Loading...
2007.07.17 CC Agenda PacketAGENDA Edmonds City Council Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North July 17, 2007 6:45 p.m. - Interview candidate for the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2• Consent Agenda Items A. Roll Call B. AM-1089 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2007. C. AM-1080 Approval of claim checks #97251 through #97415 for June 28, 2007 in the amount of $553,924.67. Approval of #97419 through #97437 for July 3, 2007 in the amount of $196,367.70. Approval of #97438 through #97668 for July 12, 2007 in the amount of $446,427.64. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #45059 through #45162 for the period of June 16 through June 30, 2007 in the amount of $840,632.63. D. AM-1076 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Linda Kramer -Lind (amount undetermined), and Michael Jordon ($4,569.26). E. AM-1092 School Resource Officer Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District. F. AM-1096 An Ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, amending the provisions of ECDC 21.40.030 Hei h (C) Height Exceptions to repeal Subsection (1) related to a nonexistent zone, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. 3. AM-1093 Confirmation of City Council appointment of Joe McIalwain to Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. (5 Min) 4. AM-1077 Appointment of Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Member to fill vacancy. (5 Min) 5. AM-1090 Public Hearing regarding the proposed vacation of a portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to (20 Min) 17008 - 77th Place West, Edmonds, Washington. 6. AM-1098 Public Hearing on a proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds City Code, Section (30 Min) 5.05.010, Definitions, (M) related to Domestic Fowl, and the Edmonds Community Development Code Section 17.35.040. 7. AM-1085 Public Hearing for the Six -Year Transportation Improvements Program (2008-2013) and proposed (15 Min) resolution adopting the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program and directing the same to be filed with the Secretary of Transportation and the Transportation Improvement Board. 8. AM-1094 Closed Record Review on the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the application by Rob (20 Min) Michel for a rezone from RM-2.4 to RM-1.5 for property located at 125 2nd Avenue North. (File No. R-2007-15) Packet Page Page 1 of 444 9. AM-1095 Closed Record Review on the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the application by Rob (20 Min) Michel for a rezone from RM-2.4 to RM-1.5 for property located at 318-320 Walnut Street. (File No. R-07-28) 10. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person) 11. AM-1074 Discussion of City Council Rules of Procedure including: (1) Cancellation of Meetings, (2) Executive (30 Min) Sessions, (3) Government Access Channel 21, and (4) Committee Assignments. 12. AM-1091 Report on City Council Committee Meetings. (15 Min) 13. (5 Min) Mayor's Comments 14. (15 Min) Council Comments 15. Adjourn Packet Page Page 2 of 444 AM-1089 2.B. Approval of June 26, 2007 City Council Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 07/17/2007 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 June 26, 2007. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Link: 06-26-07 Draft Minutes Fiscal Impact S ttarhmante Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/09/2007 04:08 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/10/2007 08:45 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/10/2007 09:08 AM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Started On: 07/09/2007 04:05 Chase PM Final Approval Date: 07/10/2007 Packet Page Page 3 of 444 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES June 26, 2007 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Deanna Dawson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Shaun Callahan, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Acting Chief of Police Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Dave Gebert, City Engineer Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER WITH THE ADDITION OF "AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH EATON CORPORATION AND COUNCIL ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION" AS AGENDA ITEM 4B. 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 JUNE 19, 2007. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #97088 THROUGH #97250 FOR JUNE 21, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $838,052.78. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #44972 THROUGH #45056 FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 1 THROUGH JUNE 15, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $904,268.08. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD ($1,441.50). E. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR THE FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER SEISMIC STRUCTURAL RETROFIT PROJECT. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2007 Page 1 Packet Page Page 4 of 444 F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH REID MIDDLETON, INC. FOR THE 100TH AVENUE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY STABILIZATION PROJECT. G. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 19, 2007 FOR THE FRIAR TUCK LANE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION, INC. ($53,450). H. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED ON JUNE 14, 2007 FOR THE PRIMARY CLARIFIER #2 REPAIR, AND AWARD TO CASCADE INDUSTRIES NW, INC. FOR THE AMOUNT OF $74,760. I. RESOLUTION NO. 1147 IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S APPLICATION FOR PRESERVE AMERICA GRANT FUNDING. 3. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF THE EDMONDS 4TH OF JULY PARADE, 100TH ANNIVERSARY. Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation in honor of the 100th anniversary of the 41h of July parade and presented the proclamation to Jan Vance, Executive Director, and Ron Clyborne, Vice President, Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Clyborne thanked the Council and staff for their support and looked forward to the 100th anniversary of the Chamber and the 4th of July parade. 4A. PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR OUTSTANDING TREATMENT PLANT AWARD BY THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY. Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager Stephen Koho introduced Karen Burgess, Municipal Unit Supervisor, and Sean McKone, Facility Manager, Department of Ecology (DOE). Ms. Burgess explained the DOE's NW Regional Office handles all wastewater discharge permits from King County north to the Canadian border. She explained Mr. McKone worked with municipalities on their wastewater discharge permits along with assisting/improving facility plans and upgrades. Each year DOE recognizes treatment plants for outstanding performance during the calendar year. This award is given to treatment plants that meet stringent performance criteria including that their discharge monitoring reports were submitted on time, meet effluent limits and influent design criteria, that DOE had issued no enforcement action for the facility over the calendar year, and the Facility Manager agreed the facility was well operated and was an outstanding performer. Ms. Burgess advised Edmonds received this award in 2001 and has been recognized for outstanding performance five additional times in the past nine years. She read a letter from Kevin Fitzpatrick, Water Quality Program Manager, NW Region, congratulating Edmonds for its outstanding performance throughout 2006, placing Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant among the top municipal wastewater treatment plants in Washington. The letter expressed DOE's appreciation for the team effort that went into compliance, from the daily operation and maintenance to the engineering and administrative support teams to successfully comply with the terms and conditions of the permit. The letter recognized the treatment plant team for their hard work, resourcefulness and award winning effort and looked forward to continued excellence in upcoming years. Ms. Burgess relayed Mr. Koho's recognition of the 17 operators, maintenance and laboratory staff that made the receipt of this award possible. Councilmember Marin commented he had visited the treatment plant a number of times and was most impressed with its operation. He expressed Council's appreciation for the treatment plant staff s efforts. 4B. AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH EATON CORPORATION AND COUNCIL ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION Treatment Plant Manager Stephen Koho explained he learned yesterday a project that was planned for this year had an 11 week lead time to have the part manufactured, shipped and available for installation Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page Page 5 of 444 by October 1. He explained the large electrical switchgear that controls how power enters the plant, how power is distributed, how power outages are handled and transfers between power sources had outlived its life to the point he believed the part was on borrowed time. He explained when this equipment was first installed, the engineers had a choice of installing a switchgear that was slightly less expensive but that could not be removed for servicing or they could have spent more for a switchgear that could be removed for servicing. The engineers chose the less expensive part; to remove the gear for service requires several emergency generators to keep the plant powered up. The intent is to replace this unit with one that is easily removable for service and does not impact power. He explained half of the expected cost was for power generation and electrical distribution during the project. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AND AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH EATON CORPORATION FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF NEW ELECTRICAL SWITCHGEAR COMPONENTS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The resolution reads as follows: Resolution No. 1148 — Authorizing a sole source emergency process to acquire electrical switch gear for the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plan. 5. UPDATE ON THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON U.S. MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT Mayor Haakenson commended the Climate Protection Committee for their efforts. He introduced members who were present, Steve Bernheim, Carolyn Chapel, Wes Gallaugher; the other committee members are Wayne Grotheer, Hank Landau, and Ben Hines. He explained the Committee's mission was to encourage citizens to be a part of the solution, encourage City staff and citizens to conserve current resources, work with the City Council to implement ideas, and effectively address the future impacts of climate change. He formed a staff committee to determine the City's past greenhouse gas emissions to allow the City to establish reduction goals for the future. Progress has been made in identifying City emissions sources and output. He noted the packet contained a list of departmental activities related to climate change projects, noting energy efficiency in heating, lighting and plumbing have led the way to date. Categories in which the City has been active include Public Works, land use, transportation, and public education. He noted the packet also contained technology initiatives currently in development to reduce vehicle travel, paper and petrochemical usage and potentially could provide financial incentives for environmentally friendly actions. In addition, staff is in the process of working with the Transportation Choices Coalition, a Seattle -based organization interested in finding options to the one car, one passenger mode of travel. The Coalition's representatives have complimented the City on several occasions for the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan, shared parking requirements, comprehensive street use and streetscape plan and long term planning for transportation investment sustainability, which are all Council -approved policies. The Climate Protection Committee has published committee information in the City's newsletter and committee members have published several articles in local newspapers. This attention has attracted citizens to the committee and the number of participants is growing. Information has been forwarded to the Planning Board and Architecture Design Board who are interested in what the committee is doing and how they can assist. He noted each committee member had a special interest in the bigger picture of climate change and have branched out into other areas. The committee's goal is to involve and educate not only staff and Edmonds residents but also to work with the Port, merchants, other cities and the school district. The Edmonds School District Superintendent has attended several meetings and he plans to bring district staff Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page Page 6 of 444 to the next three meetings. He noted some members were working to offer as much information to downtown merchants in an effort to assist them in reducing their carbon footprint. He cited the Watershed Fun Fair and Bird Fest as opportunities the committee used to get their message out to the public. The public has been asked to change light bulbs to CFLs and committee members have attended many seminars and classes. Mayor Haakenson explained he recently participated in a conference call with International Council on Local Environmental Initiative (ICLEI) representatives discussing best practices for administering local climate policy. He was one of five speakers; his topic was building an effective Climate Action Committee. The Regional Program Director complimented Edmonds' Climate Protection Committee, stating of all the committees she works with, the Edmonds Committee was the most closely in touch with her on issues facing cities today. An Everett staff member listening to the conference call is in the process of writing a green building ordinance and has promised to forward it to him when it is finalized. Development Services Director Duane Bowman has attended a seminar on "Going Green" and will be well versed when a final ordinance is presented to the City Council. The fuel mix in the City's vehicle fleet has been changed to B20, a low sulfur diesel fuel and will switch to 5% biodiesel when it is more plentiful. Consideration is being given to replacing all vehicles as they reach the end of their useful life with hybrid or electric vehicles. He noted Public Works vehicles account for 41% of fuel usage and Police vehicles account for 35%; those along with other vehicle usage account for 17% of the City's greenhouse gas emissions. The City owned buildings contributed 32% and the streetlights contribute 12%. The City's biggest contributor to emissions is the wastewater sector, including the treatment plant, which contributes 39%. He referred to information provided to the Council on plug-in hybrid vehicles and charging stations, an issue that is scheduled for discussion at the July Council committee meetings. He directed anyone interested in straightforward information on climate change to visit GoGreen.yahoo.com. The Council was also provided a book, "Low Carbon Diet, a 30-Day Program to Reduce 5000 Pounds," which was available online, at retail outlets and at the Edmonds Book Shop in downtown Edmonds. He advised a link was available on the City's webpage with information on the Climate Protection Committee and links to additional information. Councilmember Moore congratulated the Committee for their work and was impressed a survey of the City's emissions has been done. She asked what was needed in the current budget and future budgets to realize these goals. Mayor Haakenson advised the public education component was fairly low cost. The biggest cost will be in the long term for switching to electric and hybrid vehicles because of their higher cost. The biggest issue that will be presented to the Council for consideration will be the Green Building Ordinance. Councilmember Marin commented an important aspect of "going green," an issue he has been involved in for several years, was pacing oneself and doing a little at a time and as opportunities became available. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Jan Vance, Executive Director, Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, explained since the inception of the Edmonds 4th of July celebration, the Chamber has produced the event via fundraising from citizens and businesses and using 100% of the funds toward the event. She highlighted events include a kids parade, main parade, the Fire Department's annual waterball competition at City Park, musical performances at the Civic playfields, family activities at the Frances Anderson Center from 6:30 to 10:00, and the fireworks. She announced this year's Grand Marshall Bridget Hanely, of "Here Comes the Brides", a TV series based on the Mercer Girls of Seattle, and who lives in Edmonds who will be Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page Page 7 of 444 accompanied by Roslyn Summers, 1984 Olympic Medalist who is also an Edmonds resident. She invited donations to be submitted at the Edmonds and Lynnwood Bank of Washington branches, donation boxes at the Edmonds QFC, mailed/dropped off at the Log Cabin or at the Chamber Office, or online at Edmondswa.com. She advised a list of activities and times was available at EverythingEdmonds.com. Lora Petso, Edmonds, referred to the demolition specs for the proposed park at old Woodway Elementary, noting a spreadsheet with the plan identify some trees to be removed as diseased, however, others identified for removal were healthy and non -hazardous. She displayed photographs of trees to be removed, some identified as healthy and others as diseased. She displayed a photograph of a healthy 4- trunk tree 45-50 feet in height that was identified for removal. She concluded the 4-trunk tree could be a beautiful amenity in the park and urged the Council to determine whether healthy trees needed to be removed as part of the park plan. Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, echoed Ms. Petso's concern with removing trees on the old Woodway Elementary School site. He referred to Mayor Haakenson's comments about the B20 fuel the City was using, noting that fuel was already 20% biodiesel. He referred to Councilmember Marin's comments regarding everyone taking small incremental steps, noting that may not be enough because the agreement Mayor Haakenson signed calls for substantial reductions in community emissions over the next ten years. He noted the figures Mayor Haakenson provided were only the City government's emissions which represent only a small fraction of the overall emissions in the city. He commented development on the old Safeway property that could bring in 800-900 new residents and 400-500 new employees would result in a huge increase in the city's greenhouse gas emissions in addition to increased water, electric, etc. usage. He suggested consideration be given to how to account for the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from development. He referred to his proposal for a green building code and urged the City to make it a high priority. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to a rumor that the City's flower program was being eliminated from the budget. He recalled in 1990-1991 there was a $1.2 million budget reduction that included eliminating the flower program which was subsequently taken over by volunteers. Next, he referred to the Hearing Examiner meeting last week regarding a development of 27 new homes, expressing concern that the City did not submit his petitions. He requested the petitions be included in the record. With regard to demolition of the buildings at the old Woodway Elementary School site, he advised there was one appeal. He also urged Council to consider term limits in early 2007. Mayor Haakenson clarified no one on the Council was interested or planned to cut the flower program; it was in place and would remain in place. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, relayed a comment from a citizen who supported term limits and indicated that would influence her vote in the upcoming election. Next, he expressed concern with the lack of information in the packet, noting the information in the packet for Item E mentioned a $782,000 grant but did not identify the amount to be paid from REET 1 funds. He pointed out the importance of identifying the total project cost and funds from each funding source in the information provided for an agenda item. Similarly, Item I did not identify how much the grant was worth, whether there were any restrictions on the City's participation in the grant, whether the City was providing matching funds and if so, how much. He concluded the information provided for those items was incomplete and the Council should ask these questions before making a decision. Mike Mestres, Edmonds, commented he had lived in Edmonds a number of years and knew many people and had never heard anyone clamor about term limits. Instead, citizens were interested in competent, far-sighted government. He concluded the citizens of Edmonds could figure out who to vote for by themselves. With regard to the development of Harbor Square, he noted if development occurred in an intelligent manner, it would reduce energy use as people could live where they worked. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page Page 8 of 444 7. AUTHORIZATION TO OBTAIN AN APPRAISAL FOR POTENTIAL PURCHASE OF EXISTING OPEN COURTYARD BORDERING SOUTHERN PORTION OF OLD MILLTOWN. Councilmember Wambolt commented this idea arose as a result of a suggestion by Mr. MacFarlane at the June 5 City Council Meeting as well as subsequent comments in favor of acquiring the subject property. He explained the property in question was the open space on 5ch Avenue, south of Dayton Street, on the east side, in front of Quizno's. Although the property owner, Bob Gregg, has said he has no plans to develop that portion of Old Milltown at this time, citizens' are interested in the City acquiring that property due to the likelihood it would be redeveloped in the future. He met with the property owner, Bob Gregg, who was open to the City acquiring the property and indicated he would prefer the City acquire it. Staff advised him the first step would be to obtain an appraisal of the fair market value of the property. Councilmember Wambolt commented the desire to have funds available to take advantage of unforeseen opportunities was one of the reasons some Councilmembers voted last year not to spend an additional $4- $5 million to double the size of the park on the old Woodway Elementary School property. Councilmember Plunkett assumed the appraisal would be based on the highest and best use of the property versus use as a park. Councilmember Wambolt commented it was his understanding the property could be condemned and the property owner paid fair market value. Mayor Haakenson clarified the appraisal must be highest and best use, even though what the property was worth to Mr. Gregg and the City may differ. He noted the Council would make their decision after the appraisal was provided. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO OBTAIN AN APPRAISAL OF THE EXISTING OPEN COURTYARD BORDERING THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF OLD MILLTOWN. Councilmember Marin supported purchasing the property. He agreed with Councilmember Wambolt's comments that one of the reasons Councilmembers did not vote to purchase additional property on the old Woodway Elementary School site was to maintain options for future purchases such as this. Council President Olson thanked Councilmember Wambolt for meeting with Mr. Gregg. She commented if the purchase worked out, it would be a great opportunity. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. COUNCIL REPORTS ON COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS Council President Olson reported the Seashore meeting included an update on the Sound Transit/ RTID package. The package will be presented to the Snohomish County Council tomorrow. Councilmember Orvis reported the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee reviewed a trifold brochure that would be on display at the Snohomish County Tourism Bureau. The committee also approved an expenditure to assist the Edmonds Center for the Arts with advertising. Councilmember Wambolt reported on two Port Commission meetings held in June. As estimates for the new restroom facility were higher than anticipated; the Commission requested a reduction and the architects returned with a redesign that reduced the cost by $90,000 to $656,000. The Port plans to apply for an IAC grant. The Commission discussed holding one of their bimonthly meetings in the afternoon and decided to defer that decision until January. The Edmonds Yacht Club is meeting tonight seeking final approval to proceed with a new two-story, 13,000 square foot building on land adjacent to the Commission Office. They plan to lease 49% of the building. The Port also finalized a lease of 36,000 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2007 Page 6 Packet Page Page 9 of 444 square feet of land to Jacobsen Marine who plans to move their operations from Ballard to Edmonds. The Port entered into a 30-year lease with the possibility of two 10-year options. Jacobsen Marine expects to have operations underway by late 2008. He noted in 2009 the City would accrue considerable sales tax revenue from that operation. Funding for the next phase of the Waterfront Redevelopment Plan was approved and a dedication of the public plaza in front of Anthony's will be held on July 10 at 4:00 p.m. Councilmember Plunkett recalled the Council forwarded information from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to the Planning Board. He planned to meet with the HPC and the Planning Board tomorrow to review their ideas. To dispel confusion regarding the HPC's intent, he explained the HPC/Planning Board/Council were not designating properties to be placed on the Historic Register, were not creating a historic district downtown, and were not discussing design guidelines. What was being asked of the Planning Board was 1) adaptive reuse for non -conforming structures so that older structures could remain economically viable, and 2) creating historic development code to provide assurances to developers and citizens that new buildings would be built to a code that reflects the historic character of downtown. Councilmember Marin reported over the weekend Sound Transit reached another milestone, completing sequential excavation operations at the Beacon Hill Station. He noted excavation that deep in glacial till was a monumental task. He planned to testify tomorrow to the Snohomish County Council on behalf of Community Transit and Sound Transit in support of the RTID package. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson advised the position of Economic Development Director had been advertised for the third time, the deadline for submitting an application was July 7. He planned to ask Council President Olson to select Councilmembers to participate in the interviews. He advised an announcement would be made within the next ten days whether to hire a Police Chief from within the Department or seek candidates from outside. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Moore advised traffic prevented her from attending her June 25 constituents meeting. She advised another meeting was scheduled in the same location at the same time on July 2. She asked whether a report would be provided from the Parks & Recreation Department regarding the removal of trees at the old Woodway Elementary School. Mayor Haakenson answered Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh had been meeting with the consultant and neighbors regarding the design, including trees to be removed and retained. Councilmember Moore requested a response to Mr. Hertrich's question regarding the full cost of the Frances Anderson Center seismic structural retrofit project and the conditions of the grant. Mayor Haakenson offered to have Mr. McIntosh provide that information in the Council packet. Councilmember Moore referred to Mr. Bernheim's comment about development worsening carbon emissions, pointing out the Climate Protection Committee, on which Mr. Bernheim serves, encourages development in the Land Use section of their recommendations. She requested a response from the Committee regarding any potential conflict. Mayor Haakenson advised that would likely be resolved once the Planning Board and the Council had an opportunity to review and include a green ordinance in the City's code. Councilmember Moore encouraged the Council to read the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement that Mayor Haakenson signed which was available on Seattle's website. In response to the rumor Mr. Rutledge cited regarding the flower program, Councilmember Wambolt explained the Council approved a two-year budget for 2007-2008. The flower program was included in Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2007 Page 7 Packet Page Page 10 of 444 both budgets so the rumor that the flower program was being cut had no validity. Councilmember Wambolt commended Student Representative Callahan for continuing to attend Council meetings after he graduated. Councilmember Plunkett recalled in the past when Directors were hired and possibly the Fire and Police Chief, the Mayor would bring 2-3 potential candidates to meet with the entire Council. He recalled the Council indicated they wanted an opportunity to meet the final Economic Development Director candidates, not just the candidate that was selected. Councilmember Marin noted it was the American Legion who started the Edmonds 4th of July parade; when they became less able to put on the event, the Chamber took it over. Student Representative Callahan expressed his disgust, anger and sadness at the destruction of trees in the Edmonds-Woodway High School courtyard. He advised the estimate to replace the trees was $50,000. He urged citizens of Edmonds, if it was his peers who destroyed the trees, not to let that affect how they viewed the youth of Edmonds in the future. He planned to volunteer to help with replacing the trees. Mayor Haakenson relayed the school had received donations to replace the trees and Sky Nursery has offered their assistance. He encouraged anyone interested in assisting to visit the Edmonds School District's website for further information. Councilmember Wambolt remarked additional graffiti was appearing throughout the city. