The URL can be used to link to this page

2007.02.06 CC Agenda PacketAGENDA Edmonds City Council Meeting Council Chambers 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds February 06, 2007 7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. 6:30 p.m. - Executive Session regarding a legal matter. 6:45 p.m. - Meeting with Sister City Commission candidates. 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Fla S� alute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items A. Roll Call B. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2007. C. Approval of claim checks #93712 through #93977 for February 1, 2007 in the amount of $835,169.15. D. Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Diane Van Natter (amount undetermined). E. Confirmation of Sister City Commission Candidates Clare Long and Elijah Zupancic. F. Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions for terms of membership to make changes to the rules governing the appointment and service of Commissioners on Edmonds Civic Arts Commission. G. Authorization for City Attorney's office to commence a Quiet Title Action in Snohomish County Superior Court to quiet Edmond's title to the portions of Pacific Northwest Traction Company Right -of -Way received by the City from the Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 by Quit Claim Deed for the purpose of construction, operation and maintenance of the Interurban Trail project within the City of Edmonds. H. Traffic Impact Fee Annual Report 3. (5 Min) Proclamation in honor of the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Week, February 4 - 10, 2007. 4. (30 Discussion on the Planning Board Recommendation on the design review guidelines. Min) 5. (10 Proposed Resolution of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, recommending to the Snohomish Min) County Council that an emergency moratorium be enacted on applications for condominium -related, low -density, multiple -family residential developments in the unincorporated portion of the City of Edmonds Municipal Urban Growth Area. 6. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person) 7. (15 Min) Report on City Council Committee Meetings. 8. (5 Min) Mayor's Comments 9. (15 Min) Council Comments 10. Adjourn AgendaQuick©2005 - 2007 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved Packetl of 205 AgendaQuick©2005 - 2007 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved Packet2 of 205 AM-819 2.13. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 02/06/2007 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 23, 2007. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council approve the draft minutes. Previous Council Action Not applicable. Narrative The January 23, 2007 Draft City Council Meeting Minutes are attached for the City Council's review. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Draft Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/01/2007 08:57 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/01/2007 09:01 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/01/2007 10:01 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 01/31/2007 11:49 AM Final Approval Date: 02/01/2007 Packet3 of 205 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES January 23, 2007 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to meet with an Architectural Design Board candidate, 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 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 Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Scott Snyder, City Attorney Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Haakenson requested the following changes to the agenda: addition of Confirmation of the Mayor's Appointment of Mike Mestres to the Architectural Design Board as Item 3a, addition of a Proclamation in Honor of National Mentoring Month as Item 3b and move Item 3 to Item 3c. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 16, 2007 C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #93362 THROUGH #93567 FOR JANUARY 11, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $486,218.56 AND #93568 THROUGH #93711 FOR JANUARY 18, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $576,611.37. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #44424 THROUGH #44466 FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1 THROUGH JANUARY 15, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $792,283.45 D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM FRANK LEIFER CONSTRUCTION ($4,083.75) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 1 Packet4 of 205 E. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTER -AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATED TO ENERGY/UTILITY CONSERVATION PROJECTS F. COMMUNITY SERVICES QUARTERLY REPORT - JANUARY, 2007 3A. CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF MIKE MESTRES TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Councilmember Moore introduced ADB candidate Mike Mestres and described his background. Mr. Mestres expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to serve on the ADB and looked forward to participating. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO CONFIRM MAYOR HAAKENSON'S APPOINTMENT OF MIKE MESTRES TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3B. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL MENTORING MONTH Councilmember Dawson read a proclamation declaring January as National Mentoring Month in Edmonds and encouraging all citizens, city employees and caring adults to become involved as mentors. She presented the proclamation to Steve Erickson, Chair of the Board of Directors, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Snohomish County. On behalf of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Snohomish County as well as other mentoring agencies in Snohomish County, Mr. Erickson thanked the Council for recognizing National Mentoring Month and helping to increase the mentoring of children. He commented on his experience as a mentor for the past ten years and the positive impact mentoring has on children. He referred to the saying children are our future, noting many children do not have a positive role model to guide them through situations. Councilmember Moore described the mentoring program she is involved with through the Edmonds School District that pairs mentors with teen girls attending Scriber Lake School. As of tomorrow, they will have trained 50 women to mentor girls. She knew of several girls who would not have graduated from high school without this mentoring program. She assured mentors were not required to invest a great deal of time; a small investment for big rewards. She explained in this program, mentors only met with girls on campus. She summarized it was one of the most rewarding things she has done. 3C. UPDATE ON EDMONDS CROSSING Community Services Director Stephen Clifton displayed a map of the Edmonds Crossing project, explaining tonight's presentation was to provide the Council, Mayor and the community an update on the Edmonds Crossing project, a regionally significant endeavor to construct a multimodal facility on the lower yard of the Unocal site. He highlighted milestones in 2006, explaining from January through December he continued to monitor and participate in activities related to the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) and Sound Transit 2 (ST2). As a result of participation in these processes and ongoing negotiations with RTID and ST2 representatives, Edmonds Crossing is poised to receive funding from both sources if voters approve a joint roads and transit ballot this fall. In February and March 2006, Mayor Haakenson, the City's lobbyist Mike Doubleday, and he made presentations to several Senate and House legislators in Olympia to provide more information as well as solicit additional funding for construction. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 2 Packet5 of 205 In February 2006 he submitted a federal appropriation request to the federal delegation for funds to pay for critically needed base elements of the Edmonds Crossing project. Working with Washington State Ferries (WSF), they identified specific funding for SR104 and Pine Street intersection improvements. He noted this intersection needed to be improved before other elements of Edmonds Crossing began. In March 2006 the State Legislature appropriated an additional $22,642,000 for the Edmonds Crossing project in 2015-2017 biennium as part of the final supplemental State transportation budget. He summarized the amount secured from state and federal appropriations since 2002 totaled $73 million. This amount, added to the $6 million his predecessor was able to secure from federal sources, brings the total allocated to the project to $79 million. On May 2 Greg Deardorf, WSF, presented information on a draft long range strategic plan to the City Council. The plan, once adopted by WSF, will guide services and investments through 2030. The final plan will become the basis for WSF future capital investments and service planning and serves as the WSF component of the Washington State Transportation plan. On May 10 Mike Doubleday and he attended an open house hosted by WSDOT and WSF at the South Snohomish County Senior Center and a summary of the event was provided to the City Council and the Mayor. As a follow-up Mr. Doubleday sent a letter to the 21" and 32°d District delegation summarizing the issues discussed at the open house. The letter was intended to help the delegation understand activities taking place as they relate to WSF's long range plan and the Edmonds Crossing project. On June 19 on behalf of Edmonds, Mayor Haakenson sent a letter to Mike Anderson, WSF Chief Executive Officer, encouraging the inclusion of additional funding for the Edmonds Crossing multimodal terminal project in the 2007-2009 biennial budget. On June 28 WSF funding strategies committee, consisting of various state legislators, visited the Unocal site and were provided a presentation by Edmonds and WSF staff about the Edmonds Crossing project. They presented information about the project's status, project components, costs and timelines in addition to answering questions. On August 22 WSF sent a letter to Edmonds proposing a change to the structure of the Edmonds Crossing Phase 2 final design and permitting. Instead of hiring program management consultant as originally discussed by the City and WSF, WSF proposes to provide a majority of the program management services utilizing WSF staff throughout the design and permitting process. In response to the letter, City staff and Mayor Haakenson met with WSF staff to discuss the proposal. WSF will still issue a RFQ to solicit for a private consulting firm to do permitting and final design but will conduct program management services. WSF has expressed a commitment to provide the necessary resources to keep the project moving forward and work with the City to ensure this occurs. For this to happen, WSF, City staff and Mayor Haakenson agree the City must continue to serve a prominent role logistically, legislatively and in pursing funding for the project. In December 2006 Governor Gregoire released the proposed 2007-2009 biennial budget; the budget currently contains $58.310 million for Edmonds Crossing which represents all funding appropriated by the legislature thus far toward the project. Nichole McIntosh, Project Manager and Engineering Manager, WSF, thanked the City for their support in helping fund this project, an exciting project for WSF. She reiterated WSF was committed to the Edmonds Crossing project and have hired a full-time project manager, Kynan Patterson, to take over the Edmonds Crossing management from design and permitting through construction for WSF and working collaboratively with the City. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 3 Packet6 of 205 Kynan Patterson, Senior Marine Engineer and Project Manager for Edmonds Crossing, advised a Memorandum of Agreement had been submitted which would be the basis for the relationship over the next 3-5 years of design, permitting and development of the Edmonds Crossing project. WSF is also moving forward with purchasing 3.9 acres from the Pt. Edwards Condominium. With regard to costs, Mr. Patterson acknowledged project costs had increased significantly since they were last presented to the Council. He recalled at that time the cost of a phased construction of the entire project was $171 million. With the assistance of WSDOT, project costs were updated to take into consideration recent increases particularly in diesel and concrete. The current estimate project cost is $203 million base; additional risk assessment and escalating costs to the year of expenditure resulted in a final cost estimate of $237 million. Mr. Patterson advised funding from RTID was $126-127 million. He explained when the project was first considered for funding via RTID, approximately 175 in funding was identified. Via the City's efforts and subsequent State funding, the amount was reduced to $127 million. Councilmember Wambolt inquired about the difference in funding between the federal and state allocations Mr. Clifton referred to and the funding RTID would provide. Mr. Patterson answered there were approximately $57 million in State funds, $12 million in federal grants, and $30 million in the ST2 ballot measure added to the $126 million in escalated dollars equated to the project total of $237 million. Councilmember Wambolt inquired about the property WSF planned to purchase. Mr. Patterson explained the preferred alternative in the EIS was the Pt. Edwards site, 1/4 mile south of the existing terminal. In addition to the 20 acre parcel WSF is purchasing, a small narrow property at the base of the hill, currently owned by Pt. Edwards Condominiums, is needed to complete the footprint of the Edmonds Crossing project. Councilmember Wambolt referred to information Mr. Clifton provided the Council regarding a committee that reviewed the proposed multimodal projects and recommended they not all be constructed and that other measures be considered such as raising fares to discourage trips during peak hours, etc. He asked if there had been any ranking of the projects. Ms. McIntosh explained a ferry financing study was done to consider ways to save money. The committee felt some terminals were too large and PSRC ridership projections were too high. She explained this was a travel and demand study. She advised implementing travel and demand features such as peak period pricing and reservation system were within the legislature's jurisdiction. She noted the choice was either implementation of travel and demand features or larger ferry terminals. Mayor Haakenson observed the Edmonds Crossing project was one of the projects that Senator Mary Margaret Haugen referred to as overbuilding of the holding lanes and dock size. He urged Senator Haugen to observe the ferry line any Friday or Saturday and then indicate whether they were too large. Ms. McIntosh explained when WSF met with staff who prepared the report, she suggested they observe the ferry backup in Edmonds on a Friday or Saturday. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the need to remove ferry traffic from SR104 due to the impact it had on access to residential streets as well as commercial areas. Councilmember Moore commented although she was very supportive of the Edmonds Crossing project, she wanted the off -leash dog park to be retained. 4. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS CITY CODE 5.05.050 PROHIBITING ANIMALS FROM RUNNING AT LARGE, REQUIRING HUMANE TREATMENT AND NOTIFICATION OF DETAINED ANIMALS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 4 Packet? of 205 Police Chief David Stern explained these issues originated via citizen contact with individual Councilmembers and a decision was made to have it reviewed by the Public Safety Committee. The Public Safety Committee considered it in October and again in November and December. As a result of those meetings, the proposed ordinance was developed. He highlighted the amendment to the ordinance which required the person detaining an animal to do so in a humane manner, make notification to the Police Department within 12 hours and the person detaining the animal was responsible for caring for the animal prior to the Police Department's arrival. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this was an alternative recommended by staff as a middle course. Staff s recommendation reinstitutes a requirement that animals be turned over to animal control, a requirement that was lost in a prior code codification. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Chief Stern recommended this amendment. Chief Stern agreed he did. Councilmember Dawson commented this had not ever had a public hearing or formal opportunity for the public to provide input. Chief Stern agreed there had been no public hearing; it was on the Public Safety committee agenda several times and there had been public input at those meetings. Councilmember Dawson recalled animal issues in the past that resulted in public controversy. Recognizing this was an emotional issue for many citizens, she preferred to gather public input on the proposed amendments before Council took any action. Although she appreciated the language regarding humane treatment, she was concerned with codifying the intentional trapping of domestic animals. Councilmember Wambolt supported Councilmember Dawson's suggestion to take public comment before taking formal action. He referred to language in the ordinance that did not prohibit domestic cats or animals owned by government agencies from running at large. He asked whether consideration was given to exempting cats and animals owned by government agencies from the ordinance. Chief Stern answered the animals owned by government agencies were police dogs. He advised that option was discussed by the Public Safety Committee and it was agreed cats running at large was often beyond the City's control. Mr. Snyder recalled this issue had arisen in several cities in the past, noting the difficulty for an animal control officer to capture a cat running at large. If trapping/detaining by citizens was not allowed, the City would be the entity trapping cats. Chief Stern pointed out the ordinance was directed primarily at dogs rather than cats because most aggressive acts toward humans were by dogs not cats. Councilmember Wambolt supported scheduling a public hearing prior to taking any action. Councilmember Orvis commented although the code introduces language regarding the trapping of cats, the old code did not prohibit trapping cats. Chief Stern advised the language regarding trapping was included in the code and at some point was removed. Councilmember Orvis concluded this ordinance did not enable the trapping of cats but established rules for trapping cats. Chief Stern agreed it added rules for the humane treatment of trapped cats. Mr. Snyder clarified the ordinance referred to detaining an animal not to trapping. He noted a property owner had the right to prevent trespass and there were several tools to accomplish including a trap, broom, trash can, etc. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 20, 2007. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 5 Packet8 of 205 Al Rutledge, Edmonds, advised the Hearing Examiner would be holding a hearing in February on the DNS on the demolition of the building on the former Woodway Elementary school site. Next he commented on documentation that was needed for an Interlocal Agreement. He also referred to a future hearing on a complaint to the Growth Management Hearings Board against Snohomish County. He questioned whether Mayor Haakenson planned to run for another term and asked when the term limits on the Mayor's position were eliminated. Mayor Haakenson asked City Attorney Scott Snyder to describe the process for eliminating the two term limit for Mayors in the City of Edmonds. Mr. Snyder recalled in 1997 or 1998 when Mayor Naughton was in office he requested a review of the term limit ordinance, it was determined the City's ordinance conflicted with the provisions of State statute which do not contain a term limitation and the State preempts all attempts to regulate the electoral process. Following the election the Council removed the term limitations. Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to support plug-in hybrid cars. He described a National Plug-in Hybrid Campaign, advising further information was available at pluginpartners.org. He also provided a proposed resolution supporting a campaign to encourage the development of gas optional/plug-in hybrid cars. He explained hybrid cars had an electrical motor that was charged via a gasoline engine; the gas motor could be turned off and the vehicle operated using only the electrical motor. Plug-in hybrid cars did not charge the battery with the gasoline engine, they were charged via an electrical plug-in. He noted plug-in hybrid cars had gasoline engines that could be utilized to extend the 20-40 range of the vehicle. For trips within the 20-40 mile range, only the electrical engine was needed. He enumerated the benefits of plug-in hybrid cars including less gas, less pollution, fewer greenhouse gases, and an important part of the national security effort to use fewer petrochemicals. He advised the electricity was obtained via 110 volt plug-in at home, the office or at charging stations on the street. He displayed a list of cities that support plug-in hybrid cars including Seattle and Wenatchee, noting Snohomish County was in favor of this effort. He noted the positive reputation Edmonds would obtain by supporting plug-in hybrid cars and installing charging stations. He noted Congressman Jay Inslee introduced a bill today to support plug-in hybrids. Steve Lough, President, Seattle Electric Vehicle Association, advised the cornerstones of their organization were to educate, demonstrate and proliferate. He express the Association's support for Mr. Bernheim's proposal, advising a 15-minute presentation was available via AM1090's website under Audio, Community Matters and his name. He explained an electric vehicle was five times were efficient than a gas engine. GM and Toyota were in a race to perfect the plug-in hybrid technology; the Chevrolet Volt concept car was the star of the recent Detroit Auto Show. The Volt, a plug-in hybrid, would run on lithium batteries for 30-40 miles; the gas/biodiesel/ethanol engine extends the range to 500 miles. He advised their organization partners with Plug-in Partners and built four plug-in hybrids with a 100 mile range by modifying Toyota Pries. He advised a recent study found 75-80% of automobiles in the United States could be electric. He urged the Council to consider Mr. Bernheim's proposal and become a Plug-in Partner. Councilmember Moore asked the cost to install a charging station. Mr. Lough offered to provide that information. Councilmember Dawson offered to provide information to the Council regarding Snohomish County's efforts. Ray Martin, Edmonds, thanked the Council for delaying action on the ordinance regarding detaining animals and allowing the public to provide input. His intent was to prevent further animal cruelty, displaying photographs of his cat before and after it was trapped. He read from an email from a City official that indicated the ordinance did not allow cat trapping and his answer that cat trapping had only been renamed pet detention. He read from an email from Mr. Snyder that the current city ordinance did not prohibit a citizen from trapping a cat and that the proposal re -imposes a requirement that a detained Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 6 Packet9 of 205 animal be turned over to animal control within 12 hours. Mr. Martin disagreed, noting the ordinance only required the City be contacted within 12 hours with no required time for the City to respond. He requested the Council add language that protected the cat and its owner. He suggested the City consider regulations utilized by other cities such as Everett. Marge Martin, Edmonds, thanked the Council for scheduling a public hearing on the ordinance regarding detaining animals. She questioned how the one individual who started this issue could change City ordinances without the citizens having an opportunity to have input. She noted the ordinance could set up a vigilante situation whereby neighbors that did not get along could use trapping of a cat as a ruse to get back at the neighbor. She recalled receiving a threatening phone call where the person who took her cat told her that things happen to cats. She questioned how the City could adopt an ordinance that was against the State's ordinance. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the issues raised by Natalie Shippen regarding the Edmonds Crossing project. He expressed concern with the safety of the waterfront if a train blocked access for emergency vehicle to the waterfront area, noting this could be addressed via an emergency vehicle access from the elevated ferry loading area. He was concerned about the immense cost of the breakwater, noting with issues the committee raised, it was likely to be a long time before Edmonds Crossing was built. Noting the political season was beginning, he urged all candidates to speak the truth and not try to bamboozle the public. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented the ordinance regarding animals running at large was an issue of property rights versus humane and proper treatment of animals. He referred to the recent news article regarding the dumping of puppies, questioning what type of person would do that. He expressed concern with allowing people to trap cats who did not know how to do it and with the results of a cat trapping incident in the City, urging the Council to consider the balance between property rights and the humane treatment of animals and to identify more appropriate ways to address the problem. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Council had a proposed ordinance regarding detaining animals. He urged citizens speaking at the public hearing who were opposed to that ordinance to provide alternate language/ideas. 6. DISCUSSION ON THE REGULATION OF TEMPORARY SIGNS Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled in September 2006 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision, Ballen v. City of Redmond, which addressed Redmond's regulation of portable signs. He explained the Ballen case involved a bagel shop owner who hired a person to hold a sign pointing customers to his store. Because the Ballen opinion will be published, it will have binding precedent for all municipalities in western United States. The Ballen case involved a constitutional challenge to the City of Redmond's ban on portable signs. Redmond defined portable signs as sandwich boards, signed displayed on trailers, movable readerboards, and other temporary message displays that are not permanently affixed to a structure or the ground. The ordinance exempted several categories of signs such as real estate signs, celebration displays, specified banners, temporary window signs, signs on kiosks, construction signs and signs indicating temporary uses of schools, churches and community buildings from the larger prohibition. Mr. Bowman explained Edmonds' code was very similar to Redmond, therefore, the City has three choices with regard to revising its regulations: 1. Categorical ban — ban on all portable commercial signs Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 7 Packetl0 of 205 2. Zone -specific restrictions — establish content -neutral restrictions on temporary commercial signs by zone district 3. Time, place and manner restrictions Mr. Bowman acknowledged all three approaches had issues including enforcement of small commercial signs that often proliferate in the community. He advised this was discussed with the Community Services/Development Services Council Committee and the realtors association submitted a letter which was reviewed and responded to by the City Attorney. The CS/DS Committee recommended the zone district approach that would be content neutral. Mr. Bowman advised his personal preference would be a categorical ban due to ease of enforcement, but acknowledged the business community wanted A -board signs. City Attorney Scott Snyder emphasized the City needed to change its ordinance. He noted the City enforced its ordinance on a complaint basis. One of the issues for Redmond was explaining why they were enforcing a portion of their code and ignoring the rest of it. If the City had regulations, they needed to be uniformly enforced due to the emphasis the Ninth District Court gave to commercial free speech. He explained content neutral meant regulation was not based on the content of the sign. Time, place and manner allowed the City to regulate location, duration and method by which temporary commercial signs may be displayed. He summarized this was an issue where the needs of business owners must be balanced with the look and feel of the community thus a neighborhood approach may be best. Councilmember Dawson clarified the choices before the council were, 1) an outright ban or 2) time, place and manner restrictions that varied by zone and were content neutral. She observed the Council was not making a decision tonight, only direction to the Planning Board. Councilmember Wambolt recalled Mark Hinshaw's reference to the City's legal exposure via sandwich board signs on the sidewalk. Mr. Snyder commented his pet peeve was sandwich boards blocking right- of-way and he has been known to return a sandwich board sign that was blocking the handicap access ramp to the store. The City is required to maintain ADA safe walkways downtown; trip and fall claims closely followed sewer back ups in terms of City liability. He noted different zones would have different requirements, for example Hwy. 99 has different sign standards to compensation for being harder to see versus the downtown area where there are fairly restrictive sign area requirements. Councilmember Wambolt asked who enforced portable signs. Mr. Bowman answered staff. Mayor Haakenson clarified it was enforced on a complaint basis. He also acknowledged returning sandwich board signs displayed in the right-of-way to the merchant. Mr. Snyder advised there were handicap accessibility advocates who visit communities to ensure businesses and sidewalks were accessible, thus merchants had equal liability. For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Bowman advised the Planning Board would develop regulations for the Council's consideration. Mr. Snyder advised staff also wanted to confirm the Council was not interested in an outright ban. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO REFER THIS MATTER TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO INVESTIGATE ZONE SPECIFIC TIME, PLACE AND MANNER RESTRICTIONS ON TEMPORARY SIGNS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 8 Packetl 1 of 205 Council President Olson reported the South Snohomish Cites was meeting on Thursday to discuss Low Density Multifamily Residential units or open space condominiums. Due to loopholes in the Snohomish County code, these developments were being built in Snohomish County UGAs — single family houses with drive isles instead of streets as well as many other problems. Councilmember Marin reported the Hwy. 99 Taskforce was close to a finalizing the traffic study and a presentation to the Council from the Traffic Engineer and the consultant that prepared the report was scheduled for February 27. It was hoped the Council would be interested in improvements on Hwy. 99 in the future, put them on the TIP, Comprehensive Plan and starting planning them. Councilmember Marin reported public health had been underfunded for decades and many public health districts were struggling. The legislature passed a resolution regarding funding and which he asked be drafted in the City's format for Council consideration. Councilmember Plunkett reported the Parking Committee will be considering the City's fines for parking violations. Because the fines are considerably lower than other cities, they may not be a deterrent. Although he had hoped the Historic Preservation Commission could complete the draft historic design standards for the BD 1 by the end of January, he anticipated they would be completed and forwarded to the Planning Board by the end f February. Councilmember Dawson commended Councilmember Marin, Executive Reardon and Everett Councilmember Olson for their courageous vote to go against the rest of the Sound Transit Board and stand up for the rights of taxpayers in Snohomish County and support their taxes funding projects in Snohomish County. Councilmember Dawson reported SnoCom had been discussing interconnectivity between the SnoCom and SnoPak CAD systems. She noted there had been a great deal of push -back from the SnoPak Board due to the lack of understanding regarding the necessity of interconnectivity for user agencies particularly fire agencies for mutual aid and border agencies between SnoPak and SnoCom. She noted in her job she also serves on the SnoPak Board. The SnoPak Board voted recently to seek grant funding for the interconnect and to follow-through with the interconnect with the grant funding. She anticipated a better relationship between the SnoCom and SnoPak Board and projects that would benefit the County and the City. The next SnoCom Board meeting is later this week. She advised the Disability Board was meeting tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. Councilmember Orvis reported he would be participating in the Hearing Examiner interviews tomorrow. Councilmember Wambolt reported on the January 8 Port of Edmonds meeting that included election of Marianne Burkhart as President and swearing in of new officers. The Port Commission also set the schedule for 2007 meetings and announced the Port was selected as the Marina of the Year in a national competition. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Moore advised she requested plug-in hybrid be placed on the Community Services/Development Services Committee agenda. She found it a great idea, depending on the cost. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 9 Packet12 of 205 Next, she relayed information provided by Administrative Services Director Dan Clements regarding where sales was generated in the City which found it was predominately from the car dealerships on Hwy. 99. She pointed out Hwy. 99 was critical to funding the future of the City. Councilmember Moore referred to Community Service Director Stephen Clifton's efforts regarding the railroad quiet zone which were detailed in the Quarterly Community Services Report on tonight's Consent Agenda. Mayor Haakenson advised a test, cancelled due to snow and ice, would be rescheduled. Councilmember Dawson described legislative matters she was working on at Snohomish County. One that had the potential to impact Edmonds was violation of no contact orders in domestic violence cases in particular. She explained there had been some rulings at the Superior Court, one from Snohomish County Superior Court on a City of Edmonds case that ruled various types of no contact order violations that were currently prosecuted were not criminal activities under interpretation of the statute and ordinance. The result was only no contact order violations regarding a specified location or distance or acts or threats of violence could be prosecuted. Other contacts such as a encountering someone in a public place, sending a letter, a telephone call, having a relative call with a threat, etc. were not being prosecuted in many jurisdictions. She, along with staff from Everett and Seattle, drafted language to resolve this issue and rather than wait to determine if the courts agreed with this interpretation, it was proposed via House Hill 1642. Councilmember Dawson reported Council President Olson and she planned to attend the AWC legislative meeting on February 14 and meet with legislators that evening. She invited anyone who wanted to raise an issue for discussion to contact them. Councilmember Wambolt commented he had also participated on the Parking Committee and the Hwy. 99 Task Force, attended two Community Technical Advisory Committee meetings, attended two Harbor Square Redevelopment Committee meetings and planned to attend the AWC meeting. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council was not meeting on January 30 and their next meeting was February 6. 10. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 23, 2007 Page 10 Packet13 of 205 AM-822 Approval of claim checks Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 02/06/2007 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 #93712 through #93977 for February 1, 2007 in the amount of $835,169.15. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A 2.C. 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: 2007 Revenue: Expenditure: $ 835,169.15 Link: Claim Cks 2-1-07 Fiscal Impact: Claims $ 835,169.15 Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 02/01/2007 11:14 AM APRV 2 City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/01/2007 11:57 AM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/01/2007 12:13 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/01/2007 02:39 PM APRV Form Started By: Debbie Karber Started On: 02/01/2007 10:51 AM Final Approval Date: 02/01/2007 Packet14 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93712 1/30/2007 046200 WA ST DEPT OF REVENUE Q4-06 TAX ID # 600 200 320 Q4 2006 Leasehold Tax 001.000.000.237.220.000.00 3,885.21 Total : 3,885.21 93713 2/1/2007 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 236682 1-13992 PEST CONTROL 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 57.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 5.12 Total : 62.62 93714 2/1/2007 000135 ABSCO ALARMS INC ESLD.Final ESLD.Sr Ctr Fire Alarm Final Pmt ESLD.Sr Ctr Fire Alarm Final Pmt 116.000.651.594.190.650.00 26,985.44 Total : 26,985.44 93715 2/1/2007 000135 ABSCO ALARMS INC 37316 CITY HALL - PHOTO SMOKE DETE, CITY HALL - PHOTO SMOKE DETE, 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 99.25 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.83 Total : 108.08 93716 2/1/2007 071475 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS & MACK REGISTRATION - L.MACK/EDMONC L. MACK/REG ISTRATION- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 650.00 Total : 650.00 93717 2/1/2007 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND FEB 2007 FEBRUARY 2007 KENNELING SER) FEB 2007- 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 1,895.07 Total : 1,895.07 93718 2/1/2007 062423 ADPRO LITHO INC 68407 City newsletter Page: 1 Packetl5 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93718 2/1/2007 062423 ADPRO LITHO INC (Continued) City newsletter 001.000.240.513.110.490.00 3,087.00 Sales Tax 001.000.240.513.110.490.00 274.74 Total : 3,361.74 93719 2/1/2007 068020 ADVANCED INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS 20012479 INV#20012479 EDMONDS PD AIRMUNITIONS RECOIL CARTRIDC 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 1,550.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 15.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 137.95 Total : 1,702.95 93720 2/1/2007 069445 ALLDATA fw313005' ACCT # 425-771-0233 / CITXIQ ALLDATA PRO ONLINE DATA SUB: 511.000.657.548.680.490.00 1,500.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.490.00 133.50 Total : 1,633.50 93721 2/1/2007 065568 ALLWATER INC 011107043 COEWASTE DRINKING WATER 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 11.95 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 0.62 Total : 12.57 93722 2/1/2007 071479 AMERA-CHEM INC 35369 INV#35369 EDMONDS PD Page: 2 Packet16 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93722 2/1/2007 071479 AMERA-CHEM INC 93723 93724 93725 0%FX111rZ1I. •X:1 _1 ivi I=1V10L101A_19 ;-',1 L47:1111i•1►1TAIWO Invoice (Continued) P54484 2/1/2007 001429 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC 2007 Dues 2/1/2007 069829 AMIDO, BENJAMIM AMIDO7979 PO # Description/Account Amount DRUG ID BIBLE 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 34.95 RX-ID CD-ROM 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 34.95 Freight 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 7.00 Total : 76.90 UNIT 476- Al JACK SWITH PROXIN UNIT 476- Al JACK SWITH PROXIN 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 580.71 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.50 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 52.71 Total : 644.92 APWA Annual Dues thru 03/31/08 APWA Annual Dues thru 03/31/08 001.000.620.532.200.490.00 117.00 APWA Annual Dues thru 03/31/08 001.000.620.558.800.490.00 117.00 APWA Annual Dues thru 03/31/08 001.000.650.519.910.490.00 117.00 APWA Annual Dues thru 03/31/08 001.000.651.519.920.490.00 117.00 APWA Annual Dues thru 03/31/08 111.000.653.542.900.490.00 117.00 APWA Annual Dues thru 03/31/08 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 58.50 APWA Annual Dues thru 03/31/08 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 58.50 Total : 702.00 UKULELE CLASSES Page: 3 Packet17 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93725 2/1/2007 069829 AMIDO, BENJAMIM (Continued) UKULELE CLASS #7979 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 364.00 Total : 364.00 93726 2/1/2007 001600 ANDERSON, WILLARD 10 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,062.00 9 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 244.00 Total : 1,306.00 93727 2/1/2007 065378 APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECH 40322124 UNIT 70 - ELASTOMERIC COUPLIN UNIT 70 - ELASTOMERIC COUPLIN 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 59.06 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.55 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.07 40322168 UNIT 70 - ELESTOMERIC COUPLIN UNIT 70 - ELESTOMERIC COUPLIN 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.95 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.58 Total : 109.21 93728 2/1/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3799370 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SE 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 35.46 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.16 Page: 4 Packet18 of 205 vchlist 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 5 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93728 2/1/2007 069751 ARAMARK (Continued) 512-3805181 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SE 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 35.46 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.16 Total : 77.24 93729 2/1/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3790137 18386001 UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 85.64 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 7.62 512-3794890 18386001 UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 93.58 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.33 Total : 195.17 93730 2/1/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3788788 PW MATS Page: 5 Packetl9 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93730 2/1/2007 069751 ARAMARK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 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 DEPT - UNIFORMS 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: 6 Packet20 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93730 2/1/2007 069751 ARAMARK (Continued) 512-3788789 STREET/STORM UNIFORMS STREET/STORM UNIFORMS 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29 STREET/STORM UNIFORMS 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24 Total : 49.91 93731 2/1/2007 001441 ASCAP 500579369/07 LICENSE FEE 2007 LICENSE FEE 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 284.00 Total : 284.00 93732 2/1/2007 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 553455 75179 DIESEL FUEL 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 4,292.62 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 343.41 Total : 4,636.03 93733 2/1/2007 064343 AT&T 425-771-1124 PARKS MAINT. BLDG PARKS MAINT. BLDG 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 26.03 425-771-4741 CEMETERY CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.200.420.00 28.66 Total : 54.69 93734 2/1/2007 064343 AT&T 425-771-0152 STATION #16 FAX STATION #16 FAX 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 25.78 Total : 25.78 Page: 7 Packet21 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher front Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93735 2/1/2007 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 73924 INV#73924 EDMONDS PD - K-93 GF K-93 VEHICLE GRAPHICS 001.000.410.521.260.410.00 460.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.260.410.00 40.94 Total : 500.94 93736 2/1/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 38937 UB OUTSOURCING AREA #500 PRI UB OUTSOURCING AREA #500 PRI 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 36.83 UB OUTSOURCING AREA #500 PRI 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 36.83 UB OUTSOURCING AREA #500 PRI 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 36.94 UB OUTSOURCING AREA #500 PO 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 68.97 UB OUTSOURCING AREA #500 PO 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 68.97 UB OUTSOURCING AREA #500 PO 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 69.19 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 3.24 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 3.24 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 3.25 Total : 327.46 93737 2/1/2007 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST Acct # 122 L FEB 2007 AWC PREMIUMS Page: 8 Packet22 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93737 2/1/2007 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST (Continued) Feb 07 Fire Pension AWC Premiums 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 4,396.65 Feb 07 Gaydos AWC Premiums 001.000.510.526.100.230.00 1,004.18 Feb 07 AWC Premiums 811.000.000.231.510.000.00 265,644.17 Feb 07 Retirees AWC Premiums 001.000.390.517.220.230.00 25,382.10 Total : 296,427.10 93738 2/1/2007 070512 BANNER BANK Marshbank #17 ElBA.Marshbank Retainage #17 E1 BA.Marshbank Retainage #17 112.506.630.595.330.650.00 5,443.20 Total : 5,443.20 93739 2/1/2007 002100 BARNARD, EARL 19 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 180.00 Total : 180.00 93740 2/1/2007 002170 BARTON, RONALD 14 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 260.68 Total : 260.68 93741 2/1/2007 071464 BBG COMMUNICATIONS INC Ref of overpmt BUSINESS LIC REFUND Refund of overpmt of business licens 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 93742 2/1/2007 071348 BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS INC 10410 FISHING PIER SURVEY EDMONDS FISHING PIER SURVEY 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 2,495.50 Total : 2,495.50 93743 2/1/2007 069218 BISHOP, PAUL 070115COE JAN 07 WEB SITE MAINTENANCE Page: 9 Packet23 of 205 vchlist 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 10 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93743 2/1/2007 069218 BISHOP, PAUL (Continued) 01/07 Web Site Maintenance 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 300.00 Total : 300.00 93744 2/1/2007 071470 BLISS, JONATHAN 93676 RECEIPT 93676 CPL E587985 REFI CPL REFUND - CITY SHARE 001.000.000.322.900.000.00 18.00 CPL REFUND - STATE SHARE 001.000.000.237.190.000.00 18.00 CPL REFUND - FBI SHARE 001.000.000.237.100.000.00 24.00 Total : 60.00 93745 2/1/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 558221-01 INV#558221-01 EDMONDS PD - FOI ACADEMY SHIRT W/EMBLEM, MILI 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 31.95 T-SHIRTS, SWEATSHIRTS FOR AC 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 79.90 ACADEMY PANTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 45.90 CAP COVER 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 6.50 GORETEX BOOTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 199.00 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 31.97 Page: 10 Packet24 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93745 2/1/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC (Continued) 560586 INV#560586 EDMONDS PD - BARKS SHORT SLEEVE UNIFORM SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 179.85 PAIRS OF CORPORAL CHEVRONS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.50 UNIFORM TROUSERS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 320.85 SEW ON CORPORAL CHEVRONS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.50 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 45.38 Total : 956.30 93746 2/1/2007 071434 BURNETTE, SISSEL BRUNETTE7988 PRENATAL FITNESS PRENATAL FITNESS #7988 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 147.00 Total : 147.00 93747 2/1/2007 065142 CASCADE WEAR LTD 17755 INV#17755 EDMONDS PD - NAMET, EMBROIDERED NAMETAGS - TRAF 001.000.410.521.710.240.00 32.