2006.10.24 CC Agenda PacketAGENDA
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Council Chambers
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
October 24, 2006
7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.
6:15 p.m. - Executive Session - Legal Advice Regarding Potential
Litigation
6:45 p.m. - Meeting with Planning Board Candidates
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute
1.Approval of Agenda
2.Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B.AM-645 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 17, 2006.
C.AM-652 Approval of claim checks #91579 through #91748 for October
19, 2006 in the amount of $281,784.16. Approval of payroll
direct deposits and checks #43961 through #44006 in the
amount of $745,401.66 for the period of October 1 through
October 15, 2006.
D.AM-648 Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Kerilee Bennett
($531.24), and Mark Voth ($145.94).
E.AM-656 Community Services Quarterly Report – October 2006.
F.AM-646 Authorization to advertise for statements of qualification from
engineering consultants for design of the Puget Drive/9th
Avenue North/Caspers Street Walkway project.
G.AM-649 Confirmation of Planning Board candidates John Reed and
Michael Bowman.
Packet Page 1 of 174
H.AM-650 Proclamation in honor of Friends of the Edmonds Library Week,
October 22 - 24, 2006.
I.AM-658 Proposed Resolution in support of a four-year university in the
Snohomish/Island/Skagit County Service Area.
3.AM-647
(10
Min)
Public Defender Annual Report
4.AM-653
(10
Min)
Prosecutor Annual Report
5.AM-654
(20
Min)
Presentation by Transportation Choices Coalition regarding the
Transportation 101 Program.
6.AM-651
(60
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.
7.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)
8.AM-657
(20
Min)
2007-08 Budget Deliberations
9.(5 Min)Mayor's Comments
10.(15
Min)
Individual Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
11.Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 174
AM-645 2.B.
Approval of Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/24/2006
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 October 17, 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 10/19/2006 10:38 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/19/2006 10:45 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 10:46 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 10/16/2006 11:17 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/19/2006
Packet Page 3 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
October 17, 2006
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Deanna Dawson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, 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 OCTOBER 3, 2006.
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #91183 AND #91189 THROUGH #91425 FOR
OCTOBER 5, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $761,443.14. APPROVAL OF CLAIM
CHECKS #91426 THROUGH #91578 FOR OCTOBER 12, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$168,084.49. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $761,825.84 FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 16 THROUGH
SEPTEMBER 30, 2006.
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM WILLIAM J. AND
LINDA A. CHASE ($295.00).
(E) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN CHANGE ORDER #3 WITH HARBOR
PACIFIC CONTRACTORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,081 FOR THE SCREENINGS
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE TREATMENT PLANT.
Packet Page 4 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 2
(F) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF MAKE A DIFFERENCE DAY, SATURDAY,
OCTOBER 28, 2006.
(G) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES MURPHY AUCTIONEERS TO
SURPLUS SEIZED AND FORFEITURE CITY VEHICLES.
3. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
Hearing Examiner Ron McConnell reported he had been Edmonds’ Hearing Examiner for the past 12
years and had made a decision to step down and take more time for retirement. He expressed his
willingness to stay until the City had selected a new Hearing Examiner. He voiced his pleasure for the
opportunity to work with the Mayor, Council, staff and citizens of Edmonds, commenting he was the
Hearing Examiner for a number of cities and Edmonds was one of his favorites.
Responding to Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. McConnell noted the changes that would be made in the
upcoming code rewrite such as providing tables and matrixes would make the code more user friendly.
He suggested allowing administrative decisions on some issues such as simple variances, noting often in
those hearings the only ones present were the applicant, staff and himself. He recommended continuing
to post public notice on such applications and including a provision for a hearing if a number of citizens
wanted to have a hearing.
Council President Dawson thanked Mr. McConnell for his years of service to Edmonds.
Mayor Haakenson commented the Hearing Examiner’s decisions were only as good as the code and
expressed his appreciation to Mr. McConnell for his perseverance during the past 12 years,
acknowledging at times portions of the code were in conflict. Mayor Haakenson advised approximately a
month ago he had requested that a RFP be issued for a Hearing Examiner; Mr. McConnell was welcome
to apply but had chosen to retire. He advised the Council would be participating in the interviews.
4. TRANSMITTAL OF 2007-08 BUDGET: MAYOR'S BUDGET ADDRESS
Mayor Haakenson provided the following budget address:
For a number of years we have worked very hard on increasing the planning horizon for Edmonds’
finances and programs. This year’s budget marks a milestone for us in that it is the first biennial, or two
year budget, that the City has prepared.
We made the change from an annual to a multi-year budget for a number of reasons, but chief among
them was my belief that we need to be fully aware of the down stream impacts that decisions we make
today have on our operations and fiscal condition in the future. As I have noted for the past few years, our
fiscal outlook is not terribly optimistic.
With some relatively minor fee adjustments we will be able to work our way through 2007 with our
current programs relatively in tact. However, as I will discuss in greater detail shortly, we will need voter
support of an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) levy to retain our existing levels of public safety and
other programs and to balance our 2008 budget.
A year ago I described the current year’s budget as a good news, bad news budget. This is a similar
budget. The good news is that City’s financial position for 2007 is stable, and will not require staffing or
program reductions. By carefully looking at our capital resources, we have been able to drop our street
overlay cycle from 75 years to approximately 30.
The bad news is that demands for public safety, transportation, and facilities maintenance continue to
outstrip our ability to keep up with needs and requests for service. Recall that our present workforce
remains at the level it was in 2000. The revenue reductions that State legislative initiatives have imposed
Packet Page 5 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 3
on cities like Edmonds has quite simply created a situation where our costs and demands for services
continue to outstrip our revenues.
As an example, during the last five years Police calls for service have grown over 51.6%, reports taken
increased 14.5%, burglaries are up 129%, and robberies have increased 275%.
Budget Overview
With the exception of transportation services, the 2007-08 budget is essentially a status quo financial
plan. The proposed 2007 budget totals $70.5 million, excluding fund balances. While our major operating
entities, the General and Utility Funds are projected to increase by $2.5 million, decreases in several
capital funds, including Street Construction ($702,000), Multimodal Transportation ($625,000), and
Building Maintenance ($1.1 million) off-set increases elsewhere in the budget. The 2008 spending plan
totals $65.9 million, which represents a 6.5% decrease from 2007.
Moving on to the General Fund, the source of dollars for City programs such as public safety, parks, and
development services, the proposed 2007 budget, excluding fund balance, totals $31.9 million: a 4.8%
change from 2006. Looking forward to 2008, the General Fund expenditure budget is projected to grow
4.0%, to a total of $ 33.2 million.
Taxes & Fees
The proposed budget does not call for any new taxes or fees. In order to balance the budget and avoid
program reductions, I am recommending three fee and tax increases for 2007, and a voter approved EMS
property tax levy lid increase effective for 2008.
The three 2007 increases are: 1.) Collection of the statutory 1% increase in general property taxes, which
brings in $84,600 in additional revenue; 2.) Collection of “banked capacity,” remaining from years in
which the City collected property taxes below our entitlement (1.64% $138,000) and was approved
already by the Council in the 2006 budget when they split that capacity into a two year collection period;
and 3.) An increase from the average 5.75% utility tax to the 6% statutory maximum.
For 2008 I am recommending the Council submit a voter approved EMS levy lid lift to voters. This
proposition would raise approximately $1.2 million for the 2008 budget, and its passage is a necessity if
we are to retain the levels of emergency response currently available to our residents and businesses. I
have held off placing this ballot issue before voters for the past two years because we could balance our
books in other ways. We will not be able to do this in 2008. I will be working with the Council in the
coming months to establish a firm election date, but at this juncture I am favoring a May, 2007 date.
Staff has just completed an annual review of our utility rates. For the 2007-08 time frame I am
recommending that our sanitary sewer and storm rates remain at current levels, and that water rates be
increased 3% in 2007, and 3% in 2008. The water rate increases are well below inflation levels, and will
help us replace our aging infrastructure.
Program Changes & Initiatives
The proposed budget contains no increase in staffing levels for 2007 or 2008. I am recommending that a
police sergeant who had previously been funded as part of a regional narcotics team be absorbed into the
police budget. The most significant one-time cost additions include: Police firearms replacement
($35,000), replacement of Fire Unit #481 ($35,000), replacement of the Lifepak 12 Defibrillator/Monitor
($29,000), and replacement of a large format copier ($19,700).
A complete list of 2007-2008 decision packages included in the budget may be found in the budget
summary. It is instructive to take a look at what this budget does not fund: additional staffing for our
Permitting, Engineering, Facilities, Street and Police Departments. I have not been able to provide
funding for the Highway 99 action plan, nor provide the full overtime requests for our Fire and Police.
Packet Page 6 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 4
While there are no major program initiatives scheduled for 2007 or 2008, I have asked staff to begin
working on two tasks. First, the City has completed a major up-grade of its systems for billing and paying
for services. I have requested that, by mid-year 2007, staff present me with a proposal for discounting
utility bills for customers who choose to be billed, and pay, electronically. It makes sense that as we
reduce our cost of doing business these savings are passed along to our residents and businesses.
Second, if Council approves the budget proposals contained in this document, and voters approve an EMS
levy effective in 2008, we will have survived another two years of difficult budgeting. In the 2009-2010
biennium, however, the budget wolves are right back at our door. I am requesting that, in 2007, my
management team and their staffs perform a rigorous review of our business practices, and identify
specific ways in which our General Fund expenditures can be reduced by $500,000 annually by 2009. The
most favorable time to closely examine how we do business is not when we are faced with immediate
budget cuts, but in an orderly, thoughtful fashion before we are in a crisis situation.
Closing Comments
I would like to thank Councilmembers Dawson and Wambolt for taking the time to participate as
members of our budget review committee. Their questions and comments have been excellent, and many
have been incorporated into the preliminary budget. My staff and I look forward to working with the
Council over the next few weeks, and responding to any budget related question that may arise from you
or interested citizens.
City Clerk Sandy Chase distributed budget books to the Council.
Councilmember Plunkett advised merchants on 5th and on Main Street were looking for $75,000 for
lighting. Mayor Haakenson advised that was not included in the budget. Councilmember Plunkett asked
whether the Historic Preservation Commission’s request for $2,000 was in the budget. Mayor Haakenson
replied it was not.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the removal/replanting of trees on Main that were causing
damage was in the budget. Mayor Haakenson responded he believed that was in the budget, commenting
that was an ongoing program. Councilmember Plunkett recalled when he joined the Council, Public
Safety comprised approximately 48-49% of the budget; it now comprised approximately 60%. He
inquired if the increase was due to program changes such as paramedics, two-in/two out, or the use of
battalion chiefs. Mayor Haakenson responded labor contracts were the biggest contributor to the increase.
Councilmember Moore referred to the inclusion of sales tax sourcing in the 2008 budget. Mayor
Haakenson relayed Administrative Services Director Dan Clements’ assurance the legislature would pass
the bill this year. If sales tax sourcing did not pass, that revenue source would need to be revised.
Council President Dawson advised a budget work session was scheduled at the October 24 meeting, a
public hearing on November 6 and another public hearing and possible adoption of the budget on
November 21. In the past the Council had held weekend budget sessions which could be done if the
Council found that necessary. She noted the Council could also schedule an additional budget session on
November 14 if necessary.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL ON A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FOR JENNIFER MANTOOTH,
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 97TH AVENUE WEST AND 231ST PLACE SOUTHWEST.
(FILE NO. CDC-05-3 AND R-06-67)
Mayor Haakenson advised this was a Comprehensive Plan amendment which was legislative. If the
Council approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment, a hearing on the rezone would follow which was
quasi judicial. City Attorney Scott Snyder clarified unless the Comprehensive Plan amendment was
approved, the Council could not approve the rezone.
Packet Page 7 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 5
Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained this request had been before the Council previously. The request
was a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone for properties located at approximately 97th Avenue
West and 231st Place Southwest. He advised the Comprehensive Plan amendment was a map amendment
to change this block of seven properties from a single family designation to a multi family medium
density designation.
Mr. Bullock displayed Comprehensive Plan maps, identifying current development on the property and
the potential increase in density if the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone were approved. He
displayed a map identifying where the properties gained access, explaining the two northern properties
gained access from a driveway onto 97th, the next three properties shared a joint driveway accessing onto
97th, one property accessed directly on 97th and the property in the southeast corner accessed onto 231st.
He referred to three letters that were provided to the Council with regard to this item.
Mr. Bullock explained the Planning Board held a hearing, took testimony and deliberated as documented
in the Planning Board minutes contained in the packet. The Planning Board voted to unanimously deny
the Comprehensive Plan amendment, finding it did not comply with the criteria for approving a
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out there was a gap between 2003 and 2006 and again following the
Planning Board’s decision in June 2006. Mr. Bullock responded a separate Comprehensive Plan
amendment application was submitted in 2002-2003. That application went through a similar Planning
Board and City Council process and was denied. The applicant modified her proposal and submitted it
again. He explained the City had a December 31 deadline for submitting Comprehensive Plan
amendments. Comprehensive Plan amendments were not subject to the regulatory reform timeline of 120
days; it was a legislative item and was considered with other Comprehensive Plan amendments via an
annual process.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the potential for this amendment to increase the number of dwelling
units from 12 to 36. Mr. Bullock clarified the total of 36 units considered the potential of each individual
lot. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the density on one individual lot could not be increased to 36;
that amount was only if the density were maximized on every lot.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the southeast lot contained a duplex. He asked how many units
would be allowed on that lot if the Comprehensive Plan amendment were approved. Mr. Bullock replied
if the lot were rezoned to RM 3, three units would be allowed; a rezone to RM 2.4 would allow four units.
The applicant has requested RM 2.4 zoning.
Councilmember Marin asked what was different about this application and how were they proposing to
overcome the obstacles the Council identified previously. Mr. Bullock suggested that question be posed
to the applicant. He recalled the applicant previously proposed RM 3 zoning.
Councilmember Orvis recalled the last application included the area on the map identified as the
triangular area. Mr. Bullock advised a Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved for that area,
changing the Comprehensive Plan designation for the lot on Edmonds Way to Edmonds Way Corridor
designation and rezoning to RM 1.5.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the square footage of the lots along 231st. Mr. Bullock advised they were
in the RS-8 zone; the lots ranged in size but are all less than 16,000 square feet and none of the lots were
large enough to subdivide.
Council President Dawson noted the Comprehensive Plan was amended to reflect RM 1.5 on the
triangular property; this request was for RM 2.4. Bullock clarified there were two separate requests, first
Packet Page 8 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 6
the Comprehensive Plan amendment followed by a rezone. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the
triangular property was changed from single family to Edmonds Way Corridor which allowed a range of
zoning including RM 1.5. The current request is to change the Comprehensive Plan designation of the
identified properties to multi family medium density designation which equates to RM 3 or RM 2.5
zoning. The Council first needed to make a decision with regard to the Comprehensive Plan designation
which if approved would lead to the rezone discussion. Council President Dawson asked what
Comprehensive Plan designation equated to RM 1.5 zoning. Mr. Bullock answered multi family high
density as well as Edmonds Way Corridor. A Comprehensive Plan designation of residential high density
equated to RM 2.4 or RM 1.5.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Council approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment, did the
Council have the option to rezone the southeast lot to RM 3 or RM 2.4. Mr. Bullock stated the
applicant’s request was to rezone to RM 2.4; it was a legislative matter and the Council had the option to
approve alternate zoning. Mr. Snyder pointed out the rezone was a quasi judicial decision. The Council
could take the action contained in the record and advertised; the Council could not take an action outside
the advertised options. Mr. Bullock acknowledged the Council could not rezone to a higher density but
could approve a rezone to a lower density.
Councilmember Plunkett asked, if in the future all the lots were purchased, could the City stipulate that
the entrance to 231st be eliminated. Mr. Snyder answered not as part of this process; access could be
conditioned via a contract rezone. He summarized the Council could not impose additional zoning
requirements as part of the rezone.
Councilmember Wambolt asked why the application was denied previously. Mr. Bullock answered the
Planning Board and Council found the Comprehensive Plan amendment request was not consistent with
the criteria for an amendment. Once the Comprehensive Plan amendment was denied, the rezone was
moot. Councilmember Wambolt noted the current request was to a higher density. Mr. Bullock clarified
the Comprehensive Plan amendment request was the same; the zoning density was higher.
Councilmember Orvis summarized the Council’s options, 1) deny the Comprehensive Plan amendment or
2) approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment and then proceed with the rezone process and accept or
deny the proposed rezone. Mr. Snyder clarified the first decision was legislative and at the Council’s
discretion; the second decision must be based on the record and the rezone criteria.
Applicant
John Bissell, Higa Burkholder Associates, distributed letters from the first application that were
supportive of the first application. He then reviewed the Comprehensive Plan change criteria, advising he
would describe how the proposed amendment was in the best interest of the public safety, health and
welfare, worked for the neighborhood and was appropriate for the type of use proposed. He displayed an
aerial photograph identifying the residential neighborhood to the east of the site that was most likely to be
impacted and that had voiced the most opposition at the Planning Board.
Using the City’s Lidar information, topographical contours were added to the aerial map and their
engineer drew a line identifying the top of the slope. He pointed out the houses in the cul-de-sac were
above the top of the slope. He explained Edmonds Way was in a canyon, identifying the property on the
edge of the slope of the canyon. He displayed a plat map illustrating the line identifying the top of the
slope through these and surrounding properties. He summarized to the north and east of these properties,
the top of the slope line migrates to the RM zone where a Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved
earlier and where multi family development occurred prior to annexation.
Packet Page 9 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 7
He pointed out the Comprehensive Plan designation below the steep slope was Edmonds Way Corridor
with the exception of this property. Properties across Edmonds Way to the north were also designated as
Edmonds Way Corridor to the top of the slope last year via a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The
Edmonds Way Corridor designation was intended to provide a buffer between high traffic levels on
Edmonds Way and single family on the plateaus surrounding Edmonds Way with the sides of the canyon
buffering the single family from high level traffic along Edmonds Way.
Mr. Bissell displayed a comparison of Hwy. 99 and Edmonds Way, pointing out buffering along Hwy. 99
and Edmonds Way except for the subject property, which he noted was contrary to the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan throughout the rest of the City. He recalled when displaying the comparison
between Hwy. 99 and Edmonds Way at the Planning Board hearing, Mr. Bullock countered there was
more commercial use on Hwy. 99. He agreed, pointing out buffering on Edmonds Way was provided via
the steep slopes, the topography on Hwy. 99 was flat. He asserted they were similar, comparing traffic
volumes – 34,000 average daily trips on Hwy. 99 between SR 104 and 196th and 21,000 average daily
trips on Edmonds Way at 95th Place. He summarized 21,000 average daily trips represented high traffic
volumes that were not appropriate for single family development. He identified traffic volumes on local
access, collector, and arterial streets.
Mr. Bissell explained staff recommended denial due to increased traffic from increased density and
impact on inadequate roads. He pointed out one single family residence or duplex generated
approximately 10 average daily trips, one apartment generated approximately 6.2 average daily trips, and
5.86 average daily trips for a condominium. He summarized the likelihood of increased trips was not
great. The total current average daily trips was 124 from these properties, compared to 164 – 188 with
apartments or condominiums if the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning were changed. He
summarized the average daily trips would not increase substantially.
Mr. Bissell pointed out this site had not been developed as RS-8 although it was zoned RS-8; several of
the sites have duplexes that were constructed in Snohomish County and annexed into Edmonds as legal
nonconforming. Retaining the RS-8 zoning and single family Comprehensive Plan designation
perpetuates the nonconforming condition. The nonconforming condition was not supported by the
topography, location, proximity to high intensity traffic or the marketplace. He recommended the
application be approved as the Comprehensive Plan and zoning principles support it, traffic impacts
would be minimal and the current development already supports RM 3. He concluded the application
complied with the criteria and should be approved.
Councilmember Moore inquired about access from the property. Mr. Bissell explained one property
accessed from 231st, the remainder from 97th. It was not possible to guarantee that as properties
redeveloped the same access would be retained. He acknowledged access was the neighborhood’s
primary concern. It was conceivable that redevelopment could access from 97th but that was unknown.
Councilmember Moore asked how many dwelling units existed on the lot in the southeast corner and how
many would be allowed if the Comprehensive Plan and zoning were changed. Mr. Bissell answered there
were currently two and four would be allowed.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the southeast lot could have another family accessing from 231st.
He asked whether Lot 7 could have an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Bissell answered any of the single
family lots on that street could have an accessory dwelling unit.
