.000.240.513.110.420.00 39.00
Total :39.00
91115 9/28/2006 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 832127721-023 INV#832127721-023 EDMONDS PD
CELL PHONES 09/18-10/17/06
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1,443.58
Total :1,443.58
91116 9/28/2006 063034 NORTH CENTRAL LABORATORIES 206162 13465
BOD STANDARD
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 90.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 8.21
Total :98.21
91117 9/28/2006 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S1224287.001 2091
CIRCUIT BREAKER
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1,435.62
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 122.03
2091S1231183.002
BATTERY
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 215.32
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 18.30
Total :1,791.27
91118 9/28/2006 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY 532477901 144500
SWITCHES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 177.76
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 15.29
24Page:Page 47 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91118 9/28/2006 (Continued)024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY
144500532581203
C-251 CONDUIT
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 1,009.30
Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 86.80
Total :1,289.15
91119 9/28/2006 068663 NORTHERN ENERGY PROPANE 532581 SEWER DEPT - LIFT ST 12 - PROPANE
SEWER DEPT - LIFT ST 12 - PROPANE
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 203.22
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 17.48
SEWER DEPT LIFT ST 10 - PROPANE532589
SEWER DEPT LIFT ST 10 - PROPANE
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 65.17
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 5.60
Total :291.47
91120 9/28/2006 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 0071920 SODIUM BISULFITE
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 675.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 60.08
SODIUM BISULFITE0072046
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 686.25
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 61.08
Total :1,482.41
91121 9/28/2006 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0318693 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 95.36
25Page:Page 48 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :95.36911219/28/2006 061013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
91122 9/28/2006 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 426 PB Minute taker 9/13/06 Verbatim
PB Minute taker 9/13/06 Verbatim
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 840.00
Verbtim Transcripts AP 2006-45000 00 427
Verbtim Transcripts AP 2006-45
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 225.00
Total :1,065.00
91123 9/28/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 012267 OFFICE SUPPLIES
TOTE, PAPER, FOLDERS
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 28.60
King County Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 2.42
OFFICE SUPPLIES067567
PARK MAINTENANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 439.38
King County Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 38.67
OFFICE SUPPLIES101292
LEGAL FILE CABINET
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 185.60
King County Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 16.33
OFFICE SUPPLIES161035
ASSORTED PAPER, ETC.
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 118.75
King County Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 10.46
Total :840.21
91124 9/28/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 382478 Binders for Budget Commitee
26Page:Page 49 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91124 9/28/2006 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
Binders for Budget Commitee
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 30.42
5 Tab Dividers for Budget Committee
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 139.10
King County Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 14.92
Wireless Mouse for Laptops388061
Wireless Mouse for Laptops
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 57.04
King County Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 5.02
Pens, Bookends, Laser Toner & Paper478319
Pens, Bookends, Laser Toner & Paper
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 325.98
King County Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 28.68
Total :601.16
91125 9/28/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 217451 520437
DICTIONARY/COPIER PAPER/INK CARTRIDGE
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 54.25
King County Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 4.78
Total :59.03
91126 9/28/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 401259 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 57.59
King County Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 5.06
OFFICE SUPPLIES446278
Office supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 435.86
King County Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 38.35
27Page:Page 50 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91126 9/28/2006 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
OFFICE SUPPLIES486962
Office supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 108.36
King County Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 9.53
Total :654.75
91127 9/28/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 412077 STREET DEPT - CALC
STREET DEPT - CALC
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 7.64
PW - MECH PENCILS
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 17.88
WATER QUALITY - TONER CARTRIDGE
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 57.39
King County Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 0.67
King County Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 1.57
King County Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.06
Total :90.21
91128 9/28/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 375917 Book cases for Building
Book cases for Building
001.000.620.524.100.350.00 183.57
Office supplies377580
Office supplies
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 220.89
Total :404.46
91129 9/28/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 404446 INV#404446 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
28Page:Page 51 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91129 9/28/2006 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
ADJUSTABLE KEYBOARD TRAY
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 155.98
POST-ITS & PATROL NOTEBOOKS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 50.76
HEAVY DUTY 2 HOLE PUNCH
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 32.84
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 13.72
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.47
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 2.89
Total :260.66
91130 9/28/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 386420 Office Supplies - HR, CS, MY
Office Supplies - HR, CS, MY
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 25.43
Office Supplies - HR, CS, MY
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 25.44
Office Supplies - HR, CS, MY
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 25.43
Office Supplies - HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 12.45
King County Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 2.24
King County Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 2.24
King County Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 3.34
Total :96.57
91131 9/28/2006 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER august COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL
29Page:Page 52 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91131 9/28/2006 (Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
Emergency Medical Services & Trauma
001.000.000.237.120.000.00 1,310.83
PSEA 1, 2,3 Account
001.000.000.237.130.000.00 24,562.55
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.000.237.150.000.00 288.50
State Patrol Death Investigations
001.000.000.237.170.000.00 1,064.66
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.000.237.180.000.00 3,329.46
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.000.237.200.000.00 85.08
COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTALjuly
Emergency Medical Services & Trauma
001.000.000.237.120.000.00 1,070.73
PSEA 1 ,2 ,3Account
001.000.000.237.130.000.00 20,526.37
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.000.237.150.000.00 324.50
State Patrol Death Investigations
001.000.000.237.170.000.00 1,000.85
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.000.237.180.000.00 2,752.62
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.000.237.200.000.00 -50.03
Total :56,266.12
91132 9/28/2006 068371 OVERALL LAUNDRY SERVICES H261876 FAC MAINT - UNIFORM
FAC MAINT - UNIFORM
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 24.93
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.22
30Page:Page 53 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91132 9/28/2006 (Continued)068371 OVERALL LAUNDRY SERVICES
FAC MAINT FINAL BILLINGI475518
FAC MAINT FINAL BILLING
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 89.72
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 7.99
Total :124.86
91133 9/28/2006 026560 PACIFIC AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CO 34695 WATER/SEWER JOB 34695 - REPAIR AND
WATER/SEWER JOB 34695 - REPAIR AND
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 237.28
WATER/SEWER JOB 34695 - REPAIR AND
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 237.27
WATER/SEWER JOB 34696 - REPAIR AND34696
WATER/SEWER JOB 34696 - REPAIR AND
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 213.91
WATER/SEWER JOB 34696 - REPAIR AND
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 213.91
Total :902.37
91134 9/28/2006 070931 PATTON BOGGS LLP 08312006 DC LOBBYIST FOR AUGUST 2006
DC Lobbyist for August 2006
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 4,000.00
Total :4,000.00
91135 9/28/2006 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK7372 STRETCH & SCULPT
STRETCH & SCULPT #7372
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 252.00
Total :252.00
91136 9/28/2006 071307 PENN ARMS INC PA7923 INV#PA7923 EDMONDS PD
REPAIR SL6-37MM LAUNCHER
001.000.410.521.400.480.00 260.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.400.480.00 30.00
Total :290.00
31Page:Page 54 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91137 9/28/2006 007800 PETTY CASH tc petty cities and town dinner-mayor
cities and town dinner-mayor
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 32.50
cities and town dinner-council members
001.000.110.511.100.490.00 97.50
reimb for book-thies
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 10.50
sno co clerks meeting-chase
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 10.00
coffee for meetings
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 29.98
mileage reimb-carl
001.000.210.513.100.430.00 8.90
cities & towns meeting-mayor, linda carl
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 64.00
repair of flat tire on medic bike
001.000.510.526.100.480.00 5.44
mileage reimb-waters
001.000.310.518.880.430.00 9.70
boot allowance-mcconnell
001.000.620.532.200.240.00 82.00
parking for wifi conf 9/13/06
001.000.610.519.700.430.00 10.00
#'s/ltrs for kiosk
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 7.14
Total :367.66
91138 9/28/2006 068293 PNWA-AWWA PW RAYMOND PW - I-CONTACT COURSE - RAYMOND
PW - I-CONTACT COURSE - RAYMOND
001.000.650.519.910.490.00 75.00
Total :75.00
91139 9/28/2006 029012 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 144804 SEWER DEPT - CAMERA SHIPPING
32Page:Page 55 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91139 9/28/2006 (Continued)029012 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
SEWER DEPT - CAMERA SHIPPING
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 70.19
CHARGEABLE WEIGHT
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 4.00
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 0.36
STREET DEPT - ELTEC - POSTAGE145161
STREET DEPT - ELTEC - POSTAGE
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 13.31
SEWER DEPT - CUES POSTAGE145497
SEWER DEPT - CUES POSTAGE
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 94.33
STREET DEPT - ADV TECH - POSTAGE145547
STREET DEPT - ADV TECH - POSTAGE
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 18.25
Total :200.44
91140 9/28/2006 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948 FAC
alarm monitoring for FAC
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 180.00
alarm monitoring for Library2422756
alarm monitoring for Library
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 174.00
33Page:Page 56 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91140 9/28/2006 (Continued)064088 PROTECTION ONE
PW ALARM MONITORING730531
24 hour alarm monitoring PW
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 21.00
24 hour alarm monitoring PW
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 21.00
24 hour alarm monitoring PW
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 18.38
24 hour alarm monitoring PW
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 23.63
24 hour alarm monitoring PW
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 10.50
24 hour alarm monitoring PW
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 10.49
Total :459.00
91141 9/28/2006 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0010075-IN EDMCITW
BANDAGES
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 9.50
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 0.80
Total :10.30
91142 9/28/2006 064291 QWEST 206-Z02-0478 332B FLOW METERING STATIONS
FLOW METERING STATIONS
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 137.80
Total :137.80
91143 9/28/2006 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 0609030,033 PROJECT - EZLA/C207 - FAC SEISMIC
PROJECT - EZLA/C207 - FAC SEISMIC
116.000.651.519.920.410.00 9,829.57
Total :9,829.57
91144 9/28/2006 066978 ROGERS MACHINERY 627484 18196
34Page:Page 57 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91144 9/28/2006 (Continued)066978 ROGERS MACHINERY
FAN
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 126.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.52
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 11.66
Total :144.18
91145 9/28/2006 071007 SAWDON, MANDY SAWDON0923 PLAZA ROOM/GYM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM & DANCE MONITOR~
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 120.00
Total :120.00
91146 9/28/2006 071228 SCHELLERT AND ASSOCIATES 060727-01 200th St Proj Consulting Traffic Signal
200th St Proj Consulting Traffic Signal
112.506.630.595.330.650.00 428.80
Total :428.80
91147 9/28/2006 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET 180594 UNIT 114 - BRAKE REPAIR PARTS AND LABOR
UNIT 114 - BRAKE REPAIR PARTS AND LABOR
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 293.85
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 28.24
Total :322.09
91148 9/28/2006 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC 1061850 INV#1061850 ACCT#CEDM EDMONDS PD
DOG LICENSE APPLICATIONS
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 304.92
Freight
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 25.00
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 29.03
Total :358.95
91149 9/28/2006 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0051437-IN UNIT 486 - HALOGEN ROTATOR
35Page:Page 58 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91149 9/28/2006 (Continued)068489 SIRENNET.COM
UNIT 486 - HALOGEN ROTATOR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 49.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.50
Total :59.50
91150 9/28/2006 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY 238626157 SPORTS CAMPS
SKYHAWKS SPORTS CAMPS:~
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 17,031.00
Total :17,031.00
91151 9/28/2006 071248 SLEEP INN - SEATAC 15431 INV#15431 EDMONDS PD - ROSS SUTTON
ROOM DURING ACADEMY 9/17-9/21
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 249.95
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 31.00
Total :280.95
91152 9/28/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 3430013627 OLYMPIC BEACH FISHING PIER
OLYMPIC BEACH FISHING PIER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 311.46
Total :311.46
91153 9/28/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2070015082 LIFT STATION #7
LIFT STATION #7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 122.17
SIGNAL LIGHT2330012283
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.23
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE2440024129
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 98.35
VACANT PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING2480017397
VACANT PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 287.60
36Page:Page 59 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91153 9/28/2006 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
LIFT STATION #42540012560
LIFT STATION #4
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 324.16
SIGNAL LIGHT2790022228
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 51.11
SIGNAL LIGHT3350014902
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 42.10
LIFT STATION #123850011440
LIFT STATION #12
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 329.55
LIFT STATION #154070022027
LIFT STATION #15
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 27.79
LIFT STATION #114130026596
LIFT STATION #11
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 30.53
SIGNAL LIGHT4210013902
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 50.66
SIGNAL LIGHT4330014129
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 271.61
SIGNAL LIGHT5360023807
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 15.64
CITY HALL5410010689
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,414.60
Total :4,096.10
91154 9/28/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 581030939 620-001-500-3
37Page:Page 60 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91154 9/28/2006 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
VARIOUS LOCATIONS
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 6.91
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 0.41
958-001-000-8926010989
WWTP ELECTRICITY
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 18,499.42
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 1,109.97
Total :19,616.71
91155 9/28/2006 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER july/AUG 06 crime victims july 06
crime victims july 06
001.000.000.237.140.000.00 690.82
crime victims aUG 06
001.000.000.237.140.000.00 760.77
Total :1,451.59
91156 9/28/2006 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03584 RECYCLING
RECYCLING
411.000.656.538.800.475.66 23.38
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.475.66 1.40
Total :24.78
91157 9/28/2006 070684 STANTEC CONSULTING INC 106183 53769
SUPPORT SERVICES
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 1,645.92
Total :1,645.92
91158 9/28/2006 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 722324 CITY HALL - ELECT SUPPLIES
CITY HALL - ELECT SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 248.89
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 22.15
38Page:Page 61 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :271.04911589/28/2006 040430 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
91159 9/28/2006 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10438277 SHOP TOOLS - ROTOBROACH
SHOP TOOLS - ROTOBROACH
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 92.04
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 8.19
Total :100.23
91160 9/28/2006 068999 TACTICAL & SURVIVAL PIN38576 INV#PIN38576 CUST#C11540 EDMONDS PD
CACU PANTS
001.000.410.521.230.310.00 29.21
Total :29.21
91161 9/28/2006 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1438274 NEWSPAPER ADS
Hearing Re:220th
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 34.50
NEWSPAPER ADS1438278
Hearing Re:McCormick
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 67.78
NEWSPAPER ADS1438348
Hearing: Amend Comp Plan
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 35.88
NEWSPAPER ADS1438349
Hearing:Port Strategic/Master Plan
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 33.12
Total :171.28
91162 9/28/2006 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 190484 SUPPLIES
LATCH TWIST
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 25.34
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.50
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.89
Total :35.73
39Page:Page 62 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91163 9/28/2006 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 12499 UNIT B17 - KEYS
UNIT B17 - KEYS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.80
Total :9.80
91164 9/28/2006 043670 UNDERWATER SPORTS 625206 INV#625206 EDMONDS PD
REPAIR DIVE SUIT
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 75.00
PARTS TO REPAIR DIVE SUIT
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 105.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 16.02
Total :196.02
91165 9/28/2006 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA0147794-WA DOT - SEWER DEPT
DOT - SEWER DEPT
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 58.00
DOT - FLEET
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 58.00
Total :116.00
91166 9/28/2006 044300 US POSTAL SERVICE 9/26/06 City newsletter mailing (postage)
City newsletter mailing (postage)
001.000.240.513.110.420.00 2,675.00
Total :2,675.00
91167 9/28/2006 070864 VERIZON DIRECTORIES CORP 440008252809 Directory Listings
Directory Listings
001.000.390.528.800.420.00 106.75
Total :106.75
91168 9/28/2006 070864 VERIZON DIRECTORIES CORP S/P2504931 SUPERPAGES.COM
Directory Listings
001.000.390.528.800.420.00 34.95
40Page:Page 63 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :34.95911689/28/2006 070864 070864 VERIZON DIRECTORIES CORP
91169 9/28/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-771-1124 CITY PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG-EMAIL
CITY PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG-EMAIL
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 51.56
Total :51.56
91170 9/28/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-AB8-2844 050513 C/A 03 0210 3993053206 04
Police T1 Line
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 373.12
Total :373.12
91171 9/28/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-8379 MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM
MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.84
TELEMETRY STATIONS425-712-0417
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 27.87
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 27.86
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES425-712-8251
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 10.46
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 52.31
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.89
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 42.89
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 60.67
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 47.44
Total :327.23
41Page:Page 64 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91172 9/28/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425 712-0423 03 0260 1032797592 07
AFTER HOURS PHONE
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 58.95
Total :58.95
91173 9/28/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-774-0944 FS #20-FAX LINE
FS #20-FAX LINE
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 49.89
Total :49.89
91174 9/28/2006 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 769986915-01 425-231-2668
cell phone-water lead
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 47.81
206-947-3220964212899-00001
cell phone water quality
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 119.20
Total :167.01
91175 9/28/2006 064649 VERMEER NW SALES INC 58151 WATER DEPT - WIRE PULLER GRIPS
WATER DEPT - WIRE PULLER GRIPS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 91.86
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 9.52
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.92
Total :110.30
91176 9/28/2006 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 27771139 1066294
CYLINDER
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 104.60
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 6.11
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 9.85
Total :120.56
91177 9/28/2006 062812 WA CRANE AND HOIST CO INC IVC05520 EWW-1EW
42Page:Page 65 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91177 9/28/2006 (Continued)062812 WA CRANE AND HOIST CO INC
INSPECTIONS
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 525.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 46.73
Total :571.73
91178 9/28/2006 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 5109 STREET/WATER SHARED -
STREET/WATER SHARED -
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 159.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 8.46
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 14.90
Total :182.36
91179 9/28/2006 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 5137 INV#5137 EDMONDS PD
BATTERIES FOR MOTOROLA I530
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 136.90
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 5.67
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 12.69
INV#5143 EDMONDS PD5143
BATTERY FOR MOTOROLA I530
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 27.38
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 1.50
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 2.57
Total :186.71
91180 9/28/2006 067122 WESMAR COMPANY INC 135442 25154
43Page:Page 66 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91180 9/28/2006 (Continued)067122 WESMAR COMPANY INC
D-LIMONENE
411.000.656.538.800.310.59 499.20
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.59 43.93
Total :543.13
91181 9/28/2006 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 23722002 PLANTS FOR CEMETERY
ASSORTED RHODODENDRONS FOR CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 153.75
Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 13.68
PLANTS FOR CEMETERY23723002
RHODODENDRONS FOR CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 8.75
Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 0.78
PLANTS FOR CEMETERY31638001
ASSORTED AZALEAS FOR CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 227.50
Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 20.25
Total :424.71
91182 9/28/2006 064234 WILDWATER RIVER TOURS INC AMUNDSON7251 WHITEWATER RAFTING
TIETON WHITEWATER RAFTING~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 108.72
Total :108.72
Bank total :183,812.56149 Vouchers for bank code :front
183,812.56Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report149
44Page:Page 67 of 230
09/28/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
12:28:59PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
45Page:Page 68 of 230
AM-618 2.D.
Taxi Operator's License
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/03/2006
Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Approval of Taxi Operator's License for Low Fare Airport and Local for Hire Vehicles.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The City Clerk's Office received a new application for a Taxi Operator's License from Low Fare Airport and Local For
Hire Vehicles. A copy of the application is attached.
Low Fare Airport and Local For Hire Vehicles would be the fourth taxi business operating in the City of Edmonds.
The Police Department reviewed and approved the application. In addition, Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.60
requires that the City Council approve Taxi Operators Licenses.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve the license.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Taxi License Application
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/25/2006 09:49 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/25/2006 09:53 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/25/2006 10:58 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/25/2006 09:43 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/25/2006
Page 69 of 230
Page 70 of 230
Page 71 of 230
Page 72 of 230
Page 73 of 230
AM-626 2.E.
Resolution Opposing I-933
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/03/2006
Submitted By:Duane Bowman, Development Services Time:Consent
Department:Development Services Type:
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Proposed Resolution opposing Initiative 933 entitled "An act relating to providing fairness in government regulation
of property."
Previous Council Action
A public hearing on I-933 was held on September 27, 2006. After taking public testimony, the City council passed a
motion directing the City Attorney to prepare a resolution opposing I-933.