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page Page 11 of 444 AM-1080 2.C. Approval of Claim Checks and Payroll Direct Deposits and Checks Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 07/17/2007 Submitted By: Debbie Karber Submitted For: Dan Clements Time: Consent Department: Administrative Services Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda infnrmntinn Subject Title Approval of claim checks #97251 through #97415 for June 28, 2007 in the amount of $553,924.67. Approval of #97419 through #97437 for July 3, 2007 in the amount of $196,367.70. Approval of #97438 through #97668 for July 12, 2007 in the amount of $446,427.64. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #45059 through #45162 for the period of June 16 through June 30, 2007 in the amount of $840,632.63. 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. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2007 Revenue Expenditure: $2,037,352.64 Fiscal Impact: Claims: $1,196,720.01 Payroll: $ 840,632.63 Attachments Link: Claim cks 6-28-07 Link: Claim cks 7-03-07 Link: Claim cks 7-12-07 Form Routing/Status Packet Page Page 12 of 444 Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 07/12/2007 01:06 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/12/2007 02:36 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/12/2007 02:39 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/12/2007 02:55 PM APRV Form Started By: Debbie Started On: 07/03/2007 12:11 Karber PM Final Approval Date: 07/12/2007 Packet Page Page 13 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97251 6/25/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 9875 - AS Advantage Laser - Micro Toner Advantage Laser - Micro Toner 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 209.00 Total : 209.00 97252 6/28/2007 071720 ABELLA, TERESITA 3-00900 RE: #07051420 UTILITY REFUND RE: 07051420 Utility Refund/Abella- 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 156.22 Total : 156.22 97253 6/28/2007 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 0607365 T-SHIRTS DAYCAMP T-SHIRTS 001.000.640.575.530.310.00 1,623.35 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.530.310.00 144.48 0607416 DAY CAMP T-SHIRTS DAY CAMP STAFF T-SHIRTS 001.000.640.575.530.310.00 410.35 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.530.310.00 36.52 Total : 2,214.70 97254 6/28/2007 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 07-239 JANITORIAL JANITORIAL 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00 07-240 FLOOR MAINTENANCE FLOOR MAINTENANCE 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 273.33 Total : 607.33 97255 6/28/2007 071726 ALKEMA, ANNE ALKEMA0613 REFUND REFUND FOR CLASS 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 343.00 Total : 343.00 97256 6/28/2007 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC TM-84474 STREET - WHITE WB TRAFFIC PAI Page: 1 Packet Page Page 14 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 97256 6/28/2007 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC 97257 6/28/2007 069439 AMERICAN HOSE & FITTING <r>rf► ��f� 7f►�iZ�fZiI:1~Z:Z:1r7_1LI=1VEeL1ilk IL/_1:7:I:1111112Eel Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) STREET - WHITE WB TRAFFIC PAI 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 9,357.50 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 832.82 TM-84475 STREET - YELLOW WB TRAFFIC P STREET - YELLOW WB TRAFFIC P 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 6,513.00 WHITE SPEC WATERBORNE 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 591.00 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 632.26 Total : 17,926.58 778202-001 WATER/SEWER - FIRE HOSE ASS[ WATER/SEWER - FIRE HOSE ASS[ 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 162.35 WATER/SEWER - FIRE HOSE ASS[ 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 162.35 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.16 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 6.15 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 15.00 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 15.00 Total : 367.01 6926 BRONZE PLAQUE BRONZE PLAQUE FOR BRACKETT 125.000.640.575.500.310.00 338.50 Freight 125.000.640.575.500.310.00 4.68 Sales Tax 125.000.640.575.500.310.00 30.54 Page: 2 Packet Page Page 15 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97258 6/28/2007 069667 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING (Continued) Total : 373.72 97259 6/28/2007 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 161846-070603 Machuga Membership 10/1/07-9/30/C Machuga Membership 10/1/07-9/30/C 001.000.620.558.600.490.00 110.00 Total : 110.00 97260 6/28/2007 060228 ANS OF WASHINGTON INC ANS Notary Package Notary embossing seal/ink stamp Spi Notary embossing seal/ink stamp Spi 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 176.16 Total : 176.16 97261 6/28/2007 063402 APA PLANNERS BOOK SERVICE 1331 Planners Estimating Guide Planners Estimating Guide 001.000.620.558.600.310.00 62.95 Freight 001.000.620.558.600.310.00 8.00 Total : 70.95 97262 6/28/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3903019 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SE 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 28.60 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.55 Total : 31.15 97263 6/28/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3903021 C/A 18386001 UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 92.54 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.24 Total : 100.78 97264 6/28/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3901650 PW MATS Page: 3 Packet Page Page 16 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 97264 6/28/2007 069751 ARAMARK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) PW MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38 PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26 WATER 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 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 0.70 Page: 4 Packet Page Page 17 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher front Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97264 6/28/2007 069751 ARAMARK (Continued) 512-3901651 STORM/STREET UNIFORM SVC STORM/STREET UNIFORM SVC 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24 STORM/STREET 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 0.29 512-3903020 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.00 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 33.69 Total : 82.52 97265 6/28/2007 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 559794 FLEET - UNLEADED 5304 GAL WA ST SVC FEE 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 20.00 FLEET - UNLEADED 5304 GAL 511.000.657.548.680.340.12 12,929.57 ST EXCISE TAX DIESEL, WA OIL SI 511.000.657.548.680.340.12 1,910.49 FLEET - REGULAR 4400 GAL 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 10,312.72 ST EXCISE TAX DIESEL, WA OIL SI 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 1,584.88 WA ST SVC FEE 511.000.657.548.680.340.12 20.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 1.60 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.12 1.60 Total : 26,780.86 Page: 5 Packet Page Page 18 of 444 vchlist 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 6 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97266 6/28/2007 064343 AT&T 425-771-0152 STATION #16 FAX STATION #16 FAX 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 30.00 Total : 30.00 97267 6/28/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 41121 UB Programming Changes UB Programming Changes 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 29.44 UB Programming Changes 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 74.38 UB Programming Changes 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 59.53 Total : 163.35 97268 6/28/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 40997 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #100 PRINTIN( 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 90.08 UB Outsourcing area #100 PRINTIN( 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 90.08 UB Outsourcing area #100 PRINTIN( 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 90.34 UB Outsourcing area #100 POSTAGI 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 270.01 UB Outsourcing area #100 POSTAGI 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 270.00 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.02 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.02 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.03 Page: 6 Packet Page Page 19 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97268 6/28/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) 41077 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #400 PRINTIN( 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 122.80 UB Outsourcing area #400 PRINTIN( 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 122.80 UB Outsourcing area #400 PRINTIN( 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 123.17 UB Outsourcing area #400 POSTAGI 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 368.27 UB Outsourcing area #400 POSTAGI 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 368.26 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 10.93 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 10.93 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 10.96 Total : 1,972.70 97269 6/28/2007 002100 BARNARD, EARL 58 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 1,475.00 Total : 1,475.00 97270 6/28/2007 002210 BECKWITH & KUFFEL 854743 CED2 NON POT PUMP 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4,590.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 408.51 Total : 4,998.51 97271 6/28/2007 002210 BECKWITH & KUFFEL 853262 STORM - TEST AND REPAIR PUMP Page: 7 Packet Page Page 20 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97271 6/28/2007 002210 BECKWITH & KUFFEL (Continued) STORM - TEST AND REPAIR PUMP 411.000.652.542.400.480.00 490.00 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.480.00 43.61 Total : 533.61 97272 6/28/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 591612-01 INV#591612-01 EDMONDS PD - FFW SHORT SLEEVE UNIFORM SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 59.95 LONG SLEEVE UNIFORM SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 159.90 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 19.57 592340 INV#592340 EDMONDS PD - DAMIP DOUBLE CUFF CASE 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 36.00 RADIO HOLDER 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 51.00 MACE HOLDER 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 28.75 BELT KEEPERS (SET OF 4) 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 15.25 BELT LINER 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 26.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 13.97 598841 INV#598841 EDMONDS PD - KINNE UNIFORM TROUSERS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 320.85 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 28.56 Total : 759.80 97273 6/28/2007 003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 40247810 LEASE Page: 8 Packet Page Page 21 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97273 6/28/2007 003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY (Continued) LEASE: FENCED PARK AREA @ M 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 1,432.22 Total : 1,432.22 97274 6/28/2007 065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY 61707 UNIT 239 REBUILD CUSHION/BACI UNIT 239 REBUILD CUSHION/BACI 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 247.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 20.99 Total : 267.99 97275 6/28/2007 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 1455824 C-251 C-251 ELECTRICAL PROJECT 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 5,570.46 1457156 C-161 C-161 SCREENING PROJECT 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 1,461.08 Total : 7,031.54 97276 6/28/2007 069295 BROWN, CANDY BROWN8425 BIRD CLASS GARDENS FOR BIRDS #8425 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 56.70 Total : 56.70 97277 6/28/2007 067947 BROWNELLS INC 04346344.01 INV#04346344.01 ACCT#00557761 I BOLT EJECTOR TOOL 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 35.71 BLACK UTILITY SLING 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 19.12 REAR SIGHT ASSEMBLY 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 44.98 Total : 99.81 97278 6/28/2007 071434 BRUNETTE, SISSEL BRUNETTE8362 PRENATAL FITNESS PRENATAL FITNESS #8362 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 112.00 Page: 9 Packet Page Page 22 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97278 6/28/2007 071434 071434 BRUNETTE, SISSEL (Continued) Total : 112.00 97279 6/28/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY108257 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 LY108258 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 38.46 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 4.62 LY108259 ALS SUPPLIES 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 Total : 138.32 97280 6/28/2007 003515 CH2M HILL INC 3605997 C-263 C-263 ODOR CONTROL STUDY 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 8,274.64 Total : 8,274.64 97281 6/28/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460655261 UNIFORMS Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 46.36 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 4.12 Page: 10 Packet Page Page 23 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97281 6/28/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION (Continued) 460655262 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 98.13 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.74 460656291 OPS UNIFORMS Stn 17 - ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 96.75 Stn 17 - Ops 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 96.74 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 8.62 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.61 460656314 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 132.66 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.80 Total : 512.53 97282 6/28/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 05/22/07 INV 05/22/07 LYNNWOOD FIRE DEI CASE OF VIONEX TOWLETTES 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 75.00 CASE - LARGE NITRILE GLOVES 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 61.38 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 12.14 Total : 148.52 97283 6/28/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5369 INV#5369 CUST#45 EDMONDS PD MAY 2007 NEXTEL SERVICE 104.000.410.521.210.420.00 53.73 Total : 53.73 Page: 11 Packet Page Page 24 of 444 vchlist 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 12 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97284 6/28/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1795328-1 SUPPLIES LINERS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 277.76 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.72 Total : 302.48 97285 6/28/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1796859 FAC - TOWEL ROLLS FAC - TOWEL ROLLS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 379.80 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 34.02 W1797792 FAC MAINT - TT, ROLL TOWELS, H FAC MAINT - TT, ROLL TOWELS, H 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 756.53 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 67.55 Total : 1,242.90 97286 6/28/2007 070300 CODE 4 INC 4215 INV#4215 - R.SMITH/EDMONDS PD R.T.SMITH/REGISTRATION- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 94.00 Total : 94.00 97287 6/28/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 2276 ACCT#XXXX XXXX XXXX 2276/GAI` Page: 12 Packet Page Page 25 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 97287 6/28/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) GANNON/DINNER- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 21.39 GANNON/LUNCH- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 10.77 GANNON/DINNER- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 28.56 GANNON/LUNCH- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 7.18 GANNON/LODGING- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 187.48 RANGE ITEMS- 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 93.50 3263 ACCT#XXXX XXXX XXXX 3263/013F USB FLASH SANDISK 1GB CRUZEF 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 255.35 DIGITAL MEMORY CARDS 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 88.23 M PO 05316 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 9.79 PAINT 12/QUARTS 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 26.79 MOTHERS PROTECTANT 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 29.37 4685 ACCT#XXXX XXXX XXXX 4685/CON POSTAGE/GUTHRIE LTR 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 8.34 POSTAGE/SCOTT SNYDER 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 27.60 POSTAGE/GUTHRIE LTR 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 9.31 POSTAGE/GUTHRIE LTRS 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 9.31 Page: 13 Packet Page Page 26 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 97287 6/28/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 8272 ACCT#XXXX XXXX XXXX 8272 - ED FALK/FUEL FOR MC- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 16.58 FALK/PROTECTION EQUIP- 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 39.64 FALK/M EAL- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 24.88 FALK/NAMOA CONFERENCE 001.000.410.521.400.240.00 22.37 FALK/FUEL FOR MC- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 23.57 FALK/LODGING- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 270.72 FEDEX POSTAGE/PROPERTY ROC 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 25.45 DAW SO N/M EAL- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 105.07 JONES/LUNCH- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 12.12 JONES/MEAL- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 11.00 MACK/LODGING- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 359.70 JONES/LODGING- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 359.70 JONES/FUEL- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 46.75 8298 ACCT#XXXX XXXX XXXX 8298/BAR REGISTRATION/GREENMUN- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 199.00 CERTIFICATES -SHIPPING AND- 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 5.00 REGISTRATION/DUES/GREENMUN 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 399.00 Page: 14 Packet Page Page 27 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 97287 6/28/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 97288 6/28/2007 004595 CONKLIN APPLIANCE Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 9821 ACCT#XXXX XXXX XXXX 9821 - ED PLAQUE/POLICE FOUNDATION 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 52.27 MEAL/PLOEGER- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 66.85 LODGING/PLOEGER- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 358.68 MEAL/PLOEGER- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 25.73 FUEL/HARBI NSON&FALK- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 32.70 FUEL/HARBINSON- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 7.20 FUEL/HARBI NSON&FALK- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 17.22 LODGING/HARBINSON- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 87.84 Total : 3,382.01 A040369 FS 17 - WASHER FS 17 - WASHER 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 688.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 61.23 P079287 FS 20 - CONTROL PANEL FS 20 - CONTROL PANEL 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 75.20 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.69 P079710 FS 20 - IMPELLOR KIT FS 20 - IMPELLOR KIT 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.56 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.72 Page: 15 Packet Page Page 28 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97288 6/28/2007 004595 CONKLIN APPLIANCE (Continued) S020747 FS 16 - REPAIR FS 16 - REPAIR 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 79.95 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 7.12 Total : 951.47 97289 6/28/2007 069157 COOK, CYNDI COOK7928 HULA CLASSES HULA KIDS #7928 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 140.00 HULA ADULT #7920 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 140.00 Total : 280.00 97290 6/28/2007 005850 CRETIN, LAWRENCE CRETIN0620 MONITOR CITY HALL MONITOR FOR COMP F 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 45.00 CRETIN0623 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR- 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 285.00 Total : 330.00 97291 6/28/2007 061539 DAHL, DOUG 6/07 Tuition Reimbursement - 2/15-5/31/0 Tuition Reimbursement - 2/15-5/31/0 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 490.00 Total : 490.00 97292 6/28/2007 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY VL07208004 8TH & WALNUT PETROLEUM CLEF 8TH & WALNUT PETROLEUM CLEF 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 312.92 Total : 312.92 97293 6/28/2007 007253 DUNN LUMBER 09230005 LUMBER Page: 16 Packet Page Page 29 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97293 6/28/2007 007253 DUNN LUMBER (Continued) LUMBER - CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 54.15 Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 4.82 09230006 LUMBER LUMBER 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 5.34 Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 0.48 Total : 64.79 97294 6/28/2007 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER 205130 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 61.08 205131 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.501.410.01 74.30 205132 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 81.08 Total : 216.46 97295 6/28/2007 068357 EARTH TECH 92358-13-415355 ESFG.Services thru 06/01/07 ESFG.Services thru 06/01/07 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 2,241.81 Total : 2,241.81 97296 6/28/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 81951 SUPPLIES UNDERCOAT 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 27.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.40 Page: 17 Packet Page Page 30 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97296 6/28/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS (Continued) 81968 SUPPLIES UNDERCOAT 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.20 Total : 44.10 97297 6/28/2007 007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC E296781-1 Pre -employment testing services Pre -employment testing services 001.000.220.516.210.410.00 35.00 E298868-1 Pre -employment testing services Pre -employment testing services 001.000.220.516.210.410.00 7.00 E298868-2 Pre -employment testing services Pre -employment testing services 001.000.220.516.210.410.00 99.00 Total : 141.00 97298 6/28/2007 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 11009 UPS/ ANALYSIS PLUS UPS/ ANALYSIS PLUS 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 7.08 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 0.63 Total : 7.71 97299 6/28/2007 065065 EDMONDS ROTARY DAYBREAKERS ROTARY0618 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMEI TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMEI 123.000.640.573.100.410.00 1,400.00 Total : 1,400.00 97300 6/28/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 4-34080 LIFT STATION #14 LIFT STATION #14 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 20.64 Total : 20.64 97301 6/28/2007 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 025661 ADMIN MAINT Page: 18 Packet Page Page 31 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97301 6/28/2007 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) Admin copier maint 001.000.510.522.100.480.00 73.07 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.480.00 6.50 Total : 79.57 97302 6/28/2007 069686 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CO 72862 CEM/PC CEM/PC 411.000.656.538.800.350.00 1,290.00 Total : 1,290.00 97303 6/28/2007 069586 ESPIRITU, KRISTA ESPIRITU7927 HULA CLASSES HULA KIDS #7927 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 378.00 Total : 378.00 97304 6/28/2007 069042 EVERETT HYDRAULICS INC 0000010500 UNIT 48 - OVERHAUL CYLINDER UNIT 48 - OVERHAUL CYLINDER 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 487.10 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 41.89 Total : 528.99 97305 6/28/2007 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU10599 SUPPLIES NITRILE GLOVES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 179.86 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.01 Total : 195.87 97306 6/28/2007 009880 FEDEX 2-110-30943 Delivery services, Re: Bill Ferro Delivery services, Re: Bill Ferro 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 33.49 Delivery services - 1099 Foundation 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 17.99 Page: 19 Packet Page Page 32 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97306 6/28/2007 009880 009880 FEDEX (Continued) Total : 51.48 97307 6/28/2007 066590 FELIX LLC, ROBERT W FELIX8068 STOP SMOKING CLASS STOP SMOKING WITH HYPNOSIS- 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 416.50 Total : 416.50 97308 6/28/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0842197 37355 PVC GLUE/PRIMER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 48.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.31 Total : 52.81 97309 6/28/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0848758 WATER - TOOL TOTES WATER - TOOL TOTES 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 98.00 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.72 Total : 106.72 97310 6/28/2007 069956 FIRE COM 82680 UNIT 99999 FIRE - RADIO UNIT 99999 FIRE - RADIO 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 945.00 Freight 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 9.16 Total : 954.16 97311 6/28/2007 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 134348 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKIN Jul 07 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent 001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00 Total : 300.00 97312 6/28/2007 061589 GALLS INC 588970350101 UNIT EQ26FI Page: 20 Packet Page Page 33 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97312 6/28/2007 061589 GALLS INC (Continued) UNIT EQ26FI 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 98.99 Freight 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 10.99 Sales Tax 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 9.78 Total : 119.76 97313 6/28/2007 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC M-240574 E4GA.Services thru 05/26/07 E4GA.Services thru 05/26/07 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 29,081.71 Total : 29,081.71 97314 6/28/2007 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 1030-85 Drug Testing Services Drug Testing Services 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 35.00 Total : 35.00 97315 6/28/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1043073 6035 3225 0267 0205 GAS CAN, VELCRO 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 59.83 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.32 1045505 6035 3225 0267 0205 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.64 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.84 2044077 6035 3225 0267 0205 GREY TIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.90 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.42 Page: 21 Packet Page Page 34 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97315 6/28/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 36858 6035 3225 0267 0205 SPRAY PAINT, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 107.80 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.59 4034685 6035 3225 0267 0205 WAX RINGS, WRENCHS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 47.38 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.22 4036293 6035 3225 0267 0205 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.54 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.18 4043871 6035 3225 0267 0205 HOLE SAWS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 29.88 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.66 4045146 6035 3225 0267 0205 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.54 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.18 5036154 6035 3225 0267 0205 FLAT PLATES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 21.96 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.95 6044803 6035 3225 0267 0205 GASSERS,TAPE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 56.85 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.06 Page: 22 Packet Page Page 35 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97315 6/28/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 7035852 6035 3225 0267 0205 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 35.04 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.12 75940 6035 3225 0267 0205 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.77 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.85 Total : 506.52 97316 6/28/2007 071075 ICC, LOS ANGELES DIST OFFICE Readwin Readwin 2007 Cert Renewal Readwin 2007 Cert Renewal 001.000.620.524.100.490.00 50.00 Total : 50.00 97317 6/28/2007 063558 IDDINGS INC 213999 INFIELD MIX INFIELD MIX 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 540.