Loading...
2007.04.17 CC Agenda PacketAGENDA Edmonds City Council Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds 6:45 p.m. - Interview Candidates for the Architectural Design Board 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2• Consent Agenda Items A. Roll Call B. AM-932 Approval of City Council Retreat Minutes of March 23-24, 2007. C. AM-933 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 3, 2007. D. AM-928 Approval of claim checks #95345 through #95507 for April 5, 2007 in the amount of $377,063.39 and #95508 through #95682 for April 12, 2007 in the amount of $441,911.82. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #44670 through #44724 for the period of March 16 through March 31, 2007 in the amount of $817,018.64. E. AM-927 Proclamation in honor of Faith Community Church - 50th Anniversary, April 15, 2007. F. AM-930 Authorization to call for bids for the Friar Tuck Lane Drainage Improvements Project. G. AM-931 Authorization to call for bids for the 100th Avenue West Right -of -Way Stabilization Project. H. AM-942 Authorization for Mayor to sign Professional Services Agreement with Reid Middleton, Inc. for the Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project. I. AM-939 2007 First Quarter Budget Amendment. 3. AM-936 Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Bruce O'Neill and Steve Bullock to the Architectural Design (5 Min) Board. 4. AM-938 Proclamation in honor of Earth Week in Edmonds, April 14-22, 2007. (5 Min) 5. AM-935 Proposed Ordinance adopting a Six -year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the years (15 Min) 2007 through 2013. 6. AM-940 Closed Record Review of the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the rezone from (15 Min) Neighborhood Business (BN) to Community Business (BC). The site is located at 24310 76th Ave. W. Applicant: A.D. Shapiro Architects for Ron Knowles. File No. R-2005-97. Packet Page 1 of 396 7. AM-941 Closed Record Review of the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the rezone from Multiple (45 Min) Residential (RM-1.5) to Multiple Residential - Edmonds Way (RM-EW), and from Community Business (BC) to Community Business - Edmonds Way (BC-EW). The site is located at 23012, 23014, 23028, 23100, 23110 Edmonds Way, 9133 232nd St. SW, and the vacant lot at the northwest corner of 232nd St. SW & Edmonds Way. Applicant: A.D. Shapiro for SGA Corp. File No. R-2006-95. 8• Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person) 9. AM-937 Discussion of proposed ordinance amending provisions of City Code Chapter 5.05 relating to Animal (30 Min) Control. Discussion will include deleting cats from the exemption of roaming at large as well as requiring licensing of cats. (Requested by Councilmember Moore.) 10. AM-944 Proposed Ordinance establishing a period in which to prepare an application and forms of decision. (15 Min) 11. AM-934 Approval of Non -Represented Compensation (NRC) Policy. (15 Min) 12. AM-943 Report on City Council Committee Meetings. (15 Min) 13. (5 Min) Mayor's Comments 14. (15 Min) Council Comments 15. Adjourn Packet Page 2 of 396 AM-932 2.13. Approval of Retreat Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/17/2007 Submitted By: Sandy Chase Time: Consent Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Retreat Minutes of March 23-24, 2007. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft Retreat Minutes. Link: Draft Retreat Minutes Fiscal Impact A ffarhmanfe Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/11/2007 04:39 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/12/2007 09:25 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 11:50 AM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Started On: 04/11/2007 04:37 Chase PM Final Approval Date: 04/12/2007 Packet Page 3 of 396 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES MARCH 23 - 2412006 The Edmonds City Council retreat was called to order at 9:10 a.m. at the Country Inn in La Conner, Washington. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Friday, March 23 Gary Haakenson, Mayor Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President Deanna Dawson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember (arrived 2:46 p.m..) Mauri Moore, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Saturday March 24 Gary Haakenson, Mayor Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President Deanna Dawson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember PUBLIC PRESENT Friday, March 23 & Saturday. March 24 None STAFF PRESENT Friday March 23 & Saturday March 24 Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Linda Carl, Senior Executive Assistant Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst Jeannie Dines, Recorder WORK SESSION WITH CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY COUNCIL Executive Sessions City Attorney Scott Snyder was present for this discussion. Councilmembers reviewed a draft with amendments to the Council Rules of Procedure regarding Executive Sessions. Discussion followed regarding topics appropriate for Executive Session, ability for a majority of the Council to determine whether to make an issue/topic public or remain in Executive Session, relevant State statutes, the Council's practice of keeping minutes of Executive Session to maintain record of consensus, mechanics of notice, and reaching consensus in Executive Session what would be discussed in open session. It was agreed Executive Session information would not be released absent a consensus in Executive Session regarding information to be made public. Request for Public Records Council discussed the cost of requests for public records and the City's obligation to provide public records. Mr. Snyder suggested periodic training for each department by Ogden Murphy Wallace; Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23-24, 2007 Page 1 Packet Page 4 of 396 advising City Clerk Sandy Chase was scheduling a training session. Discussion followed regarding difficulty determining what records the public wanted and assistance that would be provided via an electronic index of all records. Suggestions included having a presentation at Council to educate the public regarding how to request records and the cost, requiring plans be electronically submitted so that they were easily reproducible, and establishing a committee to discuss rules and procedures and possibly adopting the Attorney General's model rules. It was agreed the Finance Committee would discuss rules and procedures for public records requests and possibly adopting the Attorney General's model rules. Council/Mqyor/Staff/Attorney Roles Mr. Snyder reviewed the roles of the Council, Mayor, Staff and City Attorney. He suggested establishing rules for Council committees and the duties of the Council President and how those duties were carried out. He also recommended when the public makes a request, the Council make a motion or refer the matter to committee. Discussion followed regarding who has the ability to terminate the City Attorney, when Council could hire its own counsel, administrative issues versus policy issues, how issues were placed on committee agendas, the purpose of committees if all topics are forwarded to the Council, examples of when the committee structure worked well, and other Councils that hold committee -of -the - whole meetings on committee night. Suggestions included scheduling agenda items so that the City Attorney was not required to attend every meeting, redirecting citizens' energy into process, involving the public to avoid adversary roles, and holding committee -of -the -whole meetings rather than committee meetings. Boards and Commissions Councilmembers discussed whether the Council should make appointments versus the Council confirming the Mayor's appointments. Following a brief discussion, Councilmembers agreed to discuss this topic further tomorrow. Miscellaneous Councilmember Plunkett raised the issue of the method by which Councilmembers were recognized to speak at Council meetings, suggesting the Council returning to the practice of Councilmembers raising their hand to be recognized versus calling out. Mr. Snyder pointed out the rule was that each Councilmember had an opportunity to speak before a member was recognized for a second time which was intended to avoid a back -and -forth commentary between Councilmembers. He advised some cities use a light panel that allows Councilmembers to push a button to be recognized. It was agreed to ask Mayor Haakenson to return to policy of recognizing Councilmembers via raised hands. Suggestions included that the Council and Mayor do a better job of avoiding back and forth commentary, not beginning debate until a motion was on the floor, having the Mayor invite comments from Councilmembers in a left to right sequence with the Mayor speaking in that order as well, possibly seating the Mayor at one end of the dais so that he can see the Council better, and if a topic is a Councilmember's issue, they be given deference to make the motion. Mr. Snyder advised of his plans to develop clearer guidelines for quasi judicial proceedings. Council President Olson agreed to work with Ms. Spellman on a list of procedural changes. A brief discussion followed regarding the order in which Audience Comments appears on the agenda; no change to the current policy of scheduling Audience Comments after public hearings was recommended. Mayor Haakenson and Staff joined the Council at 11:20 a.m. Discussion with Mayor Haakenson and Council Mayor Haakenson explained he requested staff structure the retreat around the City's financial situation. He advised another issue that would not be addressed today but had the potential to be expensive was the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23-24, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page 5 of 396 extensive backlog in City building maintenance projects. He suggested the Council consider, 1) a budget adjustment at end of year to replenish the fund, or 2) adding $100,000 from the sale of the property associated with Angler's Crossing to the fund. Mayor Haakenson distributed a summary of the work to date by the Citizens Committee on U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Public Works Director Noel Miller and he commented on current City practices to reduce energy use and promote energy reductions. Mayor Haakenson also included a newspaper article entitled, "Effects of Climate Change." He supported the formation of a subcommittee to discuss incorporating green building codes into City codes, suggesting a Councilmember serve on that committee along with staff and builders. Next Mayor Haakenson raised the issue of creating a parking space for a hybrid plug-in in the Public Safety parking lot. He offered to have staff investigate the cost to provide electricity to a parking space as well as a fee for the service (to avoid a potential gift of public funds) if the Council was interested in pursuing this issue. Discussion followed regarding the current inability to commercially purchase plug-in vehicles, approximately 30 currently licensed in Washington, providing signage that the parking space was available for that use but not prohibiting other parking, what other types of vehicles could use the plug-in, and the potential marketing opportunity the availability of the plug-in would provide. Councilmembers expressed a desire for further information regarding what type of other vehicles could use the plug-in. It was agreed staff would bring further information to the Council at a work meeting regarding providing a plug in for electric vehicles. Mayor Haakenson advised Human Resources Manager Debi Humann investigated a medical insurance plan available through AWC that would save the City money, a portion of which could be offered to unions via a post -retirement health savings plans. The plan was described to union leaders and staff offered to have AWC make a presentation on the plan; their initial reaction was three of four unions were not interested and one thought they would be losing something. The unions have until Monday to advise whether they want staff to pursue the plan with AWC. If the unions were not interested, Ms. Humann will not pursue it. Therefore, the agenda item regarding medical coverage would not be discussed further today. He advised staff may pursue this plan in the future for non -represented employees to determine if there were significant savings and offer it to the unions again in the future. Mayor Haakenson advised the State's capital budget includes $500,000 for the purchase of the former Woodway Elementary School property and $100,000 for the Shell Creek property. It was suggested 2-3 Councilmembers call Senators Paull Shin and Darlene Fairley today to urge their support. 1. SESSION OVERVIEW AND GOALS a) Increase Understanding of Edmonds Current Financial Position Administrative Services Director Dan Clements provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Positioning for Our Financial Future." He reviewed the City's current financial situation including Moody's Al Bond Rating, General Fund reserves that include a General Fund balance of $4.2 million as of December 31, 2006 and an emergency reserve balance of $2 million. He reviewed efficiencies and best business practices that include Council e-agendas, staff training and continuing education, purchase cards for acquisition, expanded City Hall hours, biennial budget, on-line credit card payment, financial system overhaul, new phone system, new permitting system and new business licensing system. He described funds provided in 2001 via the Sno-Isle annexation; expenditure cuts of $1,248,000 in 2003; Street Transfer reductions in 2006, 2007 and 2008; and revenue increases that included an EMS levy in 2003; use of banked capacity in 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007; Olympic View Water franchise in 2004; LID Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23-24, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page 6 of 396 Guarantee in 2004, 2005, and 2007; utility tax increases in 2003, 2007 and 2008; and possibly sales tax sourcing in 2007. Council requested staff provide the amount of savings provided via Council e-agendas. b) Describe Edmonds Future Financial Position Mr. Clements reviewed a chart illustrating revenue growth 2002-2008. He displayed a projection for years 2007 — 2012 with and without a 2007 EMS levy. During and following Mr. Clements' presentation, discussion ensued regarding projections for sales tax sourcing, concern with the 2009-2010 budget, inclusion of the EMS levy in the 2007 budget, and impact on the budget if an EMS levy was not pursued. Next, Mr. Clements described budget drivers, reviewing the rate of increase in property tax (2%), sales tax (5%) and utility tax (3.5%) versus the rate of increase in labor (6%), fleet (6.1 %) and construction (10%) versus CPI (4.1 %). c) Discuss Strategies for Managing the City's Future Finances Mr. Clements explained strategies for managing the City's financial future include revenue strategies, efficiency strategies, reduction strategies and compensation strategies. He advised revenue strategies were grouped into three major categories, those requiring Council approval, those requiring voter approval and those requiring State legislative approval. He advised the Council would participate in an exercise later to identify revenue strategies and reduction strategies they were interested in staff gathering additional information and strategies they were not interested in pursuing. d) Council Sign -Off on Policies to Address Edmonds Financial Future i) Revenue Policies ii) Efficiency Policies iii) Budget Reduction Policies iv) Compensation Policies 2) Edmonds Present Financial Position a) Overview of Current Financial Position b) Positives, Negatives, and Exposures c) Primary Budget Drivers d) General Fund Projection Model 3. Positioning Edmonds for Its Financial Future a) Revenue Options Assistant Administrative Services Director Kathleen Junglov and Mr. Clements reviewed the following revenue options that required Council approval, an estimate of the revenue each would provide in 2008- 2011 and pros and cons of each: • B & O Tax (0.2% Maximum) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23-24, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page 7 of 396 • Cable TV utility tax to 6% • Gambling tax • Water, Sewer, Storm Utility Tax to 7% • Reduce Cemetery Subsidy — Police Chief Stern was asked to research the rate and billing of aid provided to DUI stop • Broadband Initiative • Emergency Reserve Ms. Junglov and Mr. Clements reviewed the following revenue options that required voter approval, an estimate of the revenue each would provide in 2008-2011, and pros and cons of each: • General Property Levy Lid Lift • EMS Levy • Transportation Benefit District Mr. Clements reviewed the following revenue options that required State Legislature approval and an estimate of the revenue each would provide in 2008-2011: • Ferry Traffic Mitigation — it was suggested Mr. Doubleday be asked how this could most effectively be pursued. • REET for Transportation Ms. Junglov reviewed the following additional revenue options and pros and cons of each: • Sale of surplus property • Traffic light cameras • Seattle Internet charges — Mr. Clifton advised of staff s plans to research the case that Seattle won recently that would allow them to impose a utility tax on the internet. • Annexation of a portion of Esperance i) 2007 EMS Levy (Tom) Mr. Clements advised the current budget calls for approval of a 2007 EMS levy which would become effective in 2008. Fire Chief Tom Tomberg described funds provided via an EMS levy ($1.2 million), explaining it would maintain existing service levels, balance the 2008 budget and address unmet Fire needs. The EMS levy would increase the levy from 0.36124 to 0.5 per thousand dollars of assessed valuation. He explained the rate decreases annually due to tax limitations and as the rate falls, the General Fund subsidy increases. The impact on a $500,000 home would be $5.83/month or $70 annually. He advised if the levy failed, it would return to the existing rate. He reviewed the timeline for placing the levy on the primary election ballot and the cost of an election. Discussion followed regarding concern with the timing of the EMS levy and the tight timeline for a 2007 vote, time necessary to educate the public regarding a transport fee, and the potential impact the EMS levy could have on the Sound Transit/RTID transportation package that includes funding for Edmonds Crossing. It was the consensus of the Council to delay an EMS levy until 2008 ii) City & Levy b) Efficiency Reductions c) Efficiency & Reduction Options Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23-24, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page 8 of 396 Mr. Clements reviewed the following efficiency options: • Public records request: automation • Internet payment extended to all operations • Eliminate paper/paper forms where possible • Reassigning staff based on current needs • City medical coverage and options • City bargaining and compensation policies (Councilmember Marin arrived at 2:46 p.m.) Ms. Humann described the following labor cost efficiency options • Alternatives for medical plan coverage • Compensation and bargaining policies A brief discussion regarding negotiation strategies followed. Ms. Humann reviewed the existing L5 non -represented employee compensation plan including inequities, difficulty finding comparables for approximately half the non -represented positions, represented employees' compensation often exceed their non -represented supervisors, lack of any internal comparison, and time intensive for HR staff. She recalled an alternate compensation plan, the NRC plan, was presented to the Council in August 2006. The Council made a decision to retain the existing plan; all non -represented employees received a 3% COLA and a merit pool was established in the 2007-2008 budget. She suggested the Council consider the following alternatives, 1) look at the NRC and identify weakness and develop alternative strategies, 2) look at the existing L5 and identify weakness and develop alternate strategies or 3) develop an independent compensation plan. Discussion followed regarding concerns with the existing L5 plan and the proposed NRC plan, pros and cons of a salary survey, merit pay dependent on department/independent goals, loss of key employees, difficulty replacing employees due to the salary structure, difficulties fmding comparables, lower staffing levels in Edmonds, and non - represented employees' satisfaction with the NRC plan. It was the consensus of the Council to have staff bring the NRC policy back to Council for review. i) Best Practice Initiatives: General Operations, Medical Coverage (Debi), Bargaining & Compensation ii) Budget Reductions During a break, the Council participated in the exercise indicating their preferences with regard to revenue sources, EMS levy, and budget reduction measures. Mr. Clements reviewed the following budget reduction strategies: • $500,000 equals 1.5% of General Fund • Possible approaches o Across the board 1.5% reductions o Elimination of programs or services o Reduction of overhead costs The first day of the retreat concluded at 4:20 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23-24, 2007 Page 6 Packet Page 9 of 396 d) Council Policy Decisions i) Revenue ii) Efficiency iii) Reductions iv) Compensation 4. Up -Date Strategic Plan to Reflect Council Changes a) Review Proposed Changes b) Council Approval of 2007-08 Plan SATURDAY, MARCH 24 The second day of the retreat was called to order at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Clements reviewed the Council's preferences with regard to 2007 revenue options, future revenue options and future reduction options and advised staff would bring back a priority on revenue options and reduction options as a work plan (blue = interested in pursuing, black = not interested in pursuing): Item I Blue Black Enactment Move EMS Levy to Fall 2008 15 0 Council Future Revenue Options Item Blue Black Enactment Reduce Cemetery Subsidy 7 0 Council Sale of Surplus Property 7 0 Council Cable TV Utility Tax to 6% 6 0 Council "Seattle" Internet Charges 6 0 Council Highway 99 Petition Annexation 6 0 Council EMS Property Tax Levy Lid Lift 5 0 Vote Transportation Benefit District 5 0 State Electric Utility Tax Increase to 7% 5 2 Vote Natural Gas Utility Tax Increase to 7% 5 2 Vote Telephone Utility Tax Increase to 7% 5 2 Vote Solid Waste Utility Tax Increase to 7% 5 2 Vote Water Utility Tax Increase to 7% 4 1 Council Sewer Utility Tax Increase to 7% 4 1 Council Storm Utility Tax Increase to 7% 4 1 Council Emergency Transport Fee at $450 4 1 Council Sales Tax Economic Development 4 0 Council Traffic Light Cameras 3 2 Council Edmonds Dance with the Stars 2 3 Council Gambling Tax 6 Council General Property Tax Levy Lid Lift 1 5 Vote Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23-24, 2007 Page 7 Packet Page 10 of 396 B&O Tax (0.2% Maximum) 0 6 Council Emergency Reserve Fund ($2.0 million Council Ferry Traffic Mitigation State REET for Transportation State Future Reduction Options Item Blue Black Enactment Elimination of Programs or Services 6 0 Council Reduction of Overhead Costs 5 1 Council Across the Board Reductions 0 5 Council The Council also expressed interest in pursuing ferry mitigation. With regard to Audience Comments on upcoming ballot issues, Mr. Snyder advised public comments were an opportunity for the public to address the Council, not an opportunity to use the camera. He suggested the Council establish a "bright line" with regard to public comment on ballot issues and candidacies, to allow the public to speak about things the Council respond to but not things Council could not respond to. He clarified residents/Council could continue to advocate for/against the Edmonds Crossing project but not for/against RTID. Staff left at 9:10 a.m. Planning Board and ADB Future Agendas Council President Olson distributed the Planning Board's extended agenda. Suggestions included publishing the Planning Board's extended agenda on Channel 21, Council President Olson meet with the Planning Board Chairman and Planning Manager Rob Chave regarding the Planning Board priorities including the priority of issues referred by the Council and when pending items will be added to extended agenda, Council President Olson to obtain an updated flowchart of agenda items from the Planning Board, and Ms. Spellman to remind Council President Olson of monthly meeting with Planning Board and ADB Chairs, the Mayor, and Council President. A brief discussion followed regarding the ADB's agenda and staff hired to replace Senior Planner Steve Bullock and Planner Meg Gruwell. Candidate Debates Following a brief discussion regarding past debates, it was agreed to establish a policy that the duration of a debate be limited to approximately two hours, the sponsoring organization pay the cost of the camera person, the sponsoring organization provide 30 days notice to candidates, and debates be scheduled on a first come/first served basis. It was suggested Mr. Clifton draft a policy for review by Mr. Snyder and approval by the Council. Discussion of Policy Requiring Establishment of New Zones Discussion ensued regarding a citizen who requested a Comprehensive Plan change who was told to wait a year for the Comprehensive Plan process versus an applicant who pursued a similar change via another route and why everyone was not required to go through same process. It was agreed Ms. Spellman would seek clarification from staff regarding the difference between the two amendments. The Council requested staff make a presentation at a work session regarding when an applicant would not have to go through the Comprehensive Plan process. Council expressed a preference for amendments to go through the Comprehensive Plan process. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23-24, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page 11 of 396 Councilmember Moore relayed two instances where people were encouraged by the Mayor to file a claim against the City, one in regard to emergency tree cutting. Council expressed concern that the definition of emergency with regard to tree removal was apparently not clear in the City's ordinance. Policy Regarding What Constitutes Affordable Housing, Preservation of Trees, etc. Councilmembers discussed different definitions of "affordable" and developers' use of the term. It was suggested a definition be provided for "affordable." It was agreed to request staff provide a report on affordable housing including how affordable could apply to development in Edmonds. Councilmember Olson relayed citizens' concern with trees cut by PUD in the right-of-way. It was suggested staff provide the Council tree preservation ordinances from other cities. Vision — What Does the Council Want Now? Councilmember Moore recommended the Council establish a vision for what they want Edmonds to look like in 20 years, a mission for how to get there and set annual goals. Suggestions included using a facilitator for a strategic planning process, identifying projects to pursue such as the waterfront redevelopment, delaying a visioning exercise until after the election, scheduling next year's retreat earlier in the year and selecting the date now, and scheduling a mid -year mini -retreat. Councilmember Dawson advised of Snohomish County planning efforts regarding positioning itself as a destination point for visitors to the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Suggestions included the Council discussing how Edmonds could position itself in that effort, relaying the need for additional hotel beds in 2010 to the waterfront redevelopment committee, and considering revisions to Bed and Breakfast regulations such as parking requirements. Follow-up on Yesterday Councilmembers discussed the Mayor providing a State of City address to the Council and the Mayor submitting an annual work plan for approval by the Council. Council President Olson agreed to ask the Mayor to prepare and submit a work plan. With regard to how Councilmembers are recognized during Council discussion, it was agreed to have staff investigate an inexpensive light system. It was also agreed that if an item was a particular Councilmember's issue, they be given deference to make the motion; to request the Mayor identify when it was appropriate to ask questions, to request a motion, and then open the issue for discussion; the Council and Mayor make an effort to avoid back and forth debate, and to have the Mayor recognize Councilmembers via raised hands. The Council agreed once the public spoke at a public hearing, it was appropriate to ask questions of them. It was agreed to revise the sign -in sheet to allow the public to sign -in in pro or con on an issue and not provide testimony. Councilmember Moore expressed frustration with the committee format, finding that not much was accomplished and most items were forwarded to the Council. She suggested the Council sit as a committee -of -the -whole on committee night. Following discussion, it was agreed items would not be scheduled on the Consent Agenda until the week after the Councilmember gave the Committee report unless the item was time sensitive. It was suggested Councilmembers invite Council President Olson to attend a Committee meeting if there was a controversial item on the agenda. With regard to Councilmember Moore's suggestion to schedule a New Business/Ideas item on the Council agenda, Council President Olson suggested adding New Business/Ideas as an agenda item on the Council's work session agenda. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23-24, 2007 Page 9 Packet Page 12 of 396 Resolution for a 4-Year University Councilmember Moore advised negotiations were ongoing and recommended waiting to see what happened before passing a resolution. Boards/Commissions Council President Olson advised some boards/commissions had terms limits and others did not and on some the Councilmember was the liaison and on others the Councilmember was Chair. Discussion followed regarding the process for interviewing Directors, the Hearing Examiner, etc. via a subcommittee of the Council; concern that the Mayor appoints staff as well as boards/commission members; and concern that the Council rubber-stamps the Mayor's appointments to boards/commissions. It was the consensus of the Council that they wanted more involvement upfront in the interview process of Planning Board and ADB members including the Council providing a recommendation to the Mayor. It was agreed to develop a list of interview questions for the Council to ask and to determine from Mr. Snyder what the Council was allowed to do including whether the Council could conduct Board/Commission interviews/selection in Executive Session. It was also suggested the requirements for the ADB landscape architect be loosened to include a landscape designer. Councilmember Dawson suggested each Councilmember appoint a Planning Board member such as was done in Snohomish County so that Planning Boardmembers represented each district. She noted this would create greater diversity and involve more citizens. It was agreed to ask Mr. Snyder whether that could be done. Basis for Removal of Boardmembers/Commissioners Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Council was comfortable with a boardmember/commissioner being an advocate outside of their role as boardmember/commissioner that gave the appearance he/she was not serving in their role as a boardmember/commissioner. Councilmembers recognized the importance of training for boardmembers/commissioners. It was agreed to require training for all boardmembers/commissions and AWC training for Planning Board and ADB members. Councilmembers acknowledged if a boardmember/commissioner's reappointment was scheduled on the Consent Agenda, a Councilmember could request the Council President pull it for discussion. It was agreed to have Mr. Snyder make the removal provisions the same for all boards/commissions such as attendance requirements, violation of the Appearance of Fairness Act, ex-parte communications, pre - judgmental bias, financial interest, etc. ADJOURNMENT The retreat was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23-24, 2007 Page 10 Packet Page 13 of 396 AM-933 2.C. Approval of April 3, 2007 Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/17/2007 Submitted By: Sandy Chase Time: Consent Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 3, 2007. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Link: Draft Minutes Fiscal Impact S ffarhmante Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/11/2007 04:57 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/12/2007 09:26 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 11:50 AM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Started On: 04/11/2007 04:56 Chase PM Final Approval Date: 04/12/2007 Packet Page 14 of 396 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES April 3, 2007 Following a Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding legal matters, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5a' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Mauri Moore, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Shaun Callahan, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Haakenson added introduction of the Student Representative as Agenda Item 3A and renumbered Item 3 as Item 3B. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 2007. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #95184 THROUGH #95342 FOR MARCH 29, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $202,530.81. D. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 92ND AVENUE WEST/234TH STREET SW INTERSECTION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 3, 2007 Page 1 Packet Page 15 of 396 E. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. F. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER FIRE ALARM RENOVATION PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. G. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH EDMONDS-SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR THE EDMONDS MARKET. H. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES MURPHY AUCTIONEERS TO SELL SURPLUS EQUIPMENT. I. APPROVAL OF GENERIC INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING RECIPROCAL SERVICES FOR CODE -ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND BUILDING OFFICIALS. J. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE, APRIL 15 - 22, 2007. K. ORDINANCE NO. 3635 REGARDING STREET SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPE STANDARDS IN THE CG AND CG-2 ZONE: AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 16.60 RELATING TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONES. 3A. INTRODUCTION OF STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE Council President Olson introduced Shaun Callahan, a student at Edmonds-Woodway High School, and described his interests and activities. Student Representative Callahan thanked mentors who have assisted him including his grandfather George Walsh, and coaches Pat White and John Gradwohl. 3B. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATOR'S WEEK, APRIL 8 - 14, 2007. Councilmember Dawson, SnoCom Chair, read a proclamation declaring April 8 — 14, 2007 as Telecommunicator's Week in Edmonds and urging citizens to show their appreciation to public safety communications and support staff. She presented the proclamation to SnoCom Director Steve Perry and SnoCom Dispatcher Association President John Chandler. Mr. Perry thanked the Council for the proclamation on behalf of SnoCom and its staff. In response to a frequently asked question why SnoCom is so successful, he explained it was due to the excellent, high quality staff and their partnership with user agencies such as Edmonds. He noted the relationship between SnoCom and the Edmonds Police and Fire Departments was an excellent example. Councilmember Dawson added SnoCom's success was also due to the excellent leadership Mr. Perry provided. 4. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH WEEK, APRIL 2 - 8, 2007 Councilmember Marin read a proclamation declaring April 2 — 8, 2007 National Public Health Week, in recognition of the Public Health Department's efforts to protect the well-being of Edmonds citizens. He presented the proclamation to Dr. Gary Goldbaum, Snohomish County Health Officer. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 3, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page 16 of 396 Dr. Goldbaum commented the Public Health Department was able to do such good work due to the excellent people working in the background. He remarked Public Health was often forgotten because when things went well, nothing happened. He commented on Public Health's role in unleaded gasoline, reduction in TB cases, clean water, and keeping food sources safe. He commented when the public did hear of something going wrong, Public Health was monitoring the situation on the public's behalf to ensure any problems were quickly addressed. 5. PROPOSED RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE SUPPORT AND ADOPTION OF THE INTEGRATED ROADS & TRANSIT PLAN DEVELOPED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT DISTRICT AND SOUND TRANSIT. Councilmember Marin recommended approval of the resolution, explaining Sound Transit had been through a long process of making decisions regarding projects to submit to the public for a vote in November. Sound Transit was currently in a public comment period about the elements to be included in the package. Both ST2 and RTID contain elements that would be beneficial to Edmonds particularly related to Edmonds Crossing. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1143 RELATING TO THE SUPPORT AND ADOPTION OF THE INTEGRATED ROADS & TRANSIT PLAN DEVELOPED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT DISTRICT AND SOUND TRANSIT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE ABATEMENT AND DEMOLITION OF THE OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOCATED AT 23700 104TH AVENUE WEST. City Attorney Scott Snyder referred to the report provided at the Council's request in response to questions raised by citizens whether the City had the cart before the horse with regard to demolishing the school buildings on the old Woodway Elementary School site. He provided the Council copies of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, available to the public via the City Clerk, which was executed in May 2006 that provided the City a $1 million price break on the property in consideration of the City's promise to remove all improvements from all portions of the property by June 30, 2007. He advised the $1 million price break was consistent with the appraisal which the City and the Edmonds School District performed. He explained authorization of a contract was necessary to fulfill the City's obligation to remove the buildings and abate the asbestos on the site. He advised there was a $500,000 IAC grant currently in the State budget; that grant application was based on the purchase of raw land (land after the removal of structures) for a low impact neighborhood park. This authorization was a necessary step to meet the City's obligation in the Purchase and Sale Agreement. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE ABATEMENT AND DEMOLITION OF THE OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOCATED AT 23700 104TH AVENUE WEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO UPDATE THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH NEW DESIGN GUIDELINES AND A NEW "UP -FRONT" DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC DISTRICTS (INITIALLY LIMITED TO DOWNTOWN AND HIGHWAY 99). Planning Manager Rob Chave recalled the Council held the first public hearing on the new design guidelines and proposed new process on March 6, 2007. He briefly reviewed the history of this issue, highlighting the Planning Board recommendation. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 3, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page 17 of 396 Mr. Chave displayed a flowchart and described the old process in which design review occurred near the end of the developer's process when typically a great deal of preliminary work and detail had been completed. He noted there was currently an optional design review process in the existing process although the process does not specify when it occurred. Under the current process, typically all the design work was done when the applicant submitted an application and proceeded through the design review process, resulting in a limited ability for the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to make changes. Applicants who were familiar with the City's codes knew what was expected; however, new applicants have a very little idea of what was expected particularly applicants for small projects. Under the proposed new process, Mr. Chave explained the design review process occurred almost entirely at the front of the process. The proposed process is a two-phase public hearing, the first phase would include discussion by the ADB regarding what criteria would apply and what elements were important to consider. Following the first phase, the applicant would further their design to address those issues. He noted the amount of time that would transpire between the first and second phases was dependent on how quickly the applicant responded. He explained the intent of having design review early in the process was to involve the applicant before they had settled on a design. Mr. Chase acknowledged the design presented at phase two of the public hearing would still be more general than the application for a building permit but would include elevations, a more detailed site plan, etc. He noted there would generally be enough information to see what the building would look like and how it related with its surroundings. He summarized design review at the beginning of the process would be more general, conceptual than has historically been provided for design review. The benefit would be the larger issues that affect the site would be addressed early in the process. He noted any appeals would occur after phase two of the public hearing followed by preparation of detailed design leading to a building permit application. In reviewing the building permit application, staff would ensure the conditions identified by the ADB for the project were applied. If they were not, the project could potentially be referred back to the ADB. Mr. Chave noted one of the changes in City Attorney Scott Snyder's memo was additional opportunity for public notice at the building permit stage on an as -requested basis. All parties would be informed during the earlier design review phase to indicate whether they wanted to be notified when an application for a building permit came in or the City signed off on the final review. He remarked this was currently done but would be more formalized via inclusion in the process. He explained the current 120 day review via Regulatory Reform did not start until an applicant applied for design review; any pre -application meetings did not count toward the 120 days. Under the proposed new process, the 120 day time period would begin when an applicant submitted for the phase one public hearing. He summarized even though the design review would occur earlier in the process, from the City's standpoint there would be less time to review some aspects of the project than under the current process. Therefore staff would need to be very efficient to ensure all the hearings and review fit within the 120 day period. In response to concerns expressed by citizens that the proposed process would lengthen the process, in his view it would not lengthen because the preliminary design done by applicants would be included in the process. He anticipated if an applicant needed additional time prior to the building permit stage, they could request an extension of the 120 day time period. He summarized only the City's time counted toward the 120 days, not the applicant's time. Mr. Chave summarized the Planning Board's recommendation retained the existing design process for most areas of the City but had a new design process that would be applied area -by -area as design guidelines/design standards were developed. The first two areas where the new process would apply were Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 3, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page 18 of 396 the CG zones on Hwy. 99 and the BD zones downtown. The design review guidelines also formalized the landscape requirements. He provided a comparison of the current and proposed processes: Current process New Process General design review (Section 20.11) District Based Section. 20.12 ADB and public input at the end of the process ADB and public input at the beginning of the process Guidance from criteria in 20.11.030, Zoning bulk Guidance from the ADB design guidelines and the standards and Comprehensive Plan design checklist, Zoning bulk standards and applicable objectives adopted district -based design standards and applicable Comprehensive Plan design objectives Mr. Chave referred to Mr. Snyder's March 29, 2007 memo that described the limited changes made based on Council and public comments. He identified an additional revision to page 48 of the packet, the ADB Design Guidelines, regarding screening of dumpsters and utilities, so that the first sentence reads, "Building sites should locate service elements like trash dumpsters, loading docks and mechanical equipment away from the street where possible while maintaining their accessibility to the utilities." Councilmember Plunkett commented prior to the 120 day period, staff saw the application at the counter and he assumed the staff person determined everything necessary was included. He asked whether once that occurred, would staff immediately schedule for ADB review. Mr. Chave answered typically not because staff would need to ensure not only whether the information was provided but whether additional information was necessary. He noted it was fairly common that additional site specific information was required after an applicant submitted an application before staff review could occur. Councilmember Plunkett asked about staff making a judgment with regard to the design. Mr. Chave assured it was code -based. He noted staff typically did not make decisions regarding whether the building was ugly or needed to be designed differently, only code -related elements. Responding to Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Chave explained staff s intent was to ensure when the ADB reviewed the design, the project on the surface appeared to meet the code. He noted in addition to landscaping, access was another issue that arose fairly frequently as well as access to utilities. Councilmember Plunkett concluded staff was attempting to identify obvious issues that needed to be addressed. Once the application was in order, would staff schedule the first phase of the ADB hearing? Mr. Chave advised staff would schedule it for the first available meeting that met advertising requirements. Under the existing process staff would ensure the project met the code and if there was a problem, contact the applicant to provide them an opportunity for redesign before it was reviewed by the ADB. Under the new process, the information would be more conceptual, making it less likely that details would be identified. Councilmember Plunkett concluded it was more likely under the new process that a design would get to the ADB in a shorter amount of time. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the application could get to the ADB within 30 days in most cases. Mr. Chave agreed in most cases but he could not guarantee it. For the most part, he anticipated an application would be reviewed by the ADB within a month. Councilmember Dawson inquired about the status of design guidelines for other neighborhoods. Assuming the proposed process was better than the current process, she noted it behooved the Council to move forward with design guidelines for the other areas of the City. Mr. Chave answered the next logical areas would be the neighborhood business centers as there had already been some Comprehensive Plan Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 3, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page 19 of 396 changes for those areas as well as Westgate. He noted the problem now was staffing as well as time spent on the Shoreline update and the code rewrite. He hoped the Planning Board could focus on design guidelines for other areas once the Shoreline update was completed in the latter part of 2007. He invited the Council to assist in prioritizing neighborhood areas, recalling there were Comprehensive Plan amendments regarding Firdale and Five Corners and the Comprehensive Plan has always identified the unique aspects of Westgate. Councilmember Dawson commented Westgate was a likely candidate as it seemed ripe for redevelopment. Councilmember Dawson asked whether the ADB would be involved in the process for neighborhood districts. Mr. Chave anticipated beginning by discussing overall parameters such as height, bulk, etc. with the Planning Board and then involving the ADB. Councilmember Dawson recalled under the proposed process, the ADB would be involved with developing design guidelines for other areas. Mr. Chave anticipated the ADB would consider their design guidelines and for the particular district, determine whether there were aspects of the code that were not appropriate or other elements that needed to be added. That discussion would also include what items should be guidelines versus elements that were so important they needed to be in the code. For Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Chave anticipated the design guidelines for other neighborhoods would be provided to the Council late this year or early next year depending on the Shoreline update and the code rewrite. Councilmember Dawson asked whether community meetings would be held in those districts. Mr. Chave agreed they would be. Councilmember Orvis referred to the 120 day period, clarifying only staff s time counted toward the 120 days. Mr. Chave agreed, noting some applicants may be in a hurry and proceed rapidly through the process; others would take longer. Councilmember Orvis observed both processes would be retained and the new process would apply only to Hwy. 99 and downtown. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the Council could make a distinction between downtown zones such as BD 1. Mr. Chave answered theoretically but it could potentially be very confusing. Councilmember Orvis observed there were currently design standards in place; if the proposed process were enacted, only the guidelines would be place. Mr. Chave answered there were also the standards in the BD zone as well as the design objectives specific to downtown in the Comprehensive Plan and the landscaping standards. Mr. Chave commented if Councilmember Orvis' concern was the historic elements for BD 1, the Council could make a policy decision to delay the upfront process for BD1. He noted that even though all the standards may not yet have been determined for the BD 1, the proposed process was superior to the existing process. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, expressed support for the proposed design guidelines. He pointed out baby boomers are living longer and Edmonds' demographics were changing. When the baby boomers begin retiring in 2011, many will want housing in areas where they can walk and use public transit. He agreed the City needed to begin developing design guidelines for other neighborhoods. Rob Michel, Edmonds, recalled the Council requested staff provide examples and research other cities that used the upfront process which did not appear to have been done. He expressed concern with the amount of time to conduct two public hearings, noting the new process did not appear to meet Regulatory Reform which allowed only one public hearing. He provided an example of an application submitted on January 1, staff taking a month for review making it too late to schedule for the February ADB meeting requiring a delay until the March 1 ADB meeting. At the March 1 ADB meeting a list of criteria was Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 3, 2007 Page 6 Packet Page 20 of 396 established which the applicant then responded to. The applicant submitted their response on April 1 and staff took 30 days to review, causing them to miss the May ADB meeting. He concluded staff would have used up the 120 days before the applicant learned whether their design was approved by the ADB. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented on increased revenue from car dealerships on Hwy. 99. He recalled the Council passed design guidelines for Hwy. 99 that established 60-75 foot building heights which would bring in more businesses and more people. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled his comments at the previous public hearing expressing concern that the proposed process would take much longer than the existing process. He pointed out if a project was under the threshold established by SEPA, design review was conducted by staff and the decision was not appealable, thereby removing the public from the process if a project was under the SEPA threshold. He recalled there had been a question regarding whether Old Milltown met the SEPA threshold but there were no drawings to confirm it. He objected to an applicant providing conceptual drawings via the proposed process. With regard to appeals, he questioned how the hearing on a SEPA appeal, rezone, and/or variance would be combined if there was only one public hearing. He concluded it appeared the process for the applicant as well as the public would be more complex. He recommended the Council delay a final decision on adopting the proposed process until all the public's questions were addressed. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. In response to Mr. Michel's concern about the timeline, Mr. Chave explained the ADB typically met once a month now but reserved a second meeting each month. Because the timeline in the new process was shorter, the ADB planned to meet twice a month. He pointed out the basis for the process was the projects with the most impact were the ones that should be reviewed. The City's SEPA threshold was fairly low; many cities have raised their threshold but Edmonds had not. He cautioned against lowering the SEPA threshold so that more were under ADB. He noted that was the reason that as many design standards as possible should be included in the code so they could not be debated at the public hearing but an applicant would know what was expected. In response to Mr. Michel's question regarding multiple hearings, City Attorney Scott Snyder advised there would be one public hearing before the ADB that was continued, a hearing in two parts with a decision after the second phase of the hearing. With regard to the comment that staff s decision was not appealable, he assumed it referred to the staff decision that was akin to a building permit, noting that was nearly identical to the current process where staff issued the building permit based on the ADB decision. Mr. Snyder advised the draft ordinance referenced Regulatory Reform which provides for a consolidation process with the hearing held by the body with the highest authority. Councilmember Plunkett assumed staff would monitor the new process, report back to the Council and recommend any changes. Mr. Chave agreed, advising the computerized permit tracking system could track dates and provide a report regarding the time it took from application submittal to the first phase, the time between the first phase and second phase, etc. Councilmember Plunkett asked what would happen if he suggested an amendment that required once an application was complete, staff shall hold the ADB review within 30 days and staff could not hold the meeting for 35 days. Mr. Snyder commented staff could schedule the hearing within 30 days, but had no control over issues such as quorums. Councilmember Plunkett clarified his intent was to have the ADB review held within 30 days. Mr. Chave commented when an application was turned in would determine whether 30 days would be enough time. Mr. Snyder commented if worded correctly, it would be an administrative guideline where the remedy was not an invalidated decision but forcing the staff to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 3, 2007 Page 7 Packet Page 21 of 396 schedule the hearing. He was hesitant to put strictures on the ADB because they may want to continue the hearing to take more evidence, etc. He suggested giving the ADB the latitude to get their work done. Councilmember Plunkett commented his intent was not to provide latitude but to require the ADB hearing be held within 30 days of a complete application. Mr. Chave preferred not to establish a mandatory number of days in the code but include in the adopting ordinance that it was Council's policy for staff to strive to schedule hearings within 30 days, making it an administrative guideline rather than something in the code. Mr. Snyder suggested the Council request by motion a staff report within six months regarding the time the process took and then the Council determine whether to impose a requirement. Mr. Snyder agreed to draft language for Council consideration. For Councilmember Marin, Mr. Chave explained as soon as an applicant applied and staff determined the application was complete, the 120 day clock started. Once the applicant submitted the information following the phase one hearing, the clock began again. Councilmember Marin asked the difference between the information presented at the first phase versus the second phase. Mr. Chave answered at the second phase the information would be more detailed and focus on what the building looked like; the first phase addressed massing, relationship of the site to its surroundings, intended uses, etc., to provide the ADB enough information to identify which criteria needed to be addressed. At the second phase, there would be more detail such as elevations, building design, etc. without the specific detail regarding materials, colors, utility systems, etc. Councilmember Marin asked who did the work between phase one and phase two. Mr. Chave answered the applicant. Councilmember Marin asked if the clock was running during that time; Mr. Chave answered the 120 day clock stopped while the applicant worked on their submission. The clock began again when the applicant submitted their response which was in accordance with Regulatory Reform. The benefit for an applicant that did not need much time was they could respond quickly and the clock would begin again. For an applicant that wanted a general idea before pursuing a detailed design, they could take the time they needed. Councilmember Marin presumed an applicant could come to the first phase, glean information and within a week be ready to schedule the second phase. Mr. Chave agreed it would depend on the applicant. Councilmember Marin inquired about the number of items on ADB meeting agendas. Mr. Chave answered their agendas were not very full. The time to schedule an ADB hearing would be impacted by the time necessary for advertising. He anticipated the shortest turnaround time would be three weeks. Councilmember Marin observed it would be important for the ADB to hold two meetings a month. Council President Olson asked staff to review the materials in the packet regarding other cities that use the upfront process. Mr. Chave advised staff found several cities including Mercer Island, Issaquah and Seattle that utilize a variation of an upfront design review process to review conceptual design earlier in the process. These cities indicated their process worked well, even Seattle which had a fairly lengthy process. He noted staff also talked to other cities such as Bothell and Mukilteo who employ an administrative design review where design review occurs at the building permit phase. He noted that process could also be problematic if an applicant did not seek guidance early in the process and staff identified issues with aspects of their design at the building permit phase. He noted Snohomish used design review only in their Historic District, a more specific and targeted design review. Council President Olson concluded several other cities were using some variation of an upfront process. Mr. Chave agreed although none of them were the same. Councilmember Orvis referred to the design objectives in the Comprehensive Plan that applied to every zone. Mr. Chave agreed there were design objectives in the Urban Design Element that applied citywide Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 3, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page 22 of 396 and another set in the Downtown Plan that applied only to downtown. Councilmember Orvis observed the design objectives were in place regardless of whether the proposed process was adopted. If the Council passed the proposed process, it would go from design objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and standards to objectives and guidelines without historic standards. Mr. Chave clarified the City did not currently have historic standards in the code. Councilmember Orvis noted there was an effort underway to develop historic standards. By adopting the proposed process, there would only be design guidelines and objectives in downtown. Mr. Chave explained the criteria in 20.11.030 would no longer be applied to areas using the district -based review process but district -based review would use the ADB's design guidelines which are outlined on page 30 of the Council packet. He reiterated he found the proposed process superior to the current process because it provided more guidance. Mr. Snyder commented in theory the specific controlled the general and the specific guidelines should be used to apply the general criteria. He suggested that was the way the code should be applied. Councilmember Orvis commented design guidelines did not carry the weight of the code. Mr. Snyder noted in this instance they did; they explained how the code was to be applied. Councilmember Orvis noted design guidelines were not as binding as the code. Mr. Snyder commented if the Council wanted something done, it should be included in the code as a zoning requirement; design guidelines were of the either/or nature allowing the goal of the code to be accomplished in a number of ways. If the Council wanted something done one way, it needed to be a code -specific provision. He noted the City's obligation was also to give specific direction to developers. If the Council wanted specifics with regarding to historic preservation, it should be in the code. Mr. Chave commented his primary concern with the criteria in 20.11.030 was that many were guidelines in the guise of code. He found the ADB's guidelines provided more direction. Councilmember Dawson asked whether the criteria in 20.11.030 applied in both processes and the guidelines were explanations. Mr. Snyder advised one of the changes identified in his memo was in 20.11.020 he provided more detail on how the two were to be integrated. He noted the criteria in 20.11.030 were the same as cited in Issaquah v. Anderson; further direction must be provided with regard to how they were applied. That direction is applied via the Urban Design Element. Councilmember Dawson clarified if the Council adopted the proposed process, it would not eliminate the specificity in the code but add to it. Mr. Chave explained when the design objectives were adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, the relationship between the design objectives and the criteria was not explained in the code. Councilmember Dawson clarified if the Council exempted a zone from the new process, there would not be more protection for that zone but less because the criteria in the code was not being eliminated but added to. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting staff s intent was to continue adding specificity for developers. Councilmember Dawson referred to Councilmember Orvis' concern about abandoning the existing standards, commenting those would not be abandoned but added to. Mr. Chave clarified the criteria in 20.11.030 did not apply in the new process; 20.11.030 was the existing process and 20.12 was the new process. The criteria in 20.11.030 do not appear in 20.12. Mr. Snyder advised he was addressing the general process. Using massive and monotonous as examples, he explained there were a variety of techniques in the Urban Design Guidelines that stated how they applied, those same techniques existed but without the vague criteria that was at issue in Anderson v. Issaquah. Councilmember Dawson explained Councilmember Orvis' concern appeared to be whether there were items that should be included in the code such as with regard to historic preservation. The code criteria were not included in the proposed process. Mr. Snyder agreed. Councilmember Dawson asked whether Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 3, 2007 Page 9 Packet Page 23 of 396 there were any code criterion that would be proposed to the Council soon that should be inserted prior to adopting the proposed process. Mr. Chave answered the only thing he was aware of was historic preservation related to the BD 1 zone. He noted that was on a separate track; the Historic Preservation Commission still had to report their ideas to the Council which would then proceed to the Planning Board for review. The value of the upfront process and the ADB design guidelines outweighed any benefit of waiting for the historic preservation standards. Mr. Snyder explained his concern has always been an attempt to apply one of the broad, general criterion without using the specifics provided by design guidelines due to the as -applied issues that arose in Anderson v. Issaquah. He explained an ordinance could be unconstitutional on its face or as applied. Councilmember Dawson inquired about the timeframe for the Historic Preservation Commission to complete that effort. Mr. Chave anticipated the Commission would have a report to the Council within the next month. It would then be forwarded to the Planning Board for public hearing, thus it was a 4-6 month process. Councilmember Dawson commented if something arose that needed to be included, it could be done via an interim zoning ordinance prior to the Planning Board review. Mr. Snyder agreed. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the Hinshaw/Chave historic design standards that he will move forward regardless of the Historic Preservation Commission. He noted the only thing delaying the Historic Preservation Commission was additions to the process, not the code. He advised the Commission was meeting in the next two weeks and he anticipated the historic design standards would be presented to the Council in mid -April. He commented although the Council could adopt the Hinshaw/Chave design standards via an interim zoning ordinance, he was hesitant to do that as it was a lengthy document to adopt without Planning Board review. Councilmember Orvis supported the concept of an interim solution to downtown to bridge what he considered to be a hole between the existing process and the historic design standards. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IN EXHIBIT 1, ORDINANCE NO.3636. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO ADD THE FOLLOWING TO THE END OF THE FIRST SENTENCE IN D-6, "WHILE MAINTAINING ACCESS TO UTILITIES." AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Plunkett commented although he was confident in staff's ability to process applications, he shared the concern of developers and proposed including language regarding the 120 day time period. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO REVISE SECTION 20.12.005.A TO READ, "PUBLIC HEARING (PHASE 1). THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN TO THE CITY. STAFF SHALL SCHEDULE THE FIRST PHASE OF THE ADB HEARING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF STAFFS DETERMINATION THAT THE APPLICATIONIS COMPLETE." Councilmember Dawson voiced her support for the motion, noting it provided staff time to determine whether the application was complete. She did not anticipate this would put an undue hardship on staff and if it was an issue for staff, it could be brought to the Council's attention. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 3, 2007 Page 10 Packet Page 24 of 396 AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance reads as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3636 — AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY THE REPEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT OF CHAPTER 20.10 RELATED TO DESIGN REVIEW, THE RE-ENACTMENT OF A NEW CHAPTER 20.11 GENERAL DESIGN REVIEW, A NEW CHAPTER 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW, REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING CHAPTER 20.13 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, ADOPTING NEW DESIGN GUIDELINES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented the City needed to negotiate with the Edmonds School District regarding the $1 million price break on the purchase of the old Woodway Elementary School site that required removal of structures by June 30, 2007 unless a park plan was adopted by that time. Next, he recommended the Council vote on term limits. The third issue he addressed was the changes Bothell had made to their plan. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to a concern voiced by Councilmember Wambolt at the March 6 meeting that the public would not see detailed design at the public hearing and that this was a concern to citizens because under the existing process, the public hearing was held after the detailed design was created, yet many buildings when constructed did not look like the plans. Mr. Hertrich provided a list of what might be provided in a detailed design — size of windows; color of roof; number of plants and type; roof equipment; trim color, size and location; flower boxes; dumpster locations; location of garage doors; etc.. — concluding there were many elements that would not be available to members of the public who wanted to see what the building looked like. He suggested any Councilmember who had concerns about the process should reconsider their vote. Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, commented in December 2005 the Council added what she considered a gag rule to the Council procedures that states the opportunity for public comment shall not include comments that promote or oppose ballot measures except during the course of a public hearing. It was her understanding that she could state that the Edmonds Crossing project was an extremely extravagant farce and state the reasons why as long as she did not say vote against Sound Transit and RTID. Mr. Snyder explained the rule Ms. Shippen cited attempted to recognize that public facilities under State law could not be used to promote or oppose ballot measures or candidates. A member of the public at the podium could not say/do anything more than the Council could say/do; the Council was prohibited from promoting or opposing a ballot measure. He clarified Ms. Shippen could inform the Council that the process/proposal was ill-conceived but neither she nor the Council could urge voters to support or oppose a ballot measure or candidate unless very specific rules were followed. Ms. Shippen asked whether she could say Edmonds Crossing was a farce as long as she did not say vote against the ballot measure. Mr. Snyder supported her first amendment right to do so. He explained the Council and staff could perform the normal functions of their office, debate public policy and provide factual information. He noted Ms. Shippen always presented factual information and presented a point of view; he had no issue as long as she addressed the project itself on a factual basis and did not urge voters to vote for or against a ballot measure. Ms. Shippen commented the Council took a position on a ballot measure in Agenda Item #5. Mayor Haakenson explained it was a resolution related to the integrated road and transit plan developed by RTID and Sound Transit and did not address a ballot measure. Councilmember Dawson explained under Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 3, 2007 Page 11 Packet Page 25 of 396 Agenda Item #5, the Council voted to support two measures being on a ballot, not urging the public to vote in support of or against the ballot measure. Mr. Snyder commented in advising the Council, he used the Public Disclosure Commission's guidelines with regard to information the City could provide. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson commented he was feeling much better than he did last Tuesday when he was absent from the Council meeting due to illness. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Olson wished Councilmember Orvis a Happy Birthday on April 12tn Councilmember Dawson welcomed Student Representative Callahan, noting his biography stated he was voted by his class as most likely to be elected President. Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Hertrich's comment that buildings may be approved by staff that citizens/Councilmembers may not like, acknowledging there was that chance. He pointed out this process was not chiseled in stone and could be revised if ugly buildings were being constructed. Councilmember Marin advised last Wednesday the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee had planned to discuss the annexation principles that had been developed by a subcommittee. As the legislature was considering a bill on this subject that was supported by AWC, the Steering Committee set aside their discussion and expressed their support for the legislative bill. Student Representative Callahan thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve. He planned in the future to inform the Council and public about sports and drama schedules at Edmonds-Woodway High School. He encouraged the Council and the public to support high school sports and activities. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 3, 2007 Page 12 Packet Page 26 of 396 AM-928 Approval of Claim Checks and Payroll Direct Deposits and Checks Edmonds City Council Meeting Date• Submitted By• Submitted For: Department• Review Committee: 04/17/2007 Debbie Karber, Administrative Services Dan Clements Time: Administrative Services Action: Approved for Consent Agenda infarmntinn Type: Consent Action 2.D. Subject Title Approval of claim checks #95345 through #95507 for April 5, 2007 in the amount of $377,063.39 and #95508 through #95682 for April 12, 2007 in the amount of $441,911.82. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #44670 through #44724 for the period of March 16 through March 31, 2007 in the amount of $817,018.64. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposits and checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Fiseal Vear_ 2007 Revenue: Expenditure: 1,635,993.85 Fiscal Impact: Claims $ 818,975.21 Payroll$ 817,018.64 Link: Claim cks 4-5-07 Link: Claim cks 4-12-07 Route Seq Inbox Admin Services Fiscal Impact AttnehmPntc Form Routing/Status Approved By Date Status Kathleen Junglov 04/12/2007 11:44 AM APRV Packet Page 27 of 396 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 11:50 AM APRV Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/12/2007 01:04 PM APRV Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 01:17 PM APRV Form Started By: Debbie Karber Final Approval Date: 04/12/2007 Started On: 04/06/2007 10:29 AM Packet Page 28 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95345 4/5/2007 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 37271 BASKETBALL SHIRTS BASKETBALL T-SHIRTS FOR LEAG 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 141.15 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 12.56 Total : 153.71 95346 4/5/2007 071373 AGRO DISTRIBUTING LLC 2228615 RI GARDENING SUPPLIES ROUNDUP 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 240.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 21.12 Total : 261.12 95347 4/5/2007 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101177594 TEST GAS TEST GAS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,275.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 112.20 Total : 1,387.20 95348 4/5/2007 000710 ALASKAN COPPER & BRASS 401292-1 C-248 INCINERATOR PROJECT C-248 INCINERATOR PROJECT 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 936.00 Sales Tax 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 82.37 Total : 1,018.37 95349 4/5/2007 014940 ALL BATTERY SALES & SERVICE 882887 UNIT 8 - BATTERY UNIT 8 - BATTERY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 84.95 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.56 Total : 92.51 Page: 1 Packet Page 29 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95350 4/5/2007 068901 ALL THE KING'S FLAGS 28456 CEMETERY FLAG US FLAG AND COAST GUARD FLA, 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 102.85 Freight 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 5.50 Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 9.05 Total : 117.40 95351 4/5/2007 069565 AMERICAN LAFRANCE NW LLC P54697 UNIT 476 - LIMIT SWITCH UNIT 476 - LIMIT SWITCH 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 144.74 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.56 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.36 Total : 175.66 95352 4/5/2007 069829 AMIDO, BENJAMIM AMIDO7981 UKULELE CLASSES UKULELE CLASS #7981 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 308.00 Total : 308.00 95353 4/5/2007 001528 AMTEST 43343 ICP SCAN ICP SCAN 411.000.656.538.800.410.31 50.00 Total : 50.00 95354 4/5/2007 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC KQ49 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TESTING PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TESTING 411.000.656.538.800.410.31 1,664.00 Total : 1,664.00 95355 4/5/2007 070265 ANDERSON, BLAKE D 3/26/07 Tuition Reimbursement - 1/3 - 3/11/0 Tuition Reimbursement - 1/3 - 3/11/0 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 997.00 Page: 2 Packet Page 30 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95355 4/5/2007 070265 070265 ANDERSON, BLAKE D (Continued) Total : 997.00 95356 4/5/2007 065378 APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECH 40151375 4011343 ELASTOMERIC COUPLING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 32.39 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 38.78 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.26 Total : 77.43 95357 4/5/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3847328 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SE 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 150.11 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 13.36 Total : 163.47 95358 4/5/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3847330 18386001 UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 85.06 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 7.57 Total : 92.63 95359 4/5/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3840993 FLEET UNIFORM SVC FLEET UNIFORM SVC 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 17.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.55 512-3842343 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 33.69 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.00 Page: 3 Packet Page 31 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 95359 4/5/2007 069751 ARAMARK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 512-3845753 FLEET UNIFORM SVC FLEET UNIFORM SVC 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 17.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.55 512-3845754 PW MATS PW MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38 PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26 WATER UNIFORM SVC 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 8.00 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.13 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.49 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.49 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.49 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.49 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.49 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 0.59 Page: 4 Packet Page 32 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95359 4/5/2007 069751 ARAMARK (Continued) 512-3845755 STREET/STORM - UNIFORM SVC STREET/STORM - UNIFORM SVC 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24 STREET/STORM - UNIFORM SVC 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29 512-3847329 FAC MAINT - UNIFORM SVC FAC MAINT - UNIFORM SVC 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 33.69 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.00 Total : 157.11 95360 4/5/2007 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 556210 75179 DIESEL FUEL 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 2,094.60 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 167.57 Total : 2,262.17 95361 4/5/2007 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 556413 DIESEL - 181 GAL DIESEL - 181 GAL 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 365.10 WA ST SERVICE FEE 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 60.00 ST EXCISE DIESEL TAX, WA OIL SI 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 64.65 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 4.80 Total : 494.55 95362 4/5/2007 064343 AT&T 425-771-1124 PARKS MAINT. BLDG Page: 5 Packet Page 33 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95362 4/5/2007 064343 AT&T (Continued) PARKS MAINT. BLDG 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 25.73 425-771-4741 CEMETERY CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.200.420.00 34.53 Total : 60.26 95363 4/5/2007 064343 AT&T 730386050200 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS Public Works Fax Line 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 8.38 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 8.38 Public Works Fax Line 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 2.21 Public Works Fax Line 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 8.38 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 8.38 Public Works Fax Line 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 8.38 Total : 44.11 95364 4/5/2007 064343 AT&T 425-771-0152 STATION #16 FAX STATION #16 FAX 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 25.78 Total : 25.78 95365 4/5/2007 070434 AURORA PLASTICS & PACKAGING 14723 INV#14723 EDMONDS PD Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 2.98 4 X 6.004 MIL ZIPLOCK BAGS (100 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 33.45 Total : 36.43 95366 4/5/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 39892 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS Page: 6 Packet Page 34 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 95366 4/5/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 95367 4/5/2007 002100 BARNARD, EARL 95368 4/5/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) UB Outsourcing area #600 PRINTIN 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 31.10 UB Outsourcing area #600 PRINTIN 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 31.10 UB Outsourcing area #600 POSTAL 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 90.59 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 2.74 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 2.74 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 2.74 UB Outsourcing area #600 PRINTIN 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 31.18 UB Outsourcing area #600 POSTAL 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 90.60 Total : 282.79 38 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 30.00 Total : 30.00 576586 INV#576586 EDMONDS PD - TONY Page: 7 Packet Page 35 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 95368 4/5/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 95369 4/5/2007 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 95370 4/5/2007 067947 BROWNELLS INC Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) HEAVY WEIGHT HAND TRAINER 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 8.95 TIES 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 11.90 BELT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 15.95 ELBOW AND KNEE GUARDS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 34.90 BELT KEEPERS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 15.25 TRAFFIC TEMPLATE 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.95 SILVER BUTTONS W/TOGGLES, W 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 21.00 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 17.24 ATAC 6" BOOT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 79.99 Total : 213.13 1450957 C161 C-161 SCREENINGS SYSTEM IMPF 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 2,892.60 Total : 2,892.60 04317085.00 INV#04317085.00 ACCT#00557761 I Page: 8 Packet Page 36 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95370 4/5/2007 067947 BROWNELLS INC (Continued) AR-15 MULTI -TOOL 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 21.60 M16/AR-15 CHAMBER MOP (DOZEI 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 15.89 AR15 DCF HANDGUARD REMOVAL 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 20.00 ROD ADAPTERS 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 8.40 S&W LARGE STORAGE CASE 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 9.50 Freight 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 9.25 Total : 84.64 95371 4/5/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY105106 SUPPLIES POLIFAN, GRINDING WHEEL, HINC 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 73.67 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.56 Total : 80.23 95372 4/5/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 105158 WATER - CARBON DIOXIDE FILL F WATER - CARBON DIOXIDE FILL F 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 38.13 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.39 Total : 41.52 95373 4/5/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY105347 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 27.82 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 2.48 Total : 30.30 Page: 9 Packet Page 37 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95374 4/5/2007 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT7705 CHILDREN'S CLASSES MARCH MORNINGS OUT #7705 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 35.00 FRIDAY NIGHTS OUT #7659 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 92.40 Total : 127.40 95375 4/5/2007 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 700605-0001 E7FB.Hinrichs Cl No GCO25231 E7FB.Hinrichs Cl No GCO25231 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 1,195.00 Total : 1,195.00 95376 4/5/2007 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 700605-002 E7FB.Hinrichs Cl No GCO25231 E7FB.Hinrichs Cl No GCO25231 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 240.00 Total : 240.00 95377 4/5/2007 071587 CIE INC C-13010180 INV#C-13010180 EDMONDS PD SUM 296 SIG SAUER HOLSTER 001.000.410.521.210.350.00 53.56 Freight 001.000.410.521.210.350.00 9.95 Total : 63.51 95378 4/5/2007 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 206-369-4557 CELL PHONE FLEET cell phone fleet 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 11.64 Total : 11.64 95379 4/5/2007 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 871747052X04052007 D Bowman 3/8-3/25/07. D Bowman 3/8-3/25/07. 