Narrative
On November 7, 2006 voters of the State of Washington will have an opportunity to vote on Initiative 933. This
ballot measure would alter the regulation of development on private property in the State of Washington requiring
jurisdictions to pay for taking claims associated with regulating property. I-933 will significantly impact the residents
of the City of Edmonds. It would make regulating land use and protecting critical areas more difficult. The potential
financial impacts associated with paying compensation for claims filed under this initiative would impact the City's
ability to pay for essential public services.
Recommendation
Adopt the proposed resolution.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - Proposed Resolution
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 04:51 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/28/2006 04:57 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 05:01 PM APRV
Form Started By: Duane Bowman Started On: 09/28/2006 11:35 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2006
Page 74 of 230
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
9/12/06
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, OPPOSING INITIATIVE 933
ENTITLED “AN ACT RELATING TO PROVIDING FAIRNESS
IN GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF PROPERTY.”
WHEREAS, Initiative 933 (I-933) will be presented to the voters of the State of
Washington at the general election on November 7, 2006, with the following official Ballot Title:
Statement of the Subject: Initiative Measure 933 concerns
government regulation of private property.
Concise Description: This measure would require compensation
when government regulation damages the use or value of private
property, would forbid regulations that prohibit existing legal uses
of private property, and would provide exceptions or payments.
Should this measure be enacted into law: Yes
No
WHEREAS, I-933 would require an agency, including a city government, that
“decides” to enforce or apply” any “ordinance, regulation or rule” to private property which
would result in “damaging the use or value of private property” to first “pay compensation,” as
those phrases are defined and used in I-933, and
WHEREAS, I-933’s definition of “damaging the use or value” would
dramatically lower the threshold for compensation far below constitutional limits; and
WHEREAS, I-933;s definition of “private property” includes virtually all interests
in real as well as personal property, and
WHEREAS, because I-933’s definition of “damaging the use or value” of private
property includes no minimum threshold for the reduction of use or value, virtually any
{WSS641365.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - Page 75 of 230
limitation on the use of private property creates a cause for a compensation claim for “damages”
within the meaning of I-933, regardless of the importance of the public protection achieved by
such limitation, and
WHEREAS, by its terms, the provisions of I-933 are to be “liberally construed”
(Section 6) and its exceptions “shall be construed narrowly” (Section (2)(c), and
WHEREAS, the exceptions listed in Section (2)(c) do not list nuisance uses that
typically would be precluded from residential neighborhoods, and thus I-933 would authorize
claims for payment or waiver for city regulations that prohibit a wide variety of obnoxious land
uses and activities that would seriously degrade property values of such residential
neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, I-933 would deprive local jurisdictions, including the City of
Edmonds, of the ability to adopt and enforce reasonable land use development standards to
mitigate traffic impacts, assure appropriate building height and lot coverage maxima, provide for
the preservation of open spaces and protection of environmentally sensitive areas; and other
general development regulations necessary to promote the public health, safety, and welfare, and
WHEREAS, I-933 erroneously assumes that local jurisdictions have authority to
“decide” not to enforce or apply their duly adopted ordinances, regulations and rules, without
granting express authority to pay compensation or waive the enforcement or application thereof,
and
WHEREAS, the Association of Washington Cities has estimated that the state-
wide annual administrative costs alone would be between [$60] million and [$76] million, while
the state-wide annual cost to cities for paying off claims is estimated to be between [$3.5] billion
and [$4.5] billion, and
{WSS641365.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Page 76 of 230
WHEREAS, the impact of I-933 on city taxpayers in Washington is estimated at
between [$2,410] and [$3,078] per household every year, and
WHEREAS, the cost of processing and paying compensation for the enforcement
of reasonable development regulations under I-933 would far exceed the requirements of both
the federal and state constitutions and cripple the fiscal ability of the City to provide needed
public safety, infrastructure and other public services, and
WHEREAS, prior to adoption of this resolution, the City of Edmonds has given
notice of the meeting at which it was considered containing the official Ballot Title of Initiative
933 and has afforded equal opportunity at the meeting for any person to express an opposing
view, now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Edmonds opposes adoption of Initiative 933, and urges its
rejection by the voters.
RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2006.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
{WSS641365.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - Page 77 of 230
AM-621 2.F.
Non-Represented 2007-2008 Compensation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/03/2006
Submitted By:Dan Clements, Administrative Services Time:Consent
Department:Administrative Services Type:Action
Review
Committee:Finance
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Agenda Memo
Subject
Non-Represented 2007-2008 Compensation Plan.
Previous Council Action
Finance Committee review on August 29 and September 26.
Narrative
On August 29, the Finance Committee, plus Councilmember Orvis, discussed non-represented compensation levels
for the 2007-08 budget. The Finance Committee again discussed this topic on September 26. They made four
recommendations:
1. The L-5 compensation plan be retained until a new plan is in place.
2. All non-represented employees will be entitled to a cost of living increase.
3. That a 3% merit pool be established in the 2007 and 2008 budgets.
4. Funding for a comprehensive compensation and classification study should be included in the 2007-08 budget.
Committee members are looking to link compensation with a performance based management reporting system.
This point will be considered as part of upcoming budget deliberations.
Recommendation
Approve Finance Committee recommendations.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 08:40 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/28/2006 09:11 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 09:58 AM APRV
Form Started By: Dan Clements Started On: 09/27/2006 04:23 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2006
Page 78 of 230
AM-622 2.G.
Storm Water Billing Adjustment
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/03/2006
Submitted By:Dan Clements, Administrative Services Time:Consent
Department:Administrative Services Type:Action
Review
Committee:Finance
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Agenda Memo
Subject
Pierce storm water billing adjustment.
Previous Council Action
Reviewed by Finance Committee on September 26.
Narrative
The Finance Department received a request by a resident at 24017 104th Ave W to waive storm water fees, since
they constructed a "green" house that retains 100% of run-off on site.
Recommendation
Approve request, subject to verification by the City, and subject to a letter from the City containing a provision
stating this may be reconsidered and/or adjusted at any time in the future.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Drainage_Exemption
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 08:42 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/28/2006 09:11 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 09:58 AM APRV
Form Started By: Dan Clements Started On: 09/27/2006 04:29 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2006
Page 79 of 230
Page 80 of 230
Page 81 of 230
AM-620 3.
Change a Light Proclamation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/03/2006
Submitted By:Linda Carl, Mayor's Office
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:5 Minutes
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Information
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Proclamation in honor of Change a Light Day in Edmonds, October 4, 2006.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Global warming won’t be stopped overnight! It is a very complicated problem that will take many solutions by many
people. A good way to start is to take small steps.
As part of the City’s energy reduction and climate protection efforts, I’m proclaiming Wednesday, October 4 as
“Change a Light Day” in Edmonds to encourage citizens to take a simple but important step toward reducing energy
usage.
The energy used in an average home contributes more than twice the greenhouse gas emissions of the average car.
This is because the electricity is typically generated by burning fossil fuels, and this burning releases greenhouse
gases into our air. So by switching the light bulbs that you use the most to Energy Star bulbs, you will be doing a
little bit to help.
Do you know that 20% of our nation’s electricity usage is from lighting our homes? Last year over 70,000 people
nationwide signed a pledge to change one light bulb in their homes to an Energy Star-qualified light bulb. That
action avoided using 23 million kWh’s of energy and in turn prevented more than 33 million pounds of greenhouse
gas emissions. That also saved over $2 million on America’s utility bills. If we changed one light bulb for every child
in America, we would save enough energy to light more than 15 million homes for an entire year and prevent more
than 30 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions.
One light bulb changed to an Energy Star bulb will save more than $30 in electricity cost over the life of the bulb
and will prevent the release of 450 pounds on greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. The goal of the Change a
Light, Change the World campaign is for 500,000 people nationwide to take the online pledge, which can be found
on the Energy Star website at www.energystar.gov/changealight.
Recommendation
Please join me in signing this online pledge to switch one light bulb in your home to an Energy Star-qualified light
bulb.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Page 82 of 230
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/27/2006 04:33 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/28/2006 09:11 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 09:58 AM APRV
Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 09/27/2006 03:19 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2006
Page 83 of 230
Page 84 of 230
AM-629 4.
Domestic violence proclamation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/03/2006
Submitted By:Linda Carl, Mayor's Office
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:5 Minutes
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Information
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Proclamation in honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, October 2006.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Domestic violence crosses all economic, racial, and socioeconomic segments of our society, and the South
Snohomish County Domestic Violence Task Force is working proactively to end domestic violence in our community.
Council President Deanna Dawson, who works as a domestic violence special prosecutor in South Snohomish
County, will read this year’s proclamation in honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Recommendation
Please join the Mayor in recognizing October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 04:51 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/28/2006 04:57 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 05:01 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 09/28/2006 04:01 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2006
Page 85 of 230
Page 86 of 230
AM-596 5.
McCormick Medical Building Public Hearing
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/03/2006
Submitted By:Conni Curtis, Engineering
Submitted For:Dave Gebert Time:20 Minutes
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Public Hearing on proposed development agreement regarding a private development known as the McCormick
Medical Building, 635 Paradise Lane.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The owner (Jonathan McCormick) of the property at 635 Paradise Lane is in the process of constructing a private
Page 87 of 230
The owner (Jonathan McCormick) of the property at 635 Paradise Lane is in the process of constructing a private
development project known as the McCormick Medical Building. This project is located near the intersection of
Paradise Lane and SR104 (Edmonds Way). See Attachment 1.
The intersection of Paradise Lane and SR104 (Edmonds Way) presents unique public safety and welfare concerns
due to its current configuration and proximity to the high traffic levels on Edmonds Way (SR104), where good traffic
design is vital. The current configuration poses unique and distinct traffic design and safety concerns both for the
private development and for the public. See Attachment 2. In addition, Edmonds Way through the Westgate area
where this intersection is located provides an important aesthetic gateway to the City.
During the permit review for the McCormick Medical Building, staff recognized the opportunity to coordinate a City
project with the private development project and improve the design of public right-of-way improvements at this
intersection. The City project would create a safer and more aesthetically pleasing intersection at Paradise Lane and
SR104, as well as an enhanced walkway, parkway, landscaping and “island park”, as part of this gateway area of
the City. See drawing of project concept at Attachment 3.
Imposition of standard City development requirements in this situation could result in expenditures which are not
the most efficient use of public and private funds. RCW 36.70B.170 authorizes local governments to enter into
development agreements with developers of private properties in situations such as this. The cooperation of the City
and developer through specially tailored development requirements can provide the mutual benefits of the most
efficient use of public and private funds, while at the same time address the City’s desire to create a safer and more
aesthetically pleasing intersection at Paradise Lane and SR104.
A proposed development agreement is provided as Attachment 4. The terms have been agreed to by Staff and the
property owner/developer, subject to public hearing and Council approval. Staff has determined that the
development agreement is consistent with the City of Edmonds zoning code and comprehensive plan.
The improvements within the public right-of-way will be designed and constructed by the City. The improvements
on private property will be designed and constructed by the property owner. As a result of this agreement, the
developer is required to redesign his parking lot and driveway access. By so doing, the cost of certain elements of
his private project will be increased and others will be reduced. Power pole relocation, tree trimming, right of way
restoration and traffic control costs will be reduced. In addition, some work items that would normally by required
to be done by the developer within the right-of-way (i.e., curb cut and sidewalks) will be accomplished by the City.
Accordingly, the developer agrees to contribute $2,400 to the City to utilize toward the cost of the City project.
In addition to the developer’s contribution, sufficient funds are available in the Parks Improvement Fund 125 to
accomplish the City’s portion of this project.
Recommendation
Council authorize the Mayor to sign the development agreement.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Location of Project
Link: Current configuration
Link: Project Concept
Link: Proposed Development Agreement
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Dave Gebert 09/13/2006 06:34 AM APRV
2 Development Services Duane Bowman 09/13/2006 11:18 AM APRV
3 Parks and Recreation Brian McIntosh 09/13/2006 12:43 PM APRV
4 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/14/2006 08:58 AM APRVPage 88 of 230
4 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/14/2006 08:58 AM APRV
5 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/14/2006 10:34 AM APRV
6 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/14/2006 11:44 AM APRV
Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 09/12/2006 09:22 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/14/2006
Page 89 of 230
Page 90 of 230
Page 91 of 230
Page 92 of 230
Page 93 of 230
Page 94 of 230
Page 95 of 230
Page 96 of 230
Page 97 of 230
Page 98 of 230
Page 99 of 230
AM-619 6.
Public Hearing - No Parking on 220th Street SW
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/03/2006
Submitted By:Dave Gebert, Engineering Time:30 Minutes
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Public hearing on proposed amendment to Edmonds City Code Chapter 8.64.030, Section 13, prohibiting parking at
all times on both sides of 220th Street SW from 100th Avenue W to 84th Avenue W, and updating reference to a
certain street to reflect correction in name.
Previous Council Action
On June 7, 2005, Council awarded a construction contract for the 220th Street SW Improvements Project. On
September 12, 2006, the Public Safety Committee reviewed the proposed ordinance and forwarded it to the full
Council for public hearing. See Attachment 1.
Narrative
Construction of the 220th Street SW Improvements Project is substantially completed. This project improved 220th
Page 100 of 230
Construction of the 220th Street SW Improvements Project is substantially completed. This project improved 220th
Street SW from 84th Avenue West to 100th Avenue West (9th Avenue South). The improvements included
construction of bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street. The finished roadway section includes two
11-foot wide travel lanes, with a 5-foot wide bike lane and raised concrete sidewalk on both sides of the street. Left
turn pockets are provided at the intersections of 84th, 95th, 96th, and 100th Avenues West.
During the planning and design phase of this project, several alternatives for roadway sections were considered,
evaluated and presented at public workshops. It was recognized that providing bike lanes and sidewalks on both
sides of the street would eliminate on-street parking where it previously existed.
This project was funded in large part by $3.26 million in State and Federal grants and $740,000 in low-interest
Public Works Trust Fund loans. Construction of bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street was a
mandatory requirement of the grant funding for this project.
Since completion of construction, one resident has expressed concern to the City Engineer about the loss of
on-street parking and indicated that there are other residents with this concern. However, the finished roadway
section does not provide room for vehicle parking, and accordingly, the roadway is posted “no parking” for the
entire distance from 84th Avenue West to 100th Avenue West. (See photo at Attachment 2) Attachment 3 is a copy
of a letter from the concerned citizen, and Attachment 4 is Staff’s response to the citizen’s comments.
Edmonds City Code (ECC) 8.64.030 Section 13 presently prohibits parking on both sides of 220th Street SW from
the east city limit to 77th Avenue West. With the completion of the 220th Street SW Improvements Project, this
code section needs to be amended to also prohibit parking at all times on 220th Street SW from 84th Avenue West
to 100th Avenue West.
In reviewing ECC 8.64.030, Staff noted that the present reference to 77th Avenue West is incorrect. This street is
correctly 77th Place West at this location. This correction also needs to be made in the code.
ECC 8.64.030, section 13, presently reads as follows:
“In accordance with ECC 8.48.130, and when signs are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall at any time
park a vehicle upon any of the following described streets or parts of streets:…..13. 220th Street S.W., on both
sides, from the eastern city limits of the city of Edmonds to 77th Avenue West.”
It is recommended that section 13 be revised to read as follows:
“13. 220th Street S.W., on both sides, from the eastern city limits of the city of Edmonds to 77th Place West and
from 84th Avenue West to 100th Avenue West (also known as 9th Avenue South).”
A proposed ordinance for this code amendment is provided as Attachment 5.
Recommendation
Council adopt the proposed ordinance.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Committee minutes
Link: 220th Parking Photo
Link: 220th Citizen letter
Link: 220th Staff Response
Link: 220th No parking ordinance
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date StatusPage 101 of 230
1 Development Services Duane Bowman 09/27/2006 11:37 AM APRV
2 Police David Stern 09/27/2006 03:20 PM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 02:31 PM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/28/2006 03:06 PM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 05:01 PM APRV
Form Started By: Dave Gebert Started On: 09/27/2006 10:44 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2006
Page 102 of 230
Page 103 of 230
Page 104 of 230
Page 105 of 230
Page 106 of 230
Page 107 of 230
Page 108 of 230
Page 109 of 230
September 18, 2006
Staff Response
To
Comments dated September 11, 2006 from Mr. Dan Lida
(Comments below are abbreviated. For full text of comments, see Mr. Lida’s letter)
Comments. Main Street does not have bike lanes. Ninth Avenue does not have a
designated bike lane, but is designated by signage as a bike route. If this ordinance is
passed, bikes should be prohibited on Main Street and 9th Avenue.
Staff Response. Although Main Street and 9th Avenue are not striped as bike lanes in the
locations mentioned by Mr. Lida, these streets are wider than 220th. Main Street and 9th
Avenue have approximately 14 foot wide travel lanes, plus 8 foot wide parking lanes in
these locations. This is wide enough to be safe for both vehicles and bicycles. 220th
Street SW (from 84th Avenue W to 100th Ave W) has 11 foot wide travel lanes, plus 5 foot
wide bike lanes.
Comment. The bike lanes on 220th exist in isolation, creating an attractive hazard and
false sense of equivalent safety for bike riders on other roads in Edmonds where bike
lanes don’t exist.
Staff Response. By this rationale, we would build no bike lanes until we could build all
needed bike lanes throughout the City at one time. We need to start somewhere.
Comment. When residents of 220th have more guests than can park in their driveways,
they face a difficult dilemma of no place to park. Many visitors are elderly and have
difficulties walking even short distances. “No parking” on 220th is an untenable situation.
Staff Response. 220th Street SW is an arterial street. During the planning and design
phase of this project, several alternatives for roadway sections were considered,
evaluated and presented at public workshops. It was recognized that providing bike
lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street would eliminate on-street parking where it
previously existed. Bike lanes and sidewalks are an important part of our non-motorized
transportation infrastructure, and providing them on both sides of 220th was a
requirement of the grants for this project. With the bike lanes, there is no room to safely
park vehicles in the street.
Comment. The facts and concerns expressed should be given adequate and proper
consideration prior to further action.
Staff Response. There is no room for vehicles to safely park on 220th Street SW from 84th
Avenue W to 100th Ave W. The entire length is posted “no parking”.
Page 110 of 230
Comment. Allow parking on one side of 220th.
Staff Response. There is not enough width for a bike lane on even one side with parking
on the other. It was a requirement of the grant funding for the 220th Street SW
Improvements project to provide bike lanes on both sides of the street.
Comment. Revise the signage to allow parking at specific times and/or days of the
week.
Staff Response. The road is not wide enough to safely park vehicles at any time in the
bike lanes.
Comment. Establish a permit procedure for when residents’ functions require excess
parking. Issue traffic cones for use by residents.
Staff Response. Staff does not recommend such a procedure. The road is not wide
enough to safely park vehicles at any time in the bike lanes, even with traffic cones.
When the construction contractor used traffic cones, they were used in conjunction with
an approved traffic control plan that included approved advance warning signs and other
approved traffic control measures.
Page 111 of 230
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC
8.64.030 SECTION 13; PROHIBITING PARKING AT ALL
TIMES ON BOTH SIDES OF 220TH STREET SW FROM
100TH AVENUE W TO 84TH AVENUE W; UPDATING
REFERENCE TO A CERTAIN STREET TO REFLECT
CORRECTION IN NAME; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the 220th Street SW Improvements Project between 100th Avenue
W and 84th Avenue W is substantially completed; and
WHEREAS, 220th Street SW between 100th Avenue W and 84th Avenue W has
been improved by the addition of bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the above referenced improvements leave
220th Street SW between 100th Avenue W and 84th Avenue W without room for safe parking;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that permitting parking on 220th Street SW
between 100th Avenue W and 84th Avenue W will not only significantly disturb the use and
enjoyment of above mentioned improvements, but also have a negative impact on public health,
safety and welfare; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 13 of ECC 8.64.030 Schedule III - Parking prohibited at
all times on certain streets. is hereby amended to read as follows:
8.64.030 Schedule III - Parking prohibited at all times on
certain streets.
