The URL can be used to link to this page

2007.01.16 CC Agenda PacketAGENDA Edmonds City Council Meeting Council Chambers 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds January 16, 2007 6:30 p.m. - Executive Session Regarding Real Estate and Legal Matters. 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute Approval of Agenda Consent Agenda Items A. Roll Call B. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2007. C. Approval of claim checks #93003 through #93164 for December 21, 2006 in the amount of $728,556.89, checks #93166 through #93206 for December 28, 2006 in the amount of $79,337.51 and checks #93207 through #93359 for January 4, 2007 in the amount of $1,751,004.12. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #44291 through #44342 for the period of December 1 through December 15, 2006 in the amount of $888,506.49 and direct deposit and checks #44343 through #44392 for the period of December 16 through December 31, 2006 in the amount of $666,345.13. Approval of Police uniform allowance checks #44394 through #44423 for January 5, 2007 in the amount of $7,578.11. D. Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Lynnwood and the City of Edmonds for joint funding of the Recycling Coordinator. E. Authorization for Mayor to sign Agreement for the SeaShore Transportation Forum. F. Acceptance of Quitclaim Deed from Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 for portions of the Pacific Northwest Traction Company Right -of -Way for purposes of construction, operation and maintenance of the Interurban Trail project within the City of Edmonds, and authorization for the City Clerk to record said Quitclaim Deed. G. Professional Services Agreement (PSA) between City of Edmonds and Patton Boggs, LLC - Update and Addendum #1. H. Ordinance ratifying a change to the Mayor's salary effective July 1, 2006 as approved by Council on May 16, 2006. I• Ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance of not to exceed $5,500,000.00 par value of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2007, of the City for general City purposes to provide funds with which to (a) repay and redeem the City's Water and Sewer Revenue Bond Anticipation Note, 2005 and its Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Note, 2006; (b) pay or reimburse the City for HVAC improvements to City facilities; (c) pay or reimburse the City for the Anderson Center seismic project; (d) pay or reimburse the City for energy conservation measures; (e) pay or reimburse the City for utility improvements (collectively, the "Projects") and (f) pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing the date, form, maturities, interest rates, terms and covenants of the bonds; establishing a bond redemption fund and construction funds; and providing for the public sale of the bonds. Report on final construction costs for the Glen -Daley Alley Improvement project and Council acceptance of project. (45 Continued deliberation and action on an ordinance adding a new Chapter 16.43 establishing BD -Downtown Min) Business Zones and amending the City's Zoning Map to rezone certain property specified therein to BD categories. Public comment will be received. (10 Proposed Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 3608 establishing a moratorium within the City's central Min) business district. AgendaQuick©2005 - 2007 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved 5. (60 Public Hearing on the Planning Board recommendation to deny an application by Tony Shapiro to create Min) two new zones for the Edmonds Way Corridor. 6. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person) 7. (15 Report on City Council Committee Meetings. Min) g. (5 Min) Mayor's Comments g. (15 Min) Council Comments 10. Adjourn AgendaQuick©2005 - 2007 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved AM-797 2.13. Approval of City Council Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 01/16/2007 Submitted By: Linda Hynd, City Clerk's Office Submitted For: Sandy Chase Time: Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2007. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the January 9, 2007 City Council Minutes. Previous Council Action Not applicable. Narrative Please refer to the attached Draft Minutes. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 01-09-07 Draft Council Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/11/2007 09:36 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/11/2007 09:47 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 01/11/2007 01:21 PM APRV Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 01/11/2007 09:33 AM Final Approval Date: 01/11/2007 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES Special Meeting January 9, 2007 Following a Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m. for Council Committee meetings, 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 Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 2, 2007. 3. MOTION TO REMOVE THE FOLLOWING MATTER FROM THE TABLE: CONTINUED DELIBERATION AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 16.43 ESTABLISHING BD -DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONES AND AMENDING THE CITY'S ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY SPECIFIED THEREIN TO BD CATEGORIES. Mayor Haakenson asked City Attorney Scott Snyder to describe taking a motion off the table. Mr. Snyder explained this began as the Council started having discussions via email that were dangerously close to deliberation. The intent of this item was to give the Council an opportunity to have that discussion in an open public forum. He reminded the Council was in deliberation on a legislative matter; the only notice required to continue that deliberation was special meeting notice. With regard to final action, the Council could only pass the Planning Board's recommendation in the form provided; if the Council made significant changes, it would be best to continue the matter until all Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 9, 2007 Page 1 Councilmembers were present. If the Council wished, a further public hearing could be scheduled. He relayed staff s request that the Council via deliberation provide firm direction regarding what they wanted the ordinance to look like. He noted the difficulty with an item such as this that had been discussed over a period of time, the product changed. For final public comment, he recommended having as close to the final product as possible. Mr. Snyder referred to Councilmember Dawson's request for information regarding a "story" approach. He began the research including gathering other cities' ordinances but delayed completion pending further discussion tonight. He pointed out when the Council forwarded this matter to the Planning Board in June 2005, it was with very specific direction that limited the height by district based on the current ordinances. While the Council was free to take another approach/method of calculation such as stories or something other than the City's bulk standard floor area ratio process, because of the limited consideration by the Planning Board, it would need to be reviewed by the Planning Board. Mayor Haakenson asked whether proper legal notice was given for tonight's special meeting. Mr. Snyder answered the only notice required was the special meeting notice and that was only required because the Council meeting on the second Tuesday was committee meetings. After discussion with the Council President, City Clerk Sandy Chase gave the required special meeting notice. He explained a special meeting notice was a very specialized notice that went to persons/entities/press that requested notice. Mayor Haakenson asked Mr. Snyder to describe the difference between the Council's ability to take public comment versus a public hearing. Mr. Snyder explained the Council was free to take public comment on a legislative matter at any time — at a Council meeting, over lunch, via email, etc. His preference was to have a record made at a public hearing so that in the event of a challenge, the legislative history behind the issue could be provided to the Growth Management Hearings Board. A formal public hearing was required by ordinance on any substantive change to the zoning code at the Planning Board level. He noted there had been multiple public hearings at both the Planning Board and the Council on this issue. Noting Item 4 indicated public comment would be received, Mayor Haakenson asked whether the Council could change their mind and not take public comment. Mr. Snyder responded that the Council having created an opportunity for public comment had an obligation to continue to do so. He noted there were legitimate reasons the Council could choose not to take public comment but he recommended unless the Council changed its rules with regard to public comment, not to make ad hoc decisions regarding what to hear or when. Mr. Snyder commented this Council had never been overly burdened by Roberts Rules of Order; it was used generally and the Rules were consulted if a challenge was made. The Council's motion to table the matter to a date certain was a hybrid motion; a tabling motion was indefinite until the issue was removed from the table by a majority vote. Continuing to a date certain was undone/changed by a motion to reconsider. The action that would most closely conform to Roberts Rules of Order would be for a member on the prevailing side to make a motion to reconsider the motion to table to a date certain. If the motion received a majority vote, the item would then be back on the table for discussion. Council President Olson noted there had been some confusion with the posting on the web which was not required and done as a courtesy. Ms. Chase agreed that as Mr. Snyder explained, the City met the RCW requirement for noticing a special meeting. In addition to those requirements, the agenda was also posted on the Government Access Channel and on the City's website on January 5 as well as at several city and public buildings and a special display ad was published in The Herald on January 8. It was brought to her attention on January 8 that the agenda on the website did not include the language that public comment would be received. As soon as she was made aware, that language was added to the agenda on the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 9, 2007 Page 2 website. That language was included on the other notices. She summarized the statement that public comment would be received did not have the same requirements as a public hearing notice. Council President Olson emphasized the only required notice was to the newspapers and the Councilmembers. Ms. Chase noted there was a list of media to be notified. Mr. Snyder clarified this was only for legislative matters; quasi judicial matters had different notice requirements. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO RECONSIDER THE TABLING OF THE COUNCIL'S DELIBERATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Snyder clarified the motion that was tabled was now before the Council. 4. POTENTIAL CONTINUED DELIBERATION AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 16.43 ESTABLISHING BD -DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONES AND AMENDING THE CITY'S ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY SPECIFIED THEREIN TO BD CATEGORIES Mayor Haakenson explained the motion before the Council, made by Councilmember Marin and seconded by Council President Olson, was to approve Alternative #1 in Ordinance No. 3622 in Exhibit 3. He recalled a motion was then made by Councilmember Wambolt to table that item. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Dawson spoke in favor of further Council deliberation as she agreed with Mr. Snyder the emails were close to deliberation. Given that the expectation was established that public comment would be taken next week, she recommended the Council not take action until January 16. She supported further Council discussion and public comment tonight as well as next week. Councilmember Marin explained he withdrew his motion with the expectation action would be taken next week or the following week to approve the first of the two ordinances. Councilmember Dawson noted Councilmember Moore would be absent from next week's meeting and she had comments she wanted put in the record. Councilmember Moore responded her comment was that she wanted the ordinance passed tonight, noting this was not a permanent document and could be changed at any time. If the Council did not plan to vote, she could delay her comments until a vote was taken. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Councilmember Dawson's suggestion, noting he had been in favor of taking a vote tonight until he learned the statement that additional public comment would be taken was not included on the website. Although all the legal notice requirements were met, the public was informed last week that public comment would be accepted on January 16 and it was likely there were people who were unaware that this issue was on tonight's agenda. Although he disliked delaying the vote, he agreed it was appropriate. Councilmember Moore requested Council President Olson arrange to have her on a speaker phone during next week's meeting as this was too important a matter to miss participating in the vote. Mayor Haakenson asked whether it would be beneficial to have some Council dialogue tonight rather than wait until next week. Councilmember Dawson suggested taking public comment tonight and possibly giving direction to Mr. Snyder with regard to stories. She noted the information with regard to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 9, 2007 Page 3 stories would be a valuable exercise regardless of whether the Council intended to make that part of the code. However, she did not want to proceed with researching that language if it required an excessive amount of the City Attorney's time. Councilmember Moore commented if the height was limited to 30 feet, it did not matter whether the building was two stories or three stories. She preferred to have a height limit and not spend any attorney fees on researching stories. Councilmember Plunkett recalled there was testimony regarding parking in the BD l . Although he had not stated his preference as he did believe the majority of the Council was satisfied with the parking requirement in BD1, he was willing to address that if other Councilmembers were interested. Mr. Snyder suggested the Council make motions and vote so that staff knew what information the Council wanted. He acknowledged the Council may change their mind after the public comment, he preferred to develop a document that was close to the final document so that the public could provide meaningful comment. Councilmember Wambolt noted the packet contained the proposed new language he submitted that did not include story. He thanked Planning Manager Rob Chave, City Clerk Sandy Chase and City Attorney Scott Snyder for the tremendous job they did gathering the materials for the Council packet. Mayor Haakenson noted if the Council wanted to take public comment, there was nothing for the public to comment on because the motion had been withdrawn. Whether the Council took action tonight or next week, Council President Olson recommended the Council discuss and agree on what they wanted changed and not continue to put this decision off. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO BRING FORWARD ORDINANCE 3622 FROM DECEMBER 19 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON JANUARY 16. Mayor Haakenson noted unless the Council added anything new that was not discussed by the Planning Board or the Council previously, another public hearing on this document would not be required. Mr. Snyder clarified if the Council developed something that was new and had not been discussed by the Planning Board, it would need to go back to the Planning Board. Mr. Snyder advised the motion was Exhibit 1 in the packet. Councilmember Plunkett suggested the Council dispose of any potential new issues such as parking and stories, and unless a majority of the Council wanted to make a change, everything was the same as had been discussed by the Planning Board. Mayor Haakenson asked Planning Manager Rob Chave to describe this alternative. Mr. Chave explained Exhibit 1 was the document presented for Council consideration in December combined with the map in Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 was a new alternative that corrected errata and also updated the footnote at the top of page 7 as a result of discussion by the Council at the last meeting regarding the definition of floor height to incorporate reference to the International Building Code definition of measuring between floors. Other errata was referenced in #3 on page 2 and changes on page 12 and 14 removing notes in the ordinance. The most significant change was Item #C2b (page 10 of the ordinance), a proposal made by Councilmember Wambolt to add the language, Within the BD1 zone, building height may be a maximum of 30 feet in order to provide for a minimum height of 15 feet for the ground floor. The allowable building height is measured from the "average level" as defined in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC. Mr. Chave Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 9, 2007 Page 4 explained this language would allow a 30-foot building in the BD1 zone at the street front with a 15-foot first floor. He noted Exhibit 1, the ordinance considered in December, required a setback in the BD1 zone above 21 feet. The alternative language would remove that requirement. Mayor Haakenson clarified staff s recommendation was to approve the ordinance in Exhibit 3 which was alternative ordinance #1. Mr. Chave explained Exhibit 1 in the packet was the ordinance the Council considered in December, Exhibit 3 was alternative ordinance #1 that is staffs recommendation. At Mayor Haakenson's request, Councilmember Marin restated his motion as follows: TO BRING FORWARD ORDINANCE 3622, CONTAINED IN EXHBIIT 3 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON JANUARY 16. Councilmember Orvis clarified the motion on the table was 30 feet in the BD1 with no step -back. Mr. Chave advised that ordinance was contained in Exhibit 3. Councilmember Wambolt expressed his support for the motion but did not want to vote on it tonight. Councilmember Dawson expressed concern with not requiring any parking whatsoever in the BD 1 zone. She supported treating the BD 1 zone like other BD zones and not requiring parking for the first floor commercial but wanted some parking for the residential. She acknowledged the market may drive this but she was not comfortable eliminating the parking requirement for residential in the BD 1. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED TO MAKE BD1 PARKING CONSISTENT WITH OTHER BD ZONES AND NOT REQUIRE PARKING FOR COMMERICAL BUT REQUIRE PARKING FOR RESIDENTIAL. Councilmember Moore asked staff to comment on the size of the lots and ownership pattern in the BD 1 zone and the impact a parking requirement would have. Development Services Director Duane Bowman referred to a map of the BD 1 zone, pointing out there was alley access to serve many of the lots on Main Street and on 5tn Avenue which provided the potential to create parking off the alley. He noted there were a few lots that did not have alley access but they were fairly small. He noted under the ordinance, 4800 square feet or less was not required to provide any parking. Councilmember Marin noted the requirement to provide parking for residential space in the BD did not necessarily mean it had to be provided on site. Mr. Bowman agreed a joint parking agreement was another method for providing parking. Councilmember Marin suggested the audience be allowed to comment before the Council voted on this matter. Councilmember Wambolt commented the parking requirement was recommended by the Planning Board. He preferred not to vote until the public had an opportunity to comment next week. Mr. Snyder advised deleting the parking requirement was part of the proposal before the Council at the time of the public hearing. He did not recall whether anyone had commented on it. Councilmember Dawson clarified her intent was not to approve it but to bring it back next week for additional public comment. Mr. Bowman pointed out no new curb cuts were permitted along 5th or Main within the BD 1 zone which may affect the ability for property owners to provide parking. He acknowledged a joint parking Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 9, 2007 Page 5 agreement could be an option. He recalled Mark Hinshaw's comment about not having curb cuts in order to maintain the continuation of storefronts. Councilmember Orvis noted there was currently a parking requirement for commercial space. Mr. Bowman agreed this would be a change to that requirement. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of this item. Karen Wiggins, Edmonds, relayed her conversations with many business people who questioned the proposal not to require any parking for commercial uses. Commercial uses generated more people per square foot than residential uses — usually about one person for every 250 square feet for commercial versus a residence that could be one person for 2,000 square feet. She recalled in May 2003 the Council approved the parking study that found there were 500 employee parking permit spaces. In 2006, a total of 433 employee permits were sold, the employee parking spaces were virtually full. She noted there were likely other employees parking illegally downtown. She acknowledged more employee permit parking could be established but it would move it further into the residential areas. She urged the council to reconsider requiring no parking for commercial uses and at least require one space per 800 square feet. Bob Gregg, Edmonds, commented parking for residential would take care of itself as the market would likely drive at least one space per condominium. He pointed out requiring parking but not allowing curb cuts would be problematic. The reason the parking requirement was eliminated was due to the cost of underground parking and as a compromise to the 15 foot first floor. He pointed out the code allowed parking to be anywhere in the BC zone, questioning whether this amendment would now allow parking to be anywhere in the BD zone or only in the BD 1 zone. He urged the Council to vote tonight and make further changes as needed over time. He remarked on parking available in the BD 1 zone at noon. He cautioned the Council about last minute amendments that had unintended consequences. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, advised he had just learned of the ability to provide public comment tonight after hearing last week that public comment would be taken on January 16. He recalled the parking study stated two-thirds of the parking was private, finding there was enough total parking but not enough public parking. He noted if the Chair of the Parking Committee, Karen Wiggins, had a concern about the parking requirements, the Council needed to take more time to study it. He suggested the Chamber comment on the parking issue. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, relayed that after discussions with several business people, most were unaware of the proposal to eliminate the parking requirement. The retailers were busy with their businesses and often did not know what was occurring at the Council or Planning Board level. He suggested the only downtown use that should not require parking was a small hotel served by public transit. He described his research that found there were a lot of vehicles parked behind buildings. Eliminating the parking requirement would put pressure on business with parking to redevelop. Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, referred to the language in the proposed ordinance for the BD5 zone regarding encouraging live/work space. He understood the intent, to allow for a shop with residential space; his concern was the wording that multiple residential have the potential for live/work and that it be designed so that a home occupation can be established in the space. He interpreted that as multifamily would be allowed in the entire building with no setback. Next he referred to page 9, section 6b which stated within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, residential units could be located behind commercial uses on the first floor. He noted this no longer applied only to property adjacent to residential property. With regard to the proposal to allow 30-feet in the BD in order to achieve a 15-foot first floor, he pointed out a 15-foot first floor could be achieved via not having a second floor or by stepping the building back. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 9, 2007 Page 6 Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, echoed Mr. Marmion's concern with 30-foot buildings. He questioned why a height bonus would be allowed for the second floor in return for providing a 15-foot first floor. He disagreed with the comment by an architect on the Planning Board regarding the volume of interior space, questioning the requirement to provide larger spaces in this age of energy shortages. Next, he expressed support for requiring no parking which would promote less dependence on the automobile in commercial zones. He recommended merchants be educated on pedestrian and non -automobile oriented zones and that the space devoted to parking could be more valuable as a pedestrian area. With regard to rooftop gardens, he recommended looking at the code from an environmental point of view. He recommended the ordinance mention energy efficiency for the 15-foot first floor. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of this item. In response to Mr. Marmion's comments regarding live/work space, Mr. Chave recalled the Planning Board considered two options — mixed use like in the other zones or something that was more residential. Their intent was a more stringent requirement for public art, streetscape and live/work units. He noted the BD5 zone was on 4th Avenue. With regard to Mr. Marmion's comment about the first 60 feet of the building, the Planning Board did not feel that a requirement adjacent to residential was warranted as long as it was beyond 60 feet. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the BD5, also referred to as the arts corridor, could be multifamily. Mr. Chave answered yes with live/work space but it could not be strictly multifamily. He explained traditionally live/work space had been the shop downstairs and the residential upstairs. Modern situations were sometimes artist studios incorporated into the floor but it essentially looked like a residential building from the outside. The intent of live/work was a space that functioned as a business and also provided for residential use. Councilmember Plunkett recalled Mr. Marmion referred to it as multifamily. Mr. Chave explained it was similar to multifamily in that there were no setbacks and multifamily uses would be allowed but it would require live/work space, thus it was not traditional multifamily. He clarified each residential unit must have a work space associated with it. The intent was to provide a commercial presence on the street and reduce the need for commuting. Mr. Snyder commented another way to look at it was a home use occupation without the limitations in the code. Councilmember Dawson asked what was currently allowed in the BD5 zone. Mr. Chave answered the southern part was BC until Edmonds Street and beyond that was multifamily. Councilmember Dawson clarified multifamily was currently allowed in a minority of the zone; this would expand the use of multifamily in that area but require every residential unit have a live/work space. With regard to eliminating the parking requirement in the BD1, Councilmember Dawson was concerned with removing the requirement for parking and restoring it at a later date. She noted it was easier to take something away than add it back in as property owners would have an expectation regarding how they could develop their property without providing parking. She asked if there had been any comment at the public hearing about this. Mr. Chave explained staff made a point of explaining the parking rules but the focus was on building heights. He concluded in his experience no one ever agreed about parking. Councilmember Dawson asked if there would be any problem with regard to developing expectations if the Council removed the parking requirement and later restored it. Mr. Snyder explained any established use would be grandfathered and the Council could amortize that out over a period of time. He agreed if parking were required and the prohibition on curb cuts was retained, parking would have to be provided off site or via an alley. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 9, 2007 Page 7 With regard to Mr. Gregg's comment about the current code's requirement that parking be provided within the BC zone, Councilmember Dawson suggested the code reference an area. Mr. Chave acknowledged a follow-up ordinance would be required to update some of the references in the code. His preference would be to allow it in any of the BD zones. Councilmember Dawson asked when that clarification would be presented to the Council. Mr. Chave answered some of it would be determined by what the Council ultimately approved but it would only take a week or two. Councilmember Dawson commented the reason the Planning Board did not require parking for commercial uses in the BD 1 was the height limit made it difficult and expensive and there was nowhere to put the parking on the small lots. Mr. Chave agreed, noting the BD 1 was not a uniform area; portions had alley access but some did not. Councilmember Dawson observed the proposed ordinance would not affect employee parking requirements. Mr. Chave agreed it would not. Councilmember Dawson commented the requirement for residential parking was consistent with the requirements in the rest of the code. Councilmember Moore commented this was why she wanted to vote on the ordinance tonight because there were all kinds of options and this was an issue that had been studied and discussed for years. She was concerned that reopening the issue of parking would require future discussion and study and possibly another parking study since the last one was conducted in 2003. She preferred to vote on the proposed ordinance and revisit issues such as parking separately in the future. Councilmember Moore commented she did not necessarily agree with the 15-foot first floor, it may be too high. She commented it had been so long she was losing track of how things like the 15-foot first floor came about. She urged the Council to pass the ordinance and then consider changes issue by issue. She objected to reconsidering pieces of the ordinance, envisioning that process could take a long time. She referred to an article by Mark Hinshaw that supported maximum parking standards rather than minimums and that it was possible to change commuting patterns by limiting the parking supply. She agreed with Mr. Bernheim's suggestion to decrease dependence on automobiles particularly in a pedestrian friendly downtown. A study referenced by Mr. Hinshaw found a constrained parking supply and high parking fees often resulted in greater retail activity because shoppers parked once and walked to multiple destinations or used transit. Councilmember Moore commented she was not interested in ensuring developers made a profit but she supported practical development for downtown so that vital retail could increase the City's sales tax revenue. She noted the Community Services/Development Services Committee was asked to consider lighting for Main between 5th and 6th where the sidewalks would be torn up for utility work; however, there was not enough money in the budget for lighting. She referred to information contained in a memo from Mayor Haakenson that stated Edmonds was the second largest city in Snohomish County but near the bottom in sales tax per capita. Councilmember Orvis asked if the first floor height in the BD5 live/work was 12 feet. Mr. Chave answered yes. Councilmember Orvis noted ground floor residential was not allowed in the rear in BD 1 and BD5. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Dawson explained it did not make sense to exempt residential from parking requirements in the BD 1, particularly as on -street parking in BD 1 was limited to 3 hours. She noted it could be changed in the future for certain circumstances such as for affordable housing. She preferred to err on the side of consistency with the other BD zones. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 9, 2007 Page 8 Council President Olson commented the parking study found there was 3500 parking spaces, two-thirds of which were off-street private spaces. The parking study also found 50% of the spaces were unoccupied, suggesting there was a surplus of parking. She noted one of the problems was people wanted to park in front of the store they were visiting, compared with the mall where you park once and walk to stores. She noted the BD 1 zone was not very big and there were many parking spaces within two blocks. She concluded walking two blocks was not onerous. ` Councilmember Moore commented another problem was employees parking in front of stores. She suggested the Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association urge retail owners and their employees not to park in the BD 1 zone. Councilmember Dawson restated her motion as follows: TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NEXT WEEK THAT REMOVED THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN BD1 AND B2, BD4 AND BD5 WHERE RESIDENTIAL PARKING IS REQUIRED AND THERE IS NO COMMERCIAL PARKING REQUIREMENT. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT, DAWSON AND MARIN IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE AND WAMBOLT AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson pointed out none of the public comment referred to stories or floors. He also noted the packet included a request to reconsider the height exemption motion. With regard to stories, Mr. Snyder explained he gathered ordinances from a few other cities, noting most cities like Edmonds used a height limit as a bulk standard and handled interior uses via floor area ratio. He could provide a presentation regarding how a few cities regulated stories and Mr. Chave could explain the City's current methodology and how most cities used floor area ratio. However, further questions arose such as whether basement areas could be used for secondary purposes such as heating, electrical, engineering or parking. He concluded most cities have found it unproductive to use stories. Councilmember Dawson commented stories had come up so many times and although she did not think the language would be adopted by the Council, it would provide a good perspective for this Council and future Councils. She clarified her request was that the Council allow Mr. Snyder to continue that work, not that the Council consider limiting the number of stories. Mr. Snyder commented it would require the creation of an entirely separate calculation of height and bulk requirements for a small area of the City. He suggested making a presentation at the Council's retreat. Councilmember Wambolt explained he walked the entire BD1 zone and found there were only 48 buildings in the BD 1 zone, 29 one story, 18 two story and only one with three occupied floors. He concluded the character of Edmonds was one and two story buildings. All the lots in the BD 1 zone were sufficiently flat that averaging the floor corners would not allow a third floor, an assumption that was confirmed by Mr. Chave. He noted for the past several years, buildings in the BC zone were allowed a height of 25+5 feet for a total of 30 feet. The requirement for a 15-foot first floor produced the need for a 30-foot building height. He concluded this was not a height increase over the current height limit; the only way it could only be considered a height increase was a building could be 30 feet with a flat roof. Councilmember Wambolt referred to Councilmember Moore's comment that the 15-foot first floor may be too high, recalling he had been opposed to the taller ceiling height but was convinced it was necessary. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 9, 2007 Page 9 With regard to the 15-foot first floor, Councilmember Marin explained the objective was to ensure the space downtown was viable for retail; a 15-foot first floor provided approximately a 12-foot ceiling with sufficient volume for good retail space. He found the discussion regarding the number of floors silly because the BC zone was fairly flat and it was unlikely anyone could construct a third floor inside a 30- foot envelope with a 15-foot first floor. Councilmember Moore asked for an estimate of the cost for Mr. Snyder to study and make a presentation on stories. She noted if it was for future Council's use, she preferred they pay for it. Mr. Snyder estimated the cost of the research and a presentation at $1500. He noted it would also require Mr. Chave's time to make a presentation regarding floor area ratio. He estimated a total of 14-15 staff hours with the presentation. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, THAT MR SNYDER AND MR. CHAVE MAKE A PRESENTATION ON STORIES AND FLOOR AREA RATIO AT THE RETREAT. Councilmember Dawson clarified a written report and no presentation was acceptable to her. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON, ORVIS AND WAMBOLT IN FAVOR, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, MOORE AND MARIN OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson referred to a request in the packet from a Councilmember for reconsideration of an amendment made in December regarding height exceptions. Mr. Snyder explained a motion to reconsider was required by someone on the prevailing side. Councilmember Moore advised she was not on the prevailing side, she voted against this amendment made by Councilmember Orvis. She recalled it was a multi -faceted amendment that restricted the height limit to 30 feet by eliminating building cornices, roof and deck railings, pitched roof incentives, and elevators or stairs leading up to a roof deck as well as limiting architectural elements to one. She asked a Councilmember on the prevailing side to reconsider the motion due to the unintended consequences of this amendment. She pointed out the importance of a roof deck, noting many could enjoy a restaurant on a roof. A roof deck was not allowed because a railing or an elevator was not allowed. She noted there was a glass elevator in her view corridor in downtown Edmonds that led to a private roof deck and the elevator did not bother them at all and gave the people in the building a wonderful outdoor space. She objected to the Council's restriction of roof decks based on capricious and arbitrary height limits of 30 feet. She pointed out allowing people on roofs allowed more access to Puget Sound and promoted the small town feel as there were more eyes on the street. With regard to cornices, Councilmember Moore pointed out the decorative cornice on the Beeson building that was above the height limit. She pointed out eliminating cornices would no longer allow a cornice on a building unless it was within the 30 foot height limit. She explained limiting architectural elements to one would only allow one bay window, thus Old Milltown which has two bay windows would be restricted to one. She emphasized there were many unintended consequences and asked a member of the prevailing side to reconsider the motion. Mayor Haakenson advised the Councilmembers who voted in favor of the amendment were Dawson, Plunkett, Orvis and Wambolt. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 9, 2007 Page 10 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN, MOORE AND WAMBOLT ON FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON, PLUNKETT AND ORVIS OPPOSED. The motion reconsidered is as follows: COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO AMEND THE PLAN AS FOLLOWS: 1) DELETE 16.43.030.C.5a REGARDING HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR BUILDING CORNICES, 2) DELETE 16.43.030.C.5b REGARDING HEIGHT ROOF OR DECK RAILINGS, 3) CHANGE 16.43.030.5c TO INSERT THE WORD "SINGLE" BEFORE "DECORATIVE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT," 4) DELETE 16.43.030.C.5d REGARDING PITCHED ROOFS, AND 5) DELETE 16.43.030.C.5e. Councilmember Marin suggested considering the height exceptions separately. Councilmember Wambolt advised he would not support the pitched roof height exception; he was interested in further discussion on deck railings and cornices. Councilmember Orvis made a presentation to describe why he made the motion to remove the language. He read the existing language regarding cornices — 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. Councilmember Orvis noted the key phrase was repeating sub -elements that result in an overall appearance that is not a single, flat, uninterrupted surface along the face of the building. He provided a sketch of a building, illustrating the repeating sub -elements that could exceed the 30 foot height limit. He pointed out under his amendment, cornices would be allowed but only within the height limit. Next he displayed a drawing of what he envisioned the code would allow, a continuous cornice as long as there was a repeating sub -element along the face of the building. He noted this created the potential for a 3- foot solid mass that extended above the height limit. He noted skylights and/or rooftop mechanical equipment could also be installed behind the cornice which also extended the height limit. He reviewed his opposition to the cornice language, 1) it allowed a building to extend above 30 feet to 33 feet, 2) 25 + 5 become 30 + 3, 3) no requirement for roof modulation due to the "along the face" language and vague language, and 4) additional building allowed behind the parapets. Next Councilmember Orvis read the language regarding roof or deck railings proposed by the Planning Board that he deleted — 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 space at 4-inch intervals, on center. He displayed a drawing of a railing that illustrated how 75% open did not protect the view, particularly when viewed at an angle. He also displayed a drawing of offset front and back railings, concluding offset railings increased the view blockage. He recommended pursuing roof decks as a separate issue to allow the Council time to understand the issues particularly as they relate to view. He displayed several pictures of clear railings, suggesting that may be one option to consider. Councilmember Moore asked whose view Councilmember Orvis was attempting to protect, noting the BD1 was fairly flat and roof decks would allow more people to enjoy the view due to the ability to use the roof. Councilmember Orvis answered he was interested in protecting everyone's view. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 9, 2007 Page 11 Council President Olson asked Councilmember Orvis if his research included talking with anyone who built roof gardens. Councilmember Orvis answered no, he read the code and determined what the code would allow. Council President Olson anticipated the result would be flat roofs. Councilmember Orvis disagreed, noting builders would provide cornices but they would be within the height limit. Councilmember Orvis pointed out there was no definition of decorative. He noted builders were also allowed a single architectural element, which Council President Olson pointed out could not cover more than 5% of the roof. Council President Olson pointed out most builders wanted to build something that looked attractive. She commented Councilmember Orvis was viewing these as negatives and anticipating the result would be unattractive. Councilmember Orvis commented builders would likely do whatever met the economics of their building and it would result in higher buildings. Councilmember Moore referred to Councilmember Orvis' reference to a 3-foot solid mass, noting that would not be considered decorative and would not be allowed by the code. Councilmember Moore asked staff to comment. Mr. Chave explained the idea behind the Planning Board's recommendation was typically cornices were required for a flat roof, without the incentive for a decorative cornice, the result would be the minimum necessary which did not require any ornamentation or decoration. The Board and he were thinking of the cornices on older buildings which were a significant feature of the architecture as compared to buildings built more recently. The intent was to encourage something more decorative/artistic on the top of the building. With regard to not allowing roof and deck railings above the specified height limit, if that were interpreted to include the step -back, Mr. Chave explained it would not allow the step -back area to be used for a deck. Similarly, without a railing, a roof deck would not be allowed. Councilmember Moore urged the Council to read her memo. Councilmember Wambolt noted a parapet wall hid much of the mechanical equipment and skylights. He asked how those items would be provided within the height limit. Mr. Chave advised those features were exempted in the code; the code contained a provision for mechanical equipment and tops of elevators. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the language was intended to encourage decorative cornices. For Councilmember Wambolt, Mr. Chave explained the intent of the railing provision was to allow a railing within the step -back and on the roof. Although he preferred not to restrict railings in the step - back, Councilmember Wambolt preferred to leave the language out and study it further. . In response to an inquiry from Councilmember Plunkett regarding the width between the vertical elements of a deck railing, Mr. Chave offered to provide further information for the public meeting regarding the minimum width required by the building code. He noted the language in the code was simply an example of a 75% open deck railing, not what would be required. Mr. Bowman noted the 4- inch vertical separation was required by the building code so that a child could not get between the railings. He noted glass would also provide the same protection. Mayor Haakenson remarked it would be desirable to be able to see through a roof top deck railing. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, demonstrated an offset deck railing using his fingers and the window blinds, pointing out the amount of obstruction depended on the direction of one's view. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 9, 2007 Page 12 John Reed, Edmonds, noted cornices and parapets led to height creep. The provision regarding railings would not prevent a deck in the step -back because it only applied above the stated height limit of 30 feet. With regard to a single architectural element, he could accept 2-3 but the height would need to be controlled. He referred to the 30-foot building height and while he hoped some of these features would be incorporated into buildings, it would have to be within the 30-foot height limit. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, pointed out the Council was making rules without asking any of the many architects in the City. He pointed out the importance of a railing for a roof top deck, noting many consumers would like to have a roof top garden. He supported allowing cornices and parapets to provide screening for the roof top equipment. He pointed out unless architectural elements were allowed, the result would be buildings that were unattractive square boxes. He concluded architects and builders were not only interested in making money, they also wanted to develop a unique, memorable building. Bob Gregg, Edmonds, suggested the railing in the step -back or on the roof be transparent rather than 75% open, pointing out transparent deck railings also provided protection from the wind. He noted eliminating parapets and cornices was an example of unintended consequences as the HVAC equipment would now not be screened. He suggested a compromise, a cornice or parapet that was sufficient to screen roof top equipment. He recommended the Council adopt the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Board without the last minute amendments and send the issues that have been identified back to the Planning Board for further study. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), ORVIS, WAMBOLT, DAWSON AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN AND MOORE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON OPPOSED. The Council agreed the ordinance moved by Councilmember Marin, seconded by Council President Olson with the amendments on parking and height exceptions and stories was the product staff would return to the Council for public comment on January 16. Councilmember Dawson reiterated her discomfort with the 30-foot building height in the BD1. Councilmember Moore expressed her dissatisfaction with the building height in the BD zones as she felt they should be higher. It was the consensus of the Council for staff to provide options at the next Council meeting with regard to railings in the step -back and transparent deck railings. 5. MOTION TO REMOVE THE FOLLOWING MATTER FROM THE TABLE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3608 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM WITHIN THE CITY'S CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Due to action taken on Agenda Item 4, potential action on this item was deferred to the January 16 Council meeting. 6. POTENTIAL DELIBERATION AND ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO.3608 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM WITHIN THE CITY'S CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Due to action taken on Agenda Item 4, potential action on this item was deferred to the January 16 Council meeting. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 9, 2007 Page 13 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Marin referred to his report a few weeks ago that the Snohomish County Health District had hired a new Health Officer, advising that candidate had been hired by another health district in California. The Snohomish County Health District Board has extended an offer to another candidate. Councilmember Moore reported on the fabulous grand opening of the Edmonds Center for the Arts that Council President Olson and she attended. She urged the Council to continue to support the Center, reminding that the fundraising effort continued. 9. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 9, 2007 Page 14 AM-794 2.C. Approval of Claim Checks and Payroll Direct Deposits and Checks Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 01/16/2007 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 Subiect Title Approval of claim checks #93003 through #93164 for December 21, 2006 in the amount of $728,556.89, checks #93166 through #93206 for December 28, 2006 in the amount of $79,337.51 and checks #93207 through #93359 for January 4, 2007 in the amount of $1,751,004.12. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #44291 through #44342 for the period of December 1 through December 15, 2006 in the amount of $888,506.49 and direct deposit and checks #44343 through #44392 for the period of December 16 through December 31, 2006 in the amount of $666,345.13. Approval of Police uniform allowance checks #44394 through #44423 for January 5, 2007 in the amount of $7,578.11. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claim checks, payroll checks and direct deposits. 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. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2006 Revenue: Expenditure: $2,362746.02 Fiscal Impact: Fiscal Year: 2007 Revenue: Expenditure: $1,758,582.23 Fiscal Impact: Attachments Link: Claim Cks 12-21-06 Link: Claim Cks 12-28-06 r Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 01/11/2007 04:08 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/11/2007 04:14 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/11/2007 04:16 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Linda Hynd 01/12/2007 08:20 AM APRV Form Started By: Debbie Karber Started On: 01/10/2007 03:52 PM Final Approval Date: 01/12/2007 vchlist 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 1 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93003 12/14/2006 070550 HART-MYLIE, CAROLYN HARTMYLIE1023 PRESCHOOL ASSISTANT MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL ASSI; 001.000.640.575.560.410.00 170.00 Total : 170.00 93006 12/21/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3776132 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SE 001.000.640.576.800.410.00 36.66 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.410.00 3.26 Total : 39.92 93007 12/21/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3776134 18386001 UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 85.18 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 7.58 Total : 92.76 93008 12/21/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3774523 FLEET UNIFORM SERVICES FLEET UNIFORM SERVICES 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 17.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.55 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93008 12/21/2006 069751 ARAMARK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 512-3774524 PW MATS PW MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38 PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26 WATER UNIFORM SVC 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 11.75 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.12 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 1.03 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher front Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93008 12/21/2006 069751 ARAMARK (Continued) 512-3774525 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SERVIC STREET/STORM UNIFORM SERVIC 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SERVIC 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29 512-3776133 FACILITES UNIFORM SVC FACILITES UNIFORM SVC 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 33.69 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.00 Total : 105.55 93009 12/21/2006 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 353534 FLEET - UNLEADED REG 3203 GAL Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93009 12/21/2006 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 93010 12/21/2006 069120 AST TRUST COMPANY 93011 12/21/2006 064343 AT&T Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) FLEET - UNLEADED REG 3203 GAL 511.000.000.141.120.010.00 6,468.15 ST EXCISE REGUALR TAX, WA OIL 511.000.000.141.120.010.00 1,144.10 FLEET -UNLEADED 4601 GALS 511.000.000.141.120.020.00 9,638.17 ST EXCISE UNLEADED TAX, WA O 511.000.000.141.120.020.00 1,648.08 FLEET - DIESEL 2000 GALS 511.000.000.141.120.000.00 4,599.00 ST EXCISE DIESEL TAX, WA OIL SI 511.000.000.141.120.000.00 718.40 WA STATE SERVICE FEE 511.000.000.141.120.010.00 13.20 WA STATE SERVICE FEE 511.000.000.141.120.020.00 13.20 WA STATE SERVICE FEE 511.000.000.141.120.000.00 13.60 Sales Tax 511.000.000.141.120.010.00 1.06 Sales Tax 511.000.000.141.120.020.00 1.06 Sales Tax 511.000.000.141.120.000.00 1.08 Total : 24,259.10 12-20-06 MEBT 12-20-06 MEBT 12/20/06 MEBT Corr M Correira G 811.000.000.111.100.000.00 87,524.75 Total : 87,524.75 425-775-2525 SWITCHBOARD 11/7-12/7/06 Switchboard 11/7-12/7/06 Long Dista 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 33.66 Page: 4 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93011 12/21/2006 064343 064343 AT&T (Continued) Total : 33.66 93012 12/21/2006 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 66294 PLAQUE FALL BASKETBALL LEAGUE- 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 56.20 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 5.01 Total : 61.21 93013 12/21/2006 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST January 2007 JANUARY 2007 AWC PREMIUMS Fire Pension January 2007 AWC prei 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 4,396.65 LEOFF Retirees January 2007 AWC 001.000.390.517.220.230.00 25,382.10 January 2007 AWC premiums 811.000.000.231.510.000.00 261,941.28 Total : 291, 720.03 93014 12/21/2006 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 9307412 RENTAL FOR COPIER RENTAL FOR COPIER 001.000.230.512.501.450.00 153.55 Total : 153.55 93015 12/21/2006 071440 BELLA ESTATES NW LLC 3-41070 RE: #060481 UTILITY REFUND UB Refund #060481 Bella Estates/Bl, 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 23.67 Total : 23.67 93016 12/21/2006 069218 BISHOP, PAUL 061218COE WEB SITE MAINTENANCE Web Site Maintenance thru 12/18/06 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 300.00 Total : 300.00 93017 12/21/2006 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 518442-03 INV#518442-03 EDMONDS PD - YAI Page: 5 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 93017 12/21/2006 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC (Continued) 549947 'PTS-Xi7 551322 93018 12/21/2006 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 127918 <rXZiy��PaP�i/f��iZ�Z:ZiI:1ic�F�7 �7:7►1�9�xill_1��'�eL69�y1�[�xE�i�:7 PO # Description/Account Amount LONG SLEEVE UNIFORM SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 159.90 SEW BUTTONS ON SHIRT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 10.00 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 14.95 INV#549947 EDMONDS PD - MCIN1 UNIFORM TROUSERS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 106.95 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 9.41 INV#549950 EDMONDS PD - DRINK BALLISTIC VEST 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 649.95 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 57.20 INV#551322 EDMONDS PD - MILLS GORETEX BOOTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 199.95 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 17.60 Total : 1,225.91 C-161 C-161 SCREENINGS PROJECT 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 3,650.40 Total : 3,650.40 00674 CYLINDER RENTAL 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 103.39 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 9.10 Total : 112.49 Page: 6 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93020 12/21/2006 070903 CALENCE LLC 93021 12/21/2006 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 93022 12/21/2006 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 1526 Ad Hoc Support Billing Error Ad Hoc Support Billing Error 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 -2,720.00 39338 Ad Hoc Labor Support Ad Hoc Labor Support 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 3,740.00 Total : 1,020.00 LY101300 AILS SUPPLIES Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 3.18 medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 35.72 LY101301 AILS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 44.65 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 3.97 LY101302 AILS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 17.86 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 1.59 LY101425 AILS SUPPLIES Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 2.30 medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 25.85 Total : 135.12 CHAPUT7232 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #7232 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 47.60 CHAPUT7237 SATURDAY MORNING OUT SATURDAY MORNING OUT- 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 47.60 Page: 7 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93022 12/21/2006 064840 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E (Continued) Total : 95.20 93023 12/21/2006 061773 CHAVE, ROBERT 12/19/06 CLAIM FOR EXPENSES JANUARY-� CLAIM FOR EXPENSES JANUARY-� 001.000.620.558.600.430.00 348.88 12-18-06 REIMBURSE FOR EXPENSES SEPI REIMBURSE FOR EXPENSES SEPI 001.000.620.558.600.430.00 106.36 Total : 455.24 93024 12/21/2006 003710 CHEVRON USA 789 830 518 5 ACCT#789 830 518 5 -EDMONDS PI FUEL 104.000.410.521.210.320.00 61.87 Total : 61.87 93025 12/21/2006 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 206-660-2168 C/A 129795740 Cell phone Gene 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 41.01 Total : 41.01 93026 12/21/2006 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 425-501-3636 CELL CHARGES - DUANE BOWMAI CELL CHARGES - DUANE BOWMAI 001.000.620.558.800.420.00 7.86 Total : 7.86 93027 12/21/2006 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460515055 UNIFORMS ALS-stn. 17 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 96.47 Ops-Stn. 17 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 96.47 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 8.59 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.58 Page: 8 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93027 12/21/2006 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION (Continued) 460515077 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 118.51 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.54 Total : 339.16 93028 12/21/2006 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5032 CRAZE POSTAGE EDMONDS PORTION OF MAILING 001.000.640.574.200.420.00 4,299.58 Total : 4,299.58 93029 12/21/2006 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 4952 INV#4952 CUST#47 EDMONDS PD PRISONER R&B AUGUST 2006 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 2,960.83 4958 INV#4958 CUST#47 EDMONDS PD PRISONER R&B SEPTEMBER 2006 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 4,219.58 Total : 7,180.41 93030 12/21/2006 065519 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 4TH PAYMENT REIMBURSEMENT OF NARCOTIC [ FINAL PAYMENT 2006- 104.000.410.521.210.490.00 5,000.00 Total : 5,000.00 93031 12/21/2006 065519 CITY OF LYNNWOOD S.OFSTHUN SHARED MEDICAL/S.OFSTHUN - E SHARED MEDICAL/S.OFSTHUN- 001.000.410.523.600.410.00 91.33 Total : 91.33 93032 12/21/2006 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES E1721814 SUPPLIES DOME TOPS FOR GARBAGE CANE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 871.60 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 76.70 Page: 9 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93032 12/21/2006 004095 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES (Continued) Total : 948.30 93033 12/21/2006 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES E1726416 005302 BIGFOLD TOWELS/KITCHEN TOWI 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 169.53 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 2.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 15.14 Total : 187.17 93034 12/21/2006 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES E1726214 FAC- VERSAMATIC BRUSH STRIPE FAC- VERSAMATIC BRUSH STRIPE 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 145.90 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.06 Total : 161.46 93035 12/21/2006 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1723796-1 OPS SUPPLIES soap 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 79.44 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 6.99 Total : 86.43 93036 12/21/2006 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 27429 CODE UPDATES Code Book Supplements 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 1,176.85 King County Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 103.56 Total : 1,280.41 93037 12/21/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 12-06 TRAVEL COST FOR MID YEAR NA1 Page: 10 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93037 12/21/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS (Continued) TRAVEL COST FOR MID YEAR NA1 001.000.230.512.500.430.00 733.51 SUPPLIES FROM COSTCO 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 87.82 Total : 821.33 93038 12/21/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630636395271 Stationery for the Holiday Breakfast Stationery for the Holiday Breakfast 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 30.42 Retirement poster (Bob Schmitt) 001.000.210.513.100.410.00 165.13 Deposit - AWC Cities & Towns 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 237.50 4715630649063718 Econ. Dev. Director, #06-20 Econ. Dev. Director, #06-20 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 175.00 Total : 608.05 93039 12/21/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630345742425 CREDIT CARD PURCHASES MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL BOOI 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 41.88 DISCOVERY PROGRAM- 001.000.640.574.350.420.00 27.21 FRAMING SERVICES 117.200.640.575.500.490.00 108.63 FILM ORDER 117.100.640.573.100.490.00 244.80 ADVERTISING FOR WRITE ON THE 123.000.640.573.100.440.00 625.00 SKILLETS FOR FOOD PREP FOR F 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 64.90 Page: 11 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93039 12/21/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS Invoice (Continued) 4715630624442994 12169:I0:W61 93040 12/21/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715 6301 9799 9875 4715 6306 5312 1287 93041 12/21/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715 6300 0155 8875 PO # Description/Account Amount CREDIT CARD PURCHASES JESSE CURRAN:- 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 60.00 PERMIT FEES FOR SKATE PARK 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 490.00 CREDIT FOR DISCOVERY PROGRI CREDIT FOR DISCOVERY PROGR) 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 -119.97 Total : 1,542.45 4715 6301 9799 9875 Phone Accessories 001.000.310.514.100.310.00 23.90 4715 6306 5312 1287 CDW-D HP OfficeJet 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 464.31 CDW-D Ethernet Switch 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 116.39 CDW-G Maint Kit 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 255.93 CDW-G Diff betwn chrg & credit 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 18.72 CDW-G LaserJet 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 435.59 L/C for credit applied after billing 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 5.61 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 0.50 Total : 1,320.95 0r7iFY:lciiZ�I�7�FZIL.��:7► Page: 12 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93041 12/21/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) STERN/MEAL- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 6.32 STERN/FUEL- 001.000.410.521.400.320.00 28.72 STERN/LODGING- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 342.45 4715 6300 0170 8272 #4715 6300 0170 8272 - EDMONDS LAW LESS/CRYSTAL-M EALS- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 112.40 LAW LESS/CRYSTAL-M EAL- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 4.61 LAW LESS/CRYSTAL-COFFEE- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 3.65 LAW LESS/CRYSTAL-M EALS- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 79.20 LAW LESS/CRYSTAL-FUEL- 001.000.410.521.400.320.00 44.60 LAW LESS/CRYSTAL-M EALS- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 170.00 LAW LESS/CRYSTAL-PARKING- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 61.23 LAW LESS/CRYSTAL-M EALS- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 23.97 Late Charge 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 2.68 Late Charge 104.000.410.521.210.350.00 2.61 Late Charge 001.000.410.521.910.490.00 0.34 LAWLESS/CRYSTAL-CAR RENTAL- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 199.66 Page: 13 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93041 12/21/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS (Continued) 4715 6300 0170 8298 #4715 6300 0170 8298 - BARD LAWLESS/CRYSTAL - LODGING- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 546.49 BARD/MEALS/CO FFEE- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 17.77 BARD/LODGING- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 217.88 LATE FEE 001.000.410.521.400.320.00 0.23 LATE FEE 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 5.17 LATE FEE 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 6.68 4715 6302 2283 3263 #4715 6302 2283 3263 - O'BRIEN MEMOREX CD-R- 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 97.95 LATE FEE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.90 4715 6302 2283 3263 #4715 6302 2283 3263 - O'BRIEN BROWN ENVELOPES- 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 -95.27 4715 6306 3997 0997 #4715 6306 3997 0997 - EDMONDS FLEX CUP- 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 13.06 Total : 1,895.30 93042 12/21/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 24492806321118000 CARD CHARGES Recording Fees at County 001.000.250.514.300.490.00 199.00 Total : 199.00 93043 12/21/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630143817577 OFFICE DEPOT - SHOP SUPPLIES Page: 14 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 93043 12/21/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS (Continued) 4715630143817577 4715630654555988 93044 12/21/2006 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 630001918475 630462211410 630462921109 630551458112 630627828884 PO # Description/Account Amount OFFICE DEPOT - SHOP SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.84 UNIT 70 - BOWLES NW - BRASS St 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.78 UNIT 474 - OFFICE MAX - LEGAL F, 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 27.18 UNIT 332 - LIND ELECT - TIMER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 187.90 FLEET RETURN -SUMNER TRACTC FLEET RETURN -SUMNER TRACTC 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -183.11 LONGS ELECTRONICS - CASSETT LONGS ELECTRONICS - CASSETT 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 17.24 Total : 87.83 TRAINING Training burn supplies 001.000.510.522.400.310.00 119.55 OPS SUPPLIES & TRAINING Stns' supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 330.92 Training burn supplies 001.000.510.522.400.310.00 23.24 PREVENTION TRAVEL M.Smith FireFindings conf. 001.000.510.522.300.430.00 731.23 PREVENTION SUPPLIES fire code publictn 001.000.510.522.300.490.00 149.00 ALS MISC Beardsley pers.trainer study 001.000.510.526.100.490.00 432.04 Total : 1,785.98 Page: 15 vchlist 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 16 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93045 12/21/2006 065891 CONLEY, LISA CONLEY1218 PRESCHOOL ASSISTANT PRESCHOOL ASSISTANT @ MEAD 001.000.640.575.560.410.00 90.00 Total : 90.00 93046 12/21/2006 063507 COXLEY, BRUCE COXLEY7241 DIGITAL DARKROOM DIGITAL DARKROOM #7241 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 31.50 Total : 31.50 93047 12/21/2006 065961 CRYOTECH DEICING TECHNOLOGY IN12729 STREET DEPT - DEICER (1000 KG STREET DEPT - DEICER (1000 KG 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 9,318.00 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 829.30 Total : 10,147.30 93048 12/21/2006 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3186493 Broadband Network RFI Broadband Network RFI 001.000.310.514.230.440.00 93.60 Total : 93.60 93049 12/21/2006 071436 DEPARTMENT ISSUE INC 23493 INV#23493 EDMONDS PD MOTORCYCLE HELMET 001.000.410.521.710.350.00 505.00 SETCOM KA-23 HELMET HEADSET 001.000.410.521.710.350.00 265.00 HEADSET INSTALLATION - SETCO 001.000.410.521.710.350.00 90.