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.710.240.00 1.78 Total : 33.78 93748 2/1/2007 071465 CELLNETIX PATHOLOGY PLLC Refund of overpmt BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND Refund of overpayment of Business 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 93749 2/1/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN12061019 WATER - CYLINDER RENTAL WATER - CYLINDER RENTAL 411.000.654.534.800.450.00 30.00 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.450.00 2.67 Page: 11 Packet25 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93749 2/1/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY (Continued) UC00000002 REFUND FOR SERVICES OF 9/29/C REFUND FOR SERVICES OF 9/29/C 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 -4.36 Total : 28.31 93750 2/1/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY102685 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 17.86 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 1.59 LY102686 ALS SUPPLIES Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 3.97 medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 44.65 LY102687 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 17.86 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 1.59 LY102785 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 : 115.67 93751 2/1/2007 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT7652 FRIDAY NIGHTS OUT FRIDAY NIGHTS OUT #7652 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 142.80 FRIDAY NIGHTS OUT #7653 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 107.80 Total : 250.60 93752 2/1/2007 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 206-660-2168 AC 129795740 Page: 12 PacketH of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93752 2/1/2007 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS (Continued) CELL PHONE - GENE EVANS 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 37.95 Total : 37.95 93753 2/1/2007 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS O4742181875 Bowman Cell Phone Bowman Cell Phone 001.000.620.558.800.420.00 7.86 Total : 7.86 93754 2/1/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460541610 OPS UNIFORMS Stn 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 129.22 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.50 460545781 UNIFORMS Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 46.36 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 4.12 460545782 OPS UNIFORMS Stn 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 98.13 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.74 460546846 UNIFORMS Stn 17 - ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 105.44 Stn 17 - Ops 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 105.43 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 9.39 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.38 Page: 13 Packet27 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93754 2/1/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION (Continued) 460546864 OPS UNIFORMS Stn 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 115.28 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.26 Total : 653.25 93755 2/1/2007 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 107000100 WATER QUALITY - LAB ANALYSIS WATER QUALITY - LAB ANALYSIS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 1,772.10 Total : 1,772.10 93756 2/1/2007 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 107000089 INV#107000089 CUST#EDMPOLI 2007 SHARE WCJTC SATELLITE 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 300.00 Total : 300.00 93757 2/1/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5113 LYNNDALE SKATE PARK UPKEEP EDMONDS PORTION FOR MAINTEI 001.000.640.576.800.510.00 5,000.00 Total : 5,000.00 93758 2/1/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5081 STREET - SIGNAL MAINTENANCE STREET - SIGNAL MAINTENANCE 111.000.653.542.640.510.00 2,716.03 Total : 2,716.03 93759 2/1/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5132 ALS SUPPLIES & PROF SERVICES ALS supplies 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 10,387.79 Admin fee 001.000.510.526.100.410.00 415.51 Total : 10,803.30 93760 2/1/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5118 INV#5118 CUST#45 EDMONDS PD Page: 14 Packet28 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93760 2/1/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD (Continued) NEXTEL PHONES - 12/06 104.000.410.521.210.420.00 57.60 5124 INV#5124 CUST#47 EDMONDS PD PRISONER R&B FOR DEC. 2006 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 5,373.75 Total : 5,431.35 93761 2/1/2007 062525 CKD AND ASSOCIATE R-5347 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING helmet shields 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 400.00 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 6.30 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 34.13 Total : 440.43 93762 2/1/2007 065633 CLASS 1 INC 275726 RI UNIT 476 - TRANSDUCER PRESS 7 UNIT 476 - TRANSDUCER PRESS 7 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 308.33 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.74 Total : 314.07 93763 2/1/2007 071480 CLEAR CUT PLASTICS INC 26303 FAC - PLEXIGLAS 3 SIDED COVER FAC - PLEXIGLAS 3 SIDED COVER 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 169.45 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.91 Total : 184.36 93764 2/1/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES E1738977-1 SUPPLIES TOILET TISSUE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 211.76 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.63 Page: 15 Packet29 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 93764 2/1/2007 004095 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES (Continued) 93765 2/1/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES e1734631 E1734631-1 93766 2/1/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES E1733311 E1735454-1 E1736240 Description/Account Amount Total : 230.39 005302 HAND SOAP/PAPER TOWELS 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 201.28 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 2.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 17.93 005302 SOAP 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 81.76 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 7.19 Total : 310.66 FAC - 30AMP FUSE FAC - 30AMP FUSE 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 27.00 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.60 PS - VERSAMATIC DUSTING BRUS PS - VERSAMATIC DUSTING BRUS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 48.32 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.25 FAC MAINT SUPPLIES - HANLDE C FAC MAINT SUPPLIES - HANLDE C 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 730.14 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 64.47 Page: 16 Packet30 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93766 2/1/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES (Continued) E1740092 PS - PAPER FILTERS FOR VERSAK PS - PAPER FILTERS FOR VERSAK 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 43.59 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.06 E1740092-1 FAC MAINT SUPPLIES - ICE AWAY FAC MAINT SUPPLIES - ICE AWAY 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 440.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 38.72 Total : 1,410.65 93767 2/1/2007 071308 COLELLA, TERESA COLELLA0122 BASKETBALL SCOREKEEPER 5-ON-5 BASKETBALL SCOREKEEP 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 54.00 Total : 54.00 93768 2/1/2007 069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC 3-7587 INV#3-7587 EDMONDS PD - K-93 1: K-93 2007 FORD VIN#2FAHP71 W27 001.000.410.521.260.640.00 21,960.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.260.640.00 1,756.80 Total : 23,716.80 93769 2/1/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630624442994 CREDIT CARD PURCHASES SHELVING UNITS FOR LIBRARY 621.000.310.572.200.350.00 160.37 Total : 160.37 93770 2/1/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715 6306 5312 1287 C/A 4715 6306 5312 1287 Page: 17 Packet31 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93770 2/1/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 93771 93772 0% OTAI&1=1YyI_1lKi7_\ Z9�Y0]11119ls]zRI Invoice (Continued) OUI'= 2/1/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715 6300 0170 8272 PO # Description/Account Amount CDW-G Memory for PC 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 558.39 Office Max - Printing & Binding 2007 001.000.310.514.230.490.00 650.84 Service Fees 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 20.81 Total : 1,230.04 4715 6306 8856 9757 TRAINING/HALL 411.000.656.538.800.490.71 115.00 Total : 115.00 ACCT#4715 6300 0170 8272 - EDM( MEALS/OFFICER LEE & LIM- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 19.99 COFFEE/OFFICER LEE & LIM- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 15.97 MEALS/OFFICER LEE & LIM- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 57.14 MEAL/OFFICER LEE & LIM- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 1.38 LODGING/OFFICER LEE & LIM- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 132.48 Page: 18 Packet32 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher front Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93772 2/1/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS (Continued) 4715 6306 3997 0997 #4715 6306 3997 0997 - EDMONDS MILLS/LODGING- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 133.75 MACK/LODGING- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 133.75 RAMSEUR/LAVELY - MEALS- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 56.47 LAVELY/LODGING- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 66.24 RAMSEUR/LODGING- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 66.24 RAMSEUR/LAVELY - MEALS- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 16.27 Total : 699.68 93773 2/1/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630143817577 WILLIAMS MACHINE - UNIT 129- Pt WILLIAMS MACHINE - UNIT 129- Pt 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 540.31 BRIEN FORD - UNIT 484 - GASKET 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.26 RADIOSHACK - UNIT 372 - ELECT,' 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.77 4715630497739054 SOG SPEC KNIVES - WATER/SEWI SOG SPEC KNIVES - WATER/SEWI 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 128.64 SOG SPEC KNIVES - WATER/SEWI 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 128.64 Page: 19 Packet33 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93773 2/1/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 93774 93775 93776 Invoice (Continued) 4715630654555988 2/1/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630851494783 4715630851494783 2/1/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630875065817 2/1/2007 065364 CONTRACT HARDWARE INC 0030945-IN PO # Description/Account Amount GI JOES - WATER/SEWER - POP U GI JOES - WATER/SEWER - POP U 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 59.89 GI JOES - WATER/SEWER - POP U 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 59.89 SUREFIRE - STORM - SF123A BAT" 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 118.00 RADIOSHACK - FAC MAINT- UHF A 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 27.19 CITY CLERK - WALLBOARD REPAII 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 237.16 PW - PERMIT 001.000.651.519.920.510.00 58.00 OLD PW - PERMIT 001.000.651.594.190.630.00 58.00 Total : 1,430.75 Plaques -Stu Rep Council Pres Plaques -Stu Rep Council Pres 001.000.110.511.100.490.00 81.57 Reg fee for 3 Councilmembers AWC 001.000.110.511.100.490.00 330.00 Ref for Council Meetings 001.000.110.511.100.310.00 10.57 Refund Reg fee for PSRC Meeting Refund Reg fee for PSRC Meeting 001.000.110.511.100.490.00 -36.10 Total : 386.04 Emergency flashlights DSD Emergency flashlights DSD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 285.00 Total : 285.00 CITY HALL - DEADLOCK Page: 20 Packet34 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93776 2/1/2007 065364 CONTRACT HARDWARE INC (Continued) CITY HALL - DEADLOCK 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 69.30 LOCKSET 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 123.90 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.00 0031024-IN CITY HALL - LINE, LATCHBOLT AD) CITY HALL - LINE, LATCHBOLT ADj 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 40.18 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.54 Total : 253.92 93777 2/1/2007 068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT 7742 PUMP PARTS PUMP PARTS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2,525.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 56.28 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 211.96 Total : 2,793.24 93778 2/1/2007 005965 CUES INC 261545 SEWER - PARTS FOR TV CAMERA SEWER - PARTS FOR TV CAMERA 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 426.81 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 32.00 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 40.58 Total : 499.39 93779 2/1/2007 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING Jan 07 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PI; State Share of Concealed Pistol 001.000.000.237.190.000.00 279.00 Page: 21 PacketH of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93779 2/1/2007 070230 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING (Continued) Total : 279.00 93780 2/1/2007 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 7179 DERREK AMBURGEY OPERATOR CERTF/AMBURGEY 411.000.656.538.800.490.71 30.00 Total : 30.00 93781 2/1/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 07-2714 MINUTE TAKING Council minutes 1/16 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 263.20 07-2717 MINUTE TAKING Council 1/23 minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 145.60 Total : 408.80 93782 2/1/2007 007252 DUNN, DIANNE DUNN7483 OIL PAINTING CLASSES OIL PAINTING #7483 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 234.00 OIL PAINTING #7482 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 195.00 Total : 429.00 93783 2/1/2007 068357 EARTH TECH 92358-8-402371 ESFG.Services thru 12/29/06 ESFG.Services thru 12/29/06 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 7,604.45 Total : 7,604.45 93784 2/1/2007 070884 EARTHWORK ENTERPRISES INC ESFB.Retainage ESFB.Retainage Release ESFB.Retainage Release 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 4,259.00 E6FB.Final E6FB.Final Progress Pmt E6FB.Final Progress Pmt 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 36,874.12 Total : 41,133.12 93785 2/1/2007 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL 07-00119 WATER QUALITY - PROJECT THM/ Page: 22 Packet36 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93785 2/1/2007 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL (Continued) WATER QUALITY - PROJECT THM/ 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 884.00 Total : 884.00 93786 2/1/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 75698 SUPPLIES THREADLOCK 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.15 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.46 Total : 5.61 93787 2/1/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 75493 SEWER - OIL FOR PUMP STATION SEWER - OIL FOR PUMP STATION 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 26.91 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.39 Total : 29.30 93788 2/1/2007 063066 EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE EDCC0119 GYM RENTALS GYM RENTALS FOR 5-ON-5 BASKE 001.000.640.575.520.450.00 3,000.00 Total : 3,000.00 93789 2/1/2007 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 9170 UPS/COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL UPS/COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 12.27 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 1.09 9180 UPS/BROWN & CALDWELL UPS/BROWN & CALDWELL 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 29.59 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 2.63 Page: 23 Packet37 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93789 2/1/2007 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL (Continued) 9241 UPS/BROWN & CALDWELL UPS/BROWN & CALDWELL 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 6.59 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 0.59 9275 UPS/COASTAL TRAINING TECH UPS/COASTAL TRAINING TECH 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 65.61 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 5.84 Total : 124.21 93790 2/1/2007 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP WEBER0123 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP YOUTHS SCHOLARSHIP FOR:- 122.000.640.574.100.490.00 75.00 Total : 75.00 93791 2/1/2007 008550 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 8904 SISTER CITY NEWSLETTER PRINT SISTER CITY NEWSLETTER PRINT 623.200.210.557.210.490.00 55.60 Sales Tax 623.200.210.557.210.490.00 4.95 Total : 60.55 93792 2/1/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-38565 WATER 18410 92ND AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 6-00025 CITY MARINA BEACH PARK CITY MARINA BEACH PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 38.85 6-00200 CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOK CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROON 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 89.07 Page: 24 Packet38 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93792 2/1/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 6-00410 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 80.91 6-00475 MINI PARK MINI PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 194.27 6-01250 CITY PARK BALLFIELD CITY PARK BALLFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 62.76 6-01275 CITY PARK PARKING LOT CITY PARK PARKING LOT 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 297.24 6-02125 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD PINE STREET PLAYFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 67.47 6-02900 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (: ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (: 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 59.22 6-03000 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPR CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPR 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 114.22 6-03275 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 38.85 6-03575 CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 71.42 6-04400 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 59.22 6-04425 WATER 8100 185TH PL SW 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 118.85 Page: 25 Packet39 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93792 2/1/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 6-04450 SIERRA PARK SIERRA PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 86.69 6-08500 YOST PARK SPRINKLER YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 287.90 6-08525 YOST PARK POOL YOST PARK POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 67.50 Total : 1,755.08 93793 2/1/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-01127 WWTP WATER WWTP WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 38.85 6-01130 WWTP WATER WWTP WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 11.45 6-01140 WWTP WATER WWTP WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 453.75 Total : 504.05 93794 2/1/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-02735 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -POLICE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -POLICE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 507.22 6-02736 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -FIRE LI PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -FIRE LI 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 6.54 6-02737 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -FIRE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -FIRE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 72.72 6-02738 PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 59.22 Page: 26 Packet40 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93794 2/1/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 6-02825 LIBRARY & SPRINKLER LIBRARY & SPRINKLER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 522.15 6-02875 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (F ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (F 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 11.45 6-02925 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 500.00 6-04127 Fire Station #16 Fire Station #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 483.59 6-04128 fire sprinkler-FS #16 fire sprinkler-FS #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 6.54 6-05155 Public Works Bldg Public Works Bldg 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 47.86 Public Works Bldg 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 181.85 Public Works Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 181.85 Public Works Bldg 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 181.85 Public Works Bldg 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 181.85 Public Works Bldg 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 181.84 Page: 27 Packet41 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93794 2/1/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 93795 1x*0z1 Invoice (Continued) 6-05156 2/1/2007 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 022396 2/1/2007 047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 945133107 �►al�rf�z�z�rrt�1�1~ZTiF��Ze1�)`Y•��y�=1:��:�69�y1.[��z�7T[r :1� PO # Description/Account Amount 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 3.11 Public Works Fire Detector 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 3.11 Public Works Fire Detector 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 3.11 Public Works Fire Detector 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 3.11 Public Works Fire Detector 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 3.08 Total : 3,142.87 ADMIN MAINT copier maintenance 001.000.510.522.100.480.00 51.66 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.480.00 4.60 Total : 56.26 ES REF # 945133-10 7 Q Unemployment Insurance 001.000.390.517.780.230.00 9,515.88 Total : 9,515.88 WATER - BOLT SET, GASKETS WATER - BOLT SET, GASKETS 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 70.38 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.19 Page: 28 Packet42 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93797 2/1/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) 0077747 WATER- 4" MJ ACCESSORY KITS WATER- 4" MJ ACCESSORY KITS 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 86.25 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.59 Total : 170.41 93798 2/1/2007 071472 FILCO COMPANY INC Recp #000538 Refund of bldg fee Refund of bldg fee 001.000.000.322.100.000.00 15.00 Refund of City Surchrg. 001.000.000.321.930.000.00 15.00 Refund of fire review fee 001.000.000.345.820.000.00 25.00 Total : 55.00 93799 2/1/2007 009835 FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS INTL 9464 LEASE FOR CROWN VIC UNIT 233 LEASE FOR 2004 CROWI 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 711.75 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 65.49 9465 MONTHLY LEASE; 5 CROWN VICS Monthly Lease for 5 2004 Crown Vic: 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 3,358.33 511.000.657.548.680.450.00 308.96 Total : 4,444.53 93800 2/1/2007 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 105185 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKIN Feb 07/306 Main St Parking Lot Leas 001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00 Total : 300.00 93801 2/1/2007 010660 FOSTER, MARLO 17 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement Page: 29 Packet43 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93801 2/1/2007 010660 FOSTER, MARLO (Continued) LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,645.94 Total : 1,645.94 93802 2/1/2007 071471 FRY, JASON Recp # 043240 Refund for reduced cost of bid work - Refund for reduced cost of bid work - 001.000.000.322.100.000.00 364.50 Total : 364.50 93803 2/1/2007 067232 GERRISH BEARING COMPANY 2069636-01 EDMCIT BEARING SET/OIL SEAL/END CAP 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 397.29 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.15 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 36.73 2069702-01 EDMCIT PULLEY 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 21.85 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 11.10 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.90 2069790-01 EDMCIT HI -CAP V BELT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 145.12 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 12.77 2069822-01 EDMCIT SEALS/GEARBOX 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 146.52 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.88 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 13.59 Page: 30 Packet44 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93803 2/1/2007 067232 GERRISH BEARING COMPANY (Continued) 2069982-01 EDMCIT BALL BEARINGS/BEARINGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 95.43 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.82 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.00 Total : 927.15 93804 2/1/2007 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 077184 UNIT 10 - 4 TIRES UNIT 10 - 4 TIRES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 543.92 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 48.41 Total : 592.33 93805 2/1/2007 012199 GRAINGER 9276625960 SUPPLIES INDUSTRIAL WHEEL 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.96 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.84 9277989530 SUPPLIES INDUSTRIAL WHEEL 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.85 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.22 Total : 37.87 93806 2/1/2007 012199 GRAINGER 9265618646 PW - BLOWER MOTOR PW - BLOWER MOTOR 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 85.73 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.37 Page: 31 Packet45 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93806 2/1/2007 012199 GRAINGER (Continued) 9267027416 PW -WALL FAN PW -WALL FAN 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 196.43 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 16.89 9269958402 UNIT 70 - PEDESTAL PUMP UNIT 70 - PEDESTAL PUMP 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 487.35 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 97.94 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 50.33 Total : 942.04 93807 2/1/2007 071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC 06713.00-4 E6DA.76th/75th Walkway thru 1/13/0 E6DA.76th/75th Walkway thru 1/13/0 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 12,189.17 Total : 12,189.17 93808 2/1/2007 012350 GREENE ROBERT C 12 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,834.45 Total : 1,834.45 93809 2/1/2007 068415 H & W EMERGENCY VEHICLES 43438 UNIT 484 - SIDE ENTRY HANDLE UNIT 484 - SIDE ENTRY HANDLE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 113.56 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.30 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.56 Total : 141.42 93810 2/1/2007 071469 HALL, JODY HALL0116 REFUND Page: 32 Packet46 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93810 2/1/2007 071469 HALL, JODY (Continued) RETURNING CREDIT ON ACCOUN' 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 15.00 Total : 15.00 93811 2/1/2007 071218 HARBOR PACIFIC CONTRACTORS INC 0601 C161 C-161 SCREENINGS SYSTEM IMPF 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 47,140.72 Total : 47,140.72 93812 2/1/2007 064721 HATZENBUHLER, HAROLD 8 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 1,162.00 Total : 1,162.00 93813 2/1/2007 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 12028731 WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - 411.000.652.542.900.310.00 33.13 WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 33.13 WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 33.13 WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 33.12 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.310.00 2.92 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 2.92 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.92 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.90 Total : 144.17 93814 2/1/2007 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC M-196640 EDMONDS STAGE 2 DBPR-INITIAL Page: 33 Packet47 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93814 2/1/2007 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC (Continued) EDMONDS STAGE 2 DBPR-INITIAL 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 768.68 Total : 768.68 93815 2/1/2007 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 1030-76 Drug Testing Services Drug Testing Services 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 50.00 Total : 50.00 93816 2/1/2007 069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 41604124 HP DC5700 DESKTOP PC PER QU( 330-00324 HP dc5700 Desktop PC per quote- 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 30,555.00 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 2,719.40 41606768 HP COMPAQ NOTEBOOK NC6320 1 330-00326 HP Compaq Notebook nc6320 per qL 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 1,437.00 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 127.89 41627779 HP COMPAQ NOTEBOOK NC6320 1 330-00327 HP Compaq Notebook nc6320 per qL 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 1,437.00 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 127.89 41657490 64 MB Controller 64 MB Controller 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 -346.00 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 -30.79 Total : 36,027.39 93817 2/1/2007 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 20 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,062.00 Page: 34 Packet48 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93817 2/1/2007 013500 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT (Continued) Total : 1,062.00 93818 2/1/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2099985 6035 3225 0267 0205 SPRAYER,TOTES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 57.85 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.09 3038555 6035 3225 0267 0205 SHOVELS, SPRAYERS & HANDLE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 68.73 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.05 4036348 6035 3225 0267 0205 LUMBER, BRUSH, TAPE RULE 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 178.31 Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 15.69 4036356 6035 3225 0267 0205 LUMBER 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 24.88 Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 2.19 6048699 6035 3225 0267 0205 SAWS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 71.67 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.31 Total : 436.77 93819 2/1/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1035509 6035322500959949 LUMBER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 25.85 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.27 Page: 35 Packet49 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93819 2/1/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 1035601 6035322500959949 BATTERIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 59.96 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.28 7037233 6035322500959949 LIGHT FIXTURE/BULBS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 85.94 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.56 Total : 186.86 93820 2/1/2007 014600 IACP 1591397 ID#1591397 - CHIEF DAVID STERN) CHIEF STERN/2007 DUES- 001.000.410.521.100.490.00 100.00 Total : 100.00 93821 2/1/2007 070168 IAPE INC 48170 INV#48170 ID#25087 EDMONDS - D 2007 MEMBERSHIP 001.000.410.521.100.490.00 50.00 Total : 50.00 93822 2/1/2007 071075 ICC AACE CertRe Bullis AACE Cert Renewal- Bullis Zoning AACE Cert Renewal- Bullis Zoning 001.000.620.524.100.490.00 50.00 AACE CertRen-Bullis AACE Cert Renewal -Bullis/ Property AACE Cert Renewal -Bullis/ Property 001.000.620.524.100.490.00 50.00 Total : 100.00 93823 2/1/2007 070864 IDEARC MEDIA CORP 440008416834 Directory Listings P&R Directory Listing P&R 12/19/06 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 111.50 Directory Listings P&R 1/19/07 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 111.50 Page: 36 Packet50 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93823 2/1/2007 070864 070864 IDEARC MEDIA CORP (Continued) Total : 223.00 93824 2/1/2007 070864 IDEARC MEDIA CORP S/P2791161 SUPERPAGES.COM Directory Listings 01/2007 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 69.90 Total : 69.90 93825 2/1/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 71797940 COPIER LEASE COPIER LEASE- 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 569.42 Total : 569.42 93826 2/1/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 71774917 INV#71774917 467070-COMBINED I COPIER RENT 1/13-2/12/07 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 821.73 ADDITIONAL IMAGES 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 192.85 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 90.32 Total : 1,104.90 93827 2/1/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 71644598 CANON IMAGE RUNNER 9070 LEA; 250-00132 Canon Image Runner 9070 Lease- 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 1,039.94 Total : 1,039.94 93828 2/1/2007 014430 INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC CO INC 010406 CIRCUIT BOARD CIRCUIT BOARD 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 425.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 5.25 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 37.00 Page: 37 Packet51 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93828 2/1/2007 014430 INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC CO INC (Continued) 16939 MOTOR MOTOR 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 318.42 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 29.07 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 29.88 Total : 844.62 93829 2/1/2007 067119 INT ASSOC OF FIRE CHIEFS 510-2341 ALS MISC Correira '07 subscrptn fee 001.000.510.526.100.490.00 255.00 Total : 255.00 93830 2/1/2007 069349 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL INC Bullis CertRenew ICC ICC Cert Renewal Bullis ICC Cert Renewal Bullis 001.000.620.524.100.490.00 60.00 Total : 60.00 93831 2/1/2007 065980 ISS-WONDERWARE 310447 WATER/SEWER - SOFTWARE SUP WATER/SEWER - SOFTWARE SUP 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 897.50 WATER/SEWER - SOFTWARE SUP 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 897.50 SHIPPING FEES FOR SOFTWARE 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 2.08 SHIPPING FEES FOR SOFTWARE 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 2.07 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 79.17 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 79.16 Total : 1,957.48 93832 2/1/2007 068737 JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOC 106105 INV#106105 EDMONDS PD Page: 38 Packet52 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 39 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93832 2/1/2007 068737 JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOC (Continued) PHQ REPORT - 1/15/07 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 15.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 1.26 106117 INV#106117 EDMONDS PD PRE -OFFER PHQ REPORTS 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 24.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 1.50 Total : 41.76 93833 2/1/2007 065397 JOHNSON, ANDREW AJOHNSON0103 GYM MONITOR 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL GYM MONITC 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 137.50 Total : 137.50 93834 2/1/2007 070145 JOURNAL NEWSPAPERS 34557 DISPLAY AD HALF PAGE DISPLAY AD IN 2007 C 130.000.640.536.200.440.00 545.00 Total : 545.00 93835 2/1/2007 070221 KARGOPOLTSEV, ALEKSANDR KARGOPOLTSEV7673 DRAWING CLASSES DRAWING IN PENCIL #7673 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 246.40 PAINTING WITH WATERCOLORS- 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 492.80 Total : 739.20 93836 2/1/2007 064400 KOHO, STEPHEN 1458 STEVE KOHO CELL PHONE /KOHO 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 56.98 Total : 56.98 93837 2/1/2007 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS E2DB.21 E2DB.Services for November 2006 E2DB.Services for November 2006 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 234.46 Page: 39 Packet53 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 40 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93837 2/1/2007 068396 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS (Continued) Total : 234.46 93838 2/1/2007 016600 KROESENS INC 73736 OPS UNIFORMS Nichols LT accessories 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 75.65 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 6.66 Total : 82.31 93839 2/1/2007 069870 KROFT CARDWELL LLC 2738 City newsletter mailing - 1.16.07 City newsletter mailing - 1.16.07 001.000.240.513.110.410.00 474.91 Sales Tax 001.000.240.513.110.410.00 42.27 Total : 517.18 93840 2/1/2007 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 313282-001 2x2x8 survey stakes 2x2x8 survey stakes 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 11.85 Sales Tax 001.000.620.532.200.310.00 1.05 313441-001 Paper for map printer Paper for map printer 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 446.40 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 39.73 313441-002 Paper for map printer Paper for map printer 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 297.60 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 26.49 Total : 823.12 93841 2/1/2007 060132 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 1009021352 STREET - EARMUFF, OVERALLS, F Page: 40 Packet54 of 205 vchlist 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 41 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93841 2/1/2007 060132 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY (Continued) STREET - EARMUFF, OVERALLS, F 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 213.80 Freight 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 13.58 Total : 227.38 93842 2/1/2007 071482 LADYMOON PUBLISHING LLC 1029 BIRD FEST LISTING EXPANDED LISTING FOR BIRDFEE 001.000.240.513.110.440.00 120.00 Total : 120.00 93843 2/1/2007 069564 LARSON, KEN 22 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 210.00 Total : 210.00 93844 2/1/2007 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 1007-180 SUPPLIES THERMAL GLOVES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 90.00 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.24 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.39 Total : 102.63 93845 2/1/2007 065791 LEIRA 2007 MEMBERSHIP 2007 L.E.I.R.A. MEMBERSHIP/EDM( Page: 41 Packet55 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 42 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93845 2/1/2007 065791 LEIRA (Continued) SGT. D.SMITH/ACTIVE MEMBERSH 001.000.410.521.110.490.00 40.00 MINDY BROMAN/ASSOCIATE 001.000.410.521.110.490.00 25.00 AMY COLLINS/ASSOCIATE 001.000.410.521.110.490.00 25.00 LAURA CLARKE/ASSOCIATE 001.000.410.521.110.490.00 25.00 MICHAEL GREENE/ASSOCIATE 001.000.410.521.110.490.00 25.00 ANNE JOHNSON/NEW ASSOCIATE 001.000.410.521.110.490.00 25.00 Total : 165.00 93846 2/1/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 092757 HR envelopes HR envelopes 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 158.00 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 14.06 Total : 172.06 93847 2/1/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 092930 OFFICE SUPPLIES PARKS & RECREATION LETTERHE 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 335.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 29.82 Total : 364.82 93848 2/1/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 092848 Mailing labels, letterhead, 2nd sheets Mailing labels, letterhead, 2nd sheets 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 567.64 Total : 567.64 93849 2/1/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 092839 INV#092839 EDMONDS PD Page: 42 Packet56 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 43 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93849 2/1/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS (Continued) BISTRO HOT/COLD CUPS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 84.24 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.50 Total : 91.74 93850 2/1/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 092849 BUSINESS CARDS POLICE AND FII 250-00130 Robert Nichols 001.000.510.522.200.490.00 16.00 250-00130 John Westfall 001.000.510.522.300.490.00 16.00 250-00130 Michael J. Smith 001.000.510.522.300.490.00 16.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 1.42 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.490.00 4.27 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.300.490.00 2.85 250-00130 Business Cards:- 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 16.00 250-00130 Doug Dahl 001.000.510.522.200.490.00 16.00 250-00130 Don White 001.000.510.522.200.490.00 16.00 Total : 104.54 93851 2/1/2007 018970 LYNNWOOD DODGE 253022-1 UNIT 537 - AB MODULE UNIT 537 - AB MODULE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 87.02 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.74 Page: 43 Packet57 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 44 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93851 2/1/2007 018970 LYNNWOOD DODGE (Continued) 253231-1 UNIT 12 - CONTROLLER UNIT 12 - CONTROLLER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 294.88 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.24 253326-1 UNIT 12 - FUEL PUMP UNIT 12 - FUEL PUMP 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 167.85 CORE FEE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.60 CM253022 DET UNIT - AB MODULE DET UNIT - AB MODULE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -87.02 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -7.74 CM253231 UNIT 12 - CONTROLLER UNIT 12 - CONTROLLER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -294.88 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -26.24 CM253326 UNIT 12 - CORE FEE REFUNDED UNIT 12 - CORE FEE REFUNDED 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -30.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -2.67 Total : 182.78 93852 2/1/2007 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 550859 UNIT 16 - OIL FILTER UNIT 16 - OIL FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.35 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.79 Page: 44 Packet58 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 45 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93852 2/1/2007 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA (Continued) CM504519 FLEET RETURNED PARTS FOR CR FLEET RETURNED PARTS FOR CR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -22.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -1.96 Total : 10.18 93853 2/1/2007 071481 MADSEN-LANGTON, BROOKE LANGTON0122 BASKETBALL SCOREKEEPER BASKETBALL SCOREKEEPER @ E 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 93854 2/1/2007 061900 MARC 0319840-IN 00-0902224 DE-LIMER 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 336.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 29.90 Total : 365.90 93855 2/1/2007 070876 MAROHN, TINA MAROHN7590 MAN DALA CLASS CREATING A PERSONAL MANDAL/ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 81.00 Total : 81.00 93856 2/1/2007 071468 MARTIN, KEVIN W 510-2520 VOLS UNIFORM K.Martin boots 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 175.78 Total : 175.78 93857 2/1/2007 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 15 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,219.01 18 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,404.00 Page: 45 Packet59 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 46 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93857 2/1/2007 019920 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN (Continued) Total : 2,623.01 93858 2/1/2007 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 56649918 123106800 FITTING/COUPLING/CONDUIT 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 37.10 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 4.78 56667466 123106800 LIGHT BULB 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 17.79 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 4.78 56719035 123106800 PAINT SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 54.14 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.78 Total : 123.37 93859 2/1/2007 063773 MICROFLEX 00016804 Jan -Dec 07 TaxTools Data Conversic Jan -Dec 07 TaxTools Data Conversic 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 300.00 Total : 300.00 93860 2/1/2007 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC C53335 CITY HALL ARCHIVE ROOM - SHEL CITY HALL ARCHIVE ROOM - SHEL 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 1,091.25 Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 97.12 C53352 CITY HALL ARCHIVE ROOM - 2X4'E CITY HALL ARCHIVE ROOM - 2X4'E 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 89.47 Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 7.96 Total : 1,285.80 Page: 46 Packet60 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 47 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93861 2/1/2007 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 39283 SUPPLIES STIHL CHAIN 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 64.80 39492 PARTS SPRINGS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.04 Total : 84.84 93862 2/1/2007 067176 MITY LITE INC IN-456580 PLAZA ROOM TABLES ROUND TABLES FOR PLAZA ROOF 001.000.640.574.200.350.00 2,494.80 Total : 2,494.80 93863 2/1/2007 071123 MOORS, JAMES 2467 BOOT ALLOWANCE BOOT ALLOWANCE/MOORS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 164.00 Total : 164.00 93864 2/1/2007 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS RI-1701236 FENCE PANELS 6 FOOT PANELS FOR BRACKETT'E 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 725.76 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 64.58 Total : 790.34 93865 2/1/2007 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0190282-IN WATER - MINI LIGHT CAP, PLASTII WATER - MINI LIGHT CAP, PLASTII 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 36.00 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 10.84 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.11 Page: 47 Packet61 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 48 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93865 2/1/2007 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC (Continued) 0190814-IN SEWER- JACKET SEWER- JACKET 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 57.15 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 5.03 Total : 113.13 93866 2/1/2007 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0314973-DM FLEET INVENTORY - BULK OIL FLEET INVENTORY - BULK OIL 511.000.657.548.680.340.21 1,721.46 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.21 148.05 0315060-IN UNIT 55 - FILTERS UNIT 55 - FILTERS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 160.89 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.84 0316309-IN UNIT 55 - GREASE GUN UNIT 55 - GREASE GUN 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 27.29 FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 42.30 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 5.98 Total : 2,119.81 93867 2/1/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 323912314-062 IT CELL PHONE SERVICE IT Cell Phone Service 12/25/06-1/24/ 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 175.46 Total : 175.46 93868 2/1/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 976032312 COMMUNICATIONS Page: 48 Packet62 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 49 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93868 2/1/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) Operations 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 465.04 Admin 001.000.510.522.100.420.00 28.94 Prevention 001.000.510.522.300.420.00 71.76 ALS 001.000.510.526.100.420.00 66.58 Total : 632.32 93869 2/1/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 832127721-027 INV#832127721-027 EDMONDS PD CELL PHONES 01/18-2/17/07 001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1,451.08 Total : 1,451.08 93870 2/1/2007 023800 NFPA 3723607Y PREVENTION SUPPLIES Oneline supplies 001.000.510.522.300.310.00 1,395.00 Total : 1,395.00 93871 2/1/2007 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S1224227.001 2091 THREE MOTORS 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 439.35 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 37.34 Total : 476.69 93872 2/1/2007 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 14370 HOSE COUPLED SUTTNER/BRASS HOSE COUPLED SUTTNER/BRASS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 310.62 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 26.71 Total : 337.33 93873 2/1/2007 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 0075802 SODIUM BISULFITE Page: 49 PacketH of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 50 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93873 2/1/2007 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC (Continued) SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 742.