Councilmember Wambolt asked if there was a traffic signal at 97th and SR 104. Mr. Bissell responded no.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing. He advised the Council received three letters, one from
Mary McCloskey and Tim Doyle who recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, a
Packet Page 10 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 8
letter from Tom and Lin Hillman recommending approval and a letter from the Lindstrom Family
recommending denial.
Jacqueline Barnes, Edmonds, advised her property was Lot 1 on 231st. She asserted Ms. Mantooth’s
property did not belong to the multi family properties but rather to the single family properties. The multi
family buffer was the properties that abut the rear of Ms. Mantooth’s property. She explained every
property on 231st had one residence with the exception of Ms. Mantooth’s property which contained a
duplex and a detached garage accessory dwelling unit that was built illegally and that Ms. Mantooth was
trying to have rezoned so that she could legally rent it. She objected to a multi family zoned property in
the middle of their cul-de-sac. She commented on problems with Ms. Mantooth’s tenants and multiple
vehicles, concluding that allowing increased density would be detrimental to their neighborhood.
Tim Doyle, Edmonds, advised his property was Lot 7 on 231st. He suggested the Council look at the line
Mr. Bissell depicted, pointing out Ms. Mantooth’s property was at the same level on the street as his
property, and there was no drop-off. He urged the Council to uphold the Planning Board’s decision.
Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, suggested the Council, either with staff’s assistance or on their own,
review the background and history of the previous application. He was disappointed the Council did not
review the information provided three years ago.
Lin Hillman, Edmonds, commented the proposed amendment appeared to meet the criteria for buffering
between very high density, RM 1.5, and single family and that a buffer was an appropriate use for this
property. She recalled at the Planning Board hearing, there was a great deal of negativity that could be
classified as character assassination rather than based on zoning criteria. She noted there were people in
favor of zoning changes, particularly with the GMA requirements to accommodate increased density. She
pointed out people living in multi family housing were not “hooligans,” many people choose to live in
multi family housing and should not be discriminated against. She urged Council to approve the
proposed amendment.
Jennifer Mantooth, Edmonds, explained last year a Comprehensive Plan amendment changed the
designation of the properties on Edmonds Way from single family to Edmonds Way Corridor and rezoned
those properties from single family to RM 1.5. That designation and zoning was not in place when she
submitted her first application. She requested RM 2.4 zoning as it was the highest density under that
Comprehensive Plan designation and RM 2.4 zoning would maximize the opportunity for the seven
properties in this area. She pointed out the size of the units were restricted by parking. For example if
her property which currently has a duplex and garage guesthouse were rezoned from single family, she
would be allowed to add two 1-bedroom units. She noted most of the properties could not add a 2-
bedroom unit due to lack of parking.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bullock referred to Findings of Fact and Conclusions contained in a memorandum from the Planning
Board to the City Council in 2003 regarding the first application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment
that documented the reasons the Planning Board recommended denial. He pointed out the steep grade on
97th, recalling one of the Planning Board’s reasons for recommending denial previously was their
discomfort with approving a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation and subsequent change in the
zoning which would potentially allow additional units on a street as steep as 97th.
Mr. Bullock pointed out the duplexes located in this area were developed in Snohomish County prior to
annexation. Snohomish County has a provision that allows a lot 1½ times the size of the minimum
required lot size to have a duplex constructed on the property. Those properties were annexed to the City
Packet Page 11 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 9
as legal single family with comparable zoning. In regard to Mr. Bissell’s assertion that no development
had occurred in that area, Mr. Bullock commented all the properties were developed and maintained and
the zoning code would not allow additional units.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO
DENY THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.
Councilmember Marin explained he was uncomfortable approving a change whereby the lot on the
southeast corner would encroach into the neighborhood, finding it would change the character of the
neighborhood. He recalled the Hwy. 99 Task Force was sensitive to providing a buffer between the
commercial and high density zones on the highway and the adjacent residential neighborhood. He
pointed out the need to be sensitive to the demarcation between those zones and found this demarcation
clumsy as the southeast corner would encroach on the single family neighborhood.
Council President Dawson commented it may have been a closer call if the proposed amendment did not
include the southeast corner lot that accessed from 231st. She found the proposed designation inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. She pointed out as developed, these properties provided a buffer.
Although a greater level of density may not be detrimental to some of the lots, it was not advisable for all
the lots in the proposed area.
Councilmember Orvis recalled when the Council reviewed this previously he voted against denial and
would do so again. He supported the proposed change, commenting this area was essentially multi family
adjacent to an area that was zoned multi family.
Councilmember Plunkett appreciated the sentiment of the neighborhood, commenting on recent changes
that had occurred in his neighborhood. He explained the proposal would allow the property on the
southeast corner which accessed from 231st to increase by one dwelling unit which he did not find would
create a situation that failed to meet the Comprehensive Plan criteria. He pointed out GMA required the
City to accept more population and additional density and to create more modest income housing. He did
not find any argument by the maker of the motion that the proposal did not meet the test. He concluded
many of the issues of concern could be addressed in another phase.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed it was clearly a single family residential neighborhood. Although only
one more unit would be allowed on the lot on the southeast corner, it would make a difference to that
neighborhood. He agreed rental units generated more traffic. He pointed out access from 97th onto SR
104 was not very safe. He would support the Planning Board’s recommendation to deny the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Councilmember Olson commented it may be different if the proposal was for only the lower houses of
that area, but changing the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property on the southeast corner
would change the neighborhood. She agreed 97th was a very dangerous street and was not appropriate for
a great deal of traffic, particularly in poor weather. She planned to support the motion.
Councilmember Moore advised she would vote against the motion. Although she agreed with Council
President Dawson that there was one property that was questionable, she agreed with Councilmember
Plunkett regarding the standards of the Comprehensive Plan and bringing nonconforming uses into
conformance. She pointed out the Planning Board found that this would not be detrimental to the public’s
health, safety or welfare. She noted traffic impacts would not be significant, it represented an appropriate
land use and could provide affordable housing via additional rental units. She noted many of the rental
units were disappearing and there were good people who needed/wanted rental housing.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, MARIN AND OLSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS
ORVIS, MOORE AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
Packet Page 12 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 10
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
DENY THE REZONE BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT WAS NOT APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.77,
MPOR ZONE
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board recommended changes to the existing
MPOR zone. He noted there was currently a moratorium on development in the MPOR zone as it was
felt during the Council’s review of the zone that the standards were vague. The Planning Board was
asked to consider the standards. The Planning Board’s initial intent was to have the MPOR zone apply to
areas of the City in addition to Sunset south of Bell that had a similar need for a transitional zone. During
the Planning Board consideration, the property owners and neighbors met and developed a proposal for
the Sunset properties only. Their proposal was presented to the Planning Board with a recommendation
for approval from staff. Given the difficulties the Planning Board was experiencing developing a zone
that would apply to multiple areas of the City, it agreed this was the best proposal.
He explained the proposed amendment removed much of the vagueness and instituted specific rules that
limited the height to the standard calculation and required 15 foot setbacks from the street and 5 foot side
setbacks in an attempt to strike a balance between what could be built on the property and compatibility
with the neighborhood. The amendment would allow some office as well as residential development and
required parking but also provided some flexibility.
Council President Dawson commented this appeared to be an excellent idea that had been worked out
among the neighbors. She suggested changing the name from MPOR to Office/Residential (OR) as it no
longer required a master plan. Mr. Chave agreed, advising all the provisions requiring a master plan were
removed from the ordinance.
Councilmember Moore expressed her appreciation to Mr. Chave for this compromise. Mr. Chave
answered the neighbors and property owners deserved the credit.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He noted the Council
received four emails in support of the amendment from Gail Olson, Eric Sonett, Alan Young and Shaun
Drew.
Martha Braun, Edmonds, urged the Council to approve the updated language for the MPOR zone and
remove the moratorium currently in place on the properties subject to the MPOR zoning.
Eric Sonett, Edmonds, thanked everyone involved. He commented it was a pleasure to be at the Council
meeting in a non-adversarial role.
Harold Huston, Edmonds, recommended revising the language so that the east and west side of the
street on Sunset south of Bell Street both were zoned MPOR. He found it appropriate for properties on
both the east and west sides of the street to have the same zoning.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, supported the proposal developed by the property owners and neighbors. He
suggested removing the MPOR zone from the code and determining an alternate designation insofar as
the Planning Board was unable to identify any other suitable locations for the zone in the City.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Packet Page 13 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 11
In response to Mr. Huston’s comment, Mr. Chave explained the proposed zoning was intended to
implement the Comprehensive Plan which targeted a specific area on Sunset for zoning of this type. Mr.
Huston’s suggestion would require a change to the Comprehensive Plan designation for the east side of
Sunset in order to change the zoning in that area. He agreed the Council should remove the moratorium
and suggested staff initiate an administrative rezone of the property to the new OR zone.
Councilmember Wambolt questioned the use of “transition” in the language, commenting there were
other areas in the city where residential and commercial uses abut and there was no transition language.
He agreed with the proposal but suggested reference to “transition” be eliminated. Mr. Chave explained
the genesis of this zone was recognizing there were significant topographical issues and that some
flexibility in use was appropriate but not the traditional commercial uses that would intrude into the
residential area. He concluded the zone was a transition in that there was a reduction in the intensity of
commercial uses and it maintained setbacks and height limits compatible with single family.
Council President Dawson commented the property next to Rory’s was zoned BC, however, it was
developed residential. She suggested that property could provide a transition and the uses allowed by the
OR zoning may be appropriate for that property. Mr. Chave pointed out next week the Council would be
discussing downtown zoning; the current plan included that property in the downtown commercial area.
To do what Council President Dawson suggested would require a change in the Comprehensive Plan
designation. He suggested the Council could refer that to the Planning Board for consideration for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment next year.
Council President Dawson agreed with Mr. Hertrich’s comment, suggesting the name of the zone be
changed to Sunset Avenue Office Residential Zone. Mr. Chave commented the purposes were so specific
it was unlikely it would apply elsewhere in the City.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED LANGUAGE FOR THE OR ZONE AND DIRECT THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION AND DIRECT THE
CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE APPROPRAITE COUNCIL ACTION TO LIFT THE MPOR
ZONING MORATORIUM TO CONINCIDE WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE OR CODE
AMENDMENT.
Councilmember Moore thanked the neighboring land owners for doing the difficult and sophisticated
work to reach this agreement and hoped they appreciated staff’s professionalism.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
REFER TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
PROCESS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO RORY’S TAVERN FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN
APPOPRIATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FOR THAT PROPERTY.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
7. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF AN APPEAL BY ELISABETH LARMAN ON THE
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD APPROVAL OF THE REFURBISHMENT OF OLD
MILLTOWN, LOCATED AT 201 5TH AVENUE SOUTH. (FILE NO. APL-20060003 AND PLN-
20060094)
Mayor Haakenson advised a petition was received regarding the above referenced Closed Record Review
that was not part of the record and therefore could not be considered by the Council. The petition would
be distributed to the Council following the conclusion of the matter.
Packet Page 14 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 12
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained following Regulatory Reform, cities were limited in land use
reviews to two hearings – one on the record and one closed record hearing. In this case the open record
hearing was held before the Architectural Design Board (ADB) and the Council would conduct a Closed
Record Review. The Closed Record Review was limited to the appellant and parties of record who spoke
at the ADB. All argument must be based on the ADB record and no new information can be provided.
Mayor Haakenson advised the four parties of record are Bob Gregg, Ralph Allen, Betty Larman and
Roger Hertrich.
In accordance with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, Mayor Haakenson asked Councilmembers if
they had had any conflicts or exparte communication to disclose.
Councilmember Orvis advised Councilmember Wambolt, Councilmember Plunkett and he attended an
ACE meeting last Thursday. The discussion of Old Milltown was on the agenda but was moved to the
end of the agenda to allow the Councilmembers to leave the meeting before the discussion occurred.
Councilmember Plunkett advised he attended the ACE meeting but left before Old Milltown was
discussed. He advised when there was some uncertainty regarding whether this would become a quasi
judicial matter, Ms. Larman emailed him a question and he replied that the matter had just become quasi
judicial and he could no longer discuss it, indicating although it was quasi judicial, the issue would be
whether the applicant met the existing design guidelines. They had no further communication.
Councilmember Wambolt advised he attended an ADB meeting where this issue arose. On the advice of
Mr. Snyder he did not speak with anyone in attendance.
Council President Dawson explained when it was unknown whether this would come before the Council,
a number of people expressed concern about the building to her. Last night she attended an event where a
gentleman relayed a question from a friend that the building would have two additional stories added.
She advised him it would not but said she was unable to discuss it further because it was on tonight’s
agenda. She summarized there had been some general “chatter” expressing concern with the
refurbishment of Old Milltown but she did not recall any specifics.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether the four Councilmembers felt they had the ability to hear this matter in
a fair and impartial manner. Council President Dawson and Councilmembers Wambolt, Orvis and
Plunkett indicated they did. Mayor Haakenson asked if there were any challenges from the parties of
record to the participation of these four Councilmembers.
Roger Hertrich advised he did not challenge the participation of the four Councilmembers but
questioned the relationship between Councilmember Moore and Mr. Gregg and invited her to explain.
Councilmember Moore responded she could handle the matter in a fair and impartial manner. Mr. Snyder
asked Councilmember Moore whether she had any existing financial relationship with Mr. Gregg.
Councilmember Moore answered she did not. Mr. Snyder asked whether she had any financial interest in
this project. Councilmember Moore responded no.
Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers were approved to participate in the Closed Record
Review. He established the time limits: 20 minutes for Ms. Larman with the opportunity to save time for
rebuttal, the applicant (Mr. Gregg and Mr. Allen) would share 20 minutes, and 3 minutes for Mr.
Hertrich. He noted the burden of proof was on the appellant, thus the reason she was allowed rebuttal.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there had been adequate public hearing on the measurement of
the 4,000 square feet. Mr. Snyder suggested that be addressed at the conclusion of the presentations to
Packet Page 15 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 13
enable him to cite the record. He cautioned about an appearance of unfairness if in questioning or
comments a Councilmember appeared to have prejudged an issue.
Senior Planner Steve Bullock advised on September 6 the ADB held a public hearing in regard to the
refurbishment of the Old Milltown. Notice of the public hearing via advertising the ADB’s agenda was
provided the same as any project that did not require SEPA review. He noted if a project required SEPA
review, there were additional noticing requirements such as posting the site and mailed notice to adjacent
property owners. In either case, the project must adhere to the same criteria and a public hearing must be
held before the ADB. After hearing testimony from the public and applicant at their September 6 hearing,
the ADB found the proposed refurbishment consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Community
Development Code Chapter 10.20 and also the Comprehensive Plan. He referred to pages 10 and 11 of
the packet, the portion of the ADB minutes that contained their motion for approval which was approved
with a 4-1 vote. He reiterated the appellant had the burden of proof to show the applicant did not comply
with the criteria.
Councilmember Wambolt inquired about possible action the Council could take – affirm or overturn the
ADB’s decision or remand to the Planning Board. Mr. Bullock explained if the Council felt the ADB did
not address elements of the approval criteria, it could be remanded with the request that certain items be
addressed. He commented a remand could result in a reaffirmation of the Planning Board’s original
decision with findings to support those criteria or overturning their original decision.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to page 32 of the packet that stated the design of new or renovated
buildings in the downtown area should be sensitive to the presence of historic buildings. He asked
whether the code contained a definition of historic and whether it referred to historically recognized
landmarks or the more common meaning of historic such as character, etc. Mr. Bullock answered this did
not refer specifically to historic registered buildings, only the general nature and character of downtown.
Councilmember Plunkett asked about the definition of “sensitive,” assuming it was the common
definition of “to be affected by.” Mr. Bullock agreed.
Mayor Haakenson reiterated only the four parties of record would be allowed to speak. If the public
wanted to comment, Mr. Snyder clarified any general discussion by members of the public who are not
parties of record should not occur until after the Council adopted written Findings of Fact.
Appellant
Elisabeth Larman asked to retain 5 minutes for rebuttal. City Clerk Sandy Chase distributed a handout to
the Council and Mr. Gregg that was prepared by Ms. Larman . Ms. Chase noted that Mr. Bullock had
reviewed the handout and determined all the information was contained in the record. Ms. Larman
explained she was appealing the Old Milltown renovation and minor expansion plan as it was not
consistent with the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Design Guidelines 20.10.070 criteria and the Urban
Design guidelines as follows:
• Pedestrian Oriented Design – takes away pedestrian gathering places
• Massing – fills every square inch of the space
• Modulation of walls and roof lines – long unaccented walls and roof lines
• Materials for the era – unspecified metals, fiberglass and unspecified tiles instead of brick
• Historic character and respect for its surroundings – no respect for history or neighboring
structures
She enumerated other discrepancies and questions as follows:
• Parking spaces – there is at least one less parking space than required by the guidelines
Packet Page 16 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 14
• Lack of clarity for the planned use of the northwest corner of the building – what will be the use
of that space in that part of the building?
• Partial development of a larger property – only the north portion of the Old Milltown property is
shown in this proposal. Why is the Old Milltown complex allowed to be presented with no
indication of plans for the entire complex?
She displayed a drawing of Old Milltown as it currently exists. She provided the following citations from
Section 4 of the Urban Design Guidelines of the Downtown Activity Center:
• Historic Resources: “building should be sensitive to the presence of historic buildings”
• Downtown Character: “reinforce historic character and pedestrian orientation”
• Shapes and Forms: “buildings should avoid large massive roof and modulation on both street
frontages.”
• Materials: “should complement what is used in the vicinity.”
• Size, height, bulk and massing: “large building masses should be subdivided vertically and/or
horizontally…”
• Streetscape: “Encourage the placement of street furniture and awnings over the public right-of-
way.”
• Rehabilitation and Continuing Use: “Rehab of existing buildings is encouraged.”
With regard to historic resources, she referred to Urban Design Guideline page 23 (1)(2), recalling the
slide in Mr. Allen’s presentation entitled “A Sense of History” that was blank. She recalled he told ADB
members that that information would be filled later and he mentioned adding a bronze plaque at a later
date. She noted the addition of a bronze plaque did not give a building a sense of history, what gave a
building a sense of history was respecting the shapes, size, volume, materials, decorative elements, colors
and styles of a certain period. While she applauded exposing the original concrete beam construction, the
new building, because of its exaggerated linear shape, use of modern materials that were not in existence
in the 1900s and its massive building design did not complement or fit in well with the surrounding older,
smaller structures.
With regard to shapes and forms, she displayed a comparison of the existing and proposed Old Milltown
north, west and south rooflines. She referred to Urban Design Guidelines page 25 (C & D) which state,
“however the building forms are employed; buildings should avoid long unbroken roof and wall lines.
Where buildings are located on corner lots, the shape and form of the building should accent the corner.
Buildings on corner lot must be designed to provide visual interest and modulation on both street
frontages.” She referred to a statement in the ADB staff report, “some elements of the current version of
the building that people identify with are proposed to be removed, the second story bays at the corner of
5th and Dayton, a portion of the building that did not have a second story is proposed to be filled in. The
hip roof that covers a good portion of the building will be removed.” She summarized the developer’s
plan as reported by staff was not contested by either the planning department or the ADB.
With regard to materials, she referred to Urban Design Guidelines page 24, item 2B, pointing out the
developer failed to bring samples of any of the materials and the ADB failed to ask for them. For
example they did not provide samples of the unspecified steel channel cornice, metal awnings over
entrances, fiberglass awnings, tiles, or color scheme and color charts. She displayed several elevation
drawings identifying the location of these materials. She found this extremely unusual in a project’s
architectural presentation. She recalled during rebuttal of her statement regarding the overuse of stucco,
Mr. Gregg stated that he did not like stucco, did not use it himself and there was no stucco on the building
(page 10 of the ADB minutes). She noted there was extensive use of stucco on the building.
With regard to size, height, bulk and massing, Ms. Larman explained on the 5th Avenue side, the space
between the existing 2-story pavilions that are framing the building both at the corner of Dayton and at
Packet Page 17 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 15
the courtyard are going to be filled with a 2,367 square foot addition that would come to within 16 inches
of the façade edge on 5th Avenue. The original streetscape would be replaced with a massive frontage on
both 5th and Dayton. She opined that 16 inches was not enough of a setback for a visual break in the
massing of the 5th Avenue façade. On the Dayton side, the building extended out to the sidewalk,
completely eliminating any modulation or variety. The massing of the new building went against the
guidelines and creates 2-story full size walls on all sides of the building, a fact the ADB did not question.