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.710.350.00 20.00 Total : 880.00 93050 12/21/2006 068734 DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES 12/19/06 Crystal Time loss (11/16/06) paid bac Page: 16 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 93050 12/21/2006 068734 DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES (Continued) s rXZi> r7i i Paf►�i If�ZiZ�Z:�iY��I�I�7 �] � i �i] � :7 �:1:7 � � I � �: �9'��: � J 6�y : I :7 69 � /_1► 93052 12/21/2006 071435 DERBYSHIRE MACHINE & TOOL CO 026594-00 93053 12/21/2006 070301 DIEHL, SHARON 93054 12/21/2006 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 93055 12/21/2006 007252 DUNN, DIANNE 93056 12/21/2006 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER 10-06 06-2699 DUNN7140 199169 PO # Description/Account Amount Crystal Time loss (11/16/06) paid bac 001.000.410.521.710.110.00 134.62 Crystal Time loss (11/17 - 11/21/06) 001.000.410.521.710.110.00 673.10 Total : 807.72 DEFERRED COMP FOR ADDISON I DECEMBER 20, 2006 DEFERRED C 811.000.000.211.100.000.00 440.00 Total : 440.00 OPS SUPPLIES Marine 16 watering pump 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 830.00 Total : 830.00 TRAVEL REFUND TRAVEL REFUND 001.000.230.512.500.430.00 17.96 Total : 17.96 MINUTE TAKING 12/12/06 Council from tapes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 324.80 Total : 324.80 OIL PAINTING OIL PAINTING #7140 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 204.75 OIL PAINTING #7141 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 204.75 Total : 409.50 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.490.01 65.13 Page: 17 vchlist 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 18 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93056 12/21/2006 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER (Continued) 199170 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.490.01 95.60 199171 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.490.01 103.24 199172 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.490.01 119.09 Total : 383.06 93057 12/21/2006 070884 EARTHWORK ENTERPRISES INC E6FB.Pmt 2 E6FB.CtyWde Strm thru 11/30/06 E6FB.CtyWde Strm thru 11/30/06 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 150,501.17 Total : 150,501.17 93058 12/21/2006 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 50256 SUPPLIES TORQ WRENCH 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 29.99 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.67 51186 SUPPLIES LUBE FILTER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.92 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.97 Total : 44.55 93059 12/21/2006 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 73897 SEWER DEPT - BULBS SUPPLIES SEWER DEPT - BULBS SUPPLIES 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 18.20 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.62 Total : 19.82 Page: 18 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 93060 12/21/2006 007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC E231073 93061 12/21/2006 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 1-00825 1-00875 1-02125 1-03900 1-05125 1-05285 1-05340 1-05650 1-05675 PO # Description/Account Amount Pre -employment screening Pre -employment screening 001.000.220.516.210.410.00 561.00 Total : 561.00 CITY PARK CITY PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 216.36 BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOl\ BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOl\ 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 401.62 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 19.99 CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 19.99 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.13 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.13 GAZEBO IRRIGATION GAZEBO IRRIGATION 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 21.70 CORNER PARK CORNER PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.13 EDMONDS CITY PARK EDMONDS CITY PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 19.99 PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 419.45 Page: 19 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93061 12/21/2006 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 1-05700 EDMONDS CITY PARK EDMONDS CITY PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 19.99 1-09650 CORNER PARK CORNER PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.41 1-09800 SW CORNER SPRINKLER SW CORNER SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 28.55 1-10780 PLANTER PLANTER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.13 1-16130 CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 21.70 1-16300 CORNER PARKS CORNER PARKS 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 21.70 1-16450 CITY HALL TRIANGLE CITY HALL TRIANGLE 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 73.56 1-16630 6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX 6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 42.26 1-17475 5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER 5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 19.99 1-19950 PINE STREE PLAYFIELD PINE STREE PLAYFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 40.69 1-36255 WATER 1141 9TH AVE S 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 19.99 Total : 1,531.46 Page: 20 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93062 12/21/2006 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Invoice 1-00925 1-01950 1-02675 1-03950 1-05350 1-05705 1-13975 1-14000 <rRZiZ:ic�PaPA swimi930iTIWIfeL 9:101:0AM, [0b9Zil 111L1=: W :ii 93064 12/21/2006 070676 EFFICIENCY INC 206427 PO # Description/Account LIFT STATION #8 LIFT STATION #8 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 LIFT STATION #1 LIFT STATION #1 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 LIFT STATION #2 LIFT STATION #2 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Rest Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Rest 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 Public Works Meter Shop Public Works Meter Shop 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 LIFT STATION #6 LIFT STATION #6 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 CITY HALL CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 CITY HALL CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 Total ; INV#92794 CLIENT#5118 EDMOND: SPAY CAT IMP#6594 001.000.410.521.700.490.01 NEUTER CAT IMP#6673 001.000.410.521.700.490.01 NEUTER CAT IMP#6687 001.000.410.521.700.490.01 Total ; Maint Agreement FTR Gold Recordin Amount 19.99 21.70 19.99 384.56 227.70 42.41 353.36 52.98 1,122.69 78.00 44.75 44.75 167.50 Page: 21 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93064 12/21/2006 070676 EFFICIENCY INC MOST =7 93066 93067 93068 93069 if�aP�i/f��iZ�Z:ZiI.•I�F��:6y1►::�:7►/_ti:[�7►/_1�I�C� Invoice (Continued) `zPAK 12/21/2006 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 021512 12/21/2006 068405 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS SERVIC 9558 12/21/2006 067599 EWING ELECTRIC INC 12/21/2006 064723 FAIR, DOUGLAS E E-2460 12-06 PO # Description/Account Amount Maint Agreement FTR Gold Recordin 001.000.230.512.500.480.00 343.15 Maint Agreement FTR Gold Recordin 001.000.250.514.300.480.00 343.05 Maint Agreement FTR Gold Recordin 001.000.620.558.600.480.00 343.05 Total : 1,029.25 ESMC.Old Woodway Site Assessmer ESMC.Old Woodway Site Assessmer 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 8,926.20 Total : 8,926.20 MAINT ON COPIER MAINT ON COPIER 001.000.230.512.500.480.00 50.00 Total : 50.00 MIRE W/HEATER MIRE W/HEATER 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 311.36 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 27.40 Total : 338.76 C-264 CONUIT INSTALLATION C-264 CONUIT INSTALLATION 411.000.656.594.380.650.00 1,843.83 Sales Tax 411.000.656.594.380.650.00 164.10 Total : 2,007.93 TRAVEL COST FOR PRESIDING JL TRAVEL COST FOR PRESIDING JL 001.000.230.512.500.430.00 55.10 Page: 22 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93069 12/21/2006 064723 064723 FAIR, DOUGLAS 93070 12/21/2006 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY 93071 12/21/2006 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) Total : 55.10 WAMOU9572 UNIT 80 - HOSETRACT UNIT 80 - HOSETRACT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 235.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.62 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.41 Total : 262.03 0061948 WATER INVENTORY - W-VALVCI-0 WATER INVENTORY - W-VALVCI-0 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 656.04 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 57.73 Page: 23 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93071 12/21/2006 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 0061950 WATER INVENTORY - WSETTER-0 WATER INVENTORY - WSETTER-0 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 170.73 PAYING RETURNED ITEMS SEE CF 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 235.85 W-VALVBR-02-010 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 462.44 W-VALVBR-01-040 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 602.00 W-VALVBR-01-010 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 615.00 W-BUSHNGBR-01.5-075 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 16.83 W-BUSHNGBR-01.5-010 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 7.29 W-BENDGA-01-030 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 15.60 W-VALVBR-02-011 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 35.78 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 192.39 Page: 24 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93071 12/21/2006 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC Invoice (Continued) 0061950-01 CM056522 CM057117 CM057464 93072 12/21/2006 069940 FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SVC 900JJM0611 PO # Description/Account Amount WATER INVENTORY - W-FLNGBR WATER INVENTORY - W-FLNGBR 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 772.60 W-SETTER-0.75-012 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 398.37 ITEMS BEING RETURNED FOR CRI 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 920.66 W-ADAPTO R B R-0.75-010 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 145.00 W-BUSHNGBR-01.5-075 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 39.27 W-BUSHNGBR-01.5-010 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 17.01 W-BENDGA-02-030 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 7.80 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 204.76 INVENTORY RETURNS FROM INVC INVENTORY RETURNS FROM INVC 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 -235.85 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 -20.99 OVER CHARGE REFUND OF W-PIF OVER CHARGE REFUND OF W-PIF 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 -221.40 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 -19.48 INVENTORY RETURNS - SEE INVO INVENTORY RETURNS - SEE INVO 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 -920.66 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 -81.94 Total : 4,072.83 INV#900JJM0611 EDMONDS PD Page: 25 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93072 12/21/2006 069940 FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SVC (Continued) CREDIT CHECK - FRAUSTO 001.000.410.521.400.410.00 13.06 Total : 13.06 93073 12/21/2006 062297 FOSS MARITIME COMPANY 12182006 TIDE CHART CALENDAR TIDE CHART CALENDAR 411.000.656.538.800.490.00 10.00 Total : 10.00 93074 12/21/2006 012355 GRCC B1862 B1917 2 BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TESTER 2 BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TESTER 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 84.00 Total : 84.00 93075 12/21/2006 067702 HAAKENSON, GARY 12/14/06 Mileage reimbursement: May - Dec. 2 Mileage reimbursement: May - Dec. 2 001.000.210.513.100.430.00 188.33 Total : 188.33 93076 12/21/2006 068450 HARBORVIEW MEDICAL CENTER H-2527240/T-55917719 H-2527240/T-55917719 - EDMONDS MEDICAL RECORDS RELEASE 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 113.85 Freight 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 3.95 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 10.02 Total : 127.82 93077 12/21/2006 070437 HARDIE, MARY ANN 9/29/06 Tuition Reimbursement - Fall 2006 Tuition Reimbursement - Fall 2006 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 467.50 Total : 467.50 93078 12/21/2006 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 2126-73 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Page: 26 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93078 12/21/2006 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED Invoice (Continued) �XZi��Paf►�i/f�ZiZ�Z:�iI:�E:Z:3��:[�7�1��]�li��il;7��7:�9�:,�/[y��Z�iBZ3 3094932 4069465 5043179 5076888 5244251 PO # Description/Account Amount Beardsley,Sarchin,Schleicher 001.000.510.526.100.410.00 1,520.00 Ops fit -for -duty 001.000.510.522.200.410.00 5,875.00 Total : 7,395.00 6035322500959949 TAPE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.92 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 0.97 6035322500959949 DIGITAL TIMER 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 17.97 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1.58 6035322500959949 GROUT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.99 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 0.88 6035322500959949 HARDWARE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 49.85 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.39 6035322500959949 SPRAY PAINT/BLOWER VAC 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 195.37 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 17.19 CREDIT/BLOWER VAC CREDIT/BLOWER VAC 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 -76.14 Page: 27 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93079 12/21/2006 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 6095617 6035322500959949 COPPER ELBOW 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.70 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 0.59 8083653 6035322500959949 CLAMPS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.22 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 0.90 9032444 6035322500959949 PAINT SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 144.69 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 12.73 Total : 408.80 93080 12/21/2006 070097 INLAND TECHNOLOGY INC 62001 FAC MAINT - SAFETY PREP CASE FAC MAINT - SAFETY PREP CASE 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 159.36 EP-921 CASE 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 291.18 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 39.64 Total : 490.18 93081 12/21/2006 068851 INT'L BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 2326 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.490.01 118.20 Total : 118.20 93082 12/21/2006 065980 ISS-WONDERWARE 310283 SOFTWARE SUPPORT Page: 28 vchlist 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 29 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93082 12/21/2006 065980 ISS-WONDERWARE (Continued) SOFTWARE SUPPORT 411.000.656.538.800.410.11 6,363.93 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.11 560.03 Total : 6,923.96 93083 12/21/2006 063370 IVANJACK, SUSAN 9-12-06 TRAVEL REFUND TRAVEL REFUND 001.000.230.512.500.430.00 41.76 Total : 41.76 93084 12/21/2006 069526 KEMCO SUPPLY OF WA INC 36977 INV#36977 EDMONDS PD LG PROTECTION + LATEX GLOVE! 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 119.70 MED PROTECTION + LATEX GLOV 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 39.90 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 14.20 Total : 173.80 93085 12/21/2006 068677 KONECRANES AMERICA INC SEA00218239 SHOP - ANNUAL INSPECTION FOR SHOP - ANNUAL INSPECTION FOR 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 770.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 68.53 Total : 838.53 93086 12/21/2006 062814 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC 293533 INV#293533 CUST#27559 EDMOND Page: 29 vchlist 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 30 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93086 12/21/2006 062814 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC (Continued) PROLASER III RADAR GUNS 001.000.410.521.220.350.00 6,825.00 RADAR CASES 001.000.410.521.220.350.00 178.00 BATTERY MODULES 001.000.410.521.220.350.00 200.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.350.00 649.06 Total : 7,852.06 93087 12/21/2006 066873 LAWLESS, JIM 12/15/05 Tuition Reimbursement - 1/9 - 4/28/0 Tuition Reimbursement - 1/9 - 4/28/0 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 660.00 Total : 660.00 93088 12/21/2006 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 12006-109 SUPPLIES NOZZLE KIT, GASKET, SPREADER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 351.06 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.88 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 32.39 12006-134 SUPPLIES LINETRIMMER, HEDGETRIMMER, 1 001.000.640.576.800.350.00 1,142.97 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.350.00 101.72 Total : 1,641.02 93089 12/21/2006 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 092368 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 187.46 Total : 187.46 93090 12/21/2006 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 092306 INV#092306 EDMONDS PD Page: 30 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93090 12/21/2006 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS (Continued) ANIMAL CONTROL DOOR HANGEF 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 172.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 15.31 092307 INV#092307 EDMONDS PD DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 2 PART FOF 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 249.00 AC WINDOW ENVELOPES 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 204.00 VEHICLE IMPOUND 2 PART FORM! 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 179.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 38.09 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 18.16 Total : 875.56 93091 12/21/2006 019583 MANPOWER INC 14619213 TEMP SERVICES FOR RECEPTION TEMP SERVICES FOR RECEPTION 001.000.620.558.800.410.00 227.22 Total : 227.22 93092 12/21/2006 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 2802 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.501.490.01 180.00 2803 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.490.01 45.00 2806 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.490.01 70.00 2814 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.490.01 180.00 Page: 31 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93092 12/21/2006 069362 MARSHALL, CITA (Continued) 2816 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.501.490.01 60.00 2817 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.490.00 45.00 2823 INTERPRETER FFES INTERPRETER FFES 001.000.230.512.500.490.01 60.00 Total : 640.00 93093 12/21/2006 071437 MAYES, ESTHER MAYES1214 REFUND REFUND - RETURNING CREDIT Ol� 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 20.00 Total : 20.00 93094 12/21/2006 066719 MCKENZIE & ADAMS INC 0067248 BOOTS BOOTS 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 34.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.03 Total : 37.03 93095 12/21/2006 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 55459369 123106800 BATTERIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 166.43 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 7.72 55549091 123106800 LATCH 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 59.33 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 5.32 Total : 238.80 Page: 32 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93096 12/21/2006 069285 MERCER MD, JAMES 1012-06 ALS PRO SERVICES Dec Med Prgm Dir 001.000.510.526.100.410.00 1,644.75 Total : 1,644.75 93097 12/21/2006 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 13546 MICROFICHE - LAND USE FILES F( MICROFICHE - LAND USE FILES F( 001.000.620.558.600.490.00 489.16 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.600.490.00 43.04 13547 MICROFILMING SERVICES - BLDG MICROFILMING SERVICES - BLDG 001.000.620.524.100.490.00 352.90 Sales Tax 001.000.620.524.100.490.00 31.05 Total : 916.15 93098 12/21/2006 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0311422-IN UNIT 24 & 11 - BATTERY UNIT 24 & 11 - BATTERY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 477.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 41.06 0311656-IN FLEET SHOP INVENTORY - FILTEF FLEET SHOP INVENTORY - FILTEF 511.000.000.141.170.000.00 48.91 Sales Tax 511.000.000.141.170.000.00 4.21 Total : 571.58 93099 12/21/2006 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S1173832.001 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 231.85 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 19.94 Total : 251.79 Page: 33 vchlist 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 34 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93100 12/21/2006 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 0074661 SODIUM BISULFITE SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 990.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 88.11 0074688 SODIUM BISULFITE SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,372.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 122.15 Total : 2,572.76 93101 12/21/2006 070045 NORTHUP GROUP 1278 INV#1278 - EDMONDS PD PRE -EMPLOYMENT EVAL- 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 300.00 Total : 300.00 93102 12/21/2006 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0380947 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 95.36 0380948 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 95.36 0382494 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 716.33 0382500 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 166.81 0383421 HONEY BUCKET CREDIT CREDIT FOR HONEY BUCKET @ IV 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 -60.90 Total : 1,012.96 93103 12/21/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 873595 Office Supplies - L. Carl Page: 34 vchlist 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 35 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93103 12/21/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) Office Supplies - L. Carl 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 55.31 King County Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 4.87 945394 Office Supplies - HR Office Supplies - HR 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 985647 Office Supplies - L. Carl Office Supplies - L. Carl 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 179.15 King County Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 15.76 Total : 273.28 93104 12/21/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 936619 OFFICE SUPPLIES MARKERS, INK CARTRIDGES, PLA 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 69.47 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.12 Total : 75.59 93105 12/21/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 015625 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 95.10 King County Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 8.37 902598 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 118.01 King County Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 10.38 Page: 35 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93105 12/21/2006 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) Total : 231.86 93106 12/21/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 988112 PW ADMIN - OFFICE SUPPLIES, PE PW ADMIN - OFFICE SUPPLIES, PE 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 65.30 STREET/STORM - CALENDARS 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 22.76 STREET/STORM - CALENDARS 411.000.652.542.900.310.00 22.75 King County Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 5.75 King County Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 2.00 King County Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.310.00 2.00 Total : 120.56 93107 12/21/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 020741 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - DEV. S\ MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - DEV. S\ 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 230.71 King County Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 20.30 Total : 251.01 93108 12/21/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 947193 Office supplies for Council Office Office supplies for Council Office 001.000.110.511.100.310.00 194.94 Total : 194.94 93109 12/21/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 976016 ADMIN SUPPLIES office supplies 001.000.510.522.100.310.00 143.23 King County Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.310.00 12.60 Total : 155.83 93110 12/21/2006 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION 954447 Copier Maint. for PW— Page: 36 vchlist 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 37 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93110 12/21/2006 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION (Continued) Copier Maint. for PW- 001.000.650.519.910.480.00 111.86 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.480.00 9.96 Total : 121.82 93111 12/21/2006 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 40773 STORM DEPT - DUMP FEES STORM DEPT - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 140.38 Total : 140.38 93112 12/21/2006 070931 PATTON BOGGS LLP 024108 Nov 06 DC LOBBYIST NOV 06 Lobbyist for November 2006 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 4,000.00 Total : 4,000.00 93113 12/21/2006 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 26009-00008 E5AB.SR99 Study thru 11/26/06 E5AB.SR99 Study thru 11/26/06 001.000.620.532.200.410.00 6,769.50 Total : 6,769.50 93114 12/21/2006 007800 PETTY CASH tcpetty parking -waters 11/19 Page: 37 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93114 12/21/2006 007800 PETTY CASH Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) parking -waters 11/19 001.000.310.518.880.430.00 7.00 tape measure 001.000.620.558.600.310.00 21.72 mileage rem-zuluaf 001.000.620.524.100.430.00 18.26 coffee, sugar 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 34.57 nov 9th cities and towns meeting 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 30.00 coffee 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 12.95 mileage reimb-M. Smith 001.000.510.522.300.430.00 21.43 supplies and decorations for holiday 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 129.86 batteries 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 15.19 sno cnty clerks meeting 001.000.250.514.300.490.00 10.00 coffee 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 12.95 parking-westfall 001.000.510.522.300.430.00 5.00 sccfoa lunch meeting 001.000.250.514.300.490.00 10.00 coffee 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 29.98 parking fee 001.000.310.518.880.430.00 22.00 parking-westfall 001.000.510.522.300.430.00 5.00 mileage -waters 001.000.310.518.880.430.00 8.37 Page: 38 vchlist Voucher List Page: 39 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93114 12/21/2006 007800 007800 PETTY CASH 93115 12/21/2006 028400 PITNEY BOWES 93116 12/21/2006 064552 PITNEY BOWES 93117 12/21/2006 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 93118 12/21/2006 071039 PRO-KLEEN 93119 12/21/2006 064088 PROTECTION ONE Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) Total : 394.28 755638 DM1000 MAILING SYSTEM DUST C 250-00129 DM1000 Mailing System Dust Cover 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 44.62 Total : 44.62 3833100-DC06 DM1000 MAILING SYSTEM LEASE 250-00128 DM1000 Mailing System Lease- 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 792.00 Total : 792.00 0438207 FAC MAINT - 4TUBE BALLASTS FAC MAINT - 4TUBE BALLASTS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 219.60 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.54 2783991 CM from 2003 Fac Maint CM from 2003 Fac Maint 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 -102.49 Total : 136.65 001 TANK CLEANING TANK CLEANING 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 1,832.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 163.05 Total : 1,995.05 2422756 alarm monitoring for Library alarm monitoring for Library 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 174.00 Page: 39 vchlist Voucher List Page: 40 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93119 12/21/2006 064088 PROTECTION ONE (Continued) 730531 PW ALARM MONITORING 24 hour alarm monitoring PW 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 21.00 24 hour alarm monitoring PW 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 21.00 24 hour alarm monitoring PW 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 18.38 24 hour alarm monitoring PW 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 23.63 24 hour alarm monitoring PW 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 10.50 24 hour alarm monitoring PW 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 10.49 Total : 279.00 93120 12/21/2006 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 06-818 COURT SECURITY OFFICER COURT SECURITY OFFICER 001.000.230.512.500.410.00 1,432.49 Total : 1,432.49 93121 12/21/2006 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 68380 MONUMENT/INSCRIPTION MONUMENT/INSCRIPTION:- 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 175.00 72128 MARKER MARKER: CHAMBERS 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 285.00 72323 INSCRIPTION INSCRIPTION: DUELL 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 75.00 72324 INSCRIPTION INSCRIPTION: ROBERTSON 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 81.00 72567 INSCRIPTION INSCRIPTION: DASTIS 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 75.00 Page: 40 vchlist Voucher List Page: 41 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93121 12/21/2006 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC (Continued) 72756 INSCRIPTION INSCRIPTION: SIMONSON 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 77.00 72757 INSCRIPTION INSCRIPTION: MOSES 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 77.00 Total : 845.00 93122 12/21/2006 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 45748 INV#45748 EDMONDS PD CASE 06 TOYOTA TUNDRA A89790M 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 124.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 11.04 Total : 135.04 93123 12/21/2006 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 0612045 Sheehan Retaining Wall Review Sheehan Retaining Wall Review 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 1,335.00 Total : 1,335.00 93124 12/21/2006 031600 RELIABLE FLOOR COVERINGS 107634 CITY HALL - ROPPE STAIR TREAD; CITY HALL - ROPPE STAIR TREAD; 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 218.26 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.43 Total : 237.69 93125 12/21/2006 068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC 44048 E3JC.Water Supply System thru 11/,e E3JC.Water Supply System thru 11/� 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 367.00 Total : 367.00 93126 12/21/2006 068484 RINKER MATERIALS 9411598366 WATER DEPT - ASPHALT Page: 41 vchlist Voucher List Page: 42 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93126 12/21/2006 068484 RINKER MATERIALS (Continued) WATER DEPT - ASPHALT 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 83.21 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.32 9411608104 STREET DEPT - SAND STREET DEPT - SAND 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 622.35 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 48.44 9411629076 STORM DEPT - SAND STORM DEPT - SAND 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 601.07 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 39.28 9411629077 WATER/SEWER - ASPHALT COLD WATER/SEWER - ASPHALT COLD 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 134.36 WATER/SEWER - ASPHALT COLD 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 134.35 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 11.83 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 11.82 Total : 1,694.03 93127 12/21/2006 069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC 8869 2007 WINTER CRAZE THE CRAZE - WINTER 2007 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 7,190.72 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 632.78 8872 BULK MAIL PREP WINTER 2007- 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 93.33 Total : 7,916.83 Page: 42 vchlist 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 43 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93128 12/21/2006 069879 SALTER JOYCE ZIKER PLLC 10564 LEGAL FEES - 8TH & WALNUT PET LEGAL FEES - 8TH & WALNUT PET 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 95.00 Total : 95.00 93129 12/21/2006 061482 SEA -WESTERN INC 111812 OPS PROTCTV CLOTHNG Helmet 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 125.00 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 6.94 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 11.61 111869 OPS PROTECTV CLOTHNG Campbell 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 140.74 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 5.78 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 12.89 Total : 302.96 93130 12/21/2006 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 06-60 SHOP - HYPRO PUMP SHOP - HYPRO PUMP 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 386.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 32.11 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 36.79 Total : 454.90 93131 12/21/2006 071423 SEATTLE U / SIA SEMINARS DAWSON SUCCESSFUL GRANT FUNDING/D. D. DAW SO N/RE G I STRAT I O N- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 100.00 Total : 100.00 93132 12/21/2006 062299 SERPENTIX CONVEYOR CORP 11996 BELT/HINGES/BELT PAN WASHER Page: 43 vchlist Voucher List Page: 44 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93132 12/21/2006 062299 SERPENTIX CONVEYOR CORP (Continued) BELT/HINGES/BELT PAN WASHER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 474.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 17.89 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 43.78 Total : 535.67 93133 12/21/2006 071248 SLEEP INN - SEATAC 15573 INV#15573 - SUTTON SUTTON/LODGING- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 280.95 Total : 280.95 93134 12/21/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 5320018384 SIERRA PARK BALLFIELD SIERRA PARK BALLFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.26 Total : 29.26 93135 12/21/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2470018124 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 49.59 2540794324 fire station # 16 fire station # 16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,817.05 2790012476 LIFT STATION #9 LIFT STATION #9 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 197.86 2880012519 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 38.99 3720012057 LIBRARY LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,744.02 Page: 44 vchlist Voucher List Page: 45 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93135 12/21/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 3970013599 BLINKING LIGHT BLINKING LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.23 4010023721 LIFT STATION #13 LIFT STATION #13 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 243.93 4320010194 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 35.80 4840011953 Public Works Public Works 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 106.97 Public Works 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 406.49 Public Works 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 406.49 Public Works 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 406.49 Public Works 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 406.49 Public Works 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 406.50 5380011832 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.23 5390028164 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 5,958.93 5410010689 CITY HALL CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,086.94 5450016042 TRAFFIC LIGHT TRAFFIC LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 226.81 Page: 45 vchlist Voucher List Page: 46 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93135 12/21/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 5470012336 SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.23 5510015661 TRAFFIC LIGHT TRAFFIC LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.74 Total : 16,659.78 93136 12/21/2006 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 47507 DUMP FEES PARK MAINTENANCE DUMP FEES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 373.05 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 12.95 47694 WASTE DISPOSAL DUMP CHARGES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 243.23 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 8.77 Total : 638.00 93137 12/21/2006 070684 STANTEC CONSULTING INC 119858 SUPPORT SERVICES SUPPORT SERVICES 411.000.656.538.800.410.11 983.68 119860 53769 C-161 SCREENING PROJECT 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 1,386.00 Total : 2,369.68 93138 12/21/2006 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 2493213 SEWER DEPT - WD40 SEWER DEPT - WD40 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 19.44 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.67 Total : 21.11 Page: 46 vchlist Voucher List Page: 47 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93139 12/21/2006 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 826359 PW - ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES PW - ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 65.40 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.82 826360 FISHING PIER - ELECTRICAL SUPF FISHING PIER - ELECTRICAL SUPF 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 23.27 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.07 Total : 96.56 93140 12/21/2006 061912 SUN SUPPLY 5095630-IN STREET DEPT - DARK BLUE CORE STREET DEPT - DARK BLUE CORE 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 100.30 Total : 100.30 93141 12/21/2006 067835 T-MOBILE 135840772 CELL PHONES PARK MAINTENANCE CELL PHONE 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 85.36 Total : 85.36 93142 12/21/2006 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10470943 SHOP SUPPLIES - SCREWS SHOP SUPPLIES - SCREWS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 78.50 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.99 10470944 SHOP SUPPLIES - DRILL BITS SHOP SUPPLIES - DRILL BITS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 77.85 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.93 Total : 170.27 93143 12/21/2006 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 37711 WATER/SEWER - FLEXFIT BRUSHI Page: 47 vchlist Voucher List Page: 48 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93143 12/21/2006 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA (Continued) WATER/SEWER - FLEXFIT BRUSHI 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 192.00 WATER/SEWER - FLEXFIT BRUSHI 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 192.00 ACRYLIC KNIT BEANIES 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 100.00 ACRYLIC KNIT BEANIES 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 100.00 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 25.99 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 25.99 37713 WATER/SEWER -- WATER/SEWER -- 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 24.00 WATER/SEWER -- 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 24.00 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 2.14 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 2.14 Total : 688.26 93144 12/21/2006 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1458666 E6DB.RFQ Caspers Walkway E6DB.RFQ Caspers Walkway 112.200.630.595.330.650.00 82.80 Total : 82.80 93145 12/21/2006 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 526287 SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MON SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MON 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 10.00 726508 SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MON SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MON 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 10.00 Page: 48 vchlist Voucher List Page: 49 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93145 12/21/2006 038315 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (Continued) Total : 20.00 93146 12/21/2006 065934 TUNE TALES TUNETALES7378 MUSIC CLASSES PAYMENT #2:- 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 2,462.10 Total : 2,462.10 93147 12/21/2006 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF W 0158168-WA STORM - DOT STORM - DOT 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 174.00 Total : 174.00 93148 12/21/2006 044300 US POSTAL SERVICE 12/18/06 City newsletter mailing - December 2 City newsletter mailing - December 2 001.000.240.513.110.410.00 2,675.00 Total : 2,675.00 93149 12/21/2006 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 279372 WATER DEPT - NORWELL ECO BA WATER DEPT - NORWELL ECO BA 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 90.30 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.97 Total : 99.27 93150 12/21/2006 064198 UZ ENGINEERED PRODUCTS 93253192 76870 CUT -EASE LUBRICANT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 524.40 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 16.94 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 48.17 Total : 589.51 93151 12/21/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST Job Shack November ESMC.Job Shack Phone 11/16-12/15 ESMC.Job Shack Phone 11/16-12/15 112.506.630.595.330.650.00 71.17 Page: 49 vchlist Voucher List Page: 50 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93151 12/21/2006 011900 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST (Continued) Total : 71.17 93152 12/21/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-NW2-0887 Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 280.00 Total : 280.00 93153 12/21/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425NW1-0060 03 0210 1079569413 10 BPS TELEMETARY 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.02 Total : 41.02 93154 12/21/2006 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 2087490623 CORREIRA425-315-6304 Correira removed from Mayor's acct 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 -45.99 2095540682 G. Haakenson cell ph. (12/7 - 1/6/07) G. Haakenson cell ph. (12/7 - 1/6/07) 001.000.210.513.100.420.00 151.42 Total : 105.43 93155 12/21/2006 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 206-706-3334 C/A 370106564-00002 Cell Phone Jim Stevens 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 42.61 464229910-1 206-999-9374 sewer lead cell phone 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 119.56 570091643-00001 CELL PHONE -STREET LEAD CELL PHONE -STREET LEAD 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 36.99 964212899-00001 206-947-3220 cell phone water quality 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 85.82 Total : 284.98 93156 12/21/2006 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 2095814885 OPS COMMUNICATIONS Air card 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 106.73 Page: 50 vchlist 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 51 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93156 12/21/2006 067865 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) Total : 106.73 93157 12/21/2006 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 28714493 1066294 PH SOLUTION/PETRI DISH/PIPETS 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 401.68 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 35.75 Total : 437.43 93158 12/21/2006 061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH WATER WRKS OPER CEF WATER WORKS OPERATOR CERT WATER WORKS OPERATOR CERT 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 21.00 WATER WORKS OPERATOR CERT 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 21.00 WATER WORKS OPERATOR CERT 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 336.00 WATER WRKS OPER CEF WATER WORKS OPERATOR CERT WATER WORKS OPERATOR CERT 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 252.00 Total : 630.00 93159 12/21/2006 045515 WABO 11077 2006 INT. BUILDING CODES - BLD( 2006 INT. BUILDING CODES - BLD( 001.000.620.524.100.490.00 143.09 Total : 143.09 93160 12/21/2006 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 1106012700 INV#106012700 - EDMONDS PD BACKGROUNDS- 001.000.000.237.100.000.00 192.00 Total : 192.00 93161 12/21/2006 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 5284 INV#5284 EDMONDS PD Page: 51 vchlist 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 52 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93161 12/21/2006 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) STREAMLIGHT BATTERY STICKS 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 71.80 STREAMLIGHT BULBS 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 69.75 NI -CAD STREAMLIGHT BATTERIES 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 35.90 Freight 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 5.84 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.31 Total : 199.60 93162 12/21/2006 061168 WESTFALL, JOHN 11/28/06 Tuition Reimbursement - 6/26 - 8/4/0 Tuition Reimbursement - 6/26 - 8/4/0 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 105.00 Total : 105.00 93163 12/21/2006 061047 WWCPA WWCPA ANNUAL RENEW WWCPA 2007 RENEWAL - WAITE WWCPA 2007 RENEWAL - WAITE 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 5.00 WWCPA 2007 RENEWAL - WAITE 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 5.00 WWCPA ANNUAL RENEW WWCPA 2007 RENEWAL - HIGHLA WWCPA 2007 RENEWAL - HIGHLA 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 30.00 WWCPA ANNUAL RENEW WWCPA 2007 RENEWAL - HARRIS WWCPA 2007 RENEWAL - HARRIS 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 50.00 Total : 90.00 93164 12/21/2006 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 211 DEC-06 RETAINER Dec-06 Retainer 001.000.360.515.230.410.00 6,000.00 Total : 6,000.00 Page: 52 vchlist Voucher List Page: 53 12/21/2006 3:12:03PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 160 Vouchers for bank code : front 160 Vouchers in this report Invoice PO # Description/Account Bank total Total vouchers Amount 728, 556.89 728, 556.89 Page: 53 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93166 12/28/2006 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 1206173 VOLLEYBALL SHIRTS VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE SHIRTS 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 266.04 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 23.68 1206174 BASKETBALL SHIRTS 3 ON 3 AND 5 ON 5 BASKETBALL E 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 168.75 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 15.02 Total : 473.49 93167 12/28/2006 069751 ARAMARK 512-3780962 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SE 001.000.640.576.800.410.00 36.66 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.410.00 3.26 Total : 39.92 93168 12/28/2006 064343 AT&T 730386050200 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS Public Works Fax Line 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 2.26 Public Works Fax Line 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 8.58 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 8.58 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 8.58 Public Works Fax Line 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 8.58 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 8.60 Total : 45.18 93169 12/28/2006 002343 BILL HATCH SPORTING GOODS 19088 UNIFORMS Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 93169 12/28/2006 002343 BILL HATCH SPORTING GOODS (Continued) <rXTi`Zi�Paf►�7f►ZiZ�Z:�iZ�X�7i[�Zy�►��:7_1��i�/��71►[e>��J»A'1 93171 12/28/2006 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION IwaWIEW-1 460519333 460519334 460520406 PO # Description/Account Amount Caps 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 225.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 19.80 Total : 244.80 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 25.85 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 2.30 Total : 28.15 UNIFORMS Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 44.72 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 3.98 UNIFORMS Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 93.92 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.35 UNIFORMS ALS - Stn. 17 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 96.47 Ops - Stn. 17 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 96.47 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 8.59 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.58 Page: 2 vchlist 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 3 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93171 12/28/2006 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION (Continued) 460520435 UNIFORMS Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 118.51 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.54 460524617 UNIFORMS Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 44.72 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 3.98 460524618 UNIFORMS Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 93.92 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.35 Total : 641.10 93172 12/28/2006 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 6-6550 JOINT MAINTENANCE/MEADOWDA JULY - NOVEMEBER 2006- 001.000.640.576.800.510.00 19,297.18 Total : 19,297.18 93173 12/28/2006 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 4838 MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SE MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SE 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 13,800.83 Total : 13,800.83 93174 12/28/2006 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 06-2701 MINUTE TAKING Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 126.00 06-2800 MINUTE TAKING Verbatim Transcript 12/7/06 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 154.00 Total : 280.00 Page: 3 vchlist 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 4 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93175 12/28/2006 071438 ECMS INC 201256 TRAINING MISC Turner class 001.000.510.522.400.490.00 585.00 Total : 585.00 93176 12/28/2006 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 11291 NEWSLETTER INSERTS SISTER CITY INSERTS IN CHAMBE 623.200.210.557.210.490.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 93177 12/28/2006 007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC E196192 Pre -employment screening Pre -employment screening 001.000.220.516.210.410.00 72.00 Total : 72.00 93178 12/28/2006 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025 CITY MARINA BEACH PARK CITY MARINA BEACH PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 39.34 6-00200 CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOh CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOh 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 97.43 6-00410 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 77.82 6-00475 MINI PARK MINI PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 169.75 6-01250 CITY PARK BALLFIELD CITY PARK BALLFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 60.79 6-01275 600 3RD AVE S 600 3RD AVE S 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 282.28 6-02125 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD PINE STREET PLAYFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 65.14 Page: 4 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93178 12/28/2006 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 6-02900 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (: ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (: 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 59.07 6-03000 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPR CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPR 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 109.25 6-03275 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 37.63 6-03575 CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 68.36 6-04400 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 57.36 6-04425 WATER 8100 185TH PL SW 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 123.60 6-04450 SIERRA PARK SIERRA PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 83.27 6-07775 BALLINGER PARK BALLINGER PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 73.31 6-08500 YOST PARK SPRINKLER YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 273.10 6-08525 YOST PARK POOL YOST PARK POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 60.41 Total : 1,737.91 93179 12/28/2006 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 4-34080 LIFT STATION #14 LIFT STATION #14 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 21.70 Page: 5 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93179 12/28/2006 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 6-02735 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -POLICE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -POLICE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 474.43 6-02736 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -FIRE LI PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -FIRE LI 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 6.53 6-02737 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -FIRE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -FIRE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 70.75 6-02738 PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 57.36 6-02825 LIBRARY & SPRINKLER LIBRARY & SPRINKLER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 422.59 6-02875 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (F ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (F 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 11.42 6-02925 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 509.68 6-04127 Fire Station #16 Fire Station #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 203.90 6-04128 fire sprinkler-FS #16 fire sprinkler-FS #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 6.53 Page: 6 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93179 12/28/2006 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 93180 12/28/2006 071416 EFFECTIVE OPTIONS Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 6-05155 Public Works Bldg Public Works Bldg 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 61.76 Public Works Bldg 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 234.70 Public Works Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 234.70 Public Works Bldg 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 234.70 Public Works Bldg 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 234.70 Public Works Bldg 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 234.69 6-05156 Public Works Fire Detector Public Works Fire Detector 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 0.82 Public Works Fire Detector 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 3.10 Public Works Fire Detector 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 3.10 Public Works Fire Detector 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 3.10 Public Works Fire Detector 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 3.10 Public Works Fire Detector 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 3.08 Total : 3,036.44 62006 MGMNT CONSULTING - 2ND INSTF MGMNT CONSULTING - 2ND INSTF 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 500.00 MGMNT CONSULTING - 2ND INSTF 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 500.00 MGMNT CONSULTING - 2ND INSTF 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 500.00 Page: 7 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93180 12/28/2006 071416 071416 EFFECTIVE OPTIONS (Continued) Total : 1,500.00 93181 12/28/2006 009835 FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS INTL 9442 LEASE FOR CROWN VIC UNIT 233 LEASE FOR 2004 CROW 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 711.75 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 65.49 9443 MONTHLY LEASE; 6 CROWN VICS UNIT 235,236,237,238,239 Monthly 1 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 3,358.33 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 308.96 Total : 4,444.53 93182 12/28/2006 011917 GERMANIA SEED CO 173578 FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 51.25 Freight 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 7.42 Total : 58.67 93183 12/28/2006 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1033458 FAC - SEALANT FAC - SEALANT 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.92 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.75 1033474 CITY PARKS BLDG - PLYWOOD CITY PARKS BLDG - PLYWOOD 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.87 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.66 1043542 FAC MAINT- PAINT SUPPLIES AND FAC MAINT- PAINT SUPPLIES AND 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 83.92 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.38 Page: 8 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93183 12/28/2006 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 1586330 UNIT 647 - CORD SUPPLIES UNIT 647 - CORD SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.44 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.06 3038106 STREET DEPT - SIMPLE GREEN STREET DEPT - SIMPLE GREEN 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 17.86 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 1.57 3060412 FAC MAINT - STOCK SUPPLIES FAC MAINT - STOCK SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 63.91 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.62 34587 FS 16 - SUPPLIES FS 16 - SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.25 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.64 4043282 MCH - WAX RING, DRILL BITS, DOS MCH - WAX RING, DRILL BITS, DOS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 148.49 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.07 4067067 STREET DEPT - PAINT ROLLERS STREET DEPT - PAINT ROLLERS 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 7.45 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 0.66 4100511 MUSEUM - AL PL CLR SUPPLIES MUSEUM - AL PL CLR SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.94 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.52 Page: 9 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93183 12/28/2006 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 4244342 MCH - ELF BOWL, AND WAX RING MCH - ELF BOWL, AND WAX RING 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 -115.96 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 -10.21 44977 FS 16 - PVC'S, ADAPTORS, BUSHIP FS 16 - PVC'S, ADAPTORS, BUSHIP 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 43.31 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.81 5034113 LIFT ST 14 - GATE LATCH LIFT ST 14 - GATE LATCH 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.57 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.49 5040613 STREET DEPT - SPRAY PAINT STREET DEPT - SPRAY PAINT 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 5.97 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 0.53 5043192 MEDOWDALE CH - TOILET TANK, I MEDOWDALE CH - TOILET TANK, I 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 207.26 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.24 6045389 FS 16 - CLAMPS, VINYL, CLAMP Sl FS 16 - CLAMPS, VINYL, CLAMP Sl 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.39 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.27 6076772 CITY HALL - WIRE NUTS CITY HALL - WIRE NUTS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.84 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.95 Page: 10 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93183 12/28/2006 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 6076789 SEWER DEPT - ROPE CLEAT, PUS SEWER DEPT - ROPE CLEAT, PUS 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 53.85 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.74 6571826 FAC - PLUG, CONNECTOR, SHEAR FAC - PLUG, CONNECTOR, SHEAR 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 34.73 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.06 7042894 CEMETARY - ROLLERS, PAINT BRl CEMETARY - ROLLERS, PAINT BRl 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 44.44 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.91 7045242 FS 16 - PVC, BUSHINGS, TEES, SU FS 16 - PVC, BUSHINGS, TEES, SU 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 31.38 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.76 7093711 CEMETARY - BRUSH ASSORMENT CEMETARY - BRUSH ASSORMENT 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.92 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.70 8031290 FAC - CHISELS, WEDGE ANCHOR[ FAC - CHISELS, WEDGE ANCHOR[ 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 68.98 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.07 8082744 CITY HALL - WINDEX WIPES, BATI CITY HALL - WINDEX WIPES, BATI 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 41.06 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.61 Page: 11 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93183 12/28/2006 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 8116344 SEWER DEPT - PEGBOARD HOOK SEWER DEPT - PEGBOARD HOOK 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.37 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.47 83481 FAC - ROLLER TRAY, TOGGLE BOI FAC - ROLLER TRAY, TOGGLE BOI 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.10 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.80 9038520 STORM DEPT - SPRAY PAINT, PAII STORM DEPT - SPRAY PAINT, PAII 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 107.63 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 9.47 9038521 STORM DEPT - GARDEN HOSE F17 STORM DEPT - GARDEN HOSE F17 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 20.58 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 1.81 9080541 FLEET SHOP - CASTER KITS FLEET SHOP - CASTER KITS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.84 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.92 9256748 STORM DEPT - HOSE RETURNED STORM DEPT - HOSE RETURNED 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 -19.97 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 -1.76 9256749 STORM - HOSE STORM - HOSE 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 19.97 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 1.76 Page: 12 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93183 12/28/2006 067862 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) Total : 1,104.64 93184 12/28/2006 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 17239 E61`6.2006 CITYWIDE STORMDRAI E61`6.2006 CITYWIDE STORMDRAI 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 2,145.95 Total : 2,145.95 93185 12/28/2006 062549 KSER FOUNDATION KSER2006 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMEI TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMEI 123.000.640.573.100.410.00 750.00 Total : 750.00 93186 12/28/2006 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 547305 SUPPLIES SEMIAUTO HEAD 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 25.25 Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 2.25 Total : 27.50 93187 12/28/2006 071140 MAD SCIENCE MADSCIENCE7338 MAD SCIENCE CAMP MAD SCIENCE CAMP #7338 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 770.67 Total : 770.67 93188 12/28/2006 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 37294 SUPPLIES CHAIN SAW CHAINS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 800.00 Total : 800.00 93189 12/28/2006 022009 MOTOROLA INC 13555583 OPS COMMUNICATIONS Advisor II pagers 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 1,190.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 105.91 Total : 1,295.91 93190 12/28/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 064321 Office Supplies - C. Cruz Page: 13 vchlist 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 14 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93190 12/28/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) Office Supplies - C. Cruz 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 162.89 King County Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 14.33 Total : 177.22 93191 12/28/2006 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 803894 OFFICE SUPPLIES MARKERS, BINDINGS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.77 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.10 980266 OFFICE SUPPLIES INK CARTRIDGE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 107.12 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.43 Total : 143.42 93192 12/28/2006 026015 OLYMPIC BALLET THEATRE OBT2006 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMEI TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMEI 123.000.640.573.100.410.00 1,900.00 Total : 1,900.00 93193 12/28/2006 063750 ORCA PACIFIC 026305 YOST POOL SUPPLIES YOST POOL PUMP 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 425.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 37.83 Total : 462.83 93194 12/28/2006 063588 PACIFIC POWER PRODUCTS CO 693390-00 SUPPLIES Page: 14 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93194 12/28/2006 063588 PACIFIC POWER PRODUCTS CO (Continued) SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 36.00 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.95 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.57 Total : 45.52 93195 12/28/2006 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948 FAC alarm monitoring for FAC 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 180.00 Total : 180.00 93196 12/28/2006 066114 SAFETYLINE 5767 GARMENTS FLIGHT JACKET, PARKA 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 179.78 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.84 Total : 184.62 93197 12/28/2006 061482 SEA -WESTERN INC 111971 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING Campbell 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 505.00 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 8.86 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 45.22 111972 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING McAllister 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 505.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 44.44 Page: 15 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93197 12/28/2006 061482 SEA -WESTERN INC (Continued) 111973 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING Ness 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 838.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 73.74 Total : 2,020.26 93198 12/28/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2060028723 YOST PARK POOL YOST PARK POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 432.95 2710014701 MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.21 Total : 464.16 93199 12/28/2006 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2060014392 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.23 3380016422 SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.69 3460019262 FIVE CORNERS WATER TANK FIVE CORNERS WATER TANK 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 267.45 7060000275 Fire station #16 Fire station #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 31.39 Total : 360.76 93200 12/28/2006 064137 SQUIRE, LARRY SQUIRE72471 GUITAR CLASSES LATE REGISTRATION FOR #7247 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 27.00 Total : 27.00 93201 12/28/2006 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO Standard 01/2007 STANDARD INSURANCE PREMIUM Page: 16 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93201 12/28/2006 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO (Continued) Standard Insurance Premiums for Ja 811.000.000.231.550.000.00 18,590.96 Total : 18,590.96 93202 12/28/2006 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 37836 UNIFORMS knit caps 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 650.00 Total : 650.00 93203 12/28/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHIN BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHIN 001.000.640.574.350.420.00 50.66 425-775-2645 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.640.575.510.420.00 61.12 Total : 111.78 93204 12/28/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-7147 LIBRARY SCAN ALARM LIBRARY SCAN ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.84 425-672-7132 FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 51.35 425-775-1534 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 159.51 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 296.23 425-775-7865 Radio Line between Public Works & l Radio Line between Public Works & l 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 50.03 Page: 17 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93204 12/28/2006 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 93205 12/28/2006 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 93206 12/28/2006 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 41 Vouchers for bank code : front 41 Vouchers in this report Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 425-RTO-9133 Public Works Connection to 911 Public Works Connection to 911 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48 Public Works Connection to 911 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78 Total : 681.46 769986915-01 425-231-2668 cell phone -water lead 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 39.22 Total : 39.22 5291 OPS COMMUNICATIONS Antennas 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 102.00 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 6.75 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 9.68 Total : 118.43 Bank total : 79,377.51 Total vouchers : 79,377.51 Page: 18 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 12/27/2006 4:03:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount Page: 19 AM-793 Interlocal Agreement for the Recycling Coordinator Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 01/16/2007 Submitted By: Linda Klein, Public Works Submitted For: Steve Fisher Time: Consent Department: Public Works Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo 2. D. Subiect Title Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Lynnwood and the City of Edmonds for joint funding of the Recycling Coordinator. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorize the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement between Lynnwood and Edmonds to jointly fund the Recycling Coordinator position and implement their respective 2007 and 2008 Waste Prevention and Recycling Programs. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Since 1995, City Council and staff have agreed to pursue a cooperative agreement with the City of Lynnwood to share resources, which would ensure continuation of their respective waste prevention and recycling programs. The original draft interlocal agreement was produced and approved on March 28, 1995. A provision of the agreement allowed extension of the agreement upon mutual consent of both cities. An updated interlocal agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, with this agreement covering the upcoming two-year period of 2007 and 2008, in order to coincide with both city's biennial budget cycles. Lynnwood will provide 35 percent funding of the City of Edmonds Recycling Coordinator position. The cost for the Recycling Coordinator position is funded as follows: 2-Year Amount Funding Source $ 50,760 Department of Ecology Grant (including City match) $ 58,000 City of Lynnwood 56 820 Edmonds Utility Fund $165,580 Total Besides providing education on recycling and other solid waste issues, this position provides public education outreach for the protection of City streams and water courses as required under the Federal Clean Water Act and water conservation information. The Lynnwood City Council has sought authorization from the Mayor of Lynnwood to sign this agreement at an upcoming Council Meeting. Link: Interlocal Aareement Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/10/2007 03:48 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/10/2007 03:50 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 01/11/2007 09:36 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Klein Started On: 01/08/2007 09:25 AM Final Approval Date: 01/11/2007 1 AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT 2 BETWEEN THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD 3 AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR 4 JOINT FUNDING OF A RECYCLING COORDINATOR 5 6 THIS AGREEMENT between the City of Lynnwood ("Lynnwood") and the City of 7 Edmonds ("Edmonds"), each a Municipal Corporation under the laws of the State of 8 Washington, is dated this day of 2007. 9 10 WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34, RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act) permits local 11 government units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to 12 cooperate with other localities on the basis of mutual advantage; and 13 14 WHEREAS, Edmonds and Lynnwood each presently staff and operate a solid waste 15 program partially funded by a Department of Ecology Grant; and 16 17 WHEREAS, the Department of Ecology has funds available to partially fund a 18 continuation of the program; and 19 20 WHEREAS both Edmonds and Lynnwood have partially funded their respective 21 programs for 2007 and 2008, yet do not have full funding capability; and 22 23 WHEREAS, Edmonds and Lynnwood have concluded that it would be in their best 24 interests for Edmonds and Lynnwood to jointly fund their solid waste efforts as 25 provided herein. 26 27 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 28 29 1. Edmonds shall employ a Recycling Coordinator, with appropriate qualifications. 30 The selection of the Recycling Coordinator shall be subject to the approval of 31 Lynnwood, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. 32 33 2. The Recycling Coordinator shall provide Edmonds and Lynnwood with a recycling 34 program during 2007 and 2008 as provided in exhibit A, which is incorporated 35 herein by reference.. 36 37 3. The Edmonds Recycling Coordinator will document actual activities and contacts in 38 meeting the Lynnwood recycling program, and will provide verification of time 39 spent on Lynnwood activities. 40 41 4. For services provided by the Recycling Coordinator, Lynnwood will reimburse 42 Edmonds an amount not to exceed $29,000.00 in the year 2007 and $29,000.00 in 43 2008. Reimbursement shall be paid quarterly at a rate of $41.14 per hour in the year 44 2007 and $43.28 in the year 2008, plus Lynnwood's fair share of direct charges of 45 labor, benefits, and material costs, without the inclusion of overhead or general 46 administrative charges, incurred in administering the Lynnwood recycling program. 330936.01136009910009173c_O1!.DOC(1/12/07) -1- 1 Edmonds shall notify Lynnwood when Edmonds has been reimbursed $20,000.00 in 2 either year at which time the parties shall meet to determine whether to amend the 3 agreement to provide for further work and compensation. 4 5 5. The term of this agreement shall expire December 31, 2008. This agreement may 6 be extended by mutual agreement of both parties and upon specific approval of the 7 respective recycling programs for future budget years. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 6. This agreement may be terminated by either parry upon sixty (60) days notice. Reconciliation of costs, payment, transfer of developed materials, and a current report of completed activities will be completed within the sixty (60) day period following notice by either parry. 7. Lynnwood agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds from any claims arising as a result of the administration of Lynnwood's program under this agreement, and Lynnwood and Edmonds agree to bear respective liability for any acts or omissions resulting from this agreement as the same shall be determined under the laws of the State of Washington or a mutually approved settlement agreement. 8. This agreement incorporates all the understanding between Edmonds and Lynnwood and may only be modified in a writing signed by the parties hereto. It shall be filed with the Department of Ecology and the Snohomish County Auditor as required by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of this day of , 2007. CITY OF LYNNWOOD Don Gough, Mayor ATTEST Vicki Heilman, Assistant Finance Director APPROVED AS TO FORM Michael P. Ruark, City Attorney CITY OF EDMONDS Gary Haakenson, Mayor ATTEST Sandra Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM W. Scott Snyder, City Attorney 330936.01 136009910009173c_O1!.DOC (1/12/07) -2- 1 EXHIBIT A 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood CONTINUED PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL MESSAGES & OUTREACH: Messages on public access cable channels. Newsletter articles. Program information section for city Internet web sites. Presentations and assistance to schools and businesses. Outreach at local events. Maintain Recycle Cart (Edmonds) and Recycle/Compost information racks (Lynnwood). Distribution of brochures and flyers, and creation of educational displays. Publicity, coordination and assistance with local scout troops with Christmas tree recycling. ASSISTANCE to MULTI -FAMILY PROPERTIES with RECYCLING EFFORTS: Continues to supply information and assistance to managers and tenants. Expansion of available recycling to non -participating properties. Contamination issues, illegal dumping, Christmas tree collection, multi-lingual information. EXPANSION & MAINTENANCE of SINGLE-FAMILY RECYCLING PROGRAMS: Cooperation with the municipal waste collection companies in identifying non -customers for use in a campaign to increase single family participation. Publicity, information and management for special recycling collection and clean-up events (Lynnwood). ASSISTANCE to the COMMERCIAL SECTOR with WASTE PREVENTION & RECYCLING EFFORTS and SOLID WASTE ISSUES & MANAGEMENT: Contacts, site visits, waste assessments to retail/office/manufacturers/schools/institutions. Presentations of options and opportunities for businesses such as construction and demolition debris recycling, material exchanges and reuse opportunities, and issues affecting water quality. Continuation of promotion and maintenance of the Pilot Compost Collection Project — involving collecting organics from restaurants and other food service businesses. Small Quantity Generator educational outreach (special & hazardous wastes). CONTINUED CITY IN-HOUSE WASTE PREVENTION & RECYCLING PROGRAM: Keep employees updated on recycling information and opportunities. Expand and evaluate recycling, reuse, and solid waste generation and disposal. Coordinate proper recycling of unwanted electronics. ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES: Grant administration: Quarterly and final reports for Department of Ecology. Program evaluation and ordinance research and writing. Planning stages for proposed new and remodeled commercial and multi -family properties to help site enclosures and containers for garbage and recycling. Continued liaison with the municipal solid waste collection companies. CONTINUED LIAISON with COUNTY SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT: Meetings and assistance with County programs: -Household Hazardous Waste Drop -Off Station. -County solid waste and recycling facilities. -Used oil, oil filters, and antifreeze collection sites. -"Take It Back" Network for proper electronics recycling. Representative on Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) (Edmonds) 330936.01136009910009173c_O1!.DOC(1/12/07) -3- AM-786 2.E. Seashore Forum Agreement Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 01/ 16/2007 Submitted By: Dave Gebert, Engineering Time: Consent Department: Engineering Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subiect Title Authorization for Mayor to sign Agreement for the SeaShore Transportation Forum. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement for the SeaShore Transportation Forum. Previous Council Action On February 25, 2003, Council authorized the Mayor to sign an Agreement for the SeaShore Transportation Forum and approved expenditures of $500 per year for payment of membership in the Forum from the City Council operating budget beginning in 2004. Narrative The SeaShore Transportation Forum was established in 1995 for the purpose of information sharing, advocacy, consensus building, and coordination to resolve transportation issues in north King County and south Snohomish County. Participants include King County, Snohomish County, municipalities in north King County and south Snohomish County, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), Sound Transit, Community Transit (CT), Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Port of Seattle. Edmonds has been participating as a member of the SeaShore Forum since May 2001. On February 25, 2003, Council authorized the Mayor to sign an Agreement for the SeaShore Transportation Forum and approved expenditures of $500 per year for payment of membership in the Forum from the City Council operating budget beginning in 2004. The Agreement for the SeaShore Transportation Forum approved by Council in February 2003 has expired. Attached is a new Agreement that was approved by the Forum on December 13, 2006 and provides for continuation of the Forum through 2008. The new Agreement is essentially the same as the previous Agreement, with only minor revisions. The SeaShore Forum Agreement states that each member city should designate two elected officials as representatives to the Forum. Alternate representatives may also be designated. The alternate may be an elected official or high-level staff member as best serves both the jurisdiction and the SeaShore Forum. The City of Edmonds' designated representatives to the SeaShore Forum for 2006 were Councilmembers Olson and Moore. Our designated representatives for 2007 are Council President Olson and Councilmember Marin. The Edmonds Traffic Engineer also represents the City of Edmonds on the SeaShore Forum Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which provides staff input to the SeaShore Forum. The Agreement requires each member city to contribute $500 annually, to be used for special events, public education, or other expenses authorized by the SeaShore Forum. The Forum will determine by June 30 of each year whether an additional financial contribution will be requested of the member jurisdictions and agencies. A modification to the Agreement specifying cost -sharing, purpose, scope of work and other details is required to obligate a member jurisdiction to a change in funding participation. Each party to the Agreement may withdraw from participation by giving 30 days advance written notice. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the Agreement as to form. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: SeaShore Agreement Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Development Services Duane Bowman 01/03/2007 01:18 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/09/2007 10:17 AM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/09/2007 10:33 AM APRV Final Approval Form Started By: Dave Gebert Final Approval Date: 01/09/2007 Linda Hynd 01/09/2007 11:05 AM APRV Started On: 01/03/2007 11:47 AM 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Phone: (206) 263-4711 Fax: (206) E December 19, 2006 The Honorable Gary Haakenson Mayor, City of Edmonds 121 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mayor Haakenson: I1 RECEIVED DEC2'0 2006 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Enclosed, for your review and action, is copy of the SeaShore Transportation Forum agreement, approved at the December 13, 2006 Forum meeting. This agreement provides for the continuation of the Forum so it can maintain its role of coordinating and contributing to regional transportation decisions through 2008. We ask that you review this agreement within your city, obtain formal approval through your appropriate channels, and sign in the designated signature block. Please return signed copies to: Sally Marks King County Department of Transportation 201 South Jackson Street M.S.: KSC-TR-0814 Seattle, WA. 98104 Once all signed copies have been returned, a completed copy, with all the signature pages, will be sent to you for your records. We appreciate your continued support of the Forum and its activities, and thank you for making the time for your representatives to participate in our discussions. Throughout the coming year, we look forward to many interesting discussions as we work together to make,regional transportation improvements, a reality. The Honorable Gary Haakenson December 19, 2006 Page 2 Thank you very much for your cooperation. Please feel free to contact either of us or Sally Marks of our staff (phone: 206-263-4710, email: sally.marks@metrokc.gov) if you have any questions. Sincerely, Patrick Ewing Ed Sterner Councilmember, City of Bothell Councilmember, City of Lake Forest Park Co -Chair Co -Chair Seashore Transportation Forum Enclosure: SeaShore Transportation Forum Agreement cc: SeaShore Forum members SeaShore TAC members Sandy Chase, City Clerk, City of Edmonds AGREEMENT Forthe. SEASHORE TRANSPORTATION FORUM Parties to Agreement: City of Bothell City of Kenmore City of Lake Forest Park City of Shoreline City of Woodinville City ot"Edmon'ds City of Mountlake Terrace King County Snohomish County City of Seattle Puget Sound Regional Council Sound Transit Community Transit Transportation Improvement Board Washington State Department of Transportation Port of Seattle Approved by the SeaShore Transportation Foram on December 0, 2006 Transmitted to participating members on December 19, 2006. THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and among the CITY OF BOTHELL, hereafter called `Bothell'; the CITY OF KENMORE, hereafter called "Kenmore"; the CITY OF LAKE FOREST PARK, hereafter called "Lake Forest Park'; the CITY OF SHORELINE, hereafter called "Shoreline'; the CITY OF WOODINVILLE, hereafter called "Woodinville"; CITY OF EDMONDS, hereafter called "Edmonds"; CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE; hereafter called "Mountlake Terrace'; the CITY OF SEATTLE, hereafter called "Seattle'; KING COUNTY, a legal subdivision of the State of Washington, hereafter called "King County"; SNOHOMISH COUNTY, a legal subdivision of the State of Washington, hereafter called "Snohomish County; the PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL, hereafter called the "PSRC' ; the CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, hereafter called "Sound Transit"; SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA, hereafter called "Community Transit'; the WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereafter called "WSDOT'; the TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD, hereafter called "I'IB."; and the PORT OF SEATTLE. WHEREAS, each of the jurisdictions in the north King County -south Snohomish County area has experienced significant population growth and economic development in the last decade, and projects continued growth and development in the fixture; and - WHEREAS, many of the transportation issues faced by the cities in north King County and south Snohomish County are similar to those faced by the City of Seattle; and Seashore Agreement 2006 1 12/19/06 WHEREAS, King County and cities in other portions of urbanized King County have found that benefits can be. achieved by multi jurisdictional.coordination; including a cooperative approach to the planning, financing, and construction of needed transportation irnprovements, and . WHEREAS, this coordination is facilitated by continuing forums for discussion and recommendations on common issues; and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan for Public Transportation —Long Range Policy Framework, originally adopted in 1993 and updated in 2002, divided Metro service into three geographic subareas for the purpose of allocating new transit subsidy; and WHEREAS, the Six -Year TransitDeveiopmentPlan adopted -in 1995; calls for the three - subarea transportation boards (the Eastside Transportation Partnership, South County Area Transportation Board, and SeaShore Transportation Forum) to review, refine; and recommend service priorities to the King County Executive; and WHEREAS, King County, Seattle, Bothell, and Lake Forest Park formed a SeaShore. Transportation Forum and began discussions about common transportation issues in 1995 to develop recommendations on transit 'service, and WHEREAS, the new cities of Shoreline and Kenmore have been formed since -that time,: and have been'participating in SeaShore discussions; and WHEREAS; the.Cities of Woodinville, Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace have agreed to join as members of the Forum; and WHEREAS, Community Transit and Snohomish County also have been involved in discussions of inter -county coordination and other common issues through SeaShore; and WHEREAS, Sound Transit relies on the three subarea transportation boards to review. and recommend nlodificationsto"Soxiiid MovePl A fthplementation-related services dnd projects, and to participate in future .phase (Phase. I1) high capacity transit plan development efforts; and ... WHEREAS, the "North King County" subarea for Sound Transit consists of the cities of Seattle, Shoreline and Lake Forest Park; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Seattle, Shoreline and Lake Forest Park, and King County are included in the "Seattle -North King County" subarea designated by the King County Metro Long Rangebevelopment Plan and Six Year Plan for transit planning and service` allocatron (Attachitient ;.and SeaShore Agreement2006 2 12/0/06 WHEREAS, the boundaries of the "Seattle -North King County" subarea are not altered by changes.to the membership of the.Forum.(Attachment A); and WHEREAS, the SeaShore Transportation Forum is expected to continue to provide valuable input on numerous planning and implementation decisions. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1.0 Purpose of Agreement The purpose of the Agreement is to identify the members of the SeaShore Transportation - Foruna0eaShor -�arrd provide.: for the:continuation of SeaShore as the Seattle -north .... King -south Snohomish County forum for information sharing, advocacy, consensus building and coordinating to resolve transportation issues. 2.0 Role of SeaShore 'the SeaShore is the forum established by King, County for the Seattle -North King County transportation subarea of King ;County.at: which, elected officials may provide input into the following decisions, and such other transportation -related issues as the members;determine a) development of the King County Metro Six Year Transit Development Plan. b) implementation of transit service priorities c) .::recommendations for:the Safe, Accountable;, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act -Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) regional. project identification and Countywide project selection d) recommendations to Sound Transit on its services and projects e). coordination with the Eastside Transportation Partnership and the South County Area Transportation Board on countywide and regional transportation issues. The.SeaShore Transportation Forum also serves as a central forum for information sharing, consensu =building, and -coordinating to resolve transportation. issues, and discuss priorities for implementing transportation projects and programs on a subregional basis for the north part of King County and the south part of Snohomish County. The other two subareas have similar forums: the Eastside Transportation Partnership and the South County Area Transportation Board 3.0 Membership and Representation , 3 1:; The members of SeaShore shall be the following counties and cities (hereinafter.' referred to as "jurisdiction(s)": King County and Snohomish.C,oWty, and the cities of Seattle, Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, Kenmore, Woodinville, Edmonds; Mountlake Terrace and Bothell; the following transportation agencies (hereinafter SeaShore Agreement 2006 3 12/19/06 referred to as "agency(ies)": the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC); Sound Transit, Transportation ,Improvement. Board (TIB) Commumty-Transit and the Port of Seattle. Membership may be extended to others at a later date as SeaShore may later determine. 3.2 Each member city and,county-(!'jurisdiction") shall be entitled to two positions on SeaShore. Each agency shall be entitled to one position on SeaShore. Each jurisdiction should appoint two representatives, and each agency should appoint one representative, each for one-year terms. Alternates may also be designated. For the jurisdictions, the representatives should be elected officials; the alternates maybe elected officials or high-level staff members as best serves both the jurisdiction and SeaShore. For agencies, their representatives and alternates may be either elected " 'officials or other high=level staffmembers'as such agencies may deem appropriate. 3.3 Each jurisdiction's representatives, or their alternate in their absence, shall have one vote. Representatives of agencies shall be non -voting representatives. 3.4 The "Seattle -North King County" subarea is recognized as one of three subareas in King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit policy decisions allocating service or capital resources. The SeaShore Transportation Forum is established as the body responsible for making recommendations on these issues. For actions relating to - these issues, only those jurisdictions in the "Seattle -North King County" subarea shall vote.• .... ,.. _ ., 3.5 All jurisdictions may vote on other issues; unless an agency requesting a SeaShore recommendation specifies that different voting boundaries or criteria shall be used, or a decision is otherwise specifically required by law or rule to be made by other boundary or criteria. 3.6 If a case arises where voting_ boundary or criteria is in question, all jurisdictions may vote. If the outcome is not unanimous, the detailed results shall be recorded by jurisdiction and forwarded to the agency requestingthe recommendation for their information. 4.0 Conduct 4.1 SeaShore shall endeavor to make decisions by consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, final decisions will be made by majority vote of the voting members present at the meeting at which action is taken. Dissenting opinions may also be provided to the appropriate decision -makers. ' 4.2... SeaShore will be respon,'srble for overall program duectron, approvuig staff recommendations, aii<Ton going comrnunicatron with the go"veining body of each member jurisdiction and agency. SeaShore Agreement 2006 4 12/19/06 4.3 SeaShore may establish its own bylaws and rules of procedure and may modify these as appropriate.:: Such bylaws and rules shall be consistent with the provisions of this Agreement and:modifications_to such bylaws and rules will not alter,this Agreement, 4.4 A Chair or two Co -Chairs shall be chosen by Seashore to serve a term of one-year from January-:. through December L The Chair(s) shall conduct the Seashore activities and.are responsible for setting meeting agendas, ensuring fair opportunity for discussion, signing correspondence and speaking on behalf of SeaShore. At least one Chair shall be a representative of a jurisdiction located in whole or in part in the Seattle -North -King -County Subarea. 5.0 Committees The Seashore may establish committees as are necessary to carry out its purpose. A Technical Advisory. Committee (TAC) of jurisdiction and agency staff shall be formed to advise Seashore of emergent transportation issues and provide recommendations for action. Each jurisdiction and agency may designate a representative (and an alternate) to the TAC. Other committees may be formed on an ongoing or ad hoc basis as determined by SeaShore from time to time. 6.0;..Lead_Agextcy , King County shall provide general administrative and program support for the SeaShore and will be the Lead Agency for the purposes of coordination and receipt of any funds or contract:administration:. King County assumes wage and benefits cost of its staff performing Lead Agency responsibilities. - 7.0 Member Agency Staff Support Each member jurisdiction and agency is expected to contribute such staff as is necessary to accomplish the work program adopted by the SeaShore. 8.0:;: Work Program.. . The SeaShore may undertake activities consistent with its purposes and shall prepare an annual work program for the following year, and an annual progress report on the year just completed for submittal to its members. 9.0 . ISnancing.;and Cost Sharing Guidelines: 9.1 SeaShore Yearly Dues -- Each member jurisdiction will contribute $500 annually to remain members in good standing The designated Lead: agency shall not be required to pay yearly dues Tlus revexlue shall be used for special events, public education; or other expenses authoiized by the SeaShore Fonnn 9.2 The following guidelines shall generally apply: SeaShore Agreement 2006 5 12/19/06 Lq (1) Annual Review of Financing: The Foram shall determine by June 30 of each year whether an additional financial contribution will be requested of the member jurisdictions and agencies. (2) aidonglftethberjuhsdictiotlg'othei: than King County by a methodas determined by action of the Forum. Unless agreed to otherwise, King County's share shall be limited to the costs of providing staff support. .(3) Non -voting Member Agencies/organizations: The member agencies shall not be expected to make a direct funding contribution. However, subject to the availability of member funding, in -kind contributions may be necessary as determined by an action of SeaShorc: (4) Modification to Agreement Required: A modification to this agreement specifying cost -sharing, purpose, scope of work and other details is required to obligate a member jurisdiction to a change in funding participation. - 10.0 Withdrawal of a Party, from this Agreement Each party, -for :its coiivenieiiee,andwithout cause or for any reason whatsoever; may' withdfaw from parti4afioum' this Agreement by providing written notice, sent certified mail, return receipt required; to. all of the other parties at least thifty (30) days in. advance of the effective date of the withdrawal. A withdrawing party shall not be entitled to a *refund of any dues or other payments to support ScaShore activities and: shall make any contributions required to be paid to other parties under this Agreement for costs which had been obligated prior to the effective date of the withdrawal. In the event a party withdraws, the remaining parties shall amend this Agreement as necessary to reflect changes in the named parties and cost and revenue allocations. In the event of withdrawal by a party, this Agreement shall terminate as to that party but shall continue in effect with respect to the remaining parties. However, the termination of this Agreement with respect to one or more parties shall not affect any of the parties' rights or obligations, including any -rights or obligations of a withdrawing party, that are expressly intended to survive termination. Each parVs:funding to perform: its obligations under the Agreement, beyond the current appropriation ,year, is conditional upon appropriation by the party's governing body of sufficient funds to support said obligations. Should such an appropriation not be approved for a future year, a party may exercise its right to withdraw as provided herein. 11.0 Ditia6m parties and executed by authorized representatives of alfpaifics. This- Xgre'e'ruent SeaShore Agreement 2006 6 12/19/06 All parties to this Agreement mustagree; toterminate.tbis Agreement in order for such termination to be effective: If all parties desire to terminate this Agreement, they shall execute a Statementof Termination. Upon temrination, no. party shall be required to, make any additional contributions. Any remaining funds shall be refunded to the parties to this Agreement according to Section 14.0. 13.0 Real and Personal Property The acquisition ofreal:property is not anticipated under this Agreement. Any personal property acquired pursuant to this Agreement shall be held by the Lead Agency. In the event this Agreement expires or is terminated in accordance with Section 12.0, any personal property other than cash shall remain with the Lead Agency. 14.0 Return of Funds At such time as this Agreement expires or is terminated in accordance with Section 12.0, anyunexpendedanduncomriritted:funds: 401bedistributedproportion4telytothose llI par-4es-to this Agreement at -the time of tenuination based on each party's.percentage, share of the original contribution. - 16.0 Filing This Agreement shall be filed with the King County Department of Records and Elections. 17.0 Legal Relations 17.1 The parties shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. 17.2 This Agreement is solely for the benefit.of the parties hereto and gives no right to any other party. No joint venture or partnership is formed as a result of this Agreement. No employees or agents of one party or any of its contractors or subcontractors shall be deemed, or represent themselves to be, employees of any other party. 17.3 Each party shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other parties and all of their officials, employees, principals and agents from all claims, demands, suits, actions, and liability of any kind whatsoever which arise out of, are connected with, or are incident to any negligent acts of the indemnifying party, its contractor, and/or employees, agents, and representatrves:in performing the indemmfying party's obligations under this. Agreement. The parties agree that their obligitioiii under. this paragraph extend to claims made against one party by the other party's own"employees. For this purpose, the parties; SeaShme Agreement2006 .7 12/19/06 by mutual negotiation, hereby waive, as respects the other party only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the industrial insurance provisions of RCW Title 51.1 In the eventanyparty incurs attorney's•fees ' costs or other legal expenses to enforce the provisions of this section, against the other -party, all such. reasonable fees, costs and expenses shall be recoverable by the prevailing party. 17.4 The provisions.of this Section 17 shall -survive and remain applicable to each of the parties notwithstanding anyternnnation or expiration of this Agreement and notwithstanding a parry's withdrawal from this Agreement. 18.0 Entirety and Modifications. 18.1 This Agreement merges and supersedes'ai1 prior negotiations ;representations; and agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof and constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. 18.2 This Agreement may be modified or extended only by written instrument signed by all parties hereto. SeaShore Agreement 2006 8 12/19/06 19.0 Counterparts The signature page of this Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which. shall -be an original: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be signed and delivered by its duty authorized officer or renresentative as of the date set forth below its sienature. CITY OF BOTHELL KING COUNTY COMMUNITY TRANSIT By By BY Date Date Date CITY OF. KENIv1OR1j,.. _. . SNOHONIISH COUNTY CITY OF SEATTLE BY Date By By Date Date CITY OF LAKE FOREST PARK PUGET SOUND REGIONAL WASHINGTON STATE COUNCIL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By By Date By Date Date CITY OF SHORELINE SOUND TRANSIT TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD . By By By Date Date Date CITY OF WOODINVILLE CITY OF MOUNTLAKE CITY OF EDMONDS TERRACE By BY BY Date Date Date PORT OF SEATTLE By Date Attachment A (map) Seashore Agreement 2006 9 12/19/06 0 r'-SeaShore Transportation Forum To promote discussion of issues that cross subarea and county b0oundaries, the Forum includes representatives from Kenmore, Bothell, Woodinville, Mountlake Terrace, Edmonds and Snohomish County. Subarea Boundary for Metro Transit & Sound Transit SeaShore Forum Area AM-785 Interurban Trail, PUD Quitclaim Deed Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 01/ 16/2007 Submitted By: Dave Gebert, Engineering Department: Engineering Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Time: Consent Type: Action 2.F. Agenda Memo Subiect Title Acceptance of Quitclaim Deed from Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 for portions of the Pacific Northwest Traction Company Right -of -Way for purposes of construction, operation and maintenance of the Interurban Trail project within the City of Edmonds, and authorization for the City Clerk to record said Quitclaim Deed. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council accept the Quitclaim Deed from Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 for portions of the Pacific Northwest Traction Company Right -of -Way for purposes of construction, operation and maintenance of the Interurban Trail project within the City of Edmonds, and authorize the City Clerk to record said Quitclaim Deed. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The City is currently in the design and permitting phase for the Edmonds portion of the Interurban Trail. This project will extend the Interurban Trail from the Snohomish/King county line, through the Lake Ballinger area of Edmonds, to 228 th Street SW in Mountlake Terrace. It will complete a missing link in this regional trail and will connect the existing trail in Mountlake Terrace and the recently constructed segment in Shoreline. See project description, Attachment 1. The planned route for the Interurban Trail will follow the route of the old Interurban Railroad, the Pacific Northwest Traction Company right-of-way, which is presently used by Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) as a utility corridor. The Interurban Trail project will be funded in large part by grants, and it will be necessary to demonstrate to the granting agencies that the City owns the rights to use the route for the trail, either by owning the right-of-way or by appropriate easements. Exhaustive title research revealed that the PUD's ownership of marketable title to the old Interurban Railroad right-of-way is clouded by the language of conveyance documents in the recorded chain of title. However, the PUD's open dominion and control of the property for many years likely will allow the City as the PUD's successor in interest to successfully assert a claim of title to all or at least a significant portion of the property. The City Attorney has advised a two step process for the City to obtain clear title to the needed right-of-way. The first step is for the PUD to quitclaim the rights they have to the right-of-way to the City. The second step will be for the City to then pursue a quiet title action to obtain clear title to the right-of-way for use for the Interurban Trail. Any property interest necessary for the desired trail construction which cannot be obtained through the quiet title action would then be purchased from the property owner identified in the quiet title proceeding. Without going through the quiet title action in Superior Court, the City could not be certain of which, if any, of the other potential owners of title to negotiate the purchase of the property. The Quitclaim Deed at Attachment 2 accomplishes the first step and quitclaims the PUD rights to the City, with a reservation of an easement for the PUD utility corridor. The Quitclaim Deed was prepared by the City Attorney and has been approved by the PUD Commissioners. Staff recommends that Council accept the Quitclaim Deed and authorize the City Clerk to record it with Snohomish County. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Proiect Description Link: Quitclaim Deed Route Seq Inbox Form Routing/Status Approved By Date Status 1 Parks and Recreation Brian McIntosh 01/03/2007 11:37 AM APRV 2 Development Services Duane Bowman 01/03/2007 11:39 AM APRV 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/03/2007 12:05 PM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/03/2007 01:54 PM APRV 5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 01/04/2007 04:08 PM APRV Form Started By: Dave Gebert Started On: 01/03/2007 06:51 AM Final Approval Date: 01/04/2007 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Interurban Trail ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $815,000 Development N OT TO SCALE Matching Grant Funds WWRC/ IAC PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Trail Development Complete public workshops, design and construction of the Edmonds link of the Interurban Trail connecting the northern portion constructed by Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace to the southern portion at Shoreline on the King County line. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Create a non -motorized trail system on the old Interurban Railroad Line from the City of Everett to Seattle. Create the missing link between completed Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace trail sections. SCHEDULE: 2006-2011 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $69,300 $693,000 $24,850 $9,900 $4,500 $4,500 1 % for Art $700 $7,000 $150 $100 $50 $50 TOTAL $70,000 $700,000 $25,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 0012_785_Interurban Trail, project descr sheet.doc Providing quality water, power and service at a competitive price that our customers value PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT • RECEIVED DEC 2 7 2006 EDMONDS CITY CLERK December 27, 2006 Sandy Chase, City Clerk City of Edmonds, 121 5�h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: City of Edmonds Interurban Trail Project Enclosed is a signed original Quitclaim Deed conveying any fee interest the District may have in that portion of the Pacific Northwest Traction Company Right -of -Way identified by Snohomish County Assessor's Tax Account Number 270432-002-002-00, subject to existing easement rights of record as detailed in the deed. The Quitclaim Deed will require additional signatures by City of Edmonds officials prior to recording. Once the document has been completed and recorded, please provide PUD with a conformed copy for our files. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, w Rogers . Reistad Real Estate Services Department 2320 California Street • Everett, WA • 98201 / MailingAddresr P.O. Box 1107 • Everett, WA • 98206-1107 425-783-1000 • Toll -free in Western Washington at 1-877-783-1000 • wwwsnopud.com When Recorded Return To: Sandy Chase, City Clerk City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave. North Edmonds, Washington 98020 QUIT CLAIM DEED Reference Number(s) of Related Documents: N/A Grantor (Last, First, Ml): PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY Grantee (Last, First, M.I.): CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Legal Description (abbreviated): A portion of Government Lot 6 in section 32, Township 27 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian in Snohomish County, Washington, depicted in Exhibit "A-l" and described below as Parcel A ; Together with a portion of the northwest one quarter of the northwest one quarter and of Government Lot 5, all in Section 32, Township 27 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian in Snohomish County, Washington, depicted in Exhibit `B-l" and described below as Parcel B; All within a 33.0 foot wide strip of land, being 16.5 feet on each side of the described centerlines. Assessor's Tax Account Number: 270432-002-002-00 Consideration: For good and valuable consideration the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged. Conveyance of Grantor's Interest: For the above -mentioned consideration, Grantor, Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, hereby conveys and quit claims to Grantee, City of Edmonds, subject to the reservation of easement and conditions set forth in the legal description, all right, title, and interest in the Described Property, situated in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. Legal Description Reference is made to document dated April 4, 1917, and recorded under Snohomish County Auditor's File No. 230595 wherein easement rights were granted by Richard A. Ballinger et al to Pacific Northwest Traction Company, the referenced document being the basis for the right of way of which this conveyance to the City of Edmonds is a part. The legal description in said referenced document is inconsistent with the location on the ground of the traction company grading and right of way improvements as subsequently documented by surveys and recorded plats. The exhibits attached hereto as Exhibits "A-l" and `B-1" depict the details of the existing property limits. For the purpose of this conveyance to the City of Edmonds, the following legal descriptions, Parcels A and B supplement and amend the legal description in said referenced document and accurately define the limits of the rights conveyed herein. Parcel A That portion of Government Lot 6 in Section 32, Township 27 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian in Snohomish County, Washington, lying within a strip of land 33.0 feet in width having 16.5 feet of width on each side of a centerline described as follows; Commencing at a point on the east right of way line of 76th Avenue West as shown 30.0 feet from the west line of said Section 32, said point being the most southerly corner of the Plat of Lake Ballinger Homes Division No. 4 according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 22 of plats on Page 110, records of said County; Thence S00°37'07"W (S00°14'30"W per said plat) along said east right of way line, a distance of 21.61 feet to a point on a line parallel and concentric with and 16.5 feet southeasterly of the southeasterly boundary of said plat and the True Point of Beginning of the centerline described herein: Thence N50°24'33"E along said parallel line, a distance of 227.78 feet to a tangent point of curve to the left having a radius of 819.0 feet, said curve'being concentric with said southeasterly boundary; Thence northeasterly along the arc of said concentric curve and along its northeasterly extension through a central angle of 35°19'04" an arc distance of 504.84 feet to a point on the easterly projection of 236th Street S.W. (formerly Lake Boulevard as established in the Plat of Lake Ballinger Land Company's Plat Subdivision No. 1 according to the plat thereof recorded in volume 9 of Plats on pages 57 and 58, records of said county) and the terminus of the centerline described herein. Except those portions of said 33.0 foot strip lying within the right of ways of Mc Aleer Way and 74th Avenue West (formerly Bradley Road as establish in said Plat of Lake Ballinger Land Company's Plat Subdivision No.1) { GAR645558.DOC;1/00006.170081/ } 2 Parcel B That portion of the northwest one quarter of the northwest one quarter and of Government Lot 5 all in Section 32, Township 27 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian in Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows; A 33.0 foot wide strip of land, being 16.5 feet on each side of the following described centerline; Beginning on the north line of said Section 32 at a point bearing S87°52'21"E (S88°11'04"E per Plat of Lake Ballinger Land Co's Plat, Subdivision No.1 according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 9 of Plats on Pages 57 and 58, records of said County) distant 1024.70 feet from the northwest corner thereof, thence S21 ° 15' 39"W, 853.00 feet to a point on a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 2864.93 feet; Thence along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 14°34'24", an arc distance of 728.70 feet to a point on the north right of way line of Bradley Road produced easterly and the terminus of the centerline described herein. Excepting from the above described strip of land that portion lying within the right of way of 228th Street Southwest. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS: 1. Purpose of Conveyance/Reversion. The conveyance of the Described Premises by Grantor is for the specific purpose of the construction, maintenance, operation, installation by Grantee of a recreational trail for pedestrians, bicycles and similar recreational use deemed appropriate by the Grantee. This conveyance may be terminated for cause by the Grantor upon 180 days' notice in writing to Grantee, where cause shall be the Grantee's abandonment or termination of the use of the Described Property as a recreational trail. Cause shall also exist if Grantee violates any covenant, condition or substantive portion or requirement of this Deed and the violation is not remedied within 90 days after Grantee receives written notice of the violation from Grantor, or if the violation is not subject to reasonable remedy. 2. Reservation of Easement. Grantor hereby reserves an easement over, above, under and across that portion of the Described Property now occupied by its facilities, for the maintenance, modification, installation and repair of its present or future facilities for the transmission of electrical power. The Grantor further reserves an easement for access to its present and future facilities for their maintenance, modification, installation and repair. It is the intent of the parties that the Grantor's exercise of its rights under this reservation of easement does not unreasonably interfere with Grantee's use of the premises for a recreational trail. 3. Conditions and Restrictions. a. Plan Approval. It is understood that prior to any installation, modification, or extension of any facility within the Described Property, the Grantee will first supply the Grantor with detailed drawings and specifications relating to such proposed construction for the specific purpose of determining whether the proposed improvements will unreasonably interfere with Grantor's reservation of easement, and that no construction, installation, or modification will be {GAR645558.DOC;1/00006.170081/} 3 performed until the plans have been approved in writing by the Grantor; PROVIDED, however, that the approval of the Grantor shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld, nor shall such approval be considered as imposing any obligation upon the Grantor as to safety or propriety of such installation or construction, the sole consideration of Grantor being the compatibility of the recreational trail with Grantor's use of its reservation of easement. b. Liability for Damages. The Grantor shall not be held liable for any claims or damage to Grantee's property, facilities, or appurtenances constructed or placed in, under, or upon said property by Grantee arising from the exercise of its rights under the reservation of easement, it being understood and agreed that such property is now and will continue to be used as utility property subject to use by heavy trucks and machinery for power line construction, installation, and maintenance, and for transmission of high voltage electricity, among other things, however, Grantor shall exercise reasonable care to protect Grantee's property, facilities, or appurtenances from damage or harm. c. Indemnification. The Grantee further agrees: (i) To hold and save harmless the Grantor from and against any and all claims for damages, whether to Grantee's employees, or to other third persons or property, including but not limited to claims of injury or damage resulting from high voltage induction or electromagnetic fields that may in any manner directly or indirectly arise out of the construction, operation, repair, maintenance, or patrolling of the facilities by Grantee, pursuant to this Deed or out of the operations of the Grantee, its successors, or assigns pursuant to this agreement; and (ii) That it is not now known whether the presence of high voltage electrical transmission lines and resultant electromagnetic fields may have any injurious effect upon humans or animals in close proximity, that without the public trail use proposed by Grantee, public access to the subject property would otherwise be restricted, and that Grantee's agreement to the indemnification provision herein is a material consideration without which this Deed would not be granted; and (iii) That Grantee specifically and expressly waives any immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51, RCW, and acknowledges that this waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. PROVIDED, that with regard to the construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of Grantee's facilities or appurtenances located upon property owned or controlled by Grantor, if any claim for damages as described in this section is caused by or results from the concurrent negligence of (1) Grantor, its agents, or employees, and (2) Grantee, its successors, or assigns, this indemnity provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent permitted by law, and provided further that this indemnity section shall be inapplicable to the extent that any such claim arises from a willful and unjustifiable act or omission of Grantor, its employees, or agents. d. That during the installation, modification, maintenance, or repair of the facilities installed by Grantee, its successors, or assigns, in furtherance of a recreational trail, all {GAR645558.DOC;1/00006.170081/1 4 reasonable precautions shall be taken to insure that the present or future facilities of the Grantor be protected from damage. e. That it will not charge or collect any fees from the public for any use of the Described Property without prior written permission of the Grantor. f. It is the intent of the parties to this easement to work together and take all necessary and reasonable action to insure that obstacles to the joint use of the Described Premises as described above that might arise in the future can be overcome. g. That it will install, own, and maintain any and all guard rails, posts, and conspicuous warning signs reasonably necessary to warn users of and protect them from any known dangerous, artificial latent conditions on the property, or remove such conditions. h. That it will reimburse Grantor for its reasonable costs of installation and maintenance of warning signs and other protective devices it deems necessary upon Grantor's utility poles, lines, or equipment. Dated this day of , 2006. GRANTOR: PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY r_ By: J St2x� J. Klein eneral Manager STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Steven J. Klein signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the General Manager of Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. VVq � �ggION o F 11r o NOTARY 4 58.DPUf BM0 )6.17 081/ N> 6-28-2010 �2 Notary Public in and for the St of Wa ington, residing in Snohomish County. My commission expires June '28, 2010 5 ACCEPTED BY GRANTEE: By: Mayor, City of Edmonds Attest: By: City Clerk { GAR64555 8.DOC;1 /00006.170081 / 1 Date r? i------ i / 1 a LAKE BALLINGER HOMES ,25 25 Q=6'33'15 /=93.69' 0�' W Co, // � `FtP II i--------------- r4 i VOL. 19, PG. 111 go On- 410 4- o N' 'O �i ` !210. 1 v zl �/ / �� / �o I 125 25 I s A1e r —Way N S. Corner Of Plat 21.61 T.P.O.6. I / ••f I / AL Ltd I I / EXPIRES : 11/24/2006 Dates 11-10-06 Exhibit "A-1" 157 Yester Way Scaler To Accompany a Legal Description for a suite301 1' = 100' Trail Right -of -Way -PARCEL A Seattle, WA98104-2596 Job No. *LND"RvT INC. 206.332.0800 J04-10,00 For the Cif of Edmonds i 29-------------- tb— f1 32--229 E2S88 4tEee02S0 —=' - ---' _ ( DISTANCE PER PLAT OF LAKE _I BALLINGER. ME DISTANCE PER I EASEMENT DEED AM 230959 OF 16S• 1024.22' IS BELIEVED TO BE IN I ERROR AND THEREFORE NOT USED. � a I Evergreen Addition To ( Lake Ballinger oo V Q ( Vo% 15, Pg. 58 .�°ico 55 ` ` �►o J o orb � 3 C146 '9Q/llyi e6,1, < 9-, - G, I\----------- (¢,� �a V" I/4lre Q B ( ( \ "'N 0 =� C/U6 F e liar SfQ fes r C0% A Na. 3 �� 9. 99 11 C� I Lot 4 cb 165• >Z w I ` N. LINE OF GOV. LOT 5 :C0 �o N I 1 , U o•.' 3 •��o ( \ NAL LAIC S" i I \ EXPIRES : 11/24/2006 - �11-10-06 Exhibit "B-1" 157 Yesler Way Scale, To Accompany a Legal Description fora Suite301 11 = 200, Trail Right -of -Way - PARCEL B Seathe, WA 98104-2596 Job No, LAND SURVEYING. INC. 206.332.0800 J04-10.00 For the City of Edmonds RESOLUTION NO. 5297 A RESOLUTION Declaring an Interest in the PNT Power Line Corridor Property to be Surplus and Authorizing its Conveyance to City of Edmonds WHEREAS, Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County (the "District") has an interest in real property commonly known as the "PNT Right -of -Way"; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds (the "City") desires to extend its existing Interurban Trail within said PNT Right -of -Way from 228 h Street SW to the east side of 76d' Avenue West, and has requested the District convey by Quitclaim Deed all rights, title, and interest in said portion, subject to the reservation of an easement and conditions set forth in said Quitclaim Deed so that it may do so; and WHEREAS, District staff has reviewed the request, concluded that the conveyance meets the requirements of the District's Power Line Corridor Property Policy, established by Resolution No. 2989, and recommends that said interest be conveyed; and WHEREAS, the Commission finds, based upon the information and analysis presented and recommendation made to it, that the interest in real property, which will be conveyed by the District, is not necessary to the District's operations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission of Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County that the General Manager of the District, or the General Manager's designee, is authorized to execute and deliver a Quitclaim Deed substantially in the form of the attached Exhibit "A" in the name of and on behalf of the District and to execute any other documents and to take any other action necessary to complete the property transaction herein described. Resolution No. 5297 — 2 — PASSED AND APPROVED this 19th day of December, 2006. Secretary CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that I am the duly appointed Deputy Clerk of the Board of Commissioners, Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, and that the attached and foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 5297 entitled: A RESOLUTION Declaring an Interest in the PNT Power Line Corridor Property to be Surplus and Authorizing its Conveyance to City of Edmonds That said Resolution No. 5297 was adopted by the Commission of said District at a Regular Meeting held on December 19, 2006, at which a quorum was present for the purpose of conducting business. That said Resolution No. 5297 has not been altered or amended and the same is in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said District this 20th day of December 2006. Sandra Wallenfelsz, Dep y er of the Board Board of Commissioners AM-795 Professional Services Agreement with Patton Boggs, LLC Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: Submitted By: Department: Review Committee: Action: 01/16/2007 Stephen Clifton, Community Services Community Services Agenda Memo Time: Consent Type: Information Subiect Title Professional Services Agreement (PSA) between City of Edmonds and Patton Boggs, LLC - Update and Addendum #1. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff For Information Purposes Only. 2.G. Previous Council Action August 2, 2005 - City Council authorized the issuance of a notice requesting Statements of Qualifications from firms or individuals with the experience and qualifications needed to effectively represent the City in Washington D.C. The Council also established a maximum budget of $48,000. January 3, 2006 - City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Patton Boggs LLP. January 17, 2006 - Professional Services Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Patton Boggs LLP signed. Narrative See Attached January 11, 2007 memorandum. Link: Exhibit 1 Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/11/2007 08:49 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/11/2007 08:59 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 01/11/2007 09:36 AM APRV Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 01/10/2007 04:35 PM Final Approval Date: 01/11/2007 OF EDP t O `~ City of Edmonds Community Services Department Fsr. l 89° Date: To: From: Subject: January 11, 2007 Mayor Haakenson and City Council members Stephen Clifton, AICP, Community Services Director Professional Services Agreement (PSA) between City of Edmonds and Patton Boggs, LLC — Update and Addendum #1 Recommendation: For information purposes only. A Professional Services Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Patton Boggs LLP was approved by the City Council on January 3, 2006 and signed/executed on January 17, 2006. Patton Boggs serves as the City's current federal government relations specialist/lobbyist. In the fall of 2006, the City Council approved funding to continue paying for these services in 2007. Patton Boggs has agreed to represent the City at the same rate ($48,000) and under the same terms as in 2006. Comprehensive information about Patton Boggs LLC is available via the internet at: http://www.Dattonbog_gs.com/Home.aspx. At the time the City Council authorized execution of a contract with Patton Boggs in early 2006, one question raised asked how the City would measure success. Prior to administratively executing Addendum #1 to the Professional Services Agreement, Mayor Haakenson and City Directors met to discuss the effectiveness of Patton Boggs during the 2006 calendar year. Although funding (one measure of success) was not appropriated in 2006 for Federal Fiscal Year (IFFY) 2007, Patton Boggs was quite helpful in working with our federal delegation and assisting the City in responding to federal legislation that might significantly impact Edmonds, e.g., a proposal to create a national franchise for telecommunications. Regarding the lack of federal appropriations, it is important to note that a year- long Continuing Resolution was approved by Congress carrying through the remainder of FFY 2007. The reason has to do with much unfinished business left behind by the last congress resulting from the November 2006 election. As such, many federal appropriation requests are in legislative limbo. Legislative City of Edmonds ca Community Services staff are beginning to discuss the structure of the Joint Resolution that will complete funding for the current 2007 Fiscal Year, Patton Boggs expects that the process will not conclude prior to Valentine's Day. Over the next month, House and Senate appropriators must settle on making any adjustments to individual programs and agencies that would raise or lower their funding levels compared to FFY 2006 funding levels. At this time, it is not yet clear what the final funding levels might be for individual departments, agencies and programs for many agencies. Patton Boggs is actively engaged in research and discussions with appropriate administration officials trying to determine what funding opportunities may be available in FFY 2007 under a Joint Resolution that shifts more decisions to the agencies. They will gather this information to develop an agency -centered strategy for funding some projects that were omitted from the appropriations process. The key to turning this into a potential benefit for the City is that federal agencies may have more funding available for competitive/discretionary allocations, so there may be opportunities to talk with target program offices about their interests in advance, then bring some related ideas or position applications that are responsive to agencies' goals. For example, we will need to consider how Edmonds Crossing fits US Department of Transportation goals related to movement of goods or technology pilots, and/or how Edmonds Center for the Arts operations best tie to goals of the Housing and Urban Development/Department of Education. As there appears to be some potential for receiving appropriations for FFY 2008, we believe it is worth continuing to contract with Patton Boggs for at least this year. Meanwhile, the process of preparing for the FFY 2008 appropriations cycle is beginning, and based on the rules changes passed by and proposed for the new Congress, we are likely to see some earmarking return in the individual appropriations bills. Patton Boggs has heard that the window for submitting project requests in FFY 2008 may be significantly shorter, thereby requiring Congressional offices to move forward appropriations deadlines to mid -February. Thus, Patton Boggs and City staff will accelerate work on finalizing appropriations requests over the next three or four weeks. City Staff is working to strengthen and resubmit applications submitted in 2006 for Edmonds Crossing and Edmonds Center for the Arts. Additionally, we are going to examine the possibilities of seeking funding from agencies that might have ties to Community Technology Advisory Committee activities. Marek Gootman with Patton Boggs, Dan Clements and I conducted a conference call last month to discuss services rendered for 2006 and how to improve upon the current relationship between the City and Patton Boggs. The following summarizes what we believe needs to be done to make Patton Bogg's efforts on the City's behalf more effective and assure that the Mayor, City Council and staff have confidence in the services they provide in 2007. 2 • Communication: The City and Patton Boggs will schedule conference calls on a more regular basis, perhaps biweekly. These can be very brief, but it establishes a certain time when we definitely will connect; better connect Patton Boggs to issues or opportunities in Edmonds that will help them identify ways to be more useful; provide direct updates on general happenings in DC if helpful; and assure greater responsiveness and accountability to the City. • Appropriations Approach: As discussed in the past, in developing the funding agenda last year, it is difficult for a city the size of Edmonds to get multiple earmarks in the same appropriations bill (e.g. Edmonds Crossing and Edmonds Center for the Arts), and for continuation projects substantially funded in prior years. Congressional members can only tap a finite amount of total funding in a given bill, so as to maximize the likelihood of funds on an annual basis. It is essential that the City pursue diversity in requests across multiple bills, local / regional partnerships, scaled projects within funding range precedent, and other techniques to leverage both broader interest and opportunities. Although the start-up year effort did not generate many alternatives, Patton Boggs will work with the City to pursue this strategy in the current funding environment in order for us to be successful in getting a. return on the City's investment. • Other Funding Sources: The City wants to be sure that Patton Boggs is identifying all potential funding streams that might benefit Edmonds, including competitive grants and possible connections to other organizations with resources. Patton Boggs process for this year will revisit what can be useful, and the topical areas and manner in which we are providing information. 3 AM-796 2.1-1. Ratification of Mayor's Salary Effective 7/1/06 Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 01/16/2007 Submitted By: Debi Humann, Human Resources Time: Consent Department: Human Resources Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subiect Title Ordinance ratifying a change to the Mayor's salary effective July 1, 2006 as approved by Council on May 16, 2006. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff This change was recommended by the Citizens' Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials in May 2006, and was approved for implementation by the Council at the meeting of May 16, 2006. Unfortunately, staff did not bring forward the ordinance at that time, therefore, the ordinance is being brought to Council now for approval. Previous Council Action At the City Council meeting of May 16, 2006, a presentation was made by HR Manager Debi Humann concerning the Mayor's salary increase and other recommendations of the Citizens' Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials (see attached segment of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes, page 8 and 9, dated May 16, 2006). The recommended salary increase for the Mayor was approved. Narrative Since the ordinance was not done May 2006 as was appropriate, and since it was only recently determined the ordinance had not been completed, the ordinance is being brought forward for Council approval at this time. Link: Ordinance Link: Minutes Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/11/2007 08:53 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/11/2007 08:59 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 01/11/2007 09:36 AM APRV Form Started By: Debi Humann Started On: 01/10/2007 06:04 PM Final Approval Date: 01/11/2007 0006.90000 WSS/nkr 1/9/07 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RATIFYING CHANGES TO THE MAYOR'S SALARY EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council has established a commission on the Compensation of Elected Officials (the "Commission"); and WHEREAS, the Commission made its recommendation to the Edmonds City Council that the salary of the Mayor be increased effective July 1, 2006; and WHEREAS, that recommendation was approved by the Edmonds City by voice motion on May 16, 2006, and funds appropriated in the 2006 and 2007 budgets for the payment of the higher salary; and WHEREAS, the Mayor has worked since July 1, 2006, with the expectation of such salary; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously established this salary of the Mayor as a part of the Annual Salary Ordinance, with the last amendment referencing the Mayor as a part of Ordinance No. 3528; and WHEREAS, in Ordinance No. 3611 establishing the salaries for non -represented, exempt personnel for the year 2006, the Mayor was not addressed; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to confirm and ratify its prior action; NOW, THEREFORE, { WSS649586.1)OC; 1 /00006.900000/} -1- THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 3528, Section 1.5, is hereby amended to increase the Mayor's salary by 2.5 percent to $101,414 per year. This approval is a ratification of the prior action of the City Council and is effective July 1, 2006. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. { W SS649586.D0C;1 /00006.900000/} -2- SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of 2007, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RATIFYING CHANGES TO THE MAYOR'S SALARY EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 2007. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE { W SS649586. DOC;1 /00006.900000/} -3- Councilmember Moore requested staff comment on irrigation and maintenance. Ms. Chapin advised there had been discussion regarding installing an irrigation system on 4°i Avenue. She assured landscaping would not be installed in areas where they could not be maintained. Park Manager Rich Lindsay recommended underground irrigation on 4°i Avenue as well as a drip system on the poles for hanging baskets. Councilmember Moore referred to the request for lighting on the north side of Main Street. Ms. Chapin recommended that be addressed by Public Works. With regard to the flower baskets, Ms. Chapin assured it was envisioned the flower baskets would be expanded as part of the 4°i Avenue corridor. Councilmember Mat -in referred to page 6 of the Hwy. 99 appendix and the reference to 50% or more of the building main fagade must parallel Hwy. 99 right-of-way and suggested adding "if possible" prior to "50% or more..." He described his concern that there were a number of smaller properties where 50% of the building parallel to Hwy. 99 may not be possible. Ms. Chapin was agreeable to the amendment. Councilmember Moore referred to the statement on page 28 that flags, banners and similar items that detract from the established character of downtown should be strongly discouraged unless pall of an approved arts program. She noted numerous merchants currently use flags/banners. Ms. Chapin explained this referred to other than the established practice. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested adding to the end of the sentence, "and other permitted uses." Mayor Pro Tern Dawson remanded to Council for action COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REPLACING THE EXISTING "PUBLIC URBAN DESIGN PLAN" WITH THE UPDATED "STREETSCAPE PLAN" AND TO INCLUDE THE AMENDMENT ON PAGE 6 OF THE HWY. 99 APPENDIX ADDING "IF POSSIBLE" PRIOR TO "50%" AND THE AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE ON PAGE 28 REGARDING FLAGS AND BANNERS. Councilmember Marin commended the vision in the Streetscape Plan, cautioning against being hampered by funding. Councilmember Moore agreed the Sneetscape Plan was a great vision, pointing out the residents' willingness to pay for things they wanted. With regard to the comments about funding, Councilmember Plunkett recalled when the performing arts center was nothing more than a vision, noting its inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan and the Council's endorsement of that vision assisted in moving it forward. He assured the funds could be cobbled together if it was the community's will. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Citizons 6. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITIZENS' commission- COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS. Compensation or Elected onleiais Human Resources Manager Debi I Iumann recalled on May 2 the Citizens' Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials presented their recommendations to the Council. Following their presentation, the Council requested additional information regarding the Commission's compensation recommendation for the Mayor and Council and the potential issue of compensation increases during the current term of Councilmembers. With regard to compensation increases during Councilmembers' current terms, Ms. Humann noted a recommendation was not provided by the Commission as this issue was not within their scope. She referred to a memo from City Attorney Scott Snyder on this issue. Mr. Snyder explained the Constitutional principle was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 16, 2006 Page 8 straightforward — legislative bodies cannot raise their salaries/compensation during their term of office. There have been Attorney General opinions with regard to the State Legislature and CPI increases. The practice of providing health insurance benefits to City Councilmembers was fairly widespread among cities although the practice of providing increases in health insurance benefits mid-term to Councilmembers was under review by the State Auditor and Attorney General's Office. The constitutional safe harbor would be to provide a fixed amount to be used by Councilmembers for health insurance during their term and allow its use via a cafeteria or Section 125 account. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson observed if the compensation could not be changed during the current term, yet the current practice may be legally questionable, how could it be changed now versus in 2-4 years. Mr. Snyder suggested a solution may be to cap compensation at a certain level. He noted the recommendation was to bring Councilmembers elected to the Council at the next election into compliance. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson summarized Mr. Snyder's recommendation was not to change the current practice but when a compensation change was made, do it consistent with the Commission's recommendation. Mr. Snyder agreed, recalling an attorney general who advises the State Auditor's department indicated in October 2005 that the Attorney General was reviewing the authority for City Councils to approve mid-term increases in health insurance benefits; a decision has not yet been issued. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson asked the ramifications if an opinion were issued that the current practice was incorrect. Mr. Snyder offered to brief the Council on the possible legal ramifications in Executive Session. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson reiterated Mr. Snyder's recommendation was not to change the current practice but to proceed consistent with the Commission's recommendations for all new Councilmembers. Ms. Hurnarm relayed the Commission's recommendation for a 2.5% increase in the Mayor's salary effective July 1, 2006 and that the benefit package continue to mirror benefits offered to non -represented employees. At the direction of the Council, she conducted an I, 5 survey of comparable cities. As there were an insufficient number of cities with a strong mayor form of government to complete an L-5 review, she utilized a combination of strong mayor and City Manager positions. Utilizing that combination, Edmonds ranked 8"i, well below L-5. Adding the 2.5% increase as recommended by the Commission did not change the ranking from the 8di position; an increase of approximately 15% would be required to bring the Mayor's salary to L-5. For Councilmember Moore, Ms. Humann explained for cities with a ceremonial mayor (elected from the City Council), she used the City Manager's salary for comparison. Mayor> COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO salap /� ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS WITH REGARD TO A 2.5% INCREASE IN THE MAYOR'S SALARY EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006 WITH BENEFITS CONSISTENT WITH NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT OPPOSED. With regard to the health insurance restructure, Ms. Humann recalled the Commission's recommendation included maintaining the current $600/month base pay; adding an additional $800/month in -lieu of health insurance, bringing the salary to $1400/month; no change in the meeting pay of eight meetings per month maximum @ $50 per meeting; and allowing Councilmembers to continue participating in group health insurance benefits on a self -pay basis. The Commission recommended the restructure become effective with incoming terms beginning in 2008 and 2010. Ms. Hamann noted the next Citizens Commission would be convened in 2008. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM DAWSON, TO APPROVE THE CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS' RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD TO COUNCIL COMPENSATION. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 16, 2006 Page 9 AM-799 2007 LTDGO Bond Ordinance Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 01/ 16/2007 Submitted By: Dan Clements, Administrative Services Time: Consent Department: Administrative Services Type: Action Review Finance Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda 2.I. Agenda Memo Subiect Title Ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance of not to exceed $5,500,000.00 par value of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2007, of the City for general City purposes to provide funds with which to (a) repay and redeem the City's Water and Sewer Revenue Bond Anticipation Note, 2005 and its Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Note, 2006; (b) pay or reimburse the City for HVAC improvements to City facilities; (c) pay or reimburse the City for the Anderson Center seismic project; (d) pay or reimburse the City for energy conservation measures; (e) pay or reimburse the City for utility improvements (collectively, the "Projects") and (f) pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing the date, form, maturities, interest rates, terms and covenants of the bonds; establishing a bond redemption fund and construction funds; and providing for the public sale of the bonds. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve ordinance and resulting bond issue. Previous Council Action All projects, except the 2007 Energy Conservation, were approved by Council as part of earlier Budget deliberations. At the January 9 Finance Committee meeting approval was given to include the Energy Conservation projects, and forward to the full Council as a Consent item. The 2007 Energy Conservation projects were not included in the 2007-08 Budget because consultant repayment analysis was not received until mid -November, after budget discussions were well along. Narrative The bond issue contains the following projects and repayment sources. Project TOTAL COST Repayment Source General Utility Street REET GRAND TOTAL $5,123,200 $888,400 $3,766,000 $68,800 $400,000 Treatment Plant 2005 BAN $2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0 0 HVAC Project 2006 $650,000 650,000 0 0 0 Anderson Center Seismic 2007 $400,000 0 0 0 400,000 Energy Conservation 2007 $408,200 238,400 101,000 68,800 0 Utility 2007 $1,665,000 0 1,665,000 0 0 Next steps include finalizing an Official Statement, marketing the issue, and bringing the purchase offer back to Council for their approval. Revenue & Expenditures Link: 2007 LTD GO Bond Ordinance Route Seq Inbox Approved By 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Date Status 01/11/2007 02:56 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/11/2007 04:11 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 01/12/2007 08:20 AM APRV Form Started By: Dan Clements Started On: 01/11/2007 11:13 AM Final Approval Date: 01/12/2007 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance of not to exceed $5,500,000 par value of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2007, of the City for general City purposes to provide funds with which to (a) repay and redeem the City's Water and Sewer Revenue Bond Anticipation Note, 2005 and its Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Note, 2006; (b) pay or reimburse the City for HVAC improvements to City facilities; (c) pay or reimburse the City for the Anderson Center seismic project; (d) pay or reimburse the City for energy conservation measures; (e) pay or reimburse the City for utility improvements (collectively, the "Projects") and (f) pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing the date, form, maturities, interest rates, terms and covenants of the bonds; establishing a bond redemption fund and construction funds; and providing for the public sale of the bonds. Passed This document prepared by: Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 447-4400 50755286.3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section1 . Debt Capacity...................................................................................................... 1 Section2 . Authorization of Bonds....................................................................................... 1 Section 3 . Description of Bonds........................................................................................... 2 Section 4 . Registration and Transfer of Bonds...................................................................... 2 Section 5 . Payment of Bonds............................................................................................... 3 Section 6 . Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds .............................. 3 Section 7 . Notice of Redemption.......................................................................................... 4 Section 8 . Failure To Redeem Bonds................................................................................... 5 Section9 . Pledge of Taxes................................................................................................... 5 Section 10 . Form and Execution of Bonds............................................................................. 5 Section11 . Bond Registrar.................................................................................................... 6 Section 12 . Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Bonds .......................................... 6 Section 13 . Designation of Bonds as "Qualified Tax -Exempt Obligations." ........................... 6 Section 14 . Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds................................................................ 7 Section 15 . Bond Fund and Deposit of Bond Proceeds........................................................... 7 Section 16 . Provision for Sale of Bonds and Notice of Sale .................................................... 8 Section 17 . Preliminary Official Statement............................................................................ 9 Section 18 . Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosure.................................................... 9 Section 19 . General Authorization....................................................................................... 12 Section 20 . Effective Date of Ordinance.............................................................................. 12 -r 50755286.3 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance of not to exceed $5,500,000 par value of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2007, of the City for general City purposes to provide funds with which to (a) repay and redeem the City's Water and Sewer Revenue Bond Anticipation Note, 2005 and its Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Note, 2006; (b) pay or reimburse the City for HVAC improvements to City facilities; (c) pay or reimburse the City for the Anderson Center seismic project; (d) pay or reimburse the City for energy conservation measures; (d) pay or reimburse the City for utility improvements (collectively, the "Projects") and (e) pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing the date, form, maturities, interest rates, terms and covenants of the bonds; establishing a bond redemption fund and construction funds; and providing for the public sale of the bonds. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City"), is in need of financing for the Projects as defined in Section 1, below, the estimated total cost of which is more than $5,200,000, and the City does not have available sufficient funds to pay the cost; WHEREAS, to pay costs of the Projects, the City Council finds it necessary and advisable that the City issue and sell its limited tax general obligation bonds in the principal amount of not to exceed $5,125,000 (the "Bonds"); NOW, THEREFORE; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Debt Capacity. The assessed valuation of the taxable property within the City as ascertained by the last preceding assessment for City purposes for the calendar year 2007 is $6,665,146,142. The City has outstanding general indebtedness evidenced by limited tax general obligation bonds, notes, leases and conditional sales contracts in the principal amount of $17,346,815 incurred within the limit of up to 11/2 % of the value of the taxable property within the City permitted for general municipal purposes without a vote of the qualified voters therein, unlimited tax general obligation bonds in the principal amount of $7,375,294 incurred within the limit of up to 21/2 % of the value of the taxable property within the City for capital purposes only, issued pursuant to a vote of the qualified voters of the City, and the amount of indebtedness for which bonds are authorized herein to be issued is not to exceed $5,500.000. Section 2. Authorization of Bonds. The City shall borrow money on the credit of the City and issue negotiable limited tax general obligation bonds evidencing that indebtedness as described in Section 3, for general City purposes to provide the funds to: (a) repay and redeem the City's Water and Sewer Revenue Bond Anticipation Note, 2005 and its Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Note, 2006; (b) pay or reimburse the City for HVAC -1- 50755286.3 improvements to City facilities; (c) pay or reimburse the City for the Anderson Center seismic project; (d) pay or reimburse the City for energy conservation measures; (d) pay or reimburse the City for utility improvements (collectively, the "Projects") and (e) pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds (the "costs of issuance"). The general indebtedness to be incurred shall be within the limit of up to 1'/2 % of the value of the taxable property within the City permitted for general municipal purposes without a vote of the qualified voters therein. Section 3. Description of Bonds. The bonds shall be called the Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2007 of the City (the "Bonds") and shall be in the amount of not to exceed $5,500,000, or such lesser principal amount that will produce sufficient proceeds to provide no more than $5,125,000 to pay costs of carrying out the Projects, plus the additional proceeds required to pay the costs of issuance. The Bonds shall be dated the date of their initial delivery; shall be issued in fully registered form; shall be in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof within a single maturity; shall be numbered separately, in the manner and with any additional designation as the Bond Registrar deems necessary for purposes of identification; and shall contain such additional terms as are specified in a resolution of the City Council confirming the terms of the sale of the Bonds, in accordance with Section 16 (the "Bond Sale Resolution"). The Bonds shall bear interest (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months), payable semiannually on each succeeding June 1 and December 1, commencing June 1, 2007, to the maturity or earlier redemption of the Bonds, at such rate or rates as the Council shall establish in the Bond Sale Resolution. Only one interest rate may be specified for Bonds of the same maturity. The Bonds shall mature or be subject to mandatory redemption on December 1 in each year beginning in 2007 through and including the final maturity, which shall be no later than December 1, 2018 (and may be earlier), all in accordance with the maturity schedule set forth in the Bond Sale Resolution. Section 4. Registration and Transfer of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and interest and shall be recorded on books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar (the "Bond Register"). The Bond Register shall contain the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the principal amount and number of each of the Bonds held by each owner. Bonds surrendered to the Bond Registrar may be exchanged for Bonds in any authorized denomination of an equal aggregate principal amount and of the same interest rate and maturity. Bonds may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered to the Bond Registrar. Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the owner or transferee. The Bond Registrar shall not be obligated to exchange or transfer any Bond during the 15 days preceding any principal payment or redemption date. The Bonds initially shall be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as the nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"). The Bonds so registered shall be held in fully immobilized form by DTC as depository in accordance with the provisions of a Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations dated August 6, 1996 between the City and DTC (as it -2- 50755286.3 may be amended from time to time, the "Letter of Representations"). Neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall have any responsibility or obligation to DTC participants or the persons for whom they act as nominees with respect to the Bonds regarding accuracy of any records maintained by DTC or DTC participants of any amount in respect of principal of or interest on the Bonds, or any notice which is permitted or required to be given to registered owners hereunder (except such notice as is required to be given by the Bond Registrar to DTC). For as long as any Bonds are held in fully immobilized form, DTC, its nominee or its successor depository shall be deemed to be the registered owner for all purposes hereunder and all references to registered owners, bondowners, bondholders or the like shall mean DTC or its nominee and, except for the purpose of the City's undertaking herein to provide continuing disclosure, shall not mean the owners of any beneficial interests in the Bonds. Registered ownership of such Bonds, or any portions thereof, may not thereafter be transferred except: (i) to any successor of DTC or its nominee, if that successor shall be qualified under any applicable laws to provide the services proposed to be provided by it; (ii) to any substitute depository appointed by the City or such substitute depository's successor; or (iii) to any person if the Bonds are no longer held in immobilized form. Upon the resignation of DTC or its successor (or any substitute depository or its successor) from its functions as depository, or a determination by the City that it no longer wishes to continue the system of book entry transfers through DTC or its successor (or any substitute depository or its successor), the City may appoint a substitute depository. Any such substitute depository shall be qualified under any applicable laws to provide the services proposed to be provided by it. If (i) DTC or its successor (or substitute depository or its successor) resigns from its functions as depository, and no substitute depository can be obtained, or (ii) the City determines that the Bonds are to be in certificated form, the ownership of Bonds may be transferred to any person as provided herein and the Bonds no longer shall be held in fully immobilized form. Section 5. Payment of Bonds. Both principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Interest on the Bonds shall be paid by checks or drafts of the Bond Registrar mailed on the interest payment date to the registered owners at the addresses appearing on the Bond Register on the 15th day of the month preceding the interest payment date or, if requested in writing by a registered owner of $1,000,000 or more in principal amount of Bonds prior to the applicable record date, by wire transfer on the interest payment date. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable upon presentation and surrender of the Bonds by the registered owners to the Bond Registrar. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for as long as the Bonds are registered in the name of DTC or its nominee, payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be made in the manner set forth in the Letter of Representations. Section 6. Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds. Some maturities of the Bonds may be issued without the right or option of the City to redeem those Bonds prior to their stated maturity dates, as designated in the maturity schedule set forth in the Bond Sale Resolution. Except for those maturities so designated as not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity, the City reserves the right and option to redeem the Bonds as a whole or in part (within one or more maturities selected by the City and randomly within a -3- 50755286.3 maturity in such manner as the Bond Registrar shall determine), at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption. The City Director of Administrative Services may prescribe in the bid forms the optional and mandatory redemption provisions that he determines are most advantageous to the City. All or some of the Bonds may be designated as Term Bonds by the successful bidder. If those Term Bonds are not redeemed under the optional redemption provisions set forth above or purchased in the open market under the provisions set forth below, they shall be called for redemption randomly (in such manner as the Bond Registrar shall determine) at par plus accrued interest on August 1 in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Bond Sale Resolution. If the City redeems Term Bonds under the optional redemption provisions, purchases in the open market or defeased Term Bonds, the par amount of the Term Bonds so redeemed or purchased (irrespective of their actual redemption or purchase prices) shall be credited against one or more scheduled mandatory redemption amounts for those Term Bonds. The City shall determine the manner in which the credit is to be allocated and shall notify the Bond Registrar in writing of its allocation at least 60 days prior to the earliest mandatory redemption date for that maturity of Term Bonds for which notice of redemption has not already been given..Portions of the principal amount of any Bond, in installments of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, may be redeemed. If less than all of the principal amount of any Bond is redeemed, upon surrender of that Bond to the Bond Registrar, there shall be issued to the registered owner, without charge therefor, a new Bond (or Bonds, at the option of the registered owner) of the same maturity and interest rate in any of the denominations authorized by this ordinance in the aggregate principal amount remaining unredeemed. The City further reserves the right and option to purchase any or all of the Bonds in the open market at any time at any price acceptable to the City plus accrued interest to the date of purchase. All Bonds purchased or redeemed under this section shall be canceled. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for as long as the Bonds are registered in the name of DTC or its nominee, selection of Bonds for redemption shall be in accordance with the Letter of Representations. Section 7. Notice of Redemption. The City shall cause notice of any intended redemption of Bonds to be given not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the registered owner of any Bond to be redeemed at the address appearing on the Bond Register at the time the Bond Registrar prepares the notice, and the requirements of this sentence shall be deemed to have been fulfilled when notice has been mailed as so provided, whether or not it is actually received by the owner of any Bond. Interest on Bonds called for redemption shall cease to accrue on the date fixed for redemption unless the Bond or Bonds called are not redeemed when presented pursuant to the call. In addition, the redemption notice shall be mailed within the same period, postage prepaid, to Moody's Investors Service, Inc., and Standard & Poor's at their offices in New York, New York, or their successors, to each NRMSIR or the MSRB and to such other persons, including registered securities depositories, if any, and with such additional information as the City -4- 50755286.3 Director of Administrative Services shall determine, but these additional mailings shall not be a condition precedent to the redemption of Bonds. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for as long as the Bonds are registered in the name of DTC or its nominee, notice of redemption shall be given in accordance with the Letter of Representations. Section 8. Failure To Redeem Bonds. If any Bond is not redeemed when properly presented at its maturity or call date, the City shall be obligated to pay interest on that Bond at the same rate provided in the Bond from and after its maturity or call date until that Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the bond redemption fund hereinafter created and the Bond has been called for payment by giving notice of that call to the registered owner of each of those unpaid Bonds. Section 9. Pledge of Taxes. For as long as any of the Bonds are outstanding, the City irrevocably pledges to include in its budget and levy taxes annually within the constitutional and statutory tax limitations provided by law without a vote of the electors of the City on all of the taxable property within the City in an amount sufficient, together with other money legally available and to be used therefor, to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Bonds, and the full faith, credit and resources of the City are pledged irrevocably for the annual levy and collection of those taxes and the prompt payment of that principal and interest. The proceeds of real estate excise taxes imposed by Ordinance 2462 are pledged, as necessary, to the payment of that portion of the Bonds allocated to the Anderson Center seismic upgrades. Section 10. Form and Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be printed or lithographed on good bond paper in a form consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and state law and shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon. Only Bonds bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the following form, manually signed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance: CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Bond is one of the fully registered City of Edmonds, Washington, Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2007, described in the Bond Ordinance. WASHINGTON STATE FISCAL AGENT Bond Registrar Authorized Signer The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Bond so authenticated has been duly executed, authenticated and delivered and is entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. If any officer whose facsimile signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bonds bearing his or her facsimile signature are authenticated or delivered by the Bond Registrar or issued by the City, those Bonds nevertheless -5- 50755286.3 may be authenticated, issued and delivered and, when authenticated, issued and delivered, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on behalf of the City by any person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on the date of issuance of the Bonds. Section 11. Bond Re isg trar. The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds, which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The Bond Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the City's paying agent for the Bonds and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance and City Ordinance No. 2451 establishing a system of registration for the City's bonds and obligations. The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the Bond Registrar's Certificate of Authentication on the Bonds. The Bond Registrar may become the owner of Bonds with the same rights it would have if it were not the Bond Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the rights of Bond owners. Section 12. Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Bonds. The City covenants that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Bonds at any time during the term of the Bonds which will cause interest on the Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City also covenants that it will, to the extent the arbitrage rebate requirement of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), is applicable to the Bonds, take all actions necessary to comply (or to be treated as having complied) with that requirement in connection with the Bonds, including the calculation and payment of any penalties that the City has elected to pay as an alternative to calculating rebatable arbitrage, and the payment of any other penalties if required under Section 148 of the Code to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. Section 13. Designation of Bonds as "Qualified Tax -Exempt Obligations." The City has determined and certifies that (a) the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code; (b) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds and other obligations not required to be included in such calculation) which the City and any entity subordinate to the City (including any entity that the City controls, that derives its authority to issue tax-exempt obligations from the City, or that issues tax-exempt obligations on behalf of the City) will issue during the calendar year in which the Bonds are issued will not exceed $10,000,000; and (c) the amount of tax-exempt obligations, including the Bonds, designated by the City as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code during the calendar year in which the Bonds are issued does not exceed $10,000,000. The City designates the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. El 50755286.3 Section 14. Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds. The City may issue refunding bonds pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington or use money available from any other lawful source to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Bonds, or any portion thereof included in a refunding or defeasance plan, and to redeem and retire, refund or defease all such then -outstanding Bonds (hereinafter collectively called the "defeased Bonds") and to pay the costs of the refunding or defeasance. If money and/or "government obligations" (as defined in chapter 39.53 RCW, as now or hereafter amended) maturing at a time or times and bearing interest in amounts (together with money, if necessary) sufficient to redeem and retire, refund or defease the defeased Bonds in accordance with their terms are set aside in a special trust fund or escrow account irrevocably pledged to that redemption, retirement or defeasance of defeased Bonds (hereinafter called the "trust account"), then all right and interest of the owners of the defeased Bonds in the covenants of this ordinance and in the funds and accounts obligated to the payment of the defeased Bonds shall cease and become void. The owners of defeased Bonds shall have the right to receive payment of the principal of and interest on the defeased Bonds from the trust account. The City shall include in the refunding or defeasance plan such provisions as the City deems necessary for the random selection of any defeased Bonds that constitute less than all of a particular maturity of the Bonds, for notice of the defeasance to be given to the owners of the defeased Bonds and to such other persons as the City shall determine, and for any required replacement of Bond certificates for defeased Bonds. The defeased Bonds shall be deemed no longer outstanding, and the City may apply any money in any other fund or account established for the payment or redemption of the defeased Bonds to any lawful purposes as it shall determine. If the Bonds are registered in the name of DTC or its nominee, notice of any defeasance of Bonds shall be given to DTC in the manner prescribed in the Letter of Representations for notices of redemption of Bonds. Section 15. Bond Fund and Deposit of Bond Proceeds. There is created and established in the office of the City Finance Director a special fund designated as the Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Fund, 2007 (the "Bond Fund"), for the purpose of paying principal of and interest on the Bonds. Accrued interest on the Bonds, if any, received from the sale and delivery of the Bonds shall be paid into the Bond Fund. All taxes collected for and allocated to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be deposited in the Bond Fund. The City Finance Director is authorized and directed to establish special accounts or funds, each designated as a 2007 Bond account or fund, within each of the following funds: the Capital Improvement Fund 414, the General Fund 001, the Building Maintenance Fund 116, and the Combined Utility Construction Fund 412 (together, the "Construction Funds"). The principal proceeds and premium, if any, received from the sale and delivery of the Bonds shall be paid into the Construction Funds and used for the purposes specified in Section 2 of this ordinance. Until needed to pay the costs of the Project and costs of issuance of the Bonds, the City may invest principal proceeds temporarily in any legal investment, and the investment earnings may be retained in the Construction Funds and be spent for the purposes of that fund except that earnings subject to a federal tax or rebate requirement may be withdrawn from the Construction Funds and used for those tax or rebate purposes. -7- 50755286.3 Section 16. Provision for Sale of Bonds and Notice of Sale. The Bonds shall be offered for sale at competitive bid. The Director of Administrative Services is authorized to fix a date and time of sale of the Bonds, to give notice of the sale, to determine the bid requirements and the criteria for determining the best bidder, and to specify such other matters as she may determine necessary to carry out the sale of the Bonds, so long as the manner and terms of the sale thereof are consistent with this ordinance. The Director of Administrative Services may, at his discretion, provide for the use of an electronic bidding mechanism in connection with the bidding for the sale of the Bonds. The City reserves the right to waive any irregularity in any bid or in the bidding process. The final terms of the Bonds shall be confirmed by the Bond Sale Resolution adopted by City Council, which may provide for the matters described in this ordinance and such other matters that the City Council deems necessary, appropriate, or desirable to carry out the purposes of this ordinance. The Bond Sale Resolution may provide for bond insurance, and may provide conditions or covenants relating thereto, including additional terms, conditions, and covenants relating to the Bonds that are required by the bond insurer, and are consistent with the provisions of this ordinance, including but not limited to restrictions on investments and requirements of notice to and consent of the bond insurer. The Bond Sale Resolution may approve and authorize the execution and delivery on behalf of the City of any contracts and other documents consistent with the provisions of this ordinance for which the City's approval is necessary or to which the City is a parry and that are related or incidental to the issuance and sale of the Bonds or to the establishment of the interest rate or rates on the Bonds, including but not limited to agreements with bond insurers and underwriters. The Mayor and the Director of Administrative Services are each separately authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, any contracts and other documents consistent with the provisions of this ordinance for which the City's approval is necessary or to which the City is a party and that are related or incidental to the issuance and sale of the Bonds. CUSIP numbers will be printed on the Bonds if requested in the bid of the successful bidder, but neither failure to print CUSIP numbers on any Bond nor error with respect thereto shall constitute cause for a failure or refusal by the successful bidder to accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds in accordance with its bid. All expenses in relation to the printing of CUSIP numbers on the Bonds shall be paid by the City, but the fee of the CUSIP Service Bureau for the assignment of those numbers shall be the responsibility of and shall be paid by the successful bidder. If, prior to the delivery of the Bonds, interest on the Bonds receivable by the owners thereof becomes includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes, or becomes subject to federal income tax except as described in the official statement, the successful bidder, at its option, may be relieved of its obligation to purchase the Bonds, and in such case the deposit accompanying its bid will be returned, without interest. The City will cause the Bonds to be printed, lithographed or typed and signed and will furnish the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper PLLC, bond counsel of Seattle, Washington, regarding the Bonds without cost to the purchaser. -8- 50755286.3 The Bonds will be delivered to the successful bidder in Seattle, Washington, within 30 days after the sale date and immediately upon payment to the City of the purchase price in immediately available federal funds in Seattle, Washington, at the City's expense, or at another time or place upon which the Director of Administrative Services and the successful bidder may agree at the successful bidder's expense. Section 17. Preliminary Official Statement. The City Council authorizes the Director of Administrative Services to approve and, for the sole purpose of the Bond purchaser's compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12(b)(1), to "deem final" a Preliminary Official Statement as of its date, except for the omission of information as to offering prices, interest rates, selling compensation, aggregate principal amount, principal amount per maturity, maturity dates, options of redemption, delivery dates, ratings and other terms of the Bonds dependent on such matters. Section 18. Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosure. To meet the requirements of United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) (the "Rule"), as applicable to a participating underwriter for the Bonds, the City makes the following written undertaking (the "Undertaking") for the benefit of holders of the Bonds: (a) Undertaking to Provide Annual Financial Information and Notice of Material Events. The City undertakes to provide or cause to be provided, either directly or through a designated agent: (i) To each nationally recognized municipal securities information repository designated by the SEC in accordance with the Rule ("NRMSIR") and to a state information depository, if any, established in the State of Washington (the "SID") annual financial information and operating data of the type included in the final official statement for the Bonds and described in subsection (b) of this section ("annual financial information"); (ii) To each NRMSIR or the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB"), and to the SID, timely notice of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds, if material: (1) principal and interest payment delinquencies; (2) non-payment related defaults; (3) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (4) unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (5) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (6) adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the Bonds; (7) modifications to rights of holders of the Bonds; (8) Bond calls (other than scheduled mandatory redemptions of Term Bonds); (9) defeasances; (10) release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds; and (11) rating changes; and (iii) To each NRMSIR or to the MSRB, and to the SID, timely notice of a failure by the City to provide required annual financial information on or before the date specified in subsection (b) of this section. -9- 50755286.3 (b) Type of Annual Financial Information Undertaken to be Provided. The annual financial information that the City undertakes to provide in subsection (a) of this section: (i) Shall consist of (1) annual financial statements prepared (except as noted in the financial statements) in accordance with applicable generally accepted accounting principles applicable to governmental units, as such principles may be changed from time to time and as permitted by State law, which statements shall not be audited, except, however, that if and when audited financial statements are otherwise prepared and available to the City they will be provided; (2) a statement of authorized, issued and outstanding general obligation debt of the City; (3) the assessed value of the property within the City subject to ad valorem taxation; and (4) ad valorem tax levy rates and amounts and percentage of taxes collected; (ii) Shall be provided to each NRMSIR and the SID, not later than the last day of the ninth month after the end of each fiscal year of the City (currently, a fiscal year ending December 31), as such fiscal year may be changed as required or permitted by State law, commencing with the City's fiscal year ending December 31, 2007; and (iii) May be provided in a single or multiple documents, and may be incorporated by reference to other documents that have been filed with each NRMSIR and the SID, or, if the document incorporated by reference is a "final official statement" with respect to other obligations of the City, that has been filed with the MSRB. (c) Amendment of Undertaking. The Undertaking is subject to amendment after the primary offering of the Bonds without the consent of any holder of any Bond, or of any broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, participating underwriter, rating agency, NRMSIR, the SID or the MSRB, under the circumstances and in the manner permitted by the Rule. The City will give notice to each NRMSIR or the MSRB, and the SID, of the substance (or provide a copy) of any amendment to the Undertaking and a brief statement of the reasons for the amendment. If the amendment changes the type of annual financial information to be provided, the annual financial information containing the amended financial information will include a narrative explanation of the effect of that change on the type of information to be provided. (d) Beneficiaries. The Undertaking evidenced by this section shall inure to the benefit of the City and any holder of Bonds, and shall not inure to the benefit of or create any rights in any other person. (e) Termination of Undertaking. The City's obligations under this Undertaking shall terminate upon the legal defeasance of all of the Bonds. In -10- 50755286.3 addition, the City's obligations under this Undertaking shall terminate if those provisions of the Rule which require the City to comply with this Undertaking become legally inapplicable in respect of the Bonds for any reason, as confirmed by an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel or other counsel familiar with federal securities laws delivered to the City, and the City provides timely notice of such termination to each NRMSIR or the MSRB and the SID. (f) Remedy for Failure to Comply with Undertaking. As soon as practicable after the City learns of any failure to comply with the Undertaking, the City will proceed with due diligence to cause such noncompliance to be corrected. No failure by the City or other obligated person to comply with the Undertaking shall constitute a default in respect of the Bonds. The sole remedy of any holder of a Bond shall be to take such actions as that holder deems necessary, including seeking an order of specific performance from an appropriate court, to compel the City or other obligated person to comply with the Undertaking. (g) Designation of Official Responsible to Administer Undertaking. The Director of Administrative Services of the City (or such other officer of the City who may in the future perform the duties of that office) or his or her designee is authorized and directed in his or her discretion to take such further actions as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to carry out the Undertaking of the City in respect of the Bonds set forth in this section and in accordance with the Rule, including, without limitation, the following actions: (i) Preparing and filing the annual financial information undertaken to be provided; (ii) Determining whether any event specified in subsection (a) has occurred, assessing its materiality with respect to the Bonds, and, if material, preparing and disseminating notice of its occurrence; (iii) Determining whether any person other than the City is an "obligated person" within the meaning of the Rule with respect to the Bonds, and obtaining from such person an undertaking to provide any annual financial information and notice of material events for that person in accordance with the Rule; (iv) Selecting, engaging and compensating designated agents and consultants, including but not limited to financial advisors and legal counsel, to assist and advise the City in carrying out the Undertaking; and (v) Effecting any necessary amendment of the Undertaking. (h) Centralized Dissemination Agent. To the extent authorized by the SEC, the City may satisfy the Undertaking by transmitting the required filings using http://www.disclosureusa.org (or such other centralized dissemination agent as may be approved by the SEC). -11- 50755286.3 Section 19. General Authorization. The Mayor and the Director of Administrative Services and other appropriate officers of the City are each authorized and directed to do everything as in their judgment may be necessary, appropriate or desirable in order to carry out the terms and provisions of, and complete the transactions contemplated by, this ordinance. Section 20. Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and five days following its publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Edmonds, Washington, at a regular open public meeting thereof, this day of January, 2007. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk FOS ER PEPPER PLL Bond Counsel Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: -12- 50755286.3 CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City"), hereby certify as follows: 1. The attached copy of Ordinance No. (the "Ordinance") is a full, true and correct copy of an ordinance duly passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held at the regular meeting place thereof on , 2007, as that ordinance appears on the minute book of the City; and the Ordinance will be in full force and effect five days after publication in the City's official newspaper; and 2. A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throughout the meeting and a majority of those members present voted in the proper manner for the passage of the Ordinance. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2007. CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON City Clerk 50755286.3 AM-798 2.3. Glen -Daley Alley Improvements Project Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 01/16/2007 Submitted By: Conni Curtis, Engineering Submitted For: Dave Gebert Time: Consent Department: Engineering Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Report on final construction costs for the Glen -Daley Alley Improvement project and Council acceptance of project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council appropriate an additional $4,152 from the Fund 412 ending cash balance and accept the Glen -Daley Alley Improvements project. Previous Council Action On January 3, 2006, Council awarded the Glen -Daley Alley Improvements project to Precision Earthworks, Inc. in the amount of $67,744. Narrative The Glen -Daley Alley Improvements project was designed, inspected and accepted by City Staff. Project Budget - $105,000 Contractor (Precision Earthworks) - $ 70,255 Consultants: Geotech Investigation (HWA Geosciences) - $ 2,900 Materials Testing (Krazan & Associates) - $ 2,796 Advertising - $ 371 1 % Arts - $ 743 Materials for work performed by PW crews - $ 8,743 Total Project Cost - $ 85,808 In addition to these costs, $23,344 was paid to Wilder Construction under separate contract for the 2006 Street Overlay Program with respect to Glen Street, taking the total project cost to $109,152. The 2006 adopted capital project budget for the Glen -Daley Alley Improvements project was $105,000. Staff recommends that Council appropriate an additional $4,152 from Fund 412 and accept the project. There are sufficient funds in the Fund 412 ending cash balance to fund this appropriation. No file(s) attached. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Dave Gebert 01/11/2007 10:56 AM APRV 2 Public Works Noel Miller 01/11/2007 11:36 AM APRV 3 Admin Services Dan Clements 01/11/2007 01:27 PM APRV 4 Development Services Duane Bowman 01/11/2007 02:26 PM APRV 5 Development Services Duane Bowman 01/11/2007 02:26 PM APRV 6 City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/11/2007 02:57 PM APRV 7 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/11/2007 04:11 PM APRV 8 Final Approval Linda Hynd 01/12/2007 08:20 AM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 01/11/2007 10:20 AM Final Approval Date: 01/12/2007 AM-800 New Chapter 16.43 establishing BD -Downtown Business Zones. Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 01/ 16/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave, Planning Submitted For: Rob Chave Time: 45 Minutes Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title q Continued deliberation and action on an ordinance adding a new Chapter 16.43 establishing BD -Downtown Business Zones and amending the City's Zoning Map to rezone certain property specified therein to BD categories. Public comment will be received. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1, which includes the referenced map in Exhibit 2). Previous Council Action City Council held a public hearing on the recommendation from the Planning Board on October 3, 2006, and completed initial deliberations on December 12, 2006. On December 19, 2006, Council deferred adoption of a final ordinance, and further discussion occurred on January 2, 2007, and on January 9, 2007. Narrative This is continued deliberation on an ordinance establishing new zones (BD - Downtown Business) in the city's downtown area. Public comment is being accepted. The current draft ordinance contained in Exhibit 1 includes all the changes generally agreed to by Council during the January 9, 2007, City Council meeting. These are: 1. An update to the footnote at the top of page 7, incorporating language from the IBC (International Building Code) to define the height of the ground floor as a "floor -to -floor" distance. 2. Updated language under "b" on page 10, suggested by Councilmember Wambolt to address height in the BD1 zone. 3. Updates recommended by Scott Snyder on pages 13 and 14 to remove unnecessary "notes" from the ordinance. 4. Updated language on page 12, Section D, to extend the parking requirement for residential uses to the BD zone. 5. Updated language on page 12, Section CA.b, to allow transparent railings within required buiding step -backs. Council previously received a number of letters and email comments; these are not reproduced here but can be reviewed by referring to information from the January 9, 2007, Council meeting. We have attached the staff parking memo and Wiggins letter, in case there is more public comment regarding parking issues (see Exhibit 3). Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Proposed Ordinance. Link: Exhibit 2: Ordinance Exhibit A Link: Exhibit 3: Parkins memo and Wiaains letter Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/11/2007 03:00 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/11/2007 04:11 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 01/12/2007 08:20 AM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 01/11/2007 01:45 PM Final Approval Date: 01/12/2007 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 12/14/06 1 /9/2007 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 16.43 RELATING TO BD -DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONING, AMENDING THE CITY'S ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY SPECIFIED THEREIN TO BD CATEGORIES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of its Planning Board and held public hearings regarding draft BD zone proposals on September 18, 2006 and deliberated regarding those amendments on October 3 and December 12, 2006, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendment enacting new BD - Downtown Business zones complies with the criteria of the Edmonds Community Development Code in consideration of criteria or in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and are in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Edmonds, and WHEREAS, the City Council has also received the recommendation of the Planning Board and held public hearings regarding amendments to the City's zoning map to enact certain changes to the zoning of properties within the BD -Downtown business zone, and WHEREAS, following public hearings on the aforementioned dates and the deliberation of City Council, the Council adopts the recommendation of its Planning Board, finding that the amendment of the City's zoning map and the rezone of the properties specified therein in the attached Exhibit A are in conformance with the requirements and decisional criteria of the Edmonds Community Development Code, are consistent with the City's {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - I - Comprehensive Plans and are in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Edmonds, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended by the enactment of a new Chapter 16.43 BD -Downtown Business zone to read as follows: Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Sections: 16.43.000 Purposes. 16.43.010 Sub -districts. 16.43.020 Uses. 16.43.030 Site development standards. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. 16.43.000 Purposes. The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC. A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity. C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multi -family residential uses. 16.43.010 Sub -districts. The "Downtown Business" zone is subdivided into five (5) distinct sub -districts, each intended to implement specific aspects of the Comprehensive Plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each sub -district contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The five sub -districts are: {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 2 - BD 1 —Downtown Retail Core BD2 — Downtown Mixed Commercial BD3 — Downtown Convenience Commercial BD4 — Downtown Mixed Residential BD5 — Downtown Arts Corridor 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A Offices A A A A A Service uses A A A A A Retail sales requiring intensive X X X X X 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 Enclosed fabrication or A A A A A 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 Automobile sales and service X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants C A A A X which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents Printing, publishing and binding C A A A C establishments Community -oriented open air A A A A A markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 3 - Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Residential Uses Single family dwelling A A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A Churches, subject to the A A A A A requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 Primary and high schools A A A A A subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) Local public facilities subject to C C C A C the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 Neighborhood parks, natural A A A A A open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 Off-street parking and loading B B B B B areas to serve a permitted use Commuter parking lots in B B B B X conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone 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 C C C C C vehicle or livestock auctions Drive-in businesses C C A C X Laboratories X C C C X {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 4 - Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Fabrication of light industrial X X C X X products not otherwise listed as a permitted use Day-care centers C C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, X C C A X convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums Museums and art galleries of A A A A A primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 Zoos, and aquariums of C C C C A primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 Counseling centers and X C C A X residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers Regional parks and community C C C C C parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 Outdoor storage, incidental to a D D D D D permitted use Aircraft landings as regulated D D D D D by Chapter 4.80 ECC 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 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 5 - 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: Access and parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall be only be provided consistent with Chapter 18.80.060 ECDC. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four (4) feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50% open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use, shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. architectural features or details; b. artwork; c. landscaping. 16.43.030 Site development standards. A. Table 16.43-2. Site Development Standards BD 5 13132 5 13133 5 13134 3 5 13135 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' 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Rear Setback' 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum Height 2 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' Minimum Height of Ground Floor 4 15' 12' 12' 12' 12' ' 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 16.43.030.0 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 16.43.030.13.4 for further detail. {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 6 - "Minimum height of ground floor" means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces; and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. "Floor finish" is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete.the height meastffed ffem the base of the gfound fleef to the top of the greu*d #lei, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the `finished' ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height so long as the addition or remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25%. 5 Site development standards for single family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone. Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of buildings in the BD zones. 1. When a commercial use is located on the ground floor, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within 7 inches of the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. "Grade" shall be as measured at the entry location. 2. When the street frontage of a building is on a slope which does not allow both the elevation of the entry and ground floor to be entirely within 7 inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, the building may be designed so that either: {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 -7- 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. 3. Within the BD 1 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: 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. 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 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 8 - so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation use can be established within the space. Figure 16.43- : 13135 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 16.43.030.13.1-5 (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. 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. {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 9 - e. Within the BD 1 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. f. Within the BD 1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk. C. Building Height Regulations. The basic height limit is 25 feet (see definition of "height" detailed in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC). 2. Step -back rules. The following rules apply when calculating the maximum building height for any building in the specified zonefs) (see Figures 16.43-2 and 16.43-3 for illustrated examples). a. Within the BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, Aran 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: 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. b. Within the BD zone, building height may be a maximum of 30 feet in order to provide for a minimum height of 15 feet for the ground floor. The allowable building height is measured from the "average level" as defined in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC.Nx'e BD! zene, aii additional 5 feet of buildi-ne heieht, not to exeeed 30 feet, may be obtained if the builditiR is desiened to meet all of the eanditions speeified tinder- EGDG 16.43.030.G.2.a.6 iii), exeept tha4 within the 15 feet step baek, the maximum btfildi heieht is the lesser- of 30 feet above er-ade a4 the pr-epet4y line (e.R. nefffiall, sidewalk) or- 30 feet above the "avefaee level" as defined in Chaptef 21.40,030 ECDC. {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 10 - FoWw 16A3-,-& UpMl Ez nnplf r-4V4r--- LLL�L TS'$ ww P r • � a • �r � ram' �i'T a � a r i • r' i • a : � '"j�l Avemp Upod lbr l Wad x;iIvAab r .---•— on" Gram ,••�••• 9fJ' Hed�r! Llrr�.iom 1�rr�pi IsaaF Allwralop IRrR119101�EFw1■1 �'I�IM4 F {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 3. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building through the use of differences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms. a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch of all portions of the roof are at least 6-in-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments. b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in (a), above, step backs shall be required the same as for the BD2 zone, as described in ECDC 16.43.030.C.2. 4. Height exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in Chapter 21.40.030 ECDC, the following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this Chapter. a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may extend a maximum of 5 feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral architectural feature of the roof and/or fagade of the building. The decorative architectural element shall not cover more than 5% of the roof area of the building. b. Roof or deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the specified height limit within any building step -back required under ECDC 16.43.030.C.2, provided that the railing is constructed so that it has the appearance of beingtransparent. ransparent. An example meeting this condition would be a railing that is comprised of glass panels. 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. Within the BD 1 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 BD 1, BD2, BD4, and BDS 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 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 {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 12 - 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. e: miniffmm 0 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). FWr 14 RpWing Shm Wdlh Ord Opm Sppm Example: I . I ■ D1dding l5 calm/ I I . I ■ . I ■ kolas -;Kist 2Q feet- I Total Lot Area = 14,400 sq. ft.I ., .1 .- a ng low. I . . ■ ■ 120 feet. : ; Building Footprint=13,£50 sq. ft- : : due to;)pen Space Required = 720 sq. ft; 1� Q due to lot area. I I f C) • open space I f FrawakdexcueftI f the: requirement- Building Width Parallel to StreettROW : t ------- L€rt Lines Building Area Open Space • 750 sq. ft. :v : F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Buildings. 1. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project, the staff may modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of staff shall be processed as a Staff decision — Notice required, as provided for in ECDC 20.95.050. a. Building step backs required under ECDC 16.43.030.C.2. {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 13 - 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 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 eede is required] I Satellite Television Antennas. In accordance with the limitations established by the Federal Communications Commission, satellite television antennae greater than two meters in diameter shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 16.20.050.Satellite televisia design beafd. [Note: ttpda4e required to 16.20.050 to fefleet 2 meters faf eeffimefeial apAennas.] 16.43.040 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. {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 14 - Section 2. The official zoning map of the City of Edmonds is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown on the attached Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Such incorporated changes amend the zoning of certain downtown properties to rezone such properties in conformance with the attached Exhibit A. The Development Services Director or his designee is hereby authorized to effectuate such changes to the official zoning map of the City. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: M. W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 15 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2007, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 16.43 RELATING TO BD -DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONING, AMENDING THE CITY'S ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY SPECIFIED THEREIN TO BD CATEGORIES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2007. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS648055.