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 45.90 Total : 585.90 97318 6/28/2007 070864 IDEARC MEDIA CORP 440008646913 C/A 430001405909 Directory Listings P&R 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 111.50 Total : 111.50 97319 6/28/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 73586955 COPIER LEASE COPIER LEASE- 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 326.70 Total : 326.70 97320 6/28/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 73559834 INV#73559834 ACCT#467070 - CON Page: 23 Packet Page Page 36 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97320 6/28/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) COPIER RENTAL 06/13-07/12/07 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 821.73 ADDITIONAL IMAGES 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 117.97 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 83.64 Total : 1,023.34 97321 6/28/2007 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 1679678A INV#1679678A CUST#202924 EDM( CANON DR7580 SCANNER 001.000.410.521.110.350.00 5,170.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.350.00 460.13 Total : 5,630.13 97322 6/28/2007 061546 INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS SUPPLY 702130 UNIT 24 - TOGGLE BOOT SEAL, ILI UNIT 24 - TOGGLE BOOT SEAL, ILI 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 240.86 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.44 Total : 262.30 97323 6/28/2007 068814 INDUSTRIAL FABRICS CORP 359580 5840 DUROTEX BELT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3,209.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 384.72 Total : 3,593.72 97324 6/28/2007 069851 JACKYE'S ENTERPRISES INC 7100 STORM/STREET - NAVIGATOR REI Page: 24 Packet Page Page 37 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97324 6/28/2007 069851 JACKYE'S ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) STORM/STREET - NAVIGATOR REI 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 241.50 STORM/STREET - NAVIGATOR REI 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 241.50 PERSONALIZE AND APPLY CITY P, 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 56.25 PERSONALIZE AND APPLY CITY P, 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 56.25 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 26.50 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 26.49 Total : 648.49 97325 6/28/2007 065381 JOHN E REID & ASSOCIATES INC 81306 INV#81306 - J.LEE/EDMONDS PD J.LEE/REGISTRATION- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 295.00 Total : 295.00 97326 6/28/2007 015243 JOHNSON, DEBBIE DJOHNSON0608 TEST REFUND REFUND FOR TEST DONE IN CLAE 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 3.00 Total : 3.00 97327 6/28/2007 066913 KDL HARDWARE SUPPLY INC 332072 FAC MAINT - COMPLETE RUKO PA FAC MAINT - COMPLETE RUKO PA 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 390.00 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.23 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 35.18 Total : 430.41 97328 6/28/2007 067552 KING CO FINANCE & BUSINESS 47460 Jan -Apr 07 Flow -Debt Service Page: 25 Packet Page Page 38 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97328 6/28/2007 067552 KING CO FINANCE & BUSINESS (Continued) Jan -Apr 07 Flow -Debt Service 411.000.655.535.800.510.00 39,706.93 Jan -Apr 07 Flow -Operating 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 71,002.08 Total : 110,709.01 97329 6/28/2007 016600 KROESENS INC 76849 OPS UNIFORMS Storm jacket, patches 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 245.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 21.81 76985 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING Fischer boots 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 329.00 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 7.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 29.90 77375 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING Allison boots 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 252.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 22.47 77376 UNIFORMS bugles 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 41.40 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 3.68 77811 OPS UNIFORMS D White nametags 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 23.80 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 2.12 Total : 978.68 Page: 26 Packet Page Page 39 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97330 6/28/2007 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 684168 INV#684168 EDMONDS PD - MAR/P 73 CARWASHES @$2.50 - 03/07 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 182.50 3 TRUCKWASHES @ $5.00 - 03/07 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 15.00 83 CARWASHES @ $2.50 - 04/07 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 207.50 2 TRUCK WASHES @$5.00 - 04/07 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 10.00 Total : 415.00 97331 6/28/2007 060132 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 1009813719 INV#1009813719 ACCT#5560008 El LAB APRONS 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 30.00 PROTECTIVE EYEWEAR 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 70.60 Freight 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 11.86 Total : 112.46 97332 6/28/2007 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 0021169 810 WALNUT ST - ENVIRONMENTP 810 WALNUT ST - ENVIRONMENTP 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 4,808.52 Total : 4,808.52 97333 6/28/2007 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 6007-403 SUPPLIES IGNITION COIL 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 77.06 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.54 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.08 Page: 27 Packet Page Page 40 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97333 6/28/2007 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY (Continued) 6007-404 SUPPLIES NITRILE TOUGH GLOVES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 94.80 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.18 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.81 Total : 194.47 97334 6/28/2007 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 6007-317 FLEET SHOP - NITRILE TOUGH BL, FLEET SHOP - NITRILE TOUGH BL, 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 94.80 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.18 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.81 Total : 107.79 97335 6/28/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 094758 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 215.62 Total : 215.62 97336 6/28/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 094757 ENVELOPES ENVELOPES FOR CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 92.00 ENVELOPES 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 162.00 Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 8.19 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 14.42 Total : 276.61 97337 6/28/2007 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 570303 SUPPLIES Page: 28 Packet Page Page 41 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97337 6/28/2007 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA (Continued) BELTS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 28.80 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.56 Total : 31.36 97338 6/28/2007 071730 MADRAN PHOTOGRAPHY 1006 EVENT PHOTOGRAPHY EVENT PHOTOGRAPHY FOR GYMI 001.000.640.575.550.410.00 75.00 Total : 75.00 97339 6/28/2007 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 3086 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.501.410.01 45.00 3094 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.501.410.01 60.00 3095 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.501.410.01 45.00 3099 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.501.410.01 45.00 3100 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.501.410.01 45.00 3101 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.501.410.01 45.00 Total : 285.00 97340 6/28/2007 019594 MARTIN, JAMES W 57 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 848.86 Total : 848.86 Page: 29 Packet Page Page 42 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97341 6/28/2007 065829 MARTINSON, LINDA MARTINSON8384 BELLY DANCE CLASSES BELLY DANCE #8384 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 222.60 BELLY DANCE #8385 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 176.40 BELLY DANCE #8383 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 117.60 Total : 516.60 97342 6/28/2007 068309 MERCURY FITNESS REPAIR INC 7061433 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE REPAIR FOR ANDERSON CENTER 001.000.640.575.520.480.00 181.90 Freight 001.000.640.575.520.480.00 10.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.480.00 16.19 Total : 208.09 97343 6/28/2007 069631 METROTECH 414883 WATER/SEWER - REPAIR SERVICE WATER/SEWER - REPAIR SERVICE 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 100.00 WATER/SEWER - REPAIR SERVICE 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 100.00 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 8.53 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 8.53 Total : 217.06 97344 6/28/2007 071727 METZ, JULIE METZ0608 REFUND REFUND FOR CANCELLED CLASS 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 85.00 Total : 85.00 97345 6/28/2007 063773 MICROFLEX 00017109 MAY 07 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM Page: 30 Packet Page Page 43 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97345 6/28/2007 063773 MICROFLEX (Continued) May 07 Tax Audit Program 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 154.66 Total : 154.66 97346 6/28/2007 020905 MILLIMAN INC As of Jan 01-2007 Actuarial Services as of 1/1/07 Fire Actuarial Services as of 1/1/07 Fire 009.000.390.517.370.410.00 9,781.76 Actuarial Services as of 1/1/07 Fire 617.000.510.522.200.410.00 8,568.24 Total : 18,350.00 97347 6/28/2007 066395 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY 72325643 SHOP SUPPLIES - BRAKE CLEANE SHOP SUPPLIES - BRAKE CLEANE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 105.98 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.82 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.44 Total : 129.24 97348 6/28/2007 071724 NABI HESLOP R.HESLOP/EDMONDS PD - NABI C, R. HESLOP/REGISTRATION- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 200.00 MORRISON S.MORRISON/EDMONDS - NABI CC S. MORRISON/REG ISTRATION- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 200.00 Total : 400.00 97349 6/28/2007 070788 NETRIVER INC 36886 HOSTING PACKAGE NON PROFIT HOSTING PACKAGE- 120.000.310.575.420.410.00 39.00 Total : 39.00 97350 6/28/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 832127721-032 INV#832127721-032 EDMONDS PD CELL PHONES 5/18-6/17/07 001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1,279.63 Page: 31 Packet Page Page 44 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97350 6/28/2007 067098 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) Total : 1,279.63 97351 6/28/2007 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0502852 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 92.20 0502853 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02 Total : 190.22 97352 6/28/2007 068331 NORTHWEST TRAINING OPTIONS 7401 TRAINING MISC White boat training 001.000.510.522.400.490.00 169.00 Total : 169.00 97353 6/28/2007 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 481 PB Minutetaker 5/13/07 PB Minutetaker 5/13/07 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 390.00 000 00 486 PB minutetaker 6/13/07 PB minutetaker 6/13/07 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 390.00 000 00 487 HPC Minute taker HPC Minute taker 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 150.00 Total : 930.00 97354 6/28/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 352579 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 205.33 Total : 205.33 97355 6/28/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 345572 Office Supplies - L. Carl Office Supplies - L. Carl 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 56.21 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 4.99 Page: 32 Packet Page Page 45 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97355 6/28/2007 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) Total : 61.20 97356 6/28/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 781387 OFFICE SUPPLIES CANARY PAPER 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 8.52 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.67 790979 OFFICE SUPPLIES LAMINATION POUCHES 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 28.02 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 2.41 817771 OFFICE SUPPLIES LASER CARTRIDGES 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 107.12 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 9.53 861716 OFFICE SUPPLIES PARK MAINTENACE OFFICE SUPP 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 153.97 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.71 863642 OFFICE SUPPLIES WIDE FORMAT PAPER 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 22.48 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.92 925712 OFFICE SUPPLIES TAPE DISPENSER 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.93 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.26 Total : 352.54 97357 6/28/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 445964 520437 Page: 33 Packet Page Page 46 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97357 6/28/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) MARKERBOARD/COPIER PAPER/L, 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 73.05 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 6.50 Total : 79.55 97358 6/28/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 354344 PW ADMIN OFFICE SUPPLIES - YE PW ADMIN OFFICE SUPPLIES - YE 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 145.36 STREET - BANNER TAGS 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 34.59 PW ADMIN OFFICE SUPPLIES - TA 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 44.43 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 16.89 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 3.08 Total : 244.35 97359 6/28/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 386041 Office Supplies DSD Office Supplies DSD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 380.13 Total : 380.13 97360 6/28/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 180299 PREVENTION SUPPLIES JW holders 001.000.510.522.300.310.00 12.06 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.300.310.00 1.07 Total : 13.13 97361 6/28/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 349317 INV#349317 ACCT#520437 250POL Page: 34 Packet Page Page 47 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 97361 6/28/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 97362 6/28/2007 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 97363 6/28/2007 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) BOISE X-9 COPY PAPER 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 316.10 STENO BOOKS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 33.36 LEGAL PADS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.58 POST -IT NOTES - VARIOUS SIZES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 37.81 LEGAL HANGING FILE FOLDERS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 26.24 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 37.75 349786 INV#349786 ACCT#520437 250POL HI YIELD PRINTER CARTRIDGE 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 195.19 BLACK CART. FOR COLOR LASER, 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 153.76 CYN CART. FOR COLOR LASERJE' 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 218.24 FX-7 FAX CARTRIDGES FOR CLER 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 184.16 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 50.49 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 16.39 Total : 1,280.07 658946 Legislative Legal Services for 5/2007 Legislative Legal Services for 5/2007 001.000.110.511.100.410.00 4,020.00 Total : 4,020.00 563696 PS - WHITE PAINT Page: 35 Packet Page Page 48 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97363 6/28/2007 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. (Continued) PS - WHITE PAINT 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.62 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.39 Total : 17.01 97364 6/28/2007 063890 PERFORMANCE SIGN PRODUCTS INC 43206 SUPPLIES 24" OPAQUE GROW GREEN 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.28 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.14 Total : 14.42 97365 6/28/2007 062296 PETTY CASH - WWTP 062507 SUPPLIES FOR LAB SUPPLIES FOR LAB 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 134.43 DISHWASHER SOAP 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 3.47 REFRESHMENT FOR MTG 411.000.656.538.800.310.00 8.75 DIRT FOR PLANTS 411.000.656.538.800.490.00 9.77 TRAVEL PARKING/LEIN 411.000.656.538.800.430.00 10.00 WATER SPRAYER/KITCHEN 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 14.37 Total : 180.79 97366 6/28/2007 069065 PIONEER RESEARCH CORP 197510 SUPPLIES GRAFFITI TURBO TOWELS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 349.00 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 92.10 Page: 36 Packet Page Page 49 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97366 6/28/2007 069065 PIONEER RESEARCH CORP (Continued) 197511 SUPPLIES GRAFFITI TURBO TOWELS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 349.00 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 92.10 Total : 882.20 97367 6/28/2007 070881 PIPE TOOL SPECIALTIES 1395 SEWER - SHORT CHAIN ASSMEBL SEWER - SHORT CHAIN ASSMEBL 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 478.50 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.15 Total : 483.65 97368 6/28/2007 029012 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 156258 INV#156258 ACCT#2772 EDMONDE RADIO TO MOTOROLA FOR REPAI 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 25.53 Total : 25.53 97369 6/28/2007 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948 FAC alarm monitoring for FAC- - 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 183.00 Total : 183.00 97370 6/28/2007 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANN 0017430-IN EDMCITW PVC POLY SUIT 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 27.96 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 2.35 Total : 30.31 97371 6/28/2007 065579 QUIKSIGN 55692 Sign Install - Michel - ADB-07-27 Sign Install - Michel - ADB-07-27 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 169.88 Page: 37 Packet Page Page 50 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97371 6/28/2007 065579 QUIKSIGN (Continued) 55694 Sign Install CU-07-3 Farah's Sign Install CU-07-3 Farah's 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 169.88 55705 Sign Install - V-07-47 Munro Sign Install - V-07-47 Munro 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 169.88 55706 Sign Install V-06-102 Bogaert Sign Install V-06-102 Bogaert 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 169.88 Total : 679.52 97372 6/28/2007 071729 R C N W Bus Lic Refund REFUND OVERPMT OF BUS LIC Refund overpmt of Business Lic 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 97373 6/28/2007 071721 REDEMANN JR, DAVID CRYSTAL UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS/K.CR K.CRYSTAL/REG ISTRATI ON- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 500.00 Total : 500.00 97374 6/28/2007 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL 3004005-F STORM - STREET SWEEPING STORM - STREET SWEEPING 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 3,314.27 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 119.31 Total : 3,433.58 97375 6/28/2007 067447 RILEY, CHARLES H. 59 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 626.85 Total : 626.85 97376 6/28/2007 068484 RINKER MATERIALS 9413010523 STORM - DUMP FEES STORM - DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 197.90 Page: 38 Packet Page Page 51 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 39 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97376 6/28/2007 068484 RINKER MATERIALS (Continued) 9413046646 WATER - COLD MIX ASPHALT WATER - COLD MIX ASPHALT 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 162.50 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 14.46 Total : 374.86 97377 6/28/2007 071722 SCHOOL SAFETY ADVOCACY COUNCIL 230 INV#230 - R.SMITH/EDMONDS R.SMITH/REGISTRATION- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 375.00 Total : 375.00 97378 6/28/2007 061482 SEA -WESTERN INC 116658 OPS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING Fischer pant, etc. 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 510.00 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 6.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 45.97 Total : 562.47 97379 6/28/2007 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 76439 SR CENTER GEOTECHNICAL AND SR CENTER GEOTECHNICAL AND 001.000.651.519.920.410.00 5,760.53 Total : 5,760.53 97380 6/28/2007 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0063345-IN UNIT 474 - ASSEMBLY UNIT 474 - ASSEMBLY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 119.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.50 0063373-IN UNIT EQ10FI - COMPACT SPEAKEI UNIT EQ10FI - COMPACT SPEAKEf 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 316.90 Page: 39 Packet Page Page 52 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 40 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97380 6/28/2007 068489 SIRENNET.COM (Continued) 0063639-IN UNIT EQ08PO - FLATLIGHTER LED UNIT EQ08PO - FLATLIGHTER LED 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 182.40 Freight 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 14.50 0063690-IN UNIT EQ10FI - DOMIATOR - 6 LAME UNIT EQ10FI - DOMIATOR - 6 LAME 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 315.00 Freight 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 27.00 57427A-IN UNIT 117 - RETURNS UNIT 117 - RETURNS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -105.00 Total : 882.30 97381 6/28/2007 071725 SKAGIT GARDENS INC 52123868 PLANTS PLANTS FOR FLOWER PROGRAM 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 260.58 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 20.62 Total : 281.20 97382 6/28/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2060028723 YOST PARK POOL YOST PARK POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,234.96 Total : 1,234.96 97383 6/28/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 698004750 958-001-000-8 WWTP ELECTRICITY 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 21,105.34 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 1,266.32 Total : 22,371.66 97384 6/28/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 112-000-511-9 22000 84TH AVE W Page: 40 Packet Page Page 53 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 41 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97384 6/28/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) Traffic Signal 220th St SW & 84th Av 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 57.24 2060015456 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.26 2960019335 LIFT STATION #3 LIFT STATION #3 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 96.27 3460019262 FIVE CORNERS WATER TANK FIVE CORNERS WATER TANK 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 227.68 3720012057 LIBRARY LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,875.43 4220016176 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 171.21 4430018418 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 82.29 4680011956 TRAFFIC SIGNAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 80.01 Page: 41 Packet Page Page 54 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 42 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97384 6/28/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 4840011953 Public Works Public Works 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 70.09 Public Works 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 266.33 Public Works 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 266.33 Public Works 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 266.33 Public Works 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 266.33 Public Works 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 266.33 4860014960 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 151.77 5390028164 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,357.06 5410010689 CITY HALL CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,120.83 5450011118 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 142.55 7060000275 Fire station #16 Fire station #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 28.28 Total : 10,821.62 97385 6/28/2007 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 35177 Rubber Stamp for Eng. Rubber Stamp for Eng. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 23.81 Total : 23.81 Page: 42 Packet Page Page 55 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 43 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97386 6/28/2007 065910 SNOCOM 911 COMMUNICATIONS 375 03-07 QUARTERLY SERVICES 03-07 Quarterly Services 001.000.410.528.600.510.00 130,342.28 03-07 Quarterly Services 001.000.510.528.600.510.00 46,550.81 03-07 Quarterly Services 411.000.654.534.800.510.00 4,655.08 03-07 Quarterly Services 411.000.655.535.800.510.00 4,655.08 Total : 186,203.25 97387 6/28/2007 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 48841 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 527.99 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 19.01 Total : 547.00 97388 6/28/2007 071728 SONDLES, MILLE SONDLES0619 REFUND REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 230.00 Total : 230.00 97389 6/28/2007 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4113015-01 STORM - WORK JEANS - C HIATT STORM - WORK JEANS - C HIATT 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 270.00 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 24.03 Total : 294.03 97390 6/28/2007 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 22262 FS 17 - REPAIR CENTER DOOR FS 17 - REPAIR CENTER DOOR 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 432.63 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 38.50 Total : 471.13 Page: 43 Packet Page Page 56 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 44 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97391 6/28/2007 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC 68701 E7CA.Roberts thru 06/15/07 E7CA.Roberts thru 06/15/07 125.100.620.595.300.650.00 975.00 Total : 975.00 97392 6/28/2007 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO July 2007 JULY 2007 STANDARD INS PREMII July 2007 Standard Insurance Premit 811.000.000.231.550.000.00 18,730.22 Total : 18,730.22 97393 6/28/2007 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 056639 CITY HALL - ELECTRIC SUPPLIES CITY HALL - ELECTRIC SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.44 FAC MAINT - ELECT SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 493.40 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 45.20 Total : 553.04 97394 6/28/2007 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18803072 FLAT SOCKET FLAT SOCKET 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 34.