She referred to the statement on page 2 of the ADB staff report that indicated there was no change in site
organization, explaining an examination of the floor plans revealed the site organization had been
significantly changed since almost all the setbacks and pedestrian gathering spaces have been eliminated
in the new building’s plan. This fact was not questioned by the ADB members.
With regard to rehabilitation and continuing use, Ms. Larman noted in various documents, the project was
referred to as a renovation or refurbishment; however, Mr. Bullock has stated the proposal is to gut the
building entirely and refurbish it (reference draft ADB minutes page 6). Other than the poured concrete
beams, nothing will remain of the original building which she asserted did not represent a refurbishment.
She noted the dictionary definition of refurbishment was “to brighten up.”
She referred to a floor plan for the second floor (slide 7b), identifying a 1500 square foot space and
questioning whether this was added space. The project would be considered a major project and require
three additional parking stalls if that was usable space. She noted the total declared added square footage
was 3,556 square feet. She pointed out the 1500 square foot area was not well enough described in the
cross section plan provided by the developer.
She quoted from the ADB staff report, “However, all new buildings or additions to old buildings will
need to provide 1 parking stall for every 500 square feet of new commercial area over and above what
parking they have on site. In this case, the applicant will have to show as part of their building permit that
they are providing an additional 7 parking stalls over what is already provided on site.” She noted the
submitted floor plans only contained 6 parking stalls. This fact was not questioned by the ADB members.
Ms. Larman summarized she had clearly shown this new building went against many of the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan and Urban Design Guidelines. The building did not conform to the guidelines for
pedestrian oriented design as it takes away pedestrian gathering places (ECP Land Use 1, Site Design
Building Setbacks page 38), massing – it fills every square inch of the space (ECP Land Use, Building
Height, page 40), modulation of walls and roof lines – long monotonous and unaccented walls and
rooflines (ECP page 41), materials for the era – unspecified metals, fiberglass and tiles instead of brick
(ECP page 39 and 42), and historic character and respect for its surroundings – no respect for history nor
neighboring structures (Urban Design Guidelines page 23).
She invited the Council to find the answers to the questions regarding the square footage of added usable
space as well as the missing seventh parking space. She asserted Mr. Gregg appeared to be phasing the
development of Old Milltown and was showing only the north portion of his property in this proposal.
She questioned why Old Milltown would be allowed to be presented as a minor project with indication of
plans for future development.
She asked the City Council to return the plans for Old Milltown to the City planners for correction and
adherence to the guidelines by Mr. Gregg before being presented again to the ADB for their approval.
She asked that the City Council request the City planners ask Mr. Gregg to produce a cross section of the
northeast corner of the building on Dayton that clearly illustrated the use of the building at the façade.
She asked that the ADB request Mr. Gregg produce sample boards of all finishing materials for the
building and the needed color schemes and charts and that they reflect the history and age of the building.
Packet Page 18 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 16
She requested the Council approve this appeal of the ADB Decision – Old Milltown Refurbishment and
send this project back to the ADB, requiring that they apply their own rules to every project equally.
Councilmember Plunkett asked Ms. Larman to identify the pedestrian gathering spaces that were being
eliminated and asked whether there would be less sidewalk space. Ms. Larman referred to drawing 7a, a
floor plan of the first floor, pointing out on Dayton, the building was recessed 8 feet from the sidewalk.
She identified “nooks and crannies” on the Dayton elevation which the applicant’s proposal eliminated
and along 5th Avenue where the building would be a solid wall at the sidewalk.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Ms. Larman’s letter which asserted the project was over 5,000 square
feet. She state it would be over 5,000 square feet if the 1500 square foot area on the second floor was
included. That space was not declared as added space. She recalled Mr. Bullock stated Mr. Gregg
planned to install a façade but that area would be empty space. She found that highly unusual,
questioning the retail space on the first floor having a 2½ story ceiling. Councilmember Plunkett
suggested Mr. Gregg testify whether there would be a second floor in that location. Mr. Snyder cautioned
those assurances could not be made at this level as no new information could be added to the record.
Councilmember Plunkett asked in what way the proposal was not sensitive to the presence of historic
buildings. Ms. Larman answered materials and size of the building in comparison to other buildings in
the area particularly on Dayton. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the building materials did not replicate
the historic character. Ms. Larman commented the proposed building did not fit well with the buildings
in the vicinity.
Applicant
Bob Gregg displayed a picture of the existing Old Milltown and the proposed refurbishment. With
regard to color, he pointed out there was no color pallet in the code that identified permitted colors other
than a statement that garish colors should try to be avoided. The proposed materials replicated the
historic nature of the building better than the current status of the building. He commented Old Milltown
was a 100-year old building that did not meet any of the City’s existing codes or the new Design
Guidelines regarding storefronts along the street. The building was a poured-in-place garage that was
used as an automotive shop, a bus barn and other industrial uses; a 1978 remodel added pseudo-Victorian
elements. He commented the building was just old and weird enough to be charming. He recalled one
ADB member asked why they were not demolishing the building and his response was that few poured-
in-place concrete buildings remained where the imprint of the rough-sawn boards was visible in the
concrete and where the concrete was bowed as a result of the boards bowing.
With regard to the building materials, he pointed out thin, fake brick was added in the late 1970s. He
proposed the use of a natural sandstone material that was used a great deal in the 1900s. He pointed out
the mechanical equipment would be screened and 90% of the building would be what currently exists. He
pointed out this would be a 2-story, 25-foot building. The area on the second floor was as shown on the
drawing – a 2-story atrium. He acknowledged it was not where he would plan to have a 2-story atrium in
a new building but that was the nature of a renovation. With regard to his comment about stucco, he
clarified his response was to a question whether this would be a stucco box. To his knowledge the
building did not have any stucco as they were preserving the existing concrete. However, the new walls
which were less than 10-30% of the linear area would have an application to match the existing concrete
which the architect referred to as stucco.
Ralph Allen displayed a drawing of the building from above, explaining they were infilling the existing
well at the second story level and moving it to within 16 inches of the existing front of the building. He
displayed a drawing of the existing building and the new building, explaining they planned varied
modulation with a lightly arched opening to add variety and relief to the building. The intent was to
Packet Page 19 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 17
retain the emphasis on the corners. He referred to the saddle approach with the building high on the
corners and relief through the middle. He identified an inset deck/exposed veranda that was accessible to
the commercial space on the second floor, commenting that approach was sensitive to the existing
massing of the building. He identified variation in the cap detail treatment and the solid awning over the
corner building elements to further enhance the presence at the corner. The primary retail entry at the
corner was maintained and a new entry developed on 5th. He pointed out a series of translucent awnings
along 5th which the ADB requested be deepened to provide more effective rain cover.
Mr. Allen displayed a view from Dayton, explaining the driving force behind the extension along Dayton
was to get enough setback to provide required parking inside the building. He identified the entry into
Dayton Avenue lobby to reach the second floor, the entry to the garage and the entry to the retail space.
He identified a 5-6 foot recessed space, commenting that restored some of the exterior pedestrian space
on Dayton. He identified the high bay space on Dayton.
He pointed out the existing corner entry on 5th & Dayton was retained along with a major awning. He
identified the translucent awnings and window box planters on 5th that provided pedestrian scale. He also
identified the seven locations for a series of historic plaques that would describe the history of the
building and the region. He displayed a rendering of the view of the corner at 5th & Dayton, explaining
the multi-colored variegated sandstone would be similar to the original concrete material. He noted the
original concrete was cast using sand from the beach.
Mayor Haakenson asked Mr. Allen to identify the 1500 square feet area proposed to be an atrium. Mr.
Allen referred to the drawing of the second story floor plan, identifying the section of floor that would not
be built. The second floor shown in the cross section was cut through the southeast corner of the
property, a high bay sawtooth trussed space. He advised this was where the existing antique mall space
was located and there were stairs down to Starfeathers. That existing 2-story space would be retained.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the alley on the north side of the building, commenting that the section
of the building to the east was currently one story and now would be two stories. He asked what one
story portions would become two stories. Mr. Allen answered the front would still be a single story but
would be a high bay single story. Councilmember Orvis referred to page 28 of the packet, inquiring about
the office lease space on the second floor. Mr. Allen answered that was a different cross section; in that
area there would be floor space.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINTUES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the appellant’s illustration that there was a reduction in the pedestrian
space. He asked if the applicant agreed the pedestrian spaces on Dayton and 5th would be eliminated by
the proposed design. Mr. Allen explained the space on 5th was filled in with retail space and the retail
entry became a display window. He identified spaces on Dayton that were left open, an entry portico into
the entry space. Other than those areas, he agreed there had been a reduction in pedestrian space.
Councilmember Plunkett commented there appeared to be a contradiction between whether the existing
structure was historic. He recalled Mr. Gregg’s comment that it was not historic compared to Mr. Allen’s
comment that this was a great, historic building. Mr. Gregg pointed out the property was not on any
local, state or federal historic registry, therefore, it was not a historic registered landmark. He
acknowledged it was an old building, built in 1910.
With regard to massing and Ms. Larman’s assertion that the proposed design filled in every square inch of
space, Councilmember Plunkett asked what massing criteria must be met. Mr. Gregg answered the
building was in the property-line-to-property line zone. He referred to the criteria in 20.10.070 which he
Packet Page 20 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 18
noted were very subjective. For example, long massive unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be
avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter to allow light and air to occupants of the
development, to provide space for landscaping and recreational facilities. The proposed design was not
unbroken and was not monotonous. He opined the building would be less monotonous than it was now
when the renovation was complete. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether that applied to new
construction as well as renovations. Mr. Snyder commented regardless of whether a project was large or
small, renovated or new, all projects must meet the same criteria.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the question regarding the number of stalls and that the approximately
3600 square feet of new area would require seven parking stalls. He asked where the seventh stall would
be placed. Mr. Gregg was not certain that was an ADB issue, but it could be addressed by either reducing
the square footage, adding a parking space or acquiring additional parking from the church. He advised if
another parking stall was required, it would be provided as the project could not obtain an occupancy
permit until adequate parking was provided.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the rendering of the corner and the criteria to be sensitive to
surrounding historic structures. He acknowledged the entry was sensitive to what existed but the design
guidelines require it be sensitive to the presence of surrounding historic buildings. He asked how the
entry was affected by the outside influences of surrounding historic buildings. Mr. Gregg asked what
surrounding historic structures Councilmember Plunkett was referring to. Councilmember Plunkett
referred to the historic character of buildings from Dayton north toward the fountain. Mr. Gregg asked if
he was referring to the Red Twig or the tavern. Mr. Gregg disagreed he was being asked to be sensitive
to other historic structures, advising the proposed design was sensitive to the Beeson building. He
summarized they complied with the spirit and letter of that requirement.
Mr. Snyder referred to Ms. Larman’s allegation that material samples were not provided. Mr. Gregg
acknowledged neither a color board nor a material board was provided. As they were not part of the
record, they did not provide that information tonight.
Parties of Record
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented this was referred to as a remodel, refurbishment, renovation and
a phased job, pointing out the building was actually being gutted out and only a couple walls/structures
retained, creating a new building inside. He noted the new structures were built strong enough to support
a third floor. He referred to Figure A30, pointing out there were two openings provided on the Dayton
Street side, one for automobiles and another for a service entrance. He suggested that would violate the
parking standards as site design standards require curb cuts to be minimized. He suggested those two
openings be combined into one, eliminating one curb cut.
Mr. Hertrich referred to the drawing that identified the building materials, identifying two doorways, one
for parking and the other for service and an area behind that was closed off. He commented the square
footage in that area increased the project to over 4,000 square feet in addition to the contested northeast
corner. He referred to the drawing of the northeast corner which the applicant assured would be a 2-story
atrium, finding it very unusual to have a 2-story space over the parking and a first floor commercial space.
He noted this was the reason a cross section was requested.
With regard to the applicant’s assertion that the building was expanded to the street to provide parking, he
pointed out the unexcavated area that was part of the north structure could provide additional parking. He
viewed the proposed design as an attempt to keep the project as a minor project to eliminate the need for
an additional three parking spaces. He commented the additional six parking spaces gave Old Milltown a
total of 30 parking spaces; however, most of the spaces were in the south section. He questioned what
Packet Page 21 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 19
guarantee the City had that the parking spaces in the south section would be retained when that section
was renovated. He suggested a development agreement that identified open space, parking, etc.
Mr. Hertrich then played an audio recording of the ADB’s motion, “I’ll make a motion that the design
Board approve ADB2006094 with the following conditions: number 1, number 2 and the awnings along
5th Avenue South should be designed to provide sufficient protection for pedestrians and extend 5-6 feet
over the sidewalk at the architect’s discretion.” The motion was seconded and carried with one member
opposed. Mr. Hertrich noted the motion did not reference the Comprehensive Plan.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Hertrich pointed out the recording of the ADB’s motion did not state
that the Board found the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; however, the motion printed
in the minutes did. He asserted the ADB’s motion was not proper and negated the motion. Mr. Snyder
answered the matter was on appeal to the Council and it was up to the Council to determine whether the
criteria were met. He agreed it was preferable for boards to make a detailed motion that reflected their
findings and conclusions. He explained that could be done by incorporating the staff report by reference
which the ADB’s motion did not appear to do. He advised that could be corrected at this level or the
Council could remand the matter back to the ADB.
Rebuttal
Ms. Larman displayed slide 7b, the second floor drawing, commenting an atrium was usually at the center
of a building, a luxurious feature. She found it difficult to believe there was an atrium over a ramp into
the parking and over a small retail space. She was not convinced by Mr. Gregg’s or Mr. Allen’s
presentations that the proposal met the ADB’s guidelines. She reiterated the proposal eliminated
pedestrian spaces and eliminated human scale and sky by adding mass to a building. She acknowledged
this was not a historic building, and was originally a very ugly box. She commented the design was now
back to a box and although it was not a bad design, it belonged in a strip mall or downtown Bellevue and
did not below in the historic center of Edmonds. She concluded the building could be refurbished to
respect the open spaces, setbacks and open itself to the public. Instead it would be a great big box that
would dominate the entire area. She asked the Council to approve the appeal of the ADB Decision for the
Old Milltown refurbishment for all the reasons she mentioned in her earlier summary.
Council President Dawson asked Ms. Larman to clarify her comment that this was not historic and
whether she was referring to the proposal or the existing building. Ms. Larman answered Old Milltown
was not on the historic register and the Council had not defined a historic district in Edmonds. She
commented it was somewhat the Council’s fault as they had made it unclear. She noted the 1973 Old
Milltown was historic as that was what most people remembered.
In response to Mr. Hertrich’s comments about the ADB’s motion, Mr. Bullock referred to the
recommended motion on page 15 of the packet in the staff report to the ADB. He noted Board Member
Kendall referred to Item 1 and 2; beneath Items 1 and 2 and a third paragraph regarding the awning, there
was a paragraph that addressed the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted City policies. He recalled
Board Member Kendall amended her motion at his prompting to include reference to the Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning code.
Mr. Snyder cautioned the Council not to make findings that could be perceived as “backdooring” historic
preservation requirements when the City’s historic preservation registration was an entirely voluntary
process. The ADB guidelines refer to surrounding structures but there was nothing in the guidelines that
required preservation of a building; the developer could file for a demolition permit at their discretion.
He recommended the Council read this section and the use of historic in conjunction with the historic
preservation provisions.
Councilmember Plunkett asked where in the packet the standards were that related to pedestrian oriented
design. Mr. Bullock stated the pedestrian oriented design was referred to in a number of places. The
Packet Page 22 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 20
ADB’s and staff’s take in reviewing the project was the orientation of the windows and doors to the stores
were to the sidewalk and were designed to encourage interaction between the public sidewalk and the
retail uses in the building which they viewed as pedestrian oriented. Councilmember Plunkett observed
there was not a more definitive standard with regard to pedestrian orientation. Mr. Bullock agreed.
Councilmember Plunkett commented if the Council remanded to the ADB, the project would continue to
be worked on. If the Council rejected the appeal, the applicant could reapply. Mr. Bullock agreed. He
requested if the Council was considering remanding that they identify what issues they wanted addressed.
Mr. Snyder reminded because this was an appeal, the Council was limited to the issues on appeal in a
remand. His understood Ms. Larman was asking the Council to remand to address the issues she raised.
Councilmember Moore asked staff to address the issue of parking spaces. Mr. Bullock pointed out one of
staff’s recommended conditions was that the applicant demonstrate with their building permit how they
would comply with the parking regulations. That condition was adopted as part of the ADB’s motion.
Because the square footage of a building could vary slightly between design approval and building permit
submittal, staff often deferred the final determination on parking for review with the building permit. He
advised the applicant could provide parking via onsite stalls or through lease agreements with other
properties with available parking.
Council President Dawson commented the record indicated Ms. Larman’s testimony before the ADB was
asking the ADB to reject the project. She did not read the appeal as a request for a remand but rather that
the Council find that it did not conform to the guidelines and therefore would need to be changed and
resubmitted to the ADB. Mr. Snyder agreed she raised both issues but recalled Ms. Larman requested a
remand several times during her testimony tonight. Council President Dawson concluded the Council
was not restricted to only a remand; the Council could state they respectfully disagreed with the ADB’s
findings and reverse their decision.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
REJECT THE APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT DID NOT MEET THE BURDEN OF
PROOF.
Councilmember Moore explained the Council could not make a decision based on their own taste, vision
of the City or preferences. She did not find Ms. Larman met the challenge of proving the proposal did not
meet the guidelines. There was no proof the square footage increased the level of the project. With
regard to pedestrian oriented design, she agreed with staff that it was not about the number of square feet
of concrete where one could put their feet, pedestrian orientation was what occurred within the 12-foot
area at the street. She noted this project included a lot of large windows which could be viewed as
pedestrian oriented as well as window boxes. With regard to massing, she acknowledged the proposal
filled every inch of space but that was allowed under the zoning. Modulation of walls and roof lines, she
found the building to be accented in both walls and roof. With regard to materials for the era, she noted
the applicant had preserved and was replicating the main material of the era and taking off the material
that was added in subsequent remodeling.
With regard to the historic character and respect for surroundings and Ms. Larman’s assertion there was
no respect for historic character or respect for neighboring structures, Councilmember Moore commented
by preserving, honoring and replicating the large, historic part of the building, the design showed great
respect for the surroundings. She noted the surrounding buildings included a brown stucco very modern
Windermere building, an empty fenced lot, and the Red Twig Restaurant that had been completed gutted
and was now a very modern, beautiful space.
Councilmember Marin referred to the list of issues in Ms. Larman’s appeal, finding they were all satisfied
by the proposal. He indicated he would support the motion.
Packet Page 23 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 21
Councilmember Wambolt indicated he would not support the motion. He pointed out the ADB record
was not one of their finest efforts; virtually all they discussed was the awnings. Several of the regular
members were absent and the only member of the Board who spoke about anything other than awnings
was Rob Michel, the others only spoke about the awnings. With regard to building materials, the ADB
had no idea what building materials would be used. He referred to Mr. Gregg’s comment that there was
no stucco on the building and although there was evidence that there would be stucco on every side of the
building, none of the Board Members challenged that statement. He preferred to remand to the ADB.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the appellant did not prove that the mysterious 1500 square feet
existed. With regard to sensitivity to historic surroundings, Mr. Gregg’s comments and the rendering of
the building convinced him the proposal was sensitive to historic surroundings. Although he was
impressed by Councilmember Moore’s definition of pedestrian oriented space, he could not ignore that
there was a reduction in pedestrian space. He acknowledged the zone allowed development lot-line-to-lot
line but the issue under consideration was the design guidelines not the development code. The applicant
acknowledged the building did not meet the urban design guidelines, page 25 C & D - buildings should
avoid long unbroken roofs and wall lines. He found the appellant proved the proposal did not meet the
standards with regard to pedestrian oriented space and massing.
Council President Dawson agreed with Councilmember Plunkett’s comments about avoiding unbroken
roofs and wall lines and the pedestrian orientation of the site. When considering conformance with
surrounding buildings and the historic character of downtown, she pointed out a new building on the site
would not need to comply with the historic nature of the existing building. A refurbishment needed to
consider the existing character of the building because that was what made this a minor project, that it
was only a refurbishment of the existing building. She noted if the building were demolished and a new
building constructed, it would be a major project. Therefore the project must consider not only the
surrounding buildings but the existing building being refurbished.
Council President Dawson commented Mr. Snyder’s comment with regard to historic preservation
contradicted an earlier statement by Mr. Bullock that historic in this ordinance did not mean historic in the
context of the historic preservation ordinance but rather the general nature and character of downtown.