001.000.620.558.800.420.00 6.44 Total : 6.44 95380 4/5/2007 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 4X04032007 ALS COMMUNICATIONS IRIS 001.000.510.526.100.420.00 1.43 Page: 10 Packet Page 38 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95380 4/5/2007 064341 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS (Continued) Total : 1.43 95381 4/5/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460536243 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 123.97 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.03 460593034 UNIFORMS Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 46.36 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 4.12 460593035 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 106.82 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.51 460594092 OPS UNIFORMS Stn 17 - ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 101.09 Stn 17 - Ops 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 101.09 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 9.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.99 460594115 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 123.97 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.03 Total : 656.98 95382 4/5/2007 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FINANCIAL 8877271 COPIER LEASE PW INSURANCE FOR copier lease for P` 001.000.650.519.910.450.00 14.82 Page: 11 Packet Page 39 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95382 4/5/2007 066070 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FINANCIAL (Continued) Total : 14.82 95383 4/5/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 0403 TRAINING SUPPLIES EFD portion 001.000.510.522.400.310.00 57.79 Total : 57.79 95384 4/5/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1767387 FAC MAINT - JUG PUMPS, CLEANE FAC MAINT - JUG PUMPS, CLEANE 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 593.64 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 52.46 W1767509 FAC MAINT - GOOD SENSE, COMP FAC MAINT - GOOD SENSE, COMP 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 282.16 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 25.05 Total : 958.31 95385 4/5/2007 065364 CONTRACT HARDWARE INC 0031903-IN YOST PARK - INSIDE MTG HARDW YOST PARK - INSIDE MTG HARDW 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 37.80 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.33 Total : 41.13 95386 4/5/2007 070465 CONTRACT SOLUTIONS GROUP C/O Seminar Registration.lmpr Const C/O Mgmt Registration.lmpr Const C/O Mgmt 001.000.620.532.200.490.00 189.00 Total : 189.00 95387 4/5/2007 062891 COOK PAGING WA 6657247 ACC 1126518 Page: 12 Packet Page 40 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 95387 4/5/2007 062891 COOK PAGING WA Invoice (Continued) 95388 4/5/2007 066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS 0307 2989771 5374044 95389 4/5/2007 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS March 2007 95390 4/5/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 07-2736 PO # Description/Account Amount pagers -water 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 11.85 pagers -streets 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 11.85 pagers -storm 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 15.80 pagers -facilities 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 23.70 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 1.20 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 1.20 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 1.60 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 2.38 Total : 69.58 INV#0307 2989771 5374044 EDMO� 5 GALLON WATER BOTTLES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 50.43 HOT/COLD COOLER RENTAL 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.91 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.89 Total : 63.23 MARCH 2O07 DRS March 2007 DRS 811.000.000.231.540.000.00 173,070.84 Total : 173,070.84 MINUTE TAKING Page: 13 Packet Page 41 of 396 vchlist 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 14 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95390 4/5/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE (Continued) 3/27/07 Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 232.40 Total : 232.40 95391 4/5/2007 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL #3 MARCH 2O07 State lobbyist for March 2007 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 4,135.00 Total : 4,135.00 95392 4/5/2007 071596 EBORALL, STEVE EBORALL7833 ART CLASSES ART DAZE #7833 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 97.50 Total : 97.50 95393 4/5/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 78268 SUPPLIES GREASE GUN, SILICONE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 56.73 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.05 Total : 61.78 95394 4/5/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 75221 UNIT 55 - SERP BELT UNIT 55 - SERP BELT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 42.22 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.76 76126 UNIT 24 - SERP BELT UNIT 24 - SERP BELT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 41.02 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.65 Page: 14 Packet Page 42 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95394 4/5/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS (Continued) 76971 UNIT 537 - PLUG TAPS UNIT 537 - PLUG TAPS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.68 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.59 78082 UNIT M16 - CORROSIONX, GEAR L UNIT M16 - CORROSIONX, GEAR L 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 27.84 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.48 78084 UNIT M16 - DRAIN PAN UNIT M16 - DRAIN PAN 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.49 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.76 Total : 137.49 95395 4/5/2007 063066 EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE ECC0329 GYM RENTAL GYM RENTAL FOR 5-ON-5 BASKEI 001.000.640.575.520.450.00 2,200.00 Total : 2,200.00 95396 4/5/2007 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 10023 UPS/MCMASTER-CARR/DEPT L & I UPS/MCMASTER-CARR/DEPT L & 1 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 14.17 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 1.26 10031 BROWN & CALDWELL BROWN & CALDWELL 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 9.99 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 0.89 Page: 15 Packet Page 43 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95396 4/5/2007 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL (Continued) 10046 BROWN & CALDWELL BROWN & CALDWELL 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 9.22 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 0.82 Total : 36.35 95397 4/5/2007 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP WINN0330 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPS YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP:- 122.000.640.574.100.490.00 450.00 Total : 450.00 95398 4/5/2007 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 023650 ADMIN MAINT Admin copier maint. 001.000.510.522.100.480.00 69.39 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.480.00 6.18 Total : 75.57 95399 4/5/2007 069117 EMERALD SERVICES INC 373948 CR FOR USED OIL SOLD TO EMEF CR FOR USED OIL SOLD TO EMEF 511.000.657.548.680.490.00 -60.00 383996 CR FOR USED OIL SOLD TO EMEF CR FOR USED OIL SOLD TO EMEF 511.000.657.548.680.490.00 -45.00 394535 FLEET SHOP - RECYCLE FEES FLEET SHOP - RECYCLE FEES 511.000.657.548.680.490.00 294.00 Total : 189.00 95400 4/5/2007 009880 FEDEX 8-760-65872 Messenger Service-CTAC Proposal Messenger Service-CTAC Proposal 001.000.310.514.100.410.00 108.17 Total : 108.17 95401 4/5/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0085995-1 WATER INVENTORY - W-MTRLIDD Page: 16 Packet Page 44 of 396 vchlist 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 17 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95401 4/5/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) WATER INVENTORY - W-MTRLIDD 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 686.98 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 61.14 Total : 748.12 95402 4/5/2007 064131 GAI-TRONICS 44634365 PARTS FOR INTERCOM PARTS FOR INTERCOM 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 469.89 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 55.24 Total : 525.13 95403 4/5/2007 067232 GERRISH BEARING COMPANY 2070940-01 BEARINGS/SEALS BEARINGS/SEALS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,896.83 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 43.09 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 170.71 2071209-01 OIL SEAL/BALL BEARINGS OIL SEAL/BALL BEARINGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 513.18 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.15 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 46.05 Total : 2,680.01 95404 4/5/2007 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER7966 TAI CHI/QIGONG Page: 17 Packet Page 45 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95404 4/5/2007 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA (Continued) QIGONG #7966 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 425.25 TAIJIQUAN #7612 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 270.00 TAIJIQUAN #7610 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 270.00 TAIJIQUAN #7607 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 472.50 Total : 1,437.75 95405 4/5/2007 012199 GRAINGER 9326360659 837944131 PLIERS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 27.65 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.43 Total : 30.08 95406 4/5/2007 069864 GRAPHIC ENTERPRISES INC AR126332 K&E/8036 OVERAGE CHARGES 2/2 K&E/8036 OVERAGE CHARGES 2/2 001.000.620.524.100.480.00 113.05 Sales Tax 001.000.620.524.100.480.00 10.06 Total : 123.11 95407 4/5/2007 071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC 06713.00-6 E6DA.Services thr 03/10/07 E6DA.Services thr 03/10/07 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 20,491.74 Total : 20,491.74 95408 4/5/2007 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY INC 924693860 STREET - 3X36X4 ANCHOR BOLT STREET - 3X36X4 ANCHOR BOLT 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 125.00 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 11.01 Total : 136.01 Page: 18 Packet Page 46 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95409 4/5/2007 061965 GW AUTO REBUILD RO 31281 UNIT 89 - SERVICE AND REPAIR UNIT 89 - SERVICE AND REPAIR 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 4,621.21 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 411.28 Total : 5,032.49 95410 4/5/2007 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 78266 /1 WATER INVENTORY - - WATER INVENTORY - - 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 531.90 NON INVENTORY - 2" METER FLAB 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 106.40 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 40.42 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.09 Total : 686.81 95411 4/5/2007 070437 HARDIE, MARY ANN 11/20/06 Tuition Reimbursement - Winter Qtr. Tuition Reimbursement - Winter Qtr. 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 997.50 Total : 997.50 95412 4/5/2007 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 71130 UNIT 233 - OIL SEAL ASSEMBLY UNIT 233 - OIL SEAL ASSEMBLY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.70 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.13 71135 UNIT 233 - FLANGED NUT UNIT 233 - FLANGED NUT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.38 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.83 Page: 19 Packet Page 47 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95412 4/5/2007 012900 HARRIS FORD INC (Continued) 71413 UNIT 239 - MUFFLER ASSEMBLY UNIT 239 - MUFFLER ASSEMBLY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 122.59 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.91 71429 UNIT 238 - WINDOW SWITCH UNIT 238 - WINDOW SWITCH 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 40.58 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.61 71432 UNIT 238 - LIGHT PROCESSOR UNIT 238 - LIGHT PROCESSOR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 331.43 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.50 71741 UNIT 104 - WHEEL COVER UNIT 104 - WHEEL COVER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.98 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.60 72024 UNIT 481 - ROTOR ASSEMBLY, BR, UNIT 481 - ROTOR ASSEMBLY, BR, 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 193.68 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.24 Total : 793.16 95413 4/5/2007 071597 HOANG, THUAN AND SUONG 2-27300 RE: #1-9813-KSMB UTILITY REFUN UB Refund #1-9813-KSMB Hoang/St 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 87.24 Total : 87.24 95414 4/5/2007 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 018230 OPS SUPPLIES batteries 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 154.14 Page: 20 Packet Page 48 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95414 4/5/2007 070896 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (Continued) Total : 154.14 95415 4/5/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 72775831 COPIER LEASE RECREATION COPIER LEASE 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 627.24 72819920 COPIER LEASE PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEA 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 29.97 Total : 657.21 95416 4/5/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 72819917 FINANCE COPIER RENTAL 3/22-4/2 Finance Copier Rental 3/22-4/21/07 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 454.07 Additional images 2/3-3/3-07 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 743.81 Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 106.62 Total : 1,304.50 95417 4/5/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 72819907 RECEPTION COPIER CHARGES FF RECEPTION COPIER CHARGES FF 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 122.24 72819913 LARGE D.S. COPIER CHARGES FR LARGE D.S. COPIER CHARGES FR 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 924.83 72819915 COLOR COPIER CHARGES FROM COLOR COPIER CHARGES FROM 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 1,434.04 Total : 2,481.11 95418 4/5/2007 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 2586402 INTERNET ACCESS MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTEI 001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00 Total : 15.00 95419 4/5/2007 071591 IVES, DOROTHY IVES0329 REFUND Page: 21 Packet Page 49 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95419 4/5/2007 071591 IVES, DOROTHY (Continued) CLASS REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 166.00 Total : 166.00 95420 4/5/2007 071598 JACKSON, DOUGLAS 3-33850 RE: #1-0702-179 UTILITY REFUND UB Refund #1-0702-179 Jackson/ Oc 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 130.28 Total : 130.28 95421 4/5/2007 071592 KERNS, MILNIECE KERNS0326 REFUND REFUND FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUP 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 86.00 Total : 86.00 95422 4/5/2007 016600 KROESENS INC 75403 OPS UNIFORMS Erickson, Nichols 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 984.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 86.64 76092 ALS UNIFORM Hoover belt 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 16.90 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 1.49 Total : 1,089.53 95423 4/5/2007 060132 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 1009375764 INV#1009375764 ACCT#5560008 E ENVIROCIDE 24 OZ PUMP 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 28.80 ENVIROCIDE - GALLON REFILL 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 83.40 Freight 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 29.23 Total : 141.43 95424 4/5/2007 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 0020703 810 WALNUT ST - ENVIRONMENTF Page: 22 Packet Page 50 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95424 4/5/2007 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC (Continued) 810 WALNUT ST - ENVIRONMENTP 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 673.00 Total : 673.00 95425 4/5/2007 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 3007-294 MOWER SUPPLIES MOWER SUPPLIES:- 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 214.77 Freight 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 25.87 Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 21.42 Total : 262.06 95426 4/5/2007 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 122981 UNIT 116 - ALIGNMENT UNIT 116 - ALIGNMENT 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 49.95 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 4.45 123263 UNIT 89 - ALIGNMENT UNIT 89 - ALIGNMENT 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 49.95 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 4.45 Total : 108.80 95427 4/5/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 093803 ENVELOPES FOR DEV. SVCS. & PI ENVELOPES FOR DEV. SVCS. & PI 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 376.00 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 33.46 Total : 409.46 95428 4/5/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 093833 INV#93833 EDMONDS PD Page: 23 Packet Page 51 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95428 4/5/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS (Continued) CANON FX-7 TONER CARTRIDGE 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 218.18 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 19.42 Total : 237.60 95429 4/5/2007 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 515841 UNIT 24 - SWITCH UNIT 24 - SWITCH 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.09 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.52 516059 UNIT 31 - OIL FLITERS UNIT 31 - OIL FLITERS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 35.61 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.17 516136 UNIT 80 - LUBE AND FUEL FILTER: UNIT 80 - LUBE AND FUEL FILTER: 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.96 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.95 516212 UNIT 70 - SEAL UNIT 70 - SEAL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.39 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.66 516270 UNIT 70 - SEAL UNIT 70 - SEAL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.78 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.32 Page: 24 Packet Page 52 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95429 4/5/2007 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) 516283 UNIT 24 - OIL FILTER UNIT 24 - OIL FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 28.18 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.51 516395 UNIT 24 - AIR FILTER UNIT 24 - AIR FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.82 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.83 516482 UNIT 16 - SEAL, FITTINGS UNIT 16 - SEAL, FITTINGS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.57 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.50 516761 UNIT 372 - OIL FILTER UNIT 372 - OIL FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.06 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.45 516793 UNIT 3 - OIL FILTER UNIT 3 - OIL FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.66 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.41 516861 UNIT 3 - AIR FILTER UNIT 3 - AIR FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.37 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.90 516951 UNIT 475 - GOLD 9V BATTERY UNIT 475 - GOLD 9V BATTERY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.98 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.53 Page: 25 Packet Page 53 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95429 4/5/2007 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) 517738 UNIT 68 - RAD CAP UNIT 68 - RAD CAP 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.45 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.49 517826 UNIT 68 - SPARK PLUGS UNIT 68 - SPARK PLUGS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.34 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.74 518107 UNIT 998 - OIL FILTER UNIT 998 - OIL FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.18 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.46 518160 UNIT 68 - VOLTAGE REG UNIT 68 - VOLTAGE REG 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.66 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.82 518233 UNIT 332 - SMALL LAMP UNIT 332 - SMALL LAMP 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.08 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.36 Total : 276.80 95430 4/5/2007 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 556807 UNIT M16 - CASTLE 18M NUTS UNIT M16 - CASTLE 18M NUTS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 39.24 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.49 Total : 42.73 95431 4/5/2007 071589 M-F ATHLETIC COMPANY INC 582165-00 OPS EXPENDABLE TOOLS Page: 26 Packet Page 54 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95431 4/5/2007 071589 M-F ATHLETIC COMPANY INC (Continued) exercise equipmt 001.000.510.522.200.359.00 194.85 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.359.00 19.95 Total : 214.80 95432 4/5/2007 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 61579798 123106800 TUBING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 34.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.00 61771969 123106800 PIPE FITTINGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 48.91 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.72 61795650 123106800 FITTINGS/PLUGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 236.14 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.66 61836900 123106800 PIPE FITTING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 29.18 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.37 61840416 123106800 MICROMETER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 164.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.03 Page: 27 Packet Page 55 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95432 4/5/2007 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO (Continued) 61862716 123106800 PRESSURE HOSE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 72.87 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.03 61873908 123106800 HEX CAP/HEX NUT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 326.30 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 11.54 Total : 958.75 95433 4/5/2007 069285 MERCER MD, JAMES 1003-007 ALS PRO SERVICES March '07 med prgm dir 001.000.510.526.100.410.00 1,644.75 Total : 1,644.75 95434 4/5/2007 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 42046 RENTALS EQUIPMENT RENTAL 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 190.00 GAS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.65 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 16.91 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.21 Total : 221.77 95435 4/5/2007 062204 NELSON TRUCK EQUIP CO INC 429976 UNIT 93PM - TOMMY GATE LIFT IN UNIT 93PM - TOMMY GATE LIFT IN 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 2,168.21 Freight 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 250.00 Sales Tax 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 212.80 Page: 28 Packet Page 56 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95435 4/5/2007 062204 NELSON TRUCK EQUIP CO INC (Continued) 434921 UNIT 93PM - SADDLE BOX INSTAL[ UNIT 93PM - SADDLE BOX INSTAL[ 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 1,097.30 Sales Tax 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 96.56 Total : 3,824.87 95436 4/5/2007 070788 NETRIVER INC 35915 HOSTING PACKAGE NON-PROFIT HOSTING PACKAGE: 120.000.310.575.420.410.00 39.00 Total : 39.00 95437 4/5/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 323912314-064 IT CELL PHONE SERVICE IT Cell Phone Service 2/25-3/24/07 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 174.27 Total : 174.27 95438 4/5/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 411191318-064 Cell Service 2/25-3/24/07 - Bldg. Del Cell Service 2/25-3/24/07 - Bldg. Del 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 111.79 Total : 111.79 95439 4/5/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 976032312-064 COMMUNICATIONS Admin 001.000.510.522.100.420.00 22.33 Operations 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 409.26 Prevention 001.000.510.522.300.420.00 73.62 ALS 001.000.510.526.100.420.00 63.78 Total : 568.99 95440 4/5/2007 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S1383530.001 2091 Page: 29 Packet Page 57 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95440 4/5/2007 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY (Continued) INHIBITING BLOCK 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 127.20 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 10.94 Total : 138.14 95441 4/5/2007 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 15775 CITYEDMTRE C-248 INCINERATOR PROJECT 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 420.00 Sales Tax 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 36.12 Total : 456.12 95442 4/5/2007 064006 NORTH WEST INSTRUMENT SERVICES 9075 INV#9075 EDMONDS PD BALANCE THREE EVIDENCE SCAL 001.000.410.521.910.410.00 240.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.910.410.00 21.36 Total : 261.36 95443 4/5/2007 071593 NORTHERN SAFETY COMPANY INC P171246100013 INSPECTION GLOVES FOR MARIE INSPECTION GLOVES FOR MARIE 001.000.620.524.100.240.00 23.12 Freight 001.000.620.524.100.240.00 9.55 Total : 32.67 95444 4/5/2007 066628 NORTHWEST DISTRIBUTING CO 027522 FLEET SUPPLIES - AQUAPEL FLEET SUPPLIES - AQUAPEL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 120.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.33 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.20 Total : 133.53 Page: 30 Packet Page 58 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95445 4/5/2007 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 468 Transcrips,Verbatim R-06-95 3/14/07 Transcrips,Verbatim R-06-95 3/14/07 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 120.00 Total : 120.00 95446 4/5/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 197299 OFFICE SUPPLIES CYAN PRINTER CARTRIDGE 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 28.16 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 2.40 248888 OFFICE SUPPLIES COPYHOLDER 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 11.55 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 0.93 263851 OFFICE SUPPLIES MISC. PAPER, FOLDERS, ETC. 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 326.39 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 28.73 372016 OFFICE SUPPLIES FACIAL TISSUE 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 7.42 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.57 395445 OFFICE SUPPLIES PASTEL PAPER 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 16.20 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.34 408997 OFFICE SUPPLIES PHOTO PAPER 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 24.19 King County Sales Tax 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 2.04 Page: 31 Packet Page 59 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95446 4/5/2007 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) Total : 449.92 95447 4/5/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 950389 Toner Cartridge/stapler/adding macN Toner Cartridge/stapler/adding mach) 001.000.310.514.100.310.00 63.58 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.100.310.00 5.59 994549 Stapler Stapler 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 12.78 Freight 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 1.00 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 1.12 Total : 84.07 95448 4/5/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 749169 PW ADMIN - PRINTER TONER PW ADMIN - PRINTER TONER 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 79.98 King County Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 7.04 766630 PW ADMIN COLOR PRINTER INKJE PW ADMIN COLOR PRINTER INKJE 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 52.52 King County Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 4.62 Total : 144.16 95449 4/5/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 625168 DAF8 DRAFTING FILM FROM BACk DAF8 DRAFTING FILM FROM BACk 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 109.73 King County Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 9.65 Page: 32 Packet Page 60 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95449 4/5/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) 872552 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - INCLUD MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - INCLUD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 342.23 King County Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 30.11 878547 CHAIRMAT - DAVE. CHAIRMAT - DAVE. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 91.11 King County Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 8.01 Total : 590.84 95450 4/5/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 876439 SUPPLIES Ops-sheet protectors 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 14.38 Admin-stapler, etc. 001.000.510.522.100.310.00 22.41 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 0.39 Freight 001.000.510.522.100.310.00 0.61 King County Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 1.27 King County Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.310.00 1.97 Total : 41.03 95451 4/5/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 862592 INV#862592 ACCT#520437 250POL LEGAL HANGING FILE FOLDERS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 28.56 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.51 Page: 33 Packet Page 61 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 95451 4/5/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 95452 95453 Invoice (Continued) 935047 4/5/2007 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER Feb 4/5/2007 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS PACIFICNWFLOAT7934 PO # Description/Account Amount INV#935047 ACCT#520437 250POL DESKJET INK 001.000.410.521.310.310.00 24.99 TWIN PACK 61X TONER 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 198.73 25-PACK OF DISKETTES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.34 SINGLE HOLE PUNCHES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.81 TAPE VALUE PACK 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 21.90 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.310.310.00 2.20 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 17.50 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 3.17 Total : 313.71 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSI Emergency Medical Services & Traur 001.000.000.237.120.000.00 746.79 PSEA 1 ,2, 3 Account 001.000.000.237.130.000.00 15,340.65 Building Code Fee Account 001.000.000.237.150.000.00 388.50 State Patrol Death Investigations 001.000.000.237.170.000.00 707.11 Judicial Information Systems Accoun 001.000.000.237.180.000.00 1,977.62 School Zone Safety Account 001.000.000.237.200.000.00 1,769.87 Total : 20,930.54 "Is]I_TfI_1901:42,111t1iV% Page: 34 Packet Page 62 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95453 4/5/2007 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS (Continued) DECEPTION PASS ZODIAC ADVEN 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 110.20 Total : 110.20 95454 4/5/2007 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 42836 STORM DUMP FEES STORM DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 97.23 Total : 97.23 95455 4/5/2007 064070 PALMATIER, LISA PALMATIER0307 CONCERT COORDINATION COORDINATION OF PARK CONCEI 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 150.00 Total : 150.00 95456 4/5/2007 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 9538534 COPIER CONTRACT COPIER CONTRACT 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 145.22 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 12.60 Total : 157.82 95457 4/5/2007 071599 PATTERSON, JEAN M 7-03975 RE: #4-0703-052 UTILITY REFUND UB Refund #4-0703-052 Patterson/H 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 126.61 Total : 126.61 95458 4/5/2007 063890 PERFORMANCE SIGN PRODUCTS INC 42258 STREET - 30" OPAQUE MED BLUE STREET - 30" OPAQUE MED BLUE 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 86.50 Freight 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 5.00 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 7.87 Total : 99.37 95459 4/5/2007 007800 PETTY CASH petty cash-tc retirement cake -Stark Page: 35 Packet Page 63 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code Voucher 95459 95460 front Date Vendor 4/5/2007 007800 PETTY CASH Invoice (Continued) 4/5/2007 029012 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 152848 PO # Description/Account Amount retirement cake -Stark 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 50.00 reimb for breakfast supplies -council 001.000.110.511.100.310.00 50.21 parking for main st conference at 001.000.620.558.600.430.00 22.00 milege reimb-jury duty -Hardie 001.000.220.516.100.430.00 63.06 mileage reimb-Linda Carl 001.000.210.513.100.430.00 32.02 mileage reimb-council retreat -Carl 001.000.210.513.100.430.00 45.69 snohomish county clerks & finance 001.000.250.514.300.490.00 10.00 label maker required new power adar 001.000.510.522.100.310.00 28.28 assoc of sno cnty city & towns reg 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 35.00 reimburse for council refreshments 001.000.110.511.100.310.00 24.03 coffee and sugar for 2nd floor 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 34.57 assoc of sno cnty city & towns reg fei 001.000.110.511.100.490.00 70.00 2007 council retreat mileage-spellma 001.000.110.511.100.430.00 55.13 flu shot reimb-Todd Smith 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 18.00 SKED storage bag repair 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 21.76 Total : 559.75 POSTAGE TO SET COM REPAIR - I POSTAGE TO SET COM REPAIR - 1 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.00 Page: 36 Packet Page 64 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95460 4/5/2007 029012 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR (Continued) 152956 DEPT OF L&I POSTAGE - WATER/: DEPT OF L&I POSTAGE - WATER/: 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 3.91 DEPT OF L&I POSTAGE - WATER/: 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 3.91 153195 NATIONAL SAFETY POSTAGE - SE NATIONAL SAFETY POSTAGE - SE 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.00 153197 DEPT OF L&I POSTAGE FEES - W, DEPT OF L&I POSTAGE FEES - W, 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 1.42 DEPT OF L&I POSTAGE FEES - W, 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 1.41 153345 ERIC REPAIR POSTAGE - SEWER ERIC REPAIR POSTAGE - SEWER 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 7.74 153372 KING SALMON MARINE POSTAGE KING SALMON MARINE POSTAGE 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 12.39 153427 DEPT OF L&I POSTAGE - WATER/: DEPT OF L&I POSTAGE - WATER/: 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 4.95 DEPT OF L&I POSTAGE - WATER/: 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 4.94 153437 SET COM REPAIR POSTAGE - FLE SET COM REPAIR POSTAGE - FLE 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.00 Total : 86.67 95461 4/5/2007 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS Pmt 35 E3HB.Services thru 03/09/07 E3HB.Services thru 03/09/07 414.000.656.538.800.410.00 207.35 E2FB.Services thru 03/09/07 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 213.24 Page: 37 Packet Page 65 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95461 4/5/2007 029117 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS (Continued) Total : 420.59 95462 4/5/2007 065105 PORT SUPPLY 5924 UNIT M16 - OIL UNIT M16 - OIL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.58 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.10 5926 UNIT M16 - FASTENERS, FUNNEL UNIT M16 - FASTENERS, FUNNEL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.85 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.17 5939 UNIT M16 - LUBE CORROSION BLC UNIT M16 - LUBE CORROSION BLC 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.98 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.16 6292 UNIT M16 - PROP WRENCH, CART UNIT M16 - PROP WRENCH, CART 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 128.15 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.41 6803 UNIT M-16 - FASTENERS UNIT M-16 - FASTENERS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.24 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.11 Total : 182.75 95463 4/5/2007 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 19387 INV#19387 ORDER # 19457 EDMOI` 25 FT XP DUTY CARTRIDGES 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 1,137.50 21 FT NON-CONDUCTIVE SIMULAT 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 1,875.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 9.95 Page: 38 Packet Page 66 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 39 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95463 4/5/2007 071594 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT (Continued) Total : 3,022.45 95464 4/5/2007 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2010551 MCC 24 hour alarm monitoring MCC- 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 96.00 Total : 96.00 95465 4/5/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 173.34 Total : 173.34 95466 4/5/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 084-904-700-6 WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY 411.000.656.538.800.472.63 1,564.43 Total : 1,564.43 95467 4/5/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 353.34 0230757007 PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 408.22 1916766007 LIFT STATION #7 LIFT STATION #7 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 112.80 2753166004 PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & CC PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & CC 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 619.34 Page: 39 Packet Page 67 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 40 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95467 4/5/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) 2776365005 Public Works Public Works 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 62.21 Public Works 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 236.39 Public Works 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 236.39 Public Works 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 236.39 Public Works 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 236.39 Public Works 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 236.40 2986629000 LIFT STATION #13 LIFT STATION #13 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 86.47 3689976003 200 Dayton St -Vacant PW Bldg 200 Dayton St -Vacant PW Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 489.17 5254926008 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 310.75 5672895009 SEWER LIFT STATION #9 SEWER LIFT STATION #9 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 26.84 6439566008 PUBLIC SAFETY -FIRE STATION PUBLIC SAFETY -FIRE STATION 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,198.41 6490327001 ANDERSON CENTER ANDERSON CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,110.55 8851908007 LIFT STATION #8 LIFT STATION #8 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.79 Page: 40 Packet Page 68 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 41 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95467 4/5/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) 9919661109 FIRE STATION #20 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 553.97 Total : 8,568.82 95468 4/5/2007 068484 RINKER MATERIALS 9412377938 STREET - ASPHALT STREET - ASPHALT 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 720.00 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 63.36 9412402890 STREET - ASPHALT STREET - ASPHALT 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 240.00 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 21.12 9412412538 STREET - ASPHALT STREET - ASPHALT 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 240.00 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 21.12 Total : 1,305.60 95469 4/5/2007 069879 SALTER JOYCE ZIKER PLLC 10567 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Prof Services 8th & Walnut 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 176.00 Prof Services 5th & Dayton 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 154.00 Total : 330.00 95470 4/5/2007 071007 SAWDON, MANDY SAWDON0331 GYM MONITOR ANDERSON CENTER GYM MONITC 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 48.00 Total : 48.00 95471 4/5/2007 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET 231441 UNIT 89 - GEAR Page: 41 Packet Page 69 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 42 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95471 4/5/2007 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET (Continued) UNIT 89 - GEAR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 284.59 CORE FEE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 100.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.23 231502 UNIT 89 - SHAFT UNIT 89 - SHAFT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 141.78 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.62 CM231441 REFUND OF CORE FEE FOR GEAF REFUND OF CORE FEE FOR GEAF 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -100.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -8.90 Total : 464.32 95472 4/5/2007 071595 SEE COAST MFG COMPANY INC 5540 SPOTTING SCOPES SPOTTING SCOPES 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 6,635.00 Freight 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 277.15 Total : 6,912.15 95473 4/5/2007 066738 SETCOM CORPORATION 19571 UNIT 124 - REPAIR MATERIAL & LP UNIT 124 - REPAIR MATERIAL & LP 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 303.01 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 7.87 79490 UNIT 124 - HELMET KIT UNIT 124 - HELMET KIT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 273.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.19 Page: 42 Packet Page 70 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 43 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95473 4/5/2007 066738 066738 SETCOM CORPORATION (Continued) Total : 591.07 95474 4/5/2007 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0059706-IN UNIT 09 FI - COMPACT SPEAKER, UNIT 09 FI - COMPACT SPEAKER, 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 160.20 0059707-IN UNIT 10 FI - COMPACT SPEAKER, UNIT 10 FI - COMPACT SPEAKER, 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 160.20 Total : 320.40 95475 4/5/2007 071602 SME SOLUTIONS LLC Bus Lic Refund OVER PMT OF BUSINESS LICENSE Refund over pmt of Bus Lic 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 95476 4/5/2007 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT 1000 168859 Q4-06 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS & Q4-06 Liquor Board Profits & Taxes 001.000.390.567.000.510.00 2,172.19 Total : 2,172.19 95477 4/5/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 3850013073 IRRIGATION CONTROL IRRIGATION CONTROL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.74 4120014156 UTILITY BILLING 750 15TH ST SW 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 16.17 4160017333 SPRINKLER SYSTEM SPRINKLER SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 89.38 Total : 135.29 95478 4/5/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2330012283 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 28.28 2440024129 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 158.43 Page: 43 Packet Page 71 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 44 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95478 4/5/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 2670022181 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,749.27 3710011507 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 52.54 3850011440 LIFT STATION #12 LIFT STATION #12 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 295.71 4070022027 LIFT STATION #15 LIFT STATION #15 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 28.28 4130026596 LIFT STATION #11 LIFT STATION #11 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 37.75 4320012174 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 437.08 5500019350 LOG CABIN LOG CABIN 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 370.68 Total : 5,158.02 95479 4/5/2007 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 48259 DUMPING FEES DUMP FEES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 364.86 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 13.14 Total : 378.00 95480 4/5/2007 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER Feb 07 crime victims crime victims 001.000.000.237.140.000.00 540.26 Total : 540.26 Page: 44 Packet Page 72 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 45 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95481 4/5/2007 038500 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC April-07 04/07 Recreation Services Contract F 04/07 Recreation Services Contract F 001.000.390.519.900.410.00 4,791.67 Total : 4,791.67 95482 4/5/2007 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03583 garbage & recycle for PS garbage & recycle for PS 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 487.49 03585 garbage & recycle for FAC garbage & recycle for FAC 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 556.90 03586 garbage & recycle for Library garbage & recycle for Library 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 491.20 03588 garbage & recycle -City Hall garbage & recycle -City Hall 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 379.46 Total : 1,915.05 95483 4/5/2007 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2253717-01 UNIFORMS/SEBERS UNIFORMS/SEBERS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 25.95 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 2.23 Total : 28.18 95484 4/5/2007 070677 SPRINT Eng.Mar 2007 Engineering Nextel thru 03/24/07 Engineering Nextel thru 03/24/07 001.000.620.532.200.420.00 540.21 Total : 540.21 95485 4/5/2007 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 947329 BAND SHELL - ELECTRICAL SUPPI BAND SHELL - ELECTRICAL SUPPI 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 193.84 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.25 Page: 45 Packet Page 73 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 46 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95485 4/5/2007 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY (Continued) 954720 MILLTOWN STREET PROJECT - El MILLTOWN STREET PROJECT - El 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 74.35 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 6.62 954721 FAC MAINT - ELECTRICAL SUPPLII FAC MAINT - ELECTRICAL SUPPLII 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.33 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.70 Total : 325.09 95486 4/5/2007 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 7961 TELEMETRY SYSTEMS PROF SVC; TELEMETRY SYSTEMS PROF SVC; 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 27,101.25 7962 TELEMETRY SYSTEM MATERIAL P TELEMETRY SYSTEM MATERIAL P 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 18,432.20 Sales Tax 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 1,640.47 Total : 47,173.92 95487 4/5/2007 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10484728 STREET - STEEL LAG GALV 5/16X.e STREET - STEEL LAG GALV 5/16X. 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 21.23 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 1.89 Total : 23.12 95488 4/5/2007 071577 TAYLOR, KATHLEEN 3/21-4/2/07 CONSULTANT SERVICES 3/21-4/2/I CONSULTANT SERVICES 3/21-4/2/I 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 2,600.00 Total : 2,600.00 95489 4/5/2007 069576 THE BANK OF NEW YORK 1154456 ACCT # EDMLTGO07 Page: 46 Packet Page 74 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 47 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95489 4/5/2007 069576 THE BANK OF NEW YORK (Continued) Gen Oblign Bonds Series 2007 001.000.390.592.190.840.00 215.34 Total : 215.34 95490 4/5/2007 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 12502730 SUBSCRIPTION THROUGH 4/08/20 Subscription through 4/08/2008 001.000.610.519.700.490.00 141.00 Total : 141.00 95491 4/5/2007 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 669691 MUSEUM monthly elevator maint-museum- 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 162.05 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 14.42 669692 CITY HALL ELEVATOR MAINTENA� CITY HALL ELEVATOR MAINTENAI` 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 735.32 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 65.45 669693 MONITORING -PS monitoring -PS - APRIL 07 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 35.15 681373 SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MON SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MON 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 10.57 Total : 1,022.96 95492 4/5/2007 044300 US POSTAL SERVICE POSTAGE POSTAGE FOR CITY METER 250-00142 Postage for City Meter 001.000.250.514.300.420.00 8,000.00 Total : 8,000.00 95493 4/5/2007 064214 USSSA WASHINGTON STATE 11 SOFTBALL TEAM REGISTRATIONS MEN'S AND MIXED TEAM REGISTR 001.000.640.575.520.490.00 1,365.00 Page: 47 Packet Page 75 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 48 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95493 4/5/2007 064214 064214 USSSA WASHINGTON STATE (Continued) Total : 1,365.00 95494 4/5/2007 071601 UTILX CORPORATION Bus Lic Refund OVER PMT OF BUSINESS LICENSE Refund over prat of Bus Lic 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 95495 4/5/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-DHO-0667 DEDICATED LINE FS #17 TO SNOC Dedicated Line FS #17 to Snocom 0" 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 350.92 Total : 350.92 95496 4/5/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-1108 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 145.03 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 269.35 425-206-1137 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 31.50 425-206-1141 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.43 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.22 425-206-4810 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.17 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 78.32 425-673-5978 LIFT STATION #1 Lift Station #1 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 47.49 425-712-8347 PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 56.52 Page: 48 Packet Page 76 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 49 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95496 4/5/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST (Continued) 425-771-0158 FS # 16 FS #16 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 226.04 425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 113.69 425-778-3297 VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON S' VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON S' 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 17.81 VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON S' 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 33.06 Total : 1,113.63 95497 4/5/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-778-2153 FS #20 PHONE SERVICE FS #20 PHONE SERVICE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 47.08 425-FLO-0017 FS #16 FRAME RELAY FS #16 FRAME RELAY 001.000.510.528.600.420.00 354.94 Total : 402.02 95498 4/5/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 2126209657 CENTRALIZED IRRIGATION CENTRALIZED IRRIGATION 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 2.97 Total : 2.97 95499 4/5/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 2123645144 Aircard charges 2/19-3/18/07 Bldg. D Aircard charges 2/19-3/18/07 Bldg. D 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 60.03 Total : 60.03 95500 4/5/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 2125553073 INV#2125553073 ACCT#470497482- CELL PHONES 03/24-4/23/07 104.000.410.521.210.420.00 122.60 Total : 122.60 Page: 49 Packet Page 77 of 396 vchlist 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 50 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95501 4/5/2007 063903 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA 2428 FREIGHT - SHIPPING & HANDLING Freight 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 6.00 Total : 6.00 95502 4/5/2007 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 29840391 1066294 DISHWASHER SOAP 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 46.69 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 5.65 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 4.65 Total : 56.99 95503 4/5/2007 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-5585 STREET - DOWN DEAD PINE TREE STREET - DOWN DEAD PINE TREE 111.000.653.542.710.410.00 240.00 Total : 240.00 95504 4/5/2007 049500 WEST PUBLISHING 813352177 CODE UPDATES RCW Updates 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 563.52 Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 50.15 Total : 613.67 95505 4/5/2007 065535 WESTERN FACILITIES SUPPLY 306623-00 INV#306623-00 CUST#701480 EDM, Page: 50 Packet Page 78 of 396 vchlist 04/05/2007 4:41:55PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 51 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95505 4/5/2007 065535 WESTERN FACILITIES SUPPLY (Continued) 86G #75 DOUBLE STRENGTH BAG 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 53.59 CASE OF 2 PLY RECEIPT TAPE 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 48.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 3.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 4.48 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 4.26 Total : 113.33 95506 4/5/2007 065869 WSNLA EDHOUSE/NOE ANNUAL CPH FEES ANNUAL CERTIFIED PROFESSION, 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 100.00 Total : 100.00 95507 4/5/2007 064213 WSSUA TREASURER 185 UMPIRING UMPIRING OF LEAGUE GAMES 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 644.00 Total : 644.00 163 Vouchers for bank code : front Bank total : 377,063.39 163 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 377,063.39 Page: 51 Packet Page 79 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95508 4/12/2007 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 238970 RODENT CONTROL CITY RODENT CONTROL 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 73.50 Total : 73.50 95509 4/12/2007 069634 ACCURINT - ACCT 1201641 1201641-20070331 INV#1201641-20070331 EDMONDS SEARCHES & REPORTS 03/07 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 30.25 Total : 30.25 95510 4/12/2007 068188 ADAMS, MIKE 2007 BOOTS 2007 BOOT ALLOWANCE - M ADAK 2007 BOOT ALLOWANCE - M ADAK 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 164.00 Total : 164.00 95511 4/12/2007 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 8230 MARCH 2O07 MONTHLY WHOLESA MARCH 2O07 MONTHLY WHOLESA 411.000.654.534.800.340.00 84,059.18 Total : 84,059.18 95512 4/12/2007 014940 ALL BATTERY SALES & SERVICE 110425086 FLEET SHOP INVENTORY - BATTE FLEET SHOP INVENTORY - BATTE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 231.80 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.63 110425087 FLEET INVENTORY - BATTERIES FLEET INVENTORY - BATTERIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 79.95 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.12 Total : 339.50 95513 4/12/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3851803 UNIFORM SERVICES Page: 1 Packet Page 80 of 396 vchlist 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 2 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95513 4/12/2007 069751 ARAMARK (Continued) PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SE 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 30.36 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.70 Total : 33.06 95514 4/12/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3851805 18386001 UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 85.93 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 7.65 Total : 93.58 95515 4/12/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3850510 FLEET - UNIFORM SVC FLEET - UNIFORM SVC 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 17.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.55 Page: 2 Packet Page 81 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 95515 4/12/2007 069751 ARAMARK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 512-3850511 PW MATS PW MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38 PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26 WATER UNIFORM SVC 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 8.00 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 0.70 512-3851804 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 33.69 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.00 Page: 3 Packet Page 82 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95515 4/12/2007 069751 069751 ARAMARK (Continued) Total : 94.41 95516 4/12/2007 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 556665 FLEET - DIESEL 156 GAL FLEET - DIESEL 156 GAL 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 335.64 WA ST SERVICE FEE 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 60.00 ST EXCISE DIESEL TAX, WA OIL SI 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 55.89 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 4.80 Total : 456.33 95517 4/12/2007 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM PARKS FAX MODEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 30.60 Total : 30.60 95518 4/12/2007 065712 ATLAS SUPPLY S1+0068817 SUPPLIES SIKAFLEX 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.39 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.22 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.46 Total : 18.07 95519 4/12/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 39963 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS Page: 4 Packet Page 83 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 95519 4/12/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER Invoice (Continued) 95520 4/12/2007 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 06-3231 & 06-3423 95521 4/12/2007 071581 AVIDEX INDUSTRIES LLC 95522 4/12/2007 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 1025224 66882 PO # Description/Account Amount UB Outsourcing area #300 PRINTIN( 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 149.79 UB Outsourcing area #300 PRINTIN( 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 149.79 UB Outsourcing area #300 PRINTIN( 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 150.25 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 13.18 UB Outsourcing area #300 POSTAL 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 418.86 UB Outsourcing area #300 POSTAL 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 418.85 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 13.18 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 13.23 Total : 1,327.13 BURIAL SUPPLIES BURIAL SUPPLIES: POPE 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 358.00 BURIAL SUPPLIES: CAMPBELL 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 358.00 Total : 716.00 INV#1025224 CUST#EDM003 EDMO PANAVISE 827-06 CEILING MOUNT 001.000.410.521.210.350.00 27.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.210.350.00 10.75 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.210.350.00 3.36 Total : 41.11 BADGES Page: 5 Packet Page 84 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95522 4/12/2007 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC (Continued) BADGES 117.100.640.573.100.490.00 17.50 Freight 117.100.640.573.100.490.00 2.63 Sales Tax 117.100.640.573.100.490.00 1.80 Total : 21.93 95523 4/12/2007 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0307 Background check Background check 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 10.00 Total : 10.00 95524 4/12/2007 069221 BAILEY, ADAM MARCH 2O07 A MEALS REIMBURSE FOR WETRC MEALS REIMBURSE FOR WETRC 411.000.655.535.800.430.00 81.37 Total : 81.37 95525 4/12/2007 002070 BALANCING SERVICE CO INC 9933 BALANCE/PUMP & SHAFT BALANCE/PUMP & SHAFT 411.000.656.538.800.410.21 225.00 Total : 225.00 95526 4/12/2007 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2O06309 INV#2006309 EDMONDS PD - HOV( PRE -EMPLOY. SCREEN - HOVORK 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 175.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 6.00 Total : 181.00 95527 4/12/2007 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 9538536 COPIER RENTAL FEE COPIER RENTAL FEE 001.000.230.512.500.450.00 153.55 Total : 153.55 95528 4/12/2007 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 9538537 Canon 5870 copier lease (5/1-5/31/0 Page: 6 Packet Page 85 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 95528 4/12/2007 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 95529 4/12/2007 071603 BELZONA WASHINGTON INC Invoice (Continued) 7345 95530 4/12/2007 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS 717 95531 4/12/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 562464 PO # Description/Account Canon 5870 copier lease (5/1-5/31/0 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 Canon 5870 copier lease (5/1-5/31/0 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 Canon 5870 copier lease (5/1-5/31/0 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 Canon 5870 copier supply charge (5/ 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 Canon 5870 copier supply charge (5/ 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 Canon 5870 copier supply charge (5/ 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 Total ; C-248 PROTECTIVE COATING C-248 PROTECTIVE COATING 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 Freight 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 Sales Tax 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 Total ; ESGA.Services thru 03/16/07 ESGA.Services thru 03/16/07 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 Total ; INV#562464 EDMONDS PD - PAULE Amount 101.35 101.32 101.33 25.01 25.00 24.99 11.25 11.25 11.25 412.75 1,690.00 12.00 149.78 1,851.78 3,098.37 3,098.37 Page: 7 Packet Page 86 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 95531 4/12/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) BALLISTIC VEST 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 649.95 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 57.20 563191 INV#563191 EDMONDS PD - UNIFC COMMENDATION BAR SLIDE HOLC 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 4.80 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 0.42 576653 INV#576653 EDMONDS PD - TONY ACADEMY T-SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 17.90 ACADEMY SWEATSHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 28.30 LETTERS ON ACADEMY SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 40.00 ACADEMY SWEATPANTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 31.44 ACADEMY SHORTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 23.96 ACADEMY SHIRTS W/SEWN CREA 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 56.30 ACADEMY PANTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 45.90 UNIFORM PANTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 320.85 L/S UNIFORM SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 290.85 SEW ON BUTTONS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 10.00 SHORT SLEEVE UNIFORM SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 179.85 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 91.99 Page: 8 Packet Page 87 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 95531 4/12/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 576854 INV#576854 EDMONDS PD - GREEI REMOVE STARS FROM JACKET 001.000.410.521.310.240.00 4.00 SERVICE STARS/STRIPS 001.000.410.521.310.240.00 10.00 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.310.240.00 1.23 577503-01 INV#577503-01 EDMONDS PD - BLL MIDNIGHT PLUS UNIFORM BOOT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 79.95 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.04 577548 INV#577548 EDMONDS PD - COMP TACTICAL BATON 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 80.00 ASP CASE 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 34.00 TRAFFIC TEMPLATE 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.95 DOUBLE HANDCUFF CASE 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 42.95 CAP COVER 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 6.50 DUTY BELT AND BELT KEEPERS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 82.20 HAND WEIGHT TRAINER 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 8.95 BLACK GEAR BAG 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 39.95 ATAC LOW BOOTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 79.99 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 33.66 Page: 9 Packet Page 88 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95531 4/12/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC (Continued) 578555 INV#578555 EDMONDS PD - COMP UNIFORM TROUSERS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 320.85 SHORT SLEEVE UNIFORM SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 119.90 LONG SLEEVE UNIFORM SHIRT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 79.95 BELT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 15.95 TIES 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 9.90 METAL BUTTONS - 2 SETS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 14.00 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 49.33 Total : 2,977.96 95532 4/12/2007 071606 BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL APPEALS0406 REFUND REFUNDING CREDIT ON ACCOUN' 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 95533 4/12/2007 069075 CAREERTRACK 9342733 ROD SEBERS TRAINING/SEBERS 411.000.656.538.800.490.71 349.00 Total : 349.00 95534 4/12/2007 071612 CARPORTS OF WASHINGTON INC Bus Lic Ref OVERPMT OF BUSINESS LICENSE Refund overpmt of Business License 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 95535 4/12/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY105229 SUPPLIES Page: 10 Packet Page 89 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95535 4/12/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY (Continued) HELIUM 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 120.74 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.74 RN03071009 GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BIRTHI 001.000.640.575.550.450.00 7.75 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.550.450.00 0.69 Total : 139.92 95536 4/12/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN03071011 2954000 ARGON/N ITROG EN/OXYGEN 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 31.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 2.76 Total : 33.76 95537 4/12/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN03071007 FLEET- CYLINDER RENTAL FLEET- CYLINDER RENTAL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.75 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.69 RN03071012 WATER- CYLINDER RENTAL WATER- CYLINDER RENTAL 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 31.00 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.76 Total : 42.20 95538 4/12/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY105330 ALS SUPPLIES Page: 11 Packet Page 90 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95538 4/12/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY (Continued) medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 19.23 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 2.91 LY105331 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 48.07 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 5.47 LY105332 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 28.84 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 3.76 RN03071008 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.450.00 15.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.450.00 1.38 Total : 165.66 95539 4/12/2007 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 150421551 150421551X04042007 425.418.8755 Service 2/28-3/27/07 001.000.310.514.100.420.00 113.06 Total : 113.06 95540 4/12/2007 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 871964442 871964442 PLANT CELL PHONE 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 16.76 Page: 12 Packet Page 91 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95540 4/12/2007 064341 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS (Continued) Total : 16.76 95541 4/12/2007 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 3X04052007 OPERATIONS WIRELESS vehicles' wireless 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 90.94 Total : 90.94 95542 4/12/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460598231 UNIFORMS Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 46.36 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 4.12 460598232 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 106.82 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.51 460599306 UNIFORMS Stn 17-ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 101.09 Stn 17-Ops 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 101.09 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 9.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.99 460599326 UNIFORMS Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 123.97 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.03 Total : 521.98 95543 4/12/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5262 INV#5262 CUST#47 EDMONDS PD PRISONER R&B MARCH 2O07 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 5,193.75 Page: 13 Packet Page 92 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95543 4/12/2007 019215 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD (Continued) Total : 5,193.75 95544 4/12/2007 065519 CITY OF LYNNWOOD #1-2007 REIMBURSEMENT OF NARC FUND 1ST PAYMENT 2007 104.000.410.521.210.490.00 5,000.00 Total : 5,000.00 95545 4/12/2007 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 2-533584-460571 MARCH 07 WATER USAGE MARCH 07 WATER USAGE 411.000.654.534.800.340.00 435.00 Total : 435.00 95546 4/12/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1767384 CLEANING SUPPLIES PAPER TOWELS, LINERS, BLEACI- 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 756.90 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 66.61 W 1767384-1 SUPPLIES BRAWNY WIPERS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 65.33 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.75 Total : 894.59 95547 4/12/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1764253-1 FAC MAINT- DRY FLOOR TOOL FAC MAINT - DRY FLOOR TOOL 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 85.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.48 W1766315 FAC MAINT - CITY SUPPLIES - TT FAC MAINT - CITY SUPPLIES - TT 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 116.52 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.47 Page: 14 Packet Page 93 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95547 4/12/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES (Continued) W 1769537 FAC MAINT - ADMIRAL 8 GAL EXTF FAC MAINT - ADMIRAL 8 GAL EXTF 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 2,442.68 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 215.18 W1770198 FAC MAINT - ROLL TOWELS, LAUI` FAC MAINT - ROLL TOWELS, LAUI` 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 431.84 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 38.22 Total : 3,354.89 95548 4/12/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1771981 OPS SUPPLIES stations' cleaning supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 143.15 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 12.82 Total : 158.47 95549 4/12/2007 071308 COLELLA, TERESA COLELLA0416 BASKETBALL SCOREKEEPER BASKETBALL SCOREKEEPER @ E 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 81.00 Total : 81.00 95550 4/12/2007 069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC 3-8129 UNIT 489 - NEW 2008 FORD F-250 Page: 15 Packet Page 94 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95550 4/12/2007 069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC (Continued) UNIT 489 - NEW 2008 FORD F-250 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 24,396.00 Sales Tax 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 1,951.68 3-8129 Early prat discount Early pmt discount 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 -200.00 Total : 26,147.68 95551 4/12/2007 068190 DATEC INC 101990 UNIT M17 - RADIO SWIVEL ADAPTI UNIT M17 - RADIO SWIVEL ADAPTI 511.200.657.548.680.310.00 124.00 Freight 511.200.657.548.680.310.00 9.95 Sales Tax 511.200.657.548.680.310.00 11.79 Total : 145.74 95552 4/12/2007 070945 DAWSON, DEANNA 3-23-07 Dawson CR Mileage Council Retreat 2007 LaConi Mileage Council Retreat 2007 LaConi 001.000.110.511.100.430.00 55.13 Total : 55.13 95553 4/12/2007 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 37851 6 VHF MOBILE UNITS, PROGRAMN 6 VHF MOBILE UNITS, PROGRAMN 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 2,858.00 Freight 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 27.00 Sales Tax 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 256.77 Total : 3,141.77 95554 4/12/2007 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 135092 INV#135092 CUST#267 EDMONDS Page: 16 Packet Page 95 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95554 4/12/2007 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 (Continued) CALIBRATE RADAR KE01579 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 80.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 7.12 38104 INV#38104 EDMONDS POLICE DEF EARPHONE KIT HT1000 SERIES 001.000.410.521.230.310.00 32.00 FLEXIBLE EARPIECES, M & L 001.000.410.521.230.310.00 30.76 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.230.310.00 5.59 709503 INV#709503 CUST#267 EDMONDS REPAIR & CALIBRATE RADAR GVF 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 112.50 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 9.69 Total : 277.66 95555 4/12/2007 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING Monthly STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PI; State Share of Concealed Pistol 001.000.000.237.190.000.00 330.00 Total : 330.00 95556 4/12/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 07-2740 MINUTE TAKING Retreat & 4/3/07 Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 560.00 Total : 560.00 95557 4/12/2007 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER 202350 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 83.91 202351 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 63.91 Page: 17 Packet Page 96 of 396 vchlist 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 18 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95557 4/12/2007 060933 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER (Continued) Total : 147.82 95558 4/12/2007 069605 EAGLE EYE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2007178 Prof Sery Bldg Division 2007-0140, Prof Sery Bldg Division 2007-0140, 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 7,685.62 Total : 7,685.62 95559 4/12/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 78566 SUPPLIES UNDERCOAT 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.22 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.53 78586 SUPPLIES ANTIFREEZE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.99 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.62 Total : 26.36 95560 4/12/2007 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 10107 UPS/COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL/ANAL UPS/COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL/ANAL 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 19.43 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 1.73 Total : 21.16 95561 4/12/2007 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 151627 INV#151627 CLIENT#3713 EDMON[ IMP#6856 - MEDICAL EXAM 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 37.60 IMP#6856 - APPLY BANDAGE 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 15.60 Page: 18 Packet Page 97 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95561 4/12/2007 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL (Continued) 152106 INV#152106 CLIENT#3713 EDMON[ IMP#6850 - INSULIN 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 36.80 IMP#6850 PHOENIX FRUCTOSAMIf 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 63.00 IMP#6850 - EXAM FOR MED. PROB 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 37.60 GLUCOSE ACCU-CHEK 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 21.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 3.65 Total : 215.25 95562 4/12/2007 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL 97415 INV#97415 CLIENT #5118 EDMOND CASTRATE FELINE #6770 001.000.410.521.700.490.01 44.75 Total : 44.75 95563 4/12/2007 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 023892 COPIER MAINT COPIER MAINT 001.000.230.512.500.480.00 36.20 Total : 36.20 95564 4/12/2007 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0028180-IN INV#0028180-IN ACCT#0011847 ED REFURBISH BADGE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 60.00 REFURBISH 4 SECURITY BADGES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 216.00 HANDLING CHANGE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.50 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.49 Total : 287.99 95565 4/12/2007 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A Mar-07 03/07 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE Page: 19 Packet Page 98 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95565 4/12/2007 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A (Continued) 03/07 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 8,990.00 Total : 8,990.00 95566 4/12/2007 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 92850 March 2007 Sec. 125 & 132 plan fee; March 2007 Sec. 125 & 132 plan fee: 811.000.000.231.590.000.00 52.03 March 2007 Sec. 125 & 132 plan fee: 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 35.67 Total : 87.70 95567 4/12/2007 070011 FORD, JAY 04/03/07 Tuition Reimbursement - 1/2/07 - 3/1 Tuition Reimbursement - 1/2/07 - 3/1 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 387.00 Total : 387.00 95568 4/12/2007 018495 GLACIER NORTHWEST 28693 STREET - CEMENT STREET -CEMENT 111.000.653.542.610.310.00 294.30 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.610.310.00 25.89 Total : 320.19 95569 4/12/2007 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER7616 TAIJIQUAN CLASSES TAIJIQUAN #7616 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 94.50 QIGONG #7963 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 141.75 Total : 236.25 95570 4/12/2007 061410 GRCC/WETRC 2879 3 REGISTRATIONS FOR WWW OP 3 REGISTRATIONS FOR WWW OP 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 510.00 Total : 510.00 95571 4/12/2007 071613 GUERNSEY-OSTERGARD INC Bus Lic Ref OVERPMT OF BUSINESS LICENSE Page: 20 Packet Page 99 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95571 4/12/2007 071613 GUERNSEY-OSTERGARD INC (Continued) Refund overpmt of Business License 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 95572 4/12/2007 062831 HARRIS, TIM MARCH 2O07 C MEALS REIMBRUSE FOR WETRC ( MEALS REIMBRUSE FOR WETRC ( 411.000.655.535.800.430.00 78.29 Total : 78.29 95573 4/12/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1039957 PS - COURT RM STEPS - PLYWOO PS - COURT RM STEPS - PLYWOO 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 70.55 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.21 1045697 PS - INTERVIEW ROOM - 4X8 PAN[ PS - INTERVIEW ROOM - 4X8 PAN[ 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 32.46 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.86 1046690 FAC DAYCARE - CORNER BRACE FAC DAYCARE - CORNER BRACE 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.78 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.33 1047658 PS - COURT STEPS - LAFARGE PC PS - COURT STEPS - LAFARGE PC 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 42.35 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.73 1083463 FAC MAINT - INSTANT ADHESIVE FAC MAINT - INSTANT ADHESIVE 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.88 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.05 Page: 21 Packet Page 100 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95573 4/12/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 2036779 PS - COVE BASE INSTALLATION - I PS - COVE BASE INSTALLATION - 1 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 35.82 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.15 2046590 PS - TRASHBAGS, EYE BOLTS, BIT PS - TRASHBAGS, EYE BOLTS, BIT 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.48 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.63 2077987 FAC - LYSOL WIPES FAC - LYSOL WIPES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.98 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.61 2096657 FS 17 - ADHESIVE FS 17 - ADHESIVE 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.79 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.25 3046465 SEWER - COPPER TAPE FOR FERI SEWER - COPPER TAPE FOR FERI 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 14.90 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.31 3564473 CITY HALL - SOCKET CITY HALL - SOCKET 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.28 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.29 4046398 BAND SHELL - REPAIR SUPPLIES BAND SHELL - REPAIR SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 25.06 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.21 Page: 22 Packet Page 101 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95573 4/12/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 4047347 CITY PARK BLDG - SLIDE DOR BTP CITY PARK BLDG - SLIDE DOR BTP 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 35.76 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.15 4096394 LIBRARY - ROPE REEL LIBRARY - ROPE REEL 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.88 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.25 4096426 BOYS&GIRLS CLUB- PIPE SUPPLIE BOYS&GIRLS CLUB- PIPE SUPPLIE 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.56 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.63 5036396 PS - LIQUID NAILS, SUPPLIES PS - LIQUID NAILS, SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 48.88 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.30 5068291 SEWER - GRASS SEED FOR LIFT SEWER - GRASS SEED FOR LIFT 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.49 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.66 575313 Ladder IT Dept Ladder IT Dept 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 64.79 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 5.70 6039261 BAND SHELL - SUPPLIES BAND SHELL - SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 55.32 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.87 Page: 23 Packet Page 102 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 95573 4/12/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 7029396 PS - LIQUID NAILS, TROWEL, SILIC PS - LIQUID NAILS, TROWEL, SILIC 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 152.72 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.59 7076652 FAC - BATTERIES, DUCT TAPE, SU FAC - BATTERIES, DUCT TAPE, SU 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 16.73 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.47 7240776 PS - RETURNED LIQUID NAILS FOI PS - RETURNED LIQUID NAILS FOi 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 -91.94 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 -8.09 8035877 PS - LIQUID NAILS PS - LIQUID NAILS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 91.94 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.09 8068607 WATER/SEWER - HOSE, GRASS, E WATER/SEWER - HOSE, GRASS, E 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 69.03 WATER/SEWER - HOSE, GRASS, E 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 69.03 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.08 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 6.07 83489 SR CENTER - FITTINGS, BOLTS, W SR CENTER - FITTINGS, BOLTS, W 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 28.36 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Page: 24 Packet Page 103 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95573 4/12/2007 067862 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) Total : 911.78 95574 4/12/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 9610020 6035322501434934 RS1 Training supplies 001.000.510.522.400.310.00 274.12 Total : 274.12 95575 4/12/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 47771 6035322501434934 Stn. 20 supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 101.08 Total : 101.08 95576 4/12/2007 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 17607 ESJA.Testing thru 03/31/07 ESJA.Testing thru 03/31/07 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 3,200.44 Total : 3,200.44 95577 4/12/2007 071609 I -DEAL LLC 10011265 Electronic Distrib for $5.23 M GO Boi Electronic Distrib for $5.23 M GO Boi 001.000.390.592.190.840.00 216.75 Electronic Distrib for $5.23 M GO Boi 126.000.390.592.190.840.00 97.59 Electronic Distrib for $5.23 M GO Boi 111.000.653.592.420.840.00 16.79 Electronic Distrib for $5.23 M GO Boi 414.000.656.592.380.840.00 487.98 Electronic Distrib for $5.23 M GO Boi 411.000.652.592.380.840.00 410.69 Electronic Distrib for $5.23 M GO Boi 411.000.654.592.340.840.00 11.22 Electronic Distrib for $5.23 M GO Boi 411.000.655.592.350.840.00 8.98 Page: 25 Packet Page 104 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95577 4/12/2007 071609 I -DEAL LLC (Continued) 10011353 Printing Sery $5.23 M GO Bond Issu( Printing Sery $5.23 M GO Bond Issu( 001.000.390.592.190.840.00 277.97 Printing Sery $5.23 M GO Bond Issu( 126.000.390.592.190.840.00 125.16 Printing Sery $5.23 M GO Bond Issu( 111.000.653.592.420.840.00 21.53 Printing Sery $5.23 M GO Bond Issu( 414.000.656.592.380.840.00 625.81 Printing Sery $5.23 M GO Bond Issu( 411.000.652.592.380.840.00 526.69 Printing Sery $5.23 M GO Bond Issu( 411.000.654.592.340.840.00 14.39 Printing Sery $5.23 M GO Bond Issu( 411.000.655.592.350.840.00 11.52 Total : 2,853.07 95578 4/12/2007 060511 I-R EQUIPMENT & SERVICE 572-22649 UNIT 137 - 80X80 FILTER, PRI ELEP UNIT 137 - 80X80 FILTER, PRI ELEP 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 67.09 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.98 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.52 Total : 80.59 95579 4/12/2007 070097 INLAND TECHNOLOGY INC 62933 20170 DEGREASER 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 1,128.75 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 87.