…
{BFP639329.DOC;2/00006.900175/} - 1 - Page 112 of 230
13. 220th Street S.W., on both sides, from the eastern city
limits of the city of Edmonds to 77th Place West and from 84th
Avenue West to 100th Avenue West (also known as 9th Avenue
South);
…
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
{BFP639329.DOC;2/00006.900175/} - 2 - Page 113 of 230
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
{BFP639329.DOC;2/00006.900175/} - 3 - Page 114 of 230
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2006, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC
8.64.030 SECTION 13; PROHIBITING PARKING AT ALL
TIMES ON BOTH SIDES OF 220TH STREET SW FROM
100TH AVENUE W TO 84TH AVENUE W; UPDATING
REFERENCE TO A CERTAIN STREET TO REFLECT
CORRECTION IN NAME; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2006.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{BFP639329.DOC;2/00006.900175/}- 4 - Page 115 of 230
AM-624 7.
Public Hearing on Port Strategic Plan and Master Plan
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/03/2006
Submitted By:Rob Chave, Planning
Submitted For:Rob Chave Time:30 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan adopting the Port of Edmonds
Strategic Plan and Master Plan.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The Port of Edmonds will make a presentation on this item.
The Port of Edmonds is requesting that its adopted Strategic Plan and Master Plan be adopted by the City of
Edmonds as part of the city's Comprehensive Plan. This is a public hearing on the proposed amendments.
Note that because the City can only amend its comprehensive plan once each year, the Port plans will be included in
the final ordinance that adopts all the city's 2006 plan amendments (additional proposed plan amendments will be
heard by Council during October and November).
Recommendation
Approve the proposed amendments and direct the staff to include them in the ordinance adopting the 2006
amendments to the city's comprehensive plan.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Port Mission
Link: Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map
Link: Exhibit 3: Master Plan Site Map
Link: Exhibit 4: Strategic Plan
Link: Exhibit 5: Master Plan
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 01:19 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/28/2006 02:09 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 02:31 PM APRV
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 09/28/2006 11:24 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2006 Page 116 of 230
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2006
Page 117 of 230
!" ! # $
%
& ! " ' $
( (
" ! ) !
$
* " " + ! ) ! (
" $
!
,
) $
% ( )
- $
" #$ % &
!!$ %
) . " ( $
! ) "$
% $ & '
! ( % !!$
" " ! $
, ! / " $
, " ) $
$ ! !
0 ! $
$
) !!$ %' #$ %' %
) " " #
$
) . "
( $
Page 118 of 230
Pa
g
e
1
1
9
o
f
2
3
0
Page 120 of 230
! " # $ % #
&' ( ! ) ) * ! ! #
! ! ' ( ) ) '
) # +
, ! # - ' . ! ) ! ) #
$ ) ! / ) 0 " " !
- - # - " ' " )
" ) -
$ # ) $ - ) - #' ) $ -
- ! ) $ # 0 " )
- $ " , ! # - '
$ - # - - - " + $
$ - ) - ' ! ! ) $
0- " - - ) ! # 1
- + # ) ) ) # "
- '
! - ) ! / ) " )
" 1 ! - ) ! ) !
) # $# # - )) - &' (
" - 0 ) 0 " ) $ *
! -/ " ) $ - - ' )
" ) ! ) - # ! ' #
" - ) - # $ ))
! - " - )) - #'
Page 121 of 230
! "
$ ) # ) . - *
#$ # % & $ ! $#
- # ) "
# - ! - - #2
' " ) ) 2 ! $ / "
- )) ) " ) " -
" - - ) '
! ' () ( )) ! $
! / " " " 1# ) - . - '
. - ! " " 0 " ) - ) !
- . - " 0 0 ) - "
/ - 0 '
* + & , ' & )) ! -
0 ! - ) - " ! ) ' - #
- 0 ) $ ! / " $ - 3 !
! ! " ! ) ! #'
&% $& ! - ! / " ! # )
! ) , ! # 3
- ! ) ' #
- * " ! ! , ) "
$ -#- -/ "
" -# " - "
# ) , " )
" - - ) " . - '
& ( ( (- ,#( ,& ! "
/ ) " $ ' )) ! !
" 0 - - -
$ " - #'
+ ( # ( #
! - ! " ! / !
/ " - 0 " " -
" . - - # ! #'
Page 122 of 230
. / 0 / 1
" - ! ) ) ) )
) 4' ( $ " ! )
) ' ) ! $# - - $ - ) - -
! -- $ ! 1 4' - ) ! $# " ) " -
- $ 5 $ # '
- ! ) ) - - )
- " $ " ' - ! ) #
) . ) $ " " - '
2 / / 3
) ! # )) - - $ " -
- ! $ ) ! # -- " ! )
) ' $ " ) 0 $ - ! $
" $ '
6 ) - $ #
) , ! # / ! ! ! " ! !
/ " ! ! # $ ) ' 7 !
" / + " " - $ ) )
) ' ( $ " - - / $ !
)) - $ -'
/ 0 0 0 / / 3
8 - " $# ! - $#
) , ! # " $ -
- - " ' $ ) ! # ! - $ - -
$ $ - ) '
" $ - - )
$ - + - ' "
- # ) " 5* ' ' )
$ " 994 , #'
. - ) " #
- ! ' ( " - . -
! / " # - $ " ' - -
- ) ) !1 $ " ! $ - - / -
- + '
$ $ " ) ) - "
- '
Page 123 of 230
, $ 0 ) $
- - - ! $ )) '
1 $ - - $
" $ ' 0 ) " - !
" ) ) - " ! :, ! #
- # ' - 3 2 # - ) )
" - ' $ ) ! - # ) !
- - ) ) '
/ ) - ! - ) / . -
$ $ - " " ! ) '
# $ ) - 2
- # . - " " ) - 0 ) : .
- # - '
Page 124 of 230
" '
$ % ( ( 4 % - (- % & , & (- % ( &
) - / $# $ ) )
- ' 8 - ) - *
3 &$( & 4 - & * ,
) - $ ) # )1) '
- - ) - ) -
- ! - # - - / - - $
" / $ - - '
; # # 0 ) $ ) ) " $ - -
! - # '
3 &$( & 4 + ( # & * ,
/ -
" '
8 ! ) " - - -
- 2 - '
(+ , ,5( -(& 67 8 & + & , - & -( & ,
% 4( (##7 8
" ) + # - - ! ) - '
) $ "
- #'
8 , &% $ ( &7 % % * - ( & + 4 9
+ $ -( % ,#( ,& , 0 ((,* 8 (##7 &
) - - ) - ) # #
-- $ '
/ - ) $ - -- . # '
# " '
(+ , ($$( 7 & ( (# , + ($#
$ - '
'
(##7 ($ 89 - 67 89 , ( & & 8 * % ( &
& , & , &
" # # ) -
- '
" ) + )
- - - # ! '
Page 125 of 230
: ! "
- ) - $ - ) - - ! $
4' - - # / )
! - * ) - # /
) ! / ) # " - - #' -
-- $# ) - 1 4' ! $ /
) ! " - *
: 3 3 ' 0
! ' () (
)) ! 1# ) - . - ) ! $#
" $ -' ) - ! " "
0 " ) - ) ! - . - "
0 : 0 ) - " / -
0 '
/(* * * # &7 &7 &&
# - $# )) ! $# 2
- $# ) % '
- $# $ 9 '
(,7 + 8
)) ! - ! )) " / .
- 0 - )) - -# ! " + # - '
/(* * * # &7 &7 &&
! $ ! $# )) -
- < '
( ) - < ! $ - 4
8 " '
: 3 3 ; 0
+ ( # ( #&
! - $ - # "
" - ) " 3 "
" - - ) ! " '
/(* * * # &7 &7 && % ( * $ $ %
+ ( # - " ) ,
" : " 3 '
/ 4( 67
Page 126 of 230
! - " ) = $ + '
! - - ! = $ + -
)) - ) - " '
( + ( # &&7 &
! / $ ) " )) -
) - - ) ' ( - ! $
- - " " ) :
! - - '
Page 127 of 230
: . ; 5 ' < ;
' ' / 3
#$ # % ( ( 8
)) ! " : 4 - " ) ! "
" *
-- $ / ) ) - - #
# '
$ " # - "'
" $# '
7 " < -- " ) ! '
/(* * * # &7 &7 &&
)) ! - " $#
% 9 - $ 9& 4'
; ,( 7$$(
! - - " "
- + " / " '
! - 0 ! /# - '
/(* * * # &7 &7 &&
> 2 -- ! $ $# - ! / "
- $ ' , /# ? #
! - # # # - '
7& (# +
)) ! " - - - )
'
/(* * * # &7 &7 &&
)) ! - "
- < '
- ! $ - $ " )
: 4'
-- ! $ $# " " " - ) - '
* + & , ' &
- #
( - # # '
( , 1 # ) $ " - #'
( @ " # '
0 - ) - ) $# $ "
- #'
Page 128 of 230
: 2 / / /
0 ' ; 3 9 ; ' /
&
! / ! & ! - # )
- $ ) # '
) ! / ) - ) ! ! # ) -
- # " ' !
! - # ' ) ! !
- - " ) - " ) '
* + & , ' &
- # 0 " $ ) - ) - "
! ) ' $ $ ! - - '
- )) - 0 " ) -
) $ # ) " - ' )) ! $ -/
) $ # ) " !
) ) ' - ) -
- *
$ ! / - - - '
! A ! #'B
! $ - 3 '
( " " " '
! ) '
/(* * * # &7 &7 &&*
)) ! - ) $ ! /
" - $# % 9 4'
$ - 3 $ - $# - $ 9& '
)) ! ) ) # - "
8 ! / $# ) '
)) ! - " ) ( "
" 4'
&% $& * % % 8 (- ,#( ,& , (* (- 0 ((,* 8
! - ! / ! # ) ! )
, ! # 0 - $ )
- ! ) ' - " 3 - )
& ! - - - ! / ! $
. - # $ ) - ' 0 )
- $ - *
, / ! # ) ! ! , )
'
Page 129 of 230
, / ! # ) 0 ) " -#
-- ! ) '
, / ! / 8 "
# ) ! ) , ! #
) - '
, / ! # ) ! " $ ! /
! # $ 8 -/ ; " 8 - /'
, / ! # ) ) " - ) )
- $ '
- ) "
. - ! # ) ! ) , ! #
, " ) '
/(* * * # &7 &7 &&*
. - ! - -- "
)) ) " " $ )
! ) , ! #'
Page 130 of 230
: ; ;
( (# + ($# ( #
! - - - !
- # ! ) ! " ) - )
) " '
/ 4( 67 , + ($#
= $ + ) 2 # - - '
! - 0 ) = $ + '
" - # 0 3 #
'
8 (- ,#( ,& ( (# + ($#
! # ) " ) - -
'
& ( ( (- ,#( ,&
! " / )
" $ '
: " 9 ' < 9
0 /
(##7 ( * % ( & & , &
! - - - )) ! -
" 4' ! - ! - )
- - " # - " - * - #
$ /) " ! " $ ) $ -
! / '
(##7 ( * % ( &9 + ,( &9 , & %( , &
! - - ! - '
# - $ - ) - - - "
- ) - # ! " # !
'
! - ! ! # 0 2 , $ -
) - ) 4'
Page 131 of 230
= / 0 3 :
3
* $ +
! ! # ) ! ) , ! #
# " 0 ) $ # ) $ " !
- '
( (# + ($# $$( 7 &
! 0 :
$ ' ! - #
" " - !
) " ) $ )
- '
, & 53 8 + $ &&
! ! / ! # ) )
:$ -#- -/ '
' 8 # /( , &
! ! / ! # ) " )
) ) # $ ! #
) ! # - !
# $ - '
+ ($# (- ( 0 &
! ! / ! ! ) , ! # # !
0 # $ ) - ) )
, '
>$ & ( , ! ( - 7 (
! 0 $ # ) 0 " : 1- ) " "
'
Page 132 of 230
? ' ' /
# ) " ) - - ' (
) 0 # 95 & ) "
$ ' 0 - ' $ -
) " ) 0 ' -
- ) 2 - - 0 # C44
- ) " " - " -
- ) '
C95 # # 0 $ ! &<< 1 &
" ) CD - ' 0 ! C&5
) 9 D ' - &<<9 0 $ ) $ -
) - - ' 0 # ! " )
0 $ - '
" ) D ! CD' # ! " 0
C9'E ) # ' " 0 #
- - - ' - ) 0 # C&
# C ' - ) ! ) ! -
- - ' " 0 # C4
# # '
" ) ) # - - 0 - ' #
- - ! " - ' - $#
) / - '
8 " - # 0 $ 0 ! $ - $# -
$ ) - ' 8 " ! $ )) - $#
" / - ! - - $ # ) + # ) "
! - " ) - '
; - -- - ! 0 " - ! -
- ( . '
- ! ) ) - " D A - #
B ! - - - # " )) " ;
0 ; # 8 " ' # ! $ '
, $ - " " 0 $
) - - ) #' - # &< ) 1 " #
1 # " + )
) D'4 ) 1 + A B' )) " # # $
) " " - - +
- " - '
Page 133 of 230
)) ! - ! + ) -
- - ! " " ) - '
- " # - ) ! ! - ! C '
" - 0 " ! $ $# -
) !' ! - - . - ! " ) - # - -
) !* = $ + "
$ /! - ) ! : $ ! '
Page 134 of 230
' 3
' 0
C9 5E
C4
0 C&5
( ( - C&
; ( ; , CD 4E&
' 0
. - C E<4
$ - C <
)
C &
C& 9
# 8 ) F 0 C9E4
) C9
( -
7
C&4
C&D
C<
- C5
- - CD
( C 95
C&9D
; 7 ; , C4 < <
( ) ! ' ) ! AC E B
Page 135 of 230
/
/ & ( 8 (- % ( (- ,#( ,&
) ) - &<DE ! )
- # ) $ $ " ' 7
" ) &E< &< &' ) - !
) - #2 8 ) " ) $ 0 " - '
" - - - - $ "
- # ) $ ) - ' 8# ) &< &
! ) " - # ' ) $ "
$ $ ! ) - #'
- ! - $# - $ 5 &<DE'
0 # ) ) - - -
! ) ' . - - " $ ! !
-/ ) - ) $ ) ! ' - -
- # " " $ # ) $ $ /! '
" - ! / "
3 #' ( - $ $# G "1
- # $# < ! $# " '
- 2 1 ! 0 ) <
'
$ ) - - - )
- - $# ' !
- 0 # % # & ' ) # )
! -+ ) $ $ ' 0
# - ) ! -+ ) ! ' 8# &<4
- ! ) - ) - 0 #
&E - ) '
$ " - - ) ! ! - 8 = $
&<4&' " ) - - . - ! $ /!
- " "' , ! - ! -
- &<4 '
$ /! ! - &<4<' , "
- - # ! 5D& ' - " ) -/
$ /! ! - - &<E9'
" &<4 - " ) $ H #I " '
! &<E # " " &<54 &4 !
# ! ' ( &<< - " ) - #
&<<E # ) &<4 ' - # 0 #
Page 136 of 230
9 " -/ ' ) - - ) -/
" ! /# $ - - " ) $ '
- ) # $ ! & D
8 " -/ &<54 ) 7 ;'
" ) - - ) ! ) -
) ! ! = $ + $ - 0'
"1 " ! = $ + - )
" ) $ /' ( &<E = $ + - $ !
- - # ) ) # $ ) - 0'
! &<E ! ) - )
, " 8 - ) ' -- - )
) - " / " ) $# $ -
" 0- ) " - #'
- $ < &<<4 1# ! " '
- ! # !) - ! )
- " -/ - " & $ / / "
" ' - " - ! # '
- )) " - ) " - ! -
# - " - - ) !
' " 1 . - $ $ - -/
/ &E - '
- - - 0
! - - ) $ " - - "
8 - / ! - ! ) )) - $# ! -
) ' $ " 0- $ )
# -/ - ! - $ " &<<E' )
- ! /! # ) ) "
8 - /'
- - 0- - )
- H8 , , " I ! ) # '
! - # $# G( @ '
( & ) - - $
) ) ) - " ) )) - ) 0
# ) # )) - % # & ' ! !
1 " '
( 9 " -/ ) &<<4 AJ 2 -/B ! '
J 2 -/ ! - ) " ) ! D ) ' J 2 -/ ! - ) "
) ! ) '
( D - ) -/ !
- ! - - $ $ - - $ -2 . # )
! " $ ! /'
Page 137 of 230
;
# $ ) - ) ) '
E K ) " $#
- $# # $ ) ) " "
0 ) ! ! " "
) &9 ) ' $ /! 0 D ) )
" ' 1 # - 459 !
" E # " - ' " "
$ ) " 1 # ' ! #
) - ) $ - ) $ " '
" D <EK ) $ ! -- ' , " ) "
A9D1 ) B - # 1& # ' 1 3 - $ $
) # # ! 0 # ' ) - ) -
- $ " # ! ) " " #
$ " - $# " - $ ' -
" : 0 ! ! # ! "
$ '
( " 1 "
# " ' - ) $ # !
) " " + # ) ) - $ !
' - - $ ) ) " 0 ) $ #
) # " / " ) "
! ! - '
) 1 ' #
$ - " ) ) : :! /#
- # " - # - - '
7 %
) ) ) ! - " ! $ - $
- ) ! " $ $ -/ ! '
" " - " - ' -
$ - &<5 - 0 # )
$ ) " " '
= " # / )) $ ) ) - ! -
) 4* ' ' 5* ' ' A4* <* ! /
# B " / $ " ) 5* ' ' * ' '
" ! ' )) -
" ' ( ) -/ ) ) /
" - # - - $ ) $ -
$ ) '
Page 138 of 230
'7 ( @
& 1" ) / ! ) ) )
' 1 )1 # ! - )
" ) ) ' E - !
- ) # " + )
-- ) D #'
= ) ) ) -/ " # - ! )
- " ! 1 )) -/ " /
/ $ " ' ( ) " )) $ ) 1
- ) # ) ) - $ ! !
+ $ '
+ - , 3( 0 ( @8 ,
$ ! /# ) # ! /
)) ) " ! " $ -/ " $ ! /# ' 8
- ! ) $# '
$ $# ) # '
) + 1 - $ ) " $ !
$ ! # ) ! ' ! ) -/ # 0
) $ $ - $ ) - #'
= - # ) $ ! /# ) $
) 1 / " ) ' ! " -
- $ ! /# ) $ ) ) $
" $ -'
(( ( #
" " ! "
) $ - # $ '
! - # $ '
) 1 )) $ - " ) " ! - )
" / ' 9 5 $
- ) " J 2 J 2 -/ ) " $ - !
- ! " # - ' ! "
# ) D *
Page 139 of 230
( 8 (+ , $
( &
&D2 L 42 5E &
E2 L 9 2 9E && 9DE
9D2 L D 2 5E 45 &D
DD2 L 2 D 4D
D2 &4 &4
94 9&9 459
! " ) - " ) $ ' - ! " )
" " ) 1& # ' ! " ) 42 L9 2 $
- '
8 @ (
# -/ " " ) " # '
" ) - " ! &<<E ! ! #
-/ ) - # # - - # ! - - '
" ! ) 1 )) ! $ )
" - " $ - + ' )) $
$ " ! - . - ! /'
- # ) $ ) D # -/ ) ! *
( 8 7#4
7 I &
2 E2 &
E2 9 2 99
9 2 9 2 5
(
=
" $ - # -/ " $ ' # -
$ -- '
Page 140 of 230
. /
; # L ! $ " "
' - * #2 = 6 -
$ 8 2 8 ; " 8 " A -- -
- " , ) )M ) )) - B
6 - = $ + 8 - 0 = $ + - $'
- - L ) ) $ - - -
! - #' ) $ " )
# - - -
H ) 'I " $
$ - " " $ # "
$ ) ! ! " " ) -/ " - '
$ - L " - - )
" $ - -- " ! ) ' " )
$ - 3 $ #2 = -
- - $ " ' $ " -
- # ) 3 ! - # - - !