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3.03 Total : 37.03 97395 6/28/2007 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10544749 STORM - UPSIDE DOWN -FLOURE STORM - UPSIDE DOWN -FLOURE 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 592.92 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 52.77 10544750 STREET - RATCHET REPAIR KITS, STREET - RATCHET REPAIR KITS, 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 48.58 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 4.32 Page: 44 Packet Page Page 57 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 45 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97395 6/28/2007 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC (Continued) 10547281 SHOP ELECT SUPPLIES SHOP ELECT SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 267.05 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.77 10547282 SHOP SUPPLIES SHOP SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.50 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.38 18804166 WATER - EYE BOLTS WATER - EYE BOLTS 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 32.89 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.93 Total : 1,042.11 97396 6/28/2007 067460 TANDEM SERVICE CORP INC 1075465 C248 SEPTAGE HAULING 411.000.656.538.800.410.11 465.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.11 41.38 Total : 506.38 97397 6/28/2007 071577 TAYLOR, KATHLEEN Taylor 6/6-6/22/07 6/6-/22/07 Consulting sery 6/6-/22/07 Consulting sery 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 2,860.00 Total : 2,860.00 97398 6/28/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1511450 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3648 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 38.76 1511451 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3647 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 34.20 Page: 45 Packet Page Page 58 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 46 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97398 6/28/2007 009350 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY (Continued) Total : 72.96 97399 6/28/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1506576 Legal Publishing ADB 07-11 T-MobilE Legal Publishing ADB 07-11 T-MobilE 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 23.76 1507785 Legal Publishing S-07-37 Zimmerlum Legal Publishing S-07-37 Zimmerluni 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 12.96 1507788 Legal Publishing S-06-144 Brown Legal Publishing S-06-144 Brown 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 15.12 1510646 Legal Pub AP-07-01 Petso Legal Pub AP-07-01 Petso 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 42.48 1510654 Legal Publishing ADU-07-41 Marque: Legal Publishing ADU-07-41 Marque: 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 14.40 1512901 Legal Pub CUT-06-127 Dunham Legal Pub CUT-06-127 Dunham 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 22.32 Total : 131.04 97400 6/28/2007 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 36044 FENCING MATERIALS MATERIAL & LABOR TO REPAIR SI 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 460.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 40.94 Total : 500.94 97401 6/28/2007 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 35983 STREET - CHAIN LINK FENCE MAT STREET - CHAIN LINK FENCE MAT 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 28.70 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 2.55 Total : 31.25 97402 6/28/2007 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 13401 KEYS Page: 46 Packet Page Page 59 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 47 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97402 6/28/2007 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY (Continued) KEYS AND TAGS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.59 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.48 Total : 18.07 97403 6/28/2007 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 391319 WATER - CURB STOP VALVE LOCI WATER - CURB STOP VALVE LOCI 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 75.60 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 12.05 Total : 87.65 97404 6/28/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-771-1124 CITY PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG-E CITY PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG-E 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 51.91 Total : 51.91 97405 6/28/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-7147 LIBRARY SCAN ALARM LIBRARY SCAN ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.88 425-206-8379 MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.88 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY STATIONS TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 28.07 TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 28.07 Page: 47 Packet Page Page 60 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 48 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 97405 6/28/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 425-712-8251 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 12.35 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 61.73 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 50.62 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 50.62 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 71.61 425-771-0158 FS # 16 FS #16 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 240.48 425-775-1534 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 160.09 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 297.30 425-775-2455 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 47.63 425-775-7865 Radio Line between Public Works & I Radio Line between Public Works & I 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 50.59 Page: 48 Packet Page Page 61 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 49 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97405 6/28/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST (Continued) 425-RTO-9133 PUBLIC WORKS CPNNECTION TO Public Works Connection to 911 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48 Public Works Connection to 911 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78 Total : 1,238.42 97406 6/28/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-774-0944 FS #20-FAX LINE FS #20-FAX LINE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 48.14 Total : 48.14 97407 6/28/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 470091643-00001 425-238-8846 cell phone -Tod Moles 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 34.40 470103273-00001 425-238-5456 cell phone -Mike Johnson 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 29.73 670091643-00001 425-327-5379 cell phone -unit #77 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 39.51 769986915-01 425-231-2668 cell phone -water lead 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 40.06 Total : 143.70 97408 6/28/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0562416842 INV#0562416842 ACCT#764226609- Page: 49 Packet Page Page 62 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 50 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97408 6/28/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) SWAT BUS PHONE 001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1.90 Total : 1.90 97409 6/28/2007 062320 WA ST ARTS ALLIANCE FDN 06302007 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PREPARATION & PRESENTATION 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 300.00 Total : 300.00 97410 6/28/2007 047605 WA ST TREASURER Spellman Notary State License Fee Spellman Notary State License Fee Spellman Notary 001.000.620.558.800.490.00 30.00 Total : 30.00 97411 6/28/2007 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-5793 STREET - 1040 MAPLE ST SITE - R STREET - 1040 MAPLE ST SITE - R 111.000.653.542.710.410.00 420.00 06-5796 STREET - 17210 68TH AVE W SITE STREET - 17210 68TH AVE W SITE 111.000.653.542.710.410.00 435.00 Total : 855.00 97412 6/28/2007 069002 WEST COAST PRINTING INC 32291 Small Equipment Labels Small Equipment Labels 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 273.00 Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 24.30 Total : 297.30 97413 6/28/2007 061286 WESTERN FLUID COMPONENTS P-00957-0 UNIT 91 - PARTS UNIT 91 - PARTS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 76.90 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.84 Total : 83.74 Page: 50 Packet Page Page 63 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 51 06/28/2007 10:43:29AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97414 6/28/2007 063074 WESTERN POWER AND EQUIPMENT G10769 UNIT 3 - REPAIR FEES UNIT 3 - REPAIR FEES 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 2,879.22 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 256.25 Total : 3,135.47 97415 6/28/2007 064234 WILDWATER RIVER TOURS INC AMUNDSON8079 WHITEWATER RAFT TRIP WENATCHEE WHITEWATER RAFT 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 108.72 Total : 108.72 165 Vouchers for bank code : front Bank total : 553,924.67 165 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 553,924.67 Page: 51 Packet Page Page 64 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 07/03/2007 11:40:15AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97419 7/3/2007 001699 ASSOC OF WA CITIES CNF# 849-11918 Registration Junglov, K; Muni Budget Registration Junglov, K; Muni Budget 001.000.310.514.230.490.00 150.00 Total : 150.00 97420 7/3/2007 064343 AT&T 425-775-2525 Switchboard 5/7-6/7/07 Switchboard 5/7-6/7/07 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 31.05 Total : 31.05 97421 7/3/2007 070231 CNR INC 11202 JUN 07 MAINT PHONE SYSTEM Jun 07 Phone System Maintenance 001.000.390.528.800.480.00 736.67 Sales Tax 001.000.390.528.800.480.00 65.56 Total : 802.23 97422 7/3/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 1287 IT WSCPA Registration Sharp, D Cryst� Page: 1 Packet Page Page 65 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 07/03/2007 11:40:15AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 97422 7/3/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 97423 97424 97425 Invoice (Continued) 7/3/2007 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2007050145 7/3/2007 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS June 2007 7/3/2007 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 06302007 PO # Description/Account Amount WSCPA Registration Sharp, D Cryst� 001.000.310.514.230.490.00 420.00 CDW-G Tech Support Network Equip 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 509.41 B&H Photo Electronic Servic Vacuurr 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 213.30 WSCPA Registration, Danninger, R 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 285.00 Provantage Video Card Replacement 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 90.21 CDW-G Software 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 1,349.98 CDW-G Items to get Fiber Project up 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 864.13 CDW-G Replacement Memory 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 545.09 Blue Flame Software 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 40.75 Paessler.com Network monitoring so 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 695.00 Late Fee 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 3.35 Total : 5,016.22 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 Scan Services for May, 2007 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 353.94 Total : 353.94 JUNE 2007 DRS June 2007 DRS 811.000.000.231.540.000.00 168,947.12 Total : 168,947.12 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE Page: 2 Packet Page Page 66 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 07/03/2007 11:40:15AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97425 7/3/2007 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A (Continued) PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 8,600.00 Total : 8,600.00 97426 7/3/2007 071733 FREEMAN, STEPHEN C Ref overpmt Bus Lic REFUND OVERPMT OF BUS LIC Refund overpmt of Bus Lic 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 200.00 Total : 200.00 97427 7/3/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 73623852 FINANCE COPIER RENTAL Finance Copier Rental 6/22-7/21/07 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 454.07 Additional Images 5/3-6/3/07 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 489.59 Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 84.00 Total : 1,027.66 97428 7/3/2007 071732 LOWELL, RANDALL & REBECCA 8-44600 RE: 20310968-408-JDJ UB REF RE: 20310968-408-JDJ Utly Ref 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 6.35 Total : 6.35 97429 7/3/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC CAFR CAFR Printing CAFR Printing 001.000.310.514.230.490.00 129.38 Total : 129.38 97430 7/3/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 484766 Folders, envelopes, white out, market Folders, envelopes, white out, market 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 53.44 Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 4.75 Total : 58.19 97431 7/3/2007 070257 POSTINI INC 321764 INTERNET ANTI -VIRUS & SPAM MA Page: 3 Packet Page Page 67 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 07/03/2007 11:40:15AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97431 7/3/2007 070257 POSTINI INC (Continued) Jun 07 Internet Anti -Virus & Spam M, 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 475.83 Total : 475.83 97432 7/3/2007 071731 REED, W LOWELL & E MAURINE 1-08075 RE: 04660-005124108-001 UB REFL RE: 04660-005124108-001 UB Refur 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 19.73 Total : 19.73 97433 7/3/2007 070040 TOTAL RECLAIM INC 51810 Recycling of Computer Monitors, Recycling of Computer Monitors, 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 333.75 Total : 333.75 97434 7/3/2007 044300 US POSTAL SERVICE 6/27/07 City Newsletter mailing - July 2007 City Newsletter mailing - July 2007 001.000.240.513.110.410.00 2,700.00 Total : 2,700.00 97435 7/3/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425.775.2525 CITY HALL DIRECTORY LISTING City Hall Directory Listing 6/7-7/7/07 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 3.58 Change in service 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 52.37 425-AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE City Park T1 Line 6-16-7/16/07 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 413.68 425-AB8-2844 POLICE T1 LINE Police T1 Line 6/10-7/10/07 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 379.62 Total : 849.25 97436 7/3/2007 068265 VERIZON ONLINE 43543563 ACCT #8372119 City of Edmonds Internet Jun -07 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 667.00 Page: 4 Packet Page Page 68 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 07/03/2007 11:40:15AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97436 7/3/2007 068265 068265 VERIZON ONLINE (Continued) Total : 667.00 97437 7/3/2007 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 246 June 07 Retainer June 07 Retainer 001.000.360.515.230.410.00 6,000.00 Total : 6,000.00 19 Vouchers for bank code : front Bank total : 196,367.70 19 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 196,367.70 Page: 5 Packet Page Page 69 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97438 7/12/2007 068449 3 GI SPORTS 129518 TENNIS BALLS TENNIS BALLS 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 128.25 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 11.29 Total : 139.54 97439 7/12/2007 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 242332 1-13992 PEST CONTROL 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 57.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 5.12 Total : 62.62 97440 7/12/2007 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 0707436 T-SHIRTS TENNIS T-SHIRTS 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 212.61 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 18.92 Total : 231.53 97441 7/12/2007 069634 ACCURINT - ACCT 1201641 1201641-20070630 INV#1201641-20070630 EDMONDS SEARCHES/REPORTS 06/07 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 47.75 Total : 47.75 97442 7/12/2007 071741 ADAMS, DEBRA ADAMS0702 REFUND REFUND FOR PLAZA ROOM 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 485.00 Total : 485.00 97443 7/12/2007 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101367360 M5Z34 Page: 1 Packet Page Page 70 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97443 7/12/2007 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC (Continued) CYLINDER RENTAL 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 337.50 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 17.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 31.60 Total : 386.60 97444 7/12/2007 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 8294 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CI MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CI 411.000.654.534.800.340.00 116,209.74 Total : 116,209.74 97445 7/12/2007 014940 ALL BATTERY SALES & SERVICE 110426225 AKA INTERSTATE INVENTORY - BATTERY 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 110.86 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 9.87 483348 FLEET RETURNED BATTERY FOR FLEET RETURNED BATTERY FOR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -95.95 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -8.54 710490 UNIT 467 FIRE - CONNECTORS UNIT 467 FIRE - CONNECTORS 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 106.00 Sales Tax 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 9.43 710904 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 163.59 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.56 Page: 2 Packet Page Page 71 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97445 7/12/2007 014940 ALL BATTERY SALES & SERVICE (Continued) 710925 SHOP - FLASHLIGHT BATTERIES SHOP - FLASHLIGHT BATTERIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 33.90 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.02 711280 UNIT 489 - BONDED WIRE UNIT 489 - BONDED WIRE 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 25.16 Sales Tax 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 2.24 Total : 374.14 97446 7/12/2007 065568 ALLWATER INC 062807007 COEWASTE DRINKING WATER 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 9.90 Total : 9.90 97447 7/12/2007 001430 AMERICAN RED CROSS 2413 LIFEGUARDING WORKBOOKS GUARDSTART: LIFEGUARDING T( 001.000.640.575.510.310.00 90.00 Total : 90.00 97448 7/12/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3907621 18386001 UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 92.54 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.24 512-3912327 18386001 UNIFORM SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 94.28 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.39 Total : 203.45 97449 7/12/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3901649 FLEET UNIFORM SVC Page: 3 Packet Page Page 72 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 97449 7/12/2007 069751 ARAMARK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) FLEET UNIFORM SVC 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 17.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.55 512-3906315 FLEET UNIFORM SVC FLEET UNIFORM SVC 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 17.53 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.56 Page: 4 Packet Page Page 73 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 97449 7/12/2007 069751 ARAMARK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 512-3906316 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 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 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 0.47 512-3907620 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: 5 Packet Page Page 74 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 97449 7/12/2007 069751 ARAMARK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 512-3910913 FLEET UNIFORM SVC FLEET UNIFORM SVC 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 46.80 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 4.17 512-3910914 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 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 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.47 Page: 6 Packet Page Page 75 of 444 vchlist 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 7 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97449 7/12/2007 069751 069751 ARAMARK (Continued) Total : 203.24 97450 7/12/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3907619 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SE 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 30.36 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.70 512-3912325 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE LAUNDRY SE 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 30.36 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.70 Total : 66.12 97451 7/12/2007 067359 ARBICO ENVIRONMENTALS 343732-1 LACEWING GREEN LACEWING 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 47.20 Freight 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 16.00 Total : 63.20 97452 7/12/2007 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 559881 75179 DIESEL FUEL 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 2,592.28 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 207.38 Total : 2,799.66 97453 7/12/2007 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 560250 FLEET - REGULAR - 4501 GAL Page: 7 Packet Page Page 76 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97453 7/12/2007 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM (Continued) FLEET - REGULAR - 4501 GAL 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 10,522.89 ST EXCISE TAX DIESEL, WA OIL SI 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 1,616.76 DIESEL - 3841 GAL 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 8,137.15 ST EXCISE TAX DIESEL, WA OIL SI 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 1,375.85 BIO DIESEL - 960 GAL 511.000.657.548.680.340.13 2,588.93 ST EXCISE TAX DIESEL, WA OIL SI 511.000.657.548.680.340.13 347.71 WA STATE SERVICE FEE 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 13.33 WA STATE SERVICE FEE 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 13.33 WA STATE SERVICE FEE 511.000.657.548.680.340.13 13.34 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 1.07 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.13 1.06 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 1.07 Total : 24,632.49 97454 7/12/2007 064343 AT&T 425-771-1124 PARKS MAINT. BLDG PARKS MAINT. BLDG 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 29.71 425-771-4741 CEMETERY CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.200.420.00 43.29 Total : 73.00 97455 7/12/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 41144 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS Page: 8 Packet Page Page 77 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 97455 7/12/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) UB Outsourcing area #200 PRINTIN( 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 88.71 UB Outsourcing area #200 PRINTIN( 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 88.97 UB Outsourcing area #200 POSTAGI 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 266.02 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 7.90 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 7.90 UB Outsourcing area #200 POSTAGI 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 266.03 UB Outsourcing area #200 PRINTIN( 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 88.71 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 7.91 41189 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 2.04 UB Outsourcing area #700 PRINTIN( 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 22.95 UB Outsourcing area #700 PRINTIN( 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 22.89 UB Outsourcing area #700 PRINTIN( 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 22.89 UB Outsourcing area #700 POSTAGI 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 89.18 UB Outsourcing area #700 POSTAGI 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 89.17 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 2.04 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 2.04 Total : 1,075.35 Page: 9 Packet Page Page 78 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher front Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97456 7/12/2007 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 06-4523;57;4832 INV'S 06-4532;06-4557;06-4832 BURIAL SUPPLIES: WILLIAMS 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 358.00 BURIAL SUPPLIES: JENKINS 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 358.00 BURIAL SUPPLIES: ANDERSON 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 358.00 Total : 1,074.00 97457 7/12/2007 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 67436 AWARD FOR SAND SCULPTING C( BRASS PLATES FOR SAND SCULP 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 58.50 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 5.21 Total : 63.71 97458 7/12/2007 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 9717367 Canon 5870 lease charge - 8/1 - 8/31 Canon 5870 lease charge - 8/1 - 8/31 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 101.35 Canon 5870 lease charge - 8/1 - 8/31 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 101.32 Canon 5870 lease charge - 8/1 - 8/31 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 101.33 Supply charge 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 25.01 Supply charge 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 25.00 Supply charge 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 24.99 Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 11.25 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 11.25 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 11.25 Page: 10 Packet Page Page 79 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97458 7/12/2007 070992 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING (Continued) Total : 412.75 97459 7/12/2007 071734 BANK OF WASHINGTON Rec 44613 Refund of bld permit fee overpaymen Refund of bld permit fee overpaymen 001.000.000.322.100.000.00 30.00 Total : 30.00 97460 7/12/2007 063408 BARTELS & STOUT INC SRF0725A CITEDM MICROSCOPE MAINT 411.000.656.538.800.480.31 95.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.31 8.46 Total : 103.46 97461 7/12/2007 002258 BENS EVER READY 19916 WATER - VEHICLE BRACKETS WATER - VEHICLE BRACKETS 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 25.00 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.23 Total : 27.23 97462 7/12/2007 060502 BERG, COLIN BERG8259 TAIJIQUAN CLASSES TAIJIQUAN #8259 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 432.00 Total : 432.00 97463 7/12/2007 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 349467 UNIT 113 - PADS UNIT 113 - PADS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.44 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.75 349729 FLEET INVENTORY - B KITS FLEET INVENTORY - B KITS 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 328.94 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 29.28 Page: 11 Packet Page Page 80 of 444 vchlist 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 12 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97463 7/12/2007 028050 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC (Continued) Total : 367.41 97464 7/12/2007 066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC 336493 FAC SEISMIC PROJECT - PRINT At FAC SEISMIC PROJECT - PRINT At 116.000.651.594.190.650.00 2,140.86 Sales Tax 116.000.651.594.190.650.00 184.11 Total : 2,324.97 97465 7/12/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 591612-02 INV#591612-02 EDMONDS PD - FRi BALLISTIC VEST - FRAUSTO 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 649.95 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 57.85 594745 INV#594745 EDMONDS PD - FRAU; SINGLE CUFF CASE 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 29.75 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 2.65 599530 INV#599530 EDMONDS PD - LIM BDU PANTS 001.000.410.521.230.240.00 29.95 BDU SHIRT 001.000.410.521.230.240.00 29.95 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.230.240.00 5.33 599572 INV#599572 EDMONDS PD - KAMK 3 SET OF 3 SERVICE BARS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.85 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 0.52 Page: 12 Packet Page Page 81 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97465 7/12/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC (Continued) 601521 INV#601521 EDMONDS PD - ROTH SHORT SLEEVE UNIFORM SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 119.90 SGT CHEVRONS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00 SILENT KEYHOLDER 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 16.95 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 12.62 Total : 966.27 97466 7/12/2007 066421 BOCHINCHE 070807 PARK CONCERT: JULY 8, 2007 PARK CONCERT: JULY 8, 2007 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 985.00 Total : 985.00 97467 7/12/2007 067391 BRAT WEAR 309711 INV#309711 EDMONDS PD-ROTH/I SUMMER M/C PANTS - ROTH, HAR 001.000.410.521.710.240.00 430.00 WINTER M/C PANTS - HARBINSON 001.000.410.521.710.240.00 235.