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 66.08 Total : 808.58 93874 2/1/2007 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 452 HPC Minutetaker 1/11/07 HPC Minutetaker 1/11/07 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 195.00 Total : 195.00 93875 2/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 484954 Office Supplies - HR Office Supplies - HR 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 21.50 Copy paper 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 27.27 Copy paper 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 27.26 Copy paper 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 27.27 King County Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 4.29 King County Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 2.40 King County Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 2.39 570519 Office supplies re: inv. # 484954 Office supplies re: inv. # 484954 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 -10.72 King County Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 -0.94 Page: 50 Packet64 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 51 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93875 2/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC srR Wil1rZiI*13E19i199W 11111 LTA IcAW:(K0]I•I111:7_THiONCol Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 599872 Office Supplies - HR Office Supplies - HR 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 26.43 Service charge 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 1.00 King County Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 2.33 680825 Office Supplies - HR Office Supplies - HR 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 39.30 Office Supplies - CS 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 28.89 Office Supplies - Mayor's office 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 14.00 King County Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 3.46 King County Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 2.54 King County Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 1.23 743867 Office Supplies - L. Carl Office Supplies - L. Carl 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 52.82 King County Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 4.64 Total : 277.36 294255 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8 1/2 X 11 COPY PAPER 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 179.34 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 15.79 Page: 51 PacketH of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 52 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93876 2/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 93877 2/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 325222 OFFICE SUPPLIES BINDERS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 14.58 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.19 351019 CEMETERY OFFICE SUPPLIES INK CARTRIDGES FOR CEMETERI 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 41.52 King County Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 3.56 375815 OFFICE SUPPLIES BUSINESS CARDS, PENS, CD BINS 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 28.75 STORAGE BOXES, PENS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 40.29 King County Sales Tax 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 2.53 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.55 Total : 331.10 482270 8 outlet UPC 8 outlet UPC 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 744.00 adding machine tape, pens, tool kit, 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 78.61 paper pads 001.000.310.514.100.310.00 21.08 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 65.47 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 6.92 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.100.310.00 1.85 Page: 52 PacketH of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 53 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93877 2/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) 815767 pens -OM sub pens w/o authorization pens -OM sub pens w/o authorization 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -13.59 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -1.19 Total : 903.15 93878 2/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 357300 520437 BINDER/INK CARTRIDGE/BATTERII 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 107.25 King County Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 9.44 400512 520437 G INK CARTRIDGE 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 -58.62 400520 5204237 INK CARTRIDGES 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 49.56 King County Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 4.27 630858 520437 COPIER PAPER/TAPE/INK CARTRII 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 121.39 King County Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 10.69 Total : 243.98 93879 2/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 461629 Office supplies DSD Office supplies DSD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 324.75 Total : 324.75 93880 2/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 435482 OPS SUPPLIES Page: 53 Packet67 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 54 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93880 2/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) DW planner 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 30.20 King County Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 2.65 743450 ADMIN SUPPLIES Giant binders 001.000.510.522.100.310.00 79.95 King County Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.310.00 7.04 Total : 119.84 93881 2/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 624760 INV#624760 ACCT#520437 250POL BOISE X-9 PAPER 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 298.90 CASE OF KLEENEX 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 48.33 SUPPLY ROOM STOCK - BATTERIE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 99.53 MAP PINS FOR GREENMUN 001.000.410.521.310.310.00 5.01 TONER CARTRIDGE - CAMERON 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 180.07 TONER CARTRIDGE - PATROL 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 180.07 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 39.32 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.310.310.00 0.44 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 15.85 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 15.84 Total : 883.36 93882 2/1/2007 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00044543 UNIT 55 - PRESSURE SLOT C Page: 54 Packet68 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 55 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93882 2/1/2007 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY (Continued) UNIT 55 - PRESSURE SLOT C 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 351.52 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.73 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 32.32 Total : 399.57 93883 2/1/2007 071485 PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTERS 01190953 JAMES MOORS VACCINATION/JAMES MOORS 411.000.656.538.800.490.00 140.00 Total : 140.00 93884 2/1/2007 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION 972234 PW MONTHLY COPY/SUPPLY CON PW MONTHLY COPY/SUPPLY CON 001.000.650.519.910.480.00 111.86 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.480.00 9.96 Total : 121.82 93885 2/1/2007 071478 PACIFIC PHYSICIANS LABORATORY 537131606 I.D. #537131606 - PRE-EMPLOYMEI PRE -EMPLOYMENT TESTING 001.000.220.516.210.410.00 24.00 Total : 24.00 93886 2/1/2007 063588 PACIFIC POWER PRODUCTS CO 6210440 UNIT 474 - THIS IS THE TAX DUE C UNIT 474 - THIS IS THE TAX DUE C 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 40.39 Total : 40.39 93887 2/1/2007 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 41099 STORM - DUMP Page: 55 Packet69 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 56 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93887 2/1/2007 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) STORM - DUMP 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 55.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 1.10 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.08 41100 STORM DUMP FEES STORM DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 128.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 2.56 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.19 41107 STORM DUMP FEES STORM DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 160.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 3.20 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.24 41195 STORM - DUMP FEES STORM - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 128.00 FUEL SCHRG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 2.56 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.19 41201 STORM - DUMP FEES STORM - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 128.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 2.56 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.19 Page: 56 Packet70 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 57 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93887 2/1/2007 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 41210 STORM DUMP FEES STORM DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 128.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 2.56 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.19 41215 STORM DUMP FEES STORM DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 128.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 2.56 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.19 41263 STORM - DUMP CLEAN GREEN STORM - DUMP CLEAN GREEN 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 80.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.80 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.05 41265 STORM - DUMP FEES STORM - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 80.00 FUELSCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.80 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.05 Page: 57 Packet71 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 58 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93887 2/1/2007 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 41268 STORM -DUMP FEES STORM -DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 80.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.80 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.05 41271 STORM - DUMP FEES STORM - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 80.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.80 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.05 41312 STORM - DUMP FEES STORM - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 88.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.88 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.06 41318 STORM - DUMP FEES STORM - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 88.00 FUELSCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.88 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.06 Page: 58 Packet72 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 59 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93887 2/1/2007 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS (Continued) 41329 STORM - DUMP FEES STORM - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 128.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 1.28 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.09 41334 STORM - DUMP FEES STORM - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 160.00 FUEL SCHG 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 1.60 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 0.11 Total : 1,665.73 93888 2/1/2007 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 9364915 COPIER CONTRACT COPIER CONTRACT 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 157.82 Total : 157.82 93889 2/1/2007 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 9406334 ADMIN LEASE copy machine lease 001.000.510.522.100.450.00 137.06 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.450.00 12.20 Total : 149.26 93890 2/1/2007 069887 PARAMEDIC SERVICES 12/20/2006 INV#12/20/2006 EDMONDS PD YELLOW EMERGENCY BLANKETS 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 79.20 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 7.04 Total : 86.24 Page: 59 Packet73 of 205 vchlist 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 60 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93891 2/1/2007 071433 PARKER, WENDEL Recpt # 28595 Partial refund for Bldg Plan Check Fe Partial refund for Bldg Plan Check Fe 001.000.000.345.830.000.00 144.50 Total : 144.50 93892 2/1/2007 070931 PATTON BOGGS LLP 024108 Dec 06 C/A 024108 DECEMBER 2006 DC Lobbyist for December 2006 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 4,000.00 Total : 4,000.00 93893 2/1/2007 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK7523 STRETCH & SCULPT STRETCH & SCULPT #7523 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 319.20 STRETCH & SCULPT #7524 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 196.00 Total : 515.20 93894 2/1/2007 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 26009-00009 E5AB.SR99 Traffic thru 12/31/06 E5AB.SR99 Traffic thru 12/31/06 001.000.620.532.200.410.00 749.22 Total : 749.22 93895 2/1/2007 007800 PETTY CASH Jan 07 cost to attend sno cnty towns Page: 60 Packet74 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 61 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher front Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93895 2/1/2007 007800 PETTY CASH (Continued) cost to attend sno cnty towns 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 35.00 mileage reimb-Carl 001.000.210.513.100.430.00 15.04 food for SMP update meeting 001.000.620.558.600.310.00 148.21 2 council members to attend sno cnt) 001.000.110.511.100.490.00 70.00 coffee & Sugar 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 43.66 calendar for CS Dept 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 10.88 coffee 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 10.19 copies 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 5.00 flu shot reimb-Todd Anderson & Wife 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 36.00 meeting registration fees -Sims 001.000.620.532.200.490.00 70.00 cookies for ribbon cutting-pfd 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 43.56 Total : 487.54 93896 2/1/2007 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS 01/01-01/30/07 LINDA KLEIN'S RETIREMENT CAKE Page: 61 Packet75 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 62 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 93896 2/1/2007 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS 93897 93898 93899 2/1/2007 069065 PIONEER RESEARCH CORP 2/1/2007 064552 PITNEY BOWES Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) LINDA KLEIN'S RETIREMENT CAKE 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 CITY HALL SCREW COVERS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 VINEGAR FOR WATER QUALITY 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 FUNNEL FOR WATER QUALITY TE 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 DEC 06 MILEAGE FOR STEVE FISI- 411.000.654.537.900.430.00 TELEMETRY MINI CLIPS 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 POCKET SPEAKERS FOR TELEME' 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 CDL TEST FOR JEFF KOBYLK 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 UNIT K93 LICENSE FEES 001.000.410.521.260.640.00 DISTILLED WATER SUPPLY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 UNIT 32 LICENSE FEES 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 Total ; 191977 3833100-JA07 2/1/2007 066159 PUBLIC AGENCY TRAINING COUNCIL 85861 146254 CONCRETE PATCH 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 Total DM1000 MAILING SYSTEM LEASE 250-00133 DM1000 Mailing System Lease- 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 Total INV#85861 - SGT.JONES/OFFICER Amount 50.00 19.98 19.74 3.04 17.80 3.80 14.13 75.00 32.75 4.58 22.75 263.57 299.50 299.50 792.00 792.00 Page: 62 Packet76 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 63 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93899 2/1/2007 066159 PUBLIC AGENCY TRAINING COUNCIL (Continued) SGT.JONES/REG ISTRATION'- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 495.00 O FC. MACK/REG I STRATI O N- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 495.00 Total : 990.00 93900 2/1/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 178.61 Total : 178.61 93901 2/1/2007 031189 RED LION OLYMPIA 837-9403 Accom Dawson, Olson, Wambolt AV Accom Dawson, Olson, Wambolt AV 001.000.110.511.100.430.00 300.00 Total : 300.00 93902 2/1/2007 071476 REMINGTON ARMS CO LE1431 INV#LE1431 - DJ.SMITH/EDMONDS DAMIAN J.SMITH-REGISTRATION- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 400.00 LE1439 INV#LE1439 - J.LAWLESS/EDMONC J.LAW LESS-REGISTRATION- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 400.00 Total : 800.00 93903 2/1/2007 071474 RESPONSE LAW INCORPORATED 6070529 INV#6070529 - RICHARD SMITH/ED R.T.SMITH/REGISTRATION- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 148.00 Total : 148.00 93904 2/1/2007 067447 RILEY, CHARLES H. 16 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,410.75 Total : 1,410.75 93905 2/1/2007 068484 RINKER MATERIALS 9411819031 STORM -ASPHALT DUMP FEES Page: 63 Packet77 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 64 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93905 2/1/2007 068484 RINKER MATERIALS (Continued) STORM -ASPHALT DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 156.82 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 10.17 9411893677 STREET - WASHED SAND STREET - WASHED SAND 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 278.26 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 23.92 9411902373 STREET - WASHED SAND STREET - WASHED SAND 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 522.71 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 44.95 9411911596 STREET -SAND STREET -SAND 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 824.43 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 70.90 Total : 1,932.16 93906 2/1/2007 069593 SAFELITE AUTOGLASS 00446-570579 UNIT 495 - WINDSHIELD & MOLDII\ UNIT 495 - WINDSHIELD & MOLDY\ 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 138.48 00446-570614 UNIT 2 - WINDSHIELD UNIT 2 - WINDSHIELD 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 182.81 Total : 321.29 93907 2/1/2007 033300 SAFETY & SUPPLY CO 981247-2 Safety equipment Safety equipment 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 182.78 Total : 182.78 93908 2/1/2007 071007 SAWDON, MANDY SAWDON0127 GYM MONITOR Page: 64 Packet78 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 65 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93908 2/1/2007 071007 SAWDON, MANDY (Continued) ANDERSON CENTER GYM MONITC 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 36.00 Total : 36.00 93909 2/1/2007 061482 SEA -WESTERN INC 112601 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING Yoakum Commando coat, pant, etc. 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 306.50 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 7.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 27.63 112706 OPS MAINT & SUPPLIES SCBA flow test 001.000.510.522.200.480.00 50.00 QC button & chest strap 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 68.13 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.480.00 4.40 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 6.00 112707 OPS REPAIRS/MAINT protctv clthng maint contract 001.000.510.522.200.480.00 63.99 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.480.00 5.63 Total : 539.78 93910 2/1/2007 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 53554 UNIT 24 - CLAMP QUICK 8" UNIT 24 - CLAMP QUICK 8" 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 207.96 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 32.57 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.16 Page: 65 Packet79 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 66 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93910 2/1/2007 067076 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT ( (Continued) Total : 261.69 93911 2/1/2007 069665 SEATTLE STERLING MACK R035071 UNIT 55 - REPAIR AND MAINT AND UNIT 55 - REPAIR AND MAINT AND 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 3,000.77 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 264.07 Total : 3,264.84 93912 2/1/2007 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 75538 E4FC.WW Elementary Infiltration An E4FC.WW Elementary Infiltration An 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 1,381.46 Total : 1,381.46 93913 2/1/2007 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 1-580210 UNIT 10 - SQUARE LINK CHAIN UNIT 10 - SQUARE LINK CHAIN 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 79.79 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.86 3-371201 UNIT 484,485,486 SPLIT 3 WAYS (7 UNIT 484,485,486 SPLIT 3 WAYS (7 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 188.94 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.55 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.33 Total : 305.47 93914 2/1/2007 071248 SLEEP INN - SEATAC 15609 INV#15609 ACCT#276 EDMONDS P ROOM FOR ACADEMY 1/2-1/4/07 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 149.97 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 18.60 Page: 66 Packet80 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 67 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93914 2/1/2007 071248 SLEEP INN - SEATAC (Continued) 15619 INV#15619 ACCT#276 EDMONDS P ROOM FOR ACADEMY 1/8-1/11/07 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 199.96 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 24.80 15623 INV#15623 ACCT#276 EDMONDS P ROOM FOR ACADEMY 1/15-1/17/07 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 149.97 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 18.60 Total : 561.90 93915 2/1/2007 036850 SMITH, SHERLUND D 23 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 2,204.85 Total : 2,204.85 93916 2/1/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2450016544 UTILITY BILLING 18500 82ND AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 102.56 3570014369 UTILITY BILLING 8030 185TH ST SW 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 293.62 4120014156 UTILITY BILLING 750 15TH ST SW 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 16.96 4160017333 SPRINKLER SYSTEM SPRINKLER SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 93.57 5070014245 IRRIGATION SYSTEM IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.21 Total : 537.92 93917 2/1/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 915013835 958-001-000-8 Page: 67 Packet81 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 68 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93917 2/1/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) WWTP ELECTRICITY 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 36,434.95 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 2,186.10 Total : 38,621.05 93918 2/1/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2400010746 LIFT STATION #10 LIFT STATION #10 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 198.15 2410016253 LIFT STATION #2 LIFT STATION #2 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 85.50 3720012057 LIBRARY LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,811.94 3970013581 SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.21 4840011953 Public Works Public Works 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 117.84 Public Works 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 447.81 Public Works 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 447.81 Public Works 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 447.81 Public Works 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 447.81 Public Works 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 447.79 5390028164 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 6,524.01 Page: 68 Packet82 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 69 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93918 2/1/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 5410010689 CITY HALL CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,541.91 Total : 15,549.59 93919 2/1/2007 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 33354 Rubber stamp for DSD Rubber stamp for DSD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 53.80 Total : 53.80 93920 2/1/2007 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 33434 INV#33434 EDMONDS PD MAGMATE PLATES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.50 MAGNETIC LOCKER TAG 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 4.50 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.58 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 0.40 Total : 11.98 93921 2/1/2007 065910 SNOCOM 911 COMMUNICATIONS 334 FIRE ALARM/DISPATCH 2007 Esperance dispatch 001.000.510.528.600.510.00 4,553.00 Total : 4,553.00 93922 2/1/2007 037075 SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR 2006 Voter Reg 2006 Voter Reg File Maint 2006 Voter Reg File Maint 001.000.390.511.800.510.00 57,504.86 Total : 57,504.86 93923 2/1/2007 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2246275-01 STREET - JEANS - M JOHNSON Page: 69 PacketH of 205 vchlist 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 70 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93923 2/1/2007 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS (Continued) STREET - JEANS - MJOHNSON 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 187.60 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 16.13 Total : 203.73 93924 2/1/2007 070677 SPRINT Eng.Jan 2007 Engineering Nextel thru 01/24/07 Engineering Nextel thru 01/24/07 001.000.620.532.200.420.00 548.04 Total : 548.04 93925 2/1/2007 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO Feb 07 FEB 07 STANDARD INSURANCE Feb 07 Standard Insurance 811.000.000.231.550.000.00 18,722.44 Total : 18,722.44 93926 2/1/2007 070684 STANTEC CONSULTING INC 124779 53769 SUPPORT SERVICES 411.000.656.538.800.410.11 205.74 Total : 205.74 93927 2/1/2007 040200 STEAM SUPPLY LLC 5004 FAC - STEAM TRAPS, VALVE FAC - STEAM TRAPS, VALVE 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 342.37 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.24 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 31.12 Total : 384.73 93928 2/1/2007 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 860248 OLD PW - ELECT SUPPLIES Page: 70 Packet84 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 71 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93928 2/1/2007 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY (Continued) OLD PW - ELECT SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.75 FOUNTAIN - ELECT SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 90.77 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.66 878556 UNIT 651 -ELECT SUPPLIES UNIT 651 -ELECT SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 124.44 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.08 Total : 253.70 93929 2/1/2007 067835 T-MOBILE 135840772 CELL PHONE USEAGE PARK MAINTENANCE CELL PHONE 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 85.44 Total : 85.44 93930 2/1/2007 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18783861 100323 STEEL WEDGE ANCHORS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 38.30 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3.41 Total : 41.71 93931 2/1/2007 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10480301 FLEET SHOP - SCEWS, NUTS, SUF FLEET SHOP - SCEWS, NUTS, SUF 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 249.69 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.22 Total : 271.91 93932 2/1/2007 071174 TASER INTERNATIONAL INVO41048682 INV#INV041048682 - EDMONDS PC Page: 71 PacketH of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 72 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93932 2/1/2007 071174 TASER INTERNATIONAL (Continued) SGT. D. MAC HADO/TRAI N I NG- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 145.00 SGT.D.MACHADO/INSTRUCTOR C( 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 80.00 CPL. M. BARD/TRAI N I N G- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 145.00 CPL.M.BARD/INSTRUCTOR COUR: 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 80.00 SGT.J.LAW LESS/INSTRUCTOR CO 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 80.00 Total : 530.00 93933 2/1/2007 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 38282 SEWER - EMBROIDERY AND LOG( SEWER - EMBROIDERY AND LOG( 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 12.00 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 1.07 Total : 13.07 93934 2/1/2007 070578 TEL WEST COMMUNICATIONS 780557 C/A 23872 PR1-2 City Phone Service 1/10-2/10/ 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 740.84 780784 C/A 20044 PR1-1 City Phone Service 1/21-2/21/ 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 836.79 Total : 1,577.63 93935 2/1/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1472257 CUST#126500 - EDMONDS POLICE UNCLAIMED PROPERTY AD- 001.000.410.521.100.440.00 18.72 Total : 18.72 93936 2/1/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1472260 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3624 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 118.80 Page: 72 PacketH of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 73 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93936 2/1/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY (Continued) 1472261 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3625 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 23.04 1472262 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3623 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 41.76 1472263 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3622 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 23.04 Total : 206.64 93937 2/1/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1467210 Legal Advertising P-05-136 McNaugl Legal Advertising P-05-136 McNaugl• 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 29.52 1470936 Legal Advertising - S-06-148 Hellerer Legal Advertising - S-06-148 Hellerer 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 15.12 1470937 Legal Advertising S-06-123 Strash Legal Advertising S-06-123 Strash 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 19.44 1472422 Legal Advertising ADB 06-149 Michel Legal Advertising ADB 06-149 Michel 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 18.72 Total : 82.80 93938 2/1/2007 069357 THIES, MIKE Thies -Claim for Exp Reimburse Thies for camera purchas Reimburse Thies for camera purchas 001.000.620.558.800.350.00 291.57 Total : 291.57 93939 2/1/2007 071477 THOMAS AND MEANS LLP 14269 INV#14269 - DON ANDERSON/EDM DON ANDERSON/REGISTRATION- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 465.00 Total : 465.00 93940 2/1/2007 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 576287 CITY HALL ELEVATOR MAINTENAI` Page: 73 Packet87 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 74 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93940 2/1/2007 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (Continued) CITY HALL ELEVATOR MAINTENAI` 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 735.32 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 65.45 576288 MONITORING -PS monitoring-PS- 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 35.15 Total : 835.92 93941 2/1/2007 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 34775 STREET DEPT - CHAIN LINK FENCI STREET DEPT - CHAIN LINK FENCI 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 8.66 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 0.76 Total : 9.42 93942 2/1/2007 070224 TRAINING SOLUTIONS 07-106 ALS MISC Steinbach & Beardsley PM Revw 001.000.510.526.100.490.00 790.00 Total : 790.00 93943 2/1/2007 068322 TRANE 74161 SERVICE AGREEMENT 01060 0001 HVAC preventative maint-PS 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 247.50 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 22.03 Total : 269.53 93944 2/1/2007 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 12880 PW FIB OPT SUPIA BOX PW FIB OPT SUPIA BOX 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 41.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.65 Total : 44.65 93945 2/1/2007 042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE 11 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement Page: 74 PacketH of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 75 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93945 2/1/2007 042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE (Continued) LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 210.99 Total : 210.99 93946 2/1/2007 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 7333576 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES SEWER PIPE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 368.18 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 32.77 Total : 400.95 93947 2/1/2007 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF W 0161821-WA WATER - DOT WATER - DOT 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 61.00 0162737-WA WATER - DOT WATER - DOT 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 61.00 Total : 122.00 93948 2/1/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODI SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODI 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 43.34 425-744-1691 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEIN SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODE 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 42.69 425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL 001.000.640.575.560.420.00 53.60 425-771-1124 CITY PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG-E CITY PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG-E 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 51.49 425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHY\ BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHII\ 001.000.640.574.350.420.00 50.79 Page: 75 Packet89 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 76 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93948 2/1/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST (Continued) 425-775-2645 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.640.575.510.420.00 61.36 Total : 303.27 93949 2/1/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425.775.2525 CITY HALL DIRECTORY LISTING City Hall Directory Listing 1/7-2/7/07 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 3.57 425-AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE City Park T1 Line 1/16-2/16/07 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 406.61 425-AB8-2844 POLICE T1 LINE Police T1 Line 1/10-2/10/07 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 373.12 425-DHO-0667 DEDICATED LINE FS #17 TO SNOC Dedicated Line FS #17 to Snocom 1/ 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 350.09 425-NW2-0887 Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 285.00 Total : 1,418.39 93950 2/1/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425 712-0423 AFTERS HOURS PHONE AFTERS HOURS PHONE 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 53.70 Total : 53.70 93951 2/1/2007 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 51.47 Page: 76 Packet90 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 77 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93951 2/1/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST (Continued) 425-775-1534 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 159.56 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 296.31 425-775-7865 Radio Line between Public Works & I Radio Line between Public Works & I 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 50.16 425-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 : 681.84 93952 2/1/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-774-0944 FS #20-FAX LINE FS #20-FAX LINE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 47.70 425-778-2153 FS #20 PHONE SERVICE FS #20 PHONE SERVICE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 47.13 425-FLO-0017 FS #16 FRAME RELAY FS #16 FRAME RELAY 001.000.510.528.600.420.00 354.07 425-NW4-3726 FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNO, FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNO, 001.000.510.528.600.420.00 247.00 Page: 77 Packet91 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 78 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93952 2/1/2007 011900 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST (Continued) Total : 695.90 93953 2/1/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 2103654595 Mayor's cell phone bill, 1/7 - 2/6/07 Mayor's cell phone bill, 1/7 - 2/6/07 001.000.210.513.100.420.00 117.41 Mayor's second cell phone 1/7-2/6/07 001.000.210.513.100.420.00 12.88 Total : 130.29 93954 2/1/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 769986915-01 425-231-2668 cell phone -water lead 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 39.51 964212899-00001 206-947-3220 cell phone water quality 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 51.40 Total : 90.91 93955 2/1/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 2107220955 Graf wireless service Bld Div. Graf wireless service Bld Div. 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 60.04 Total : 60.04 93956 2/1/2007 064002 VIS SEED COMPANY 3812 FLOWER PROGRAM FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 65.25 Freight 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 6.95 Total : 72.20 93957 2/1/2007 063903 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA 1/25/07 Where to Turn to in Sno. Co. books Where to Turn to in Sno. Co. books 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 57.00 Total : 57.00 93958 2/1/2007 063903 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA 2007 2007 DIRECTORY WHERE TO TURN 2007- 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 21.00 Page: 78 Packet92 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 79 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93958 2/1/2007 063903 063903 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA (Continued) Total : 21.00 93959 2/1/2007 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 28970141 1066294 GLOVES 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 269.18 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 23.96 29028537 1066294 G FILTER PAPER 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 -100.16 29076523 1066294 PIPETTE 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 142.55 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 5.11 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 13.14 Total : 353.78 93960 2/1/2007 047200 WA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC 06-746 2007 MEMBERSHIP 2007 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHI 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 125.00 Total : 125.00 93961 2/1/2007 047605 WA ST TREASURER FORFEITED PROPERTY QUARTERLY REPORT/FORFIETED 10% NET PROCEEDS- 001.000.000.237.240.000.00 23.95 Total : 23.95 93962 2/1/2007 065828 WA STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE 2007-0439 INV#2007-0439 - OFFICER MCINTY B.MCINTYRE/SWAT BASIC- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 100.00 Total : 100.00 93963 2/1/2007 071424 WASHINGTON ENERGY SERVICES Recpt # 043089 Refund for Bldg Permit #20061261 Page: 79 Packet93 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 80 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93963 2/1/2007 071424 WASHINGTON ENERGY SERVICES (Continued) Refund for Bldg Permit #20061261 001.000.000.322.100.000.00 50.00 Refund of City Surcharge for Bldg 001.000.000.321.930.000.00 15.00 Total : 65.00 93964 2/1/2007 070264 WASHINGTON OAKES RETIREMENT 21 Assisted Care Living - Jim Martin Assisted Care Living - Jim Martin 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 3,850.00 Total : 3,850.00 93965 2/1/2007 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 106013379 INV#106013379 EDMONDS PD BACKGROUND CHECKS 12/06 001.000.000.237.100.000.00 72.00 Total : 72.00 93966 2/1/2007 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-5414 UTILITY POLE REPAIR UTILITY POLE REPAIR 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 150.00 Total : 150.00 93967 2/1/2007 045912 WASPC DUES001685000 INV#DUES001685000 EDMONDS PI 2007 ACTIVE DUES - STERN 001.000.410.521.100.490.00 365.00 Total : 365.00 93968 2/1/2007 061395 WASTE MANAGEMENT NW 0721846-2677-7 EDMONDS TREATMENT PLANT ASH DISPOSAL 411.000.656.538.800.474.65 3,813.66 Total : 3,813.66 93969 2/1/2007 068227 WCFA WCFA0129 2007 DUES WASHINTON CEMETERY & FUNER 130.000.640.536.200.490.00 154.50 Total : 154.50 Page: 80 Packet94 of 205 vchlist Voucher List Page: 81 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93970 2/1/2007 065936 WESSPUR INC SO20490-IN UNIT 32 STREET BRUSH CHIPPER UNIT 32 STREET BRUSH CHIPPER 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 21,681.60 Sales Tax 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1,907.98 Total : 23,589.58 93971 2/1/2007 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 24173002 PLANT REPLACEMENTS PUBLIC SAFETY PLANT REPLACED 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 288.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 25.63 31863001 CREDIT INV PD TWICE INV 31863001 pd 2X 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 -91.20 Total : 222.43 93972 2/1/2007 071466 WHITMARSH, EUGENE AND KAREN 1-33450 RE: # 05-06121223 UTILITY REFUN RE: # 05-06121223 UB Refund Thorr 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 55.93 Total : 55.93 93973 2/1/2007 064234 WILDWATER RIVER TOURS INC AMUNDSON7638 BALD EAGLE WATCH SKAGIT BALD EAGLE WATCH 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 217.44 AMUNDSON7640 EAGLE WATCH SKAGIT BALD EAGLE WATCH- 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 271.80 Total : 489.24 93974 2/1/2007 046286 WSCPA 2007MEMBERSHIP 2007 MEMBERSHIP FOR ROBIN HE 2007 MEMBERSHIP FOR HESLOP 001.000.410.521.300.490.00 50.00 Total : 50.00 93975 2/1/2007 061047 WWCPA JAN 2007 WWCPA 2007 ANNUAL DUES - R S Page: 81 Packet95 of 205 vchlist 02/01/2007 10:47:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 82 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 93975 2/1/2007 061047 WWCPA (Continued) WWCPA 2007 ANNUAL DUES - R S 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 93976 2/1/2007 051050 WYATT, ARTHUR D 13 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,127.00 Total : 1,127.00 93977 2/1/2007 051280 ZEP MANUFACTURING 63878219 WATER/SEWER - WASP HORNET I WATER/SEWER - WASP HORNET 1 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 54.93 WATER/SEWER - WASP HORNET 1 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 54.93 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.64 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 6.64 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.42 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.41 Total : 133.97 266 Vouchers for bank code : front Bank total : 835,169.15 266 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 835,169.15 Page: 82 Packet% of 205 AM-815 2. D. Claim for Damages Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 02/06/2007 Submitted By: Linda Hynd, City Clerk's Office Submitted For: Sandy Chase Time: Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Diane Van Natter (amount undetermined). Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages. Previous Council Action Not applicable. Narrative A Claim for Damages has been received from the following individual: Diane Van Natter 623 Main Street Unit No. 3 Edmonds, WA 98020 (Amount undetermined) Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Van Natter Claim for Damages Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/30/2007 10:54 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/30/2007 11:20 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 01/30/2007 02:26 PM APRV Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 01/30/2007 09:41 AM Final Approval Date: 01/30/2007 Packet97 of 205 RECEIVED CLAIM OrrYR DAMAGES FORM JAN 3 0 2007 Data Claim Form Received by C ED WITY CLERK Please take note th "L tV o resides at m ding dd eAn Gaa) ,- ! O home phone # bZGi - (6—Wwork phone #A9 ,a .uc-jf!claiming damages against in the sum of $ arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DA OF OCCURRENCE: -- 9 . ] ¢sf� _ TIME: ek J-Qc-Q_ C4— api r�o LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: (p2a(�eu`H 5��2 ' . l��i i-' i:. f� r+�n_FO„� V0 DESCRIPTION: 1. Describe occurrence explaining the nature of the defects or acts of negligence causing damages (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. r+ 4gkk _ ftt< 4;V4 3 `I .i 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes —ZNo If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: License Plate # _ Type Auto: (year) DRIVER: Address: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Address: * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLANS ONLY * * Driver License # (make) (model) OWNER Address: Phone#: Name: Address: * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * I, '1/t Ling . VLI, being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. X . < Signature of Claimants) State of Washington County of S� v ?wt tS t I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: / 1 3 /?c c !4. ,Las Gf�� A. signature Title My appointment expires tJ Packet98 of 205 January 22, 2007 Diane Van Natter PO Box 993 Edmonds, WA 98020-0993 City of Edmonds City Clerks Office/Claims First Floor City Hall 121 Fifth Ave. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Claim for Damages 12/13/2006 Dear City Clerk: I have been referred to you through Chief David Stern of the Edmonds Police Department in reference to filing a claim for damages to my home as the result of a search warrant. On December 13, 2006, I returned home from attending a play at approximately 10:30 PM to find six police officers in my home. They indicated they had a search warrant and had not notified, nor attempted to notify me of their desire to search my home. Due to ongoing theft at my home, I invested in extensive measures to secure my property to the best of my ability against unwanted entry and burglary. Most of my doors have two locks and expensive additional signature only exterior locks, installed because of thefts at my residence since my move to Edmonds, August 4, 2005. I returned to find six (6) interior doors and one (1) exterior door significantly damaged. The doors were broken, and frames, hinges and locksets damaged or destroyed. Ten (10) locksets destroyed including one set resulting from a recent installation at a cost of nearly $1000.00. My pets were traumatized; there were police cars in the alley causing fear and disturbance among neighbors and impact on my newly opened business. My home was significantly damaged one week before the arrival of my son and daughter home from college for the Christmas holiday. This level of violation was uncalled for. I consider the City of Edmonds responsible for the actions of the officers involved and the damage to my residence. I purchased this home at a cost of $340,000.00 August 4, 2005 and do not appreciate having my home damaged and property value affected due police conduct. The evening of December 13, 2006, the officers refused to provide me with a copy of documentation including reasons they had `probable cause' to enter and damage my home, and cause embarrassment and fear among neighbors and my reputation as a new business owner in the community. These malicious acts were negligent and unnecessary. A note or call indicating they would like to search and asking me to contact them would have been welcome. I have since learned they stated probable cause due to an administrative error on a court order that was never valid and in error in the system. Packet99 of 205 I expect the City to provide for damages and expenses in the following amounts. I have received a verbal estimate from a door store for having the interior doors (pre -hung, including jams) and labor to install. A locksmith will have to be retained to install all new hardware and custom locks equivalent to what I recently installed, and a painter will have to be hired to paint the doors and trim of all interior doors to match. 