= - " # $ )
# ) ' ! # - - ! - ! - - $
$ - # $ " . # $# #'
) ! " " # $# - ))
- # #' # ) ) ! " ! $
# - ) " $ -/" /
! ) - + ' " ) - ) ) -
/ ! /! # $ - . # $ )
! ) 0 - '
# L )) - # $ # )
! ) , ! #' - - "
/ " - # - $ #
) '
" - # " " -
- - - "
, " $ - - ! - '
Page 141 of 230
2
- # )) ! - $ " . -
" 0 ) # ' C 'E $ )
! , ) . - / " ) $ " C 'D '
. - - - ) ! $ ,
8 /! ' . - )
- #2 = ) - - )
$ - 3 - " 8 "'
" ) ) - - )
) / ) " $ - ) - -
- - "# '
Page 142 of 230
; ; /
0 0
" ) - ) "# )
- - )
, ! # - ' ))
" " - - ! $ - " -
" 3 # ! $ - # - - " 3 '
# ) " - - - "
$ - '
$ 0 ) - # # $#
" ! - - ) ) "
8 - /' ! /! # ! $ ! !
- - &<<51&<<E 0 # $# , ! #
' # ) 2 ! )
) - - ) ! $ /! ! /! # ) # -/
" '
" ) ! $ ) - " "
- ) - ' " !
&<< ! " - " $ ' ) ! "
$ ! - - '
" ) $ # ! ! / ! # )
) ! ! , ) ' !
/ " ! / H 'I
! $ - ! $ ) - $ - #
'
$ ) . ) - #
) ' - *
( - # - $
" > " ! "
$# = - - #'
Page 143 of 230
PORT OF EDMONDS
Master Plan
Commission Approved June 27, 2005
INTRODUCTION
This Master Plan provides a 20-year development blueprint for the use of the
Port’s property. It builds on existing investments the Port has made and offers
new ideas for use of the underutilized upland portions of the site. The Master
Plan also includes the physical development to adjacent properties and their
plans.
This Plan complements the Port’s Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan includes the
Port of Edmonds Mission Statement and describes in broad terms how that
mission will be accomplished. It also specifies the Port’s two year
implementation plan, incorporating programmatic and physical actions that the
Port will pursue. The Master Plan is a document that references the Port’s long-
term strategies and its vision for the future and shows how they will be physically
implemented. Specific elements of the Master Plan relate to current and long-
term development, public access and safety. Both the Master Plan and Strategic
Plan are reviewed and updated each year.
MASTER PLAN AREA
1. Port of Edmonds Vicinity
The Port complex incorporates approximately 64 acres including the Port shore
based operations, marina, leased property and property held jointly by the Port
and the City of Edmonds. See Vicinity Map, Exhibit A.
The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) tracks run north and south
on the east side of Admiral Way and the Port proper. The Port has a lease
agreement with BNSF for a stretch of property to accommodate part of the Dry
Storage Program in the southeast portion of Port property. The Harbor Square
Business complex which is located east of the railroad tracks along Dayton Street
and SR104 is also situated on Port property, but is administered by a private
property manager. The Harbor Square Athletic Club is also on Port property and
is managed separately.
Page 144 of 230
2
The former UNOCAL property, located east of the railroad tracks is south and
southeast of Port property. The upper portion of the UNOCAL site was
purchased by TRIAD Development for condominium development. The
Washington State Department of Transportation and the City of Edmonds have
recently purchased the lower site for the future Edmonds Crossing Project and
Marina Beach Park from UNOCAL for the City’s Parks and Recreation Programs.
The Port also owns a small parcel of land south of Marina Beach Park/Dog Park
which was purchased from U. S. West in February of 1996.
The old Safeway site, situated to the northeast of Port property, is recognized as
under-developed. The Port has an interest in working with the property manager
on a possible private/public development, or as a broker in future development of
the property. The parking area adjacent to the old Richards Building
immediately north of the Port property is jointly owned by the Port and the City
of Edmonds. This area provides public parking for visitors to Olympic Beach
Park and the public Fishing Pier.
The Edmonds Marsh is east of the railroad tracks and lies between the Harbor
Square Business Complex and the UNOCAL site. This property is owned and
managed by the City of Edmonds and provides unique habitat and wildlife
viewing opportunities as a result of the confluence of saltwater and freshwater
environments. Preliminary discussions have taken place regarding the possibility
of a Cultural and Interpretive Center in the vicinity of the marsh area and Deer
Creek Hatchery. A walking trail with interpretive signs borders a portion of the
marsh on the north side.
The harbor area encompasses 25 acres which are utilized for the Port’s marina.
The Port has a management agreement with the Department of Natural
Resources for use of the waterway on the inside of the marina for the purpose of
providing marina moorage and other marine related programs.
The Master Plan recognizes the importance of planning for Port owned property,
such as the Harbor Square area. The Port also recognizes the potential of a
master development plan that might include the “old Safeway” property and
Harbor Square. The Port is committed to working with the appropriate parties in
realizing this potential.
2. Port Property - Site Opportunities
The core of the Port property is located on a narrow strip of land between Puget
Sound and the BNSF tracks. Uses of the site are limited as a result of this
situation. Much of the available property is currently used as general parking
space that is covered with impervious surface. The Master Plan identifies two
major mixed use sites on the east and west sides of Admiral Way for future
development opportunities.
Page 145 of 230
3
Any development on Port property will take into consideration: public access to
the waterfront, provision for a greenbelt and other landscaped areas, and view
corridors from walkways and Admiral Way.
MASTER PLAN VISION
The Master Plan vision, when fully implemented, will realize the following:
1. Public Access
The Port will provide physical and programmatic amenities to encourage the
public to visit the Port. Landscaping, signage and the walking promenade will be
a year-round attraction permitting the public to visit and enjoy the seasonal
flowers, the marina, Puget Sound and the beauty of the Olympic Mountains. The
waterfront is defined as the area between Brackett’s Landing Park to the north
and from Marina Beach Park on the south, west of Admiral Way. The public
promenade extends from Brackett’s Landing at the Ferry Terminal, south
through Olympic Beach Park and connects via Port property to Marina Beach
Park. Harbor Square Business Park and the Edmonds Marsh are situated east of
the railroad tracks. A partial trail system encompasses the business park and the
marsh. It is part of the Port’s vision to expand this connection along the marsh to
the fish hatchery. The vision also includes a Cultural and Interpretive Center
highlighting the marsh and marine environment in partnership with the City of
Edmonds, Edmonds Community College and others. The Port will work with the
City of Edmonds to encourage public access from the uplands Point Edwards,
across the railroad tracks, to the waterfront.
2. Programs
The Port’s in-water marina is currently filled to capacity. There could be
opportunities for marina expansion in concert with the Edmonds Crossing
Project or through partnerships with the Town of Woodway and the owner of the
Point Wells property. The Dry Storage facility is at full capacity during much of
the year and emphasis is being placed on maximizing capacity year-round and
exploring expansion opportunities in the future.
Due to the decline in fishing over the past ten to fifteen years, activity at the
public launch facility has decreased significantly. The cost center has not been
profitable for the last decade. The public launch was financed partially by the
State of Washington, which requires that the Port continue to operate the launch
facility. The Commission considers the public launch to be a public amenity and
will continue to fully support the program.
The Port’s travelift/work yard is an important marine related program. There
may be opportunities for expansion, depending upon utilization and
enhancement to the environmental programs, especially as state and federal
regulations are updated and implemented.
Page 146 of 230
4
Parking is not a major concern with current programs; however, with program
expansion, parking could be more of a concern and parking structures may be a
consideration. This will depend upon development in certain areas of Port
property.
3. Facilities
Building structures currently include the Landing Building which houses Armies
Restaurant, a Deli, and Charter Operations; the Port’s Administration Building
which includes the Edmonds Yacht Sales office; and Anthony’s HomePort
Restaurant/Beach Café building, which is owned by the Port and also houses the
Edmonds Yacht Club and Marina Operations Programs.
The Port has a ground lease with the Landing Partnership. The Anthony’s
HomePort building is owned by the Port, and the Port has a building lease with
Mad Anthony’s Incorporated. The Port has a ground lease with Harbor Square
Associates and the Harbor Square Athletic Club, both of which are located at the
Harbor Square Business Complex.
The Master Plan has identified two mixed-use areas on the east side and west
side of Admiral Way where new structures could be built. Currently these two
areas are used for parking. These areas could provide space for future marine
retail and services operations, a new Edmonds Yacht Club building, mixed use
buildings, which might house Port Administration functions, or a community use
facility.
Restrooms and facilities for guest moorage patrons are currently located in the
Marina Operations complex. Restrooms are also available at the City owned
Beach Ranger facility at the north end of the marina and there are also restrooms
beneath the Port Administration offices. Restrooms at the Administration
building are open 24 hours a day. Facilities for tenant use are located at the
south end of the marina. A new restroom and public amenities complex may be
constructed near the public launch and guest moorage area. The Port will pursue
grant opportunities to build this complex
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
These guiding principles are not listed in any order of priority, but are intended
to provide guidance for site development.
• Conserve and protect the shoreline and environmental quality.
• Maintain a quality marina and marina related services.
• Support Port tenants.
• Provide for public safety.
• Increase or enhance public access.
Page 147 of 230
5
• Encourage new waterfront related uses, for example: new marine related
retail, new vendors, cultural arts programs and new opportunities for
small craft such as kayaks.
• Incorporate new public space that can be used for celebrations, public
events, passive and active recreation (viewing, sitting, walking, and
jogging).
• Decrease impervious surfaces and spaces throughout the site, increase
green areas, and provide for liberal landscaping.
• Provide an overall design theme for the Port that will be evident in
architecture and landscaping. The overall design should relate to the
Port’s history, location, and maritime role and should incorporate cultural
and fine arts elements.
• Infrastructure should be an integral part of the waterfront experience; i.e.,
signage should be coordinated and focused; utilities must be underground;
roof tops that are part of the City of Edmond’s view should be aesthetically
attractive; refuse containers, benches, fences, railings, utility hole covers,
and pedestrian crossing paving should be integrated in an overall master
design. When possible, these latter facilities should be thematically
consistent and esthetically pleasing; they should encourage the
incorporation of art and sculpture.
• View corridors from Admiral Way and from buildings on the east side of
Admiral Way shall be incorporated into the planning process when
considering new buildings, landscape, and public amenities.
• Circulation on the site should be improved, including access for cars,
public safety vehicles and pedestrian connections.
• To the extent practical, parking should be located between Admiral Way
and the BNSF tracks, freeing the area near the waterfront for increased
public amenities, public use and green areas.
DESCRIPTION OF FEATURES AND PROGRAMS
1. Programs
The Port’s largest program provides marine related service to the public and the
boating community. The Port will strive to maintain high standards in existing
services, as well as to seek new programs that complement the existing
operations of the Port. These programs may include the following:
• Wet moorage and dry storage programs
• Public access to the shoreline including the promenade with access to
Marina Beach and Olympic Beach Parks
• Accommodations for fishing and other types of charters out of the Port
• Landscape and flower programs
• Well maintained roads and sidewalks
• Provision of an interpretive center near the marsh and/or fish hatchery
Page 148 of 230
6
2. Facilities
To accommodate the programs of the Port the following facilities will be
provided:
• Boat launch apparatus for the public launch and dry storage programs
• Work yard accessible by the public, that meets environmental standards
• Travelift in support of the Port’s work yard
• Pressure wash and wastewater treatment facility
• Marine fuel dock, guest moorage and bait shop
• Fishing Pier managed by the City of Edmonds
• Load and unload areas, and public parking areas
• Restrooms and related programs for the public and guest moorage patrons
• Commercial, light industrial, marine oriented businesses
• Retail establishments including shops and restaurants
• Yacht sales establishment
• Mix of office facilities
• Private yacht club facility
• Accommodations for the Sea Scout Program
• Facilities for recycling and disposal of refuse
3. Access and Safety
The two points of vehicle entry to the waterfront and the marina are via Main
Street and Dayton Street, both of which cross the BNSF tracks. Due to these
limited access points, the Port and the City of Edmonds have concerns about
emergency access when a long train is stopped and blocking access on Dayton
Street and Main Street. Currently, the Port has an agreement with the City to
provide personnel and a vehicle to help transport equipment and supplies across
the tracks, if such a situation were to occur. Pedestrian access across the rail
tracks is planned to be provided as part of a multimodal station. The Edmonds
Crossing project team will also examine, during the final design and permitting
phase of the project, whether an emergency only at-grade crossing could be
incorporated into the Edmonds Crossing Project.
A primary mission of the Port is to provide quality services and facilities for the
public, tenants, and the boating community. In keeping with this mission, the
Port maintains a high level of maintenance of the facilities and amenities for both
the enjoyment of the visitors to the Port and for their safety. The Port’s in-house
Safety Committee is constantly reviewing the grounds and facilities for ways to
make improvements to ensure the safety of its staff and for visitors who walk the
grounds, the boardwalk, and through the facilities. Many improvements to the
facilities have been completed over the last several years.
Page 149 of 230
7
NEW OR EXPANDED ELEMENTS OF THE MASTER PLAN
The following elements are the physical plans for the Port property over the next
twenty years. Some of the elements are in the planning phase and may be
implemented in the short term. Other elements are longer range. See Port Site
Map, Exhibit B.
Public Plaza
The Port is proceeding with design and construction of a public plaza to be
located in the parking area on the west side of the Anthony’s Homeport
Restaurant Building. The plaza area will be a landscape and hard surface area
designed for the public. There may be an opportunity for a weather station in or
near this area to provide educational and meteorological information to visitors
and boaters of the region.
Parking
Parking is essential to meet the needs of the Port programs and the businesses
located on Port property. Parking will be provided on both the east and west side
of Admiral Way. It shall be the policy of the Port to locate parking to the east side
of Admiral Way as opportunities present themselves, but still maintain enough
parking on the west side to accommodate the programs and businesses.
The Port will review the need for an increase in parking or parking structures as
development occurs on Port property or as adjacent development occurs such as
the “old Safeway” site, Harbor Square or the Edmonds Crossing project.
North Boardwalk Improvements
Improvements have been made to the north boardwalk including view cutouts,
inclusion of benches and tables, and landscape planters. Additional
improvements may include a landscape strip, shelters to contain the recycle and
refuse containers, and interpretive signage.
Mixed Use Area – Waterfront
This area is currently parking and landscape. Additional potential uses might
include, open space, load/unload space, an office and retail building, Edmonds
Yacht Club building and a building for community facility use.
Mixed Use Area – East of Admiral Way
This area is currently a support area for the existing work yard and storage area.
Possible uses might include parking, Port office and/or maintenance complex,
Page 150 of 230
8
marine retail and services complex; Edmonds Yacht Club building, expanded
boatyard operations and a building for community facility use.
Mixed Use Area – South of Workyard
This area is currently an informal parking area and storage/recycling area for the
Port and Anthony’s HomePort Restaurant and dry storage boats.
Possible uses might include parking, storage, marine retail and services complex,
expanded boatyard operations and a building for community facility use.
Dry Storage Expansion
Expansion may occur to the north of the existing dry storage facility if program
needs demand such an expansion. The area impacted by such an expansion is
currently used for parking. Elimination of parking in this area would require
additional parking be provided in another area.
Marina Expansion
If an opportunity presents itself, the Port may want to study the feasibility of
expanding the south marina in light of the Edmonds Crossing project.
Guest Moorage/Visitor Restroom Facility
The Port may consider constructing a new guest moorage and visitor restroom
facility in the area of the public launcher and pursue the opportunity for grant
funding. This facility would include restrooms, laundry, showers and other
appropriate amenities.
The elements as they are outlined and implemented in this Master Plan will keep
the Port of Edmonds one of the best marinas in the region.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map - Exhibit A
2. Site Map - Exhibit B
Page 151 of 230
AM-625 8.
Goals and Policies for Firdale and Five Corners
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/03/2006
Submitted By:Rob Chave, Planning
Submitted For:Rob Chave Time:45 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan adopting amended goals and
policies for Neighborhood Business Districts, incorporating specific proposals for the Firdale and Five Corners
Neighborhood Centers.
Previous Council Action
Jennifer Gerend, former Economic Development Director, updated Council periodically on neighborhood planning for
Five Corners and Firdale.
Narrative
This is a public hearing on a draft amendment to the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan modifying the language
addressing Neighborhood Commercial Areas and adding additional guidance for planning in the Five Corners and
Firdale neighborhood commercial areas.
Last year (2005), the City of Edmonds Economic Development Department recommended that the neighborhood
commercial areas be reviewed for possible improvements to existing Comprehensive Plan policies and zoning. Due
to interest among property owners and the potential for redevelopment, Five Corners and Firdale Village were
selected as two business districts to undergo a community planning process to update the Comprehensive Plan
language, which would be followed by updated zoning regulations and design guidelines.
In January, 2006, the Economic Development Department organized an initial round of community planning
meetings for Five Corners and Firdale Village. In April, a second round of community meetings was held to review a
draft of possible new Comprehensive Plan language, both for the overarching goals of the neighborhood commercial
areas and for some neighborhood-specific suggestions. The Planning Board held a public hearing on the proposals
on June 28, 2006, and recommended that the City Council approve the draft plan amendments.
The draft plan language recommended by the Planning Board is attached (Exhibit 1), as are the Board's hearing
minutes (Exhibit 2) and background information on the planning process in the Five Corners and Firdale areas
(Exhibit 3). Additional comment letters received by the Board are included in Exhibits 4 and 5.
If approved by Council, the next steps would be to work with the property owners and neighborhood to develop
zoning to implement the plan.
Recommendation
Approve the plan amendment language and direct staff to prepare an ordinance for formal adoption as part of the
2006 comprehensive plan update.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Draft plan amendment language Page 152 of 230
Link: Exhibit 1: Draft plan amendment language
Link: Exhibit 2: Planning Board minutes 6/28/2006
Link: Exhibit 3: PB packet 6/28/2006
Link: Exhibit 4: Firdale comment letters
Link: Exhibit 5: Five Corners comment letters
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 04:51 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/28/2006 04:57 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 05:01 PM APRV
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 09/28/2006 11:25 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2006
Page 153 of 230
1
Draft new language for Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
Recommended by the Planning Board on 6/28/2006
D. Goals for Neighborhood Commercial Areas. Neighborhood commercial areas are
intended to provide a mix of services, shopping, gathering places, office space, and
housing for local neighborhoods. The scale of development and intensity of uses should
provide a middle ground between the more intense commercial uses of the Highway 99
Corridor/ Medical area and the Downtown Activity Area.
Historically, many of the neighborhood commercial areas in Edmonds have developed as
classically auto-oriented commercial “strip malls” with one- and two-story developments
primarily including retail and service uses. Throughout the region, neighborhood
commercial areas are departing from this historical model by being redeveloped as
appealing mixed-use clusters, providing attractive new pedestrian-oriented development
that expands the uses and services available to local residents.
The neighborhood commercial areas share several common goals:
D.1. Neighborhood commercial development should be located at major arterial
intersections and should be designed to minimize interference with through traffic.
D.2. Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the
local neighborhood. Mixed use development should be encouraged within
neighborhood commercial areas.
D.3. Provide for transit and pedestrian access, with the provision of facilities for
local automobile traffic. Provide for pedestrian connections to nearby residential
neighborhoods.
D.4. Allow a variety of architectural styles while encouraging public art and
sustainable development practices that support pedestrian activity and provide for
appealing gathering places.
D.5. Significant attention should be paid to the design of ground level commercial
spaces, which must accommodate a variety of commercial uses, have street-level
entrances, and storefront facades that are dominated by transparent windows.
D.6. Encourage neighborhood commercial areas to reflect the identity and character
of individual neighborhoods, thus strengthening their importance as neighborhood
centers. Neighborhood commercial areas may set additional specific goals for their
community in order to further refine the specific identity they wish to achieve.
Goals and policies for specific neighborhood centers are detailed below.
Page 154 of 230
2
D.6.a. Five Corners
D. 6.a.i. In the Five Corners neighborhood commercial area, development
should be oriented to the street and respond to the unique character of the
intersection, including a planned intersection improvement. Parking
should be provided at the rear of development, where possible, or
underground.