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 16 - Proposed New Downtown Zone BD1 = Downtown Retail Core BD2 = Downtown Mixed Co mercial P� BD3 = Downtown Conveni ce Commercial BD4 = Downtown Mixed esidential BD5 = Downtown Arts C rridor RM-1.5 = Multi Family M-1.5 FOM Planning Board Recomm nda o�oSST 7/26/2006 SF< ST \N� J�lilt DAYTON ST N y N ¢ � w °zRDx r 0 GLEN ST 1 FEW4 E loll.11'. ��llll Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM January 5, 2007 Edmonds City Council Rob Chave, Planning Manager Parking Downtown At the January 2, 2007, City Council meeting, staff was requested to provide some comments on parking in the new BD zones, particularly some of the reasoning behind the proposed parking standards. This morning I have also received a copy of a letter addressed to the Council from Karen Wiggins. Since her comments during the January 2nd Council meeting appear to have been part of the basis for the Council request, I'll also address the comments contained in her letter. General Points The Planning Board was well versed in the downtown parking study done in 2002-2003. The study's basic conclusions were that downtown Edmonds did not have a parking supply problem, but rather a parking management problem. It should be noted that as a follow-up to the study the in -lieu -of fund was eliminated, due in large part to the fact that while the fund allowed a payment in -lieu -of providing on -site parking, it did not result in any new parking spaces actually being created downtown. When the Planning Board was developing the new downtown BD zones, the question of incentives was specifically highlighted. With bulk requirements for downtown being very tight — and with the step -back rules, there being no incentive -based opportunity to obtain any leaseable space above 30 feet — the discussion of incentives quickly focused on parking. The expressed goals for downtown included encouraging commercial uses. The Planning Board felt that since future development downtown was being significantly limited in bulk (the combination of height and step -backs), and since new construction was attempting to maximize residential uses, an incentive was needed to encourage commercial development. Not requiring parking for commercial uses while maintaining a parking standard for residential uses was the Planning Board's proposed solution. This also made sense when you realize that the parking study — in its analysis of future demand — assumed continued development of three-story buildings downtown. If two-story buildings are the norm, it becomes nearly impossible to economically provide underground parking. Relief from the commercial parking requirement could help if more commercial space is a goal of downtown development, either in the form of additions to existing buildings or new buildings being constructed on the vacant or under-utilized lots in the downtown area. It is important to remember that the Planning Board maintained a parking requirement for residential uses in all of the City of Edmonds cza Planning Division downtown area outside the retail core — this comprises most of the downtown area. This means that any new residential development will still have an on -site parking requirement. The new code requirements also do not have any impact on the city's established parking management strategies, including the employee parking program. The Retail Core Focusing on the retail core, the BD 1 zone proposed no parking requirement for any uses. This was largely for two reasons. The evidence before the Planning Board was that two-story buildings don't provide an economic basis for doing underground parking. Requiring parking in the retail core would therefore require surface parking, removing a significant amount of land from being developed for floor space. While some retail core properties have alley access, many do not. When alley access is not available, requiring parking will essentially require curb cuts to access parking located behind the building. In addition, with limited lot depths, a parking requirement combined with the two-story nature of the development standards will encourage retail core properties to provide their parking at grade, behind commercial uses, thereby minimizing the amount of ground -level commercial space for any building expansions or redevelopment that does occur downtown. This runs counter to encouraging a viable commercial core. Some thoughts on Ms. Wiggins' letter Introductory paragraphs. As a parenthetical remark, I believe Ms. Wiggins' comments are offered from her own perspective, since after discussion the Downtown Parking Committee as a whole did not support her conclusions or recommendations. This is not to discredit her comments, just to clarify her presentation. First main paragraph ("The suggestion to eliminate...'). The logic related to eliminating the parking requirement for commercial uses is outlined earlier in this memo. Remember that parking requirements in code are minimums. The market will dictate how much parking is actually provided. If the market was encouraging too little parking, then why would jurisdictions such as Seattle, Redmond, etc., be adopting maximum parking requirements in their codes? Even if a project is owner- or developer -financed, why would they wish to build something that would be unoccupied by tenants due to insufficient parking? Ms. Wiggins also asserts that "If you look at our city streets right now they are full," and "If you overload them with more employees, where will the people park that would like to shop here?" First, consider the following excerpt from the 2002-2003 downtown parking study: Currently downtown Edmonds has about 3,500 parking spaces of which somewhat more than two-thirds is off-street private parking. The 2001 inventory and survey of occupancy suggests that over 50 percent of this parking was unoccupied. This suggests that downtown Edmonds currently has a surplus of parking, especially off-street parking. The study clearly concluded that while there are parking management issues and isolated problems, downtown Edmonds does not have a parking supply problem. Ms. Wiggins' comment about employees taking parking away from shoppers ignores the city's employee parking program, which also has far more capacity than is currently being utilized. Second main paragraph ("Another suggestion... '). The 15-foot ceiling heights for the BD 1 zone and the 12-foot ceiling heights for the other BD zones have been a consistent proposal throughout the past couple years of public hearings and discussions. There is a substantial amount of testimony in the Planning Board and City Council records supporting these proposals. Retailers are on record in support of the 15-foot heights for the retail core. The City's former Economic Development Director consistently pointed out the desirability of adequate ceiling heights to support both general commercial and retail uses. The recent downtown economic study by Heartland LLC also pointed out that shorter ceiling heights reduce rents; reduced rents provide a disincentive for developers to include commercial space as a significant component of their projects — at least in excess of the minimums required by code. An architect with the Planning Board pointed out that there is not a direct relationship between the volume of interior space and heating or cooling bills; it is much more a function of the efficiency and design of building systems and materials. Third main paragraph ("The final problem I see...'). The 15-foot step -back requirement was also a main feature of the Planning Board's and Council proposals through the public hearing process. The step -back is not for "each succeeding floor over the first floor," nor is necessarily required for all street frontages if you have a particularly small lot (this last problem was brought up and addressed by the Planning Board in its final recommendation to Council). The step -back is only required when a building exceeds 25 feet in height above the street. Generally, this should mean a step -back above the 2nd floor in the general BD commercial areas. The Council is still in discussion about the step -back requirements in the BD 1 (retail core), but the clear intent seems to be to enable two-story buildings to be built in the retail core without requiring a step -back. In any case, Heartland LLC also addressed the question of step -backs, finding that "Upper -level setbacks have a slight negative impact on returns, but not project feasibility." Finally, the 15-foot step -back was not chosen arbitrarily — it was the step -back measurement that would maintain a building appearance of two -stories when viewed from the adjoining street. Ms. Wiggins' comment on railings is, I think, well taken. The Planning Board had recommended an exception for railings above the BD zone height limits, but that exception was deleted by Council in its December, 2006, deliberations. Fourth main paragraph ("I know this debating has gone for a long time... '). I agree that it has. The hearings and deliberations just on the zoning follow-up to the comprehensive plan have been going on since March of 2005. Restarting the discussion now would prolong the moratorium currently in place and be a disservice to the entire community. I can't agree with Ms. Wiggins' assertion that the city changed its rules to "allow a sunken first floor." Up to this point, first floors have simply not been regulated by the city. Ms. Wiggins' comment about the 30-foot minimum depth of commercial space is correct — it was a change in code dating from the 1990s intended to address problems related to narrow commercial lots. However, this actually relates to the parking discussion. The reason cited by the proponents for the 30-foot commercial depth was to allow parking to be placed behind the building that would also be accessed by a curb cut from the street, all needed to meet downtown parking requirements. The Planning Board agreed that this was a problem, which was, again, part of the basis for their parking recommendations. If the Council wishes to do some more follow-up study and discussion of any of the parking issues, for example, that would be appropriate — but staff would encourage the Council to take that on as a follow-up action to adopting the current BD zoning. We would recommend adopting the proposed parking and step -back provisions, as the Council is discussing, and set a timetable for revisiting any specified parking issues. That was actually already hinted at in earlier Council discussion, where Councilmember Dawson suggested that parking requirements might be "tweaked" to encourage affordable housing, for example. January 4, 2007 To Mayor Gary Haakenson and Edmonds City Council: I attended the Edmonds City Council meeting on 1/02/07 where the BD downtown business zone changes were discussed and explained. I have grave concerns with some of the changes suggested. I believe it to be obvious that these issues may not have been thought out thoroughly and that experts in the field have not been consulted to see what the results of some of these changes would. be. The suggestion to eliminate all parking requirements for commercial uses is something, as your City parking committee chairman, unconscionable. I know it is meant to be the proverbial "carrot" to attract new construction in downtown Edmonds and that it is felt that the bank will require commercial parking anyway. Please don't count on that happening, especially with all the new money. A developer may choose to self finance. Please do not allow this misguided attempt at luring new development to cloud your reasoning. If you look at our city streets right now they are full. If you overload them with more employees, where will the people park that would like to shop here? Also I do not believe a tenant would rent in a city that provides no commercial parking spaces. It was suggested that maybe we could increase the residential parking spaces that were recently reduced to one vehicle per unit. What would that accomplish? They would belong to the residents and would not help out the lack of onsite commercial parking. Please take the time to talk to businesses in town to see what they think of this suggestion. If they knew their onstreet parking for their employees and customers would become more difficult to locate, I doubt they would support this amendment. At the very least, please require one commercial parking space per 800 sf. Another suggestion in the proposed new BD zone would be to require 15 foot ceiling heights in the retail core and 12 foot ceiling heights in the balance of the proposed BD zone (currently the BC zone). While I am not familiar with the way retail businesses work, as a construction company who has developed two projects in this city with commercial office uses in this downtown area, I know that if a tenant realized that the increased ceiling height would cost them more in heating and airconditioning costs, they would not take kindly to an increase in their costs just to gain the extra height. Again please talk to these people! The final problem I see with this document is the requirement to set back each succeeding floor over the first floor, a total of 15' on all sides facing a street. I understand the reasoning behind this and I support it. The 15' is just excessive. You would have just as good a result if you made the setback 6' or 8'. It is the lack of massing on the street side that you are trying to overcome but how it is suggested to be done is detrimental. Everyone would use that area for a deck. Have you thought about deck railings? Have you thought how this excessive requirement would increase the cost of the residential unit? After all, if enough units cannot be built, the developer will just go to another city where the restrictions are not so stringent. I know this debating has gone on for a long time and you are all anxious to get something going so that builders and developers with once again start applying for building permits, something that has not happened since the 25' moratoriam has been in place. Most of you were here when the city changed the rules to allow a sunken first floor entry and the requirement for 1st floor commercial space was allowed to only be 30' deep on the entry side. What a disaster that has been! I believe that was caused by the lack of education on the issues. Important issues like this deserve the utmost education and study by the people making these very important decisions. The people of this city deserve nothing less. After all no one wants empty commercial space because there is no parking for it; greatly increased residential living unit prices because so much has had to be given over to deck space; or our new commercial space costing a tenant so much more than in other areas because they have to pay for such high ceiling space HVAC costs. Please give this your utmost care, education and thought because what you decide now either costs the city valuable real estate tax and sales tax income or enhances it, depending on whether or not you make the right decision. Sincerely, Karen M. Wiggins Downtown Edmonds Parking Chairman Wiggins Properties llc AM-801 4. Repealing Ordinance No. 3608 establishing a moratorium within the City's central business district. Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 01/16/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave, Planning Submitted For: Rob Chave Time: 10 Minutes Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Proposed Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 3608 establishing a moratorium within the City's central business district. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1). Previous Council Action The City Council adopted Ordinance #3530 which established a moratorium on new building approvals exceeding 25 feet in height within the BC zone. The council most recently extended the moratorium by adopting Ordinance #3608. Narrative On December 12, 2006, with approval of the new BD - Downtown Business zones, the City Council voted to remove the current moratorium on buildings exceeding 25 feet within the existing BC zone. The draft ordinance included in Exhibit 1 has been drafted by the City Attorney to implement this action. Link: Exhibit 1: Proposed Ordinance Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/11/2007 03:40 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/11/2007 04:11 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 01/12/2007 08:20 AM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 01/11/2007 02:49 PM Final Approval Date: 01/12/2007 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 12/14/06 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3608 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM WITHIN THE CITY'S CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, pursuant to series of ordinances, the City Council established and has maintained a moratorium on construction in certain designated downtown business districts above 25 feet in order to resolve building height calculations, and WHEREAS, by the enactment of a contemporary ordinance, the City Council has amended the City Code to clarify height restrictions, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 3608 is hereby repealed. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON IWSS648051.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - I - ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: :• W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. IWSS648051.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 2 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2006, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3608 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM WITHIN THE CITY'S CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 52006. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS648051.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 3 - AM-802 S. Planning Board Recommendation to Deny Application to Create Two New Zones for Edmonds Way Corridor Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 01/ 16/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave, Planning Submitted For: Rob Chave Time: 60 Minutes Department: Planning Type: Action Review Community/Development Services Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Public Hearing on the Planning Board recommendation to deny an application by Tony Shapiro to create two new zones for the Edmonds Way Corridor. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff 1. Staff recommendation is to approve the creation of the new zones, with modifications recommended in the staff report (see Exhibit 1), and direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for Council adoption. Note that the Planning Board recommended denial of the application. If Council chooses to deny the application, the City Attorney will prepare findings for the Council to adopt. Previous Council Action None regarding this request. Narrative This is an application by AD ShapiroNalhalla Partners to create two new zones in the Edmonds Community Development Code for application within the Edmonds Way Corridor. One of the new zones would be a new multi family zone, termed "RM-EW," while the second new zone would be a commercial one, termed 'BC - Edmonds Way." The proposal is described in the letter from the applicant together with the text of the proposed zones; these are contained in Attachments 2 and 3 of Exhibit 1. As an application to amend the Edmonds Community Development Code, this is a legislative proposal. The Planning Board held a public hearing on the request on December 13, 2006, and voted 3-to-2 to deny the request. The Planning Board minutes are contained in Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 contains a letter from the applicant responding to the staff report together with a presentation they gave during the Planning Board hearing. Exhibit 4 contains letters received pertaining to the December 13, 2006, Planning Board hearing. The applicants originally proposed a somewhat different combination of zones together with a proposed rezone of specific properties (see Exhibit 5). This was the subject of an earlier Planning Board public hearing (see Exhibit 6 for Planning Board minutes and Exhibit 7 for comment letters). As a result of the earlier public hearing, the applicants elected to modify their proposal and withdraw the specific rezone request. The result was the proposal heard at the December 13, 2006, Planning Board meeting. The applicants have held a number of neighborhood meetings over a period of months to explain their proposals and elicit feedback. Some support was apparently generated, although there is still opposition to their current request. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: 12/13/2006 Staff Report Link: Exhibit 2: Planning Board minutes 12/13/2006 Link: Exhibit 3: Applicant Response & Presentation Link: Exhibit 4: Comment Letters Link: Exhibit 5: Previous Applicant Proposal Link: Exhibit 6: Planning Board Minutes 9/27/2006 Link: Exhibit 7: Comment Letters on Previous Proposal Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/12/2007 11:40 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/12/2007 12:47 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 01/12/2007 01:49 PM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 01/11/2007 03:11 PM Final Approval Date: 01/12/2007 Item # 6_b. CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD From: Meg uwell, AICP Senior Planner Date: December 7, 2006 File: AMD-06-2 Application by A.D. Shapiro Architects for SGA Corporation for the creation of two new zones called "Multiple Residential — Edmonds Way" and "Community Business —Edmonds Way" Hearing Date, Time, and Place: December 13, 2006, At 7:00 PM, Edmonds City Council Chambers Public Safety Complex 250 - 5th Avenue North TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 2 A. APPLICATION INFORMATION...................................................................................................................2 B. RECOMMENDATION ON THE PROPOSAL.................................................................................................. 2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................3 A. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA)......................................................................................... 3 B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE ................................................... 3 C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN........................................................................................................................I1 D. PUBLIC COMMENTS.............................................................................................................................. 13 III. ATTACHMENTS.......................................................................................................................................13 IV. NOTIFICATION LIST..............................................................................................................................13 City of Edmonds cQ Planning Board I. INTRODUCTION A. APPLICATION History: The Planning Board reviewed the applicants' initial application during a public hearing at the Board's September 27, 2006, meeting. At that time, the applicants were seeking to create two new zones and concurrently rezone an area along Edmonds Way northwest of 232"d Street SW to the new zones. Because a number of concerns were raised the proposal, the applicants requested that a decision be delayed in order to enable them to try to refine their proposal and seek additional input from the neighborhood. As their cover letter (see Attachment 2) points out, they are now separating the creation of the two zones from the rezone of the specific parcels. Therefore, the December hearing will only be to consider the creation of the new zones. Any rezones will be proposed at a later time. Also note that the proposed business zone is to be a variation of the Community Business zone (BC) instead of the earlier proposed Neighborhood Business zone (BN). 2. Ap lin cant: A.D. Shapiro Architects for SGA Corporation (see Attachment 2). 3. Site Location: The new zones are intended to be specific to the Edmonds Way corridor. 4. Request: Application to amend the Edmonds Community Development Code to add two new zones entitled "Multiple Residential — Edmonds Way" and "Community Business — Edmonds Way" (see Attachments 2 and 3). 5. Review Process: a. Text Amendment - Planning Board conducts public hearing and issues recommendation to the City Council for final decision. As a code amendment, this is a legislative action. 6. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.80 (TEXT AND MAP CHANGES). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 16 (ZONE DISTRICTS) Purposes and Criteria. C. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.100.020 and 20.100.030 (PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD REVIEW AND CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON RECOMMENDATIONS). B. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on Statements of Fact, Analysis, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to APPROVE the creation of the "Multiple Residential - Edmonds Way" and "Community Business — Edmonds Way" zone districts as proposed, with the following modifications: 1. Clarify how building height is limited relative to adjoining single family residential properties. AMD-2006-2 Revisions.doc 2 2. Clarify footnote 4 to the table in 16.50.020 for the BC-EW zone so that the requirement is clearly stated (e.g. "three of the following five features must be employed..."). II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. a. Facts: (1) A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the earlier proposed text amendment and rezone on August 30, 2006. Comments regarding traffic and privacy were submitted. No appeals were received. (2) The revised zone classifications will not have any more significant adverse impact to the environment, so the earlier DNS is still applicable for the current proposal. b. Conclusion: The criteria applied to the proposed zone classifications and rezones, together with city codes and regulations, should address the environmental concerns raised. The city has processed the application in conformance with SEPA requirements. Because the current proposal is a "non -project action" (i.e. no specific project approval is being requested), additional environmental review may be required as part of any future site -specific project or proposal. B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. ECDC Section 20.80 (Text and Map Changes) a. Facts: (i) The subject application is a request to create two new zones. These zones have been named "Multiple Residential - Edmonds Way" and "Community Business - Edmonds Way" since they are designed specifically to be applied within the Edmonds Way Corridor. (ii) Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.80.020 states that requested amendments to the zoning districts portion of the city's development code shall be reviewed by the Planning Board using the purposes and criteria set forth in the applicable chapters as the basis for its review and recommendations. (iii) The general purposes set forth in ECDC 16.00.010 include 16.00.010 Purposes. In addition to the purposes stated in the city's comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance shall have the following purposes: A. To assist in the implementation of the adopted comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city by regulating and providing for existing uses and planning for the future as specified in the comprehensive plan; and AMD-2006-2 Revisions.doc 3 B. To protect the character and the social and economic stability of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses within the city, and to ensure the orderly and beneficial development of those uses by: 1. Preserving and retaining appropriate areas for each type of use; 2. Preventing encroachment into these areas by incompatible uses; and 3. By regulating the use of individual parcels of land to prevent unreasonable detrimental effects of nearby uses. [Ord. 3240 § 1, 1999]. (iv) The specific purposes for residential zones and multiple residential zones are given in ECDC 16.10.010 and ECDC 16.30.000 and are as follows: 16.10.000 Purposes. The general purposes of the residential, or R, zones are: A. To provide for areas of residential uses at a range of densities consistent with public health and safety and the adopted comprehensive plan; B. Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values: 1. Light (including direct sunlight), 2. Privacy, 3. Views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, 4. Freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution; C. To provide for community facilities which complement residential areas and benefit from a residential environment; D. To minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by relating the size and density of new buildings to the land around them, the capacity of nearby streets, and the availability of utilities; E. To protect residential uses from hazards and nuisances, such as fire, explosion, noxious fumes and noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare, and heavy truck traffic, which may result from other, more intense, land uses. 16.30.000 Purposes. The RM zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for residential zones of ECDC 16.00.010 and 16.10.000: A. To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment; B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. (v) The applicants have provided the revised new zone descriptions, including purposes, in Attachment 3. (vi) The proposed zone is very similar to the existing "Multiple Residential RM-1.5 zone." The following items are the same in each zone: • Density of One dwelling Unit per 1,500 sq. ft. of lot area. AMD-2006-2 Revisions.doc 4 • Setbacks (15 feet to the street and rear property lines, and 10 feet to the side property lines). • Allowed lot coverage of 45 percent. • Allowed uses. (vii) Where they differ is summarized in the following table. Maximum Height "Green Elements" Setback Encroachments RM-1.5i RM-Edmonds Way 25 feet Additional 5 feet for 4:12 sloped roof Total of 30 feet No mention Same, except uncovered and unenclosed porches etc. are allowed to intrude 1/3 of the setback or 4 feet (whichever is less) providing they are less than 30 inches high Landscaping j Governed by ECDC 20.12 25 feet Additional 5 feet if>50% parking is inside a building, the site is 5 feet lower than adjacent residential property, and low impact development techniques are included where feasible. Additional 5 foot increase for a 15% sloped roof (approximately 2:12 slope) Total of 35 feet Incentives (height) Same, except in the street setback along Edmonds Way uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios and decks may occupy up to one-half the required street setback, provided that they are no more than 20 feet above ground..level................................._..... In addition to ECDC 20.12 retain at least 35% of the existing healthy significant trees within the side and rear eround level setbacks. (viii) Many of the developments along Edmonds Way have trees that have been retained along the highway that give them additional privacy, and provide a forested look along Edmonds Way. (ix) The code as it has been written would not require trees along Edmonds Way to be retained. AMD-2006-2 Revisions.doc 5 (x) Business and Commercial zones general purposes are given in ECDC 16.40.000. Those specific to Community Business zones are given in ECDC 16.50.000. Both are given below: 16.40.000 Purposes. The general purposes of the business and commercial (B or C) zones are: A. To provide for areas for commercial uses offering various goods and services according to the different geographical areas and various categories of customers they serve; B. To provide for areas where commercial uses may concentrate for the convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationships to each other; C. To provide for residential uses, community facilities and institutions which may appropriately locate in commercial areas; D. To require adequate landscaping and off-street parking and loading facilities; E. To protect commercial uses from hazards such as fire, explosion and noxious fumes, and also nuisances created by industrial uses such as noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare and heavy truck traffic. 16.50.000 Purposes. The BC zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 1640 ECDC. A. To reserve areas for those retail stores, offices, service establishments and amusement establishments which offer goods and services to the entire community; B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings; C. To allow for mixed -use development which includes multiple dwelling unit(s) that support business uses. [Ord. 3147 § 1, 1997]. (xi) The applicant has described their proposed new Business zone in Attachment 2. (xii) The existing BC and proposed BC -Edmonds Way zones are similar in a number of respects. They are the same in the following: • Uses allowed, • Minimum lot area and lot width (none) • Setbacks (None to any property line, except 15 feet is required adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground). • Maximum floor area (3 square feet of building per square foot of lot area) • Density (no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units) • Screening (setback to R-zoned property must be landscaped with trees, ground cover and fence, wall or hedge.) • Operating Restrictions AMD-2006-2 Revisions.doe 6 (xiii) The differences between the proposed zone and the existing Community Business zone are given in the table below. M BC- Edmonds Way Purposes Adds "To implement the policies of the Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor," and "To meet the j goals of the Growth Management Act and the City of Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan for housing diversity and economical vitalitv." Maximum Height 25' base height (currently there is a 35 feet base height. moratorium on allowing an additional Additional 5 feet if. 5' for modulated roofs). • ground level setback increased to 4 Absent the moratorium, the height of i feet with Type III landscaping; 3`d and a building can be a maximum of 30 4 s floors shall be further stepped feet. ' back an additional 6 feet along all street fronts, Ground Floor Development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses to a minimum depth of 30 feet as measured from the street front of the building • modulate the fagade facing an R- zoned and developed property, • integrate low impact development techniques where reasonable feasible, • landscape the 15 foot setback with Type I landscaping, and • maximum height of the wall or fagade along Edmonds Way shall not exceed 45 feet as measured at the Edmonds Way property line. Additional height for distinctive architectural features, including articulation, changes of materials, offsets, angles or curves of facades, or by the use of distinctive roof forms. of 45 feet allowed. If street frontage is over 150 feet in length, the ground floor commercial requirement only applies to 60% of the ground floor street frontage. The remaining 40% may include other allowed use, including off-street parking and live/work spaces. (xiv) Footnote 4 to the table under 16.50.020 for the BC-EW zone includes a series of "distinctive architectural features" that qualify a building for additional height. As written, the conditions necessary to meet this AMD-2006-2 Revisions.doc 7 requirement are vague and should be modified to, for example, require that "three of the following five features must be employed...." (xv) The Washington State Department of Transportation has requirements based on AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) standards that require buildings and vegetation to be set back from streets and driveways so that persons entering the highway from those streets and driveways have a clear sight line. (xvi) The applicants and the City had a meeting with neighbors of the 232nd and Edmonds Way neighborhood. Comments raised at the meeting and summarized by the City include: (1) A desire to have 232nd Street SW widened by 4 feet to allow for a turn lane; (2) A 10-foot setback to Edmonds Way; (3) Setback along 232nd Street to be landscaped with trees; (4) Supported the townhome entries being elevated with a landscaped berm in front (on Edmonds Way); (5) Supported saving 20 percent of the trees; (6) Respect privacy (discourage people from congregating adjacent to single-family residential property). (xvii) Berms in setbacks are normally limited to three feet in height, unless a variance is obtained. b. Conclusions: (i) These proposed zones are to be judged by the purposes and criteria set forth in the applicable chapters. The purposes given above stress "preventing encroachment into these areas by incompatible uses" and regulating the use of individual parcels to "prevent unreasonable detrimental effects of nearby uses." (ii) For the residential zones, the purposes include "To minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by relating the size and density of new buildings to the land around them, the capacity of nearby streets, and the availability of utilities." (iii) The density of the proposed residential zone will be the same as the existing zone. As proposed by the applicant, the added height is intended to allow the parking to be included on the ground floor of the building, since the flatter portions of the property do not enable underground parking to occur. (iv) The height bonus has been written so that the base height is only increased by five feet if the site is five feet below an adjacent residential property, and if at least 50 percent of the parking is enclosed inside a building. The other condition is that the project integrate low impact development techniques, such as bioswales, green roofs, and grasscrete, but this is only "where reasonably feasible." AMD-2006-2 Revisions.doc 8 (v) The section relating to decks in the setbacks allows a developer to have parking on the ground level, berm the ground up to a maximum of three feet, and then provide steps up to the second level. A deck could extend into the setbacks by 7.5 feet. During the public meetings, a drawing showed the berm up to the floor above the garage. Though this was seen as desirable by the neighbors, a limitation on the berm comes from the definition of structure, which the revisions to the zone have not addressed. If a berm within a setback is intended to be higher than three feet, this provision would need to be included in the proposed zoning code. Note that this zone could potentially allow the upper levels of a building to have a deck extend into the street setback. As expressed by the applicant, this provision is intended to encourage more use of outdoor space along the streetscape. By allowing raised decks or balconies, building residents would reserve some privacy and separation from street noise while also softening the interface of the building to the street. Note that this allowance is only for the street setback, and is not available in the side and rear yards, which are likely to be adjacent to other residential uses. (vi) The proposal also requires tree retention within the side and rear setbacks. Thirty-five percent (35%) of the trees need to be retained. The focus of tree retention is on healthy, significant (6-inch caliper) trees. Trees that are in the buildable area or front setback can be cut. Even so, if the developer does not consider it reasonably feasible to retain 35% of the existing trees in the side and rear setbacks, they must replace each tree removed with three new 3-inch caliper trees. The actual number and location of trees retained will be dependent on specific site conditions. Nonetheless, the tree retention provisions substantially exceed those currently in the city's codes for multiple family zones. (vii) Note that roof decks are not included in the proposal, which was a privacy concern expressed by some neighbors. (viii) Concerns have been raised about the impact of the project on transportation facilities. Although State Route 104 typically has adequate capacity to tolerate adding projects the size allowed by the proposed zone, how the traffic is added will need to be addressed. For example, the applicant did provide some traffic analysis during the public meetings indicating that a specific project proposal would likely address adding a left -turn lane on 232"d Street where it intersects with SR-104.This is typically addressed at the site development stage, and is outside the scope of the current code amendment proposal. (ix) Parking is also not available along State Route 104, so the proposed residential units should have guest parking and delivery parking available. This will need to be addressed at the site development stage, which is outside the scope of the current proposal. (x) Purposes for the Business zones are to reserve areas for various business uses and ensuring compact, convenient development patterns. AMD-2006-2 Revisions.doc Also business zones require adequate landscaping and off-street parking and loading facilities. (xi) The proposed zone appears to meet these purposes (xii) Height is not an issue addressed in the purposes for business zones. The additional height is being proposed for areas that have some difference in elevation relative to adjoining single family residential areas. With additional height, the number of dwelling units provided can also be increased. The overall intent is to provide for more efficient use of property and the opportunity for multiple dwelling units to support nearby businesses as part of a mixed use development. (xiii) Street setbacks and landscaping cannot conflict with Washington State Department of Transportation requirements for sight distance and safety, mainly as it affects entering and exiting the property. This will be addressed during the review of a site -specific development proposal. (xiv) Within the Edmonds Way corridor, many properties are situated so that there is some rise in elevation as the properties move away from SR-104 toward single family neighborhoods that are situated behind the SR-104 frontage. It is staffs understanding that the increased building heights for both of the new zones are intended to provide flexibility for buildings located on the more level portions of the property that front on SR-104, while not enabling buildings on slopes to also take full advantage of increased height so that they "walk up the slope" and are higher than what could be built on adjoining single family properties. In other words, referring to the diagram below, we believe the applicants are proposing what is shown in "A" rather than "B." If this is indeed the intent, provisions should be explicitly included in both zones that clarify this intent. This could be in the form of an overall height restriction relative to the portion of the property adjoining single family zones, a "not to exceed" limit. 0 - - i House New Building I I New Building Property House New Building New Building Property SR-104 AMD-2006-2 Revisions.doc 10 C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. Comprehensive Plan Policies: a. Facts: (i) The way the RM-EW and BC-EW are written, the intent appears to be that the lots with this zoning will front along Edmonds Way in the area designated as the "Edmonds Way Corridor." (ii) The Edmonds City Council recently approved an amendment to the land use element of the comprehensive plan (recommended by the Planning Board) clarifying that `BP, BN, or BC, or similar commercial zone," or "RM zones" are consistent with the "Edmonds Way Corridor" plan map designation. (iii) Since the RM-EW is a form of RM zone, and intended to be similar to the RM-1.5 zone, the RM-EW zone would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the Edmonds Way Corridor. (iv) Since the BC-EW is proposed as a variant of the BC zone, it would also appear to be consistent with the "Edmonds Way Corridor" designation along Edmonds Way. (v) The Comprehensive Plan lists the goals for the Edmonds Way corridor as follows: (1) Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions of Edmonds Way between the 100"' Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. F.1. Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. F.2. Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. F.3. Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no available alternative. FA. Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, AMD-2006-2 Revisions.doc II pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible. (vi) The Comprehensive Plan provides general policies for multiple residential development as follows: Multiple. The City's development policies encourage high quality site and building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided. C.2.a. Location Policies C.2.a.i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets. C.2.b. Compatibility policies. C.2.b.i. RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of surroundings buildings, wherever feasible. C.2.b.ii.The height of RM buildings that abut single- family residential (RS) zones shall be similar to the height permitted in the abutting RS zone except where the existing vegetation and/or change in topography can substantially screen one use from another. C.2.c.ii.Site and building plans should be designed to preserve the natural features (trees, streams, topography, etc.) of the site rather than forcing the site to meet the needs of the imposed plan. b. Analysis: (i) By allowing the added height, the applicant does appear to be trying to increase density in the BC-EW zone, though not in the RM-EW zone. For the BC-EW zone, this can be expected to increase the number of trips generated compared to the standard BC zone. (ii) The RM-EW zone states specifically that before the five-foot bonus can be taken, the RM-EW site has to be five feet below the elevation of any adjacent residentially zoned property. This will allow the natural topography to smooth the transition between single-family residential uses and the proposed zone. (iii)The BC-EW zone requires softening of the fagade of any building facing residentially zoned and developed property in order to increase the AMD-2006-2 Revisions.doc 12 height to 40 feet. Also, Type I landscaping is required in the required setback. (iv) Both zones include additional requirements for landscaping or buffers compared to the existing zones. c. Conclusions: (i) The Comprehensive Plan requires topography and vegetation to be preserved. The RM-EW zone requires 35 percent of the trees in the setback to be preserved with various caveats. The RM-EW zone appears to use topography and other criteria in compensating for additional height, and so seems to be sensitive to the objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. The BC-EW zone requires landscaping and modified building design adjacent to residentially zoned and developed properties. It would also allow more density, so traffic must be dealt with on a project -by -project basis. It appears that the proposed zones are reasonably supported by Comprehensive Plan policies. D. PUBLIC COMMENTS No additional letters of public comment have been received for this revised application. III. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Cover Letter for Revised New BC and RM zones, dated December 1, 2006 3. Text of New BC and RM zones, revised November 21, 2006 V. NOTIFICATION LIST Tony Shapiro SGA Corporation Edmonds Planning Division A.D. Shapiro Architects 150 N. 200ti St. 624 Edmonds Way Shoreline, WA 98133-3301 Edmonds Engineering Division Edmonds, WA 98020 William H. Parker Michael and Anne Nicefaro Gary Gibson 9512-232nd St. SW 9230-232nd St. SW 9302-231s' St. SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Karen Goldsmith Daniel Roehl Charles Naslund 9218 — 232nd St. SW 9213 — 232nd St. SW 9529 — 232nd St. SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Alexandra Hepburn Robert Bretts Claudia Olney 23115 — 94'" Ave. W. 21304 — 84 h Ave. W. 9229 — 231 s' St. SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Tanya and Don Warren Marge Pendergraff Denise Renfrow 23232 — 92"dAve. W. 23229 — 92"d Ave. W. 9225 — 232nd St. SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Maureen Barnes 23022 — 94d' PI. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 AMD-2006-2 Revisions.doc 13 EDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR Zoning Vicinity Map © RS-20 M RS-6 M RM-3 ® BP M CG2 RS-12 t�j RSW-12 M RM-2.4 ® BN M CW M MU RS-10 V RS-MP M RM-1.5.- BC E3MP1 - P RS-8 M CG ® MP2 FM OS N of-en,yo {�3 Rezones t« PRD File AMD-06-2 ATTACHMENT 1 December 1, 2006 Mr. Robert Chave Manager, Planning Division City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds. WA 98020 Re: Proposed New BC and RM Zones Dear Mr. Chave: Over the past several months, we've been working to prepare two new land use zones that will enable improved development within the Edmonds Way corridor. In prior submittals, we concurrently proposed new zones and corresponding rezones. That approach resulted in unintended confusion, as Edmonds Way Corridor and property specific issues became intertwined. With this submittal, we have simplified our approach and are now requesting that the City approve two new zones for the Edmonds Way corridor. The proposed development code provisions for these two zones, tentatively called Community Business - Edmonds Way (BC-EW) and Multifamily Residential -Edmonds Way (RM-EW), have been submitted for your review. Assuming the City approves these new zones, Valhalla Partners will then proceed with its applications to rezone its property at 232rd Ave S.W. and Edmonds Way to these new zones. These proposed new zones improve upon the existing BC and RM-1.5 zones by responding to the geographic and topographic characteristics of the Edmonds Way corridor, encouraging the use of low impact, sustainable development techniques, and offering property owners/developers greater flexibility to provide a wider variety of development products that are both consistent with neighborhood character and meet the City's housing and economic development goals. The key elements of the proposed new Community Business - Edmonds Way (BC-EW) zone include: • Maintains the maximum floor area ratio from the current BC zone, (3 square feet per square foot of lot area). • Increases the standard height limit from 25 feet to 35 feet, and adds two new height bonuses: o First, an applicant may increase the height of its building by 5 feet if: (a) the first two stories the building are setback an additional 4 feet from any abutting streets to enable additional landscaping, and the third and fourth stories are setback an additional 6 feet (for a total of ten feet) to reduce the "mass" of the building; (b) the sides of the building facing residentially zoned and developed properties are Tony Shapiro - A.D. Shapiro Architects - 425.778.5400 Kevin Grossman - Valhalla Partners. LLC - 206.730.5567 ATTACHMENT 2 Mr. Robert Chave - 2 - December 1, 2006 modulated; (c) the proposed development integrates low impact development techniques as site conditions allow; (d) the setback area between the proposed development and any abutting residentially zoned and developed properties is significantly landscaped; and (e) the wall of the building on Edmonds Way does not exceed 45 feet in height. o Second, an applicant may increase the height of its building by 5 feet if all portions of the building within the 5 foot bonus integrate distinctive architectural features, such as articulation, changes of materials, offsets, angles or curves in the fagade, or distinctive roof types or forms. o On sites where the street frontage exceeds 150 feet in length, reduces the percentage of the first floor that must be reserved for commercial uses. The key elements of the proposed new Multifamily Residential - Edmonds Way (RM-EW) zone include: • Maintains the existing density of the RM-1.5 zone, (one dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). • Maintains the standard maximum height of the RM-1.5 zone, subject to two new height bonuses: o First, an applicant may increase the height of its building by 5 feet if: (a) at least 500s of the parking for the building is enclosed in a building; (b) there is at least a 5 foot elevation change between the subject property and abutting residentially zoned properties; and (c) the proposed development integrates low impact development techniques as site conditions allow. o Second, an applicant may increase the height of its building by 5 feet if all portions of the roof within the five foot bonus provide a minimum 15% slope or pitch. • Adds a tree retention or replacement requirement for existing significant trees located within the side and rear setbacks. • Adds a provision allowing the use of a greater percentage of the front yard setback along Edmonds Way for porches, steps, patios and decks. These proposed new zones respond to and integrate the goals of the Edmond's Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the Edmond's Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the need to increase the number of homes created as part of the development of vacant parcels and the Tony Shapiro - A.D. Shapiro Architects - 425.778.5400 Kevin Grossman - Valhalla Partners, LLC - 206.730.5567 Mr. Robert Chave - 3 - December 1, 2006 redevelopment of previously developed parcels. See, e.g., Land Use Element, p. 19 referencing Mixed Use Development. Further, the Comprehensive Plan calls for the use of development incentives to achieve residential density goals through redevelopment and infill projects. See, e.g., Land Use Element, p. 21-22. Finally, the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan calls for greater flexibility in housing products so that the City is able to provide for a greater range of needs across the Cities population, including different economic and demographic groups. See Housing Element, pp. 110-112. The BC-EW zone meets these goals by enabling developers to increase the residential yield of mixed use projects through an additional story of residential units where the developer offers greater street setbacks, ensures significant landscaped buffers with adjacent residential properties, and uses low impact development techniques. The resulting developments will both relate to the busy arterial, using greater setbacks to improve the pedestrian experience, while also connecting with the residential element of the area and increasing housing options for Edmonds citizens. Similarly, the RM-EW zone meets the City's goals regarding housing density and neighborhood compatibility by enabling a greater variety of housing products, including town homes and other multifamily products with mixed size building footprints. These types of housing products blend well with surrounding single family residential neighborhoods (as compared to traditional larger apartment complexes). Further, the development regulations proposed in the new RM-EW zone encourage more pedestrian friendly streetscapes by providing opportunities for more active use of front yard setbacks. In particular, the resulting units may integrate walk-ups and elevated porches, which maintain the residential feel of the area while providing visual separation and privacy between pedestrians on the street and the resident's homes.. Also, by allowing greater design flexibility in both zones, the City and immediate community will benefit from greater environmental sensitivity in the form of low impact development techniques, such as rain gardens and bio-filtration swales as well as tree retention and increased landscaping requirements in buffer areas. Further, similar to the Firdale and Five Corners areas, the Edmonds Way corridor provides another opportunity to meet residential housing objectives and community business needs without adversely impacting the surrounding neighborhoods. In particular, the surrounding single family residential areas are typically 10 to 20 feet higher in elevation than properties located on Edmonds Way. As a result, the practical impact to adjacent residential areas from the height increases proposed in the new Edmonds Way specific zones is still generally less than that of what the current zoning allows in other flatter parts of the City - i.e., a 35 foot height limit where Tony Shapiro - A.D. Shapiro Architects - 425.778.5400 Kevin Grossman - Valhalla Partners, LLC - 206,730.5567 Mr. Robert Chave - 4 - December 1, 2006 the adjoining properties are already 10 feet higher than the subject property is comparable to a 25 foot height limit where the adjoining properties are at similar elevations. Moreover, the new zones offer additional landscaping and buffering to mitigate the impact of the proposed height increases. Finally, we believe that the proposed new zone language responds to the concerns raised by City staff in their previous staff report. In particular, we have designed the new zone language to be consistent with the underlying zone purposes as required by EDCD §20.80 for development code changes. We have attempted to respond to staff concerns regarding the privacy of adjoining residential areas by clarifying the buffer requirements between the proposed zones and adjoining residential properties and by eliminating prior language allowing roof top decks. We do not increase density above the levels permitted by the underlying BC and RM-1.5 zones, but rather provide more options to achieve the permitted densities. Responding to staff's concerns, we have clarified the provisions for height bonuses ensuring sloped and/or modulated roof designs. We have addressed staff's concerns about parking by relying on EDCD §17.50, which sets forth the City's standard parking requirements. Finally, we have attempted to respond to staff's concerns regarding the types of commercial uses that will locate in the BC-EW zone. We have proposed reducing slightly the required commercial floor area in order to encourage developers to market to potential business tenants that require higher parking counts but serve immediate community needs, such as coffee shops and bakeries. Please contact either of us if you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding these proposed new zones. As you may recall, we have held 5 public meetings and 3 smaller meetings since June to garner community input with which we could create a responsive approach to better meet comprehensive plan goals and concurrently meet Edmonds Way neighbor's concerns. We have made a diligent effort to integrate community suggestions and respond to community concerns. As a result, we hope that the City and the community will support these proposed new zones. Very truly yours, Provided via email Tony Shapiro Project Architect Enclosures: BC-EW RM-EW Kevin Grossman Member, Valhalla Partners, LLC Tony Shapiro - A.D. Shapiro Architects - 425.778.5400 Kevin Grossman - Valhalla Partners, LLC - 206.730.5567 November 30, 2006 Mr. Rob Chave, Ms. Meg Gruwell Planning Director Edmonds, City of 121 Fifth Avenue North RECEIVED Edmonds, WA98020 NOV 3 0 2006 PERMIT COUNTER Subject Proposed zoning language for RM(-EW, BC(-EW Project: Edmonds Way Comprehensive Plan Dear Rob and Meg: We have refined the enclosed zoning documents per our meetings with you and the neighborhood over the last month. We hope to have the opportunityto present this to the Planning Board at their December Meeting in the next few weeks. If you have any concerns or items that need inclusion or revision, please let us know so we can still make this meeting deadline. Thank you for your assistance in this process, we can supplyyou word documents of this as well. Enc. Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL Sections: 16.30.000 Purposes. 16.30.010 Uses. 16.30.020 Subdistricts. 16.30.030 Site development standards. 16.30.040 Site development exceptions. 16.30.000 Purposes. The RM zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for residential zones of ECDC 16.00.010 and 16.10.000: A. To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment; B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. 16.30.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Multiple dwellings; 2. Single-family dwellings; 3. Retirement homes; 4. Group homes for the disabled, foster family homes and state licensed group homes for foster care of minors; provided, however, that halfway houses and group homes licensed for juvenile offenders are not permitted uses in a residential zone of the city; 5. Boarding houses and rooming houses; 6. Housing for low income elderly in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.25 ECDC; 7. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020; 8. Primary schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 9. Local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 10. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. All permitted secondary uses in the RS zone, if in conjunction with a single-family dwelling; 2. Home occupations, subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.20 ECDC; 3. The keeping of one domestic animal; 4. The following accessory uses: a. Private parking, b. Private swimming pools and other private recreational facilities, ATTACHMENT 3 Y:\W VALHALLA ZON DRAFT 112I06.D c. Private greenhouses covering no more than five percent of the site in total; 5. Commuter parking lots containing less than 10 designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. Any additionally designated parking spaces that increase the total number of spaces in a commuter parking lot to 10 or more shall subject the entire commuter parking lot to a conditional use permit as specified in subsection (D)(2) of this section, including commuter parking lots that are located upon more than one lot as specified in ECDC 21.15.075. C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Offices, other than local public facilities; 2. Local public facilities not planned, designated, or sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 3. Day-care centers; 4. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums; 5. 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; 6. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 7. High schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 8. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Day-care facilities of any size to be operated in a separate, nonresidential portion of a multifamily residential dwelling structure operated primarily for the benefit of the residents thereof; 2. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. [Ord. 3453 § 2, 2003; Ord. 3353 § 2, 2001; Ord. 3184 § 2, 1998; Ord. 3090 §§ 4, 5, 1996; Ord. 2820 §§ 1, 2, 1991; Ord. 2818 § 1, 1991; Ord. 2673 § 2, 1988; Ord. 2458 § 2, 1984; Ord. 2283 §§ 2, 3, 1982]. 16.30.020 Subdistricts. There are established thfee-four subdistricts of the RM zone, in order to provide site development standards for areas which differ in topography, location, existing development and other factors. These subdistricts shall be known as the RM-1.5, RM - Edmonds Way (RM - EW), RM-2.4, and RM-3 zones. 16.30.030 Site development standards. A. Table. Sub Minimum Lot Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Minimum District Area Per Street Side Rear Height's Coverage Parking Y:\W VAL} LA\RM ZONE DH 112106.D Dwelling Unit° (Sq. Ft.) Setback Setback Setback (%) (Spaces Per Unit) RM-1.5 1,500 15, 10, 15' 25'1'5 45% 2 RM-EW 1,500 15' 10, 15' 25' 1'6'' 45% 2 RM-2.4 2,400 15' 10, 15' 25"'S 45% 2 RM-3 3,000 15i2 15i2 15' 2511,5 45% 2 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. 2 IRS setbacks may be used for single-family homes on lots of 10,000 square feet or less in all RM zones. 3 See Chapter 17_50 ECDC for specific parking requirements. ° See definition of townhouse. 5 Maximum height for accessory structures if 15 feet. 6 The maximum base height of any building fronting on Edmonds Way may be increased to 30 feet if the following apply to the site and proposed development: (a) At least 50% of the parking for the subject building shall be enclosed inside a building or buildings; (b) The subject property is a least 5 feet lower at its lowest elevation than any adjacent residential property measured at its lowest elevation; and (c) The proposed development integrates low impact development techniques where reasonably feasible. For the purposes of this section, low impact development techniques shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: the use of bioswales, green roofs, and grasscrete. 7 In addition to any height bonus under note 6, the building may extend up to an additional five feet if all portions of the roof above the height limit, (after adding the height bonus under Note 6), provide a minimum 15% slope or pitch. B. Signs and Design Review. See Chapters 20.10 and 20.60 ECDC for regulations. C. Location of Parking. No parking spaces may be located within the street setback. D. Landscaping. In addition to the landscaping requirements set forth in Chapter 20.12 ECDC, any development in the RM - Edmonds Way zone shall retain at least 35% of the existing healthy significant trees within the side and rear ground level setbacks of the development site. The applicant shall retain an arborist to determine the health of all significant trees within the side and rear ground level setbacks. For the purposes of this section, significant trees shall be defined as any tree with a caliper greater than 6" measured at 4' above grade. Where it is not reasonably feasible for the applicant to retain 35% of the existing healthy significant trees within the side and rear ground level setbacks, the applicant may replace any significant trees below the 35% threshold as follows: Each significant tree removed that reduces the percentage of Y:\WPW ALHALLA\RM ZONE DRAFT 112106. retained significant healthy trees below 35% shall be replaced with three new trees, each of no less than 3" caliper measured at 4' above grade. 16.30.040 Site development exceptions. A. Housing for the Elderly. Housing projects for the elderly are eligible for special parking and density provisions. See Chapter 20.25 ECDC. B. Setback Adjustments. Chapter 20.50 ECDC contains a procedure for adjusting setback distances and locations in special situations. C. Satellite Television Antenna. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and reviewed by the architectural design board. D. Setback Encroachments. (1) Eaves and chimneys may project into a required setback not more than 30 inches. (2) Except as authorized by subsection (3) below, uklncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may project into a required setback not more than one-third of the required setback, or four feet, whichever is less; provided that they are no more than 30 inches above the ground level at any point. (3) In the RM-Edmonds Way zone, uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may occupy up to one-half of the required street setback area along Edmonds Way; provided that they are no more than 20 feet above the ground level at any point. E. Corner Lots. Corner lots shall have no rear setback; all setbacks other than street setbacks shall be side setbacks. Y:\WP\VALHALLAU ZONE DB 112106DOC . Chapter 16.50 BC — COMMUNITY BUSINESS Sections: 16.50.000 Purposes. 16.50.010 Uses. 16.50.020 Site development standards. 16.50.030 Operating restrictions. 16.50.000 BC and BC - Edmonds Way This chapter establishes two distinct zoning categories, BC and BC - Edmonds Way. 16.50.0050 Purposes. The BC and the BC - Edmonds Way zones haves the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC. A. To reserve areas for those retail stores, offices, service establishments and amusement establishments which offer goods and services to the entire community; B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings; C. To allow for mixed -use development which includes multiple dwelling unit(s) that support business uses. D. To implement the policies of the Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor. E. To meet the goals of the Growth Management Act and the City of Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan for housing diversity and economical vitality. 16.50.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses 1. Single-family dwelling, as regulated in RS-6 zone; 2. Retail stores, offices and service uses, excluding intense uses, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment sales and services; 3. New automobile sales and service; 4. Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents; 5. Printing, publishing and binding establishments; 6. Bus stop shelters; 7. Community -oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code; 8. Multiple Dwelling Unit(s). This use may not be located on the ground floor of a structure; 9. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020: 10. Primary and high schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); Y:WMVALDALLAAC ZONE DRA 1I2106.DOC . �M-e�ez606 DOE 11. Local public facilities subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 12. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Limited assembly, repair or fabrication of goods incidental to a permitted or conditional use; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted or conditional use; 3. Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility meeting the criteria listed under subsections (C)(11) through (15) of this section, except that the facility may also be located along a designated transit route in addition to an arterial or collector street. C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Commercial parking lots; 2. Wholesale uses; 3. Hotels and motels; 4. Amusement establishments; 5. Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions; 6. Drive-in businesses; 7. Laboratories; 8. Fabrication of light industrial products; 9. Convenience stores; 10. Day-care centers; 11. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums; 12. 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; 13. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 14. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted or conditional use; 2. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC. [Ord. 3353 § 4, 2001; Ord. 3269 § 2, 1999*; Ord. 3147 § 1, 1997]. *Code reviser's note: Ord. 3269 expired August 13, 2000. For provisions on the outdoor display of merchandise, see Chapter 17_65 ECDC. 16.50.020 Site development standards. A. Table. Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Lot Area Lot Street Side Rear Height Maximum Floor Area Width Setback Setback Setback BC None None None None' None' 25r2 3 sq. ft. per sq. ft. of lot area YAW VALB LA\BC ZONE DBA 112106.DOC . BC - Edmonds None I None I None I None' None' I 353• ° I 3 sq. ft. per sq.ft. of I Way lot area ' 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 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height are modulated in design and are designed as a hip, gable, arch, shed or other similar roof form (see illustrations). Vertical parapet walls or flat roofs with a pitch of less than 3-in-12 are not allowed to protrude above the 25-foot height limit unless they are part of an approved modulated design. 3 The stated height limit may be increased to 40 feet provided that: (a) The ground level street setback of any proposed building shall be increased to 4 feet. Type III landscaping shall be located within this setback. This landscaping may be located immediately adjacent to the building, or may be combined with other landscaping within or adjoining the right of way. In addition, the third and forth stories of any proposed building shall be further stepped back an additional 6 feet along all street fronts; (b) Where the proposed development abuts a residentially (R) zoned and developed property, in addition to complying with subsection (a), the proposed development shall modulate the design of any building facades facing the residentially zoned and developed property; (c) The proposed development integrates low impact development techniques where reasonably feasible. For the purposes of this section, low impact development techniques shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: the use of bioswales, green roofs, and grasscrete; (d) The required setback from R zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with Type I landscaping permanently maintained by the owner of the BC lot; and (e) For any buildings fronting on Edmonds Way, the maximum height of the wall or fagade along Edmonds Way shall not exceed 45 feet as measured at the Edmonds Way property line. 4 In addition to any height bonus under note 3, the building may extend up to an additional five feet if all portions of the building above the height limit, (after adding the height bonus under note 3), integrate distinctive architectural features. For purposes of this section, distinctive architectural features may include articulation, changes of materials, offsets, angles or curves of facades, or by the use of distinctive roof forms. Y,W VALEiALLA\BC ZONE DRAFT 112106.DOC . ZMMD6 ;02606.DOG Examples of Modulated Roof Designs M-:7 n; ;I : �1�1f�9wTIM w 30-ft linitwith modulated rod ,_ — _ 25-ft heght linA w�M ■ 1: woI IR III ii91 A;.: 1 INFO■ w w w min w w I� 0- i01-0i 5islt B. Ground Floor. Development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses to a minimum depth of 30 feet as measured from the street front of the building, with the following exceptions or clarifications: 1. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is allowed. 2. This provision shall not apply when a single-family use is the primary use on the property. 3. With respect to, but only to, property located on the Fifth Avenue entrance corridor, south of Walnut Street, in which the first 60 feet of the building as measured from Fifth Avenue consists only of commercial uses; and with respect to which the subject property shares a property line with a single-family or multifamily zoned properties, then multifamily units may be located on the ground floor in such a manner that they face the adjacent residentially zoned property. 4. In the BC - Edmonds Way zone, where the street frontage of the total site proposed for development exceeds 150 feet in length, this requirement shall apply to only 60 % of the ground floor street frontage of any proposed building. The remaining 40% may include any other uses permitted in the BC - Edmonds Way zone, including, but not limited to, off-street parking or live/work space. C. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. D. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units. E. Screening. The required setback from R zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BC lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback. F. Satellite Television Antennas. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and reviewed by the architectural design board. 16.50.030 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public 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. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. YAW WAL LASC ZON DRAFT 112106.DOC wee COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Chave noted that anyone who testified at the public hearing would receive a notice of the City Council hearing that would be scheduled sometime in January. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION BY TONY SHAPERO REGARDING CREATING NEW ZONES FOR PROPERTIES IN THE EDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR (FILE NUMBER AMD-06-2) Mr. Chave recalled that the Planning Board reviewed the applicants' initial proposal during a public hearing on September 27, 2006. At that time, the applicants were seeking to create two new zones and concurrently rezone an area along Edmonds way northwest of 232"d Street Southwest to the new zones. He explained that because a number of concerns were raised regarding the proposal, the applicants requested that the Board's decision be delayed so they could try to refine their proposal and seek additional input from the neighborhood. The applicants are now separating the creation of the two zones from the rezone of the specific parcels. Therefore, the purpose of this hearing is only to consider the creation of the new zones. Any rezone applications would be considered at a later date. Mr. Chave advised that the applicant's intent is to create to new zones [Multiple Residential — Edmonds Way (EW-RM) and Community Business — Edmonds Way (EW-BC)) that could potentially be applied to other properties along the Edmonds Way Corridor. However, before any rezone application could be approved, public hearings would be conducted by both the Planning Board and the City Council. He emphasized that even if the Planning Board and City Council elected to create the two new zones, none of the existing zoning along Edmonds Way would be changed unless a rezone application were submitted and approved by the City Council. Mr. Chave explained that, as the Board reviews the proposal to create two new zones, they must consider whether or not they would implement the Comprehensive Plan goals as well or better than the zones that are currently available. Secondly, the Board should consider the details of the proposed zones. Because the proposal is a legislative action, the Board has the ability to modify the proposal and adopt something that is different. Mr. Chave advised that staff is supportive of having two new zones available for the Edmonds Way Corridor, since there are a variety of circumstances present on the properties. He explained that one of the reasons for having the additional zones is to address the significant topographical changes that occur on some parcels. Given the topography on some sites, it is possible the traditional 25 plus 5 height requirement and other zoning regulations for the Edmonds Way Corridor might not be the best choice. Staff generally believes there are opportunities, particularly on properties closer to the Westgate area, where development could very easily be buffered from the residential properties behind. The proposed new zones would require more buffering than what would otherwise occur with the existing zones. Mr. Chave announced that, although not required, notice of the hearing was sent to property owners within 300 feet of the original rezone request and to everyone who testified previously regarding the application. Since the applicant would likely pursue a rezone at some point in time, staff felt it was important to make sure interested citizens were notified about the process. He concluded that the notification requirements were exceeded for a legislative code amendment. Tony Shapiro, applicant, said the primary reason for proposing the new zones was to address the geographical constraints on the properties along the Edmonds Way Corridor. The applicants believe the proposed zoning criteria would lend itself to this part of the City. They also feel that the growth in the overall metropolitan area of Seattle is putting pressure on housing prices and property taxes are going up. There is an opportunity for additional, more modest housing options in Edmonds, particularly along the Edmonds Way Corridor. The proposed new zones would also dovetail with the neighborhood business district planning efforts the City has done in the Five Corners and Firdale Village areas. He suggested that this part of Edmonds is conducive to multi -family residential development because there is more separation between the residential properties. December 13, 2006 Page 5 Mr. Shapiro briefly described how the proposed EW-RM zone language would meet the Comprehensive Plan goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor as follows: • Permit uses in planned multiple family or small scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. Mr. Shapiro explained that the developments would focus on Edmonds Way to utilize the 20,000 cars that travel down the busy corridor on a daily basis. He noted that the infrastructure is already available to provide adequate access to the properties along the corridor. • Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. Mr. Shapiro said the proposed new zone language would address the objective of pedestrian friendly development. It would also be open to the concept of transit -oriented densities. • Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no available alternative. Accessing the properties from Edmonds Way would be consistent with this objective. It would also allow density to increase where the infrastructure is available to support it. • Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single-family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single-family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that because of the geographical changes on Edmonds Way, the properties lend themselves to natural separation between adjacent single-family residential uses and provide a significant grade separation. Next, Mr. Shapiro reviewed how the proposed EW-BC zone language would meet the Comprehensive Plan goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor as follows: • Permit uses in planned multiple family or small scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. Mr. Shapiro noted that the proposed zone language would enable a property owner to increase densities or raise the height of buildings if low -impact development concepts are utilized. He noted that Edmonds Way lends itself to these environmentally friendly concepts because of its natural drainage. In addition, much of Edmonds Way is comprised of soil that makes percolation into the ground water easy to achieve. • Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that incorporating pedestrian friendly activities such as mixed -use buildings would encourage pedestrian activities on Edmonds Way. • Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no available alternative. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that the proposed zone language would require that the housing of a mixed -use development be separated from the traffic. In addition, the proposed zone language would encourage the housing component of a mixed -use development to be raised above Edmonds Way by setting a garage below the building. • Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single-family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single-family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible. Mr. Shapiro advised that the proposed language also encourages separation to help address privacy issues for the single-family residential properties above. Mr. Shapiro provided a map to indicate the location of the Edmonds Way Corridor. He also provided photographs to emphasize the grade changes, particularly in the Westgate area where the road goes through a fairly deep valley. He noted there are significantly larger buildings on Edmonds Way, and some existing housing, as well. He said the applicants believe win N Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2006 Page 6 the proposed zone language would encourage a more tasteful solution than the type of townhouse development that has occurred along the corridor in the past. He emphasized that Edmonds Way is a unique area that warrants consideration of different zoning criteria beyond what is currently available within the City. Mr. Shapiro explained that the proposed new EW-BC zone would increase the standard height limit from 25 feet to 35 feet and add two new height bonuses. An applicant may be allowed to increase the height of a building by 5 feet if all portions of the building within the 5 foot bonus integrate distinctive architectural features such as articulation, changes of materials, offsets, angles or curves in the fagade, or distinctive roof types. Also an applicant may be allowed to increase the height of a building by 5 feet if: a. The first two stories of the building are set back an additional 4 feet from any abutting streets to enable additional landscaping and the third and fourth stories are setback an additional six feet to reduce the mass of the building, b. The sides of the building facing residentially zoned and developed properties are modulated, c. The proposed development integrates low -impact development techniques as site conditions allow, d. The setback area between the proposed development and any abutting residentially zoned and developed properties is significantly landscaped, and e. The wall of the building on Edmonds Way does not exceed 45 feet in height. Mr. Shapiro advised that the proposed new EW-RM zone would allow an applicant to increase the height of a building by 5 feet if all portions of the roof within the 5-foot bonus provide a minimum 15% slope or pitch. An application would also be allowed to increase the height of a building by 5 feet if: a. At least 50 percent of the parking for the building is enclosed in a building. b. There is at least a 5-foot elevation change between the subject property and abutting residentially zoned properties, and c. The proposed development integrates low -impact development techniques as site conditions allow. In addition, Mr. Shapiro pointed out that the proposed EW-RM zone would add a tree retention or replacement requirement for existing significant trees located within the side or rear setbacks. It would also add a provision allowing the use of a greater percentage of the front yard setback along Edmonds Way for porches, steps, patios and decks. Mr. Shapiro said the Staff Report raises questions about the applicant's intent with regard to building height adjacent to single-family residential zones. To address this concern, he proposed the following modifications: • Modify the proposed EW-RM language by adding an additional footnote to the table in ECDC 16.30.030 to read as follows: "The height bonuses provided in Footnotes 6 and 7 are subject to the following limitation: Where the proposed building immediately abuts a single-family residential zone, such building shall not exceed a height of 25 feet as measured at the high point of the adjoining property line. Where the subject EW-RM property is improved with more than one building, this restriction shall apply only to that building or those buildings that directly abut the single-family residential zone and shall not apply to other buildings on the property that are separated from the single-family residential zones by another building or buildings." • Modify the proposed EW-BC language by adding a new footnote in Section 16.50.020 to read: "The height bonuses provided in Footnotes 3 and 4 are subject to the following limitations: Where the proposed building immediately abuts a single-family residential zone, the exterior wall(s) of such building that face(s) the single-family residential zone shall not exceed a height of 25 feet as measured at the high point of the adjoining property line; provided that the roof of such building may slope upwards at an angle up to 45 degrees from such exterior wall up to the maximum height authorized by this section, including any bonuses." In addition, Mr. Shapiro said the Staff Report request further clarification and commitment to using distinctive architectural features in order to qualify for an additional height bonus in the EW-BC zone. To address staff's recommendation, he suggested that Footnote 4 in the table in ECDC 16.50.020 be modified to read as follows: "In addition to any height bonus under Note 3, the building may extend up to an additional five feet if all portions of the building above the height limit (after adding the height bonus under Note 3), integrate distinctive architectural features. For purposes of this section, a project shall Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2006 Page 7 be found to integrate distinctive architectural features if it includes use of at least three of the following five features: articulation, changes of materials, offsets, angels or curves of facades, or by the use of distinctive roof forms." Mr. Shapiro summarized that the proposed new zone language complies with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor. Board Member Guenther said he would be in favor of using low -impact development techniques as a trade off for additional height in the proposed new zones. However, low -impact techniques have not been defined anywhere in the City's current code. Mr. Shapiro said the proposed language talks about a number of different low -impact development techniques, and one of the most significant would be drainage and the ability to use pervious pavement. However, he agreed there are no definitive techniques called out in the proposed language. Board Member Guenther cautioned that it would be important to indicate exactly what low -impact development techniques must be used in order to obtain the extra height. Board Member Guenther explained that LEEDS is a nationally recognized program that stipulates what environmental criteria must be achieved for a development to be classified at a particular level of environmentally sustainable design. Mr. Shapiro agreed that the proposed language does not specifically address the exact criteria that must be incorporated into a design in order to be recognized as a low -impact development. Mr. Guenther stated that the United States Green Building Council has adopted the LEEDS standard and there are other programs that utilize this same concept. Right now, the programs are voluntary, but the State of Washington requires that their buildings must follow the LEEDS requirements. Board Member Reed asked if the proposed new zones could be applied all along the corridor between 100" Avenue West and Highway 99. Mr. Shapiro provided a map showing the Edmonds Way portion of the Comprehensive Plan and advised that the new zone could be applied not quite as far as 100`h Avenue West, but would extend all the way to Highway 99. Mike Nicefaro referred the Board to a letter he submitted just prior to their meeting, which describes some of his concerns. He recalled that about a month ago, the applicants presented a proposed "spot zone" for the areas abutting the intersection of 232"d and Edmonds Way. They initially asked that the Board allow a 35-foot maximum height limit for the multi -family residential zone as opposed to the current height limit of 30 feet. They also proposed a 45-foot maximum height limit in the proposed mixed -use zone as opposed to the current height limit of 25 feet. Tonight's proposal is basically the same, but rather than "spot zoning" the property, the applicants want to allow this type of zoning and development to occur on the entire corridor. He said he lives about 1,000 feet from the applicant's property, but his concerns relative to development would apply to all of the adjacent property owners situated along the corridor. Mr. Nicefaro expressed his belief that the proposal would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance, which requires the City to protect the character and social and economic stability of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses in the City, to assure the steady and beneficial development of services by retaining appropriate areas for each type of use, and to prevent encroachment by incompatible uses. He pointed out that the proposal would contravene all of these objectives. He referred to the diagram on Page 10 of the Staff Report. He explained that Edmonds Way, at the location of 232"d Street, is about 20 feet below the grade of what he calls the residential bench where he and his neighbors' homes are located. Under the current zoning, a commercial community business use would be allowed. With the 20-foot elevation difference, the peak of the roof would be visible to about five feet over the level of the adjoining bench. However, a 45-foot high building would intrude into the bench area by 25 feet and result in residences looking into and being looked into by the' abutting improvement. This would substantially change the character of their properties and have an impact on the people using Edmonds Way. Mr. Nicefaro pointed out that it is common to construct skyscraper buildings in Seattle to increase density, and now the applicants are asking to build small skyscrapers on Edmonds Way to increase density. He said he is all in favor of allowing developers a reasonable use of their investment, but the Comprehensive Plan and City Code requires the City to consider compatibility of all uses when reviewing zoning changes. Mr. Nicefaro recalled that the applicants previously indicated their plans to leave some trees to buffer their proposed development. However, one only has to look at the I-5 Corridor and the concrete and wood sound walls to appreciate the fact that vegetation and trees do not buffer sound. He emphasized that he is not in favor of a 45-foot building and solid sound Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2006 Page 8 barriers along Edmonds Way, but the Board should realize that the existing vegetation would not provide an adequate sound buffer. In fact, the vegetation would not even address the visual impacts associated with a new 45-foot building. Mr. Nicefaro suggested that the existing infrastructure would also be significantly impacted by the proposed change. He explained that 232"d Street has rolling hills, and residents must be very careful about oncoming traffic because cars can be hidden in the rolling hills. In conversations with the neighbors, the applicants indicated their traffic engineer's estimate that the proposed development would increase traffic on 232nd Street by 25%. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that development on Edmonds Way, with this greater density, would result in similar burdens to residential streets in other locations. There are no sidewalks and streetlights on 232nd Street right now, and a 25% increase'in traffic would place an undue risk on the existing neighborhood. He concluded that the infrastructure is not in place to support the proposed change. He asked the Board to carefully review the letter he submitted and listen to his neighbors' concerns, as well. Scott Hopper expressed his belief that the City of Edmonds is going to experience a population increase, and Edmonds Way is a good place for this type of proposal. He said he and his wife are in support of the proposed application. Gary Gibson said he moved to Edmonds 15 years ago because he and his wife were very impressed with the City's character, especially as they came into town on Edmonds Way. It was apparent that the City had gone to a lot of trouble to create a quaint character. He said he is opposed to any additional zones that would allow more density. Additional building height would detract from the character of Edmonds Way and ruin its potential. The proposal would result in increased traffic on neighborhood streets. Mr. Gibson referred to the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor, which clearly indicate that any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and the neighbors views, open space, etc. He said he is at a loss to understand how the proposed change would protect the residential neighbors who purchased their homes thinking the existing zoning requirements would protect their view and quality of life. Additional building height would threaten the privacy the residential property owners currently enjoy. And a height limit of greater than 30 feet would impact the existing views. Mr. Gibson said another goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of density. In the Staff Report, staff indicates a concern that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. Yet another Comprehensive Plan goal is to permit uses in planned multiple -family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. He reviewed that, at a neighborhood meeting, the applicants' traffic engineer indicated the capacity is available for the one development, but it should be recognized that the proposed zone could be applied anywhere on Edmonds Way. The estimated 25% increase of traffic on 232nd Street doesn't take into account the new subdivision that is currently being constructed. Neither does it consider the changes that were approved for Firdale Village nor the possible change in use of the Old Edmonds High School. He emphasized that 232nd Street is currently the only cut through street between Edmonds Way and Firdale Village. Mr. Gibson referred to the analysis provided in the Staff Report, which states that by allowing the added height, the applicant does appear to be trying to increase density in the EW-BC zone, and this could be expected to increase the number of trips generated compared to the standard BC zone. Mr. Gibson expressed his opinion that the last thing the City needs is to allow a new zone that is even denser than what is already allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. The residential property owners would like to see measured, responsible, incremental development on Edmonds Way. Based on the staffs statement that the density and traffic impacts would be significantly increased on the applicant's property alone, the new zone language should be denied. He said he counted over 18 parcels of property on Edmonds Way between 232n1 Street and Highway 99. Because so many of these properties could be converted, it is vital that the density of individual developments be considered. AI Rutledge said he drives along this area of Edmonds Way almost everyday. He reminded the Board that the City just recently limited the height of buildings in the downtown to 25 feet. Now it appears they are picking one area in the City to allow additional building height. He suggested they come up with other areas in the City to increase the height limit, as well. He said he supports the proposed language that would allow greater density along the corridor, since this would result in more revenue for the City. Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2006 Page 9 Tony Shapiro reminded the Board that the application is not site -specific, so bringing up specific streets or properties would be inappropriate. While the proposed language would allow a building to be constructed 25 feet above the adjacent grade, it should be noted that 25 feet is the height of an average home in the existing single-family residential zone. Therefore, the impact of a 4-story building on Edmonds Way adjacent to a house would be no difference than a single-family residential property on the top of the slope. Mr. Shapiro also pointed out that the acoustical separation between Edmonds Way and the single-family residential neighborhoods would be enhanced by buildings on Edmonds Way. He said he is not certain where the neighbors heard there would be a 25% increase in traffic. The applicants would get more specific about the traffic impacts when and if a rezone application is submitted. The applicants propose that environmental issues be left up to the staff and Architectural Design Board to implement and incorporate sustainable design. He noted that each site along Edmonds Way is different and unique. Mike Nicefaro said his concerns related to noise were not about the traffic on Edmonds Way, but about the noise created by the proposed buildings. Development would not buffer this noise, and in fact, it would create an additional acoustical impact. He recalled that all but one of the Board Members were present when Mr. Shapiro told them that the peak of his proposed building at the corner of 232"d Street and Edmonds Way would be equal to the elevation of the utility pole that is located near the boundary of the property at the top of the hill. He noted that this utility pole dwarfs even the 2-story homes on the bench. Mr. Nicefaro agreed that the single-family residential properties abut each other, but Mr. Shapiro is proposing multi -family residential development that would look directly onto the single-family properties, and this should not be allowed. THE PUBLC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK AT 8:45 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 8:55 P.M Chair Freeman reminded the Board that the proposal is for the creation of a new zone and is not site specific. Board Member Henderson said he likes the idea of giving a little height bonus in exchange for developers constructing much of the parking within the building. He said he also likes the concept of allowing a building to be 25 feet higher than the single-family residential zone. However, he said he is not convinced that two new zones need to be created for Edmonds Way. Most of the geographical features are on Edmonds Way, and these properties would be allowed a greater height limit under the existing zoning just by averaging the four corners. Chair Freeman asked Mr. Chave to advise staff about the purpose of the two new zones. Mr. Chave said that, in most cities, the more intense development tends to be located along corridors such as Edmonds Way and Highway 99. In these corridors, the general rule should be to have a variety of zones that could be applied. He noted that in some locations along the Edmonds Way Corridor there are small differences in topography and in other areas the topographical changes are more dramatic. Where the topographical change is significant, it could be possible to allow additional height so long as it does not march up the hillside into the single-family residential neighborhoods. The proposed language would allow a developer to construct a building between the slope and Edmonds Way if it could be buffered adequately. Staff s interest was trying to see if there was a way to configure the zones to focus the additional density along Edmonds Way in exchange for additional buffering that would not otherwise occur between the single-family residential and commercial and multi -family developments. Mr. Chave said staff does not believe it is entirely clear that what the applicants want to accomplish is born out in the proposed zone language. He referred to Page 10 of the Staff Report and said it is staffs understanding that the applicants intend to do something in the multi -family zone along the lines of Diagram A. The 35-foot portion of the building would be against Edmonds Way, but the development should not be 35 feet as measured from the after grade near the slope. He noted that the diagram does not show the additional landscape requirement, either. The current multi -family residential zone would allow a height up to 35 feet with a pitched roof, and there would be no provision to make sure trees were preserved. The proposed multi -family residential zone would increase the height limit by 5 feet, but in exchange it would limit how high a building could go up the slope and require the retention of trees to provide more protection for the neighborhood. Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2006 Page 10 Mr. Chave reviewed that the proposed mixed -use zone would have a substantially greater height limit, and he is less clear that Diagram A is what would be applied in this zone. The properties along Edmonds Way are currently zoned BC, which has a height limit of 25 plus 5 feet. If a developer were to push the buildings back towards the slope, the current BC zone would probably allow additional height because of the way height is calculated in the City. The question is whether the proposal to add height in 5-foot increments in exchange for various things would be enough to justify the new zone. He encouraged the Board to carefully review the additional height proposed for the new mixed -use zone and what would be offered in exchange and then decide if this concept is something that would be appropriate for the Edmonds Way Corridor. Board Member Young agreed with Board Member Henderson that he does not see why the City needs two new zones. He cautioned that the Board could end up in a situation of having a private proponent come before the Board asking for a new zone to be created for just one piece of property. The existing zones were part of the Comprehensive Plan review, and if a new zone is going to be created, it should have city-wide application. While he understands that developing the properties on Edmonds Way can be difficult, the same is true for many other properties in the City. Because the Board does not have any policy direction nor any bench marks to measure the proposal against, he would be opposed to considering the proposed new zoning language at this time. In his mind, it is not clear that the proposed new zones would be better than the zones that already exist. He summarized that there must be some direction in the Comprehensive Plan to guide the Board's decision. Board Member Reed agreed with Board Member Henderson that there is really no need to create the new zones. While the proposed new EW-RM zone would only increase the height limit by 5 feet, the height increase would be substantially greater in the proposed new EW-BC zone, and he doesn't see a need for this significant change. Board Member Reed also expressed concern about parking in the proposed new zones. Mr. Chave explained that the City's current parking regulations would require the applicant to provide sufficient parking depending on the type of use proposed for a site. . Board Member Guenther said he was excited about several aspects of the proposal, particularly the bonus to give additional height and how it could be achieved. However, there are still some things that need to be worked out in that regard. He said he also likes the concept of trying to save trees, but he agreed with Board Member Young that they don't have any guidance in the Code for creating new zones. He said he would have a hard time supporting the proposal because it seems there should be a different mechanism, such as a master plan, for developing these properties. Chair Freeman said she found the proposed new zones interesting and could see benefits not only within the confines of the Edmonds Way Corridor, but for the residential benches, as well. The proposed zones would allow for innovative development that would protect the people living on the residential benches and address the unique situations that exist along the corridor. She noted that Edmonds Way is already a busy and noisy corridor, and innovative multi -family residential development in this location could provide much needed affordable housing for the City. She explained that if and when the applicants submit a site -specific rezone application to the City, the issue would come before the Board for a public hearing and recommendation. Because there are steep slopes on some properties along the corridor, she expressed her belief that it would be appropriate to allow development at the back of the properties to a maximum height that would not intrude on the residential homes. The view from residential areas would be protected, as well. Again, she emphasized that the City needs innovative housing, and she favors the staff recommendation to generally approve the proposed language. However, she emphasized that more work would be needed to iron out all of the details. Mr. Chave pointed out that, although the City Council has not specifically said they want to create new zones throughout the City, they did create specific zones for the downtown area that are different from other zones in the City. The City Council also indicated they wanted to develop different zones to apply to specific neighborhood business areas like Firdale Village and Five Corners. At this time, the Board the Board is being asked to consider if Edmonds Way is ready to have its own zone to recognize the unique characteristics. Board Member Henderson agreed there is some merit in having specific regulations in areas where there is high slope change. But rather than creating a new zone, it would be better to alter the existing zoning language to provide for these characteristics. For example, specific regulations could allow additional height in exchange for certain things. Board Member Young agreed. He reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan review process included totally objective consideration of all of the rules regarding the zones that have already been created. Again, he said he does not have any basis for approving the language because he has nothing to measure it against. December 13, 2006 Page I 1 Board Member Guenther recalled Mr. Chave's earlier explanation that the City has created specific zones for certain areas in the City, such as the downtown. Board Member Young clarified that the downtown zones were created as part of the Comprehensive Plan review. After significant public input, the Board recommended that the downtown area should be treated differently. He expressed his belief that it is not the City's responsibility to create new zones to meet the needs of individual property owners. Instead, the property owners must follow the requirements of the existing zones. Chair Freeman disagreed. She expressed her belief that the Board is responsible for helping people find ways to develop their properties. BOARD MEMBER YOUNG MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL DENY FILE NUMBER AMD-06-2 BECAUSE THERE ARE IS NO CRITERIA OR PROCESS BY WHICH TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE NEW ZONES. Mr. Chave explained that the City does have a process for creating new zones, so the Board must address whether or not the zone is consistent with or would implement the Comprehensive Plan goals. He further explained that all zoning in the City is intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the Board is dealing with existing zoning or considering a new zone, they must consider whether the proposal does or does not implement the Comprehensive Plan better than the existing zoning would. 13�7:�:7�731�IuT1:7R:i•[�IIL`[H`.Y4Il;L1Lllrll[6ytT/Ci � BOARD MEMBER YOUNG MOVED THAT BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT FILE NUMBER AMD-06-2 BE DENIED BECAUSE THE PROPOSED NEW ZONES WOULD NOT IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS FOR THE EDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR ANY MORE EFFECTIVELY OR ANY BETTER THAN THE EXISTING ZONING. BOARD MEMBER HENDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Again, Board Member Henderson expressed his belief that it would be better to add provision in the existing BC and RM zones to allow the developer to address topographical issues on properties in Edmonds. These specific provisions could be applied to give something to benefit the developer in exchange for additional buffer for the adjacent single-family residential properties. He said he would support the motion to deny the proposal. Board Member Guenther said that after hearing Mr. Chave's comments about the new zones that have been created in the City recently, it is clear that the City Council has not given any indication that this would be inappropriate. He said he would support the concept of creating two new zones because they appear to be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor. He said he would vote against the motion to deny the proposal. Board Member Reed referred to Page I I of the Staff Report, which describes how the proposal would or would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Staff Report points out staffs concern that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. He said he heard testimony that the proposed new zones could have an impact on traffic all along the corridor. He noted that one Comprehensive Plan goal for the Edmonds Way Corridor is to permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. He said he is concerned about traffic impacts, as well. Board Member Reed agreed with Board Member Henderson that what is trying to be accomplished by creating the new zones could also be accomplished in other ways. There are other tools in the City procedures that would possibly allow the City to accomplish the same concepts outlined in the proposal. He summarized that he does not like the idea of creating new zones, and he would vote in favor of the motion to deny. Chair Freeman said she would not vote in favor of the motion to deny the proposal. She agreed with the staff recommendation that they approve the creation of two new zones, but she admitted there are many things that need to be ironed out still 1 Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2006 Page 12 THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2, WITH BOARD MEMBERS HENDERSON, REED, AND YOUNG VOTING IN FAVOR AND CHAIR FREEMAN AND BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Mr. Chave advised that this item would go before the City Council for a public hearing sometime in January. Everyone who signed up on the list at the door would be sent a notice. PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE UPDATES REQUIRED TO INTEGRATE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REVISED DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS INTO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE Mr. Chave referred the Board to the current draft of the revised design review process and the draft design guidelines. He specifically noted the flow chart, which summarizes and compares the proposed "new" or "Up -Front" design review process with the current one employed by the City. Under the proposal, there would be two options for design review: general design review subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.11 and district -based design review subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.12. He explained that "general design review" would essentially be design review as it has been done for many years now. The "district -based design review" is a new process that would be applied to more and more areas of the City, eventually entirely replacing the current system as more specific design standards are incorporated into the City's codes and neighborhood -based plans. He summarized that District -based design review would push the Architectural Design Board review of a project to earlier in the'design stage before designs are more final in nature. It would be applicable when an area or district has adopted design guidelines or design standards that apply specifically within the area or district. General design review would apply to areas or properties that do not have specifically adopted design guidelines or standards. Board Member Reed noted that with the existing general design review process, public hearings do not occur at the beginning of the process. Mr. Chave explained that public hearings are required under the existing code for any project that exceeds the SEPA threshold. In order to gain ADB approval under the current review process, an applicant must provide a tremendous amount of design details. Therefore, the public hearing is not conducted until closer to the end of the design process when applicants are typically well along in their design phase. The new process in Chapter 20.12 would place the ADB review before the detailed designs are done. This would allow applicants to talk to the ADB about general issues such as massing before they get too far into the design process. Mr. Chave further explained that the new process outlined in Chapter 20.12 would include preliminary review of simple drawings. The second review would be done when more of the conceptual drawings were available. Board Member Guenther said that, using the new process, a developer would likely come to the ADB with a schematic design to address issues such as massing, access, etc. Mr. Chave added that the applicant could even present multiple options at the preliminary review. Mr. Chave referred the Board to the design guidelines that were created by the Architectural Design Board. He explained that although the document has been ready for Board review and a public hearing since March of 2006, staff has been waiting for direction from the City Council about what the new design review process should be. Al Rutledge said he supports the proposed design review process and the proposed design guidelines. However, he cautioned that the Board should be careful about allowing the City staff to make too many of the decisions without holding public hearings. Rick Utt, Chairman Pro Tern of the Architectural Design Board, referred to the flow chart provided in the Staff Report to illustrate the current and proposed new design review processes. He explained that the new design review process would require applicants to present their plans to the staff and ADB for review early in the design phase when the plans are preliminary. With the current design review process, applicants are typically very far along in the design phase before projects are ever presented to the ADB for review. Oftentimes, they have already hired architects, engineers, landscape architects, etc. and have invested a significant amount of time and money. There is always a significant risk that the Board will not approve the project as presented. As an architect, he said he supports the proposed new design review process, which would be much more efficient. Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2006 Page 13 Applicant's Response to Staff Comments Valhalla, LLC. December 13, 2006 Proposed New Multifamily Residential - Edmonds Way (RM-1.5) and Community Business - Edmonds Way (BC-E99 zones Re Staff Recommendation 1: The Staff Report raises questions regarding the applicant's intent with regard to building height adjacent to single family residential zones. In response to that concern, the applicant proposes modifying the proposed zone texts as follows: For the RM-EW zone, we propose adding an additional footnote to the table in ECDC 16.30.030, which would provide as follows: 8 The height bonuses provided in footnotes 6 and i are subject to the following limitation: where the proposed building immediately abuts a single family residential zone, such building shall not exceed a height of 25 feet as measured at the high point of adjoining property line. Where the subject RM-EW property is improved with more than one building, this restriction shall apply only to that building or those buildings that directly abut the single family residential zone, and shall not apply to other buildings on the property that are separated from the single family residential zone by another building or buildings. For the BD-EW zone, we propose adding another footnote to the table in ECDC 16.50.020, which would provide as follows: 5 The height bonuses provided in footnotes 3 and 4 are subject to the following limitation: where the proposed building immediately abuts a single family residential zone, the exterior wall(s) of such building that face(s) the single family residential zone shall not exceed a height of 25 feet as measured at the high point of the -adjoining property line; provided that the roof of such building may slope upwards at an angle up to 45 degrees from such exterior wall up to the maximum height authorized by this section, including any bonuses. Re Staff Recommendation 2: The Staff Report requests further clarification and commitment to using distinctive architectural features in order to qualify for an additional height bonus in the BC-EW zone. Consistent with Staffs recommendation, we suggest modifying footnote 4 to the table in ECDC 16.50.020 as follows: 4 In addition to any height bonus under note 3, the building may extend up to an additional five feet if all portions of the building above the height limit, (after adding the height bonus under note 3), integrate distinctive architectural features. For purposes of this section, a project shall be found to integrate distinctive architectural features if it includes use of at least three of the following five features: articulation, changes of materials, offsets, angles or curves of facades, or by the use of distinctive roof forms. Rezone Districts Edmonds Way 16.30 RM-EW: Multiple Residential 16.50 BC-EW: Community Business Comprehensive Plan Goals F. Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor... A major concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. ■ F.1. Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. 0 F.2. Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. ■ F.3. Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. ■ F.4. Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible. Comp Plan Map fy m "Aw 7X Till. -n � .roc � � �,- • �T :�� 7- r �'1��:� ��"'C "rye .ram :'yF r � ;R��.'Tr �- -a• i ��- r_J - ,.-� .��.�• �- iis � 1 - Y~�� ` �� -� - � R RM-EW Zone highlights: .. -'.h� i.�".�nG1"-ll�afC�RIM•-%�4AF4RlN'� ■ 6. The maximum base height of any building fronting on Edmonds Way may be increased to 30 feet if the ■ following apply to the site and proposed development: ■ (a) At least 50% of the parking for the subject building shall be enclosed inside a building or buildings; ■ (b) The subject property is a least 5 feet lower at its lowest elevation than any adjacent residential property measured at its lowest elevation; and ■ (c) The proposed development integrates low impact development techniques where reasonably feasible. For the purposes of this section, low impact development techniques shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: the use of bioswales, green roofs, and grasscrete. ■ 7. In addition to any height bonus under note 6, the building may extend up to an additional five feet if all portions of the roof above the height limit, (after adding the height bonus under Note 6), provide a minimum 15% slope or pitch. so 2 �a Proposed RM-EW i Zoning Bldg Ht grre.LF FLMILY N � 8R F FmlI y IP a SWI-E FAMIL, PAF L 514GLE FAMILY -ZG 1 0 Current RM-1.5 Zoning Max Bldg Ht �= F W-EW FICdIRE Z 5 l 4 2 Proposed BC-EW Zoning Bldg Ht 1 .vY Vr„ 1 Current BC Zoning Max Bldg Ht W-EW FICdIRE I F BC-EW Zone highlights: .. -'.h� i.�".�nG1"-ll�afC�RIM•-%�4AF4RlN'� ■ 6 The maximum base height of any building fronting on Edmonds Way may be increased to 30 feet if the following apply to the site and proposed development: ■ (a) At least 50% of the parking for the subject building shall be enclosed inside a building or buildings; ■ (b) The subject property is a least 5 feet lower at its lowest elevation than any adjacent residential property measured at its lowest elevation; and ■ (c) The proposed development integrates low impact development techniques where reasonably feasible. For the purposes of this section, low impact development techniques shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: the use of bioswales, green roofs, and grasscrete. ■ 7. In addition to any height bonus under note 6, the building may extend up to an additional five feet if all portions of the roof above the height limit, (after adding the height bonus under Note 6), provide a minimum 15% slope or pitch. 10 Comment to City of Edmonds Planning Board jtf From: Gary Gibson DEC " a "Ob 9302 231st Street S.W. CCUNTEB Edmonds, WA 98020 p�R►h4T Re: Application by A.D. Shapiro Architects for SGA Corporation for the creation of two new zones called "Multiple Residential — Edmonds Way" and "Community Business — Edmonds Way" Hearing Date: December 13, 2006 Foreword As a resident who has attended numerous meetings about the development of the Edmonds Way Corridor, I have become aware that many of my neighbors (and to a pomrn myself) are unclear on what elements of the zoning details are "water under the bridge" and what elements are now on the table for discussion. It seems, however, that if language is being proposed to re -write or over -write pNjaft zones, then it is appropriate for all elements of the zoning language to be open to debate, with the limitation that they be consonant with the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. If I veer off course in this regard, I offer my apologies in advance and request clarification It is recognized by the residents that it is the goal of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan to increase density and use along Edmonds Way. (Indeed, development is already taking place, as evidenced by the large development underway at Edmonds Way and 238h). While the residents of the area understand that it is in the city's interest to increase density in certain portions of the city in order to accommodate and stimulate growth, it is vital that: 1) development be kept to density levels that do not negatively impact the nearby single family residence neighborhoods 2) development preserves the existing. tree -lined "parkway" character of Edmonds Way, 3) development be consistent with the more general, quaint character of Edmonds as a ciy, and, 4) general density levels along Edmonds Way are no greater than allowed in other pgrLof the city, in particular the downtown region, where the highest density conventionally belongs. Density Levels: Much of the property along Edmonds Way is currently either undeveloped or contains single family homes. In response to the Comprehensive Plan's goal of increasing density and services along Edmonds Way, it is logical to assume that many of these properties will be purchased for development for either the Multiple Residential (RM), Community Business (BC) or Neighborhood Business (BN) uses, the latter two offering the potential for mixed use incorporating multi -family housing. Considering, therefore, the amount of acreage that will have its density increased, it is crucial that the new zones' allowable density is carefully considered. With the potential for so much acreaee to be rezoned in one neighborhood from very low density to potentially maximum density, allowing one dwelling unit per 1,500 s.f of lot area (29 units per acre) would have lasting negative consequences. It is my understanding that 29 units per acre (RM 1.5) is the highest density that the City of Edmonds allows anywhere. Since new zones are being proposed for Edmonds Way, the Planning Department should take the opportunity to lower the allowable denso levels before the flurry of development begins to take its toll on the neighborhoods that line Edmonds Way. Once maximum density levels are achieved, there is no turning back. Therefore, proceeding with measured incremental increases in density is advisable. A recent and familiar case study of what the impacts of this level of density can have is found in the proposed development at Edmonds Way and 23rd (and extending northwest along Edmonds Way). This development would add 60 new dwelling units and commercial space where there were four single family homes. The traffic engineering consultant hired by the developer estimated that traffic increase on 232°d Street attributable to the new development would be roughlly 25%. That's the impact of one single development on a neighboring street. Multiply that by even a small number, and the burden on the neighborhoods all along Edmonds Way balloons to unacceptable levels very quickly. In a recent drive on Edmonds Way from the Aurora underpass to 232°d Street S.W., I counted roughly 18 lots that were either undeveloped, or developed as single-family residences. This does not count any property northtnorthwest of 232d Street and Edmonds Way (Le., the proposed development at 232°d and Edmonds Way), nor does it include any existing multi -family units that are older or in disrepair that are also strong candidates for re -development. I do not know the acreage of the properties involved, but it is substantial. It is vital that if Edmonds Way is to have a higher percentage of area zoned for business, multiple residential. or mixed use, that the specific zones being written take into account the higher percentage of land used for this purpose and adjust the allowed density levels downward accordinely. The proposed Multiple Residential — Edmonds Way Zone, has a maximum of 1 unit per 1500 s.f of lot space (or, RN1. Considering the amount of new acreage that the RM and BC (mixed use) zones will be applied to, a maximum density of RM 3.0 should be enforced to ensure that development is at levels that the surrounding neighborhoods can handle. The "Character" of the Edmonds Way Corridor Some attention has been paid to the issues pertaining to the preservation of the Edmonds Way Corridor's character. Edmonds Way is a moderate -to -heavily -forested, "parkway" - like road that most of its residents (and virtually all of its visitors) use to enter the city. While it is true that the road is something of a "diamond in the rough" currently, with little patches of properties here and there presenting themselves in less -than -flattering ways, the road is generally a great asset to the city aesthetically. When coming home from a hot summer day in Seattle or the eastside, the temperature drops noticeably just after passing under Aurora. The air gets noticeably cleaner -smelling. And, for the fast time in miles, the driver is embraced by tall stands of trees on both sides of the road The character of this road played no small part in my decision to purchase a home here fifteen years ago. I am, therefore, very concerned about the way that this corridor is developed. By limiting the scale of new developments, including the maximum footprint size for each individual structure (apart from the maximum lot coverage), the preservation of significant stands of trees can be achieved, while creating neighborhood businesses and multiple family residences that seem more integrated into the communities they introduce. Smaller, quainter structures can be built in and amongst the stands of trees, reducing the number of trees sacrificed, with parking areas creatively nestled between trees (such as can be found in Yost Park) or under the structures. These ideas are consonant with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and would be much more in keening with the character of both Edmonds Way and Edmonds. But it will require a smaller scale approach to development than is currently proposed The Edmonds Way Corridor as Gateway to Edmonds It is important to bear in mind that apart from being a neighborhood unto its own, the Edmonds Way Corridor is also the primary link between I-5 and downtown Edmonds (and the ferry and train terminals). Visitors to our fair city get their first impressions of Edmonds as soon as they_pass under Aurora. Allowing levels of density and heights as proposed by the applicant misses the opportunity to provide continuity and a welcoming feel to visitors and residents in the drive from the freeway to downtown Edmonds. The city has gone to great lengths in the downtown region to preserve its identity as a quaint town, with flower boxes and plantings on the corners, and strict limits on the scale of buildings. This same feel can be (and should be) achieved in the Edmonds Way Corridor, while still satisfying the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Allowing structures up close to the street that have horizontal and vertical mass on the scale as currently proposed will not allow for this continuity to be attained. Under the applicant's proposed language, the type of building seen in the conceptual drawing below (one of the applicant's own buildings), could wind up on virtually every street corner (wherever BC or BN zones are allowed) on Edmonds Way. This building would tower over Edmonds Way, and, with the theme repeated, would create the effect of a glass and steel "tunnel"... ..hardly in character with the quaint Edmonds ambience. Fairness in who bears the burden of higher density I know of no other place in Edmonds that is facing such a large potential change in density. To take so much real estate and convert it from either undeveloped or single family to the highest density allowed in Edmonds would be an enormous and unfair burden to the surrounding neighborhoods. The city's need to provide more housing and more efficient use should be home by all areas of the cft starting with the downtown region. To allow higher density on the outskirts of the city than in the downtown region makes no sense, and is counter to the conventions of urban design As recent "annexes" into the City of Edmonds, many of my neighbors and I are resentful that our neighborhood has been especially set aside for maximum density development before other, more appropriate areas have been so developed Special Considerations for 232nd Street The residents of my particular neighborhood face an especially highburden urden if the level of development as proposed is allowed. 232' Street is the only through street from Edmonds Way to Firdale/lOe. (See map below). Most residents in our neighborhood (and many residents that live nearby or on side streets) use 232°d to access the commercial areas at Westgate (Edmonds Way and 100d`) or Firdale Village, or to go to any points past the Westgate intersection, such as downtown Edmonds. We do not use Edmonds Way because it is too difficult to turn left onto Edmonds Way from 232nd, it is a more circuitous route, and there are more traffic lights. 232od Street S.W. is undeniably a cut -through between Edmonds Way and 100*. If there's any question about 232°d Street being a cut -through, simply ask the fire department personnel at Station #20 which route they take when responding to emergencies in the Firdale area. As mentioned before, the affects of just one single development at the corner of 232nd and Edmonds Way has the projected impact of increasing traffic on 232°d by 25%. And this doesn't even factor in greater density within the neighborhood itself from subdivision, new development proposed at Firdale Village, increased usage at the old Edmonds- Woodway high school, or additional development on Edmonds Way. This affects everyone in this neighborhood, all the wy down to 100'h, where the traffic piles up at the stop sign attempting to turn left onto 100 , or right towards Westgate. Residents have taken notice of recent traffic increases on 232"d already. High density development on Edmonds Way (and similar development at Firdale Village) would surely affix 232°d as one of the busiest and most dangerous neighborhood streets in Edmonds. A Proposal for How to Move Forward For as long as I've been paying attention, and to the best of my knowledge, every other city I've ever lived in has had a much different procedure for the creation of new zones. It has been my previous experience that, in the interest of responsible, sustainable growth for a city, the city's planning department is charged with acting in the public interest, authoring themselves the language of new zones in conference with and in response to the concerns of the city, developers, and residents. If the Planning Deoarnnent is unsatisfied that current zoning standards adequately allow responsible and sustainable growth on Edmonds Way. why haven't they themselves modified the codes? By allowing parties outside the government to submit, for serious consideration, regardless of the& motive or Position, language to over -write zoning definitions already established, does the department then not also have the remonsibility to accent such submissions from anv and all narties, includine, for example, residents. for the same level of consideration? On the basis of this one point alone the cuff ent application should be denied or a decision delayed until the process of how these determinations are made is reviewed and revised. Any claim that the residents have already had adequate input in the process in the "consensus" meeting(s) with the applicant are, quite simply, false. In the first neighborhood meeting I attended (in early September), concerns raised about the building height, density, traffic flow, and general scale were quickly tossed aside. These concerns, reDeatedl rx aised in each subsequent meeting that I attended, were consistently ignored. While the applicant did make an effort to respond to minor, easily addressed concerns, he has proven his unwillingness to eenume1v address the more fimdamental concerns brought forth by the residents at the meetings. To adopt the applicant's language for the entire Edmonds Wav Corridor is not in the interest of the city nor the residents of the area. Faithfiilly submittt Gary Gibson Michael A. Nicefaro Jr. 9230 — 232"d Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 December 13, 2006 Mr. Rob Chave, Planning Director City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 Fifth Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: AMD706-2 Proposed Rezone Multi -family Residential/Community Business Edmonds Way Dear Mr. Chave: I am writing on behalf of myself and my family, who reside at 9230 232"d Street SW. Our single family residential home is within 1000 feet of the proposed development and rezone, near the corner of Edmonds Way and 232"d Street SW. We are strongly opposed to the proposed rezone for reasons detailed below. I. The Proposed Rezone Will Substantially Increase Density The proposed rezone seeks to increase maximum height for RM 1.5 buildings from the current 30 foot maximum to a new 35 foot maximum. The proposed rezone seeks to increase the maximum height for BC buildings from the current 25 foot maximum to a new 45 foot maximum. Since the BC zoning on the corner of Edmonds Way and 232"d Street SW allows mixed BC and RM 1.5 use, the developer would be able to, and in fact proposes to "stack" its uses at this location with mixed commercial and multifamily residential structures. These structures will be 80% higher (45' as opposed to 25'), and as a result, 80% greater in density than the structures currently permitted under the existing zoning. The current zoning limits the number of units by the amount of parking allowed. By stacking their development under the proposed new zoning heights, the developers will be able to substantially increase the number of residential units as well as putting in their desired commercial offices in the ground floor. Effectively, this means that they will be able to have a combined structure that is not only much higher than that currently permitted, but much more dense than the combination of their property features and zoning currently allow. This greater density will have a profound and negative impact on the character of Edmonds Way, and on the neighboring single family residential community. Mr. Rob Chave Page - 2 - December 13, 2006 II. The Proposed Rezone Will Have Profound Impact Character of Edmonds Way Edmonds Way currently consists of older single family residential, neighborhood business, and multifamily residential uses. The Comprehensive Plan calls for future development to be neighborhood business (BN), community business (BC), and multifamily residential (RM 1.5 and lower densities). The maximum height allowed for these commercial and business zones is 25 feet. The maximum height allowed for the multifamily zones is 30 feet. The developer's properties on Edmonds Way are bordered by single family residential (SFR) properties. These SIR properties are zoned as such, and the Comprehensive Plan contemplates that they will continue to be used in that way. These homes are built on topographic benches that run 20 or more feet above the level of Edmonds Way. The Edmonds zoning ordinance provides that it is intended: To protect the character and the social and economic stability of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses within the city, and to ensure the orderly and beneficial development of those uses ,by: 1. Preserving and retaining appropriate areas for each type of use; 2. Preventing encroachment into those areas by incompatible uses; and 3. By regulating the use of individual parcels of land to prevent unreasonable detrimental effects of nearby uses. ECDC 16.00.010. Allowing the proposed new zoning classifications will contravene each and every one of these purposes in the Edmonds zoning ordinance. The existing zoning classifications, with their reasonable and effective height limitations, work to "preserve and retain appropriate areas for each type of use." The proposed new zoning classifications will permit "encroachment into [abutting uses] by the sheer size and density impact that will follow from the intensified and repugnant and "incompatible uses." Finally, the proposed new zoning classifications will cause "unreasonable detrimental effects to nearby uses", particularly to those of us who live in single family residences near by the proposed new zoned properties. A. Visual Impact on Edmonds Way Users The proposed 80% increase in height limitations for community business and multifamily residences along Edmonds Way will profoundly change the character of Edmonds Way. Currently, Edmonds Way is lined by three story multifamily residential structures or single story commercial structures. These uses are consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the others uses in the community. If the developers are allowed to build multifamily zoned structures to 35 feet, or combined use structures 45 feet, users of Edmonds Way will travel in a canyon of high-rise multiuse structures on corners and any other parcels zoned BC. Mr. Rob Chave Page - 3 - December 13, 2006 B: Impact on Single Family Residences Above Edmonds Way Since Edmonds Way is in a depressed trough below the homes, the current neighborhood business and commercial and multifamily (with a few exceptions) uses currently enjoy a natural separation from each other. Built to the current maximum of 25 or 30 feet (BC and MR respectively), the current uses do not conflict with each other. The more intense Edmonds Way uses are buffered from the single family residences by the topography. The Edmonds Way uses look into landscaping on their parcels along the wall below the SIR bench. The SFR homes look out over the rooftops of the more intense Edmonds Way uses. If the developer's request to raise the maximum building height to 45 feet is allowed, residents of single family residences on the bench above Edmonds Way will look into the windows of multifamily residential units. Depending on topography, the single family residential homeowners may even be looking up at the windows of the multifamily units. The developer offers to "mitigate" this increased proximity impact by trying to preserve some of the existing trees on the edges of its property, but this will be wholly ineffective. Even assuming that these trees could be saved during the development, they could shield only a small percentage of the multifamily from the abutting single family residential uses. The proposed tree buffer will have no effect on increased noise generated by the towering multifamily units. One has only to look at the sound walls that had to be constructed along I-5 to appreciate that trees do not buffer noise. III. The Proposed Rezone Will Have Profound Impact On Traffic on 232"d Street SW People who live in the single family residences along and around the rural 232"d Street SW are aware of its character, including its many limitations. The roadway has two narrow lanes. The roadway has no continuous shoulders, and no sidewalks. There are streetlights, but they do not illuminate the road well in rainy conditions, which are common in the fall, winter and spring. There are many rolling hills along 232"d Street. The peaks and valleys of the road are so extreme that cars in the opposite lane, and pedestrians walking along the side of the road are intermittently hidden from view of oncoming drivers. In spite of the limitations of 232"d many pedestrians use it. Residents of the neighborhood and beyond jog along it, ride their bicycles along it, and walk their dogs along it. Still more resident bus commuters walk it in the dark mornings and evenings to and from the Community Transit bus stop nearby on Edmonds Way. Students and others walk along 232"d in the early moming hours enroute to the Old Woodway High School located on the hill above 100u Street, near Westgate. As neighborhood residents, we can attest to many times when we have been surprised while making a left turn by a fast moving oncoming car that suddenly materializes from over one of the many hills along 232"d; or by a pedestrian suddenly materializes out of the gloom from along the roadway. The developer's rezone promises to increase the load on this already marginal road, and in turn multiply the existing conflicts and attendant risks. Mr. Rob Chave Page - 4 - December 13, 2006 The developer's traffic engineer has admitted that the development will increase traffic on 232"d Street SW by 25%. This conclusion considers only trips generated by the development itself, and not any secondary increase in traffic by local intersection improvements or other elevated travel appeal presented by the development. This increased traffic will substantially increase the existing safety risks that exist on 232"d Street. The proposed high -density development will have a profound and negative impact on traffic elsewhere along 232d Street as well. Under the proposed rezone, the developer plans to have the high density, commercial/multifamily stacked structures at the corner of Edmonds Way and 232" Street SW exit to 232"d Street SW, just opposite to the existing intersection of 92"d Avenue and 232"d Street SW. This will multiply the existing unsafe conflicts at this intersection, which is blind to traffic traveling east on 232"d, toward Edmonds Way. Because the way that 232"d Street rises to the west of 92"d Street, there is little sight distance between eastbound drivers on 232"d and left and right turning vehicles from 92"d. Putting a driveway opposite 92"d will multiply those conflicts exponentially. IV. The Proposed New Zones Require An EIS The Planning Divisions Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations (FC&R) states, at Page 3, that the proposed new zoning classifications will have no greater significant adverse impact on the environment than the original proposal, which the Department gave a declaration of non -significance (DNS). We strongly disagree with this conclusion. As discussed above, the proposed new zoning classifications (BC & MR) will permit every BC zoned property along Edmonds Way to build up to an 80% increase in height over the existing zoning, with resultant increase in population density and use that will have a substantial negative impact on Edmonds Way, and also the neighboring communities that surround it. This circumstance does not qualify as "non -significant". V. Conclusion The developer's proposal to redefine the existing BC and MR zones along Edmonds Way is inconsistent with the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, contrary to the stated purpose of the Edmonds Zoning Code, and will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The proposed new zones will allow many properties along Edmonds Way to vertically intrude on the neighboring single family residences. By their substantially increased density, the new zones will also severely compromise existing roads that, by the developer's own traffic engineering estimates, will be burdened by a 25% increase traffic. The proposal should be rejected. Sincerely, A Q Michael A. Nicefaro Jr. v D uc 13 2006 PERMIT COUNTER December 12a` 2006 Edmonds Development Services Department: As someone who lives on 232nd Street, I am concerned about the plan by developers to rezone the plots along Edmonds Way. I'm all for some development along Edmonds Way, as long as it's done in a way that's in sync with the character of Edmonds. To expand the building height limits by 25 feet will be unsightly. As someone who travels along 232"a Street by car and occasionally on foot, the prospect of having 25 to 50% more traffic traveling along 232`'d Street from the proposed high -density development concerns me from both a pedestrian and as a driver standpoint. I'm concerned about turning left onto Edmonds Way from 232nd Street and from Edmonds Way onto 232nd Street. I ask that you please maintain the current laws and zoning limits on development. along Edmonds Way. Sincerely, Melissa Weissman 9406 232nd Street SW #B Edmonds, WA 98020-5088 206-542-0394 chloeweiss(gnsn-eom r DEC 12 2006 December 12, 2006 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 — 5`s Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Proposed development on 232nd St SW and Hwy 104 Dear Development Departrnerrt: Please be advised that I strongly object to the proposed zoning lanuage that would allow the planned four story development at 232n" St SW & Hwy 104. Other than being an eyesore soaring four stories tall, the planned development of 60 apartments &. townhouses will add much congestion to that intersection which has encountered a large number of traffic accidents, injuries and even deaths. This concentration of additional traffic will also over burden 232d given it has been used and abused as a short curt between Hwy 104 and 100'h Ave SE. The traffic will certainly take away from the neighborhood feel, making 232"a a very busy street, well beyond its intended purpose and reasonable capacity. I strongly urge you to make the right decision by telling this developer to reduce their plans in half in order to get any future consideration. Sincerely, Charles Naslund 9529 — 232nd St SW Edmonds, WA 98020 206-542-8120 December 12, 2006 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 City of Edmonds Planning Board: I am writing to express my concern and opposition to the requested creation of 2 new zones, Community Business - Edmonds Way and Multiple Residential - Edmonds Way, to be specifically applied to the Edmonds Way Corridor. My primary opposition is to the proposal to raise the maximum height allowed for buildings in the Community Business (BC) and Multiple Residential (RM) zones to 45 feet and 35 feet respectively. Why should buildings of this height be foisted on our primarily residential neighborhood when they aren't even allowed in downtown Edmonds? Why should we be protected from oversized buildings any less than the good folks downtown? Is it because we don't have "a view"? I believe the development of the Edmonds Way Corridor, which in itself is not inherently a bad thing, should be held to the height restrictions already in place. If this zone is created, consider the possbilitly of a canyon of 45 foot high buildings lining Edmonds Way and ask yourselves if this is what you want for Edmonds. Is this in keeping with the character of Edmonds, or, more specifically, with the character of our quiet, wooded neighborhoods bordering Edmonds Way? A general purpose of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), as stated in 16.00.010 B, is "to protect the character ...of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses within the city..." I ask that you keep that in mind when ruling on this zone application. I am also extremely concerned about the higher density that would be possible if higher buildings were allowed and the increase in traffic that would generate on neighboring roads. In particular, the proposed project at Edmonds Way and 232nd is a concern. Increased traffic will have a negative impact on 232nd, an already well -traveled cut -through from Edmonds Way to Firdale/100th. The developer's own traffic consultant acknowledged that this development alone would generate an increase of 25% along 232nd, and played that number down as relatively insignificant. I disagree. I also wonder if that estimate is on the low end, and would hope the city will study this before making a final decision. 