6 Interior Doors (Pre -hung with jams), installed Includes drilling locksets for locking handle and Deadbolt locks, installation hinges and cleanup, Disposal of damaged doors and jams. I Exterior Door (Pre -hung with jam), installed Installation extra as door is inset in concrete frame (may be more expensive) Exterior door hardware Multi -Lock Custom Locks Painting of all doors and trim Temporary repair and lost work time Loss work time to supervise replacement doors Total repair costs to home $300.00 each $1800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $550.00 $550.00 $2000.00 $2000.00 $750.00 $750.00 $2500.00 $2500.00 $8,400.00 This does not include the impact on reputation in community as a new business owner, and embarrassment and fear now displayed by neighbors. This action lacked professional judgment and professional courtesy on the cities part. I can be contacted at 425.670.6428 or at the address above. I look forward to your prompt reply and would like to get this work done as soon as possible. I have enclosed copies of pictures with some of the damage. Sincerely, Diane E. Van Natter Enclosures 2 Packed 00 of 205 December 18, 2006 Diane E. Van Natter PO Box 993 Edmonds, WA 98020-0993 Chief David Stern Edmonds Police Department 250 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Chief Stern: I request additional assistance in reference to case # 06-5851 and wouldd like to request a meeting with you to discuss my concerns the concerns shared in my December 12, 2006 letter to you, received simultaneously with this letter. Upon my return home Wednesday evening December 13, 2006, I found six police officers in my home with a search warrant. They did approximately ten thousand ($10,000.00) worth of damage to my home, destroying seven doors, door jams and frames, custom locks and leaving my home unsecured. I have been dealing with ongoing theft throughout the year and half I have lived in Edmonds and am alarmed at the `level of assault' inflicted at my home by the officers most recent actions. They would not provide me with cards, or a copy of papers, which would support their claim for a search warrant. As a single parent, with my children coming home from college this week I remain disappointed with the actions of your officers. As a business and medical provider in the city with newly located offices downtown I am angered by the `scene created' for friends and those who live around me. Your officers claim they were given some reason to search and damage my property yet have refused to tell me what originated their claim. It is my hope you will operate with greater expertise and respect than they have with me. It is my belief that the circumstances referenced in the two letters merit your attention and that your input may offer insights as I work toward resolve of the aforementioned matters. I look to your expertise and suggestions as to how I might best proceed with these issues. I can be reached at my home number at 425.670.6428 or at the mailing address above. Your prompt attention is appreciated, thank you. Sincerely, Diane Van Natter Enclosures Packet101 of 205 FEW I T Y F S GARY HAAKEMAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0200 ^ FAX (425) 771-0208 POLICE DEPARTMENT • A NATIONALLY ACCREDITED LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY fnc.18()Q December 21, 2006 Ms. Diane Van Natter 623 Main Street, #3 Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Ms. Van Natter, I am writing in response to your letter to Chief Stern dated December 18, 2006. The Edmonds Police were dispatched to your residence based on information that a No Contact Order Violation was occurring. When officers arrived at your residence they found Mr. Hall there. Officers' investigating the complaint found there was a current "No Contact Order" in place out of King County Superior Court prohibiting Mr. Hall from being within 500 feet of your residence. Officers' contacted Mr. Hall at your residence. After talking to officers for short time Mr. Hall went back into your residence and refused to answer the door. State law requires law enforcement to make an arrest if they have probable cause to believe there is a violation of a No Contact Order. Based on the fact that Mr. Hall refused to answer the door, officers applied for a search warrant to locate and arrest him. The search warrant was issued by a judge from South County District Court based on probable cause. The officers served the search warrant at your residence. The damage to your apartment door occurred because officers did not have keys to the doors of your apartment for entry. Any claim for damages will Dave to be processed through the City Clerk's Of ice. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 425-771-0206. DAVID N. STERN CHIEF OF POLICE Gerald Gannon Assistant Chief of Police Packed 02 of 205 `p SNOHOMISH COUNT Ir DISTRICT COURT SOUTI-I DIVISION STATE OF WASHINGTON) No. ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) SEARCH WARRANT TO ANY PEACE OFFICER IN THE STATE OF WAS14INGON: Upon the sworn complaint made before me it appears that there is probable cause to believe that the crinie(s) Violation of No Contact Order (pre-trial) Has been committed and that evidence of that crime; or contraband, the fruits of crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed; or weapons or other things by :Weans of which a crime has been committed or reasonably appears about to be committed; or a person for whose arrest there is probable cause, or who is unlawfully restrained are concealed in or on certain premises; vehicles or persons within Snohomish County, Washington. YOU ARE COMMANDED to: 1. Search within ten (10) days of this date, the premises, vehicle or persons described as follows: 623 Main St Unit''3 Edmonds, WA 98020. The residence at 623 Main St is a four unit condominium building that is two stories. The facade of the building facing Main St is white stucco over red brick. There are also two roof eyebrows on the street side forming squared -off arches. The address of 623 is prominently displayed on the front of the building. The unit entries are on the east side of the building. The door to Unit #3 is the second door from the north. Unit 43 shares a hallway with Unit 94. The door to Unit #3 is Raspberry in color. 2. Seize, if located, the following property or person(s): John P. HaIl DOB 03-26-4 L. Papers of occupancy. 3.Promptly return this warrant to me or the clerk of this court: the return must include an inventory of all the seized property A copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken shall be given uedip person from whoa, or from whose premises property is taken. If no person is found in�possession_j a copy and receipt shall be conspicuously posted at the place where the property is Dated: <Z_- Icy Printed or Typed Name of Judge i r Packet103 of 205 1.1 SUPERIOR CO'URff" OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF WASHING TON Plaintiff, NO. C) 4- -2- VS. 7 ! , I ORDER ON CRLMINAL c 4i MOTION (ORCM) Defendant. ITLS HEREBY ORDERED that —Iwlc� 4c, MiJ T-AC fiN -T t4 Aa C' ATED: uty Pro ecuting Attorney fia,- the DeLnndanf Order on Criminal Motion (ORCAI) Packed 04 of 205 Packetl06 of 205 --)w:�-)n Packed 07 of 205 Packetl08 of 205 Packetl09 of 205 Packet110 of 205 AM-817 2.E. Sister City candidates Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 02/06/2007 Submitted By: Linda Carl, Mayor's Office Submitted For: Gary Haakenson Time: Consent Department: Mayor's Office Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Confirmation of Sister City Commission Candidates Clare Long and Elijah Zupancic. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Please confirm Clare Long and Elijah Zupancic to the Sister City Commission. Previous Council Action Narrative Ms. Long and Mr. Zupancic were interviewed by the Sister City Commission and recommended to the positions recently opened by the resignations of Felix de Mello and Karen Towey. Both were then interviewed by the Mayor, who has appointed them to the commission. Ms. Long will fill the remaining time (through 2007) in position #2, and Mr. Zupancic will fill the remaining time (also through 2007) in position #11. They will be eligible for a full three-year term in 2008. Sister City appointments are subject to Council confirmation. Link: Ain lications Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/31/2007 10:31 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/31/2007 10:44 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 01/31/2007 11:41 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 01/31/2007 09:24 AM Final Approval Date: 01/31/2007 Packetl 11 of 205 �L City of Edm on ds Citizen Board and Commission Application 1 90 (Please print or type) C c�? t .� :.c Gt 5 �. x ! ct vt J h t" ✓' b 1l Mgt t S S (o ✓1 (Board or. Corrunission) Name Date ! 5" Address I In�..Phone(day) ce1( Ed w A 9 F6 2- Phone � Length of residence in Edmonds 2 9 e a E-mail Occupational status and background i, ; �e 16e 4 Organization affiliations Why are you seeking this appointment? f, ,,e What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria? toy -� � ��,� d VL.r�i. coo[ �f't crn •i'� tea. jC � v�-ci �cs me �/ c,r y c� � u c� IS' r � vtc� S� QSpG�C-•fi 4 - `�2S 1�-Gc rJrt9 jt�e�YY1� %P� �fC�Tvt,trc+� G-vlc� Pry, eSS�c�,ce i E7kc.i2u-vtt I , Signat e Please return this- forni and resume (if available) to the Office of the Mayor, 121 5"' Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020. Or leave it with the receptionist on the first floor of City Hall. Packed 12 of 205 RECEI d ED o� ° City of Edmonds JAN 0 4 2007 Citizen Board and Commission Ap �eMy� jy0 1�� (Please pant or type) JAIL D 4 2007 is ex (-4y [ommissiah 01=FECL. OF THE MAYOR (Board or Commission) Nagle �i;.a Zu n iG Date Ifq%7-067 .Address �-- Phone (day) Phone (eve) Length of residence in Edmonds Email Occupational status and background _ 1 e o f r e, vt f ly w r� <4 Rouse- Il ody e, s in k i rk L o, A 0.S ! C m O r M 5c6a[•.rs�;r from kke. '54%F46P%ese M;nisi'✓y 01C Jca ioN'�uc�a Iresearck ow S40hese1 KIIUI�Cja Organization affiliationsd�ca� ian. Why are you seeking this appointment? wick 16 6g, 04 $eruic � e e ; re, o FJmc,mylsri �k• What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria? weak %n j feo Yap mnese V t�11. 1� i n Ja or o r v 1I and �- v .� f� 1Jv G ?i fia Ci i Y! n i ;•A 1J ,� N r p T Additional comments (use back of this sheet, if necessary) See ojj a,�_�,_e Will an 09'CCJion Uv4i J ✓I. 15A So I wJ1 Vh,%Vail� Rohe, Signature Please return this completed forum (with resume, if available) to the Office of the Mayor, 121 Sth Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020. Or leave it with the receptionist on the first floor of City Hall. ♦ / /mil[ ` ./ �::. }f _ f Packed 13 of 205 AM-824 2. F. Arts Commission Membership Terms Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 02/06/2007 Submitted By: Frances Chapin, Parks and Recreation Submitted For: Frances Chapin Time: Department: Parks and Recreation Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subiect Title Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions for terms of membership to make changes to the rules governing the appointment and service of Commissioners on Edmonds Civic Arts Commission. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve proposed Ordinance. Previous Council Action The Edmonds Civic Arts Commission was established by Ordinance 1765 in 1975. Narrative The provisions for membership limit service to two full terms but fail to take into account that an individual may during his or her lifetime desire to serve additional terms which are not consecutive. In reviewing the terms of membership the Arts Commission suggested that there it would be beneficial for the community for individuals to have the option of serving an additional term after serving up to two terms at some previous time. In addition it was noted that although City policy has always been that Arts Commissions must reside in the City of Edmonds that this policy is not reflected in the Ordinance. At times there are vacancies on the Commission which leave a partial term to be filled and it was suggested that the Ordinance specify that the same process used to fill full terms be used to fill an unexpired term as is the practice. At their January 2, 2007 meeting the Edmonds Arts Commission unanimously approved a motion to recommend to City Council that these changes be approved. The minutes are as follows: "Ordinance Change - Chapin distributed proposed changes to City Ordinance #1765, section 10.20.010 B to read: 'There is established an Edmonds Civic Arts Commission which shall be composed of seven Community members who shall be appointed...' It has always been City policy that EAC members be Edmonds residents, but it was not stated as such in the Ordinance. The other changes occur in section 10.20.020 C 'No person shall be appointed to serve more than two full consecutive terms on the Commission. An appointment to fill a vacancy for an unexpired term shall not constitute a full term for the purposes of this section. Vacancies shall be filled by the Mayor for the unexpired term in the same manner as the original appointment.' These changes provide more flexibility in the length of service on the Commission. Bader MOVED, and Chaudiere SECONDED that these changes be recommended to City Council for approval. Chapin will meet with the City Attorney to request the correct wording and new ordinance." Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Proposed Ordinance Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/01/2007 03:34 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/01/2007 03:58 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/01/2007 04:36 PM APRV Form Started By: Frances Chapin Started On: 02/01/2007 02:47 PM Final Approval Date: 02/01/2007 Packetl 14 of 205 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 1/23/07 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10.20.010(B) AND 10.20.020 TERMS OF MEMBERSHIP (C) TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE RULES GOVERNING THE APPOINTMENT AND SERVICE OF COMMISSIONERS ON EDMONDS CIVIC ARTS COMMISSION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, Chapter 10.20 ECC establishes the Edmonds Civil Arts Commission; and WHEREAS, there currently is no requirement that appointees be members of the community or citizens of the City of Edmonds; and WHEREAS, the provisions currently limit service to two terms but fail to take into account that an individual may, during his/her lifetime, serve additional terms which are not consecutive; and WHEREAS, vacancies occur from time to time on the Commission and no process regarding appointment to fill an unexpired term is established; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to amend the ordinance in order to address these issues; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: {WSS650659.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - I - Packet115 of 205 Section 1. ECC 10.20.010 Establishment and ouroose of Commission - number of members., paragraph B, relating to the composition of the Commission is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.20.010 Establishment and purpose of Commission - number of members. B. There is established an Edmonds Civic Arts Commission which shall be composed of seven (7) members who shall be appointed by the Mayor subject to confirmation by the City Council. All members of the Commission shall be residents of the Edmonds community. At least four members of the Commission shall be involved in the instruction of, or otherwise professionally engaged in, the visual, literary and/or performing arts. Section 2. The Edmonds City Code, Section 10.20.020 Terms of membership (C) is hereby amended to read as follows: l 0.20.020 Terms of membership. C. No person shall be appointed to serve more than two full consecutive terms on the Commission. An appointment to fill a vacancy for an unexpired term shall not constitute a full term for the purposes of this Section. A vacancy for an unexpired term shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON { WSS650659BOC;1/00006.900000/} Packet116 of 205 -2- 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. {WSS650659.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - Packet117 of 205 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, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10.20.010(B) AND 10.20.020 TERMS OF MEMBERSHIP (C) TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE RULES GOVERNING THE APPOINTMENT AND SERVICE OF COMMISSIONERS ON EDMONDS CIVIC ARTS COMMISSION, 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 {WSS650659.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 4 - Packet118 of 205 AM-813 Interurban Trail, Quiet Title Action Edmonds City Council Meeting 2.G. Date: 02/06/2007 Submitted By: Dave Gebert, Engineering Time: Consent Department: Engineering Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subiect Title Authorization for City Attorney's office to commence a Quiet Title Action in Snohomish County Superior Court to quiet Edmond's title to the portions of Pacific Northwest Traction Company Right -of -Way received by the City from the Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 by Quit Claim Deed for the purpose of construction, operation and maintenance of the Interurban Trail project within the City of Edmonds. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize the City Attorney's office to commence a Quiet Title Action in Snohomish County Superior Court to quiet Edmond's title to the portions of Pacific Northwest Traction Company Right -of -Way received by the City from the Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 by Quit Claim Deed for the purpose of construction, operation and maintenance of the Interurban Trail project within the City of Edmonds. Previous Council Action On January 16, 2007, the City Council accepted the Quitclaim Deed from the Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1. Narrative This authorization is the second of the two step process for the City to obtain clear title to the needed right of way for the Interurban Trail project that was discussed in the January 16, 2007 Agenda Memo requesting Council acceptance of the Quitclaim Deed. The Quiet Title Action is necessary to clarify the City's title to the real property obtained from the PUD by quitclaim deed and to identify if there are any other actual owners of any interest in the real property. If any such other owners are identified, the City will attempt to negotiate the purchase of their interests. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Parks and Recreation Brian McIntosh 01/29/2007 04:36 PM APRV 2 Development Services Duane Bowman 01/29/2007 04:38 PM APRV 3 City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/30/2007 08:10 AM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/30/2007 08:42 AM APRV 5 Final Approval Linda Hynd 01/30/2007 02:26 PM APRV Form Started By: Dave Gebert Started On: 01/29/2007 04:21 PM Final Approval Date: 01/30/2007 Packetl 19 of 205 AM-820 2.1-1. Traffic Impact Fee Annual Report Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 02/06/2007 Submitted By: Conni Curtis, Engineering Submitted For: Dave Gebert Time: Consent Department: Engineering Type: Information Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Traffic Impact Fee Annual Report Recommendation from Mayor and Staff None. For Information Only. Previous Council Action NA Narrative Ordinance No. 3516 authorizes the collection of Traffic Impact Fees for roads and became effective September 17, 2004. Pursuant to Section 18.82.080 (C) of the Edmonds Community Development Code, attached as Exhibit I is an accounting of the Traffic Impact Fee fund activity for the year ending December 31, 2006. Per Section 18.82.100 of the Code, the total 2006 receipts into the account ($94,007.94) plus accrued interest for 2006 ($12,338.08) will be used to help fund the 220th Street SW Improvements Project. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 2006 Traffic Impact Fees Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Dave Gebert 01/31/2007 02:29 PM APRV 2 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 02/01/2007 09:50 AM APRV 3 Development Services Duane Bowman 02/01/2007 09:57 AM APRV 4 Development Services Duane Bowman 02/01/2007 09:58 AM APRV 5 City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/01/2007 10:09 AM APRV 6 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/01/2007 10:10 AM APRV 7 Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/01/2007 10:14 AM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 01/31/2007 01:14 PM Final Approval Date: 02/01/2007 Packet120 of 205 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES Impact Fee Receipts and Transfers Record Transportation Impact Fee Receipts and Funds Transfer Data Record Transportation Impact Fee Fund Account Number: 112.502.000.345.860.000.00 December 31, 2006 RECEIPTS TRANSFERS 2006 Permit Receipt Z�77F Transaction Amount Cumulative Date Number Number Applicant/Site Address Fee Amount Fund Reference Transferred Total Beginning Balance $168,424.78 Interest Earned from 2004/2005 Receipts $2,240.16 $170, 664.94 12/31 /05 01/09/06 06-0017 27978 Glen Street, LLC 626 Glen Street $1,056.24 $171,721.18 01/23/06 CU-06-002 28056 Far East Enterprises, LLC 8400 Bowdoin Way (Cool Beans) $3,345.12 $175,066.30 02/09/06 06-0094 28148 Stephen C. Waite 1142 Second Avenue South $840.72 $175,907.02 02/13/06 CU-05-128 28167 DeHolt Espresso 7601 Lake Ballinger Way $960.00 $176,867.02 02/14/06 06-0107 28168 Julie A. Wanner 7039 Meadowdale Beach Road $840.72 $177,707.74 03/10/06 06-0184 28326 Hillcrest Construction Co. 17008-77th Place West $840.72 $178,548.46 03/22/06 06-0228 28415 Hillcrest Construction Co. 06-0229 17001/17009-77th Place West $1,681.44 $180,229.90 03/28/06 06-0239 28441 Classico Homes 8554-202nd Street SW $840.72 $181,070.62 03/31/06 06-0258 28477 Michel Construction 249 Fourth Avenue South $1,271.76 $182,342.38 04/05/06 06-0273 28509 Custom Built Homes 16705-74th Place West $840.72 $183,183.10 L:\Pr,FdniA'gb' l(:�68RCIL\0014_820_2006 Council Attachment.XLS 2/2/2007 2006 Impact Fees.Council Pagel TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES Impact Fee Receipts and Transfers Record RECEIPTS Permit Receipt Date Number Number Applicant/Site Address Fee Amount 04/06/06 06-0283 28521 Silver City Construction 15711-72nd Avenue West $840.72 04/10/06 06-0293 28538 Cool Beans 8400 Bowdoin Way $2,318.40 04/14/06 06-0309 28573 Steve Sutter 410 Walnut Street $550.26 04/24/06 06-0330 28618 Hillcrest Construction 06-0333 77th Place West $2,522.16 04/28/06 Starbucks 28685 Third Avenue South Properties, LLC 502 Main Street $8,265.00 06/06/06 REFUND PORTION -$7,769.00 $496.00 05/19/06 Varela 28826 Annette Varela 9309-190th Street SW $840.72 05/25/06 06-0471 28871 Eaglewood Homes 18021 Andover Street $840.72 07/10/06 06-0603 RECO00367 Wathne Construction, Inc. 18212-73rd Avenue West $840.72 07/12/06 06-0564 RECO00395 The Trike Stop 22309-76th Avenue West $1,129.52 07/14/06 06-0643 RECO00427 Chateau Construction 8703-191 st Place SW $840.72 07/14/06 06-0615 RECO0042o Birth & Family Clinic 21911-76th Avenue West $19,242.00 07/21/06 06-0591 RECO00489 Goodnight Brothers/Hilltop Village 7427-210th Street SW $5,148.67 TRANSFERS 2006 Transaction Amount Cumulative Fund Name I Reference Transferred Total $184, 023.82 $186, 342.22 $186, 892.48 $189,414.64 $189,910.64 $190,751.36 $191, 592.08 $192,432.80 $193, 562.32 $194,403.04 $213,645.04 $218,793.71 L:\Pr,FcR f'gbgk'�!8RClL\0014 820 2006 Council Attachment.XLS 2/2/2007 2006 Impact Fees.Council Page2 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES Impact Fee Receipts and Transfers Record I:0xil:11l Permit Receipt Date Number Number Applicant/Site Address 07/24/06 06-0590 REC000526 Jonathan McCormick 635 Paradise Lane 08/08/06 06-0552 REC000653 Remax, Cyber Properties LLC 21920-76th Avenue West 08/18/06 06-0563 REC000745 Korean United Presbyterian Church 8505-240th Street SW 08/18/06 06-0632 REC000748 Norkri Corporation 23905-104th Avenue West 08/24/06 06-0661 REC000795 Thomas & Colleen Antonowitsch 23214-92nd Avenue West 09/15/06 06-0617 REC000940 Contempra Homes, Inc. 8044 Cyrus Place 09/21/06 06-0669 REC042675 Norkri Corporation 23901-104th Avenue West 10/18/06 06-0572 REC42906 Dennis & Charlotte Archer 23709-84th Avenue West 10/19/06 06-0745 REC42926 Joe & Erin Mustach 8208-182nd Place SW 10/20/06 06-0820 REC042935 Amani Imran 23922-84th Avenue West 10/26/06 06-0660 REC042972 John & Joanne Jones 717 Alder Street 11/06/06 06-0942 REC043025 Chateau Construction & Development 8202-190th Street SW TRANSFERS Transaction Fee Amount Fund Name I Reference $6,231.29 $15,397.72 $5,000.00 $840.72 $840.72 $840.72 $840.72 $2,004.72 $840.72 $840.72 $840.72 $840.72 2006 Amount Cumulative Transferred Total $225,025.00 $240,422.72 $245,422.72 $246,263.44 $247,104.16 $247,944.88 $248,785.60 $250,790.32 $251,631.04 $252,471.76 $253,312.48 $254,153.20 L:\Pr,Fdnia''gbVck-g8 1CIL\0014_820_2006 Council Attachment.XLS 2/2/2007 2006 Impact Fees.Council Page3 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES Impact Fee Receipts and Transfers Record I:0xil:11l Permit Receipt Date Number Number I Applicant/Site Address 11/07/06 06-0851 REC043030 Norkri Corporation 23907-104th Avenue West 11/09/06 06-0924 REC043055 Falcon Ridge Homes, LLC 8012-240th Street SW 06-0638 REC043062 Michel Construction, Inc. 8022-212th Street SW 12/05/06 06-1004 REC043192 Tim Weaver 847 Maple Street 12/06/06 06-1003 REC043201 R H Hoover, Inc. 17121-69th Place West 12/07/06 06-1051 REC043207 John Uberuaga 22319-95th Place West 06-0575 REC043215 Linda Fenton 18210 Homeview Drive 11 /30/06 12/31/2006 INTEREST EARNED 2006 TRANSFERS Transaction Fee Amount Fund Name I Reference $840.72 $840.72 $5,475.36 $840.72 $840.72 $840.72 $840.72 Thru October $10,293.67 November $1,332.95 December $711.46 Total Interest Earned 2006 $12,338.08 Amount Transferred Fund 112-506 (220th Street SW AJ60260-11/30/06 Imprvmnts Project) (2005 Balance) $170,664.94 2006 Cumulative Total $254,993.92 $255,834.64 $261,310.00 $262,150.72 $262,991.44 $263,832.16 $264,672.88 $94,007.94 (Total 2006 Receipts) 2006 YEAR-END BALANCE $106,346.02 L:\Pr(FcRAigb'A i(:�68RCIL\0014_820_2006 Council Attachment.XLS 2/2/2007 2006 Impact Fees.Council Page4 AM-816 3. Chamber of Commerce proclamation Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 02/06/2007 Submitted By: Linda Carl, Mayor's Office Submitted For: Gary Haakenson Time: 5 Minutes Department: Mayor's Office Type: Information Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Proclamation in honor of the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Week, February 4 - 10, 2007. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Please join the Mayor in honoring the Chamber's 100 years of service to the Edmonds community. Previous Council Action Narrative Besides the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce having a spectacular 100th Anniversary Banquet on Friday, February 9, the Museum will be hosting "The Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce - The Key to 100 Years of Success in the Community" exhibit until April with an open house on Friday, February 9 from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. The Chamber will also have monthly specials throughout the year (visit www.edmondswa.com). The Chamber will also have other celebrations this year, such as the 100th Fourth of July festivities and the 25th A Taste of Edmonds. Tonight the Mayor will present the proclamation to David Stem, Edmonds Chief of Police and the Chamber of Commerce President. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Proclamation Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 01/31/2007 10:31 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/31/2007 10:44 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 01/31/2007 11:41 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 01/30/2007 03:18 PM Final Approval Date: 01/31/2007 Packet125 of 205 City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Wee k February 4 -10, 2007 WHEREAS, The Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce was founded as the Edmonds Board of Trade in 1904 and subsequently incorporated in the State of Washington as the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce on February 6, 1907; and WHEREAS, The Chamber promotes local business using proven marketing and networking tools, which is recognized as an essential element of a thriving community; and WHEREAS, The community greatly values the continued presentation of Chamber - sponsored events, such as A Taste of Edmonds, 4th of July Parade, Hot Autumn Tights Car Show, Halloween Night, and the Christmas Tree Lighting; and WHEREAS, Chamber -sponsored marketing programs that promote Edmonds, such as Team Edmonds and the Visitors Information Center, bring out-of-town visitors to patronize our local businesses and contribute substantially to the retail sales tax revenues of the City; and WHEREAS, Business and community organizations, both new and established, need an organization within which to connect to one another for mutual support and development, and the Chamber provides this opportunity; and. WHEREAS, Chamber activities generate revenues that allow it to offer financial support to local organizations; and WHEREAS, This year the Chamber celebrates its 1001h anniversary, beginning with its annual volunteer function on Friday, February 9 and continuing throughout the year with special festivities. NOW, THEREFORE; I, Gary Haakenson, Mayor, in recognition of the Chamber's 100th anniversary, do hereby proclaim February 4 - 10, 2007 as Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Week and urge all citizens to join me in congratulating the Chamber and its membership in its centennial year. Gary HaaVeson, Mayor January 30,07 C: \ Proc Ea i m \Ciaa m be ifoCom ine ire 2Q0 7 Packet126 of 205 AM-821 4. Discussion on the Planning Board Recommendation on the design review guidelines. Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 02/06/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave, Planning Submitted For: Rob Chave Time: 30 Minutes Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Discussion on the Planning Board Recommendation on the design review guidelines. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Set a public hearing date on the proposal for March 6, 2007. Previous Council Action City Council referred the development of a new "up front" design review process and accompanying design guidelines to the Planning Board on June 6, 2006. See Exhibit 4 for a more detailed history on this subject. Narrative The Planning Board has completed its review and recommendation on a new design review process which would move the ADB to the front of the process. A public hearing was held on December 13, 2006, and the Board completed its recommendation in January. Exhibit 1 contains the Planning Board recommended code language that would implement the new design review process together with the new ADB-developed design guidelines contained in Exhibit 2. Under the proposal, there would be two options for design review. ECDC 20.10.060 probably describes it best: There are two types of design review, (1) general design review subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.11 ECDC, and (2) district -based design review subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.12 ECDC. District -based design review is applicable when an area or district has adopted design guidelines or design standards that apply specifically within that area or district. General design review applies to areas or properties that do not have specifically adopted design guidelines or standards. "General design review" is essentially design review as it has been done for many years in Edmonds. The new "up front," district -based process is intended to 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. Note that the ADB guidelines contained in Exhibit 2 would only be used in the "up front" design review process. The new district -based design review process would use a two -phased public hearing for major projects. The preliminary meeting with the ADB (when the checklist discussion is held) is "Phase 1" of the public hearing, while the next meeting with the ADB to review the project concept for compliance with the ADB guidelines is considered to be a continuation of the public hearing (termed "Phase 2" of the public hearing). This is to avoid any hint of the two-part meeting as comprising two separate public hearings on the same proposal. Note that this is supported by the fact that there is only one opportunity for appeal — after Phase 2 has been completed. Projects that do not require review by the ADB (e.g. projects that don't exceed SEPA thresholds) would be reviewed by staff in conjunction with a building permit application, making sure that the project complies with all design standards adopted in city codes. The new design chapters also incorporate the new landscaping standards taken from the 2001 draft design guidelines. These are mainly reflected in the five landscape "types" included in ECDC 20.13. Also included in the new design review process are the design guidelines and design checklist developed by the ADB. The flow chart in Exhibit 3 summarizes and compares the proposed "new" or "up -front" design review process with the current one employed by the city. Note that the current design review process and standards have generally been retained in ECDC 20.11, with a few exceptions. The "view" provisions highlighted at the top of pages 6 and 7 have been the subject of a moratorium on their application during the design review process, and have been recommended for deletion by the Planning Board as being too vague in both their interpretation and application. The Planning Board also sought to add some clarification to the "long, massive..." building criterion at the bottom of page 5. Packet127 of 205 Exhibits 5 and 6 contain relevant minutes from the Planning Board and City Council, respectively. Note that the Planning Board's minutes from January 24, 2007, are not yet available. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Planning Board code recommendation Link: Exhibit 2: ADB design guidelines Link: Exhibit 3: Process Diagrams Link: Exhibit 4: Design Guidelines History Link: Exhibit 5: Planning Board minutes Link: Exhibit 6: City Council minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/01/2007 02:40 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/01/2007 02:44 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/01/2007 03:34 PM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 02/01/2007 10:31 AM Final Approval Date: 02/01/2007 Packet128 of 205 Chapter 20.10 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 20.10.000 Purposes. 20.10.010 Types of design review. 20� 10010 20.10.020 Scope. ` 0.1� 10��20.10.030 Approval required. 20.10.040 Optional pre -application. 20.10.045 Augmented architectural design review applications. 701 n 050 Rii nrnnorli pro 20 1 n 060 Gin-limy- 7n 1 n 070 Criteria 20.10. . I I .. 1. Of Ex s. A 7n 1 n nszn ----I- 20.10. nQn � tenon of �nnrni�l 20.10.000 Purposes. In addition to the general purposes of the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, this chapter is included in the community development code for the following purposes: A. To encourage the realization and conservation of a desirable and aesthetic environment in the city of Edmonds; B. To encourage and promote development which features amenities and excellence in the form of variations of siting, types of structures and adaptation to and conservation of topography and other natural features; C. To encourage creative approaches to the use of land and related physical developments; D. To encourage the enhancement and preservation of land or building of unique or outstanding scenic or historical significance; E. To minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight which prevent orderly community development and reduce community property values. [Ord. 3461 § 1, 2003]. 20.10.010 Types of design review. A. There are two types of design review, (1) general design review subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.11 ECDC, and (2) district -based design review subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.12 ECDC. District -based design review is applicable when an area or district has adopted design guidelines or design standards that apply specifically within that area or district. General design review applies to areas or properties that do not have specifically adopted design guidelines or standards. Protects may undergo either district -based design review or general design review, but not both. B. District -based design review applies to the following areas or districts: 1. The downtown Edmonds business districts (BD zones) located within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center as shown on the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Page l Packet129 of 205 2. The general commercial (CG and CG2) zones located within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center or the Highway 99 Corridor as shown on the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map. C. General design review applies to all areas of the city not specifically designated for district -based design review under ECDC 20.10.010.13, above. D. The exemptions established pursuant to ECDC 20.10.010(B) shall apply to all types and phases of design review under ECDC Chapters 20.10, 20.111 and 20.12. 20.10.010-020 Scope. A This nhapter appliesDesign review is intended to apply to all development, except for those developments specifically exempted from review under ECDC 20.10.010.13, below.eermitteid pr'R;aFy and senenrdaFy Uses in RS SiRgle_Fam y Residential district . r. ieleves in C?M_Multiple Residential districts "Ddevelopment" MeaRS includes any improvement to real property open to exterior view, including but not limited to buildings, structures, fixtures, landscaping, site screening, signs, parking lots, lighting, pedestrian facilities, street furniture, use of open areas (including parks, junk yards, riding academies, kennels and recreational facilities), mobile home and trailer parks, whether all or any are publicly or privately sponsored. De„elepmeRt !lees Ret innlurde i R dererei Rd i itilities B. Exempt development. The following types of development are exempt from design review: 1. Parks developed under a master plan approved by the Edmonds City Council. 2. Permitted primary and secondary uses in RS-Single-Family Residential districts. 3. Detached single family homes or duplexes in RM-Multiple Residential districts. 4. Additions or modifications to structures or sites on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places which require a certificate of appropriateness from the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission. 5. Fences that do not require a separate development permit. 6. Sians that meet all of the standards contained in Chanter 20.60 ECDC. 7. Underground utilities. 20.10.02-0-030 Approval required. A. Development. 4e-Unless exempted under ECDC 20.10.010.13, no city permit or approval shall be issued for, and no person shall start any development, or substantially change any development, until the development has received desian review aDDroval. arnhiteGt Ural rdesiGR board (ADD) er the -- - -------------- Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packetl30 of 205 Page 2 feGtPriRt .. that *RVE)'Ve Materia'S, ferMS and repetitiGR ef - .. five er mere ReW .. SpaGes. 3. FeRGes that de net require a separate develepmeRt permit. 4. ..S that meet all of the StandardS GeRta"Red Chapter 20.60F=GDG. B. Permits. Van AWD ax Vwn.. .. . gx,fol fix ._ 00 B. :• •. The city maV require that a •• • be posted under Chapter1 ECDC to ensure the satisfactorv• of • • 20.10.040 Optional pre -application. The applicant may submit the plans required in ECDC 20.95.010 in preliminary or sketch form, so that the comments and advice of the architectural design board may be incorporated into the final plans submitted for application. [Ord. 3461 § 1, 2003]. 20.10.045 Augmented architectural design review applications. At the option of the applicant, an augmented ADB application to vest rights under the provisions of ECDC 19.00.025 may be submitted. Such applications may not be submitted in conjunction with the concept review provided for by ECDC 20.10.040. The application shall be processed in all respects as a regular application for review but vesting rights shall be determined under the provisions of ECDC 19.00.025. The architectural design board shall not be required to, and shall not, consider the application of vesting rights or the interpretation of ECDC 19.00.025 and any appeal with respect thereto shall be taken only as provided in that section. [Ord. 3461 § 1, 2003]. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet131 of 205 Page 3 Chapter 20.11 GENERAL DESIGN REVIEW Sections- 20.11.010 Review Procedure — General Design Review. 20.11.020 Findings. 20.11.030 Criteria. 20.11.040 Appeals. 20.11.050 Lapse of approval. 20ry 10.050 20.11.010 Review procedure — General Design Review. A. Review. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments that require a threshold determination under the State Enivronmental Policy Act (SEPA). All other developments may be approved by staff according to the requirements of ECDC 20.95.040 (Staff Decision — No Notice Required). The -When design review is required bV the ADB, the staff shall review the application as provided in ECDC 20.95.030, and the director of COMM development services — or his designee — shall schedule the item for a meeting of the ADB. The role of the ADB shall be dependent upon the nature of the application as follows: 1. The ADB shall conduct a public hearing for the following types of applications: a. Applications that are not subject to project consolidation as required by ECDC 20.90.010(B)(2). b. Applications that are subject to project consolidation as required by ECDC 20.90.010(B)(2) but in which the ADB serves as the sole decisionmaking authority. c. Applications that are subject to project consolidation as required by ECDC 20.90.010(B)(2) but in which all decisionmaking authority is exercised both by staff pursuant to this chapter, Chapter 204220.13 ECDC and by the ADB. The ADB shall act in the place of the staff for these types of applications. 2. The ADB shall review a proposed development at a public meeting and make a recommendation to the hearing examiner to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposal for projects subject to project consolidation =- required byunder ECDC 20.90.010(B)(2) that are not subject to a public hearing by the ADB subsection (A)(1) of this section. The hearing examiner shall subsequently hold a public hearing on the proposal. 3. The ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of this section shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposal. The ADB or hearing examiner may continue its public hearing on the proposal to allow changes to the proposal, or to obtain information needed to properly review the proposal. See ECC 3.13.090 regarding exemptions from review required by this chapter. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet132 of 205 Page 4 4. Notwithstanding the requirements of this section to the nentrory any contrary requirement, for a development in which the City is the applicant, the action of the ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of this section the Gity serves as the applicant shall be a recommendation to the Eity GE)LI R4City Council. B. Notice. Public notice by mail, posting or newspaper publication shall only be required for applications that are subject to environmental review under Chapter 43.21 C RCW, in which case notice of the hearing shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 20.91 ECDC. Be�Te ADB ma re -quire that a heRd he posted LAnder terms 'I�o § 1, 004. 20.1020.11.020 Findings. The board shall make the following findings before approving the proposed development: A. Comprehensive Plan. The The proposal is consistent with the design objectives contained in the Urban Design chapter of the Community Culture and Urban Design Element of the comprehensive plan and other adopted „it„ pelieie-s. B. Zoning Ordinance. That the staff has found that the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, or the city has approved a variance or a modification under the zoning ordinance. C. Criteria. That proposal as approved or conditionally approved satisfies the criteria and purposes of this chapter. 20.''� 10:0?0 20.11.030 Criteria. A. Building Design. No one architectural style is required. The building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of this chapter and to avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All elements of building design shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and mass. The following are included as elements of building design: 1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets; 2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area; 3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level; 4. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and the design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.te allow light and air to enni pants of the development and to provide Age for lands----d rreeGreatmenel llties This criterion is meant to describe the entire building. All elements of the design of a building including the massing, building forms, architectural details and finish materials contribute to whether or not a buildina is found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packetl33 of 205 Page 5 a. In multi family (RM) or commercial zones, selections from among the following or similar features are appropriate for dealing with this criterion: i. Windows with architectural fenestration: ii. Multiple rooflines or forms; iii. Architecturallv detailed entries: iv Appropriate landscaping; v. The use of multiple materials. 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development; o. Size and "eight of buildiRgS should be GOmpatible with the GharaEfe and-ex+srt+ng views of . B. Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. The following are elements of site treatment: 1. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized where natural beauty exists. Large cut and fill and impervious surfaces should be avoided. 2. Landscape treatment should shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. 3. Landscape treatment should shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. 5. Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, sheuld shall be screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible with natural materials. 6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. 7. Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) may be substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth. 8. Exterior lighting should shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive brightness should shall be avoided. All lighting should shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns should shall be compatible with the overall design theme. C. Other Criteria. 1. Community facilities and public or quasi -public improvements should not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. 2. Street furniture (including but not limited to benches, light standards, utility poles, newspaper stands, bus shelters, planters, traffic signs and signals, guardrails, rockeries, walls, mail boxes, fire hydrants and garbage cans) should be compatible with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packetl34 of 205 Page 6 .. . 20.1020.11.040 Appeals. A. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable to the city council as provided in ECDC 20.105.040(B) through (E). B. All design review decisions of the ADB are appealable to the city council as provided in ECDC 20.105.040(B) through (E) except that all references to the hearing examiner in ECDC 20.105.040(B) through (E) shall be construed as references to the ADB. C. Persons entitled to appeal are (1) the applicant; (2) anyone who has submitted a written document to the city of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the hearing identified in ECDC '4�020.11.010; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing identified in ECDC 20.''� 1005020.11.010. 20rv-Tv=vzO-20.11.050 Lapse of approval. A. Time Limit. Unless the owner submits a fully completed building permit application necessary to bring about the approved alterations, or if no building permit application is required, substantially commences the use allowed within 18 months from the date of approval, ADB or hearing examiner approval shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files a fully completed application for an extension of time prior to the expiration date. For the purposes of this section the date of approval shall be the date on which the ADB's or hearing examiner's minutes or other method of conveying the final written decision of the ADB or hearing examiner as adopted are mailed to the applicant. In the event of appeal, the date of approval shall be the date on which a final decision is entered by the city council or court of competent jurisdiction. B. Time Extension. 1. Application. The applicant may apply for a one time extension of up to one year by submitting a letter, prior to the date that approval lapses, to the planning division along with any other supplemental documentation which the planning manager may require, which demonstrates that he/she is Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Page 7 Packetl35 of 205 making substantial progress relative to the conditions adopted by the ADB or hearing examiner and that circumstances are beyond his/her control preventing timely compliance. In the event of an appeal, the one-year extension shall commence from the date a final decision is entered in favor of such extension. 2. Fee. The applicant shall include with the letter of request such fee as is established by ordinance. No application shall be complete unless accompanied by the required fee. 3. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension shall be reviewed by the planning official as provided in ECDC 20.95.040 (Staff Decision — No Notice Reguired)CDC 20.95.050 (S-wtafrDeGOSOOcr Net+Ee od) [Ord. 3 ��e�l,l l �c.ra7—.