D.6.a.ii. Development shall not be more than four stories in height, and the
design should focus on breaking up the mass and bulk of buildings by
incorporating such features as setbacks, varying rooflines, and landscaping
into the design of the site. The mix of uses should include not less than
one quarter commercial space. An additional floor (either commercial or
residential) is possible if the development includes a defined public
benefit, such as a public art component, provides a community gathering
place or follows environmentally sensitive (“green”) building standards.
D.6.a.iii. At a minimum, commercial uses should be located on the ground
level of development. Commercial or residential uses may occupy upper
levels.
D.6.a.iv. As a major intersection, streetscape and way-finding design
should create an attractive “gateway” to the downtown and other
neighborhoods. (Link to streetscape plan update.) Intersection and street
design should accommodate and encourage pedestrian connections
throughout the neighborhood commercial area.
D.6.b. Firdale Village
D.6.b.i. In the Firdale Village commercial area, development should
include an attractive mix of uses that create a “neighborhood village”
pedestrian-oriented environment. Commercial spaces shall be oriented
toward the street in order to maximize visibility, and parking should be
primarily accommodated either behind or underneath structures.
D.6.b.ii. Development shall not be more than four stories in height, and
the design should focus on breaking up the mass and bulk of buildings by
incorporating such features as setbacks, varying rooflines, and landscaping
into the design of the site. The mix of uses should include not less than
one quarter commercial space. An additional floor (either commercial or
residential) is possible if the development includes a defined public
benefit, such as a public art component, provides a community gathering
place or follows environmentally sensitive (“green”) building standards.
Page 155 of 230
3
Existing Comprehensive Plan Language
D. Goals for Neighborhood Commercial Areas. Neighborhood commercial areas are
intended to provide services and convenient shopping for local neighborhoods. They are
small in area and building scale (not more than two stories), with an emphasis on
pedestrian access for local residents.
D.1. Neighborhood scale commercial development (convenience stores) should be
located at major arterial intersections and should be designed to minimize
interference with through traffic.
D.2. Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the
local neighborhood. Mixed use development should be encouraged within
neighborhood commercial areas.
D.3. Provide for transit and pedestrian access, with the provision of facilities for
local automobile traffic. Provide for pedestrian connections to nearby residential
neighborhoods.
D.4. Provide for the pedestrian-scale design of buildings that are two stories or less
in height and that contain architectural features that promote pedestrian activity.
Page 156 of 230
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 28, 2006 Page 3
plan to allow local jurisdictions to be responsible for its implementation. However, since this is a regional plan, all groups
must pay close attention to make sure this concept is still part of the new plan. The City would also want to work with other
cites in the County on a coordinated response to the proposed alternatives.
Again, Mr. Chave advised that comments regarding the EIS and the four proposed alternatives are due by July 31st. The
PSRC anticipates having a supplemental draft EIS with the prevailing alternative out by the middle of 2007. They hope to
have a final EIS and adopt a final plan by the end of 2008. While the process would be long and drawn out and often
difficult for the public to understand, Mr. Chave emphasized the importance of public and City involvement. He explained
that the regional plan drives the transportation plan, and all of the federal dollars are geared towards what the regional
transportation plan says. He advised that the PSRC would provide a presentation to the City Council on July 18th, and the
City Council would then work to formulate their comments back to the PSRC before the July 31st deadline.
Vice Chair Dewhirst asked if part of the analysis would include the cost of infrastructure. Mr. Chave replied that the PSRC
would factor in all of the transportation improvements, but no specific cost analysis would be completed for the
infrastructure.
Chair Freeman recalled that at the last City Council Meeting, Mr. Chave pointed out that the PSRC had the ultimate authority
over what goes on in the region, so it is important to follow their work closely. As an example, Mr. Chave said the adopted
regional plan identified a 3rd runway expansion at SeaTac Airport; however, local plans in the area did not include this
expansion. The court found for the PSRC and went on to say that once a regional plan is adopted through a collaborative
process and compliance issues arise, the regional plan would always prevail over the local plans. That is why cities must pay
attention to what the regional plan says and then make local plans consistent with the regional plans.
Board Member Crim summarized that the proposed alternatives emphasize how important it will be for Edmonds to look at
ways to foster reasonable growth in the City. Mr. Chave said documentation makes it clear that regional growth must be
focused in the urban areas and local cities must accept this growth to the greatest degree possible. Even built out
jurisdictions have opportunities to increase infill in strategic locations, and the City of Edmonds must do their share. Board
Member Crim suggested that this information would be important to keep in mind when the Board considers the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments for Five Corners and Firdale Village later in the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FOR FIRDALE AND FIVE CORNERS
Mr. Chave advised that this public hearing is on a draft amendment to the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan modifying the
language addressing neighborhood commercial areas and adding additional guidance for planning in the Five Corners and
Firdale Village areas. He recalled that in 2005 the Edmonds Economic Development Director recommended that
neighborhood commercial areas be reviewed for possible improvements to existing policies and zoning. Due to interest
among property owners and the potential for redevelopment, Five Corners and Firdale Village were selected as two business
districts to undergo a community planning process to update the Comprehensive Plan language, which would be followed by
updated zoning regulations and design guidelines.
Mr. Chave recalled that in January the Economic Development Director organized an initial round of community planning
meetings for Five Corners and Firdale Village. In April, a second round of community meetings was held to review a draft
of possible new Comprehensive Plan language, both for the overarching goals of the neighborhood commercial areas and for
some neighborhood-specific suggestions. He referred the Board to the draft language and explained that after holding a
public hearing, the Board should make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would then hold another
public hearing before making a final decision. Once the Comprehensive Plan amendments are adopted by the City Council,
the Board could begin working with the neighborhoods to develop zoning regulations to implement the new Comprehensive
Plan goals and policies. He emphasized that it is very important for the language to carefully describe what they want to see
happen in these two areas, but the details would all have to be worked out in the zoning code. He noted that the existing
zoning would not implement what the proposed plan amendments call for, so actual zoning issues such as height, setbacks,
etc. would have to be addressed later.
Page 157 of 230
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 28, 2006 Page 4
Board Member Henderson referred to the draft language and noted that the first sentences in Sections D.6.a.ii and D.6.b.ii
appear to use different phrases to describe the same thing. He suggested that these be changed to use consistent language for
the number of stories that would be allowed. Chair Freeman said she attended the neighborhood meetings and found that the
draft language accurately represents the consensus that was reached by the citizens. While the two sentences are not exactly
the same, they do accurately represent what was decided at each of the meetings. Mr. Chave agreed that while the two
sentences mean basically the same thing, the concept was stated differently by each group.
Brad Butterfield said that over the past year he has had the opportunity to work with property owners at Firdale Village and
Five Corners, and he has attended the neighborhood meetings, as well. He congratulated the City staff on a job well done.
They did an excellent job incorporating the comments provided by the neighbors and property owners in the draft
amendments. While the proposed amendments are good, he reminded everyone that specific projects would still have to go
through zoning changes and another public hearing process before they could move forward. He said everyone seems to
agree that Firdale Village and some of the lots at Five Corners are some of the larger pieces of property available in the City
for sensitive and well thought out development. They are different than the BC zones in the downtown area. These
neighborhoods need well planned out projects that are financially successful for the property owners since this would
provide the neighborhood with long-lasting, good projects. He encouraged the Board to recommend approval of the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments as submitted by the staff.
Marcus Rodriquez said he is a business owner in the Firdale Village area and attended the neighborhood meetings.
However, the proposal before the Board at this time does not reflect what a larger majority of the residents want. They want
more gathering places and commercial development rather than residential. But the draft language appears to push
residential development at Firdale Village. He asked if the public’s concerns and requests would be initiated. He also asked
how many people involved in the planning process have visited Firdale Village to see what the property owners and business
owners are doing to improve the area.
Tony Shapiro reminded the Board that they just finished a discussion regarding the City’s need to absorb a certain
percentage of the anticipated population growth over the next 40 years. He said that he is working with an individual who
owns property outside of the Firdale Village and Five Corners areas who is interested in applying the neighborhood planning
concept to his property, as well. He encouraged the Board to also consider other areas in the City where this concept might
be successfully applied. He said he plans to submit a rezone application on behalf of his client to piggyback with the
changes that are being proposed to the Five Corners and Firdale Village neighborhoods.
Mr. Shapiro pointed out that while there is a need to maintain views in the bowl area of downtown Edmonds, a large portion
of the properties in Edmonds do not have any view considerations. Additional height in these other areas would not block
view and would not have a significant impact to surrounding properties. He urged the Board to send a message to the City
Council asking them to consider greater building height limits in these areas to provide for higher residential densities to
meet the City’s future growth targets.
Don Krieman referred to the Vision 2020 +20 Plan Report that was provided earlier in the meeting by Mr. Chave. It is very
true that the City must grow in order to comply with all of the rules to obtain regional transportation dollars, and there are
three ways that this growth could be accommodated. First, they could fill in by replacing larger lots with smaller lots in the
single-family neighborhoods. Another option would be to increase densities in certain locations in Edmonds such as Firdale
Village, Five Corners, Perrinville, Highway 99, Westgate, etc. A third option would be to develop the remaining 5 percent
of land in Edmonds as single-family. The problem with the third option is that much of this land is open space that
surrounds existing neighborhoods. He noted that, at this time, developers are using the City’s PRD provision to cluster the
homes, cut down trees, bend the setback rules, etc. However, this has resulted in a significant impact to the character of the
single-family neighborhoods, as well as the environment and wildlife habitat. He emphasized that 29 PRD’s have been
approved by the City in recent years, and he would much rather see four or five-story buildings in Firdale Village or Five
Corners areas than wooded areas being cut to accommodate more single-family housing. He asked the Board to recommend
approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan changes and impress upon the City Council the need to save the wooded areas
that are important to the City of Edmonds.
Page 158 of 230
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 28, 2006 Page 5
Jeffrey Sanderson said he is a resident of the Five Corners Neighborhood. He said he enjoys living in Edmonds and the
sanctuary his neighborhood provides with the trees growing all around. On a recent vacation in Bend, Oregon, they were
able to observe new development. He noticed that roundabouts are being used successfully at many of the larger
intersections. He noted that comments were made at the neighborhood meetings about this concept, and it was suggested
that Five Corners would be an excellent location for a roundabout. However, the proposed language does not mention them
at all.
Robert Bretts said he also lives in the Five Corners Neighborhood. He reminded the Board that people are typically
passionate about their neighborhoods. Allowing development in the Five Corners Neighborhood to be four or five-stories
tall would place a huge burden on the residential property owners in order to meet the City’s need for higher density. He
said the infrastructure is not available in the Five Corners area to handle the additional density, while the infrastructure in the
downtown area is underutilized as a result of the City Council’s decision to limit the height. The City Council made a
decision to lock the height limit in the downtown at 25 feet, and now they are asking neighborhoods like Five Corners to
share the burden of this mistake. He urged the Board to limit the height of buildings in the Five Corners Neighborhood to 25
feet, as well.
Diane Hill said she lives in the Five Corners Neighborhood, too, and she agreed with Mr. Bretts’ comments. She said she is
disturbed when she hears that because this neighborhood does not have views, the height limit shouldn’t matter. She
expressed her belief that four-story buildings would be too high for a residential area and would destroy the neighborhood
character. The neighborhood has already accommodated a huge density increase with the apartments that have already been
developed. The neighborhood does not have sufficient infrastructure to support more traffic and still maintain the residential
character of the neighborhood. She encouraged the Board to lower the height of the buildings back to two stories, similar to
what the City Council decided to do with the downtown.
Warren Schweppe recalled that various people have commented on the height element of the proposed amendment for Five
Corners, and he concurred that four or five-story buildings would be out of place. However, two-story buildings might be
okay.
Eric Anderson said he owns the Five Corners Shopping Plaza property. He said if the City does not do something to
resolve the problems in the Five Corners area, the existing development will remain the same and nothing new would be
developed or changed. In fact, he said he might not be able to continue to keep maintaining what currently exists. With the
setback requirements and other zoning regulations that currently exist, it is unlikely that any redevelopment would occur. He
noted that beautiful projects have been done in other cities to provide more density. Even if all of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments were approved, the City zoning requirements would still demand beautiful projects. He
encouraged the Board to not set the height limit at 25 or 30 feet in the Five Corners area. Because the properties are flat, it
would not be feasible to develop the properties as such. He further encouraged the Board to forward the proposed
amendments to the City Council as soon as possible.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Vice Chair Dewhirst said he attended most of the neighborhood meetings. They were extremely important and brought a lot
of people to the table, including business owners, residential property owners, etc. The residents who attended voiced their
concern about what the proposed changes would allow to happen in their neighborhood. However, he came away from the
meetings with the impression that many people felt the current development at Five Corners was outdated. People are doing
their best to maintain what they have, but there needs to be some incentive to update the area. The proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendments are fairly indicative of what he heard at the meetings. The proposed language emphasizes pedestrian
access, transit access, pedestrian connectivity, and the need for good design.
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred to Section D.6.a.ii, which talks about allowing development to occur up to four stories high.
He expressed his belief that four stories would not be an outrageous height for this area, but the proposed language would be
rather limiting because the additional floor would only be allowed if the development includes a public art component or
follows green building standards. He suggested that the language used in Section D.6.b.ii would be more appropriate and
Page 159 of 230
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 28, 2006 Page 6
allow more flexibility for the City to obtain a public benefit in exchange for the extra height. The remainder of the Board
agreed that the first sentence in Section D.6.a.ii should be replaced with the language in the first sentence of Section D.6.b.ii.
Board Member Crim reminded the Board that, in light of the Vision 2020 + 20 Plan that is currently being proposed, it clear
that the City would be faced with the necessity of doing what they can to increase their housing stock. They are not talking
about boxy buildings, but good design. Multi-story buildings with public gathering places could be attractive and positive
additions to the neighborhood. He said he would be in favor of passing the proposed amendments on to the City Council
with a strong recommendation that they be approved as submitted.
Board Member Henderson expressed his concern about including a reference to the number of stories that would be allowed
in the Comprehensive Plan. This issue would be better addressed as part of the zoning code. Chair Freeman pointed out that
the concept of allowing four stories came up at the neighborhood meetings. The proposed amendments accurately summarize
the comments that were provided by those in attendance so she would be opposed to taking this language out of the draft
amendment. Board Member Works pointed out that leaving in the reference to four-story buildings would make the
neighborhood’s intent clear, and then the specifics could be worked out as part of the zoning code changes.
Board Member Works clarified that issues related to the infrastructure would all have to be worked out before a development
proposal could be approved. Mr. Chave explained that most comments were related to traffic. The City Engineering
Department would consider options for improving the Five Corners intersection in the near future. While a roundabout is
one of the options being considered, additional study is still needed before a final decision could be made.
Board Member Young also questioned whether the Comprehensive Plan is really the place to address the issue of height and
the number of stories that would be allowed. He referred to a May 6th memorandum from the Edmonds Economic
Development Director, in which she stated that the City’s Comprehensive Plan designation and accompanying zoning
regulations had not been reviewed in many years and they seemed to encourage more outdated “strip mall” development than
the newer mixed-use “village-style” developments that are popular in other communities. He asked how the proposed
amendments would address this concern. Board Member Cassutt answered that there would be no residential or open space
with strip mall development, and the proposed amendments would encourage both. Mr. Chave added that the proposed
amendments would require that buildings be oriented towards the street and that parking be located to the rear rather than in
front. Chair Freeman noted that strip malls tend to be single story, so additional height would allow residential units on top.
Board Member Young recalled that several citizens voiced a concern about the lack of infrastructure to support
redevelopment as proposed. However, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments do not make much of a commitment
on the part of the City to address the issue. He said he would like the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to make
infrastructure a priority.
Board Member Henderson said he would feel more comfortable if the Comprehensive Plan were to describe the
neighborhood business areas as being village style development and then describe the characteristics of this style. Then the
zoning code could identify the height limitations. He expressed his belief that the Comprehensive Plan should not restrict the
height of buildings.
Chair Freeman expressed her belief that the proposed language represents a good summary of the comments that were made
at the meeting. She suggested they go forward to get something started and then look at the other areas in the City where the
same concept could be applied. She emphasized that the business districts should be distinct and unique places in Edmonds
rather than all of them looking the same.
Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that once the amendments are approved, the City could start targeting money through the
CIP process to implement the plans. It is too difficult to describe what is appropriate for each of these areas in a policy
document. The proposed language sets the boundary and illustrates the collective thinking. The next step would be to work
with citizens to iron out the specific zoning regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan goals. He said he is
comfortable with the proposed language. Mr. Chave explained that once the Comprehensive Plan amendments have been
approved by the City Council, work sessions could be held with the neighborhood residents to work on the zoning issues.
Page 160 of 230
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 28, 2006 Page 7
BOARD MEMBER CRIM MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL
TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (FILE NUMBERS
CDC-06-9 AND CDC-06-10) WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE: REPLACE THE FIRST SENTENCE IN
SECTION D.6.a.ii WITH THE FIRST SENTENCE IN SECTION D.6.b.ii. BOARD MEMBER WORKS
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER YOUNG VOTING IN
OPPOSITION. BOARD MEMBER HENDERSON, THE ALTERNATE, ALSO EXPRESSED HIS OPPOSITION
TO THE MOTION.
THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK AT 8:25 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 8:40 P.M.
CONTINUED REVIEW OF MPOR ZONE
Mr. Chave reported that, during the break, Mr. Eric Sonnet asked him if the Board Members received a copy of the letter he
sent to the City. The Board indicated they did not receive the letter, and Mr. Chave agreed to email them a copy as soon as
possible.
Mr. Chave recalled that the last time this issue was discussed, the Board reviewed illustrations showing the relationship
between setbacks and height, using the example of the Sunset Avenue topography. After further review, staff suggests the
following factors must be considered when trying to provide a transition:
Physical/Visual Transition Factors
Building Height
Lot Coverage
Setbacks
Building Design/Massing
Use Transition Factors
Property or Building Use(s)
Parking or Access Factors
Mr. Chave said there does not seem to be a significant issue with the use factors, since they are narrowly defined to include
residential and office uses. Parking would have to be provided on-site, and access would be controlled by normal City code
requirements. However, in terms of physical/visual transition factors, there are at least a couple of ways to construct a
transition. One way would be to provide a transition “rule” for each factor that is considered to be important. Another
option would be to develop a choice matrix that provides some flexibility for how the transition is developed. He referred
the Board to the two transition options provided on Page 2 of the staff report. He briefly explained the two options, using the
Sunset properties as a benchmark for how the MPOR zone would work in practice. Property to the south would be zoned
BC and to the north would be additional MPOR-zoned land, with RS-6 across the street to the east and further north. He
reviewed each of the options as follows:
Option 1 – The property would use the BC height standard (25+5 feet from average level), combined with the RS-6 lot
coverage standard of 35%. Setbacks would be 10 feet along the south (BC) property line because the 10-foot minimum
standard is greater than the “0” allowed by the adjoining BC zone. Similarly, the setbacks along the north property line
and street would also be 10 feet.
Option 2 – The property would use the RS-6 height standard (25 feet from average level), combined with the BC lot
coverage standard (100%). Setbacks would be the same as those described under Option 1. This would result in lot
coverage lower than 100%.
Mr. Chave pointed out that neither transition option would address the massing factor. Massing depends, in part, on lot
coverage, height, and setbacks. However, the Board should also review the attached material on “massing” taken from the
Page 161 of 230
Page 162 of 230
Page 163 of 230
Page 164 of 230
Page 165 of 230
Page 166 of 230
Page 167 of 230
Page 168 of 230
Page 169 of 230
Page 170 of 230
Page 171 of 230
Page 172 of 230
Page 173 of 230
Page 174 of 230
Page 175 of 230
Page 176 of 230
Page 177 of 230
Page 178 of 230
Page 179 of 230
Page 180 of 230
Page 181 of 230
Page 182 of 230
Page 183 of 230
Page 184 of 230
Page 185 of 230
Page 186 of 230
Page 187 of 230
Page 188 of 230
Page 189 of 230
Page 190 of 230
Page 191 of 230
AM-627 9.