232nd is a dark, 2-lane road with no shoulder, already somewhat dangerous to negotiate on foot, even in the daytime. And, most people on the road are driving much faster than the 25 mph speed limit. More traffic makes it just that more dangerous for our neighborhood. Another general purpose of the ECDC, as stated in 16.10.000 D, is "to minimize traffic congestion ...by relating the size and density of new buildings to the land around them, the capacity of nearby streets..." Please consider the impact on the neighborhood streets when deciding on this application for new zones on the Edmonds Way Corridor. Lastly, it appears the architect/development partner of the proposed project at Edmonds Way and 232nd has been the actual author of the language of the 2 new zones being considered for the Edmonds Way Corridor. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems, at best, a little sketchy, since the passage of these zones would benefit him financially (taller buildings = more profit for the development co,). Does the City of Edmonds typically allow developers to decide how tall our buildings will be? I hope not. Sincerely, Julie McCoy Gibson 9302 231st St. 5W Edmonds, WA 98020 (206)542-1960 December IP, 2006 Edmonds Development Services Department: Ls`y1i, a 2006 PERMIT COUNTER I am concerned about the plan by developers to rezone the plots along Edmonds Way. While some development is appropriate along Edmonds Way, it. should be done in a way that is in sync with the character of the City of Edmonds. To expand the building height. limits by 20 feet will be a large eyesore to the communities along Edmonds Way. Also of concern is the increased building density that the developers are proposing, especially on the north corner of Edmonds Way and 232` d Street SW. As someone who walks along 2327d Streetevery morning to catch the bus to work, the prospect of having 25 to 50010 more traffic going along 232"d Street from the proposed high -density development unsettles me. I have to dodge enough cars as it is along 2327d and to have up to 50 percent more traffic to watch out for is not. something I want to have to live with. I ask that you please maintain the current laws and zoning limits on development along Edmonds Way and not allow this area to be rezoned for rampant development I believe that moderate and modest development along Edmonds Way will benefit everyone, uncontrolled development will not. Sincerely, Scott R Bridge 9406 232"d Street. SW #B Edmonds, WA 98020-5088 206-542-0394 srbridgO9 L€u,yahoo_com December 12, 2006 Cito of Edwi.owds DeveLopK ewt serv+.ces Departvu ewt 121 -Fifth Ave. North 1501MOwds, WA98020 To Whom It Mao Cowcerw: Md fawkild Moved to C-01MOmds about 13 Dears ago, our hovu.e Ls Located at 922s-2s2" st sw. our honce, Ls Located ow the bLu f f right above the 232"a St t>roject. owe of the features that we UIP-0 the best is our privacU Lw our baoledard, with mo LntrusLons of other homes Looleiwg dowm iw ow us. We wawt UOR to 12wow that we are mot opposed to iw,,provevm&,Lts atomg the Eolmowds Wad corridor but we do mot agree with the dewsLtd or the height that Mr. shapiro Ls requesting. We are wowderimg who this properto Ls the exception to the rule. The proposed developmewt does mot fit Lw our neighborhood Lt Ls mot a good represemtatLow of downtoww G-01mom01s. We uwderstawd that tra f fi,c studies have beew dove 61Low0 the corridor, but those are owGJ, studies. Those of us who LLve ow 2s2 st. 12mDW what tra foie reaUto reaUd is. DW Sou %mOw that there Ls not another street that goes direetto through to Tooth, do 1oou IeVWw that the Fire Departvmewt uses this road, do 00u lewow that there are pLaws to use the "oLd t-tLgh Sr hool^ Lw the wear future, ow a much larger scale. MU sow awol I waLle our dogs awd 1 have got to tell you. 232" is a narrow, two Lawe road that Ls poortd LLt wLth wo sLde waLles and downright dawgerous. If UOR allow this devdopvmewt to proceed, with 60 uwits Uou caw figure 2 veh' Les per uwit or an addittowaL 12o veh,Les, possible vuore. our me%ghborhood street eawwot hawdLe the Lncrease Lw tra f fie volume. if do" are UIee me I mevertalee a teft hawd term owto WA:LO+, I have a famLLU that weeds Me. sLwcereL,�, Demise Remfrow December 11, 2006 Lori Kutrich 9310 234`h St SW Edmonds, WA 98020 City of Edmonds Development Services Dept. 121— Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear City of Edmonds Development Services Dept., I am writing out of concern about the proposed development to be allowed along Edmonds Way. Having lived in Edmonds the last 46 years I am very committed to our community and have chosen to live here because of the quality of life I am able to have here and the relationships and history I have with the people here. I am a teacher in the Edmonds School Dist. and all of my children have gone through school here. I understand that you are considering changing the language and restrictions that go along with my neighborhood zoning. With the possibility of allowing much higher density along such a long strip of road comes the potential of a huge increase in traffic. I live right off of 232"a and use it frequently. School children walk my roads as they walk to Madrona and to bus stops to go the other schools. It is common for many walkers and bike riders to use our streets. Even without having more traffic, I know I have had to jump out of the way to safety on numerous occasions on streets with no sidewalks or shoulders. To allow developments that would adversely affect the existing neighborhoods is counterproductive to enhancing the Edmonds lifestyle. We may not be the community members with the views, but we still should have a voice in what comes into our city. About seven years ago I did vote to be annexed into Edmonds, believing it would bring us better support. I'm beginning to see why Esperance has opposed annexation. I ask you to listen carefully to the voice of the neighborhood and seek what is keeping with why people choose to live in Edmonds. I do realize that change is inevitable, but I believe the change can be carefully channeled to have even Edmonds Way be a gateway into our city that is in keeping with its quality and charm. Spot changes to code and listening to just the developers will not lead us to benefit Edmonds in the long run. 232"a and its surrounding streets can not handle the traffic that would come with the proposed development. Reasonable limits must be put into place to ensure safety and the Edmonds flavor. Thanks for carefully considering any planning language that would be detrimental to our neighborhood. Sincerely, Lori Kutrich August 29, 2006 Subject: Proposed Criterion for RM-232vd/Edmonds Way Rezone Project 232nd Street Town Homes RM-232nd Edmonds Way Rezone 540o FAR 778.3032 AUG 2 9 2006 PLANNING DEPT. We propose a new zoning ordinance, RM-232^d Edmonds Way, to better meet neighborhood and community goals for housing and commerce consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan of the City of Edmonds. Specifically, this ordinance would encourage the development of projects desired by the immediate neighborhood, replacing substandard structures with attractive new homes, increasing the safety and value of the neighborhoods. The RM-232nd/ Edmonds Way designation is based on the existing RM-1.5 zone, designed to better address the goals and site conditions found outside of Downtown where traffic flow, topography and development patterns support a different approach to the development of the sub -areas, such as Edmonds Way Corridor. Purposes: The RM-232nd Edmonds Way purposes are based on the RM- Multiple Residential Purposes found in section 16.30.000 of the Zoning Ordinance. A. To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the singe -family residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment. B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. Uses: The RM-232nd Edmonds Way Rezone shares the same permitted primary uses and secondary uses as outlined in section 16.30.010 of the RM Zone Ordinance. The R A-232nd Edmonds Way Rezone would have modified development standards, and comply with Design Review Criteria. Site Developing Standards: A. Table Ninvmum Lot Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Maxunum Minimum Area per Street Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Height Coverage Parking Spaces dwelling unit °/n Per Unit RM-:23Z' None 15, 10' 15' 35' 45% 2* E.0pol t * See Chapter 17.50 ECDC for specific parking requirements. Parking will not be permitted in the street set back areas. B. Environmentally sustainable, green elements would be encouraged, include features such as: Page 2 August 25, 2006 RM-232°d/Edmonds Way Rezone Amendment • Rain gardens • Pervious paving (if the land accommodates) • Planting strips • Bio-filtration swales • Landscaped courtyards C. Design Elements: developments should be encouraged to include design features such as: • Front door facing street • Chimney element • Trim on all windows and doors • Landscaping to soften project aesthetics as well as provide environmental benefits D. Density of housing should be allowed up to the number of parking stalls provided in the complex. E. Roof Top Decks: if roof decks are incorporated, the safety requirements (railings), and portions of roof over stairways shall be permitted to exceed maximum height by the following: • Railings:3'6' • Roofs:8'6' • Or as required by the code for safety NARRATIVE ADDRESSING PROPOSED AMENDMENT I. Comprehensive Plan: how the RM-232nd Edmonds Way zoning is consistent with the general intensions and goals of the Comprehensive Plan for many specific sub- areas. The following excerpts are taken from the Edmonds Way Corridor section of the Comprehensive Plan. Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor. `This corridor server as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate S. Established residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. " Housing is among the primary goals, needs and uses along Edmonds Way. Demand for housing in this corridor is demonstrated by the high occupancy of condominiums and other residential properties in the area. The Edmonds Way Corridor is well suited to high density housing with convenient access to major arterials and local businesses. Adopting the RM- 232nd Edmonds Way zoning criteria would provide development standards on this site to facilitate more condominium, town home and multiple -family housing to better meet the changing housing needs, meeting both Comprehensive Planning goals as well as neighborhood goals and concurrently meeting growth management act obligations. As outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2020 contains several Regional Goals and Concepts that connect to the proposed RM-232nd Edmonds Way Rezone. The following excerpts are taken Comprehensive Plan language addressing Vision 20220: • A. `Provide a pedestrian -oriented streeticape environment for residential and commercial activity. " • B. `Encourage mixed -use development patterns that provide a variety of commercial and residential opportunities, including both multi family and small -lot single family development. " Page 3 August 25, 2006 RM-232"a/Edmonds Way Rezone Amendment • D. `Encourage transit service and access. " RM-232nd Edmonds Way criteria supports the Comprehensive Plan as well as Vision 2020 goals by providing extensive multi -family housing with transit service and access. The goals for sub- areas outside of Downtown are better met through the RM-232nd Edmonds Way zoning that the RM zoning. Site developing standards ensure pedestrian friendly streetscape meeting neighborhood goals for a safely walk -able Edmonds Way. II. Zoning. how the proposal is consistent with the zoning districts and general zoning. The following excerpts are taken from Section 16.30.000 of the RM-Multiple Residential section of the Zoning Ordinance. Purposes: `The RM done has the following speck purposes. " • A. `To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the sing family residential tZone, while still maintaining a residential environment. " • B. `To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. " Much of the Edmonds Way Corridor is zoned RM-1.5 designation. The proposed RM- 232nd Edmonds Way designation is adapted from RM-1.5 with modifications supporting development results consistent with neighborhood goals and the adopted comprehensive plan objectives. RM-232nd Edmonds Way shares the purpose of the RM-1.5 zone, , to provide "a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities," and the modifications provide for increased variety and density to meet the needs of a broader range of Edmonds residents. RM- 232nd Edmonds Way zone encourages environmentally friendly features and helps ensure quality design features. This new zone strongly encourages extensive sustainable, green technologies such as rain gardens and bio-filtration swales, as well as providing development standards supporting pedestrian friendly, neighborhood complimentary design, such as front doors facing the street. The proposed RM-232nd Edmonds Way Rezone is consistent with the general zoning regulations outlined in Title 17 of the Edmonds Municipal Code. RM-232nd Edmonds Way is adapted from RM-1.5 and shares the majority of the site developing standards, purposes, uses, and operating restrictions. III. Review Criteria and Procedure: Currently Edmonds is working on several zone and Comprehensive Plan changes. Both Five Corners and Firdale Village are undergoing strategic planning to support new development that meets the needs of those neighborhoods, including revising the Comprehensive Plan and consequently the Zoning Ordinance to meet the newly articulated goals. The following excerpt is taken from a City Planning Memorandum dated May 5, 2006: • `The Economic Development Department recommended that the neighborhood commercial areas be reviewed far possible improvements to the existing Comprehensive Plan designation and honing. Several property owners from the Five Corners and Firdale Village business districts have indicated that the regulations are -extremely limiting to redevelopment, and even to the selection of tenants. Staff found that the Camp. Plan Designations and accompanying.7oning regulations had not been reviewed in manyyears, and that they seemed to encourage more outdated "strip mall" development than the new mixed -use "village style "developments popular now in other communities. " RM-232nd Edmonds Way seeks to meet the neighbors goals for new developments in targeted high traffic, higher density areas outside of downtown. It provides a zoning Page 4 August 25, 2006 RM-232"dfEdmonds Way Rezone Amendment designation permitting more flexibility in to encouraging features such as sustainable green technologies and pedestrian friendly street frontages. Other areas of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are also being revised. The following is taken from the City of Edmonds Planning Division Web Site: `The City of Edmonds completed updates to its Comprehensive Plan and ids Critical Areas regulations during 2004... updating its projections to accommodate a new set of population forecasts to 2025. The Edmonds City Council updated single family Zoning regulations to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The updates include new RS-10 and RS MP hones. " Edmonds expects a continuation of population influx over the next 20 years. To better adapt to the housing need, Edmonds is exploring ways to update the housing regulations as exemplified with the RS-10 and RS-MP updates. To attain the maximum use of residential property Edmonds while preserving the well established neighborhoods and their lower density character can be accomplished in part through adoption of the RM-232nd Edmonds Way code. This allows developments with greater density where it is a fit, minimizing the pressure on well established neighborhoods to decrease their lot sizes to accommodate growth management act mandates.. RM-232nd Edmonds Way addresses the issues and integrates standards that allow greater maximum height, ensures environmentally progressive development with quality -designed features in locations where it compliments the surrounding neighborhoods. In areas where traffic patterns, historical development trends and topography support it, the RM-232nd Edmonds Way code will be an important tool for the City and it's neighborhoods to meet a broad range of goals. August 29, 2006 €25-778.5400 FAX 7783032 Subject: Proposed Criterion for RM-232'd/Edmonds Way Zone Project: 232"d Street Town Homes RM-232nd Edmonds Way Zone Criterion Minimum Lot Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum M nimum Area per Street Setback Side Rear Height Coverage Parking Spaces dwelling unit Setback Setback / Per Unit RM-7,32'f None 15' 10, 15' 35' 45% 2* L�� * See Chapter 17.30 ECDC far specificparking requirements. Parking will not be permitted in the street set back areas. A. Environmental/Green Requirements: developments should be encouraged to include Green Features such as: • Rain gardens ■ Pervious paving (if the land accommodates) • Planting strips ■ Bio-filtration swales • Landscaped courtyards B. Design Elements: developments should be encouraged to include design features such as: • Front door facing street ■ Chimney element • Trim on all windows and doors C. Density of housing should not bet tied to land area, but to the number of parking stalls provided in the complex. D. Roof Top Decks: if occupied roof decks are incorporated, the safety requirements (railings), and portions of roof over stairways shall be permitted to exceed maximum height by the following. ■ Railings:3'6' ■ Roofs:8'6' Page 2 August 29, 2006 RM-232nd Edmonds Way Amendment NARRATIVE ADDRESSING PROPOSED AMENDMENT I. Comprehensive Plan: how the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. All seven properties (see above chart) are classified under the Edmonds Way Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation. The following excerpts are taken from the Edmonds Way Corridor section of the Comprehensive Plan. ■ Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor. `This corridor server as a key transportation comdor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. " One of the primary needs and uses along Edmonds Way is housing; demonstrated by the presence of multiple apartments, single-family residences, and even a trailer park. The Edmonds Way Corridor presents a perfect location for high density housing with convenient access to major arterials and local businesses. Adopting the RM- 232nd Edmonds Way zoning criteria would place updated development standards on this site attaining more multiple -family housing to better serve the housing needs in the Edmonds Way Corridor and realizing one of the Comp. Plan goals. As outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2020 contains several Regional Goals and Concepts that connect to the proposed RM-232nd Edmonds Way zone. The following excerpts are taken Comprehensive Plan language addressing Vision 2020: ■ A. `Provide a pedestrian -oriented streetscape environment for residential and commercial activity. " ■ B. `Encourage mixed -use development patterns that provide a variety of commercial and residential opportunities, including both multi family and small -lot single family development. " ■ D. `Encourage transit service and access. " RM-232nd Edmonds Way zoning criteria correlates to Vision 2020 by providing extensive multi -family housing with transit service and access. The site developing standards also ensure a very pedestrian friendly street frontage to encourage a pedestrian - oriented streetscape along Edmonds Way. II. Zoning: how the proposal is consistent with the zoning districts and general zoning. The following excerpts are taken from Section 16.30.000 of the RM-Multiple Residential section of the Zoning Ordinance. Purposes: `The AM done has the following specific purposes: • A. `To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the singfamily residential tone, while still maintaining a residential environment. " B. `To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. " Page 3 August 29, 2006 RM-232nd Edmonds Way Amendment The bulk of the Edmonds Way Corridor is zoned under the RM-1.5 designation. The proposed RM-232nd Edmonds Way zoning designation is adapted from RM-1.5 with modifications pertaining to developing standards. As RM-232nd Edmonds Way zoning is so closely related to the existing RM-1.5 zone, these designations share the same purpose, to provide "a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities." The proposed RM-232nd Edmonds Way zoning introduces new developing standards that allow for even greater densities and even more variety of housing types. The current RM-1.5 zone makes no reference to environmentally friendly features, or ensures quality design features. This new zone strongly encourages extensive Green technologies such as rain gardens and bio-filttation swales, as well as ensures quality -designed features such as front doors facing the street. The proposed RM-232nd Edmonds Way zoning zone is consistent with the general zoning regulations outlined in Title 17 of the Edmonds Municipal Code. As RM-232nd Edmonds Way zoning is adapted from designation RM-1.5, both designations share the majority of the site developing standards, purposes, uses, and operating restrictions. III. Review Criteria and Procedure: Currently Edmonds is working on several zone and Comprehensive Plan changes. Both Five Corners and Firdale Village are undergoing strategic planning to update the Comprehensive Plan and consequently the Zoning Ordinance. The following excerpt is taken from a City Planning Memorandum dated May 5, 2006: ■ `The Economic Development Department recommended that the neighborhood commercial areas be reviewed forpo Bible improvements to the existing Comprehensive Plan designation and Toning. Several property owners from the Five Corners and Firdale Village business districts have indicated that the regulations are extremely limiting to redevelopment, and even to the selection of tenants. Staff found that the Comp. Plan Designations and accompanying -oning regulations had not been reviewed in many years, and that they seemed to encourage more outdated "strip mall" development than the new mixed -use "village style"developments popular now in other communities. " RM-232nd Edmonds Way zoning seeks to modernize an outdated zoning designation by pem-dtting more flexibility in embracing modern developments, and also to encourage features such as Green Technologies and pedestrian friendly street frontages. Other areas of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are also being revamped. The following is taken from the City of Edmonds Planning Division Web Site: ■ `The City of Edmonds completed updates to its Comprehensive Plan and its Critical Areas regulations during 2004... updating its projections to accommodate a new set of population forecasts to 2023. The Edmonds City Council updated single family Zoning regulations to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The updates include new RS-10 and RS-MP ,ones. " Edmonds expects a population influx within the next 20 years. To better adapt to the housing need, Edmonds is exploring ways to update the housing regulations as exemplified with the RS-10 and RS-MP updates. To attain the maximum use of Page 4 August 29, 2006 RM-232nd Edmonds Way Amendment residential property Edmonds will have to allow developments with greater density. RM-232nd Edmonds Way zoning addresses this issue and integrates standards that allow greater maximum height, and ensure environmentally savvy, and quality -designed features. �ntecfs � _ Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98020-4641 425.7785400 FAX.778.3032 August 29, 2006 RECEIVED AUG 2 9 2006 Subject: Proposed Criterion for BN-232nd Edmonds Way Rezone PLANNING DEPT. Project: 232d Street Mixed Use BN-232nd Edmonds Way Zone Criterion Purposes: The BN-232nd Edmonds Way Zone purposes are based on the general goals for neighborhood business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 along with the following specific purposes as listed under the current BN purposes in Chapter 16.45.000. A. To reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area; B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings. Uses: The BN-232nd Edmonds Way permitted uses differ from the current BN permitted uses in order to better accommodate the establishment of commercial properties and allow more feasible design options in BN-232nd Edmonds Way zone. BN-232nd Edmonds Way shall include all permitted primary and secondary uses outlined in 16.45.010 as well as the following uses: A. Permitted Uses. • Multiple -family dwelling units as a secondary use. ■ Unlimited dwelling units per lot subject to parking availability. Site Development Standards: A. Table Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Minimum Minimum Side Minimum Rear Maximum Height Maximum Floor Area Street Width Setback Setback Setback BN- None None 0' None* None* 45' 3sq. ft. per Z,32" q/ (not to sq. ft. of lot Gip exceed 4 area floors)** * 15' from lot lines adjacent to B honed propero. ** Architectural feature element can exceed beigbt by 5 additionalfeet; tbis feature can appear on street fafade and shall not compile more than 20% of the length of that fafade. Page 2 August 29, 2006 BN-232nd Edmonds Way B. Pedestrian Friendly Street Frontage: the BN-232nd Edmonds Way zoning designation promotes neighborhood oriented buildings, enhancing the community by offering goods and services to the surrounding neighborhood. The following requirements encourage pedestrian friendly street frontages: ■ Coverings at sidewalk ■ Substantial windows facing the sidewalk Minimize curb cuts Business access on retail floor level directly to sidewalk C. Maximum grade differential between sidewalk and the commercial floor on the primary street to be no more than 2'. D. Highly encourage commercial use to occupy 80% of the building's ground floor frontage (excluding properties where physical restraints render this requirement impractical. E. Parking stall sharing should be permissible, depending upon complimentary uses such as retail and housing which have peak needs at different times of the day. The first 2,500 sq.ft. of retail in mixed use buildings greater than 15,000 sq.ft. should not require calculated parking. F. Housing should be allowed up to the number of units that can be provided adequate parking without artificial limitations.. G. Minimize front setbacks (possibly side and rear also). Building modulation should be encouraged to soften the impact of larger structures. H. 45' high structures with allowances for limited architectural features, elevator equipment, roof deck access and railings, not to exceed 4 stories. I. Developments should be encouraged to include sustainable, green features such as: • Rain gardens • Pervious paving (if the land accommodates) ■ Planting strips ■ Bio-filtration swales ■ Landscaped courtyards J. Screening. The required setback from R zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BN lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback Operating Restrictions: ■ To comply with standard Business Zone restrictions as outlined in Zoning Ordinance section. 16.45.030. NARRATIVE ADDRESSING PROPOSED AMENDMENT: I. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 3 August 29, 2006 BN-232nd Edmonds Way The following excerpts are taken from the Commercial. Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. • F. Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor: " This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale business can be found primarily near intersections. " The permitted uses in BN-232nd Edmonds Way are consistent with the housing and small-scale business developments already in place along Edmonds Way and are also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goals. ■ F.2. Goals for Edmonds Way Corridor: `Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development" The proposed BN-232nd Edmonds Way Criteria specifically addresses pedestrian access by requiring a "pedestrian friendly street frontage." In order to enhance street appeal, pedestrian access, and create an engaging street frontage, BN-232nd Edmonds Way standards require elements that make the building "pedestrian friendly". The proposed BN-232nd Edmonds Way Zone ties in with the Comp. Plan Regional Goals and Land Use Concepts adopted from Vision 2020. The following are taken from Comp. Plan language addressing Vision 2020. Regional Goals: ■ C. `[`Maintain economic opportunity while managinggrowth. " Land Use Concepts: ■ `7n contrast with the sub -regional centers, the growth in employment in an activity cluster is far services oriented to serving the local residential community (Vision 2020, p& 24). „ • B. `Encourage mixed -use development patterns that provide a variety of commercial and residential opportunities, including both multi family and small -lot single family development. " ■ E. `Strategically plan for development and re -development that achieves a balanced and coordinated approach to economic development, housing and culturalgoals. " A BN-232nd Edmonds Way designation will encourage mixed -use development by providing slightly more flexible developing standards to produce the project features and benefits that meet the comprehensive plan goals. This development type appeals directly to the goals and concepts outlined in Vision 2020. The BN-232nd Edmonds Way designation will extend housing opportunities on Edmonds Way by allowing mixed -use. Edmonds Way is "a key transportation corridor" and permitting mixed -use development will relate to the busy atterial, yet also will connect with the residential element of the district. Vision 2020 specifically calls for developments that achieve "a balanced and coordinated approach to economic development, housing, and cultural goals." The BN-232nd Edmonds Way Zone's pertnitted developments reflect this objective as it provides commercial space (adding to the community's economic development), and contributes to the housing base. II. Zoning. how the proposal is compatible with the general zoning. Page 4 August 29, 2006 BN-232nd Edmonds Way Properties 5, 6, and 7 (see page 1 chart) on the south of the site are designated Community Business (BC). The following are taken from Zoning Ordinance 16.45 BN- Neighborhood Business, and 16.50 BC- Community Business: "The BC zone has the following purposes:" • A. `To reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area. " • C. `To allow for mixed -use development which includes multiple dwelling units) that support business uses. " "The BNzone has the following purposes:" • A. `To reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area. " BN Zone Uses: A. "Single-family dwellings. " B.3. "One dwelling unitper lot, in the story above the street floor, with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. " While the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone shares purpose A with the Community Business (BC) zone, it allows only one dwelling unit per lot prohibiting mixed -use developments. As undeveloped land in Edmonds decreases, mixed -use developments provide a solution to attaining the maximum use of the land. The BN-232nd Edmonds Way zone caters to this belief by offering more viable developing options in areas that seek to "offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area." Even though the Community Business (BC) zone permits mixed -use developments, and would support the proposed use of this site, BC primarily exists in the downtown Edmonds district and should be limited to that area. Many of the other properties along Edmonds Way (Westgate Village for example) are designated under the Neighborhood Business (BN) Zone, yet the current code is not conducive to the development of mixed use buildings consistent in height or density to either the comprehensive plan or other development in many areas of town in recent years. The BN-232nd Edmonds Way zone would promote uses and standards (such as height limitations) that complement many areas outside of Downtown, including the Edmonds Way district. The BN-232nd Edmonds Way designation reflects the flavor of the Edmonds Way District; maintaining a neighborhood -oriented feeling while addressing the fact that Edmonds Way is a major transportation corridor. III. Review Criteria and Procedure: Other current land -use changes Comprehensive Plan updates, and rezoning efforts in the City of Edmonds include strategic planning at both Five Corners and Firdale Village. The following excerpt is from a City Planning Board Memorandum dated May 5, 2006: ■ `Tbe Economic Development Department recommended that the neighborhood commercial areas be reviewed for possible improvements to the existing Page 5 August 29, 2006 BN-232nd Edmonds Way Comprehensive Plan designation and Zoning. Several property owners from the Five Corners and Firdale Village business districts have indicated that the regulations are extivmeylimiting to redevelopment, and even to the selection of tenants. Staff found that the Camp. Plan designations and accompanying Zoning regulations had not been reviewed in many years, and that they seemed to encourage mare outdated "strp mall" development than the new mixed -use "village style" developments popular now in other communities. " ■ `As part of the Comprehensive Plan language update, you will also need to consider what Zones would apply to there areas. It might be good to allow additional BN Zones to be created, such as BN-1, BN-2, etc. Several districts might end up with the same Zone potentially, depending on the goals of the neighborhood. " The districts and neighborhoods in Edmonds should embrace their own unique character. It is desirable for all neighborhoods in Edmonds to have their own needs and character met, not limited by the definition of the "downtown Edmonds" character. Five Corners and Firdale Village are moving in this direction; exploring ways to improve and develop the unique flavor of their districts. Similarly, the Edmonds Way District should be allowed to develop uses and densities that compliment and address the needs of the citizens and neighbors of the Edmonds Way Corridor. The proposed BN-232nd Edmonds Way zone addresses issues including as height allowances, setbacks, and building design. The BN zone was modified to accommodate the character and needs of Downtown Edmonds, with special emphasize on height limitations, setbacks, and other standards to maintain it's character. In contrast, Edmonds Way neighbors would benefit from redevelopment of housing no longer consistent with Edmonds Way and from the convenience of services that would be provided in new commercial spaces. There are now views to protect, only a fresh diversity of housing alternatives to be developed along with commercial spaces providing new job opportunities for Edmonds residents. Edmonds Way should be a district allowing more flexibility in planning and standards such as height and setbacks. Most buildings along Edmonds Way built in the last 15 years exceed the current height limitations in Edmonds. Westgate Chapel standing at approx. 47 feet, and the Edmonds Highlands Apartments standing at approx. 40 feet. To meet the goals of the neighbors and City requires change to the Edmonds Way Corridor zoning to allow for the implementation of the adopted comprehensive plan vision. It is in the interest of the neighbors and City to redevelop the sites with run down houses or presently undeveloped land. As a main entryway into Edmonds, renovation will further improve the image of Edmonds as a community committed to quality of life, sustainable development and housing and commercial space diversity. BN-232nd Edmonds Way enables this transformation. Application for BN-232nd Edmonds Way should be limited to sites and areas where it is compatible with the areas development patterns, topography and neighborhood needs. Additionally, the greater density of BN-232nd Edmonds Way is most compatible with higher volume transportation corridors or intersections. Alignment of increased density with existing transportation infrastructure capacity meets many Page 6 August 29, 2006 BN-232nd Edmonds Way community, comprehensive planning and growth management goals in a manner compatible with community goals. €25.778.5400 FAX 7783032 August 29 2006 Meg Gruwell Senior Planner Edmonds, City of 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Narrative addressing request to rezone properties 5, 6, and 7 at the 232nd Street Mixed Use Site to BN-232nd Edmonds Way Zone designation (see chart below) Project: 232nd Street Mixed Use Parcel Address Parcel Tax No. Proposed Iie one Desi nation 5. 23110 Edmonds Way, Edmonds 98026 27033600105200 BN-1 6. 9133 232nd St. SW Edmonds, 98026 00555300101100 BN-1 7. Unknown Address 27043100207600 BN-i Request: This rezone request involves rezoning parcels 5, 6, and 7 at the 232nd Street Site from their current designations (Community Business (BC) to BN-232nd Edmonds Way status, and applying the proposed BN-232nd Edmonds Way Criterion to the site. NARRATIVE ADDRESSING PROPOSED BN-232ND EDMONDS WAY ZONE CRITERION: I. Comprehensive Plan: Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. All seven properties are classified under the Edmonds Way Corridor Comprehensive Plan Designation. The following excerpts are taken from the Commercial Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. ■ F. Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor: "This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale business can be found primarily near intersection.. " The permitted uses in BN-232nd Edmonds Way not only correspond to the housing and small-scale business developments already in place along Edmonds Way, Page 2 August 29, 2006 BN-232nd Edmonds Way Rezone Request but are also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goals. The designs for the 232 d Street Site include both town homes and mixed -use facilities, incorporating the Edmonds Way Corridor goals, and the established pattern of development surrounding the site. ■ F.2. Goals for Edmonds Way Corridor: `Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development" The proposed BN-232nd Edmonds Way Criteria specifically addresses pedestrian access by requiring a "pedestrian friendly street frontage." In order to enhance street appeal, pedestrian access, and create an engaging street frontage, BN-232nd Edmonds Way standards require elements such as "covering at sidewalk, glazing at sidewalk, minimized auto curb cuts, doors and sidewalk access, and a retail floor level with two feet of sidewalk." The proposed BN-232nd Edmonds Way Zone ties in with the Comp. Plan Regional Goals and Land Use Concepts adopted from Vision 2020. The following are taken from Comp. Plan language addressing Vision 2020. Regional Goals: • C. `Maintain economic opportunity while managinggrowth. Land Use Concepts: ■ `7n contrast with the sub -regional centers, the growtb in employment in an activity cluster is for services oriented to serving the local residential community (Vision 2020, pg. 24). • B. `Encourage mixed -use developmentpatterns thatprovide a variety of commercial and residential opportunities, including both multi family and small -lot single family development. " • E. `strategically plan for development and re -development that achieves a balanced and coordinated apprnacb to economic development, housing and culturalgoals." Rezoning this site to a BN-232nd Edmonds Way designation will allow mixed -use development and more flexible developing standards. This development type appeals directly to the goals and concepts outlined in Vision 2020. Developing mixed -use facilities on this Edmonds Way/232nd Street Site will generate growth in employment while offering services to the immediate neighborhood. The BN-232nd Edmonds Way designation will extend housing opportunities on Edmonds Way by allowing mixed -use. Edmonds Way is "a key transportation corridor" and permitting mixed -use development will relate to the busy arterial, yet also will connect with the residential element of the district. Vision 2020 specifically calls for developments that achieve "a balanced and coordinated approach to economic development, housing, and cultural goals." The BN-232nd Edmonds Way Zone's permitted developments reflect this objective as it provides commercial space (adding to the community's economic development), and contributes to the housing base. II. Zoning Ordinance: Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. Page 3 August 29, 2006 BN-232nd Edmonds Way Rezone Request Properties 5, 6, and 7 (see page 1 chart) on the south of the site are designated Community Business (BC). The following are taken from Zoning Ordinance 16.45 BN- Neighborhood Business, and 16.50 BC- Community Business: "The BC zone has the following purposes:" ■ A. `To reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which offergoods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area. • C. `To allow for mixed -use development which includes multiple dwelling unit(s) that support business uses. " "The BNzone has the following purposes:" • A. `To reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which offergoods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area. " BN Zone Uses: • A. `Single family dwellings." • B.3. `One dwelling unit per lot, in the story above the street floor, with a minimum lot area of 6,000 squarefeet. " While the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone shares purpose A with the Community Business (BC) zone, it allows only one dwelling unit per lot prohibiting mixed -use developments. As undeveloped land in Edmonds decreases, mixed -use developments provide a solution to attaining the maximum use of the land. The BN- 232nd Edmonds Way zone caters to this belief by offering more viable developing options in areas that seek to "offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area." Even though the Community Business (BC) zone permits mixed -use developments, and would support the proposed use of this site, BC primarily exists in the downtown Edmonds district and should be limited to that area. Much of the other properties along Edmonds Way (Westgate Village for example) are designated under the Neighborhood Business (BN) Zone. Yet, the Neighborhood Business (BN) designation is not conducive to our site as it prohibits mixed -use and multiple family dwelling units. Therefore the BN-232nd Edmonds Way designation modifies BN, promoting uses and standards (such as height limitations) that complement and enhance the Edmonds Way district. As BN-232nd Edmonds Way is adapted from the BN designation re -zoning the 232nd Street site will promote an element of consistency in the Edmonds Way District while distinguishing it from the downtown district zoning. The BN-232nd Edmonds Way designation coheres to the flavor of the Edmonds Way District; maintaining a neighborhood -oriented attitude, yet still cognizant to the fact that Edmonds Way is a key transportation corridor linking Edmonds to Highway 99 and Interstate 5. III. Surrounding Area: The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property. Rezoning the site to BN-232nd Edmonds Way will allow it to mesh better with the surrounding properties and neighborhood. Page 4 August 29, 2006 BN-232nd Edmonds Way Rezone Request The properties to the SW of the site are currently zoned as RS-8 and contain single-family houses. As parcels 5, 6, and 7 are currently zoned as Community Business (BC) they are intended for retail to match the busy street front, but are unable to relate to the residential qualities of the surrounding neighborhood. The BN-232nd Edmonds Way Zone will allow the site to embrace both the busyness of the Edmonds Way Street Front and the neighboring residences. The site to the south of 232nd Street is zoned Neighborhood Business (BN) and contains the Woodhaven Veterinary. A site with mixed -use capabilities will bring more retail space to this activity cluster along Edmonds Way. The properties to the north and NW of the site are designated as RM- 1.5 and contain multiple family apartments. There are more RM-1.5 designated apartment facilities across the street of the site. The proposed design for parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 are town homes. Other areas of Edmonds Way are zoned as Neighborhood Business (BN), such as Westgate Village and a few other activity clusters. While the BN zone adequately supports Westgate Village, those properties are purely commercial, whereas the 232"d Street Site is located in a more residential part of Edmonds Way where mixed -use will utilize the property best. Since BN-232nd Edmonds Way is adapted from the BN zone, rezoning the 232"d Street Site will bring a little more unity to the Edmonds Way District, yet will also cater to the distinct flavor of the 232"d Street neighborhood. There are a few properties across Edmonds Way from the site, along 232"d Street. Currently these parcels are being used as a trailer park. The BN-232nd Edmonds Way zone supports mixed -use developments hoping that the commercial aspect will contribute to the retail base on Edmonds Way while the housing element supplements the housing in the immediate neighborhood. A mixed -use facility on parcels 5, 6, and 7 will provide a nice transition from the busy street front of Edmonds Way, to the calmer tones of the residential neighborhood to the west of the site. IV. Changes: Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate surrounding area or in City policy to justify the rezone. Other current land -use changes Comprehensive Plan updates, and rezoning efforts in the City of Edmonds include strategic planning at both Five Corners and Firdale Village. The following excerpt is from a City Planning Board Memorandum dated May 5, 2006: • `The Economic Development Department recommended that the neighborhood commercial areas be reviewed for possible improvements to the existing Comprehensive Plan designation and tioning. Several property owners from the Five Corners and Firdale Village business districts have indicated that the regulations are extremely limiting to redevelopment, and even to the selection of tenants. Staff found Page 5 August 29, 2006 BN-232nd Edmonds Way Rezone Request that the Comp. Plan designations and accompanying Zoning regulations had not been reviewed in manyyears, and that they seemed to encourage more outdated "strp mall" development than the new mixed -use `tillage style" developments popular now in other communities. " • `As part of the Comprehensive Plan language update, you will also need to consider what -ones would apply to these areas. It might be good to allow additional BN hones to be created, such as BN-9, BN-2, etc. Several districts might end up with the same done potentially, depending on thegoals of the neighborhood. " Even though this memorandum deals specifically with the Five Corners and Firdale Planning, it reveals the current movement to revamp the Comprehensive Plan and consequently the accommodating zoning ordinance. The movement to allow "additional BN zones to be created" pertains to the belief that the districts and neighborhoods in Edmonds should embrace their own unique character. It is undesirable for all neighborhoods in Edmonds to have the "downtown Edmonds" feel. Five Corners and Firdale Village are moving in this direction; exploring ways to improve and exploit the unique flavor of their districts. Likewise the Edmonds Way District should look into revamping the Edmonds Way Corridor, and giving the district a more definite and unified atmosphere. The 232"d Street site currently contains run down single-family houses, and an undeveloped property full of yard waste and blackberries. Rezoning these properties will help clean up this corner of Edmonds Way and better establish updated, developing standards for the Edmonds Way Corridor. The proposal for BN- BN-232nd Edmonds Way addresses issues such as height allowances, setbacks, and building design. Downtown Edmonds must emphasize height limitations, setbacks, and other strict standards, but in contrast, Edmonds Way properties are not threatened with obstructing the view, or destroying the small town charm. Edmonds Way is relieved of the extreme weight placed on developing standards in downtown Edmonds and therefore should be a district allowing more flexibility in planning and standards such as height and setbacks. Other buildings along Edmonds Way have exceeded the typical height limitations in Edmonds, such as Westgate Chapel standing at approx. 47 feet, and the Edmonds Highlands Apartments standing at approx. 40 feet. These taller buildings do not detract from the Edmonds Way Corridor with their height but add to the unique atmosphere of the Edmonds Way district. The 232d Street project, while asking for more flexible height limitations, will not exceed the height of Westgate Chapel, nor will it in any way destroy the facade of Edmonds Way. While the immediate area surrounding 232"d Street has not undergone much change in recent years, change is necessary in the Edmonds Way Corridor. Many parts of Edmonds Way contain run down houses, undeveloped land, or shabby facilities. As Edmonds Way is one of the main entrances into Edmonds, connecting to I-5 and Highway 99, renovation and change are necessary. Rezoning the 232"d Street site to BN-232nd Edmonds Way will clean up this corner of Edmonds Way and raise the bar for quality -designed developments in the Edmonds Way Corridor. BN-232nd Edmonds Way could also be applied to other properties in the Edmonds Way Corridor, giving those properties more viable land use options. Brainstorming Page 6 August 29, 2006 BN-232nd Edmonds Way Rezone Request has already begun for strategic planning in the Five Comers and Firdale areas, but Edmonds Way is in need of some attention as well. The 232d Street site however, is a step ahead of Five Corners and Firdale Village with a specific project and a developer with a specific intent V. Suitability: Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. As parcels 5, 6, and 7 in the south section of the site are now zoned as Community Business (BC), mixed -use is permitted. The BC designation however is primarily located in downtown Edmonds and should be limited to that district. The BN-232ND EDMONDS WAY Zone, adapted from the BN zone, is tailored to the atmosphere and needs of Edmonds Way. The proposed BN-232nd Edmonds Way zone has standards that are suitable to Edmonds Way, such as a greater maximum height limit, pedestrian friendly street frontages, and minimized setbacks. While these developing standards would not be appropriate in another area of Edmonds such as downtown or in "the bowl," there are no threats to blocking views or destroying the "small town atmosphere" along Edmonds Way. The height increased allowed in BN-232nd Edmonds Way will maximize the use of the land and satisfy the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance's purpose of increasing density. Edmonds Way is one of the busiest arterials in Edmonds; therefore greater height limitations and higher densities will not be a negative feature, but will fit well with this fast paced transportation corridor. The allowance of mixed -use developments on the corner of 232"d also provide a nice transition from the busy arterial of Edmonds Way to the quieter residential tones found in the neighborhoods to the west of the site. As parcels 1 through 4 are slated for town homes, mixed -use in parcels 5, 6, and 7 will compliment this neighboring development. The BN-232nd Edmonds Way developing standards encourage the use of environmental "green" technologies. The 232"d Street project incorporates the use of rain gardens, courtyards, bio-filtration swales, pervious paving, and planting strips. As the current zoning ordinance is so outdated, there is no reference to environmentally friendly developing elements. Integratng these Green technologies into the project will help the added height mesh with its' surroundings through extensive landscaping and environmentally sensitive measures. The proposed mix of both residential and commercial use achieve the best use of this site in serving the housing needs of the community while providing retail space to the immediate neighborhood. Also the combination of retail and residential enables our clients to achieve the highest economic return for their investments. VI. Value: The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. Adopting the new BN-232nd Edmonds Way Zone and Standards for the 232"d Street Project will benefit all parties concerned. Properties 1, 2, 3, and 4 currently contain single-family residences; due to the close proximity of Edmonds Way, these houses are undesirable and unsafe dwelling places. Properties 5, 6 and 7 are vacant, Page 7 August 29, 2006 BN-232nd Edmonds Way Rezone Request used as a place to dump yard waste, and an eyesore to the surrounding community. A quality -designed mixed -use project not only will clean up the appearance of this section on Edmonds Way, but will also bring retail and residential space to the vicinity. As already witnessed, placing single-family residences on this site is unsafe and un- profitable; whereas mixed -use development presents a safe solution for housing, and also corresponds well with the busy arterial conditions. From this mixed -use project on parcels 5, 6, and 7 the community gains approx. 9,000 square feet of commercial space and approx. twenty-five housing units. The increased density helps the City of Edmonds comply with the GMA mandates, and Visions 2020's strategy with housing that has access to bus and transit lines. Green technologies also contribute to community. An outdoor, landscaped courtyard in the mixed -use building will provide a pleasant gathering place for residents and pedestrians. Rain gardens, bio-filtration swales, pervious paving, and planting strips along Edmonds Way all seek to enhance the project and the neighborhood. If rezoned accordingly, the entire site will contribute greatly to the community by bringing retail space and housing to one of EdmonTs largest transportation corridors, while enhancing the aesthetic atmosphere of the surrounding neighborhood. proposal without further opportunity to study the new information. Mr. Bullock said he did not receive the new language until this morning, so he has not been able to do a thorough review, either. The remainder of the Board agreed to continue the public hearing to a date certain to allow time for the staff, Board and neighborhood to review the new information. This would also allow time for the applicant to hold another public meeting. BOARD MEMBER YOUNG MOVED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (FILE NUMBER CDC-05-96) TO OCTOBER 25, 2006. VICE CHAIR DEWHIRST SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Board Member Young emphasized that when the public hearing resumes on October 25, 2006, the Board would only be discussing the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Bullock clarified that the applicant originally submitted three separate applications: a comprehensive plan amendment, a code amendment and a rezone application. At the start of the meeting, the last two items were continued indefinitely at the request of the applicant. There is no scheduled date for these two items to move forward at this time, but new public notice would be given when a date has been identified. In addition, the Board just continued the public hearing for the proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan to October 25'". This would give the applicant an opportunity to hold a neighborhood meeting on October 12t' to discuss the proposed Comprehensive Plan policies related to the subject properties. He advised that all those who signed their name on the list would receive all of the new information available regarding the application. THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK AT 8:52 P.M. THE MEETING RESUMED AT 9:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION BY TONY SHAPIRO FOR A CODE AMENDMENT TO CREATE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS/ MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND REZONE LOCATED AT 23012, 23014, 23028, 23100, AND 23110 EDMONDS WAY AND 9133 232" STREET SOUTHWEST (FILE NUMBERS AMD-06-2 AND R-05-95) Ms. Gruwell entered the following items as Exhibits: • ExhibitA — Staff Report • Exhibit B — Letters from citizens that were received after the staff report but before the meeting. • Exhibit C —Letters from Claudia and Robin Olney that were received just prior to the start of the meeting. Ms. Gruwell announced that the SEPA Appeal period expired today, and the City did not receive any appeals. She provided a map on the overhead projector to illustrate the location of the subject properties. She explained that the northern portion of the property is zoned Multi -family (RM-1.5) and the southern portion was just recently zoned Community Business (BC) last year. She also described the surrounding zoning. To the northwest of the site is the Woodway Estates Apartments and a mixture of other multiple and single-family residential uses that are zoned RM-1.5. To the northeast are some duplexes adjacent to the Westgate Chapel, both of which are zoned RM-1.5. The property directly across 232"d Street Southwest is zoned Neighborhood Business `BN" and developed with commercial uses, including the Woodhaven Veterinary Clinic and a two-story office building. Other properties to the southwest and west are developed with single-family homes and are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-8). Ms. Gruwell explained that the applicant is requesting to amend the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) to create two new zones entitled Multiple Residential — 232nd Edmonds Way (RM-232nd Edmonds Way) and Neighborhood Business — 232"a Edmonds Way (BN-232"d Edmonds Way). She described the major differences between the existing RM- 1.5 zone and proposed RM-232nd Edmonds Way zone as follows: • The existing RM-1.5 zone allows up to 25 feet in height, with an additional 5 feet for pitched roofs. The proposed new zoning would allow a height limit of up to 35 feet, with a requirement for a pitched roof. • The existing zone would limit the density to one dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of property. The proposed new zone would allow density based on the number of parking stalls provided in the complex. Planning Board Minutes September 27, 2006 Page 10 • The existing zone would not allow roof top decks above the 25-foot height limit, and the proposed new zone would allowing railings and roofs to cover access staircases allowed up to 8%s feet over the height limit. Ms. Gruwell said the City received complaints from neighbors that the structure would be too boxy and the additional height from the roof decks would make the situation even worse. In addition, citizens expressed their desire for the applicant to maintain the topography and existing trees, which act as a buffer for the residential development. Concern was also expressed about parking on Edmonds Way, but it should be noted that no parking is allowed on Edmonds Way so there would be no where for overflow parking from the site to spill out. Neighbors have expressed concern that allowing additional density would create problems on the neighborhood streets if there is no requirement for loading and guest parking on the site. Ms. Gruwell advised that the proposed new BN-232nd Edmonds Way zone would be similar to the existing Community Business (BC) zone. She reviewed the differences as follows: • The purpose of the of the existing BC zone is to allow for mixed -use development to support business uses and to seek businesses to serve the entire community. The proposed new zone does not include a mixed -use goal, and the purpose would be to seek businesses to serve the neighborhood area. • The setbacks would be essentially the same for both zones, except the BC zone allows underground parking structures in the last 15 feet of the setback. The proposed new zone, as currently written, does not provide for this exception. • The maximum height in the BC zone is 25 feet, and there is currently a moratorium on allowing an additional 5 feet for modulated roofs. The proposed new zone would allow a height of 45 feet, not to exceed 4 floors plus an additional foot for architectural elements on the street faeade but not more than 20% of the length of the fagade. The proposed new zone would also allow deck access and railings. • The BC zone requires that development meet the City's current parking requirements as outlined in ECDC 17.50. The proposed new zone would require no calculated parking for the first 2,500 square feet of retail space in a mixed -use building greater than 15,000 square feet. • The density in the current BC zone allows one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of property, and the proposed new zone would base the density on the number of parking stalls provided in the complex. Ms. Gruwell pointed out that if the parking requirements for the subject properties were reduced, the Board should keep in mind that most of the businesses in this area would be accessed by vehicles coming down a major traffic corridor, and there is no parking on Edmonds Way. While the applicant has proposed joint use parking to meet the requirement, she recommended thatjoint use parking only be considered if a traffic study can show that the trips would not overlap and that parking would be available. Ms. Gruwell said that, at this time, staff is recommending denial of the request to create two new zoning districts (RM-232"d Edmonds Way and BN-232nd Edmonds Way) and the request to rezone the northern portion of the subject site from RM-1.5 to RM-232"d Edmonds Way and the southern portion of the site from BC to BN-232nd Edmonds Way. She based her recommendation on the following: • The properties fronting on Edmonds Way have historically been redeveloping as multi -family or small-scale commercial developments, and this pattern can be seen both north and south of the subject properties. However, properties up the hill have remained single-family neighborhoods and will need to have proper buffering and adequate transitions. The ridge allows 20 feet of separation between the uses along State Route 104 and the houses above. If the maximum height allowed were 25 or even 30 feet, the ridge would provide an adequate transition. But if a 45-foot height limit were established as proposed, the transition would be lost, along with a good deal of privacy. The only buffering that might protect privacy would be to retain the existing tall evergreen and deciduous trees. • The Comprehensive Plan policies for the Edmonds Way Corridor are against providing access to properties on Edmonds Way from residential streets unless there is no alternative. In this case, it appears that access from SR-104 is a reasonable alternative. • The proposal set forth by the applicant would fit better with the purposes of the existing BC zone than the BN zone. The purposes of the BN zone do not include mixed -use buildings and are designed to attract businesses that provide daily goods Planning Board Minutes September 27,2006 Page il and services to the residents of the neighborhood. Given that the applicant feels the parking would only allow offices that do not provide on -site customer service, the existing zone purposes would seem to accommodate the concept of mixed -use buildings with offices better than the purposes of the proposed BN zone. • The earlier rezone to BC was done in 2005 and very little changes have occurred since then, except for the moratorium on accepting permit applications in the BC zone for buildings that are taller than 25 feet. • The site's location on Edmonds Way lends itself to multi -family residential and commercial uses. However, the proposed heights would be equivalent to those allowed along Highway 99. Again, the existing vegetation and bluff would only provide an adequate buffer if the height limits were similar to what is allowed with the current zoning. Kevin Grossman said they have worked hard and will continue to work hard to find a win/win scenario that balances the sometimes conflicting Comprehensive Plan goals, the neighbor's concerns, the market demand, the State Growth Management Act, etc. He said the project they are proposing on 232nd Street is intended to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to provide multi -family and community business development with safe, friendly pedestrian connections. The plan would also utilize the unique topography and meaningful landscaping to provide a transition between the quiet residential neighborhood and the high traffic on SR-104. He said they have held meetings with the Planning Board, the Architectural Design Board, the Planning Staff and the neighbors in an attempt to find a way to balance all of the various interests and concerns. Mr. Grossman pointed out that the Growth Management Act requires the City to provide alternatives for housing to meet the changing needs of the population, and this requirement was reflected in the Comprehensive Plan policies for the Edmonds Way Corridor. Targeting housing density on sites with characteristics like the subject property provides an opportunity for the City to meet the Growth Management Act requirements and the broader community goal of housing and commercial space in a way that minimally impacts the neighborhoods. The vast majority of the traffic associated with the project would go onto Edmonds Way. Mr. Grossman advised that at the three public meetings and in individual conversations, neighbors expressed concerns about increased traffic, the retention of significant trees, and the impact the proposed development would have to their residential neighborhood. He agreed