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.59 106.99 Total : 1,322.74 Page: 26 Packet Page 105 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95580 4/12/2007 016600 KROESENS INC 75331 OPS UNIFORMS Warren coat/nametag 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 245.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 21.81 75992 OPS UNIFORM Fischer nametag 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 5.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 0.49 76091 OPS UNIFORMS Yoakum coat/pant etc. 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 373.20 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 33.21 76411 OPS UNIFORMS Krugmire boots 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 99.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.76 Total : 787.47 95581 4/12/2007 060132 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 1009381936 STREET - PVC GLOVE - BLACK KN STREET - PVC GLOVE - BLACK KN 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 169.50 Freight 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 31.49 Total : 200.99 95582 4/12/2007 063462 LACONNER COUNTRY INN CE LaConner Country Accommodations LaConner 2007 Re Accommodations LaConner 2007 Re 001.000.110.511.100.430.00 2,213.40 Total : 2,213.40 95583 4/12/2007 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 0020812 Shubin ESLHA Review 07-01 Page: 27 Packet Page 106 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95583 4/12/2007 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC (Continued) Shubin ESLHA Review 07-01 001.000.000.245.900.621.00 500.00 Shubin ESLHA Review 07-02.1 001.000.000.245.900.621.00 323.75 Total : 823.75 95584 4/12/2007 069594 LINK PIPE INC 4884 SEWER - LINK PIPES SEWER - LINK PIPES 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3,641.94 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 133.40 Total : 3,775.34 95585 4/12/2007 068694 LONG, SOKHOM MARCH 2O07 B Meals & mileage Reimb WETRC Cor Meals & mileage Reimb WETRC Cor 411.000.655.535.800.430.00 213.28 Total : 213.28 95586 4/12/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 093582 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 62.29 093671 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 232.98 093752 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.500.310.00 48.99 093790 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 23.40 Total : 367.66 95587 4/12/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 093950 BUSINESS CARDS EXEC IT PD PW Page: 28 Packet Page 107 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 95587 4/12/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 95588 4/12/2007 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 95589 4/12/2007 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 250-00141 Business Cards:- 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 16.00 250-00141 Robby Danninger 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 16.00 250-00141 Michelle Poff 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.00 250-00141 Josh McClure 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.00 250-00141 Anthony J. Collins 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.00 250-00141 Kim Karas 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 16.00 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 1.42 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 1.42 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 4.27 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 1.43 Total : 104.54 516646 UNIT 476 - SWITCH UNIT 476 - SWITCH 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.45 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.22 516695 UNIT 476 - SWITCH UNIT 476 - SWITCH 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.45 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.22 Total : 5.34 A5101TILTO C7 Page: 29 Packet Page 108 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95589 4/12/2007 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA (Continued) MOWER 001.000.640.576.800.350.00 1,050.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.350.00 93.45 Total : 1,143.45 95590 4/12/2007 071140 MAD SCIENCE MADSCIENCE7661 MAD SCIENCE CAMP MAD SCIENCE CAMP #7661 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,300.00 Total : 1,300.00 95591 4/12/2007 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 2946 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 45.00 2947 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 105.00 2948 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 105.00 2954 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 45.00 2956 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 45.00 2962 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 105.00 2963 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 45.00 2964 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 45.00 Page: 30 Packet Page 109 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95591 4/12/2007 069362 069362 MARSHALL, CITA (Continued) Total : 540.00 95592 4/12/2007 019650 MASTER POOLS OF WASHINGTON INC 43074 SUPPLIES FOR CEMETERY MINI VAC, NET SKIM, VAC POLE 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 48.97 Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 4.36 Total : 53.33 95593 4/12/2007 071600 MAWBEY, CAROLYN MAWBEY0403 REFUND REFUND FOR COURSE 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 17.00 Total : 17.00 95594 4/12/2007 070028 MCA 050707 LEYDA-CONWAY, SHERRIE REG 2 S Leyda-Conway Registration 2007 K 001.000.230.512.501.490.00 110.00 Total : 110.00 95595 4/12/2007 070028 MCA 123107 LEYDA-CONWAY, SHERRIE MEMB Membership Renewal S Leyda Conw 001.000.230.512.501.490.00 25.00 Total : 25.00 95596 4/12/2007 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 61984930 123106800 USA FLAG/STEEL BAND 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 108.33 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.98 62018664 123106800 PIPE TAP 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 62.48 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.29 Page: 31 Packet Page 110 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95596 4/12/2007 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO (Continued) 62108815 123106800 CALIBRATION ROD 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 186.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.72 62239915 123106800 PIPE FITTING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 -211.14 62289375 123106800 HOSE BANDING/WIRE ROPE/HING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 289.91 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.13 62349100 123106800 SPANNER WRENCH 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 28.06 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.72 Total : 493.48 95597 4/12/2007 071607 MECSTAT LABORATORIES 07D0612 INV#07D0612 - EDMONDS POLICE INTERPRETIVE MEMO 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 150.00 Total : 150.00 95598 4/12/2007 069592 METROCALL Q0298897C INV#Q0298897C ACCT#0298897-0 I PAGER SERVICE 03/27-04/26/07 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 79.86 Total : 79.86 95599 4/12/2007 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 42775 PS - RENTAL DIAMOND HOLE SAV\ PS - RENTAL DIAMOND HOLE SAV\ 001.000.651.519.920.450.00 35.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.450.00 3.12 Page: 32 Packet Page 111 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95599 4/12/2007 020900 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC (Continued) Total : 38.12 95600 4/12/2007 068662 MINNIHAN, TERRY 39 LEOFF I Reimbursement LEOFF I Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 382.90 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 150.00 Total : 532.90 95601 4/12/2007 068992 MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEERS 40223 E2FC.Services thru 02/24/07 E2FC.Services thru 02/24/07 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 4,395.75 Total : 4,395.75 95602 4/12/2007 071567 NAKATA, NIKKI SNOCOSOCCER0315 REFUND -LIGHTS REFUND DUE TO MALFUNCTIONIN 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 24.00 Total : 24.00 95603 4/12/2007 064348 NEWARK IN ONE 14044624 UNIT M-16 - LED PANEL INDICATOI UNIT M-16 - LED PANEL INDICATOI 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 97.90 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.70 Total : 106.60 95604 4/12/2007 023800 NFPA 4T-350-1A OPS MISC MC Mbrshp 001.000.510.522.200.490.00 150.00 Total : 150.00 95605 4/12/2007 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S1405569.001 2091 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 283.80 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 24.41 Page: 33 Packet Page 112 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95605 4/12/2007 024960 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPAl' (Continued) Total : 308.21 95606 4/12/2007 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 0077745 SODIUM BISULFITE SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 535.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 47.66 Total : 583.16 95607 4/12/2007 070045 NORTHUP GROUP 1389 INV#1389 - EDMONDS PD 03/07 PRE -EMPLOY EVAL 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 600.00 Total : 600.00 95608 4/12/2007 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0449256 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 138.02 0450744 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 95.36 0452595 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02 Total : 331.40 95609 4/12/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 800439 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.500.310.00 11.73 883954 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 251.48 Total : 263.21 95610 4/12/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 598758 OFFICE SUPPLIES Page: 34 Packet Page 113 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95610 4/12/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) INKJET CARTRIDGE, TONER, ETC. 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 137.68 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 12.12 652344 OFFICE SUPPLIES ERASERS, CORKBOARD 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 33.85 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 2.89 675560 OFFICE SUPPLIES POST ITS, LEGAL PADS, PAPER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 125.88 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.07 691522 OFFICE SUPPLIES COLOR INKJET PAPER 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 74.30 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 6.54 692688 OFFICE SUPPLIES CYAN INK CARTRIDGES 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 27.26 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 2.32 Total : 433.91 95611 4/12/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 948105 520437 FRAME/COPIER PAPER/CALCULAI 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 61.55 King County Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 5.42 Page: 35 Packet Page 114 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95611 4/12/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) 966220 520437 MARKERS 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 7.68 King County Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 0.68 Total : 75.33 95612 4/12/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 11225982 OFFICE MAX PRINT & DOCUMENT. Printing Retention Schedules 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 149.52 Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 13.31 Total : 162.83 95613 4/12/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 008164 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 148.54 Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 13.22 Total : 161.76 95614 4/12/2007 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 657472 MARCH 07 ATTORNEY SERVICES March 07 Attorney Services 001.000.360.515.100.410.00 20,310.08 657474 MARCH 07 RETAINER FEES March 07 Retainer Fees 001.000.360.515.100.410.00 12,364.50 Total : 32,674.58 95615 4/12/2007 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 SEWER/WATER 23700 104TH AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 192.30 Total : 192.30 95616 4/12/2007 070949 ORVIS, DAVID J 3/23/07 Orvis CR Mileage 2007 Council Retreat LaConi Page: 36 Packet Page 115 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95616 4/12/2007 070949 ORVIS, DAVID J (Continued) Mileage 2007 Council Retreat LaConi 001.000.110.511.100.430.00 55.13 Total : 55.13 95617 4/12/2007 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00045441 UNIT 31 - OUTER TUBE WELD, AIR UNIT 31 - OUTER TUBE WELD, AIR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 977.03 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 92.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 94.08 Total : 1,163.11 95618 4/12/2007 027280 PATRICKS PRINTING 34978 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 163.65 35076 COURT SUPPLIES COURT SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 292.57 Total : 456.22 95619 4/12/2007 068101 PERFORMANCE POWER CONCEPTS MB030708 POWERWARE/UPS SYSTEM POWERWARE/UPS SYSTEM 411.000.656.538.800.350.00 4,376.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.350.00 196.53 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.350.00 402.38 Total : 4,974.91 95620 4/12/2007 069690 PERFORMANCE RADIATOR 222375 UNIT 70 - RDT UNIT 70 - RDT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 115.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.24 Page: 37 Packet Page 116 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher front Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95620 4/12/2007 069690 PERFORMANCE RADIATOR (Continued) 249541 UNIT 68 - RADIATOR RECORE SUF UNIT 68 - RADIATOR RECORE SUF 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 575.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 51.18 Total : 751.42 95621 4/12/2007 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 22036.000042 E1BA.Thru 04/01/07-Street/OVWSD E1BA.Thru 04/01/07-Street/OVWSD 112.506.630.595.330.650.00 2,377.08 E1BA.Thru 04/01/07-Water 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 49.34 E1BA.Thru 04/01/07-Storm 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 275.69 E1BA.Thru 04/01/07-Sewer 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 15.08 Total : 2,717.19 95622 4/12/2007 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC PCASH0409 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT Page: 38 Packet Page 117 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 39 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 95622 4/12/2007 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) SUPPLIES FOR SISTER CITY ORIE 623.200.210.557.210.310.00 13.06 DISCOVERY PROGRAM MILEAGE 001.000.640.574.350.430.00 6.79 DISCOVERY PROGRAM - BIRDING 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 5.00 PAINT FOR CITY PARK BANDSHEL 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 35.01 EGG HUNT SUPPLIES 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 2.81 GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES:- 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 15.84 PARKING FOR WORKSHOP MEETI 001.000.640.574.200.430.00 2.00 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL CLAE 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 11.42 PRESCHOOL PHOTO DEVELOPME 001.000.640.575.560.490.00 6.39 EXPRESS MAIL SERVICE 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 14.40 DISCOVERY PROGRAM SUPPLIES 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 24.32 GYMNASTICS CLEANING SUPPLIE 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 27.94 DISCOVERY PROGRAM SPRING & 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 6.19 PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 21.83 PRESCHOOL EASTER SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 1.09 PRESCHOOL PICTURE DEVELOPIv 001.000.640.575.560.490.00 8.46 HAY FOR EASTER EGG HUNT 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 9.76 Page: 39 Packet Page 118 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 40 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95622 4/12/2007 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC (Continued) CDL PERMIT FEE: JANICE NOE 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 30.00 Total : 242.31 95623 4/12/2007 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 0982495 2196 RELAY 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 16.58 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 4.56 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1.82 Total : 22.96 95624 4/12/2007 070950 PLUNKETT, MICHAEL 3/23/07 Plunkett CR Mileage 2007 Council Retreat LaConi Mileage 2007 Council Retreat LaConi 001.000.110.511.100.430.00 55.13 Total : 55.13 95625 4/12/2007 029012 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 152789 PEEK CORP POSTAGE - STREET - PEEK CORP POSTAGE - STREET - 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 39.28 Total : 39.28 95626 4/12/2007 070979 PRECISION EARTHWORKS, INC ESMD.Final Pmt ESMD.Skatepark Final Pmt ESMD.Skatepark Final Pmt 132.000.640.594.760.650.00 134,583.74 Total : 134,583.74 95627 4/12/2007 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING -Cl 24 hour alarm monitoring -CH 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 35.00 Total : 35.00 95628 4/12/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 5322323139 Fire Station # 16 Fire Station # 16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,136.39 Page: 40 Packet Page 119 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 41 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95628 4/12/2007 046900 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) Total : 1,136.39 95629 4/12/2007 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 07-175 COURT SECURITY OFFICER COURT SECURITY OFFICER 001.000.230.512.500.410.00 1,460.00 Total : 1,460.00 95630 4/12/2007 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 46980 UNIT 716 - TOWING UNIT 716 - TOWING 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 124.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 11.04 Total : 135.04 95631 4/12/2007 068484 RINKER MATERIALS 9412438439 STORM - ASPHALT STORM - ASPHALT 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 399.10 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 34.32 Total : 433.42 95632 4/12/2007 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 1071 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 125.00 1072 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 125.00 1076 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 125.00 1078 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 125.00 Total : 500.00 95633 4/12/2007 071490 RYBICKI, DANIEL J 040707 ALS PROF SERV Page: 41 Packet Page 120 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 42 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95633 4/12/2007 071490 RYBICKI, DANIEL J (Continued) Assessment 001.000.510.526.100.410.00 250.00 Total : 250.00 95634 4/12/2007 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY 70014 INV#04/04/07 EDMONDS ANIMAL C 2/26 - PICK UP 3 ANIMAL CARCAS: 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 29.25 3/5 - PICK UP 2 ANIMAL CARCASS[ 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 19.50 3/12 - PICK UP 1 ANIMAL CARCAS: 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 9.75 3/19 - PICK UP 4 ANIMAL CARCAS: 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 39.00 3/26 - PICK UP 2 ANIMAL CARCAS: 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 19.50 Total : 117.00 95635 4/12/2007 071096 SAMMAMISH PLATEAU WATER & 2007-7041 C-248 BIOXIDE C-248 BIOXIDE 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 752.50 Sales Tax 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 56.98 Total : 809.48 95636 4/12/2007 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 577536 INV#577536 CUST#0001733 EDMOI S&W MP40 BLUEGUNS 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 214.50 Freight 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 6.75 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 19.70 Total : 240.95 95637 4/12/2007 068864 SANKEI TRAVEL OF AMERICAS INC 333985 AIRLINE TICKETS Page: 42 Packet Page 121 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 43 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95637 4/12/2007 068864 SANKEI TRAVEL OF AMERICAS INC (Continued) AIRLINE TICKETS FOR SISTER CIT 623.200.210.557.210.430.00 14,960.00 Total : 14,960.00 95638 4/12/2007 071610 SCHLEICHER, BRIAN 3/07 Tuition Reimbursement 1/2 - 3/12/07 Tuition Reimbursement 1/2 - 3/12/07 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 434.45 Total : 434.45 95639 4/12/2007 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 03-861716 UNIT 485 - JOINT KITS UNIT 485 - JOINT KITS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 75.14 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.69 03-861718 UNIT 485 - SENSOR ASSEMBLY UNIT 485 - SENSOR ASSEMBLY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.88 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.10 Total : 119.81 95640 4/12/2007 066738 SETCOM CORPORATION 79521 UNIT 124 POL - SUPER MIC+ UNIT 124 POL - SUPER MIC+ 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 699.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.82 Total : 708.82 95641 4/12/2007 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 1-587381 UNIT 93 - BOLT KIT, 4 POLE CONN UNIT 93 - BOLT KIT, 4 POLE CONN 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 116.71 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.04 Total : 126.75 95642 4/12/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2110016462 IRRIGATION CONTROL Page: 43 Packet Page 122 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 44 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95642 4/12/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) IRRIGATION CONTROL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.23 3890014081 UTILITY BILLING 750 15TH ST SW 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 419.55 5040011628 UTILITY BILLING 750 15TH ST SW 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 152.52 5070014260 IRRIGATION SYSTEM IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.74 Total : 632.04 95643 4/12/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 463007757 463-001-867-1 9805 EDMONDS WAY 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 28.06 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.68 685009192 620-001-500-3 VARIOUS LOCATIONS 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 7.17 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 0.43 Total : 37.34 95644 4/12/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2260043795 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 50.00 3050047152 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 297.13 3800017489 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 79.73 Page: 44 Packet Page 123 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 45 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95644 4/12/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 4510017488 TRAFFIC SIGNAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.74 6000013000 STREET LIGHTING STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 8,421.42 6100013009 STREET LIGHTING STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 7,944.24 6100013306 STREET LIGHTING STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 170.07 6200013008 STREET LIGHTING STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 1,814.76 Total : 18,807.09 95645 4/12/2007 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 34276 INV#34276 EDMONDS PD MAGMATE PLATES - CRYSTAL, CC 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 6.75 Freight 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 2.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 0.78 Total : 9.53 95646 4/12/2007 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 48471 DUMPING CHARGES DUMPING CHARGES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 84.61 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1.39 Total : 86.00 95647 4/12/2007 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03587/0401 DUMPING Page: 45 Packet Page 124 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 46 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95647 4/12/2007 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO (Continued) DISPOSAL SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 576.16 Total : 576.16 95648 4/12/2007 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03584 RECYCLING RECYCLING 411.000.656.538.800.475.66 23.38 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.475.66 1.40 Total : 24.78 95649 4/12/2007 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4110284-01 WATER - JEANS - WAITE WATER - JEANS - WAITE 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 157.50 BOOTS - WAITE 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 127.75 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 25.39 Total : 310.64 95650 4/12/2007 046200 STATE OF WASHINGTON Q1-2007 TAX ID# 600 200 320 Q1-2007 Leasehold Tax 001.000.000.237.220.000.00 4,181.39 Q1-2007 Leasehold Tax 001.000.000.362.500.000.00 0.04 Total : 4,181.43 95651 4/12/2007 071605 STAVELEY SERVICES FLUID C152334 OIL ANALYSIS BOTTLES OIL ANALYSIS BOTTLES 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 360.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.02 Total : 366.02 95652 4/12/2007 031060 STEARNS FINANCIAL SERVICES 7059030-IN RADIX MONTHLY MAINT MAY 07 Page: 46 Packet Page 125 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 47 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95652 4/12/2007 031060 STEARNS FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) RADIX MONTHLY MAINT MAY 07 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 155.40 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 13.83 Total : 169.23 95653 4/12/2007 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 952602 PARKS MAINT PARKS MAINT 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 4.72 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 0.42 964883 FAC MAINT - ELECT SUPPLIES FAC MAINT - ELECT SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 436.95 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 38.89 969607 FS 16 - ELECT SUPPLIES FS 16 - ELECT SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 58.43 CITY HALL - ELECT SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 72.30 PW - ELECT SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 156.77 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 25.59 Total : 794.07 95654 4/12/2007 066726 SUPERSEER CORPORATION 40831 INV#40831 CUST#AE052 EDMOND! Page: 47 Packet Page 126 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 48 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95654 4/12/2007 066726 SUPERSEER CORPORATION (Continued) FULL COVERAGE HELMET - L 001.000.410.521.710.350.00 325.00 QUICK RELEASE BUCKLE, EMBLEI 001.000.410.521.710.350.00 21.00 SETCOM HELMET KIT DUAL SPEAI 001.000.410.521.710.350.00 260.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.710.350.00 14.00 Total : 620.00 95655 4/12/2007 068619 SWENSON, LINDA 1152 SUMMER CRAZE DESIGN SUMMER CRAZE DESIGN 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,269.00 Total : 1,269.00 95656 4/12/2007 071611 TACTICAL TRAINING & CRYSTAL NARCOTICS WARRANT SERV/K.CF K.CRYSTAL/REG ISTRATI ON- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 300.00 Total : 300.00 95657 4/12/2007 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 39099 STREET/STORM - 83 WORK T SHIF STREET/STORM - 83 WORK T SHIF 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 376.75 STREET/STORM - 83 WORK T SHIF 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 376.75 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 33.54 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 33.53 Total : 820.57 95658 4/12/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY C/A 148134 Aquatics (summer seasonal ads) #07 Page: 48 Packet Page 127 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 49 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95658 4/12/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY (Continued) Aquatics (summer seasonal ads) #07 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 113.26 Meter Reader, #07-18 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 34.47 Total : 147.73 95659 4/12/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1483324 NEWSPAPER ADS Council & Planning Bd Agendas 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 1,200.85 1490289 NEWSPAPER ADS Ordinance 3632 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 43.32 1490290 NEWSPAPER ADS Ordinance 3631 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 43.32 Total : 1,287.49 95660 4/12/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1488319 Legal Advertising CU 06-93 O'Hanley Legal Advertising CU 06-93 O'Hanley 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 42.48 1490683 Legal Advertising S 2007-0004 Pentil Legal Advertising S 2007-0004 Pentil 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 15.12 1490684 Legal Advertising S 2006-152 Webbe Legal Advertising S 2006-152 Webbe 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 15.12 Total : 72.72 95661 4/12/2007 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES C/A 042483000 Parks Maintenance Worker I, #07-09 Parks Maintenance Worker I, #07-09 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 295.14 Parks Maintenance Worker I, #07-09 001.000.640.576.800.440.00 295.14 Total : 590.28 Page: 49 Packet Page 128 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 50 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95662 4/12/2007 066430 THERMO PROBES INC 28183 C-248 THERMOCOUPLE C-248 THERMOCOUPLE 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 1,861.42 Freight 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 53.90 Total : 1,915.32 95663 4/12/2007 071582 TRANSLATION SOLUTION CORP 2804 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 500.00 Total : 500.00 95664 4/12/2007 071590 TRT LCC 1 MAR 07 EXAMINER SERVICES Mar 07 Examiner Services 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 3,500.00 1 - Exp MAR 07 EXAMINER EXPENSES Mar 07 Examiner Expenses Copies & 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 9.39 Total : 3,509.39 95665 4/12/2007 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 7376601 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES PVC PIPES, ADAPTERS, ELLS, BU: 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 1,223.39 Sales Tax 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 108.88 7385201 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES SOAKER HOSE, CEMENT, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 74.70 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.65 7388481 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES PVC PIPES, TEES, ELLS, CEMENT, 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 468.29 Sales Tax 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 41.68 Page: 50 Packet Page 129 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 51 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95665 4/12/2007 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY (Continued) 7388518 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES VALVE BOXES, COUPLINGS, PIPE: 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 327.95 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 29.19 7388629 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES COUPLINGS, SHOVEL 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 45.07 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.01 Total : 2,329.81 95666 4/12/2007 070767 UNITED RENTAL NORTHWEST INC 63371078-001 STORM - WACKER STORM - WACKER 411.000.652.542.400.350.00 2,800.00 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.350.00 246.40 Total : 3,046.40 95667 4/12/2007 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 344172 SEWER - MANHOLE NET W/ POLE SEWER - MANHOLE NET W/ POLE 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 79.80 FIBERGLASS POLES 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 291.80 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 69.97 Total : 441.57 95668 4/12/2007 064973 VAN METER & ASSOCIATES INC 00-9323 INV#00-9323 - DAMIAN SMITH/EDM DAMIAN SMITH/REGISTRATION- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 125.00 Total : 125.00 95669 4/12/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM Page: 51 Packet Page 130 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 52 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95669 4/12/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST (Continued) IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 42.29 425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL 001.000.640.575.560.420.00 55.87 425-771-4741 EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.200.420.00 48.04 Total : 146.20 95670 4/12/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-640-8169 PT EDWARDS SEWER PUMP STAT Phone line for Sewer Lift Station at P 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 33.92 425-776-6829 CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 113.69 Total : 147.61 95671 4/12/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-771-0152 FS #16-FAX LINE FS #16-FAX LINE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 50.24 Total : 50.24 95672 4/12/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 269992985-1 425-308-9867 cell phone -water watch 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 35.92 469985965-1 425-870-0617 Cell phone -Jim Waite 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 29.20 Cell phone -Jim Waite 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 29.20 Total : 94.32 95673 4/12/2007 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 29860645 1066294 Page: 52 Packet Page 131 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 53 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95673 4/12/2007 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC (Continued) HANDCREAM 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 115.37 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 0.86 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 10.35 29860648 1066294 SOFTGUARD REFILL 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 10.66 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 0.42 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 0.98 29889859 1066294 GLOVES 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 129.64 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 1.03 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 11.63 Total : 280.94 95674 4/12/2007 047605 WA ST TREASURER Q1-07 EPD 1ST QUARTER PROCEEDS TO STD 1ST QUARTERLY REPORT- 001.000.000.237.240.000.00 176.82 Total : 176.82 95675 4/12/2007 065828 WA STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE 2007-0588 INV#2007-0588 - D.LIM/EDMONDS I D.LIM/REGISTRATION- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 100.00 Total : 100.00 95676 4/12/2007 070951 WAMBOLT, RON 3/23/07 Wambolt CR Mileage Council Retreat 2007 LaConi Mileage Council Retreat 2007 LaConi 001.000.110.511.100.430.00 55.13 Page: 53 Packet Page 132 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 54 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95676 4/12/2007 070951 070951 WAMBOLT, RON (Continued) Total : 55.13 95677 4/12/2007 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 106015665 INV#106015665 EDMONDS PD BACKGROUND CHECKS 03/07 001.000.000.237.100.000.00 120.00 Total : 120.00 95678 4/12/2007 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL F0600804 TRAINING MISC MCO:Beardsley, D2, Hammer.; Martin, 001.000.510.522.400.490.00 407.62 Total : 407.62 95679 4/12/2007 045912 WASPC 20137 ELECTRONIC HOME MONITORINC ELECTRONIC HOME MONITORINC 001.000.230.523.200.510.00 1,569.75 Total : 1,569.75 95680 4/12/2007 061395 WASTE MANAGEMENT NW 0736518-2677-5 202-0001256-2677-0 ASH DISPOSAL 411.000.656.538.800.474.65 3,327.88 Total : 3,327.88 95681 4/12/2007 061047 WWCPA 052207 3 REGISTRATIONS FOR SEWER M 3 REGISTRATIONS FOR SEWER M 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 345.00 Total : 345.00 95682 4/12/2007 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0112759 STREET - RIVETS, ANCHORS STREET - RIVETS, ANCHORS 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 367.25 Freight 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 70.66 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 38.54 Total : 476.45 175 Vouchers for bank code : front Bank total : 441,911.82 Page: 54 Packet Page 133 of 396 vchlist Voucher List Page: 55 04/12/2007 9:43:50AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 175 Vouchers in this report Invoice PO # Description/Account Total vouchers Amount 441,911.82 Page: 55 Packet Page 134 of 396 AM-927 2.E. Faith Community Proclamation Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/17/2007 Submitted By: Linda Carl, Mayor's Office Submitted For: Gary Haakenson Time: Consent Department: Mayor's Office Type: Information Review Committee: A rtinn Information Subject Title Proclamation in honor of Faith Community Church - 50th Anniversary, April 15, 2007. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Faith Community Church opened its doors on April 14, 1957 and its pastoral staff and congregation have spent 50 years serving the Edmonds community through positive fellowship and charitable activities. They will have an anniversary service and a luncheon on Sunday, April 15 to celebrate this milestone. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Proclamation Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 04/10/2007 03:33 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/10/2007 03:54 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 11:50 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Started On: 04/05/2007 02:57 Carl PM Final Approval Date: 04/12/2007 Packet Page 135 of 396 City of Edmonds * Office of the Mayor Faith Community Church 50th Anniversary — April 15, 2007 Whereas, Faith Community Church, located in south Edmonds, celebrates its 50'k anniversary tlhis year; and Whereas, Faith Community opened its doors on April 14, 1957, and in the last 50 years has nurtured faith through sharing the word of God and prayer; offered hope by caring for emotional, spiritual, and physical needs; and showed Christ's love through positive, meaningful activities in our community; and Whereas, Faith Community's vision includes a friendly and inviting fellowship that reaches out to touch the lives of the unchurched in our community; and Whereas, the pastoral staff and congregation have supported many community organizations, such as the local food bank, Support 7, and Vision House; and have contributed to international relief and development efforts through agencies such as World Concern and Habitat for Humanity; and Whereas, on Sunday, April 15, the congregation will celebrate this milestone with a special service in the morning and an anniversary luncheon at the Old Spaghetti Factory. Now, therefore, 1, Gary Haakenson, Mayor of the City of Fxlmoihds, proclaim Sunday, April 15, 2007 as Faith Community Chum b Day in Edmonds and 'encourage the citizens to join me in recognizing Pastor Phil Assink, staff, and members of die church for tlheir invaluable contribution to our community and congratulating tlhem on this special event. Gary Haakenson, Mayor April 5, 2007 Packet Page 136 of 396 AM-930 2.F. Friar Tuck Lane Authorization to Call for Bids Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/17/2007 Submitted By: Conni Curtis, Engineering Submitted For: Dave Gebert Time: Consent Department: Engineering Type: Action Review Committee: A rtinn Information Subject Title Authorization to call for bids for the Friar Tuck Lane Drainage Improvements Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize Staff to call for bids on the Friar Tuck Lane Drainage Improvements project. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The design of the Friar Tuck Lane Drainage Improvements project has been completed by City Staff. This project is located in the Southwest Edmonds Basin. Since annexation, the City has constructed infiltration facilities at many locations in Southwest Edmonds to reduce ponding on streets and private property in the area. The existing drainage system at Friar Tuck Lane is undersized for the large storm events, and the proposed improvement will provide over five times as much capacity. The adopted 2007 capital budget includes $75,000 for Southwest Edmonds drainage projects. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: CIP Project Description Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Dave Gebert 04/10/2007 01:40 PM APRV 2 Development Services Duane Bowman 04/10/2007 03:07 PM APRV 3 City Clerk Linda Hynd 04/10/2007 03:33 PM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/10/2007 03:54 PM APRV 5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 11:50 AM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 04/10/2007 11:45 AM Final Approval Date: 04/12/2007 Packet Page 137 of 396 Packet Page 138 of 396 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Southwest Edmonds Basin ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $75,000 Study Projects SCAOE CITY OF EDMONDS BASIN STUD Y PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct projects identified in Southwest Edmonds Basin Study which was adopted in 2003. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Projects identified in the study address water quantity and quality problems. Projects are prioritized based on 1) magnitude of the problem 2) frequency of occurrence and 3) potential damage exposure. Existing drainage facilities in the area consist mostly of numerous catch basins and infiltration sumps. These facilities were installed incrementally without an overall plan as the area developed over a period of many years. There are no major drainage pipelines running through the project area. Since annexation, the City has constructed infiltration facilities at several locations to reduce ponding on streets and private property in the area. SCHEDULE: 2007 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $75,000 2007-412-200 SouthwestBasinl.doc Packet Page 139 of 396 AM-931 2.G. 100th Avenue West Right -of -Way Stabilization Project Call for Bids Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/17/2007 Submitted By: Conni Curtis, Engineering Submitted For: Dave Gebert Time: Consent Department: Engineering Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Authorization to call for bids for the 100th Avenue West Right -of -Way Stabilization Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize Staff to call for bids for the 100th Avenue West Right -of -Way Stabilization project. Previous Council Action On July 20, 2004, Council awarded a consultant contract for design of the 100th Avenue West Right -of -Way Stabilization project to Reid Middleton, Inc. Narrative In December 2001, Landau Associates presented a Geotechnical Alternatives Evaluation Report providing stabilization measures for roadway and right-of-way along 100th Avenue West. On July 20, 2004, Council awarded a contract for design of the 100th Avenue West Right -of -Way Stabilization project to Reid Middleton, Inc. The design of the 100th Avenue West Right -of -Way Stabilization project is now complete, the additional right-of-way required for the project has been purchased by the City, and we are ready to call forbids on the project. The adopted 2007 Capital Budget contains $1,000,000 for this project. The project is being funded in part by a low -interest Public Works Trust Fund loan. A description of the project is included as Attachment 1. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: CIP Protect Description Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Dave Gebert 04/10/2007 03:13 PM APRV 2 Development Services Duane Bowman 04/10/2007 03:16 PM APRV 3 City Clerk Linda Hynd 04/10/2007 03:33 PM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/10/2007 03:54 PM APRV Packet Page 140 of 396 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 11:50 AM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 04/10/2007 02:20 PM Final Approval Date: 04/12/2007 Packet Page 141 of 396 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 1 00th Ave W Right -of -Way ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,000,000 Stabilization Project NOT T 00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide stabilization measures for roadway and right-of-way per December 2001 Geotechnical Evaluation Report performed by Landau Associates for the City. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Road and right-of-way is sloughing, settling and sliding. Stabilization measures will protect right-of-way, and ensure safer conditions. This is an project from 2005. -ongoing SCHEDULE: 2007 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $990,000 1% for Art $10,000 TOTAL $1,000,000 *All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts 2007-112 100thStabilization. doe Packet Page 142 of 396 AM-942 Caspers, Ninth and Puget Drive Walkway Consultant Award Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/17/2007 Submitted By: Conni Curtis Submitted For: Don Fiene Time: Consent Department: Engineering Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Information 2.H. Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign Professional Services Agreement with Reid Middleton, Inc. for the Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Professional Services Agreement with Reid Middleton, Inc. Previous Council Action On October 24, 2006, Council authorized Staff to advertise for statements of qualification from engineering consultants for the design of the Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway project. Narrative The 2007-2008 adopted capital budget includes $380,000 for the Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway project. The CIP description of the project is included as Attachment 1. On January 18, 2007 a design consultant selection committee met and interviewed two project teams. After completion of the interviews, the project team of Reid Middleton, Inc. was chosen by consensus of the committee for design of the improvements. Subsequently, references were contacted to verify the competence of the firm. The references were favorable. This project will significantly improve pedestrian safety along one of the City's busiest principal arterials by construction of a walkway on the side of these streets which currently lack sidewalks. The project also includes enhancements to existing uncontrolled pedestrian crossings to improve their visibility and safety, as well as upgrades to existing curb ramps to meet current ADA accessibility requirements. City Staff was successful in securing a grant for construction funding for this project. Staff and the consultant have now agreed on a scope of services and budget for the design work. The Professional Services Agreement is attached as Attachment 2. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: CIP Protect Description Packet Page 143 of 396 Link: RMI Agreement Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Dave Gebert 04/12/2007 05:49 PM APRV 2 Development Services Duane Bowman 04/13/2007 08:26 AM APRV 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/13/2007 08:34 AM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/13/2007 08:40 AM APRV 5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/13/2007 09:16 AM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 04/12/2007 01:33 PM Final Approval Date: 04/13/2007 Packet Page 144 of 396 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Caspers/9 Ave/Puget ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $380,000 Drive Pedestrian Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a walkway on the north side of Caspers Street between 7th Avenue North and 9th Avenue North, on the west side of 9th Avenue North between Caspers Street and Puget Drive and on the north side of Puget Drive from Olympic Avenue and hence 200 feet west. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. This road is an arterial and a state route. The current condition has a negative impact on pedestrian safety near Edmonds Elementary School. SCHEDULE: 2007 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $380,000 CIP Project Description.doc Packet Page 145 of 396 1nc.189v CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSO MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Reid Middleton, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant"; WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting firm to provide preliminary planning, design and other engineering and consulting services with respect to the Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway project; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with the Scope of Services that is marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be on a time and expense basis as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit B, provided, in no event shall the payment for work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of $116,805.60. B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City biweekly during the progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing shall be considered for payment that has not been submitted to the City Engineer three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such late vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment cycle. C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. Packet Page 146 of 396 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan 3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the Consultant and shall not be considered public records, provided, however, that: A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become public records. B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and, subject to the approval of the Consultant, copy any work product. C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost. 4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals. 5. Hold harmless agreement. The Consultant shall indemnify and hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part from the Consultant's negligence or breach of any of its obligations under this Agreement; provided that nothing herein shall require a Consultant to indemnify the City against and hold harmless the City from claims, demands or suits based solely upon the conduct of the City, its agents, officers and employees; and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) the Consultant's agents or employees, and (b) the City, its agents, officers and employees, this indemnity provision with respect to (1) claims or suits based upon such negligence (2) the costs to the City of defending such claims and suits shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence or the negligence of the Consultant's agents or employees. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers. The Consultant specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the Consultant's own employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the Consultant specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. 6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and keep in force during the terms of the Agreement, or as otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. 2 Packet Page 147 of 396 Insurance Coverage A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the State. B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property damage. The per occurrence amount shall not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000). C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit. D. Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). Excepting the Worker's Compensation Insurance and Professional Liability Insurance secured by the Consultant, the City will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The Consultant shall furnish the City with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington. The Consultant shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement to the City. No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty days prior notice to the City. The Consultant's professional liability to the City shall be limited to the amount payable under this Agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000), whichever is the greater, unless modified elsewhere in this Agreement. In no case shall the Consultant's professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. 7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin or physical handicap. 8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. 9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this agreement, the Consultant shall not perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written notification to the City and the City's prior written consent. 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 3 Packet Page 148 of 396 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document and the Consultant's proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provision of Exhibit A, this Agreement shall control. 12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render or the City to pay for services rendered in excess of the Scope of Services in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties. 13. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and any persons employed by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound engineering practices, in accordance with the schedules herein and in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of Services. 14. Non -waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 15. Non -assignable. The services to be provided by the contractor shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services. The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. 4 Packet Page 149 of 396 18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: Reid Middleton, Inc. 728-134t" Street SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. DATED THIS DAY OF .20 CITY OF EDMONDS CONSULTANT: By By Gary Haakenson, Mayor Its ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 5 Packet Page 150 of 396 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: 6 Packet Page 151 of 396 EXHIBIT A City of Edmonds Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive (SR 524) Walkway Project - SCOPE OF SERVICES - April 2007 INTRODUCTION The City of Edmonds (City) is interested in making walkway and pedestrian crossing improvements to Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive, between 7th Avenue and Olympic Avenue. Based on project funding, it is anticipated that the improvements will include approximately 3200-linear feet of new sidewalk on the north/west portion of the corridor. Existing curb and gutter will be maintained and sidewalks will be provided to infill areas that currently do not have safe walkways. Non-standard curb ramps and driveway ramps will be modified to meet current standards. Other traffic improvements include three enhanced pedestrian crossings, two radar signs and high visibility signage. The project will require an elevated walkway over Shell Creek, in the form a bridge structure. A public involvement and education program will be included. All project improvements will be designed to comply with state aid design and funding requirements and the approved Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grant application and agreement. Reid Middleton, Inc. (Consultant) will perform the following scope of services as noted: Element 1.0 MANAGEMENT/COORDINATION/ADMINISTRATION 1.1 Provide project management and administration to complete the project (estimate 7-month duration). 1.2 Manage and coordinate with subconsultants. 1.3 Review available background documents. 1.4 Provide monthly progress reports. 1.5 Prepare a project schedule using a bar format. The schedule will show a two -week review period for all submittals in the schedule for City review. 1.6 Conduct regular project team meetings with City staff to discuss project related issue (allowance for 3 meetings) Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project City of Edmonds Page 1 of 16 Packet Page 152 of 396 April 2007 1.6.1 Coordination with WSDOT Local Programs (allowance for 2 meetings) and with WSDOT Design Staff (allowance for 2 meetings) 1.7 Quality assurance reviews. Element 2.0 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 2.1 Prepare for and attend one Open House Meeting to seek input from the public on the proposed improvements. The meeting will be held at the 60 percent level of design. Specific tasks include: 2.1.1 Meet with City Staff to discuss exhibits, staffing and other issues connected with the meetings. 2.1.2 Prepare exhibits, maps, and plans as appropriate for the community involvement process. 2.1.3 Attend public meeting (one each), prepare graphics and assembly of summary notebook. 2.2 Prepare mailers (newsletter) discussing project schedule, components, and events. A total of two mailers will be issued. The City shall provide input for coverage of mailer and will mail to affected neighborhoods. The first newsletter will be issued before the open house and will provide an overview and a tentative schedule (with a July 1 advertisement date). The second mailer will include a project update, a schedule for construction, and will include discussion for public education. 2.3 Meet one-on-one with property owners to discuss site -specific concerns. Assume a total of four meetings. The one-on-one meetings will occur prior to the open house. The purpose of the meetings is to discuss work performed in the right-of-way and resultant property requests for restoration. Element 3.0 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS 3.1 Conduct a site analysis to document the existing soils conditions, including field explorations, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analyses to support design of the pedestrian bridge proposed at Shell Creek. Two exploratory borings will be performed to characterize soil and groundwater conditions. The proposed exploratory borings will each be advanced to a depth of Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project City of Edmonds Page 2 of 16 Packet Page 153 of 396 April 2007 about 40 feet below the ground surface. It is assumed that the pavement section at the boring locations will be patched using fast -setting concrete. The borings will be performed in the roadway and as a result, a lane closure will be required to complete the borings. The Consultant will prepare and submit a traffic plan to the City of Edmonds, and provide the necessary flaggers and warning signs for a lane closure 3.2 The Consultant will prepare a draft and final report summarizing findings and design -level geotechnical engineering recommendations to support design of the proposed pedestrian bridge. Upon receipt of review comments, the Consultant will address the comments and submit two copies of a signed and sealed geotechnical report. The geotechnical report will include: • A site plan showing the locations of borings accomplished for this project and pertinent previous explorations (if available). • Exploratory boring logs of proposed and previous explorations, if any, and the results of laboratory testing. • A discussion of the observed near -surface soil and groundwater conditions at the Project Site. • An evaluation of the moisture sensitivity of the soil at the Project Site. • Recommendations for earthwork construction related to construction of the proposed pedestrian bridge, including subgrade preparation, backfill material and compaction criteria, and provisions for wet weather earthwork. • Recommendations for pile foundation support including, recommended pile type and size together with recommended allowable vertical capacity and estimated lateral loading design parameters. • Recommendations for lateral earth pressures (presented in terms of equivalent fluid pressures) under static and dynamic loading conditions for use in design of the bridge abutments and wing walls. • Recommendations for monitoring and testing during construction. Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project City of Edmonds Page 3 of 16 Packet Page 154 of 396 April 2007 Element 4.0 UTILITY COORDINATION 4.1 Provide project coordination with the franchise utilities located within the limits of the project. Coordination will include providing copies of the mapping with notations for relocations. The Consultant will mail a notification letter to the affected utilities that will discuss the project and schedule. 4.2 Provide project coordination with the Snohomish County PUD and other utilities for the purpose of facilitating the relocation of their existing overhead facilities where poles or guy wires conflict with the new walkway. Detailed mapping for this element and the design of new and relocated facilities will be by the franchise utilities. Service connections for radar signs will be discussed with PUD. 4.3 An allowance for utility potholing is included. The use of this allowance shall be in writing by the City to determine underground utilities such as storm drainage pipes, water, sewer and gas lines that may interfere with the construction of planned improvements, such as the elevated walkway. Element 5.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 5.1 The Consultant will document the before and after conditions help the City to determine the project Stormwater Management requirements. A brief Hydraulic Memorandum will be prepared to document the findings. City staff will determine Stormwater Management requirements and will design structures as required which will be incorporated into the PS&E package by the Consultant. Element 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION 6.1 The City shall prepare the SEPA Checklist for the preferred alternative. 6.2 One meeting to discuss the project with the Department of Fish and Wildlife is included. No in -water stream work is assumed and therefore the preparation of a JARPA is not included. 6.3 Wetland and Stream Assessment Data Collection, Site Review Tasks & Draft Documentation Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project April 2007 City of Edmonds Page 4 of 16 Packet Page 155 of 396 Conduct a preliminary review of existing environmental information within and adjacent to the study area. This could include: o National Wetland Inventory maps o City of Edmonds Wetlands/Streams mapping data o Hydric Soils of the State of Washington o Current aerial photography o Soil Survey, Snohomish County Area, Washington o Previously completed critical area reports and wetland determinations within and immediately adjacent to the study area o Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitat and species maps o Washington State Department of Natural Resources official water type reference maps o Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program mapping data o Anadromous and resident salmonid distribution maps contained in the habitat limiting factors reports published by the Washington Conservation Commission o Washington State Department of Natural Resources state natural area preserves and natural resource conservation area maps Request study area vicinity data from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species database and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage database. Conduct a field investigation to delineate and flag wetlands and stream ordinary water marks within the study area. The delineation will be performed in accordance with the Routine Method of the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual utilized by the City of Edmonds, and Routine Method of the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual utilized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Forms will be used per Critical Area Regulations Sections 23.50.070. Rate the wetlands and streams within and immediately adjacent to the study area according to the Critical Area Regulations Sections 23.50.010 (wetlands) and 25.09.020 (streams) rating systems. Provide a descriptive site sketch depicting study area wetland boundaries and stream channels as flagged along the ordinary high Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project City of Edmonds Page 5 of 16 Packet Page 156 of 396 April 2007 water mark in the field, and wetland delineation data plots, within the study area within one business day of completion of the field investigation. Critical area buffer setback requirements per Critical Area Regulations Sections 25.50.040.F (wetlands) and 23.90.040.D.1 (streams) will be depicted on the survey report will also be provided to at this time. Prepare a Draft Critical Area Report that will serve as the wetland delineation report that meets the requirements as stated in the Critical Area Regulations as agreed upon by the City of Edmonds Development Services Director. The director maintains the authority and discretion to determine which report(s) alone or combined are sufficient to meet the requirements and to waive report requirements based upon site conditions and the potential for project impacts. The proposed assessment scope includes completing a wetland delineation report documenting the extent and boundary of a jurisdictional wetland per RCW 36.70A.175. It is understood that the proposed span will impact the wetland buffer only and no wetland area will be directly impacted. A critical areas report for wetlands will contain a written assessment and accompanying maps an analysis of the wetlands, including the following site- and proposal -related information: o The project area of the proposed activity o Wetland delineation and required buffers o Existing wetland acreage o Wetland category o Vegetative and faunal characteristics o Soil and substrate conditions o A site drawing depicting the following elements: • Stream ordinary high water mark(s) • Standard stream buffer boundary • Boundary for proposed reduced stream buffers • Vegetative characteristics • Topographic elevations at two -foot contours o A discussion of the water sources supplying the wetland and documentation of hydrologic regime (locations of inlet and outlet features, water depths throughout the wetland, and evidence of recharge or discharge, evidence of water depths throughout the year: drift lines, algal layers, moss lines, and sediment deposits). Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project City of Edmonds Page 6 of 16 Packet Page 157 of 396 April 2007 o The location, extent and analyses of wetlands not contiguous with the subject parcel existing outside of the immediate project area may be described in approximation as practical and necessary to provide an assessment of potential project effects and hydrologic/ecological connectivity to on -site wetlands and other critical areas. o Functional evaluation for the wetland and adjacent wetland and stream buffer using a local or state agency staff -recognized method pertaining to the protection of stream functions, fish habitat and, in particular, potential anadromous fisheries. o Detailed description of vegetation on the project area and its associated buffer. o Identification of any species of local importance, priority species, or endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species that have a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the project area. Per Section 23.40.310, the critical area report and decisions to alter critical areas and their buffers will rely on the best available science to protect the functions and values of critical areas and must give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish, such as salmon, bull trout, steelhead, and their habitat, where applicable. The "best available science" is that scientific information applicable to the critical area prepared by local, state, or federal natural resource agencies, a qualified scientific professional, or team of qualified scientific professionals that is consistent with criteria established in WAC 365-195-900 through WAC 365-195- 925 and RCW 36.70A.172. o After the City of Edmonds has received and reviewed a copy of the Draft Critical Area Report, schedule and attend a field meeting with City of Edmonds critical areas staff (or their authorized representative) to complete an independent review of the critical area report per Section 23.40.090.13 including wetland boundary and stream channel boundary verifications within and within 50- feet of the study area. Sensitive Area Mitigation o It is understood that the Consultant will complete a development alternatives analysis after the critical area boundary verification has been completed by the City. Upon completion of the Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project April 2007 City of Edmonds Page 7 of 16 Packet Page 158 of 396 preliminary site planning for the preferred development option, if it is determined that unavoidable critical area or critical area buffer impacts are necessary and unavoidable, a mitigation plan addressing the buffer reduction and compensation for that reduction will be addressed in a second draft of the Critical Areas Report including a Stream Mitigation and Buffer Enhancement Plan. This proposed mitigation will include a written assessment and accompanying maps of the mitigation area, including the following information at a minimum: o A scale map of the development proposal site and adjacent area. o Existing and proposed wetland buffer acreage. o Vegetative and faunal conditions. o Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions including an analysis of existing and future hydrologic regime and proposed hydrologic regime for enhanced, created or restored mitigation areas. o Relationship to the watershed and existing waterbodies. o Proposed buffer enhancement including a written assessment and accompanying maps and planting plans for buffer areas to be enhanced, including the following information at a minimum: o A description of existing buffer conditions. o A description of proposed buffer conditions and how proposed conditions will increase buffer functioning in terms of stream and fish habitat protection. o Performance standards for measuring enhancement success through a monitoring period of at least three years. o Provisions for monitoring and submission of monitoring reports documenting buffer conditions as compared to performance standards for enhancement success. o A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect stream functions and habitat value through maintenance of vegetation density within the stream buffer. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. o Soil and substrate conditions with topographic elevations. Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project City of Edmonds Page 8 of 16 Packet Page 159 of 396 April 2007 0 Required wetland buffers. 0 Property ownership. 0 A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect wetlands and stream after the project site has been developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs. 0 A bond estimate for the installation (including site preparation, plant materials and installation, fertilizers, mulch, and stakes) and the proposed monitoring and maintenance work for the required number of years. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Conditions on development will be required to enhance streams and stream buffers to provide increased protection of anadromous fisheries and potential fish habitat in accordance with best available science. The recommendations of an approved critical areas report and may include: 0 A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and mitigation, proposed to preserve existing wetlands. The City shall provide a description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to according to the Critical Area Regulations, Section 23.40.120 to avoid, minimize impacts to critical areas. 0 Native planting 0 Planting of stream bank native vegetation to increase stream shading 0 Removal and control of non-native invasive weed species 0 Requiring additional building setbacks or modified buffers 0 Limiting or reducing the types or densities of particular uses Assumptions The Critical Area Study will not include an assessment of the impacts of the development proposal resulting from development in a critical area or buffer, and will not include a mitigation plan complete with maintenance, monitoring, contingency plans and bonding measures. Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project April 2007 City of Edmonds Page 9 of 16 Packet Page 160 of 396 Re -delineation of the wetlands and stream channels due to loss or changing of field flagging by other persons prior to completing the boundary survey or verification by appropriate agency staff will be considered additional services beyond the scope of this estimate. Hand sketches will be prepared of the delineation to assist in the ground survey. Identification and survey of specific wildlife habitats and/or wildlife species (including identification of bird, amphibians, reptiles or small mammal surveys) will also be considered additional services beyond this Scope of Services. The Consultant will design the proposed facilities and associated activities to be conducted using the best management practices as stated in the Critical Area Regulations Section 23.40.220 that result in the least amount of impact to the critical areas. Best management practices will be used for tree and vegetation protection, construction management, erosion and sedimentation control, water quality protection, and regulation of chemical applications. Element 7.0 BASE MAPPING 7.1 Base maps will be assembled based on City furnished LIDAR mapping as background and merged with a WSDOT aerial photo (2003 flight date) Specific tasks include cutting plan sheets for design and field reviewing the base maps with City staff. 7.2 The City furnished mapping will be augmented with site -specific ground survey. Locations for ground survey are: • Shell Creek Crossing • Pedestrian Crossing locations (three each), as warranted • Sensitive areas at Shell Creek (wetland flagging) • Stream ordinary high water • Driveways, centerline profiles to determine transition length. The City shall secure right -of -entry for those parcels adjacent to Shell Creek for purpose of environmental, geotechnical and survey tasks. The City shall create a photo log to document the "before" conditions for each parcel frontage. Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project April 2007 City of Edmonds Page 10 of 16 Packet Page 161 of 396 Element 8.0 DEVELOP PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES The Consultant will conduct the preliminary (60 percent), 90 percent, and final design engineering necessary for the preparation of plans and specification for construction contract documents. It is anticipated that the following plan sheets will be required: 8.1 Project "Title Sheet" including sheet index and vicinity map. 8.2 Abbreviations and Legend" sheet. 8.3 "Typical Sections" sheets. Plans will indicate location of walls, slopes and clear -zone treatments. Gravity wall details will be included. 8.4 Temporary Erosion and Control Plan and Details. The Consultant will prepare a temporary erosion and control plan and details in conformance with the city standards. The plan will provide protection of all affected existing and new drainage facilities. 8.5 Site Preparation Plan. The Consultant will prepare site preparation plans showing the location of items to be removed, limits of pavement, driveway and sidewalk removals, items to be preserved and protected and clearing and grubbing limits. 8.6 Plan Sheets. Roadway plan sheets will include walkway features, fencing, vegetation replacement (as defined by City), driveway and curb ramp construction notes as required. Small gravity wall locations will be shown on the plan will the approximate top and bottom of wall elevations indicated. Elevations for the walls will not be prepared. 8.7 Intersection Detail Sheets for Pedestrian Crossings. Intersection details will be prepared identifying type and location of ADA compliant ramps and crosswalks. Channelization, signing, and possible median and/or illuminated overhead signage installations will be examined. Replacement of existing curb ramps will include definition of the curb return radius, ramps on both sides of the road will be upgraded to ADA compliance. All other curb information will be field calculated during construction, including curb elevations. 8.8 Radar Sign Installation Plan and Details. These plans will show location for the signs, wiring and electrical service. The actual radar signs will be furnished by the chosen manufacturer. The Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project City of Edmonds Page I I of 16 Packet Page 162 of 396 April 2007 Consultant will discuss findings from other cities regarding the installation when selecting the units. One radar sign will be placed in each direction within the project limits (for a total of two signs). Service location will be indicated on the plans. 8.9 Bridge Plan Sheets. The bridge plans will include typical sections, pile support, railings and connections. The use of prefabricated deck sections supported on auger cast piles will be examined. 8.10 Channelization Plan Sheets. The channelization at the new enhanced crossings will be shown. All other existing channelization will remain. 8.11 Working drawings will be submitted to the City for review at the 60, and 90 percent stages of design and at final. The Consultant will incorporate comments supplied by the City. 8.12 Prepare Project Specifications based upon the latest version of the WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction and the current Amendments. Specific tasks include: Incorporating City General Special Provisions. Preparation of notices, submittals and proposal forms. Assembling standard drawings, geotechnical information and other items for the Appendices. Project Specifications will be submitted to the City for review at the 90 percent and final. The Consultant will incorporate comments supplied by the City. 8.13 Calculating quantities and preparing engineer's opinion of probable construction costs. Estimates will be provided with the 60 and 90 and final submittals. Element 9.0 SUPPORT DURING BID PHASE The Consultant will provide the following services following the final submittal of the construction documents for the project. 9.1 Provide assistance in responding to questions submitted by contractors during the bid period. 9.2 Prepare addendums to the contract documents. This will include making changes to the Plans, Specifications, and/or Proposal Forms for the contract. Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project City of Edmonds Page 12 of 16 Packet Page 163 of 396 April 2007 9.3 Printing and reproduction of contract documents Element 10.0 Management Reserve The Consultant will provide the following services when authorized by the City. No Management Reserve work shall be performed without written authorization by the City. Tasks may include: 10.1 Right -of -Way Plan The project is not anticipated to require right-of-way acquisition. However, if right-of-way is required a right-of-way plan and supporting documentation will be required. The right-of-way plan will be prepared in accordance with WSDOT standards. OTHER SERVICES The City may require other services of the Consultant. These services could include additional environmental documentation, preparation of migration plans (such as wetland or stream buffer enhancement plans), design support during construction, and construction management services. At the time these services are required, the Consultant will provide the City with a detailed scope of services and an estimate of costs. The Consultant will not proceed with the work until the City has authorized the work and issued a notice to proceed. Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project City of Edmonds Page 13 of 16 Packet Page 164 of 396 April 2007 DELIVERABLES The Consultant will provide the following deliverables with this project: Billing and monthly progress reports. • Public involvement material • Project information boards • Strip maps • Newsletter • Handouts. • Two copies and one electronic and camera-ready version (final only) of the draft and final Geotechnical Report. Environmental Documentation: A descriptive sketch depicting study area wetland boundaries and stream channel ordinary high water marks as flagged in the field and wetland delineation data plots within the study area within one business day of completion of the field investigation. Critical area buffer setback requirements for each wetland and stream that will be depicted on the survey report will be also be provided to the contracted surveyor and the City at this time. One reproducible copy of the Draft Critical Area Study summarizing the wetland delineation, stream locations, wetland functions and values, their regulatory classifications/ratings, and critical area buffer setback requirements within the study area to be submitted for critical area boundary verification by the City. One reproducible copy of the Draft Critical Area Study summarizing the wetland delineation, stream locations, wetland functions and values, their regulatory classifications/ratings, and critical area buffer setback requirements and mitigation measures within the study area. One reproducible copy of the Final Critical Area Study summarizing the wetland delineation, stream locations, wetland functions and values, their regulatory classifications/ratings, and critical area buffer setback requirements and mitigation measures within the study area. • Two half-size and one full-size paper copies of the base map. Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project April 2007 City of Edmonds Page 14 of 16 Packet Page 165 of 396 • Three Copies and one electronic and camera-ready version (final only) of Engineer Estimates prepared for the project. • Four full-size copies of 60, 90, and pre -ad copies of the plans for the project. • Four copies of the draft Specifications for the project at the 90 percent and one copy of the pre -ad specification for review. • Thirty half-size ,10 full-size, one Mylar®, and two electronic copies of the final plans. • One final copy of the specifications and submittal package for the project. City staff will submit to Builders Exchange for bidding. • Three draft and final copies of Addendums for the project. • Three paper and one electronic copy of the Bid Tabs for the project. The City of Edmonds shall provide the following: • All available background information and report review/approvals • Electronic copy of the previously prepared traffic study • LIDAR base map • Addresses for mailers and mailing of documents • The City shall contact the Tulalip Tribes, Suquamish Tribe, and Snoqualmie Tribe about the project to solicit any additional concerns about heritage resources. • Rights -of -entry signed and dated by the City upon all lands necessary within 50-feet of the project area for the performance of the above described Scope of Services. The Critical Area Regulations, Section 23.40.100 states that the Planning Director may limit the required geographic area of the critical area report as appropriate if 1) the applicant, with assistance from the City of Edmonds, cannot obtain permission to access properties adjacent to the project area; or 2) the proposed activity will affect only a limited part of the subject site. • Available record drawings on the study area. This includes two plat maps to scale depicting study area boundaries. This plat map will serve as a base map for the descriptive site sketch of approximate wetland boundaries within the study area, wetland delineation data plot locations, stream channel locations, and other items to be surveyed after the field investigation has been completed. Previously completed wetland delineation reports and survey reports to scale completed within the study area boundaries. Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project April 2007 City of Edmonds Page 15 of 16 Packet Page 166 of 396 STANDARDS The Design of the Project will be consistent with the following latest version of the following Adopted Standards. When conflicts occur between standards the Consultant will utilize the most recent of the standards unless directed to do otherwise by the City in writing. Variances to the standards will be approved by the City in writing prior to their implementation in the design. • AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets • AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low -Volume Local Roads • AASHTO Roadside Design Guide • FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices including the WA State Amendments. WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road Bridge and Municipal Construction and it Amendments. • WSDOT Design Manual • WSDOT Local Agency Guidelines • WSDOT Bridge Design Manual • WSDOT Construction Manual • WSDOT Standard Plans for Road Bridge and Municipal Construction • WSDOT Environmental Procedure Manual • WSDOT Right -of -Way Procedures Manual • City of Edmonds Road Standards • City of Edmonds General Special Provisions • City of Edmonds Planning and Engineering Standards \H:\DOC\25St\06\913\Edmonds - Casper\Contract\Draft Consultant Scope.doc Caspers, Ninth Avenue and Puget Drive Walkway Project City of Edmonds Page 16 of 16 Packet Page 167 of 396 April 2007 oo �n �n Go o0 -Oh N 00 00 0 0 `ono qq qq 00 00000 C J U N U` T m Y �Nh 2 U � o o 0 O Zryw: 2� o d 0 0 o O .0 E o 00 0 o 0 0 o —�c5 1 aaNU o UqU: o N m I m � ry a o o I ❑ L O o o po q q q00 00000 U F I N a � 9 Up O O 0 IR o G O 00 O G I Nao_ 0 Nw�w o w 'A o0 0IR0 G G ..qq 0 o O o o 0 0 0lqlqq Oqqqqq o 0 o� Ma aww d o0 roorl 00 oolq o 00 oLq 0 � N n � N � 3 C d W d a m p N Q E S? Q y E F - Z N - lo V!3 d z a s a E o E o E o v E o V 1. o o a w a _ m o g inu c 25 'a�-Evw_ c a V I O m3= E m3 F'EE ,'3_5E c x anw�«'° EU Y]. unA Eoo c w _ c_ c o ii-W - Er Nr _ c F=� "mm wUl 2, 3 `m m21 w Z�O w�dU;2 @ o ola ❑amam`iacn zg�.? o. a`a`Oa a`_yo�O a'mm S. lj ? N ca m O � wtQ-yci N1ofOmT' c wavUrmi if wr.o6n 5UwmmKaS ommw` aama`� °3' om aN`m o 3v.MEo sOa E_6 r Nc Nao °cm? Ucysc �c ¢>v> a`mm` ovm- c 2aw o¢fn �6 cNZ ry ro q ry w w w e mrI Qo.� Packet Page 168 of 396 O O O O O �O N 0 N 0 0 N N O O tC I� V fV 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 O C N 0 O1. 0 0 0 W n I y m O Zap hN � I I ayN I A oN m I —gym \o _ I I e v, 0 00 o� EU�U in N Nr v r� I °t oe m Nn _ U U �a I iI o0000.0 o Nry mNM�' i I I I I I I aNaa c N c � o oa �a �y f c��LL I NQ N^' { ' c O o 00 0 0 e'O 1 � o00 000 0000 a2 maw'fl � a oe I na N o m 2Ei ci IW ON OjM1 O T O r a ON C O I o o E a. y _ coN m W w > O N3 o cm�� EEE o u w- E o E UO. 0« w d=r ° 2 u. .=' K °a WOj�� SH > m0 IaE8 acmo Z N c cZ�2 nL°'".°N vNU m —dEUE t Yn °� mam r Oi-O o ��r N Q r¢ O W 1 N c n c c c 5 d `m `�° 2— a:! E cciw m` 8 z m a -- m r O a_ A '° '° a 8 8 8 v W->�s`� ._ _ m m a cE a m 13 �m`m uvmamm - ` £a`a t� c a a N m a a c E j v 'mm mt 1,61 mY 21 Packet Page 169 of 396 AM-939 2.I. 2007 First Quarter Budget Amendment Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/17/2007 Submitted By: Debra Sharp Submitted For: Dan Clements Time: Consent Department: Administrative Services Type: Action Review Committee: Finance Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title 2007 First Quarter Budget Amendment. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve attached budget amending Ordinance. Previous Council Action Finance Committee 4/10/2007. Narrative In governmental budgeting, expenditures may take place up to the amount appropriated in the current budget. Financial activity impacting appropriation levels are brought before the Edmonds City Council on a quarterly basis in the form of a budget amendment ordinance. The first quarter 2007 budget amendment contains a total of 12 proposed adjustments, eight of which have previously been before Council. There are four new items for Council to consider. The first item is an increase in General Fund expenditures for labor negotiations and the second is an increase in Fleet expenditures for the replacement of a patrol vehicle. The final two items in this section are for Parks supplies and small equipment which will receive private donation money for the proposed expenditures. Overall, General Fund requests total $91,595 of which $3,190 will be funded by a new private donation. The net impact to the General Fund's ending cash is a decrease of $88,405. Non -General Fund requests total $187,500 of which $145,832 will be funded either by private donations, utility customer payments, interfund transfers or insurance reimbursement. The net decrease to Non -General Fund ending cash is $41,668. The major Non -General Fund expenditure requests include $31,000 for capital projects in the Street Construction Fund, $104,500 for storm water utility taxes that will be transferred to the General Fund and $30,000 for a replacement patrol car purchased out of the Internal Service Fund. Fiscal Impact Attachments Packet Page 170 of 396 Link: 2007 First Quarter Budget Amendment Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Dan Clements 04/12/2007 12:18 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 01:15 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/12/2007 01:16 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 01:17 PM APRV Form Started By: Debra Started On: 04/12/2007 11:12 Sharp AM Final Approval Date: 04/12/2007 Packet Page 171 of 396 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3613 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund Transfers and increases in appropriations; and WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is transferred from one fund to another; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2007 Budget; and THEREFORE, WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 3613 adopting the final budget for the fiscal year 2007 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in "Exhibit A" adopted herein by reference. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take L:\PR0DUCTI0NDB\CC0UNCIL\0019 939 2007 FIRST AMENDING ORDINANCE.DOC Packet Page 172 of 396 effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: M. W. SCOTT SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 173 of 396 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 ORDINANCE NO. 3613 AS A RESULT EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 92007. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE 3 Packet Page 174 of 396 EXHIBIT"A:" BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION 2007 BEGINNING CASH REVENUE EXPENDITURES 2007 ENDING CASH 001 GENERAL FUND 3,551,328 29,885,253 32,118,393 1,318,188 006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 1,927,600 0 0 1,927,600 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 338,670 476,095 497,250 317,515 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 46,260 61,883 89,213 18,930 III STREET FUND 101,683 1,273,029 1,340,217 34,495 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 793,490 2,136,696 2,246,699 683,487 113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 0 625,000 625,000 0 116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 247,138 1,173,675 1,142,460 278,353 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 204,625 65,930 103,250 167,305 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 15,847 600 0 16,447 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 55,268 63,625 66,625 52,268 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 71,574 18,600 18,000 72,174 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 8,303 2,740 3,200 7,843 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 26,941 17,035 21,800 22,176 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 4,996,514 1,517,500 4,508,200 2,005,814 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 214,648 1,470,000 880,661 803,987 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 148,875 16,260 12,866 152,269 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 0 316,000 327,000 -11,000 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 160,240 261,214 180,559 240,895 131 FIRE DONATIONS 13,778 5,838 0 19,616 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 0 420,000 420,000 0 211 LID FUND CONTROL 1,766 351,000 345,300 7,466 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 41,529 2,000 0 43,529 234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 0 415,710 415,710 0 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 4,787,026 12,735,067 13,734,875 3,787,218 412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 2,666,800 7,330,805 7,861,000 2,136,605 414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 1,121,321 947,982 1,286,844 782,459 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 3,739,375 2,170,364 2,640,299 3,269,440 601 PARKS TRUST FUND 124,908 4,000 0 128,908 610 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 323,949 60,126 0 384,075 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 283,727 100,368 113,000 271,095 621 SPECIAL LIBRARY 0 0 0 0 623 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 14,937 21,200 20,000 16,137 Totals 26,028,120 63,945,595 71,018,421 18,955,294 Packet Page 175 of 396 EXHIBIT "B": BUDGET AMENDMENTS BY EXPENDITURE FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION ORD. NO. 3613 11/21/2006 ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. 2007 Amended Budget 001 GENERAL FUND 32,026,798 91,595 0 0 32,118,393 006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 0 0 0 0 0 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 497,250 0 0 0 497,250 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 89,213 0 0 0 89,213 111 STREET FUND 1,340,217 0 0 0 1,340,217 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,215,699 31,000 0 0 2,246,699 113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 625,000 0 0 0 625,000 116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1,142,460 0 0 0 1,142,460 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 103,250 0 0 0 103,250 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 0 0 0 0 0 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 63,625 3,000 0 0 66,625 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 18,000 0 0 0 18,000 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,200 0 0 0 3,200 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 21,800 0 0 0 21,800 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 4,508,200 0 0 0 4,508,200 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 880,661 0 0 0 880,661 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 4,866 8,000 0 0 12,866 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 316,000 11,000 0 0 327,000 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 180,559 0 0 0 180,559 131 FIRE DONATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 420,000 0 0 0 420,000 211 LID FUND CONTROL 345,300 0 0 0 345,300 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 0 0 0 0 0 234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 415,710 0 0 0 415,710 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 13,528,375 206,500 0 0 13,734,875 412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 7,861,000 0 0 0 7,861,000 414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 1,286,844 0 0 0 1,286,844 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 2,610,299 30,000 0 0 2,640,299 601 PARKS TRUST FUND 0 0 0 0 0 610 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 0 0 0 0 0 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 113,000 0 0 0 113,000 621 SPECIAL LIBRARY 0 0 0 0 0 623 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 Totals 70,637,326 381,095 0 0 71,018,421 Packet Page 176 of 396 EXHIBIT "C": BUDGET AMENDMENT DETAIL Items Previously Before Council Community Services Professional Services 2,000 Expenditure initially budgeted in 2006 but unable to complete Community Services Ending Fund Balance 2,000 the analysis Non-deparmental Professional Services 36,405 Non -de armental Ending Fund Balance 36,405 Fiber Optic Improvement project carried forward from 2006 Street Construction Construction 11,000 92nd Ave W/ 234th St Sw intersection safety impr change Street Construction Ending Fund Balance 11,000 order request Street Construction Professional Services 20,000 Street Construction Transfer -In 20,000 Non-deparmental Transfer -Out 20,000 Evaluation of the intersection at 88th Ave. W. and 196th Non-deparmental Ending Fund Balance 20,000 Street SW Log Cabin Maintenance Professional Services 3,000 Log cabin log maintenance -initially budgeted in 2006 but Log Cabin Maintenance Ending Fund Balance 3,000 unable to complete Special Projects Fund Professional Services 11,000 Professional services budget from 2006 carried forward to Special Projects Fund Ending Fund Balance 119000 2007 Utility Fund Stormwater Tax Trf 104,500 Stormwater Utility Tax transfer to general fund -tax approved Utility Fund Stormwater Tax Trf 104,500 after budget does prepared Utility Fund Ending Fund Balance 102,000 Water rate increase - increase was approved after the budget Utility Fund Water Utility Increase 102,000 does prepared New Items for Council to Consider Legal Professional Services 30,000 Legal Ending Fund Balance 30,000 Labor negotiations Internal Service Fund Equipment 30,000 Internal Service Fund Beginning Fund Balance 13,332 Internal Service Fund Ending Fund Balance 16,668 Patrol vehicle #234 totaled in accident, need to replace Parks & Recreation Small Equipment 3,190 Purchase of a touch tank to be used at the Beach Ranger Parks & Recreation Private Donation 3,190 Visitor Station Gifts Catolog Fund Supplies 8,000 Purchase three non coin operated viewing scopes for the Gifts Catolog Fund Private Donation 8,000 waterfront Packet Page 177 of 396 AM-936 ADB candidate confirmation Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: Submitted By: Submitted For: Department: Review Committee: A rtinn 04/17/2007 Linda Carl Gary Haakenson Mayor's Office infnrmatinn Time: 5 Minutes Type: Action Subject Title Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Bruce O'Neill and Steve Bullock to the Architectural Design Board. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Please confirm both candidates to serve on the ADB. Previous Council Action 3. Narrative Mayor Haakenson has appointed Bruce O'Neill to the builder position (position #2) and Steve Bullock to the landscape architect position (position #4). Bruce will fill an unexpired term that goes through the end of 2007. He is eligible for two full terms started in January 2008. Steve begins his first term immediately and is eligible for one additional four-year term in January 2011. Neither position requires Edmonds residency; all positions on the ADB are four-year terms and require Council confirmation. Fiscal Impact AttarhmPnte Link: Candidate applications Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox 1 City Clerk 2 Mayor 3 Final Approval Form Started By: Linda Carl Approved By Date Status Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 11:28 AM APRV Gary Haakenson 04/12/2007 11:31 AM APRV Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 11:50 AM APRV Started On: 04/12/2007 08:54 AM Final Approval Date: 04/12/2007 Packet Page 178 of 396 f___ City of Edmonds Citizen Board and Commission Acation 'RECEIVED (Please print or type) (Board or Commission) FEB 2 7 2007 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Name V Date 6 q" Address _ �, - . _ _ Phone (day) Ll Phone (eve) _ J00 l k1 115v t0mr.5 r, Length of residence in Edmonds a -mail Occupational status and background Organization affiliations M Thu % I_VVIZ5 Why are you seeking this appointment? J What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria? M(AiEgAv Gl= 7zic; l may.. C.Ifr�S' 'L . co Additional comments (use back of this sheet, if necessary) :�7 t-1!�'ll�7'-ti-� �✓' �31�...+� to t7 Z CLS. '> 1 N M Signature Please return this completed form (with 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. Packet Page 179 of 396 OF EDAfa City of Edmonds -- Citizen Board and Commission Application ,`990 1 L)y0 (Please print or type) Architectural Desi n Board (Board or Commission) Name Steve Bullock Date April 6, 2007 Address _ Phone (day) Edmonds WA 98026 Phone (eve) Length of residence in Edmonds 30 yrs E-mail Occupational status and background I_work for MulvannyG2 Architecture. My_'objhere involves the design of buildings and sites and obtaining all the permits necessary to construct those projects. My background includes working for the City of Edmonds for over IS ears and being the primary staff liaison to the -Design Board for many of those ygars. Organization affiliations I any a Certified Planner AICP. Why are you seeking this appointment? Over any years working for the City o.f.Edmonds I enjoyed working with the Desi Tn Board and learned to value their contribution to the look and feel of our What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria? I have a degree in Landscape Architecture and a keen interest in architecture in general. I also have an intimate knowledge of how the Design review process works. Additional comments (use back of this sheet, if necessary) -- _Stephen E. Bullock S ignature Please return this form and rdsurnd (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. Packet Page 180 of 396 AM-938 4. Earth Week Proclamation Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/17/2007 Submitted By: Linda Carl Submitted For: Gary Haakenson Time: 5 Minutes Department: Mayor's Office Type: Information Review Committee: A rtinn Information Subject Title Proclamation in honor of Earth Week in Edmonds, April 14-22, 2007. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative In honor of Step it Up National Day of Climate Action on Saturday, April 14 and Earth Day on Sunday, April 22, the Mayor is proclaiming the days from April 14 to April 22 as Earth Week in Edmonds. Many activities are occuring around the region in conjunction with these two days, including a beach cleanup in Edmonds on Saturday, April 21. City staff and local citizens, under Mayor Haakenson's direction, continue to work together to address how Edmonds can positively impact climate and environmental issues. Link: Proclamation Fiscal Impact A t+arhman+e Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 11:28 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/12/2007 11:31 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 11:50 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Started On: 04/12/2007 09:45 Carl AM Final Approval Date: 04/12/2007 Packet Page 181 of 396 Jjrvrlantati * an City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor Earth Week April 14 - 22, 2007 WHEREAS, Scientific consensus has determined that CO? and other greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere have a profound effect on the Earth's climate; and WHEREAS, because increased awareness is the key to reducing negative human impacts, two days in April have been set aside to make citizens aware of this global issue; and WHEREAS Saturday, April 14 has been declared Step It Up National Day of Climate Action in order to encourage Congress to enact immediate cuts in carbon emissions and pledge an 80-percent reduction by the year 2050; and WHEREAS, Sunday, April 22 is the 37th anniversary of Earth Day, which, in 1970, achieved a rare political alignment, enlisting support from Republicans and Democrats, rich and poor, city dwellers and farmers, and tycoons and labor leaders, and led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species Acts; and WHEREAS many events are planned around the region for these two days, including a litter pickup along 1-5 on Saturday, April 14 from 10 a.m. to noon starting at the Mariner Park'n Ride south of 128th St. in south Everett, and a spring beach cleanup on Saturday, April 21 from 1 to 3 p.m. at Olympic Beach in Edmonds; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and has signed a resolution in support of the Kyoto Protocol and has joined the International Council for Local Environmental Issues; and WHEREAS, Mayor Haakenson has formed two committees to address this issue within Edmonds: the Citizens Committee on U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Committee and a staff committee that is researching greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS the City's efforts are improved when citizens join in to help make our city and our planet healthier. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gary Haakenson, Mayor, do hereby proclaim April 14 — 22, 2007 as Earth Week in Edmonds and urge all citizens to do something positive for our environment, such as switching to energy - efficient light bulbs and appliances, driving less, composting, and picking up litter along I-5 or on one of our beautiful beaches so that generations to come will be ensured of a healthy environment. Ga H k nsori, Mayor April 12, 07 Packet Page 182 of 396 AM-935 Adoption of Six -Year CIP Ordinance Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/17/2007 Submitted By: Conni Curtis Submitted For: Don Fiene Time: 15 Minutes Department: Engineering Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Information 5. Subject Title Proposed Ordinance adopting a Six -year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the years 2007 through 2013. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council adopt the proposed ordinance (Attachment 2). Staff recommends adoption of the 2007-2013 CIP as shown in Option 1 (Attachment 3). Previous Council Action City Council held a public hearing March 20, 2007 for the adoption of the 2007-2013 Six -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Narrative At the March 20, 2007 City Council meeting (see Attachment 1), Council voted to approve the 2007-2013 Six -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). At the meeting, Council amended the CIP as presented to include funding for a study of the 88th Avenue West/196th Street SW intersection in 2007. Council also amended the CIP as presented to fund a study for the 80th Avenue West sight distance issue in 2008/2009 and a construction project in 2010. Additionally, Council discussed the possibility of funding the 80the Avenue West sight distance construction project using funds anticipated from a land sale on 80th Avenue West near the proposed project. Also, there was a discussion regarding re -prioritizing the 80the Avenue West pedestrian project to coincide with the 80th Avenue West sight distance project. As directed by Council the Fund 112 CIP has been revised as follows: 1. The study of the 88th Avenue West and 196th Street SW intersection has been moved up from 2013 to 2007. The proposed CIP now includes $20,000 in 2007 for this study, with a $20,000 revenue transfer to Fund 112 from the General Fund for this study. 2. The 80th Avenue West sight distance improvements and the associated 80th Avenue West walkway project (from 180th Street SW to 188th Street SW) have been moved up from 2013. The proposed CIP now includes $50,000 for design in 2008 and $220,000 for construction in 2010 for the 80th Avenue West sight distance improvements, and $75,000 for design in 2008 and $325,000 for construction in 2010 for the 80th Avenue West walkway project. Packet Page 183 of 396 As noted above, the Council discussed the possibility of funding the 80th Avenue sight distance improvements construction project using the $220,000 anticipated from a land sale on 80th Avenue West near the proposed project, but a decision was not made regarding this. Therefore Staff has prepared two options for the revised Fund 112 and Fund 125 (BEET 2 - Transportation). Option 1 (Included in Attachment 3) is the proposed CIP, revised to reflect the re -prioritization of the 80th Avenue (sight distance and walkway) projects and the 88th Avenue West project, which includes a $220,000 revenue transfer to Fund 112 from the General Fund (equal to the funds anticipated from the land sale) in 2010. Option 2 (Attachment 4) is the proposed CIP without the $220,000 revenue transfer to Fund 112 from the General Fund. In each case (Option 1 and Option 2), some minor shifting/re-prioritization of other projects was made to accommodate the new prioritization of the 80th and 88th Avenues West projects. These adjustments include the following: - 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue West (Five Corners) intersection improvements slipped one year, from 2010/2011 to 2011/2012. - 72nd Avenue West pedestrian improvements slipped three years, from 2010 to 2013. - Ninth Avenue and Caspers Street intersection improvements slipped one year, from 2011 to 2012. - Ninth Avenue and Main Street intersection improvements slipped one year, from 2010 to 2011. The primary difference between the two options is that adoption of the Option 2 CIP also results in a $200,000 reduction in Citywide overlay projects in 2010. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Council Public Hearing Minutes Link: CIP Ordinance Link: Full CIP with Option 1 Link: Fund 112 & 125-REET.Opt. 2 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Dave Gebert 04/12/2007 05:42 PM APRV 2 Development Services Duane Bowman 04/13/2007 08:26 AM APRV 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/13/2007 08:33 AM APRV 4 Mayor 5 Final Approval Form Started By: Conni Curtis Final Approval Date: 04/13/2007 Gary Haakenson 04/13/2007 08:40 AM APRV Sandy Chase 04/13/2007 09:16 AM APRV Started On: 04/12/2007 07:34 AM Packet Page 184 of 396 Packet Page 185 of 396 N tal 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2007-2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. ovement ram Assistant City Engineer Don Fiene presented the 2007-2013 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), explaining the CIP was a long range planning tool and a requirement of the State Growth Management Act. Most of the capital improvements in each fund were derived from the Comprehensive Plan. He briefly reviewed a summary of the capital project funds. He advised a project description booklet would be available in April via the internet that detailed each of the projects, project costs, and funding. He displayed and reviewed a sample project description for the Interurban Trail. Mr. Fiene explained Fund 112 (Transportation) and Fund 125 (REST-2 Transportation) financed a wide variety of projects including street overlays, road improvements/widening, traffic signals, road stabilization, traffic calming, bikeways and walkways. He reviewed sample projects including citywide overlays and the Caspers/9th Avenue/Puget Drive walkway. Mr. Fiene advised funding for transportation capital was improved from a year ago due to the Council's allocation beginning in 2006 of REET-2 funds over $750,000 for transportation. A total of $1.43 million was collected in REET-2 in 2006, leaving $680,000 for transportation projects. There are some concerns with the 112 and 125 Funds, including the loss of $75,000 in MVFT in 2006, $150,000 in 2007 and $150,000 in 2008 to help the General Fund. If this continued beyond 2008, the City could slip from a 33- year overlay cycle to a 40-year cycle. The proposed CIP assumes $150,000 was restored to Fund 112 after 2008. He noted allocating Olympic View franchise fees to the transportation capital fund rather than the General Fund could assist with overlaying Olympic View area streets impacted by Olympic View Water District projects. Mr. Fiene explained Fund 113 (Multimodal Transportation) provided funds for the Edmonds Crossing multimodal transportation project that would link ferry, bus, pedestrian, bicycle, ridesharing and trains at the Pt. Edwards site. Fund 116 (Building Maintenance) funds maintenance of City buildings. He displayed sample projects in Fund 116 that include the Senior Center, City Hall, Frances Anderson Center and other City buildings. Fund 116 is currently financed by the General Fund which has been impacted by I-747 and I-695. Funding was currently budgeted through 2008; funding for 2009 and beyond was a concern and lack of funding could defer building maintenance. Mr. Fiene stated Fund 125 (REST 2 Parks Improvement) and 132 (Park Construction -Grant Funding) funded a variety of parks, open space, recreation, and beautification projects in City parks as well as trails, pool improvements and waterfront improvements. Sample projects include the skate park at the Civic Center and citywide beautification projects. Fund 126 (Parks Acquisition) funds land acquisition. Sample projects include waterfront property acquisition. Fund 129 (Special Projects) funds SR99 International District enhancements to visually brand the area between 2241h and 238th Streets. With regard to the combined 412 Funds (Water, Storm and Sewer), Mr. Fiene explained a rate study was conducted recently that determined minor increases were necessary over the next several years. He explained projects in Fund 412-100 (Water) were identified in the approved 2002 Water Comprehensive Plan; Comprehensive Plan priorities include improving fireflow, replacing deteriorating pipes, replacing 1% of City pipes per year, and storage and control improvements. He displayed sample projects including water line replacement/improvements in Perrinville and College Place. Mr. Fiene explained projects in Fund 412-200 (Storm) were identified in the 2003 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan; projects address capacity problems, maintenance problems and environmental concerns. He displayed sample storm projects including pipe replacement in the North Stream area and southwest Edmonds projects. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page 186 of 396 Projects in Fund 412-300 (Sewer) were identified in the 2006 Comprehensive; priorities include maintenance issues, environmental issues and capacity problems. Examples of sewer projects include the rehabilitation/replacement of Lift Stations 7 & 8 and 7'h Avenue North sewer main line project. Fund 414 (Wastewater Treatment Plant) funds projects in the wastewater treatment plant including flow meters, outfall lines, and influent trunk lines. He displayed a sample project of the bar screen replacement. Mr. Fiene summarized Fund 116 continued to rely heavily on grants to meet project needs. The Public Works Director's proposal to draw additional funds from the General Fund in 2010-2013 will assist if approved by the City Council. Other funds appear to be meeting minimum needs. Staff recommends and encourages comments and feedback from Council and the public at the public hearing and recommends the Council direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance adopting the updated Capital Facilities Plan. Councilmember Wambolt referred to funds for the 1001h Avenue Road Stabilization, inquiring what portion of 100'h. Mr. Fiene answered it was in the Firdale Area. Councilmember Wambolt inquired about the $100,000 allocation for 220 Street improvements. Mr. Fiene answered the funds were to complete punchlist items and make final payments. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the proposed CIP included street lighting on Main between 6th and 7'h. Mr. Fiene answered there was $75,000 identified in Fund 112 in 2008. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about transportation funds from REET-2. Mr. Fiene explained the total collected in 2006 was $1.43 million, less $750,000 provided $680,000 for transportation. He advised 2007 funds would not be available until REET-2 exceeded $750,000. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the 2006 funds were allocated. Mr. Fiene advised they were allocated in Fund 125 Transportation Fund. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Duane Farmen, Edmonds, representing 100 property owners in the Seaview/Perrinville area, explained they initially organized to limit the impacts of the Anglers Crossing PRD in their neighborhood and following approval of that project, changed their focus to traffic safety. He noted the CIP contained $150,000 in 2013 for improvements to 80'h Avenue West; his request was to move that funding forward. He explained the sight distance improvement would regrade the 80'h Avenue hill north of the intersection of 184'h West & 80'h Avenue. He noted this section was short, steep (12% grade) and had numerous blind spots. He noted an increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic in recent years and anticipated it would increase further upon completion of Anglers Crossing. He anticipated 30-35 additional children in that development walking to the elementary school, bus stop and park. He reviewed the accident history including the most recent accident in May and provided photographs of an accident. He displayed several photographs of the hill illustrating the sight distance issues and a projected regrade of the hill. Mr. Farmen summarized the reason the neighborhood wanted the project moved up on the CIP was the hill posed a serious traffic hazard, safety should qualify it as a high priority, $220,000 was available for the project from the sale of City property and impact fees, the McNaughton Group agreed to move their sidewalk from the east side of 80'h to the west side, and McNaughton Group will do the surveying. Councilmember Orvis referred to the Public Works' drawing of the existing hill and his projection of the regrade, inquiring whether the intent was to increase sight distance to the intersection at the bottom of the hill. Mr. Farmen agreed that was the intent. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page 187 of 396 Brian Furby, Edmonds, commented the primary issue with 80t'' Avenue West was safety for the property owners on the street as well as drivers using the street. He referred to the increased danger during recent icy conditions particularly for pedestrians. The approval of the Anglers Crossing PRD will result in increased traffic as well as more school children walking to the school, bus stop and park. He described the May 2006 accident where teens racing in the left and right lanes struck a car traveling in the opposite direction. He commented on the difficulty the limited sight distance posed for property owners accessing 80th. He concurred with Mr. Farman's proposal to move up the project to reduce the cap of 801'' Bill Rankin, Edmonds, echoed the need for street improvements on 80th, at least road grading to improve safety. He recalled during the planning of the Anglers Crossing PRD, staff compared it to Madrona Cove PRD at Five Corners. He pointed out several differences: Main Street was twice as wide as 80th, Main Street had sidewalks on both sides, and there were no steep grades or sight distance limitations on Main Street. He pointed out the proximity of the street to Seaview Park and the County Park and lack of sidewalks linking the neighborhood to the parks. He urged the Council to mitigate this liability, noting it made sense to do it now when the PRD was being developed. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, stated he had been critical in the past of the City not applying for grant funding. He was surprised an approximately $400,000 grant was received for the Caspers/Puget Drive walkway which has a total project cost of $590,000. He referred to requests for critical items, suggesting it may be appropriate to move funds to other projects. Acknowledging he was not aware of the funding source of the Caspers/Puget Drive walkway, he noted approximately $200,000 in REET funds were also allocated to that project that could be reallocated to other more important projects. He suggested the project list be reevaluated and funds moved to other projects. He asked the source of the grant for the Caspers/Puget Drive walkway. He referred to $945,000 allocated for 76th/75th Place walkway, suggesting there may be grant funds available for that project due to safety issues and walkway to schools. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, Chair of the Citizens Advisory Transportation Committee, commented the CIP looked better this year and included funds for sidewalks and overlays. He thanked the Council for identifying funds for infrastructure that would increase safety. He advised the grant for the walkway referred to by Mr. Hertrich was Safe Routes to Schools. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to legislative bills regarding the GMA and making property owners responsible for the maintenance of streets and sidewalks. He urged the City to investigate these bills. Rick Spellman, Edmonds, resident of Shell Park 2, also known as "the hill," referred to funding in Fund 125 in 2009 for a secondary ingress/egress to Shell Park 2. On behalf of Shell Park 2 residents, he urged the City to continue funding for that project. Roland Brown, Edmonds, described the hazards encountered while walking his dog on the treacherous, steep hill on 80th, echoing the need for improvements on 80th. John Pierce, Edmonds, referred to information provided to the Council regarding the intersection of 196" & 88"' He described the difficulty drivers experience turning or crossing that intersection due to sight distance issues. He urged Council to drive northbound on 881h Avenue NW and try to cross the intersection at 196th, anticipating they would find it very dangerous, likely the most dangerous intersection in Edmonds. He suggested the City at least consider a 4-way stop as an interim measure. Frank Johnson, Edmonds, a resident near the intersection of 196t" & 88th explained when accidents occurred on 881h, the property owner on the corner called the police and he offered assistance to the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page 188 of 396 accident victims. He commented there had been numerous accidents at the intersection over the past 50 years. He suggested timing the light at the bottom of the hill at 76th to provide a break in the traffic. Lynn Russell, Edmonds, a resident near the intersection of 1961h & 881n advised many school buses crossed this intersection daily. She described the difficulty crossing or turning at the intersection and urged the Council to experience the intersection. Warren Koons, Edmonds, referred to a letter he provided to the Council. He commented on several near misses at the intersection of 1961h & 88th, advising he tries to avoid the intersection because of the dangers it posed. He urged the Council to consider some improvement. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Kreiman's comments, pointing out funds for Fund 125 transportation were provided via REET-2 funds in excess of $750,000 as a result of home sales. He commented it was possible the funds available would be less in 2007 if real estate sales were down. He referred to $150,000 allocated in 2013 for 88th Avenue street improvement, asking the ramification of delaying the Interurban Trail improvements to fund that project. Mr. Fiene answered there were grants associated with the Interurban Trail project and it was a regional link. He agreed the 196t" & 88th intersection was dangerous, however, there was limited accident history, possibly because people avoid the intersection. He referred to the Comprehensive Plan process that identified the projects that were then considered and prioritized. Councilmember Marin expressed interest in moving up the sight distance improvement on 80th Avenue West. He asked if there would be time to identify funding if that project were moved to 2010. Mr. Fiene answered the Council could reprioritize projects; the proposed CIP was staff s recommendation based on the Comprehensive Plan. He noted moving that project forward could require delaying another projects. Councilmember Orvis advised the funds from the land sale associated with Anglers Crossing would be placed in the General Fund and were currently unallocated. He suggested allocating those funds to the 801h Avenue West project. Councilmember Dawson asked the cost of the 801n Avenue West project. Mr. Fiene answered that project was only recently identified and had not been analyzed fully to provide a good cost estimate. He noted the citizen activism associated with Anglers Crossing highlighted the existing problem which currently was addressed via a sign warning of the limited sight distance. Councilmember Dawson suggested the funds from the land sale could be used to assist with funding that project. Further, the project could be done in association with other work being done in the area. Mr. Fiene advised the 800' Avenue West project was analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan as a low Priority 1 project and was awaiting funding behind other Priority 1 projects, scheduled for funding in 2013. He agreed it was a worthwhile project as it linked Seaview Park, Olympic View Drive and Southwest County Park. He commented on sight distance issues at 80th and 180"' For Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Fiene advised if it was the Council's desire to move up the 80th Avenue West improvements, Council should direct staff to reprioritize the projects and analyze what projects could be delayed. City Engineer Dave Gebert explained the capital budget was already adopted for 2007 and 2008. If the project was moved up to 2007 or 2008, a budget amendment would be required. Councilmember Dawson explained she used the 196t1'/88th intersection twice a day and agreed it was very difficult. She asked when it had last been analyzed, commenting it appeared to be getting worse. Mr. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 6 Packet Page 189 of 396 Fiene offered to report back to the Council on the analysis. He explained that intersection was not as high a priority as other signal projects. He recalled the Traffic Engineer suggested it be an intersection improvement project which would include consideration of options. Councilmember Dawson asked what direction from Council would be required to make improvements to that intersection sooner. Mr. Fiene answered staff could be directed to do a study of the intersection that considered accident data, issues, etc. Councilmember Dawson commented the accident data may not accurately reflect how unusual the intersection is. If the Council wanted to move up that project, Mr. Gebert recommended hiring a consultant to analyze the situation and develop preliminary concepts to be used to obtain grant funds. That effort would identify the best solutions, preliminary costs and funding sources. He commented that was the approach used for the 76th Avenue intersection which was the top priority in the Hwy. 99 study. Councilmember Dawson asked the cost of a consultant to do an analysis. Mr. Gebert estimated $50,000 to gather traffic counts, traffic data, and analyze options. Councilmember Dawson asked the cost of a 4- way stop. Mr. Gebert was uncertain whether a 4-way stop would be allowed as the intersection may not meet the warrants and because it was WSDOT route, WSDOT may not allow a 4-way stop. Councilmember Dawson asked about the suggestion to time the light at 76th to provide a better gap. Mr. Fiene agreed that could be considered. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the $10,000 allocated in 2013 for 88th/196t1' was to study that intersection, noting that was less than Mr. Gebert's $50,000 estimate. Mr. Gebert agreed the cost of a study was unknown, that funding was a placeholder. Councilmember Marin suggested if the 80th Avenue West sight distance project were moved up, it would be appropriate to include a study in 2008/2009 in anticipation of a project in 2010. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL CONSENT APPROVAL ADOPTING THE ANNUAL UPDATE TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AS PART OF THE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A PLANNING STUDY IN 2008/2009 FOR THE 80T11 AVENUE SIGHT DISTANCE AND THE PROJECT IN 2010. Councilmember Dawson preferred the Council direct staff to return with more information as it may be more appropriate to do those improvements at the time Anglers Crossing is constructed. She suggested staff be directed to return with further information and move the project up as appropriate. Councilmember Marin agreed. Mayor Haakenson suggested Councilmember Marin remove the years from his motion; Councilmember Marin and Councilmember Wambolt agreed. Councilmember Marin acknowledged it may be necessary to amend the 2007/2008 budget. Councilmember Orvis supported the use of the funds from the land sale and preferred not to impact the projects currently identified in the CIP such as the Shell Valley project. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 7 Packet Page 190 of 396 Councilmember Plunkett agreed navigating the intersection of 88th & 196th was difficult, recalling his high school class lost two members as a result of an accident at that intersection. He suggested increasing the funds for a study in 2013 and to move that project forward. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO TAKE $20,000 FROM ENDING CASH BALANCE AND MOVE THE STUDY OF THE INTERSECTION OF 88TH & 196TH INTO 2007 TO BEGIN THAT WORK. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Earth 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY Subsidence DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 19.10 DEALING WITH DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Landslide REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EARTH SUBSIDENCE LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA OF NORTH Hazard Area EDMONDS. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES AN UPDATED LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA MAP. Development Services Director Duane Bowman relayed staff and the Mayor's recommendation to adopt the proposed ordinance which amends Chapter 19.10 of the ECDC and adopts a new landslide hazard map. He referred to the steps in the process that culminated in the October 9, 2006 meeting staff held with the community to provide an update on the Lidar mapping and introduce the new landslide hazard map. At that meeting several citizens commented on excessive peer review times and fees. After reviewing the existing policies that allow a range of different peer review consultants with Building Official Jeannine Graf and Mayor Haakenson, he recommended a new policy that allows for one peer review consultant, and defines peer reviews timelines, costs, initial completeness review and times for response. This would provide more predictability to the process and to the timelines. He noted face-to- face meetings between the applicant and the peer review consultant would be paid for by the consultant. He displayed the updated North Edmonds Earth Subsidence Hazard Area Map prepared by Landau Associates, explaining the previous map was hand -drawn, making it difficult to determine whether properties were inside or outside the landslide hazard area. This map was prepared using Lidar technology and analysis by Landau Associates to clearly define the Earth subsidence Landslide Hazard Area. He pointed out the critical area buffer of the landslide hazard area. Dennis Stettler, Landau Associates, provided background on the landslide hazard area, explaining in 2004 the City updated the Critical Areas Ordinance defining landslide hazards. He explained landslide hazards were in two categories, 1) North Edmonds Earth Subsidence Hazard Area, and 2) any steep slope with a 40% of greater slope with a height of 10 feet or more. The second category applied anywhere in the City; the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence Hazard Area was unique to that area. He explained this analysis began due to concerns with the base mapping and the technical basis for the landslide hazard area and associated buffers. He explained the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence Hazard Area was a unique area, a large ancient landslide with some similarity to the Perkins Lane slide area in Seattle where landslide activity has occurred. Commonalities between these areas include a sand layer over a clay layer with groundwater between that given the right conditions can result in landslides. He explained the first landslides occurred in the area 12,000 years ago. The North Edmonds Earth Subsidence Hazard Area is 3,300 feet long parallel to the shoreline and 600-900 feet wide. He provided a history of landslide events including an 800 foot wide landslide in 1947 that destroyed four homes and damaged several others. There were also landslides in the winters of 1953-1954, 1955-1956, during the early 1960s, and in 1971 as well as numerous smaller landslides. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page 191 of 396 0006.900000 WSS/gjz ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT TO ADOPT AN ANNUAL UPDATE TO SAID PLAN, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City adopts a Capital Facilities Plan and updates it annually as a part of its planning process, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held regarding the 2007 comprehensive facilities plan amendments on March 14, 2007 before the Edmonds Planning Board, and and WHEREAS, the Planning Board recommended approval of such amendments, WHEREAS, this matter came on for review by the Edmonds City Council on March 20, 2007 and following public hearing, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to adopt such amendments, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Six -Year Capital Improvement Plan and the Capital Facilities element of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan are hereby amended to include the 2007 update attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. The planned revision shows projected projects and revenues for the six years (2007-2013) for funds 112, 113, 116, 125-Parks Improvement, 125-BEET 2 Transportation, 126, 129, 132, 412-100, 412-200, 412-300, 412-400 and 414. IWSS516737.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - Packet Page 192 of 396 Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: W. Scott Snyder FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {WSS516737.D0C;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 193 of 396 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 THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT TO ADOPT AN ANNUAL UPDATE TO SAID PLAN, 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 {WSS516737.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 3 - Packet Page 194 of 396 Capital Improvements Program EXHIBIT A Transportation Projects- Fund 112 Projects for 2007-2013 OPTION 1 - -- -- PROJECT NAME 2M7 2 008 2.00_9 2 110 2 111 2012 2013 100th Ave W Road Stabilization Project $1,000,000 _ - - 238th St Improvements 84th to SR 104 2,100,000 212th & 84th Ave Intersection rovements $1001000 $600,000 220th Street Improvements Construction 100,000 92nd Ave W/ 234th St SW Safety im rovements $85,000 Nonmotorized Trans- Main Street Pedestrian Lighting $0 $75,000 Nonmotorized- Walkway & Bikeway Projects- Citywide $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000-$15,000 $15,000 15,000 Nonmotorized Trans- Cas ers/ 9th/Puget Drive Walkway $590,000 Nonmotorized Trans: 96th Ave W Pedestrian Im roveme $17,000 Nonmotorized Trans: Interurban Trail $125,000 125,000 Nonmotorized Trans: Olympic View Dr. Ped Improvements $250,000 Nonmotorized Trans. -School Zone Improve $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000 $10,000 10,000 Nonmotortzed Trans: 72nd Ave W Ped Improvements $360,000 Nonmotorized Trans- 76th Ave W & 206th St Traffic Calmin _ $70,000 Nonmotorized Trans- Meadowdale Beach Rd- $30,000 Nonmotorized Trans- 80th Ave W from 206th to 21116 80th _ $220,000 Nonmotorized Trans- 216th Street SW Walkway $90,000 Nonmotortzed Trans- 801h Ave W / IBM St SW Walkwa 75,000 $325,000 Nonmotorized Trans- Shelf Valle -Bike-Welk $50,000 Overla -CI de 50,000 Overla -Utilities _ 320,000 $215,000 $210,000 - 2_10,000 $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 Signal Imrovements- CM 'de $5,000 51000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 __ $5,000 $5,000 Intersection Im rovements- 88th Ave & 1961h St $20,000 Sight Distance Improvements- 80th Ave W $50,000 $220,000 Signal Upgrades- 238th St & 100th Ave $115,000 Signal Upgrade Main & 3rd $125,000 Signal Improvements SR 104 & 238th $240,000 Intersection Improvements 9th & Maki $260,O0p Intersection Improvement- 9th S Caspers $270,000 Signal Rebuild - Puget & Olympic View or _ 1 00,000 Intersection Improvements - Walnut St @ 9th Ave $245,000 SR 99/76th Ave W Safety Improvements $75,000 $1,450,000 Stabilization Projects- Ci 'de $0 $50,000 50,000 $0 $0 $0 Street Improvements- Citywide $15,000 $15,000 $15.000 $15,000 __$50,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Traffic Calming- Ci"cle $10,000 $10,000 $f-0 0 0 -$10,000 _ $10,000 $5,000 _ 10,000 _ _ $5,000 _ _ _ _$10,000 _ $5,000 Transportation Plan $5,000 $200,000 $5,000 $5,000 Total Construction Projects _ $2,367,000 $1,285,000 $445,000 $2,575,000 1,000,000 $3,430,000 $965,000 Revenues and Cash Balances.2007-2013 _ - - BeginningCash Balance 600106 __ $642,962 $15,889 $91,125 $63,242 194,662 $19,367 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax _ _ $116,000 _ $116,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 New Gas Tax Revenues $56,000 $56,000 $66,000 $56,000 $56,000 $56,000 $56,000 Transfer in Olympic View Water/ Sewer 220th St) $10,000 Transfer in Fund 125- REET 2 Trans. for 100th Ave W Sic $500,200 -- Transfer in Fund 125-(REET 2 Trans.) for Caspers Walk w $152,000 Transfer in Fund 125• REET 2 Trans. for 72nd Ave W Pe $180,000 Transfer in Fund 125-(REET 2 Trans.) for 76th/206th Traffic Calm 35,000 _ Transfer in Fund 125-(REET 2 Trans.) for 80th/206th Walk _ .._ _ $110,000 Transfer in Fund 125- REET 2 Trans for 2161h St Walkway _ $45,000 Transfer in Fund 125• REET 2 Trans for 80tlt /1801h Walkway$325,000 Transfer In Fund 125- REET 2 Trans for Si nal Im r. Puget & Olympic _ $90,000 Transfer In Fund 125- REET2 Trans. for Intersection Im r. Walnut St &9th - $122,500 Transfer in General Fund for 88th Ave a 196th St Intersectil $20,000 Transfer in General Fund for 80th Ave. Sight Distance Improvements $220,000 Transfer In General Fund for Main Street Pedestrian Llghti -- - $75,000 _. _ - $16,074 $397 $2,276 $1,581 _ _ �__ $484 Investment Interest $15,003 $4,867 Traffic Impact Fees $90,000 $90,000 $901000 $90,000 $90,000 _ $90,000 Transfer in -Fund 412-100 _ $115,000 115,000 115,000 $115,000 115,000 _ $115,000 Transfer in -Fund 412-200 $55,000 $55,000 55,000 $55,000 55,000 $55,000 Transfer in -Fund 412-300 $25,000 $50,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Contributions to sidewalk fund r $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 Graff Loans Secures - rant- tate for220th tIm rovements Grant State) Caspers/Puget Drive Walkwa Additiona Public Works Trust Fund Loan- 220th 2 20,000 Grant- Fe eral or Interurban Trail 125,000 125,000 Public Works Trust Fund- 100th Ave• Roa tabilizatio 499,800 Yearly SuliTott�Grants/Loans weer= 1,220,800 $125,000 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/ Loans Sought notSecured) - rant- fate or Trans ortation Plan 50,000 rant- Tate or i na ra a 238th & 100th 45,000 rant- ed for R 99 6t ve Safety Improvements 1,160,000 Grant- FeState)Tor R 104 & 238th Si nal 2001000 Grant fate r 9th sin Intersection Improvements 200,000 'Gina-P!�Ytale or 9th & as rs inta'secton Im rovements 5, rant fate or 12n Ave Pedestrian m rovement 1801000 Grant Federal for 76th Ave W/ 206th St Ped Im rovements $35,000 Grant State 80th Ave W from 206th St to 21116 $110,000 Grant 15tate 216th St SW Walkwa 45,000 rante for 212th 84th _ i Im rovmeents 75,000 $450,000 Grant- Fed/State for Citywide Walkwa & Bikewa Project 0 $0 $7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 $7,500 rant- edge or chool Zoneimprovements 5,000 5,000 5,000 . 5,000 5,000 $5,000 5,000 Grant Fed/State for 238th St Improvements $1,800,000 rant Fe or u et I m is i nallm rovements Grant Fed or Walnut & 9th Intersection Im rovements 122,500 art Sub ota rant cans ou In not secured = 5,000 100,000 12,500 1,407,500 442,500 2,627,500 _ $135,000 rant u iotaF- $1,225,8001 $225,000 121500 407,500 2,500 2,627,500 135,000 Inte un rans ers ut Debt Service on Loan 1 220th t Deal n - 20,000 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 20,0 0 Debt Service on Loan 2 220th t onstruction 22,647 22,647 22,647 - 22,647 22,647 22,647 22,647 e t ervice on Loan 3 100t Ave oa tabilization - 34,514 34,514 3 ,514 34,514 34,514 otal evenues & uasn Balances otaT-I �structton ro acts $3,009,962 2,367,000 1,300,889 1,285,000 536,125 000 2,638,242 2,576,0� $1,194,662 000,000 _ ,449,367 3, 0,000 __ 989,690 865,000 Endingas Balance 642,962 15,889 9 ,125 63,2 2 194,662 9,367 24,690 Note: Council reiterates its goals and policies as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and acknowledges that the six -year CIP as proposed does not have adequate funding to accomplish all the goals and objectives as stated in Packet Page 195 of 396 O o O o 0 0 0'0 0 0W CD 0 CO � o N N N N N 1 ICI 6 � � k I I , I � i ( 0 0 00 0 0C I C 0 00 o O N M N M N CO N O O M N I M N ! UI IfR fA� fR EiT; ' O'O O O 0 0 0 O O O { O Ci CD O O I L O LO O O OCO 0 0 O N O O F N I N Nj(O.M j� �} Ln N — I I I I a i 'O I Cc)O O O O 00 O OER 0 LO O O I O O N61) FFJ Vy I _ 1 0 OOO 0000 1- v) Ln COI cUm � CO CO O M Lr 6) Ln L4 W W O N G �} a Cl> I I 00 f o O 0 0! O Oo O Ci O6 00 0. O 10 CO V V N 0 p O 06 C OM V � � 0 ,� N' 6 I f � I(f3 6M? to o io C� o o Grj j IN O O N N N 61) I i r � I O I i Cu J C 0 � U 0 o s 3 C d O m I Gl ( N C l a w o a -00 Q ( I m o (D > I C o �. aw {� U) 0 m > m L) r c a iN Q Q A j E > 0o j ®I = c W °�' o ui O f Cr E amc mo E� f@N0 a@mni (D Cm LE (mmo �m C f0O a6,3, U E9 Y0 O ' CL L U O O w K OOO O a C U 0. IL CL Y d' m LL 0 n . W2 uN Packet Page 196 of 396 Capital Improvements Program Buildings Maintenance- Fund 116 Projects for 2007-2013 PROJECT NAME 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ADA Im rovements-City Wide $5,000 $5,000 $5,0001 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Anderson Center Seismic Reforcement $959,600 $472,600 Anderson Center Interior Painting $15;000 Anderson Center Exterior Painting $30,000 Anderson Center Carpets $17,000I Anderson Center Radiators $25,000_1 _ ------L- $50,0001 $25,000 -[ Anderson Center Exterior Repairs $25,000 4$25,000 Anderson Center Blinds E $20,000 Anderson Center Asbestos Abatement _ $35,000 Anderson Center Vinyl Tile $12,000 Anderson Center Flooringj $75,000 Anderson Center Counter Tops $12,000 Anderson Center Oil Tank Re lacement $40,0001 Anderson Center Elevator Replacement 1 $150,000 Anderson Center Sprinkler Head Replacement $10,0001 $15,000 Anderson Center Roof Replacement 1 $15,000 Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement $3,0001 City Hall Entrance Doors $18,000 j City Hall Elevator City Hall Exterior Cleaning/Repaintingj $125,000 _ $50,000 City Hall Security Measures $10,000 $10,00.0 Grandstand Exterior and Roof $45,000 ESCO Project Phase II $472,6001 _ T Fire Station #16 Painting j $5,000 Fire Station #16 Heating Unit Replacement 1 $20,000 Fire Station #17 Stove Hood Exhaust $1,000 Fire Station #17 Carpet $12,000 Fire Station #20 Stairs and Deck $35,000 Library Carpets $50,000 Library Fire Alarm System Replacement ; $25,000 Library Plaza A liance Re lacement $4,500 Library Plaza Room Car et _ $20,000 1 1 Library Plaza Brick Painting $65,000 Library Wood Trim _ $12,000 Log Cabin Lighting Replacement $3,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof $16,000 Meadowdale Flooring Replacement $20,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Gutter Replacement $5,0001 Meadowdale Clubhouse Exterior Paintinq___ ---- j $3,000 $15,000 Museum Step Replacement $50,000 Museum Brick Pointing & Grouting $40,000 �- Museum Brick Sealing j $20,000 _ Park Maintenance Bldg Renovation Study $15,000 _ _ Park Maintenance Bldg Paint Booth Installation $40,000 Public Safety/Fire Station #17 Soffit Installation $3,000 _ Public Safety Exterior Painting Public Safety Council Chamber Carpet $15;000 Senior Center Misc Repairs & Maint. $10,000 $10,000 $10,0001 $10,000 $10,0001 $10,0001 $10,000 Senior Center Kitchen Remodel CDBG Fundin $90,000 Senior Center Ent Nestibule (CDBG Funding) 1 $15,000 $135,000 Senior Center Roofing CTED Funding) 1 $85,000 Senior Center Foundation Structural Stud $35,000 Senior Center CMU Elastomeric Sealing (CDBG) $148,000 Senior Center Siding (CTED) _ $60,000 Wade James Theater Gutter Replacement $5,000 Wade James Theater Roof Replacement _ t $30,000 Wade James Theater Exterior Paintin $4,000 Total Facilities Projects $1,694,200 $1,041,600 $251,000 $247,000 $236,500 $251,000 _ $255,000 - i Revenues and Cash Balances 2007-2013 Beginning Cash Balance I $261,753 $281,153 $126,2531 $79,853 $50,053 $50,003-T $50,003 Interest Earnings $7,500 $7,500 Transfer from Gen Fund #001 $56,600 $56,6001 _ $56,600 $157,200 $236,450 $251,000 $255,000 Transfer in from Sno. Isle Libra $50,000 Bank Financing for ESCO Project $408,200 $0 $01 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sno. Co. CDBG Grant (Secured) $97,500 $135,000 $01 $0 $0 $01 $0 Senior Center Funding $35,000 j CTED Grants $85,000 $115,000 $0 $0 $0 $01 $0 Bond Funding for FAC Seismic Project $435,500 $214,500 $0 $0 $0 $011 $0 FEMA Grant (Secured) $524,100 $258,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sno. Co. CDBG Grant (Not Secured) $0 $0 $148,0001 $0 $0 $0 $0 _ Other Grant Funding (Not Secured) $0 $50,000 $0 $60,000 $0 $01 $0 ESCO Utility Rebates Not Secured 64;200 0 $0 0 $0 $01 $0 Total Revenues $1,975,353 $1,167,853 $330,853 $297,053 $28a 503 $301,003 $305,003 Total Facilities Projects $1,694,200 $1,041,600 $251,000 $247,000 $236,500 $251,000 $255,000 Ending Cash Balance 1 $281,1531 $126,253 $79,853 $50 053 $50,0031 $50,003 $56003 Packet Page 197 of 396 Capital Improvements Program Parks Improvement -Fund 125 Projects for 2007-2013 T _ - -- - �- PROJECT NAME 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 j 2012 2013 Park Development Projects � 162nd Street Park 164th Street Walkway 1% 1% $300,000 $270,000 $25,0001 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $01 $0 _ $0 $0 76th Ave/75th PI West Walkway 1% $945,000 $0 $Oj $0 $0 $0; $0 Anderson Center Field/Court-_ 1% $5,000 $40,000 $40,0001 $20,000 $100,000 $10,000 $10,000 Brackett's Landing 1% $0 $10,000 $100,000 $10,000 $50,000 $5,000 $5,000 City Park _ 1%I $100,000 $120,000 $50,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Civic Center Complex 1%1 $75,000 $40,000 $30,000 $30,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Edmonds Marsh/Hatchery 1% $0 $40,000 $40,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Fishin Pier/OI m is Beach 1% $20,000 $50,000 $35,000 $25,000 $25,000 $10,000 $10,000 Former Woodway HS (development dependent upon successful capital campaign 1% $0 $1,000,000 $650,000 $25,000 $25,0001 $5,000 $5,000 Maplewood Park 1%1 $40,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $01 $0 $0 Marina Beach Park 1 1%' $0 $10,000 $10,000 $70,000 $200,0001 $10,000 $10,000 Mathay Ballinger Park _ 1%i $60,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds 1% $0 $10,000 $5,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 Old Woodway Elementary Park (07-'08 to Fund 132) _ 1% $0 - _ $0 $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Pine Rid a Park 1% $0 $5,0001 $45,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 $0 Pine Street Park _ 1 1% $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Seaview Park _ 1% $0 - $15,000 $50,000 $60,000 $10,000 $0 $0 Sr. Center & 144 RR Waterfront WalkwayFund 132 1%' _ $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 Sierra Park 1% $0 $80,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Underwater Park 1% $2,000 $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Waterfront Walkway/Olym is Beach 1% $20,000 $50,000 $100,000 $5,000 $0 $0 Yost Park/Pool 1% $25,000 $65,000 $10,000 $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Citywide Park Improvements Citywide Beautification _ 1°/u $20,000 $60,000 $40,000 $40,0001 $40,000i $40,000 $40,000 ADA 1% $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Centralized Irrigation _ 1% _ $0 $0 $5,000 _ $5,0001 $5,000 $0 $0 Misc Paving 1% $10,000 $20,000 $10,0001 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 _ Citywide Park Improvements/Mist Small Projects 1% $145,000 --_$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,0001 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Sports Fields Upgrade/Playground Partnership_ -- 1% $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,0001 $30:000 $30,0001 _ $30,000 Specialized Projects Skateboard Park 1% $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 -. Trail Development --- -- Interurban Trail 07-08 to Fund 132 1%1 _ $0 $0 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 1__ $5,000 $5,000 Misc Unpaved Trail/Bike Path $10,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000j $15,000 $15,000 _1% _ Planning __ 4th Avenue Arts Corridor $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cultural Arts $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 _- Comprehensive Plan $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $50,000 $0 Edmonds Marsh Environmental Plan $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 j $0 Yost Pool Feasibilty Study_ -- $40,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 soF $0 - _L---_ Total Park Projects $2,202,000 $1,782,000 $1,455,000 $630,000 $870,000 $315,000 $265,000 Revenues and Cash Balances 2007-2013 Beginning Cash Balance $5,397,9971 $2,461,997 $669,997 $9,9971 $154,997 $69,997�$�750,000 539,997 _____ Real Estate Tax 1/4% $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 _ $750,000Interest Earnings $90000 $85,000 $50,000 $30,000 $40,000 $35,000$45,000 Total Revenues T $6,237,997 $3,296,997 f $1,469, 997 JZ8L9 997 $944,997 $854,997 $1,334,997 i Expenditures Supplies j $2,0001 $2,0001 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 j Professional Services $3,000 _ $3,0001 $3,000 $3,0001 $3,000 Transfer out to Fund 132 _ _ $1,569,000i $840,000 Total Park Projects $2,202,000 $1,782,000 $1,455,000 $630,000 $870,000 $315,000 $265,000 Total Expenditures $3,776,000 $2,627,000 $1,460,0001 $635,000 $875,0001 $315,000 $265, 000 Packet Page 198 of 396 REET 2- Transportation OPTION 1 Fund 125 Projects for2007-2013 PROJECT NAME 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Nonmotorized Trans: Downtown Crosswalk Rehab $125,000 Nonmotorized Trans: ADA Curb Ramp Impr $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Nonmotorized Trans: Pedestrian Lighting- Citywide 5,000 5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Nonmotorized Trans -Shell Valley-Bike/Walk/Emer. Access $340,000 Overlay -Citywide $550,000 $550,000 $350,000 $350,000 $450,000 $450,000 $500,000 Total Construction Projects $575,000 $700,000 $715,000 $375,000 $475,000 $475,000 $520,000 Revenues and Cash Balances 2007-2013 Beginning Cash Balance $680,111 $119,914 $72,912 $59,734 $96,228 $168,633 $307,849 REET 2 Revenues $650,000 $650,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 Investment Interest $17,003 $2,998 $1,823 $1,493 $2,406 $4,216 $7,696 Transfer to Fund 112 for 100th Ave W Road Stabilization Project -$500,200 Transfer to Fund 112 for Nonmotorized Trans- Caspers/ 9th/Puget Drive -$152,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Normotorized Trans- 72nd Ave W Pod -$180,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Nonmotorized Trans- 76th Ave & 206th St $35,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Nonmotorized Trans- 80th/206th Walk -$110,000 Transfer to Fund 112for 216th St Walkway 445,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Norvnotodzed Trans- 80th/180th Walkway -$325,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Puget & Oympic View Signal -$90,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Walnut @ 9th Ave Signal -$122,500 Total Revenues & Cash Balances $694,914 $772,912 $774,734 $471,228 $643,633 $782,849 $713,046 Total Construction Projects $575,000 $700,000 $715,000 $375,000 $475,000 $475'000 $520,000 Ending Cash Balance $119,914 $72,912 $59,734 $96,228 $168,633 307,849 $193,046 Note. Council reiterates its goals and policies as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and acknowledges that the six -year CIP as proposed does not have adequate funding to accomplish all the goals and objectives as stated in the Comprehensive Plan, Packet Page 199 of 396 Capital Improvements Program Parks Acquisition - Fund 126 (Special Capital) Projects for 2007-2013 PROJECT NAME -T-- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2 112 2 113 Debt Service on City Hall $415,502 $415,5001 $415,500 $415,500 $415,500 $415,500 $415,500 Debt Service on Library Roof $26,000 $26,0001 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 Debt Service on Marina Beach _ $151,835 $151,8351 $151,835 $151,835 $151,835 $151,835 $151,835 Debt Service on PSCC Purchase $73,823 $73,823 $73,823 $73,823 $73,823 $73,823 $73,823 Dept Service on FAC Seismic retrofit $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000i $30,000 Total Debt Service $697,160, 697 158 697 158 697 158 697 158 697 158 697 158 i Misc.Openspace/Land $200,000, $200,000' $200,000 $200,0001 $100,0001 $100,000 $100,000 Waterfront Acquisition Tideland/Beach Acquisition $10,000 $10,000 _ $100,000 $500,009 i , $500,000 - i Total Park Projects $210.000 210 0 00 $300,000, IMO 000 100 000 10o 000 600 000 i i I Beginning Cash Balance $289,457 $852,297 $1,115,139 $1,287,981 $1,560,8231 $2,033,665 $2,436,507 Real estate Tax 1/4%/1st Qtr % $1,400,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,0001 $1,100,0001 $1,100,000 Interest_Earnings $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,0001 $100,0001 $120,000 Projected Grants: _ i I State/Federal (Waterfront Acquisition) $500,000 $500,000 Private Donations (Misc O en Space) Total Revenues $1,759,457 $2,022,297 $2,285,139 $2,957,981 $2,730,823 $3,233,665' $4,156,507 I ' Expenditures _ Total Debt Service $697,160' $697,158 $697,158 _ $697,158 $697,158 $697,158 $697,158 Total Parks Projects 1 $210,0001 $210,0001 $300,000 $700,000 $100,000 $100,000 _ $600,000 Total Expenditures $907,1601 $907,1581 $997,158 $1,397,158 $797,158 $797,158 $1,297,158 Ending Cash Balance $852,29 $1,115,139 $1,287,981 $1,560,8231 $1,933,665 $2,436,507 $2,859,349 Packet Page 200 of 396 Capital Improvements Program ! Special Projects- Fund 129 Projects for 2007-2013 PROJECT NAME i I - 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 State Route (SR) 99 International District Enhancements Total Projects Beginning Cash Balance $11,000 I I I Projected Grants: PSRC Transportation Enhancement Grant (Secured) $316,000 Total Revenues $327,000 Expenditures j Total Projects Total Expenditures $327,000 Ending Cash Balance $0 Packet Page 201 of 396 Capital Improvements Program Parks Construction - Fund 132 Projects for 2007-2013 PROJECT NAME 2007 - i - 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 - - Dayton Street Plaza 1% $50,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 Interurban Trail 1% $40,000 $660,000 $0 $0 $0 $01 0 Old Woodway Elementary Park 1%I $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $ol. 0 Senior Center & 144 RR Waterfront Walkway 1 % $140,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 so! 0 Skateboard Park - Civic 1 % $339,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 Total Projects j 1 569 00011,690,0001 -- $0 $0 p ---- Revenue & Cash Balances beginning cash balance $0 $174,600 Transfer in from Fund 125 for Dayton St. Plaza $50,000 $30,000 Transfer in from Fund 125 for Interurban Trail $40,000 $160,000 Transfer in from Fund 125 for Old Woodwa Elem Park $1,000,000 $400,000 Transfer in from Fund 125 for Senior Center $140,000 $0 Transfer in from Fund 125 for Skateboard Park $339,000 $0 T Total Cash Transfer from Fund 125 $1.569.000 840 000 --- TI Projected Grants(secured): _ I Dayton Street Plaza (Arts Festival Foundation) $25,000 Skateboard Park (Community Partners) $24,600 _ subtotal grants secured= lim00 Lj Projected Grants (not secured): Interurban Trail (Federal $125,000 1 $125,000 Interurban Trail (State) $250,000 Old Woodway Elementary (State) _ $300,000 Senior Center & 144 RR Avenue (CDBG - HUD) $194,000 _ subtotal grants not secured= 125 000 869 000 Total Revenues $1,743,600 1 709 000 Expenditures _ Total Projects _ _ ( $1,569,000 $1,690,000 _ Total Expenditures $1,569,000 $1.690.000 1 ,Ending Cash Balance $174,600 $19,000 Packet Page 202 of 396 Capital Improvements Program ( I Combined UtilityConstruction Improvement_- Fund 412-100 Water Projects -� Projects for 2007-2013 Water Projects _ ' - PROJECT NAME 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 i 2013 Citywide Water Improvements $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,0001 $25,000 Replacement Program- 2005 Program $1,525,000' Replacement Program- 2006 Program $1,100,000 Replacement Program- 2007 Program $555,000Replacement Program _ $1,460,000 $1,200,0001 $1,250,000j $1,150,000 $1,200,0001 $1,200,000 South Perrinville Waterline Replacement (OVD) _ $675,000 �- Five Corners Pump Station Improvements $400,000 t- Seismic Improvements $150,000 Reservoir Security $90,0001 - Chlorine Residual Analyzers $15,000 Automated Meter Evaluation Study $10,000 _ Automated Meter Constrruction _ r $100,000 $100,000 PRV Replacements $100,000 Total Water Projects _ $3,960,000 $2,160,000 $1,225,000 $1,275,000 $1,185,000 $1,325,000 $1,325,000 Revenues 2007-2013 Beginning Balance j $1,379,935 $190,834 $45,605 $231,745 $72,539 -$647 $84,336 Transfer from Combined lJORK and #411 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Public Works Trust Fund Loan -Five Corners - Transfer in Secured j $326.400 Connection Fee Proceeds $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,00o Bond Proceeds, Transfer in $2,000,000 _$2,000,000 $1,400,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,400,00 $1,300,000 Interest Earnings $34,498 $4,7711 $1,140 $5,794 $1,813 -$16 $2,108 Transfer to Const Improv Fund #112 -$115,000 -$115,000 -$115,000 -$115,000 -$115,000 -$115,000 -$115,000 Total Revenues $4,150,8341 $2,205,605 $1,456,745 $1,347,539 $1,184,353 $1,409,3361 $1,396,445 Total Water Projects $3,960,0001 $2,160,000 $1,225,000 $1,275,000 $1,185,000 $1,325,0001 $1,325,000 ,EndingCash Balance $190 8341 $45 605 $231 745 $72 539 S6471 $84 3361 $71 445 Packet Page 203 of 396 Capital Improvements Program i Combined Utility Construction Improvement - Fund 412-200 Draina o a Prjects Projects for 2007-2013 _ PROJECT NAME 220th St Storm Improvements 2007 2008 2009 2 110 2011 2012 2013 �- 232nd St Storm Improvements $150,000 961h Ave West Storm/ 93rd Ave West Storm $860,000 Citywide Drainage Replacement, Extension $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $300,000 $315,000 $330,000 $350,000 Lake Ballinger Monitoring $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Lake Ballinger Lake Level & Outlet Study $40,000 j Meadowdale-Drainage $70,000 Northstream 30" Storm Repair/ Improvements $575,000 Olympic Ave. Phase 2 ' $350,000 $50,000 Olympic Ave. Phase 1 $35,000 Perrinville Creek Diversion $150,000 $1,500,000 Public Involvement Projects __ $1,000� _ $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Shell Creek $30,000 Shoreline Regulation Revisions Shoreline Regulation Revisions, Monitoring & Public Education $30,000 Southwest Edmonds Basin Stud , Projects $250,000 Talbot Road $300,000t Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements $50,000 $250,000 Vehicle Wash Station $100,000 Willow Creek Outfall Ext. & Marina Beach Emer. Repair Total Drainage System Projects _ $2,036,000 $791,000 _ $1,611,000 $696,000 $376,0001 $491,000 $361,000 Revenues and Cash Balances 2007-2013 Be inning Balance _ $0 $45,268 $780,399 $339,959 $138,682 $201,149 $150.178 Transfer from Fund 411_ F $1001000 _ $66,050 $451,224 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Transfer from Fund 411-13ond Proceeds $2,200,000 $1,300,000 Public Works Trust Fund Proceeds (Secured) $30,281 i Grant for Perrinville Diversion (Sought, not Secured) $700,000 CZM Grant for Edmonds Marsh (Sought, not Secured) _ $150,000 FCAAP Grant for Talbot Road (Sought not Secured) $40,000 _ Lynnwood Cost Share, Perrinville Diversion (Sought, not Secured) $350,000 Contributions to Perrinville Diversion Project (Sou ht, not secured) { _ $50,000 $50,000 $5Q000 $50,000 $50,0001 $50,000 Storm System Development Charge Fees _ $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 Investment interest $0 $1,132 _ $19,510 $8,499 $3,467 $3,754 Public Works Trust Fund Loan- Northstream Storm not secured _ _$5,029 Public Works Trust Fund Loan- 93rd/96th Storm not secured Interfund Loan Payback Interfund Loan (Fund 411) _-$239,013 Transfer to Const. Improvement Fund 112 -$50,000 -$55,000' -$55,000 _ $55,000 -$55,000 -$55,000 -$55,000 I Total Revenues _ $2,081,268 $1,571,399 $1,950,959I $834,682 $577,149 $641,1781 $588,933 Total Drainage Projects _ $2,036,000 __J791,0001 $1,611,0001 $696,000 $376,000 $491,000 $361,000 lEnding Cash Balance i $45 268 $780,3991 $339,9591 $138 682 $201 149 $150 1781 $227 933 Packet Page 204 of 396 G O ( O j 1 ( O O ( O o. O O O OtOO VflO O O O O O (D O ( ON O O 1 i I O � O O f ( I I O O O O O N � -t O O 0 O 0 to IN 1 O 0 to CV to I M IZ; i00 O CO I (O M 'LO It N M N ER O N_ rIIN A''. (h M N M V' ER r ER ER it O CD CD O f• �O O tOONO "t ER IO O. „( 100 OOO O 0 0 0 0 j O C ( N t O C 0 0 CO O CO NN N.. j I I OI ( i0 �O ON CO1.147 j r ER ER I ER ER ( ER s J N I r ��» EA j N ERN I I11 �III� J I I I rl I� J I jia I I � I�� I I i I OO 00 i O o Oct O 00� 'tO Otdi O O O O O CD O j f: O O O�(DE j O M RN N O O 0 CDO 0 N (N oq O N f O N Lp a- O (O lf7 O { i I O 0.� O (O tfj fl- ER O O Cl r LO N ) (V CO O (O N 0 r ( I f i N (A Ht N (f-T rl' ER a i to ER I 'T i � to i ( (R :I -I - N i ER j ER FR ool oo0 o r- OMO o0 0 0 000 I I I MHI00ro CO O CD O CO ILOOO 1 k OlO tf7OO O LO 64 61 O 00 r N tO I� f.6N4 ' ER � Cl) ( - 69 O 64 N (.- ER I N ( { k E» ua I I 6 OI O ( OO 00 O O CD 00 (D 00 00 O O "It ERNO 00 N ON O (::0i C; {4 Oo 0 CiO M 0) C) ! 00 J (MOM i ! O ( 0 0D to ! to O 0 0 O � C 0 C) r 'CO tA. N M) 4R ! f? N N Ei? Ef}' Ni ER �. N (O EJ-T O Cl) ER tO V EA N M ER CO ((•� 60 ER 00 ., L'ir VT I i NLoN E# N N N N -I Ef3 Efl j 0000OI OO. O - It Oft 1 OOER O O OOI O C 00. C O O C�C O O O O O 1l- (°O(OC O(O O 00 Oi0 nC O.V M I O O O'O ( O O O O O P O L Nor-- O otp. 0)00 00 ! 4' N r. (R �N N 0 0 N 64 0 V? N ER CO O O d' N K3 M ER ti N 69 O 7 ER ER N i I i i Ii I z4 ( ER ER i Es3 O CD OO 00 OOO 000 O OO f�'ON N 00 i� Oh O O_ ! O,O O 0 000 O O_ O C tO 00 00 0 LO r tO (to OM C O (Oj r-_ N LQ (M 00 00 O to l-- I(OO(O OIL to (O _O ER LO G 0) OU��I O G)OO r ER V3 60 ET �� ER 6}N j � I j } (D } cc S N { �' ! t C c. OI E )yl C� c C' O CDIC, a j-0 N M r iC �' I aI o� Cu y LL (LL Cu 3�.oI L�� �o o' °6� 3 ° _ c� �a m a a 0I i d 3 N L>oi 3 N �'I Vi d• d' 3 'C coal t c C W LL 0.. N w .r. c p too E • U°)C ; 21 CL O to a n ° N m d ° c0 N Cl) L6 2 onIw c o a r (n O N � jO00� 0 I d an � O n Coto 00 0000ou� (D � °o O�° OCn d (mw o I" a E (n no ��o �n a c > t�C > c n c Q :N>a :m ° °W(co 'cmE ?nnAWWWWWW45o L NNr-r m � _ zO( � �m -ci UI- F-� Packet Page 205 of 396 (i m o (00 N _ .-a CO000 N ! 0) O I i .M- N o �t(O o W OCM � 000 o .-CV M � CO 1 ! i IN N � t � I N��� Eij O 69 ! (LO EA 1 MN�N 6fl 6`3 6f} I 000(LOM ftT 6R 6f} ! I I ! a`ni j I N er O Cy.) d (N N 0) co ! ( 11 I ! O 00000(D O co M N M t(') ri LO O O d' o O ! (0 q O V' 0 N(ly�tn N 00 00 0 0 (fl d' (0 r t` O ! 0) rS lC') W 0) LO O O NO CD d• O Iq LO �- I ICI K3' I. ,bg fl964 d3 60 � 606N4�6 �61 M1 f _lQ f ! � N� N I-- LO lzr rco 00�N , N0G) E c � CL N d N N I f ' NM MN0 C0 60 00 M ! OMNU ( OD O0 OOOM NMCOO N CO N Q) U) N2QN000 to t 7 (D c .CM cc to N O O ! O, O' OOOO LcO. �i• W M O O) O 0) OHO N 't (0 O (0 f� M OO� O) in (n '� ! LO 00 C a) N a) (() `� I m N 6n d' d 00 O M �f CO L O iOL p N 0 O N N N 00 O ! 00 O. CO ON (,.) LO O O 1 CV N L N (OLQM O) 00 O ', Cl) N N r e- IO (n i i M O N N f!i 6Ri 64 69 Ef3 ( LO � � � � 69 69. 66R a) � Oc ( { O N O �� { ( O I N N p (9 ' O I_0 - -I� M� O' j LO 12 ` i. O w ice W . 'O o oI=3 ;�, O o M O O I ! 0000' O o d7 0 � 00 (M 'cF f� 0 CO �o0 M ( N C •� L S ( o o (0 N O CD i0 O �' M M N 00 M d. M CO O O � O .o o N 3 U U! N.i N IO I I TMM� (00 M �LO M�000 Cl) �ti "- O o C I. I6g I64 64 d> 6H 6o 6A � 04 69 69 6F) I 69 6n � O Q .-{Cu la U ! ! 1 ! I !.. j !. ! CD CDN O O O O 0 a3 I i- ( (� N d• I ! M (n O f6 be,� CO — 00 { LO L 0 0 C O Q. COI 00! I i O O.O O.O O O OO of O �00 ! C CU) O O f9 P I I00 OI I O OMNN N CO D0M- LO 00 �NM !p� �.Q _0 0 O o 'Q• 10 O ( NI -C IO I O. O O !�� O O O M O (D tq O rn Lo N (f)N� 60) t` V' f e. 0 N (n <» O O �t bs M Mrn� (f) O e» O M bra I-J O 0'] p 7 m > (�i > c a) _ o u3) R i _ a(D �� Q O o- �' L . C wO. O O O O O 0 OOC VM I MO . 0MOM0 N9 Ce)L)N r 0O OCl)OOO i !. I C) a) I- 0 O OEO) O { O O MOO 00 Lrjt- I V O ! N 0) .MONO (0 O N 1 LO �7 _ 6R6flW, I L) 7 �vOti ! i ( K�6% C',6F} 0 cco== 0 0-0 a o�'� ! �� U) �Q2 C -0 o � j U) 0 = o� �! LLI ICI > a) C m L v �co 1 voi->�> I M a a). O a) g .�- o �I c s. M = ai L o -O Cn H rjf > O d ti �. a) I.Q.. N N a) a) in N 'a 0 7 (n' (n C N C C N LCD 1O v I. O L CL _C COa) v o O f (D >. O O N ' a)1 QI o ?� a) U) O o >'1 > 0 +? c O U> N to aw �� O a) r, -- . W 0 { a) O. +' ti@_ O m N N L O W O c4 U c U c O O L I 1-61•� L U C ` •ns p 'd E•-- o -0 'o O L C.4 C O U fn L GL 0I 0) <s3 L Q.I r0. Cr= w o o= a) c N a) rn E a s �.. co U c c d Cn o o c .L -o c 3 •' c !� E! lo! �(oi E mcoo2EU2(DoaM m m m dUEo° a ymR I a) con 4) v «a �� d ... o Q 3 N � 0 U a) U C oL I C o m vi a) d> 2> Q a) c a) c O C> 0 w in L w a) U d 0 O. ci O) Q. E. O E O E O = .