Draft "BD - Downtown Business" Zones
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/03/2006
Submitted By:Rob Chave, Planning
Submitted For:Rob Chave Time:45 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Continued Council deliberation and action on the public hearing held on September 18, 2006 on the draft "BD -
Downtown Business Zones" intended to be applied to the downtown area to implement the Comprehensive plan.
Previous Council Action
Council held a public hearing on the draft BD zoning proposals on September 18, 2006, and continued deliberations
to this meeting.
Narrative
A public hearing was held on September 18, 2006, on proposed new "BD - Downtown Business" zones and a new
zoning map applying the zones to downtown properties. This is a continuation of Council deliberations on the zoning
proposals, with the purpose of providing direction to staff to prepare an ordinance for Council adoption.
You should refer to the agenda material from the September 18, 2006, public hearing. The draft BD zone language
(Exhibit 1) and proposed new zoning map for downtown properties (Exhibit 2) are attached here for easy reference.
Exhibit 5 contains the minutes from the 9/18/2006 public hearing.
Councilmember Orvis has submitted some suggestions for changes he would like to have considered during the
deliberations (Exhibit 3) as well as his presentations from the September 18th hearing (Exhibit 4). As an additional
note, the existing definition of "height" in ECDC 21.40.030 (3) provides a height exception for elevator penthouses
"not to exceed 72 square feet in horizontal section, or three feet in height, for that portion above the height limit,"
while (4) and (5) of the same definition provide for exceptions for vent pipes not to exceed 18 inches and
standpipes not to exceed 30 inches above the height limit.
One staff note. As an alternative to the option of placing a 28-foot height limitation on BD1 buildings, and to
address the concern about the interaction of slope and bulding height, the Council could establish a step-back rule
for the BD1 zone. Similar to the other downtown zones, buildings in the BD1 zone would be required to step back
any portion of the building that exceeded 30 feet above the street or 30 feet above average grade, whichever was
less. In contrast to the 25-foot step back rule in the other BD zones, the 30-foot step back threshold would be in
consideration of the fact that the BD1 zone has the higher 15-foot ground floor requirement and a history of more
elaborate facade decoration. This would allow for two-story buildings at the street front, provide some flexibility in
facade design, and provide sufficient height for a 15+ foot ground floor with adequate room for second-floor
commercial space. A 28-foot height limitation, for example, would not allow a building like Chanterelle's to be built
in the BD1 zone.
It will be most helpful to staff to have a clear consensus from Council on changes that are to be made in the draft
code language and map, working from the hearing drafts that were recommended by the Planning Board (Exhibits 1
and 2). The intent is to bring a final ordinance back for Council approval.
With adoption of the new zones and map, it will also be possible to lift the moratorium on certain development
applications in the current downtown BC zone.
Recommendation Page 192 of 230
(1) Provide direction to staff to prepare an ordinance for adoption of new "BD - Downtown Business" zones and a
new zoning map for downtown.
(2) Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for Council adoption to lift the moritorium on certain
development applications in the BC zone.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: BD Zone Language
Link: Exhibit 2: BD Zoning Map
Link: Exhibit 3: Orvis Amendments
Link: Exhibit 4: Orvis presentations 9/18/2006
Link: Exhibit 5: Council minutes 9/18/2006
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 01:20 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/28/2006 02:09 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/28/2006 02:31 PM APRV
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 09/28/2006 11:40 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2006
Page 193 of 230
Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 1
Chapter 16.43
BD – DOWNTOWN BUSINESS
Sections:
16.43.000 Purposes.
16.43.010 Sub-districts.
16.43.020 Uses.
16.43.030 Site development standards.
16.43.040 Operating restrictions.
16.43.000 Purposes.
The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for
business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC.
A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and
associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community,
and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region.
B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest
pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s
identity.
C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and
complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at
downtown’s focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and
residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area.
D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center
for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multi-family residential uses.
16.43.010 Sub-districts.
The “Downtown Business” zone is subdivided into five (5) distinct sub-districts, each
intended to implement specific aspects of the Comprehensive Plan that pertain to the
Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each sub-district contains its own unique mix of
uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The five sub-districts are:
BD1 – Downtown Retail Core
BD2 – Downtown Mixed Commercial
BD3 – Downtown Convenience Commercial
BD4 – Downtown Mixed Residential
BD5 – Downtown Arts Corridor
Page 194 of 230
Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 2
16.43.020 Uses.
A. Table 16.43-1.
Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Commercial Uses
Retail stores or sales A A A A A
Offices A A A A A
Service uses A A A A A
Retail sales requiring intensive
outdoor display or storage
areas, such as trailer sales,
used car lots (except as part of
a new car sales and service
dealer), and heavy equipment
storage, sales or services
X X X X X
Enclosed fabrication or
assembly areas associated
with and on the same property
as an art studio, art gallery,
restaurant or food service
establishment that also
provides an on-site retail outlet
open to the public
A A A A A
New automobile sales and
service
X A A X X
Dry cleaning and laundry plants
which use only nonflammable
and nonexplosive cleaning
agents
C A A A X
Printing, publishing and binding
establishments
C A A A C
Community-oriented open air
markets conducted as an
outdoor operation and licensed
pursuant to provisions in the
Edmonds City Code
A A A A A
Residential Uses
Single family dwelling A A A A A
Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A
Page 195 of 230
Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 3
Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Other Uses
Bus stop shelters A A A A A
Churches, subject to the
requirements of ECDC
17.100.020
A A A A A
Primary and high schools
subject to the requirements of
ECDC 17.100.050(G) through
(R)
A A A A A
Local public facilities subject to
the requirements of ECDC
17.100.050
C C C A C
Neighborhood parks, natural
open spaces, and community
parks with an adopted master
plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC
17.100.070
A A A A A
Off-street parking and loading
areas to serve a permitted use
B B B B B
Commuter parking lots in
conjunction with a facility
otherwise permitted in this zone
B B B B X
Commercial parking lots C C C C X
Wholesale uses X X C X X
Hotels and motels A A A A A
Amusement establishments C C C C C
Auction businesses, excluding
vehicle or livestock auctions
C C C C C
Drive-in businesses X C A C X
Laboratories X C C C X
Fabrication of light industrial
products not otherwise listed as
a permitted use
X X C X X
Day-care centers C C C A C
Page 196 of 230
Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 4
Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Hospitals, health clinics,
convalescent homes, rest
homes, sanitariums
X C C A X
Museums, art galleries, zoos,
and aquariums of primarily
local concern that do not meet
the criteria for regional public
facilities as defined in ECDC
21.85.033
C C C C A
Counseling centers and
residential treatment facilities
for current alcoholics and drug
abusers
X C C A X
Regional parks and community
parks without a master plan
subject to the requirements of
ECDC 17.100.070
C C C C C
Outdoor storage, incidental to a
permitted use
D D D D D
Aircraft landings as regulated
by Chapter 4.80 ECC
D D D D D
A=Permitted Primary Use
B=Permitted Secondary Use
C=Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit
D=Secondary Uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit
X=Not Permitted
For Conditional Uses listed in Table 16.43-1, above, the use may be permitted if the
proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of
the following criteria are met:
1. Access and parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular
access shall be only be provided consistent with Chapter 18.80.060 ECDC. When a
curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian
streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible.
2. Design and landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the
street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than
four (4) feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least
50% open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when
Page 197 of 230
Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 5
unavoidable due to the nature of the use, shall be decorated by a combination of at
least two of the following:
a. architectural features or details;
b. artwork;
c. landscaping.
16.43.030 Site development standards.
A. Table 16.43-2.
Site Development
Standards BD1 5 BD2 5 BD3 5 BD4 3 5 BD5 5
Minimum Lot Area 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Lot Width 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Street
Setback
0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Side
Setback 1
0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Rear
Setback 1
0 0 0 0 0
Maximum Height 2 25’ 25’ 25’ 25’ 25’
Minimum Height of
Ground Floor 4
15’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’
1 The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures
entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R)
zoned property.
2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in Chapter 16.43.030.C ECDC.
3 Within the BD4 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains
a ground floor consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 60 feet measured from the street front
of the building. If a proposed building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement
(e.g. an entirely residential building is proposed), then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone
shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030.B.4 for further detail.
4 “Minimum height of ground floor” means the height measured from the base of the ground floor to the
top of the ground floor ceiling plate, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows a ground floor
height of 15 feet; note that the ‘finished’ ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example.
Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing height of the ground
floor to meet the specified minimum height so long as the addition or remodel does not increase the
building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25%.
5 Site development standards for single family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone.
Page 198 of 230
Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 6
Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement
B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground
floor of buildings in the BD zones.
1. When a commercial use is located on the ground floor, the elevation of the ground
floor and associated entry shall be within 7 inches of the grade level of the adjoining
sidewalk. “Grade” shall be as measured at the entry location.
2. When the street frontage of a building is on a slope which does not allow both the
elevation of the entry and ground floor to be entirely within 7 inches of the grade
level of the sidewalk, the building may be designed so that either:
a. The entry for the commercial portion of the ground floor is located within 7
inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the commercial portion of the
ground floor is within 7 inches of the grade level of the entry; or,
b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground
floor combination is within 7 inches of the grade of the sidewalk.
c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of
determining where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply.
The first choice for the primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In
the case of the BD5 zone, the primary entry shall always be on 4th Avenue.
Page 199 of 230
Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 7
3. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only
commercial uses. Within the BD2, and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor
shall consist of only commercial uses to a minimum building depth of 60 feet, as
measured from the street front of the building.
4. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a
building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting
the same requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in ECDC 16.43.030.B.3,
above. As a second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground
floor does not meet the commercial use requirements described in Chapter
16.43.030.B.3, above, then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall
apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required, the required street setback
shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over four (4) feet in
height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50% open, such as in a lattice pattern.
5. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground floor with commercial
space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in ECDC
16.43.030.B.3, above. When development of the ground floor does not conform to
these requirements, then development within the BD5 zone shall meet the following
requirements:
a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. “Orientation to 4th Avenue” shall
mean that:
i. At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue.
ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural
details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add
interest at the pedestrian (i.e. ground floor) level.
iii. If the building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be
located between the building and the street front.
b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work
space is required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is
provided on-site.
i. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground floor, the building shall
incorporate live/work space into the ground floor design in such a way as to
enable building occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or
art/fabrication use. Live/work space means a structure or portion of a structure
that combines a commercial or manufacturing activity that is allowed in the
zone with a residential living space for the owner of the commercial or
manufacturing business, or the owner's employee, and that person's
household. The live/work space shall be designed so that a commercial or
fabrication or home occupation use can be established within the space.
Page 200 of 230
Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 8
Figure 16.43-_: BD5 Development
Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street.
Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses,
and the entry oriented to the street.
6. Exceptions and clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in
ECDC 16.43.030.B.1-5 (above) apply with the following exceptions or clarifications.
a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is
allowed as a permitted secondary use.
b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single-
family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property.
c. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the
ground floor commercial use requirement (i.e. when the first 60 feet of the
building, as measured perpendicular to the street, is required to be in commercial
use, parking may not be located within that 60 feet). However, for properties with
less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front, parking may be located
in the rear-most 30 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends
into the first 60 feet of the building. In no case shall the depth of commercial
space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30 feet.
d. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 60 feet of the building as
measured perpendicular to the street consists only of commercial uses and
permitted secondary uses, then permitted multiple family residential unit(s) may
be located behind the commercial uses.
e. Within the BD1 zone, ground floor windows parallel to street lot lines shall be
transparent and unobstructed by curtains, blinds, or other window coverings
intended to obscure the interior from public view from the sidewalk. This
provision does not apply to any residential uses located behind commercial uses.
Page 201 of 230
Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 9
f. Within the BD1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor shall be
directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk.
C. Building Height Regulations.
1. The basic height limit is 25 feet (see definition of “height” detailed in Chapter
21.40.030 ECDC).
2. Within the BD1 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet when the
ground floor is at least 15 feet in height.
3. Step-back rules. The following rules apply when calculating the maximum building
height for any building in the BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones (see Figures 16.43-2 and
16.43-3 for illustrated examples).
a. An additional 5 feet of building height, not to exceed 30 feet, may be obtained if
the building is designed to meet all of the following conditions:
i. A building step-back is provided within 15 feet of any street front. Within the
15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above
grade at the property line (e.g. normally the back of sidewalk) or 30 feet above
the “average level” as defined in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC. For corner lots, a
15-foot step-back is required along both street fronts. If a building located on
a corner lot has insufficient lot width (i.e. less than 40 feet of lot width) to
enable it to provide the required step-back on both street fronts, then the step-
back may be waived facing the secondary street. This waiver may not be
granted for building step-backs required from Fifth Avenue, Dayton, or Main
Streets.
ii. A 15-foot step-back is provided from the property line opposite the street
front. Within the 15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser
of 25 feet above grade or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in
Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC. For corner lots for which a 15-foot step-back is
required on more than one street front, there is no 15-foot step-back required
from the property line opposite each street front. For the purpose of
determining step-back requirements, alleys are not considered to be streets.
iii. A building setback, in which the entire building is set back from the property
line, may be substituted on a foot-for-foot basis for the required building step-
back. For example, a 5-foot building setback can be combined with a 10-foot
building step-back to meet the 15-foot step-back requirement.
Page 202 of 230
Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 10
Page 203 of 230
Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 11
4. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building
meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15
feet of the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be
incorporated into the building design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished
from the upper portions of the building through the use of differences in materials,
windows, and/or architectural forms.
a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the
pitch of all portions of the roof are at least 6-in-12 and the roof includes
architectural features, such as dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up
the roof line into distinct segments.
b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in (a),
above, step backs shall be required the same as for the BD2 zone, as described in
ECDC 16.43.030.C.3.
5. Height exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in Chapter 21.40.030
ECDC, the following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height
limits specified in this Chapter.
a. Building cornices or parapet walls extending along the roof edge, to a maximum
of 3 feet above the specified height limit for that portion of the building. All such
cornices or parapet walls shall include decorative patterns, layering or scrolling,
and/or repeating sub-elements that result in an overall appearance that is not a
single, flat, uninterrupted surface along the face of the building. When such a
decorative cornice or parapet wall is provided along the entire perimeter of the
building, skylights and/or rooftop mechanical equipment may be provided on the
roof so long as these items do not exceed the height of the cornice or parapet wall.
b. Roof or deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the specified
height limit if the railing is constructed so that it is at least 75% “open.” A simple
example would be a 42-inch-high railing that consists of a series of 1-inch-wide
vertical elements spaced at 4-inch intervals, on-center.
c. A decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may
extend a maximum of 5 feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an
integral architectural feature of the roof and/or façade of the building. The
decorative architectural element shall not cover more than 5% of the roof area of
the building.
d. When a pitched roof is provided for a building, portions of the roof that are at a
pitch of 12-in-12 or greater may extend a maximum of 5 feet above the specified
height limit. The portions extending above the height limit must be designed as an
integral part of the roof using traditional pitched roof types (e.g. hip, gable,
gambrel, etc.); dormers or gable ends may also be part of the roof design.
e. Elevators or stairs opening onto a roof deck may extend a maximum of 12 feet
above the specified height limit if (1) the elevator or stair enclosure is provided so
that it does not appear to be an unadorned “box,” and, (2) the roof or roof deck is
developed with gardens, planters, or landscaped areas covering at least 50% of the
roof area. Artistic elements or features, such as architectural detailing, ornaments,
Page 204 of 230
Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 12
or shapes shall be required to be incorporated into each enclosure design that
exceeds the building height limit. Elevator or stair enclosures shall be set back a
minimum of 15 feet from the edge of the roof, unless the enclosure is designed as
an integral architectural feature of the building edge, such as a turret, tower, or
other decorative element. Elevator or stair enclosures shall not cover more than
5% of the roof area of the building.
D. Off-Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here
apply specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the
requirements of this Chapter and the provisions contained in ECDC 17.50 – Off-Street
Parking Regulations, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply.
1. No parking is required for any permitted uses located within the BD1 zone. Within
the BD1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street.
2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within
the BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones.
3. No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building
footprint of less than 4,800 square feet.
E. Open Space Requirements
1. For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building
width of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least 5% of
the lot area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for
additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than
10%. Open space shall be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such
open space may be provided as any combination of:
a. outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for
restaurants or food service establishments);
b. public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public;
c. landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public. [Note:
minimum % or sq. ft. requirement?]
2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story.
3. In overall dimension, the width of required open space shall not be less than 75% of
the depth of the open space, measured relative to the street (i.e. width is measured
parallel to the street lot line, while depth is measured perpendicular to the street lot
line).
Page 205 of 230
Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 13
F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings
listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Buildings.
1. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds Historic Preservation
Commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project,
the staff may modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would
otherwise apply to the expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The
decision of staff shall be processed as a Staff decision – Notice required, as provided
for in ECDC 20.95.050.
a. Building step backs required under ECDC 16.43.030.C.3.
b. Open space required under ECDC 16.43.030.E.
2. No off-street parking is required for any permitted uses located within a building
listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Buildings. Note that additional parking
exceptions involving building expansion, remodeling or restoration may also apply,
as detailed in 17.50.070.C.
3. Within the BD5 zone, if a building listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic
Buildings is retained on site, no off-street parking is required for any additional
buildings or uses located on the same property. To obtain this benefit, an easement in
a form acceptable to the City shall be recorded with Snohomish County protecting the
Page 206 of 230
Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 14
exterior of the historic building and ensuring that the historic building is maintained
in its historic form and appearance so long as the additional building(s) obtaining the
parking benefit exist on the property. The easement shall continue even if the
property is subsequently subdivided or any interest in the property is sold.
G. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units.
H. Screening. The required setback from R zoned property shall be landscaped with trees
and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot
minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback,
except for that portion of the BD zone that is in residential use.
I. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. Sign
standards shall be the same as those that apply within the BC zone. [Note: update of sign
code is required]
J. Satellite Television Antennas. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set
forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and reviewed by the architectural design board. [Note: update
required to 16.20.050 to reflect 2 meters for commercial antennas.]
16.50.030 Operating restrictions.
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed
building, except:
1. Public uses such as utilities and parks;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots;
3. Drive-in businesses;
4. Plant nurseries;
5. Seasonal farmers’ markets;
6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC.
7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.70.040 ECDC.
8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC
B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards.
Page 207 of 230
3 R D A V E N
2 N D A V E N
MAGNOLIA LN
6 T H A V E N
S U N S E T A V E N
4 T H A V E N
JAMES ST
R A I L R O A D A V E
5 T H A V E N
HEMLOCK WAY
HOWELL WAY
S U NS
E T A V E S
GLEN ST
HOLLY DR
2 N D A V E N
2 N D A V E
3 R D A V E N
CAROL WAY
3 R D A V E N
BELL ST
MAIN ST
6 T H A V E N
DAYTON ST
HOMELAND DR
SATER LANE
W D
A
Y
T
O
N S
T
3 R D A V E S
4 T H A V E S
E D M O N D S W Y /S R 1 0 4
6 T H A V E S
5 T H A V E S
WALNUT ST
5 T H A V E S
HEMLOCK WAY
SEAMONT LN
ERBEN DR
3 R D A V E S
R A I L R O A D S T
GILTNER LANE
D U R B I N S T
ALOHA WAY
2 N D A V E S
EDMONDS ST
6 T H A V E S
ALDER ST
A D M I R A L W A Y
2 N D A V E S
3 R D A V E S
4 T H A V E S
PINE ST
4 T H A V E S
E D M O N D S W A Y /S R 1 0 4
4 T H A V E S
MAPLE ST
DAYTON ST
ALDER ST
MAIN ST
BELL ST
EDMONDS ST
DALEY ST
SPRAGUE ST
5 T H A V E S
BELL ST
MAIN ST
Planning Board Recommendation
7/26/2006
BD1 = Downtown Retail Core
BD2 = Downtown Mixed Commercial
BD3 = Downtown Convenience Commercial
BD4 = Downtown Mixed Residential
BD5 = Downtown Arts Corridor
RM-1.5 = Multi Family RM-1.5
BD1BD2
BD2
BD2
BD2BD4
BD3
BD5
BD2
BD2
BD4
Proposed New Downtown Zones
RM-1.5
BD2
B D 2
Page 208 of 230
Orvis Amendment 1:
As you know, I have expressed concerns about height exceptions. I would like to
remedy the situation with following amendment.