with staff that the Comprehensive Plan would require any development on the subject site to access from Edmonds Way when possible. However, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has a policy that would encourage access to come from side streets in order to reduce the number of access points along the highway. He said they agree that safety and traffic flow issues on Edmonds Way are very important to consider. Their proposal tries to design a solution that balances both interests. Approximately 2/3 of the parking would access the site from Edmonds Way, and the remaining 113 of the parking would access from 232nd Street. The access from 232nd Street would serve the residential component of the project. The proposal would reduce the number of curb cuts on Edmonds Way from ten to two. Regarding the issue of trees, Mr. Grossman explained that if another developer owned the site and wanted to max out what the current zoning would allow, none of the trees would be maintained. He said they put a very high value on mature evergreen trees, and they have always been conscious about saving the trees. The trees are an asset to the site and a good buffer between the subject property and the residential neighborhood. Mr. Grossman said they have proposed a design that would look similar to the neighborhood, with aggressive landscaping. They understand that landscaping could have a very positive impact on the property and the neighborhood. The mixed -use building would be four stories high, and contrary to the staff report, they have never proposed roof decks on top. This appears to be a communication issue between the applicant and the staff. He said the residential units have been designed around a courtyard that opens to the south, and the courtyard would be well landscaped. People coming into the neighborhood would see a four-story building, but they would also see a section of the courtyard and some residential development. Because of the grade change between the residential properties and the subject properties, the neighbors would only see the top 25 feet of the buildings. The neighbors in the homes most directly impacted by the mixed -use building have expressed no objections to the proposed project. They understand there would be a 15-foot setback plus additional landscaped areas. There is a significant grade change from the commercial area so people right next door would only see the top eight feet. He noted that all of the letters prior to this afternoon were from people who won't be able to see the project me IA 01 Planning Board Minutes September 27, 2006 Page 12 except when driving past on 232"d Street. Their concerns about buildings being adjacent to their property could at future neighborhood meetings. While staff recommends denial of the project, Mr. Grossman said they believe the issues can still be addressed. He said he met with the Planning Director recently, and they believe they can come up with language to meet the City's criteria and concerns and still allow the project to move forward. He requested the Board approve a continuance of the public hearing to allow the applicant to work with the staff and comeback with a different recommendation to address the concerns. Their goal is to present a proposal that the neighbors, staff, Planning Board and City Council can support. Chair Freeman noted that the public hearing is regarding the proposed changes to the ECDC and the rezone application. The Board would not be reviewing any specific development plans as part of this proposal. Tony Shoftner, Arbicultural Consulting, explained that the subject property has a number of trees on it, and he was asked to assist the applicant in considering how to retain a number of them. He said he met with Mr. Shapiro to assess the condition of the trees and come up with a plan to retain the trees in a way that would provide for the wooded quality that is currently present on the site. He also addressed tree retention as it pertains to public safety. He pointed out that any other developer could denude the site under the current zoning designation. When developers decide they want to retain trees, they must deal with how the site is developed and the impact that development would have on the trees. The trees the applicant has decided to retain are in good condition and in a place that would provide screening and wooded quality. They propose to retain about 20 percent of the trees on the project site. Mr. Shoftner pointed out that development of the project would involve clearing some of the trees up the hillside, which would further expose the trees along the roadside to wind and other elements and there is the potential for root failure. On the busy street of Edmonds Way, this poses a safety hazard. The conditions along the roadway are much harsher then on the hillside where the conditions are more native. On the roadway, there are driveway lanes and the soils are severely impacted and many of the trees are already showing signs of distress. These trees are not the best trees to save as opposed to those on the hillside. Mr. Shapiro said they have requested a continuance of the hearing because they believe there are some areas of miscommunication that could be cleared up by further meetings between the applicant, staff and neighborhood. They would like an opportunity to work closer with staff to address the issues. Mr. Shapiro explained that Edmonds Way is in a small valley that winds its way into downtown Edmonds. There are contours on either side that slope up from the arterial. The banks provide a natural barrier between the busy commercial arterials and the single-family residential uses. The subject property is, therefore, a natural site for commercial development because of its topography. The approximately 20-foot grade change between Edmonds Way and the residential properties acts as a good buffer. Mr. Shapiro said the Board should also consider the magnitude of the other buildings on Edmonds Way. Their proposed new building would be approximately the same height as the Westgate Chapel, which is already located in the area. However, they do not propose a boxy building like the Westgate Chapel. While he understands the hearing is to address the code change and rezone, they feel the need to get explicit on the language in the zoning criteria but not to the point they are doing a contract rezone, which is apparently not permissible with the City Council. They have tried to write verbiage into the proposed zoning ordinance that picks up on the objectives of the project. He can understand the concerns about the proposal being considered spot zoning, but he expressed his belief that a four-story building on an arterial with 40,000 cars per day going 40 to 50 miles per hour is not out of scale. He noted that other commercial properties are located up and down Edmonds Way. Mr. Shapiro said they tried to incorporate pedestrian friendly elements in the proposed mixed -use zoning language, such as sidewalks, canopies, minimizing curb cuts, etc. They have reviewed these concepts with the City's Traffic Engineer, as well as their own traffic engineer. They are trying to address concerns that both WSDOT and City staff have about access onto Edmonds Way. He stressed that the only traffic that would access the site from 232nd Street would be the residential component. The current scheme of the design would not allow people to drive from the upper parking garage down to SR- 104. Planning Board Minutes September 27, 2006 Page 13 Mr. Shapiro said they are also striving for sustainable design as part of the proposed language. This site is very conducive to infiltration. They are proposing a rain garden at the north end of the site, with a Swale near the sidewalk to divert runoff to the rain garden. They would also construct a courtyard as part of the apartment complex, which would be open to the upper level of housing and separate the commercial component from the residential component. The commercial space would face the commercial street and the residential space would face the residential street. They hope to incorporate a planting strip along Edmonds Way to soften the sidewalk and separate it from the high traffic on Edmonds Way. Mr. Shapiro said they are seeking a rezone of the property so they can replace the existing housing with town homes and develop the vacant lot into a mixed -use building. They would attempt to save as many trees as possible. He provided an overall site plan showing the mixed -use building at the south end of the site and the town homes that would be strung along Edmonds Way. The two curb cut access points are in an excellent location to separate them from each other and from 232"a Street. He also contacted the Fire Department and the Garbage Disposal Company regarding access for their vehicles. Mr. Shapiro again explained that the area at the south end of the mixed -use building would be opened up to a courtyard to provide a major amenity to the project. The courtyard would be highly utilized because of its strong southern exposure and they would plan landscaping that would encourage activity. The buildings would be held back on the west property line from the residential zone by a 15-foot setback. He noted that the rezone application neglected to request the same conditions the BC zone currently allows for below grade parking to come up to the setback line. Rather than the typical solution for hillside development, Mr. Shapiro said they are proposing a more expensive solution with H Pilings and lagging to minimize the impact to the trees. However, there are still major concerns about the impact to trees, and they would work closely with the arborist to address these concerns. He noted that an adjacent neighbor has asked them to remove a tree because it drops needles on his garage. He concluded that they are trying to balance the desires of multiple entities such as WSDOT, the City and the neighbors. He said there are two major trees on the property that would be difficult to retain with any construction on the site. Mr. Shapiro noted that the proposed building would come up to the same height as the telephone pole that is on the site. He noted that the average grade on the site would be five feet above the finished floor. They are asking for a 45-foot height limit to allow them to provide 4 stories, with a 14-foot floor -to -floor retail space, a 10-foot parking level and 10-foot residential levels. He provided a drawing of the proposed design for the mixed -use building. The current BC zone allows buildings to the property line, but they are proposing a 10-foot setback to address the neighbors' concerns. This results in a loss of a fair amount of building area. They are asking to exceed the height limit by five feet to allow for modulation and different roof lines. They are hoping the rewrite of the proposed zoning ordinance language would allow for more creative design. Mr. Shapiro provided additional sketches to illustrate the proposed design of the project. He explained that they are hoping to incorporate design elements to break up the buildings so they are not too boxy in appearance. He suggested that they failed to communicate this desire to the staff, and they were shocked with the staffs recommendation to deny the proposed code change and rezone application. Again, he asked that the Board continue the hearing so the applicant can continue to work with the neighborhood and City staff to address the concerns. Chair Freeman reminded the applicant that the purpose of the hearing was to address the code amendment and concurrent rezone application. Therefore, she asked that the applicant conclude his presentation on the proposed design of the site to allow the public to speak. Robert Bretts reminded the Board of the Puget Sound Regional Council's recommendation for Edmonds that more density should occur along the Highway 99 Corridor and in the downtown. The City is working to allow more density on Highway 99, but the City Council recently approved a 25-foot height limit for the downtown, which makes more density impossible. He said it now appears that the Board is trying to accommodate this decision by shifting the density into residential neighborhoods. They are considering the concept of allowing a 45-foot height limit in neighborhoods like Five Corners, Firdale Village and the Edmonds Way Corridor. They are asking residential neighborhoods to accept higher density that would be better located in the downtown and Highway 99 where the infrastructure already exists. JJJJJJNJF,JIdJLLg"T Planning Board Minutes September 27, 2006 Page 14 Mr. Bretts said he also attended the Five Corners Neighborhood Meeting where there was never a consensus amongst the neighbors to have four or five -story buildings. That is what the developer was trying to push into the neighborhood. It is up to the Board to consider density as a whole and not put the burden on the neighborhoods. The staff recommended denial of the proposed changes because of traffic and buffering, etc. However, the applicant only addressed the issue of trees. While the applicant has said they want the development to be pedestrian friendly, SR-104 is not a pedestrian friendly street. Mike Nicefaro said he and his wife live on 232"d Street Southwest about 500 feet from the proposed development. They are not against development in general, but only development that is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. The proposal would raise the height limit from 25 feet to 45 feet, and the impact of this change was clearly depicted when Mr. Shapiro pointed out that the utility pole represents the ultimate height of the proposed development. Mr. Nicefaro said he is opposed to the proposed changes. He pointed out that none of the neighbors have had the opportunity to read the additional letters that were submitted, but he suspects they express the same concerns that the neighbors have already stated. The neighbors are concerned about the impacts the proposed more intensive development would have on their neighborhood. The existing zoning compliments and is consistent with the surrounding uses, but the proposed zoning would damage the surrounding properties. He said he doesn't know how the Board could consider the proposal anything but spot zoning when the new zoned would actually be named after the subject property. He pointed out that there is an obvious grade separation between the residential development upland and Edmonds Way. The existing zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan when it specifies development height no greater than 25 feet. He encouraged the developer to maintain this same height limit. Mr. Nicefaro pointed out that there is a flashing traffic light on 232nd Street to provide emergency access for fire trucks, etc., and they expect that someday this will be made a full signal intersection. However, there are no current City plan to make this change. He referred to the applicant's proposal to have 49 parking spaces access onto 232"d Street at this location, and this would require the cars to make a left hand turn to get out. He noted that there is a vertical curve, a steep hill and site impairment in this location. Although the speed limit is 25 miles per hour, the cars frequently exceed that speed. Cueing at this intersection is another issue. Cars stopped waiting to turn left stall traffic coming up the hill. If more density is allowed, the burden on the existing infrastructure would be significant, and that is why the site is not appropriate for multi -family uses. Claudia Olney said she and her husband are new residents to the City, and she didn't hear about the proposal until about a month ago. She submitted a letter just prior to the meeting regarding the proposal, and she hoped the Board Members would have a chance to read it before the hearing continues on another night. She stressed that the existing zoning for the seven parcels is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted 1'/2 years ago. At the neighborhood meeting, she questioned why these parcels, which constitute only 9 percent of the parcels on Edmonds Way, would require rezoning. The applicant stated that it was necessary in order for the project to be financially feasible, but he did not state that it would be a desirable change to provide good design as he stated at the May 10t' meeting. She noted that Mr. Shapiro indicated his support of the Five Corners proposal so he could piggyback his client's proposal onto that decision. Again, Ms. Olney urged the Board to look at all of the Edmonds Way Corridor as a whole package and not just piecemeal. She said the current proposal seems to be predicated not on what's best for Edmonds, but what's best for the developer. Tanya Warren said she lives just a block from the subject property on 92"d Avenue that feeds into 232"d Street, which is close to where the subject proposal would have an access point. There are nine new homes on her block that are currently up for sale, and once they are occupied, the traffic would be increased. There is also a vacant lot where a home is going to be built. All of this additional traffic would feed onto 232"d Street, causing greater confusion. Don Warren said he is also concerned about traffic, particularly near the flashing traffic light. He noted that WSDOT has control over this light, and there is no guarantee that it would ever be made fully operational if traffic gets too congested. Without this type of guarantee, all of the traffic problems would be multiplied. Marge Pindergraft said she lives three houses in from 232"d Street on 92"d Avenue, which has nine new homes with triple garages. At this time, traffic comes down 92"d Avenue West and goes onto 232"d Street, which culminates at the flashing light on Edmonds Way. Edmonds Way goes all the way to downtown Edmonds. Therefore, 92"d Avenue draws traffic from all of the neighborhood residents who want to get to downtown Edmonds, and 40 more cars would make the situation impossible. Planning Board Minutes. September 27, 2006 Page 15 Denise Renfrow said she lives just down the cliff from where the existing access to the site is located. One of the mainsreasons she and her husband purchased their home 12 years ago was because of the big trees in the back. The applicant's proposal would result in a tall building abutting their property. It would also greatly increase the traffic. The strip mall in this location is impossible to get out of going left. Instead, people have to turn right and go up the hill. People living in the proposed new multi -family project would go right down 232"" Street, which is already a scary road that doesn't need more traffic. Maurene Barnes agreed with everything said previously by the neighbors. She added that there is really little need for mixed -use buildings because the Westgate Shopping Center has virtually everything they need, and there is the Safeway Shopping Center just six blocks in the other direction. There are also other commercial buildings along Edmonds Way, so there is no need for more. Mr. Shapiro asked the Board if his traffic engineer would be allowed to address the Board. The Board asked the applicant to wait until a future meeting when the public hearing is continued. Vice Chair Dewhirst expressed his opinion that a lot of work must still be done on the proposed zone district language. He noted that everything seems to be cued around a certain proposal, and the public should be aware that the pictures the applicant has shown mean nothing. There would be no legal enforcement of the proposed designs. He reminded the Board that the purpose of the hearing was to hear about two new zoning districts and the rezone applications. However, the applicant did not speak to the proposed new zoning districts. In fact, he noted that there is very little in the proposed ordinance that has anything to do with the proposal. He cautioned that the applicant could sell the property after the rezone is granted, and the neighbors would be left to whatever the new owner wanted to construct. Vice Chair Dewhirst expressed his concern about creating custom zoning districts for specific parcels; he would rather consider changes to the existing zoning code that would better address the needs of the properties along SR-104. He said creating custom zones would be a bad trend, and they would be very difficult and confusing for the City staff to administer, as well. However, if the Board wants to go this route, staff must come up with better delivery tools. He said he is very disappointed in the staff and the applicant on how the whole proposal was presented and the process that was used. He understands that a lot of work has gone into the proposal, but the end product that was presented to the Board is still seriously deficient. Board Member Cassutt suggested that the whole concept of special zone districts got started by the former Edmonds Economic Development Director's work with the Five Corners and Firdale Village Neighborhoods. She suggested that the Board is also at fault because they led the applicant along this path when he was before them last time. Now the Board must decide if this is really the direction they want to go and the give clear direction to the applicant. Vice Chair Dewhirst expressed his belief that the subject property is a completely different situation than what exists at Five Corners and Firdale Village. Board Member Cassutt agreed, but she suggested that was when the whole concept of special zoning came forward as an option. Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan identifies a plan for SR-104 and zoning to meet the plan designations. The proposed new zoning would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies. Board Member Cassutt agreed but pointed out that the City has not really put the whole plan for SR-104 together cohesively. She suggested that further work be done on the Comprehensive Plan for Edmonds Way. Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that the applicant is ready to move forward now, and probably doesn't want to put his plans on hold until this work has been done. Mr. Chave explained that the applications before the Board came from a private source and not the City staff. The City was initially approached by the applicant regarding the idea of working with the existing zone, but increasing the site limitations and density. Staff cautioned the applicant that any changes made to the current zoning designation would be applied Citywide, and that the City was not interested in raising the height in the RM and BC zones because there is a wide variety of areas in the City where the changes could be applied. Staff suggested the applicant tailor something that would work for all properties within the Edmonds Way Corridor to address issues such as tree retention, height, and other general policies for the corridor. However, the current proposal is geared towards the particular properties owned by the applicant. • Planning Board Minutes September 27, 2006 Page 16 Mr. Chave said staff also advised the applicant that any changes would really need public support, and they pointed them towards a public process that they would have to sponsor themselves. He said staff has expressed their concern that the current proposal does not provide enough protection for buffering from the neighborhood, etc. From staff's perspective, the proposal needs a lot more work. If the Board feels they would simply not be supportive of creating a new zone, then continuing the hearing would not be appropriate. However, the applicant has asked for a continuance to try and work out the concerns and provide more detail, etc. Board Member Young said that while the application material contains some good points, it does not elaborate on what the Board was being asked to decide, the creation of two new zones and the rezone applications. The applicant presented pictures in an attempt to sell the idea, which is the same problem that occurred when the Board initially started their review of the MPOR zone. This type of presentation must be stopped. The presentation should have been a legislative discussion about how to structure the zoning ordinance. The Board is not responsible for ruling on what the buildings should look like; that is the responsibility of the Architectural Design Board. The Board agreed to continue the public hearing, but only within the framework discussed by Vice Chair Dewhirst and Board Member Young. They would like the proposal to address the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone without showing specific design plans. Mr. Chave clarified that any additional work on the proposal would be the applicant's responsibility. It would also be the applicant's responsibility to work with the neighborhood in an attempt to reach a consensus. Staff could provide some suggestions and feedback, but the applicant must get buy in from the neighborhood. The Board agreed that the applicant must show why they need the new zoning designations and why the new zones would be better than the City's current RM and BC zoning designations. Mr. Chave agreed. He pointed out that there is significant danger that if the property were developed under the existing zoning, the buffer would not be what people imagine. The Board is interested in learning what the applicant would offer in exchange for increased density and height to ensure that buffer barriers are actually provided. He cautioned that traffic issues would be dealt with as part of a project review when a development permit application is submitted. Therefore, access and parking issues are really immaterial at this point. Mr. Shapiro explained that the applicant did hold three neighborhood meetings, and Mr. Bullock and Board Member Cassutt each attended one. However, there was no City representation at the third meeting where they had the largest turn out from the neighborhood. He said the applicant would like to continue to work on the proposal and conduct an additional neighborhood meeting to address the concerns. He summarized that the next presentation is not to talk about design, but the draft zoning language should address issues such as tree retention, modulation, etc. The core concerns need to be portrayed in a more acceptable fashion, and the applicant welcomes the opportunity to do that. He asked that the Board continue the hearing, but not to a date certain. Mr. Chave said the hearing could be closed and not continued to a specific date. The continued hearing could be re-advertized as a new hearing. The Board agreed this would be appropriate. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Freeman reviewed that the October I I'h meeting agenda would include a public hearing on the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan and a continued public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment request for properties along the west side of 76" Avenue West. In addition, the Board would review and discuss the code updates required to integrate design guidelines and a revised design review process into the Development Code. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Freeman reported that she attended the September 26`" City Council Meeting, which started at 6:00 p.m. as a joint meeting with the Edmonds Port Commission regarding redevelopment of the Edmonds Waterfront. She urged all of the Board Members to view the video recording of the meeting. It was discussed that because of the water table on the waterfront properties, it is impossible to go down. The only option to make the buildings more financially feasible is to build up. The Planning Board Minutes September 27, 2006 Page 17 10/31/2006 11:20 4256721411 PONY MAILBOX PAGE 02 October 28"', 2006 City of Edmonds, Washington Honorable Mayor Haakenson Honorable City Council Members and Planning Department Reference: AMD 20060002 AKA: Rezone P.O. 2006 New Zone Classification for the development located at the northwest corner of Edmonds Way and 232"d Street Southwest. On 9 September 2006, I wrote a letter to the mayor, city council, and to the planning board concerning this issue. I wrote about the impact this project would have on my neighborhood. Today I feel compelled to write again on how this building project could create problems for our city as a whole. See Attachment: Letters dated: 9 September 2006 28 October 2006 Thank You and Best Regards, 'Wit ' arker r � 9512 232"d St. S.W. Edmonds, Washington 98020 10/31/2006 11:20 4256721411 PONY MAILBOX PAGE 03 October 2e, 2006 City of Edmonds, Washington Honorable Mayor Haawkenson Honorable City Council. Members and Planning Department Reference: AMD 20060002 AKA: Rezone P.O.2006 New Zone Classification for the development located at the northwest corner of Edmonds Way and 232n4 Street Southwest. Mayor Haawkenson, City Council Members and Planning Department, My name is William Parker. I have lived in Edmonds since 1953, fast at 961h Avenue West and presently at 232nd Street near Edmonds Way. Mentioning this, I would like to establish my long-standing commitment to the community. I am writing in opposition to the huge building project proposed for Edmonds Way and 232"a Street. The City of Edmonds has two major assets: Edmonds Way (SR 104) and the ferry terminal. Edmonds Way accommodates visitors to our city and as does the ferry terminal. The aforementioned project features retail outlets, condos, two belowground garages and town houses. It is beyond my understanding that this project, which covers approximately one quarter of a mile along Edmonds Way, would benefit the surrounding residents. Residents and commuters will be greatly affected by the increased density and volume of traffic and noise pollution that will result from the completion of this project. I submit that the proposed project be scaled down to town houses only. Neither the two belowground garages, that would accommodate 90 vehicles, should be permitted at this site nor should the retail outlets and all their accompanying components. I am hopeful Edmonds Way will not turn into a roadway such as the one in Long Beach, California with a traffic light every two blocks that would cause a great imposition to all the residents and commuters. Thank You for Your Consideration and Best Regards, William Parker 9512 232nd St. S.W. Edmonds, Washington 98020 10/31/2006 11:20 4256721411 4 t September 9, 2006 Planning Division Manager City of Edmonds 121-50' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Reference: #AMD 200600002, AKA: Rezone change: P.O.20060095 New Zone classification for development Located at NW comer of EdmondsWay and 232' Street in Edmonds Dear Division Manager: PONY MAILBUX The proposed building to be located on the NW comer of Edmonds Way and 232nd street will adversely impact the traffic on 232nd street and the light change there will especially be problematic for the residents. The two-lane, two-way strect of 232nd and 100 street in the Westgate area is already used as a short-cut to the surrounding communities of Woodway, Firdale and Westgate, and is already very busy during AM and PM rush hours. Considering the distance when making a left onto 232' street from Edmonds Way to the quick right into the sight of the proposed below grade parking garage, I believe this below grade site will promote impaired vision problems. Also, the City of Edmonds operates a Fine Department which uses 232nd street and crosses Edmonds Way from their location at 88d' Avenue West which can also add to the congestion and be a hazard for the emergency vehicles. The size of the proposed building and the many retail businesses, townhouses, and condos could generate, in my estimation, eight hundred vehicles entering and exiting this site daily. I feel the project is too ambitious if granted within the present height code restriction and if additional height is permitted it will create an additional twenty-five Percent more traffic and add to the existing traffic problems of congestion, even with a traffic light. Please reconsider the possibility or the granting of needed permits for the completion of this project. Zirlliam H. Pazker 9512-232"d St. SW. Edmonds, WA 98020 September 27, 2006 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121— 5a` Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Proposed development on 232nd St SW and Hwy 104 Dear Development Department: Please be advised that I strongly object to the planned four story development at 232nd St SW & Hwy 104. Other than being an eye soaring four stories tall, the planned development of 60 apartments & townhouses will add much congestion to that intersection which has encountered a large number of traffic accidents, injuries and even deaths. This concentration of additional traffic will also over burden 232nd given it has been used and abused as a short cut between Hwy 104 and 100d' Ave SE. The traffic will certainly take away from the neighborhood feel, making 232nd a very busy street, well beyond its intended purpose and reasonable capacity. I strongly urge you to make the right decision by telling this developer to reduce their plans in half in order to get any future consideration. Sincerely, Charles Naslund 9529 — 232nd St SW Edmonds, WA 98020 206-542-8120 September 26, 2006 To: City of Edmonds Planning Board Re: Creation of new BN-232" Edmonds Way Zone and RM-232"d Edmonds Way Zone and the developer's rezone application recently purchased a home on 2315t Street SW, above Edmonds Way and abutting the parcels being considered under this rezoning request. Being a school teacher, it has taken a long time for me to afford the down payment necessary to purchase the "home of my dreams." 1 was born and raised in Ballard, a community in North Seattle, and considered purchasing a house in that area. While house hunting however, 1 had the opportunity to view homes in many areas. Upon discovering Edmonds, I knew right away that this community was where I would choose to call home. The houses in Ballard are certainly nice but, to me, a home is more than just the dwelling itself. In my opinion, Edmonds provides a feeling that cannot be achieved in an area lacking privacy or character, which was the case in many of the areas I viewed. In looking for a home to purchase, I was instantly attracted to the Edmonds community for several reasons. There is a small town, almost country -like feeling throughout the area, strong, distinctive character and some amount of privacy in most homes. When I come home from work after struggling with the traffic from South Seattle, and turn off of Edmonds Way onto 232nd, I am reminded each day that this is truly where I choose to call home. I drive down a 2-lane road lined by tall trees, which I like to think of as a tunnel, with my house being the light at the end. My home has a large back yard with a great amount of privacy. In the morning, often times still in my bathrobe, I can enjoy my backyard, dappled with sunlight streaming through the towering evergreens. As I sit on my patio surrounded by tall trees, it again reminds me of being in the country. If you approve the rezoning application to allow buildings of 35-45' {plus the additional 5 foot roofing allowance} to be constructed, I will be able to sit on my patio and have a view that will constitute, at a minimum, roofs and may even experience people looking into what I consider my private sanctuary. The architects at the community meeting held on September 7, said that 20% of the existing vegetation will be preserved. If there are currently 30 tall evergreens on these parcels that means that only 6 will be retained. This will greatly diminish one of the aesthetically pleasing things about Edmonds Way. Contrary to goals set in the Comprehensive Plan adopted in March, 2005, this request will remove individual privacy, reduce property values for the residents of the homes abutting the Edmonds Way Corridor, and detract from the community value of a small-town feeling. I believe that singling out these seven parcels will be precedent setting for all parcels in the area designated the Edmonds Way Corridor. I strongly urge you to consider what all residents abutting this area, and Edmonds itself, will be losing, as well as the tone you will set for future development in Edmonds if you approve this rezoning application. Thank ou for considering my comments. ,x--W - O Robin Olney 9229 2315t Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 September 26, 2006 To: City of Edmonds Planning Board Re: Creation and content of new BN-232°" Edmonds Way Zone and RM-232nd Edmonds Way Zone and the developer's rezone application On March 15, 2005, the City of Edmonds adopted a Comprehensive Plan to serve as the basis for municipal policy on development and to provide guiding principles and objectives for the development of regulations. Some of the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan were to promote the values of the community, to anticipate and influence the orderly and coordinated development of land and to encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning. Private projects would be subject to city review and approval, consistent with the Plan. Under this Plan, goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor were established. One of the goals was to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For development in areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, the use of design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development and making use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible. Under the goals listed in the Plan for Multiple Residential developments (RM), there are at least two goals that I feel strongly should be maintained. They are that the RM developments should preserve the privacy of surrounding buildings, and that the height of RM buildings that abut single family residential zones shall be similar to the height permitted in the abutting RS zone (25 feet). Four of the parcels in question are currently zoned RM 1.5 which has the same height limit as the abutting RS zone (with a housing density of 1,500 square feet per dwelling unit which is proposed to be deleted). Three of the parcels are currently zoned BC (Community Business), also with a height limit of 25 feet. The request before this body is to create a totally new zoning code that would allow construction of buildings 35 and 45 feet in height, respectively, plus the standard 5 foot extension for roofing. Changing the maximum height would be precedent setting action that would not consider the total impact on the future of the Edmonds community. The existing zoning for these 7 parcels is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, as adopted. At a neighborhood meeting on September 7, 1 questioned why these 7 parcels, which constitute less than 9% of the parcels in the Edmonds Way Corridor, require re -zoning. The response was that it was necessary in order for the project to be "financially practical'. Now it may be that these parcels should not be zoned as they currently are, and a different zoning designation would fit better with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, but the approach that should be taken is to look at the whole area designated the Edmonds Way Corridor. I urge you not to take this piecemeal approach to development of this area when it appears that the request is not predicated on what is best for the residents of Edmonds but what is best for developers. Respectfully submitted, Claudia Olney 9229 2W' Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 SEP 2 6 2006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 72/ 8 a4 s-f s i-J dam( oJ)4- Q CO) Q 20 SZr�s q/as/oe A ,,,,-u /4 - usL cis �/��''��'�� /S /Lt) rV LJes e� r vt er it / LOurrL s "Q u4 V-VL3.2 e�a LXVf- L� kt C-� t S �t r r i cL� / L bU4 ko o- arv1arbrcA w �-� '"/ram°� �s jr�-� hP�y ? -1- September 25, 2006 Meg Gruwell Senior Planner City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: AMD-06-2, R-06-95 Dear Ms. Gruwell: SEP 2 S 2006 Pt"'VIVIAIO We understand one of the existing trees on the proposed development, which is adjacent to our property, is slated to be retained. This tree drops needles on our garage, and blocks sunlight. My wife is also concerned about it blowing over as well. For this reason we are requesting that the developer have this removed during the construction process. We think that the project will be a positive addition to the neighborhood, and a big improvement to the existing "blight' that welcomes visitors to our fair City on the main road into Edmonds. Sincerely, ,,0" 'f'& Daniel Roehl 9213 232nd SW Edmonds, WA 98020 3115 94 h Ave W Edmonds, WA 98020 September 25, 2006 Edmonds Planning Board City of Edmonds Development Services Dept. 121— 5 b Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 To the members of the Planning Board: This letter concerns the proposed development on the corner of 232°d St. and Edmonds Way/104. I am not able to attend the hearing on 9/27, but want to voice my concerns about this development. I am most concerned about the proposed creation of new zoning, and the height of the proposed buildings, about the increased traffic on 232°d St. and at the intersection of 232°d St. and Edmonds Way, and about the potential negative effect on the Edmonds Way atmosphere if the buildings are too close to the road and/or an insufficient screen of trees is maintained. I want to refer to the letter written by Gary Gibson, which is extremely thorough; I agree wholeheartedly with all of the points he makes, and ask that you take the utmost care in considering this proposal, and the zoning issues. I am unhappy with the proposal as it stands, and very concerned about the potential impact on our neighborhood. Thank you. Alexandra Hepburn 23115 94d' Ave W Edmonds, WA 98020 SEP 2 6 2006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (?C�/ 8 a4 s-f-s j Q co) -s-6as— q/a5/o(o A fir` % -t - t'i- r4W2S � 0-0 r vt-eY C) 3 2 nci -S-/ a hG�Gu.�n-e.r ort_ a3�ns , U. d-� a� r v lam►' s IA) Gl ICJ 0 4' Cldvf�I ! t c J w hdoA-1w S— -w bu�i� s ��r 9v 1� Ceti� Recelv SEp 2 6 kFO 200 September 25,2006�f��lfJj/� Meg Gruwell Senior Planner City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: AMD-06-2, R-06-95 Dear Ms. Gruwell: We understand one of the existing trees on the proposed development, which is adjacent to our property, is slated to be retained. This tree drops needles on our garage, and blocks sunlight. My wife is also concerned about it blowing over as well. For this reason we are requesting that the developer have this removed during the construction process. We think that the project will be a positive addition to the neighborhood, and a big improvement to the existing "blight" that welcomes visitors to our fair City on the main road into Edmonds. Sincerely, Daniel Roehl 9213 232nd SW Edmonds, WA 98020 3115 94" Ave W Edmonds, WA 98020 September 25, 2006 Edmonds Planning Board City of Edmonds Development Services Dept. 121— 5' Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 To the members of the Planning Board: This letter concerns the proposed development on the corner of 232"d St. and Edmonds Way/104. I am not able to attend the hearing on 9/27, but want to voice my concerns about this development. I am most concerned about the proposed creation of new zoning, and the height of the proposed buildings, about the increased traffic on 232°d St. and at the intersection of 232nd St. and Edmonds Way, and about the potential negative effect on the Edmonds Way atmosphere if the buildings are too close to the road and/or an insufficient screen of trees is maintained. I want to refer to the letter written by Gary Gibson, which is extremely thorough; I agree wholeheartedly with all of the points he makes, and ask that you take the utmost care in considering this proposal, and the zoning issues. I am unhappy with the proposal as it stands, and very concerned about the potential impact on our neighborhood. Thank you. Alexandra Hepburn 23115 94'h Ave W Edmonds, WA 98020 S�P�s To: City of Edmonds Planning Board Re: Creation and content of new BN-232nd Edmonds Way Zone and RM-232nA. Way Zone, and the developer's rezone application 6pz Submitted 9/24/06 This comment is submitted regarding the proposed amendment to create two new zone classifications for the proposed development at the corner of 232d Street S.W. and SR104 (Edmonds Way) and extending northwesterly along the west side of Edmonds Way. Since this particular hearing (Sept. 27a') pertains to both the amendment to create the two new zones and the developer's application to rezone the lots to the newly -created zones, I will comment on each separately herein. But first, I must mention some concerns I have regarding the overall process: 1) I learned about the larger scale of this proposed development when I received the "Determination of Nonsignificance" sent by the city to residents living within 300 feet of the proposed development. Although the text "both of which would allow additional height compared to existing zoning" appears in the DNS, it took a phone call to the Planning Department to learn just how much additional height would be allowed. This important information was not given in the DNS. I feel that the most crucial specifics about the effects of new proposals should be readily offered in plain language in these types of correspondences, whether on a DNS or a more general announcement to the residents. 2) Although numerous neighbors had received invitations from the architectural firm to the first neighborhood meetings regarding this development, many of the residents most affected by potential increased traffic on 232d Street S.W. (those farther west on 232°a) were not. Nor were they informed in any other announcement from the city about the proposed development. It should be a requirement that in cases of proposed developments of such a large scale as this one, notices for all meetings and hearings should be sent to all those potentially affected, not just those closest to the property being developed 3) There is a question about the advisability of having a single hearing that encompasses both the amendment of the Community Development Code and the application by the developer to rezone the properties to the new zone. The coincidental timing raises serious questions about whether this issue is being given the attention it deserves. It shortens the time that concerns about the development can be raised and addressed, and reduces (by one) the number of hearings that the public may comment on it. Since the amendment and the application are two different processes, it seems like a lot to tackle in one hearing; I would hope that a second hearing or a continuation of some kind be offered if not all those in attendance at this hearing can be heard, or if additional concerns are brought up in the first hearing. 4) The creation of new zone classifications specifically for certain developments, whether those developments are consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan or not, is an ill-advised practice. Inherently, the practice diminishes the y—M purpose of zone classifications by seemingly catering to the whims of developers who are not content in working within the restrictions of longstanding, established zoning classifications. The practice could raise questions about improprieties such as favoritism or worse, so safeguards must be put in place to assure that the practice is not abused, or else the practice be prohibited. 5) Why is the developer's architect involved in creating the proposed new zone ordinances? Shouldn't the planning department alone be in charge of the creation of new zones? What kind of system is it in which a person who stands to benefit monetarily from such changes as increased building height is allowed to propose new zone classifications for his own projects? Regarding the specific development proposed: 1) The BN-232"d/Edmonds Way Zone, as currently proposed, lists among its general purposes to "reserve areas, for retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of neighborhood area. " And yet, in both the neighborhood meeting of September 7'", and a meeting (September 20) regarding traffic issues, the architect has conceded that, due to the volume of parking that those types of businesses require, they will probabI not be the tomes of businesses that will occupy the mixed use building. Rather, he cited examples such as professional offices, architectural firms, real estate brokers, and insurance agents. These types of businesses do not satisfy the stated purpose of the zoning classification as worded above. They are not businesses that the residents will use on a daily basis. It is natural that the developer and architect are intent on getting as much rentable space out of their property as they can (by keeping the parking to a minimum), but they must do so only to the extent that it can still satisfy the stated purpose of the new zone classification as given above. 2) The architect cites the Comprehensive Plan in his proposed zone criterion: "Provide a pedestrian -oriented streetscape environment for residential and commercial activity. " At the neighborhood meeting of September 7's, the architect conceded, in a defense of development along Edmonds Way, that SR104 was a major state highway, very busy, with actual vehicle speeds averaging somewhere around 50 mph. He reinforced this by adding that it is an inappropriate place for single family homes due to the speed of the traffic. Although this may simply be a fundamental flaw in the Comprehensive Plan itself, how does the Board and the architect reconcile the desire for a "pedestrian -oriented streetscape environment" with the observation that this is a busy state highway with high-speed traffic? There is a disconnect between the two elements at play here. What is the logic of trying to encourage pedestrian traffic on SR104, and, more specifically, what is this developer doing to satisfy this perceived need? 3) The effects of increased traffic on 232"d Street S.W., and at the intersections of both 232"d & SR104 and 232d & I0& (Firdale) have not been adequately addressed. The addition of the proposed 40 new apartments, whose residents will use a proposed 49-stall parking garage that opens to 232"d Street S.W., will, by the architect's traffic consultant's early calculations, increase traffic along 232"d by around 20%. This issue will require more research and data collection before the effects can accurately be estimated. By my rough count, there are currently about 107 (there may be a few more than that) households that must access 232"d to go anyplace at all. This development would add 40 more. Furthermore, if a full traffic signal is required at the intersection of 232"d and SR104, there will be even more traffic (from the east side of SR104) using 232 as a shortcut to the shopping areas of Firdale Village and Westgate Village. (Due to the density of traffic on SR104 and the signal at 92nd, many residents already use 23rd as a more convenient way to get to these shopping areas). Add to this the recent surge in subdivision and development (higher density) within the neighborhood itself, and a recipe for serious traffic and safety problems clearly presents itself. 4) The developer and architect have made much about the reduction of "curb cuts" to SR104 in the proposed project. While there are restrictions that the State Department of Transportation will impose on SR104 (and I do not pretend to know what those restrictions are), does it not make more sense for all the traffic coming in and out of the mixed -use building and townhomes to use SR104, rather than a residential side street? Have all possible options in which only SR104 is used for vehicle traffic been exhausted? Doubtful. One reason might be because this would reduce the amount of rentable space that the developer has to offer. Routing all vehicular traffic from the proposed development onto Edmonds Way eliminates many problems, so the feasibility of this should be further explored. 5) The architect claims in his narrative that the mixed -use development at the corner of 232°d and Edmonds Way would "provide a nice transition from the busy arterial of Edmonds Way to the quieter residential tones found in the neighborhoods west of the site. " While it is possible that a mixed -use development could provide this transition, the proposed structure for this particular development does not. Due to its soaring height and limited setbacks, the building has a tow look ook to it, one hardly appropriate to the scale of the neighborhood it introduces. This is a development that is considerably out of proportion to the neighborhood it will be imposed upon. Regarding the content of the proposed new zone classifications: 1) A fundamental problem many area residents have with the proposed new ordinances is with the added building height. The justification for the extra height, in the architect's proposed criterion, is: "Downtown Edmonds must emphasize height limitations, setbacks, and other strict standards, but in contrast, Edmonds Way properties are not threatened with obstructing the view, or destroying the small town charm. Edmonds Way is relieved of the extreme weight placed on developing standards in downtown Edmonds and therefore should be a district allowing more flexibility in planning and standards such as height and setbacks. Other buildings on Edmonds Way have exceeded the typical height limitations in Edmonds, such as Westgate Chapel (standing at approx. 47 feet), and the Edmonds Highlands Apartments (standing at approx. 40 feet). These taller buildings to not detract from the Edmonds Way Corridor with their height but add to the unique atmosphere of the Edmonds Way district. The 23Td Streetproject, while asking for more flexible height limitations, will not exceed the height of Westgate Chapel, nor will it in anyway destroy the fagade of Edmonds Way. " (italics and parentheses mine) It is disturbing to me that I heard the same sentiment about the view issue expressed within the planning department itself. I will address a few of these statements individually: a) "Edmonds Way properties are not threatened with obstructing the view... " A "view" is a very subjective thing. To say that residents in my area do not have a view could not be farther from the truth, and borders on arrogance. A view can be defined as any visual environment that gives a sense of geographic place to the viewer. Many people living in the "bowl" have a view of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. This is valuable to them because it serves as a reference and a constant reminder that they live in this special place. Those of us living in the area of the proposed development have territorial views that include tall, mature trees, with skylight filtering through the treetops and in the gaps between the tree trunks, and gently rolling terrain, giving us the distinctly Pacific Northwest feeling of living within a forest. This gives us a sense of geographic place (as well as a feeling of privacy not enjoyed by most of those living in the Edmonds "bowl'). Our territorial views are no less valuable than the view of Puget Sound. To gay that our neighborhoods are not threatened with the blockage�r. more specif ically. the elimination -of a view is simnly not true. b) "Edmonds Way is relieved of the extreme weight placed on developing standards in downtown Edmonds. " This is a dangerously divisive attitude to take. To distinguish my neighborhood as a place to allow "more flexibility in planning and standards" is to insinuate that we do not deserve the same planning consideration and protections as those that live in the Edmonds "bowl" area. Adopting the new zone classifications as proposed would raise serious questions about whether or not the city intends to take equally seriously its responsibility in managing development in all areas of the city. Citizens that live in the Edmonds Way, Westgate Village, and Firdale areas deserve the same "strict standards" that exist in downtown Edmonds. c) "These taller buildings do not detract from the Edmonds Way Corridor with their height but add to the unique atmosphere of the Edmonds Way district. " Some do, some don't. When viewed from Edmonds Way, the Edmonds Highlands Apartments seem to not detract from the atmosphere of Edmonds Way. This is because they are set back from the street quite some distance. a much greater distance than the proposed ordinance would require, behind a significant stand of mature evergreen trees (see top photo, next page). It is important to note that the "facade" of Edmonds Way is not the only view to be considered in the proposed new zone classifications. Consider, if you will, this photo of the backside of another nearby apartment complex, taken from my front yard looking across 231st Street S.W. at my neighbor's house: Three-story apartment building with no screening looks directly down into resident's backyard. This one was built within the existing height limit. Add another 20 feet to this (beyond the top of the photograph) to imagine the building height in the proposed BN zone classification. This photo serves as a good example of what our experiences as residents have been like in the past with the introduction of tall multi -family housing on bordering properties. One of our primary concerns, then, is to prevent finther erosion of the heavily -forested, almost rural, private atmosphere within our neighborhood. The loss of trees is one element of this. The building height of these developments is also a major factor in the way our territorial views (and our privacy) are affected c) ..."nor will it in anyway destroy the facade of Edmonds Way. " The tall, mature trees that line it are the facade of Edmonds Way! To remove the taller trees that border the road and put structures close to the street destroys one of the most impressive and aesthetically pleasing things about Edmonds Way. The architect for this particular project has proposed "landscaping to soften project aesthetics." It is doubtful that immature plantings will serve this function. A few five- or ten -foot tall saplings are no visual match for a 50-foot tall structure looming over them (see Westgate Chapel photo). While the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan calls for development along Edmonds Way, it is crucial that development take place in such a way as to preserve the character of the district by retaining as many mature trees as possible and keeoine building height to the current, acceptable standards. 2) Related to building height is an element within the proposed new zoning classification to allow rooftop decks with structures over stairs that extend even further beyond the maximum height allowed for the building. The proposal to allow rooftop decks in addition to the added height of a building compounds the privacy issue by allowing an even higher vantage point from which to view the yards of neighboring homes, and diminishes the very meaning of `maximum height." This element should be eliminated from the proposal. 3) It is commendable that the architect recognizes the value in encouraging "the use of environmental `green' technologies" in the proposed new zoning classifications. However, much of this technology should be required, not simply encouraged. And strict guidelines about preservation of selected forested areas on properties to be developed should also be written into the new zone classifications in order to preserve both the privacy of neighboring homes as well as the character of Edmonds Way. Conclusion: 1) Development along Edmonds Way should take place on a scale that is appropriate to the residential zones surrounding it Current height restrictions are adequate to allow mixed -use development in a way that preserves privacy and is consistent with the residential environment that surrounds the Edmonds Way corridor. 2) Development along, Edmonds Way should strive to preserve as many of the mature trees that line the road as possible to preserve its `Varkway" feel. 3) These proposed zone classifications represent an erosion of zoning standards, and set a dangerous precedent Developers need to work creatively within existing height, setback, environmental, and architectural requirements, rather than simply try to change the rules to suit their needs. Faithfully submitted, Gary Gibson 9302 — 231s` Street S.W. Edmonds, WA 98020 Michael A. Nicefaro Jr. Anne W. Nicefaro 9230 — 232°d Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Home: (206) 546-9468 September 11, 2006 Mr. Robert Chave Manager — Planning Division City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Declaration of Non -Significance Proposed Edmonds Community Development Code Amendment Proposed New Zones BN-232°d/Ed.Wy.; RM- BN-232°d/Ed.Wy. Dear Mr. Chave: We reside at 9230 — 232nd Street SW, in close proximity to the properties proposed for this rezoning classification. We are writing to express our objection to the declaration of non -significance (DNS) that has been suggested for the proposed rezone. Contrary to the DNS, numerous significant adverse impacts would result from the new zoning classifications that have not been addressed in the environmental checklist. The current zoning classification height restrictions, which would be substantially increased by the proposed new zoning classifications, were adopted for a reason. That reason was to protect the single family residential properties from exposure to the inconsistent Neighborhood Business and Multi -family uses that are allowed along Edmonds Way under the comprehensive plan. The depressed Edmonds Way roadway corridor provides a natural buffer between these intensive uses and the single family residential that exist in the benches up above. Allowing the new zoning classifications would allow the sights and sounds of the multi -family layers of the proposed development to intrude into this zoned and fully developed single family residential area. Neighborhood business aspects of the project have not been finalized at this point, but many of the potential uses under this classification could generate sights; sounds and odors that are inconsistent with the single family residential uses that border the proposed rezone area None of these factors have been addressed satisfactorily in the environmental checklist. Mr. Robert Chave September 11, 2006 Page 2 of 2 The DNS is not appropriate for the additional reason that the proposed zoning reclassification would substantially increase the density of the proposed development. It is obvious that increasing the height restriction will allow for more intense development, and that higher intensity will result in increased impact on the neighborhood. Increasing the height restrictions will permit greater business, multi -family, or both uses. The existing zoning classification height restrictions contemplate far less extensive development. Increasing the intensity of that development will have an impact on the amenities of the neighborhood, as well as increasing the burden on the currently strained transportation assets in the neighborhood. The DNS is not appropriate for the additional reason that the properties proposed for the rezone are not amenable to the more intensive use that the increased height restrictions call for. The properties are at the level of Edmonds Way, and follow that roadway in a relatively narrow strip. The depth of the properties along Edmonds Way is not conducive to more intense development. Even with radical onsite traffic circulation features, allowing more intensive development of this property will increase the internal circulation problems inherent in this kind of configuration. Those problems will manifest themselves on Edmonds Way, and likely 232°d Street SW as well. We respectfully urge you to reconsider the DNS, and require that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared to investigate these adverse impacts and assess alternatives, particularly the "do nothing" alternative. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions, and thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on this action. Sincerely, -tea-� Michael A. Nicefaro Jr. Anne W. Nicefaro bep rt ue ua:uap Konerz H. Hogan September 9, 2006 Planning Division Manager City of Edmonds 121-5d' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Reference: #AMD 200600002, AKA: Rezone change. P.O.20060095 New .Zone classification for development Located at NW corner ofEdmondsWay and 232"' Street in Edmonds Dear Division Manager: izue�avc-uc�a p.e nscelv�el) S&P 142006 2006 PcAA°A!llVG DEPT The proposed building to be located on the NW corner of Edmonds Way and 232"d street will adversely impact the traffic on 232"d street and the light change there will e!Eecially be problematic for the residents. The two-lane, two-way street of 232"' and too' street in the Westgate area is already used as a short-cut to the surrounding communities of Woodway, Fadale and Westgate, and is already very busy during AM and PM rash hours. Considering the distance when making a left onto 232!' street from Edmonds Way to the quick right into the sight of the proposed below grade parking garage, I believe this below grade site will promote impaired vision problems. Also, the City ofEdmonds operates a Fire Department which uses 232d street and crosses Edmonds Way from their location at 881' Avenue West which can also add to the congestion and be a hazard for the emergency vehicles. The size ofthe proposed building and the many retail businesses, townhouses, and condos could generate, in my estimation, eight hundred vehicles entering and exiting this site daily. I feel the project is too ambitious if granted within the present height code restriction and if additional height is permitted it will create an additional twenty-five Percent more traffic and add to the existing traffic problems of congestion, even with a traffic light. Please reconsider the possibility or the granting of needed permits for the completion of this project. rinii H. Parker 9512-23VO St. SW. $dmonds, WA 98020 AM-803 7. Report on City Council Committee Meetings Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 01/ 16/ 2007 Submitted By: Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Time: 15 Minutes Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Information Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Report on City Council Committee Meetings. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Not applicable. Previous Council Action Not applicable. Narrative Copies of the following City Council Committee Meeting Minutes are attached: 1. Community/Development Services Committee Meeting (1/9/07) 2. Finance Committee Meeting (1/9/07) Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: CSDS Committee Minutes Link: Finance Committee Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/11/2007 05:27 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/12/2007 09:45 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 01/12/2007 09:52 AM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 01/11/2007 03:44 PM Final Approval Date: 01/12/2007 Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting January 9, 2007 Elected Officials Present: Staff Present: Mauri Moore, Committee Member Duane Bowman, Dev. Services Director Richard Marin, Committee Chair Dave Gebert, City Engineer Noel Miller, Public Works Director Frances Chapin Committee Chair Marin convened the meeting at 6:00 P.M. After an official coin toss, Mr. Marin was elected Committee Chair for 2007. A. Report on Main Street Liahtina Cost Estimates Noel Miller, Public Works Director introduced the topic. He reported that during the 2007-2008 budget process last year, the City Council appropriated $75,000 for the Main Street lighting project from 5t" Avenue to 61" Avenue. He noted that his original estimate of $75,000 did not include any major sidewalk. Once engineering staff developed the project plan, it was discovered that it would also require a significant amount of new sidewalk to be constructed. The estimated cost was revised up to $242,000. Staff further discovered additional funds would be needed to remove the the street trees and stumps that are planned to be replaced which now has resulted in a total project cost of approximately $275,000. Dave Gebert, City Engineer, pointed out that the side walk replacement would cover only the area were the street lights were to be installed. Duane Bowman, Development Services Director, noted that $75,000 has been transferred to Fund 112 for this project but because of the cost increase to the project, staff recommends the project be postponed to allow staff and the City Council to find funding for the project. He noted that this is a low priority transportation project in comparison to a project like providing secondary emergency access out of Shell Valley. Councilmember Moore inquired whether or not grants would be available for this project. Dave Gebert responded that it would be very unlikely that this would be a good grant candidate project but staff could certainly look into the possibility. Ms. Moore also asked if this would be a good project for a Business Improvement District (BID) to fund. Duane Bowman responded that yes a BID could do this kind of project or a Limited Improvement District (LID) could also but was likely to receive little support. The Committee supported postponing the project to allow staff and the Council to explore other funding possibilities. The $75,000 in Fund 112 should be held in reserve for future funding of this project. ACTION: Postpone the Main Street lighting project this year to allow staff and the City Council time to research other funding options and that the $75,000 in Fund 112 is held in reserve for the project. The Committee meeting adjourned at 6:18 p.m. FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES January 9, 2007 6:00 PM Present: Councilmember Ron Wambolt Councilmember Dave Orvis Staff: Kathleen Junglov Deb Sharp Noel Miller Dan Clements The Finance Committee meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. After passing the baton back and fourth several times, it was decided that Councilmember Orvis will chair the committee. Item A: General Oblization Bond Issue Committee members were provided a background briefing about the upcoming $5.1 million bond issue. Of special interest was the 2007 Energy Conservation Project, which has not been previously approved by Council, and the calendar for issuing the debt. It was the Committee's consensus to: 1.) Include the Energy Conservation Project; and 2.) Forward the ordinance on to Council for their review as a Consent Agenda item. Item B: Utility Code Update Kathleen Junglov reviewed the draft ordinance that codifies the utility billing changes discussed at an earlier Finance Committee meeting. The major changes include: 1.) Suspension of billing for vacant dwellings; 2.) Low income definition; and 3.) Delinquency charges. The Committee directed staff to move this item forward as a regular agenda topic. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 PM. V:\WORDATA\FINANCE COMM MINUTES\2007 FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES\FINANCE - 070109.DOC