She pointed out this ordinance was in place prior to the historic preservation ordinance and did not refer
to the historic preservation ordinance nor was it intended to incorporate the historic preservation
ordinance. She concluded historic meant something different than being on the historic registry. She
agreed with staff that it referred to the general nature and character of downtown. This building was a
large part of the character of downtown and although it may be a nice building, it dramatically altered the
general nature and character of downtown. She indicated her plans to vote against the motion.
Councilmember Olson questioned what the Council wanted done if the project were remanded to the
ADB. She found the proposal met the code.
Councilmember Marin expressed concern with the concept of a remand. He used the example of the
restoration of the USS Constitution and the difficulty determining to what period to restore the ship. He
noted this building spent its first 60 years looking like a warehouse, a bus barn, and a poured-in-place
concrete structure versus the “cutesy” façade constructed in the 1970s which represented only a third of
the building’s life.
Councilmember Moore recalled when the Council passed the height limit in the BC zone, she believed
redevelopment in downtown would be impossible. This proposal is a 25-foot, 2-story building that
currently did not meet any of the City’s codes and needed to be brought up to code. There was a property
owner who was willing to do this under the current restrictions and the ADB found their proposal met all
the City’s standards. She agreed the allegation regarding additional square footage had not been proven
Packet Page 24 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 22
by the appellant. She appreciated Council President Dawson’s comments that this was an historic
building in terms of the City’s character. She appreciated it was an important structure for the City and
that many people think of it as historic even though it has been remodeled several times in recent history.
She pointed out the proposed project would preserve the historic part of the building and she preferred the
design the ADB approved versus restoring it to the old bus barn look. She concluded the appellant did
not prove the issues she raised on appeal.
UPON ROLL CALL THE MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, MARIN AND
OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS
ORVIS, PLUNKETT AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE ADB AND DENY APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT.
Council President Dawson found a lack of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as stated in her
earlier comments.
Councilmember Wambolt asked the consequence of this action. Mr. Snyder advised the applicant could
appeal to Superior Court via a Land Use Petition Act or resubmit their application. Councilmember
Wambolt preferred to remand the project back to the ADB to have the Board conduct the due diligence
they were responsible for doing. He referred to the written record, asserting that in this instance the ADB
did not review the criteria. By contrast, he had attended a number of ADB meetings where they reviewed
projects in detail.
Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged this was an important building and the redevelopment was
important to the community. He hoped the developer would resubmit the project, refining the issues that
the Council had identified. He looked forward to someone refurbishing the building.
UPON ROLL CALL MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
MOORE, MARIN, OLSON AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
REMAND THE PROJECT BACK TO THE ADB FOR A MORE INTENSIVE REVIEW.
Councilmember Wambolt preferred to remand versus appeal to the Superior Court, anticipating the issues
could be resolved with a closer look at the project.
Mayor Haakenson asked the Council to specify what they wanted the ADB to look at. Mr. Snyder
commented one issue that was undisputed was that no material samples were provided to the ADB. He
suggested on remand the materials be provided for consideration by the ADB in building design criteria
A1, regarding the building exterior and A2, regarding color and the criteria regarding surrounding historic
structures.
Council President Dawson asked whether the Council could remand to the ADB with the caveat they hold
another public hearing. Mr. Snyder advised if new information was provided, there would need to be a
new evidentiary public hearing. Council President Dawson expressed her support for the motion as long
as there would be another public hearing.
Councilmember Wambolt commented his primary concern was the materials. He also supported the
ADB holding another public hearing.
Council President Dawson requested the ADB consider her earlier comments regarding pedestrian
friendliness of the site, the unbroken roof and wall lines and historic surroundings.
Packet Page 25 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 23
Councilmember Orvis commented the ADB needed to find that the proposal was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Marin hoped via another public hearing, citizens could quantify specifically what they
wanted so that ultimately a compromise could be reached similar to the MPOR zone.
Councilmember Plunkett commented pedestrian orientation and gathering spaces were more than just the
windows and the building. The applicant could not expect to eliminate pedestrian orientation and
gathering spaces and still meet that criteria. The applicant admitted the building did not meet the criteria
associated with avoiding long unbroken roof and wall lines.
Councilmember Olson asked what pedestrian gathering spaces were eliminated. Councilmember Plunkett
answered his point was not that the literal space had to be retained but the reduction in open
space/gathering space failed to meet the pedestrian oriented standard. Mr. Snyder pointed out there was
no criteria that required pedestrian space be retained. He suggested the ADB demonstrate how the
proposal related to pedestrian orientation under the guidelines.
Councilmember Moore explained the issues for the ADB to consider on remand were the product samples
and how the proposal meets pedestrian oriented design and historic character.
Mr. Snyder advised he would develop written Findings of Fact and Conclusions that incorporated the
Council’s comments. The Findings and Conclusions would be presented to the Council for review on a
future agenda. At that time the Council could revise the Findings as appropriate. He advised the Council
could not talk about the issue until the Findings were adopted.
Mayor Haakenson asked if the ADB’s decision on remand was appealable to the Council. Mr. Snyder
answered yes.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Council President Dawson cautioned the public not to speak to the Council about Old Milltown due to the
remand.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, summarized to date she had described the problems with the proposed ferry
terminal to be located at Pt. Edwards including exposure to wind and waves, a distant landing from the
terminal building, deep water, and holding lanes accessed via a road designated as a landslide hazard.
The next 3-4 chapters would describe fixes in a section entitled “How Do I Fix Thee, Let me Count the
Ways.” In Chapter 1, entitled “Suspenders and a Belt, a Fix for Exposure” she relayed captains’ concern
with landing at Pt. Edwards due to the exposure and their agreement that landings could be possible if
there were a belt and suspenders. The belt would be a 600 foot floating breakwater placed south of and
parallel to the slips to keep vessels stable while loading and unloading. While the breakwater would
provide protection from waves, it would have little effect on wind conditions. Therefore suspenders
would be necessary – a third slip oriented into the wind for landings in southwest winds over 20 knots.
The third slip would require separate overhead loading and would not be used otherwise due to slower
turnaround times. She advised chapter 2 of this section, entitled, “Eenie, Minnie Minie Moe, Fixes for a
Ferry Pedestrian to Save Them from a Long Line” would be provided next week.
Roger Lee, Edmonds, advised the current dog law did not work for him. He understood he was legally
entitled to the quiet enjoyment of his property and should not have to endure dogs barking continually.
Animal control offered him a petition whereby enforcement could occur with two other signatures. He
Packet Page 26 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 24
provided a map of the properties surrounding his house, identifying a significant number of surrounding
residences with barking dogs, concluding they would be unlikely to sign the petition. He pointed out it
was not right that his piece of mind was at the mercy of dog owners who were irresponsible, rude and
socially unacceptable. He urged the City to consider a method other than petitions, suggesting the matter
be decriminalized such as traffic citations, whereby when a police office issued a traffic citation, the
person was guilty until he/she proved otherwise. He concluded there was no piece of mind in his
neighborhood and he wanted something done about it.
Dave Page, Edmonds, recalled in 1992/1993, he had a 5-unit PRD approved on 196th. In the process of
building those five houses he appeared before the ADB and encountered a 45 day delay that cost him
thousands of dollars because one member did not like the landscape plan. He urged the Council to
consider the ramifications of a remand on the developers costs. He concluded there was a great deal of
money lost due to delays because someone did not do their job.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented it had been an interesting evening and he appreciated the
opportunity to represent Edmonds citizens who were unable to participate in the Closed Record Review.
He urged the Council to ensure the new public hearing at ADB was advertised. Next, he commented it
was an accident that Ms. Larman and he attended the ADB meeting; he attended because of the
playground project and Ms. Larman attended because of her interest in Old Milltown. He referred to the
petition and Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would not receive the petition until the matter was
resolved.
Elisabeth Larman, Edmonds, thanked the Council for listening. She wished there was a way she could
help the Council tweak the goals and guidelines to make them precise. She recommended the City
develop a simple plan that recognized much of Edmonds was built between 1890 and 1940 and
recognizing there were several styles, each with specific design elements. A list of design elements could
then be provided to builders before they began their design. She suggested Friday Harbor and Bainbridge
Island had such guidelines.
James Clauson, Edmonds, suggested that to assist with marketing Edmonds, downtown Edmonds be
changed to Edmonds Town Center which was a more modern adaptation and would do more for the retail
base. He reported his survey of viable retail establishments in Edmonds revealed the third quarter was the
best quarter many had had in their existence. He commented on the importance of a synergy such as the
Saturday Market. He cited examples of areas with good retail such as Port Townsend and Mill Creek,
concluding retail was a winner for the City both in property taxes and sales tax.
9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Finance Committee
Councilmember Wambolt reported the Finance Committee reviewed the preliminary 2007 Property Tax
Ordinance. It was the consensus of the Committee to forward the item to the full Council without a
recommendation at this time until the Council had an opportunity to review the full budget and revenues.
The Committee requested staff prepare three ordinances for consideration, 1) with no property tax
increase, 2) with a 1% property tax increase; and 3) with a 1% property tax increase and use of remaining
banked capacity. The committee then discussed sales tax sourcing. Sales tax sourcing would change the
collection of sales tax from the point of sale to the point of destination. He advised this would be
beneficial to Edmonds; however, even if it was passed by the legislature in 2007, the Department of
Revenue would need a year to implement it; therefore, it was unlikely collection would begin in 2008.
Public Safety
Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee discussed enforcement options for barking dogs and
reviewed several ordinances, focusing on the Mountlake Terrace ordinance. Staff will provide further
Packet Page 27 of 174
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 17, 2006
Page 25
information regarding how that process could be streamlined. The Committee also discussed stray cats.
Staff recommended pursuing code language that addressed the timeliness of returning cats to their owners
or to animal control. Staff will return with further information regarding this issue. Councilmember
Orvis commented as a dog owner, he had a neighbor knock on his door to complain about barking. He
took action and kept his dog inside more to ensure he did not disturb the neighbors. He hoped all pet
owners would respond similarly to a complaint as pet owners were responsible for their pets.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Wambolt reported the Harbor Square Redevelopment Committee, comprised of Port
Commissioner Bruce Ferris, Port Executive Director Chris Keuss, Community Services Director Stephen
Clifton, Development Services Director Duane Bowman and himself, met last week and concluded this
project should continue and the public should be heavily involved. He advised nothing would be done
until January to allow them to develop tangible information to provide to the public regarding height
options along the waterfront. He advised the Committee would be seeking some funding from the City
and the Port to hire a consultant to assist with that effort.
Councilmember Moore asked to place a resolution on next week’s agenda in support of a 4-year
university in the Snohomish, Island and Skagit County area. She advised areas currently being discussed
were Everett and Marysville, the growth area of Snohomish County. The Board of Trustees for Edmonds
Community College unanimously supported a 4-year university. It was the consensus of the Council to
schedule a resolution on next week’s agenda.
Councilmember Marin commented the playground at Edmonds Elementary was very impressive and he
was glad the City had been a participant.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:17 p.m.
Packet Page 28 of 174
AM-652 2.C.
Claims Checks, Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/24/2006
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 #91579 through #91748 for October 19, 2006 in the amount of $281,784.16. Approval of
payroll direct deposits and checks #43961 through #44006 in the amount of $745,401.66 for the period of October
1 through October 15, 2006.
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 and Payroll Direct Deposits and Checks.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2006 Revenue: Expenditure: $1,207,185.82
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $281,784.16
Payroll $745,401.66
Attachments
Link: Claim Cks 10-19-06
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 10/19/2006 12:47 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 01:01 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/19/2006 01:26 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 02:56 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie Karber Started On: 10/19/2006 11:32 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/19/2006
Packet Page 29 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91579 10/19/2006 071324 3-D ROOFING SYSTEMS LLC 1690 FS 20 - REROOF
FS 20 - REROOF
116.000.651.594.190.650.00 13,661.50
Sales Tax
116.000.651.594.190.650.00 1,215.87
Total :14,877.37
91580 10/19/2006 064622 A.I.R. EMISSIONS 61014 UNIT 474 - EMISSION TESTING,
UNIT 474 - EMISSION TESTING,
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 228.24
UNIT 24 - EMISSION TESTING,
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 199.71
UNIT 3 - EMISSION TESTING,
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 85.59
UNT 647 - EMISSION TESTING,
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 28.44
Total :541.98
91581 10/19/2006 071373 AGRO DISTRIBUTING LLC 1871472 SUPPLIES
BIO BARRIER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 320.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 28.16
Total :348.16
91582 10/19/2006 070348 AIRPURE 12249130 879400
MEDIA PAD
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 169.07
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 58.02
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 14.88
Total :241.97
91583 10/19/2006 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 8118 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES FOR
1Page:Packet Page 30 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91583 10/19/2006 (Continued)000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT
MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES FOR
411.000.654.534.800.340.00 122,022.22
Total :122,022.22
91584 10/19/2006 060205 ALLIED BUILDING PRODUCTS CORP 7218157-00 YOST POOL - (56) SLATE BROWN BLEND TILE
YOST POOL - (56) SLATE BROWN BLEND TILE
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 72.18
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.35
Total :78.53
91585 10/19/2006 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-000762072 INVOICE #
garbage for F/S #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 99.70
INVOICE #0197-000762763
garbage for MCC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 64.02
FIRE STATION #200197-0800478
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 82.65
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY0197-0800897
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 20.66
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 103.29
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 84.70
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 84.70
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 119.82
Total :659.54
91586 10/19/2006 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 035353-060903 R Chave APA membership
2Page:Packet Page 31 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91586 10/19/2006 (Continued)001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
R Chave APA membership
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 518.00
Plng Brd/Chpt dues APA Membership040706-090306
Plng Brd/Chpt dues APA Membership
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 1,270.00
S BullockAPA Membership108409-060903
S BullockAPA Membership
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 385.00
G Coccia APA Membership162458-060903
G Coccia APA Membership
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 200.00
Total :2,373.00
91587 10/19/2006 001430 AMERICAN RED CROSS 1893 ADMINISTRATION FEE
ADMIN FEE TAUGHT BE KATE TRETTEVIK ~
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 42.00
Total :42.00
91588 10/19/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3733845 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
91589 10/19/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3733847 18386001
UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 92.11
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.20
Total :100.31
91590 10/19/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3732492 FLEET UNIFORM SVC
3Page:Packet Page 32 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91590 10/19/2006 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 17.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.55
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC512-3733846
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 35.09
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.12
Total :57.16
91591 10/19/2006 071120 ASHLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICALS 2500016227 113009/0702
POLYMER
411.000.656.538.800.310.51 1,937.50
Total :1,937.50
91592 10/19/2006 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 343724 FLEET - DIESEL 180 GAL
FLEET - DIESEL 180 GAL
511.000.000.141.120.000.00 304.92
WA ST SVC FEE
511.000.000.141.120.000.00 60.00
ST EXCISE DIESEL TAX, WA OIL SPILL
511.000.000.141.120.000.00 63.94
Sales Tax
511.000.000.141.120.000.00 4.80
Total :433.66
91593 10/19/2006 069120 AST TRUST COMPANY 102006 mebt 10/20/06 MEBT
Check Void Posted in Error
811.000.000.211.100.000.00 15.49
Total :15.49
91594 10/19/2006 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM
PARKS FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 30.43
4Page:Packet Page 33 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :30.439159410/19/2006 064343 064343 AT&T
91595 10/19/2006 064343 AT&T 425-775-2525 SWITCHBOARD TO 10/7/06
Long Distance 10/7/06
001.000.390.528.800.420.00 63.91
Total :63.91
91596 10/19/2006 064343 AT&T 730386050200 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 2.25
PUBLIC WORKS
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 11.25
PUBLIC WORKS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 9.23
PUBLIC WORKS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 9.23
PUBLIC WORKS
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.05
Total :45.01
91597 10/19/2006 064343 AT&T 425-774-0944 STATION #20 FAX
STATION #20 FAX
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 26.81
Total :26.81
91598 10/19/2006 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2006233 INV#2006233 EDMONDS PD
POLYGRAPH RE-TEST 10/12/06
001.000.410.521.400.410.00 150.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.400.410.00 6.00
Total :156.00
91599 10/19/2006 070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC 168 MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 7,300.00
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 649.70
5Page:Packet Page 34 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :7,949.709159910/19/2006 070803 070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC
91600 10/19/2006 068032 BLANCH, ANN BLANCH7351 TAIJIQUAN
TAIJIQUAN 7351
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 101.25
Total :101.25
91601 10/19/2006 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 539972 INV#539972 EDMONDS PD - BETH
BALLISTIC VEST
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 649.95
TRAFFIC TEMPLATE
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.95
TACTICAL BATON & BATON CASE
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 96.00
BELT KEEPERS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 14.75
TACTICAL PATROL BAG
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 39.99
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 71.16
INV#539973 EDMONDS PD - BETH539973
ATAC 8" BOOTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 129.99
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 11.44
Total :1,021.23
91602 10/19/2006 071085 BOOS, ANDY BOOS7357 HIKING
HIKING MT. RAINIER #7357
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 224.00
Total :224.00
91603 10/19/2006 070795 BRACK, JUDY BRACK7197 MARIMBA JAM
MARIMBA JAM #7197
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 252.00
Total :252.00
6Page:Packet Page 35 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91604 10/19/2006 002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC IE01517 UNIT 91 - SUPPORT
UNIT 91 - SUPPORT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.10
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.95
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.41
Total :30.46
91605 10/19/2006 069295 BROWN, CANDY BROWN7265 HOMESCHOOL CLASS
BIRDS ARE AWESOME! HOMESCHOOL CLASS
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 24.50
Total :24.50
91606 10/19/2006 063459 BYRNE SPECIALTY GASES INC 271772 00674
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 100.08
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 8.81
Total :108.89
91607 10/19/2006 071374 CABLECOM 8466 OVERPMT OF BUSINESS LIC REFUND
Overpmt of business license
001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00
Total :40.00
91608 10/19/2006 003255 CANINE COLLEGE CANINE7219 DOG OBEDIENCE
DOG OBEDIENCE #7219
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 440.00
Total :440.00
91609 10/19/2006 071360 CASCADE INDUSTRIES NW INC 2136 06-153
C-257 CONCRETE REPAIR
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 17,100.00
Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 1,521.90
7Page:Packet Page 36 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :18,621.909160910/19/2006 071360 071360 CASCADE INDUSTRIES NW INC
91610 10/19/2006 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN09061038 FLEET SHOP CYLINDER RENTAL
FLEET SHOP CYLINDER RENTAL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.50
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.67
Total :8.17
91611 10/19/2006 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY9880 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 SUPPLIESLY98801
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 8.93
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 0.79
Total :19.44
91612 10/19/2006 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT7225 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #7225
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 120.40
Total :120.40
91613 10/19/2006 003710 CHEVRON USA 7898305185610 INV#7898305185610 EDMONDS PD
FUEL
104.000.410.521.210.320.00 299.30
CAR WASH
001.000.410.521.210.480.00 6.99
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.480.00 0.15
Total :306.44
91614 10/19/2006 068867 CHILDREN'S BOOKSHOP &, TEACHING SUPPLIES54936 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
8Page:Packet Page 37 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91614 10/19/2006 (Continued)068867 CHILDREN'S BOOKSHOP &, TEACHING SUPPLIES
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES:~
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 120.46
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 10.72
Total :131.18
91615 10/19/2006 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 425-501-3636-10-9-06 DUANE BOWMAN CELL PHONE 9/8-10/7/06.
DUANE BOWMAN CELL PHONE 9/8-10/7/06.