1) Delete 16.42.030.C.5a regarding height exception for building cornices.
2) Delete 16.42.030.C.5b regarding height roof or deck railings.
3) Change 16.42.030.C.5c to insert the word “single” before “decorative architectural
element”
4) Delete 16.42.030.C.5d regarding pitched roofs.
5) Delete 16.42.030.C.5e
I believe the remainder of the exception for elevators and pipes are covered in
the definitions section of our code. Rob, could you correct me if I am wrong?
The intent of the amendment is to limit exceptions to the height limit to a single
architectural feature (which is new to our code), and of course pipe, chimneys, and
elevator penthouses (which already are allowed by our code).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orvis Amendment 2:
After reviewing the comments of Steve Burnheim and Deana Dawson at the last public
hearing, I would like propose the following amendment.
1) Change 16.42.030.C.2 to read:
Within the BD1, the maximum height is 28 feet.
Steve stated it very clearly. 15-12 = 3. 25+3 = 28. Council President Dawson also
pointed out the buildings that already exceed this height limit will come in as non-
conforming uses. The three additional feet will also allow a second story on those lots
with a little bit downhill as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orvis Amendment 3:
This amendment falls under the category of “I really want to this, so I have got to try.”
I would like propose we amend 16.42.030.E.1 to start out by saying “For building larger
than 6,000 square feet…”. (The amendment lowers the open threshold from 12,000
square feet to 6,000 square feet).
I would like to see more open space in downtown Edmonds, and while I like that we
have an open space requirement in our codes, I feel that it won’t be used often enough,
if the threshold is left at 12,000 square feet.
Thanks,
-Dave
Page 209 of 230
30
’
35
’
25
+
5
=
3
5
?
Pa
g
e
2
1
0
o
f
2
3
0
30
’
35
’
Th
i
s
r
o
o
f
i
s
p
i
t
c
h
e
d
,
y
e
t
i
t
a
l
l
o
w
s
t
h
r
e
e
mo
r
e
f
e
e
t
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
r
o
o
m
.
Pa
g
e
2
1
1
o
f
2
3
0
30
’
35
’
Pa
g
e
2
1
2
o
f
2
3
0
30
’
35
’
Wh
e
r
e
d
i
d
th
a
t
t
a
l
l
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
o
m
e
fr
o
m
?
Pa
g
e
2
1
3
o
f
2
3
0
Ra
p
u
n
z
e
l
!
Th
r
o
w
d
o
w
n
yo
u
r
h
a
i
r
!
So
r
r
y
,
m
y
h
a
i
r
’
s
o
n
l
y
25
f
e
e
t
l
o
n
g
.
5’
Pa
g
e
2
1
4
o
f
2
3
0
Pa
g
e
2
1
5
o
f
2
3
0
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
BD
1
(
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
c
o
r
e
)
•15
f
t
f
i
r
s
t
f
l
o
o
r
s
•30
f
o
o
t
o
k
a
y
•2
f
l
o
o
r
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
(
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
d
r
a
f
t
)
Pa
g
e
2
1
6
o
f
2
3
0
Wh
y
m
u
s
t
w
e
a
l
l
o
w
3
0
f
e
e
t
?
•
A
l
l
d
o
w
n
h
i
l
l
l
o
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
o
n
l
y
g
e
t
o
n
e
s
t
o
r
y
i
f
we
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
h
e
i
g
h
t
t
o
2
5
f
t
.
Do
w
n
h
i
l
l
s
l
o
p
e
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
25
f
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
l
o
t
c
e
n
t
e
r
15
f
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
No
t
en
o
u
g
h
sp
a
c
e
fo
r
a
se
c
o
n
d
st
o
r
y
Pa
g
e
2
1
7
o
f
2
3
0
Wh
y
m
u
s
t
w
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
t
o
2
f
l
o
o
r
s
?
•
S
o
m
e
u
p
h
i
l
l
s
i
t
e
s
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
th
r
e
e
f
l
o
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
a
3
0
f
t
l
i
m
i
t
Up
h
i
l
l
s
l
o
p
e
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
30
f
t
15
f
t
Th
e
r
e
a
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
2
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
fl
o
o
r
s
Pa
g
e
2
1
8
o
f
2
3
0
Ho
w
d
o
y
o
u
a
d
d
t
h
e
t
o
2
f
l
o
o
r
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
b
a
c
k
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
d
e
?
•
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
B
D
1
t
o
t
w
o
f
l
o
o
r
s
(
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
de
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
l
o
o
r
)
.
•
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
B
D
1
t
o
t
h
e
mi
n
i
m
u
m
of
t
w
o
he
i
g
h
t
s
:
o
n
e
h
e
i
g
h
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
ce
n
t
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
l
o
t
(
3
0
f
t
)
,
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
h
e
i
g
h
t
me
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
(
2
5
f
t
o
r
m
a
y
b
e
26
f
t
)
.
•O
t
h
e
r
s
Pa
g
e
2
1
9
o
f
2
3
0
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 3
3. INTRODUCTION OF NEW STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE KISA NISHIMOTO FROM
EDMONDS-WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL
Council President Dawson introduced Kisa Nishimoto, a senior at Edmonds-Woodway High School, and
described her background. Ms. Nishimoto thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve as Student
Representative.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT "BD - DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONES" INTENDED TO BE
APPLIED TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE HEARING IS ON: (1) ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW CHAPTER 16.43 ESTABLISHING
"BD - DOWNTOWN BUSINESS" ZONES IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE, AND (2) APPROVING A NEW ZONING MAP FOR DOWNTOWN PROPERTIES (FILE
NO. CDC-06-37 / R-06-50).
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was a public hearing on the recommendation from the
Planning Board on a proposed new zoning scheme for downtown. This began with the update to the
Comprehensive Plan in March 2005; zoning was a follow-up to implement planning. The Planning
Board’s recommendation includes proposed zoning and zoning maps for properties in the downtown area.
He reviewed recent Council action including a series of workshops with design professional Mark
Hinshaw in 2005 to discuss a variety of issues associated with implementing the Comprehensive Plan,
follow-up discussion in March 2006, and direction to the Planning Board for development of the zones.
The current zoning proposal was based on Council discussions that followed adoption of the downtown
plan. Modifications can be made to the zoning proposal and potentially the plan to address issues that
arise during the zoning process.
Mr. Chave displayed two maps of the downtown area, one that reflected the Council’s March 2006
proposal and the other the Planning Board’s zoning proposal. The Planning Board’s proposal was similar
to the Council’s, identifying minor differences including changing the zoning of the property across the
street from the Public Safety Complex from BC to RM 1.5.
Mr. Chave reviewed key sections in the BD chapter including a use matrix and site development
standards for ground floor, building heights and exceptions, parking, open space for larger lots and
buildings and exceptions for historic buildings. He reviewed issues addressed by the Planning Board
including how the arts corridor should be configured relative to other areas of downtown, how the new
standards would apply to existing buildings particularly if additions were proposed, how the ground floor
should be handled, whether the height exceptions (incentives) were the right ones, whether the open space
requirement was appropriate, how small lots were dealt with and how complex the regulations should be.
He highlighted key concepts including no change in the way height was calculated – it was still based on
average level or average grade – 25 feet is the base with rules on how 30 feet could be obtained which
vary by zone. Height exceptions provide incentives to obtain certain design features the Planning Board
felt would be positive additions to buildings. Minimum ground floor heights in commercial areas
encourage commercial uses. He recalled the City’s former Economic Development Director stressed the
importance of a 15-foot ground floor height in an effort to protect and enhance the retail core. He
emphasized 15 feet would not be the ceiling height, it was the height between the first and second floor
which must also accommodate mechanical equipment, structural elements, etc., thus the ceiling height for
a 15-foot first floor would be approximately 12 feet and the ceiling height for a 12-foot first floor would
be 9-9½ feet, possibly 1 additional foot with exposed mechanical equipment. He referred to a retail study
done for the City of Falls Church that cited the importance of floor to ceiling clear heights of at least 14
New Student
Representative
Draft BD –
Downtown
Business Zones
Page 220 of 230
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 4
feet for quality retail space. He noted real estate advertisements for commercial space also consistently
refer to 14-16 feet ceiling heights.
Mr. Chave displayed a drawing illustrating a step-back, explaining the step-back was intended to relate
the building to the streetscape, to provide the appearance of a 25-foot, 2-story building at the street level.
He displayed and described an uphill and a downhill example. He displayed examples of how the step-
back would have applied on existing buildings including the Wiggins building and the historic
Chanterelle building. He reviewed photographs of several downtown buildings, commenting the
buildings on streets perpendicular to Puget Sound and below 5th were broken up consistently by alleys
which created 120 foot block sections, one of the rationales for the Planning Board’s selection of 120 foot
frontage for the open space requirement. The Planning Board was concerned anything smaller would
eliminate the consistent block face along the retail streets. He noted the same pattern was not present on
the streets parallel to Puget Sound due to the absence of alleys which has allowed the combination of
smaller lots and construction of larger buildings.
Mr. Chave pointed out zoning was only one way to implement the Downtown Plan; the streetscape
provisions would be key for the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor. He explained the Planning Board’s
recommendation was not a final ordinance; the zoning and map would need to be approved by Council.
He suggested holding the public hearing in two parts, first focus on the draft text of the BD zones and
then focus on the map and where the zones would be applied.
Councilmember Orvis recalled the Council’s direction to the Planning Board included three elements for
BD1 – 15 foot first floors, allowing for 30-foot buildings and a two floor maximum which he noted was
not included in the current proposal. He explained the reason 30-foot buildings would be allowed in the
BD1 zone was due to the 15 foot first floor requirement. He displayed an example of a downhill lot,
explaining if the building were restricted to 25 feet with a 15-foot first floor, only a one story building
could be built on downhill lots. He noted a two floor maximum was considered to eliminate the potential
for a building on an uphill lot to achieve three floors with a 30-foot height limit. Mr. Chave suggested an
alternative would be to require the step-back in the BD1 zone at 30 feet.
Mr. Chave displayed the map of proposed new downtown zones, identifying the boundaries of each zone.
He explained the BD1 zone was essentially the retail core, where buildings could be 30 feet from average
grade with a 15 foot ground floor. The BD5 zone was the Arts Corridor/4th Avenue Corridor, intended to
link the Edmonds Center for the Arts with downtown. In the Arts Corridor, property owners could
develop similar to downtown or with more residential-type uses via live/work units. The BD3 zone is the
one area downtown where auto-oriented uses would be allowed such as the existing uses Baskin &
Robins, Petosa’s Grocery, etc. He noted another reason for allowing auto-oriented uses was the distance
of this area from downtown. The BD4 zone recognizes that most of the uses in that zone are already
residential. Development in the BD4 zone could be traditional commercial/mixed use or a multi family
building using the multi family provisions of the code. The BD2 zone is closer to the traditional BC
zoning in that setback rules apply and uses are a mixture of commercial and residential but the ground
floor must be commercial. The one exception was the opportunity for residential on the ground floor
beyond a 60 foot depth.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council
received correspondence from:
1) Larry D. Stout, government affairs/legal department of Washington Realtors, expressing
support for the intent of the proposed zoning to be flexible in use but restrictive in appearance
in the BD1 zone and for allowing commercial office and retail activities in the BD1 zone.
2) Law Offices of William Hochberg, expressing support for the new BD2 zone and urging the
Council to adopt the BD2 zone as recommended.
Page 221 of 230
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 5
3) David Page, local realtor, urging Council not to restrict zoning in the retail core to retail only.
4) Larry and Anne Temple, urging consideration of the impact that height limit exceptions
could have on adjacent property and ensuring only a single architectural element to qualify
for the additional 5 feet.
5) Paul C. Sorensen, S & E Partners, opposed to not allowing offices in the BD1.
Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, commented there were positive elements in the proposed ordinance as well
as areas in need of improvement. As a property owner in the BD5 zone, he noted one of the allowed uses
was residential. He asked whether the 12-foot first floor height requirement applied to residential uses.
He pointed out the site development standards referred to a maximum height of 25 feet and a minimum
15-foot ground floor height, yet later in the code heights of 30 feet are allowed. He referred to a height
exception in Section 5 that allowed an additional 5 feet for a pitched roof and asked whether that was in
addition to the 30-foot building height. He supported the open space requirements for jumbo
developments, the step-back for buildings over 25 feet particularly for the backside of properties, street
level retail, the guidance provided by the zoning for neighborhood development, connecting the Arts
Corridor to downtown, and historic property incentives.
John Reed, Edmonds, on behalf of ACE, advised the Council packet included the presentation they
made to the Planning Board on May 24 as well as a memo dated September 15. He expressed concern
that the issues they expressed to the Planning Board had not been adequately addressed by the Planning
Board. He relayed ACE’s support for the following: the step-back for heights over 25-feet, the tradeoff
of a setback in exchange for a step-back, the Arts Corridor, ground floor rules including 60 foot
commercial depth, RM 1.5 zone and requiring setback between commercial and residentially zoned
properties. He enumerated ACE’s concerns/suggestions, 1) the uses section is too complex, looks toward
existing uses rather than what was desired. Consider whether five zones were needed – could there be a
retail core, Arts Corridor and the remainder in one zone, 2) require step-back for all buildings downtown,
3) height exceptions allow height creep above the 25-foot base and 30-foot maximum and some are based
on percentages that could allow excessive space and a square footage limitation would be a more
reasonable alternative, 4) setback avoids the tunnel affect, 5) too little open space required, and 6)
consider pros and cons of insufficient parking downtown. He summarized ACE’s perception that the
proposal did not fully address the direction provided by the Council and there was significant work to be
done to finalize the ordinance to maintain the 2-story look and feel of downtown.
Mayor Haakenson acknowledged the Council received the correspondence from ACE that Mr. Reed
mentioned as well as correspondence from Chris Fleck who was opposed to limiting the BD1 zone to
retail uses only and from Paul Weller who was opposed to the proposed BD concept.
Gary Schmitt, representing the customers and employees of Bank of Washington, referred to not
allowing financial drive-throughs in the proposed BD1 zone, explaining a healthy downtown core
required a healthy financial district. He noted over 30% of a bank’s customers traveled over 5 miles to do
their business, 20% traveled 2-3 miles, and 50% traveled 0-2 miles. Bank customers often visit other
downtown businesses. He explained many pedestrian friendly cities with a strong retail environment such
as Carmel, California, did not allow general drive-throughs but did allow bank drive-throughs. He
proposed not allowing general drive-throughs in the BD1 but allowing financial drive throughs as a
conditional use. He noted bank drive-throughs were of great assistance to customers and increased the
availability of parking in downtown.
Tim Stensland, Edmonds, provided a letter regarding the BD5 and BD1 zones. While he applauded the
City’s efforts to incorporate arts into the community, he was concerned the requirements proposed for the
BD5 zone were too restrictive and lacked detail. He noted the live/work spaces needed to be eclectic,
flexible and market responsive. He recommended a further discussion regarding flexibility of units as
Page 222 of 230
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 6
well as building massing. He concluded the regulations limited the potential for good building design in
the Arts Corridor.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, recommended the BD1 zone on Main Street end east of the Shell Creek
restaurant, and the west end be extended to Railroad Avenue. She also recommended amending the uses
to make the BD1 primarily pedestrian retail with two floors of retail and no residential. She
recommended the first floors have 12-foot finished ceilings and uses that attracted strolling, shopping and
eating; the second floors could accommodate a broader range of retail including offices. She recalled a
concentration of retail on one street such as Main on two floors was recommended by three consultants.
With regard to her suggestion to extend BD1 zone to Railroad Avenue, she explained the goal of the
Downtown Waterfront Plan was to integrate the downtown core with the waterfront by encouraging
pedestrian access. She noted the west end of Main currently had severe visual issues.
John Heighway, Edmonds, suggested the proposed zoning address the restoration and maintenance of
existing buildings in the BD zone. He recommended the City post for the public any work to be done on
buildings downtown such as the Yost Building. He noted existing properties may be purchased and/or
consolidated, leading to the potential for phased construction. He noted many Conditional Use Permits
were handled administratively and he preferred they be subject to public scrutiny. He recalled the person
constructing the Gregory included bay windows on that building because he liked the bay windows on the
Yost building, yet he now proposed removing the bay windows from the Yost building. He objected to
the ability for an elevator to cover no more than 5% of the roof area and to extend a maximum of 12 feet
above the specified height limit. He envisioned the result could be larger than anticipated.
James Clauson, Edmonds, commercial real estate broker, recalled there had been numerous discussions
regarding retail versus office in the retail core. He commented there were new buildings with floor space
that interested major retailers, however, allowing office uses in the core area diluted the retail focus of the
retail core. Most property owners in downtown Edmonds received $8-12/square foot gross rent compared
with retail in Mill Creek where owners received $32.50/square foot net. He cited numerous studies and
seminars that stress retail as the heart of revived city cores. He urged the Council to require retail uses in
the downtown core.
Bob Gregg, Edmonds, agreed with encouraging retail in the BD1 zone but did not support mandating
retail. If the Council mandated retail, he recommended it be only on the first floor. He recalled Mark
Hinshaw’s indication that retail on the second floor did not work. He also recommended the City clarify
the definition of restaurant to ensure they were not excluded from the retail zone. He did not object to
requiring a 15-foot step-back above 25 or 30 feet in the BD1 zone.
Cary Adams, Edmonds, commercial real estate agent, objected to the two floor maximum, noting much
of the profitability for developers was in the third floor. A two floor maximum made it difficult to
develop property and could also decrease a property’s value. He recommended the City focus on
incentives rather than restrictions; using incentives to achieve desired development. He remarked that
although the different zones were effective on some levels, they were not on others as they restricted
property owners to certain types of development rather than allowing the market to dictate development.
He preferred the existing one zone downtown that allowed the market to dictate development to create a
vibrant downtown. He recommended the definition of retail be clarified as many businesses currently in
the BD1 zone were a combination of office and retail. He summarized the City needed to consider what
would be best for the future and not just keep everything the way it was.
Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, echoed Mr. Adams’ preference for a one zone downtown, commenting the
proliferation of zones would require more staff time to review applications. With regard to 15-foot
ceiling heights, he disagreed the record showed there was any literature other than comments by local
Page 223 of 230
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 7
merchants supporting 15-foot ceilings. He recalled his research about 15-foot ceiling heights found only
one article regarding shops in downtown San Francisco. As a property owner in the current BC zone, if
he redeveloped his property, he preferred not to construct 15-foot first floors due to the cost of heating the
increased space. He questioned why developers who provided a 15-foot first floor height rather than a
12-foot first floor would be allowed an increase of 5 feet rather than only an additional 3 feet.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, asked whether the city wanted notched buildings on east and west streets,
envisioning notches on buildings would not be uniform as they were dependent on the average grade. He
pointed out notches did not protect views and a 5-foot setback was preferable to a notch and provided
more open space. He asked whether the proposed zoning would prevent land owners from using their
property via restricting to whom they could rent their property. He agreed with the need for a retail core
but questioned whether the City could restrict to whom a property owner rented. He questioned if the
proposed zoning would allow construction of buildings like the Chanterelle or movie theater in the future.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, found the proposed five zones excessive, commenting staff had enough
difficulty making decisions with the existing one zone. He objected to the lack of parking requirements
for any use in the proposed in the BD1 zone, no parking requirements for commercial uses in BD2, BD4
or BD5, and no parking requirements for any building with a footprint of less than 4800 square feet. He
objected to allowing balconies in the public right-of-way. He commented massing was not addressed in
the proposed document, expressing concern with the consolidation of lots that could result in a long wall
and/or massive buildings. He recalled a formula used in the past for mixed use that required 51% of the
building be developed commercial. As an option, he suggested the proposed document could limit mixed
use residential to a floor above.