� a) c a) v= L CD L. U N O Cu Cu a ` L U U a) U - o_ U m a) a) c O C > O O) (D U) c a) C m To Tc C ! Rt C�aaa cn cn as n cn cn R O O a) (o a a) m �- a a) o o a o r c 0 a) o (o w n > a) > a) .� O a)a) d a) w o o > o- o. O ..a O= V O. �c9U���u cn�w00!c�w�Uj��c2� m5 =II`ofG 1-I-w t` O O N Packet Page 206 of 396 Capital Improvements Program Transportation Projects- Fund 112 Projects for2007-2013 -- OPTION 2 PROJECT Nam/ NfE _ 2 007 20 8 2 009 2010 2011 2 112 2 113 100th Ave W Road Stabilization Prr ect - - 238th St Im rovements 841h to SR 104 P (� ) ___ 2,100,000 212th & 84th Ave Intersection Improvements $100,000 $600,000 220th Street Improvements (Construction) _ _ _ $100,000 _ 92nd Ave W/ 234th St SW Safety improvements 85,000 Nonmotorized Trans- Main Street Pedestrian Lighting _ $0 $75,000 _ Nonmotorized- Walkway & Bikeway Projects- Citywide _ 15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Nonmotorized Trans- Caspers/ 9th/Puget Drive Walkway _ $590,000 Nonmotorized Trans: 96th Ave W Pedestrian Improvements $17,000 Nonmotorized Trans: Interurban Trail $125,000 Nonmotorized Trans.- Olympic View Dr. Ped Improvements $250,000 Nonmotorized Trans. -School Zone Improve $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 - - $10,000 $10,000 10,000 Nonmotorized Trans: 72nd Ave W Ped Improvements $360,000 Nonmotorized Trans- 76th Ave W & 206th St Traffic Calming $70,000 Nonmotorized Trans- Meadowdale Beach Rd $30,000 Nonmotorized Trans- 80th Ave W from 206th to 21116 80th _ $220,000 Nonmotorized Trans- 216th Street SW Walkway - -- - - --- 90 -000 _ - - Nonmotorized Trans- 80th Ave W / 180ih St SW Walkway_ $75,000 _ _ __ $325,000 - - - Nonmotorized Trans- Shell Valley -Bike -Walk _ $50,000 Overlay -Citywide $50,000 __ Overlay -Utilities $320,000 $215,000 $210,000 $210,000 $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 Signal Improvements - Citywide _ 5,000 $51000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Intersection Improvements- 88th Ave & 196th St $20,000 _ Sight Distance Improvements- 80th Ave W _ - _ _ Signal Upgrades- 238th St & 100th Ave __ - _ _ _ $50,000 $220,000 $115,000 _ _ Signal Upgrade Main & 3rd $125,000 Signal Improvements SR 104 & 238th $240,000 Intersection Improvements 9th & Main _ $260,000 Intersection Improvement- 9th & Cas rs $270,000 Signal Rebuild - Puget & Olympic View or _ $180,000 Intersection I�rovements- Walnut St @ 9th Ave SR 99/ 76th Ave W Safety Improvements _ 2_4.5,000 $75,000 _ _ $1,450,000 _ _ __ ._ - __ .. Stabilization Projects- Citywide _ _ _ _ _ $0 $50,000 450,000 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 tyw Street Improvements- Ciide $15.000 _ _ $15,600 _ _ $15,000 $15,000 _ $15,000 $15,000 Traffic Calming- Citywide _ $10,000 $10,000 _ - $10,000 _ _ - $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 - $10,000 Transportation Plan $5,000 $200,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Total Construction Projects _ $2,367,000 $1,285,000 $445,000 $2,575,000 $1,000,000 $3,430,000 _ $965,000 Revenues and Cash Balances 2007-2013 _ _ Beginnin Cash Balance _ 600106 $642,962 $15,889 $91,125 63,242 $194,662__ $19,367 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax _ $116,000 $116,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 New Gas Tax Revenues _ $56,000 $56,000 $56,000 966,000 $56,000 56,000 _ $56,000 Transfer in Olympic View Water/ Sewer (220th St) $10,000 _ Transfer in Fund 125- REET 2 Trans.) for 100th Ave W Sloe _ _ _ _ _ - ---- ---- -� - ---- Transfer in -Fund 125-(REET 2 Trans.) for Caspers Walkway __-- -_ _ ,00 $152,000 $152 - - -- -- - -- -- -- - - - _. _ . --. -- --- ------..-_ - - -- - Transfer in Fund 125-(REET 2 Trans.) for 72nd Ave W Ped Imp _ $150,p0o Transfer in Fund 125-(REET 2 Trans.) for 76th/206th Traffic Calm _ -__ - _ $35,000 _ Transfer in Fund 125-(REET 2 Trans.) for 80th/206th Walk _.- $1101000 _ Transfer in Fund 125- REET 2 Trans for 216th St Walkway $45,000 _ _ _ Transfer in Fund 125-REET2Trans) for 80thA80th Walkway_ _ $325,000 Transfer in Fund 25-REET 2 Trans) for Snal Impr. Puget &- -� ic _ -- $122,500 nFund5(Transfer iREET2 Trans.) for Intersection Impr. Walnut St &9th Transfer in Fund 125-(REET 2 Trans) for 80th Ave. Sight Distance _ $220,000 Transfer in General Fund for 88th Ave & 196th St Intersection Improvements $20,000 _ Transfer in General Fund for Mein Street Pedestrian Lighting $75,000 Investment Interest _ _ $15,003 $16,074 $397 $2,278 $1,581 _ $4,867 $484 Traffic ImpacFees _ _ $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 _t 9Q000 $90,000 $90,000 Transfer in- Fund 412-100 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 -- $55,000 $1151000 - ---- - $55,000 $55,000 Transfer in Fund 412-200 - $50,000 $55,000 $55,000 _ _ Transfer in- Fund 412-300 $25,000 $25,000 _ $60,000 _$55,000 $25,000 $2 5,000 _ $25,000 ___ Contributions to sidewalk fund $2,500 $2,500 $2,506 ___2,5 00 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 Grants Loans Secured Grant- (State) for 220th St Improvements 138,000 Grant (State) Caspers/Puget Drive Walkway $438,000 Additional Public or s Trust Fund Loan- 220thRY _ $20,000 -- - Grant- Federal or Interurban Trail- $125,000 $12.5,000 - - Public works Trust und- 100thAve- Road Stabilization 499,800 - Yearly Sub Total rant Loans ecured= 1,220,800 $125,000 $0 0 0 0 0 Grants/ Loans oug 1�t Lot ecured) - - - rant- State for Transportation Plan Grant- tate or 6ignal Upgracie 238t & 100t 50,000 $45,000 Grant- Fed or 6H 99 76th Ave W batety improvements Grant-(Fed/State) for SR 104 & 238th i nal _ 1,160,000 200,000 Brant FedtState) for 91h & Main Intersection Improvements Grant Fed/ fate 91h & Gaspers Intersection I�rov_ements -ior _ -- - .. ...--- 185,000 $180,000 -- Grant fate n - 72nd Ave W Pedestrial�mprovements - -- _ Grant (Federalfor 76th Ave W/ 206th St Ped Improvements $ 35,000 Grant State 80th Ave W from 206th St to 21116 _ $110,000 Grant State) 216th St SW Walkway _ $45,000 rant fate) for 212fh & 84th Capacity Improvmments 75,000 50 0000 Grant-(Fed/State) for Citywide Walkway & Bikeway Projects $0 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 e) Grant- Fe fatfor School Zone Improvements Grant (Fed/State) for 238th St Improvements 5,000 5,000 ____ 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 $1,800,000 Grant Fed or Pu et &OlympicSignal Improvements --- _ _Grant Fed) Tor Walnut & 9th Intersection Im rovements 7$122,500 Yearly Sub Total rants Loans Sought not secured = 5,000 100,000 12,500 1,407,500 442,500 2,627,500 135,000 Grant Subtotal _ 1,225,800 225,600 $12,500 1,407,500 442,500 2,627,500 135,000 nterfund Trans ers Out 0,000 $20,000 Debt Service on Loan 1 220tfi St Desi n �20,000 .$20 �20,000 -V20,000 $20,000 Debt ervice on oan 2 220t t onstruction - 22,647 22 - ,647 - 22,647 .$22,647 - 22,647 22,647 22,647 Debt ervice on Loan 3 100t lAve Roams Ilizat6' -on �34,514 34,514 - 34,514 34,514 34,514 _ Total Revenues & ash Balances 3,009,962 1,300,689 536,125 2,638,242 __ $1,194,662 ,449,367 $989,690 _ ro ec Total Construction ts 2,367,000 1,285,000 445,000 2,575,000 1,OOQ000 _ 3,430,000 965,000 Endingash Balance _ 642,962 15,889 91,125 63,242 $194,662 $19,367 $24,690 Note.- Council reiterates its goals and policies as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and acknowledges that the six -year C/P as proposed does not have adequate funding to accomplish all the goals and objectives as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Packet Page 207 of 396 REET 2- Transportation OPTION 2 Fund125 Projects for2007-2013 PROJECT NAME 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Nonmotorized Trans.- Downtown Crosswalk Rehab $125,000 Nonmotorized Trans: ADA Curb Ramp Impr $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Nonmotorized Trans: Pedestrian Lighting- Cit ide 5,000 $5,000 5,000 $51000 $5,000 $51000 Nonmotorized Trans -Shell Valley-Bike/Walk/Emer. Access $340, 000 Overlay -Cif 'de $550,000 $550,000 $350,000 $150,000 $450,000 $450,000 $500,000 Total Construction Projects $575,000 $700,000 $715,000 $175,000 $475,000 $475,000 $520,000 Revenues and Cash Balances 2007-2013 Beginning Cash Balance $680,111 $119,914 $72,912 $59,734 $76,228 $148,133 $286,837 FEET 2 Revenues $650,000 $650,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 Investment Interest $17,003 $2,998 $1,823 $1,493 $1,906 $3,703 $7,171 Transfer to Fund 112 for 100th Ave W Road Stabilization Project .$500,200 Transfer to Fund 112 for Nonmotorized Trans- Caspers/ 9th/Puget Drive -$152,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Nonmotorized Trans- 72nd Ave W Ped -$180,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Nonmotorized Trans- 76th Ave & 206th St $35,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Nonmotorized Trans- 80th/206th Walk -$110,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for 216th St Walkway .$45,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Nonmotorized Trans- 80th Sight Distance .$220,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Nonmotorized Trans- 80tlV180th Walkway .$325,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Puget & Oympic View Signal -$901000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Walnut @ 9th Ave Signal -$122,500 Total Revenues & Cash Balances $694,9141 $772,912 $774,734 $251,228 $623,133 $761,837 $691,508 Total Construction Projects $575,000 $700,000 $715,000 $175,000 $475,000 $475,000 $520,000 Ending Cash Balance $119,914 $72,912 $59,734 76,228 $148,133 $286,837 $171,508 Note: Council reiterates its goals and policies as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and acknowledges that the six -year CIP as proposed does not have adequate funding to accomplish all the goals and objectives as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Packet Page 208 of 396 Capital Improvements Program Transportation Projects- Fund 112 Projects for 2007-2013 OPTION 2 PRbJ€C - ME 2007 2008 2 009 2010 2 112 2013 100th Ave W Road Stabilization Project 238th St Improvements (84th to SR 104) $1,000,000 _ _2.011 __ 2,100,000 212th & 84th Ave Intersection Improvements _ $100 000 $6p0,0pp 220th Street Improvements (Construction)_ 92nd Ave W/ 234th St SW Safety improvements _ Nonmotorized Trans- Main Street Pedestrian Lighting $100,000 - _ -- $85,000 $0 $75,000 Nonmotorized- Walkway & Bikewa Py rojects- Citywide_ 15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 15,000 Nonmotorized Trans- Casters/ 9th/Puget Drive Walkwa Nonmotorized Trans: 96th Ave W Pedestrian Improvements $590,000 $17,000 Nonmotorized Trans, Interurban Trail 125,000 $125,000 Nonmotorized Trans.- Olympic View Dr. Ped Improvements _ -o 250,000 - Nonmotorized Trans. -School Zone Improve _ 000 $10,000 $10,000 $101000 10,000 10,000 $10,000 Nonmotorized Trans: 72nd Ave W Ped Improvements _ $360 000 Nonmotorized Trans- 76th Ave W & 206th St Traffic Calming $70,000 Nonmotorized Trans- Meadowdale Beach Rd $30,000 Nonmotorized Trans- 80th Ave W from 206th to 21116 80th $220,000 Nonmotorized Trans- 216th Street SW Walkway_____ $901000 _ Nonmotorized Trans- 80th Ave W / 180th St SWalkway $75,000 Nonmotorized Trans- Shell Valle -Bike-Walk $50,000 Overlay -Citywide __ __ 50,000 _ Overlay -Utilities $320,000 215,000 $210,000 210,000 220,000 220,000 $220,000 Signal Improvements - Ci ide $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 5,000 5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Intersection Improvements- 881h Ave & 196th St $20,000 Sight Distance Improvements- Both Ave W _ - _ - _ $50,000 $220,000 Signal Upgrades- 238th St & 100th Ave - - _ Signal Upgrade Main & 3rd 125,000 Signal Improvements SR 104 & 238th $2460 00 Intersection Improvements 9th & Main _ - - $260,000 Intersection Improvement- 9th & Caspers _ $270,000 Signal Rebuild - Puget & Olympic View or $180,000 Intersection Improvements - Walnut St @ 9th Ave __ _____ _ _ __ 2.4_5,000 SR 99/76th Ave W Safety Improvements $75,000 $1,450,000 - Stabilization Projects- Citywide _ $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 Street Improvements- Citywide $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 ___ $15,000 Traffic Calming- Citywide $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,060 $10,000 $10,000 Transportation Plan _ _ $5,000 $200,600 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Total Construction Projects $2,367,000 $1,285,000 $445,000 $2,575,000 $1,000,000 $3,430,000 $965,000 Revenues and Cash Balances_2007-2013 Beginning Cash Balance__ -_ _ _ _ _ 600 106 642,962 $15.889 $91,125 $63,242 $194,662 $19,367 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax $116,000 $116 0000 $266,000 $266,000 - $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 New Gas Tax Revenues $56,000 $56,000 $56,000 $56,006 $56,000 56,000 $56,000 Transfer in Olym c View Water/ Sewer (220th St) $10,000 Transfer in Fund 1251REET 2 Trans for 100th Ave W Slope --- - - . Transfer in Fund 125-(REET 2 Trans.) for Caspers Walkway _ _$500,200 $152,000 Transfer in Fund 125- REET 2 Trans. for 72nd Ave W Ped Imp $35,000 - $180,000 Transfer in Fund 125-(REET 2 Trans.) for 76th/206th Traffic Calm Transfer in Fund 125-(REET 2 Trans.) for 80th/206th Walk $1Vol, 000 Transfer in Fund 125-(REET 2 Trans for 216th St Walkway $45,000 Transfer in Fund 125- REET 2 Trans for 80th A 80th Walkway $325,000 Transfer in Fund 125-(REET 2 Trans) for Signal Impr.. Puget & Oleic__ Transfer in Fund 125-(REET 2 Trans.) for Intersection Impr. Walnut St &9th _ $90,000 $122,566 Transfer in Fund 125- REET 2 Trans for 80th Ave. Sight Distance $220,000 Transfer in General Fund for 88th Ave & 196th St Intersection Improvements $20,000 Transfer in General Fund for Main Street Pedestrian Lighting 75,000 Investment Interest $15,003 $16,074 397 $2,278 $1,581 $4,867 $484 Traffic Impact Fees $90,000 Moro $90,000 $90,000 $90,000-- _ _ _ $90,000 $90,000 Transfer in- Fund 412-100 ---- --- $115,000 115,000 $115,000 _ _$115 000 - $55,000 _ _ $115,000 - $55,000 _$_ 115,000 _ $55,000 _. Transferin-Fund 412-200 $50,000 _ $55,000 $55,000 _ _ __$115,000 $55,000 Transfer in -Fund 412-300 _ _ $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 _ $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Contributions to sidewalk fund $2,500 $2,500 $4500 $0,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 arts Loans 8 ecured Grant- fate or 220th t Im rovements $138,000 - Grant (StateLCaspers/Puget Drive Walkwa Additional Public Works Trust Fund Loan- 220th 2 __ __ Grant- Federal or Interurban Trail 1 55,000 $125,000 - Public orks rust Fun - 100thAve- Road Stabilization -$-4-99.800___ -- Yearly Sub Total rants Loans ans Secure = 1,220,800 125,000 0 0 0 0 $0 rants dens ousht_not ecured) _ Grant- tate or Transportation Plan $50,000 Grant- tate or ignal Upgra a 238t 1001 45,000 Grant- Fe or �99 76th Ave W a e improvements 160,000 _ _ Grant- Fed/ State)for R 104 & 238t ignal 200,000 Grant Fed/ tale or 9th &Main Intersection Improvements 200,000 rant Fe fate or 9tn 8 Uaspers Intersection Improvements GrantState) for 72nd Ave W Pedestriaatn-Improvements 185,000 Grant (Federal) for 76th Ave W/22206th St Ped Improvements__ $35,000 _ Grant (State) 80th Ave W from 206th St to 21116 _ $110,000 Grant (State) 216th St SW W�alkww _ $45,000 Z9rant late) or 212th 84th Capacity Improvmeents 75,000 $450,000 _ _ Grant- Fed/State) for Citywide Walkway, & Bikeway Projects $0 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 _ $7,500 ___ Grant- Fed tate or chool Zone improvements_______ 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 $5,000 5,000 _ 5,000 .._ ---- Grant (Fed/State) foyr 238th St Ipmprovemen�tsp� - - - --- $1,800,000 � for _ Grant Fed Wa 9fii Inter, ectonlm�r_o_v_ements 122,500 Year u Totaal of rants/ Loans oughtS not secured = 5,000 100,000 12,500 407,500 442,500 2,627,500 135,000 Giant Subtotal _ Inter�nd Transfers ut Debt Service on Loan 1 220th St Demon 1,225,800 225,000 12,500 1,407,506 $442,500 2,627,500 135,000 - -- 20,000 - $20,000 $20,000 -$20,0000,000 20,00020,000 Debts ice on Loan 2 2201h t Construction - 22,647 22,647 22 647 _ 22,647 22,647 22,647 22,647 _ _ _ Debt eerrvice on -Loan 3 1001h AVe Road tablllza ion 34 514 34,514 34,514 34,514 34,514 Tote Revenues & Cash Balances_ _ _ ,009,962 - $1,300,889 536,125 1,638,242 1,194,662 ,449,367 989,690 Total onstructron Proiects 2,367,000 1,285,000 4451000 2,575,000 $1,000,000 ,430,000 965,000 Endingash Balance _ _ _ 642,962 15,889 91,125 63,242 $194,662 19,367 24,590 Note., Council reiterates its goals and policies as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and acknowledges that the six -year CIP as proposed does not have adequate funding to accomplish all the goals and objectives as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Packet Page 209 of 396 REET 2- Transportation OPTION 2 Fund125 Projects for2007-2013 PROJECT NAME 2007 2008 2009 2010 2 111 2 112 2 113 Nonmotorized Trans: Downtown Crosswalk Rehab $125,000 Nonmotorized Trans.- ADA Curb Ramp Impr $20,000 $20,000 20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $2o,o00 $20,000 Nonmotorized Trans.- Pedestrian Lighting- Citywide $51000 5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Nonmotorized Trans -Shell Valle-Bike/Walk/Emer. Access $340,000 Overlay -Citywide $550,000 $550,000 $350,000 $150,000 $450,000 $450,000 $500,006 Total Construction Projects $575,000 $700,000 $715,000 $175,000 $475,000 $475,000 $520,000 Revenues and Cash Balances 2007-2013 Beginning Cash Balance $680,111 $119,914 $72,912 $59,734 $76,228 $148,133 $286,837 REET 2 Revenues $650,000 $650,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 Investment Interest $17,003 $2,998 $1,823 $1,493 $1,906 $3,703 $7,171 Transfer to Fund 112 for 100th Ave W Road Stabilization Project -$500,200 Transfer to Fund 112 for Nonmotorized Trans- Caspers/ 9th/Puget Drive -$152,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Normwtorized Trans- 72nd Ave W Ped -$180,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Nonmotorized Trans- 76th Ave & 206th St $35,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Nonmotorized Trans- 80th/206th Walk -$110,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for 216th St Walkway -$45,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Nonmotorized Trans- 80th Sight Distance -$220,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Nonmotorized Trans- 80th/180th Walkway -$325,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Puget & Oympic View Signal -$901000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Walnut @ 9th Ave Signal -$122,500 Total Revenues & Cash Balances $694,914 $772,912 $774,734 $251,228 $623,133 $761,837 $691,508 Total Construction Projects $575,000 $700,000 $715,000 $175,000 $475,000 $475,000 $520,000 Ending Cash Balance $119,914 $72,912 $59,734 $76,228 $148,133 $286,837 $171,508 Note: Council reiterates its goals and policies as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and acknowledges that the six -year CIP as proposed does not have adequate funding to accomplish all the goals and objectives as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Packet Page 210 of 396 AM-940 Rezone Request on 76th Ave W. by Shapiro/Knowles Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/17/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave Submitted For: Rob Chave Time: 15 Minutes Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title 6. Closed Record Review of the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the rezone from Neighborhood Business (BN) to Community Business (BC). The site is located at 24310 76th Ave. W. Applicant: A.D. Shapiro Architects for Ron Knowles. File No. R-2005-97. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance approving the change in zoning from BN to BC, as recommended by the Planning Board. Previous Council Action The City Council approved a comprehensive plan amendment for the subject property in December, 2006. Narrative The City Council approved a comprehensive plan amendment for the subject property in December, 2006. The plan amendment essentially modified the comprehensive plan boundaries to coincide with property boundaries in the vicinity. The applicant is now following up the plan amendment by requesting that the zoning be changed to be consistent with the new comprehensive plan map -- so that there will no longer be a split in zoning on the property. The Planning Board held a public hearing on the proposal on February 14, 2007, and recommended that the application be approved, changing the zoning from BN to BC. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhilbit 1: Planning Board hearing transcript Link: Exhibit 2: Planning Board staff report Link: Exhibit 3: Additional comment letters Link: Exhibit 4: Parties of record Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status Packet Page 211 of 396 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 01:30 PM APRV Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/12/2007 01:44 PM APRV Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 01:52 PM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Final Approval Date: 04/12/2007 Started On: 04/12/2007 11:23 AM Packet Page 212 of 396 CITY OF EDMONDS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF PLANNING BOARD HEARING File Number R-05-97 February 14, 2007 Chair Guenther: Item 6b, public hearing by Knowles/Shapiro on a proposed rezone from BN to BC, File Number R-2005- 97. Steve Bullock. Mr. Bullock: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the Planning Board. Since we don't have a huge audience, I think I will make my presentation real brief. The gist of it, if I could call your attention, first of all, to the very last attachment in your staff report; it's an attachment of the Comprehensive Plan for that area. You may recall, just towards the end of last year when we made our changes to the Comprehensive Plan, we adjusted the line of both the Highway 99 Corridor and the Neighborhood Commercial areas to jog around that one property there, located on 76"'. If you may recall, it used to bisect that property and the property to the west of it. So we moved the Neighborhood Commercial line down on the west portion of the property and the Highway 99 Corridor up on the eastern property. Mr. Bullock: So now, if I can call your attention to your very first attachment, which shows the zoning for that area. It's the first white page in your packet. You will see that the zoning still reflects the fact that the properties are bisected by the BC zone to the south and the BN zone to the north. So the requested rezone for that property there along 76 h that's owned by Mr. Ron Knowles, is going to resolve that problem and make the entire property zoned Community Business, BC. So turn into the entirely red color, which would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bullock: The remainder of the staff report and the attachments included document the project's compliance with the rezone criteria. Unless you have any further questions of me, I think I will turn it over to the applicant for their presentation on the matter. Chair Guenther: Any questions? Mr. Shapiro: Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Tony Shapiro, with A.D. Shapiro Architects. We represent Mr. Ron Knowles on this parcel. You might think of this as more of a formality, yet I think we are all aware of the complexities of land use. I was just hoping to read through the six points that City ordinance discusses for rezone purposes then take any questions that the Board may have on those matters. Mr. Shapiro: The first question is is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. By rezoning this property, it would enable a mixed -use building to be housed on this site, and we believe that mixed -use development is consistent with Neighborhood Commercial areas, and this is according to the Comprehensive Plan. However, the BN zone currently allows only one unit of residential space on it, therefore restricting the feasibility of doing a mixed -use development. So we believe that this change would enable the property to be more responsive to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Shapiro: The second point, is the proposal consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the proposed zone district. The current BN zone designation is outdated and the City is working to redefine that in some regards. We feel that the BC zone is more applicable to a mixed -use type of development and would like to have that zone unified across the site. Mr. Shapiro: The question is the relationship of the proposed rezone, the existing land uses and the zoning of the surrounding or nearby properties, is it positive, and is it copasetic with the surrounding properties. There is, I think, some challenges with the surrounding area. 761' turns into more of a residential street as you travel north, yet we are at the south end of this road as it approaches the City of Shoreline. We are also up against the hillside, as the road slopes upward to meet Packet Page 213 of 396 with 2050, which we believe, geographically speaking, lends this site to perhaps a slightly different land use than the more flat areas to the north. Also, the adjacent properties to the south, there is more of a mixed -use development immediately to our south that houses apartments, as well as storage. Adjacent to that, next to 2050' is a gas station, and more commercial properties along 20'. So we feel that our property would be a transition, kind of the termination of the transition area from commercial moving into residential as you move further north up 76`b. Mr. Shapiro: Has there been significant change in the character of the immediate area or in the City policy to justify the rezone. I think the City's goals and objectives, in meshing with the Growth Management Act, is to encourage denser housing in appropriate locations. We believe that a mixed -use development on this site would act as a good transition between the more intense commercial properties on 205"' and the more single-family zones north of this property. Mr. Shapiro: Another point is whether the property's economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zone and under the proposed zoning versus the proposed zoning. I would have to say no. The split zone essentially renders this property totally unusable. We cannot comply with both zones or we cannot split a building kind of half way down the middle. So the current state, essentially, makes redevelopment or utilization of this property in current market trends unsuitable. Changing this zone would enhance the viability of this property, and therefore, the surrounding neighborhood and the City. Mr. Shapiro: And the last point, is there relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value of the property. Again, we feel that there would be gain to the City by generating tax revenue. Currently, the property is vacant and gathering dust, and actually there has been vandalism reported by some of the neighbors. So we feel that a change of use, putting up a new structure, would enhance the surrounding properties and also add tax revenue to the City. We also propose that the ultimate building would have under building parking, removing a parking lot, which currently exists on the site, and making a structure there instead. So those are some of the objectives that our client has in asking for this change. Mr. Shapiro: With that, I would like to conclude our presentation and take any questions if there's any questions from the Board. Chair Guenther: There don't appear to be any questions as this time. Mr. Shapiro: Okay, thank you. Chair Guenther: Now we open this for the public comments portion of the ... Nobody is coming forward to the microphone, so we will close the public comment portion. I guess there's no rebuttal from the applicant. Board discussion. Board Member Young: Mr. Shapiro could take his two -minute rebuttal time and maybe answer a couple of other things. I held off because I wanted to let the public testimony run its course, which it effectively did. This is more of a business question than it is anything else, but if in fact we approve this, and I see no reason not to, is that going to help the redevelopment of that rather shabby little comer at the intersection. If so, why. Mr. Shapiro: Well, I think it incrementally would begin the process. In discussions with the neighbors, we had multiple meetings last year, and had some rather painful meetings, if you will, culminating the Council meeting and your meeting that we went back to and reformed. The citizens are concerned about the overall block becoming more intense. We're just one little component on that block. Frankly, personally and professionally, I would agree with the Planning Board's direction back in I believe June that said, why don't we change this whole block and bring it up to Comprehensive or consistent standards. The Highway 99 designation doesn't necessarily lend itself to this little segment of 76" `. I tend to agree with that, yet from a political standpoint, the atmosphere within the neighborhood was more ingrained or ingrown, unwilling to accept a slight change. I think it was more height issues that people seemed to be paranoid about and the ability to do say a 3-story building on the corner where the planting design, rehab gas station currently is housed. I think that was the primary reluctance on the neighbors. I think traffic was perhaps a secondary reason that they were concerned about changes in the block. I guess to answer your question, I think it's only an incremental improvement, and I don't think it's as positive as it could have been, yet I guess with politics you move one step at a time. Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-05-97 February 14, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page 214 of 396 Board Member Young: Okay. I was just kind of curious. Like I say, I have no problem either for it or against it. I mean, you made a good case, and it meets all of the criteria. I'm just trying to think, as we head this discussion about the City doesn't have enough money to do this and the City doesn't have enough money to do that, maybe the City's not generating enough general fund money. Nobody, well I won't say nobody, but people in position to do something about don't seem to be too inclined to do so. Vice Chair Dewhirst: And whom might that be? Board Member Young: Janice is terrible. She is just fighting everything. Board Member Freeman: What was that comment. Board Member Young: I'm giving you a bad time Janice. Board Member Freeman: I know you are, but I haven't opened my mouth. Board Member Works: He was using you as a stand in for other people. Board Member Freeman: Oh, okay. Vice Chair Dewhirst: Just trying to get you in trouble again. Board Member Young: I can do that on my own, thank you. Chair Guenther: Any more discussion? Board Member Freeman: Do we need a motion? Chair Guenther: We need a motion. Board Member Freeman: Would you like me to make the motion then? Chair Guenther: Please do. Board Member Freeman: We'll see how I go here. I move that we recommend to Council, is that right, that they accept this proposed rezone from BN to BC found in R-2005-97. Is that all I need. Board Member Young: That it's consistent. Board Member Works: Yeah, don't we need to say that it's consistent with the requirements. Mr. Chave: If you note the analysis in the staff report ... Board Member Freeman: All right, because it's consistent with the six criteria in ECDC 20.40,010. Mr. Chave: And point to the facts that you are relying on, whether it's the staff report or the testimony from the applicant. Board Member Freeman: Well, I'm reading from your compliance, as stated in the staff report of February 9, 2007. It's the blue one I'm reading from. Is that correct now? Mr. Chave: That'll work. Board Member Works: I'll second that then. Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-05-97 February 14, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page 215 of 396 Chair Guenther: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Vice Chair Dewhirst: Aye. Board Member ]Freeman: Aye. Board Member Young: Aye. Board Member Henderson: Aye, Board Member Works: Aye. Board Member Reed: Aye. Chair Guenther: Opposed? Okay. So we will move this onto the Council. Thank you Steve. Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-05-97 February 14,2007 Page 4 Packet Page 216 of 396 I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS, Karin Noyes, Transcriber Date Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-05-97 February 14, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page 217 of 396 To: From: CITY OF EDMONDS 121 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDIP jGS, CONCkUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Planner Date: FEBRUARY 9, 2007 File: R-2005-97 A request by Tony Shapiro for Ron Knowles to rezone the lot addressed 24310 76"' Ave. W. from Neighborhood Business (BN) to Community Business (BC). Hearing Date, Time, and Place: February 14, 2007, At 7:00 PM, Edmonds City Council Chambers Public Safety Complex 250 5"' Avenue North TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................I.............. 2 A. APPLICATION INFORMATION...................................................................................................................2 ......................................... B. RECOMMENDATION ON THE PROPOSED REZONE ....................................... .... 2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................2 A. SITE DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................................. 2 B. SEPA DETERMINATION..........................................................................................................................2 C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE ................................................... 3 D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.......................................................................................................................... 3 E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE........................................................................................................................4 F. PUBLIC COMMENTS................................................................................................................................4 III. ATTACHMENTS......................................................................................................................................... 4 IV. PARTIES OF RECORD...............................................................................................................................4 05097rezone_sr.doc / February 9, 20071 Staff Report Packet Page 218 of 396 Knowles Rezone File No. R-2005-97 Page 2 of 4 I. INTRODUCTION The applicant owns a parcel that is roughly 12,000 sq. ft. and is split zoned, Neighborhood Business on the north portion and Community Business on the southern portion. They have already gone through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to resolve this issue on the Comprehensive Plan. For that request, the Planning Board and the City Council approved a change that made the Comprehensive Plan Designation of the entire property Highway 99 Corridor. The current rezone request is the applicant's proposal for bringing the zoning of the entire property into compliance with the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan. It is that the entire property would be zoned Community Business (BC). A. Application Information 1. Applicant: Tony Shapiro for Ron Knowles 2. Site Location: The property addressed 24310 76th Ave. W. (see Attachment 1), 3. Request: A Rezone from Neighborhood Business (BN) to Community Business (BC)(see Attachments 1-3), 4. Review Process: Rezone - Planning Board conducts a public hearing and issues a recommendation to the City Council for a final decision. 5. Mai or Issues. a. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40 (Rezones). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.100.010 (Hearing Examiner, Planning Advisory Board and City Council Review). B. Recommendation on the Proposed Rezone Based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Attachments to this report Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezone. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts; (1) Size and Shape: The property is basically square with about 12,000 sq. ft. (2) Existing Zoning: Split zoned, Community Business on the south portion and Neighborhood Business on the north portion. (3) Existing Land Use: There is currently the shell of an old convenience store that is vacant at the current time. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts; (1) North: The property is owned by a landscape company and was previously a gas station. The property is zoned Neighborhood Business. (2) South: Zoned and developed under the Community Business regulations. (3) East: Zoned Neighborhood Business and developed as a church and school. (4) West: Zoned and developed under both the RS-8 regulations (see Attachment 1). 05097rezone_sr.doe / 0210912007/ Staff Report Packet Page 219 of 396 Knowles Rezone File No. R-2005-97 Page 3 of 4 B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. ECDC Section 20.40 (Rezones) a) Fact: (1) ECDC 20.40,010 states that at a minimum the following factors shall be considered in reviewing a proposed rezone: (a) Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and, (b) Is the proposal consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, and the proposed zone district; and, (c) The relationship of the proposed rezone to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby properties; and, (d) Has there been sufficient change in the character of the immediate area or in city policy to justify the rezone; and, (e) Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning; and, (f) The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property. (2) The applicant has submitted their declarations, included as Attachment 2, which address the above described criteria. Staff agrees with the applicant's declarations. (3) See section C below for a discussion regarding the compliance of the proposed rezone with the Comprehensive Plan. (4) The proposal is generally consistent with the purposes of the honing Ordinance and the proposed zone district. Further review and compliance will be determined on a case by case review of all development proposals and license requests. (5) As demonstrated in attachments i - 3, the surrounding zoning pattern is maintained with the proposed rezone request. The request is also supported by the development pattern in the area. (6) Currently the subject property and one of its neighbors are vacant which raises the question about whether or not the properties are economically suitable for uses currently allowed under the current Comp Plan and zoning. (7) The property is identified on the City's Comprehensive Plan as Highway 99 Corridor. This designation is appropriate for the requested BC zoning classification and is further justified by the fact that the other properties in the same Comp Plan designation in that immediate area are also zoned BC. b) Conclusions: (1) Rezoning the entire property to BC would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the other rezone criteria. C. Comprehensive Plan a) Facts: (1) The Comprehensive Plan map identifies the subject property as part of the Highway 99 Corridor. The proposed rezone request to BC is consistent with this Comprehensive Plan designation as described on page 16 of the Comprehensive Plan. (2) Pages 45-49 of the Comprehensive Plan state the Goals and Policies of the Highway 99 Corridor. They further describe what staff has stated earlier in this report an area with high traffic volumes and large diversity of uses and development types. 05097rezone_sr.doc / 02109/2007/ Staff' Report Packet Page 220 of 396 Knowles Rezone File No, R-2005-97 Page 4 of 4 b) Conclusion: (1) Staff believes that rezoning those portions of the property that are zoned BN to BC is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the Highway 99 Corridor. D. Technical Committee No comments were received from any department concerning the proposed rezone request. E. Public Comments No comments were received on the proposed rezone request. III. ATTACHMENTS Attachments 1 through 3: 1. Vicinity and Zoning Map 2. Applicant's Narrative 3, Comprehensive Plan Map of subject parcel IV. PARTIES OF RECORD Tony Shapiro 624 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Ron Knowles 18633 17t' Ave. NW Shoreline, WA 98177 Engineering Division Fire Department Parks Division Planning Division Public Works Division Packet Page 221 of 396 O5097rezonewsr.doc 102/09/2007/ Staff Report 240TH PL SVV 05 .J CL City of Edmonds Access Mai Legend 1 ST ST SW ZZ_ 0- U") L CO 242ND PL SW� LLB ' Area of Proposed Rezone 24310 76th Ave, VV. Ala r . 205TH ST- =1'1=151 %"ing_2i1ae_ArcQ_parWu RM•2.4 Mulli Family, 2ACO sq. It. yr 101 area per uniI - Cw Co.,artier walo-bore RS-20 Single Family, 20.OWsq„ ri lots ft'RM-1,5 jOulliFamily, 1,$ ] Sq. It. OI lol.area per unit }API Master Plan HINkleMixed Ube RS-l2 'Single Fanrdly, 12.000 sq. h- lots MP'2 Master Plan H11115ide Mixed Use R$ IO Single F&rruly, 10.000 eq. li. lots BP Planned 8usines,5 PIS•& Singre Farm y, ®,ODD sq fi. lots SN Neigi badvopd Business AS-6 Single Farnilq, 6,OW .Bq. Il. lots 13C Community Busir)oss ) Le RSW-12 Wat$rlronr Single Family, 12.000 Sq. rl. lots � ti Attachment � � � � I RS-MP Single Family, Master Phan CrG t� General Commercial (Max. ht. 35 Ir) CG2 Geri -oral GornmercialI)Mx.ht.45Rt.j Fife No. R- 005-9% I l�•3 k t,�c� �Farr g �Tli?1 ;4 f139�,Ot area par unll 624 Edmonds Vlay, Edmonds, WA 98020 425,778.5400 July 12, 2005 Mr. Steve Bullock City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 PAX 778.3032' Subject: Rezoning remainder of parcel from BN to BC at 24310 76"' Ave. W. Project: Meridian Mixed Use, Arch, Project No.: 12382-00 Request: This rezone request involves rezoning a portion of the property at 24310 76th Ave. W. from BN to BC to facilitate the construction of a mixed -use building. As this property is currently split between two zoning designations and a portion of the property already falls under the BC classification we see the need for consistency, and the benefits for all concerned if this property is rezoned. NARRATIVE ADDRESSING 6 POINT REZONE CRITERIA I. Comprehensive Plan- Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan The following are excerpts from the Commercial Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan • D.2 Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local neighborhood. Mixed -use development should be encouraged within neighborhood commercial areas. According to the Comprehensive Plan the use of mixed use buildings are not only permitted, but also encouraged. However, the said property is currently designated as part of the Neighborhood Commercial Plan Designation, which falls under the Neighborhood Business Zone. The Zoning Ordinance limits one unit per parcel, but this contradicts the Comprehensive Plan's intent to "encourage" mixed -use projects. As we would like to place a mixed use building with seven (7) to nine (9) units and 1,500 square feet of retail, we propose the Neighborhood Commercial section be changed to match the Highway 99 Corridor designation, thus allowing the use of multiple units and complying with. the Comprehensive Plan's intent for the development of mixed use. • C. The intent of the community commercial designation is to recognize both of these purposes by permitting a range of business and mixed use development T while maintaining a neighborhood scale and desi_gn charartpr. Packet Page 223 of 396 Attachment 2 File No. R-2005-97 Page 2 July 12, 2005 Rezone Request The proposed project meets the goals for Community Commercial Areas by providing business and mixed -use options as well as maintaining the surrounding neighborhood community atmosphere. Shifting the plan designation from Neighborhood Commercial to be included in the Highway 99 Corridor would allow the property to fall under the Community Commercial designation and therefore fulfill the Comprehensive Plan and Highway 99 Enhancement Project's intent of developing mixed -use properties. .. The following is an excerpt from the Summary Recommendations section of the Highway 99 Enhancement Project Report. "While some participants preferred that new development reflect the downtown Edmonds character with smaller shops and architectural details, most understood that a variety of uses and building types is most appropriate to take advantage of different opportunities and conditions. j...I In some cases the City may want to consider zoning changes to encourage mixed use or taller development. " As a section of the property is already classified as part of the Highway 99 Corridor we ask that the property be rezoned from BN to BC to accommodate the placement of a mixed -use building. We also ask that a section of the property be re -designated from Neighborhood Commercial to the Highway 99 Corridor (Community Commercial status) to make for a consistent property parcel. II. Zoning Ordinance — Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. BN Zone: • A. To Reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area; The Meridian Mixed Use Building has 1,500 square feet designated for retail use to better serve the surrounding community. • A.I Permitted Primary Uses: Single-family dwellings, as regulated in RS-6 zone, - While BN zoning permits mixed use developments and encourages retail space, it does not allow more than a single-family dwelling, which falls short of the typical mixed use project and the seven (7) to nine (9) units planned for the Meridian Mixed Use Building. BC Zone: • A. To reserve areas for those retail purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones. Fitting with the intent of the BC Zone Ordinance, 1,500 square feet are designated for retail purposes in the Meridian Mixed Use Building. Added retail space is much desired in the already retail based neighborhood. Some of the surrounding buildings and businesses include a 76-gas station, storage units, a church, and several single- family residences. The property now boasts an old convenience store that is no longer in business. The site is also less than a block away from the City of Packet Page 224 of 396 pa-3 July 12, 2005 Rezone Request Shoreline's Interurban Trail Head, and is on the Seattle City Light Trail. A Mixed Use Building would add to the improvement of the surrounding neighborhood. • B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings. The site's close proximity to main arterials provides convenient access from the street, but will not interfere with traffic or cause any hazards. The size of the lot limits parking. While it offers adequate parking for tenants, employees, and customers, it will not possess the feeling of a gigantic, obtrusive parking lot. • C. To allow for mixed -use development which includes multiple dwelling unit(s) that support business uses. The rezoning of this property would enable us to carry on plans for the Meridian Mixed Use Building which has multiple dwelling units. Housing in the surrounding neighborhood would be enhanced by the addition of quality multiple family housing. III. Surrounding Area: - the relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property. Should the subject property be rezoned, it will not only mesh with the immediate neighborhood, but will also enhance the quality of the surrounding community. • The proposed mixed -use building will offer more housing options to a retail/residential neighborhood where the predominant dwelling currently consists of single-family residences. • The site's quality design and landscape will provide a nice transition from the busy street front of 205tb to the quieter tones of 76th Ave. • An inactive, run down, site will be replaced with retail space to cater to the community needs. • As a part of the Highway 99 Corridor the building will be in keeping with the spirit of the Highway 99 Enhancement Project by offering an attractive mixed - use building. The improvement of this lot could also trigger adjacent properties to redevelop or revamp thus enhancing this small corner of the Highway 99 Corridor. IV. Changes: - whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate surrounding area or in City policy to justify the rezone. Under the Highway 99 Enhancement Project, many changes have been made to improve the Highway 99 Corridor. As stated in the Enhancement Project Report, mixed -use facilities are "encouraged." The immediate surrounding neighborhood contains many housing options including single --family residences and a multi- family complex. We feel that rezoning the discussed parcel from BN to BC will enable us to continue the trend toward higher density within the context of a residential area, while adding commercial space to better serve the local community. Granting a rezone will also allow us to support the progress being made to the Highway 99 Corridor. Packet Page 225 of 396 page 4 July 12, 2005 Rezone Request V. Suitability: - Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. The property's close proximity to 205t' St. allows it to contribute to one of the gateways of Edmonds; and being situated so closely to the main arterials of Edmonds Way and Highway 99 naturally labels this property as best suited for commercial use. However many of the surrounding properties have been built as residential, and Edmonds is mainly a residential community. We believe that the proposed mix of both residential and commercial achieves the best use of this property in serving the needs of the community and enables our client to achieve the highest economic return .for his investments. VI. Value: - the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. As the property is located so close to busy arterials the placement of single family homes is unsafe and undesirable_ At the same time the convenient location promotes commercial use. The placement of a mixed -use building would create a nice transition between the busy streets and residential neighborhood. Underground parking facilities also create a safe parking environment for residents and employees while increasing the amount of parking available. The existing structure on the site currently decreases the value of the property and of the surrounding community. Replacing the vacant, strip retail building with a higher end mixed use building would improve the value of the property for the owner, and brighten the tone of the neighborhood. The increased density also helps the City of Edmonds comply with the GMA mandates with denser housing that has access to bus and transit lines. Packet Page 226 of 396 t x MUM" Airl MR EvnM JA arm 9 1, -11-1A wo ry NWI 24uTH PL SW 7 -..241ST-ST SW i -j 0 CO LU w ui 242ND PL SW N IIS111:011111immullm lam w INUMITINk City of Ednionds Comprehensive Plan Map < Y M"- 110� Attachment 3 File No, R-2005-97 Packet Page 228 of 396 NEIGHBORHOOD LETTER TO THE EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL To whom it may concern: The undersigned, as residents of the Lake Ballinger Bowl neighborhood support only these 3 items as decided upon during the neighborhood meeting held October 16, 2006 in Edmonds city hall, Bracket room. ❖ Parcel 00491100001010 (currently occupied by the Rocky Mart) will be rezoned to BC. Currently this parcel is segmented, zoned partially BC and BN. ❖ All remaining parcels of land on this block will remain BN. ❖ There will be no change to the BN Comprehensive Plan Verbiage as it currently exists for these parcels of land. i n d name Printed Name Address Date CJt7zR QURL' 7,5- 3 t 24z-" �1 S:w . !�-a�_-,oe., f`'' / �G � /i✓c �T/� (�GI�CL_ �! % v�t/c-� .� �,� .�/ / •1�� �- �ZY:�"'�'f'L Z n �- �. �'Ce/ `1F' s .cJ _ `�c�a a- 6 lD-,5 -✓ l � - yd-_ a / /Vo"?j A4� 6-M,0W44vx tJq4 �K?o ;L4-4, Packet Page 229 of 396 To whom it may concern: The undersigned, as residents of the Lake Ballinger Bowl neighborhood support only these 3 items as decided upon during the neighborhood meeting held October 16, 2006 in Edmonds city hall, Bracket room, I- Parcel 00491100001010 (currently occupied by the Rocky Mart) will be rezoned to BC. Currentlythis parcel is segmented, zoned partially BC and BN. Myr-M M-0 There will be no change to the BN Comprehensive Plan Verbiage as it currently exists for these parcels of land. Signed name Printed Name Address Date p S 111 r le, v L c a2- 8�-6 /4 Packet Page 230 of 396 To whom it may concern: The undersigned, as residents of the Lake Ballinger Bowl neighborhood support only these 3 items as decided upon during the neighborhood meeting held October 16, 2006 in Edmonds city hall, Bracket room. ❖ Parcel 00491100001010 (currently occupied by the Rocky Mart) will be rezoned to BC. Currently this parcel is segmented, zoned partially BC and BN. -.*- All remaining parcels of land on this block will remain BN. ❖ There will be no change to the BN Comprehensive Plan Verbiage as it currently exists for these parcels of land. Signed name Printed Name Address Date gQwr 'IAg L a. V14 A" -1 Packet Page 231 of 396 To whom it may concern: The undersigned, as residents of the Lake Ballinger Bowl neighborhood support only these 3 items as decided upon during the neighborhood meeting held October 16, 2006 in Edmonds city hall, Bracket room. ❖ Parcel 00491100001010 (currently occupied by the Rocky Mart) will be rezoned to BC. Currently this parcel is segmented, zoned partially BC and BN. -.*- All remaining parcels of land on this block will remain BN. • There will be no change to the BN Comprehensive Plan Verbiage as it currently exists for these parcels of land. Signed name Printed Name Address Date L U—j Packet Page 232 of 396 Seattfe �Baptist Church David R CoX, Pastor Phone (425) 774-1240 FaX (425) 774-1777 November 21, 2006 Dear Edmonds City Council, We at Seattle Baptist Church, along with our neighborhood, have continued to express our desires to cease from the agenda of changing our church properties' zoning. We, along with our neighborhood, are very comfortable with our present business neighborhood zoning and see that to be most compatible to our 76 h Avenue/242°d Street surroundings. We do not care to be viewed as part of the 205th Street business corridor, but rather as a family community. Again, we do not oppose Ron Knowles' proposal for the development of his Rocky Mini - Mart property, as his plans seem to blend with our neighborhood's complexion. However, a new zoning for our properties and the plant nursery in front of us could potentially present much chaos and contention to an ordinarily quiet area. Thank you for your strong consideration of this issue and following the wishes of our happy community. Sincerely, David R. Cox Senior Pastor 24228-76th Avenue `IN e Edmonds, Washington 98026 Packet Page 233 of 396 Parties of Record R-2005-07 — Shapiro/Knowles Applicants Knowles, Ron Shapiro, Tony Public (from petitions — Exhibit 3) Besaw, Grace M. Cox, David (Seattle Baptist Church) Curl, Jerry & Ruth Fleming, Wanda Garhofer, Brent Goff, Tashiye Lenz, Shirley Nand, Kamal & Nayantra Park, Chong Pletz, Carol & Jim Puhl, Ann B. Wilson, Walter Packet Page 234 of 396 AM-941 Rezone Request by Shapiro et.al. on Edmonds Way Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/17/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave Submitted For: Rob Chave Time: 45 Minutes Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title 7. Closed Record Review of the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the rezone from Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) to Multiple Residential - Edmonds Way (RM-EW), and from Community Business (BC) to Community Business - Edmonds Way (BC-EW). The site is located at 23012, 23014, 23028, 23100, 23110 Edmonds Way, 9133 232nd St. SW, and the vacant lot at the northwest corner of 232nd St. SW & Edmonds Way. Applicant: A.D. Shapiro for SGA Corp. File No. R-2006-95. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance approving the changes in zoning, as recommended by the Planning Board. Previous Council Action The City Council approved an amendment to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) in February, 2007, which created the zones that the applicants are now seeking to apply to the subject properties (see Ordinance #3627, Attachment 3 of Exhibit 2). Narrative The applicants are requesting a change in zoning for properties they own within the Edmonds Way Corridor (SR-104). The Planning Board held a public hearing on the request on March 14, 2007, and after deliberations, recommended that the City Council approve the changes in zoning. The Planning Board action and their reasoning is contained in the verbatim transcript (Exhibit 1). The staff report and additional comment letters are contained in Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively. Parties of record for the City Council closed record review are listed in Exhibit 4. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Planning Board hearing transcript Link: Exhibit 2: Planning Board staff report Link: Exhibit 3: Additional comment letters Packet Page 235 of 396 Link: Exhibit 4: Parties of record Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 01:38 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/12/2007 01:44 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 01:52 PM APRV Form Started By: Rob Started On: 04/12/2007 12:05 Chave PM Final Approval Date: 04/12/2007 Packet Page 236 of 396 CITY OF EDMONDS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF PLANNING BOARD HEARING File Number R-06-95 March 14, 2007 Chair Guenther: All right, we are going to get on with the rest of our meeting tonight. We are now at Item 6b, a public hearing by Tony Shapiro on an application to rezone properties from multi -family residential (RM-1.5) to RM-Edmonds Way (RM-EW) and from Community Business (BC) to BC -Edmonds Way (BC-EW). File Number R-06-95. All right, this is a quasi-judicial hearing so, as a part of the Appearance of Fairness, has there been any ex parte communication with the applicant? Board Member Freeman: I have something to declare. It was after our meeting here, when we made the recommendation to go to Council, but before it went to Council, Tony phoned me one afternoon and asked me if I could assist in perhaps the presentation to Council. I said I couldn't do that. We had an amicable chitchat, and it that was all there was to it. I certainly didn't speak up at Council or contact Council in any way. I just wanted that for the record. Chair Guenther: That's been duly noted and disclosed. Do any of the members have any interest in the property or the application? None. Do they own property within, say, 300 feet of it, of the application? No. Do they stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? No. I prepared tonight. I got a list. I believe everybody on the Board can hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner. All right. Are there any members of the audience who wish to challenge the appearance of fairness of the members of the Planning Board. No. All right. I think we can get on with the hearing now, so first is the staff report, Rob. Mr. Chave: Okay, basically, this is an application that the applicants had chosen to wait until they saw whether or not the new zones were established that they had applied for in the codes, and that was the BC -Edmonds Way and the RM or Multi- family -Edmonds Way. Those are now in the codes and are identified as potentially applicable within the Edmonds Way Corridor, which is where these properties are. You have a Comprehensive Plan Map that illustrates that. Currently, the properties are already zoned RM-1.5 and BC, and they are compliant with the Edmonds Way Corridor. The logic behind the application, at least expressed by the applicants, is that the proposed zones would do a better job of implementing the Edmonds Way Corridor than perhaps the existing ones do. Mr. Chave: The staff report and the materials submitted by the applicants go into some detail on the RM or the multi -family aspect of the application, so I don't think I want to touch on that unless the Board has questions. The Staff Report, however, I think we omitted some detail on the BC portion of the application, so I did want to address at least the criteria for the rezone. The applicant did discuss this, but even so, I think it's important to get the staff point of view. So again, the Comprehensive Plan, I am just talking about the BC portion of the application now, the BC-EW. The Comprehensive Plan does say that the Edmonds Way Corridor is appropriate for a variety of zones, and if you will note elsewhere in the corridor there are other commercial zones similarly situated at typically intersections along the corridor. There are several places that those occur, and obviously, it's already zoned at this particular intersection for that use. So it does potentially implement the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave: The zoning ordinance, the purpose of the BC-EW zone really does again focus on the Edmonds Way Corridor, so logically, since the zone was specifically created for the corridor, it should be appropriate, again, for this particular location. Mr. Chave: The surrounding area, one of the criteria there is relationship of the proposed zoning to the existing land uses. Packet Page 237 of 396 Board Member Young: Rob, could you please speak into the microphone? I can't hear a thing you are saying Mr. Chave: In and around the surrounding area is part of the discussion, or part of the criteria that you have to consider for a change in zoning. The surrounding area, in this case, as I already noted, there is a mixture of multi -family commercial zones along the corridor. So again, the BC-EW zone, it's really a variant of the existing BC zoning, so logically, since that, again, was created for the Edmonds Way Corridor, it would make sense to apply here. Mr. Chave: One of the things that will have to be considered further down the line is the actual configuration of a specific project. Now, we did include material in your packet, there was a traffic report. Obviously, that's discussing a fairly specific project. There was some review of that in the City in the engineering and so forth. All that really goes to point out is that potential impacts, there are multiple ways of addressing those, but this is not the time to do that. That's going to be a project specific decision that comes at a later point in time. Even though a SEPA Determination, State Environmental Policy Act Determination, was issued for the rezone, that really only deals with it as a non -project specific action. So it's just the change in zoning. The SEPA Determination does not deal with a specific project, which obviously the applicants have in mind. But as the Planning Board understands, things can change. Specific projects can change. Owners can change, but the zoning stays in place. So all you are dealing with at this point in time is really the zoning questions. All that goes by way of saying that additional environmental review, SEPA Determination, Architectural Design Board public hearing, you know, a lot of additional review has yet to be done on any specific project that comes a long for this project. Mr. Chave: Another criteria is whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in City policy to justify the rezone. Arguably, one change has been the creation of the new zones that would apply to the Edmonds Way Corridor. You know, that's an obvious change. Those weren't available before, and they weren't available at the time the property was previously changed to BC, which was actually just a few years ago. So that's a relatively recent change. Also, there has been additional development on the Edmonds Way Corridor and additional changes in zoning trying to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan for the corridor. So it appears that what they are requesting here fits into that. Mr. Chave: Suitability of the property. Partially what the zone was created for, the BC-EW, was to address or deal with unique pieces of property that have some changing grade and so forth. A couple of the provisions in the BC-EW zone deal with trying to increase setbacks, improve buffers, and so forth, which seems to be appropriate here. Mr. Chave: Now, another criteria deals with value, the relative value to the City versus the applicant. Obviously, the applicant feels they have a value in what they are proposing. The City's value really lies in going back to the Comprehensive Plan direction for the Edmonds Way Corridor. What the City's overall direction for is trying to focus development on the corridor rather than increasing or changing zoning as you get back off the corridor into the residential neighborhoods. So one of the keys, from the City's approach, is try and put multi -family and more intensive commercial development and so forth in areas that have strong arterials, connections, transit and other kinds of facilities that support that intensification. Mr. Chave: Over the last ten years, or since we adopted the first Comprehensive Plan, one of the hallmarks of that plan is that we didn't want to go trying to change more properties from single-family into more intensive uses, whether that was duplexes or other kinds of things. When you do that approach, sort of the other shoe to fall is that you want to make maximum use of areas that are served by adequate roads, services, and so forth. And that's why the intensification of places like Edmonds Way Corridor, Highway 99 and so forth have really been considered by the City. I think that's was swayed the City Council to adopt the BC-EW and the RM-EW zones. The idea is to place that more intense development in the areas where it is appropriate, where it can be served. The other part of that is trying to minimize or use design review to try and make sure there is adequate buffering, landscaping and all those kinds of things. The BC-EW zone also helps accomplish that by at least providing minimal buffers, landscaping and so forth that the BC zone does not provide. So there are additional setback protections and so forth. Mr. Chave: One of the things we will be looking for, of course, in the further SEPA review of a project and in design review, is actually how the transition from the project site to the residences immediately adjoining, how that transition is accomplished. So that's something that's yet to be determined. We can't determine it with the zone, per say, but we can determine it later in time when we actually see a specific project. So with that, that's all the staff has. Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-06-95 March 14, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page 238 of 396 Chair Guenther: Any questions of staff? Board Member Reed: I have a question, and it just has to do with the Edmonds Way Corridor in general. Where does it start and where does it stop for purposes of the application of these new zones? Mr. Chave: Basically, it starts just east of what you would call the Westgate Center. It's roughly, let's see, as I recall, it's about, well, the vacant lot just east of the carwash, running east and southeast all the way to 99. Board Member Reed: Where 99 crosses over? Mr. Chave: Yeah, where it meets 99. Board Member Reed: Okay, that's what I thought, but I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Chair Guenther: Would the applicant like to comment on the application? Mr. Shapiro: You bet. Chair Guenther: Please come forward. Mr. Shapiro: Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you this evening. Could we dim the lights a little bit? We have three parts of our presentation here that we would like to touch upon. I would initially like to talk a little bit about the history, and I am not concrete on my dates yet. I believe that it was probably around 2001 or 2002 that the Planning Board created the Edmonds Way Corridor, yet it was not specifically applied to any properties along Edmonds. In 2003 we began discussions with the Planning Staff about applying this new designation to some properties on Edmonds Way, one of which is the site on 232nd that's being discussed tonight. The other of which is next to the carwash, down the street towards town. We made application for a comp plan designation change for these properties. At that point, the staff requested that we include additional properties up and down Edmonds Way. We, in turn, did that and included, I can't say specifically, but I think it was the majority of the property on Edmonds Way at the request of Planning Staff, was folded into our application for comp plan change. That went before the Planning Board, and the application was made, I believe in 2003. It went before the Board in 04 and was enacted by Council, I believe in January of 05. Mr. Shapiro: So there's been a number of people, neighbors that have talked about this being a rush/rush project. I think that some of the Council people raised that issue. This process has been discussed and worked through in multiple different layers. I would like to touch briefly about the history, we'll get specific in the rezones, and then we've got our traffic engineering to address some specific concerns that have been raised regarding the access onto 232nd. Our rezone before you tonight does not have a specific context for how we are going to access 232nd yet. We do desire to access 232nd and we felt it best to discuss that at this juncture. Mr. Shapiro: Touching back on the history of the specific process that we have gone through on these sites in the last year. It was actually back in 2005 that we started discussions with the staff regarding the site on 232nd. An application was made prior to the close of 2005, and we began to have hearings with the neighbors in the spring of 2006. We used a mailing list around our site of 500 feet. We chose 500 feet, which is 200 feet more than the City mandates, because we wanted to discuss this with the neighbors. We wanted to be open and go out of our way in having meetings with the neighbors. That way we put our mailing list at 120 names versus 30 names. We have submitted a mailing list for this current rezone in compliance with the City's criteria of 300 feet, and there's only 30 names on that mailing list. We did four times the amount of mailing for our multiple meetings that we had with neighbors petitioning their input and discussing the project parameters. We have modified the project, responding to their concerns that were raised in these multiple meetings that we had at Westgate Chapel. We had, I believe, three or even four meetings at Westgate Chapel, a couple of meetings, one at SGA's office, one at my office, and two meetings at City Hall. This was discussed at our last, and I didn't want to re -discuss this point, yet I think in lieu of some of the letters that have been received by the Board, I wanted to bring to light some of the history that we have gone through on this project. Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-06-95 March 14, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page 239 of 396 Mr. Shapiro: I don't mean to pat ourselves on the back. I want to say that we seriously were discussing this with the neighbors and trying to respond to concerns that they had raised regarding the scope of the project. With that, I think, and the other issue is about the spot zone, that we are creating spot zones. I would like to discuss from my vantage point as an architect that the City created this Edmonds Way Comprehensive Plan. This was not written by us. It was written by the Planning staff, enacted by the Planning Department or by the Planning Board and the City Council. We, in turn, did apply it to different segments of Edmonds Way, yet there was never any zone written in response to this Comprehensive Plan. It strikes me that if you have a Comprehensive Plan designation yet don't craft specific zoning language for that Comprehensive Plan designation, what is the use of having a Comprehensive Plan designation. If you cannot respond to some specifics or certain aspects within the goals of that comp plan, but just regurgitate, if you will, existing zoning language that applies for say BC downtown, where Edmonds Way is an entirely different context. I would ask the question, why create a new Comp Plan? Mr. Shapiro: With that, I would like to briefly touch upon the site and go through these components. The question's been raised about how far the Edmonds Way designation goes. As we can see on the map here, this is Highway 99 here and extends all the way down into here. This is the Westgate area where this other site was that we talked about. Our subject site is right here. So I'll just flip through these very quickly. These are some other context photos. This is the Westgate Commons, what we are calling the Westgate Commons site next to the carwash. Edmonds Way here, and this site here, our site's right up the street. Westgate Chapel. This is just solely for context to help us grasp where we are talking about. This is our property right in here and 232"d that's across State Route 104. This is looking at the corner of our site and 232°d heading up the hill. Westgate Chapel's right in this location here, and this is our property here. This is further up the street towards Highway 99. This happens to be this condominium complex here, which is in Snohomish County yet it has similar characteristics that the standard RM zone designation currently embraces. We have surface access out here that is exposed to the road and garage doors that face the street, and I believe there is some surface parking out here in this area. Mr. Shapiro: So touching back further up the street towards 99, some other condominium projects that are not totally out of character with what we are proposing to do in terms of mass. This is the comp plan map, starting here at Highway 99, coming down Edmonds Way to Westgate and the carwash at this location, Westgate Chapel and our subject property is right in this location. Mr. Shapiro: We have written out some verbiage on this. These are our parcels here. We hope to rezone this to BC-EW and this is this segment. The blue segment is the RM-EW. This portion of the site is characterized by significantly higher grade changes down here. We have over 20 feet grade change from here down to here. And down here, the slopes are less steep yet they are still significant. I think we are still looking at 10 feet plus down in this area of the site. But we were hoping not to really get into project specifics, but talk about in general, the zone characteristics of this property and why we feel that the rezones, that were created in close discussion with the Planning Staff. The idea that somehow we pushed this language through, we had multiple meetings with Mr. Chave and Steve Bullock and Meg Gruwell on this, and worked through multiple different points and concerns that were raised and came up with new concepts of sustainable design. We recognize that the sustainable design can be improved upon, and we hope that new amendments and changes can happen in incorporating new features in this, and new teeth and new aspects in sustainability. This is the first stab at it, and we hope that it makes a step in the right direction in working this through. Yet there seems to be undue criticism saying that, you know, this is just thrown in there to address concerns raised by some people. Yet we are definitely working to work in sustainable design with gray water, pervious paving, and other aspects that we want to incorporate into this project. Mr. Shapiro: I would like to just go through some of these points. The light lettering is the actual verbiage out of the comp plan, and the goals for the corridor essentially stress that the intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of traffic and adjoining established communities. The preliminary staff review and our traffic consultant indicate that this traffic would not impact, nor would a rezone intrude upon the adjacent neighborhoods. Gibson Engineering, Ed Koltonowski, will come up and talk briefly about some of those points at the conclusion of my talk. Mr. Shapiro: Another point in the Comprehensive Plan discusses permit uses in planned multi -family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. Currently, there are 10 curb cuts on Edmonds Way entering the single-family houses that currently exist. There's five single-family houses on Edmonds Way that we are eliminating. We will cut that down to two off of Edmonds Way and compress and combine these Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-06-95 March 14, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page 240 of 396 curb cuts. That will go a lot way towards minimizing traffic impact to Edmonds Way. We also feel that the one curb cut that we hope to get access on 232 a would access a residential only garage that would serve apartment units off of 232na Mr. Shapiro: Another goal of the comp plan is to provide for transit and pedestrian access to the development. We have direct access both to the town homes at the north end of the site and the mixed -use building, pedestrian access into the property. With only 2 curb cuts, the conflict between pedestrians and cars is minimized. This is a long stretch of road, and we feel that by having only 2 curb cuts, we have minimized conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles in this way. Mr. Shapiro: We do also believe that another point is that permitted uses in the BC-EW zone is consistent with the housing of small scale business developments already along Edmonds Way and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals of creating useable business space along Edmonds Way, but also at the same time, a diversity of housing uses. Mr. Shapiro: Another point of the comp plan goals is to use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. We, ultimately, hope to have essentially over 60 units on this project, 40 of which will be apartments, 20 of which will be condominiums. The idea that accessing part of this project to 232aa is somehow a misuse of 232ad I think is an extreme proposal. The idea that somehow we will bring in residential only traffic off of 232nd where across the street is a veterinary hospital as well as a small office building on the other side of 232nd directly across from our site. Yet, we are only proposing housing access into our property. I think we could coexist very nicely with these adjacent properties as well as the neighbors down the street. Mr. Shapiro: Another goal of the comp plan is to use design review to ensure the development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods as well as to make use of the natural topography to buffer incompatible development when possible. We believe that by working with this site, we can mass our buildings in such a way that say a 4-story building that faces Edmonds Way has only a 2'/z-story presence against the single-family zones to the west of us; hereby working with the topography to mask, if you will, the larger scale buildings against the busy arterial. Mr. Shapiro: So let me just flip through a few of these. I should have been following this with my discussion. With that, I would like to move into the existing zoning map. You can see here that the existing BC zone down at the south end is where we would like to rezone to the BC-EW, and then the five lots to the north. There's only four lots, I think there's five actually. But to the north is the RM-EW. I would briefly like to just run through some of the goals and how we respond to the concerns and objectives raised in the rezone. Mr. Shapiro: Is the proposal consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance? We feel that by providing a variety of housing types and a range of greater densities to meet the needs of a broader range of Edmonds residents, we will have both town homes in the RM zone and then we have apartments in the BC zone. The town homes will probably range in size from 1,200 feet to 1,500 feet, and one and two -bedroom units. So there is a variety of unit types that we hope to incorporate into the project, as well as the commercial space at the ground level. The RM-EW zone encourages environmentally friendly features and helps ensure quality design features. The new zone strongly encourages extensive use of sustainable design and utilization of green technologies, as well as supporting pedestrian friendly neighborhood complimentary design such as front doors facing the street and below building parking. That is one of the goals that we want to incorporate in the town homes, as well as in the mixed -use building that surface level parking would be minimized. We have visitor parking that is exposed, yet it cannot be seen from the street, but it is outside the buildings. Mr. Shapiro: Another goal for the RM-EW rezone is the relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and the zoning of surrounding or nearby property. Rezoning the site to RM-EW will enhance surrounding properties by allowing substandard homes to be replaced with new town homes. Since much of Edmonds Way already contains multi- family housing, the 232ad Street town homes would fit nicely along Edmonds Way and the grade change would help minimize any impact of the town homes on adjacent single-family zones. We have met with immediate neighbors, in fact, Claudia who we have met with on a couple of occasions, and she has some concerns to express. Yet we have worked with her and tried to describe to her some of the impacts that the project would have. We hope that we have responded to her concerns about the adjacent town homes viewing into her site from a privacy issue. Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-06-95 March 14, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page 241 of 396 Mr. Shapiro: Another question that the City raises, has there been significant change in the character of the immediate surroundings or area or in City policy to justify the rezone. I would suggest that with the growth that this region is encountering and is going to encounter in the coming decades, the idea of achieving higher densities and different housing types in this area is going to support and enhance the livability of Edmonds and bring in new residents and replace existing single-family homes that are in a dilapidated state. Single-family homes on Edmonds Way is, I don't believe, a desirable land use. Mr. Shapiro: Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. We definitely that it is suitable. I think one of the aspects of this site and a lot of the properties along Edmonds Way is the narrow nature of these properties. Edmonds Way, as we are all aware, has significant grade change between itself and the adjacent single-family properties. It also has resulted in a narrow nature of these lots. These are single-family lots, by and large, except for the parcel at the south end of the site against 232nd. It is a sawtooth arrangement. The ability to place a large apartment block into this location, should that have been desired, would be very difficult. We do believe that the physical nature and geography of this site supports the notion of this rezone. Mr. Shapiro: Another point raised is value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in the value to the property owners. We feel that this rezone will enable us to replace these existing houses and provide more homes, responding to the demographics of Edmonds, bringing in a younger population and have more affordable housing. We are not saying this is low-income housing, but compared to the mean average house that we find in Edmonds, this will be a more affordable condition than we find in the bowl or in most of Edmonds, for that matter. The rezone would allow the applicant to bring in approximately 20 to 25 new town homes for the community and help Edmonds to comply with the Growth Management mandates as well as Vision 20/20's goals of housing with good access to transit. Mr. Shapiro: I think the last point we want to address. Well, this now moves onto the BC-EW rezone. We go through a lot of the same questions. I will try to keep this brief, but I think these are important points to make into the record. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning district. As buildable land decreases in Edmonds, infill sites, we have discussed that tonight, mixed -use developments provide very viable solutions to meeting the needs of Edmonds. The idea that we have commercial activity on the ground floor of a building, with housing above, I think is a trend we are seeing across the nation. This site lends itself lends itself very nicely to that type of solution. The BC-EW was adapted from the BN designation, yet we are all aware of the limitations of the BN designation of one unit per site. Yet we are trying to incorporate some of the goals from the BN designation, which would meld commercial with some housing form. We feel that the BC-EW designation is compatible with the character of Edmonds Way by maintaining a neighborhood orientated design sensitivity in context with the fact that Edmonds Way is a key transportation corridor. Mr. Shapiro: The surrounding area and the relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding and nearby property. The BC-EW zone would allow for the site to embrace both the business of Edmonds Way street frontage and the neighboring residences above the project and providing a buffer between Edmonds Way and the single-family. I think, acoustically, this would be a benefit where the mixed -use building is going to be sited, that will help buffer acoustical noise from Edmonds Way to the single-family properties to the west. Also, as we discussed before, the mixed -use development is consistent with putting the commercial traffic on the ground floor and residential activity more on the upper floors, in conjunction with the single-family properties to the west. Mr. Shapiro: Changes. Whether there have been significant changes in the character of the immediate surroundings. Again, the same points made with the RM zone we feel applies to the BC zone in this case. With the Council decision to create these new zones, specifically in response to meeting the policy goals of Edmonds Way via the comp plan and it also relates to the need for housing diversity and business space creation in the subarea in manners not provided for in the previously existing zones. BC-EW addresses such issues as height, massing, setbacks, landscaping and buffering. We have setback language worked in to the zoning language that sets back the upper floors, say floors three through four have to be set back even further from the street edge than floors one through two, helping to reduce the massing of the building against the street. You might recall the photo we have of Westgate Chapel has essentially a sheer wall that is almost four stories tall. We will be stepped back from Edmonds Way, lessening the impact, and that is built into the zoning language. J Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-06-95 March 14, 2007 Page 6 Packet Page 242 of 396 Mr. Shapiro: Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable. We believe that the south end of the site, with the large lots that is there, does lend itself very nicely to a mixed -use building. Again, criticism has been raised toward the solution that we had presented in the past where we access 232"d to get into the upper parking deck of the floor. One neighbor, in particular, feels that we should bite the bullet if you will and put a ramp inside our building. We feel that we front on 232"d and the concept that we access 232"d to bring in housing and parking off of this street, which is a residential street, is not incompatible with the other housing up and down Edmonds Way, up and down 232"d. Our traffic consultant will address concerns raised about through traffic perhaps, which this project will have minimal impact upon, as well as perhaps widening the street at 232"d enabling a left-hand queuing turn to occur at 232"d onto Edmonds Way, which we feel will enhance traffic flow for the neighborhood in general. Mr. Shapiro: And the last point raised is the value and relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in the value to the property owners. We do not feel that the property owners are reaping a great gain with this change. We are helping to enhance the buildable nature of this site, yet at the same time, to have this four- story building on Edmonds Way is not incompatible with a 20,000 car a day thoroughfare. We feel that the massing step backs and the setbacks mandated in the zoning criteria would help minimize the visual impact of the building against Edmonds Way. With that, I would like to ask that Edward Koltonowski to come up and discuss some of the traffic impacts and his traffic study that we submitted also with this rezone application. Mr. Koltonowski: My name is Edward Koltonowski with Gibson Traffic Consultants, 1712 Pacific Avenue, Suite 100, Everett, Washington. I have been doing traffic engineering for over 15 years, Gibson Traffic Consultants being in Snohomish County for over 20 years. I have an undergraduate in Transportation Plan and a Masters from the University of Washington in Civil Engineering Transportation. I would actually state I have probably attended more open houses and meetings on this project than I have in my whole 15 years of experience. There's certainly been a very open discussion and you know, positive and negative in both ways, and much of it was centered around traffic, which is great because that's what I love doing. I would much rather listen to traffic and discuss traffic than other issues. Mr. Koltonowski: We have studied this project and its impacts. The way we looked at this because we know that this is kind of a rezone, but what we asked Tony to do is to let's look as project specific as possible. What's the most intense use you would realistically have on this facility so that we can look at what the most intense traffic impacts could be. We followed the standard guidelines by the City, which are nationally recognized for trip generation as to how many trips, how many vehicles per hours, how many vehicles per day would come from these types of units houses, these types of commercial that could be there and actually allocated those specifically to, in this case, 232nd for the apartment units and SR- 104 specifically for the condominium and the retail. So we could realistically look at a most representative impact. You've actually got a copy of the traffic study in front of you that's being reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer, as well. He primarily concurs with our results. There is one issue that I will address afterwards. Mr. Koltonowski: But where I would go first is that the traffic study looked at the level of service at the intersection. It looked specifically at the impacts of this development to determine the impacts to 232"d with this access that is proposed onto 232"d was, in general terms, very minimal. There was an increase in traffic as there would be with any development, but the traffic on 232"d today is relatively low so percentage wise, it would be an 8% increase to the west of the access and a 12% increase of traffic to the east. What does that realistically mean? What we looked at to the west of the access on 232nd, what that would mean is during the worst hour of the day, the p.m. peak hour, 9 peak hour trips. That means one vehicle about every ten, sorry about every five to six minutes one vehicle on 232"d west of the apartment's access. East of the apartment's access, as the majority of traffic is destined to the east, there would be 16 to 17 additional vehicular trips. Now you are talking about one every two to three minutes on that leg of 232"d Mr. Koltonowski: Now, putting that into perspective, let's see on SR-104 presently you have got over 2,000 trips an hour or 20,000 trips during the day. So that kind of gives you a perspective as to right next to 104, what the actual impacts there, and obviously there are well below 1% of impacts on SR-104, itself. Vehicular trips of 1 every six minutes or I every two minutes during the worst hour of the day, the peak hour, is again, probably not noticeable unless you are actually waiting there and counting them if you are traveling that road yourself. You are probably not even going to notice unless someone is actually turning in front of you at the 232"d driveway. Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-06-95 March 14, 2007 Page 7 Packet Page 243 of 396 Mr. Koltonowski: We did make a recommendation, however, and said, okay, let's look at the eastbound approach at this intersection of SR-104 and 232nd Street. What's the most potential impact again, well this most intensive type of development with the worst case... We always call it the worst case and developers call it the best case, i.e. getting the most trips because they've got the most units. But in this we are calling the worst case situation of as much traffic on 232 d, what could be the impact. We looked at the delay impact is how it's determined for the eastbound approach, is the most impact that can be analyzed. If you do have the traffic study in front of you and you look at Table 4, which is immediately after the figures, the tables come after the figures. You would see on Table 4, what we determined was presently the eastbound approach is about 16 feet wide, and 16 feet is about enough at the intersection that a vehicle can squeeze by. If there's an eastbound left turn vehicle... Can I put this up? So if this is orientated from the apartment, which is shaded or cross hatched there, eastbound. So in this case, well we are showing four, all of this is west of the access, with 30% for the apartments. Mr. Koltonowski: So the project site here, in this case, our distribution shows we got of the apartment traffic only, 30% of the traffic. We've got what would be during the peak hour 3 westbound trips, 4 eastbound trips coming into the apartment with access here. For the apartment's traffic or the other traffic, is primarily heading down towards Seattle, 405, I-5, 99, we'll have like 8 trips during an hour coming back into the apartment site and four people going out, whether it be to retail or shopping or recreation, coming out in the afternoon. So that's just a general description of that. But for our level of service, as you can see on Table 7, eastbound, this approach, which is critical in front of our site, we determined there was like 16 feet. So at the moment, if someone was taking a left turn from the access here, taking a left, a courteous driver would pull over to the left hand side right next to the center strip and allow still people to make that right turn past that driveway. Now, some people aren't necessarily as courteous and some people don't necessarily recognize that they are blocking the whole intersection and such, so that happens. Mr. Koltonowski: What we determined if we can provide 20 feet of an approach, which can be restriped as 10 feet or left as 20 feet, if it's restriped as 10 feet then that clearly puts the left turn vehicle outside of here. The majority, vast majority of trips, vehicles approaching that eastbound are destined down to 99, I-5, and very few people are actually taking this left anyway because if you wanted to go up in this direction, the residents who are already in this location, they come up this way. No one whose on the road here in their right mind is doing that. So there's only a few trips on that left turn movement anyway. What that means is by providing this widening, we clearly take that left turn vehicle out of the vast majority of the traffic flow, and we actually improve the delay on the eastbound approach to remove actually the incurred delay that we expect through other developments in this area. So we actually reduce the delay. Presently, we would reduce it from 32 seconds per vehicle of average delay down to 27.8 seconds of average delay, which actually brings it back down to almost existing type of conditions, which today is 23.1 average seconds of delay in the eastbound direction. So we kind of almost, we not only mitigate our development's traffic impacts on 232nd, we actually mitigate the other growth that's occurring in this area. Because there's infill that has occurred in various little places here and also expected additional infill just as a background growth through these areas. So that's kind of a really long-winded way, just because I say I love to talk about traffic, of showing that we've mitigated our impacts on this kind of development, if we do that kind of improvement. Mr. Koltonowski: The one issue that I talked about earlier on that I have with the discussion in here, and I don't know if this is project specific or what Mr. Sims, because I only saw his comments today. We made a recommendation based on the analysis in the traffic report, that if you want to go down to the details and I do like details... If you look at the 8th page back from the traffic report, you will see, and I do apologize. Typically, we number these pages, and I let that slip through the system. But on the 8th page back, it should be headed at the very top there, you will see where it ends up synchro future width plus channelization synchro 7. How we spell stuff stills baffles me, but this is how we ... What we are talking about here is future W plus Chan. Syn. 7, which is a future with channelization improvements at 232nd Street southwest of the ... Mr. Koltonowski: What we had recommended, because of the amount, so this is actually year 2013, looking out into the future, with all the project trips added, with the future pipeline as in growth rates added, and this is the report from the computer, black box and all that system, we used to have to do by hand, and now luckily it does it about 50 times faster. Where it also reports, and this is where we get our delay calculations down here for the eastbound approach, so we've got the eastbound, EB, left turn, eastbound through. Basically, this is the eastbound, so you see here eastbound approach. Our calculation, and this is where the delay comes from the eastbound level of service D approach is 27.8. Here what's called queue length. This is what's called the 95% queue length. That means that 95% of the time or 95tb percentile of the queue Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-06-95 March 14, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page 244 of 396 will be less than this number of feet, so it's 26, which basically you represent 20 feet in the car, and therefore, that's just over one car's length. We recommend, therefore, that there be about 50 feet of channelization. Chair Guenther: All right, we appreciate your excitement of this, but the hour is getting later, and we would like to... If you could summarize and finish up quickly please. Mr. Koltonowski: I will. So you have got 26 feet, we recommended 50. At the moment the comment that came back indicated 75 feet of channelization. That is something that, based on your report, there is no evidence or whatever for 75 feet. The analysis and everything that it shows is a maximum of 50. So again, my question was right at the beginning is if this condition that is being put on this, it should be based on fact, and the facts are, at the moment, the most intense development that would be there with this access would not require more than 50 feet of channelization at that approach. That actually concludes, so you caught me just before I was about to finish anyway. But I appreciate me taking you right to the limits, so thank you. If you have any questions, I would be delighted to answer them. Chair Guenther: I don't see anybody having any. Ms. Noyes: Could you spell your last name for me? Mr. Koltonowski: Oh, K O L T O N O W S K I. Ms. Noyes: Thank you. Chair Guenther: At this point, we open this hearing up for public testimony if there's any members of the public that would wish to approach the podium, make any comments or testimony for or against this application. Please come forward. Board Member Young: Questions or anything? Mr. Abbott: My name is Jim Abbot. I reside at 16218 — 6th Avenue Northwest in Shoreline. I am one of the owners of the property, so I am not sure whether you consider me a member of the public or not. I just wanted to make a couple of quick comments. I know the hour is late, but I don't know whether you feel that's appropriate or not at this time. So I thought I would ask first. Chair Guenther: We are not going to stop you from talking, but it's probably more of an applicant than a member of the public. Mr. Abbot: Well, I'm just here to answer any questions. As I said, I am a resident of Shoreline, but I've owned commercial property in Edmonds since 1986, and I am one of the owners of the property. So if there's any questions about anything you've heard... I would like to reiterate that we've had eight neighborhood meetings. The issues were traffic on 232aa, which you've heard plenty of now and the mass and size. But I really think this zone, the EW zone, particularly on the corner, that this property has about a 26-foot grade change between our immediate neighbor and Edmonds Way, and so that's why we felt this is very appropriate for this particular piece of property. Thank you. Chair Guenther: I will close the public testimony. Does the applicant have any rebuttal? Any other further comments? No he doesn't. Does staff have any comments? Mr. Chave: No. I mean there's only one minor correction. The Edmonds Way Corridor was actually established back in the mid 90's. What the applicants did in, I think 2001 and 2002 sounds about right, the corridor designation was extended through these properties. The original corridor was further east towards 99, but the most recent amendments really extended the corridor all the way up to Westgate Center, so that was the most recent change. But otherwise, nothing further. Chair Guenther: Board comments? Board Member Young: How about questions? Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-06-95 March 14, 2007 Page 9 Packet Page 245 of 396 Chair Guenther: Or questions, yes. Board Member Young: Okay, I have two for the staff and then one for the applicant's representative. When was this area annexed into Edmonds, Rob, approximately. Mr. Chave: I couldn't even tell you approximately. Board Member Young: Okay, but it's been relatively, I mean 10 years, or was all of the big annexation west of there? Mr. Chave: Let me see if I can tell. Board Member Young: I am just trying to get a sense for how long some of the infrastructure around there has been only up to County standards as opposed to City standards. Mr. Chave: You know, I would have to actually go back and look at a map to find that. Board Member Young: It's been a while? Mr. Chave: Yeah, I mean, the areas closer to Westgate have been in for obviously a very long time. Some of the areas further east though, came in in the mid 90's. Quite honestly, where the exact boundary is, I don't recall. Board Member Young: But it hasn't really been brought up to City code if you will, from what I can tell from the maps and having driven through there. Mr. Chave: Yeah, I think these properties have actually been in the City earlier than the mid 90's. I'll defer to the applicant on that, but I think this particular area has been in for a long time, probably back to the 80's. Nonetheless, whenever it was annexed, you can bet it was largely developed at that point. That's why when you look at the land use pattern in the area, there are quite a substantial number of duplexes and so forth that were built in the County. So the development pattern was largely established quite some time ago. Board Member Young: And then the other one is, we received some correspondence here, and part of it was from Gary Gibson where it says these new zones were created without the benefit of Comprehensive Plan review. How does that... I don't get what that means. I thought the comp plan was the Edmonds Corridor designation and the issue was what zones fit under that corridor designation and what the specifications were, what we were considering at the last time and what the city Council did, was what the specifications were for those zones underneath the Edmonds Way Corridor Comprehensive Plan area. Mr. Chave: No, you are correct. The zones that were established were intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan, so Comprehensive Plan review was absolutely critical to establishing the zones. Board Member Young: Okay, I was sure it was, but I didn't want to have this letter go onto the record without having that sort of counterpoint onto the record, as well. Now, my question for the applicant's representative. Chair Guenther: Mr. Shapiro. Mr. Chave: If you are going to technical... Just a technical point, you are going to have to open the ... Chair Guenther: I haven't closed it yet. Board Member Young: This is deliberation. I think we can go back and ask the applicant or the applicant's representative something if we want to. This is just a point of clarification on something. Chair Guenther: I didn't close the hearing yet. Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-06-95 March 14, 2007 Page 10 Packet Page 246 of 396 Board Member Young: This isn't really public testimony anyway. How do you like that Tony, you are part of the public You are an applicant's representative. Take that. Board Member Young: This same letter indicates that the applicant, for all intents and purposes, that would be you, conceived that due to the loss of rentable space that would result from the parking requirements. This project, if this rezone cannot, will not, your choice, support the types of businesses that would occupy the mixed -use building in the, now let me see here, in the commercial zone... What's going to go in the ground floor of these buildings? Let's just stick to the case here. Mr. Shapiro: Well, you know, it's very difficult to... It's a speculative building, and unless you are an owner -occupied building, all buildings generally are speculative. The idea that somehow we can stipulate, at this juncture of the design and development process, what tenant is going to occupy the space is practically impossible. I mean, it's almost like if you build it they will come. That is very true for retail space. This is not specifically retail space, but most buildings, once they get under construction or developed, then kind of arrive. The idea that somehow the tenants that we have there could not serve or would not be there to serve the neighbors, I think is a misunderstanding of the situation. Board Member Young: Again, that's for like your benefit or the benefit of the record here, too. Because, you know ... Mr. Shapiro: The idea that a veterinary hospital or an architects office or an insurance company or even a stockbroker or financial planner does not serve the immediate neighborhood where a coffee stand or a small food store does, I think is a difference in point of view that most of the public might not embrace. Board Member Young: Okay, I just wanted to know whether you were just saying that ... I mean I wanted clarity on there that there's going to be some commercial space, and it might be an architect's office and it might be a coffee shop, but you don't know at this point. Mr. Shapiro: Well, that's right. I think with the coffee shop, the density of parking ... Board Member Young: Well, professional office versus retail, I guess is what I'm getting at. Mr. Shapiro: Right, I mean, we probably cannot support many types of retail, but at the same time, we aren't saying that retail cannot go in there, either. Board Member Young: Okay. I just wanted that... Sometimes this stuff comes out in the record sort of funny. Okay, those are the only questions I had. Board Member Reed: I have a couple of things, Tony. Maybe one is for Rob. There is not a first floor ceiling height requirement in these new zones in the BC-EW, is there. Mr. Chave: No. Chair Guenther: I don't think we have a ceiling height requirement anywhere in our code. I think what we have had in the past, is we have talked about a ceiling plate, which is supposed to refer to a floor -to -floor height. I don't think we specified anywhere in our building code or our zoning codes what the height of the ceiling should be. Mr. Chave: We have a ground floor requirement in the BD zones, but those don't apply here. Board Member Reed: Is there anything like that in the BN zone, either, as long as I asked the question? Okay. Mr. Shapiro: Let me just mention that with the current concept that we are trying to develop, we have a 14 foot floor -to - floor between the commercial space on Edmonds Way and the parking level above. Board Member Reed: My real question, though, has to do with site access and traffic. I went up there a couple of days ago. I am one of the unknowledgeable people who drove back down 232°a and wanted to turn left. It's a very scary turn when you Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-06-95 March 14, 2007 Page 11 Packet Page 247 of 396 are coming down the hill. Then somebody came up behind me and I didn't realize I wasn't over far enough because I really couldn't tell where the stripe was supposed to be. But that's a side story. The Edmonds Way BC setback requirement off of Edmonds Way is now setback in the new zoning. Is that right? Mr. Shapiro: Specifically, I can't remember. I know with the upper stories, it is set back. To go to the third and fourth story, you are set back in addition. I believe ... I thought the original setback was four feet, and then the setbacks for the third and fourth floor was an additional six feet. Board Member Reed: Well, in the table it says minimum street setback, none, with no footnotes. My only observation was that when you come down to Edmonds Way off 232nd, if the commercial space is right on the street, essentially, with a small sidewalk, it's a fairly straight run, but it's still a little bit hard to see that when you are also trying to look to the right to see whose coming. So I don't know what your plans include, and I know we are not really supposed to get into the site, but that was an observation that I had that I wanted to share because I could see it being an issue for people who did want to come into town until they learn to go back through. Mr. Shapiro: Well, I have been instructed to respond to questions like this is that we will supply the necessary data to the engineering staff to verify site line distances when we submit for the design review and the working drawings. But I will also say that we are intended to have the ground floor setback 10 feet right now against Edmonds Way. So we would have actually a wide sidewalk there, a pedestrian path, and then our building starts from that point. We may have a colonnade that may step into that 10 feet by 2 feet, yet by and large our glass line is intended to be 10 feet back from the property line facing Edmonds Way. Mr. Chave: The BC-EW zone is a little peculiar because the setback discussion is actually in a footnote that refers to height. In order to ... Basically is says that there's street setback of four feet minimum, and then once you get up to the third and fourth floors, they have to be stepped back an additional six feet. Board Member Reed: Right. And the last question is, the access onto 232nd, is that going to be 20 units, you said that would have that access in and out of the condominiums. Mr. Shapiro: That's right. Those are apartments. We have, I think about 40 stalls, 45 or 46 stalls on that level, and it would be housing that would utilizing those stalls. We have 40 units above and two stalls per unit, something like that, but we also have 40 stalls on the ground floor on Edmonds Way, as well. Board Member Reed: Does it come out on the down slope? Mr. Shapiro: Well, you would have to turn left and go down the hill on 232nd. No, we are practically flush. By going up 14 feet, we have to, I think, ramp up a little bit to get out onto 232°d. We set almost where we're flush. Actually, mid point of the driveway is actually about flush with the existing grade on 232°d at this juncture. So we will make sure that our site line distances and transition ramps provide the necessary site lines by the City. Board Member Reed: So that people coming down east will see that a car is coming out? Mr. Shapiro: That's correct. Board Member Reed: All right. That's all. Chair Guenther: Any other questions or comments? Board Member Freeman: I have one comment. I just wanted to thank you for including this LIDAR topography map in your package. I find that this factual material like this is very, very helpful. Not trying to make something look beautiful or anything like that, it's just the facts put in front of us, and I found it helpful. Thank you. Chair Guenther: At this time, I would close the hearing. I guess we deliberate and discuss how to move this forward now. Does anybody want to make a motion? Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-06-95 March 14, 2007 Page 12 Packet Page 248 of 396 Board Member Henderson: I move that we submit to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of File Number R-06-95. The reason I feel that way is because the staff comments and the applicant's comments well support the relevant code for the zoning change. Board Member Freeman: I'll second that for discussion purposes. Chair Guenther: All right. Well, let's have discussion. Board Member Freeman: Okay. First of all, I think we should, after our little talk earlier this evening, we should go through and make sure that we get our findings of fact really lined up and that we go through each item there and discuss that. That's my suggestion. Chair Guenther: You would like me to lead that discussion? Board Member Freeman: Yes please. Chair Guenther: All right, so where's my list. All right, so the first finding of fact is the Comprehensive Plan, whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. I think that was demonstrated well. All the back up material, you know, supported that fact. Chair Guenther: The zoning ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. We have the RM-EW and the BC-EW, we have the zones, and now we are applying them to this area. I believe that we are consistent. Chair Guenther: The surrounding area. The relationship of the proposed zoning to the existing land uses and zoning of the surrounding or nearby property. It's been demonstrated, we had the topographic map that shows the change in the grades. The relationship of the proposed zone would allow buildings, I guess, to be compatible to the surroundings areas. The other uses on SR-104 would be consistent with the nearby buildings. You guys can jump in any time. Chair Guenther: Changes. Whether there's been sufficient change in character of the immediate or surrounding area or in City policy to justify the rezone. I think it was shown that we have got, you know, we are going to have to accommodate future growth in the City to accommodate the million people that will be coming into the Puget Sound area in the next 20 years. This will allow for housing to accommodate this population increase. Other changes, am I doing okay. Board Member Freeman: Yeah, you are doing fine. Chair Guenther: I wish I had written down the summary for all this. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning. I need some words for that. Board Member Young: It's certainly thorough enough. What happened to our six points, though. Board Member Freeman: I had them here. Chair Guenther: I'm reading them, but I'm Board Member Young: Oh yeah, there you go. It complies with the six points of the Edmonds Community Development Code 20.40 as presented in the staff report and the applicant's presentation. Chair Guenther: And the last point, the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. I think that, as it was pointed out, this site is currently occupied by Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-06-95 March 14, 2007 Page 13 Packet Page 249 of 396 substandard housing, and this new development would definitely be an increase in the value to the public, both in economic, you know an improvement to the neighborhood. I think there's value in that. Chair Guenther: With those six points identified and discussed... So was your motion seconded? Board Member Freeman: It was Don's motion, and I seconded it. Chair Guenther: And I expanded upon that. Board Member Freeman: Should we not all say why we are voting for or against it? Wasn't that one of the requirements, too, Rob? That we ... Board Member Henderson: That's why I put in that I felt the staff report and the applicant's report explained the six points with facts. I'm convinced they've done a good job of that. That's why I am proposing approval. Board Member Freeman: I seconded it really for discussion, but I also agree with the staff s recommendation and that the applicant has demonstrated that it meets these six points. Therefore, I will vote in favor of the motion. Board Member Reed: I have one question. On Page 7 of the Staff Report, Item E under the technical committee, there's a recommendation that a traffic mitigation of $32,000 and change in paid as a part of this approval. Then there's also Comment 1 from Mr. Sims, I think it is Don Sims, which I know we've got two supplemental emails, too, and it's been discussed further about whether 75 feet is or is not necessary. I'm not sure where we are on that. Mr. Chave: Both the mitigation fee and all the conditions they are talking about, mitigation and so forth, all that is really not pertinent to the rezone. It's worth noting in that it gives you some feeling about how traffic impacts could be addressed, but ultimately, all that gets decided at the actual project approval stage. So it's something that, you know, you can take note of just simply because it does illustrate how traffic impacts can be handled, but all that is really fairly project specific. The exact amount of mitigation that's paid, if and how traffic lanes get configured, all that actually gets reviewed at the Architectural Design Board and the subsequent SEPA stage. So it's not something you need to condition the rezone on. Chair Guenther: I says in that paragraph it will be applied to any future project, so this is not ... Mr. Chave: The zoning sets up the potential for doing a project, but you really don't know exactly what the project specifics are at this stage in the game. Board Member Reed: Will you say what you just pointed out, I'm sorry. Board Member Freeman: Can we just clarify something. We are only approving the rezone. I mean, Mr. Shapiro could change his mind. He could sell the property or anything, so that's why we ... Mr. Chave: That's correct. Board Member Freeman: So we shouldn't really be discussing that? Mr. Chave: I mean, the information was submitted, and I think it's useful to illustrate what level of traffic impacts could occur and how they could be handled, but it's not something that really specifically informs what you do on the rezone. Board Member Reed: So then, what Mr. Sims is commenting here is not a part of what we are forwarding to Council. Mr. Chave: No, it's illustrative. Well, it gets forwarded as part of the record. It's illustrated. But again, it's not something that's going to ultimately get decided until they are actually reviewing a specific project, which they are not doing right yet. Board Member Reed: Okay. He put a very specific number in there, down to the penny, that's why I guess I was ... Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-06-95 March 14, 2007 Page 14 Packet Page 250 of 396 Mr. Chave: You know, Don was basically reviewing what he received. He received a pretty detailed report, so I think he was responding in kind. Board Member Reed: Okay. Chair Guenther: Can we take a vote now? All in favor say aye. Board Member Freeman: Aye. Board Member Henderson: Aye. Board Member Bowman: Aye. Board Member Reed: Aye. Chair Guenther: Aye. Chair Guenther: All opposed. Board Member Young: No. Anybody want to know why. Board Member Freeman: I think you should put it on the record. Chair Guenther: Yes, please say why you voted no. Board Member Young: Actually, I sort of like it, but I'm still not convinced of two things. One, it really isn't a spot zoning situation. It's one thing to say it applies throughout the entire corridor. It's a whole other question as to whether you can actually apply it or not. It's similar to the question about the MPOR zone and comp plan designation on Sunset Avenue that couldn't go anywhere else, but it wasn't spot zoning because it wasn't just restricted to there. So it was defacto, if not dejurious spot zoning. Board Member Young: The other issue that came up tonight in the discussion with the CIP and the 80`h Avenue West. The City really doesn't have a mechanism in place that anybody at least can understand that's going to fund the improvements to take care of the impacts that are going to result from this change in the neighborhood. If I had answers to both of those, I think I would probably have to go for it because I think it's basically a good proposal. But I don't, you know, with out those two issues being addressed, I would have problems thinking it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan requirements about maintaining the neighborhood, etc. But I will just leave it at that. It's not a strong no; it's just kind of something, because we need to keep those issues in front of the Council. I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS. Karin Noyes, Transcriber Date Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-06-95 March 14, 2007 Page 15 Packet Page 251 of 396 Item #6b . CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: EDMON S PLANNING BOARD From: 1 RobeA Chave, AICP PIanning Manager Date: Planning Board Meeting of March 14, 2007 File: R-2006-95 Application by A.D. Shapiro Architects 1 SGA Corporation for a rezone of the subject property from the current "Multiple Residential --- RM-1.5" to "Multiple Residential — RM-EW" and from "Community Business — BC" to "Community Business — Edmonds Way." Hearing Date, Time, and Place: March 14, 2007, at 7:00 PM, Edmonds City Council Chambers Public Safety Complex 250 - 5`h Avenue North TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................2 A. APPLICATION INFORMATION...................................................................................................................2 B. RECOMMENDATION ON THE PROPOSAL...................................................................................................2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................3 A. SITE DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................................3 B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SDPA).............................................. :.......................................... 4 C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE...................................................4 D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN...........................................................................................................................6 E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE.........................................................................................................................7 F. PUBLIC COMMENTS................................................................................................................................8 III. ATTACHMENTS..........................................................................................................................................8 IV. PARTIES OF RECORD...............................................................................................................................8 City of Edmonds cz�a Planning Board Packet Page 252 of 396 I. INTRODUCTION A. APPLICATION B. 1. Applicant: A.D. Shapiro Architects / SGA Corporation. 2. Site Location: (Refer to Attachment 1) RM-1.5 to RM-EW.- 23012, 23014, 23028, 23100 Edmonds Way. . BC to BC -Edmonds Way: 23110 Edmonds Way, 9133 232"d ST SW, and the vacant lot at the Northwest corner of 232"d Street SW and Edmonds Way (Assessor's parcels 27043100207600 and 00555300101100). 3. Request: Application for a rezone from "Multiple Residential — RM-1.5" to "Multiple Residential — RM-EW" and from "Community Business — BC" to "Community Business — Edmonds Way" (see Attachments 1 and 2). 4. Review Process: a. Rezone - Planning Board conducts a public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council for final decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40 (REZONES). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.100.010 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). RECOMMENDATION Based on Statements of Fact, Analysis, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to APPROVE both the request for a rezone from "Multiple Residential --- RM-1.5" to "Multiple Residential — RM-EW" and from "Community Business -- BC" to ."Community Business — Edmonds Way. " R-2006-95. doc Packet Page 253 of 396 2 IL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development and Zoning: 0 a. Facts: (1) Size and Shape: The area under review stairsteps along Edmonds Way and is approximately 1.95 acres in size, with 1.14 acres (49,658 square feet) proposed to be rezoned to "Multiple Residential — EW" and 0.81 acres (35,284 square feet) to be rezoned to "Community Business — BC -Edmonds Way" (see Attachments 1 and 2). The site has approximately 670 feet of frontage on Edmonds Way (State Route 104) and more than 150 feet of frontage along 232nd Street SW. (2) Land Use: 23012, 23014, 23028, 23100 and 23110 Edmonds Way — Single Family Residences Parcel in the Northwest corner of Edmonds Way and 232nd Street SW — Vacant lot (3) Zonina: Current zoning of the subject properties is a mixture of RM-1.5 and BC, as shown on the vicinity map (see Attachment I). Neighboring Development and Zoning: a. Facts: (1) Northwest: To the northwest of this site is the Woodway Estates Apartments and a mix of other multiple and single-family residential uses that are zoned "Multiple Residential RM-1.5" (see Attachment 1). (2) Northeast and East: To the north, across Edmonds Way, are some duplexes adjacent to Westgate Chapel, both of which are zoned "Multiple Residential — RM-1.5" (see Attachment 1). South of these developments, and directly across Edmonds Way, are the Northwood Apartments and the Ridge Acres Trailer Park, both of which are in Unincorporated Snohomish County. (3) South and west: An area zoned "Single -Family Residential RS-8 " (see Attachment I). The primary uses are single-family residences, with a few duplexes previously permitted in the County. R-2006-95.doc Packet Page 254 of 396 3 B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICYACT (SEPA) 1. a. Fact: A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on August 30, 2006, for the code amendments establishing the RM-EW and BC - Edmonds Way zones in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) as well as the proposed rezones being considered. No appeals were received. Although this satisfies the SEPA requirements for the proposed rezones, a project -specific SEPA determination will be required once a specific project is proposed. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. ECDC Section 20.40 (Rezones) a. Facts: (i) The current RM and BC zoning classifications are detailed in Attachment 3. This includes the existing RM-1.5 and BC zones, as well as the proposed RM-EW and BC -Edmonds Way zones. (ii) Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.40.010 provides that, at a minimum, the following factors shall be considered in reviewing an application for a rezone: (1) Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and, (2) Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district; and, (3) Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property; and, (4) Changes Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone: and, (5) Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning; and (6) Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. (iii) The applicant has submitted declarations describing how they feel their proposal meets the rezone criteria (see Attachment 2). (iv) The purposes of the Multiple Residential zones are given in ECDC 16.30.000, and include allowing for a variety of housing types and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment. Also, R-2006-95.doc Packet Page 255 of 396 4 to provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. (v) The RM EW zone allows a number of uses, including multiple dwellings, single-family dwellings, retirement homes, group homes for the disabled, churches, primary schools, local public facilities that are part of the capital improvement plan, and neighborhood parks. Uses that are allowed with a conditional use permit include offices, day-care centers, convalescent homes, and others. (vi) The standard height limit for an RM zone is 25 feet plus 5 feet for a 4- in-12 pitched roof. The proposed RM-EW zone allows buildings to exceed the standard 30 foot RM height limit under certain circumstances, mainly related to the presence of a 5-foot-or-greater grade change to adjacent residentially zoned properties. Other conditions related to the 35 foot height limit are described in 16.30.030.A (see Attachment 3). (vii) The RS-8 zone allows primarily residential, and has a height limit of 25 feet. Setbacks for the RS-8 zone are 25 feet to the street property line, 7.5 feet to the side property lines, and 15 feet to the rear property line. (viii)Setbacks for the RM-I.5 zone are 15 feet to the street property line, 10 feet to the side property line, and 15 feet to the rear property line. For single-family homes on lots of 10, 000 square feet or less, setbacks from the RS-6 zone may be used, which are 20 feet to the street property line, 5 fee to the side property line, and 15 feet to the rear property line. None, except if the side or rear property line is adjacent to residential, the The RM-EW zone also requires landscaping and retention of trees beyond that normally required under the existing RM-1.5 zone (see 16.30.030.D in Attachment 3). (ix) The subject properties were added to the Edmonds Way Corridor and rezoned to RM-1.5 and BC in 2005. Several other changes in zoning have occurred along Edmonds Way and in the vicinity since 2001, including an expansion of the Edmonds Way Corridor plan designation to the west along with additions to multifamily zoning near the PUD substation and 95`h PL W. Further west, several new projects were constructed in the Westgate Corridor, including an Alzheimer care facility and an assisted living facility and a redevelopment centered on the southwest corner of the WestgatelVh Avenue intersection. Westgate Chapel has also undergone expansion in recent years. b. Analysis: (i) The rezone request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation, which shows the properties lying within the Edmonds Way Corridor. (ii) The purposes of the Multiple Residential zones are similar to the Single - Family Residential zone, except that a wider variety of residential types and more density is allowed in the Multiple Residential zone. Therefore, the proposal appears to fit the purposes of the Multiple Residential zone and the zoning ordinance. R-2006-95.doc Packet Page 256 of 396 5 (iii)The proposed zone is similar to the RM-1.5 zoning and existing uses to the north and east of the subject parcels. The proposed zone is more intense than the properties to the south, though a number of the single- family -zoned homes actually have duplexes. There is also a bank that helps to separate the uses adjacent to Edmonds Way from the single- family residences at the top of the bank, and this situation is anticipated and addressed in the proposed RM-EW zone. Across Edmonds Way, one parcel is already zoned Multiple Residential though three single-family residences exist on that site. (iv) Multi family projects have been constructed primarily in the downtown bowl, but some projects have been constructed along Edmonds Way. It appears that there continues to be a demand for conveniently located multi -residential units. (v) The site appears to be suitable for the proposed zoning. One duplex currently exists in the subject parcel, while several of the lots are currently vacant. The site is fairly indistinguishable from the adjacent Multiple Residential zoning along Edmonds Way, and appears to be suitable for that use. The applicants point out that the traffic on Edmonds Way and the PUD substation discourage 8, 000 square foot single-family residential use, since people looking for lots of that size generally are looking for quieter neighborhoods. (vi) The value to the property owners is expected to rise. The relative gain to the general Edmonds community stems from intensifying areas designated for multiple family housing that are well -situated and served by arterials and other public services, including transit. This also assists the city in meeting its Growth Management Act goals. One potential concern is traffic safety, which will be addressed by the Washington State Department of Transportation and the City during review of any subsequent project proposal. c. Conclusions: (i) Based on the above findings and analysis, planning staff supports the proposed rezone to RM EW D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. Comprehensive Plan Policies: a. Facts: (i) This site is currently designated "Edmonds Way Corridor". Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor are attached, along with the goals for residential development (see Attachment 4). h. Analysis: (i) The Edmonds Way Corridor is intended to provide for multiple residential and small-scale commercial uses, served the high -capacity SR-104 corridor. The intent is to provide developments that control access and minimize turning movements that would otherwise disrupt traffic. R-2006-95. doc Packet Page 257 of 396 6 (ii) The policies for multifamily development encourage their location near arterial or collector streets. In addition, these policies encourage multi family uses to take advantage of topography and natural features to afford a transition to adjoining single family zones. (iii) The subject site meets the locational criteria for both the Edmonds Way Corridor and the uses anticipated in the proposed RM-EW and BC-EW zones. (iv) Because of the change in topography from the site to neighboring properties, multifamily residential and limited commercial uses should be able to meet many of the compatibility policies. c. Conclusions: (i) The Comprehensive Plan Policies noted above encourage the siting of that multi family residential or commercial uses along arterials rather than single-family uses, so long as traffic impacts and transitions can be addressed. E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE The application was reviewed by the Engineering Division, Fire Department, Public Works Department and the Parks and Recreation Department. The only comments received were from the Engineering Division which originally commented that "The applicant will be required to meet all future requirements including review by WSDOT for access onto SR-104. " The city's Traffic Engineer also concluded that SR-104 has the capacity to incur additional growth. Access is a more sensitive issue, and may be limited to right -turn movements only. Note that the subject site for this proposed change does not have the ability to take advantage of side streets for access. Development along SR 104 will be required to demonstrate that safe access can be achieved onto the transportation infrastructure, consistent with city and state standards. Subsequent to this review, a traffic study was submitted by the applicants (see Attachment 5) and was reviewed by Don Sims, the City Traffic Engineer; Mr. Sims' comments are below. Although the traffic study appears to be for a specific project and is not directly relevant to the current non project application for a change in zoning, it does demonstrate the types of analysis that will be applied to any future project that would be applied for in the future. I reviewed the updated traffic analysis for the subject project (dated January 5, 2007) and I concur with the findings and recommendations in the report. Namely, there are two mitigation measures proposed: 1) Pay the City a traffic mitigation fee of $32,210.56. 2) Widen the eastbound approach lane of 232nd @ Edmonds Way (SR104) to accommodate an additional turn lane. The proposed (and recommended) channelization would be a shared left/through lane and a separate right turn lane. This additional lane should be a minimum of 75' in length (in order to stare of minimum of 3 vehicles queuing). The channelization (striping plan) still needs to be submitted to engineering and approved by the city. The channelization plan should show such things vehicle storage length R-2006-95.doc Packet Page.258 of 396 (turn pocket lengths), lane widths, taper rates, right turn curb radii, pavement markings, etc. This mitigation will improve the delay for that leg from a future no build (LOS D, 29.8 seconds) to project added trips future build (LOS D, 27.8 seconds). Please let me know if you have any questions. Also, they submitted a site plan and parking lot plan in conjunction with the traffic study (for informational purposes only). Please remind them that only the traffic study has been approved and that those site plans (along with an intersection channelization plan) will need to go through the city's normal plan review process. Don Sims, City Traffic Engineer F. PUBLIC COMMENTS A letter has been received from Gary Gibson and is included as Attachment 7. IIL ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map. 2. Supporting materials from the Applicant. 3. ECDC zoning regulations for RMand BC zones (includes RM-EW and BC-EW). 4. Comprehensive plan map and applicable comprehensive plan policies. 5. Gibson traffic report. 6. Public comment letter. V. PARTIES OF RECORD Edmonds Planning Division Gary Gibson Edmonds Engineering Division 9302 — 231"' Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 R-2006-95.doc Packet Page 259 of 396 8 City of Edmonds Vicinity Map ---� N Propertics proposed for rezone Packet Page 260 of 396 fae, 1tb9� File # R-2006-95 s �, + 1. �. 624 Edmonds Way, March 7, 2007 Rob Chave Manager, Planning Division City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Request to rezone properties at the 2321 Street Mixed Use Site to RM EW and BGEW Zone designation (see chart below) Project: 232' Street Mixed Use Dear Rob, We have adjusted our application submission materials for the rezone of the properties at the 232' Street Mixed Use Site to reflect the new zones recently created. Enclosed within are the documents, dated August 29, 2006, describing our requests for the rezone of the properties on this site to the RM EW and BGEW zones, as summarized below. Please let us jwwwif any additional materials are required. ParcelAddress Parcel Tax No. Proposed Rezone Designation 1. 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA 98026 27033600106100 RM EW 2. 23014 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA 98026 27033600106000 RM EW 3. 1 23028 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA 98026 27033600106200 RM EW 4. 23100 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA 98026 27033600106300 RM EW 5. 23110 Edmonds Way, Edmonds 98026 27033600105200 BGEW 6. 9133 232ad St. SW Edmonds, 98026 00555300101100 BGEW 7. Unknown Address 27043100207600 BGEW ATTACHMENT 2. Packet Page 263 of 396 LO J d 2 F- v rn t w v rn a w 227TH ST SW o Q z N 0) 231 ST ST SW Single Family -Urban 1 a 'F rn 234TH ST SW w ui > > o a ¢ z N 2 0 ST SW rn rn 229TH ST SW > -T 231 ST PL SW \O� 232ND PL SW C ,y3 > ¢ ~ 1 rn OD City of Edmonds Vicinity Map N Properties proposed for rezone 300 150 OFeet A OV ED4, File # R-2006-95 Packet Page 264 of 396 ✓per ".3 p,.- r'&T"; _ A �. v August 29, 2006 Subject: Proposed Criterion for RM-EW Rezone Project: 232nd Street Town Homes RM-EW Rezone We propose a new zoning ordinance, RM-EW Rezone, to better meet neighborhood and community goals for housing and commerce consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan of the City of Edmonds. Specifically, this ordinance would encourage the development of projects desired by the immediate neighborhood, replacing substandard structures with attractive new homes, increasing the safety and value of the neighborhoods, The RM-EW/ Edmonds Way designation is based on the existing RM- 1.5 zone, designed to better address the goals and site conditions found outside of Downtown where traffic flow, topography and development patterns support a different approach to the development of the sub -areas, such as Edmonds Way Corridor. Purposes: The RM-EW Edmonds Way purposes are based on the RM- Multiple Residential Purposes found in section 16.30.000 of the Zoning Ordinance. A. To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the singe -family residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment. B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with :multiple residential uses. Uses: The RM-EW Rezone Rezone shares the same permitted primary uses and secondary uses as outlined in section 16.30.010 of the RM Zone Ordinance. The RM-EW Rezone Rezone would have modified development standards, and comply with Design Review Criteria. Site Developing Standards: A. Table Minimum Lot Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Minimum Area per Street Setback Side Setback Rear Height Coverage Parking Spaces dwelling unit Setback . Per Unit RM-EW None 15' 10, 15' 35' 45% 2* Rezone * See Chapter 17.50 ECDC for specific parking requirements. Parking will not be permitted in the street set back areas Packet Page 265 of 396 Page 2 August 29, 2006 RM-EW Rezone B. Environmentally sustainable, green elements would be encouraged, include features such as: ■ Rain gardens ■ Pervious paving (if the land accommodates) ■ Planting strips ■ Bio-filtration swales ■ Landscaped courtyards C. Design Elements: developments should be encouraged to include design features such as: ■ Front door facing street ■ Chimney element ■ Trim on all windows and doors • Landscaping to soften project aesthetics as well as provide environmental benefits D. Density of housing should be allowed up to the number of parking stalls provided in the complex. E. Roof Top Decks: if roof decks are incorporated, the safety requirements (railings), and portions of roof over stairways shall be permitted to exceed maximum height by the following: ■ Railings:3'6' ■ Roofs: 8'6' ■ Or as required by the code for safety NARRATIVE ADDRESSING PROPOSED AMENDMENT I. Comprehensive Plan: how the RM-EW Rezone zoning is consistent with the general intension and goals of the Comprehensive Plan for many specific sub- areas. The following excerpts are taken from the Edmonds Way Corridor section of the Comprehensive Plan. ■ Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor. "This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate S. Established residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. " Housing is among the primary goals, needs and uses along Edmonds Way. Demand for housing in this corridor is demonstrated by the high occupancy of condominiums and other residential properties in the area. The Edmonds Way Corridor is well suited to high density housing with convenient access to major arterials and local businesses. Adopting the RM-EW Rezone zoning criteria would provide development standards on this site to facilitate more condominium, town home and multiple -family housing to Packet Page 266 of 396 Page 3 August 29, 2006 RM-EW Rezone better meet the changing housing needs, meeting both Comprehensive Planning goals as well as neighborhood goals and concurrently meeting growth management act obligations. As outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2020 contains several Regional Goals and Concepts that connect to the proposed RM-EW Rezone Rezone. The following excerpts are taken Comprehensive Plan language addressing Vision 2020: ■ A. "Provide a pedestrian -oriented streetscape environment for residential and commercial activity." ■ B. "Encourage mixed -use development patterns that provide a variety of commercial and residential opportunities, including both multi family and small - lot single family development." ■ D. "Encourage transit service and access. " RM-EW Rezone criteria supports the Comprehensive Plan as well as Vision 2020 goals by providing extensive multi -family housing with transit service and access. The goals for sub- areas outside of Downtown are better met through the RM-EW Rezone zoning that the RM zoning. Site developing standards ensure pedestrian friendly streetscape meeting neighborhood goals for a safely walk -able Edmonds Way. II. Zoning: how the proposal is consistent with the zoning districts and general zoning. The following excerpts are taken from Section 16.30.000 of the RM-Multiple Residential section of the Zoning Ordinance. Purposes: "The .RM zone has the following specific purposes: " ■ A. "To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the sing family residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment." ■ B. "To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses." Much of the Edmonds Way Corridor is zoned RM-1.5 designation. The proposed RM-EW Rezone designation is adapted from RM-1.5 with modifications supporting development results consistent with neighborhood goals and the adopted comprehensive plan objectives. RM-EW Rezone shares the purpose of the RM-1.5 zone, to provide "a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities," and the modifications provide for increased variety and density to meet the needs of a broader range of Edmonds residents. RM-EW Rezone zone encourages environmentally friendly features and helps ensure quality design features. This new zone strongly encourages extensive sustainable, green technologies such as rain gardens and bio-filtration swales, as well as providing development standards supporting pedestrian friendly, neighborhood complimentary design, such as front doors facing the street. The proposed RM-EW Rezone Rezone is consistent with the general zoning regulations outlined in Title 17 of the Edmonds Municipal Code. RM-EW Rezone is adapted from RM-1.5 and shares the majority of the site developing standards, purposes, uses, and operating restrictions. Packet Page 267 of 396 Page 4 August 29, 2006 RM-EW Rezone III. Review Criteria and Procedure: Currently Edmonds is working on several zone and Comprehensive Plan changes. Both Five Corners and Firdale Village are undergoing strategic planning to support new development that meets the needs of those neighborhoods, including revising the Comprehensive Plan and consequently the Zoning Ordinance to meet the newly articulated goals. The following excerpt is taken from a City Planning Memorandum dated May 5, 2006: ■ "The Economic Development Department recommended that the neighborhood commercial areas be reviewed for possible improvements to the existing Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning. Several property owners from the Five Corners and Firdlde Village business districts have indicated that the regulations are extremely limiting to redevelopment, and even to the selection of tenants. Staff found that the Comp. Plan Designations and accompanying zoning regulations had not been reviewed in many years, and that they seemed to encourage more outdated strip mall" development than the new mixed -use village style" developments popular now in other communities." RM-EW Rezone seeks to meet the neighbors goals for new developments in targeted high traffic, higher density areas outside of downtown. It provides a zoning designation permitting more flexibility in to encouraging features such as sustainable green technologies and pedestrian friendly street frontages. Other areas of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are also being revised. The following is taken from the City of Edmonds Planning Division Web Site: ■ "The City of Edmonds completed updates to its Comprehensive Plan and its Critical Areas regulations during 2004... updating its projections to accommodate a new set of population forecasts to 2025. The Edmonds City Council updated single family zoning regulations to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The updates include new RS-10 and RS MP zones. " Edmonds expects a continuation of population influx over the next 20 years. To better adapt to the housing need, Edmonds is exploring ways to update the housing regulations as exemplified with the RS-10 and RS-MP updates. To attain the maximum use of residential property Edmonds while preserving the well established neighborhoods and their lower density character can be accomplished in part through adoption of the RM-EW Rezone code. This allows developments with greater density where it is a fit, minimizing the pressure on well established neighborhoods to decrease their lot sizes to accommodate growth management act mandates.. RM-EW Rezone addresses the issues and integrates standards that allow greater maximum height, ensures environmentally progressive development with quality -designed features in locations where it compliments the surrounding neighborhoods. In areas where traffic patterns, historical development trends and topography support it, the RM-EW Rezone code will be an important tool for the City and it's neighborhoods to meet a broad range of goals. Packet Page 268 of 396 August 29, 2006 Rob Chave Manager, Planning Division City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Narrative addressing request to rezone properties 5, 6, and 7 at the 232nd Street Mixed Use Site to BC-EW Zone designation (see chart below) Project: 232nd Street Mixed Use Parcel Address Parcel Tax No. Proposed Rezone Designation 5. 23110 Edmonds Way, Edmonds 026 27033600105200 BC-EW 6. 9133 232nd St. SW Edmonds, 98026 00555300101100 BC-EW 7. Unknown Address 27043100207600 BC-EW Request: This rezone request involves rezoning parcels 5, 6, and 7 at the 232nd Street Site from their current designations (Community Business (BC) to BC-EW status, and applying the BC-EW Criterion to the site. NARRATIVE ADDRESSING PROPOSED BC-EW ZONE CRITERION: 1. Comprehensive Plan: Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. All seven properties at the 232"d Street Site are classified under the Edmonds Way Corridor Comprehensive Plan Designation. The following excerpts are taken from the Commercial Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. ■ F. Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor: n This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate S. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential Packet Page 269 of 396 Page 2 August 29, 2006 BC-EW Rezone Request development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale business can be found primarily near intersections." The permitted uses in BC-EW not only correspond to the housing and small- scale business developments already in place along Edmonds Way, but are also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goals. The designs for the 232na Street Site include both town homes and mixed -use facilities, incorporating the Edmonds Way Corridor goals, and the established pattern of development surrounding the site. ■ F.2. Goals for Edmonds Way Corridor: `Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development" The proposed BC-EW Criteria specifically addresses pedestrian access by requiring a "pedestrian friendly street frontage." In order to enhance street appeal, pedestrian access, and create an engaging street frontage, BC-EW standards require elements such as "covering at sidewalk, glazing at sidewalk, minimized auto curb cuts, doors and sidewalk access, and a retail floor level with two feet of sidewalk." The proposed BC-EW Zone ties in with the Comp. Plan Regional Goals and Land Use Concepts adopted from Vision 2020. The following are taken from Comp. Plan language addressing Vision 2020. Regional Goals: ■ C. "Maintain economic opportunity while managing growth." Land Use Concepts: ■ "In contrast with the sub -regional centers, the growth in employment in an activity cluster is for services oriented to serving the local residential community (Vision 2020, pg. 24) " ■ A "Encourage mixed -use development patterns that provide a variety of commercial and residential opportunities, including both multi family and small -lot single family development." ■ E. "Strategically plan for development and re -development that achieves a balanced and coordinated approach to economic development, housing and cultural goals. " Rezoning this site to a BC-EW designation will allow mixed -use development and more flexible developing standards. This development type appeals directly to the goals and concepts outlined in Vision 2020. Developing mixed -use facilities on this Edmonds Way/232na Street Site will generate growth in employment while offering services to the immediate neighborhood. The BC- EW designation will extend housing opportunities on Edmonds Way by allowing mixed -use. Edmonds Way is "a key transportation corridor" and permitting mixed -use development will relate to the busy arterial, yet also will connect with Packet Page 270 of 396 Page 3 August 29, 2006 BC-EW Rezone Request the residential element of the district. Vision 2020 specifically calls for developments that achieve "a balanced and coordinated approach to economic development, housing, and cultural goals." The BC-EW Zone's permitted developments reflect this objective as it provides commercial space (adding to the community's economic development), and contributes to the housing base. II. Zoning Ordinance: Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. Properties 5, 6, and 7 (see page 1 chart) on the south of the site are designated Community Business (BC). The following are taken from Zoning Ordinance 16.45 BN- Neighborhood Business, and 16.50 BC- Community Business: "The BC zone has the following purposes:" ■ A. "To reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area." ■ C. "To allow far mixed -use development which includes multiple dwelling unit(sj that support business uses. " "The BNzone has the following purposes:" ■ A. "To reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area." BN Zone Uses: ■ A. 'Single-family dwellings." ■ B.3. "One dwelling unit per lot, in the story above the street floor, with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet." While the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone shares purpose A with the Community Business (BC) zone, it allows only one dwelling unit per lot prohibiting mixed -use developments. As undeveloped land in Edmonds decreases, mixed -use developments provide a solution to attaining the maximum use of the land. The BC-EW zone caters to this belief by offering more viable developing options in areas that seek to "offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area." Even though the Community Business (BC) zone permits mixed -use developments, and would support the proposed use of this site, BC primarily exists in the downtown Edmonds district and should be limited to that area. Much of the other properties along Edmonds Way (Westgate Village for example) are designated under the Neighborhood Business (BN) Zone. Yet, the Neighborhood Business (BN) designation is not conducive to our site as it prohibits mixed -use and multiple family dwelling units. Therefore the BC-EW Packet Page 271 of 396 Page 4 August 29, 2006 BC-EW Rezone Request designation modifies BN, promoting uses and standards (such as height limitations) that complement and enhance the Edmonds Way district. As BC- EW is adapted from the BN designation re -zoning the 232"' Street site will promote an element of consistency in the Edmonds Way District while distinguishing it from the downtown district zoning. The BC-EW designation coheres to the character of the Edmonds Way District; maintaining a neighborhood -oriented attitude, yet still cognizant to the fact that Edmonds Way is a key transportation corridor linking Edmonds to Highway 99 and Interstate 5. III. Surrounding Area: The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property. Rezoning the site to BC-EW will allow it to mesh better with the surrounding properties and neighborhood. ■ The properties to the SW of the site are currently zoned as RS-8 and contain single-family houses. As parcels 5, b, and 7 are currently zoned as Community Business (BC) they are intended for retail to match the busy street front, but are unable to relate to the residential qualities of the surrounding neighborhood. The BC-EW Zone will allow the site to embrace both the busyness of the Edmonds Way Street Front and the neighboring residences. ■ The site to the south of 232nd Street is zoned Neighborhood Business (BN) and contains the Woodhaven Veterinary. A site with mixed -use capabilities will bring more retail space to this activity cluster along Edmonds Way. ■ The properties to the north and NW of the site are designated as RM-1.5 and contain multiple family apartments. There are more RM-1.5 designated apartment facilities across the street of the site. The proposed design for parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 are town homes. ■ Other areas of Edmonds Way are zoned as Neighborhood Business (BN), such as Westgate Village and a few other activity clusters. While the BN zone adequately supports Westgate Village, those properties are purely commercial; whereas the 232'd Street Site is located in a more residential part of Edmonds Way where mixed -use will utilize the property best. Since BC-EW is adapted from the BN zone, rezoning the 232n' Street Site will bring a little more unity to the Edmonds Way District, yet will also cater to the distinct flavor of the 232"d Street neighborhood. ■ There are a few properties across Edmonds Way from the site, along 232"' Street. Currently these parcels are being used as a trailer park. ■ The BC-EW zone supports mixed -use developments hoping that the commercial aspect will contribute to the retail base on Edmonds Packet Page 272 of 396 Page 5 August 29, 2006 BC-EW Rezone Request Way while the housing element supplements the housing in the immediate neighborhood. A mixed -use facility on parcels 5, 6, and 7 will provide a nice transition from the busy street front of Edmonds Way, to the calmer tones of the residential neighborhood to the west of the site. IV. Changes: Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate surrounding area or in City policy to justify the rezone. Other current land -use changes Comprehensive Plan updates, and rezoning efforts in the City of Edmonds include strategic planning at both Five Corners and Firdale Village. The following excerpt is from a City Planning Board Memorandum dated May 5, 2006: "The Economic Development Department recommended that the neighborhood commercial areas be reviewed for possible improvements to the existing Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning. Several property owners from the Five Corners and Firdale Village business districts have indicated that the regulations are extremely limiting to redevelopment, and even to the selection of tenants Staff found that the Comp. Plan designations and accompanying zoning regulations had not been reviewed in many years, and that they seemed to encourage more outdated strip mall" development than the new mixed -use village style" developments popular now in other communities. " "As part of the Comprehensive Plan language update, you will also need to consider what zones would apply to these areas. It might be good to allow additional BN zones to be created, such as BN-1, BN 2, etc. Several districts might end up with the same zone potentially, depending on the goals of the neighborhood." Even though this memorandum deals specifically with the Five Corners and Firdale Planning, it reveals the current movement to revamp the Comprehensive Plan and consequently the accommodating zoning ordinance. The movement to allow "additional BN zones to be created" pertains to the belief that the districts and neighborhoods in Edmonds should embrace their own unique character. It is undesirable for all neighborhoods in Edmonds to have the "downtown Edmonds" feel. Five Corners and Firdale Village are moving in this direction; exploring ways to improve and exploit the unique flavor of their districts. Likewise the Edmonds Way District should look into revamping the Edmonds Way Corridor, and giving the district a more definite and unified atmosphere. The 232" d Street site currently contains run down single-family Packet Page 273 of 396 Page 6 August 29, 2006 BC-EW Rezone Request houses, and an undeveloped property full of yard waste and blackberries. Rezoning these properties will help clean up this corner of Edmonds Way and better establish updated, developing standards for the Edmonds Way Corridor. The proposal for BC-EW addresses issues such as height allowances, setbacks, and building design. Downtown Edmonds must emphasize height limitations, setbacks, and other strict standards, but in contrast, Edmonds Way properties are not threatened with obstructing the view, or destroying the small town charm. Edmonds Way is relieved of the extreme weight placed on developing standards in downtown Edmonds and therefore should be a district allowing more flexibility in planning and standards such as height and setbacks. Other buildings along Edmonds Way have exceeded the typical height limitations in Edmonds, such as Westgate Chapel standing at approx. 47 feet, and the Edmonds Highlands Apartments standing at approx. 40 feet. These taller buildings do not detract from the Edmonds Way Corridor with their height but add to the unique atmosphere of the Edmonds Way district. The 232nd Street project, while asking for more flexible height limitations, will not exceed the height of Westgate Chapel, nor will it in any way destroy the facade of Edmonds Way. While the immediate area surrounding 232d Street has not undergone much change in recent years, change is necessary in the Edmonds Way Corridor. Many parts of Edmonds Way contain run down houses, undeveloped land, or shabby facilities. As Edmonds Way is one of the main entrances into Edmonds, connecting to I-5 and Highway 99, renovation and change are necessary. Rezoning the 232nd Street site to BC-EW will clean up this corner of Edmonds Way and raise the bar for quality -designed developments in the Edmonds Way Corridor. BC-EW could also be applied to other properties in the Edmonds Way Corridor, giving those properties more viable land use options. Brainstorming has already begun for strategic planning in the Five Corners and Firdale areas, but Edmonds Way is in need of some attention as well. The 232' Street site however, is a step ahead of Five Corners and Firdale Village with a specific project and a developer with a specific intent. V. Suitability: Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. As parcels 5, 6, and 7 in the south section of the site are now zoned as Community Business (BC), mixed -use is permitted. The BC designation however is primarily located in downtown Edmonds and should be limited to that district. The BC-EW Zone, adapted from the BN zone, is tailored to the atmosphere and needs of Edmonds Way. The proposed BC-EW zone has Packet Page 274 of 396 Page 7 August 29, 2006 BC-EW Rezone Request standards that are suitable to Edmonds Way, such as a greater maximum height limit, pedestrian friendly street frontages, and minimized setbacks. While these developing standards would not be appropriate in another area of Edmonds such as downtown or in "the bowl," there are no threats to blocking views or destroying the "small town atmosphere" along Edmonds Way. The height increased allowed in BC-EW will maximize the use of the land and satisfy the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance's purpose of increasing density. Edmonds Way is one of the busiest arterials in Edmonds; therefore greater height limitations and higher densities will not be a negative feature, but will fit well with this fast paced transportation corridor. The allowance of mixed -use developments on the corner of 232d also provide a nice transition from the busy arterial of Edmonds Way to the quieter residential tones found in the neighborhoods to the west of the site. As parcels 1 through 4 are slated for town homes, mixed -use in parcels 5, 6, and 7 will compliment this neighboring development. The BC-EW developing standards encourage the use of environmental "green" technologies. The 232' Street project incorporates the use of rain gardens, courtyards, bio-filtration swales, pervious paving, and planting strips. As the current zoning ordinance is so outdated, there is no reference to environmentally friendly developing elements. Integrating these Green technologies into the project will help the added height mesh with its' surroundings through extensive landscaping and environmentally sensitive measures. The proposed mix of both residential and commercial use achieve the best use of this site in serving the housing needs of the community while providing retail space to the immediate neighborhood. Also the combination of retail and residential enables our clients to achieve the highest economic return for their investments. VI. Value: The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. Adopting the new BLEW Zone and Standards for the 232" a Street Project will benefit all parties concerned. Properties 1, 2, 3, and 4 currently contain single-family residences; due to the close proximity of Edmonds Way, these houses are undesirable and unsafe dwelling places. Properties 5, 6 and 7 are vacant, used as a place to dump yard waste, and an eyesore to the surrounding community. A quality -designed mixed -use project not only will clean up the appearance of this section on Edmonds Way, but will also bring retail and residential space to the vicinity. Packet Page 275 of 396 Page 8 August 29, 2006 BC-EW Rezone Request As already witnessed, placing single-family residences on this site is unsafe and un-profitable; whereas mixed -use development presents a safe solution for housing, and also corresponds well with the busy arterial conditions. From this nixed -use project on parcels 5, 6, and 7 the community gains approx. 9,000 square feet of commercial space and approx. twenty-five housing units. The increased density helps the City of Edmonds comply with the GNIA mandates, and Visions 2020's strategy with housing that has access to bus and transit lines. Green building methods and technologies will also contribute to the community. An outdoor, landscaped courtyard in the mixed -use building will provide a pleasant gathering place for residents and pedestrians. Rain gardens, bio-filtration swales, pervious paving, and planting strips along Edmonds Way all seek to enhance the project and the neighborhood. If rezoned accordingly, the entire site will contribute greatly to the community by bringing retail space and housing to one of Edmond's largest transportation corridors, while enhancing the aesthetic atmosphere of the surrounding neighborhood. Packet Page 276 of 396 Packet Page 277 of 396 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 2/1 /07 R:2/14/07gjz ORDINANCE NO.3627 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 16.30 RM- MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL AND CHAPTER 16.50 BC - COMMUNITY BUSINESS IN ORDER TO INCORPORATE CERTAIN CHANGES REGARDING ZONING REQUIREMENTS ALONG EDMONDS WAY, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, on January 9, 2007, the Edmonds City Council reviewed the an application to amend the Edmonds Community Development Code in order to adjust the zoning districts for community business and multi -family residential to better recognize and accommodate the unique nature and physical constraints of the Edmonds Way entryway to the City of Edmonds; and WHEREAS, the City Council received the recommendation of its Planning Board in this regard, following a public hearing held before the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, following its own public hearing, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to amend these chapters to accommodate additional and more flexible development requirements for the Edmonds Way corridor; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended by the repeal of Chapter 16.30 RM-Multi Ie Residential in order to incorporate provisions relating to a new zone to read as follows: { wss 651576.DOC;1 /00006.900000/) Packet Page 278 of 396 -1- ATTACHMENT 3 Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL Sections: 16.30:000 Purposes. 16.30.010 Uses. 16.30.020 Subdistricts. 16.30.030 Site development standards. 16.30.040 Site development exceptions. 16.30.000 Purposes. The RM zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for residential zones of ECDC 16.00.010 and 16.10.000: A. To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single- family residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment; B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. 16.30.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Multiple dwellings; 2. Single-family dwellings; 3. Retirement homes; 4. Group homes for the disabled, foster family homes and state licensed group homes for foster care of minors; provided, however, that halfway houses and group homes licensed for juvenile offenders are not permitted uses in a residential zone of the city; 5. Boarding houses and rooming houses; 6. Housing for low income elderly in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.25 ECDC; 7. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020; (Wss651576.DOC;1/00006.900000/) - 2 - Packet Page 279 of 396 8. Primary schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 9. Local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17,100.050; 10. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. All permitted secondary uses in the RS zone, if in conjunction with a single-family dwelling; 2. Home occupations, subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.20 ECDC; 3. The keeping of one domestic animal per dwelling unit in multiple family buildings; 4. The following accessory uses: a. Private parking, b. Private swimming pools and other private recreational facilities, c. Private greenhouses covering no more than five percent of the site in total; 5. Commuter parking lots containing less than 10 designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. Any additionally designated parking spaces that increase the total number of spaces in a commuter parking lot to 10 or more shall subject the entire commuter parking lot to a conditional use permit as specified in subsection (D)(2) of this section, including commuter parking lots that are located upon more than one lot as specified in ECDC 21.15.075. C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Offices, other than local public facilities; (WSS651576.DOC;1100006.900000/) - 3 - Packet Page 280 of 396 2. Local public facilities not planned, designated, or sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100,050; 3. Day-care centers; 4. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums; 5. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033; 6. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 7. High schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 8. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Day-care facilities of any size to be operated in a separate, nonresidential portion of a multifamily residential dwelling structure operated primarily for the benefit of the residents thereof, 2. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. 16.30.020 Subdistricts. There are established four subdistricts of the RM zone, in order to provide site development standards for areas which differ in topography, location, existing development and other factors. These subdistricts shall be known as the RM-1.5, RM - Edmonds Way (RM - EW), RM-2.4, and RM-3 zones. (WSS651576.DOC;1/00006.900000/) - 4 - Packet Page 281 of 396 16.30.030 Site development standards, A. Table. Minimum Sub Lot Area Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Minimum3 per Street Side Rear Maximum Coverage Parking District Dwel14 g Setback Setback Setback Height (% ) (Spaces Unit Per Unit) (Sq. Ft.) RM-1.5 1,500 15' 10, 15' 251"5 45% 2 RM-EW 1,500 15' 10' 15' 25' 5A7 45% 2 RM-2.4 2,400 15' 10' 15' 25°15 45% 2 RM-3 3,000 15'2 15'2 15' 25'1'5 45% 2 E Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height Iimit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. 2 RS setbacks may be used for single-family homes on lots of 10,000 square feet or less in all RM zones. s See Chapter 17.50 ECDC for specific parking requirements. 4 See definition of townhouse. 5 Maximum height for accessory structures of 15 feet. 6 The maximum base height of any building fronting on Edmonds Way may be increased to 30 feet if the following apply to the site and proposed development: (a) At least 50% of the parking for the subject building shall be enclosed inside a building or buildings; (b) The subject property is at least 5 feet lower at its Iowest elevation than any adjacent residentially (R) zoned property measured at its lowest elevation; and (c) The proposed development integrates low impact development techniques where reasonably feasible. For the purposes of this section, low impact development techniques shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: the use of bioswales, green roofs, and grasscrete. "Reasonably feasible" shall be determined based upon the physical characteristics of the property and its suitability for the technique; cost alone shall not make the use of the impact development unreasonable or unfeasible. 7 In addition to any height bonus under note 6, the building may extend up to an additional five feet if all portions of the roof above the height limit, (after adding the height bonus under Note 6), provide a minimum 15% slope or pitch. B. Signs and Design Review. See Chapters 20.10 and 20,60 ECDC for regulations. {WSS651576.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 5 - Packet Page 282 of 396 C. Location of Parking. No parking spaces may be located within the street setback. D. Landscaping. In addition to the landscaping requirements set forth in Chapter 20.12 ECDC, any development in the RM - Edmonds Way zone shall retain at least 35% of the existing healthy significant trees within the side and rear setbacks of the development site. The applicant shall retain an arborist to determine the health of all significant trees within the side and rear setbacks. For the purposes of this section, significant trees shall be defined as any tree with a caliper greater than 6" measured at 4' above grade. Where it is not reasonably feasible for the applicant to retain 35% of the existing healthy significant trees within the side and rear setbacks, the applicant may replace any significant trees below the 35% threshold as follows: Each significant tree removed that reduces the percentage of retained significant healthy trees below 35% shall be replaced with three new trees, each of no less than 3" caliper measured at 4' above grade. 16.30.040 Site development exceptions. A. Housing for the Elderly. Housing projects for the elderly are eligible for special parking and density provisions. See Chapter 20.25 ECDC. B. Setback Adjustments. Chapter 20.50 ECDC contains a procedure for adjusting setback distances and locations in special situations. C. Satellite Television Antenna. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and reviewed by the architectural design board. D. Setback Encroachments. (1) Eaves and chimneys may project into a required setback not more than 30 inches. (2) Except as authorized by subsection (3) below, uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may project into a required setback not more than one-third of the required setback, or four feet, whichever is less; provided that they are no more than 30 inches above the ground level at any point. (3) In the RM-Edmonds Way zone, uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may occupy up to one-half of the required street setback area along Edmonds Way; provided that (W88651576.DOC;I/00006.900000/) - 6 - Packet Page 283 of 396 these structures or uses are located no more than 20 feet above the ground level at any point. E. Corner Lots. Corner lots shall have no rear setback; all setbacks other than street setbacks shall be side setbacks. Section 2. The Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 16.50 BC - Community Business is hereby amended to incorporate changes relating to zoning requirements along the Edmonds Way corridor to read as follows: Chapter 16.50 BC — COMMUNITY BUSINESS Sections: 16.50.000 Purposes. 16.50.010 Uses. 16.50.020 Site development standards. 16.50.030 Operating restrictions. 16.50.000 BC and BC - Edmonds Way This chapter establishes two distinct zoning categories, BC and BC - Edmonds Way. 16.50.005 Purposes. The BC and the BC - Edmonds Way zones have the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC. A. To reserve areas for those retail stores, offices, service establishments and amusement establishments which offer goods and services to the entire community; B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings; C. To allow for mixed -use development which includes multiple dwelling unit(s) that support business uses. D. To implement the policies of the Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor. {WSS651576.DOC;1100006.9000001) - 7 - Packet Page 284 of 396 E. To meet the goals of the Growth Management Act and the City of Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan for housing diversity and economical vitality. 1.6.50.01.0 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Single-family dwelling, as regulated in RS-6 zone; 2. Retail stores, offices and service uses, excluding intense uses, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment sales and services; 3. New automobile sales and service; 4. Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents; 5. Printing, publishing and binding establishments; 6. Bus stop shelters; 7. Community -oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code; 8. Multiple Dwelling Unit(s). This use may not be located on the ground floor of a structure; 9. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020; 10. Primary and high schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 11. Local public facilities subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 12. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Limited assembly, repair or fabrication of goods incidental to a permitted or conditional use; (WSS651576.DOC;1100006.900000/1 Packet Page 285 of 396 2. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted or conditional use; 3. Commuter. parking lots in conjunction with a facility meeting the criteria listed under subsections (C)(I1) through (14) of this section, except that the facility may also be Iocated along a designated transit route in addition to an arterial or collector street. C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. I . Commercial parking lots; 2. Wholesale uses; 3. Hotels and motels; 4 Amusement establishments; 5 Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions; 6. Drive-in businesses; 7. Laboratories; 8 Fabrication of light industrial products; 9. Convenience stores; 10. Day-care centers; 11. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums; 12. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033; 13. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 14. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted or conditional use; 2. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC. twss65J576.n0c;1/00006.900000/) - 9 - Packet Page 286 of 396 16.50.020 Site development standards. A. Table. Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Street Side Rear Height Floor Area Setback Setback Setback 3 sq. ft. per BC None None None None' None' 25❑2 sq. ft, of lot area BC - 3 sq. ft. per Edmonds None None None None' None' 353,4 sq.ft. of lot Way I area ' The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. 2 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height are modulated in design and are designed as a hip, gable, arch, shed or other similar roof form (see illustrations). Vertical parapet walls or flat roofs with a pitch of less than 3-in-12 are not allowed to protrude above the 25-foot height limit unless they are part of an approved modulated design. 3 The stated height limit may be increased to 40 feet provided that: (a) The street setback of any proposed building shall be increased to 4 feet in depth. Type III landscaping shall be located within this setback. This landscaping may be located immediately adjacent to the building, or may be combined with other landscaping within or adjoining the right of way. In addition, the third and forth stories of any proposed building shall be farther stepped back an additional 6 feet from the street frontage along all street fronts; (b) Where the proposed development abuts a single-family residential (RS) zoned property, in addition to complying with subsection (a), the proposed development shall modulate the design of any building facades facing the single-family residentially (RS) zoned property; (c) The proposed development integrates low impact development techniques where reasonably feasible. For the purposes of this section, low impact development techniques shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: the use of bioswales, green roofs, and grasscrete. "Reasonably feasible" shall be determined based upon the physical characteristics of the property and its suitability for the technique; cost alone shall not render the use of low impact techniques unreasonable or unfeasible. (d) The required setback from R zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with Type I landscaping permanently maintained by the owner of the BC lot; and IWSS651576.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 10 - Packet Page 287 of 396 (e) For any buildings fronting on Edmonds Way, the maximum height of the wall or fagade along Edmonds Way shall not exceed 45 feet as measured at the Edmonds Way property line. 4 in addition to any height bonus under note 3, the building may extend up to an additional five feet if all portions of the building above the height limit (after adding the height bonus under note 3) integrate distinctive architectural features that enhance and are integrated into the overall design of the building. For purposes of this section, distinctive architectural features may include articulation, changes of materials, offsets, angles or curves of facades, or by the use of distinctive roof forms. Examples of Modulated Roof Designs ■irk=��� �1�7v:m7xLz ,� Mir" st'_~NA§I■W Alai' a i oil 10111 dKill I Is CIO' TN7_! P'N"91MIN ! ORK M IWIRI EIRR IA:S I�;" I B. Ground Floor. Development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses to a minimum depth of 30 feet as measured from the street front of the building, with the following exceptions or clarifications: 1. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is allowed. 2. This provision shall not apply when a single-family use is the primary use on the property. (WSS65I576.DOC;1100006-900000/) - 11 - Packet Page 288 of 396 3. . With respect to, but only to, property located on the Fifth Avenue entrance corridor, south of Walnut Street, in which the first 60 feet of the building as measured from Fifth Avenue consists only of commercial uses; and with respect to which the subject property shares a property line with a single-family or multifamily zoned properties, then multifamily units may be located on the ground floor in such a manner that they face the adjacent residentially zoned property. 4. In the BC - Edmonds Way zone, where the street frontage of the total site proposed for development exceeds 150 feet in length, this requirement shall apply to only 60% of the ground floor street frontage of any proposed building. The remaining 40% may include any other uses permitted in the BC - Edmonds Way zone, including, but not limited to, off-street parking or live/work space. C. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. D. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units. E. Screening. The required setback from R zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BC lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback. F. Satellite Television Antennas. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and reviewed by the architectural design board. 16,50,030 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Seasonal farmers' markets; {WSs65I576.BOC;1/00006.900000/} - 12 - Packet Page 289 of 396 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. 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 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED- CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 02/16/2007 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 02/20/2007 PUBLISHED: 02/25/2007 EFFECTIVE DATE: 03/02/2007 ORDINANCE NO. 3627 (WSS651576.DOC;1100006.9000001) - 13 - Packet Page 290 of 396 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3627 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 20th day of February, 2007, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3627. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 16.30 RM-MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL AND CHAPTER 16.50 BC -COMMUNITY BUSINESS IN ORDER TO INCORPORATE CERTAIN CHANGES REGARDING ZONING REQUIREMENTS ALONG EDMONDS WAY, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 21 st day of February, 2007. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE I WSS65 3 576.DOC; I/00006.900000/} Packet Page 291 of 396 -14- Plan Designation Zoning Classification Maximum Density (Net Density) Single Family — Urban 1 RS-6 7.3 DU/Acre RS-8 5.5 DU/Acre Single Family — Urban 2 RS-8 5.5 DU/Acre Single Family — Urban 3 RS-10 4.4 DU/Acre Single Family -- Urban RS-6 or RS-8 with Master 5.5 or 7.3 DU/Acre Master Plan Plan overlay Single Family — Resource RS-12, RSW-12 3.7 DUTAcre RS-20 2.2 DU/Acre The "Single Family — Urban Master Plan" designation would only apply to the area lying along the south side of SR-104 north of 228`h Street SW; properties seeking to develop at the higher urban density lot pattern would need to be developed according to a master plan (such as through a PRD) that clearly indicated access and lot configurations that would not result in traffic problems for SR-104. B. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic considerations, in accordance with the following policies: B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. B.2. Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area. B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. B.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: Land Use 53 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 292 of 396 B. 5. a. Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local government. B. 5. b. Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must be discouraged. B.5.c. Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land use encroachments. B. 5. d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. C. Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following policies: C.1. Planned Residential Development. Provide options for planned residential development solutions for residential subdivisions. C. L a. Encourage single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view, open space, etc.). CJ b. Consider attached single-family dwelling units in PRD's near downtown and shopping centers as an alternative to multiple family zoning. C.2. Multiple, The City's development policies encourage high quality site and building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided. C.2. a. Location Policies. C2.a.4 RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets. C.2.b. Compatibility Policies. C.2. b. i. RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of surrounding buildings, wherever feasible. C.2. b. ii. The height of RM buildings that abut single family residential (RS) zones shall be similar to the height permitted in the abutting RS zone except where the existing vegetation and/or change in topography can substantially screen one use from another. C.2. b. iii. The design of RM buildings located next to RS zones should be similar to the design idiom of the single family residence. C.2. c. General Design Policies. 54 Packet Page 293 of 396 Land Use C.2.c. i. The nonstructural elements of the building (such as decks, lights, rails, doors, windows and window easements, materials, textures and colors) should be coordinated to carry out a unified design concept. C.2.c. ii. Site and building plans should be designed to preserve the natural features (trees, streams, topography, etc.) of the site rather than forcing the site to meet the needs of the imposed plan. C.3. Mobile Homes. Update design standards to ensure quality parks heavily landscaped both for screening exterior and for appearance of interior. Commercial Land Use A. General. Past and present commercial development in the City of Edmonds has been oriented primarily to serving the needs of its citizens. It also has attempted to offer a unique array of personalized and specialty type shopping opportunities for the public. In the downtown area, the Milltown shopping arcade is an excellent example of this type of development. It is essential that future commercial developments continue to harmonize and enhance the residential small town character of Edmonds that its citizens so strongly desire to retain. By the same token, the City should develop a partnership with business, citizens and residents to help it grow and prosper while assisting to meet the various requirements of the City's codes and policies. The Highway 99 arterial has been recognized historically as a commercial district which adds to the community's tax and employment base. Its economic vitality is important to Edmonds and should be supported. Commercial development in this area is to be encouraged to its maximum potential. The following sections describe the general goals and policies for all commercial areas, followed by the additional goals and policies that specific commercial areas must also meet. B. Goals for Commercial Development: Commercial development in Edmonds shall be located to take advantage of its unique locational opportunities while being consistent and compatible with the character of its surrounding neighborhood. All commercial development should be designed and located so that it is economically feasible to operate a business and provide goods and services to Edmonds residents and tourists in a safe, convenient and attractive manner, in accordance with the following policies: B.1. A sufficient number of sites suited for a variety of commercial uses should be identified and reserved for these purposes. The great majority of such sites should be selected from parcels of land already identified in the comprehensive plan for commercial use and/or zoned for such use. Land Use Packet Page 294 of 396 N�7 E.4. Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access shall not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. E.5. Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. F. Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions of Edmonds Way between the 100th Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. F.1. Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. F.2. Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. F.3. Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. F.4. Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible. Land Use Packet Page 295 of 396 59 City of Ednionds Vicinity Map y I— 300 150 0 Properties proposed for rezone Fret. Packet Page 296 of 396 File # R-200 —J 0 0 O O l! V / fl 4 F F 9 C C O H S U L LJ Zr H fJ S TRAFFIC ENGINEERING *TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 2802 WETMORE AVE. • SUITE 220 • EVERETT, WA98201 • PH: (425) 339-8266 • FAX: (425) 258-2922 January 5, 2007 W Don Sims, P.E. City of Edmonds 121 5"' Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: 232"d Street Mixed Use on 232`1 Street SW and SR-104 in Edmonds; Updated Traffic Impact Analysis, GTC #04-243 Dear Mr. Sims: Gibson Traffic Consultants (GTC) has been retained by Tony Shapiro of A.D. Shapiro Architects to provide an updated traffic study for the proposed 232"a Street Mixed Use commercial development. This technical memorandum is intended to supply the City of Edmonds with the necessary traffic generation and distribution information per the City's guidelines for developments that will generate more than 25 new PM peak -hour trips. This study has been organized in the same .manner as the SEPA Traffic impact Requirements for the City of Edmonds. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed 232"4 Street Mixed Use commercial development is planned to be constructed on the northwest corner of the intersection of SR-104 and 232"J Avenue SW. A site vicinity map has been included in Figure 1. The development is proposed to consist of three different land uses: general office, specialty retail and residential. The development is proposing approximately 3,000 Square Feet (SF) of general office, 7,800 SF of specialty retail, 22 townhome/condominium units, and 40 apartment units. There are five (5) existing single-family residences on the site which will be removed and credited towards the developments trips. The development is proposed to be constructed by the year 2007. The horizon year for this project would be the year 2012_ The development is proposing to have one access point to 232" d Avenue SW and two full accesses onto SR-104. There are currently several curb -cuts along SR-104 which will be removed with the development and the two new curb -cuts will be installed. COUNTS/SURVEYS • SITE IMPACTS - LOS ANALYSIS a EIS • HEARINGS • SAFETY • SIGNALS • PARKING Packet Page 297 of 396 Mr. Don Sims, P.E. January 5, 2007 Page 2 METHODOLOGY Traffic generation for the development is based upon national research data for single- family residential developments contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, 7"' _Edition. Land Use Code (LUC) 710 general office, LUC 814 specialty retail, LUC 230 townhome/condo, LUC 220 apartment, and LUC 210 single-family have been used for the trip generation calculations. Traffic congestion is generally measured in terms of level of service (LOS). Peak -hour level of service at critical off -site intersections is based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) using Synchro 6.0 percentile methodology. In accordance with the 2000 HCM, road facilities and intersections are rated between LOS A and LOS F, with LOS A being free flow and LOS F being forced flow or over -capacity conditions. A summary of the level of service criteria has been included in Table 1. The level of service at signalized and all -way stop -controlled intersections is measured in terms of average delay per vehicle in seconds. For two-way stop -controlled intersections, the level of service is determined by the worst case of all the calculated lane groups at the intersection. The acceptable LOS along a State Highway is LOS E; however, within the City of Edmonds the concurrency threshold is LOS D. EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Level of Service Per the City's guidelines for developments that will generate more than 25 new PM peak - hour trips. Level of service analysis was conducted at the two critical intersections impacted by 10 or more PM peak -hour trips. These intersections are: 1. SR-104 at 232" d Street SW — Unsignalized 2. 1001h Avenue W at SR-104 - Signalized The existing traffic counts at that intersection were obtained by Traffic Data Gathering (TDG) and were conducted in 2005 and 2006. The study intersections currently operate at LOS D under the existing conditions. The intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS. The existing level of service at the study intersections has been shown in Table 2. The existing turning movements used to determine the existing level of service have been included in Figure 2. aOR'AOFOF iG [ aMLIrTIC Packet Page 298 of 396 Mr. Don Sims, P.E. January 5, 2007 Page 3 Accident Analysis Accident data for the time period from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2005 was provided by WSDOT. The intersection of 232"d Street SW at SR-104 (MP 27.12) was looked at for trends in the 3-year accident history. The existing accidents are broken down in Table 3. The analysis shows that the location had an accident history with less than one accident per million entering vehicles (MEV). The intersection had an accident rate of 0.79 per MEV. The intersection is neither a 2006 High Accident Location (HAL) nor part of a 2006 High Accident Corridor (HAC). FUTURE CONDITIONS Baseline Level of Service Baseline volumes were determined by applying a 2% compounding annual growth rate to the existing traffic volumes to get to the horizon year of 2012. The intersection of SR-104 at 232"d Street SW will remain at LOS D. The intersection of 100" Avenue W at SR-104 will continue operating at LOS D. The baseline level of service has been shown in Table 4. The turning movements used to determine the baseline level of service have been included in Figure, 3. Future with Development Sight Distance Sight distance analysis was performed at the proposed site access point according to current AASHTO standards. The entering sight distance was measured from 10 feet back of the pavement from an eye height of 3.5 feet to and eye height of 3.5 feet. The stopping sight distance was measured from an eye height of 3.5 feet to an object height of 2 feet. The speed limit along SR-104 in the development vicinity is 40 mph. Based on current AASHTO guidelines for 40 mph, the required entering sight distance is 445 feet and the required stopping sight distance is 305 feet. There is no on -street parking along SR-104 in the vicinity of the two site access points. There is over 450 feet of entering and stopping sight distance at both driveways in both directions along SR-104. Therefore, the sight distance is met for the development. Based on Figure 920-6 Road Approach Sight Distance in the WSDOT Design Manual the required road approach sight distance would be 305 feet. The available sight distance of 450 feet meets the required sight distance per WSDOT. p"0 0" R A OM,FFI9ULC Packet Page 299 of 396 Mr. Don Sims, P.E. January 5, 2007 Page 4 On 232"d Street SW the sight distance is based on a speed of 25 mph. The required entering sight distance is 280 feet and the required stopping sight distance is 155 feet per AASHTO requirements. There is over 280 feet of entering sight distance and 200 feet of stopping sight distance. The sight distance is met for the driveway. State Intersection Separation The City is the reviewing agency when determining access points along State Highways within the City. The City has adopted the State access separation standards. The minimum spacing requirement for a road approach onto SR-104, a Highway Access Management Class 4 facility, is 250 feet, per DM Figure 1435-3. The spacing to the south of the development's south access is met with approximately 315 feet to the intersection of SR-104 at 232"d Street SW. However between the development's south access and north access there is approximately 210 feet. From the development's north access there would be approximately 158 feet of separation from the adjacent multi- family residential access to the north. The two accesses onto SR-104 have been proposed to provide adequate circulation to the site, in doing so the development will be removing the 10 existing curb cuts. Trip Generation Trip generation rates were obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Report, 71h Edition 2003. The following land uses were used to determine the number of trips that will be generated by the development: Land use code (LUC) 710 general office, LUC 814 specialty retail, LUC 230 townhome/condo, LUC 220 apartment, and LUC 210 single-family. The average trip generation rates for each lard use code were used to determine the trip generation. An internal crossover rate of 13% was calculated based on fhe methodologies outlined in the Trip Generation Handbook. Also, per standard engineering practice a pass -by rate of 25% was utilized for the specialty retail portion of the development. The new trips generated by the development with the credit for the 5 existing houses are anticipated to be 552 ADT with 43 PM Peak -Hour trips (25 inboundl18 outbound). A summary of the trip generation has been included in Table 5. Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the development was based on existing turning movements at the intersection of 232"d Street SW at SR-104 and SR-104 at 100" Avenue W. Two separate distributions were provided to take into account the split parking for the site. It was assumed that the upper deck parking with access off of 232" Street SW would be used by the apartments and the rest of the site traffic would utilize the accesses onto SR-104. The trip distribution for the townhomes/retail assumes that 55% of the site traffic will travel to and from south/east on SR-104 and 25% to and from the northwest on SR-104, The remaining 20% is anticipated to travel along 232"d Street SW to the east a west of SR- RAFFIC Packet Page 300 of 396 Mr. Don Sims, P.E. January 5, 2007 Page 5 104. The site traffic distribution has been included in Figure 4A. The trip distribution for the apartments assumes that all of the traffic would utilize 232" d Street SW and that 55% of the site traffic will travel to and from southeast on SR-104 and 5% to and fi-om the northwest on SR-104. The remaining 40% is anticipated to travel along 232"d Street SW to the east and west of SR-104. The site traffic distribution has been included in Figure 413. The combined distribution showing the ADT and PM peak -hour trips is included in Figure 4C. Level of Service The future with development level of service analysis has been performed for the additional 43 new PM peak -hour tips that would impact the study intersections. The development's trips were added to the baseline turning movements to determine the future with development turning movements. The intersection of 1001h Avenue W at SR- 104 will continue to operate at LOS D with the development trips. The intersection of SR-104 at 232"d Street SW will remain at LOS D with a slight increase in delay with the development's trips. To improve the delay at the intersection to the baseline condition the development is proposing to widen 232nd Street SW (4 feet) to provide a minim of 20 feet of eastbound approach for 50 feet which would allow for restriping the approach for two eastbound lanes ( marked as a separate right turn or separate left -turn). This chanalization will bring the delay of the. intersection below the baseline condition. The future with development level of service has been shown in Table 4. The future with development turning movements has been included in Figure 5. The site's three access points will be stop -controlled, with SR-104 and 232nd Street SW remaining uncontrolled. Based on the project's low trip generation the two heavier intersections on SR-104 would operate at LOS B with less than 15 seconds of delay. Parking Per the City of Edmonds parking requirements the development will have to provide 130 parking stalls (37 for the townhomes and 93 for the apartments and retail). According to the site plan provided there will be a total of 134 parking stalls (43 for the townl-iomes, 48 upper deck for apartments, and 43 in the lower deck). This would be sufficient to meet the City's requirements. Also to be considered with mixed use developments of this mature, there could arguably be a 13% internal crossover for the parking utilization based on people who would walk from on -site to the retail/office uses. This would amount to a 17 stall reduction in the required parking on -site for a total of 113 required stalls. RAFFIC Packet Page 301 of 396 Mr. Don Sims, P.E. January 5, 2007 Page 6 Cut -Through Traffic on 232"d Street SW The analysis indicates that west of the 232"d Street SW access the development would add approximately 102 daily trips of which only 9 would occur during the critical PM peak -hour. The 2012 baseline traffic is estimated to have 123 peak -hour trips (1,230 daily trips) west of the site access. Therefore the development would account for less than S% of the future trips on 232"d west of the access. It should be noted that even if there were no access to 232"d Street the difficulty in turning left from the SR-104 access points have been already factored in therefore there would be little change to this cut - though traffic on 232"d Street with or without the access to 232"d Street. East of the access the development would add 17 peak -hour trips. Therefore in the fixture with volume forecast at 140 peak trips east of the access, the development would account for approximately 12% of the future traffic on 232nd street east of the access. At the intersection of 232"d/SR-104 the future projected traffic is a total of 2,165 peak - hour trips of which the development is anticipated to account for 31 of those peals -hour trips or the equivalent of about 1.4%. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS Traffic mitigation payments to the City of Edmonds are based on Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 Impact Fee Rates. However, the rate for condominiums has been updated to take into account the new rates in the ITE Trip Generation Report, 7"' edition 2003. Also the trip length for specialty retail was based on that for shopping center. A reduction in new trips was taken to account for the 13% internal crossover and 25% pass - by for the specialty retail portion of the development. The trip length was kept the same for all of the land uses. The existing single-family houses were credited towards the developments mitigation payment using the same mitigation fee methodology. The total required mitigation for the development would be $32,210.56. The mitigation calculations have been summarized in Table 6. The development will also construct frontage improvements to 232"d Street SW to widen the eastbound approach of the intersection of SR-104 and 232"d Street SW to provide a 20 foot that can be striped for left or right turn chanalaization on the eastbound approach.' This added channelization will allow the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS. ®U�.i MM[�((��11 (��j[�[ (� RANOF uV NJV-UL=SUU U �l Packet Page 302 of 396 Mr. Dan Sims, P.E. January 5, 2007 Page 7 We trust that this letter and attaclunents adequately address the traffic impacts of the proposed mixed use development. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact us at (425) 339-8266. Thariks. Sincerely, GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS, INC. Matthew J. Palmer, P.E. Traffic Engineer Attachments XC: Tony Shapiro, A.D. Shapiro Architects d ++� 42322 aRUNOF'IC"'MOUL Packet Page 303 of 396 GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY t 232ND MIXED USE LEGEND UPDATE PROJECT SFTE CITY OF EDMONDS O STUDY INTERSECTION FIGURE I SITE VICINITY MAP Packet Page 304 of 396 GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 232ND MIXED USE UPDATE CITY OF EDMONDS LEGEND 305 -- PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES FIGURE 2 EXISTING PM PEAK INTERSECTION VOLUMES Packet Page 305 of 396 GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY I 232ND MIXED USE UPDATE CITY OF EDMONDS LEGEND 395 — PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES FIGURE 3 FUTURE 2012 PM PEAK WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION VOLUMES Packet Page 306 of 396 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY G1650N TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS ___ .._ . _ __ 232ND MIXED USE UPDATE CITY OF EDMONDS LEGEND AWDT NEW DAILYTRAFFIC PM PEAK NEW PM PEAK HOAR TRIPS 2� TRIP DISTRIBUTION % FIGURE 4A TOWNHOMEIRETAIL TRIP DISTRIBUTION (PM PEAK & DAILY) Packet Page 307 of 396 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GIBBON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS ___ _ 232ND MIXED USE UPDATE CITY OF EDMONDS LEGEND AWDT NEW DAILYTRAFFIC PM � A PEAK NEW PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS TRIP DISTRIBUTION % FIGURE 4B APARTMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION (PM PEAK & DAILY) Packet Page 308 of 396 GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY I 232ND MIXED USE UPDATE CITY OF EDMONDS LEGEND AWDT NEW DAILYTRAFFIC PM � * PEAK NEW PM PEAY HOUR TRIPS 5 TRIP DISTRIBUTION % FIGURE 4C COMBINED TRIP DISTRIBUTION (PM PEAK & DAILY) Packet Page 309 of 396 GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY I I 232ND MIXED USE UPDATE CITY OF EDMONDS LEGEND 367 — PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES FIGURE 5 FUTURE 2012 PM PEAK WITH DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION VOLUMES Packet Page 310 of 396 232"d Street Mixed Use Update GTC #04-243 TABLE 1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA Level of Service I Expected Delay Control Delay (Seconds per Vehicle) Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections A Little/No Delay 510 <10 B Short Delays >10 and <15 >10 and <_20 C Average Delays >15 and <25 >20 and <35 D Long Delays >25 and 535 >35 and <_55 E Very Long Delays >35 and S50 >55 and 580 F >50 >80 * When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. Source: Highway Capacity Manual2000. 1 LOS A: free -flow traffic conditions, with rninirnal delay to stopped vehicles (no vehicle is delayed longer than one cycle at signalized intersection)_ LOS 13: generally stable traffic flow conditions. LOS C: occasional back-ups may develop, but delay to vehicles is short term and still tolerable. LOS D: during short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial but are tolerable during times of less demand (i.e. vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signal). LOS E: intersections operate at or near capacity, with long queues developing on all approaches and long delays. LOS F: jammed conditions on all approaches with excessively long delays and vehicles unable to move at times. ' OOOM RAFF'c OOMODUL4QIM Packet Page 311 of 396 232nd Street Mixed Use Update GTC #04-243 TABLE 2 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE Weekday PM Peak Hour EXISTING INTERSECTION CONDITIONS LOS I Delav 1. SR -I 04 @ 232nd Street SW (EB A roach} C 23.1 sec 2. 100th Avenue W @ SR-104 D 39.7 sec RANOF OIC UV UL Packet Page 312 of 396 a? cs a H Q 00 00 b ) Crl c� > M >1 O - O � O 0 � U C/� a .s" U Cd Q-r h? by 00 'd U F4 b +, C/) N N v) I NO Packet Page 313 of 396 232nd Street Mixed Use Upstate GTG #04-243 TABLE 4 FUTURE LEVEL OF SERVICE Weekday PM Peak Hour EXISTING FUTURE 2012 CONDITIONS' INTERSECTION 11. CONDITIONS Without Project With Project LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay SR-104 @ 232nd Street SW {EB A roach C 23.1 sec D 29.8 sec D 32.4 sec With Chatmelization EB Shared Throu -Left & Right D 27.8 sec 2. 100th Avenue W @ SR-104 D 39.7 sec D 44.9 sec D 45.1 sec I .Includes 2% annually compounded growth rate. ©)1 V RAFFIC Packet Page 314 of 396 232nd Street Mixed Use Update GTC #04-243 TABLE TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Proposed Land Use SIZE Average Daily Trips PM Peak -Hour —_ Total Inbound Outbound General Office - Commercial 3,000 SF 33 4 2 2 Specialty Retail - Commercial 7,800 SF 346 21 9 12 Condominiums - Residential 22 Units 129 11 7 4 Apartment - Residential 40 Units 269 25 16 9 Single -Family - Residential -5 Units -48 -5 -3 -2 GROSS TOTAL .......... 729 56 31 25 PASS -BY Reduction -75 -5 -2 -3 Internal Crossover -101 -8 -4 -4 NET TOTAL ............... 553 43 25 18 aOB� (0 0 RAFFIC CDC, H n. U M% K V 0 Packet Page 315 of 396 N �U C N M N 4 00100 /* g M C? C M CD @(�n� q� 't ' t' b r-' U. � G� N tV 94, H ti o0 00 f N bE3 6F3 6S 69 � F,g � y C1ti C , ¢t O r-- Cfl t-- � S� N ~ 64 b�3 �3 F�1 6R3 � O C7 z � z �Cl��© z o \�oo��oob C) H o G Cn kn �. a war kn i.A E H � cc Ra � 01 +--+ N N •-+ ��" 'y'", � d: t• � � O � O h rn a� a U CZ xt Cd L It V Q.F a� cd U N 0 cf' 0 0 0 7C H 0 U t— oo N N N � W Packet Page 316 of 396 GTC #04-243 Towohomes & Retail off of SR-104 PM Version New A€7T New AM Peak Hour Trips % In I Out Total 100% 3191 111. 101121 1% 3.19 0.11 0,10 0.21 2% 6.38 0.22 0.20 0.42 3% 9.57 0.33 0.30 0.63 4 % 12.76 0.44 0.40 0.84 5% 15.95 0.55 0.50 1.D5 6% 19.14 0.66 0.60 1.26 7% 22.33 0.77 0.70 1.47 8% 25.52 0.88 0.80 1.68 9% 28.71 0.99 0.90 1.89 10°/ 31.90 1.10 1.00 2.10 11% 35.09 1.21 1.10 2.31 12% 38.28 1.32 1.20 2.52 13% 41,47 1.43 1.30 2.73 14% 44.66 1.54i 1.40 2.94 15% 47.85 1.65 1.50 3.45 16%1 61.04 1.76 1.60 3.36 17% 54.23 1.87 1.70 3.57 18% 57.42 1.98 1.80 3.78 19% 60.61 2.09 1.90 3.99 2D% 63.80 2.20 2.00 4.20 21% 66.99 2.31 2.10 4.41 22%1 70.18 2.42 2.20 4.62 23% 73.37 2.53 2.30 4.83 24% 76.56 2.64 2.40 5.04 25% 79.75 2.75 2.50 5.25 26% 82.94 2.86 2.60 5.46 27% 86.13 2.97 2.70 5.67 28%1 89.32 3.03 2.80 5.88 29% 92.51 3.19 2.90 6.09 30"/ 95,70 3.30 3.00 6.30 31 % 98.89 3.41 3.10 6.51 32% 102.08 3.52 3.20 6.72 33% 105.27 3.63 3.30 6.93 34% 108.46 3.74 3.40 7A4 35% 111.6511 3.85 3.50 -1-35 36% 114.84 3.96 3.60 7.56 37% 118.03 4.07 3.70 7.77 38% 121.22 4,18 3.80 7.98 39°/a 124AI 4.29 3.90 8.19 40% 127.60 4.401 4.00 8.40 41 % 130.79 4.51 4.10 8.61 42% 133.98 4.62 4.20 8.82 43% 137.17 4.73 4.30 9.03 44% 140.36 4.84 4,40 9.24 45°/ 143.55 4.95 4.50 9.45 46% 146.74 5.06 4.60 9.66 47% 149.93 5.17 4.70 9,87 48% 153.12 5.28 4.80 10.08 49% 156.31 5.39 4.90 10.29 50% 159-501 5.50 5,00 10.50 New ADT New AM Peak Hour Trips % In I Out jj Total 100% 3191 ill 1011 21 51 % 162,69 5.61 5.10 10.71 52% 165.88 5.72 5.20 10.92 53% 169.07 5.83 5.30 11.13 54% 172.26 5.94 5.40 11.34 55°/ 175A5 6,05 5.50 11.55 56% 178.64 6161 5.60 11.76 57% 181.83 6.27 5.70 11.97 58% 185.02 6.38 5.80 12.18 59% 188.21 6.49 5.90 12.39 60% 191.40 6.60 6.00 12.60 61 % 194.59 6.71 6.10 12.81 62% 197.78 6.82 6.20 13.02 63% 200.97 6.931 6.30 13.23 64% 204.16 7.04 6A0 13A4 65°/ 207.35 7.15 6.50 13.65 66% 210.54 7.26 6.60 13.86 67% 213.73 7.37 6.70 14,07 68% 216.92 7.48 6.80 14.28 69% 220.11 7-591 6.90 14.49 70% 223.30 7.70 7,00 14.70 71 % 226.49 7.81 7.10 14.91 72% 229.68 7.92 7.20 15.12 73% 232.87 8.03 7.30 15.33 74% 236,06 8.14 7.40 15.54 75% 239.25 8.251 7.50 15.75 76% 242.44 8.36 7.60 15.96 77% 245.63 8.47 7.70 16.17 78% 248.82 8.58 7.80 16.38 79% 252.01 8.69 7.90 16.59 80% 255.20 8,80 8.00 16.80 81% 258.39 8.91 8.10 17.01 82% 261.58 9.02 8.20 17.22 83% 264.77 9.13 8.30 17.43 84% 267.96 9.24 8.40 17.64 85% 271.15 9.35 8.50 17.85 860M 274.34 9.461 8.60 18.06 87% 277.53 9.57 8.70 18.27 88% 280.72 9.68 8.80 18.48 89% 283.91 9.79 8.90 18.69 90% 287.10 9.90 9.00 18.90 91% 290.29 10.01 9.10 19.11 92% 293.48 10.12 9.20 ..19.32 93% 296.67 10.23 9.30 19.53 94% 299.86 10.34 9.40 19.74 95% 303.05 10.45 9.50 19.95 96% 306.24 10.56 9.60 20.16 97% 309,431 10.67 9.70 2037. 98% 312.82 10.78 9.80 20.58 990/1 315.81 10.891 9.90 20.79 10D°/ 319.00 11.001 10.00 21.00 Packet Page 317 of 396 GTC t04-243 Apartments off of 232nd Street PM Version Packet Page 318 of 396 0 § 5 / /LO j§� \ 0 0 000 <�z <k! 000000 g � § ¢ / o o 0 0 = CL �_ e / / 3 m o 0 0= r in / § + / Cl) Qq Lo CN w LU � + 0 000 * Z L z UJ0W 0 yeas- LLJb5 z& fjjj /00000 / » $� or000p 22 ±L 7xtsf®$w 2w CoC4 § @ +0 e - Cl) o S ) k + £ �2 fe - o o gay4$ o. R ® J%---mo # Cl) COe o 7 = 0 0G C 8 ?] a@aw¥ =bG/284R / ®\ /�Sl§\ k ®\NX /f{ S o to m u ea QRmR§ /J Q\aam LL,220«000 L»R&QQ@& ) ƒ) < E e e \ \\§/{ aK S\\ / \ E #f°§�, 5 $//27 Packet Page 319a 396 (1) C!. N CR f*'� n Nr .,O N v cY x o 2Cl) G N C*) N 0 Z LL(z d W L V) C [J m Q a V c .Q n Q cn m a R n En Q 7 0 t z S6 Of Cx d O O N C N V m c Cx n O .: U) E 0 cu _m U U [6 3 a M �U C Q w Packet Page 320 of 396 � CD reE 0 � 5n z w = \(DJ- � / 2 z 2 k o000 \I-- }/ z o00000 g m� $ / or000m / w k < a. z ow000m in / § C*4 2 'Cr + k § § §ƒ 000000 b 0 ƒ § §2 °%fyZ+e/ zE $� 0000 {ƒ or000r 3& §§ 0 -x—; a $ aL§o LD e000 0 \/r==29? R _ ƒ90 Cr,moe @b®3® 02CO//a 0 §/�&Q\�S R ¥ $aaa$ ®0 22@2R / ® %\\\k 2« $&g§§ �£ 2waa ��±2aQg2 Eu0 m24�� ] Cr ƒ s ~ E'E § § i $ ��~�9 .f �� > r® .k a m o § 0 E Ca j # / t \ % o m \ 0 C/) V) Packet Page &1ame n R-9 Cu 0 � t O x � U � o� � a v } wry Pa � � � w� � �COo �^ � A r O c � o � rn � w Packet Page 322 of 39 r• p Ks. a, d- 1"' O +U--�-� 00 1 N tn N A o "Cl u M Ch G U E b .ry N w va ttf I_ O L_ Sw N R E"{ �a w w Fa- W z � H a� a� as c P T F 4 U Q D aILI � P-r V] � A � F+ v w F. a � 15, CC,41 A O O Packet Page 323 of T I ul ICI IEi ■FOR Ca Q b ,F -7 y N Cd A r. � G1 (5 'd •-' b N -O C 00 Q Cd Q (d E v A Q1 U CO 4 !1' rml LL7 I M r�l �O Op 0 E-+ a� •--� r-e N N � V � -j- c3, M � a] U v � v is GL �' H v z v � H a� v b,o 1 SR-104 @ 232nd St SW Page 1 of 1 SynchroED: 1 Existing 695 11.7221 1,027 Average Weekday 9 1 651 1 35 PM Peak Hour r1 4 b Year: 2122105 Data Source: TDG PHF 0.81 57 108 232nd St SW 10 33 c3 SR-104 27 a 5 45 �r 13 1,859 232nd St SW 123 North t 78 SR-104 q 4 61 43 1 990 1 35 697 11,7651 1,068 Future without Pray 78 1,977 1,179 Average Weekday 10 1 748 1 40 PM Peak Hour 4 9 Year: 2012 65 Growth Rate = 2.0% Years of Growth = 7 123 232nd St SW Total Growth = 1.i4r 11 58 9 38 SR-104 '�, 31 a[15 6 52 r? T 2,134 232nd St SW 141 North I 89 SR-104 4 4 � 49 11,1371 0 801 12,0271 1,226 Total Project Trips 9 17 $ Average Weekday 2 1 6 1 1 PM Peak Hour r? 4 4 11 17 232nd St SW 1 P 6 1 � 4 b SR-104 R El 2 31 232nd St SW 4 North 2 SR-104 a 4 � 8 1 6 0 10 1 24 1 14 Future With Project 1,994 1,187 •Average Weekday 12 754 754 1 41 PM;,Peak Hour er 4 b i�eSf of fk[�C_5s 7123 � t3�� 76 o� Au �yS 140 232nd St SW 12 LT 64 10 42 b SR-104 Q F 32 a 7 54 �? 15 T 2,165 232nd St SW 145 North 91 SR-104 57 11,1431 40 81112,0511 1,240 Packet Page 324 of 396 2 SR-I04 a@ 100th Ave W Page 1 of 1 Synchro 1D.- 2 Existing Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Year: 9121106 Data Source: TDG PHF = 0,91 839 1,779 35 0 940 720 � 185 � 547 1,230 683 67 307 173 8 b 100th Ave W SR-104 3,172 SR-104 100th Ave W 162 393 147 610 1,312 702 P 255 610 983 118 2,023 1,040 T North f Future without Project 616 11,3851�.. 769 Average Weekday 75 1 346 195 PM Peak Hour 0 a ti 100th Ave W � 287 Year: 2012 944 a 687 1,107 Growth Rate = 2.0% �2 133 r Years of Growth = 6 2,002 SR-104 3,572 SR-104 2,279 North Total Growth = 1.1262 39 1,059 811 1,172 208 t 100th Ave W a Q � 182 443 166 �T 687 1,478 791 Total Project Trips � 2 4 2 Average Weekday y D 1 1 PM Peak Hour d a 4 100th Ave W a 1 2 a 1 2 � o T 7 SR-104 11 SR-104 6 North 0 �' E 5 3 4 2 1001h Ave W R Q � 1 1 0 3 5 ---- 2 - Future with Project 618 1,389 771 Average Weekday 75 347 196 PM Peak Hour 11 4 100th Ave W aE13 946 a 1,109 2,009 SR-104 F3.583 SR-104 2,285 North 1,463 814 b 1,176 210 100th Ave W q 4 � 183 444 166 690 1,483 793 Packet Page 325 of 396 HA2004104-2431Update 0908061SynchralExisting.sy7 1: 232nd St SW & SR 104 232nd Mixed Use Updated (04-243) Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ,Tr tT+ 01 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%p Volume (veh/h) 10 8 33 13 5 27 43 990 35 35 651 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 9 36 14 5 29 47 1076 38 38 708 10 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 0 1 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1452 1996 359 1659 1982 557 717 1114 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 789 789 1189 1189 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 664 1208 470 793 vCu, unblocked vol 1452 1996 359 1659 1982 557 717 1114 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 92 92 94 90 96 94 95 94 cM capacity (vehfh) 137 106 638 139 162 474 879 623 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 55 49 47 717 397 38 472 246 Volume Left 11 14 47 0 0 38 0 0 Volume Right 36 29 0 0 38 0 0 10 cSH 254 245 879 1700 1700 623 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.20 0.05 0.42 0.23 0.06 0.28 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 20 18 4 0 0 5 0 0 Control Delay (s) 23.1 23.3 9.3 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C C A B Approach Delay (s) 23.1 23.3 0.4 0.6 Approach LOS C C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.9% iCU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 GTC (MJP) Existing Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. Page 1 Packet Page 326 of 396 H:12004104-2431Update 0908061Synchro\EAsting.sy7 9- SR 104 & 100th Ave tN 232nd Mixed Use Updated (04-243) 'A -_11 .4- t 1' 41 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +14 t1 0 t14- Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 0 150 0 100 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.969 0.956 0.959 0.973 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prat) 1770 3429 0 1770 3383 0 1770 3394 0 1770 3444 0 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3429 0 1770 3383 0 1770 3394 0 1770 3444 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 29 66 42 20 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 35 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 318 416 483 453 Travel Time (s) 7.2 8.1 13.2 12.4 Volume (vph) 35 720 185 118 610 255 162 393 147 173 307 67 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 791 203 130 670 280 178 432 162 190 337 74 Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 994 0 130 950 0 178 594 0 190 411 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 10.0 46.0 0.0 19.0 55.0 0.0 24.0 32.0 0.0 23.0 31.0 0.0 Total Split (%) 8.3% 38.3% 0.0% 15.8% 45.8% 0.0% 20.0% 26.7% 0.0% 19.2% 25.8% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 6.0 42.0 15.0 51.0 20.0 28.0 19.0 27.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Max None Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 5.9 34.9 12.0 45.6 15.2 28.6 15.3 28.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.33 0.11 0.43 0.14 0.27 0.14 0.27 vlc Ratio 0.40 0.87 0.66 0.64 0.71 0.64 0.75 0.44 Control Delay 66.9 42.9 64.0 25.6 61.5 38.1 64.6 35.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 66.9 42.9 64.0 25.6 61.5 38.1 64.6 35.4 LOS E D E C E D E D GTC (MJP) Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. Existing Page 1 Packet Page 327 of 396 H:12004104-2431Update 0908061Synchro\Existing.sy7 2: SR 104 & 100th Ave W 232nd Mixed Use Updated (04-243) Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT VIER NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Approach Delay 43.8 30.2 43.5 44.6 Approach LOS D C D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 342 91 274 125 193 133 126 Queue Length 95th (ft) 67 443 164 353 206 275 ##225 193 Internal Link Dist (ft) 238 336 403 373 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 100 Base Capacity (vph) 97 1288 244 1577 320 935 307 938 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0-39 0.77 0.53 0.60 0.56 0.64 0.62 0.44 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length. 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 107.2 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vic Ratio: 0.87 Intersection Signal Delay: 39.7 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 2: SR 104 & 100th Ave W ;OEM=22 w GTC (MJP) Existing Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. Page 2 Packet Page 328 of 396 HA2004104-2431Update 0908061Synchro\BaseNne.sy7 1: 232nd St SW & SR 104 232nd Mixed Use Updated (04-243) Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4r +I 'i +I Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehih) 11 9 38 15 6 31 49 1137 40 40 748 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 10 41 16 7 34 53 1236 43 43 813 11 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 0 1 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1667 2291 412 1904 2275 640 824 1279 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 905 905 1364 1364 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 761 1386 540 911 vCu, unblocked vol 1667 2291 412 1904 2275 640 824 1279 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 89 88 93 85 95 92 93 92 cM capacity (vehih) 107 80 589 106 120 418 802 538 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 63 57 53 824 455 43 542 282 Volume Left 12 16 53 0 0 43 0 0 Volume Right 41 34 0 0 43 0 0 11 cSH 207 195 802 1700 1700 538 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.30 029 0.07 0.48 0.27 0.08 0.32 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 31 29 5 0 0 7 0 0 Control Delay (s) 29.8 30.8 9.8 0.0 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D. D A B Approach Delay (s) 29.8 30.8 0A 0.6 Approach LOS D D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 GTC (MJP) Baseline 2012 Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. Page 1 Packet Page 329 of 396 H:l2004104-2431Update 0908061Synchro\Base1ine.sy7 2: SR 104 & 100th Ave W 232nd Mixed Use Updated (04-243) -+� Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' +'- tT tT tT Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 0 150 0 100 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.969 0.956 0.959 0.973 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0,950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3429 0 1770 3383 0 1770 3394 0 1770 3444 0 Fit Permitted 0.950 0,950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3429 0 1770 3383 0 1770 3394 0 1770 3444 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 29 66 42 20 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 35 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 318 416 483 453 Travel Time (s) 7.2 8.1 13.2 12.4 Volume (vph) 39 811 208 133 687 287 182 443 166 195 346 75 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0-91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 891 229 146 755 315 200 487 182 214 380 82 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 1120 0 146 1070 0 200 669 0 214 462 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 10.0 46.0 0.0 19.0 55.0 0.0 24.0 32.0 0.0 23.0 31.0 0.0 Total Split (%) 8.3% 38.3% 0.0% 15.8% 45.8% 0.0% 20.0% 26.7% 0.0% 19.2% 25.8% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 6.0 42.0 15.0 51.0 20.0 28.0 19.0 27.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Max None Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 5.9 39.6 13.0 49.0 16.7 28.2 16.9 28.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.35 0.11 0.43 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.92 0.72 0.72 0.77 0.77 0.82 0.53 Control Delay 72.7 48.6 70.3 28.8 67.7 45.3 72.3 39,5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Total Delay 72.7 48.6 70.3 28.8 67.7 45.3 72.3 39.5 LOS E D E C E D E D GTC (MJP) Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. Baseline 2012 Page 1 Packet Page 330 of 396 H:12004104-2431Update 0908061Synchro\Base1ine.sy7 2: SR 104 & 100th Ave W 232nd Mixed Use Updated (04-243) - ---► -4— t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Approach Delay 49.5 33.8 50.4 49.9 Approach LOS D C D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 33 425 109 336 149 244 161 159 Queue Length 95th (ft) #77 #561 #192 418 230 316 #275 218 Internal Link Dist (fit) 238 336 403 373 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 100 Base Capacity (vph) 92 1261 230 1530 304 873 291 875 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.47 0.89 0.63 0.70 0.66 0.77 0.74 0.53 intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 113.9 Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.92 Intersection Signal Delay: 44.9 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. its and Phases: 2: SR 104 & 100th Ave W I 01 1 o2 e3 1-. o4 J 05 4 06 1 o7 o8 — _ _) GTC (MJP) Baseline 2012 Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. Page 2 Packet Page 331 of 396 HA2004104-243Wpdate 090$061SynchrolFutureW.sy7 1: 232nd St SW & SR 104 232nd Mixed Use Updated (04-243) --1' •-- ,- t 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 0 +T Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh1h) 12 10 42 15 7 32 57 1143 40 41 754 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 13 11 46 16 8 35 62 1242 43 45 820 13 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TW LTL TW LTL Median storage veh) 0 1 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1699 2325 416 1938 2310 643 833 1286 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 915 915 1388 1388 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 784 1410 550 922 vCu, unblocked vol 1699 2325 416 1938 2310 643 833 1286 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF'(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 87 86 92 84 93 92 92 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 102 76 585 100 114 416 796 535 Direction, Lane 4 EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 70 59 62 828 458 45 646 286 Volume Left 13 16 62 0 0 45 0 0 Volume Right 46 35 0 0 43 0 0 13 cSH 199 187 796 1700 1700 535 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.31 0.08 0.49 0.27 0.08 0.32 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 37 32 6 0 0 7 0 0 Control Delay (s) 32A 32.7 9.9 0.0 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D D A B Approach Delay (s) 32.4 32.7 0.5 0.6 Approach LOS D D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.2%p ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 GTC (MJP) Future With 2012 Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. Page 1 Packet Page 332 of 396 K: 2004104-2431Update 0908061Synchro\FutureW.sy7 2: SR 104 & 100th Ave W 232nd Mixed Use Updated (04-243) -- - t Is. Lame Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 3 tl 0 tT tT Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 0 150 0 100 0 Storage Lanes 1 D 1 0 1 0 1 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.969 0.956 0.959 0.973 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3429 0 1770 3383 0 1770 3394 0 1770 3444 0 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3429 0 1770 3383 0 1770 3394 0 1770 3444 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 29 66 42 20 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 35 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 318 416 483 453 Travel Time (s) 7.2 8.1 13.2 12.4 Volume (vph) 39 814 210 133 688 288 183 444 166 196 347 75 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 895 231 146 756 316 201 488 182 215 381 82 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 1126 0 146 1072 0 201 670 0 215 463 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prat Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 10.0 46.0 0.0 19.0 55.0 0.0 24.0 32.0 0.0 23.0 31.0 . 0.0 Total Split (%) 8.3% 38.3% 0.0% 15.8% 45.8% 0.0% 20.0% 26.7% 0.0% 19.2% 25.8% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 6.0 42.0 15.0 51.0 20.0 28.0 19.0 27.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Max None Max Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 5.9 39.7 13.1 492 16.7 28.2 16.9 28.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.35 0.11 0.43 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.93 0.72 0.72 0.77 0.77 0.82 0.53 Control Delay 72.8 49.1 70.2 28.9 67.8 45.4 72.5 39.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 72.8 49.1 702 28.9 67.8 45.4 72.5 39.6 LOS E D E C E D E D GTC (MJP) Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. Future With 2012 Page 1 Packet Page 333 of 396 HA2004104-2431Update 0908061Synchro\FutureW.sy7 2: SR 104 & 100th Ave W 232nd Mixed Use Updated (04-243) ` --r. t' *-- t l,` Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Approach Delay 50.0 33.8 50.6 50.0 Approach LOS D C D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 33 428 109 337 150 244 161 160 Queue Length 95th (ft) #77 #565 #192 418 #233 317 #277 218 Internal Link Dist (ft) 238 336 403 373 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 100 Base Capacity (vph) 92 1260 230 1529 303 871 291 873 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.89 0.63 0.70 0.66 0.77 0.74 0.53 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 114.1 Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v!c Ratio: 0.93 Intersection Signal Delay: 45.1 Intersection LOS: D Intersection'Capacity Utilization 78.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 2: SR 104 & 100th Ave W GTC (MJP) Future With 2012 Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. Page 2 Packet Page 334 of 396 H.12004104-2431Update 8908061Synchro\FutureW+Chan.sy7 1: 232nd St SW & SR 104 232nd Mixed Use Updated (04-243) Movement EBL EBT EBR f- WBL 4-- WBT WBR NBL t NBT NBR SBL t SBT 4/ SBR Lane Configurations *T r 49. +T tT Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 12 10 42 15 7 32 57 1143 40 41 754 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 13 11 46 16 8 35 62 1242 43 45 820 13 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 1 Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 0 1 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1699 2325 416 1915 2310 643 833 1286 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 915 915 1388 1388 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 784 1410 527 922 vCu, unblocked voi 1699 2325 416 1915 2310 643 833 1286 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 87 86 92 84 93 92 92 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 102 76 585 101 114 416 796 535 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 70 59 62 828 458 45 546 286 Volume Left 13 16 62 0 0 45 0 0 Volume Right 46 35 0 0 43 0 0 13 cSH 262 189 796 1700 1700 535 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.27 0.31 0.08 0.49 0.27 0.08 0.32 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 26 31 6 0 0 7 0 0 Control Delay (s) 27.8 32.5 9.9 0.0 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D D A B Approach Delay (s) 27.8 32.5 0.5 0.6 Approach LOS D D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.0% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 GTC (MJP) Future With 2012 + Channelization Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. Page 1 Packet Page 335 of 396 AdftL Washington State Department ent of Transportation Secretary of Transportation September 13, 2006 Mr. Matthew J- Palmer Gibson Traffic Consultants 1712 Pacific Ave ##100 Everett, WA 98201 Re: Collision.Data Dear Mr. Palmer: T"ptspertation Building 31 o Maple Park Avenue S.E. P.O. Box 47300 Olympia, WA 985D4-7300 360-705-7000 T Y_ 1-800-833-6386 wwwr.wsdot.wa.90v In response to your September 11 request, we have prepared a history/summary of reported collisions on State Route 104 (milepost 26.89 to 27.22) for the period of January 1, 2003 through December 31. 2005. m HALs none reported • HACs none reported Federal law 23 United States Code Section 409 governs use of the data you requested. Under this law, data maintained for purposes of evaluating potential highway safety enhancements: " ... shall not lie subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a federal or state court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for dai'nages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data." [Emphasis added.] The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is releasing this data to you with the understanding that you will not use this data contrary to the restrictions in Section 409, which means you will not use this data in discovery or as evidence at trial in any action for damages against the WSDOT, the State of Washington, or any other jurisdiction involved in the locations mentioned in. the data. if you should attempt to use this data in an action for damages against WSDOT, the State of Washington, or any other jurisdiction involved in the locations mentioned in the data, these entities expressly reserve the right, under Section 409, to object to the use of the data, including any opinions drawn from the data. Packet Page 336 of 396 Mr. Matthew J. Palmer September 12, 2006 Page 2 If we. may be of any further assistance, please contact Mr. Dan Davis, Collision Data and Analysis Business Supervisor, Collision Data and Analysis Branch at (360) 570-2451, or e-mail address davisd@-,,,,sdot.wa.gov. t,,Jsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, Brian Limotti Collision .Data and Analysis Assistant Branch Manager Transportation Data Office Strategic Planning & Programming Office BL/DMD:dwg Cc_ N'afisa Peshtaz, WSDOT Northwest Region M,ugo Hemphill, WSDOT Northwest Region Packet Page 337 of 396 W - N m(D N CC3+) m N W. m m L CO Cu LU U) -.: U _0 -D M W :. 0) 0) M '0 _0 rn c c c c m a) a V a --_. p 0 Q O O 4 ... Q d ., E E E E o L� o 0 CO U .0 .0 a) L L W N N LU -0 0A "Oa 0"' =O 0 :. m r r r _u W0�.� - -. > `'2 O WOE rn rn rn 9 P, m :V (n < 0 1h � V} N V) � 2 ti (5 D: . (7 �CAzpIL Z c E c c C c a) c c v N m " N 4- 0 Z.,n � CD 0)0� 0)� 0) Q W O.w O - (A J L L0 N a) A--:Y r r O 0 ."C L 0 0 0 a CL O O + p j- Q' J Q. O O O Sl .A ([1 Y Q -0 .O Q 16 CG G .f1 .C] (D ? W :� W "Q:.Cli .: �. + r r r r r O + r C C C C C C C > 0. 7 a Z'.['C m a rn a) - m� ° a 6 a' rn �' � 5 ID C C" ..M Z .Q - ].L _� _� C c C C C C C Oy r- C Ca "O "6 (a C4 (Q 7 C 'O b Cu Cu a CO 10 ._ 0 U m -0 > > Q1 6r U E m iu iCf m E E °T E E n '�F E Q1 a) aci a) ¢�� C a) V) N C C G l6 V) V) C C M C V) D C Co C U) (6 R of > E E m a) a) E E m `m E 0) E E m E a� E m 0) a) C _U O O P C O O O CV O! O O E O C O c C C W m IL W W W W O 7 IL LL W LU LL W LL LL W EL W LL O O O O' W r rct r et Y-- .- ,- — r r r r ,- r r r— ,-" ,-- M v r CO n d 4L N r r r r N---- r r r N ri N :Z U M M d N r w .w (p .- r r r 'ci r r r r r .-- w CO M M aO (Vw --N r CV N N N N r r r r r Q CC F- N m J z¢ oo � W %IL OWQ O IL W> 4- O N N N r- N r r r r r N +- N N r N r N N Cu N N M >._ W� :31 W 7. N r CV N N N N N r N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N W'M LL -. U� Q :lQ O O p O (D C) C) Q O p p C7 p p p p CD O p 0 0 0 O Co Jzii a (mp fX3 *k.Z o o r o r (Dr ,- CD W)r r p CD 0 (D M,- C) r O U W m � � CQ � -� T- m ,- cD r (D r (o n ,- n t` *- I` W ,- i� �•- Y r m n .- r ri- E3 LL'p N N N N N N N N 4 [0II¢QQQ < OQL3OQ ap ¢ Q4¢X¢¢¢¢Q¢Ud¢C3<0a< 0 < 0 a LL) .Q Ir> F--, mQQmC©mpin<<0<MmU0mM<M < d CO to 4 tt CO m m CO t dt M m X[ (f J.a M N 00 N CD C, M V" W m N N COM 'tl' coCD COM N Cl) [+) (9 to N (D (D (D N C) CD N to N M (D Q Q -: ¢m¢ QQ- _N C) r- to CD r- .-- [7 n p C, r p C) c) O CD CDY C) C) 4 i7 Q< (_% a U Q Q S` O Q S O U m Q p p U m 4 U m Q 0 ro 0¢ m Q¢ n m Q N N CO LD (D to CD [O OD 'q -N m m p m CD t m (D t (D m N Cb (D 0 C) CD N O r)) Cl I- p p n M CO V m M C) M V) In .. -- CD C)(D 0) M O r O W 'd" 0 LO C'? (D to M M N C 0 CD 'r r r r r r r r r- r- e»- r- r r - r r r N +-- ui O � 0 0 m U a- z LO Q 0- 0 OC Cv -. 2mWr - = 0_ < in M h o. < O p W ° n - - • W q. N 0 ii jr , (51 Q - Cn CO N 0 m <t M M M M It a- "It It V" cF m m Cn Lr) M LD M V to to 4 O O p C] C7 p Q p 0 Q Q Q Q O [7 O _p p Cl C', Q Q Q M M OO 8CE5 jZ: N � [v CO M r­ tb U) M -,r 0 M C) pD M �- N C)r CC1 r N r r ID N C) N v» ;Z-t (D (V 'd" d o w C'I M C) Q - C) (D C7 o C� C) O p a CD r- p p p -r- e- r p C) M(D n (_� (I> m N� m M CO N n M m CO (D 0 r N CD M (fl m 't M N C) CO n m 0"t C') m n m CD 't p r LO CD n CD n M O r n rn M OD N CO LO T- N CO O N CO <Y C) n (D CO N n n CO N CD 00 m n rn i� rn n N OR n r n m n 'Ct N (D in (D o o Cv (D (D cD N m M CD CD r w (D LO 0 n U n o v v v v v n n n n s� 'CO) n n n t` v n 4 tr M -It CO m N N N CAI N N CV N N Cu N N N N N" w M to CD (D p C7 C3 Y .- r r r r r r r- r r r r-- .- - r r r N N N N is r, r� I- I-- N I- r-- ri� N h i, r- r- N E- ti h ti CV N N N CO (V N N N N N N N (,j N" N N CV N N N (\I N v�a vr'r rrvvet-Krvvztvvv;r'cravvvv�r O O d o C? C) C) p(D Q C) 0 O C) CD C) p CD p p 0 CD (D 0 Packet Page 338 of 396 —4L y LLJ 0 CO Z LLJ LLI ?,C) 17 2. C%j F�5 + . --M WCO :z .00 w w w0� (5 LU ..:' . , >.< LEJ CO - w_::;, Ga»<.LL] +- in 0 LLJ L Li 2: Z"O,< Cc).. W ) C4 CO W Ir « jr Cq " CO LO C', o C\l fD ti. :i 2 0 � m ru CO 'Coo Packet Page 339 of 396 I TTRAFFICDATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM 1,722 v 0 695 1,027 u! o 1-9 ---- 16-51 1 35 (I T 57 -^ k 00 0 51 8 33 T 7 C INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN 1,859' �r o- OUT 1,859 COUNTED BY: CN REDUCED BY: CN DATE: Wed.2/23/05 43 1 990 1 35 697 1,068 1 1,765 1 SR-104 @ 232nd Street SW Edmonds, WA 27 5 45 13 t 9, HV I PHF SB 2% 0.62 NB 2% 0.86 WB 2% 0.56 EB 2% 0.71 INTRS. 2% 0.81 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHI= = Peak Hour Factor DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 2/22/05 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 6:00 PM WEATHER: Sunny Packet Page 340 of 396 LOCATION: IMIIIIIIIIIIIII DDURTRA FFIC DATA GATHERING INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET SR-104 t@ 232nd Street SW DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 2122/05 COUNTED BY: Edmonds, WA TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 6:00 PM WEATHER: CN Sunny TIME INTERVAL ENDING FROM NORTH ON SR-104 (Edmonds Way) FROM SOUTH ON SR-104 (Edmonds Way) FROM EAST ON 232nd Street SW FROM WEST ON 232nd Street SW INTERVAL TOTALS AT HV Leff I Thru Right HV Left Thru Right HV Left Thru Right HV Lett Thru Right 02:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:15 PM 6 4 147 1 3 8 225 10 2 6 1 2 1 0 1 3 408 04:30 PM 3 11 153 1 9 4 222 11 0 8 2 10 0 2 2 5 431 04A5 PM 3 12 103 2 4 8 0 2 1 6 1 2 2 9 387 05:00 PM 1 5 124 4 4 8 1 3 1 10 0 3 2 6 469 05:15 PM 9 7 271 2 1 8 0 D 1 1 0 3 2 13 572 05:30 PM 0 9 105 2 3 J14209 13 0 1 2 12 0 3 3 3 376 05:45 PM 1 9 163 2 2 6 0 2 3 3 0 1 1 4 437 06:00 PM 5 5 120 1 2 1 10 0 6 0 1 3 0 1 0 6 364 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 16 35 651 9 18 43 990 35 1 13 5 27 1 10 8 33 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 695 1068 45 51 1859 % HV 2% 2%n 2%n 2% 2% PEAK HOUR= FACTOR 0.62 -- 0.86 0.56 0.71 0.81 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor REDUCED BY: CH 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: �15 PM TO 5:15 PM DATE OF REDUCTION: 2/23/2005 Packet Page 341 of 396 TTRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM 1,230 1I1 a� C 547 683 N 7 Q 0 67 307 173 o� ti n - 35 940 720 185 a� a INTERSECTION a �c PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN 3,172 0 OUT 3,172 COUNTED BY: KH REDUCED BY: CN DATE: Thu.9/21/06 �j 162 1 393 1 147 610 702 1 1,312 1 I00th Avenue W @ SR-104 Edmonds, WA SR-104 255 610 983 118 N Ci C14 � 1,040 HV I PNF SB 1% 0.97 NB 1% 0.89 WB 1% 0.88 EB 4% 0.85 INTRS. 2% 1 0.91 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor DATE OF COUNT: Thu. 9121106 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 6:00 PM WEATHER: Sunny Packet Page 342 of 396 TTRAFFIC DATA GATHERING INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: 100th Avenue W SR-104 DATE OF COUNT: Edmonds WA TIME OF COUNT: Thu. 9121106 4:00 - 6:00 PM COUNTER BY: KH WEATHER: Sunny TIME INTERVAL ENDING FROM NORTH ON 100th Avenue W FROM SOUTH ON 100th Avenue W FROM EAST ON SR-104 FROM WEST ON SR-104 INTERVAL TOTALS AT HV Leif Thru Right HV Left Thru Right HV Left Thru Right HV Lett Thru Right 02A PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:3GPM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 03:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:15 PM 2 51 77 13 0 54 105 39 1 21 159 70 12 11 185 51 836 04:30 PM 2 48 80 13 1 33 104 45 3 18 153 40 6 5 143 46 728 04:45 PM 1 35 78 18 1 50 98 33 1 56 148 76 10 9 221 45 B67 05:00 PM 2 39 72 23 2 25 86 30 2 23 150 69 5 10 171 43 1 741 05:15 PM 0 31 45 19 0 43 99 35 1 21 162 64 4 15 194 53 781 05:30 PM 3 30 76 16 1 35 94 40 0 19 152 65 15 12 161 46 746 05:45 PM 2 30 58 17 1 53 95 31 1 16 158 62 8 8 191 42 761 06:00 PM 1 46 56 19 0 37 92 30 2 22 139 1 60 9 15 163 41 720 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 7 173 307 67 4 162 393 147 7 118 610 255 33 1 35 1 720 1 185 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 547 702 983 940 3172 HV 1% 1% 1% 4% 2% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.97 0.89 0.88 0.85 0.91 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor REDUCES] BY: CN 4:00 -6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 1 4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM DATE OF REDUCTION: 9/2112006 Packet Page 343 of 396 GtRUMA'C" OMOUd�'INTS PROJECT SUBJECT Z, 2e4,k- 4A SHEEN''. I OF Z FMA DATE CHECKED DATE JOB NO. 011 zLf-7 1712 PACIFIC AVENUE • SUITE 100 • EVERETT, WA 98201 • PH: (425) 339-8266 • FAX: (425) 258-2922 Packet Page 344 of 396 G� OBSON #4 RAFFIC SHEET OF Uomauumn BY. DATE 64, CHECKED DATE PROJECT JOB NO. e--,q SUBJECT l>,q -TA4 ... ... ....... SM 4 . ...... .-®rl .... .. ---- ------ • ... .... . ..... MfiVENUE • SUITE 100 • EVERETT, WA 98201 • PH: (425) 339-8266 • FAX: (425) 258-2922 flip Pa,17 ,ty 3& M b Y N {YJ iY) � U O O O U) C7 O U O a o 0 r- () N co C*7 O 346 of 396 N D CD �X C LO r_ O d.� w 7S 0 fz U Cl �Cl M L CL O a) 0 aD m v LU U ! LU Of w L- _L rn I- 0 LL! U Z L LI W LL LL h V�l t Qi-k+ di'+- - ieled way walk ioulder Not to exceed 18 ft from the edge of traveled way, Posted Speed 25 30 35 40 50 60 70 Limit (mph) AWDVT'E 155 200 230 295 395 525 625 100 or less AWDVT'E 155 200 250 305 425 570 645 100 to 1500 Road Approach Sight Distance (ft) These distances require an approaching vehicle to reduce speed or stop to prevent a collision. Design road approach sight distance for road approaches with AWDVTE over 1500 as an intersection, see Chapter 910. Provide decision sight distance (Chapter 650) for through traffic at all utility and special use road approaches on facilities with full access control. For road approaches where left turns are not allowed, a sight triangle need only be provided to the left, as shown. For road approaches where left turns are allowed, provide a sight triangle to the right in addition to the one to the left. The sight distance to the right is measured along the center line of the roadway. For additional information on calculating the sight triangle, see Chapter 910. Road Approach Sight Distance Figure 920-6 Road Approaches Page 920-8 Packet Page 347 of 396 Design Manual December 2003 to N N N_ N NC N (D O N UtU C 0 Z5 U N C U U 0 sf2 Z, -0 C6 r CL 5 M to COn 0) N N C( a° C o 3: 0 fll 0 C)+.� 6J a '� N a� o 7 IUU C(U _ -i� m 5 C o•N 0) o as c 70 w _ a . U 0a W O (aN X O a QX Onc) O N o C N N a U p Q) N :1 3m p x -2,QTU p U p [A ca ar ao CO L Q) N C CO N N C 07, N C N U ID c O N C N O� N? U U C -0 m c-= ,- [� t) N� 4) O C 3 U O in Q C Q) UO Q7 C a) U)U C C Q) ?: O QN C U c o to N o o O �qUa> O a)Q r •� (a CU U 0 0 Na) .�U En 0 En U Q) (U O u tD i0 O Q) - N C(1 -o .> .Q N _0 ,7 t6 -6 .D O fi u, O O C r n O� D. C R C r C O 0- C 0� C : Q r� .2 cG [l3 U O U LL M r CEO CO N r Q LFj 87 • ��' - _ N CO to c O � U Q% U SSF d E N NIn O L Z .n N C i4 C (U O N 0_ G U N N N w L) N N j a E O E a �- U a O C N_0 C CO CO a W W m r o 7 (] CO -0 Q) m -0 0 t7] N -0 C -0 C E 0 r ?. to N _i. U) CJ U N N g U N N N L o o U) C `,rb N Ca U MM vy 0 cn U U@ Ca0� U min E U COC Cro U QVJ o03 Managed Access Page 9435-94 m .c 7, m to a to Q) U U ro 4D -0 SD C O c4 W tV tJ C tyU 3 U a a _T, 0 C, CD � m � :3 � C O C f cn U N N a� o m E U > v7 M o m E o 0 m 0 E -0 =3 [IIE E AM, 3 W _ a Design Manual December 2003 Packet Page 348 of 396 • The minimum distance to another mile (1/2 mi). Less than one-half mile (public or private) access point is three (1/2 fni) intersection spacing may be hundred thirty feet (330') on the same allowed, but only when no reasonable side of the highway. Nonconforming alternative access exists. access connection permits may be issued In urban areas and developing areas where to provide access to parcels whose higher volumes are present or growth that highway frontage, topography, or location will require signalization is expected in precludes issuance of a conforming the foreseeable future, it is imperative that access connection permit. the location of any public access point • Variance permits may be allowed if there be planned carefully to ensure adequate are special conditions and the exception signal progression. Where feasible, major can be justified to the satisfaction of the intersecting roadways that might ultimately department by a traffic analysis in the require signalization are planned with a access connection permit application minimum of one-half mile (1/2 mi) spacing, that is signed and sealed by a qualified Addition of all new access points, public professional engineer who is registered or private, that may require signalization in accordance with RCW l 8.43. will require an engineering analysis that is signed and sealed by a qualified professional (4) Class 4 engineer who is registered in accordance (a) )Functional Characteristics with RCW 18.43, Class 4 highways provide for moderate travel 2. Private Access Connections: speeds and moderate traffic volumes for medium No more than one access connection and short travel distances for intercity, intracity may be provided to an individual parcel and intercommunity travel needs. There is a or to contiguous parcels under the same reasonable balance between direct access and ownership unless it can be shown that mobility needs for highways in this class. This additional access connections will not class is to be used primarily where the existing adversely affect the desired function of level of development of the adjoining land is the state highway in accordance with the more intensive and where the probability of assigned managed access Class 4, and major land use changes is less probable than will not adversely affect the safety or on Class 3 highways segments. operation of the state highway_ Highways in Class 4 are typically distinguished The minimum distance to another (public by existing or planned nonrestrictive medians. or private) access point is two hundred Restrictive medians may be used to mitigate fifty feet (250') on the same side of unfavorable operational conditions such as the highway. Nonconforming access turning, weaving, and crossing conflicts. connection permits may be issued to Minimum access connection spacing requirements provide access connections to parcels apply if adjoining properties are redeveloped. whose highway frontage, topography, (b) Legal Requirements or location precludes issuance of a conforming access connection permit. l . It is the intent that Class 4 highways be designed to have a posted speed limit of Variance permits maybe allowed if there 30 to 35 mph in urbanized areas and 35 to are special conditions and the exception 45 mph in rural areas. In rural areas_ spacing can be justified to the satisfaction of of intersecting streets, roads, and highways is the department by a traffic analysis planned with a mininwin spacing of one-half in the connection permit application that is signed and sealed by a qualified professional engineer who is registered in accordance with RCW 18.43. Design Manual Managed Access December 2003 Page 1435-5 Packet Page 349 of 396 To: Edmonds Planning Board Re: Shapiro Application to rezone at 232 and Edmonds Way Submitted 2/14/07 200 Ospr This comment is submitted regarding the application to rezone properties at Edmonds Way from 232nd Street extending northwesterly for several lots The Comprehensive Plan's criterion for the Edmonds Way Corridor lists among its general purposes to "reserve areas or retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area. " And yet, in both a neighborhood meeting and a separate meeting regarding traffic issues, the applicant has conceded that, due to the volume of parking that those types of businesses require, these will probably not be the taM of businesses that will occupy the mixed use buildin . Rather, he cited examples such as professional offices, architectural firms, real estate brokers, and insurance agents. These types of businesses do not satisfy the stated purpose of the zoning classification as worded above. They are not businesses that the residents will use on a daily basis. Neighbors at these meetings expressed interest in services such as coffee shops, sandwich shops, bookstores, etc. It is natural that the developer and architect are intent on getting as mach rentable space out of their property as they can (by keeping the parking to a minimum), but they must do so only to the extent that it can still satisfy the stated purpose of the new zone classification as given above. They can't have it both ways; they must do what is required in terms of parking to satisfy the intent of the comprehensive plan, even if that means sacrificing some rental space in order to accommodate adequate parking. The Comprehensive Plan also lists the need to keep adverse affects on traffic within the existing residential neighborhoods to a minimum. The effects of increased traffic on 232nd Street S.W., and at the intersections of both 232 d & SR104 and 232 d & 10& (Firdale) have not been adequately addressed. By my rough count, there are currently about 107 households that must access 232d to go anyplace at all. In directly accessing 232nd street for its 49-stall apartment parking garage, this development would add 40 more households, roughly a 37% increase in the number of households using that street. The developer and architect have made much about the reduction of "curb cuts" to SR104 in the proposed project. While there are restrictions that the State Department of Transportation will impose on SR104 (and I do not pretend to know what those restrictions are), it makes more sense for all the traffic coming in and out of the mixed -use building and townhomes to use SR104, rather than a residential side street. The possible options in which only SR104 is used for vehicle traffic have not been fully explored. When asked about what would be required to route all traffic onto SR104, the applicant responded that a ramp to connect the two parking garages would cost them rentable area. Again, the applicant simply can't have it both ways; they must do what is required in terms of parking and traffic flow to keep the traffic off of 232"d street in order to satisfy the intent of the comprehensive plan, even if that means sacrificing some rental space in order to route all traffic onto SR104. The Comprehensive Plan also Iists as one of its goals: "Provide a Rcdestrian-oriented sirccgcape environment for residential and commercial activity" At the neighborhood meeting of September 7'', the architect conceded, in a defense of development along Edmonds Way, that SR 104 was a major state highway, very busy, with actual vehicle speeds averaging somewhere around 50 mph. He reinforced this by adding that it is an inappropriate place for single family -ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Page 350 of 396 homes due to the speed of the traffic. Although this may simply be a fundamental flaw in the Comprehensive Plan itself, how does the City and the architect reconcile the desire for a "pedestrian -oriented streetscape environment" with the observation that this is a busy state highway with high-speed traffic? There is a disconnect between the two elements at play here. What is the logic of trying to encourage pedestrian traffic on SR104, and, more specifically, what is this developer doing to satisfy this perceived need. The architect claims in his narrative that the mixed -use development at the corner of 232 d and Edmonds Way would "provide a nice transition from the busy arterial of F.dlmvnds Pay to the quieter residential tones found in the neighborhoods west of the site. " While it is possible that a mixed -use development could provide this transition, the proposed structure for this particular development does not. Due to its soaring height and limited setbacks, the building has a towering look to & one bar& appmpriate to the scale of the nei borhood it introduces. This is a development that is considerably out of proportion to the neighborhood it will be imposed upon. It is important to note that the "facade" of Edmonds Way is not the only view to be considered in the proposed new zone classifications. Consider, if you will, this photo of the backside of another nearby apartment complex, taken from my front yard loolang across 231st Street S.W. at my neighbor's house: Three story apartment building with no screening looks directly down into resident's backyard_ This one was built within the existing height limit. Add another 15 feet to this (beyond the top of the photograph) to imagine the building height now allowed with the new BC -Edmonds Way zone_ This photo serves as a good example of what our experiences as residents have been like in the past with the introduction of tall multi -family housing on bordering properties. One of our primary concerns, then, is to prevent further erosion of the heavily -forested, almost rural, private atmosphere within our neighborhood_ The loss of trees is one element of this. The building Packet Page 351 of 396 height of these developments is also a major factor in the way our territorial views (and our privacy) are affected. The new BC- and RM Edmonds Way zones have rather subjective and loose language regarding the preservation of the trees. While it is unfortunate that the City Council saw fit to approve the creation of the new zones before this language was improved and clarified, the intent of the zones is clear-4o preserve much of the stands of "significant" and mature trees in order to act as privacy screening for neighboring residences. This application should not be approved until a complete plan of foresting has been submitted and can be reviewed by neighbors and the city. 1 urge the Council to deny this application until all questions about the above issues can be addressed. As a separate, but related, issue' this body should be advised that in the applicant's pitch to the City Council on January I e to create the two new zones specifically for his development, Mr. Grossman gave what i believe to be false information to the Council, pointing to a neighboring residence and saying "these people, here, are fine with it." The owner of that property, my next - door neighbor, has been active in writing letters against the zone creation and developement, and was rather displeased at seeing the video of Mr. Grossman's presentation. She mentioned to me that she would be writing on her own behalf on this issue (please refer to her letter if she was able to submit it in time). Additionally, Mr_ Grossman mischaracterized or hedged much of the content and concerns raised in the neighborhood meetings in his presentation to the Council. As the applicant has been less than forthcoming to the city in the.past, it is vital that all aspects of this development project are fully known before the rezone is allowed.. Faithfully submitted, Gary Gibson 9302 — 2313` Street S.W. Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Page 352 of 396 From: Gary Gibson Comment to Edmonds Planning Board, March 14, 2007 Re: Shapiro rezone application" (Edmonds Way and 232fld Street S. W northwesterly several properties) Preface extending 200;� Due to the reckless and hasty decision by the City Council majority on January 16dh, 2007, two new zones, drafted by the applicant in order to meet the applicant's specific needs, were created for this development. Although the applicant changed the proposal to include all of the Edmonds Way Corridor in order to avoid allegations of "spot zoning," the new zones are, in effect, written specifically for this project. These new zones were created without the benefit of Comprehensive Plan Review. That vital step in creation of new zones was waived by the Planning Department in order to "save time" for the applicant. What this means is that this application to rezone the properties takes on added significance. In addition to merely considering the viability of the application, the Board must also carefully scrutinize the proposal, making sure that each individual element of it is consonant with the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Considerations ... And there is reason to be concerned about the proposed rezone's compliance with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Unless the applicant has changed his proposal recently, there are two distinct areas in which the proposed development is inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 1. The Comprehensive Plan lists the need to keep adverse effects on traffic within the existing residential neighborhoods to a minimum by not using side streets. By my rough count, there are currently about 107 households that must access 232nd Street S.W. in order to go anyplace at all. In directly accessing 232nd Street S.W. for its 49-stall apartment parking garage, this development would add 40 more households, roughly a 37% increase in the number of households that must use that already busy street. When asked in a neighborhood meeting about what would be required to route all traffic from the development onto SR104, the applicant responded that a ramp to connect the two parking garages would cost them too much rentable space. Tough cookies! The applicant must do what is required in terms of parking and traffic now to avoid directly accessing 232°a Street S.W. in order to satisfy the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, even if that means sacrificing some rentable space. 2. The Comprehensive Plan also specifically dictates to "reserve areas, for retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area." And yet, in both a neighborhood meeting and a separate meeting regarding traffic issues, the applicant conceded that, due to the loss of Packet Page 353 of 396 rentable space that would result from the parking requirements involved in housing businesses as described above, these will probably not be the types of businesses that will occupy the mixed use building. Rather, he cited examples such professional offices, architectural firms, real estate brokers, and insurance agents. These types of businesses do not satisfy the stated purpose of the zoning classification as worded above. They are not businesses the residents will use on a daily basis. Residents at the neighborhood meeting expressed interest in businesses such as a coffee shop, a sandwich shop, a bookstore, etc. It is natural that the developer and architect are intent on getting as much rentable space out of their property as they can by keeping the parking to a minimum, but they must do so only to the extent that the development can still satisfy the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, their new zones allow them so much additional height over and above the standard in Edmonds, any complaints the applicant might have about losing rentable space to allow for parking for businesses that the residents actually want in their neighborhood should fall on deaf ears. Summary It is unfortunate that an important step was skipped in creating the new zones that are being applied for currently; now that skipped step must be made up for by scrutinizing in unusual detail this proposal to assure that it is consonant with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant, in the approval of his new zones by the City Council, has been granted the potential for a very special exception to be made by allowing extra height. This extra height will be burden enough for the nearby residents to bear. The least this Board and the City Council can do is make sure that all other elements of the proposal are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that they do not adversely Faithfully submitted, Gary Gibson 9302 — 231St Street S.W. Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Page 354 of 396 Michael A. Nicefaro Jr. Anne W. Nicefaro /�( �OQJ 9230 — 232°d Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 06pr Home: (206) 546-9468 March 12, 2007 Edmonds Planning Board City of Edmonds Office of the City Clerk 121 — 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Proposed Edmonds Community Development Code Amendment By Tony Shapiro for Rezone of Edmonds Way & 232"d Street SW Properties Hearing March 14, 2007 Dear Planning Board Members: We reside at 9230 — 232°d Street SW, within 500 feet of the property proposed for this rezoning classification. We are writing to express our objection to the proposed rezone. Contrary to the representations of the developer/proponent, numerous significant adverse impacts would result from the new zoning classifications. The current zoning classification height restrictions (35 foot), which would be substantially increased by the proposed new zoning classifications (45 foot), were adopted for a reason. The depressed Edmonds Way roadway corridor provides a natural buffer between these intensive uses and the single family residential that exist in the benches up above. The developers themselves have admitted that the height of their proposed structures if the rezone is allowed will equal the height of the top of the utility pole on 232°d Street SW at the westerly boundary of their property. Such a structure would tower over the single family residences on the bench above Edmonds Way. None of these factors have been addressed satisfactorily, nor can they be. The intense development that would be possible under the proposed rezone will generate adverse impacts to our single family residential neighborhood that cannot be mitigated. Packet Page 355 of 396 Edmonds Planning Board March 12, 2007 Page 2 of 3 Neighborhood business aspects of the project have not been finalized at this point, but the commercial uses proposed by the developer are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and the single family residential uses that border the proposed rezone area. The comprehensive plan allows for Neighborhood Business uses that serve the neighborhoods in which they are located. None of the uses proposed to date by the developers will serve our neighborhood. The proposed rezone is not appropriate for the additional reason that the properties proposed for the rezone are not amenable to the more intensive use that the increased height restrictions call for. The depth of the properties along Edmonds Way is not conducive to more intense development. Even with radical onsite traffic circulation features, allowing more intensive development of this property will increase the internal circulation problems inherent in this kind of configuration. Those problems will manifest themselves on Edmonds Way and on our 232' Street SW as well. The developers themselves have stated that the proposed rezone will permit development that will ultimately increase the traffic volumes on 232nd Street SW by 25%. This narrow, two lane road without shoulders, sidewalks or adequate overhead lighting cannot sustain this additional burden without generating substantial additional safety risks to residents like us who walk this street in all kinds of weather, and in all lighting conditions. Many neighborhood residents regularly walk this narrow street during dark morning and evening hours to get to the bus stop on Edmonds Way. The intense development that would be permitted by the proposed rezone would add to the already present traffic conflicts and attendant risks. In joining the narrow majority vote to revise this zoning classification for Edmonds Way corridor, the mayor expressed his pleasure at the idea of Edmonds Way becoming "upscale". We do not consider the placement of commercial buildings that tower over our residential neighborhood and house businesses that do not provide us with relevant services to be "upscale". More importantly, the mayor and others who voted for the zoning reclassification failed to recognize that the existing neighborhood infrastructure is inadequate to serve Edmonds Way developments of this intensity. The City of Shoreline's recent experience with multiple pedestrian collisions due to a combination of intensified development accompanied by inadequate infrastructure demonstrate the fallacy of allowing intensified development without requiring concurrent support. While the developer has paid for traffic engineering opinions that attempt to minimize this risk, common sense and common experience belie those opinions. If the City allows this rezone, and the others that will attempt to follow, it will be responsible for the consequences. For the reasons stated above, we respectfully urge you to deny the proposed rezone. Should the rezone applicant modify its proposal to conform to the comprehensive plan to qualify for the rezone, we ask that the rezone be conditioned on requirements that the developer/applicant mitigate the negative impact of its development Packet Page 356 of 396 Edmonds Planning Board March 12, 2007 Page 3 of 3 on the neighborhood, including installation of improved lighting and street widening to provide shoulders and/or sidewalks the length of 232nd Street from Edmonds Way (SR 104) to 100th Avenue. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions, and thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on this action. Sincerely, a. g Michael A. Nicefaro Jr. Anne W. Nicefaro Packet Page 357 of 396 Parties of Record R-2006-95 — Shapiro/SGA Corp. Applicants Abbott, Jim Koltonowski, Edward (Gibson Traffic Consultants) Shapiro, Tony Public (from letters received) Gibson, Gary Nicefaro, Michael A. Packet Page 358 of 396 AM-937 9. Proposed Ordinance Amending Code Provisions Relating to Animal Control Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/17/2007 Submitted By: Jana Spellman Submitted For: Mauri Moore Time: 30 Minutes Department: City Council Type: Information Review Committee: A rtinn Information Subject Title Discussion of proposed ordinance amending provisions of City Code Chapter 5.05 relating to Animal Control. Discussion will include deleting cats from the exemption of roaming at large as well as requiring licensing of cats. (Requested by Councilmember Moore.) Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action On March 27, 2007 the Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance 3634 worded as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 5.05 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO AN ANIMAL CONTROL BY AMENDING SECTION 5.05.010 TO ADD A NEW DEFINITION FOR "PET" AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 5.05.110 CRIMES RELATED TO THE CONFINEMENT OF ANOTHER'S ANIMAL AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Narrative Councilmember Moore has requested that a discussion be placed on this evening's agenda amending provisions of City Code Chapter 5.05 relating to Animal Control. The discussion will include deleting cats from the exemption of roaming at large as well as requiring licensing of cats. Link: Cat licensing Link: Cats roaming at large Link: March 27 Council Minutes Fiscal Impact Attarhmnntc Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 11:28 AM 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/12/2007 11:31 AM Status APRV APRV Packet Page 359 of 396 Final Approval Sandy Chase Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 04/12/2007 04/12/2007 11:50 AM APRV Started On: 04/12/2007 08:56 AM Packet Page 360 of 396 0006.900000 WSS/gjz 4/5/07 R:4/6/07gjz ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5.05.025 CAT LICENSING TO REQUIRE THE LICENSING OF CATS, ESTABLISH PENALTIES AND REMEDIES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council has contemporaneously prohibited cats from running at large; and WHEREAS, cat licensing is a means of identifying the owner of an animal as well as assuring the safe and prompt return of a cat to its owner, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds City Code Section 5.05.025 Cat licensing is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.05.025 Cat licensing. A. License Required. It is unlawful for any person to own a cat over the age of three months within the City unless the owner has first procured the license required by this Chapter. B. Cats Excluded From Licensing Requirements. The licensing provisions of this section shall not apply to the following cats: 1. Cats whose owners are nonresidents temporarily within the City; 2. Cats brought into the City for the purpose of participating in any cat show; and {WSS657174.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - I - Packet Page 361 of 396 3. Cats whose owner maintains them for the sole purpose of commercial breeding, show, boarding, so long as the cats are restricted within a building or fenced enclosure intended and designed only for the purpose of kenneling cats and are not permitted to run at large. C. The police department, or such other person, firm or entity as authorized by the City Council shall issue a lifetime cat license. The fee for such license shall be $10.00. D. Non-resident License. A license may be issued to non- residents of the City of Edmonds who reside in proximity to the City and desire to purchase an animal license for their cat for identification purposes. The annual fee shall be the same as set forth above for resident cats. E. Fee Waiver -- Service Animals. A certified service animal may be issued a lifetime license at no charge upon the request of the impaired owner. F. Enforcement Procedure. All cats not licensed under this Section, or who do not exhibit a medal identification tag provided for in sub -section C. of this section are declared to be public nuisances and shall be impounded as provided in ECC 5.05.126. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS657174.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 362 of 396 APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. IWSS657174.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - Packet Page 363 of 396 On the passed Ordinance No. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington day of , 2007, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, . 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 5.05.025 CAT LICENSING TO REQUIRE THE LICENSING OF CATS, ESTABLISH PENALTIES AND REMEDIES, 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 92007. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {wss657174.Doc;1i00006.900000i}- 4 - Packet Page 364 of 396 0006.900000 WSS/gjz 11 /09/06 R:4/6/07gjz ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5.05.050 RUNNING AT LARGE PROHIBITED TO DELETE THE EXCEPTIONS FOR CATS, REQUIRE THAT THE CUSTODY OF CAPTURED STRAY ANIMALS BE TURNED OVER TO THE ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY, AND FIX A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, current City ordinance prohibits pet and animal owners from allowing their animals to run at large, but creates an exception for cats; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that stray cats and cats allowed to run at large pose a risk to public safety by contributing to the spread of disease and the killing or injury of wild life such as bids, squirrels and other small animals; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to reinstate a requirement that persons taking up stray animals turn such animals over the animal control authority or police within 24 hours; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds City Code, Section 5.05.050 Running- at large prohibited is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.05.050 Running at large prohibited. A. It shall be unlawful for the owner or person have charge, care, custody or control of any animal to allow such animal to run at large during any hours of the day or night. This section shall not {WSS645775.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - I - Packet Page 365 of 396 apply to dogs owned by the City or other law enforcement agencies and maintained as police K-9 units while under the custody and control of the trainer or handler. Any animal found running at large may be seized and impounded. B. It shall be the duty of a person who takes into their possession any stray animal not owned by them or not placed in their possession by the person having the lawful custody and control thereof, to notify the animal control authority or police within 24 hours and to release such animal to the City officer upon demand and without charge. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. &IUU 00Aare MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: :• W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {WSS645775.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 366 of 396 On the passed Ordinance No. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington day of , 2007, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, . 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 5.05.050 RUNNING AT LARGE PROHIBITED TO DELETE THE EXCEPTIONS FOR CATS, REQUIRE THAT THE CUSTODY OF CAPTURED STRAY ANIMALS BE TURNED OVER TO THE ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY, AND FIX 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 Packet Page 367 of 396 {WSS645775.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 3 - EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES March 27, 2007 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Olson in the Council Chambers, 250 51h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Peggy Pritchard Olson, Mayor Pro Tem Ron Wambolt, Council President Pro Tem Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Dave Gebert, City Engineer Debbie Dawson, Animal Control Officer Carl Nelson, Chief Information Officer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Pro Tem Wambolt requested Item I be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Plunkett requested Item G be removed. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL Approve 3i20i07 B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2007. Minutes C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #95004 THROUGH #95183 FOR MARCH 22, 2007 IN pprove Claim Checks THE AMOUNT OF $833,409.80. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #44617 THROUGH #44669 FOR THE PERIOD OF MARCH 1 THROUGH MARCH 15, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $909,024.34. Claims for D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM CAROL FRANKLIN amages (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) AND TIMOTHY CIPOLLA (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED. dmonds E. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE EDMONDS MEMORIAL Memorial Cemeteeryry CEMETERY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 1 Packet Page 368 of 396 2007 Street Overlay F. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 2007 STREET OVERLAY [Program PROGRAM. Old Woodway H. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES [Elementary AGREEMENT WITH MACLEOD RECKORD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS FOR ark Planning CONSULTING SERVICES FOR OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PARK MASTER PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES. ity Building Energy J. REPORT ON FINAL PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION FOR THE CITY BUILDING mprovements ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. Ord# 3633 Temporary K. ORDINANCE NO. 3633 - ADOPTING A NEW SUBSECTION D INTO EDMONDS CITY Employee CODE 8.51.020 DEFINING TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT, ADDING A Parking Permit NEW SECTION 8.51.042 TO CHAPTER 8.51 ECC ENTITLED TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT - VALIDATION REQUIRED. Executive City Attorney Scott Snyder requested a brief Executive Session to discuss the items that were removed Session re. Pfrom the Consent Agenda. At 7:30 p.m., Mayor Pro Tern Olson recessed the Council to a 15 minute Pending Litigation Executive Session to discuss pending/threatened litigation. The meeting was reconvened at 7:19 p.m. emolition of ITEM G: AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE ABATEMENT AND DEMOLITION Old Woodway OF THE OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOCATED AT 23700 104TH Elementary AVENUE WEST Councilmember Plunkett advised questions had arisen that City Attorney Scott Snyder needed additional time to address. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO DEFER THIS ITEM UNTIL NEXT WEEK. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Parks, Recrea- ITEM I: AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ion Open Spacee Comp AGREEMENT WITH HOUGH BECK & BAIRD INC. FOR CONSULTING SERVICES Plan TO UPDATE THE EDMONDS PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Council President Pro Tern Wambolt relayed that at a Port Commission meeting yesterday, citizens and Commissioners expressed dissatisfaction with the restroom facilities along the waterfront. He asked if the scope of this item could include an assessment of the restroom facilities on the waterfront and determine whether additional restrooms were needed. He recalled the Port Commissioners expressed interest in restrooms at the dog park and at Marina Beach. He noted there were also comments that the restroom facilities at the underwater park were not maintained and were in a constant state of uncleanliness. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh agreed it could include this assessment. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM L MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. [Boys & Girls 13, PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF BOYS & GIRLS CLUB WEEK MARCH 25 - 31 2007 Club Week Mayor Pro Tern Olson read a Proclamation declaring March 25 — 31 as Boys & Girls Club week and presented the Proclamation to Bill Dalziel, Boys & Girls Club Director. Mr. Dalziel thanked the Council for their support of Edmonds youth, advising the Boys & Girls Club was part of a larger operation with over 4,000 clubs in the United States. He explained the Boys & Girls Club Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page 369 of 396 had been a member of the Edmonds community since 1968 and currently had five sites — four elementary schools and the Club — that serve approximately 1200 youth per year. The Boys & Girls Club planned to continue to be a part of the community and maintain a positive place for kids. He emphasized adults were role models for youth and the youth were the leaders of tomorrow, future employees, employers, neighbors and families in the community. Mayor Pro Tem Olson commented her nephew had benefited from attending the Boys & Girls Club before and after school programs. Snohomish Co. 4. ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOURISM BUREAU Tounsm ureau Amy Spain, Snohomish County Tourism Bureau, provided statistics regarding tourism in Snohomish County including a 10.6% growth in tourism in 2006 for a total economic impact of $746.7 million. She described: • 14,202 requests for information generated by advertisements, • increase in web visitors to Snohomish.org, SnohomishCountyWedings.com and RoomsAtPar, • decreased visits to Visitor Information Centers, • relatively flat off-season program bookings compared to 2005, • increased group and convention room nights, • increased hotel occupancy levels, • increased hotel/motel tax collections, and • increased media coverage. She commented on the impacts of tourism in Snohomish County on restaurants, transportation, fuel, retail stores, recreation and entertainment as well as employment and local and state taxes. Ms. Spain provided examples of advertisements the Bureau placed in meeting planners, reunion and group tour -related publications and displayed the group tour guide and meeting & event guide. She commented on familiarization tours and sales missions the Bureau provided. She described trade shows Bureau staff attended that generated leads, assistance staff provided to groups with their conference needs, and meeting planner bids the Bureau prepared for group businesses. She reported on lost convention business in 2006 and displayed a chart illustrating the economic impact of hotel room nights. She reported on Amtrak's in -kind donation of a companion fair coupon. She also reported on the economic impact of sports related bookings in 2006. Ms. Spain commented on distribution of official visitor guides, season calendars, Farm Trail Guides, and Glimpse of Snohomish County promotional pieces. She described public relation and media efforts, volunteer hours and services provided at Visitor Centers and donations from area businesses. She described decreasing visits to Visitor Centers as the public increased their use of online websites and as communities opened their own Visitor Information Centers. She also described the Bureau's community relation efforts during 2006 that included sponsoring six countywide tourism -related programs as well as participating as a donation site for Toys for Tots and food drives. She summarized tourism was a huge economic driver in Snohomish County tourism and was improving every year. Councilmember Moore inquired about the Bureau's efforts associated with the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver and how Edmonds could participate. Ms. Spain described the SnoGold 2010 effort, a grassroots organization which includes a Tourism Committee that she co-chairs as well as a Communications Committee and a Business Development Committee. The Business Development Committee is working on preparing businesses to accommodate the influx of visitors and how to become suppliers to the needs of the Olympics. The Tourism Committee is preparing an inventory of attractions and special events during the Olympics and Paralympics time period and discussing how to better market Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page 370 of 396 those events nationally. She relayed statistics that the majority of U.S. visitors to the Olympics would be from the western states, many of whom would be driving. She commented on the need to manage expectations, noting although there would be additional visitors, their focus will be reaching BC. Councilmember Moore recalled Idaho benefited greatly from the Olympics in Salt Lake City including hosting foreign teams. She referred to skating rinks in Snohomish County and asked how Edmonds could pursue that effort. Ms. Spain advised of a Community Strategy for Team Hosting Workshop on April 11 at the Everett Event Center. She advised the Business Development Committee is working on hosting teams as well as team demonstrations/exhibitions in Snohomish County. She encouraged anyone interested in being more involved in the SnoGold 2010 to contact her. Councilmember Marin found the presentation impressive, particularly the indication that it was not only hotels that benefited but there was a trickle down effect on communities. Ms. Spain agreed, noting shopping was the top tourist activity and Edmonds was a wonderful destination for shopping as well as walking and art and culture. Councilmember Marin asked her to relay the Council's thanks to her staff and volunteers. Councilmember Dawson thanked Councilmember Moore for raising the issue of SnoGold, recalling the Council discussed that effort at the retreat. She envisioned the City becoming more involved with the Business Development Committee in the fall. Community 5. REPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CTAC) Technology ommitt Committee Bart Preecs, Chair of the CTAC, introduced John Hines and John Gates, members of the CTAC in the audience. He explained there had been a significant citizen effort on the CTAC. He thanked Community Services Director Stephen Clifton, Administrative Services Director Dan Clements, and Executive Assistant Cindy Cruz for their assistance. He also thanked the Council, commenting this was uncharted territory; there was no recipe for developing a broadband system and it took courage and vision for the Council to take a leadership position in this effort. Rick Jenness, CTAC member, presented the CTAC vision, "Build an ultra high speed interactive broadband network, available to every home and business in the City, capable of delivering service from multiple competing servicing providers." He reviewed the benefits of a broadband network that include reduced costs to residents and businesses, providing enhanced public and commercial services along with more service plan choices to citizens, providing increased competition among service providers, creating an economic development magnet for high tech businesses to the City, and stabilizing and enhancing current City revenues from service providers He reviewed an historical timeline: • 2002-2004 — vision evangelized to Mayor and Council • November 2004 — Council creates CTAC • June 2005 — WSDOT deeds 4-mile (from the ferry to Hwy. 99) fiber backbone to the City • December 2005 — City acquires Westin fiber to Snohomish County line 0 November 2006 — City completes WSDOT fiber to Westin fiber link, providing fiber from the ferry terminal to the Westin • December 2006 — City issues RFI to gather information from commercial entities (18 firms express interest) • January 2007 — 12 firms attend vendor pre -bid conference • March 1, 2007 — City acquires first customer to utilize Westin link • March 2, 2007 — City receives eight formal responses to RFI Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page 371 of 396 • March 16, 2007 — City selects four firms for oral presentations (Bechtel/Motorola, DynamicCity, NetRiver/PacketFront, and Nortel) He reviewed a future timeline: April 10 & 11, 2007 — oral presentations by Bechtel/Motorola, DynamicCity, NetRiver/PacketFront, and Nortel April 14, 2007 — Committee completes evaluation of responses May 4, 2007 — Council, Mayor, staff and committee issues Statement of Direction with regard to where the City wants to go next Mr. Jenness explained possible next steps include 1) creating a public entity to begin planning activities who would engage a partner firm, business case development, begin planning a pilot project and 2) expanding the marketing activities of the existing infrastructure to generate additional revenue. Councilmember Moore expressed her gratitude to the citizens serving as volunteers on the CTAC. She found this to be the most important initiative the City has seen in a long time. With regard to what CTAC wanted the Council to do next, she asked if they planned to bring it to the Community Outreach Committee or to the full Council. He commented several Councilmembers attend CTAC meetings, thus they have had good input from the Council. He suggested the process could possibly include discussion by the Finance Committee prior to consideration by the full Council. Mr. Preecs explained the goal had always been not just to establish the infrastructure but to identify how to use that infrastructure to promote civic and cultural aspects of the community as well as the practice of government. Council President Pro Tern Wambolt, who serves on the CTAC along with Mayor Pro Tern Olson, acknowledged when this effort first began he was skeptical until he discovered the members of the CTAC knew what they were doing. He noted the members were very capable people with years of experience who were spending a great deal of their own time on this effort. He expressed his thanks to the CTAC for the time they were donating to the community. end Code 6. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 5.05 OF THE Prore: Animal C Control EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO ANIMAL CONTROL City Attorney Scott Snyder advised this matter was returned to the Council at their direction. He recalled on February 20, the Council directed the preparation of an ordinance that specifically precluded the trapping of pets and companion animals and provided protections with an amendment to provide for a professional trapping option which he assumed from Council discussion would be via the City's Animal Control process. He explained the Council's direction presented several drafting challenges: 1) The difficulty for the City's Prosecutor to prove a pet was intentionally trapped. To address this in the ordinance, he provided a range of penalties. The intentional trapping of a pet by another would be a gross misdemeanor with the penalty of a year in jail and $1000 fine. Negligent confinement, leaving an animal in a trap, would also be a misdemeanor. 2) Imposing criminal penalties on activities that are clearly prohibited under civil laws of the State. The City as a code city has the authority to impose those limitations, if a problem arises, the courts defer to that judgment and findings are rarely overturned. He explained the ordinance would remove the most effective tool that a real property owner had to protect his/her property from trespass. 3) Although the City has 7-day per week animal control coverage, it was not 24-hour a day coverage and the Animal Control Officers also provide services to another City by Interlocal Agreement as well as serve as parking enforcement. He noted both the public and Council have expressed a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page 372 of 396 concern with releasing an animal from the trap and the possibility of Animal Control Officers leaving a trap unattended for 12-14 hours raised issues. Mr. Snyder explained the ordinance he drafted allowed the City's Animal Control Officers to trap and fulfill their duties with regard to feral cats and injured animals. The ordinance includes an extensive section on the use of private contractors and provides a process for property owners that includes notifying the neighbor if the ownership of the trespassing pet is known, sending a letter to the neighborhood if ownership is unknown, and once that had been accomplished, authorizing property owners to utilize a private contractor list to trap an animal. He noted the process for identifying contractors would be similar to the City's process for identifying towing companies. He pointed out the difficulty of providing trapping as a service under the City's existing levels; the intent of the draft ordinance was to avoid a budgetary impact. He explained after a pet owner was notified their animal was trespassing and did not take reasonable steps to keep the animal at home, the pet owner could be guilty of a civil infraction. He noted although the property owner would have to pay the cost of trapping initially, a judge would have the ability to assess the costs of trapping to the pet owner. Mr. Snyder acknowledged this was much more than the Council asked for; however, the short approach would do nothing more than provide an illusion of control. He advised a more limited version, Version B, was also provided that had no pet owner responsibilities. With regard to a question regarding the definition of pet, Mr. Snyder advised the definition was taken from the Webster's dictionary. He advised that staff s recommendation remains the same, finding there was insufficient public issue to justify regulation and view it as involving the City in essentially a neighbor dispute between a pet owner and a real property owner. To provide a legislative history in the event of a challenge, he requested the Council emphasize in their discussion the public benefit to be obtained and the problem to be solved. Councilmember Dawson commented whether or not the City enacted an ordinance that established the responsibilities of a pet owner, the law still applied and a real property owner could civilly sue a pet owner. Mr. Snyder agreed. Councilmember Dawson noted if the Council did not adopt Version B, they would not be abrogating common law that required people not allow their animals to trespass on another's property. Mr. Snyder agreed. He explained another problem with drafting the ordinance was unless it was a crime for a cat to roam at large, a cat was not doing anything illegal by roaming at large, thus there were constitutional issues with authorizing the City's Animal Control Officer to trap to abate a civil nuisance. It would need to be a criminal or public nuisance to involve Animal Control personnel. Councilmember Dawson recommended if the Council chose to adopt Version B, the portion of the title in Section 5.05.110 "and the abatement of private nuisances" be deleted. Mr. Snyder agreed. Councilmember Dawson commented although this was an issue that did not arise with any frequency, now that it had arisen, she feared the public may believe it was acceptable to trap pets which she did not want to allow. If the Council did not want to allow trapping, she asked whether staff recommended the Council adopt Version A or B. She noted Version A was more detailed and may be overkill and may require more staff time to do an RFQ, etc. Police Chief David Stern recommended the less cumbersome option, Version B. He noted Version A created specific intent crimes that required a particular state of mind at the time the crime was committed. In his experience few prosecutions would occur under that statute. He noted there was no significant history of this type of action in the City, this was the first one he was aware of and the only one the City's 20-year Animal Control Officer was aware of. For Councilmember Dawson, Chief Stern confirmed staff felt Version A which included the ability to contract with a trapping service was unnecessary. In addition, he was only aware of one potential contractor who would qualify to trap animals. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 6 Packet Page 373 of 396 Councilmember Dawson asked if there had been instances where a person had intentionally trapped their neighbor's pet for ill intent. She noted trapping and torture of animals was an indicator of more violent behavior. Chief Stern acknowledged there were people without the values most of the community had with regard to pets but that was an infrequent occurrence. Councilmember Dawson commented if someone were intentionally trapping animals, it would be a public safety concern that could be addressed. Chief Stern agreed. Councilmember Marin questioned the merits of option A and B versus an Option D which would be to do nothing and retain the existing provisions. Chief Stern answered due to the infrequent nature of this incident, the existing provisions were adequate to address the situation. He assured staff would carry out whatever direction the Council provided. Animal Control Officer Debbie Dawson answered Animal Control handled a variety of animals including dogs, cats, rabbits, goats, and chickens every day, and all were handled the same within the laws of the City. Any animal running at large was subject to enforcement action. If a person has an animal on their property, they often call Animal Control and they pick up the animal. She summarized their role was to protect pets; if the regulations were not changed, they would continue to pick up all types of pets. Mr. Snyder commented when Mr. Martin first brought his complaints forward, Chapter 50.5 was being amended. There had previously been authorization to provide traps. Staff determined that was no longer in the ordinance and removed the statement from the City's website and stopped providing traps. Councilmember Plunkett commented under Version B very little change would occur other than a person could not trap animals and therefore a person would either call Animal Control or humanely shoo the cat away. He asked whether staff had only been called out once in 20 years to deal with a cat. Chief Stern clarified 40% of the Animal Control calls were in regard to cats, predominately stray cats; this was the first case involving these specific issues. If trapping were prohibited, Councilmember Plunkett did not envision an increase in Animal Control's workload. Chief Stern also did not anticipate any significant increase. Councilmember Plunkett commented in Version B it was still permissible for people to trap stray/feral/wild cats for the purpose of caring for them. Mr. Snyder answered that was allowed in both ordinances. For Council President Pro Tem Wambolt, Chief Stern advised 40% of Animal Control's calls were related to cats, 59% were related to dogs and 1 % to rabbits, goats, guinea pigs, etc. Council President Pro Tern Wambolt assumed some of the calls regarding cats involved a resident complaining about a neighbor's cat in their yard. Chief Stern agreed that did occur. Council President Pro Tern Wambolt assumed staff was able to adequately satisfy the parties involved using the existing ordinance. Chief Stern agreed they were. Ord#3634— COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, Amend Code Provisions re: FOR APPROVAL OF VERSION B VIA ORDINANCE NO. 3634 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF Annual Control THE LANGUAGE MR. SNYDER AGREED SHOULD BE STRICKEN IN REGARD TO THE ABATEMENT OF PRIVATE NUISANCES. Councilmember Dawson urged the Council to support Version B, agreeing it would be extremely difficulty to prove someone intentionally trapped a neighbors pet. Although it would be a rare occurrence, this was an opportunity for the Council to send a message that trapping a neighbor's pet was not appropriate and that there were other ways to address the issue. She noted a cat leash law was not the issue. As a cat owner herself, she did not allow her cat outside and believed that was a pet owner's responsibility to keep their cat confined due to the dangers to a pet from wild animals. She opined Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 7 Packet Page 374 of 396 Version B allowed the Council to send the message that it was not appropriate to trap animals as a form of abatement, whether as part of a neighborhood dispute or in circumstances where the intent was to maliciously harm the pet. She appreciated Mr. Snyder's effort to draft Version A, however, staff did not find that level of detail necessary. Councilmember Marin spoke against the motion, recalling he was the Chair of the Public Safety Committee when this issue arose. The Committee agreed with Chief Stern that it was a dispute between neighbors that did not require amendment of the ordinance and should be addressed on a neighbor -to - neighbor level. He preferred to restore the language in the ordinance regarding property rights and protection of the animal which could have been accomplished by Version C. If Version C could not be adopted, he preferred Version D, do nothing and allow neighbors to settle disputes themselves. Councilmember Plunkett commented although the issue arose via a dispute between neighbors, it did not lessen the opportunity for a public policy to address the issue. He preferred it be addressed via ensuring the humane treatment of pets as well as the rights of property owners and stating the obligations of the Police Department. He summarized there was a public policy issue to be resolved, not a dispute between neighbors. He supported Version B due to the larger legislative and community issue. Councilmember Orvis expressed his support for the motion. He advised trapping was legal now; the Public Safety Committee wanted to regulate it and input from the community indicated a desire to ban trapping. He noted the letters the City received were predominately opposed to trapping of cats including one letter that referred to an incident 20 years ago that lead to community meetings, a situation he wanted to avoid. Council President Pro Tern Wambolt commented he had come full circle on this issue; when this was discussed the last time, he supported staff developing further regulation. He now believed nothing needed to be done. Councilmember Moore spoke in favor of the motion for the reasons Councilmember Dawson stated. She noted this began as a neighborhood dispute but had progressed beyond that and became a policy issue. She regretted the relationship between neighbors had been harmed by this issue. Mayor Pro Tern Olson supported Version D, do nothing, pointing out this had not been a problem in the past. She objected to creating more layers of government, more work for Animal Control and for the Council to micromanage operations. If trapping of cats was rampant, she could support changing the ordinance but noted that did not seem to be the case. Councilmember Dawson commented it appeared the three Councilmembers who did not support the motion were not supportive of trapping animals. Thus the City should prohibit trapping if it was not acceptable to the Council. She reiterated the unlikelihood of prosecutions, but found it an appropriate message to send. She suggested Council President Pro Tern Wambolt and Mayor Pro Tern Olson who did not support trapping, consider supporting the motion to send a message that trapping was not appropriate. Mayor Pro Tem Olson pointed out the property owner who had cats coming into their yard did not get much help from the City to address the issue. Councilmember Moore sympathized with people who had cats coming into their yard. She expressed her dislike for cats, noting there had to be a better way to address that situation. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, MOORE, DAWSON AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT AND COUNCILMEMBER MARIN OPPOSED. The ordinance approved is as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page 375 of 396 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 5.05 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO AN ANIMAL CONTROL BY AMENDING SECTION 5.05.010 TO ADD A NEW DEFINITION FOR "PET" AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 5.05.110 CRIMES RELATED TO THE CONFINEMENT OF ANOTHER'S ANIMAL, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Confining cat] Mary Leake Schilder, PAWS, Lynnwood, commended the Council for making great strides in this matter and encouraged them to include an educational component. She described PAWS efforts to educate cat owners about the importance of keeping cats "safety confined" so they did not roam free. She described dangers to free -roaming cats including wild predators, cars, parasites, disease, and cruel people. She advised only 3% of cats turned into shelters as strays were returned to their owners. She noted cats who avoided danger were a threat to birds and small wildlife. She described methods for safely confining cats including an outdoor enclosure, install a special addition to a fence to keep the cat in the yard, walk the cat on a leash, provide enrichment for indoor cats and only allow a cat outside when supervised by a human family member. She advocated proper identification for cats including microchips. She noted as more cat owners realized their responsibility to keep their pets confined, Edmonds would see a decline in neighbor disputes, funds spent on animal control services and more families would enjoy the companionship of their pets. Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, displayed the 1969 Comprehensive Plan. He advised the Hearing Examiner Old Woodmade a decision against the resident rou 's appeal; the court case for appeal b the Association, Case [ElementarySite g g p pp � pp y No. 07203221, would be heard in Snohomish County on May 1. He recommended the buildings on the former Woodway Elementary School site not be demolished until the court case had been concluded. He referred to a letter sent to Chief Stern regarding problems on the former Woodway Elementary School site and Chief Stem's reply that the Police Department would do their best to patrol the area. He Term limit] recommended nothing be done with regard to the property until the issues were cleared up. Next he recommended the Council schedule consideration of term limits on an upcoming agenda. He also °oa Drive expressed appreciation to those who supported the Kiwanis Club's food drive last week at Top Foods. Trapping of Robert Chaffee, MD, Edmonds, commented he was surprised and disappointed that the Council made a Cats decision before discussion with the public. As the Council had eliminated trapping, he recommended instituting a leash law for cats. He cited problems they encountered from cats digging in their garden, leaving surprises, and killing birds. He noted the bigger problem was feral cats, and the Council had eliminated trapping as a method of rehabilitating feral cats. He quoted a policy statement from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) that encouraged and supported actions to eliminate free roaming, abandoned and feral cats due to the significant impact they had on the mortality of birds, small animals, reptiles, amphibians and fish as well as the spread of disease. The AVMA supported the reduction of the number of free roaming, abandoned and free -roaming cats via humane capture and placement in homes, which he noted was eliminated by the ordinance the Council adopted. The AVMA supports State and local agencies adopting and enforcing ordinances that encourage cats to be kept indoors, in an outdoor enclosure or on a leash. He summarized his goal was not to keep all cats indoors but to control problem cats and their owners and in the long term decrease the number of cats allowed outdoors and help solve the feral cat problem. Changes to James Anable, Jr., Edmonds, an attorney practicing animal law in Seattle, spoke on behalf of Robert Code re: McCallum. He explained the scope of his practice has included drafting and commenting and suggesting Animal Control changes to codes at the state and local level. He referred to the common law regarding trespass, recommending the City strike the exclusion of cats from the at -large provision. He circulated several Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 9 Packet Page 376 of 396 photographs of Mr. McCallum's experience with cats in his yard. He explained Mr. McCallum kept quail as pets; after having 16 killed last year, he built a protective enclosure. On Saturday he awoke to find a cat trapped inside the enclosure, raising the issue of whether with the adoption of this ordinance Mr. McCallum would be guilty of the criminal offense of trapping a cat. He recommended placing the burden on the pet owner rather than the property owners that experience trespass. He noted a survey of Woodway, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace indicated they included cats in the at -large provision. He cited dangers to at -large cats, commenting if the City was concerned with cruelty and animal welfare issues, they would regulate cats the same as other animals. Changes to Debbie McCallum, Edmonds, expressed concern with granting cats complete freedom to trespass on Code re: Cats neighboring property to engage in behavior that polluted parks and yards with animal waste and depleted wildlife, to engage in the offensive behavior of spraying to mark territory, spreading diseases that can be transmitted via soil, and not requiring licenses and tags. She pointed out citizens did not appreciate their well -tended gardens being compromised by cats or discovering the remnants of a bird or small animal, but most attempted to maintain a harmonious relationship with their neighbors. She explained they asked the neighbor on several occasions to keep their cats from their property and were told to get rid of their bird feeders, that the cats' free reign took precedence, that the quality of the cats lives superseded any damage to their property and because there were no laws, they would have to put up with the cats. She summarized it was appropriate for the City to establish at -large restrictions, fines and license fees to apply to domestic cats. She expressed frustration the Council had taken away a property owner's ability to keep a cat off their property. changes to Robert McCallum, Edmonds, echoed Debbie's comments, finding the public was treated unfairly ode re: cats tonight by not having an opportunity to speak to the Council before the Council made its decision. He referred to the question posed to Animal Control Officer Debbie Dawson, noting when she responded to cat nuisance problems, there was no satisfaction for the property owner because cats were excluded from the at -large provisions. He cited an instance when cats slaughtered his birds in his front yard. He circulated photographs of his yard where they encourage wildlife, birds, and Douglas Squirrels. He questioned his right to request a neighboring property owner keep his cats off his property, explaining he was unsuccessful because there was no law prohibiting them from roaming at -large. He did not advocate trapping cats but questioned how property owners could obtain any satisfaction. He described his efforts to keep the cats off his property, beginning with talking to the neighbor and when that was unsuccessful, setting the trap in accordance with Animal Control's directions. He acknowledged the cat was injured but it was now at home while his birds were dead. He suggested Mayor Haakenson veto the ordinance. Changes to Elisabeth Larman, Edmonds, congratulated the Council on making a difficult decision, to prohibit Code re: Cats Itrapping. She commented a property owner raising birds had a responsibility to build an enclosure to protect the birds. She complimented Officer Debbie Dawson, describing her efforts to fine a dog owner whose dog attacked her; the dog is now kept on a leash. Changes to Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out the Council failed to enact a cat license and leash law. He Code re: Cats I recommended equal treatment for dogs and cats. Next, he urged the Council to hold a public hearing with regard to parks and specifically the former Woodway Elementary School site before any building Old ntary y demolition occurred. With regard to the Mayor vetoing the ordinance he noted Mayor Haakenson could Elementary Site g Y g � Y not veto it because he was not present and seemed to be absent quite frequently. He recommended Technology establishing a system for tracking comp time for department directors. With regard to establishing a Committee broadband system, he did not agree with pursuing such a system due to changes in programs/technology. He questioned whether the CTAC had considered the technology used by Clearwire. Trapping Feral Vickie Purretta, Feral Cats Project, commented there were many grassroots organizations involved in Cats trapping feral cats who have spayed/neutered over 30,000 cats. She pointed out there were humane ways Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 10 Packet Page 377 of 396 to trap cats, noting that covering the trap served to calm the animal. She was concerned they would be unable to continue their efforts to spay/neuter the large feral cat population, advising there were 720,000 feral cats in the Puget Sound area. She advised she had assisted with trapping animals in Edmonds at no cost to the City. Councilmember Plunkett assured the ordinance the Council passed did not prohibit trapping of feral cats. Mayor Pro Tem Olson advised Mayor Haakenson was absent because he had the flu. 8. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS VnUA si Councilmember Orvis reported the recent meeting of WRIA 8/Salmon Recovery Council included Salmon Recovery election of officers and discussion regarding items that were funded in the past and issues to be resolved by the Legislature. SnoComi Councilmember Dawson reported SnoCom, the 911 dispatch center for South Snohomish County, was snoPak continuing efforts regarding interconnectivity with SnoPak. They have applied for a grant to assist with that effort which they learned recently was the granting agency's top priority. She advised a tentative agreement had been reached in an ongoing lawsuit with past employees of the center regarding overtime. ort Council President Pro Tern Wambolt reported on the March 12 and March 26 meetings of the Port commission Commission where they approved a 3-year agreement with Northwest Country Management for continued management of Harbor Square and reviewed their financial results for 2006 which indicated the Port had approximately a $2 million profit last year. He advised Woodway honored the Port for receiving the Marina of the Year award. South Mayor Pro Tern Olson reported South Snohomish Cities is holding a dinner on April 26 with the ish Cities Snohomish County Councilmembers. She urged Edmonds Councilmembers to attend. Cities Sound Transit Councilmember Marin reported the Sound Transit Board was moving toward finalizing the second phase of a ST2 and RTID package and revising their financial policies to allow build out over the next 30 years. He advised Sound Transit was in a public comment period that would help finalize the elements of the final package that will be presented to the voters in November; to date they have received 6,000 Snohomish co. comments. He reported the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee was meeting tomorrow to Tomorrow discuss annexation principles that were developed by a subcommittee. He advised the Hwy. 99 Taskforce did not meet this month, awaiting information from Snohomish County regarding annexation. racking Councilmember Plunkett reported at the Parking Committee, Municipal Court Judge Doug Fair relayed Committee the difficulty jurors experience with parking downtown. The Council approved a temporary jury parking permit on tonight's Consent Agenda. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS IICouncil Retreat Mayor Pro Tern Olson thanked staff for their assistance with the retreat, especially Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman and City Attorney Scott Snyder. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Technology Council President Pro Tern Wambolt advised CTAC has considered Clearwire as well as many other past, Committee present and emerging technologies. He encouraged citizens commenting on this topic to obtain additional information. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 11 Packet Page 378 of 396 Councilmember Moore referred to the comments by Development Services Director Duane Bowman rotch Street regarding her remarks about overruns on the 220t oStreet project. While it was acceptable for citizens to take the Council to task, she found it inappropriate for staff as it was the Council's responsibility to question without receiving an overly sensitive response from staff that questioned the motive or methods. With regard to the 220th Street project, she pointed out the first mistake was to omit the left turn lane, a design fault that was passed by engineers and the contactor accepted responsibility, likely to avoid the loss of future business from the City. The second mistake was using the City's former Traffic Engineer who resigned to work for the contractor which cost the City an additional $140,000. The explanation was he had so much expertise with the project that he was the only one and the best one to finish the project. She questioned what would have happened if he had died, whether the City's engineer would not have been able to step in and manage the construction project. If not, perhaps a change was necessary to ensure every employee had someone who could fill in for them in the case of an emergency. Councilmember Moore commented her questions regarding the 220th Street project were legitimate; it ran over time and over budget. She pointed out the Performing Arts Center cost three times as much and finished on time and on budget, questioning why the City should not expect the same from this project. She concluded the Council should not be disparaged by staff for stating their opinion and how things were done in the City. She suggested the Mayor may want to provide some additional training for Directors. She noted the vast majority of the City's staff were hardworking and loyal; she hoped their loyalty did not drift into unbecoming public challenges of Councilmembers' opinions. ity's Financial Councilmember Moore referred to the Council retreat where the main topic was the City's financial [Future J future. The Council was presented with the same projection that has been provided for the past two years, with the same decreasing balance scenario. She explained although the City managed to piece the budget together year after year, the City would soon begin consuming the $2 million reserve which she found was critical to maintain to protect citizens in the case of an emergency. She asked the Council at the Strategic Plan retreat to consider creating long term goals/strategic plan/vision. She recommended both the Mayor and the Council have a plan and if their plans did not agree, the Mayor and Council should compromise and reach a consensus on a strategic plan. Councilmember Moore recalled at the retreat the Council was asked to indicate what taxes they wanted to increase and what cuts in services they could accept. She preferred an alternate approach — creating a strategic plan to grow the income of the City in ways that did not burden the taxpayers. She pointed out this was being done throughout Washington; she provided a copy of the Snohomish County Business Journal that recognized the Mayor of Marysville for his vision and strategic planning. She acknowledged the City was in competition for sales tax dollars from surrounding cities. Councilmember Moore concluded the citizens of Edmonds deserved to know the City's plan for the Create 15-year future. She recommended establishing at least a 15-year plan with annual goals so that the Council could Plan report annually on their accomplishments especially if there were cuts in services or increases in taxes. She invited citizens to urge the Council to start working on a strategic plan. She acknowledged because this was an election year it may not be appropriate to begin working on a strategic plan this year, but recommended it begin next year. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 12 Packet Page 379 of 396 AM-944 Proposed Interim Ordinance Implementing New Design Review Process Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: Submitted By: Department: Review Committee: 04/17/2007 Duane Bowman Development Services Time: 15 Minutes Type: Action Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Tnfnrm ntinn 10. Subject Title Proposed Ordinance establishing a period in which to prepare an application and forms of decision. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Adopt the proposed ordinance setting May 15, 2007 for a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. Previous Council Action On April 6, 2007, the City Council passed Ordinance 3636 implementing design guidelines and a new design review process. Narrative The effective date of the Ordinance 3636 (April 13, 2007) does not allow staff time to prepare handouts and procedure forms to implement the ordinance. The City Attorney drafted the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1) to address this concern. The ordinance sets a public hearing for May 15, 2007 on the interim ordinance. The City Attorney will be present to address questions regarding the proposed ordinance. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - Proposed Interim Ordinance Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/13/2007 09:42 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/13/2007 09:46 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/13/2007 09:56 AM APRV Form Started By: Duane Started On: 04/13/2007 09:17 Bowman AM Final Approval Date: 04/13/2007 Packet Page 380 of 396 0006.900000 WSS/gjz 4/5/07 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A PERIOD IN WHICH TO PREPARE AN APPLICATION AND FORMS OF DECISION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council has enacted Ordinance No. providing for alternative paths for ADB applications; and WHEREAS, Chapter 20.12 ECDC establishes a new process for which application forms and decision formats need to be developed, and and WHEREAS, the City's planning staff is currently short-staffed due to attrition; WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to provide for a thirty -day period to develop appropriate forms; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides for the establishment of interim zoning controls; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. In accordance with the authority created by RCW 36.70A.390, the following procedures are hereby established as an interim zoning control. 1.1 The Planning Department shall accept applications for development pursuant to newly adopted Chapter 20.12 ECDC, acknowledging receipt of such applications and fees. {WSS657164.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - I - Packet Page 381 of 396 1.2 A thirty -day stay on processing of any applications is hereby established in order to permit the staff an opportunity to accomplish the tasks set forth in paragraph 1.3. 1.3 On or before the end of the thirty -day period, staff shall report to the City Council regarding forms for application, rules of procedure to govern Phase I and Phase II of the new hearing process, and a decisional format designed to incorporate the requirements of the Chapter. Section 2. A public hearing regarding this interim zoning ordinance and the material to be developed by the staff pursuant to Section 1 above is hereby set for May 15, 2007 at 7:00 PM or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard before the Edmonds City Council. Section 3. Unless sooner dissolved by act of the City Council, the provisions of this ordinance shall automatically expire on May 16th, 2007 at 5:00 PM. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: :• W. SCOTT SNYDER APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON {WSS657164BOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 382 of 396 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {WSS657164.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - Packet Page 383 of 396 On the passed Ordinance No. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington day of , 2007, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, . A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A PERIOD IN WHICH TO PREPARE AN APPLICATION AND FORMS OF DECISION, 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 Iwss657164.Doc;1i00006.900000i1- 4 - Packet Page 384 of 396 AM-934 11. Non -Represented Compensation Policy Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/17/2007 Submitted By: Debi Humann Time: 15 Minutes Department: Human Resources Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Information Subject Title Approval of Non -Represented Compensation (NRC) Policy. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff The Non -Represented Compensation Policy has been reviewed by City Staff through a focus group process, by the Finance Committee on several occasions, previously by City Council, and again by Council at the Retreat held this past March. The NRC is coming before the full City Council for approval and implementation retroactively effective to January 1, 2007. Previous Council Action See above. Narrative The compensation policy for non -represented employees has been a subject of discussion for several years. The current policy, the L-5, which was approved by Council in 2000, was considered an improvement over the previous compensation strategy. As we have all discussed, the L-5 had some inherent problems. The NRC combines the positive aspects of the existing L-5 policy with improvements to the identified problem areas. The attached materials include the updated Non -Represented Compensation policy, the 2007 Banding Chart which reflects the updated ranges for all positions, and the worksheets for both the Police Chief and the HR Assistant position. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: NRC Policy Link: 2007 Banding Chart Link: 2007 Police Chief Wksheet Link: 2007 HR Asst Wksheet Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 11:28 AM APRV Packet Page 385 of 396 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/12/2007 11:31 AM APRV Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 11:50 AM APRV Form Started By: Debi Started On: 04/11/2007 05:21 Humann PM Final Approval Date: 04/12/2007 Packet Page 386 of 396 City of Edmonds PERSONNEL POLICIES POLICY AND PROCEDURE SUBJECT: NON -REPRESENTED COMPENSATION POLICY The City's non -represented compensation policy strives to maintain equity in pay for all employees, offers competitive salaries to attract high level applicants, offers internal equity to foster long term retention of valuable employees, and rewards meritorious job performance for deserving individuals. BANDING (Internal Equity Component) - The City's non -represented compensation policy covers all non -represented positions in eight different bands as follows: Band A: Police Chief, Fire Chief, Administrative Services Director, Public Works Director, Community Services Director, Parks and Recreation Director, and Development Services Director Band B: Assistant Police Chief, Assistant Fire Chief, Human Resources Manager, City Engineer, Economic Development Director Band C: Planning Manager, Assistant Administrative Services Director, Building Official, Assistant City Engineer, Fire Marshal, City Clerk, WWTP Manager Band D: Chief Information Officer, Transportation Engineer, Court Administrator, Water/Sewer Manager, Street/Storm Water Manager, WWTP Supervisor Band E: Facilities Manager, Parks Manager, Storm Water Engineer, Cultural Services Manager, Recreation Services Manager, Fleet Manager, Assistant Building Official, Engineering Program Manager, Senior Planner Band F: Executive Assistant to the Mayor, Planner, Engineering Specialist Band G: 4/13/2007dlh Packet Page 387 of 396 Page 2 Assistant Planner, Recycling Coordinator, Executive Assistant Confidential Band H: Human Resources Assistant The salary for each position shall remain within the boundaries of the specific corresponding band. The bands are consistently held at a 50% width. METHOD/APPLICATION (External Component) — Annually, to be completed no later than September 1 of each year, the non -represented bands will be realigned based on a market survey of two positions; the highest paid non -represented position and the lowest paid non -represented position. This process will involve the following: 1. Determining the highest paid non -represented position (Band A) and the lowest paid non - represented position (Band H). 2. Complete a market based survey of the two positions using the comparable cities from King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties as determined by the HR Committee in 2000 (Attachment 1). The survey will include successfully comparing our positions with four cities directly above Edmonds by population and with four cities directly below Edmonds by population. The level 5 position (or median) will be determined with the median salary becoming the new maximum for the band. 3. The remaining bands (B through G) will be consistently spaced between Bands A and H. ANNUAL INCREASES — Non -represented staff are eligible for two increases a year as follows: Cost of Living Adjustment (COL& As part of the annual budget process, each band is eligible for a COLA on an annual basis when approved by City Council. COLA shall be awarded following the annual market based survey and any necessary adjustments of non -represented bands. Annual Merit Increase: Merit increases may be awarded to non -represented employees based on performance as follows: • 1 % - Meets Standards — Performance consistently meets job requirements and goals are achieved as stated in the annual evaluation or work plan. 2% - Commendable — Performance is consistently above adequate skill levels. Goals are achieved often beyond expectation. • 3% - Distinguished — dlh4/13/2007 Packet Page 388 of 396 Page 3 Performance is consistently and significantly beyond established standards. Goals are achieved at an outstanding level and exceptional skill levels are consistently demonstrated. For exceptional meritorious performance, over and above distinguished, the Mayor has the authority to award a merit increase up to a maximum of 5% with appropriate justification from the Department Director. At no point shall employees be allowed to exceed the band maximum. RECRUITMENT - For external recruitment purposes, the band range will consist of the established band minimum up to 50% of the band width as the maximum (the mid -point of the band). New employees shall be hired at no more than 5% above their current salary not to exceed 50% of their specific band. In rare situations in which the position can not be filled, or when internal salary compression is a component, the Mayor has the authority to negotiate a starting salary that may exceed the mid- point within the band width. APPEALS — If a non -represented employee believes they have been incorrectly placed within the band structure, or has another pay equity issue, they may bring the issue forward to their direct supervisor and/or Department Director. If the Director finds the issue has validity, he/she will appeal to the Mayor to determine whether the position has been placed inappropriately, from a financial and from a responsibilities/job tasks standpoint, within a designated band. If, upon the conclusion of the review it is determined that an adjustment is warranted, the Mayor has the authority to correct position placement within the bands as appropriate. No other appeal process is available. dlh4/13/2007 Packet Page 389 of 396 Non -Represented Compensation Policy 2001 Banding $134, 760 $123.003 A $111,247 B 99 490 $89,840 C $87,734 $82,002 D $75,977 74.165 E $64,221 $66,327 F $52,464 $58,489 G $50,651 H 42,814 34,976 Band A Police Chief, Fire Chief, Administrative Services Director, PW Director, Community Services Director, Parks & Rec. Director, Development Services Director Band B Assistant Police Chief, Assistant Fire Chief, Human Resources Manager, City Engineer, Econ. Development Director Band C Planning Manager, Assistant Administrative Services Director, Building Official, Assistant City Engineer, Fire Marshal, City Clerk, WWTP Manager Band D Chief Information Officer, Traffic Engineer, Court Administrator, Water/Sewer Manager, Street/Stormwater Manager, WWTP Supervisor Band E Facilities Manager, Parks Manager, Stormwater Engineer, Cultural Services Manager, Recreation Services Manager Fleet Manager, Assistant Building Official, Engineering Program Manager, Senior Planner Band F Executive Assistant to the Mayor, Planner, Engineering Specialist Band G Assistant Planner, Recycling Coordinator, Executive Assistant Confidential Band H Human Resources Assistant Packet Page 390 of 396 POLICE CHIEF 2007 "L5" Salary Survey CITY POPULATION CURRENT TOP CURRENT ADDITIONAL BENEFITS CURRENT VALUE OF MONTHLY TOTALS $ ANNUAL TOTALS $ OF RANGE ADDITIONAL BENEFITS MONTHLY$ 2007 MONTHLY Federal Way 86,530 10,334 Up to 8.48% annual lump sum merit 876 11,210 134,520 Kent 85,650 10,574 $1,682 in annual m mt benefits 140 10,714 128,568 Lakewood 59,000 10,152 6 days of mgmt leave 234 10,386 124,632 Renton 58,360 11,073 2% def comp 221 11,294 135,528 Shoreline 52,830 No match No match No match No match Redmond 49,890 11,211 At top step, eligible for up to a 15% annual merit lump sum 1,682 12,893 154,716 Auburn 48,955 11,250 11,250 135,000 Kirkland 47,180 10,896 $225/mo car allowance, 50 hrs annual leave, paid physic2ls 487 11,383 136,596 EDMONDS 40,360 11,229 11,229 134,748 Sammamish 39,730 No match No match No Match No Match Puyallup 36,360 9,514 9,514 114,168 Lynnwood 35,230 10,268 75 hrs OT, $293/mo educ incentive Masters), $224mo in long. 887 11,155 133,860 Marysville 32,150 Not available 10 days of admin leave Not available Not available Not available Bothell 31,690 10,798 1% to RHS*, 3% def comp 432 11,230 134,760 University Place 31,140 No match No match No match Burien 31,080 No match No match No match Des Moines 1 29,020 1 9,547 11.52% deferred comp 145 1 9,692 1 116,304 RANKING: Redmond $154,716 Kirkland 136,596 Renton 135,528 Auburn 135,000 Bothell 134,760 L5 EDMONDS 134,748 Lynnwood 133,860 Des Moines 116,304 Puyallup 114,168 *Retiree Health Savings Plan 2007 L-5 Findings - Maximum $134,760 Recommended 2007 Salary Range Based on L-5 Minimum/Maximum $89,840 - 134,760 Packet Page 391 of 396 HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT 2007"L5" Salary Survey CITY POPULATION CURRENT TOP OF CURRENT ADDITIONAL BENEFITS CURRENT VALUE MONTHLY TOTALS $ ANNUAL TOTALS $ RANGE 2007(MONTHLY) OF ADDITIONAL BENEFITS (MONTHLY $) Federal Way 86,530 5,251 Merit up to $4,660 388 5,639 67,668 Kent 85,650 4,532 4,532 54,384 Lakewood 59,000 4,248 4,248 50,976 Renton 58,360 5,412 $269/mo longevity premium @ 25 yrs, 2% def comp 377 5,789 69,468 Shoreline 52,830 No match No match No match Redmond 49,890 4,117 At top, eligible for 5% annual lump sum merit 206 4,323 51,876 Auburn 48,955 4,356 4,356 52,272 Kirkland 47,180 5,020 5,020 60,240 EDMONDS 40,360 4,325 4,325 51,900 Sammamish 39,730 4527 4527 54,324 Puyallup 36,360 No match No match No match Lynnwood 35,230 4,287 $85/mo longevity 85 4,372 52,464 Marysville 32,150 Not available Not available Not available Not available Bothell 31,690 5,399 1% RHS*, 3% def comp match 216 5,615 67,380 University Place 1 31,140 4,250 1 1 4,250 1 51,000 Burien 31,080 No match No match No match Des Moines 29,020 No match No match No match RANKING: Renton $69,468 Bothell 67,380 Kirkland 60,240 Sammamish 54,324 Lynnwood 52,464 L5 Auburn 52,272 EDMONDS 51,900 Redmond 51,876 University Place 51,000 *Retiree Health Savings Plan 2007 L-5 Findings - Maximum $52,464 Recommended 2007Salary Range Based on L-5 Minimum/Maximum $34,976 - 52,464 Packet Page 392 of 396 AM-943 12. Report on Council Committee Meetings Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/17/2007 Submitted By: Sandy Chase Time: 15 Minutes Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Information Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Report on City Council Committee Meetings. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached are copies of the following City Council Committee Meeting Minutes: 1. Finance Committee (04-10-07) 2. Public Safety Committee (04-10-07) Link: Finance Comm Minutes Link: Public Safety Comm Minutes Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 01:52 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/12/2007 01:54 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/12/2007 03:58 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Started On: 04/12/2007 01:45 Chase PM Final Approval Date: 04/12/2007 Packet Page 393 of 396 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES April 10, 2007 6:00 PM Present: Council President Olson Councilmember Ron Wambolt Councilmember Dave Orvis Staff: Dan Clements Kathleen Junglov Deb Sharp Committee Chair Orvis called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Item A: 2007 First Quarter Budget Amendment Debra Sharp and Kathleen Junglov reviewed the list of amendments with committee members. After a brief discussion, committee members recommended forwarding the ordinance to full council for approval as a consent item. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 PM. CADOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CHASE\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK60\04-10-2007 MINUTES.DOC Packet Page 394 of 396 Minutes Public Safety Committee Meeting April 10, 2007 Committee Members Present: Council member Deanna Dawson, Chair Council member Michael Plunkett Staff Present: Fire Chief Thomas J. Tomberg Police Chief David Stern Assistant Chief Mark Correira Guests: Mark Bailey The meeting was called to order at 1800 hours. A. Request for Qualifications — Fire Department Medical Program Director (MPD) Dr. James Mercer, a member of the Edmonds Emergency Physician's Group, and long time Medical Program Director (ALS and BLS) for the Edmonds and Lynnwood Fire Departments, has decided to step back from the MPD position he has held since 1998. Dr. Mercer began service under Medic 7, served both departments for three years after the January 1, 2003 Medic 7 dissolution, and subsequently signed individual contracts with the two fire departments to continue as MPD. After consulting with the City Attorney on a replacement process, Fire Administration seeks to publish a "Request for Qualifications - Medical Program Director" document to begin the hiring process. Dr. Mercer has agreed to serve until his successor assumes MPD duties. AC Correira reviewed the attached RFQ with Public Safety Committee members. Edmonds is working in concert with Lynnwood Fire in the hiring process although the MPD contracts are separate. The candidate selection process includes submission of qualifications, background check, and an interview panel. Committee members indicated their willingness to serve on the interview panel. Part of the hiring process requires approval of the appointee by Snohomish County MPD Dr. Ron Brown. The City Attorney will review the MPD employment contract. When a successor is chosen, the MPD employment contract will be reviewed by the Public Safety Committee prior to Council submission on the consent agenda. Committee members indicated they could be contacted for contract approval prior to a scheduled Public Safety Committee meeting. Action: After approval by the City Attorney, the Medical Program Director position RFQ will be published. B. Update on Graffiti Enforcement (Unscheduled) Council Chair Dawson gave an update on a discussion from previous meetings on the graffiti enforcement. Chair Dawson noted that she had contacted other departments and found that their legislative approach was measured as opposed to very aggressive. Chief Stern indicated that such an approach would be his recommendation to the Council as well. A target date of May 1, 2007 was agreed upon for presentation to the full Council. Packet Page 395 of 396 Action: On April 10, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. Chair Dawson gave an update on her findings of other department approaches regarding graffiti enforcement. A target date of May 1, 2007 was agreed for presentation to the full Council. Meeting adjourned at 1817 hours. Packet Page 396 of 396