001.000.620.558.800.420.00 7.86
Total :7.86
91616 10/19/2006 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460466460 UNIFORMS
Volunteers
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 44.72
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 3.98
OPS UNIFORMS460466461
Stn. 16
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 103.94
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.25
UNIFORMS460467511
Stn 17 ALS
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 96.47
Stn 17 Ops
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 96.47
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 8.59
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.58
OPS UNIFORMS460467535
Stn. 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 110.24
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.81
9Page:Packet Page 38 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :492.059161610/19/2006 066382 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
91617 10/19/2006 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I06002388 WATER DEPT - LAB SAMPLE ANALYSIS
WATER DEPT - LAB SAMPLE ANALYSIS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 2,007.00
Total :2,007.00
91618 10/19/2006 071367 CLASSICO HOMES BLD20060239 8554-202nd Eng Insp Fee Refund
8554-202nd Eng Insp Fee Refund
001.000.000.245.900.630.00 200.00
Total :200.00
91619 10/19/2006 067186 CLEAR IMAGE INC 59970 INV#59970 EDMONDS PD
4 X 6 PRINTS
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 12.35
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 1.10
Total :13.45
91620 10/19/2006 069329 COASTAL TRAINING TECHNOLOGIES 1198555 206626
SAFETY VIDEO
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 27.66
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 2.33
Total :29.99
91621 10/19/2006 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES E1698346-2 FAC MAINT SUPPLIES - LINERS
FAC MAINT SUPPLIES - LINERS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 46.29
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.07
10Page:Packet Page 39 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91621 10/19/2006 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES
FAC MAINT SUPPLIES - WET FLOOR SIGN,E1702255
FAC MAINT SUPPLIES - WET FLOOR SIGN,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 138.74
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.43
FAC MAINT SUPPLIES - LOTION SOAP,E1703305
FAC MAINT SUPPLIES - LOTION SOAP,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 842.88
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 74.39
Total :1,123.80
91622 10/19/2006 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1703595 OPS SUPPLIES
Stations' supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 752.77
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 2.50
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 66.46
Total :821.73
91623 10/19/2006 071279 COLE, SCOTT 90806 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 14.45
Total :14.45
91624 10/19/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630535885687 Sno County. Mayor's Luncheon - 9/6 &
Sno County. Mayor's Luncheon - 9/6 &
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 39.30
11Page:Packet Page 40 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91624 10/19/2006 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
Budget Review Committee mtg. - 9/19/064715630636395271
Budget Review Committee mtg. - 9/19/06
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 97.32
Sno. County Cities & Town mtg. - L. Carl
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 275.00
PSBJournal subscription - L. Carl - 2008
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 85.00
Registration Civil Service Conference -4715630649063718
Registration Civil Service Conference -
001.000.220.516.210.490.00 160.00
Lodging Civil Service Conference - 9/26
001.000.220.516.210.430.00 123.55
Total :780.17
91625 10/19/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630197999875 C/A 4715 6301 9799 9875
Compusa-LapTop R Marin
001.000.310.514.100.350.00 174.23
4715 6306 5312 12874715630653121287
CDW-G Memory 256 MB
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 167.98
CDW-G Stylus Printer
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 105.85
CDW-G HP Officejet 7210 Printer
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 345.43
WFOA-Registration-Junglov K
001.000.310.514.230.490.00 200.00
CDW-G APC Battery Backups
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 1,385.80
Total :2,379.29
91626 10/19/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715 6300 0170 8272 #4715 6300 0170 8272 - EDMONDS
12Page:Packet Page 41 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91626 10/19/2006 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
RETURNED NYLON ROPE
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 -71.72
#4715 6300 0170 8272 - EDMONDS4715 6300 0170 8272
ROPE FOR PATROL
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 42.32
STROBE LIGHTS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 174.22
S.HAWLEY/MEALS~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 15.00
S.HAWLEY/MEAL~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 44.51
S.HAWLEY/LODGING~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 248.40
S.HAWLEY/MEAL~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 8.65
S.HAWLEY/FUEL CITY VEHICLE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 31.00
DVD PLAYER/CABLES~
104.000.410.521.210.350.00 288.54
#4715 6300 0170 8298 - BARD4715 6300 0170 8298
A.GREENMUN/AIRFARE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 218.60
J.LAWLESS/AIRFARE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 389.60
J.LAWLESS/LODGING~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 364.26
K.CRYSTAL/LODGING~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 364.26
M.BARD/REGISTRATION~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 200.00
D.HONNEN/REGISTRATION~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 525.00
13Page:Packet Page 42 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91626 10/19/2006 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
#4715 6302 2283 3263 - O'BRIEN4715 6302 2283 3263
5 ROLLS OF FIBERGLASS TAPE
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 140.90
RENTAL STORAGE~
001.000.410.521.310.410.00 129.00
14Page:Packet Page 43 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91626 10/19/2006 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
#4715 6306 3997 0997 - EDMONDS4715 6306 3997 0997
A.GREENMUN/LODGING~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 80.34
A.GREENUM/FUEL~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 37.21
A.GREENMUN/PARKING~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 10.00
A.GREENMUN/MEAL~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 17.99
A.GREENMUN/FUEL~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 37.09
A.GREENMUN/MEAL~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 6.53
A.GREENMUN/FUEL~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 49.23
A.GREENMUN/MEAL~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 7.16
A.GREENMUN/RENTAL CAR~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 299.69
A.GREENMUN/MEAL~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 38.08
A.GREENMUN/LODGING~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 703.09
R.HESLOP/LODGING~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 362.40
R.HESLOP/MEAL~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 56.51
D.ANDERSON/MEAL~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 36.99
D.ANDERSON/LODGING~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 111.59
D.ANDERSON/MEAL~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 12.77
Total :4,979.21
15Page:Packet Page 44 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91627 10/19/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 24492806257118000118 CREDIT CARD CHARGES
Recording Documents w/county
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 225.00
Total :225.00
91628 10/19/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630654555988 FRANKLIN COVEY - PLANNER REFILL 2007 -
FRANKLIN COVEY - PLANNER REFILL 2007 -
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 35.38
NW ENERGY - BUILDING OPERATOR
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 1,275.00
APWA - Workshop - Miller, N4715630897461457
APWA - Workshop - Miller, N
001.000.650.519.910.490.00 35.00
Total :1,345.38
91629 10/19/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 10/10/06 SNOW LOAD ANALYSIS FOR WA PUBLICATION
SNOW LOAD ANALYSIS FOR WA PUBLICATION
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 37.94
ABC LEGAL SERVICES - P/U ON 9/19/06 FOR
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 65.50
Total :103.44
91630 10/19/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630851494783 Refreshments for Council Meetings
Refreshments for Council Meetings
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 20.00
Total :20.00
91631 10/19/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 630001918475 TRAINING SUPPLIES
training refreshmts
001.000.510.522.400.310.00 119.79
TRAINING TRAVEL630415178708
DS,RC Pierce Co; PH,DS Life Rescue
001.000.510.522.400.430.00 1,173.60
OPS SUPPLIES630462211410
BC Schmitt
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 447.24
16Page:Packet Page 45 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91631 10/19/2006 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
PREVENTION SUPPLIES630462921109
smoke detectors
001.000.510.522.300.310.00 172.50
PREVENTION630551458112
Elevator codes, Preparedness
001.000.510.522.300.310.00 362.39
OPS SUPPLIES630964429858
Asst. Chief Fuel
001.000.510.522.200.320.00 15.01
Asst Chief Mtg
001.000.510.522.200.490.00 10.96
Total :2,301.49
91632 10/19/2006 065891 CONLEY, LISA CONLEY7374 CHILDREN'S CLASS
FUN WITH THOMAS #7374
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 176.40
Total :176.40
91633 10/19/2006 004867 COOPER, JACK F 320 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 183.00
Total :183.00
91634 10/19/2006 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING 510-0232 OPS UNIFORMS
Batt Chiefs
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 100.05
OPS UNIFORMS510-0991
Admin BC
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 35.31
PREVENTION UNIFORM510-0995
Fire Marshal
001.000.510.522.300.240.00 44.15
PREV UNIFORM510-1524
Inspector
001.000.510.522.300.240.00 23.56
17Page:Packet Page 46 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91634 10/19/2006 (Continued)065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING
ADMIN UNIFORMS510-1884
Fire Chief
001.000.510.522.100.240.00 41.22
OPS UNIFORMS510-2341
AC
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 23.55
Total :267.84
91635 10/19/2006 071280 COWAN, MARLINA 9806 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 14.45
Total :14.45
91636 10/19/2006 069848 CRAM, KATHERINE CRAM7300 IRISH DANCE
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #7300
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 134.40
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #7302
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 168.00
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #7304
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 235.20
IRISH DANCE 13+ #7306
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 100.80
IRISH DANCE 13+ #7308
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 235.20
IRISH DANCE #7316
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 89.60
Total :963.20
91637 10/19/2006 061539 DAHL, DOUG 10/18/06 Tuition Reimbursement - Summer qtr. 06
Tuition Reimbursement - Summer qtr. 06
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 475.00
Total :475.00
91638 10/19/2006 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 132180 UNIT B17 - SET UP RADIO
18Page:Packet Page 47 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91638 10/19/2006 (Continued)061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16
UNIT B17 - SET UP RADIO
511.200.657.594.480.640.00 390.00
Sales Tax
511.200.657.594.480.640.00 33.54
UNIT 657 - ANTENNA'S AND MOUNT KITS132595
UNIT 657 - ANTENNA'S AND MOUNT KITS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 212.44
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.91
Total :654.89
91639 10/19/2006 064005 DAY-TIMERS INC 55945068 2007 Portfolio
2007 Portfolio
001.000.310.514.100.310.00 36.99
Freight
001.000.310.514.100.310.00 8.75
Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.100.310.00 4.07
Total :49.81
91640 10/19/2006 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING DOUGLAS, TM ALIEN FIREARMS LICENSE - DOUGLAS, TM
ALIEN FIREARMS APPLICATION
001.000.000.237.190.000.00 15.00
Total :15.00
91641 10/19/2006 064640 DMCMA 101706 TRAINING FOR SUSAN, MONICA, RENEE,
TRAINING FOR SUSAN, MONICA, RENEE,
001.000.230.512.500.490.00 125.00
Total :125.00
91642 10/19/2006 061384 DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS DRIFTWOOD1016 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT
TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT WITH
123.000.640.573.100.410.00 1,900.00
Total :1,900.00
91643 10/19/2006 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER 196977 INTERPRETER FEE
19Page:Packet Page 48 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91643 10/19/2006 (Continued)060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.490.01 79.30
Total :79.30
91644 10/19/2006 069605 EAGLE EYE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2006131 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - BLDG. DEPT.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - BLDG. DEPT.
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 10,140.09
Total :10,140.09
91645 10/19/2006 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 71884 SUPPLIES
BLOW GUNS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.90
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.50
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.26
Total :27.66
91646 10/19/2006 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00650 LIFT STATION #7
LIFT STATION #7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 19.99
LIFT STATION #81-00925
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 19.99
LIFT STATION #11-01950
LIFT STATION #1
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 19.99
LIFT STATION #21-02675
LIFT STATION #2
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 19.99
PUBLIC WORKS FOUNTAIN, BUILDINGS, AND1-03950
PUBLIC WORKS FOUNTAIN, BUILDINGS, AND
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 405.23
20Page:Packet Page 49 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91646 10/19/2006 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
PUBLIC WORKS METER SHOP1-05350
PUBLIC WORKS METER SHOP
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 305.24
LIFT STATION #61-05705
LIFT STATION #6
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 40.69
CITY HALL1-13975
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 436.06
CITY HALL1-14000
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 78.67
Total :1,345.85
91647 10/19/2006 008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES ENGLAND7320 SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE CLASSES
SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE #7320
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,134.00
SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE #7319
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 621.00
SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE #7318
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 243.00
Total :1,998.00
91648 10/19/2006 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0021786-IN INV#0021786-IN ACCT#0011847 EDMONDS PD
K-9 FLAT BADGES
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 76.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 4.50
Total :80.50
91649 10/19/2006 071371 ESTATE OF GARY DENNIS 1-05925 RE: 7-0609-014 UTILITY REFUND
UB Refund P/A 216 Pine St, Edmonds
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 38.20
Total :38.20
21Page:Packet Page 50 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91650 10/19/2006 064723 FAIR, DOUGLAS 0606 TRAVEL EXPENSE
TRAVEL EXPENSE
001.000.230.512.500.430.00 405.47
Total :405.47
91651 10/19/2006 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 093006 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 9,770.00
Total :9,770.00
91652 10/19/2006 010665 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 10/17/2006 HR Seminar fee - 10/25/06 (Debi H. &
HR Seminar fee - 10/25/06 (Debi H. &
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 50.00
Total :50.00
91653 10/19/2006 067232 GERRISH BEARING COMPANY 2068024-01 EDMCIT
CONVENTIONAL BELT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 27.68
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.44
Total :30.12
91654 10/19/2006 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER7630 QIGONG & TAI CHI CLASSES
22Page:Packet Page 51 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91654 10/19/2006 (Continued)068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA
QIGONG #7360
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 330.75
QIGONG #7477
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 162.00
TAIJIQUAN #7345
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 47.25
TAIJIQUAN #7349
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 189.00
TAIJIQUAN #7355
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 803.25
TAIJIQUAN #7600
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 283.50
QIGONG #7358
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 141.75
Total :1,957.50
91655 10/19/2006 071372 GOULD, RAMON AND SUSAN 3-40025 RE: G06-00674-MS UTILITY REFUND
UB Refund P/A 19225 92nd Ave W, Edm
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 56.81
Total :56.81
91656 10/19/2006 012199 GRAINGER 9201969053 SUPPLIES
DRILL PRESS BENCH
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 440.50
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 38.76
Total :479.26
91657 10/19/2006 068011 HALLAM, RICHARD 321 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
001.000.390.517.220.230.00 215.00
Total :215.00
91658 10/19/2006 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 50959-1 UNIT 235 - CLIPS
23Page:Packet Page 52 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91658 10/19/2006 (Continued)012900 HARRIS FORD INC
UNIT 235 - CLIPS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 28.35
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.52
SHOP INVENTORY - BRAKE SHOE KITS60556
SHOP INVENTORY - BRAKE SHOE KITS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 266.16
ROTOR ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 227.32
BRAKE ROTOR ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 163.24
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 58.45
UNIT 233 - ROTOR ASSEMBLY65774
UNIT 233 - ROTOR ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 227.32
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.23
UNIT '01 FORD' - RETURNED ROTORCM37413
UNIT '01 FORD' - RETURNED ROTOR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -230.48
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -20.51
Total :742.60
91659 10/19/2006 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 192962 UNIT 679 - MODULE PROGRAMMING
UNIT 679 - MODULE PROGRAMMING
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 95.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 8.49
Total :103.89
91660 10/19/2006 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 1030-71 Drug Screening services - 9/21/06
Drug Screening services - 9/21/06
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 50.00
24Page:Packet Page 53 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :50.009166010/19/2006 069332 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED
91661 10/19/2006 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 2126-69 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Fit for Dty MB,TC,JS,BA
001.000.510.522.200.410.00 2,460.00
Fit for Dty TF
001.000.510.526.100.410.00 615.00
Total :3,075.00
91662 10/19/2006 071368 HEFFERAN, BRIGITTE HEFFERAN7257 CALLIGRAPHY CLASSES
ITALIC CALLIGRAPHY #7257
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 270.00
ITALIC CALLIGRAPHY #7256
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 270.00
Total :540.00
91663 10/19/2006 062383 HEPBURN INDUSTRIES IN068999 BURIAL SUPPLIES
VASES
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 86.40
Freight
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 14.78
Total :101.18
91665 10/19/2006 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1034296 FS 17 - LATCH
FS 17 - LATCH
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.97
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.14
FAC MAINT - SHOP - LADDER2044805
FAC MAINT - SHOP - LADDER
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 109.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 9.59
25Page:Packet Page 54 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91665 10/19/2006 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
PS - WASHERS, ROLLER2044840
PS - WASHERS, ROLLER
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.68
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.03
FAC MAINT TRUCK STOCK - BRUSHES2047944
FAC MAINT TRUCK STOCK - BRUSHES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.92
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.96
FAC - KICK-DOWN SUPPLIES2074044
FAC - KICK-DOWN SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.97
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.32
FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES - BROOM, ETC3033981
FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES - BROOM, ETC
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 69.38
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.11
CITY HALL - 2X2 PICKETS, WOOD, PLASTIC3035392
CITY HALL - 2X2 PICKETS, WOOD, PLASTIC
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 67.27
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.92
FAC MAINT TRUCK STOCK - TAPE, TUBE, BAGS3044665
FAC MAINT TRUCK STOCK - TAPE, TUBE, BAGS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 37.89
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.33
MUSEUM - STAIN, TAPE MEASURE, SILICONE,3047779
MUSEUM - STAIN, TAPE MEASURE, SILICONE,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 38.56
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.39
26Page:Packet Page 55 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91665 10/19/2006 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
PUBLIC SAFETY - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES - MOP3072970
PUBLIC SAFETY - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES - MOP
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.86
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.87
FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES - BATTERIES3567102
FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES - BATTERIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.47
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.39
SR CENTER - ROOF PATCH, TROWEL, SUPPLIES35823
SR CENTER - ROOF PATCH, TROWEL, SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 20.63
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.82
FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES - BITS, BLADES,4098745
FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES - BITS, BLADES,
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 160.25
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 14.10
FS 20 - MINI HACKSAW, WONDER BAR, BRASS43428
FS 20 - MINI HACKSAW, WONDER BAR, BRASS
116.000.651.519.920.310.00 54.09
Sales Tax
116.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.76
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE - TEMP HDBD5035088
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE - TEMP HDBD
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.59
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.84
FAC - COPPER PIPE, PIPE CLAMPS6045738
FAC - COPPER PIPE, PIPE CLAMPS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 37.55
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.30
27Page:Packet Page 56 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91665 10/19/2006 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
FAC - PIPE BUSHINGS, COPPER TEE, ADAPTOR6045827
FAC - PIPE BUSHINGS, COPPER TEE, ADAPTOR
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.19
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.54
CITY HALL - 12 V BATTERIES6089455
CITY HALL - 12 V BATTERIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.85
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.78
CITY PARK BLDGS - TOILET SEAT, INSERTS7033500
CITY PARK BLDGS - TOILET SEAT, INSERTS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 46.86
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.12
FAC - COPPER, WASHERS, SCREWS, SUPPLIES7045652
FAC - COPPER, WASHERS, SCREWS, SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 180.61
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.89
FAC MAINT SHOP - JIG SAW7045657
FAC MAINT SHOP - JIG SAW
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 159.00
PS - MICROWAVE OVEN
001.000.410.521.100.350.00 69.99
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 13.99
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.350.00 6.16
UNIT 488 - TL CONNECTION7088231
UNIT 488 - TL CONNECTION
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.96
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.40
28Page:Packet Page 57 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91665 10/19/2006 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
LIBRARY - GFI TESTER, SOCKET EXTENDER7097470
LIBRARY - GFI TESTER, SOCKET EXTENDER
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.46
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.18
FAC - CLEANING SUPPLIES, SPOT REMOVER,72310
FAC - CLEANING SUPPLIES, SPOT REMOVER,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 51.13
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.50
UNIT 25 - FOAM ASSEMBLY, TWIN PACK,7567833
UNIT 25 - FOAM ASSEMBLY, TWIN PACK,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.61
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.20
UNIT LS13 - ADAPTER, SUPPLIES7577520
UNIT LS13 - ADAPTER, SUPPLIES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.34
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.09
FS 17 - GLIDE SUPPLIES7577524
FS 17 - GLIDE SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.99
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.62
FAC - PIKE KNIFE, QUICK LINK, ANCSH7590633
FAC - PIKE KNIFE, QUICK LINK, ANCSH
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.96
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.72
FAC MAINT TRUCK SUPPLIES - TIE-DOWNS,8033395
FAC MAINT TRUCK SUPPLIES - TIE-DOWNS,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 53.80
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.73
29Page:Packet Page 58 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91665 10/19/2006 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
MUSEUM - WOOD SUPPLIES8036085
MUSEUM - WOOD SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.19
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.10
MUSEUM - RETURNED WOOD SUPPLIES8262182
MUSEUM - RETURNED WOOD SUPPLIESG
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 -1.19
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 -0.10
MUSEUM - 3X7 WOOD SUPPLIES8262183
MUSEUM - 3X7 WOOD SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 62.65
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.51
CITY HALL - WASHERS8581121
CITY HALL - WASHERS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.17
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.28
LIFT ST 12 - PVC FITTINGS, AND PIPE8597942
LIFT ST 12 - PVC FITTINGS, AND PIPE
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 46.09
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.06
PS - FIRE DOOR, CASINGS, COMBO PACK9045377
PS - FIRE DOOR, CASINGS, COMBO PACK
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 249.84
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 21.99
WATER DEPT SUPPLIES - TIEDOWN RATCHETS9046920
WATER DEPT SUPPLIES - TIEDOWN RATCHETS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 35.88
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.16
30Page:Packet Page 59 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91665 10/19/2006 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
WATER DEPT SUPPLIES - TRANSPLANTER,9577354
WATER DEPT SUPPLIES - TRANSPLANTER,
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 46.67
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.11
FAC - SPRAY HEAD, SUPPLIES97192
FAC - SPRAY HEAD, SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 32.95
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.90
Total :1,975.88
91666 10/19/2006 069952 HUGHES, HOLLY HUGHES0930 TEACH WRITE ON THE SOUND PRE-CONFERENCE
TEACH WRITE ON THE SOUND PRE-CONFERENCE
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 470.00
Total :470.00
91667 10/19/2006 070742 HURLEY, DAN HURLEY0930 PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOP
TEACH WRITE ON THE SOUND PRE-CONFERENCE
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 470.00
Total :470.00
91668 10/19/2006 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 16182860 INV#16182860 CUST#112019 EDMONDS PD
MICROPRINTER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
001.000.410.521.110.480.00 225.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.480.00 20.03
Total :245.03
91669 10/19/2006 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 2509072 PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00
Total :15.00
91670 10/19/2006 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PART WAREHOUSE 426369 SHOP SUPPLIES - EARMUFFS ELECT
31Page:Packet Page 60 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91670 10/19/2006 (Continued)069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PART WAREHOUSE
SHOP SUPPLIES - EARMUFFS ELECT
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 75.57
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 6.73
UNIT 25 - LED 360 BEACON426557
UNIT 25 - LED 360 BEACON
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 179.95
LED 360 BEACON
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 179.95
LED BEACON AMBER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 719.80
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 96.09
Total :1,258.09
91671 10/19/2006 071320 JOHN L SCOTT REAL ESTATE JLSCOTT1004 REFUND
RETURN OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 16.00
Total :16.00