Bruce Nicholson, Edmonds, referred to the Bank of Washington’s request, commenting the conditional
use process worked well. He described his construction of a building on an RM zoned property which
required he meet the condition of a CUP. The building now houses a company with 20 employees and its
location outside of the business district does not impact downtown parking. He encouraged the use of a
CUP for bank drive-throughs.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Mr. Chave responded to questions/issues raised by the public. With regard to whether the 12-foot first
floor height in BD5 applied to single family development, Mr. Chave answered no, pointing out the code
required single family be developed in accordance with the RS-6 zone. He agreed a minor correction
needed to be made to address the conflict between the statement that the basic height limit was 25 feet
and the 30-foot building height allowed with a 15 foot first floor height. With regard to the multiple
zones, he explained the distinctions between zones were subtle but important. For example, without the
BD3 zone, drive-through businesses would be allowed throughout downtown or all drive-through
businesses would be nonconforming. Without the BD4 zone, multi family building could be allowed
throughout downtown or all existing multi family buildings would be nonconforming. He summarized
the Comprehensive Plan differentiated parts of downtown. He anticipated the upcoming code rewrite
would simplify the code, particularly the use patterns.
With regard to the 15-foot first floor height, he explained that was essential to economic development and
the Planning Board felt if retail was not mandated in the retail core, the only thing that would encourage
retail uses was to require space that accommodated retail uses. With regard to whether to mandating only
retail/services uses rather than office, he referred to the pros and cons expressed by the public. He
acknowledged the City wanted to encourage retail uses, however, without a strong retail market, those
spaces could remain vacant. He emphasized a strong retail core could not be obtained via only zoning, it
Page 224 of 230
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 8
also required a strong economic development effort, strong Chamber of Commerce, and mechanisms to
work with retailers to ensure downtown was economically healthy.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether restaurants could locate in the core. Mr. Chave answered yes,
restaurants were considered a service use which was permitted in the BD1 retail core. Councilmember
Plunkett referred to the comment that the Arts Corridor was not flexible enough, explaining he wrote code
language via the Historic Preservation Commission to ensure the Arts Corridor was as flexible as
possible. Mr. Chave explained that area would be considered in the discussion regarding the
nonconforming regulations. Public improvements would likely have a great deal of impact on
development of the Arts Corridor. Councilmember Plunkett clarified this was the beginning of
developing regulations for the Arts Corridor, not the end. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board’s
intent was to provide some flexibility in use.
Councilmember Plunkett requested staff address the issue of drive-throughs. Mr. Chave explained the
Planning Board voted 4-3 in favor of not allowing drive-throughs in the BD1 zone. The majority of the
Planning Board felt drive-through uses including banks should be prohibited in the BD1 zone. The
remainder of the Planning Board felt drive-throughs for banks could be approved via a CUP.
Councilmember Plunkett supported a bank, pharmacy, etc. having the option of a drive-through via a
CUP. He asked what standards a business had to meet to have a CUP approved. Mr. Chave answered
CUPs were reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. He referred to additional conditions any Conditional Use
in the BD1 zone must meet including pedestrian access from the sidewalk, vehicular access, landscape
design, etc. The Planning Board’s primary concern was that too many drive-throughs resulted in multiple
curb cuts which lead to the loss of on-street parking as well as conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether massing had been adequately addressed. Mr. Chave answered
yes, via the combination of open space and step-backs as well as building heights. He commented the
source of the massing discussion referred to by Mr. Reed was the draft design guidelines the Planning
Board worked on in 2000-2001 that included specific requirements for buildings over a certain size. He
noted the step-back and open space requirements were very similar to those massing requirements
because the step-back created two masses and an open space would create a third.
City Attorney Scott Snyder commented there was a limit to how much massing could be addressed via
bulk requirements such as setbacks and notching. At some point it became a design guidelines issue. If
the approach became any more sophisticated, he suggested it was an issue best addressed by the
Architectural Design Board (ADB) via definitional requirements. Mr. Chave cautioned a threshold for
open space could have unintended consequences as typically in a downtown retail area, there were few
breaks in the storefronts. If the threshold were too small and applied to buildings in the downtown, there
could be holes created in the retail environment which could have a negative impact.
Councilmember Orvis asked if the difference between BD3 and BD2 was auto-oriented were prohibited
in BD2. Mr. Chave advised auto-oriented uses were only permitted in BD3; drive-throughs were
considered an auto-oriented use.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the bed & breakfast on 3rd & Dayton in the BD4 zone would be
allowed. Mr. Chave answered yes.
Councilmember Orvis clarified the 15-foot first floor height was only required in the BD1 zone. Mr.
Chave agreed, advising that the other zones required a 12-foot first floor height other than residential
development. Councilmember Orvis asked why elevator penthouse would be allowed. Mr. Chave
answered the Planning Board was interested in roofs that functioned as gardens. Councilmember Orvis
asked whether elevator penthouses could be eliminated with the use of a piston style elevator. Mr. Chave
Page 225 of 230
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 9
answered he was not familiar with that technology; an alternative could be to require the elevator be
combined with a design element such as a clock tower.
Councilmember Moore asked why some Planning Board Members felt an exception could be made for a
bank drive-through and not a pharmacy or other use. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board did not
discuss other drive-throughs; their intent was to limit the number of drive-throughs. A minority of the
Planning Board felt a bank was part of the retail fabric as shoppers needed money to visit retail stores.
Councilmember Moore asked staff to respond to Ms. Shippen’s suggestion to expand the downtown retail
core to Railroad Avenue. Mr. Chave agreed there was potential for retail in that area but it was long term
and the Council may want to consider it when the ferry terminal was relocated or significant development
occurred that would encourage retail development in that area. He noted the intent of the 12-foot first
floor heights in that area was to encourage retail uses.
Councilmember Moore asked staff to respond to Mr. Adams’ comment regarding incentives versus
restrictions, asking whether sufficient incentives were provided. Mr. Chave answered parking was the
primary incentives other than incentives to obtain design features. He acknowledged there were few
incentives that could be provided due to the restrictions in bulk and height. Councilmember Moore asked
whether requiring less parking downtown was intended to encourage downtown to be pedestrian friendly.
Mr. Chave agreed, explaining the limited commercial parking requirement was intended to provide an
incentive for construction of commercial space. He noted the height restrictions limited how parking
could be provided on smaller sites, the reason for the 4800 square foot threshold for parking.
Councilmember Moore referred to the definition of retail, noting many service businesses also sold
products. Mr. Chave acknowledged most business were a mixture, the predominate character of the
business determined how it was classified. For example an office was an office regardless of whether it
had a walk-in sales component; a restaurant may also have a catering service but was still a service
business. Councilmember Moore asked whether a real estate office was considered retail because they
sold houses. Mr. Chave answered no. He noted all zones currently allowed retail stores, offices and
services. It only became an issue if the Council wanted to be more restrictive with regard to uses.
Councilmember Moore referred to Mr. Kreiman’s question whether the proposal would prevent the
construction of a building like the Chanterelle or the Edmonds Theater. Mr. Chave answered it would
depend on the zone; the Chanterelle, currently approximately 30 feet in height at the street, could be
constructed in the BD1 zone, the BD2 zone would require a step-back. He noted there were provisions in
the code that would allow restoration of a building similar to the Chanterelle. Councilmember Moore
commented that would be a good argument for extending the BD1 zone to Railroad Avenue.
Councilmember Moore inquired about the Planning Board’s vision for the 4th Avenue Corridor. Mr.
Chave answered the Planning Board felt the driver for the 4th Avenue Corridor would be the public
improvements. The Planning Board tried an initial concept for the entire corridor, but concern was
expressed by property owners that their options were restricted much more than downtown properties.
The Planning Board then decided to provide options for property owners in the corridor – construction of
a traditional commercial building, renovating one of the existing homes, or construction of a multi family
building that provided a live/work component. The Planning Board felt until the public improvements
began to occur, it was too soon to prescribe anything specific for that corridor.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Page 226 of 230
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 10
Councilmember Moore referred to setback versus step-back, recalling the argument against mandating
setback was that without a comprehensive redesign of Main and 5th, the result would be buildings that
jutted in and out. Mr. Chave agreed that Mr. Hinshaw was concerned that requiring a setback that pushed
new buildings back from the sidewalk would create an uneven façade. When the Planning Board
discussed this previously, they were interested in obtaining additional sidewalk regardless.
Councilmember Moore commented she could support setbacks in some areas but not in the retail core as
there were several buildings in that area that were unlikely to redevelop. Mr. Chave agreed it would be
unrealistic in the retail core; there may be opportunities via redevelopment in other zones.
Councilmember Olson commented even with a 15-foot first floor height, the mechanical equipment, etc.
would result in a first floor ceiling height of 15 feet. She asked if the ceiling height would be greater if
the mechanical equipment was exposed. Mr. Chave estimated exposed equipment could create ceiling
heights of 13.5-14 feet maximum. Councilmember Olson recalled Planning Board Member Guenther
mentioned there were new procedures to resolve concerns with energy consumption with higher ceiling
heights. Mr. Chave stated Board Member Guenther’s point was heating had more to do with insulation,
building design, and circulation and less with total space.
Councilmember Wambolt questioned the likelihood and/or desirability of new automobile sales and
service locating downtown. He suggested it be changed to only used automobile sales and service, noting
there was an auto service shop in the Petosa’s building. Mr. Chave answered it was one of the historic
listed uses. Councilmember Wambolt suggested including a definition of primary and secondary uses.
Mr. Chave advised the definitions were in the definition section of the development code.
Councilmember Wambolt suggested the code state that within the BD1 zone the maximum height was 30
feet with no more than 2 floors about the street level and the ground floor must be at least 15 feet in
height. He pointed out Section 16.43.030.C.2 stated, “within the BD1 zone, the maximum height may be
increased to 30 feet when the ground floor is at least 15 feet in height,” but did not state that the first floor
must be 15 feet in height. Mr. Chave noted this was what Mr. Marmion was referring to during the public
hearing. He acknowledged this would need to be clarified to state the 15-foot first floor was a
requirement in the BD1 zone, not an option.
Councilmember Wambolt commented if it was agreed that buildings would be restricted to two floors,
why not state two floors above the street level. Mr. Chave answered properties on a downhill slope may
have three floors due to the slope. He noted the step-back would accomplish the same goal.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Kreiman’s comment regarding notched buildings on east-west
streets. Mr. Chave envisioned the only place in the BD1 zone where there would be the possibility of an
additional floor was the east side of 5th due to the slope. He noted there was a provision in the code that
allowed entrances to be staggered to accommodate a building that stepped down the slope.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to Section 16.43.030.C.5 regarding architectural features,
recommending the language read a “single” decorative element.
Councilmember Orvis asked if the open space requirement was the same for all zones. Mr. Chave stated
it applied to all buildings in all zones. Councilmember Orvis asked if the open space requirement could
be tailored to each zone. Mr. Chave agreed it could as long as reasoning/logic was provided.
Council President Dawson questioned whether the protections for historic buildings in the BD1 zone
should be expanded beyond buildings on the historic register to include buildings that were part of the
downtown fabric. Mr. Chave answered the reason for linking the protections to the Edmonds Register of
Historic Buildings was it was difficult to define a historic building without a mechanism to declare it
historic. The Edmonds Register was in the code, was a voluntary measure property owners could take
Page 227 of 230
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 11
and provided a mechanism for identifying a building as historic. He agreed there was the risk that a
building that was not on the Register could possibly be lost.
Council President Dawson envisioned a scenario where a building that the Council wanted preserved but
the property owner wanted to sell for redevelopment, the property owner could refrain from having the
building added to the register. She observed there was a disincentive for property owners to place their
building on the Register. Mr. Chave answered the Edmonds Register of Historic Building was strictly
voluntary; without a mandatory listing, property owners could place their buildings on the register and
later remove it from the register to sell/demolish it. Mr. Snyder commented a draft of the nonconforming
provisions would be presented to the Council shortly. Those provisions address the void between a
building that is truly historic and commercial/residential reuse.
Council President Dawson commented allowing construction of a building to 30 feet in the BD1 did not
give as much incentive to remodeling an existing building if it could be replaced with a new 30 foot
building. Mr. Chave referred to the Heartland study which found the income/investment in many of the
buildings downtown was so high that it would be difficult to create an economic incentive to demolish the
building. Council President Dawson commented one incentive would be requiring 1-story or 25-foot
buildings in the BD1 zone.
In regard to the question whether a building like Chanterelle could be constructed, Council President
Dawson pointed out a new building could look like Chanterelle but could not be as tall. Mr. Chave
displayed the façade of the Chanterelle building, identifying where the 25 foot height would be if
buildings were not allowed to achieve 30 feet.
Council President Dawson asked whether the Planning Board discussed the concept of allowing a 30-foot
building height with a 15-foot first floor versus allowing 28 feet for the additional 3 feet of first floor
height. Mr. Chave answered it would be difficult to provide two floors with a 25 foot height. He noted
the building height often depended on cornices; if decorative cornices were allowed, 28 versus 30 feet
was less of an issue. If cornices were required to be below the height limit, then it was a bigger issue
because a 15-foot first floor height and a 3-foot cornice would allow only another 12-feet for the second
floor which would make it difficult to accommodate a commercial space. He noted the buildings in the
BD1 were among the most elaborately decorated.
Council President Dawson observed the additional height appeared to be for decorative elements and not
the building itself. Mr. Chave answered it allows flexibility in design. Council President Dawson noted
there was no requirement that the additional feet be used for decorative elements in the BD1 zone and
asked whether that could be required. Mr. Chave answered it could be required; staff would need to
develop appropriate language. He noted the difference between 28 and 30 feet would not provide usable
space, only additional opportunity for embellishment/decoration. Council President Dawson questioned
whether that should be required if that was the intent or whether that was a feature of design guidelines.
Mr. Chave agreed it may be more appropriately considered in the design guidelines.
Council President Dawson asked whether the Planning Board or staff had discussed a requirement for a
building to provide 51% commercial space in the BD1. Mr. Chave answered the 51% was eliminated
from the code because 51% required not only the ground floor but also a portion of the upper floors be
commercial which created isolated offices in a mixed use building. Another issue was that requirement
pushed commercial space to the upper floors in buildings where parking was provided on the first floor.
Council President Dawson recalled the City reduced the parking requirement for residential uses
previously using the rationale the parking could be used by retail during the day. She questioned whether
consideration would now need to be given to increasing the parking requirements for residential if the
Page 228 of 230
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 12
parking requirement for commercial uses was reduced. Mr. Chave agreed it may be necessary to
reconsider the parking requirements once the City had some experience with development under these
regulations. The reduction in parking was one of the few incentives provided to developers. He
commented one space for smaller units was adequate; however, it may be appropriate to increase the
parking requirement for larger residential units as they were more likely to house more people and have
more cars. Increasing the parking requirement for larger units may encourage smaller, more affordable
units to be built. He suggested talking with lenders regarding their requirements for lending construction
funds. Council President Dawson supported decreasing the parking requirements for retail/commercial
with a corresponding increasing in the residential parking requirement.
Council President Dawson asked whether there was any danger in allowing new car sales subject to a
CUP. She recalled there were retail areas in Seattle with luxury car showrooms. Mr. Chave noted the
proposal was to permit new car sales in the BD2 and BD3. He did not envision a CUP would be needed
in BD3, but possibly in BD2 due to its more pedestrian environment.
Council President Dawson asked whether the size of the elevator shaft should be limited. Mr. Chave
suggested a percentage or square foot limitation, whichever was less. Council President Dawson asked
whether the Planning Board discussed combining an elevator shaft with a decorative element. Mr. Chave
answered no. Mr. Snyder suggested the elevator shaft be the minimum necessary to satisfy the
International Building Code. Mr. Chave compared the description of decorative architectural elements in
Section 16.43.030.C.5.c with the description of elevators or stair openings in 16.43.030.C.5.e.
Council President Dawson asked whether balconies were addressed in this section of the code. Mr.
Chave answered they were addressed in the engineering standards section of the code; changing the
standards would not require Planning Board review but would require a public hearing. Council
President Dawson acknowledged the issue of balconies was a concern for many people.
Councilmember Orvis asked how establishing a first floor height of 14 feet would affect existing
buildings. Mr. Chave stated it would depend on the nonconforming provisions. Councilmember Orvis
observed once a building was damaged beyond a certain amount, they were required to update to the
current code.
Councilmember Wambolt commented there were two different types of elevator shafts, an elevator that
served the number of floors in the building for which the code allowed another 3 feet. The 12-foot
extension for an elevator shaft was to accommodate an elevator to access the roof.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Marmion’s question whether pitched roofs would allow an
additional 5 feet in building height. Mr. Chave commented Mr. Marmion was referencing Section
16.43.030.C.5.d. The Planning Board wanted to encourage pitched roofs on downtown buildings; their
intent was the whole building could not be an additional 5 feet, only the most steep portion of the roof
could extend higher.
Council President Dawson commented it appeared Councilmembers had some amendments they wanted
to make to the Planning Board’s recommendation. It was agreed to schedule further discussion/action on
the October 3 agenda. She advised the public hearing had been closed and the Council would not take
additional testimony on October 3.
Council President Dawson recalled Mr. Chave’s suggestion that the public hearing be held in two parts.
As the public may have anticipated they would have another opportunity to comment on the map and
where the zones were applied, the public hearing was reopened.
Page 229 of 230
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 13
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, reiterated her suggestion to extend the BD1 zone to Railroad Avenue,
recalling the Downtown Waterfront Plan addressed relating the waterfront with downtown which the
current zoning did not do. She recommended zoning on Main be based on current plans and not on the
Edmonds Crossing project as that was a nebulous project that was unlikely to be completed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
EXTEND DISCSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, commented the zoning map should match existing plans and should extend
the BD1 zone to the waterfront. Although he was not opposed to the RM 1.5 zoning, he questioned
whether it was mixing a rezone with the creation of the BD zones.
John Heighway, Edmonds, recommended the Council take the time necessary to consider the issues that
arose tonight including the extension of the BD1 zone to the waterfront. He supported taking a broader
view of the zoning so that changes would not be necessary in the near future.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, estimated the ceiling height of the Council Chambers at 15-16-feet, noting
that provided some perspective for decision-making on first floor heights.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, agreed with Ms. Shippen’s suggestion to extend the BD1 zone to the
waterfront.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, agreed with the suggestion to extend the BD1 zone to the waterfront. He
referred to Mayor Haakenson’s comments in the Enterprise regarding the possibility of increasing
building heights in areas on the waterfront. He summarized too many zones made the process too
complex, recommending the use of the KIS (keep it simple) concept.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Council President Dawson asked staff to respond to Mr. Marmion’s comment regarding the change to the
RM 1.5 zone. Mr. Chave answered changes in zoning were the subject of this public hearing, creating
new zones as well as rezoning property. Both were advertised at the Planning Board public hearing and
the City Council public hearing.
Council President Dawson asked why the BD1 zone was not extended to the waterfront. Mr. Chave
answered the intent was to focus retail where the strength was and not extend it into areas that might
become retail in the future but was not currently established. Council President Dawson asked the
rationale for the BD1 boundaries. Mr. Chave responded the intent was to focus the retail core into a
small, defined area. It may also be a carryover from the discussion regarding limiting uses; the boundary
was less important if retail was encouraged but not mandated. Council President Dawson noted one of
the differences between the zones was the first floor height requirement. Mr. Chave pointed out also in
the BD1, a step-back was not required to achieve 30 feet. He noted by not extending the BD1 zone to the
waterfront, the step-backs would open the views somewhat. There were also no parking requirements for
any use in the BD1 zone versus no residential parking requirements in the BD2 zone. Council President
Dawson commented the market would likely address residential units without parking.
Councilmember Wambolt recalled at the time of Mr. Hinshaw’s workshops with the Council, a
Councilmember recommended extending the BD1 zone to the waterfront but Mr. Hinshaw convinced the
majority of the Council that it should end at 3rd because there was not enough retail business to occupy a
larger area.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess at 9:40 p.m.
Page 230 of 230