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.710.240.00 18.50 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.710.240.00 60.15 Total : 743.65 97468 7/12/2007 065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY 333962 UNIT 10 - REBUILD TRUCK SEAT UNIT 10 - REBUILD TRUCK SEAT 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 247.50 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 21.03 Total : 268.53 97469 7/12/2007 069295 BROWN, CANDY BROWN0630 CLASSROOM VISITS Page: 13 Packet Page Page 82 of 444 vchlist 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 14 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97469 7/12/2007 069295 BROWN, CANDY (Continued) BIRD NATURALIST CLASSROOM V 001.000.640.574.350.410.00 145.60 Total : 145.60 97470 7/12/2007 071742 CARTER, EILEEN CARTER0702 REFUND REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 90.00 Total : 90.00 97471 7/12/2007 071736 CEDAR KING LUMBER CO., INC Bus Lic Refund REF OVERPMT OF BUS LIC Refund overpmt of Bus Lic 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 97472 7/12/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 108678 2954000 WELDING SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 357.84 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 31.85 RN06071024 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 : 423.45 97473 7/12/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 108585 WATER - CARBON DIOXIDE WATER - CARBON DIOXIDE 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 76.26 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.79 Page: 14 Packet Page Page 83 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 97473 7/12/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 97474 7/12/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) RN06071020 SHOP CYLINDER -FILL OXYGEN SHOP CYLINDER -FILL OXYGEN 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.75 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.69 Total : 91.49 LY108588 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 27.82 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 2.48 LY108877 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 20.77 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 3.05 LY108878 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 41.53 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 4.90 LY108879 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 20.77 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 3.05 Page: 15 Packet Page Page 84 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97474 7/12/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY (Continued) RN06071021 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 : 181.75 97475 7/12/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 108927 WELDING SUPPLIES PIGSKIN GLOVES, GOGGLES, ETC 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 103.51 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.21 Total : 112.72 97476 7/12/2007 065403 CHAPIN, FRANCES CHAPIN0706 REIMBURSEMENT TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT 001.000.640.574.200.430.00 191.63 Total : 191.63 97477 7/12/2007 064312 CHUBB SECURITY SERVICES GG5662 monitoring for museum monitoring for museum 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 171.00 Total : 171.00 97478 7/12/2007 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS X07072007 C.A 828698926 425-418-8755 5/28-6/27/07 Service 001.000.310.514.100.420.00 130.24 Total : 130.24 97479 7/12/2007 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 87196442X07052007 871964442 PLANT CELL PHONES 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 18.30 Total : 18.30 97480 7/12/2007 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 871747052X07052007 Cell Phone Bowman 5/26 to 6/25/07 Page: 16 Packet Page Page 85 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97480 7/12/2007 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS (Continued) Cell Phone Bowman 5/26 to 6/25/07 001.000.620.558.800.420.00 9.15 87186097007052007 Chave Cell 5/26 to 6/25/07 Chave Cell 5/26 to 6/25/07 001.000.620.558.800.420.00 18.30 Total : 27.45 97481 7/12/2007 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 3X07052007 OPS COMMS vehicles' wireless 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 100.65 Total : 100.65 97482 7/12/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460660449 UNIFORMS Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 46.36 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 4.12 460660450 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 98.13 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.74 460661464 UNIFORMS Stn 17 - ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 96.74 Stn 17 - Ops 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 96.75 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 8.64 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.59 Page: 17 Packet Page Page 86 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97482 7/12/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION (Continued) 460661484 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 132.66 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.80 460665609 UNIFORMS Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 46.36 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 4.12 460665610 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 98.13 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.74 460666642 UNIFORMS Stn 17 - ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 96.74 Stn 17 - Ops 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 96.75 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 8.62 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.61 460666665 OPS UNIFORMS Stn 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 132.66 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.80 Total : 1,025.06 97483 7/12/2007 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FINANCIAL 9221102 COPIER LEASE PW copier lease for PW- 001.000.650.519.910.450.00 256.31 Page: 18 Packet Page Page 87 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97483 7/12/2007 066070 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FINANCIAL (Continued) Total : 256.31 97484 7/12/2007 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 107001511 WATER QUALITY WATER LAB ANP WATER QUALITY WATER LAB ANP 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 1,668.60 Total : 1,668.60 97485 7/12/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5378 MAINT./OPERATIONS SEWER JUL' MAINT./OPERATIONS SEWER JUL' 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 13,800.83 Total : 13,800.83 97486 7/12/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5375 INV#5375 CUST#45 EDMONDS PD NEXTEL - APRIL 2007 104.000.410.521.210.420.00 53.73 Total : 53.73 97487 7/12/2007 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE Reimb of overpmt REIMB OVERPMT RGG 70029 Reimb of overpmt inv/Narcotics Sarg 001.000.000.233.000.000.00 828.58 Total : 828.58 97488 7/12/2007 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 2-533584-460571 WATER USEAGE FOR JUNE 07 WATER USEAGE FOR JUNE 07 411.000.654.534.800.340.00 420.00 Total : 420.00 97489 7/12/2007 070231 CNR INC 11220 07/07 MONTHLY MAINT PHONE SY July 07 Monthly Phone Maintenance 001.000.390.528.800.480.00 736.67 Sales Tax 001.000.390.528.800.480.00 65.56 Total : 802.23 97490 7/12/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1805318 FAC MAINT - DISINFECTANT SANII Page: 19 Packet Page Page 88 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97490 7/12/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES (Continued) FAC MAINT - DISINFECTANT SANII 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 73.92 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.80 Total : 83.22 97491 7/12/2007 071308 COLELLA, TERESA COLELLA0629 FIELD ATTENDANT SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT @ N 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 96.00 Total : 96.00 97492 7/12/2007 062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC RO 007618 UNIT 100 - REPAIR UNIT 100 - REPAIR 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 249.96 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 22.25 Total : 272.21 97493 7/12/2007 071654 COMPUTER STOP INC 0512654 MONITORS/HD/MOUSE KEYBD 310-00069 6 - 500GB HD (raid/replace)- 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 5,968.70 310-00069 6 - 500GB HD (raid/replace)- 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 1,053.30 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 531.22 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 93.74 0512655 AM D-COMPUTER-SYS 310-00066 3 AMD 5400, 4GigRam, dual head 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 3,909.00 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 347.90 Page: 20 Packet Page Page 89 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97493 7/12/2007 071654 COMPUTER STOP INC (Continued) 0512656 AMD-IS-TECH COMPUTERS 310-00067 AMD-dualhead, 4gig, 500meg 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 3,969.00 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 353.24 0512657 INTEL MACHINES FOR TESTING 310-00068 INTEL E6600 Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 4C 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 2,040.00 310-00068 INTEL E6600 Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 4C 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 2,040.00 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 181.56 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 181.56 Total : 20,669.22 97494 7/12/2007 062891 COOK PAGING WA 6762901 pagers -water 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 FAC MAINT PAGERS MINUS CANC 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 18.70 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 1.19 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 1.19 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 1.59 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 1.89 Total : 64.06 Page: 21 Packet Page Page 90 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97495 7/12/2007 069157 COOK, CYNDI COOK7922 HULA ADULT HULA #7922 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 700.00 Total : 700.00 97496 7/12/2007 071746 CORNELL, CATHY CORNELL0626 REFUND REFUND FOR DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00 Total : 500.00 97497 7/12/2007 005810 CRAIN, DOUGLAS 61 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 150.00 Total : 150.00 97498 7/12/2007 005850 CRETIN, LAWRENCE CRETIN0630 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR- 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 105.00 CRETIN0708 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR- 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 225.00 Total : 330.00 97499 7/12/2007 066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS 0607 2989771 5374044 INV#0607 2989771 5374044 EDMO� 8 5-GALLON WATER BOTTLES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 55.92 HOT/COLD COOLER RENTAL 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.00 ENERGY SURCHARGE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.87 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.89 Total : 68.68 97500 7/12/2007 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 135986 UNIT 482 FIRE - COAX KITS, ANTEI Page: 22 Packet Page Page 91 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97500 7/12/2007 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 (Continued) UNIT 482 FIRE - COAX KITS, ANTEI 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 299.16 Sales Tax 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 26.63 Total : 325.79 97501 7/12/2007 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 136037 INV#136037 CUST#267 EDMONDS CALIBRATE GENESIS RADAR 0872 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 75.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 6.46 720303 INV#720303 CUST#267 EDMONDS REPAIR PARTS FOR GHD02447 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 370.50 LABOR TO REPAIR RADAR GHD02 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 75.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 38.32 Total : 565.28 97502 7/12/2007 071747 DEN ADEL, CHRIS DEN ADEL0622 REFUND REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 200.00 Total : 200.00 97503 7/12/2007 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING Monthly STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PI; State Share of Concealed Pistol 001.000.000.237.190.000.00 687.00 Total : 687.00 97504 7/12/2007 060546 DICKINSON EQUIPMENT CO INC 0114315 SHOP - SERVICE TO CHAMPION D SHOP - SERVICE TO CHAMPION D 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 148.34 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 13.20 Page: 23 Packet Page Page 92 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97504 7/12/2007 060546 060546 DICKINSON EQUIPMENT CO INC (Continued) Total : 161.54 97505 7/12/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 07-2763 MINUTE TAKING 6/19 & 6/26 Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 193.20 Total : 193.20 97506 7/12/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 07-2764 INV#07-2764 EDMONDS PD TRANSCRIPTION CASE 07-3917 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 44.80 TRANSCRIPTION CASE 07-1009 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 131.60 TRANSCRIPTION IA07-001 AND 00, 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 92.40 TRANSCRIPTION CASE 07-2218 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 207.20 TRANSCRIPTION CASE 07-2201 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 156.80 TRANSCRIPTION CASE 07-2088 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 30.80 TRANSCRIPTION CASE 2433 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 36.40 Total : 700.00 97507 7/12/2007 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL June 2007 06/07 Lobbyist General Government 06/07 Lobbyist General Government 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 1,865.00 06/07 Lobbyist Edmonds Crossing 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 720.00 Total : 2,585.00 97508 7/12/2007 069605 EAGLE EYE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2007205 Prof Sery for Bldg Div Prof Sery for Bldg Div 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 1,169.73 Total : 1,169.73 97509 7/12/2007 068803 EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS 2933075 STORM - DRN ASY RING/COVER D Page: 24 Packet Page Page 93 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97509 7/12/2007 068803 EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS (Continued) STORM - DRN ASY RING/COVER D 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 2,148.00 STORM - CTR VAN GR ASY FRAMI 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 1,728.00 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 329.46 Total : 4,205.46 97510 7/12/2007 071255 ECOLIGHTS NORTHWEST LLC 30922 LIBRARY - FLUOURESCENT BULB LIBRARY - FLUOURESCENT BULB 001.000.651.519.920.490.00 469.61 Total : 469.61 97511 7/12/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 81582 UNIT 6 - VENT VISOR UNIT 6 - VENT VISOR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 59.99 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.34 81694 UNIT 125 - PARTS UNIT 125 - PARTS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 55.31 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.92 81790 UNIT 6 - VENT VISOR UNIT 6 - VENT VISOR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 59.99 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.34 81903 UNIT 233 - FLOOR MATS UNIT 233 - FLOOR MATS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.75 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.83 Total : 225.47 Page: 25 Packet Page Page 94 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97512 7/12/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 82347 SUPPLIES WINCH 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 41.95 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.73 82361 SUPPLIES MARINE PAINT 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 35.97 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.20 Total : 84.85 97513 7/12/2007 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 154077 INV#154077 CUST#3713 EDMONDE MEDICATION - IMPOUND #6935 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 58.36 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 5.19 154101 INV#154101 CLIENT #308 EDMOND MEDICATION FOR ROCKY 001.000.410.521.260.410.00 183.82 EXAM & SHOTS FOR ROCKY 001.000.410.521.260.410.00 195.18 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.260.410.00 17.27 154180 INV#154180 CUST#3713 EDMONDE MEDICATION FOR IMPOUND #693f 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 58.36 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 5.19 154712 INV#154712 CLIENT#3713 EDMON[ EXAM - IMPOUND #7002 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 37.60 TRANQUILIZER 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 35.10 EUTHANIZE IMPOUND #7002 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 26.00 Page: 26 Packet Page Page 95 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97513 7/12/2007 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL (Continued) 154816 INV#154816 CLIENT#3713 EDMON[ EUTHANIZE PITBULL #6958 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 62.40 Total : 684.47 97514 7/12/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3 LIFT STATION #3 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 42.01 Total : 42.01 97515 7/12/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTE 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTE 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 24.18 2-25175 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTEF 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTEF 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.26 2-28275 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.95 2-37180 MINI PARK MINI PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.06 7-05276 WATER 820 15TH ST SW- 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 92.69 Total : 203.14 97516 7/12/2007 071740 EHRLICH, ALAN EHRLICH0715 PARK CONCERT CITY PARK CONCERT:- 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 500.00 Total : 500.00 97517 7/12/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0103426 WATER INVENTORY - W-VALVCHE Page: 27 Packet Page Page 96 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97517 7/12/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) WATER INVENTORY - W-VALVCHE 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 28.54 W-VALVCHB-30-010 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 100.35 W-VALVCHBL-00-010 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 89.80 W-VALVCHB-18-010 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 289.54 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 38.63 0104064 SEWER - S-CPLGCONC-08-010 SEWER - S-CPLGCONC-08-010 411.000.000.141.150.310.00 104.60 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.150.310.00 7.95 Total : 659.41 97518 7/12/2007 071743 FERREIRA, PAULE FERREIRA0705 REFUND REFUND/CANCELLED CONTRACT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 200.00 Total : 200.00 97519 7/12/2007 071735 FIRE PROTECTION INC Recpt #443555 Refund of Bldg permit fee to Fire Refund of Bldg permit fee to Fire 001.000.000.322.100.000.00 34.00 Refund of State Bldg Code Surchargf 001.000.000.237.150.000.00 4.50 Total : 38.50 97520 7/12/2007 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 97179 Section 125 fees - June 2007 Page: 28 Packet Page Page 97 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97520 7/12/2007 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC (Continued) Section 125 fees - June 2007 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 50.00 Section 132 Participant fees (June 2C 811.000.000.231.590.000.00 30.00 Check mailing fee, Section 132 plan 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 2.70 Total : 82.70 97521 7/12/2007 071737 FOUSHEE & ASSOCIATES COMPANY I Bus Lic Refund REFUND OVERPMT OF BUS LIC Refund overpmt of Bus Lic 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 97522 7/12/2007 071748 GAY, LEAH GAY0626 REFUND REFUND FOR INSUFFICIENT REGI 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 21.00 Total : 21.00 97523 7/12/2007 067232 GERRISH BEARING COMPANY 2073346-01 15554 PILLOW BLOCK 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 39.24 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.15 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.04 Total : 49.43 97524 7/12/2007 012198 GFOA 0037713S GAAFR Review 8/1/07-7/31/08 GAAFR Review 8/1/07-7/31/08 001.000.310.514.230.490.00 50.00 Total : 50.00 97525 7/12/2007 018495 GLACIER NORTHWEST 68018 STREET/ STORM - CONCRETE Page: 29 Packet Page Page 98 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 97525 7/12/2007 018495 GLACIER NORTHWEST Invoice (Continued) 69925 97526 7/12/2007 069571 GOBLE SAMPSON ASSOCIATES INC 522206 97527 7/12/2007 071749 GOODMAN, MICHELLE GOODMAN0625 97528 7/12/2007 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 079378 PO # Description/Account Amount STREET/ STORM - CONCRETE 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 235.13 STREET/ STORM - CONCRETE 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 235.12 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 20.93 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 20.92 STREET/STORM - CONCRETE STREET/STORM - CONCRETE 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 130.63 STREET/STORM - CONCRETE 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 130.62 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 11.63 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 11.62 Total : 796.60 PUMPING ELEMENT PUMPING ELEMENT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 498.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 26.49 Total : 524.49 REFUND REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 110.00 Total : 110.00 FLEET INVENTORY - 4 TIRES Page: 30 Packet Page Page 99 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97528 7/12/2007 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER (Continued) FLEET INVENTORY - 4 TIRES 511.000.657.548.680.340.30 435.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.30 38.75 079385 UNIT 102 - 4 TIRES UNIT 102 - 4 TIRES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 299.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.65 Total : 800.20 97529 7/12/2007 012199 GRAINGER 9400774916 SUPPLIES EAR MUFFS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 42.18 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.75 Total : 45.93 97530 7/12/2007 071759 GRANICH ENGINEERED PRODUCTS 10694 EWT1 M007 PP 104 PUMP CONVERSION 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 8,376.00 Sales Tax 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 703.58 10700 EWT1 M007 TP 104 FREIGHT FOR WAS F 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 194.58 Sales Tax 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 16.34 Total : 9,290.50 97531 7/12/2007 071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC 06713.00-10 E6DA.Services thru 06/30/07 E6DA.Services thru 06/30/07 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 2,010.10 Total : 2,010.10 Page: 31 Packet Page Page 100 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97532 7/12/2007 071750 GREENFIELD, BRAD GREENFIELD0622 REFUND CLASS REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 110.00 Total : 110.00 97533 7/12/2007 071751 HAGGETT, TINA HAGGETT0622 REFUND REFUND FOR INSUFFICIENT REGI 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 32.00 Total : 32.00 97534 7/12/2007 070437 HARDIE, MARY ANN 3/19/07 Tuition Reimbursement - 4/1 - 6/16/0 Tuition Reimbursement - 4/1 - 6/16/0 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 997.50 Total : 997.50 97535 7/12/2007 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 12107142 WATER INVENTORY - W-SETTERC WATER INVENTORY - W-SETTERC 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 839.52 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 74.72 12135804 WATER INVENTORY - W-PIPEBR-0 WATER INVENTORY - W-PIPEBR-0 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 562.40 W-VALVBR-01-010 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 860.00 W-BUSHNGBR-01-020 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 79.80 W-PIPEBR-01-010 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 87.75 W-TEEBR-02-010 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 220.30 W-VALVBR-0.75-005 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 408.00 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 197.43 Page: 32 Packet Page Page 101 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97535 7/12/2007 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC (Continued) 12138622 WATER INVENTORY - W-SETTERC WATER INVENTORY - W-SETTERC 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 1,259.28 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 112.07 Total : 4,701.27 97536 7/12/2007 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 6858-1 Exam services - Fit for duty Exam services - Fit for duty 411.000.656.538.800.410.00 115.00 Total : 115.00 97537 7/12/2007 062383 HEPBURN INDUSTRIES IN074298 URN VAULTS URN VAULTS 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 215.28 Freight 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 30.50 IN074337 BURIAL SUPPLIES CHAIR COVERS FOR CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 216.00 Freight 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 19.41 Total : 481.19 97538 7/12/2007 071739 HOLZWART, JOHN HOLZWART8360 BROOM MAKING CLASS BROOM MAKING #8360 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 156.00 Total : 156.00 97539 7/12/2007 071642 HOUGH BECK & BAIRD INC 7129 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN- 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 7,526.03 Total : 7,526.03 97540 7/12/2007 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 068781 OPS SUPPLIES Page: 33 Packet Page Page 102 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97540 7/12/2007 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (Continued) Stations' supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 275.22 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 14.56 Total : 289.78 97541 7/12/2007 071752 HUNT, NANCY HUNT0626 REFUND REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 110.00 Total : 110.00 97542 7/12/2007 067171 HUSKY TRUCK CENTER 036542 UNIT 79 REPLACEMENT - — UNIT 79 REPLACEMENT - — 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 41,425.00 Sales Tax 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 3,811.10 Total : 45,236.10 97543 7/12/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 73623844 Lease/copies DSD Recpt Copier IRZ Lease/copies DSD Recpt Copier IRZ 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 117.77 73623848 Lease/copies Lrg Copier DSD IR850( Lease/copies Lrg Copier DSD IR850( 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 1,021.40 73623850 Lease/copies Eng IRC3200 Lease/copies Eng IRC3200 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 918.10 Total : 2,057.27 97544 7/12/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 73689401 CANON IMAGE RUNNER 9070 LEA; 250-00157 Canon Image Runner 9070 Lease- 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 939.28 Total : 939.28 97545 7/12/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 73623854 COPIER LEASE Page: 34 Packet Page Page 103 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97545 7/12/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEA 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 28.72 Total : 28.72 97546 7/12/2007 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 16504120 INV#16504120 DOCUMENT SCANN SCANNER MAINT AGREEMENT 001.000.410.521.110.410.00 921.10 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.410.00 81.98 Total : 1,003.08 97547 7/12/2007 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 410951 PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS INTERNET ACCESS FOR MEADOW 001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00 Total : 15.00 97548 7/12/2007 064655 INNOVAC S 14330 WADE JAMES - STORM DRAIN SY: WADE JAMES - STORM DRAIN SY: 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 1,923.80 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 171.22 Total : 2,095.02 97549 7/12/2007 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PART WAREHOUSE 443303 UNIT 35- REPLACEMENT - 15" BEL' UNIT 35- REPLACEMENT - 15" BEL' 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 184.50 Freight 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 6.85 Sales Tax 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 17.03 444301 UNIT 238 - WIPER BLADES UNIT 238 - WIPER BLADES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 68.