91672 10/19/2006 069842 K & W ENTERPRISES INC 1658-3696 INV#1658-3696 EDMONDS PD PO#6227
32Page:Packet Page 61 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91672 10/19/2006 (Continued)069842 K & W ENTERPRISES INC
DUTY BELT & PANT BELT W/VELCRO
001.000.410.521.260.240.00 50.98
SET OF 4 BELT KEEPERS
001.000.410.521.260.240.00 12.49
POUCHES - MAG, CUFF, CAPSTUN,
001.000.410.521.260.240.00 141.94
RADIO HOLDER
001.000.410.521.260.240.00 36.99
SILENT KEY RING
001.000.410.521.260.240.00 19.49
HOLSTER SHIMS
001.000.410.521.260.240.00 1.50
Freight
001.000.410.521.260.240.00 5.25
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.260.240.00 23.18
Total :291.82
91673 10/19/2006 071369 K-9 STORM INCORPORATED us3134 INV#US3134 EDMONDS PD
TRACKING HARNESS
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 92.00
QUICK CLIP BUCKLE/SLIDE
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 25.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 35.00
Total :152.00
91674 10/19/2006 069526 KEMCO SUPPLY OF WA INC 39020 INV#39020 EDMONDS PD
M, L, XL MICROTEX GLOVES
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 179.70
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 15.81
Total :195.51
91675 10/19/2006 069870 KROFT CARDWELL LLC 2658 City newsletter mailing - Fall 2006
33Page:Packet Page 62 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91675 10/19/2006 (Continued)069870 KROFT CARDWELL LLC
City newsletter mailing - Fall 2006
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 475.20
Sales Tax
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 42.29
Total :517.49
91676 10/19/2006 062351 LAIRD PLASTICS 2183271 6943
POLY CLEAR PLASTIC
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 51.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 26.04
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 6.86
Total :83.90
91677 10/19/2006 071312 LEAFGUARD NW 513886 FS 20 - LEAFGUARD GUTTERS
FS 20 - LEAFGUARD GUTTERS
116.000.651.594.190.650.00 5,868.00
Sales Tax
116.000.651.594.190.650.00 522.25
Total :6,390.25
91678 10/19/2006 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 115767 UNIT 484 - ALIGNMENT
UNIT 484 - ALIGNMENT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 49.95
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.45
UNIT 114 - ALIGNMENT116105
UNIT 114 - ALIGNMENT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 49.95
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.45
34Page:Packet Page 63 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91678 10/19/2006 (Continued)067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER
UNIT 482 - ALIGNMENT116178
UNIT 482 - ALIGNMENT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 49.95
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.45
Total :163.20
91679 10/19/2006 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 091525 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 246.80
Total :246.80
91680 10/19/2006 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 091566 BUSINESS CARDS POLICE DEV SVCS
Business Cards:~250-00116
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 15.14
Justin D. Lee250-00116
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 15.14
B. V. McIntyre250-00116
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 15.14
M. K. Moore250-00116
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 15.14
Jason J. Shier250-00116
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 15.14
D. J. Dawson250-00116
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 15.15
Jennifer Machuga250-00116
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 15.15
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 6.73
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 1.35
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 1.35
35Page:Packet Page 64 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91680 10/19/2006 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
PRINTING OF RESIDENT BUS LIC APPS091567
Printing of Business License250-00115
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 140.00
Home Occupation250-00115
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 140.00
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 24.92
Total :420.35
91681 10/19/2006 060855 LYNNWOOD TROPHY CENTER 16337 Retirement plaque for the Planning Board
Retirement plaque for the Planning Board
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 32.95
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 2.93
Retirement plaque for the Planning Board16376
Retirement plaque for the Planning Board
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 32.95
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 2.93
Total :71.76
91682 10/19/2006 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 2725 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.490.01 225.00
INTERPRETER FEE2726
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.490.01 90.00
INTERPRETER FEE2737
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.490.01 45.00
Total :360.00
91683 10/19/2006 065829 MARTINSON, LINDA MARTINSON7328 BELLY DANCE INSTRUCTION
36Page:Packet Page 65 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91683 10/19/2006 (Continued)065829 MARTINSON, LINDA
BELLY DANCE #7328
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 98.00
BELLY DANCE #7334
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 372.40
Total :470.40
91684 10/19/2006 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 51854381 123106800
SCREW/SEALER WASHER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 59.80
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.85
Total :64.65
91685 10/19/2006 022733 MUTUAL MATERIALS EV650759S SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 54.12
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.82
Total :58.94
91686 10/19/2006 066395 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY 62319820 UNIT 487 - COOLANT, DYE, BRAKE CLEANER,
UNIT 487 - COOLANT, DYE, BRAKE CLEANER,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 54.98
UNIT 471 - COOLANT, DYE, BRAKE CLEANER,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 54.98
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.15
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.79
Total :129.90
91687 10/19/2006 023800 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSN 2216686 PREVENTION MISC
FM dues
001.000.510.522.300.490.00 150.00
Total :150.00
37Page:Packet Page 66 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91688 10/19/2006 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0183640-IN 1"x3" plastic bandages/16 per pkg
1"x3" plastic bandages/16 per pkg
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 32.50
Freight
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 9.82
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 3.73
Total :46.05
91689 10/19/2006 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0298192-IN RECYCLED BULK 15/40 OIL
RECYCLED BULK 15/40 OIL
511.000.000.141.130.000.00 732.53
RECYCLED BULK AFT
511.000.000.141.130.000.00 519.84
Sales Tax
511.000.000.141.130.000.00 107.71
Total :1,360.08
91690 10/19/2006 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB7148 MINI ME FUN FACTORY
MINI ME FUN FACTORY #7148
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 477.75
Total :477.75
91691 10/19/2006 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S1054856.002 2091
CONDUIT/GASKET
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 113.46
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 9.76
Total :123.22
91692 10/19/2006 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 0072813 SODIUM BISULFITE
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,215.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 108.14
Total :1,323.14
38Page:Packet Page 67 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91693 10/19/2006 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0336512 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 716.33
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0337710
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 95.36
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0337711
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 95.36
Total :907.05
91694 10/19/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC WO# 10851696 City Newsletter - Fall 2006
City Newsletter - Fall 2006
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 3,200.00
King County Sales Tax
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 281.60
Total :3,481.60
91695 10/19/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 706296 Office Supplies - L. Carl
Office Supplies - L. Carl
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 67.74
King County Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 5.96
Office Supplies - HR748426
Office Supplies - HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 16.65
Service Charge
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 1.00
King County Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 1.47
39Page:Packet Page 68 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91695 10/19/2006 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
Visitor badges794131
Visitor badges
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 15.80
Service charge
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 1.00
King County Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 1.39
Total :111.01
91696 10/19/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 398788 OFFICE SUPPLIES
CALENDARS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 16.59
King County Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.37
OFFICE SUPPLIES420340
LASER TONER CARTRIDGE, COVER STOCK
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 121.44
King County Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 10.69
OFFICE SUPPLIES476805
DISCOVERY PROGRAM SUPPLIES:~
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 23.19
King County Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 1.95
Total :175.23
91697 10/19/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 739405 APC Battery BackUps
APC Battery BackUps
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 2,479.38
King County Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 218.19
Total :2,697.57
91698 10/19/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 700117 OFFICE SUPPLIES
40Page:Packet Page 69 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91698 10/19/2006 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
Office supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 143.59
King County Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 12.63
OFFICE SUPPLIES727518
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 441.18
King County Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 38.82
OFFICE SUPPLIES775849
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 60.78
King County Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 5.34
OFFICE SUPPLIES836533
Paper & Misc Office supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 126.99
King County Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 11.17
Total :840.50
91699 10/19/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 688951 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES - CALENDAR ,
41Page:Packet Page 70 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91699 10/19/2006 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
PW OFFICE SUPPLIES - CALENDAR ,
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 34.69
WATER/ SEWER - VIDEO SHELVING
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 43.20
WATER/ SEWER - VIDEO SHELVING
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 43.19
WATER/SEWER - PHOTO STORAGE
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.95
WATER/SEWER - PHOTO STORAGE
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 8.95
King County Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 3.05
King County Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.59
King County Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.59
Total :151.21
91700 10/19/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 679621 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - DEV. SVCS.
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - DEV. SVCS.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 152.73
King County Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 13.44
Total :166.17
91701 10/19/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 820400 OPS SUPPLIES
Statns' office supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 160.33
King County Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 14.11
ADMIN SUPPLIES831397
office supplies, paper
001.000.510.522.100.310.00 372.79
King County Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.100.310.00 32.03
42Page:Packet Page 71 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :579.269170110/19/2006 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
91702 10/19/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 539155 INV#539155 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
ASPIRIN
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.24
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.90
INV#623760 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD623760
3 HOLE PUNCH, STAPLER
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 31.22
APPT. BOOK FOR RAMSEUR
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 13.89
KLEENEX TISSUES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 31.68
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 2.75
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 1.22
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.79
INV#704113 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD704113
1.5" BINDERS
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 188.10
INDEX DIVIDERS
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 98.77
CD/DVD POCKETS
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 22.20
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 27.20
43Page:Packet Page 72 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91702 10/19/2006 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
INV#707740 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD707440
GRAPH PAPER PADS 4 SQ./INCH
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 9.00
TWIN PACKS COLOR PRINTER INK
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 106.08
BOISE X-9 PAPER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 179.34
CALENDARS FOR ANIMAL CONTROL
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 11.18
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 0.79
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 9.33
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 15.78
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 0.99
INV#713272 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD713272
2007 APPT. BOOK - HONNEN
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 16.69
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 1.48
INV#713273 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD713273
BLACK PRINTER INK TWIN PACK
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 46.76
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 4.12
44Page:Packet Page 73 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91702 10/19/2006 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
INV#823781 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD823781
CALENDARS FOR MANDEVILLE
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 24.70
FTO BINDERS FOR BARD
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 18.81
9 X 12 KRAFT ENVELOPES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 56.38
DYMO LABELS
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 15.43
HP Q6511X TONER CARTRIDGE
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 360.14
POST ITS, 5X8 PADS, WITE-OUT
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 52.36
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 2.17
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 1.66
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 9.57
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 1.36
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 31.69
Total :1,406.77
91703 10/19/2006 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00127005 UNIT 26 - MAIN BROOM BEARING, LOCK
UNIT 26 - MAIN BROOM BEARING, LOCK
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 380.27
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 33.85
Total :414.12
91704 10/19/2006 027148 PARAMOUNT SUPPLY CO 498731 315400
45Page:Packet Page 74 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91704 10/19/2006 (Continued)027148 PARAMOUNT SUPPLY CO
CHOCKFAST ORANGE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 440.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.36
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 39.63
315400502465
CHOCKFAST ORANGE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 440.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 81.85
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 45.92
Total :1,057.76
91705 10/19/2006 027279 PATRICK & CO 711100 INV#711100 EDMONDS ANIMAL CONTROL
2500 - 2007 PET LICENSES
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 405.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 17.07
Total :422.07
91706 10/19/2006 068435 PATTIBELL INC 2006-212 ADMIN SUPPLIES
Academy field trip
001.000.510.522.100.310.00 35.35
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.100.310.00 3.15
Total :38.50
91707 10/19/2006 071362 PEACHTREE BUSINESS PRODUCTS P125194100011 BUSINESS PRODUCTS
Employee Parking permits
121.000.340.517.900.310.00 340.00
Total :340.00
91708 10/19/2006 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK7217 WIGGLES & GIGGLES
46Page:Packet Page 75 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
47
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91708 10/19/2006 (Continued)069944 PECK, ELIZABETH
WIGGLES & GIGGLES #7217
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 420.00
WIGGLES & GIGGLES #7121
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 392.00
Total :812.00
91709 10/19/2006 061227 PLASTICS FOR LIGHTING INC 057929 MEADOWDALE CH - WHITE ACRYLIC CLOUD
MEADOWDALE CH - WHITE ACRYLIC CLOUD
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 46.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.05
Total :50.05
91710 10/19/2006 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER
Pier Electricity for SEPT 06
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.60
Stromwater Rent & Leasehold tax~
411.000.652.542.900.510.00 472.83
Total :500.43
91711 10/19/2006 070257 POSTINI INC 242410 INTERNET ANTI-VIRUS & SPAM MAINT FEE
Oct-06 Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 432.50
Total :432.50
91712 10/19/2006 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING -CITY HALL
24 hour alarm monitoring-CH~
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 35.00
Total :35.00
91713 10/19/2006 071366 QUIROZ, MILLIE QUIROZ0130 REFUND REQUEST
CLASS REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 30.00
Total :30.00
91714 10/19/2006 064291 QWEST 206-Z02-0478 FLOW METERING STATIONS
47Page:Packet Page 76 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
48
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91714 10/19/2006 (Continued)064291 QWEST
FLOW METERING STATIONS
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 137.80
Total :137.80
91715 10/19/2006 071376 REGION 3 FIRE COUNCIL 06-295 TRAINING MISC
BMc officer training
001.000.510.522.400.490.00 100.00
Total :100.00
91716 10/19/2006 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 0609072 Sr Center Elevation Survey
Sr Center Elevation Survey
001.000.651.519.920.410.00 3,447.50
Total :3,447.50
91717 10/19/2006 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 4478 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 125.00
Total :125.00
91718 10/19/2006 071007 SAWDON, MANDY SAWDON1014 MONITORING
MONITOR FOR PLAZA ROOM~
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 120.00
Total :120.00
91719 10/19/2006 065708 SCCIT 10013449 2006 Dues
2006 Dues
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 350.00
Total :350.00
91720 10/19/2006 071248 SLEEP INN - SEATAC 15466 INV#15466 ACCT#276 EDMONDS PD - SUTTON
ROOM @ ACADEMY 10/1-10/5/06
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 249.95
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 31.00
Total :280.95
48Page:Packet Page 77 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
49
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91721 10/19/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 5320018384 SIERRA PARK BALLFIELD
SIERRA PARK BALLFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.74
Total :29.74
91722 10/19/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2470018124 SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 46.01
SIGNAL LIGHT2880012519
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 35.31
LIBRARY3720012057
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,061.51
BLINKING LIGHT3970013599
BLINKING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.74
LIFT STATION #134010023721
LIFT STATION #13
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 166.06
SIGNAL LIGHT4320010194
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 34.34
TELEMETRY SYSTEM4640017416
TELEMETRY SYSTEM
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 27.14
49Page:Packet Page 78 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
50
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91722 10/19/2006 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
PUBLIC WORKS4840011953
PUBLIC WORKS
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 72.56
PUBLIC WORKS
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 362.78
PUBLIC WORKS
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 297.48
PUBLIC WORKS
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 297.48
PUBLIC WORKS
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 420.82
SIGNAL LIGHT5380011832
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.74
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX5390028164
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,651.38
TRAFFIC LIGHT5450016042
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 199.17
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS5470012336
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.74
Total :8,761.26
91723 10/19/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 133007496 206-001-485-5
24400 HIGHWAY 99
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 27.14
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.63
463-001-671-7640005870
8421 244TH SW
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 27.14
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.63
50Page:Packet Page 79 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
51
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :57.549172310/19/2006 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
91724 10/19/2006 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 32289 5 BOTTLES RED STAMP INK - BLDG. DEPT.
5 BOTTLES RED STAMP INK - BLDG. DEPT.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 20.04
Total :20.04
91725 10/19/2006 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 47343 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 40.54
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1.46
Total :42.00
91726 10/19/2006 038413 SOUND TRACTOR IN57781 PARTS
KUBOTA PARTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 348.06
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 30.36
Total :383.42
91727 10/19/2006 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC 60976 Glasby thru 10/07-Street/OVWSD
Glasby thru 10/07-Street/OVWSD
112.506.630.595.330.650.00 1,495.96
Glasby thru 10/07-Water
412.100.630.594.320.650.00 31.05
Glasby thru 10/07-Storm
412.200.630.594.320.650.00 173.50
Glasby thru 10/07-Sewer
412.300.630.594.320.650.00 9.49
Total :1,710.00
91728 10/19/2006 070684 STANTEC CONSULTING INC 110284 183910012
SUPPORT SERVICES
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 720.09
51Page:Packet Page 80 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
52
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :720.099172810/19/2006 070684 070684 STANTEC CONSULTING INC
91729 10/19/2006 061782 STATE OF WASHINGTON 9/06 LICENSING INFOR FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT.
LICENSING INFOR FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT.
001.000.620.558.800.490.00 4.92
Total :4.92
91730 10/19/2006 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 748188 MEADOWDALE CH - ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
MEADOWDALE CH - ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 113.99
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.15
FAC - WATER HEATER TI752362
FAC - WATER HEATER TI
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 79.56
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.08
FAC - 125V PHOTOCON752363
FAC - 125V PHOTOCON
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.17
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.71
SR CENTER - ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES755963
SR CENTER - ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 208.60
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.57
Total :458.83
91731 10/19/2006 067835 T-MOBILE 135840772 CELL PHONE USEAGE
PARK MAINTENANCE CELL PHONES
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 84.98
Total :84.98
91732 10/19/2006 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10445608 SUPPLIES
52Page:Packet Page 81 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
53
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91732 10/19/2006 (Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC
DEWALT BATTERY PACK
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 159.94
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.47
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.63
Total :179.04
91733 10/19/2006 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10447409 SHOP SUPPLIES - NUTS, WASHERS
SHOP SUPPLIES - NUTS, WASHERS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.51
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.09
Total :25.60
91734 10/19/2006 065710 THE CHAMBERS MULTIMEDIA 000554 CEMETERY INTERNET ACCESS
INTERNET ACCESS FOR CEMETERY SEXTON
130.000.640.536.200.420.00 17.95
Total :17.95
91735 10/19/2006 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 101416 ACCT #101416 - EDMONDS PD
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY AD~
001.000.410.521.100.440.00 17.94
Total :17.94
91736 10/19/2006 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1442678 NEWSPAPER AD
Larmen Appeal
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 38.64
NEWSPAPER AD1444765
Ordinance 3605
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 27.60
Total :66.24
91737 10/19/2006 071370 THOMPSON, MATT MTHOMPSON0925 BASKETBALL REFEREE
BASKETBALL REFEREE @ EDMONDS COMMUNITY
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 40.00
53Page:Packet Page 82 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
54
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :40.009173710/19/2006 071370 071370 THOMPSON, MATT
91738 10/19/2006 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 244474 SEWER DEPT SUPPLIES - POLE CONNECTOR
SEWER DEPT SUPPLIES - POLE CONNECTOR
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 93.05
6' FIXED POLE
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 24.40
6'-12' ADJUSTABLE POLE
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 67.04
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 42.82
Total :227.31
91739 10/19/2006 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 6099167 UTILITIES LOCATES FOR SEPT 2006
UTILITIES LOCATES FOR SEPT 2006
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 50.21
UTILITIES LOCATES FOR SEPT 2006
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 50.21
UTILITIES LOCATES FOR SEPT 2006
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 50.23
Total :150.65
91740 10/19/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 43.34
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1691
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 42.69
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-5055
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 54.35
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM425-776-5316
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 102.69
Total :243.07
54Page:Packet Page 83 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
55
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91741 10/19/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-672-7132 FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE
FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 51.35
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE425-776-1281
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 43.34
1ST & PINE CIRCUIT LINE PT EDWARDS425-AB9-0530
1st & Pine Circuit Line for Pt Edwards
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.30
Total :134.99
91742 10/19/2006 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 2079472237 Mayor's cell ph. bill - 10/7-11/06/06
Mayor's cell ph. bill - 10/7-11/06/06
001.000.210.513.100.420.00 144.87
Total :144.87
91743 10/19/2006 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 570091643-00001 CELL PHONE-STREET LEAD
CELL PHONE-STREET LEAD
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 30.02
Total :30.02
91744 10/19/2006 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 370106564-00002 425-760-3334
CELL PHONE FOR JIM STEVENS~
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 599.93
Total :599.93
91745 10/19/2006 070264 WASHINGTON OAKES RETIREMENT 319 Assisted Living Care (Jim Martin)
Assisted Living Care (Jim Martin)
009.000.390.517.370.290.00 3,720.00
Total :3,720.00
91746 10/19/2006 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I06011202 INV#I06011202 EDMONDS PD
BACKGROUND CHECKS 9/06
001.000.000.237.100.000.00 241.00
Total :241.00
91747 10/19/2006 070180 WATAI 2007 DUES 2007 WATAI DUES/SGT. M.MARSH-EDMONDS
55Page:Packet Page 84 of 174
10/19/2006
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
56
11:21:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
91747 10/19/2006 (Continued)070180 WATAI
M.MARSH-2007 WATAI DUES
001.000.410.521.220.490.00 50.00
Total :50.00
91748 10/19/2006 070685 ZIMMERMAN, JEFF ZIMMERMAN001 ULTIMATE FRISBEE
ULTIMATE FRISBEE @ CITY PARK
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 420.00
Total :420.00
Bank total :281,784.16169 Vouchers for bank code :front
281,784.16Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report169
56Page:Packet Page 85 of 174
AM-648 2.D.