�-r6, 20031. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packetl36 of 205 Page 8 Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 20.12.005 Outline of Process and Statement of Intent. 20.12.010 Applicability. 20.12.020 Design Review by the Architectural Design Board. 20.12.030 Design Review by Staff. 20.12.040 Findings. 20.12.050 Criteria. 20.12.080 Appeals. 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. 20.12.005 Outline of Process and Statement of Intent. The Architectural Design Board (ADB) process has been developed in order to provide for public and design professional input prior to the expense incurred by a developer in preparation of detailed design. In combination, Chapters 20.10 and 20.12 are intended to permit public and ADB input at an early point in the process while providing greater assurance to a developer that his general project design has been approved before the final significant expense of detailed project design is incurred. In general, the process is as follows: A. Public hearing (Phase 1). The applicant shall submit a preliminary conceptual design to the City. Upon receipt, staff shall provide full notice of a public hearing, noting that the public hearing shall be conducted in two phases. The entire single public hearing on the conceptual design shall be on the record. At the initial phase, the applicant shall present facts which describe in detail the tract of land to be developed noting all significant characteristics. The ADB shall make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and shall prioritize the design guideline checklist based upon these facts, the provisions of the City's design guideline elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following establishment of the design guideline checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date - certain requested by the applicant, not to exceed 120 days from the meeting date. The 120-day city review period required by RCW #### commences with the application for Phase 1 of ht public hearing. The 120-day time period is suspended, however, while the applicant further develops their application for Phase 2 of the Dublic hearina. Continued Dublic hearina (public hearina. Phase 2). The Dumose of the continuance is to permit the applicant to design or redesign his initial conceptual design to comply with the input of the public and the ADB in light of the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. When the applicant has completed his design or redesign, he shall submit that design for final review. The matter shall be set for the next available regular ADB meeting date. If the applicant fails to submit Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Page 9 Packet137 of 205 his or her design within 180 days, the staff shall report the matter to the ADB who shall note that the applicant has failed to comply with the requirements of the code and find that the original design checklist criteria approval is void. The aDplicant may reaDDly at anv time. Such reaDDlication shall establish a new 120- day review period and establish a new vesting date. C. After completing the hearing process, the final detailed design shall be presented to the City in conjunction with the applicable building permit application. The City staff's decision on the building permit shall be a ministerial act applying the specific conditions or requirements set forth in the ADB's approval, but only those requirements. A staff decision on the building permit shall be final and appealable only as provided in the Land Use Petition Act. No other internal appeal of the staff's ministerial decisions on the building permit is allowed. D. The process is schematically represented by the following flow chart. Proposed New Review Process SEPA dote --malign Ues�gn Cttecklisl ,� osiaulished Required First Meeting wl ADB (Hearing Phaw 1) ADB Puhlk Hearing APPeat, Phase i I1 Appkatioq fo P HM C,ty emrll AppfWed — Conceptual ❑etailea Design C Design ■ 7 1 Redesign - — —L — Yes — — (Optional) — — — .� SEPA appeal to HE: 13.e5.ign appeal tp HE or CC{7j 20.12.010 Applicability. Review. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments that reauire a threshold determination under the State Enivronmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020, below. All other developments may be approved by staff using the process set forth in eCDC 20.12.030, below. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the staff shall review the application as provided in ECDC 20.95.030, and the director of development services — or his designee — shall schedule the item for a meeting of the ADB. 20.12.020 Desiqn Review by the Architectural Design Board. A. Public hearing — Phase 1. Phase 1 of the public hearing shall be scheduled with the Architectural Desian Board (ADB) as a Dublic meetina. Notice of the Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet138 of 205 Page 10 meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of ECDC 20.91.010. This notice may be combined with the formal Notice of Application required under ECDC 20.90.010, as appropriate. 1. The purpose of Phase 1 of the public hearing is for the ADB to identifty the relative importance of design criteria that will apply to the project proposal during the subsequent design review. The basic criteria to be evaluated are listed on the Design Guidelines Checklist contained within the design guidelines and ECDC 20.12. The ADB shall utilize the urban design guidelines and standards contained in the relevant city zoning classification(s), any relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan, and the relevant portions of ECDC 20.12 and 20.13, to identify the relative importance of design criteria; no new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis shall be incorporated. 2. Prior to scheduling Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall submit information necessary to identify the scope and context of the proposed development, including any site plans, diagrams, and/or elevations sufficient to summarize the character of the project, its site, and neighboring Property information. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 1 of the public hearing: a. Vicinity Plan showing all significant physical structures and environmentallv critical areas within a 200 foot radius of the site includina. but not limited to. surroundina buildina outlines. streets driveways, sidewalks, bus stops, and land use. Aerial photographs may be used to develop this information. b. Conceptual site plan(s) showing topography (minimum 2-foot intervals), general location of building(s), areas devoted to parking, streets and access, existing open space and vegetation. All concepts being considered for the property should be submitted to assist the ADB in defining all pertinent issues applicable to the site. c. Three-dimensional sketches, photo simulations, or elevations that depict the volume of the proposed structure in relation to the surroundina buildinas and improvements. 3. During Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to present information on the proposed project. The public shall also be invited to address which design guidelines checklist criteria from ECDC 20.12.070 they feel are pertinent to the project. The Phase 1 meeting shall be considered to be a public hearing and information presented or discussed during the meeting shall be recorded as part of the hearing record. 4. Prior to the close of Phase 1 of the public hearing, the ADB shall identify the specific design guidelines checklist criteria — and their relative importance — that will be applied to the project during the project's subsequent design review. In submitting an application for design review approval under Chapter 20.12 ECDC, the applicant shall be responsible for Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet139 of 205 Page 11 identifying how the proposed proiect meets the specific criteria identified by the ADB during the pre -application meeting. 5. Following establishment of the design guidelines checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain, not exceeding 120 days from the date of Phase 1 of the public hearing. The continuance is intended to provide the applicant with sufficient time to prepare the material required for Phase 1 of the public hearing, including and design or redesign needed to adequately address the input of the public and ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing_ 5. Because Phase 1 of the public hearing is only the first part of a two-part public hearing, there can be no appeal of the design decision until Phase 2 of the Dublic hearina has been completed. B. Continued public hearing — Phase 2. 1. An applicant for Phase 2 desian review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public heairnq described in Chapter 20.12.020.A, above. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 2 of the public hearing: a. Conceptual site plan showing topography (minimum 2-foot intervals), general layout of building, parking, streets and access, and proposed open space. b. Conceptual landscape plan, showing locations of planting areas identifying landscape types, including general plant species and characteristics. c. Conceptual Utility plan, showing access to and areas reserved for water, sewer, storm, electrical power, and fire connections and/or hydrants. d. Conceptual Building elevations for all building faces illustrating building massing and openings, materials and colors, and roof forms. A three-dimensional model may be substituted for the buildina elevation(s). e If more than one development concept is being considered for the property, the submissions should be developed to clearly identify the development options being considered. f. Optional: Generalized building floor plans may be provided. 2. Staff shall DreDare a report summarizina the Droiect and evaluatina how it has addressed each of the design guidelines criteria identified by the ADB in Phase 1 of the public hearing. The report shall be mailed to the applicant and ADB at least one week prior to the public hearing. 3. Phase 2 of the public hearing shall be conducted by the ADB as a continuation the Phase 1 public hearing. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of Chapter 20.91 ECDC. During Phase 2 of the public hearing, the ADB shall review the application and identify any conditions that the proposal must meet prior to the issuance of any permit or approval by the city. When conducting this review, the ADB shall enter the following findings prior to issuing its decision on the proposal: Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet140 of 205 Page 12 a. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the guidelines and standards contained in the relevant zoning classification(s). b. Design Guidelines. That the proposal meets the relevant district - specific design objectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan c. Design Criteria. That the proposal satisfies the specific checklist criteria identied by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing under Chapter 20.12.020.A, above. When conductina its review. the ADB shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 4. Project consolidation. [Note: City Attorney may need to include additional language as appropriate here.] C. Effect of the decision of the ADB. The decision of the ADB described above in ECDC 20.12.020(B) shall be used by staff to determine if a project complies with the requirements of these chapters during staff review of any subsequent applications for permits or approvals. [Note: City Attorney is developing a revision for the above section which describes the requirements and content of the decision.] 20.12.030 Design Review by city staff. A. Optional pre -application meeting. At the option of the applicant, a pre - application meeting may be scheduled with city staff. The purpose of the meeting is to provide preliminary staff comments on a proposed development to assist the applicant in preparing an application for development approval. Submission requirements and rules of procedure for this optional pre -application meeting shall be adopted by city staff consistent with the purposes of this Chapter. B. Application and staff decision. 1. An applicant for design review shall submit information sufficient to evalute how the project meets the criteria applicable to the project. Staff shall develop a checklist of submission requirements and review criteria necessary to support this intent. When design review is intended to accompany and be part of an application for another permit or approval, such as a building permit, the submission requirements and design review may be completed as part of the associated permit process. 2. In reviewing an application for design review, Staff shall review the project checklist and evaluate whether the project has addressed each of the applicable design criteria. Staff shall enter the following findings prior to issuing a decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the guidelines and standards contained in the relevant zoning classification(s). b. Design Guidelines. That the proposal meets the relevant district - specific desian obiectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet141 of 205 Page 13 When conductina its review, citv staff shall not add or imoose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 20.12.070 Design Guidelines, Criteria and Checklist. A. In conducting its review, the ADB shall use the design guidelines and design review checklist adopted by Ordinance #, as amended [insert reference to ADB Design Guidelines here — note that Design Guidelines Checklist is included — 22 pages total]. B. Additional Criteria. Design review shall reference the specific criteria adopted for each area or district. 1. Criteria to be used in desian review for the downtown Edmonds business districts (BD zones) located within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center as shown on the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map include the following: a. Design objectives for the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center contained in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. 2. Criteria to be used in design review for the general commercial (CG and CG2) zones located within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center or the Highway 99 Corridor as shown on the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map include the following: a. Design standards contained in ECDC 16.60 for the General Commercial zones. b. Policies contained in the specific section of the Comprehensive Plan addressina the Medical/Hiahwav 99 Activity Center and Highway 99 Corridor. 20.12.080 Appeals. A. Design review decisions by the ADB pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020.13 are appealable to the city council as provided in ECDC 20.105.040(B) through (E) except that all references to the hearing examiner in ECDC 20.105.040(B) through (E) shall be construed as references to the ADB. These are the only decisions by the ADB that are appealable. B. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable to the city council as provided in ECDC 20.105.040(B) through (E). C. Design review decisions by staff under the provisions of ECDC 20.12.030 are only appealable to the extent that the applicable permit or approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the ECDC. Design review by staff is not in itself an appealable decision. D. Persons entitled to appeal are (1) the applicant; (2) anyone who has submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the hearing identified in ECDC 20.12.020.B; or (3) anyone testifying on the apDlication at the hearina identified in ECDC 20.12.020.B. 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. A. Time Limit. Unless the owner submits a fully comDleted buildina Dermit application necessary to bring about the approved alterations, or if no building Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet142 of 205 Page 14 permit application is required, substantially commences the use allowed within 18 months from the date of approval, ADB or hearing examiner approval shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files a fully completed application for an extension of time prior to the expiration date. For the purposes of this section the date of approval shall be the date on which the ADB's or hearing examiner's minutes or other method of conveying the final written decision of the ADB or hearing examiner as adopted are mailed to the applicant. In the event of appeal, the date of approval shall be the date on which a final decision is entered by the city council or court of competent jurisdiction. B. Time Extension. 1. Application. The applicant may apply for a one time extension of up to one year by submitting a letter, prior to the date that approval lapses, to the planning division along with any other supplemental documentation which the planning manager may require, which demonstrates that he/she is making substantial progress relative to the conditions adopted by the ADB or hearing examiner and that circumstances are beyond his/her control preventing timely compliance. In the event of an appeal, the one-year extension shall commence from the date a final decision is entered in favor of such extension. 2. Fee. The applicant shall include with the letter of reauest such fee as is established by ordinance. No application shall be complete unless accompanied by the reauired fee. 3. Review of Extension Application. An aoolication for an extension shall be reviewed by the planning official as provided in ECDC 20.95.040 (Staff Decision — No Notice Reauired). Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet143 of 205 Page 15 Chapter 20.1220.13 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS* Sections: 2�220.13.000 Scope. 244220.13.010 Landscape plan requirements. 244220.13.015 Plant schedule. 244220.13.020 General design standards. 20�0 20.13.025 General planting standards 20.13.030 Landscape tvges 2�220.13.040 Landscape bonds. 20.1220.13.000 Scope. The landscape requirements found in this chapter are intended for use by city staff, the architectural design board (ADB) and the hearing examiner, in reviewing projects, as set forth in ECDC' .010. The ADB and hearing examiner shall be allowed to interpret and modify the requirements contained herein; provided such modification is consistent with the purposes found in ECDC 24.-020.11.000. 20.1220.13.010 Landscape plan requirements. The applicant has the option of submitting a preliminary landscape plan to the architectural design board prior to final approval. The preliminary landscape plan need not include the detail required for final approval, although areas of proposed landscaping should be shown. Final project approval cannot be given until the final landscape plan is submitted and approved. The following items shall be shown on any final landscape plan submitted to the ADB for review: A. Name and address or location of the project; B. All plant material identified by botanical and common name — genus, species and variety (see ECDC .�;. p�, ,.015); C. Location of all trees and shrubs to be planted; D. Three sets of landscape plans drawn to a scale of I" = 30' or larger (e.g., 1" = 20', 1" = 10', etc.). Plan should include a bar scale for reference. See "Checklist for Architectural Design Review" items (on architectural design board brochure) for required number of other plans; E. Scale of the drawing, a north arrow and date of the plan; F. All property lines, as well as abutting streets and alleys; G. Locations, sizes and species of existing trees (six inches in caliper or more) and shrubs. Trees and shrubs to be removed must be noted. Natural areas should be designated as such; H. Any proposed or existing physical elements (such as fencing, walls, building, curbing, and signs) that may affect the overall landscape; Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Page 16 Packet144 of 205 I. Parking layout, including circulation, driveway location, parking stalls and curbing (see ECDC 29.1220.13.020(D)); J. Grading shown by contour lines (minimum five-foot intervals), spot elevations, sections or other means; K. Location of irrigation system (see ECDC 204220.13.020(E)). 2-0.1220.13.015 Plant schedule. A. The plant schedule shall indicate for all plants the scientific and common names, quantities, sizes and spacing. Quantities are not required on a preliminary landscape plan. A preliminary plan may also indicate shrubs as masses rather than showing the individual plants. The final plan must show individual shrubs and quantities. B. Minimum sizes at installation are as follows: • one and three quarters inches caliper street trees; one and one-half inches caliper other deciduous trees; • eight feet minimum height vine maples and other multi -stemmed trees; • six feet minimum height — evergreen trees • eighteen feet -inches minimum height for medium and tall shrubs — small shrub = less than three and one-half feet tall at maturity — medium shrub = three and one-half to six feet tall at maturity — large shrub = more than six feet tall at maturity C. Maximum size: Species approved within a landscape plan shall have a growth pattern in scale with the development and be consistent with the preservation of significant views and height limit for the zoning district. D. Maximum spacing: — large shrubs = six feet on center — medium shrubs = four and one-half feet on center — small shrubs = three feet on center E. Groundcover is required in all planting bed areas as follows: — one gallon 30 inches on center — four -inch pots 24 inches on center — two and one -quarter -inch pots 15 inches on center — rooted cuttings 12 inches on center All groundcover shall be living plant material approved by the ADB. 20.1220.13.020 General design standards. A. Preference shall be given an informal arrangement of plants installed in a variety of treatments that will enhance building designs and attractively screen parked vehicles and unsightly areas, soften visual impact of structures and enhance views and vistas. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet145 of 205 Page 17 B. A formal arrangement may be acceptable if it has enough variety in layout and plants. Avoid continuous, long, unbroken, straight rows of a single plant where possible. C. Existing vegetation that contributes to the attractiveness of the site should be retained. Existing significant trees and shrubbery (six-inch caliper or more) must be shown on the proposed landscape plan and saved and incorporated into the landscape plan, if they are reasonably attractive and of good quality. D. Extruded curbs four to six inches are required where landscaping meets paved areas. Wheelstops will be required as needed, and must be affixed permanently to the ground. E. Automatic irrigation is required for all ADB-approved landscaped areas for projects which have more than four dwelling units, 4,000 square feet of building area or more than 20 parking spaces. F. All planting areas should be at least four feet wide between curbs. G. Deciduous or broadleaf evergreen trees should be planted at least four feet from curbs, especially in front parking stalls. Where possible, coniferous trees should be planted at least seven feet from curbs. H. All plants shall be compatible with the character and climate of the Pacific Northwest. Shrubs and/or groundcover are required to provide 75 percent ground coverage within three years. I. Berms or mounds should be no steeper than 3(H):1(V). Any slopes steeper than 3:1 (2:1 is maximum permitted by the city for fill slopes) need erosion control netting or other erosion control methods in planting areas not covered by grass (e.g., rockery). J. Landscaping must be provided in adjacent rights -of -way between property line and curb or street edge and shown on the landscape plan. K. Street trees must be planted according to the city's street tree plan. Contact the planning division for details. L. Street trees should be installed within four feet of either side of the property line. M. Landscaping should be tall enough to soften any dumpster enclosures located in planting areas. N. Trees and very large shrubs should be planted at least five feet from any water/sewer lines. Landscape plantings shall reflect consideration of plantings in relation to utility lines. O. Utility boxes should be screened with landscaping without blocking access. P. Species approved within a landscape plan shall have a growth pattern in scale with the development and be consistent with the preservation of significant views and height limit for the zoning district. 20.13.025 General planting standards. [Note: was formerly 20.12.0301 A. Blank Building Walls. 1. Blank building walls should be softened by landscaping. 2. Landscaping should include trees and shrubs — mostly evergreen. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet146 of 205 Page 18 3. Trees should be planted an averaae of 20 feet on center either formal or in clusters. B. Foundation Planting. 1. Trees and shrubs should soften the building elevation and soften the transition between the pavement and the building. 2. Plantinas may be in informal or formal arranaements (see ECDC 20.13.020(A) and (B)). 3. Landscaping should be planted in all areas except service areas. 4. Plantina areas should be at least four feet wide. 20.13.030 Landscape types [Note: from 2001 Guidelines] A. Type I Landscaping. Type I landscaping is intended to provide a very dense sight barrier to significantly separate uses and land use districts. 1. Two rows of evergreen trees, a minimum of ten -feet in height and planted at intervals of no greater than 20 feet on center. The trees must be backed by a sight obscuring fence, a minimum of five feet high or the required width of the planting area must be increased by ten feet; and 2. Shrubs a minimum of three and one-half feet in height planted in an area at least five feet in width, and other plant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within three years; 3. Alternatively, the trees and shrubs may be planted on an earthen berm at least 15 feet in width and an average of five feet high along its midline. B. Type II Landscaping. Type II landscaping is intended to create a visual separation between similar uses. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 30 percent being deciduous. a minimum of six feet in heiaht, and Dlanted at intervals no reater than 20 feet on center: and 2. Shrubs. a minimum of three and one-half feet in heiaht and other Dlant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. C. Type III Landscaping. Type III landscaping is intended to provide visual separation of uses from streets, and visual separation of compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of streets, parking areas and building elevations. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 50 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center; and 2. If planted to buffer a building elevation, shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover planted so that the ground will be covered within three years; or 3. If planted to buffer a parking area, access, or site development other than a building, any of the following alternatives may be used unless otherwise noted: a_. Shrubs_, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and living around cover must be Dlanted so that the around will be covered within three years. Earth -mounding, an average of three and one-half feet in height, planted with shrubs or living ground cover so that the ground will be Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet147 of 205 Page 19 covered within three years. This alternative may not be used in a Downtown or Waterfront areas. c. A combination of earth mounding, opaque fences and shrubs to Droduce a visual barrier at least three and one-half feet in heiaht. D. Type IV Landscaping. Type IV landscaping is intended to provide visual relief where clear siaht is desired to see sianaae or into adiacent sDace for safe concerns. 1. Trees are 25 feet on center and deciduous also reauired and the trunk shall be free of branches below six feet in height.. 2. Plant materials which will cover the ground within three years, and which will not exceed three and one-half feet in height. E. Type V Landscaping. Type V landscaping is intended to provide visual relief and shade in parking areas. 1. Required Amount. a. If the parking area contains no more than 50 parking spaces, at least 17.5 square feet of landscape development must be provided as described in paragraph B below for each parking stall proposed. b. If the parking area contains more than 99 parking spaces, at least 35 square feet of landscape development must be provided as described in paragraph B below for each parking stall proposed. c. If the parking area contains more than 50, but less than 100 parking spaces, the Director — or his designee — shall determine the required amount of landscaping by interpolating between 17.5 and 35 square feet for each parking stall proposed. The area must be landscaped as described in paragraph B below. 2. Design. a. Each area of landscaping must contain at least 150 square feet of area and must be at least four feet in anv direction exclusive of vehicle overhang. The area must contain at least one tree a minimum of six feet in height and with a minimum size of one and one-half inches in caliper if deciduous. The remaining ground area must be landscaped with plant materials, decorative mulch or unit pavers. b. A landscaped area must be placed at the interior ends of each parking row in a multiple lane parking area. This area must be at least four feet wide and must extend the length of the adjacent parking stall. c. Up to 100 percent of the trees proposed for the parking area may be deciduous. d. Bioswales integrated into parking lot designs are strongly encouraged. [Note: e, f, and q are from existing ADB code standards] e. The minimum area per planter is 64 square feet. f. The maximum area per planter is 1,500 for parking lots greater than 12,000 square feet. Planters shall be spread throughout the parking lot. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet148 of 205 Page 20 Shade trees are reauired at the rate of a minimum of one planter and/or• - per 150 square feet of • , A. ParkiRg Lot •_ A Minimum five feet e ,, ed aFOURd the perimeter of all parkiRg lots (see additiOrlal requiremerlt fOr parkiRg lots abUtt!Rg Streets-, below). This strip is not required where parkiRg .. 2. Where a parkiRg lot abuts any street, a larldsGaped area ef • fe ote: moved to 20.13.025' • am .. •M SOMMONIFSTS• Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet149 of 205 Page 21 B. Fer lots 6,000 te 12,000 feet, five the parkiRg with square kajaa!SGaPiRg. G. Fer lets 000 feet peFGeRt of vehiGle parkiRg with square er mere iR area, D. F. The 00 fer lets seveR perGeRt ef thaR 12,000 maxomum area per plaRter parkiRg 1. 1 arger areas are desirable, but that - r greater -VVIIIIx'V - • - - - - - - 20.1220.13.040 Landscape bonds. A. An itemized cost estimate, covering landscaping and irrigation, must be submitted for use in determining the landscape bond amount. The city will use this estimate to set the amount of the landscape performance bond. B. A performance bond will be required for release of the building permit. This bond will be used to cover installation of required landscaping, fences or screening for service areas. C. Landscaping must be installed prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy (for multiple family and single tenant commercial buildings) or a certificate of completion (for multiple tenant commercial buildings). D. Once the landscaping has been installed, a 15 percent maintenance bond is required for release of the performance bond. Any plants that die within two years of installation must be replaced before the maintenance bond can be released. Upon inspection and approval, the maintenance bond may be released after two years. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Page 22 Packet150 of 205 Applying the Design Guidelines When designing projects and issuing permits for new developments, applicants and City staff will rely on these guidelines to help define specific design conditions that will be required for project approval. As these design guidelines get applied to particular development projects, some important things to remember are: 1. Each project is unique and will pose unique design issues. Even two similar proposals on the same block may face different design considerations. With some projects, trying to follow all of the guidelines could produce irreconcilable conflicts in the design. With most projects, reviewers will find some guidelines more important than others, and the guidelines that are most important on one project might not be important at all on the next one. The design review process will help designers and reviewers to determine which guidelines are most important in the context of each project so that they may put the most effort into accomplishing the intent of those guidelines. 2. Project must be reviewed in the context of their zoning and the zoning of their surroundings. The use of design guidelines is not intended to change the zoning designations of land where projects are proposed; it is intended to demonstrate methods of treating the appearance of new projects to help them fit their neighborhoods and to provide the Code flexibility necessary to accomplish that. Where the surrounding neighborhood exhibits a lower development intensity than is current zoning allow, the lower -intensity character should not force a proponent to significantly reduce the allowable size of the new building. 3. Many of the guidelines suggest using the existing context to determine appropriate solutions for the project under consideration. In some areas, the existing context is not well defined, or may be undesirable. In such cases, the new project should be recognized as a pioneer with the opportunity to establish a pattern or identity from which future development can take its cues. In light of number 2 above, the site's zoning should be considered an indicator of the desired direction for the area and the project. 4. Each guideline includes examples and illustrations of ways in which that guidelines can be achieved. The examples are just that — examples. They are not the only acceptable solution. Designers and reviewers should consider designs, styles and techniques not described in the examples but that fulfill the guideline. 5. The checklist which follows the guidelines (Checklist) is a tool for determining whether or not a particular guideline applies to a site, so that the guidelines may be more easily prioritized. The checklist is neither a regulatory device, nor a substitute for evaluating a sites conditions, or to summarize the language of examples found in the guidelines themselves. Page 1 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet151 of 205 Considering the Site Edmond's Land Use Code sets specific, prescriptive rules that are applied uniformly for each land use zone throughout the city. There is little room in the Code's development standards to account for unique site conditions or neighborhood contexts. A project architect can read the Code requirements and theoretically design a building without ever visiting the site. However, to produce good compatible design, it is critical that the project's design team examine the site and its surrounding, identify the key design features and determine how the proposed project can address the guidelines' objectives. Because they rely on the project's context to help shape the project, the guidelines encourage an active viewing of the site and its surroundings. For a proposal located on a street with a consistent and distinctive architectural character, the architectural elements of the building may be key to helping the building fit the neighborhood. On other sites with few attractive neighboring buildings, the placement of open space and treatment of pedestrian areas may be the most important concerns. The applicant and the project reviewers should consider the following questions and similar ones related to context when looking at the site: ■ What are the key aspects of the streetscape? (The street's layout and visual character) ■ Are there opportunities to encourage human activity and neighborhood interaction, while promoting residents' privacy and physical security? ■ How can vehicle access have the least effect on the pedestrian environment and on the visual quality of the site? ■ Are there any special site planning opportunities resulting from the site's configuration, natural features, topography etc.? ■ What are the most important contextual concerns for pedestrians? How could the sidewalk environment be improved? ■ Does the street have characteristic landscape features, plant materials, that could be incorporated into the design? ■ Are there any special landscaping opportunities such as steep topography, significant trees, greenbelt, natural area, park or boulevard that should be addressed in the design? ■ Do neighboring buildings have distinctive architectural style, site configuration, architectural concept? Page 2 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet152 of 205 Design Guidelines Checklist This checklist is intended as a summary of the issues addressed by the guidelines. It is not meant to be a regulatory device or a substitute for the language and examples found in the guidelines themselves. Rather, it is a tool for assisting the determination about which guidelines are the most applicable on a particular site. A. Site Planning NIA Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Reinforce existing site characteristics ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Encourage human activity on street ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, privacy and interaction (residential projects) ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Maximize open space opportunity on site (residential projects) ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining property ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Discourage parking in street front ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts (corner lots) ❑ ❑ ❑ B. Bulk and Scale NIA Lower Higher Priority Priority 1. provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less- ❑ ❑ ❑ intensive zones Page 3 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet153 of 205 C. Architectural Elements and Materials NIA Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Complement positive existing character and/or respond to nearby historic structures ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Unified architectural concept ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Use human scale and human activity ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Use durable, attractive and well -detailed finish materials ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Minimize garage entrances ❑ ❑ ❑ D. Pedestrian Environment N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Provide convenient, attractive and protected pedestrian entry ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Avoid blank walls ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Minimize height of retaining walls ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Minimize visual impact of parking structures ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Consider personal safety ❑ ❑ ❑ E. Landscaping N/A Lower Higher Priority Priority 1. Reinforce existing landscape character of ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site ❑ ❑ ❑ conditions Page 4 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet154 of 205 A-1: Responding to Site Characteristics The siting of buildings should respond to specific site conditions and opportunities such as non -rectangular lots, location on prominent intersections, unusual topography, significant vegetation and other natural features. Explanations and Examples Site characteristics to consider in project design include: 1) Topography • Reflect, rather than obscure, natural topography. For instance, buildings should be designed to "step up" hillsides to accommodate significant changes in elevation. • Where neighboring buildings have responded to similar topographic conditions in their sites in a consistent and positive way, consider similar treatment for the new structure. • Designing the building in relation to topography may help to reduce the visibility of parking garages. 2) Environmental constraints • Site buildings to avoid or lessen the impact of development on environmentally critical areas such as steep slopes, wetlands and stream corridors. 3) Solar orientation • The design of a structure and its massing on the site can enhance solar exposure for the project and minimize shadow impacts on adjacent structures and public areas. 4) Existing vegetation • Careful siting of buildings can enable significant or important trees or other vegetation to be preserved. 5) Existing structures on the site • Where a new structure shares a site with an existing structure or is a major addition to an existing structure, designing the new structure to be compatible with the original structure will help it fit in. A-2: Streetscape Compatibility The siting of buildings should acknowledge and reinforce the existing desirable spatial characteristics of the right-of-way. Explanation and Examples The character of a neighborhood is often defined by the experience of traveling along its streets. We often perceive streets within neighborhoods as individual spaces or "rooms. How buildings face and are set back from the street determine the character and proportion of this room. Page 5 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet155 of 205 A-3: Entrances Visible from the Street Entries should be clearly identifiable and visible from the street. Explanation and Examples Entries that are visible from the street make a project more approachable and create a sense of association among neighbors. A-4: Human Activity New development should be sited and designed to encourage human activity on the street. Explanation and Examples Livelier street edges make for safer streets. Ground floor shops and market spaces providing services needed by residents can attract market activity to the street and increase safety through informal surveillance. Entrances, porches, awnings, balconies, decks, seating and other elements can promote use of the street front and provide places for neighborly interaction. Siting decisions should consider the importance of these features in a particular context and allow for their incorporation. Also, architectural elements and details can add to the interest and excitement of buildings and spaces. Elements from the following list should be incorporated into all projects. Projects in pedestrian oriented areas of the City should include an even greater number of these details due to the scale of the buildings and the proximity of the people that will experience them. ■ Lighting or hanging baskets supported by ornamental brackets ■ Belt courses • Plinths for columns ■ Kickplate for storefront window ■ Projecting sills ■ Tilework ■ Transom or clerestory windows ■ Planter box ■ Variations in applied ornament, materials, colors or trim. ■ An element not listed here, as approved, that meets the intent. Page 6 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet156 of 205 In pedestrian oriented areas, ground floor commercial space is encouraged to be at grade with the sidewalk. If the entrance can not be located at the grade of the sidewalk, special care must be taken to ensure that ° there is both a visual and physical connection between the pedestrian way and the entrance that enhances the pedestrian orientation of the building. The ground level fagades of buildings that are oriented to street fronts in the CW, BC, BN, and BP zones shall have transparent windows to engage the public. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. Where transparency is not Canopy provided, the fagade shall comply with the guidelines under section D2, 'Blank Walls,' on page 17. Recessed entry In the Downtown Commercial Core Taller bay The ground level fagades of buildings that are oriented to streets should have a substantial amount of transparent windows, especially in the retail core. A primary function of the pedestrian oriented retail core is to allow for the visual interaction between the walking public and the goods and services businesses located on the first floor are providing. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. Where transparency is not provided, the fagade shall comply with the guidelines under section D2, 'Blank Walls,' on page 17. Buildings that are entirely residential do not have a specific transparency requirement. However, all - residential buildings shall be treated as if they have blank walls facing the street and must comply with the guidelines under the section 'Treating Blank Walls'. That portion of Ground level spaces that opens up to the sidewalk through means of sliding or roll up doors shall be considered to comply with any transparency " requirements regardless of the amount of glass in the opening. 5 f Awnings are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. They may be structural (permanently attached to and part of the building) or non-structural (attached to the building using a metal or other framework). To enhance the visibility of business signage retractable awnings are encouraged and should be open -sided. Front valances are permitted and signage is allowed on valances, but not on valance returns. Marquee, box, or convex awning shapes are not permitted. Awnings should be located within the building elements that frame storefronts, and should not conceal important architectural details. Awnings should also be hung just below a clerestory or "transom" window, if it f.r Page 7 of 22 Packet157 of 205 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 exists. Awnings on a multiple -storefront building should be consistent in character, scale and position, but need not be identical. Non-structural awnings should be constructed using canvas or fire-resistant acrylic materials. Shiny, high -gloss materials are not appropriate; therefore, vinyl or plastic awning materials are not permitted. Structural Awnings should be designed to incorporate natural light. Artificial lighting should only be used at night. Signage should be designed to integrate with the building and street front. Combinations of sign types are encouraged which result in a coordinated design while minimizing the size of individual signs. Blade or projecting signs which include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements are encouraged. This type of detail is consistent with the design elements mentioned above that enhance the interest of the area. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large expanses of lettering. Signage in the "Arts Center Corridor" defined in the Comprehensive Plan is required to include decorative sign frames or brackets in its design. Instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign, signage should be indirectly lit, or backlit to only display lettering and symbols or graphic design. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or contributes to the historic character of sites on the National Register or the Edmonds Register of Historic Places A-5: Respect for Adjacent Sites Buildings should respect adjacent properties by being located on their sites to minimize disruption of the privacy and outdoor activities of residents in adjacent buildings. Explanation and Examples One consideration is the views from upper stories of new buildings into adjacent houses or yards, especially in less intensive zones. This problem can be addressed in several ways. ■ Reduce the number of windows and decks on the proposed building overlooking the neighbors. ■ Step back the upper floors or increase the side or rear setback so that window areas are farther from the property line. ■ Take advantage of site design which might reduce impacts, for example by using adjacent ground floor area for an entry court. ■ Minimize windows to living spaces which might infringe on the privacy of adjacent residents, but consider comfort of residents in the new building. ■ Stagger windows to not align with adjacent windows. Page 8 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet158 of 205 A-6: Transition Between Residence and Street For residential projects, the space between the building and the sidewalk should provide security and privacy for residents and encourage social interaction among residents and neighbors. Explanation and Examples The transition between a residential building and the street varies with the depth of the front setback and the relative elevation of the building to the street. A-7: Residential Open Space Residential projects should be sited to maximize opportunities for creating usable, attractive, well -integrated open space. Examples and Explanations Residential buildings are encouraged to consider these site planning elements: ■ Courtyards which organize architectural elements, while providing a common garden or other uses. ■ Entry enhancement such as landscaping along a common pathway. A-8: Parking and Vehicle Access Siting should minimize the impact of automobile parking and driveways on the pedestrian environment, adjacent properties and pedestrian safety. Explanation and Examples Techniques used to minimize the impacts of driveways and parking lots include: ■ Locate surface parking at rear or side lots. ■ Break large parking lots into smaller ones. ■ Minimize number and width of driveways and curb cuts. ■ Share driveways with adjacent property owners. ■ Locate parking in lower level or less visible portions of site. ■ Locate driveways so they are visually less dominant. Access should be provided in the following order of priority: i) If there is an alley, vehicular access should use the alley. Where feasible, the exit route should use the alley. ae 5•{ ,yyF,r A Ogra '.WA /N Page 9 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet159 of 205 ii) For corner parcels, access should be off the secondary street rather than the primary street. iii) Share the driveway with an adjacent property. This can be a driveway with two-way traffic. iv) A driveway serving a single project is the least preferred option. Drive -through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores, espresso stands, etc., should comply with the following: i) Drive -through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the facades of the building that face a street. ii) Drive -through speakers shall not be audible off -site. iii) The entrance and exit from the drive -through shall be internal to the site, not a separate entrance and/or exit to or from the street. A-9: Location of Parking on Commercial Street Fronts Parking on a commercial street front should be minimized and where possible should be located behind a building. Explanation and Examples Parking located along a commercial street front where pedestrian traffic is desirable lessens the attractiveness of the area to pedestrians and compromises the safety of pedestrians along the street. A-10: Corner Lots Building on corner lots should be oriented to the corner and public street fronts. Parking and automobile access should be located away from corners. Explanation and Examples Corner lots offer unique opportunities because of their visibility and access from two streets. Page 10 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet160 of 205 B-1: Bulk, and Scale Compatibility Projects should be compatible with the scale of development anticipated by the applicable Land Use Policies for the surrounding area and should be sited and designed to provide a sensitive transition to near -by, less intensive zones. Projects on zone edges should be developed in a manner that creates a step in perceived bulk, and scale between anticipated development potential of the adjacent zones. Explanation and Examples For projects undergoing Design Review, the analysis and mitigation of bulk and scale impacts will be accomplished through the Design Review process. Careful siting and design treatment based on the technique described in this and other design guidelines will help to mitigate some bulk and scale impacts; in other cases, actual reduction in the bulk and scale of a project may be necessary to adequately mitigate impacts. Design Review should not result in significant reductions in a project's actual bulk and scale. Bulk and scale mitigation may be required in two general circumstances: 1. Projects on or near the edge of a less intensive zone. A substantial incompatibility in scale may result from different development standards in the two zones and may be compounded by physical factors such a s large development sites, slopes or lot orientation. 2. Projects proposed on sites with unusual physical characteristics such as large lot size, or unusual shape, or topography where buildings may appear substantially greater in bulk and scale than that generally anticipated for the area. Factors to consider in analyzing potential bulk and scale impacts include: ■ distance from the edge of a less intensive zone ■ differences in development standards between abutting zones (allowable building width, lot coverage, etc.) ■ effect of site size and shape ■ bulk and scale relationships resulting from lot orientation (e.g. back lot line to back lot line vs. back lot line to side lot line) ■ type and amount of separation between lots in the different zones (e.g. separation by only a property line, by an alley or street, or by other physical features such as grade changes). In some cases, careful siting and design treatment may be sufficient to achieve reasonable transition and mitigation of bulk and scale impacts. Some techniques for Page 11 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet161 of 205 achieving compatibility are as follows: ■ use of architectural style, details (such as roof lines or fenestration), color or materials that derive from the less intensive zone. (See also Guideline C-1: Architectural Context.) ■ creative use of landscaping or other screening ■ location of features on -site to facilitate transition, such as locating required open space on the zone edge so the building us farther from the lower intensity zone. ■ treating topographic conditions in ways that minimize impacts on neighboring development, such as by using a rockery rather than a retaining wall to give a more human scale to a project, or stepping a project down a hillside. ■ in a mixed -use project, siting the more compatible use near the zone edge. In some cases, reductions in the actual bulk and scale of the proposed structure may be necessary in order to mitigate adverse impacts and achieve an acceptable level of compatibility. Some techniques which can be used in these cases include: ■ articulating the building's facades vertically or horizontally in intervals that conform to existing structures or platting pattern. ■ increasing building setbacks from the zone edge at ground level ■ reducing the bulk of the building's upper floors ■ limiting the length of, or otherwise modifying, facades ■ reducing the height of the structure ■ reducing the number or size of accessory structures. C-1: Architectural Context New buildings proposed for existing neighborhoods with a well-defined and desirable character should be compatible with or complement the architectural character and siting pattern of neighboring buildings. Explanation and Examples Paying attention to architectural characteristics of surrounding buildings, especially historic buildings, can help new buildings be more compatible with their neighbors, especially if a consistent pattern is already established by similar: ■ building articulation ■ building scale and proportion ■ or complementary architectural style • or complementary roof forms ■ building details and fenestration patterns ■ or complementary materials Even where there is no consistent architectural pattern, building design and massing can be used to complement certain physical conditions of existing development. In some cases, the existing context is not so well-defined, or may be undesirable. In such cases, a new project can become a pioneer with the opportunity to establish a pattern or identity from which future development can take its cues. In most cases, especially in the downtown commercial area, Buildings shall convey a visually distinct 'base' and 'top'. Abase' can be emphasized by a different masonry Page 12 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet162 of 205 pattern, more architectural detail, visible 'plinth' above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. Architectural Features Below are several methods that can help integrate new buildings into the surrounding architectural context, using compatible: architectural features fenestration patterns, and building proportions. Building Articulation Below are several methods in which buildings may be articulated to create intervals which reflect and promote compatibility with their surroundings: ■ modulating the facade by stepping back or extending forward a portion of the facade ■ repeating the window patterns at an interval that equals the articulation interval ■ providing a porch, patio, deck or covered entry for each interval ■ providing a balcony or bay window for each interval ■ changing the roofline by alternating dormers, stepped roofs, gables or other roof elements to reinforce the modulation or articulation interval ■ changing the materials with a change in the building plane ■ providing a lighting fixture, trellis, tree or other landscape feature with each interval C-2: Architectural Concept and Consistency Building design elements, details and massing should create a well-proportioned and unified building form and exhibit an overall architectural concept. Buildings should exhibit form and features identifying the functions within the building. In general, the roofline or top of the structure should be clearly distinguished from its facade walls. Explanation and Examples This guideline focuses on the important design consideration of organizing the many architectural elements of a building into a unified whole, so that details and features can be seen to relate to the structure and not appear as add-ons. The other objective of this guideline is to promote buildings whose form is derived from its function. Buildings which present few or no clues through their design as to what purpose they serve are often awkward architectural neighbors. For example, use of expansive blank walls, extensive use of metal or glass siding, or extremely large or small windows in a residential project may create architectural confusion or disharmony with its neighbors. Conversely, commercial buildings which overly mimic residential styles might be considered inappropriate in some commercial neighborhoods. I top middle base Page 13 of 22 Packet163 of 205 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Often times, from an architectural design perspective buildings will convey a visually distinct 'base' and 'top'. A 'base' can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible 'plinth' above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. Other architectural features included in the design of a building may include any number of the following: ■ building modulation or articulation ■ bay windows ■ corner accent, such as a turret ■ garden or courtyard elements (such as a fountain or gazebo) ■ rooflines ■ building entries ■ building base Architectural details may include some of the following: ■ treatment of masonry (such as ceramic tile inlay, paving stones, or alternating brick patterns) ■ treatment of siding (such as wood siding combined with shingles to differentiate floors) ■ articulation of columns ■ sculpture or art work ON ■ architectural lighting�� if ■ detailed grilles and railings ■ special trim details and moldings ■ a trellis or arbor 0 top 0 ase Page 14 of 22 Packet164 of 205 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 C-3: Human Scale The design of new buildings should incorporate architectural features, elements and details to achieve a good human scale. Explanation and Examples The term "human scale" generally refers to the use of human -proportioned architectural features and site design elements clearly oriented to human activity. A building has a good human scale if its details, elements and materials allow people to feel comfortable using and approaching it. Features that give a building human scale also encourage human activity. The following are some of the building elements that may be used to achieve better human scale: ■ pedestrian -oriented open space such as a courtyard, garden, patio, or other unified landscaped areas ■ bay windows extending out from the building face that reflect an internal space such as a room or alcove ■ individual windows in upper stories that o are approximately the size and proportion of a traditional window o include a trim or molding that appears substantial from the sidewalk o are separated from adjacent windows by a vertical element ■ windows grouped together to form larger areas of glazing can have a human scale if individual window units are separated by moldings or jambs ■ windows with small multiple panes of glass ■ window patterns, building articulation and other treatments that help to identify individual residential units in a multi -family building ■ upper story setbacks ■ a porch or covered entry ■ pedestrian weather protection in the form of canopies, awnings, arcades or other elements wide enough to protect at least one person • visible chimneys C-4: Exterior Finish Materials Building exteriors should be constructed of durable and maintainable materials that are attractive even when viewed up close. Materials that have texture, pattern, or lend themselves to a high quality of detailing are encouraged. Explanation and Examples The selection and use of exterior materials is a key ingredient in determining how a building will look. Some materials, by their nature, can give a sense of permanence or can provide texture or scale that helps new buildings fit better in their surroundings. Materials typical to the northwest include: Page 15 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet165 of 205 • clear or painted wood siding • shingles ■ brick ■ stone • ceramic and terra-cotta tile Many other exterior building materials may be appropriate in multifamily and commercial neighborhoods as long as the materials are appropriately detailed and finished, for instance, to take account of the northwest's climate or be compatible with nearby structures. Some materials, such as mirrored glass, may be more difficult to integrate into residential or neighborhood commercial settings. D-1: Pedestrian Open Spaces and Entrance Convenient and attractive access to the building's entry should be provided. To ensure comfort and security, paths and entry areas should be sufficiently lighted and entry areas should be protected from the weather. Opportunities for creating lively, pedestrian -oriented open space should be considered. Explanation and Examples If a building is set back from the sidewalk, the space between the building and public right-of-way may be conducive to pedestrian or resident activity. In business districts where pedestrian activity is desired, the primary function of any open space between commercial buildings and the sidewalk is to provide visual and physical access into the building and perhaps also to provide a space for additional outdoor activities such as vending, resting, sitting or dining. Street fronts can also feature art work, street furniture and landscaping that invite customers or enhance the building's setting. Where a commercial or mixed -use building is set back from the sidewalk a sufficient distance, pedestrian enhancements should be considered in the resulting street front. Examples of desirable features to include: ■ visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) into the site from the public sidewalk ■ walking surfaces of attractive pavers ■ pedestrian -scaled site lighting ■ areas for vendors in commercial areas ■ landscaping that screens undesirable elements or that enhances the space and architecture ■ signage which identifies uses and shops clearly but which is scaled to the pedestrian ■ site furniture, artwork or amenities such as fountains, benches, pergolas, kiosks, etc. Examples of features to avoid are: ■ asphalt or gravel pavement ■ adjacent unscreened parking lots ■ adjacent chain -link fences ■ adjacent blank walls without appropriate screening Page 16 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet166 of 205 The following treatment of entrances can provide emphasis and interest: ■ special detailing or architectural features such as ornamental glazing, railings and balustrades, awnings, canopies, decorative pavement, decorative lighting, seats, architectural molding, planter boxes, trellises, artwork signs, or other elements near the doorway. ■ visible signage identifying building address ■ Higher bay(s) ■ Recessed entry (recessed at least 3 feet) ■ Forecourt D-2: Blank Walls Buildings should avoid large blank walls facing the street, especially near sidewalks. Where blank walls are unavoidable they should receive design treatment to increase pedestrian comfort and interest. Explanation and Examples A wall may be considered "large" if it has a blank surface substantially greater in size than similar walls of neighboring buildings. The following examples are possible methods for treating blank walls: ■ installing vertical trellis in front of the wall with climbing vines or plants materials ■ setting the wall back and providing a landscaped or raised planter bed in front of the wall, including plant materials that could grow to obscure or screen the wall's surface ■ providing art (mosaic, mural, decorative masonry pattern, sculpture, relief, etc.) over a substantial portion of the blank wall surface ■ employing small setbacks, indentations, or other means of breaking up the wall's surface ■ providing special lighting, a canopy, horizontal trellis or other pedestrian -oriented features that break up the size of the blank wall's surface and add visual interest ■ An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent D-3: Retaining Walls Retaining walls near a public sidewalk that extend higher than eye level should be avoided where possible. Where higher retaining walls are unavoidable, they should be designed to reduce their impact on pedestrian comfort and to increase the visual interest along the streetscapes. Page 17 of 22 lighting fixture opaque glass medallion windows proiecting cornice masonry belt course metal canopy - recess # plinth Blank walls shall be treated with architectural elements to provide visual interest. Packet167 of 205 Explanation and Examples The following are examples of methods to treat retaining walls: ■ any of the techniques or features listed under blank walls above • terracing and landscaping the retaining walls ■ substituting a stone wall, rockery, modular masonry, or special material ■ locating hanging plant materials below or above the wall D-4: Design of Parking Lots Near Sidewalks Parking lots near sidewalks should provide adequate security and lighting, avoid encroachment of vehicles onto the sidewalk, and minimize the visual clutter of parking lot signs and equipment. Explanation and Examples The following examples illustrate some considerations to address in highly visible parking lots: Treatment of parking area perimeter ■ the edges of parking lots pavement adjacent to landscaped areas and other pavement can be unsightly and difficult to maintain. Providing a curb at the perimeter of parking areas can alleviate these problems. Security lighting ■ provide the appropriate levels of lighting to create adequate visibility at night. Evenly distributed lighting increases security, and glare -free lighting reduces impacts on nearby property. Encroachment of cars onto the sidewalk without wheel stops or a low wall, parked cars can hang over sidewalks. One technique to protect landscaped and pedestrian areas from encroachment by parked cars is to provide a wide wheel stop about two feet from the sidewalk. Another technique is to widen a sidewalk or planting bed basically "building in" a wheel stop into the sidewalk or planting bed. This is more durable than wheel stops, does not catch debris and reduces tripping hazards. Signs and equipment ■ reduce sign clutter by painting markings on the pavement or by consolidating signs. Provide storage that is out of view from the sidewalk and adjacent properties for moveable or temporary equipment like sawhorses or barrels. Screening of parking screening of parking areas need not be uniform along the property frontage. Variety in the type and relative amount of screening may be appropriate. screen walls constructed of durable, attractive materials need not extend above waist level. Screen walls across a street or adjacent to a residential zone could also include landscaping or a trellis or grillwork with climbing vines. screening can be designed to provide clear visibility into parking areas to promote personal safety. Page 18 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet168 of 205 D-5: Visual Impacts of Parking Structures The visibility of all at -grade parking structures or accessory parking garages should be minimized. The parking portion of a structure should be architecturally compatible with the rest of the structure and streetscape. Open parking spaces and carports should be screened from the street and adjacent properties. Explanation and Examples The following examples illustrate various methods of improving the appearance of at - grade parking structures: ■ incorporating pedestrian -oriented uses at street level can reduce the visual impact of parking structures in commercial areas. Sometimes a depth of only 10 feet along the front of the building is enough to provide space for newsstands, ticket booths, flower shops and other viable uses. ■ setting the parking structure back from the sidewalk and installing dense landscaping ■ incorporating any of the blank wall treatments listed in Guideline D-2 ■ visually integrating the parking structure with adjacent buildings ■ continuing a frieze, cornice, canopy, overhang, trellis or other devices at the top of the parking level ■ incorporating into the parking structure a well -lit pedestrian walkway, stairway or ramp from the sidewalk to the upper level of the building ■ setting back a portion of the parking structure to allow for the retention of an existing significant tree ■ using a portion of the top of the larking level as an outdoor deck, patio or garden with a rail, bench or other guard device around the perimeter D-6: Screening of Dumpsters, Utilities, and Service Areas Building sites should locate service elements like trash dumpsters, loading docks and mechanical equipment away from the street front where possible. When elements such as dumpsters, utility meters, mechanical units and service areas cannot be located away from the street front, they should be situated and screened from view and should not be located in the pedestrian right-of-way. Explanation and Examples Unsightly service elements can detract from the compatibility of new projects and create hazards for pedestrians and autos. The following examples illustrate considerations to address in locating and screening service areas and utilities: ■ plan the feature in a less visible location on the site ■ screen it to be less visible. For example, a utility meter can be located behind a screen wall so that it is not visible from the building entrance. ■ use durable materials that complement the building ■ incorporate landscaping to make the screen more effective ■ locate the opening to the area away from the sidewalk. ■ incorporate roof wells, utility rooms or other features to accommodate utility and mechanical equipment needs. Page 19 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet169 of 205 D-7: Personal Safety and Security Project design should consider opportunities for enhancing personal safety and security in the environment under review. Explanation and Examples Project design should be reviewed for its contribution to. enhancing the real and perceived feeling of personal safety and security within the environment under review. To do this, the question needs to be answered: do the design elements detract from or do they reinforce feelings of security of the residents, workers, shoppers and visitors who enter the area? Techniques that can help promote safety include the 4 following: ■ providing adequate lighting ■ retaining clear lines of site ■ use of semi -transparent security screening, rather than opaque walls, where appropriate ■ avoiding blank, windowless walls that attract graffiti and that do not permit residents or workers to observe the street ■ use of landscaping that maintains visibility, such as short shrubs and pruning trees, so there are no branches below head height ■ creative use of ornamental grille as fencing or over ground floor windows in some locations ■ absence of structures that provide hiding places for criminal activity ■ design of parking areas to allow natural surveillance by maintaining clear lines of sight both for those who park there and for occupants of nearby buildings ■ clear directional signage ■ encouraging "eyes on the street" through placement of windows, balconies and street -level uses ■ ensuring natural surveillance of children's play areas. E-1: Landscaping to Reinforce Design Continuity with Adjacent Sites Where possible, and where there is not another overriding concern, landscaping should reinforce the character of neighboring properties and abutting streetscape. Explanation and Examples Several ways to reinforce the landscape design character of the local neighborhood are listed below: Street Trees / If a street has a uniform planting of street trees, or a distinctive species, plant street trees that match the planting pattern or species. Similar Plant Materials When many lots on a block feature similar landscape materials, emphasis on these materials will help a new project fit into the local context. Page 20 of 22 Packet170 of 205 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 ■ Similar construction materials, textures, colors or elements Extending a low brick wall, using paving similar to a neighbor's or employing similar stairway construction are ways to achieve design continuity. E-2: Landscaping to Enhance the Building and/or Site Landscaping, including living plant material, special pavements, approach, screen walls, planters, site furniture and similar features should be appropriately incorporated into the design to enhance the project. Examples Landscape enhancements of the site may include some of the approaches or features listed below: ■ Soften the form of the building by screening blank" walls, terracing retaining walls, etc. ■ Increase privacy and security through screening and/or sharing. ■ Provide a framework such as a trellis or arbor for plants to grow on. ■ Incorporate a planter guard or low planter wall as part of the architecture. ■ Distinctively landscape open areas created by building modulation. ■ Incorporate upper story planter boxes or roof planters. ■ Include a special feature such as a courtyard, fountain or pool. ■ Emphasize entries with special planting in conjunction with decorative paving and/or lighting. • Screen a building from view by its neighbors, or an existing use from the new building. E-3: Landscape Design to Address Special Site Conditions The landscape design should take advantage of special on - site conditions such as high -bank front yards, steep slopes, view corridors, or existing significant trees and off -site conditions such as greenbelts, ravines, natural areas, and boulevards. Explanation and Examples The following conditions may merit special attention. The examples suggest some ways to address the issue. High Bank Front Yards, Where the building's ground floor is elevated above a sidewalk pedestrian's eye level, landscaping can help make the transition between grades. Several techniques are listed below. ■ rockeries with floral displays, live ground cover or shrubs. ■ terraces with floral displays, ground covers or shrubs. ■ low retaining walls with raised planting strips. ■ stone or brick masonry walls with vines or shrubs. Barrier -free Access Where wheelchair ramps must be provided on a street front, the ramp structure might include a planting strip on the sidewalk side of the elevated portions of the ramp. Page 21 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet171 of 205 Steep Topography Special plantings or erosion control measures may be necessary to prevent site destabilization or to enhance the visual qualities of the site in connection with a neighborhood improvement program. Boulevards Incorporate landscaping which reflects and reinforces . Greenbelt or Other Natural Setting ■ Minimize the removal of significant trees. ■ Replace trees that were removed with new trees. ■ Emphasize naturalizing or native landscape materials. ■ Retain natural greenbelt vegetation that contributes to greenbelt preservation. ■ Select colors that are more appropriate to the natural setting. On -site Vegetation ■ Retain significant vegetation where possible. ■ Use new plantings similar to vegetation removed during construction, when that vegetation as distinctive. Page 22 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet172 of 205 Current Process Summary/Suggestions Design Review for Major Projects (Optional) (Optional) SEPA / I I Application to Optional Staf�' Optional ADB Staff Review ADB Public b �l� PreAp Mtg / I Prelim Review r City & Report Hearing J �Y' '---�---' .J Conceptual Detailed Design I I Design • Redesign • I L- — — — — — — — — — — 1 I (Optional) I-------------------- - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Project Denied Proposed New Review Process SEPA determination Design Checklist ' ' established Design Conditions '7 1 MEN 15-111 Required First ADB Public a,10 Meeting w/ ADB 10 Hearing (Hearing Phase 1) Phase 2 Conceptual Design I I ♦ ''►--L------V — Redesign I�— I— — — —_. (Optional) I I I I I— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Project Denied Packet173 of 205 Appeal? Detailed Design Appeal? N%�>—Nooj Permit Approved Yes Project Approved Design Guidelines History and Timeline 1993 Anderson v. Issaquah court decision. Edmonds' Ordinance is identical to Issaquah's, and has the same problems. 1993-1999 Initial set of Design Guidelines adopted to "fill the gap" created by Anderson v. Issaquah. Goal is to gradually expand detail, and vary guidelines by zone/area of the City 1999 Consultant, Cedar River Associates, completes study of Edmonds' design review process. Consultant recommends change in process, moving design review to the beginning of the process. Emphasizes need for better design guidelines. 2000 Consultant, Cascade Design, drafts design guidelines and process amendments. Accepted by the City Council in November, 2000, for formal city review. 2001-2002 After holding a total of six public hearings, Planning Board recommends design guidelines and implementing code amendments to Council in July, 2002. City Council holds work session and public hearing in Sept -October 2002, and "tables" the guidelines on October 1, 2002. Guidelines are referred to CS/DS Committee on October 29, 2002. 2003 After a recommendation from the CS/DS Committee and a public hearing, City Council adopts updated design standards for signs in July, 2003. 2005 Following adoption of the city's updated comprehensive plan in March, 2005, Council holds discussions in April and May with urban design consultant Mark Hinshaw refining design guidelines for downtown buildings. Council holds joint meeting with ADB on August 23, 2005, and forwards guidelines (including Hinshaw revisions) to ADB for review and recommendation. 2006 ADB reports to Council on March 7, 2006, with its recommendations on design guidelines. Council sets hearing date for March 21, 2006. On June 6, 2006, Council refers proposal for "up front" design review and design guidelines to Planning Board for review. Packet174 of 205 At the direction of the City Council, a consultant, Cedar River Associates, completed a study in 1999 of the city's design review process. Among the study's conclusions was a strong recommendation to adopt updated design guidelines that provided more specific guidance than the inadequate guidelines contained in current city codes. As a result of the Cedar River study, a professional architectural firm (Cascade Design Collaborative) was hired to draft a set of design guidelines. Cascade Design had experience in both public and private development in multiple jurisdictions. The initial set of draft guidelines developed by Cascade Design was accepted by the Council in November 2000 for formal review by the Planning Board. During the Planning Board's review, the Board held 3 joint meetings and work sessions with the ADB, held 6 public hearings, and included thorough involvement by the development community through its stakeholders group. Draft design guidelines for the city were recommended by the Planning Board at the end of 2001, after holding work sessions and public hearings during the previous year. Following their work on the design guidelines, the Planning Board also developed a set of code amendments intended to implement the guidelines and streamline the design review process. This work was completed during the first half of 2002. In October, 2002, after holding its own work session and public hearing, the City Council initially "tabled" the guidelines and code amendments, and ultimately referred the draft guidelines to the Council's Community Services/Development Services Committee for further action. During 2003, portions of the code amendments and guidelines related to signs were considered, resulting in changes to the city's sign code to provide additional guidance and improve the design review process for signage. The City Council formally "untabled" the design guidelines during a joint meeting with the ADB in March, 2004. Additional discussions by Council have occurred since that time, with the most recent discussions indicating an interest in considering the design guidelines further after the Council completed its update of the Comprehensive Plan. In its efforts to implement the comprehensive plan and sort out issues regarding building design and building heights, the City Council has identified adopting a set of design guidelines as a high priority. As noted above, the Planning Board forwarded a draft set of design guidelines at the end of 2001. Design objectives from these original draft guidelines were included as policy statements in the comprehensive plan update adopted earlier this year, with some changes made to more clearly differentiate how downtown design differed from other parts of the city (specifically, a set of objectives were adopted for downtown in the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center section of the document, and a second set of objectives pertaining to other parts of the city were adopted as part of the Community Culture and Urban Design element of the plan). More recent discussions occurred in April and May 2005 with a consultant, Mark Hinshaw of LMN Architects, and resulted in some recommended changes to the draft design guidelines. Mr. Hinshaw suggested that some of the draft guidelines were more appropriately considered code amendments, and that design guidelines should be less lengthy and more focused on critical aspects of design. Mr. Hinshaw also produced some recommended guidelines for downtown buildings. The Council responded favorably to these suggestions, and asked staff to attempt to integrate Mr. Hinshaw's recommendations into the current draft of the city's design guidelines. On August 23, 2005, City Council held joint discussion with members of the ADB on the revised set of design guidelines. The conclusion from this meeting was for the ADB to review the draft design guidelines and provide their recommendations back to the Council. The ADB reported to Council on March 7, 2006, with the ADB recommending a substantially revised set of guidelines. This prompted a discussion on the relationship of design guidelines to the design review process, and the role of the ADB in design review. After a public hearing on March 21, 2006, on June 6, 2006, the City Council referred consideration of an "up front" design review process together with the ADB-drafted design guidelines to the Planning Board for review and recommendation. Packet175 of 205 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 Tem 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 Packet176 of 205 Mr. Utt reviewed that with the proposed new design review process, an applicant would present conceptual drawings to the ADB for review to identify the building concept and establish the setbacks, bulk, etc. The ADB would conduct a public hearing at which the public would be invited to express their concerns. The ADB would consider these concerns and review the checklist to identify any issues and priorities that must be addressed by the applicant before a final design would be approved by the City. The applicant would be responsible for making the necessary changes to address the issues raised at the first hearing. Another public hearing would be conducted on the more detailed design proposal, and the public would have one more opportunity to provide input. The SEPA Review could then be conducted and the applicants could bring on board their engineers, architects, etc. to complete the final design elements that are required for a building permit. Again, he expressed his belief that the proposed new design review process would be much more efficient. Mr. Utt said he would like a checklist to be added to either the proposed code language or to the design guidelines to standardize the list of materials an applicant must submit for preliminary and final design review. At this time, there is a considerable amount of inconsistency in what is presented to the ADB because there is no criterion to identify what the ADB expects to see with each application. Mr. Chave referred to Chapter 20.11 which states that staff would develop a list of uniform submission requirements. He explained that the City Attorney has said he would prefer this list be included in the code, but the list has not been developed at this point in time. Mr. Utt referred to ECDC 20.13.020.E, which would require irrigation for all ADB-approved landscaped areas for all projects that have more than 4 dwelling units, 4,000 square feet of building area, or more than 20 parking spaces. He proposed that this section be changed to state that irrigation would be.required for all ADB-approved landscaped areas for all projects that exceed the SEPA threshold requirement. The Board concurred with this recommendation. Mr. Utt referred to Page 7 of the design guidelines and noted that a section called "Treating Blank Walls" is referenced twice. However, there is no section in the proposed design guidelines called "Treating Blank Walls." He also referred to Item D-2 on Page 17 of the design guidelines which references Pages 8 and 9 for guidelines for blank walls, He suggested that these two sections be changed to clearly indicate where information regarding "Treating Blank Walls" could be found in the document. Next, Mr. Utt referred to ECDC 20.11.030.A.4 which states that long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided. In addition, he noted that the design guidelines speak about monotonous or blank walls, etc. However, nothing specific was provided in either the code language or the design guidelines to indicate what would constitute a long, massive, monotonous building. There is nothing to indicate what the setback requirement should be in order to break up blank walls, either. He suggested that a minimum setback requirement should be identified in either the code or the design guidelines. In addition, criteria to establish what is considered massive or monotonous should also be provided. Board Member Young recalled that he participated on the ADB for six or seven years. During that time, there were no exact numbers to identify what is massive. He suggested that Mr. Utt is looking for a very prescriptive formula that would eliminate the need for an ADB review. Mr. Utt agreed that the code and design guidelines must allow some flexibility, but there must also be some guidance for applying the standards. Board Member Young suggested that Mr. Utt provide some recommended language for the Board to consider. Mr. Utt suggested that verbiage and additional illustrations would be helpful to address the issue. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City Council is anxiously awaiting a recommendation from them regarding the design guidelines and the design review process. He suggested the Board could give staff some guidance to tweak the language an then forward it to the City Council for a public hearing. Another option would be to hold off on their recommendation until the Board has had an opportunity to review the updated documents. To address the issue of long, monotonous buildings, Mr. Chave suggested the Board could review the original draft design guidelines that were created in 2001 to see if exact numbers were provided for setbacks, etc. Board Member Guenther referred to the August 2001 draft of the design guidelines, which actually addressed the issue of massing by dividing projects into two different categories, large projects and small projects. 1 Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2006 Page 14 Packetl77 of 205 Board Member Reed pointed out that the code language places quite an emphasis on the using the term "shall" instead of "should." However, the design guidelines use more "shoulds" than "shalls." He said he suspects this was done because it is important to provide as much flexibility as possible in the design guidelines. Mr. Utt agreed and explained that the ADB reviewed the document and very specifically considered all of the "shalls" and "shoulds." Where the term "shall" is used, the ADB felt it was important enough to make the provision a definite requirement. Tony Shapira said he welcomes the notion of design review taking place earlier in the process. This would be a more conducive and cost effective way of evaluation and getting City input. Placing ADB review at the end of the sequence consumes a lot of extra time on the part of the applicant. He concluded that he supports the proposed new design review process. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Board Member Young left the meeting at 10:10 p.m. The Board directed staff to make the changes that were discussed and bring the document back to the Board for final review and action at the January 10, 2007 meeting. Mr. Chave indicated that he would attempt to get the updated draft documents to each Board member in early January. He asked that Board Members provide their final comments to staff as soon as possible so that changes could be made to the documents before the January I Oa' meeting. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The Board agreed to defer the election of officers until the first meeting in January. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Freeman advised that final review of the draft design guidelines and design review process documents was scheduled for January 10, 2007. The January 10t" meeting agenda would also include an update on the Shoreline Master Program Project, a review and discussion on the process to develop neighborhood business district zoning to implement neighborhood plans, and a review of the non -conforming regulations. The Board would also elect new officers on January 10th. Board Member Reed asked that staff provide a schedule to outline their plans for reviewing the Edmonds Community Development Code in 2007. Mr. Chave indicated he would ask Mr. Bowman to provide this information to the Board. Board Member Reed asked if it would be appropriate for Board Members to request feedback from City Council Members regarding their position on code rewrite items. Mr. Chave indicated that when Mr. Bowman presents the non -conforming regulations to the Board, he would also provide information regarding the City Council's direction on the matter. However, because the code rewrite is a legislative item, Board Members could solicit comments from City Council Members. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Freeman referred the Board to an article that was published in the American Planning Association Magazine in December 2006. The article was written by Mark Hinshaw and titled "Re -Forming Regulations: What It Takes to Encourage Downtown Housing. " In the article, Mr. Hinshaw made reference to his work with the City of Edmonds when he stated, "Nothing agitates neighborhood groups more than the prospect of a "tall" building in their vicinity. But height is relative. I once worked with a community where a controversy raged over whether to allow downtown building height to be increased from 30 feet to 33 feet —a difference of three feet? Many vocal citizens feared that the increased height would allow "high rises. " Entire public meetings were devoted to this issue, That city is still locked in verbal warfare today. " In response to this article, Chair Freeman prepared and read the following statement into the record: • i 1 Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2006 Page 15 Packet178 of 205 AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience who expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON MINOR TEXT AND MAP CORRECTIONS AND UPDATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (FILE NUMBER CDC-064) Mr. Chave reminded the Board that, at their last meeting, they continued the public hearing on the minor text and map corrections to update the Comprehensive Plan to allow them to review the updated draft document. He referred the Board to the new draft language, which includes all of the corrections identified by the Board and staff to date. Chair Freeman referred to Item d in the middle of Page 38 and noted that she recommended a new sentence be added to read: "Within the Retail Core, no new curb cuts shall be allowed and there shall be no requirement to provide on -site parking." Mr. Chave also noted that changes were made to the last paragraph on Page 37 (Planned Residential -Office) to address the concerns raised by the Board at the last meeting. John Reed pointed out that the new downtown zoning ordinance is currently in limbo at the City Council level. The City Council would not make a decision on the new ordinance until after the ADB appeal related to Old Mill Town has been resolved. Therefore, he suggested it would be premature for the Board to make a recommendation on the minor amendments to the Downtown Plan and Comprehensive Plan Map. He summarized that it would be difficult for the Board to recommend Comprehensive Plan changes that are consistent before they know what final action the City Council would take on the zoning ordinance related to the proposed new BD zones. Mr. Chave explained that the development regulations currently before the City Council represent a slight modification of the existing Comprehensive Plan language. Since the City is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan this year, it would be timely for the Board to forward some draft language for the City Council to consider to make the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the zoning ordinance adopted by the City Council. If the Board were to forward a recommendation to the City Council now, the City Council could hold a public hearing and consider the proposed Comprehensive Plan changes at the same time they are looking at the proposed BD zoning ordinance. If the Board does not forward any Comprehensive Plan adjustments this year and the City Council approves some zoning ordinance changes, the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance would be inconsistent. Therefore, the development regulations would likely be invalidated. He reminded the Board that the goal is to make the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code language consistent, and the proposed language would give the City Council something that is consistent with the regulations that have already been forwarded to them by the Board. The public portion of the hearing was closed. VICE CHAIR DEWHIRST MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD THE MINOR TEXT AND MAP CORRECTIONS AND UPDATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (FILE NUMBER CDC-064) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER CASSUTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION 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. He explained that revisions and additional organizing and cleaning must still be done before the document could be finalized. He asked that the Board review the document and provide their comments and suggestions. He noted that the City Attorney has not yet provided his comments regarding the proposed language. Mr. Chave suggested the Board could hold a final review of the document at their December 13's meeting and then schedule a public hearing for the first meeting in January. Any conversation about the Planning Board Minutes November S, 2006 Page 2 Packet179 of 205 guidelines, themselves, should include the chair of the Architectural Design Board, since the guidelines were a product of that group. The Board and staff reviewed the document and made the following comments and recommendations: Section 20.10 Board Member Guenther suggested that language be added to this section to emphasize that the time for public comment on an application is during the Architectural Design Board's review. Mr. Chave agreed that language could be inserted to indicate that the Architectural Design Board Review is an opportunity for neighbors to comment on major projects that could potentially have an impact on them. The remainder of the Board agreed that would be appropriate. Board Member Works suggested that the language in Section 20.10.000.A is too vague and doesn't have any real meaning. Chair Freeman agreed that vague statements like this lend to trouble. Mr. Chave agreed to review the Urban Design Guidelines Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to find improved language to address the intent of this section. Section 20.11 Mr. Chave explained that this section describes the existing design review process. Board Member Works noted that on Page 7 the terms "planning manager" and "planning official" are both used. Mr. Chave agreed to check to make sure the terms are consistently used throughout the document. Board Member Works also pointed out that the words "When general design review is required" should be deleted from Section 20.11.010.A. Chair Freeman referred to Section 20,11.030.A.3 and noted that the word "view" has not been defined. She questioned if this would refer to the view from the street, from an adjacent property, or even from uphill properties. Board Member Cassutt recalled a previous Board discussion that roof top equipment must be screened from any view. Mr. Chave pointed out that if the Board wants to require screening from all views, more height would likely be necessary in order to construct a box around all of the equipment. Board Member Guenther pointed out the operational problems associated with placing roofs on top of mechanical equipment. Mr. Chave agreed and suggested that mechanical equipment only be screened from surrounding streets, etc. Screening the equipment from the view of uphill properties is an entirely different and larger issue. The Board agreed to strike the words "from view" from Section 20.11.030.A.3. Mr. Chave noted that Sections 20.11.030.A.6 and Section 20.11.030.C.3 have been highlighted because they are related to a current City moratorium. He suggested that these two sections relate to view and are extremely problematic. Therefore, they should be either changed or taken out of the document. The Board concurred that the two sections should be deleted from the proposed language. Section 20.12 Board Member Works referred to Section 20.12.090.A and asked if an Architectural Design Board review would ever be mandatory for something that does not require a building permit. Mr. Chave answered that sometimes the Code refers to the Architectural Design Board review even though no permit is required. One example would be applications to install public art. Section 20.13 Mr. Chave explained that staffs intent is to integrate the landscape site development standards for the CG zones into this chapter because they do a much better job of buffering, etc. The current language is just the existing language from the code. Chair Freeman referred to Section 20.13.015.B, which indicates a minimum height requirement of 18 feet for medium and tall shrubs. She suggested the correct number should be 18 inches. Chair Freeman suggested the reference to "significant views" should be taken out of Section 20.13.015.C. Board Member Works agreed and noted that the reference to "enhancing views and vistas" should also be taken out of Section 20.13.020.A. Chair Freeman added that the words "significant views and height limit for" should be deleted from Section 20.13r020.P. Board Member Young pointed out that a professional landscape architect participates as a member of the Architectural Design Board, and applicants are required to present landscape plans that are consistent with the zoning district and then Planning Board Minutes November 8, 2006 Page 3 Packet180 of 205 demonstrate how the plans would work over time. The Board agreed that references to view, as noted earlier by Board Member Works and Chair Freeman, should be eliminated from the proposed language. Chair Freeman referenced Section 20.13.020.E, which requires automatic irrigation for all projects more than four dwelling units, 4,000 square feet of building area, or more than 20 parking spaces. She suggested that this requirement could go against the trend of planting species that are drought resistant. Board Member Cassutt noted that even drought resistant plantings require some water. She noted that automatic irrigation, if done correctly, could actually save water. Board Member Young suggested the word "automatic" be changed to "appropriate." He explained that if appropriate irrigation were required, the Architectural Design Board would require an applicant to show a landscape plan and explain how it would work, and this would include proper plans for irrigation. Mr. Chave expressed his belief that the proper term should be "automatic irrigation" since this would cover a variety of irrigation systems. The majority of the Board concurred. The Board briefly discussed whether or not it would be necessary to hold a workshop discussion regarding the Design Guidelines with the Chair of the Architectural Design Board prior to the public hearing. Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that the Architectural Design Board has already signed off on the document, and the Board has not proposed any significant changes. He expressed concern that the Board is not making enough progress on this issue, especially since the Mayor has identified it as a high priority item. Rather than meeting with the Chair of the Architectural Design Board, he urged the Board to get the draft language to the City Council as soon as possible. He urged staff to obtain feedback from the City Attorney soon so that draft language could be completed and prepared for a public hearing. The Board agreed to advertise the issue for a public hearing on December 13, 2006. Mr. Chave indicated that if he receives comments from the City Attorney soon, he would provide an early draft back to the Board so they could provide additional comments for staff to work into the draft language for the public hearing. REVIEW OF CODE REWRITE PROJECT Mr. Bowman provided a brief status report on the code rewrite project, which was recently funded by the City Council. He reported that staff is in the process of reviewing the existing code and formulating revisions. They will incorporate those items the Board has already been working on, as well. The City Attorney would be present at the Board's December 13�' meeting to conduct a workshop discussion regarding proposed changes to the non -conforming regulations. This discussion would be followed closely with a review of the chapter on processes and procedures. Mr. Bowman advised that the City Council has requested staff to bring the code rewrite back to them in sections, and staff plans to run each section through the Planning Board and then forward them to the City Council along with the Board's recommendation. Before final approval is given, staff would conduct a comprehensive review of the entire document to make sure all of the sections are consistent. In addition, he said staff envisions that the rewrite would require renumbering the chapters. For example, the definitions chapter would be moved to the start of the code and the process section would be moved to where Title 17 is now. Staff is considering a process of typing decisions using a table and matrix. An applicant would be able to quickly look at the table to find out what type of process their project would require. He emphasized that the ultimate goal is to make the code easier to enforce and easier for the public to use. Mr. Bowman reported that, during the next month, he would lay out the rewrite process onto the Board's extended agenda. He plans to press forward by presenting one section to the Board per month, and his goal is to move the process along quickly throughout the next year for final adoption by the City Council by the end of 2007. Mr. Bowman advised that staff has proposed 30 pages of suggested code changes, and these would be folded into the rewrite process, as well. In addition, he asked that individual Board Members present specific recommendations for change to staff via email. These comments could then be noted as items for review. The goal is to get the Board through the review process by the end of June 2007. Planning Board Minutes November 8, 2006 Page 4 Packet181 of 205 REVIEW AND DISCUSSION ON CODE UPDATES REQUIRED TO INTEGRATE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REVISED DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS INTO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE Mr. Chave reported that staff is continuing to work on draft code language to implement the proposed new design review process. He referred the Board to the draft design guidelines and checklist that have been proposed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). The ADB would use the design guidelines.and checklist in their new "up front" review role. He also referred the Board to the proposed process and the current draft -in -progress of the code amendments. He explained that, essentially, a new code Chapter 20.11 would be inserted for the "district -based" design review process. When not in a design review district, projects would be reviewed under the normal design review process. Eventually, all parts of the City should be incorporated into a design district with appropriate design standards included in City codes. At that point, Chapter 20.11 would become the de -facto design review process for the entire City and Chapter 20.10 would be dropped. Mr. Chave explained that the City's traditional process places the ADB review towards the end of the design review process. The public hearings are also held at the end of the design review process. When extensive changes are identified by the ADB, developers are sometimes required to expend a substantial amount of money to change the designs. The new design review process would place the ADB review earlier in the process. A preliminary review at the start of the design phase would be mandatory for every application. At the preliminary review, the ADB would review the checklist of items and identify those that should be applied to a project and what the priorities should be. After a preliminary discussion between the applicant and the ADB, the applicant would be required to show how they would address the applicable design guidelines. A public hearing would also be conducted as part of the preliminary design review, when changes to the design could be easily made. The checklist items identified by the ADB would be incorporated into the SEPA review. The intent is to integrate the design review and SEPA process together. Once the SEPA determination and ADB conditions have been identified, there would be an opportunity for appeal. Once the appeal period has expired, the applicant would be allowed to proceed directly to the building permit application phase. Staff would then make sure the completed design meets all of the conditions and requirements of the ADB review and the SEPA determination. No new appeals would be allowed at that point. Board Member Guenther asked if the proposed new design review process would be similar to the review process used by other neighboring jurisdictions. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Mr. Guenther summarized that with the City's current design review process, all of the design decisions have been made by the architect and his client before the ADB reviews the plans. Having design review occur early in the design process would make it easier for applicants to make changes. While the draft code language is not ready for the Board's review at this time, Mr. Chave said he provided some preliminary language for the Board to review to make sure they are comfortable with the direction staff is heading. Board Member Works asked that staff provide language to clarify the right-hand column on the document titled, "Draft ADB Process." Vice Chair Dewhirst also asked staff to review all of the documents to make sure the terminology is consistent. Although pictures are important to include in the document, Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested it would be inappropriate to use pictures of six or seven story buildings. He encouraged staff to obtain photographs with people in them, too. He summarized that people tend to start with the pictures before they get into the actual language. Therefore, the pictures should communicate what the City intends to do. Chair Freeman agreed and noted that the photograph on Page 11 is of a building that is actually located on Green bake and is not a building design that would be compatible in Edmonds. Mr. Chave suggested that staff provide photographs depicting both small and larger scale buildings. Board Member Guenther asked how the ADB would use the checklist to review applications. Mr. Chave answered that the ADB still has to work out their process for reviewing the applications, but the checklist would be part of their review. Board Member Guenther asked if the ADB would have the discretion to add items to the checklist if applicable. Mr. Chave answered that if there is something exceptional about a project, the ADB could possibly add items to the checklist as long as they can state reasons why it is important. He said he would ask the City Attorney to provide further direction regarding this issue. Vice Chair Dewhirst indicated that he had several comments to make regarding the draft language, but he would forward them to staff for consideration in the new draft. Planning Board Minutes October 11, 2006 Page 8 Packet182 of 205 language as proposed, but include Mr. Chave's additional option for the public to respond to at the September 13t' hearing. They encouraged Mr. Behar to study the issue further, too, and prepare to make some additional comments and suggestions at the hearing. The Board noted the following typographical errors in the proposed language: R The first section on Page I of the proposed BR and BR2 language should be changed from "16.60" to "16.52." ■ On Page 1 of the proposed CG and CG2 language "CC" should be changed to "CG." ■ Delete the words "in multi -family and commercial zones" from Section 16.60.030.D.2. Board Member Works referred to Section 16.60.040 and questioned if auto sales should be listed as an exception, as well. Mr. Chave pointed out that auto sales would be considered outdoor storage. The Board agreed to add "including outdoor storage of automobiles" to Section 16.60.040.A.7, The Board also agreed that wrecking yards should not, be listed as an allowed use in the CG and CG2 zones. Mr. Chave clarified Mr. Underhill's concern about the table in Section 16.52.020. He noted that when development in a BR zone is within 25 feet of a residentially zoned property, the maximum height allowed would be 25 feet. If a building is set back 25 feet, then the maximum height would be 50 feet. Mr. Behar said his architect has requested an opportunity to work with the Planning Department staff to address some of their concerns with Sections 16.60.030.D.] and D.2 before the language is adopted. Board Member Guenther explained that the design guidelines were included in the code language so that staff could use the document as a checklist when reviewing design proposals. However, he recognizes that this does not allow the flexibility that architects like to have. He said that since he has been on the Board, they have had several discussions about whether the code should be more flexible or more prescriptive. The Board has tried to reach an acceptable compromise. However, if the staff is making design decisions, they need specific guidelines. A more flexible code would require more ADB involvement. Mr. Chave encouraged Mr. Behar to forward his architect's suggestions to staff so they could be considered at the next public hearing. The Board took a I0-minute break at 9:00 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m. UPDATE AND DISCUSSION ON CODE UPDATES REQUIRED TO INTEGRATE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REVISED DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE Mr. Chave advised that staff is in the process of drafting code language to implement the proposed new design review process. He referred the Board to the draft design guidelines proposed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB), and explained that these guidelines would be used by the ADB in their "up front" review role. He also referred the Board to the attached summary of the proposed process. He explained that the intent is to apply more specific design standards throughout the City area -by -area, starting with Highway 99 and downtown Edmonds. Board Member Young asked Mr. Chave to briefly review the proposed review process. Mr. Chave explained that the first thing the ADB would do is work with the applicant to identify the most important design considerations. The applicant would then come back with general forms and site plans to show how they would deal with the issues identified by the ADB. The ADB would establish some conditions that would figure into the staffs review of the project. The applicant would then work on a detailed submission, and staff would review it base on the design standards already in the code and the conditions identified by the ADB. He emphasized that conditions imposed by the ADB would be appealable and must come from code requirements, Comprehensive Plan policies, etc. He explained that the early design stage would involve a dialogue between the ADB and the applicant, and the public would be invited to provide input, as well. The big issues should be dealt with before the designs are solidified. Board Member Young said he would like to know that at some point when a project is discussed in front of the public, the developer would be asked to go through each of the questions identified on the bulleted list on Page 2. Mr. Chave answered that the applicant would be asked to address those items that arc applicable to their project. He summarized that the proposed Planning Board Minutes August 9, 2006 Page 7 Packet183 of 205 Process would be easier to administer and the applicant would have more predictability. In addition, the City would be able to deal with the conceptual issues before the design is tied down. Mr. Chave advised that the Board would discuss the design guidelines and process again on September 27t'. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Freeman recalled that the Board previously asked staff to provide a report regarding the impacts of proposed Property Rights Initiative 933. However, this item has not been scheduled on the extended agenda. Mr. Chave reported that the City Attorney has indicated it would be difficult to discuss the impacts without taking a position, and this would not be allowed. The staff obtained materials from the American Planning Association, which provide an analysis of the initiative. These materials would be forwarded to each of the Board Members. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Freeman requested the Board provide a response to the proposal that was submitted by the 500 Main Street Merchants. She suggested that the Board could offer their support to the group and encourage the City Council to include lighting as part of the Capital Improvement Program {CIP}. Mr. Chave explained that there are actually two ways to get this item before the City Council. It could either be included in the CIP proposal or recommended for funding as part of the budget process. If approved in the budget process, it could be incorporated into the CIP. The Board directed staff to forward a letter to the 500 Main Street Merchants informing them of the process for getting this item before the City Council. The letter should explain that the Board has already reviewed and forwarded a recommendation on the 2007 CIP. Therefore, the merchants could either wait for the next CIP process or approach the City Council with a request that it be funded as part of the 2007 budget. The letter should emphasize that the Board supports the proposal since it would be the first step in providing adequate lighting on Main Street all the way up to the Frances Anderson Center. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Crim announced that he recently notified the Mayor that he would resign his position immediately and this would be his last meeting. He said he has enjoyed participating on the Planning Board, ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m. APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 9, 2006 Page 8 Packet184 of 205 Staff is working on proposed amendments that would make the ordinance more enforceable. Board Member Crim suggested that any reference to use be eliminated from the City's definition of "setback." Instead, they should deal with uses in the revised nuisance ordinance. He concluded that it is difficult to regulate uses. Board Member Dewhirst agreed, with the exception of uses such as parking and storage of vehicles, Board Member Cassutt agreed, as well. Board Member Dewhirst reminded the Board that there is a safety issue when vehicles are parked right on the property line and the City should regulate these situations. However, with the trend of smaller lots, the uses will probably be more intense than ever. Other than parking of vehicles, people will want to utilize all of their parcels. Mr. Bowman asked if the Board wanted to allow vehicles to park in the rear yard. Board Member Dewhirst felt this would be okay, as long as it is behind the house and outside of the setback area. Mr. Bowman said some jurisdictions prohibit recreational vehicle parking in front of all residential structures. He said that if the Board opens the door by discussing recreational vehicles as part of their review of the definition of "setback," they should be aware that the issue is controversial. Chair Young recalled Board Member Guenther's comments about safety within the setback areas for fire equipment access and fire safety. Board Members have also raised interesting points about uses that are allowed in the setbacks but intrude on the neighbors. He said that while people pay for their whole lot, they must also avoid imposing a significant impact on their neighbors. He suggested that any use should be allowed in the side yard setback as long as it doesn't bother anyone else. Property owners should not be allowed to construct anything that is much higher than the fence line or that generates a significant amount of noise. However, the fire department must also be able to access the back of the property. The Board discussed whether or not patios and sport courts should be allowed within the setback areas. They agreed that a sport court would have much more impact to adjoining neighbors than a patio would. Mr. Bowman said it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two. For example, driveways are allowed within the setbacks, and someone could put up a basketball hoop on the side of the driveway. He questioned if this type of use should be allowed. Chair Young said he feels there is a difference between sport courts and basketball hoops, and sports courts tend to have significantly more impact to surrounding properties. Mr. Bowman summarized that if a use generates a lot of noise or is a safety issue, the Board feels it should not be allowed within a setback. However, he again pointed out that trees are typically preserved in the setback areas, so that is where people want to build tree houses. Chair Young noted that these uses are only dealt with on a complaint basis. If something bothers a neighbor or invades their privacy, it should not be allowed. Mr. Bowman further summarized that the Board wants to move away from uses with some exceptions regarding recreational vehicle parking and fire safety. They would like to allow things that do not impinge on safety and privacy. Mr. Chave said privacy is difficult to define. Mr. Bowman said he would bring back examples of how other jurisdictions define setbacks and what is allowed. Chair Young recalled that several months ago when the Board discussed Ham Radio Antennas, they restricted them from the setback areas. Mr. Bowman said the Hearing Examiner was straight forward in his decision that the tree house should not be allowed, but the City Council applied a different interpretation. The Board members indicated that they did not think tree houses should be allowed within setback areas. Board Member Guenther pointed out that the Board has not really talked about how the topography would affect the uses that are allowed in a setback area. Mr. Bowman said staff would continue to put together the matrix and a draft definition for the Board's next discussion. Before they move into a public hearing, the Board could have further discussion to determine the direction they want to go. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL WORK ON DESIGN GUIDELINES Mr. Bowman reported that the City Council has been having roundtable discussions with Mark Hinshaw, the consultant they hired to help them with the Design Guidelines for the downtown area. Mr. Hinshaw reported to the City Council that he Planning Board Minutes May t 1, 2005 Page 6 Packet185 of 205 reviewed the design guidelines that were initially forwarded to the City Council by the Planning Board more than 2'/z years ago. He also reviewed the recent Comprehensive Plan Update and policies. Mr. Bowman advised that at the last meeting, the City Council discussed the direction they would like to go with the new design guidelines. Mr. Bowman said Mr. Hinshaw encouraged the City Council to visit the Fairhaven area of Bellingham. Mr. Hinshaw expressed his belief that this area is similar to Edmonds in topographical features, with a ferry located at the bottom of the slope. It has a clearly historical downtown core and was originally platted just nine years after the City of Edmonds. Mr. Bowman reported that Mr. Hinshaw took the City Council Members and staff members on a tour of the Fairhaven area, and he participated in that tour. He pointed out that the Fairhaven district is laid out similar to Edmonds. To the east is primarily residential development, with views looking to the west onto Bellingham Bay. The downtown commercial area sits at the top of the hill and slopes down into the industrial areas. They have a port, a ferry, and a sewage treatment plant, with residential property to the south. He emphasized, however, that the Fairhaven District has no parking requirements for commercial uses at all, but they do require parking for the residential uses. Mr. Bowman advised that as the City Council and staff visited Fairhaven, they took pictures to illustrate the current situation that exists. He presented a PowerPoint presentation of the pictures they collected and explained various features of the Fairhaven District. He pointed out that the buildings typically have first floor ceiling heights of 12 to 15 feet. He also pointed out the types of storefront treatments that have been used, which are critical to a vibrant retail community. They have large windows and the buildings are constructed right up to the sidewalk. This allows pedestrians to look right into the large windows. He said Mr. Hinshaw recommended that it is important for the commercial buildings in Edmonds to be constructed right up to the sidewalk, as well. However, the City has typically encouraged modulation. He has also suggested that it might be best for the ground floor in the downtown core to be limited to retail space only, since there is only a limited amount of retail space that works well. He showed pictures from Fairhaven to further illustrate this concept. Next, Mr. Bowman provided pictures of new and old buildings that have been built next to each other. He noted that it is often difficult to tell which one is new and which one is old since they typically blend together well. He also pointed out that the streets include an 80-foot right-of-way, which allows for wider sidewalks and the four-story buildings that exist in the area are not over scale. He also pointed out that almost all of the businesses in this district have ornate and unique signs that work well with the buildings. The signs have been staggered and stepped down to address the change in topography. He advised that they also prune their trees from the bottom up to expose the retail area. Mr. Bowman provided pictures to illustrate some of the unique and interesting spaces that have been provided next to the sidewalks using gazebos, fountains, etc. There area numerous opportunities for outdoor dining, but because the sidewalks are wide, these uses do not impede the pedestrian traffic. He also showed several pictures of the village green area, which includes large murals, bocce ball courts, a large screen on the side of the building and a stage area. Mr. Bowman explained that design review for projects in Fair Have is done by staff as an administrative decision, appealable to the Hearing Examiner. Building height is limited to 35 feet, and up to 54 feet with a conditional use permit. If their City Council approves a conditional use permit, it would be appealable to the Superior Court. He said that design guidelines were adopted in 1990, and most of the newer buildings are less than five years old. He showed examples of buildings that were constructed before the design guidelines were implemented and those that were built after. He noted that the newer buildings blend in much better with the older historic structures. He also provided pictures of a mixed -use structure that is currently being built just outside of the historic district. This building will be five stories high, with commercial space on the ground floor. There is no height limit in this area, so approval is based on an administrative decision. To the south of the five -story mixed -use building, a nine -story mixed -use building is being constructed. Their goal is to obtain residential space that would end up supporting the commercial and retail spaces. He noted that Fairhaven only has one vacant space in their downtown area. Mr. Bowman encouraged the Board Members to watch the videotape of the last City Council Meeting, at which they also discussed the building heights and how the City should calculate building heights in the downtown area. He suggested that interested Board Members should also visit the Fairhaven District. Board Members Cassutt, Works and Freeman agreed to meet with Mr. Bowman on Friday, May 20`s, for a tour of the Fairhaven District. APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 11, 2005 Page 7 Packet186 of 205 Mr. Bowman advised that Mr. Hinshaw discussed the concept of preserving the retail core around the fountain with the City Council. He also recommended that this area be expanded and that the height limit should be 25 feet. In the downtown areas surrounding the fountain area, he recommended that the City Council consider a building height limit of between 33 and 35 feet. In addition, he recommended that the City Council establish a conservation district for the arts area where there are older homes that could be convertedto other types of uses in the future. Board Member Freeman said Mr. Hinshaw also made the statement that he believes "a matter of a few feet is pretty silly." Mr. Bowman said he does not see the City of Edmonds ever allowing four and five -story buildings in their downtown. Mr. Hinshaw is suggesting that they protect the core area, but allow the surrounding areas to be vibrant. He also informed the City Council that if they limit the height in the entire downtown area to 25 feet, everything would come to a screeching halt. Mr. Bowman reported that Mr, Hinshaw's observations were amazingly close to those provided in the Board's original recommendation to the City Council, Again, Mr. Bowman urged the Board Members to watch the videotape of the last City Council Meeting. Board Member Crim suggested, and the remainder of the Commission agreed, that staff should provide each of them with a DVD copy of the meeting. Board Member Crim also requested that staff provide the Board Members with copies of Fairhaven's ordinance and design guidelines. Mr. Bowman recalled the reception the Planning Board received a few months ago by people on both sides of the building height issue. However, the people who are against increased building heights seem to understand Mr. Hinshaw's comments. In fact, he reported that Ron Wambolt has praised Mr. Hinshaw on a number of occasions because he has been fair-minded. Mr. Hinshaw has been well received by both sides. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Chave reviewed that the agenda for the May 25 h meeting would include a public hearing on a rezone request by A.D. Shapiro Architects for Hans Lammersdorf for a rezone of property located on Edmonds Way. A public hearing is also scheduled on the proposed code amendments addressing essential public facilities. If time permits, the Board would also have more discussion regarding various code amendments. Mr. Chave pointed out that a public hearing on the definition of "family" was tentatively scheduled for .Tune 8tn. However, the Board needs further discussion before the hearing could take place. The Board could discuss the various code amendments that they are working on, and they might even have more information from the City Council about where they are headed with the design guidelines. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Young did not provide any comments during this portion of the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Dewhirst announced that City Council Member Richard Marin was recently chosen to be one of the new Sound Transit Board Members. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Planning Board Minutes May 11, 2005 Page 8 Packet187 of 205 permit. Another questionable practice is the requirement that all new businesses submit a floor plan stamped by an engineer or architect. ew Fe Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, advised in the November 2007 election, the Edmonds City Council would erminaly ask the voters of Snohomish County to raise their taxes; if approved the money would be spent to build half of a new ferry terminal in Edmonds. She relayed three questions that were raised by the ballot measure, 1) how much money would voters be asked to approve for the terminal, 2) exactly what portion of a terminal would that amount buy, and 3) what was the total cost of a complete terminal. She explained these questions were posed to the Edmonds City Council because the project on the ballot was the City's project; the ferry system did not request a new ferry terminal in Edmonds, the City did and RTID put the funding on the ballot at the City's request. As the Council was asking the voters to fund half a new terminal, it was their responsibility to explain the details to the voters. She also asked what kind of taxes would voters be asked to approve and the rate of the tax. She commented RTID had three forms of taxation -- sales tax, vehicle license fee, MVET, tolls and local option fuel tax. She recalled in 2003 RTID selected sales tax, license fee and MVET with varying rates. ADB Review $ REPORT ON ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADB REVIEW PROCESS AND DESIGN Process and GUIDELINES. Design Guidelines Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled in March the Council discussed design guidelines. As a result of direction provided by Council, Planning Manager Rob Chave and City Attorney Scott Snyder met with the ADB to discuss the review process and the design guidelines. Mr. Chave advised Mr. Snyder and he met with the ADB, members of the community including Steve Bernheim representing ACE, an architect and a developer. The result of the meeting was consensus to move the ADB to the beginning of the process and using the ADB's recommended guidelines in that process. Mr. Snyder and Senior Planner Steve Bullock developed an outline of the process which was confirmed by the ADB at a subsequent meeting. He noted the design guidelines developed by the ADB would be used to influence the outcome early in the process before a developer was committed to a design. Mr. Chave explained in.order to proceed the Council would need to refer the following items to the Planning Board so that an ordinance could be developed for Council review and approval: 1) outline of revised ADB review process, 2) design guidelines developed by the ADB, 3) guidance on any additional design standards that should be considered for inclusion in the development code such as landscape standards and/or massing. _ Mr. Chave relayed the ADB preference to implement this process in a phased manner rather than citywide, beginning with design guidelines and standards for downtown, followed by Hwy. 99. He noted it may also be possible to develop guidelines and standards in the neighborhood business zones such as Five Corners and Firdale Village. The ADB. preferred to delay development of guidelines and standards for other areas of the City until there had been an opportunity to meet with those areas and develop specific guidelines. Mr. Snyder commented he would draft an ordinance describing the process and criteria for a checklist. He referred to Mr. Shapiro's comments, agreeing generic, one -size -fits -all standards did not result in good design. However, he disagreed with Mr. Shapiro's comment regarding subjective decisions, pointing out that subjective decision -making was contrary to State law and municipalities must develop objective criteria. The proposed process would allow the ADB to use its expertise to work with developers cooperatively early in the process to influence design. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 6, 2006 Page 15 Packet188 of 205 Councilmember Moore asked what interpretations would be left for staff if the ADB was involved early in the process. Mr. Chave answered it would minimize interpretations and in the proposed process, the subjective portion would be at the beginning where the expertise of the ADB could be applied. At the end of the process, the administrative code requirements would be applied. Mr. Snyder explained to take subjectivity out of the process, it would be important for the ADB to render complete written decisions adopting what they have approved. He cautioned if a project met the decisional criteria, the fact that it may be objectionable to neighbors, the public, staff or the Council in some other regard would be beside the point. Mr. Chave envisioned the only portion of the process that would be subjective would be the early meetings when options and alternatives were being discussed which was an appropriate place for subjectivity. When the project proceeded beyond options and alternatives, there would be limited subjectivity and more predictability. Mr. Snyder acknowledged the subjectivity would be the ADB offering their experience and guidance to the developer. If a developer refused and the project met the decisional criteria, it would be approved.. He noted that was the dilemma of architectural design review; if the City had a distinctive design program such as Leavenworth, mediocrity could be legislated, however, it was difficult to legislate outstanding design. He commented on trends in design as an example. Mr. Chave recalled the Planning Board held a public hearing on the downtown zoning regulations; one of their concerns was how the design guidelines fit into the zoning regulations and were uncomfortable proceeding with the zoning absent the design guidelines. One of the benefits of forwarding the design guidelines to the Planning Board was to allow them to consider both. Councilmember Moore recalled a suggestion that the ADB meet more than once a month. Mr. Chave acknowledged that issue would arise and agreed the ADB would need to be more flexible such as establish multiple meeting dates from which a developer could choose. Councilmember Marin recalled one of the reasons for staff s discussion with the ADB was to ensure the ADB was comfortable with moving to the front of the process in an advisory role and no longer having a quasi judicial role. Mr. Chave answered the ADB saw the benefits of moving their review to the front of the process and were interested and excited about working with the new design guidelines. Councilmember Marin asked whether any other issue arose in staffs meeting with the ADB. Mr. Chave responded there was discussion regarding the pros and cons and ultimately everyone agreed this role for the ADB would be beneficial. Mr. Snyder noted the ADB realized that for a period of time they would be creating one system and phasing out another and there would be applications reviewed under the old system while the new system was designed and adopted. Councilmember Marin inquired about the timetable for Planning Board review. Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board held a public hearing on the downtown zoning and would be continuing their discussion at next week's meeting, likely followed by another public hearing. He anticipated the Planning Board could begin discussion regarding the design guidelines next week and hold a public hearing on both in July. He anticipated a 3-4 month review process, acknowledging it would depend on the comments received during the legislative process. Mr. Snyder observed one of the drafting challenges would be to ensure this was a streamlined process that did not add time to the process. Council President Dawson thanked staff and Mr. Snyder for meeting with the Planning Board and engaging in this process. She agreed with phasing the process neighborhood by neighborhood. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 6, 2006 Page 16 Packet189 of 205 Council President Dawson advised it was unknown whether the offer would be accepted by the School District. The City planned to ask the District administration to respond to the City by close of business March 23 whether the offer was acceptable and if the offer was not acceptable, the Council would meet again to develop a backup plan. She advised the offer was the maximum amount the Council was comfortable making and if the amount was not acceptable to the District, fewer acres would need to be considered. Councilmember Moore expressed her pleasure with the Council's decision, commenting she supported an effort to acquire the entire 11 acres. She thanked the audience for their support and energy for preserving the 11 acre site. Councilmember Marin commented a park in that area was mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan and it was the intent to have a park in that area. If the District did not accept the City's offer for the entire 1 i acres, it was still the Council's intent to pursue a park in that area. He emphasized for those making offers on the property that the City intended for there to be a park on at least a portion of the site. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Capital 313. THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS SCHEDULED THIS EVENING WILL BE Improvement RESCHEDULED TO A FUTURE DATE TO BE DETERMINED; PUBLIC HEARING ON THE Program CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2006-2011) esign 4, PUBLIC HEARING ON DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MULTI -FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL Guidelines DEVELOPMENT. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the issue before the Council was a combination of the design guidelines and design process. He pointed out the necessity of discussing design guidelines and the review process together. He explained two separate sets of design guidelines had been developed. The first, recommended by the Architectural Design Board {ADB}, were general in nature and not regulatory. The second set of design guidelines, developed by the Planning Board and augmented by discussions with consultant Mark Hinshaw, had more details/specifics and were potentially regulatory. Mr. Chave provided a brief history of the design guidelines, explaining in 1993 a court case Anderson v. Issaquah ruled that design decisions must be based on specific, measurable, understandable standards. He noted Issaquah's design guidelines replicated Edmonds' design standards in the ADB section of the code. From 1993 to approximately 1999, the City adopted general guidance to defend against issues raised by Anderson v. Issaquah. In 1999 the City received a report from a consultant, Cedar River Associates, who considered the City's design review process and design guidelines and found the process could be improved by moving design review to the beginning of the process so that the ADB could have more influence on the design. Cedar River also recommended the City develop more clear and specific design guidelines. In 2000 the City hired another consultant, Cascade Design Collaborative, who drafted design guidelines. The City Council forwarded those design guidelines to the Planning Board and the Planning Board spent 2001 and 2002 working on the design guidelines and proposing amendments to the design review process. The Council initially tabled the design guidelines, then forwarded the design guidelines to the Community Services/Development Services Committee where the sign portion of the guidelines were removed and ultimately adopted in 2003. Although there have been discussions in the interim, the subject of design guidelines arose during Comprehensive Plan discussions regarding downtown and an effort began again to adopt design Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 3 Packet190 of 205 guidelines. The Council referred the Planning Board's version of the design guidelines to the ADB who recently returned a different set of guidelines that were more general in nature. He explained the purpose of tonight's public hearing was to gather public input on the options as well as the specific guidelines. Mr. Chave reviewed four options, I} ADB as quasi judicial decision maker on major projects with detailed design guidelines. Mr. Chave explained this was essentially the same as the current process with staff making most design review decisions (design review of signs and minor projects) and ADB holding hearings and making decisions on major projects (those exceeding SEPA threshold of four dwellings or 4,000 square feet). The detailed design guidelines would be the design guidelines developed by the Planning Board with Mr. Hinshaw's recommendations. 2) ADB as quasi judicial decision maker on major projects with detailed code provisions, Mr. Chave explained this was a variation on Option 1, the ADB would review major projects but the ADB recommended design guidelines would be used early in the process to provide information to applicants. He noted the ADB's guidelines could not be used as a regulatory tool as they lacked specificity. In this option, the Council would need to identify key design features to be incorporated into the code as standards. 3) ADB at front of process with general design guidelines and detailed code. Mr. Chave explained in this option the ADB's review would be at the beginning of the process where they could hold a public meeting with applicants to discuss design parameters for the site and make recommendations. He noted having the ADB at the beginning of the process would also allow the Board more influence over the project design. He did not anticipate this option would slowthe process but developers would need to become accustomed to the design discussion occurring earlier in the process. Staff would administer the code, making decisions based on the code and the ADB's recommendations. He noted the ADB's recommendations would only be recommendations and staff would rely on the code as a basis for their decision, therefore, it would be important for the Council to identify key design features such as incentives, specific heights, setbacks, etc. to be incorporated into the code. 4) Integrated Design Review (ADB as Design Standards Review Board) Mr. Chave explained in this option design parameters would be incorporated into the code and general guidelines/checklists provided at the beginning of the process. The ADB would review and evaluate approved projects and the code to determine what in the code influenced the design and potentially needed to be changed. Councilmember Moore asked whether Option 4 would be in addition to approved design guidelines. Mr. Chave answered any design parameters the Council felt strongly about needed to be in the code and specific enough for staff to administer. There could also be general guidelines such as were developed by the ADB but they would not be regulatory. Councilmember Moore asked whether it would be possible to have the ADB act as a Design Standards Review Board as well as having the ADB at the front of the process. Mr. Chave answered that was essentially Option 3; noting the amount of time the ADB could devote to reviewing standards would depend on the amount of time they spent on the pre -application review which was dependent on the threshold. If the thresholds were similar to the current, projects that exceeded the SEPA threshold of four dwellings or 4,000 square feet, there were few of those type of projects each year and the ADB would likely have time to review design standards. Councilmember Plunkett clarified Option 1 was the Planning Board's version which some had felt would eliminate creativity and not lead to better designed buildings. Mr. Chave answered that was a judgment Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 4 Packet191 of 205 call; he agreed Option 1 was the Planning Board's version of the design guidelines with Mr. Hinshaw's recommendations. Councilmember Plunkett clarified Option 2 was the ADB version with the ADB recommended design guidelines that City Attorney Scott Snyder indicated would be difficult to defend. Mr. Snyder responded Option 2 assumed more work would be done to establish criteria and priorities. Councilmember Plunkett recalled staff s original opinion regarding the ADB's recommended design guidelines was that they were not legally defensible. Now staff was indicating they could be defensible with additional work. Mr. Snyder acknowledged his original opinion was adopting the ADB recommended design guidelines could put the City at legal risk. They were workable with additional effort. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Option 3, ADB at front of the process with design guidelines and detailed code, and asked whether the detailed code was the Planning Board's recommendation or an updated code. Mr. Chave answered that option assumed the design guidelines recommended by the ADB would be adopted as recommended to be used up front by the ADB to guide a project and not be regulatory. Any critical aspects of design that the Council did not want altered by a project such as setback, height standards, landscaping standards, etc. would be included in the code. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the detailed code was the Planning Board's version. Mr. Chave answered not necessarily; the Council could select items, either from the Planning Board's recommendations, other sources or by adding specificity to a concept from the ADB's recommended guidelines, that would be adopted in the code. He noted items that were not adopted in the code would not be standards that a project could be required to meet. He summarized the key was to have any design parameters that the Council wanted projects to meet included in the code. Councilmember Plunkett noted Option 4 appeared to eliminate the ADB from the up front process and as well as a quasi judicial decision maker and the ADB essentially became a think tank. Mr. Chave agreed the ADB would be monitoring projects and the code and ensuring the two were compatible. Councilmember Plunkett noted other than managing their time, there was no reason the ADB could not perform the review function in Option 3. Mr. Chave agreed, noting it would depend on the number of projects the ADB reviewed. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the PIanning Board had reviewed the design guidelines since 2001. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board had not reconsidered the design guidelines since recommending them to the Council in 2001/2002 and had not reviewed Mr. Hinshaw's recommendations. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the Planning Board still endorsed the design guidelines they recommended in 2001. Mr. Chave acknowledged it was a moving target; the Planning Board worked on the design guidelines for two years. If the question was whether the Planning Board wanted to review them again, they have said they do not want to. Councilmember Marin recalled one of the conclusions of the Cedar River study was to move the ADB to the front of the process. He was intrigued with having the ADB at the front of the process with the outcome being better design. He asked how long it would take to implement Option 3 if the Council spent 6-8 weeks reviewing the Planning Board version to identify key elements and forwarded those to the Planning Board. Mr. Chave explained Option 3 required modification of the existing process; the more guidance the City Council gave, the less time it would take the Planning Board. Mr. Snyder noted the Cedar River study provided an outline of the process, the process could be designed while the code language was being developed. Council President Dawson observed if the Council was not happy with the design guidelines recommended by the Planning Board in 2001 and wanted design guidelines more like what the ADB recommended, key elements would need to be identified and included in the code. She asked what would Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 5 Packet192 of 205 be done in the meantime and whether the current system could remain in place. Mr. Chave answered the current system was minimal and needed to be expanded. Mr. Snyder noted staff had identified several issues in the code that needed to be addressed. Council President Dawson summarized the amount of detail recommended by the Planning Board was not necessary but some specifics needed to be included in the code. Mr. Chave agreed, noting for example there was little issue with the landscape provisions of the Planning Board recommendations; that section could be considered separately and moved forward. If the Council identified the key elements, staff could develop defensible code language for Council review. Once the Council identified those key elements, the Planning Board's review could be quite rapid. Council President Dawson asked whether Option 3 was the same as Seattle's process. Mr. Chave answered it was similar but much shorter. Council President Dawson asked whether the ADB had the ability to grant incentives. Mr. Chave answered only those that the Council adopted. Mr. Snyder noted the proposed process was much shorter than Seattle's because the ADB did not have that authority. Mr. Chave explained any specific incentives the Council wanted to allow the ADB to grant would need to be identified in the code. Council President Dawson clarified Mr. Snyder's recommendation was if the Council wanted to adopt design guidelines such as the ADB recommended, the ADB would need to be at the front of the process versus as a quasi judicial decision maker. Mr. Snyder answered to adopt what the ADB recommended, their review needed to be at the front of the process. If the ADB was at the end of the process, there was not enough criteria in the design guidelines they recommended on which to base a decision. Council President Dawson commented when the ADB forwarded their recommended design guidelines, they did not anticipate changing their role and she was uncertain whether they would have made the same recommendation if they had been aware it would change their role. She commented it may be beneficial to have Mr. Snyder, the ADB, and members of the development community discuss the ADB's role in the process. Mr. Chave commented Option 3 was similar to Cedar River's recommendation, the difference between that and Seattle's process was Seattle's was a very lengthy process that included multiple meetings with various boards and neighborhood districts. He noted another difference from the current process would be that the ADB's input would occur at the beginning of the process where discussion regarding design rather than review of detailed plans would occur. He noted Option 3 would allow the ADB's expertise at a point in the process when it would do the most good. Mr. Snyder noted the ADB's role in Option 3 would be to influence/encourage good design and not as a regulatory body; projects would not be denied if they did not incorporate the ADB's suggested design elements unless they violated specific code provisions. Council President Dawson commented she also supported the ADB serving as a Design Standards Review Board. Mr. Chave agreed that role would likely also be possible. Mr. Snyder commented for example the ADB could begin to develop individual design standards for each neighborhood district. Councilmember Moore asked at what point would the public's input be in Options 3. Mr. Chave answered it would be at the front of the process at an ADB public meeting. Councilmember Moore asked where else in the process the public could have input. Mr. Chave answered it would be a staff decision which was generally appealable. If the public wanted to influence design, it was best done at the front of the process as it was difficult to influence decisions in the current role of the ADB when developers were committed to a particular design. The purpose of Option 3 was to identify neighborhood issues up front so that alternative designs could be considered. That process was also beneficiaU to applicants as it may reduce the possibility of lengthy appeals that delayed a project. Councilmember Moore commented that even though the ADB would not be a regulatory body in Option 3, it would be a way for the developer to hear the public's concerns. Mr. Chave agreed the key was to do it early enough in the design process so that a developer was not committed to a particular design. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 6 Packet193 of 205 Councilmember Olson noted the ADB's role as the quasi judicial decision maker at the end of the process had not been particularly effective, recalling there had been several buildings that the ADB had to approve because they met the code even though the ADB was not happy with the appearance of the building. Mr. Chave agreed the ADB wanted to influence design but their role at the end of the process has not allowed that. Mr. Snyder observed ADB appeals to the Council or Superior Court were citizen opposition to projects and the ADB approval was one of the necessary administrative remedies they were exhausting. He noted Bauer and other cases were resolved on code provisions and not on design criteria because the design criteria was so vague that the ADB was unable to deny a project on the criteria. As a result the application of the code was taking center stage which was not the intent of the process. Mr. Chave recalled one of Cedar River's observations about Edmonds' process was that the ADB's time was spent on details rather than meaningful aspects of the project. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Scott Schlumberger, Edmonds, a real estate investor/developer expressed concern with the amount of design impact and decision -making staff had. He cautioned against developing a checklist of items to be included in a project, noting the more codified the guidelines were, the more cookie -cutter development resulted. A checklist approach may be possible in a master -planned development but it was not effective with infill development such as occurred in Edmonds. He recommended the City consider design departures such as were allowed by Seattle, noting design departures were often important to making a project pencil out. He supported including the development community in the development of a workable process. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented on the impact that "zone creep" had on the character of neighborhoods. Several other cities were experiencing the same problems created by zone creep. John Heighway, Edmonds, commented the process was important but the Council needed to address basic issues to keep a system in place to ensure development continued. He suggested as part of the process the Council address the following: basic building blocks, maximum lot size, height limit, incentives for additional height, maximum footprint, percentage of ground floor retail, whether ground floor residential was allowed, and notice of public hearings. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, supported using the ADB before a building was designed as it would provide the neighborhood an opportunity to provide input to the developer and the ADB regarding their preferences before a building was designed. Currently the ADB based its approval of a project on whether it complied with the design guidelines regardless of whether it was a good design. A better way would be to consider what design fit the site, what was a good design for the site and what was acceptable to the public. He displayed photographs of several structures on the west side of 5 h Avenue questioning whether some were the best use of the property. He displayed a photograph of a structure that blocked views and: another where a taller structure would not impact views. He summarized providing the ADB the ability to analyze sites and solicit input from the public at the beginning of the process would assist developers in designing a building that best fit the site and was acceptable to the public. Staff could then determine whether the developer's design complied with the ADB's direction and the code. He concluded a collaborative process would result in less controversy and better design. Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, commented the Council and staff were confusing bulk regulations, generally governed by zoning regulations, with design criteria. He did not support the use of design guidelines to establish essential elements such as height. However, because architectural design was ever -changing, he pointed out the difficulty for cities to establish regulations with sufficient flexibility to respond to changes in architecture. He preferred the ADB provide subjective analysis of projects rather than attempt to codify regulations to respond to every site situation. He supported having the ADB up front in the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 7 Packet194 of 205 process and public input such as in Option 3. He expressed concern with potential impact on the timing of projects with the ADB early in the process, noting a developer may only have 45-60 days to conduct their initial review on a parcel. He suggested the ADB be incorporated in the pre -application process and encouraged the ADB to meet more frequently than once a month. Jason Anderson, ADB Chair, Edmonds, recommended the ADB have an opportunity to meet with Mr. Snyder and staff before the Council made a decision. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out the benefits of the ADB meeting with the Planning Board to educate them on design. He recommended the ADB be retained as the quasi judicial decision maker, noting some of the ADB's ideas could be incorporated earlier in the process such as during pre - application meetings. He expressed concern with several photographs/sketches in the ADB recommended design guidelines of buildings that did not conform to the current building height. John Bissell, Edmonds, referred to Mr. Snyder's comment that the ADB would make a recommendation and that a project could not be denied on the basis of design alone. He emphasized Edmonds did not have an intersection of freeways like some cities to bring in economic development; it was only the character of Edmonds that attracted economic development. He noted Option 3 may be workable if the detailed code referred to in Option 3 were developed carefully; if not, Option 2 would be preferable. He noted developers preferred Option 3 due to the amount of time and money developers put into a project to reach the quasi judicial approval process, however, in the best interest of the City it was important to have criteria in the code to support Option 3. He encouraged the Council to pursue Council President Dawson's suggestion to have a joint meeting with developers, the City Attorney, staff and stakeholders. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Moore requested staff respond to Mr. Shapiro's comment regarding changing architectural fashions. Mr. Chave agreed designs changed; for example, development in Seattle's Bell Town likely would be recognizable in 20-30 years as building that occurred in 2005-2006. The challenge in developing design guidelines and/or code was to identify the parameters that were the most important such as scale, height, bulk, setbacks, etc. and let the design community determine the building solution to meet those goals. He noted there could be incentives for providing certain elements or the specifics could be codified such as in Leavenworth. He agreed it was important to allow some flexibility but identify specifics with regard to elements that could not be varied. Mr. Snyder commented when developing design criteria, the criteria needed to be specific enough to meet the Anderson v. Issaquah test and not so detailed that the result was a cookie -cutter approach, The Council also needed to balance the development community's desire for design flexibility and potential .for variances with the community's interest in specific bulk standards. Councilmember Moore asked staff to comment on Mr. Shapiro's concern with the potential for Option 3 to delay the initial review period. Mr. Chave answered it was likely the review would occur sooner and would not slow down the process. Staff would need to determine whether the ADB could be incorporated into pre -application conferences; it may depend on a developer's willingness to wait three weeks versus two for the pre -application conference. Mr. Snyder noted if the design input was provided at the beginning of the process, the Council would need to determine what process would occur at the end to F.drnonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 8 Packet195 of 205 determine whether the ADB's recommendations were adhered to and whether the ADB's input were recommendations or appealable criteria. Staff has assumed the ADB's input up front would be advisory. Mr. Chave commented if the Council wanted to implement Option 3 and liked the ADB's recommended design guidelines, he recommended they be referred to the Planning Board. The Council may also want to develop a list of elements from the Planning Board's and/or ADB recommended design guidelines to be incorporated into the code. He anticipated staff would develop code language to implement the items the Council wanted incorporated in the code. Councilmember Moore noted the list of elements could be changed at any time. Mr. Chave agreed, stating the Council could request the Planning Board and/or ADB recommend changes each year based on challenges they have encountered with the design guidelines. Councilmember Wambolt asked staff to comment on Mr. Schlumberger's reference to Seattle's use of design departures. Mr. Chave explained Seattle had general design parameters and some ability to alter the code standards was allowed. Mr. Snyder provided an example of a Seattle design departure — altering the height calculation depending on the slope and contour of a lot. Mr. Chave acknowledged many of Seattle's design departures were in regard to height in exchange for varying the building design. He noted that may be the reason the design departure route was less desirable for Edmonds. Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding pictures/sketches in the design guidelines of buildings that would not be allowed in Edmonds. Mr. Chave commented the design guidelines were originally intended to apply citywide, thus the reason there were a variety of buildings. Councilmember Plunkett commented design departures were not always related to height. Mr. Chave agreed, noting those regarding height were the most powerful departures. He acknowledged there may be opportunity for allowing design departures in Edmonds. Mr. Snyder provided an example such as alternatives for height calculation depending on the side of the street downtown. Mr. Chave provided an example of a decorative turret above the height limit in exchange for setback or open space. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. Council President Dawson recommended Mr. Chave and Mr. Snyder meet with the ADB and stakeholders including the development community, ACE, and property owners in the area to gather input on the ADB's proposal. Councilmember Moore requested the meeting be well advertised such as advertisement in the newspaper and on Channel 21. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO ASK THAT MR. SNYDER, MR. CRAVE AND MR. BOWMAN GO TO THE ADB AND DISCUSS THE ROLE OF THE ADB AND INVITE THE PUBLIC TO ATTEND THE MEETING. Mr. Snyder welcomed the public's attendance but recommended staff have a discussion with the ADB and a few stakeholders. Council President Dawson clarified her intent would be a dialogue between staff and representatives from the stakeholder groups and not just a staff presentation and audience members providing 3-minute comments. Councilmember Marin spoke in support of the motion, commenting it appeared the Council was leaning toward Option 3 which may assist with guiding discussion at the meeting toward implementation of that option. Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmember Marin, suggesting the meeting focus on Option 3, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 9 Packet196 of 205 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. uitding 5. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHTS IN THE BC ZONE eights in the c zone Development Services Director Duane Bowman reviewed the following list of Council downtown decision points: I , Confirm that the adopted downtown districts are still the ones the Council would like to see. Example: Should there be an area that is optional for commercial development? Should residential use be an allowed use on the first floor? 2. Does the city want first floors in the core area to be retail only and/or 12 - 15 feet in height? Is this "core area" larger than the adopted "Fountain Square" in the Comprehensive Plan but smaller than the adopted "Downtown Mixed Commercial" area? For example, one version of a retail core that's been discussed runs along Main from 3`d to 6 h and along 50' from Walnut to Bell. Does the Council want incentives to achieve first floor ceilings of 15 feet in this "core area'? 3, Confirm that first floor heights in all downtown commercial areas are to be a minimum of 12 feet in height which would allow space to be converted in the future. Confirm that the goal is to have first floors and entries in all commercial areas at street grade. When the street grade is on a slope, the Planning Board will need to develop rules for how the building will maintain a street presence. 5. Confirm that there should be a maximum of two stories at the street, with a possible third story if set back from the street front. 5.a. Do you want buildings to be set back from the street property line in order to have wider sidewalks? 5.b. Do you want additional incentives in exchange for allowing a third floor? Example: additional street -level open space, Should there be smaller buildings downtown? What incentive system could be, used to achieve this? Note: There is an interaction between a building's size and the ability to have underground parking in order to meet existing parking requirements. If the Council wants to encourage smaller buildings through incentives, parking requirements could be waived for commercial space if the building is under a certain size. Larger buildings could be required to undergo more extensive design review. 7. Confirm that there can be exceptions that can extend above the roof of the building such as decorative cornices, parapets, clock towers or other building enhancements? Confirm maximum building height limit. Planning Manager Rob Chave presented a concept staff developed to address height calculation on sloped lots. He displayed an example of a building on a downhill slope and identified the east and south elevations. He explained the current average grade rule for calculating height yielded 25+5 at the top of the building on the east elevation, He noted the height of the structure at the street on the south elevation was less than 25 feet, however, on the west, the building was appropriate 40 feet in height due to the slope on the site. He identified the commercial floor at or below eye level. He summarized the problems with the building were the height at the rear lot line was out of scale with adjoining properties and the location of the commercial floor on the street side was problematic. He explained when staff attempted to develop a rule that would accomplish setbacks as well as tie the building to the street, they found if the height were set at the lower of 25 feet from the street or 30 feet Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 10 Packet197 of 205 acres — which the District rejected. She provided assurance the Council was trying its best to ensure there was a park in that area. She advised another update was scheduled on the March 21 agenda. Scout Troop Scout Troop Introduction 367 Councilmember Marin introduced Scout Troop 367 who were attending the Council meeting working on their Citizenship merit badge. 8. PRESENTATION ON DESIGN GUIDELINES PROPOSAL BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN [Design BOARD Guidelines Council President Dawson advised a public hearing on the design guidelines was scheduled for March 21; no action would be taken by the Council tonight. Jason Anderson, President, Architectural Design Board (ADB), explained the ADB was tasked with reviewing the design guidelines; the draft design guidelines were contained in the Council packet. He explained the previous design guidelines were somewhat piecemeal and the proposed draft was a more uniform document that removed details, making them more ambiguous which would allow a designer/developer to be creative with their solutions. He relayed that the ADB wanted issues dictated by the code to be contained in the code rather than the design guidelines. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained a 1993 court of appeals decision struck down Issaquah's design guidelines as lacking sufficient standards to inform a developer of their obligations He explained this was particularly relevant to Edmonds as the City's design guidelines were written by the same attorney as Issaquah's and were identical. At the time the solution was to begin adopting design guidelines to fill the gap. He clarified the main point of Anderson v. Issaquah was a city had an obligation to inform a developer of their obligations. In a footnote, the court cited a Texas case that utilized pictures, the reason the City's design guidelines contained a lot of pictures. From 1993 — 1999, the City began the gradual process of filling in the gall by adopting pictures and guidelines with numbers. In 1999 the City hired Cedar River Consultant Group to perform a study. Issues raised by the Cedar River study included the timing of design review, lack of a positive role for the ADB and recognition that there were inadequate design review guidelines. One of the main questions asked of the Council and ADB in 1999 was whether they wanted to use the Seattle process. He explained the Seattle ADB was comprised of architects, engineers and professionals who meet and collaborate with neighborhoods and developers. The design guidelines proposed by the ADB contained a checklist that he recognized from the Seattle process. At the time of the Cedar River Study, the ADB and Council advised staff and Cedar River it was more important to retain the current Edmonds process whereby the ADB was a quasi judicial decision -making body. To do that under Anderson v. Issaquah, the ADB must have clear criteria on which to act. In the Seattle process, which is similar to the draft design guidelines proposed by the ADB, at the beginning of a Project the ADB identifies what criteria the project would need to meet as well as engages in a collaborative effort with citizens and the developer. The developer then makes their investment, does their design and presents it at which point the project is a staff decision. Staff reviews the list and determines whether the developer met the criteria. He noted that was a collaborative, upfront design process that allowed the ADB to have a voice in the design of the building which he suggested may result in a better design product but was not a quasi judicial process under Anderson v. Issaquah. From 2000-2002, the City, staff and consultants proceeded on the assumption that the ADB would remain the review body and the design consultant developed specific design criteria. The design guidelines recommended by the ADB tonight have come full circle. He noted the ADB has been consistent, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 9 Packet198 of 205 expressing their dissatisfaction with the process and desire for a greater role in design. However, if the intent was to have a design board that was a regulatory entity, there needed to be clear design criteria that established who, what, when and where a developer was supposed to do so that when/if a project was appealed, the ADB had the tools/criteria to determine whether the project met the criteria (the Anderson test). The other method, which he assured was equally valid, was to have the ADB at the front of the process where they worked collaboratively with neighbors and developers, completed the checklist and had a greater impact on design at a point when the developer did not have a great deal invested in design. Regardless of the approach, whether design guidelines in the code or a collaborative design, for anything that must be done such as 12-15 foot first floor ceiling heights, retail space downtown, massing, sidewalk orientation, setback for third floors, there would need to be clear criteria. He noted the design guidelines proposed by the ADB reflected "should" rather than "shall" and state that each project would face different design realities. He noted this was not a process to turn something down. If the Council was interested in a collaborative process, the must -haves and shalls could be contained in the zoning ordinance for each zoning district. If the desire was to retain Edmonds' way of doing things with appeals that come to the Council on closed record appeal, there needed to be more clear, concise, enforceable design guidelines such as were developed by the Planning Board. He pointed out under Anderson v. Issaquah a city had to tell a developer what to do and in order to deny a project, the reviewing body needed to be able to identify what criteria they failed to meet. Council President Dawson asked why the Council rejected changing the role of the ADB in 1999, noting at least five of the current Councilmembers were not on the Council at that time. Mr. Snyder recalled there were several factors, 1) a desire to maintain the current Edmonds way where the ADB was the design body and citizens had the opportunity to bring meaningful appeals of projects, 2) the concerns of a number of area developers such as Rob Michel and an architect, Tony Shapiro, who testified that a change in the process would bog down review and delay development. Council President Dawson commented Mr. Michel, a member of the ADB, may have changed his mind in that the ADB was suggesting this different process. Mr. Snyder answered he was unsure whether the ADB understood the implications of the design guidelines they proposed. The design guidelines proposed by the ADB would work with the ADB at the start of the process. Mr. Snyder relayed that Councilmember Plunkett had forwarded a copy of the ADB-proposed design guidelines to Municipal Research whose planning consultant indicated the design guidelines were reasonable. When he explained where in the process the Edmonds ADB came, Municipal Research understood the dilemma. Mr. Snyder referred to the checklist in the design guidelines proposed by the ADB, explaining if the ADB was at the front of the process, the checklist would be completed at that time. He questioned when the checklist would be completed if the ADB was at the end of the process. Council President Dawson commented there appeared to be a policy decision to be made; if the Council accepted the design guidelines proposed by the ADB, the role of the ADB would need to be changed by moving them to the front of the process. If the ADB were to retain their current role in the process, design guidelines such as the Planning Board recommended that contained more details/standards that could be applied in a quasi judicial setting would need to be adopted. Mr. Snyder agreed, pointing out the details could also be added to the code rather than in the design guidelines and the ADB recommended design guidelines utilized at the front of the process. Council President Dawson suggested the Council be provided the Cedar River Study prior to the public hearing to assist them with determining the policy direction and would allow the public to comment on which method they preferred. She clarified the design guidelines the ADB recommended could not be utilized as the process currently exists. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 10 Packet199 of 205 Councilmember Plunkett recalled at the retreat the Council got the impression that the design guidelines proposed by the ADB would not work; however, tonight Mr. Snyder had inferred they were upholdable if applied correctly. Mr. Snyder explained the ADB's approach would work if the ADB was up front in the process because the ADB could use the generalizations and checklist to work with the developer and the public to set specific standards for the project. The ADB's approach did not work in the existing process. His reaction at the retreat, when he first saw the design guidelines proposed by the ADB and in view of the Council's 2000 decision to retain the ADB in their existing role, was that they were not workable unless the Council revisited their policy decision. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mr. Snyder's comment that having the ADB and residents involved up front in the process would result in better designed buildings. Mr. Snyder answered it would provide the flexibility for better design. Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council, staff and citizens were interested in well designed buildings. He asked whether there was an appeal to the Hearing Examiner on either path. Mr. Snyder explained the Seattle approach included a series of community meetings, the ADB set the design criteria guidelines for a project which citizens or the developer may appeal to the Hearing Examiner or Council. The final approval by staff is also appealable. He analogized the final approval to a subdivision process; all the action was during the preliminary plat, once the preliminary plat was approved, it was appealable but it was via review of a checklist that did not allow any discretion. He suggested the first process put a premium on citizens paying attention because by the time building permits were being issued and a project reached final approval, it would be too late to have any meaningful input. Councilmember Plunkett commented the essence of having the ADB upfront in the process was to allow citizen involvement. Councilmember Orvis commented if the ADB were moved upfront in the process, there was no opportunity late in the process for a citizen challenge but they could challenge whether the "must -haves" had been met. Mr. Snyder reiterated the Council had much more power legislatively than quasi judicially. He recommended the Council identify any "must -haves" in the Code. Councilmember Orvis noted the Council could also define bulk standards in the zoning code. Mr. Snyder agreed, explaining it did not matter whether the specifics were in the design guidelines or the zoning code. Councilmember Moore asked who was at the end of the process if the ADB was upfront in the process. Mr. Snyder answered that was up to the Council; in Seattle it was a staff decision because at that point it became an administrative decision and not a discretionary decision. He noted any staff decision was appealable; however, it would be difficult to win an appeal on a design approval unless one of the requirements was not met. Councilmember Moore asked where in the code the "must -haves" would be. Mr. Snyder answered in the past they have been in the design guidelines, but they could be in the bulk standards for each zone, recognizing that there may be, over time, different standards for different zones. He noted that was the value of public input, developing criteria specific to each zoning district. Councilmember Marin asked whether the upfront method assumed a tightly written code. Mr. Snyder answered a tightly written code would ensure the "must -haves" were met. Mr. Bowman supported having the most important issues codified so that the ADB knew a project must have those elements and could work with a developer on other issues. The stronger the requirements, the more likely a developer would submit an application that contained all those elements. Councilmember Marin asked how tightly written the City's code was. Mr. Bowman answered it was not tightly written, explaining during the rewrite of the code, some sections such as the design guidelines Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 11 Packet200 of 205 could be adopted sooner than the overall code. Mr. Snyder noted the rewrite was explicating the status quo and not creating new policy. Council President Dawson remarked some of the frustration with the existing ADB process and the Council's review of decisions was the list of amenities developers could choose from. She preferred to identify what elements were required rather than choosing from a list. If the Council wanted to move the ADB to the start of the process, the make-up of the ADB could be changed to include more community members for example. Mr. Snyder agreed the make-up of the ADB was at the Council's discretion; the ADB was not a state required board. He noted the more the City's code was explicated, the more likely the result would be a standard, cookie -cutter approach. Council President Dawson noted the ADB at the front of the process would provide more flexibility. Council President Dawson suggested the Public Outreach Committee consider having notices for ADB review displayed on Channel 21. Mr. Snyder pointed out ADB review only applied to major projects that required SEPA — over 4,000 square feet or 4+ units. Councilmember Olson asked if moving the ADB to the front of the process and tightening the code would eliminate some of the problems that have arisen over the past couple years such as a developer that put a great deal of time and money into a project and having their project denied at the last minute. Mr. Snyder explained one of the purposes of GMA and Anderson v. Issaquah was to provide developers certainty. Councilmember Olson commented if the ADB were at the front of the process, the public would have more input at the beginning rather than at a point when it was more difficult to affect the outcome. Mr. Anderson advised the ADB's agenda was currently already posted on Channel 21. He advised two of the seven ADB members were community members. When the Council tasked the ADB with reviewing the design guidelines, it was his understanding the Council wanted the professionals/community members on the ADB to determine what needed to be added/subtracted to the design guidelines to address the gaps. He referred to ADB Member Michael Lowell's July 2005 memo to the Council regarding the role of the ADB to which the Council provided no direction. As a result, the ADB assumed their role was not changing and the design guidelines were intended to assist staff and developers. He questioned why the proposed design guidelines necessitated the ADB being upfront in the process, finding the design guidelines were essentially the same without the numbers that the professionals preferred be in the code. Council President Dawson clarified the guidelines proposed by the ADB would not pass the Anderson v. Issaquah test with the ADB in their current role; they were acceptable if the role of the ADB were changed. Mr. Snyder explained the checklist in the design guidelines that the ADB proposed was great but if an applicant designed their building and came to the ADB at the end of the process, when was the checklist completed and what criteria did staff use to complete the checklist? He noted the checklist was completed collaboratively in the Seattle process where the ADB was at the beginning. He reiterated the design guidelines proposed by the ADB did not contain any "shalls," only "shoulds" and stated that each site would face different design criteria, As a document to provide final decision -making criteria, it failed the Anderson v. Issaquah test. He found it a wonderful document if it were utilized as in Seattle to help develop design criteria for each project in a collaborative manner. Mr. Snyder commented the reason the design guidelines were developed was because the requirements were not in the code. Mr. Anderson relayed the ADB's recommendation that the requirements be in the code and not in the design guidelines. Councilmember Marin staffed this may need to be a 2-step process; put the design guidelines proposed by the Planning Board in place now, keep the ADB at the end and work over the next 2 years to incorporate the important elements in the code that would support the ADB moving upfront in the process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 12 Packet201 of 205 Councilmember Moore clarified Mr. Anderson wanted the design guidelines proposed by the ADB adopted but the ADB kept at the end of the process. Mr. Anderson agreed, commenting the proposed design guidelines were viewed as a tool for. the ADB, developers and staff to facilitate better design. Councilmember Plunkett commented on the research he had conducted by a Municipal Research attorney as well as by a planner, pointing out Mr. Anderson would need to demonstrate to the Council something that outweighed what the attorneys had determined. He thanked the ADB for their efforts, commenting the result would be better designed buildings. Council President Dawson advised the Council would hold a public hearing on March 21 and she urged the public to provide comment for the Council's consideration. She advised there now appeared to be a third option, pass the design guidelines recommended by the Planning Board and then determine whether to change the process. She encouraged the Council to consider what role they wanted for the ADB. She anticipated some Council action on March 21. Councilmember Orvis was intrigued by moving the ADB upfront in the process, remarking some of his objections to recently constructed buildings downtown could be resolved via bulk standards. With regard to the third alternative, Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to explain why having the ADB upfront in the process could not be enacted sooner. Councilmember Olson was also intrigued by having the ADB upfront in the process as an opportunity to get better designed buildings via a collaborative effort at the beginning of the design process. Mr. Bowman assumed what the Council wanted for the public hearing was input from the community regarding the ADB review process, design guidelines and whether the ADB should be a collaborative, upfront process or the quasi judicial decision -maker at the end of the process. Council President Dawson commented the reason the Council decided at the retreat to hold a public hearing was their intent to adopt design guidelines than continuing to postpone. Mr. Bowman advised comments at the public hearing could also identify features to be incorporated into the design guidelines. Mr. Bowman suggested staff's presentation review the history, identify all options and take public comment. Mr. Snyder reiterated regardless of where they were, in the design guidelines or in the code, the City needed to have specific design criteria. If the Council wanted to adopt the design guidelines proposed by the ADB, the procedure would need to be changed. He suggested the Council first identify the design criteria they wanted implemented and then where in the code they would be located. Councilmember Plunkett suggested at the public hearing staff provide the history and the two paths as well as a timeline of what it would take to put the ADB at the front of the process. Mr. Snyder volunteered to make a presentation to the ADB to describe his concerns and ensure that the ADB understood the choices, The Council agreed it would be appropriate for Mr. Snyder to meet with the ADB. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson advised of the upcoming Mayor's Neighborhood Tour where he would hold meetings ayor's at eight locations during March and April beginning at 7:00 p.m. He advised there would be no agenda or Neighborhood Tour topic, just an opportunity for citizens to tell him what was on their minds. He advised citizens would be receiving a mailer this weekend with all the locations. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 13 Packet202 of 205 AM-818 Proposed Resolution recommending Emergency Moratorium for Condominium Development Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 02/06/2007 Submitted By: Jana Spellman, City Council Submitted For: Council President Pritchard Olson Time: 10 Minutes Department: City Council Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Proposed Resolution of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, recommending to the Snohomish County Council that an emergency moratorium be enacted on applications for condominium -related, low -density, multiple -family residential developments in the unincorporated portion of the City of Edmonds Municipal Urban Growth Area. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action None. Narrative The South Snohomish Cities Committee has been working on the problems of individual, single-family homes being built in multi -family residential zones in cities urban growth areas. These are called "air space" condos. S. Developers are using multi -family standards to build individual, single-family homes in the LDMR zone, which the codes were not set up to accommodate. Typical components of the condominium LDMRs include land use densities that exceed those set forth in the comprehensive plans, private streets with inadequate width and parking, lack of sidewalks and pedestrian amenities, residential street design dominated by garage doors, and lack of open space and landscaping. The South Snohomish Cities Committee has met with Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon and Craig Ladiser, Director of Snohomish County Planning & Development Services and they both recognize there is a problem. They are working on addressing these issues. In the meantime, the Snohomish County Council continues to approve these applications. Edmonds is asking the Snohomish County Council, in conjunction with eight other cities from South Snohomish County, to enact a moratorium on applications until new standards can be adopted. Bothell, Brier, Lynnwood, Mukilteo, Mountlake Terrace, Mill Creek and Woodway have already passed resolutions requesting a moratorium. Therefore, I would respectfully ask the Council to approve the Proposed Resolution which recommends to the Snohomish County Council that an emergency moratorium be enacted on applications for condominium -related, low -density, multiple -family residential developments in the unincorporated portion of the City of Edmonds Municipal Urban Growth Area. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Reso 1140 LDMR Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status i City Clerk Linda Hynd 02/01/2007 11:57 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/01/2007 12:13 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 02/01/2007 02:39 PM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 01/31/2007 10:55 AM Final Approval Date: 02/01/2007 Packet203 of 205 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 1/23/07 RESOLUTION NO: 1140 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RECOMMENDING TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL THAT AN EMERGENCY MORATORIUM BE ENACTED ON APPLICATIONS FOR CONDOMINIUM RELATED LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE UNINCORPORATED PORTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS MUNICIPAL URBAN GROWTH AREA. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds adopted its Growth Management Act (GMA) compliant comprehensive plan update in November 2004 for the incorporated and unincorporated area of the City's designated Urban Growth Area (UGA); and, WHEREAS, the City comprehensive plan, policies, development regulations and design guidelines provide for and encourage well -designed livable and walk able neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, Snohomish County adopted its updated comprehensive plan in December 2005 for the unincorporated lands within the County, including areas within the City's designated UGA; and WHEREAS, the designated future land uses set forth in both the City and County comprehensive plan are generally consistent within the City's UGA; and WHEREAS, the City comprehensive plan includes policies that enable unincorporated lands to petition the City for annexation only for those lands contained in the City's UGA; and WHEREAS, the County comprehensive plan includes policies that encourage unincorporated lands within the urban growth areas of adjacent cities to annex in order to receive the full range of urban services; and WHEREAS, although the land use designations on the City and County comprehensive plan are generally consistent, the implementation of such plans and policies differ widely among both jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the county development regulations that allow condominium related low density multiple family residential developments (LDMRs) have resulted in land use {wss65066LDoc;1/00006.900000/) - I - Packet204 of 205 densities, infrastructure services and neighborhood character that are clearly inconsistent and incompatible with the City plan and policies; and WHEREAS, typical components of the condominium LDMRs include land use densities that exceed those set forth in the comprehensive plans, private streets with inadequate width and parking, lack of sidewalks and pedestrian amenities, residential street design dominated by garage doors, and lack of open space and landscaping; and WHEREAS, such land use inconsistency and incompatibilities may negatively affect the City's willingness to annex such developments, NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council recommends that the Snohomish County Council immediately enact a six-month emergency moratorium on applications for detached condominium related LDMR developments. Section 2. That the County Executive direct the County Department of Planning and Development Services to work with the City of Edmonds Department of Development Services to prepare amendments to County development regulations to achieve consistency among development regulations that promote well -designed, livable residential neighborhoods within the City's UGA. RESOLVED this day of , 2007. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. 1140 {wss65066LDoc;1/00006.900000/) - 2 - Packet205 of 205