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.05 Page: 35 Packet Page Page 104 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97549 7/12/2007 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PART WAREHOUSE (Continued) 444302 SHOP - SUPPLIES SHOP - SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 62.39 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.55 444303 UNIT 621 - TRAFFIC BATON UNIT 621 - TRAFFIC BATON 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 141.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.55 444597 UNIT 491 - DISP GLOVES UNIT 491 - DISP GLOVES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 51.27 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.56 Total : 559.75 97550 7/12/2007 065397 JOHNSON, ANDREW AJOHNSON0627 GYM MONITOR GYM MONITOR FOR 3 ON 3 BASKE 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 82.50 Total : 82.50 97551 7/12/2007 071744 JOHNSON, CHRISTENA CJOHNSON0703 REFUND REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00 Total : 500.00 97552 7/12/2007 065056 JOHNSON, TROY TJOHNSON0707 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR- 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 105.00 Total : 105.00 97553 7/12/2007 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 1314508-00 FS 20 - ELECTRIC HEAT RELAY Page: 36 Packet Page Page 105 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97553 7/12/2007 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY (Continued) FS 20 - ELECTRIC HEAT RELAY 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 96.38 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.22 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.22 Total : 112.82 97554 7/12/2007 015270 JONES CHEMICALS INC 351567 54278825 HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,039.75 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 267.50 Total : 3,307.25 97555 7/12/2007 071745 JONES, SUZANNE JONES0702 REFUND REFUND FOR CANCELLED CLASSI 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 313.00 Total : 313.00 97556 7/12/2007 067877 KINGSTON LUMBER 961658 STREET - LUMBER SUPPLIES STREET - LUMBER SUPPLIES 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 58.83 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 5.06 Total : 63.89 97557 7/12/2007 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 321938-001 Survey Vest Survey Vest 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 216.00 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 19.22 Total : 235.22 97558 7/12/2007 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 0021217 810 WALNUT ST - ENVIRONMENTF Page: 37 Packet Page Page 106 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97558 7/12/2007 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC (Continued) 810 WALNUT ST - ENVIRONMENTP 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 995.50 Total : 995.50 97559 7/12/2007 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 6007-439 SUPPLIES SPARKPLUG BOOTS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.68 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.18 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.79 6007-560 SUPPLIES SPACER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.10 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.13 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.64 Total : 17.52 97560 7/12/2007 071753 LEREN, DEBBIE LEREN0626 REFUND REFUND FOR INSUFFICIENT REGI 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 31.00 Total : 31.00 97561 7/12/2007 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 127465 UNIT 11 -TIRES UNIT 11 -TIRES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 881.20 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 80.43 127726 UNIT 55 - REPAIR FLAT UNIT 55 - REPAIR FLAT 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 54.50 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 4.85 Page: 38 Packet Page Page 107 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 39 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97561 7/12/2007 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER (Continued) 128129 UNIT 3 - TIRES UNIT 3 - TIRES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 276.66 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.62 Total : 1,324.26 97562 7/12/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 094954 Reg & Window Envelopes Reg & Window Envelopes 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 399.00 Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 35.51 Total : 434.51 97563 7/12/2007 018900 LYNNWOOD AUTO ELECTRIC 70430 UNIT 38 - STARTER UNIT 38 - STARTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 129.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.48 Total : 140.48 97564 7/12/2007 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 523967 SHOP - PLIERS SHOP - PLIERS 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 19.69 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 1.75 524043 UNIT 474 - V BELT UNIT 474 - V BELT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 43.95 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.91 Page: 39 Packet Page Page 108 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 40 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97564 7/12/2007 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) 524051 FLEET SHOP RETURNED PLIERS FLEET SHOP RETURNED PLIERS 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 -19.69 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 -1.75 524080 UNIT 474 - LENS UNIT 474 - LENS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.36 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.83 524106 UNIT EQ16PM - SILICONE UNIT EQ16PM - SILICONE 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 15.39 Sales Tax 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1.37 524148 UNIT 55 - SERP BLT UNIT 55 - SERP BLT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.41 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.06 524161 UNIT 474 - SWITCH UNIT 474 - SWITCH 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.55 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.67 524185 UNIT 55 - SERP BLT UNIT 55 - SERP BLT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.41 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.06 524576 UNIT 125 - CRANKSHAFT SENSO UNIT 125 - CRANKSHAFT SENSO 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 97.38 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.67 Page: 40 Packet Page Page 109 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 41 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97564 7/12/2007 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) 524632 UNIT 485 - FULE LINE CONNECTIO UNIT 485 - FULE LINE CONNECTIO 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.25 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.91 524686 UNIT 485 - CONNECTO UNIT 485 - CONNECTO 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.83 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.14 524780 UNIT 55 - WIPER BLADES UNIT 55 - WIPER BLADES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 36.79 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.27 524822 UNIT 55 - WIPER BLADES UNIT 55 - WIPER BLADES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 36.79 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.27 524847 FLEET RETURNED V BELT FOR CF FLEET RETURNED V BELT FOR CF 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -27.57 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -2.45 525046 UNIT 476 - SUPPORT UNIT 476 - SUPPORT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.11 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.88 525192 UNIT EQ09FI - SPLIT POLY LOOM UNIT EQ09FI - SPLIT POLY LOOM 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 28.50 Sales Tax 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 2.54 Page: 41 Packet Page Page 110 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 42 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97564 7/12/2007 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) 525270 UNIT 474 - SWITCH UNIT 474 - SWITCH 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.55 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.67 525360 UNIT 473 - FUEL FILTER UNIT 473 - FUEL FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.48 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.31 525817 UNIT 476 - FRZ PLUG UNIT 476 - FRZ PLUG 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.07 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.72 526095 UNIT 55 - AIR FLITERS UNIT 55 - AIR FLITERS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 45.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.01 526104 UNIT 55 - AIR FILTER UNIT 55 - AIR FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.48 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.47 526165 UNIT 55 - AIR FILTER UNIT 55 - AIR FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.01 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.31 Total : 509.36 97565 7/12/2007 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 571150 UNIT M16 - OIL Page: 42 Packet Page Page 111 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 43 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97565 7/12/2007 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA (Continued) UNIT M16 - OIL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 44.04 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.92 Total : 47.96 97566 7/12/2007 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 571747 SUPPLIES THROTTLE CONTROL 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.35 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.30 Total : 3.65 97567 7/12/2007 060855 LYNNWOOD TROPHY CENTER 16666 Humanitarian Award Plaque - 2007 Humanitarian Award Plaque - 2007 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 57.95 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 5.16 Total : 63.11 97568 7/12/2007 060855 LYNNWOOD TROPHY CENTER 16670 VOLUNTEERS SUPPLIES Waterball plaques 001.000.510.522.410.310.00 89.85 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.310.00 8.00 Total : 97.85 97569 7/12/2007 019650 MASTER POOLS OF WASHINGTON INC 44113 YOST POOL CHEMICALS CHLORINE, REAGENTS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 209.67 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.66 Page: 43 Packet Page Page 112 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 44 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97569 7/12/2007 019650 MASTER POOLS OF WASHINGTON INC (Continued) 44192 YOST POOL SUPPLIES MINI VAC, WATER CLARIFIER, BIO 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 75.26 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.70 44332 YOST POOL SUPPLIES TILE GROUT, PUTTY, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 67.42 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.00 44514 YOST POOL CHEMICALS CHLORINE, REAGENTS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 152.72 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.59 Total : 550.02 97570 7/12/2007 064047 MCCONNELL & ASSOCIATES 878 Hearing Examinter Services for Thue. Hearing Examinter Services for Thue 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 680.48 Total : 680.48 97571 7/12/2007 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 67069836 123106800 RECTANGULAR BAR 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 70.72 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 19.88 Total : 90.60 97572 7/12/2007 069592 METROCALL Q0298897F INV#Q0298897F ACCT#0298897-0 E PAGERS 06/27-07/26/07 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 79.98 Total : 79.98 97573 7/12/2007 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 50122 SUPPLIES Page: 44 Packet Page Page 113 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 45 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97573 7/12/2007 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC (Continued) PROPANE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.23 Total : 20.23 97574 7/12/2007 024001 NC MACHINERY CO M0185201 CEMETERY EQUIPMENT CATERPILLAR BACKHOE FOR CEh 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 1,800.00 Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 160.20 Total : 1,960.20 97575 7/12/2007 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0322006-IN FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS RET FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS RET 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 -39.66 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 -3.41 0337850-IN FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 60.29 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 5.19 Total : 22.41 97576 7/12/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 411191318-067 Cell Phone Bldg Cell Phone Bldg 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 92.74 Total : 92.74 97577 7/12/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 976032312-067 COMMUNICATIONS Page: 45 Packet Page Page 114 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 46 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97577 7/12/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) Operations 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 320.09 Admin 001.000.510.522.100.420.00 21.05 Prevention 001.000.510.522.300.420.00 64.93 ALS 001.000.510.526.100.420.00 53.26 Total : 459.33 97578 7/12/2007 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 0080159 SODIUM BISULFITE SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,020.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 90.78 Total : 1,110.78 97579 7/12/2007 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0506627 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 138.02 0514364 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 360.58 0515030 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 180.29 Total : 678.89 97580 7/12/2007 066628 NORTHWEST DISTRIBUTING CO 029028 UNIT 467 - LENS REPAIR POLISH UNIT 467 - LENS REPAIR POLISH 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.50 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.33 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.89 Page: 46 Packet Page Page 115 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 47 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97580 7/12/2007 066628 066628 NORTHWEST DISTRIBUTING CO (Continued) Total : 14.72 97581 7/12/2007 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 489 PB Minutetaker 6/27/07 PB Minutetaker 6/27/07 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 255.00 Total : 255.00 97582 7/12/2007 071758 OAKLEY INC 702410426 INV#702410426 CUST#300370 EDM ASSAULT A FRAME GOGGLES 001.000.410.521.230.310.00 100.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.230.310.00 4.28 702434541 INV#702434541 CUST#300370 EDM STANDARD ISSUE ASSAULT BOOT 001.000.410.521.230.310.00 101.75 Freight 001.000.410.521.230.310.00 4.42 Total : 210.45 97583 7/12/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 470339 Office Supplies (paper) - HR, MY, CE Office Supplies (paper) - HR, MY, CE 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 17.29 Office Supplies (paper) - HR, MY, CE 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 17.29 Office Supplies (paper) - HR, MY, CE 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 17.29 Office Supplies - visitor badges 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 16.25 Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 1.54 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 1.54 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 2.98 Total : 74.18 Page: 47 Packet Page Page 116 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 48 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97584 7/12/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 468111 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 121.27 Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 10.80 Total : 132.07 97585 7/12/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 217875 DSD Office Supplies DSD Office Supplies 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 438.26 556966 DSD Office Supplies DSD Office Supplies 001.000.620.558.800.350.00 447.32 577376 Office Supplies DSD Office Supplies DSD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 528.18 Total : 1,413.76 97586 7/12/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 572610 INV#572610 ACCT#520437 250POL VIEW FRAME BINDERS 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 25.80 BOXES OF PLAIN ENVELOPES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 11.98 WITE OUT CORRECTION TAPE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 14.15 CARTON OF KLEENEX 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 48.33 BOXES OF PENCILS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.52 STAPLERS FOR COMMON AREAS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 27.72 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 2.30 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 9.31 Page: 48 Packet Page Page 117 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 49 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97586 7/12/2007 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) Total : 142.11 97587 7/12/2007 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0000130 WATER 220TH ST SW & 84TH AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 56.03 0001520 WATER 820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 26.07 0001530 WATER 820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 159.18 0002930 WATER 5TH & ST RTE 104/SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 19.47 0005060 WATER 9803 EDMONDS WAY 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 19.47 Total : 280.22 97588 7/12/2007 063750 ORCA PACIFIC 029207 POOL CHEMICALS YOST POOL CHEMICALS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 402.98 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 35.86 Total : 438.84 97589 7/12/2007 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00046152 STORM - 1X1 LEADER HOSE STORM - 1X1 LEADER HOSE 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 470.55 Freight 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 42.00 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 45.62 Total : 558.17 97590 7/12/2007 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION 297298 COLOR Copier Maint. for PW Page: 49 Packet Page Page 118 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 50 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97590 7/12/2007 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION (Continued) COLOR Copier Maint. for PW 001.000.650.519.910.480.00 3.61 COLOR Copier Maint. for PW 411.000.652.542.900.310.00 3.61 COLOR Copier Maint. for PW 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 3.61 COLOR Copier Maint. for PW 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.61 COLOR Copier Maint. for PW 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.63 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.480.00 0.32 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.310.00 0.32 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 0.32 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 0.32 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.33 Total : 19.68 97591 7/12/2007 060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES 11189616 271 BATTERIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 378.80 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 30.00 Total : 408.80 97592 7/12/2007 071754 PACIFIC PRESCHOOL PACIFIC0622 REFUND REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 250.00 Total : 250.00 97593 7/12/2007 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 9717364 COPIER CONTRACT Page: 50 Packet Page Page 119 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 51 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97593 7/12/2007 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM (Continued) 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 97594 7/12/2007 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 9717363 ADMIN LEASE Copier lease 001.000.510.522.100.450.00 137.06 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.450.00 12.20 Total : 149.26 97595 7/12/2007 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. 572808 PAINT SUPPLIES QUIK-TRED 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 50.49 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.49 574295 PAINT SUPPLIES QUIK-TRED 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 33.66 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.00 Total : 91.64 97596 7/12/2007 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP CAMPCAASH0709 DAYCAMP PETTY CASH REIMBUR; REIMBURSEMENT OF DAYCAMP P 001.000.640.575.530.310.00 410.75 Total : 410.75 97597 7/12/2007 062770 PENTEC ENVIRONMENTAL INC 707107 CITYWIDE PROJECTS MISC. CITYWIDE PROJECTS 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 5,880.00 Total : 5,880.00 97598 7/12/2007 071757 PETERSON, ELIZABETH A 06172007 TRAINING PROF SERVICES Page: 51 Packet Page Page 120 of 444 vchlist 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 52 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97598 7/12/2007 071757 PETERSON, ELIZABETH A (Continued) Fitness training 001.000.510.522.400.410.00 810.00 Total : 810.00 97599 7/12/2007 007800 PETTY CASH tc petty council members-sno cnty meeting council members-sno cnty meeting 001.000.110.511.100.490.00 68.00 mileage reimb-Linda Carl 001.000.210.513.100.430.00 7.95 boot allowance -McConnell 001.000.620.532.200.240.00 84.46 coffee-d s 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 22.40 posting stakes, bucket 001.000.620.558.600.310.00 20.60 jury supplies 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 24.95 breadsticks for mayors meeting 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 27.00 supplies for mayors meeting 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 140.59 L. Carl, Haakenson sno cnty meeting 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 68.00 tablecloths for mayors meeting 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 19.54 mileage reimb-jury duty 001.000.220.516.100.430.00 4.85 Total : 488.34 97600 7/12/2007 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC PCASH0711 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT Page: 52 Packet Page Page 121 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 53 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 97600 7/12/2007 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC 97601 7/12/2007 065105 PORT SUPPLY Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) FILM DEVELOPMENT/MEADOWDAI 001.000.640.575.560.490.00 6.39 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL FIELI 001.000.640.575.560.490.00 10.00 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT/DISC( 001.000.640.574.350.430.00 11.54 WATER/COOKIES FOR COMP PLAI 125.000.640.594.750.310.00 25.05 WASHINGTON EDUCATION 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 17.42 GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 43.48 FRY CHECK FOR TUMBLE TRAK RI 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 7.82 BUCKET FOR RANGER STATION 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 15.66 MONEY ORDER FOR SISTER CITY 623.200.210.557.210.490.00 41.05 WATER FOR PUBLIC MEETING 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 7.98 PARKING FOR ANNUAL ARTS MEE 001.000.640.574.100.430.00 12.00 PARKING FOR ANNUAL ARTS MEE 001.000.640.574.100.430.00 12.00 TABLE COVERS 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 6.93 GYMNASTIC SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 16.83 DISCOVERY PROGRAM SUPPLIES 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 2.58 TABLE CLOTH FOR REC PROGRAI 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 2.17 Total : 238.90 006768 UNIT M16 - LUBE Page: 53 Packet Page Page 122 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 54 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97601 7/12/2007 065105 PORT SUPPLY (Continued) UNIT M16 - LUBE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.98 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.97 006795 UNIT M16 - LUBE UNIT M16 - LUBE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.35 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.17 Total : 38.47 97602 7/12/2007 065105 PORT SUPPLY 8067 INV#8067 EDMONDS PD - POLICE I HALIBUT BALL 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 101.97 MUSHROOM ANCHOR 8# 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 12.29 EYE SNAP - BRONZE SWIVEL 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 17.94 CRAB BUOY 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 6.29 KEY FLOAT 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 1.89 KEY-DECKFILL UNIVERSAL 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 4.99 70' THROW ROPE 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 41.99 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.67 Total : 204.03 97603 7/12/2007 071184 PROCOM 2007-1182 JUNE-07 FIBER OPTIC PROJECT-P June-07 Fiber Optic Project -Prof Sen 001.000.390.528.200.410.00 1,687.50 Total : 1,687.50 Page: 54 Packet Page Page 123 of 444 vchlist 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 55 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97604 7/12/2007 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2010551 MCC 24 hour alarm monitoring MCC 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 96.00 31146525 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING -Cl 24 hour alarm monitoring -CH 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 35.00 Total : 131.00 97605 7/12/2007 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 07 200S-3 Q-3 2007 Clean Air Assessment per I Q-3 2007 Clean Air Assessment per 1 001.000.390.531.700.510.00 4,930.50 Total : 4,930.50 97606 7/12/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 084-904-700-6 WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY 411.000.656.538.800.472.63 682.97 Total : 682.97 97607 7/12/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 8.65 0230757007 PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 235.64 1916766007 LIFT STATION #7 LIFT STATION #7 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 61.84 2753166004 PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & CC PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & CC 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 316.05 Page: 55 Packet Page Page 124 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 56 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97607 7/12/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) 2776365005 Public Works Public Works 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 11.48 Public Works 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 43.61 Public Works 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 43.61 Public Works 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 43.61 Public Works 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 43.61 Public Works 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 43.61 2986629000 LIFT STATION #13 LIFT STATION #13 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 117.59 3689976003 200 Dayton St -Vacant PW Bldg 200 Dayton St -Vacant PW Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 40.32 5254926008 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 128.42 5322323139 Fire Station # 16 Fire Station # 16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 220.47 5672895009 SEWER LIFT STATION #9 SEWER LIFT STATION #9 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.47 5903085008 FLEET Fleet 7110 210th St SW 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 197.08 6439566008 PUBLIC SAFETY -FIRE STATION PUBLIC SAFETY -FIRE STATION 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 310.24 Page: 56 Packet Page Page 125 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 57 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97607 7/12/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) 6490327001 ANDERSON CENTER ANDERSON CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,489.92 8851908007 LIFT STATION #8 LIFT STATION #8 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.79 9919661109 FIRE STATION #20 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 129.70 Total : 6,569.71 97608 7/12/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 5,592.40 Total : 5,592.40 97609 7/12/2007 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 079106 NICHE INSCRIPTION NICHE INSCRIPTION: SHEPHERD 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 106.00 78851 MARKERS MARKER: THORNTON 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 570.00 79107 INSCRIPTION/SHUTTER INSCRIPTION/SHUTTER 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 75.00 79108 INSCRIPTIONS INSCRIPTION: DOMBEK 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 75.00 79109 INSCRIPTION INSCRIPTION: DOMBEK 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 75.00 Total : 901.00 97610 7/12/2007 071696 RANKINS, KATE RANKINS0706 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR Page: 57 Packet Page Page 126 of 444 vchlist 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 58 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97610 7/12/2007 071696 RANKINS, KATE (Continued) PLAZA ROOM MONITOR- 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 97611 7/12/2007 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 0704096 Shoreline Master Program Consultan Shoreline Master Program Consultan 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 39,432.06 Total : 39,432.06 97612 7/12/2007 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY 6/30/07 JUNE 2007 SERVICE - EDMONDS F REMOVE 1 ANIMAL CARCASS 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 9.75 REMOVE 3 ANIMAL CARCASSES 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 58.50 REMOVE 2 ANIMAL CARCASSES 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 39.00 Total : 107.25 97613 7/12/2007 071007 SAWDON, MANDY SAWDON0701 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 7/1/07 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 165.00 SAWDON0706 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR- 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 40.00 Total : 205.00 97614 7/12/2007 061482 SEA -WESTERN INC 116995 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING McAllister helmet 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 159.