Claim for Damages
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/24/2006
Submitted By:Linda Hynd, City Clerk's Office
Submitted For:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Kerilee Bennett ($531.24), and Mark Voth ($145.94).
Previous Council Action
Not applicable.
Narrative
A Claim for Damages has been received from the following:
Kerilee Bennett
9701 220th Street S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Amount: $531.24
Mark Voth
8119 Sierra Drive
Edmonds, WA 98026
Amount: $145.94
Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Bennett Claim for Damages
Link: Voth Claim for Damages
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 09:07 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/19/2006 09:12 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 09:13 AM APRV
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 10/18/2006 11:27 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/19/2006
Packet Page 86 of 174
Packet Page 87 of 174
Packet Page 88 of 174
Packet Page 89 of 174
Packet Page 90 of 174
Packet Page 91 of 174
Packet Page 92 of 174
Packet Page 93 of 174
Packet Page 94 of 174
Packet Page 95 of 174
AM-656 2.E.
Community Services Quarterly Report – October 2006
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/24/2006
Submitted By:Stephen Clifton, Community Services Time:Consent
Department:Community Services Type:Information
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Community Services Quarterly Report – October 2006.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
As requested by the City Council, the attached report provides an update on major projects currently worked on by
Community Services Department staff.
Recommendation
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1
Link: Attachment 1
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 04:03 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/19/2006 04:06 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 04:17 PM APRV
Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 10/19/2006 03:46 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/19/2006
Packet Page 96 of 174
City of Edmonds
Community Services Department
Date: October 19, 2006
To: Mayor Haakenson and City Council members
From: Stephen Clifton, AICP, Community Services Director
Subject: Community Services Quarterly Report – October 2006
As requested by the City Council, this report provides an update on major projects
currently worked on by Community Services Department staff.
I. EDMONDS CROSSING
Project Description
Edmonds Crossing is a regional project intended to provide a long-term solution to
current operational and safety conflicts between ferry, rail, automobile, bus, and
pedestrian traffic in downtown Edmonds and along State Route 104. The Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) (including Washington State Ferries
[WSF]), and City of Edmonds propose to relocate the existing state ferry terminal
from Main Street, in downtown Edmonds, to Pt. Edwards, south of the downtown
core. In the process, a multimodal center would be established that would integrate
ferry, rail, and transit services into a single complex. A realigned SR 104 from its
current intersection with Pine Street would provide access. The new complex would
provide an upgraded ferry terminal designed to meet the operational requirements for
accommodating forecast ferry ridership demand; a new rail station designed to meet
intercity passenger (Amtrak) and commuter rail (Sounder) service; a transit center
that would meet local bus system and regional transit system loading requirements;
facilities that allow both vehicular commuters and walk-on passengers to utilize
various transportation modes; parking, drop-off areas, retail/ concessionaire space,
waiting areas; and a system linking these facilities to allow for the safe movement of
users.
Significant Activities Since July 20, 2006
• August 22, 2006 – Letter from Washington State Ferries (WSF) sent to the City of
Edmonds proposing a change to the planned management structure for Edmonds
Crossing Phase 2, Final Design and Permitting. Instead of hiring a Program
Management (PM) consultant from a private company, as originally discussed
City of Edmonds Z Community Services Packet Page 97 of 174
between the City and WSF, Washington State Ferries is proposing to provide a
majority of program management services utilizing WSF staff throughout the
design and permitting process. In the attached letter (Attachment 1), WSF cites
several reasons as to why they now want to take a more active role in the
Edmonds Crossing project.
It is important to note that according to the 1993 Memorandum of Agreement
between the City, Washington State Department of Transportation, and
Community Transit, the City of Edmonds served as the lead entity only during the
environmental review process. This process was completed in July, 2005 when
the Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration signed
the State Route 104 Edmonds Crossing Record of Decision.
• September 16, 2006 – City of Edmonds Staff and Mayor met with WSF staff to
discuss WSF’s proposal to provide a majority of program management services
utilizing their staff throughout the design and permitting process. Washington
State Ferries has expressed a commitment to provide the staff and resources
necessary to keep the project moving forward and to work with the City to
ensure that this happens. If this occurs, Washington State Ferries, City staff and
the Mayor agree that the City must continue to serve a prominent role
logistically, legislatively, and in pursuing funding for the project.
• October 13, 2006 – Mike Anderson, Washington State CEO, announced that John
White has been selected as the new Director of Terminal Engineering effective
November 1, 2006. Mr. White comes from the Urban Corridors Office of WSDOT,
and is currently the Assistant Project Director of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and
Seawall Replacement Project. John has worked for WSDOT for the last thirteen
years and is a highly regarded, accomplished, and respected individual. He has
both a Bachelor's and Master's of Science degree in Civil Engineering from the
Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne, Florida.
The Director of Terminal Engineering position has been vacant since July 1st of
this year when former Director Russ East accepted a position with the Northwest
Region of WSDOT. Mr. East was the City of Edmonds’ primary contact for the
Edmonds Crossing project.
Please see new Section III, Sound Transit and Regional Transportation Investment
District, for information on how RTID is coordinating with Sound Transit to develop a
“Roads & Transit” package to submit to the voters in November 2007. If the final
transportation packages adopted by the Executive Boards of each entity reflects that
of draft packages, the combined package will include funding to help pay for the
Edmonds Crossing project.
2Packet Page 98 of 174
II. SOUND TRANSIT
Project Description
During the past few years, Sound Transit has been implementing what is called the
Sound Move Plan. One element calls for commuter rail services, otherwise known as
Sounder. Commuter rail will eventually link Everett in the north with Seattle, Tacoma
and Lakewood in the South, a total of 82 miles through three counties. Sounder is
being implemented in three phases, one of which includes Everett to Seattle. Three
commuter rail stations are planned along this corridor, i.e., Everett, Mukilteo and
Edmonds.
Everett-Seattle Sounder, at full operation, now calls for 8 trains per day, i.e., four
round trips, and will include reverse trips. This is a reduction of two round trips from
the originally proposed operational plan. Initial service will be phased in. The first
roundtrip train run began in December, 2003.
The Edmonds Station will be located between the existing Amtrak Station and Main
Street along both sides of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks. This
station is considered as an interim facility until such time as Edmonds Crossing
construction is completed. A total of $9.04 million remains of a $13.1 million lifetime
budget for Edmonds Station. A total of $4.0 million has been spent to date for agency
administration, preliminary engineering, temporary improvements, and property
acquisition and permits. The remaining budget should be sufficient to develop final
design documents, acquire platform leases and construct the interim station. The
cost estimates for the alternatives for interim improvements range from $2.11 million
to $3.05 million, based on the cost estimates at the conceptual design level.
In an attempt to address future needs in the area, a culvert is proposed to be
installed near the Marina Beach property beneath both BNSF Railroad tracks,
concurrent with the construction of a second track. This will allow for the eventual
daylighting of Willow Creek at the time the Edmonds Crossing project is constructed.
Sound Transit 2: The Next Generation
With an updated study and a Long-Range Plan that accounts for new growth, Sound
Transit is working to set priorities for Sound Transit II — the next set of investments
in our regional mass transit system. These projects will build directly on the system
that is up and running today to create more options for travel.
As mentioned in previous quarterly reports, Sound Transit has been working to
establish Sound Transit II priorities with input from the public, local cities and
counties, elected officials, civic groups, planning groups, and their transit partners
among others, to set priorities on a wide range of investment options. Although
Sound Transit had been considering presenting a Sound Transit II investment plan to
the voters in the fall of 2006, RTID legislation, amended this year by the legislature,
prevents such from occurring. Specifically, HB2871 requires RTID and Sound Transit
transportation plans to be placed on the November 2007 ballot together and each
proposal must pass independently in order for both to be considered passed.
3Packet Page 99 of 174
Significant Activities since July 20, 2006
• September 21, 3006 – Sound Transit Executive Board Finance Committee met to
review and discuss an Edmonds Interim Station Alternatives report prepared by
Sound Transit Staff and consultants. The purpose of the meeting was to inform
the Board of the recently completed alternatives analysis and sequencing plan for
Edmonds Station interim improvements, and to discuss next steps on how to
proceed with Edmonds Station. The report presented to the Finance Committee
contained a preferred alternative, and estimated costs, to design and construct
improvements at the interim Edmonds Station to support continued Sounder
service to Edmonds pending transfer of operations to Edmonds Crossing.
As a result of recent successes related to Edmonds Crossing, e.g., receipt of
State Route 104 Edmonds Crossing Record of Decision and state and federal
appropriations, Sound Transit is assuming a 10-15 year lifespan for the interim
Sounder North Edmonds Station. As such, the scope of work for Edmonds
Station, as proposed by Sound Transit, may change to reflect that shorter
lifespan and the cost of developing the station is expected to be less in concert
with the reduced scope.
The preferred alternative includes asphalt platforms, a concrete platform edge
with tactile warning tile, a fabricated handrail at the back of the platform for
safety, and a standard metal frame shelter with a curved roof. The City’s
pedestrian level street lights would be used as platform lighting. These are
readily available, relatively inexpensive and connect the station with the existing
street network. The Amtrak station would be modified to meet the set back
requirements from the new second mainline and provide a new location for a
baggage cart entrance. The parking lot would be reconfigured to provide 206
parking stalls, six of which are accessible. The cost estimate for this alternative
based on the conceptual design is $2.43 million.
As far as what will happen with the remaining unexpended $6.61M construction
budget, Sound Transit has a current policy to put uncommitted/unexpended
funds back into program reserves for the Subarea the project is located within.
These funds would help support ST2’s financial capacity. ST2 currently includes
Edmonds Crossing as a core project. If Edmonds Crossing were not partially
funded by ST2, as a result of an unsuccessful ST2 vote, projects such as a
permanent Edmonds Station (between Dayton and Main Streets) could compete
in the future for funds remaining in the program reserve.
• October 11, 2006 – Sound Transit notified the City that 2007 Draft Service
Implementation Plan is Available for Comment. Each year, a draft Service
Implementation Plan (SIP) is prepared by Sound Transit's Transportation Services
Department to guide the delivery of ST Express Bus, Sounder Commuter Rail,
and Link Light Rail services. Developed in close coordination with the agency's
proposed budget and long-range financial plan, the draft SIP describes service
4Packet Page 100 of 174
additions and revisions proposed for the upcoming budget year, together with
preliminary proposals and financial estimates for the subsequent five-year period.
Sound Transit is now entering the public outreach phase of the 2007 SIP process.
To that end, the Draft 2007 Service Implementation Plan and the less technical
Regional Transit News (RTN) are now posted on the ST web site. Individuals can
link to either publication by going to the Service Planning page at
http://www.soundtransit.org/x1195.xml or to the Sound Transit web site
http://www.soundtransit.org/newsroom/rider/service/ .
Citizens are also encouraged to attend a public hearing on Thursday, Nov 16
from 11:30 to Noon at Union Station in the Ruth Fisher Board Room, 401 S.
Jackson St., Seattle, WA.
III. SOUND TRANSIT & REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT
DISTRICT
This is a new item related to the combined efforts of Sound Transit and Regional
Transportation Investment District.
Project Description
The Regional Transportation Investment District (“RTID”) was created by the
Legislature and charged with developing a transportation package that improves
significant roadways and bridges in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. As
mentioned in the past two Community Services Quarterly Reports, earlier this year,
Governor Gregoire signed HB2871 amending RTID legislation. The bill prohibits RTID
and Sound Transit transportation packages from going to the ballot in 2006 and
requiring them to be placed on the November 2007 ballot together; each proposal
must pass for the other to pass. The legislation also establishes a transportation
governance commission with the Governor responsible for appointing citizens to what
has since been named Regional Transportation Commission. The commission will be
responsible for providing recommendations to the 2007 legislature for reforming
transportation governance in the Puget Sound region.
RTID is now in the process of coordinating with Sound Transit (“ST”) to develop a
“Roads & Transit” package to submit to the voters in November 2007.
The current Roads & Transit draft proposal:
• Includes potential extensions of the region's light-rail system;
• Builds on the Sounder commuter rail and ST Express regional bus system that
voters approved in 1996 and is in place or under construction today; and
• Includes improvements to key roadways and bridges in King, Pierce and
Snohomish counties.
More recently, RTID and Sound Transit held public open houses around the region in
September and October. These events provided an opportunity for citizens to learn
5Packet Page 101 of 174
about, and share their ideas on, the Roads & Transit plan. The RTID Executive Board
and organization wants to hear from citizens prior to October 27, 2006 so that they
can work through the fall and winter developing a set of road investments that reflect
citizen’s priorities. Comments may be sent via e-mail to www.rtid.org or write to
RTID, 411 University St., Suite 1200, Seattle, WA 98101.
The following lists activities related to each entity:
Significant Activities Since July 20, 2006
• July, August, September and October, 2006 – City staff continued to monitor and
participate in activities related to Sound Transit and the Regional Transportation
Investment District (RTID). Regional Transportation Investment District and
Sound Transit information is available via the internet at www.rtid.org and
www.soundtransit.org/st2.
• September 27, 2006 – Snohomish County RTID working group met to discuss
Snohomish County’s participation in the October 3, 2006 Sound Transit/RTID
Open House.
• October 3, 2006 – I attended a Sound Transit/ Regional Transportation Investment
District (RTID) public open house which was held at the Everett Events Center,
one of five scheduled throughout the region in late September and early October.
The open houses are designed to begin gathering public review and comment on
Sound Transit 2 proposals and on the Blueprint for Progress proposal from RTID.
The Sound Transit plan includes potential extensions of the region’s light rail
system and builds on the Sounder commuter rail and ST Express regional bus
system voters approved in 1996 and that is in place and under construction
today. The Roads & Transit plan will include RTID’s proposal for improving key
roadways and bridges in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.
IV. UNOCAL SITE CLEANUP
Project Description
The UNOCAL property consists of an upper yard, which contained fuel storage tanks
as recently as last year, and a lower yard which currently contains pipes, truck-
loading racks, office buildings, etc. Additionally, petroleum contamination also exists
in the soil and is floating in, and on top of, ground and surface water, resulting from
more than 60 years of operation.
Significant Activities since July 20, 2006
• September 18, 2006 – Washington State Department of Ecology issued a letter to
UNOCAL commenting on an Agreed Order for Revised Draft Interim Action
Report, Work Plan for 2006 Lower Yard Interim Action, UNOCAL Edmonds Bulk
Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington dated May 15, 2006. In the letter, the
Department of Ecology expressed that they would like to hold a public meeting
6Packet Page 102 of 174
on the Agreed Order, the Remedial Investigation Report, and the Supplemental
Remedial Investigation Report in January or February of 2007.
V. EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT
Project Description
The City Council, pursuant to state law, approved the formation of the Public Facilities
District (PFD) at its April 24, 2001 meeting. A PFD is a separate municipal corporation
that has authority to undertake the design, construction, operation, promotion and
financing of a Regional Center in the city. The Public Facilities District board consists
of five members appointed by the City Council on June 19, 2001. The Board is
pursuing renovation of the original Edmonds High School Auditorium in order to
transform it into a first class Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) and multipurpose
facility.
Significant Activities Since July 20, 2006
• July, August, September and October 2006 – The Fundraising Campaign
Committee continued its focus on fundraising activities.
• August 28, 2006 – Jeff Vaughn started work as the Edmonds Center for the Arts
Technical Director. Mr. Vaughn has 3 years of experience as Head Sound
Engineer for Seattle Repertory Theatre Company and 5 years of experience as
Technical Director for the Admiral Theatre in Bremerton. The Admiral Theatre
presents similar programs to those planned for Edmonds Center for the Arts.
• September 11, 2006 – Jim Petosa started work as the Edmonds Center for the Arts
Marketing Audiences Services Manager. Mr. Petosa has more than 20 years
experience as a customer care specialist as manager of Petosa’s Family Grocer in
Edmonds. He also brings over 20 years of community relations to his new role.
• September 21, 2006 – City of Edmonds Certificate of Occupancy issued for the
Edmonds Center for the Arts.
NOTE: On September 23, 2006, Cascade Symphony will perform their first concert in
the renovated Edmonds Center for the Arts.
VI. SNOHOMISH COUNTY PAINE FIELD
Overview
On July 14, 2004, a Mead & Hunt Inc. Business Travel Survey was issued which
focused on the market potential and options for Paine Field. On August 20, 2004, a
Snohomish County Citizen Cabinet issued an Economic Development Final Report -
Blueprint for the Economic Future of Snohomish County. Both reports put Paine Field
in the regional spotlight as they highlight the possibility of using Paine Field for
commercial aircraft operations, thus changing its general aviation status.
7Packet Page 103 of 174
Significant Activities Since July 20, 2006
• September 11, 2006 – Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon announced the
selection of the national airport law firm of Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell to provide
legal and regulatory expertise to assist the Mediated Role Determination (“MRD”)
Panel in its efforts to update the 27 year-old MRD document. At its July meeting,
the Panel voted to seek the assistance of legal counsel to determine whether
changes in federal law during the past two decades may today conflict with the
MRD document. It will also examine the extent to which commercial air service at
Paine Field may be limited within the context of these laws. Legal counsel was/is
to provide background information only and not create a legal roadmap either to
promote or discourage commercial air service.
• October 12, 2006 – Memorandum from Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell sent to Peter
Camp, Executive Director of the Office of the County Executive. Subject of the
letter is Questions Presented by MRD Panel on Snohomish County’s Legal
Authority Regarding Snohomish County Airport – Paine Field.
• October 18, 2006 – Paine Field MRD Panel meeting. The purpose of the meeting
was to hear a presentation from Peter Kirsch of Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell regarding
the federal regulation of airport operations, and discuss the memorandum
referenced above.
VII. RAILROAD QUIET ZONE
Overview
As discussed on a few occasions, there is an expressed desire of the City Council and
Port of Edmonds to establish a quite zone along the City's shoreline. A quiet zone is a
section of a rail line that contains one or more consecutive public crossings at which
locomotive horns are not routinely sounded.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has required horns to be sounded to warn
motorists and pedestrians at public crossings nation-wide for quite some time. The
FRA issued a rule on April 27, 2005, which became effective on June 24, 2005,
clarifying these requirements as follows:
o Requires the sounding of locomotive horn approaching every public crossing
(replacing state laws)
o Horn shall be sounded at least 15 sec but no more than 20 sec before a
locomotive enters railroad crossing and not greater than ¼ mile away
o Sec. 229.129 defines minimum and maximum train horn decibel levels (96dB-
110dB)
The FRA rule also provides exceptions where risk is minimized enabling communities
to establish quiet zones by reducing the risk caused by lack of horns. Quiet Zones,
and partial Quiet Zones, can now be established by a Public Authority with jurisdiction
for the roadway at a crossing, provided Quiet Zones include more than one public
8Packet Page 104 of 174
authority (all agencies must agree and actions must be taken jointly), and Quiet
Zones may be established irrespective of state law. Partial Quiet Zones are when
train horns are not routinely sounded for a specified period of time, e.g., during the
evening and/or nighttime hours. Local governments have two ways of creating a full
or partial Quiet Zone, i.e., 1) Show that the lack of a horn does not pose a significant
safety risk, and 2) Implement safety measures to reduce excess risk associated with
no horn.
In addition to activities conducted on this matter in the past, I have recently been in
contact with Railroad Controls Limited (RCL), a railroad signal and communications
company. This company serves as a resource for railroads needing help with signaling
and communications. They have established contractual relationships with more
than fifty railroads, including commuter rail systems, and currently maintain over
2,100 highway-railroad grade crossings, warning systems and wayside signal
systems.
Railroad Controls Limited works closely with American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA) and Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) committees in the development of standards and recommended
practices pertaining to Quiet Zones. RCL manufactures Automated Horn Systems
(Wayside Horns) and the Exit Gate Management Systems (Four-Quadrant Gate
Systems) both approved for use in creating FRA approved Quiet Zones. They also
have expertise in assisting communities or consultants in the design and
implementation of Quiet Zone projects. I have spoken to RCL about assessing
Edmonds’ needs and if possible, provide a cost-effective implementation plan that
utilizes the FRA approved Quiet Zone treatments.
Significant Activities Since July 20, 2006
• September 25, 2006 – As requested, Railroad Controls Limited sent the City a
proposal to conduct a Quiet Zone evaluation and Wayside Horn demonstration
for the City. The evaluation will be conducted along the BNSF corridor and
includes the public roadway crossing locating downtown. Decibel meters will be
used to determine the difference in noise levels between the train horns and the
wayside horns at various areas surrounding the crossing. The Quiet Zone
evaluation will be based on the criteria for the establishment of Quiet Zones as
outlined in the Final Rule of Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway/Rail Grade
Crossings. Upon review of the proposal, I have asked RCL to set up a test
sometime in January, 2007. RCL is not available during November and
December of this year due to conducting evaluations for other cities. RCL’s
proposed fee, including expenses, should not exceed $2,000.
9Packet Page 105 of 174
Packet Page 106 of 174
Packet Page 107 of 174
Packet Page 108 of 174
AM-646 2.F.
Puget Drive/9th Avenue N./Caspers Street Walkway
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/24/2006
Submitted By:Dave Gebert, Engineering Time:Consent
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review
Committee:
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Agenda Memo
Subject
Authorization to advertise for statements of qualification from engineering consultants for design of the Puget
Drive/9th Avenue North/Caspers Street Walkway project.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The proposed 2007-2008 capital budget includes $380,000 in 2007 for the Puget Drive/9th Avenue North/Caspers
Street Walkway project.
This project will significantly improve pedestrian safety along one of the City’s busiest principle arterials, SR 524, by
constructing sidewalks on the north and west side of Caspers Street and 9th Avenue North, from 3rd Avenue North
to Puget Drive, and on the north side of Puget Drive, from Olympic View Drive to Olympic Avenue. See attached
project vicinity map.
The project also includes enhancements to existing uncontrolled pedestrian crossings to improve their visibility and
safety, as well as upgrades to existing curb ramps on the opposite side of the roadway to meet current ADA
accessibility standards.
A grant application was submitted in September 2006 for construction funding for the project.
Recommendation
Council authorize Staff to advertise for statements of qualification from engineering consultants for design of the
Puget Drive/9th Avenue North/Caspers Street Walkway project.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Project Map
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Development Services Duane Bowman 10/18/2006 09:45 AM APRV
2 Parks and Recreation Brian McIntosh 10/18/2006 09:54 AM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/18/2006 10:26 AM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/18/2006 10:40 AM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/18/2006 11:23 AM APRV
Form Started By: Dave Gebert Started On: 10/18/2006 06:52 AMPacket Page 109 of 174
Form Started By: Dave Gebert Started On: 10/18/2006 06:52 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/18/2006
Packet Page 110 of 174
Vicinity Map
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program
2006 Call for Projects
City of Edmonds
Puget Drive (SR 524) Walkway Project
Ferry
Terminal
H w y 99
Downtown
Edmonds
Woodway
Perrinville
E
dm
o
n
d
s
Marina
Begin Project
End Project
Wy
DEER PARK RESERVE
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program2006 Call for ProjectsCity of EdmondsPuget Drive (SR 524) Walkway Project
CASPERS ST
CASPERS ST
3 R D A V E N
3 R D A V E N
9 T H A V E N
9 T H A V E N
PUGET
PUGET
DRIVE
DRIVE
O L Y M P IC A V E
O L Y M
P I C A V E
Est.18 9 0 Est.18 9 0
Packet Page 111 of 174
AM-649 2.G.
Planning Board Candidates
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/24/2006
Submitted By:Linda Carl, Mayor's Office
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Action
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Confirmation of Planning Board candidates John Reed and Michael Bowman.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Two Planning Board members, Jim Crim and Virginia Cassutt, whose terms are due to expire at the end of this year,
have retired early. Don Henderson, the current alternate, will move into Position #1 vacated by Jim. This leaves two
positions to be filled: Position #2 and the alternate position. Mayor Haakenson interviewed five applicants and
selected John Reed to fill Position #2 and Michael Bowman to fill the alternate position. Planning Board members
must be confirmed by Council.
Recommendation
Please confirm John Reed for Position #2 and Michael Bowman for the alternate position on the Planning Board.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Applications
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 10:38 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/19/2006 10:45 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 10:46 AM APRV
Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 10/19/2006 09:52 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/19/2006
Packet Page 112 of 174
Packet Page 113 of 174
Packet Page 114 of 174
AM-650 2.H.
Friends of the Library Proclamation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/24/2006
Submitted By:Linda Carl, Mayor's Office
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Information
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Proclamation in honor of Friends of the Edmonds Library Week, October 22 - 24, 2006.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Edmonds is fortunate to have a dedicated Friends of the Library group that has existed since 1979 and that
consistently raises funds to enhance the services of the Edmonds Library. This year the Friends of the Edmonds
Library are having their donated book sale and fundraiser on Saturday, October 28.
Recommendation
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 10:38 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/19/2006 10:45 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 10:46 AM APRV
Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 10/19/2006 09:59 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/19/2006
Packet Page 115 of 174
Packet Page 116 of 174
AM-658 2.I.
Support Four-year University in Snohomish/Island/Skagit
County Service Area
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/24/2006
Submitted By:Jana Spellman, City Council
Submitted For:Mauri Moore Time:Consent
Department:City Council Type:Action
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Proposed Resolution in support of a four-year university in the Snohomish/Island/Skagit County Service Area.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board will be meeting on the 26th to consider the placement of a
new institute of higher learning in our state. Two communities are pressing for consideration:
Snohomish/Island/Skagit county service area and the Tri-Cities service area.
Snohomish County, as the fastest growing county in the state, is perfectly poised to be the logical location for such
an institution.
Therefore, I am asking the Council to support the resolution and accompanying letter to the HEC board so that we
may join the cities of Everett, Lynnwood and others, the Snohomish County Economic Development Council, and
the Everett Chamber of Commerce, in stating our clear preference to locate a 4-year upper division Polytechnic
University in Snohomish County.
Recommendation
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 4-Year University Resolution
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/20/2006 10:14 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/20/2006 10:39 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/20/2006 11:25 AM APRV
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 10/20/2006 08:41 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/20/2006
Packet Page 117 of 174
City of Edmonds
Incorporated 1890
Resolution
No. 1132
Whereas, Snohomish County is the fastest growing county in Washington State; and
Whereas, Snohomish County is the second least-served county for "baccalaureate and graduate degrees in Washington; and
Whereas, Workforce demands are in the applied math, science and engineering fields, trending upward in those areas, with
hundreds of bachelor's degree-level jobs being recruited from out of state each year; and
Whereas, Washington State must stay competitive in a global arena in the areas of aerospace, bio-technology, alternative
energy, nano-technology, transportation and other emerging fields; and
Whereas, Snohomish County Community Colleges enroll 40% of their students for transfer to upper level degrees each year;
and
Whereas, 40% of all bachelor’s degree holders, 35% of all math, science, engineering and technology majors and 70% of all
first-generation students begin their journey toward a 4-year degree at a community college; and
Whereas, Edmonds Community College and Central Washington University serve our community on one campus, allowing
students to complete a bachelor's degree seamlessly and at low cost compared to a full stand-alone 4-year
university; and
Whereas, Limited state resources create a demand for maximizing return on education investments already made through
facilities and
Whereas, Expanded opportunity for students in all socio-economic levels is essential to the overall success of our state;
Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved that the Edmonds City Council supports the creation of a strong upper and graduate level
university in North Snohomish County. Such a university should function as a regional/state resource focused on current applied
technologies and manufacturing disciplines with a strong applied research component. We believe our educational investments must
be efficient, effective and as immediately accessible as possible to as many students as are prepared for upper level and graduate
work. While we need to build programs in our K-12 systems that attract and educate future higher education students, it is also critical
to support and grow programs in the applied sciences in community colleges to prepare students for a world-class upper division and
graduate-level university that will serve the needs of the county, region, and state.
We urge the Higher Education Coordinating Board to create this upper division and graduate level university in Snohomish County,
focused on applied technologies and advanced manufacturing disciplines. We urge the Board to consider ways in which this university
may begin accepting qualified students who are now seeking upper division work as soon as possible, as the workforce demand is
great and growing and the supply of students is already backlogged. We also urge the Board to fully fund our existing colleges and
universities already serving our region's students.
Passed, Approved, and Adopted this 24th day of October, 2006.
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Deanna Dawson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Attest: City Clerk
Packet Page 118 of 174
AM-647 3.
Public Defender Annual Report
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/24/2006
Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's
Office Time:10 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Public Defender Annual Report
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
James Feldman, Public Defender, will present his annual report to the City Council. In addition, Mr. Feldman
submitted the attached written report for the Mayor and City Council's review.
Recommendation
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Public Defender Report
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/18/2006 11:23 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/18/2006 11:34 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 09:13 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 10/18/2006 11:16 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/19/2006
Packet Page 119 of 174
Packet Page 120 of 174
Packet Page 121 of 174
Packet Page 122 of 174
Packet Page 123 of 174
Packet Page 124 of 174
Packet Page 125 of 174
AM-653 4.
Prosecutor Annual Report
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/24/2006
Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's
Office Time:10 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Prosecutor Annual Report
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
James Zachor and Melanie Thomas Dane serve as the Prosecutor for the City and will present an annual report to
the City Council.
In addition, Mr. Zachor submitted the attached written report for the Mayor and City Council's review.
Recommendation
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Prosecutor Report
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 01:08 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/19/2006 01:27 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 02:56 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 10/19/2006 01:02 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/19/2006
Packet Page 126 of 174
Packet Page 127 of 174
Packet Page 128 of 174
AM-654 5.
Transportation Choices Coalition
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/24/2006
Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's
Office Time:20 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Review
Committee:
Action:
Agenda Memo
Subject
Presentation by Transportation Choices Coalition regarding the Transportation 101 Program.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Rachel Smith, Field Director with Transportation Choices Coalition, will provide a presentation on the
"Transportation 101 Program."
Information regarding Transportation Choices Coalition is attached.
Recommendation
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Transportation Choices Coalition Mission
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 02:56 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/19/2006 03:13 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 03:14 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 10/19/2006 01:38 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/19/2006
Packet Page 129 of 174
Packet Page 130 of 174
AM-651 6.
Draft "BD - Downtown Business Zones"
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/24/2006
Submitted By:Rob Chave, Planning
Submitted For:Rob Chave Time:60 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 October 3, 2006. Due to the length of the October 3, 2006, meeeting, the deliberations were continued to this
meeting, October 24, 2006.
Narrative
[Note: this agenda item is a duplicate of the 10/3/2006 agenda memo.]
Packet Page 131 of 174
[Note: this agenda item is a duplicate of the 10/3/2006 agenda memo.]
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
(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 10/19/2006 11:46 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/19/2006 11:55 AM APRVPacket Page 132 of 174
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/19/2006 02:56 PM APRV
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 10/19/2006 11:10 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/19/2006
Packet Page 133 of 174
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
Packet Page 134 of 174
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
Packet Page 135 of 174
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
Packet Page 136 of 174
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
Packet Page 137 of 174
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.
Packet Page 138 of 174
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.
Packet Page 139 of 174
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.
Packet Page 140 of 174
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.
Packet Page 141 of 174
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.
Packet Page 142 of 174
Draft – 7.26.2006 Page 10
Packet Page 143 of 174
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,
Packet Page 144 of 174
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).
Packet Page 145 of 174
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
Packet Page 146 of 174
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.
Packet Page 147 of 174
3 R D A V E N
2 N D A V E N
MAGNOLIA LN
6 T H A V E N
S U N S E T A V E N
4 T H A V E N
JAMES ST
R A I L R O A D A V E
5 T H A V E N
HEMLOCK WAY
HOWELL WAY
S U NS
E T A V E S
GLEN ST
HOLLY DR
2 N D A V E N
2 N D A V E
3 R D A V E N
CAROL WAY
3 R D A V E N
BELL ST
MAIN ST
6 T H A V E N
DAYTON ST
HOMELAND DR
SATER LANE
W D
A
Y
T
O
N S
T
3 R D A V E S
4 T H A V E S
E D M O N D S W Y /S R 1 0 4
6 T H A V E S
5 T H A V E S
WALNUT ST
5 T H A V E S
HEMLOCK WAY
SEAMONT LN
ERBEN DR
3 R D A V E S
R A I L R O A D S T
GILTNER LANE
D U R B I N S T
ALOHA WAY
2 N D A V E S
EDMONDS ST
6 T H A V E S
ALDER ST
A D M I R A L W A Y
2 N D A V E S
3 R D A V E S
4 T H A V E S
PINE ST
4 T H A V E S
E D M O N D S W A Y /S R 1 0 4
4 T H A V E S
MAPLE ST
DAYTON ST
ALDER ST
MAIN ST
BELL ST
EDMONDS ST
DALEY ST
SPRAGUE ST
5 T H A V E S
BELL ST
MAIN ST
Planning Board Recommendation
7/26/2006
BD1 = Downtown Retail Core
BD2 = Downtown Mixed Commercial
BD3 = Downtown Convenience Commercial
BD4 = Downtown Mixed Residential
BD5 = Downtown Arts Corridor
RM-1.5 = Multi Family RM-1.5
BD1BD2
BD2
BD2
BD2BD4
BD3
BD5
BD2
BD2
BD4
Proposed New Downtown Zones
RM-1.5
BD2
B D 2
Packet Page 148 of 174
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
Packet Page 149 of 174
30
’
35
’
25
+
5
=
3
5
?
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
0
o
f
1
7
4
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
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
1
o
f
1
7
4
30
’
35
’
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
2
o
f
1
7
4
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
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
3
o
f
1
7
4
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
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
4
o
f
1
7
4
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
5
o
f
1
7
4
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
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
6
o
f
1
7
4
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
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
7
o
f
1
7
4
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
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
8
o
f
1
7
4
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
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
9
o
f
1
7
4
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
Packet Page 160 of 174
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.
Packet Page 161 of 174
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
Packet Page 162 of 174
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
Packet Page 163 of 174
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
Packet Page 164 of 174
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
Packet Page 165 of 174
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.
Packet Page 166 of 174
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
Packet Page 167 of 174
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
Packet Page 168 of 174
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.
Packet Page 169 of 174
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.
Packet Page 170 of 174
AM-657 8.
2007-08 Budget Deliberations
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:10/24/2006
Submitted By:Dan Clements, Administrative Services Time:20 Minutes
Department:Administrative Services Type:Action
Review
Committee:
Action:Recommend Review by Full Council
Agenda Memo
Subject
2007-08 Budget Deliberations
Previous Council Action
October 17: Budget Distributed to Council and community.
Narrative
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to raise questions they might have about the 2007-08 budget. Staff will
provide responses to these questions at a future workshop.
Due to the lengthy October 24 Council agenda, it was felt prudent to provide a forum where Councilmembers can
publically raise any budget questions they might have, and reserve staff response and further discussion of these
issues to a time that can be exclusively devoted to budget issues.
The attached memo contains responses to two questions raised so far: 1.) The status of General Fund ending
balances and 2.) The financial impact of proposed General Fund tax and fee increases.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Councilmembers raise any budget related questions they might currently have so staff can
prepare responses and have a full discussion at an up-coming budget review session.
Revenue & Expenditures
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Budget_response_1
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/20/2006 08:48 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 10/20/2006 09:06 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/20/2006 09:10 AM APRV
Form Started By: Dan Clements Started On: 10/20/2006 08:29 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/20/2006
Packet Page 171 of 174
1
Clements, Dan
From:Clements, Dan
Sent:Thursday, October 19, 2006 2:53 PM
To:Dave Orvis (daveo@bsquare.com); Deanna Dawson (deannadawson@yahoo.com); Mauri
Moore (maurinmark@comcast.net); Michael Plunkett (michaelppp98@yahoo.com); Peggy
Olson (electpeggy@comcast.net); Richard Marin (richard.Marin@ci.edmonds.wa.us); Ron
Wambolt (rrwambolt@msn.com)
Cc:Haakenson, Gary; Junglov, Kathleen
Subject:2007-08 Budget Follow-Up Questions
Hi Councilmembers:
This is just a quick e-mail to provide follow-up responses to the budget questions that
have been raised so far. If there are any additional items you would like us to run down
prior to next Tuesday’s scheduled work shop, please let us know.
General Fund Ending Balances
The first question dealt with General Fund ending balances, and what revenue options
are contained in the scenario presented in the 2007-08 budget.
General Fund ending balances are presented on pages 11 and 16 of the preliminary
budget. The revenue schedules contain the 1% property tax increase, use of remaining
banked capacity, and sales tax sourcing commencing in 2008. They do not contain
revenue from increasing utility taxes to 6% in 2007, nor the voter approved EMS levy in
2008. If these revenues are added, the General Fund ending balance figures would
appear as the table and chart below indicate.
Year
Budget Fund
Balance
Balance w EMS
and Utility Tax
8% Target
Fund Balance
2006 3,551,329 3,551,329 2,541,143
2007 2,001,823 2,282,988 2,662,400
2008 92,230 1,896,825 2,768,106
2009 (2,286,635)1,070,857 2,862,209
2010 (5,119,767)(179,911)2,960,740
Packet Page 172 of 174
2
General Fund - Fund Balance
(4,000,000)
(3,000,000)
(2,000,000)
(1,000,000)
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
8% of Expenditure Fund Balance
Balance w ith Utility Tax in 2007,
EMS Levy in 2008
Tax & Rate Increase Impact
The next set of questions dealt with what financial impact the proposed tax and fee
increases will have on an average customer. The estimated annual impact these is
$34.27 for an average household. This information is presented in the table below.
Average Utility Bill Average Utility Bill Impact of
Current Rate/Tax Total Proposed Rate/Tax Total
Average
Bill
Water 48.00 2.76 50.76 49.44 2.97 52.41 1.65
Sewer 51.00 3.06 54.06 51.00 3.06 54.06 0.00
Storm 16.00 0.00 16.00 16.00 0.96 16.96 0.96
Total 115.00 5.82 120.82 116.44 6.99 123.43 2.61
Estimated Annual Impact (Two Month Billing
Cycle) 15.64
Gas 50.00 2.88 52.88 50.00 3.00 53.00 0.13
Telephone 35.00 2.01 37.01 35.00 2.10 37.10 0.09
Cable 50.00 2.50 52.50 50.00 3.00 53.00 0.50
135.00 7.39 142.39 135.00 8.10 143.10 0.71
Estimated Annual Impact (One Month Billing
Cycle) 8.55
2007 Estimated
Assessed Value Rate per/1000 Est. cost to home
6,646,773,139 of AV valued @ $300,000
1% Levy Increase 84,600 0.012728 3.82
Banked Capacity 138,677 0.020864 6.26
Estimated Annual Impact 10.08
Total Estimated Annual Impact 34.27
Once again, if you have other information that you would like to have us run down,
Packet Page 173 of 174
3
please let us know and we will start working on providing responses.
Thank You,
Dan Clements
City of Edmonds
425-771-0239
Packet Page 174 of 174