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 14.20 Page: 58 Packet Page Page 127 of 444 vchlist 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 59 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97614 7/12/2007 061482 SEA -WESTERN INC (Continued) 117087 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING helmet headband & liner 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 49.35 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 5.48 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 4.88 Total : 233.41 97615 7/12/2007 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET 234220 UNIT EQ10FI - TRANSPOND UNIT EQ10FI - TRANSPOND 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 35.90 Sales Tax 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 3.20 234305 UNIT 96 - CVR STRG UNIT 96 - CVR STRG 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.03 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.87 234364 UNIT 102 - FILTER KIT, FUEL FILTE UNIT 102 - FILTER KIT, FUEL FILTE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 55.45 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.94 Total : 122.39 97616 7/12/2007 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC 026189 UB- #10 WINDOW ENVELOPES Page: 59 Packet Page Page 128 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 60 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97616 7/12/2007 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC (Continued) UB- #10 WINDOW ENVELOPES 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 197.85 UB- #10 WINDOW ENVELOPES 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 197.85 UB - #9 COURTESY RETURN ENV 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 134.30 UB - #9 COURTESY RETURN ENV 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 134.30 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 23.52 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 23.51 King County Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 31.66 King County Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 31.65 Total : 774.64 97617 7/12/2007 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC 1071508 PRINT ORDER BUS LIC CERTIFICA 250-00154 Print Order: Business License- 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 323.00 250-00154 Freight 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 18.50 Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 30.39 Total : 371.89 97618 7/12/2007 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0063689-IN UNIT EQ26FI - 6 LED R/R/R/R/W/W UNIT EQ26FI - 6 LED R/R/R/R/W/W 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 282.00 Freight 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 27.00 Page: 60 Packet Page Page 129 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 61 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97618 7/12/2007 068489 SIRENNET.COM (Continued) 0063827-IN UNIT EQ26FI - SURFACE MT KIT UNIT EQ26FI - SURFACE MT KIT 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 14.00 Freight 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 12.50 0064211-IN UNIT EQ23FM - 700 SERIES LED Al UNIT EQ23FM - 700 SERIES LED Al 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 701.80 Total : 1,037.30 97619 7/12/2007 036955 SKY NURSERY 263384 CITY WIDE BEAUTIFICATION SUPF CITY WIDE BEAUTIFICATION SUPF 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 236.92 Sales Tax 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 21.09 Total : 258.01 97620 7/12/2007 060889 SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL ESV/10653682 SHOP EQUIP - TIP SHOP EQUIP - TIP 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 120.84 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 10.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 11.64 Total : 142.48 97621 7/12/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 173017420 620-001-500-3 VARIOUS LOCATIONS 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 6.91 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 0.41 Page: 61 Packet Page Page 130 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 62 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97621 7/12/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 771010247 463-001-705-3 23219 74 AVE W/BALLINGER 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 28.06 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.68 Total : 37.06 97622 7/12/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2060018765 LIFT STATION #8 LIFT STATION #8 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 69.39 2180017895 BEACON LIGHT CROSS WALK BEACON LIGHT CROSS WALK 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.71 2340018510 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 66.01 2710014826 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 94.09 2900012432 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 27.31 3180012308 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 51.64 3260494996 DECORATIVE LIGHTS 115 2ND AVE deocrative lighting 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 30.29 3380016430 SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 28.28 3630019994 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 75.82 Page: 62 Packet Page Page 131 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 63 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97622 7/12/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 3900430020 Ballinger Lift Station 7403 Ballinger Ballinger Lift Station 7403 Ballinger 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 28.28 3980029445 LIFT STATION #14 LIFT STATION #14 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 28.28 4650022645 FIRE STATION #20 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 525.72 4670302498 Lift Station #6 100 Pine St Lift Station #6 100 Pine St 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 304.10 5240017631 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 38.97 5370016262 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 28.28 5450010938 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 169.48 5720013258 LIFT STATION #1 LIFT STATION #1 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 785.43 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 : 12,313.15 Page: 63 Packet Page Page 132 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 64 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97623 7/12/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2340031869 MINI PARK RESTROOMS MINI PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 133.73 3010022725 BRACKETT'S LANDING BATH HOU: BRACKETT'S LANDING BATH HOU; 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 87.29 311-077-414-2 UTILITY BILLING 23202 EDMONDS WAY 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 89.26 5100017325 IRRIGATION SYSTEM IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.44 5680012803 BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.74 Total : 369.46 97624 7/12/2007 038500 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC July 07 07/07 RECREATION SERVIES CON 07/07 Recreation Servies Contract FE 001.000.390.519.900.410.00 4,791.67 Total : 4,791.67 97625 7/12/2007 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 97626 7/12/2007 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 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 619.79 Page: 64 Packet Page Page 133 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 65 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97626 7/12/2007 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO (Continued) 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 : 1,977.94 97627 7/12/2007 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03587 DISPOSAL SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE- 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 576.16 Total : 576.16 97628 7/12/2007 064996 SPARTAN MOTORS CHASSIS INC IN00309714 UNIT 476 - STRIKER UNIT 476 - STRIKER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 125.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.81 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.63 Total : 145.44 97629 7/12/2007 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 22359 FS 20 - DOOR REPAIRS FS 20 - DOOR REPAIRS 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 1,536.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 136.75 Total : 1,673.25 97630 7/12/2007 070677 SPRINT Eng.June 2007 Engineering Nextel thru 06/24/07 Engineering Nextel thru 06/24/07 001.000.620.532.200.420.00 542.65 Total : 542.65 97631 7/12/2007 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC 68996 E7CA.Roberts thru 06/22/07 Page: 65 Packet Page Page 134 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 66 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97631 7/12/2007 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC (Continued) E7CA.Roberts thru 06/22/07 125.100.620.595.300.650.00 1,755.00 69188 E7CA.Roberts thru 06/29/07 E7CA.Roberts thru 06/29/07 125.100.620.595.300.650.00 3,477.50 Total : 5,232.50 97632 7/12/2007 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO 006374790002 POLICY # 00 637479 Disability Premiums 001.000.390.519.900.490.00 121.50 Total : 121.50 97633 7/12/2007 046200 STATE OF WASHINGTON Q2-07 Q2-07 Leasehold Tax Q2-07 Leasehold Tax 001.000.000.237.220.000.00 4,654.16 Q2-07 Leasehold Tax 001.000.000.362.500.000.00 0.04 Total : 4,654.20 97634 7/12/2007 031060 STEARNS FINANCIAL SERVICES 7089032-IN MONTHLY MAINT - AUG 07 MONTHLY MAINT - AUG 07 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 166.28 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 14.81 Total : 181.09 97635 7/12/2007 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 2561947 WATER/SEWER - 3/8 QUIK ALLOY WATER/SEWER - 3/8 QUIK ALLOY 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 30.63 WATER/SEWER - 3/8 QUIK ALLOY 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 30.62 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.64 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.63 Page: 66 Packet Page Page 135 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 67 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97635 7/12/2007 009400 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC (Continued) Total : 66.52 97636 7/12/2007 071755 STOCKTON, THERESA STOCKTON0625 REFUND REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 485.00 Total : 485.00 97637 7/12/2007 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 066183 SUPPLIES MISC. SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 132.24 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.77 071246 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.25 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.36 Total : 160.62 97638 7/12/2007 060801 SUBURBAN PROPANE 103816 SEWER - LS 12 TANK RENTAL SEWER - LS 12 TANK RENTAL 411.000.655.535.800.450.00 60.00 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.450.00 5.34 Total : 65.34 97639 7/12/2007 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 8311 TELEMETRY SYSTEM PROF SVCS TELEMETRY SYSTEM PROF SVCS 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 3,102.50 Total : 3,102.50 97640 7/12/2007 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10552895 SHOP SUPPLIES SHOP SUPPLIES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 59.81 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.32 Page: 67 Packet Page Page 136 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 68 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97640 7/12/2007 040917 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC (Continued) Total : 65.13 97641 7/12/2007 068999 TACTICAL & SURVIVAL PIN46801 INV#PIN46801 CUST#C11540 EDM( CACU SHIRT 001.000.410.521.230.310.00 29.21 Freight 001.000.410.521.230.310.00 10.20 Total : 39.41 97642 7/12/2007 071577 TAYLOR, KATHLEEN Taylor-7-6-2007 Consultant Services 6/25 to 7/5/07 Consultant Services 6/25 to 7/5/07 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 2,600.00 Total : 2,600.00 97643 7/12/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 148134-6/30/07 ACCT#148134 Bldg. Inspector, #07-26 (ad) 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 38.30 Engineering Program Manager, #07, 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 38.30 Accountant, #07-27 (ad) 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 26.81 Custodian, #07-28 (ad) 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 26.81 Engineering Tech 1 or 2, #07-29 (ad) 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 34.47 Total : 164.69 97644 7/12/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 101415 NEWSPAPER ADS Council & Plann. Bd Agendas 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 1,578.26 1515136 NEWSPAPER AD Public Hearing-17008 77th PI w 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 18.00 1515139 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3649 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 25.92 Page: 68 Packet Page Page 137 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 69 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97644 7/12/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY (Continued) 1515141 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3650 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 24.48 1515146 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3652 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 21.60 1515149 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3653 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 21.60 1515625 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3651 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 34.56 1517258 NEWSPAPER AD Hearing: Domestic Fowl 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 37.44 1517342 NEWSPAPER AD Closed Record Review R-07-15 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 74.08 1517345 NEWSPAPER ADS Closed Record Review R-07-28 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 89.44 Total : 1,925.38 97645 7/12/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1513984 Legal Notices ADB-07-27 Michel Legal Notices ADB-07-27 Michel 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 27.36 1514342 Legal Notices CU-07-27 Talebinia Legal Notices CU-07-27 Talebinia 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 19.44 1515630 Legal Notice V-07-47 Munro Legal Notice V-07-47 Munro 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 20.88 1516743 Legal Notice HP-06114 Tate Legal Notice HP-06114 Tate 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 18.72 Page: 69 Packet Page Page 138 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 70 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 97645 7/12/2007 009350 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY (Continued) 97646 7/12/2007 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES C/A 042483000 97647 7/12/2007 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 97648 7/12/2007 071590 TRT LCC 762612 762613 FAZlrO •] 774270 2-EXPENSE Description/Account Total : Bldg or Senior Bldg Inspector, #07-2E Bldg or Senior Bldg Inspector, #07-2E 001.000.620.524.100.440.00 Bldg. Inspector, #07-26 (ad) 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 Engineering Prog. Mgr, #07-21 (ad) 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 Accountant, #07-27 (ad) 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 Custodian, #07-28 (ad) 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 Engineering Tech 1 or 2 (ad) 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 Total CITY HALL ELEVATOR MAINTENAI` CITY HALL ELEVATOR MAINTENAI` 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 MONITORING -PS monitoring-PS- 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAIN SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAIN 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 SNR CNTR MONITORING JUNE 07 SNR CNTR MONITORING June 07 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 Total Hearing examiner expenses for May. Amount 86.40 355.00 319.33 295.14 270.95 270.95 295.14 1,806.51 735.32 65.45 35.15 104.00 9.26 10.57 959.75 Page: 70 Packet Page Page 139 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 71 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97648 7/12/2007 071590 TRT LCC (Continued) Hearing examiner expenses for May. 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 13.37 3 Hearing Examinter Services May 200 Hearing Examinter Services May 200 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 3,500.00 3-EXPENSE Hearing Examiner Expenses for June Hearing Examiner Expenses for June 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 9.46 4 Hearing Exam services for June 200-1 Hearing Exam services for June 200-1 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 3,500.00 Total : 7,022.83 97649 7/12/2007 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 7531141 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES RAIN SENSORS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 191.88 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.38 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.56 Total : 214.82 97650 7/12/2007 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 395635 STORM - GREEN FLAGS STORM - GREEN FLAGS 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 45.96 Freight 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 17.99 Total : 63.95 97651 7/12/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-NW2-0887 Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet f Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 285.00 Total : 285.00 97652 7/12/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425 771-5553 03 0210 1014522641 07 Page: 71 Packet Page Page 140 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 72 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97652 7/12/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST (Continued) AUTO DIALER 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 54.50 425 N W 1-0060 03 0210 1079569413 10 BPS TELEMENTRY 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.12 425 NW 1-0155 03 0210 1099569419 02 TELEMENTRY 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 216.25 Total : 311.87 97653 7/12/2007 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 26.50 425-206-1141 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 78.32 425-640-8169 PT EDWARDS SEWER PUMP STAT Phone line for Sewer Lift Station at P 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 39.04 425-673-5978 LIFT STATION #1 Lift Station #1 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 47.63 Page: 72 Packet Page Page 141 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 73 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97653 7/12/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST (Continued) 425-712-8347 PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 57.60 425-771-0158 FS # 16 FS #16 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 235.42 425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARA 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 115.86 425-776-6829 CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 115.86 425-778-3297 VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON S' VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON S' 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 17.93 VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON S' 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 33.29 425-AB9-0530 1ST & PINE CIRCUIT LINE PT EDW 1 st & Pine Circuit Line for Pt Edward: 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.40 Total : 1,317.05 97654 7/12/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-771-0152 FS #16-FAX LINE FS #16-FAX LINE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 50.59 425-778-2153 FS #20 PHONE SERVICE FS #20 PHONE SERVICE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 47.40 425-FLO-0017 FS #16 FRAME RELAY FS #16 FRAME RELAY 001.000.510.528.600.420.00 354.94 425-NW4-3726 FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNO, FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNO, 001.000.510.528.600.420.00 247.00 Page: 73 Packet Page Page 142 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 74 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97654 7/12/2007 011900 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST (Continued) Total : 699.93 97655 7/12/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 43.37 425-771-4741 EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.200.420.00 49.78 Total : 93.15 97656 7/12/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0562095260 965420720-00001 PRETREATMENT CELL 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 36.34 Total : 36.34 97657 7/12/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 269992985-1 425-308-9867 cell phone -water watch 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 36.09 364280677-00001 360-929-3167 cell phone- Jim Kammerer 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 1.39 cell phone- Jim Kammerer 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 1.38 469985965-1 425-870-0617 Cell phone -Jim Waite 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 29.35 Cell phone -Jim Waite 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 29.34 770096328-00001 425-238-8252 cell phone -Dave Sittauer 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 1.28 Total : 98.83 97658 7/12/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0563296986 Cell Phone Graf -Bldg Div Cell Phone Graf -Bldg Div 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 60.03 Page: 74 Packet Page Page 143 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 75 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97658 7/12/2007 067865 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) Total : 60.03 97659 7/12/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0565207670 INV#0565207670 ACCT#470497482- CELL PHONES 06/24-07/23/07 104.000.410.521.210.420.00 122.86 Total : 122.86 97660 7/12/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0565870454 CENTRALIZED IRRIGATION CENTRALIZED IRRIGATION 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 2.97 Total : 2.97 97661 7/12/2007 069889 VETERINARY SPECIALTY CENTER 60327 INV#60327 CLIENT#25492 EDMON[ EMERGENCY VISIT - ROCKY 001.000.410.521.260.410.00 90.00 URINALYSIS - ROCKY 001.000.410.521.260.410.00 52.30 FECAL EXAM - ROCKY 001.000.410.521.260.410.00 33.00 XRAY AND INTERPRETATION - RO 001.000.410.521.260.410.00 103.35 BIOHAZARD FEE 001.000.410.521.260.410.00 4.48 Total : 283.13 97662 7/12/2007 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 30982680 INV#30982680 ACCT#1188339 EDM Page: 75 Packet Page Page 144 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 76 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97662 7/12/2007 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC (Continued) 3 PRONG EXTENSION CLAMPS 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 62.36 LARGE 3 PRONG EXTENSION CLA 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 29.06 ALL POSITION CLAMP HOLDER 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 74.46 SWIVEL CLAMP HOLDER 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 18.41 Freight 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 6.53 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 16.99 30982682 INV#30982682 ACCT#1188339 EDM ALUMINUM SUPPORT JACK 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 130.50 Freight 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 8.27 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 12.35 Total : 358.93 97663 7/12/2007 070264 WASHINGTON OAKES RETIREMENT 60 Assisted Living Care - Jim Martin Assisted Living Care - Jim Martin 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 3,850.00 Total : 3,850.00 97664 7/12/2007 061395 WASTE MANAGEMENT NW 0759550-2677-0 202 0001256-2677-0 ASH DISPOSAL 411.000.656.538.800.474.65 2,417.04 Total : 2,417.04 97665 7/12/2007 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 5643 OPS COMMUNICATIONS Page: 76 Packet Page Page 145 of 444 vchlist 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 77 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 97665 7/12/2007 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) Neg. pulse chargers 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 158.00 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 9.62 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 14.92 Total : 182.54 97666 7/12/2007 049905 WHITNEY EQUIPMENT CO INC 0028157-IN DO CARTRIDGE DO CARTRIDGE 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 652.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 14.01 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 59.28 Total : 725.29 97667 7/12/2007 071756 WOLF, JULIE WOLF0625 REFUND REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 140.00 Total : 140.00 97668 7/12/2007 064213 WSSUA TREASURER 216 UMPIRING LEAGUE GAMES UMPIRING OF MEN'S AND CO-ED l 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 1,316.00 Total : 1,316.00 231 Vouchers for bank code : front Bank total : 446,427.64 231 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 446,427.64 Page: 77 Packet Page Page 146 of 444 vchlist Voucher List Page: 78 07/12/2007 12:06:52PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount Page: 78 Packet Page Page 147 of 444 AM-1076 2.1). Claims for Damages Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 07/17/2007 Submitted By: Linda Hynd Submitted For: Sandy Chase Time: Consent Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Action Review Committee: A rtinn to fnrm a+inn Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Linda Kramer -Lind (amount undetermined), and Michael Jordon ($4,569.26). Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages. Previous Council Action Not applicable. Narrative Claims for Damages have been received from the following individuals: Linda Kramer -Lind 1351 "T" Los Olivos Avenue Los Osos, CA 92403 (Amount Undetermined) Michael Jordon 7802 202nd Place S.W. Edmonds, WA 98026 ($4,569.26) Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Kramer -Lind Claim for Damages Link: Jordon Claim for Damages Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/11/2007 08:24 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/11/2007 08:58 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/11/2007 09:58 AM APRV Packet Page Page 148 of 444 Form Started By: Linda Started On: 06/29/2007 12:21 Hynd PM Final Approval Date: 07/11/2007 Packet Page Page 149 of 444 CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM RECEIVED JUN 2 8 2007 Mmoxus CITY CLER 9 Pm Date Claim Form' Received by City P29:- D Please take note that L/ /V D � ell. R ,(,/ Af who resides at 1. d 5 j ✓�S A ✓�° S D SaS G &A mailing address home phone #86.6 5ti, ? work phone # is claiming damages against L' ar= = q�s L in the sum of $ � rn,,ei arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 71ME: LOCATION 9f OCCURRENCE: i "E '57'np VyLznkr-AA iAJ 9,90 Z,,/, DESCRIPTION: J Describe occurrence explaining the re of the d'qfects or acts of negligence causing damages„ ttach an extra sheet for dc)ilajopai i formation, if nee- m-¢° 1`C,, Cho r'- /J�/�G.�t�- 4.� 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occ nce includi g names,,@ resse , and hope numbers. 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance -company? Yes No If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy *-ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY License Plate # _ Driver License # Type Auto: (year) (make) (model) DRIVER: OWNER: Address: Address: Phone#: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: Packet Page Page 150 of 444 SA �..� A 4ikt-q,►��-s Jal uj" `��, r pied_ �rn�pqG�.� 14JL� L�. rn� Wkwul- a-.JA-j 1 e<a Q cv ass- o C;Q /0 7 Z0 3 nil S W w- `Z a Packet Page Page 151 of 444 * *.NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED being first duly swom, -depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same true. d X L� X State of WashitSignature of Claimant(s) n on County oft I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Ae6jadA RA/✓/�2 Lin/ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. N11 Dated: /_75 �/O % Signature / t A* l rs Title 'sc� My appointment expires .f 11 - : '1�► C3F •;v Ifl ll!\it.`• Packet Page Page 152 of 444 RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES; FORM JUL. 10 2007 .. l2A., Date Claim -Form R ceived by City Please take no a that _ l.0 tp ��I-who resides at 7'50 2 —.E8AI-A) mailing address home phone #�,-KqT, work phone DSO -�(.,n 7, is claiming damages against in the sum of $ L,T��', arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: �7 �2 1 — © TIME: LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: DESCRIPTION: 1. _Describe occurrence explaining the nature of the gefects or acts of negligence end Inc l eftdA'(att&h an extra sheet for dit''iggnna�l information, if needed) VIGt,V� C�u`S`e�, 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes -V,, No If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: . * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * License Plate # Type Auto: (year) (make) DRIVER: Address: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Address: Driver License # (model) _ OWNER: Address: _ Phone#: Name: Address: Packet Page Page 153 of 444 * *.NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED being first duly swom, depose acid say that 1 am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. X X Signature of Claimant(s) State of Washington County of I certify, that 1 know or have satisfactory evidence that w, ; c�,t S Ito,, is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: —1 1 1 Signature NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON SHANNON HUDSON Title My Appointment Expires 01/09/2010 My appointment expires 59 Packet Page Page 154 of 444 AM-1092 SRO Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 07/17/2007 Submitted By: Debbie Smith Time: Consent Department: Police Department Type: Action Review Committee: Finance Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Tnfnrm ntinn Subject Title School Resource Officer Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval Previous Council Action The agreement was reviewed by the Finance Committee on 7/10/07. The Committee recommended placing the agreement on the City Council Consent Agenda for approval. 2.E. Narrative A contract has existed with the Edmonds School District to provide a school resource officer at Edmonds Woodway High School, full time, for nine months. The contract 50% salary contribution from the district toward the salary of the officer requires periodic updating and subsequent approval. Link: SRO contract Route Seq Inbox 1 City Clerk 2 Mayor 3 Final Approval Form Started By: Debbie Smith Fiscal Impact AttnebmPntc Form Routing/Status Approved By Date Status Sandy Chase 07/12/2007 12:02 PM APRV Gary Haakenson 07/12/2007 12:42 PM APRV Sandy Chase 07/12/2007 02:39 PM APRV Started On: 07/12/2007 11:02 AM Final Approval Date: 07/12/2007 Packet Page Page 155 of 444 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT And CITY OF EDMONDS for COMMUNITY -ORIENTED POLICING AGENT THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the Edmonds School District, hereafter referred to as "District", and the City of Edmonds, a Washington State municipal corporation, hereafter referred to as "Edmonds." RECITALS A. WHEREAS, the District and Edmonds desire to cooperate pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW, Interlocal Cooperation Act, in order to make the most efficient use of their respective governmental powers within their jurisdiction; and B. WHEREAS, Edmonds and the District desire to establish a Community -Oriented Policing Program (hereafter referred to as "Program,") to provide security, promote safety and serve as a positive resource to the District, the participating High School that is named in this Agreement and the surrounding neighborhood; and C. WHEREAS, Edmonds is desirous to assign a uniformed Police Officer to serve as a Community -Oriented Policing Agent (hereafter referred to as "Officer") to be assigned to the High School location specified herein in order to provide safety, patrol and assist with certain related duties, in return for a rate of compensation to Edmonds that is agreed upon by the parties hereto; AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual representations and covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Purpose. This Agreement is intended to increase security and safety for students, staff and property at Edmonds-Woodway High School located in the District through the assignment by Edmonds of one (1) experienced commissioned Edmonds Officer to service that location at the specified rate of compensation herein; 2. Term. This Agreement shall commence on September 1, 2007 and shall expire on June 30, 2009, unless otherwise terminated under INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - EDMONDS Packet Page Page 156 of 444 the provisions of this Agreement. Two additional one-year extensions are allowed. Such extensions shall occur automatically and shall not require written notice of such extension. Should either party desire not to renew for the upcoming school year, such party must provide written notice by April 1 to the other of its intent not to renew. Upon expiration of this Agreement and any extensions, all equipment furnished by Edmonds shall remain the sole property of Edmonds and any facilities, office equipment or other material support provided by the District shall remain the sole property of the District. 3. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other party. This Agreement is subject to funding, and either party may terminate with proper written notice due to lack of funding. 4. Duties of Officer. Edmonds shall assign the Officer to the High School to promote safety and serve as a positive resource to the District and the surrounding neighborhood. The duties and responsibilities of the Officer include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Perform the duties enumerated in the Edmonds Police Officer Job Description; b. Patrol the High School and surrounding areas to identify, investigate, deter and prevent crimes, especially those incidents involving weapons, youth violence, harassment, gang involvement, drugs or similar activities; C. Act as a liaison between the High School Administrators and Edmonds; d. Establish and maintain a working rapport with the High School administration, staff and students; e. Provide school -based security during the regular school day and assist in the promotion of a safe and orderly environment at the High School. The Officer, however, shall not act as a disciplinarian. If the Officer is confronted with a non -criminal violation, such as a school rule violation, the Officer will inform the High School Administrators of the same and assist only for the purposes of providing security for school staff member(s) charged with enforcing school rules and providing testimony in a due process hearing. In INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - EDMONDS 2 Packet Page Page 157 of 444 the absence of a District Administrator, the Officer may refer the matter to District administration; f. Assist in mediating disputes on campus, including working with students to help solve disputes in a non- violent manner; g. Act as a resource person in the area of law enforcement education at the request of staff, speak to classes on the law, search and seizure, drugs, motor vehicle laws, etc.; and, h. Perform others duties as mutually agreed upon by the Principal of each High School and the Officer, provided that the duty is legitimately and reasonably related to the Program as described in this Agreement and is consistent with federal and state law, local ordinances, District and Edmonds policies, procedures, rules and regulations. 5. Office Space and Supplies. District shall provide the following for the Officer's use at each High School, all at the District cost: a. Private space with sufficient lighting and heat at the High School to be used by the Officer for general office purposes. b. Necessary office supplies, including but not limited to a four drawer locking cabinet, a desk, a telephone, and a computer. A portable radio for communication with High School security personnel. 6. Independent Contractor. Edmonds and the District understand and agree that Edmonds is acting as an independent contractor under the terms of this Agreement, with the following intended results: a. Control of personnel, standards of performance, discipline and other aspects of performance of the Officer shall be governed solely by Edmonds; b. All persons rendering services hereunder shall be for all purposes employees of Edmonds; INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - EDMONDS 3 Packet Page Page 158 of 444 C. All liabilities for salaries, wages or any other compensation shall be the responsibility of Edmonds. 7. Supervision of Officer. The Officer shall remain an employee of Edmonds and is not an employee of District. The Officer shall remain responsive to the supervision and chain of command of Edmonds. Edmonds shall be solely responsible for Officer's training, discipline or dismissal. Any allegation of improper conduct shall be referred by High School or District Administration to the Officer's immediate supervisor or directly to the Edmonds Chief of Police. 8. Scheduling of Officer. Edmonds agrees to assign an Officer to the District during the regularly scheduled school year, for the term of this Agreement. The Officer will be on the High School campus throughout the regularly scheduled school day, Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., less any scheduled vacation time, sick time, training time, court time, or any other police -related emergencies, such as civil disasters. When the Officer is not on the High School campus, the Officer will advise the High School Principal in advance of the Officer whereabouts and a number where the Officer can be reached. On scheduled workdays when school is not in session, the officer will work as assigned by Edmonds. 9. Overtime. Officer may not work any overtime without the prior approval of Edmonds. Overtime will be paid by Edmonds in accordance with Edmonds policies. The District is not responsible for any overtime costs. 10. Selection. Edmonds will select an Edmonds uniformed Officer to perform the services under this Agreement. Officer assignment vacancies likewise will be filled in accordance with this section. During the selection process Edmonds may use the following non- exclusive factors: a. Officer should be considered capable of conveying a positive police presence on the High School campus and in the community. b. Officer should have the ability to be a positive resource to the school, staff, students, parents, and residents in the surrounding neighborhood. 11. Removal. If District has cause to believe that a particular Officer is not effectively performing in accordance with this Agreement, the Superintendent or designee may recommend in INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - EDMONDS Packet Page Page 159 of 444 writing to Edmonds that the Officer be removed from the Program. Within ten business days after receiving the recommendation, the Superintendent or designee will meet with the Edmonds Chief of Police or designee to discuss the recommendation. If in the opinion of the Chief or the Superintendent, or their designees, the problem cannot be resolved, then the Officer shall be removed from the Program. 12. Compensation. In consideration of Edmond's assignment of the Officer to the District, the District agrees to pay 50% of the Officer's base salary and benefits for the duration of the regular school year. The parties understand and acknowledge that the sums provided under this Agreement only partially fund the position of one fulltime Officer and that Edmonds reserves the right to assign the Officer outside of regular school hours to other police duties as determined in the sole discretion of Edmonds. In addition, Edmonds reserves the right to assign the Officer to other police functions in the event of an emergent need, such as civil unrest or a natural disaster. The District and Edmonds agree to negotiate compensation and costs under the Agreement for any extension beyond the original Agreement term. 13. Billing Period. Edmonds shall invoice the District twice a year in equal installments for the amount due. Invoices shall be delivered to the District on or before September 1 for the upcoming 4 months of service; and shall bill on or before January 1 for the remaining work to be completed during the final 6 months of service during that school year. Invoices shall be submitted in a form approved by the District, and shall specify the services to be performed, period of service and amount due. 14. Past. District shall pay Edmonds within 30 days from the date of receipt of a proper invoice. Payments to Edmonds that are later than 30 days following the date of receipt of a proper invoice shall accrue interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the balance due. All payments shall first be applied to accrued interest. 15. No Third Party Rights. The establishment of this Program and execution of this Agreement shall create no third party rights. In particular, the parties agree by establishing this Program that no past practice has been created with respect to duty assignment, the maintenance of the Program, or to otherwise limit the management discretion of Edmonds under its Collective Bargaining Agreement. This Agreement further shall not create any third party rights to the Officer or any other officer of Edmonds, to the citizens of Edmonds District, or to any other person. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - EDMONDS 5 Packet Page Page 160 of 444 16.Insurance and Indemnification. The parties shall separately maintain their own appropriate liability and casualty insurance policies as they, in their sole discretion, deem appropriate. The parties further agree that no indemnification shall be provided for, except as specifically set forth below, and that the respective liability of the parties to each other and to third persons shall be deemed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The District will protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Edmonds, its officers, employees, or agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments or awards of damages arising out of, or in any way resulting from, negligent acts or omissions of the District, its officers, employees or agents. Edmonds will protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the District, its officers, employees, or agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments or awards of damages arising out of, or in any way resulting from, negligent acts or omissions of Edmonds, its officers, employees or agents. In the event of concurrent liability, the parties shall have the right of contribution in proportion to the respective liability of each party. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to waive immunities established pursuant to state statutes or to create third party rights or immunities. 17. District Responsibility for Safety and Security. The parties understand and agree that the District retains its legal responsibility for the safety and security of the District, its employees, students and property, and this Agreement does not alter that responsibility except as provided by paragraph 16 above. 18. Interview and Arrest Procedures. If the Officer plans to interview suspects or victims of crime, the Officer, to the extent practicable, will advise and work with the Principal to minimize disruption to the High School and other students. District employees will make parental notification of such interviews in accordance with District policies and procedures and applicable laws. The Principal or designee may request that s/he or a designee be present during the interview of a student. The presence of a District employee at an interview of a student regarding a criminal matter shall make said employee subject to subpoena as a witness thereto. In the event the Officer arrests a student at the High School, the Officer shall notify the Principal or the Principal's designee as soon thereafter as practical. In the event that the arrested student is a juvenile, Edmonds will notify the parent or legal guardian pursuant to Edmonds policies and procedures. The District may also make notification as necessary under its own policies and procedures. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - EDMONDS 0 Packet Page Page 161 of 444 19. Release of Student Information. Upon request by Edmonds, the District will provide directory information relating to its students, which is permitted under District policy and state and federal law. 20. Police Reports. The Officer shall provide the District with police reports as permitted by state law and Edmonds policies and procedures. 21. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. 22. Recording. This Agreement shall be filed with the Snohomish County Auditor. 23. Notice. Notices under this Agreement shall be sent to the following: EDMONDS Chief of Police 250 5th Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 Superintendent Edmonds School District 20420 68th Ave. West Lynnwood, WA 98036 24. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the entire agreement between parties and supersedes and merges with any prior agreements of the parties, written or oral, with respect to the Program. This Agreement shall be amended only in writing with the written consent of the parties. This Agreement shall be interpreted in order to implement its central purpose, which is the creation of the Program and the underlying understanding that only Edmonds shall direct the police functions of the Officer. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - EDMONDS Packet Page Page 162 of 444 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT Superintendent, Nick Brossoit Dated: Its: CITY OF EDMONDS By: Mayor, Gary Haakenson Dated: By: City Finance Director, Kathleen Junglov Dated: Attest as to Form By: City Attorney Dated: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - EDMONDS Packet Page Page 163 of 444 i AM-1096 2.F. Repeal ECDC 21.40.020, Subsection (C)(1), Related to a Nonexistent Zone Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 07/17/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave Time: Consent Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Tnfnrm atinn Subject Title An Ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, amending the provisions of ECDC 21.40.030 Height, (C) Height Exceptions to repeal Subsection (1) related to a nonexistent zone, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1). Previous Council Action The City Council amended the MPOR zone, replacing it with a new "OR" zone, in December, 2006. Narrative As the City Attorney explains in the attached ordinance, when the MPOR zone was removed from the code it was not noticed that there was a reference in the definition of "height" to the MPOR zone. The attached ordinance in Exhibit 1 corrects this oversight, removing the offending clause. The current ECDC definition of height is included for your reference as Exhibit 2; the subsection to be removed is in 21.40.030.C.1 and is highlighted in yellow. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Proposed Ordinance Link: Exhibit 2: Current ECDC Height Definition Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/12/2007 03:52 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/12/2007 03:54 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/12/2007 03:58 PM APRV Form Started By: Rob Started On: 07/12/2007 03:34 Chave PM Final Approval Date: 07/12/2007 Packet Page Page 164 of 444 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 7/10/07 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 21.40.030 HEIGHT, (C) HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS TO REPEAL SUBSECTION (1) RELATED TO A NONEXISTENT ZONE, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council has repealed MPOR zoning and replaced it with OR zoning; and WHEREAS, in the former MPOR zone, a specific method of height calculation different than that applicable in every other zone was established; and WHEREAS, in the OR zone the City Council determined it appropriate to use the generally applicable height calculation; and WHEREAS, the provisions of ECDC 21.40.030(C)(1) relating to MPOR zone height calculation were not repealed at the date MPOR zoning was repealed; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it appropriate to correct the scrivener's error, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ECDC 21.40.030)C)(1) is hereby repealed. The Code codifier shall show this section as "[reserved]." 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 {wss66762t.Doc;1/00006.900000/) - 1 - Packet Page Page 165 of 444 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. {wss66762t.Doc;1/00006.900000/) - 2 - Packet Page Page 166 of 444 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 ECDC 21.40.030 HEIGHT, (C) HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS TO REPEAL SUBSECTION (1) RELATED TO A NONEXISTENT ZONE, 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 {wss667621.Doc;1/00006.900000i}- 3 - Packet Page Page 167 of 444 21.40.030 Height. A. Height means the average vertical distance, from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a structure, to the highest point of the structure. (See subsection (C) of this section for exceptions to this rule.) B. "Average level" shall be determined by averaging elevations of the downward projections of the four corners of the smallest rectangle which will enclose all of the building, excluding a maximum of 30 inches of eaves. If a corner falls off the site, its elevation shall be the average elevation of the two points projected downward where the two sides of the rectangle cross the property line. (See subsection (C)(1) of this section for exceptions to this rule.) C. Height Exceptions. 1. In the MPOR zone, "height" means the vertical distance above the average elevation of the top of the curb adjacent to the subject property, within the public right-of- way. Average shall be measured averaging the elevation of the curb at the points where the projected property lines and the curb intersect. Where no curb or sidewalk exists, use the designed curb elevation. (See the remaining provisions in this subsection for exceptions to this rule); 2. Church steeples; 3. Elevator penthouses, not to exceed 72 square feet in horizontal section, or three feet in height, for that portion above the height limit; 4. Chimneys, not to exceed nine square feet in horizontal section or more than three feet in height, for that portion above the height limit. In RM districts, chimneys shall be clustered. No multiple -flue chimney shall exceed 39 square feet in horizontal section. The first chimney shall not exceed nine square feet in horizontal section, and other chimneys shall not exceed six square feet in horizontal section; 5. Vent pipes not to exceed 18 inches in height above the height limit; and 6. Standpipes not to exceed 30 inches in height above the height limit. [Ord. 3569 § 2, 2005]. Packet Page Page 168 of 444 AM-1093 3. LTAC appointment Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 07/17/2007 Submitted By: Linda Carl Submitted For: Linda Carl Time: 5 Minutes Department: Mayor's Office Type: Action Review Committee: A rtinn Information Subject Title Confirmation of City Council appointment of Joe McIalwain to Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Please confirm Joe McIalwain to the LTAC. Previous Council Action Narrative With Cami Smith's resignation from the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, an opening for a lodging -tax "user" became available. The committee requires equal membership of tax providers and tax users, plus one elected official of the City (Dave Orvis, 2007). All committee members are appointed by the Council. Joe McIalwain, ECA Director, submitted his letter requesting appointment to the committee, which was reviewed by the committee at their June meeting. The committee unanimously recommends Joe to fill the opening. Fiscal Impact Aftnehmontc Link: Joe McIalwain letter 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 07/12/2007 05:32 PM APRV Gary Haakenson 07/13/2007 08:08 AM APRV Sandy Chase 07/13/2007 08:13 AM APRV Started On: 07/12/2007 11:40 AM Final Approval Date: 07/13/2007 Packet Page Page 169 of 444 May 7, 2007 Mr. David Orvis Council member City of Edmonds 121 5"' Ave N I dinonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Orvis: Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) has quickly become an integral hart of the culture and economy of downtown Edmonds and its Surrounding communities. More than 35,000 people have walked through our doors or have been impacted in some way by our programs in our first six months of operation. I am writing today to respectfully request a special allocation from the City of Edmonds Lodging; Tax Allocation Committee in the amount of $5,000 to help support the creation of our first complete Season I3rochure. Edmonds Center for the Arts will soon produce and distribute 40,000 copies of a full -color brochure promoting the 2007- 2008 Season which will feature more than 20 high quality music, dance, theatre and comedy presentations. The season will run September, 2007 through June, 2008. 1:-'CA's 2007-2008 Season Brochure will promote more than our own presentations. It will also include a. listing of presentations by our Edmonds -based community partners, and it will promote some of the other wonderful businesses in the City of Edmonds including hotels and restaurants, encouraging audiences to spend time and money here in our own community. ECA has worked with ldmonds Harbor Inn very closely during; our first six months of operation. We have housed approximately 160 visiting; artists at this hotel alone since we opened in January. Our artists have been thrilled with the accommodations, service and convenience of Edmonds Harbor Inn, and our Staff has enjoyed building a partnership with the hotel. ECA's visiting artists have already generated approximately $1,200 in lodging taxes. This number will increase significantly in the coming years. ECA has drawn audiences to Edmonds from all over the Puget Sound region. In fact, approximately half have come from outside of the City of Edmonds. We will soon be conducting a series of audience surveys to understand the impact of our patrons on local restaurants, sloops and hotels when they come to the theatre for a performance. We hope to have survey results by the end of the summer. Thank you for your consideration of this request. ECA has already had an immediate and lasting impact on our city and the surrounding region, The value of the center to the community is significant and will continue to grow and enhance the cultural and economic vitality of Edmonds, Sincerely, 0,'t. � 1,44 -L Joseph Mclalwain Executive Director 410 41h livenuc Norlh d Erhnoli ls, 14,'4 4 98020 u 425,275,448.5 d �.j,,rvs�t.�°rinautTrhc�ranlc�iJorihccn t,�.r��> Packet Page Page 170 of 444 AM-1077 4. Appoint Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Member Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 07/17/2007 Submitted By: Stephen Clifton Submitted For: Edmonds Public Facilities District Time: 5 Minutes Department: Community Services Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Appointment of Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Member to fill vacancy. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Appoint Robert Rinehart to the Edmonds Public Facilities Board of Directors to fulfill the remainder of a four-year term previously held by Kay Mahaffey. Previous Council Action Narrative On June 19, 2001, the Edmonds City Council approved the appointment of a five -member Public Facilities District (PFD) board. Ordinance No. 3358 states that all board members are to serve four-year staggered terms. Initial term lengths were established for one, two, three, and four-year terms to create a staggered schedule. John McGibbon and Terry Vehrs were selected to serve for four years, Kay Mahaffey for three years, James Monroe for two years, and Jan Conner for one year. Ms. Connor, who was reappointed on June 18, 2002 and June 6, 2006 to four-year terms, resigned on May 31, 2007. The City Council appointed Maria Montalvo on June 19, 2007 to fill this position. James Monroe, who was reappointed on July 1, 2003, resigned in February 2004; the City Council subsequently appointed Dave Earling on April 6, 2004 to serve the remainder of the term. Terry Vehrs and John McGibbon were both reappointed to four-year terms on July 5, 2005. Kay Mahaffey was reappointed on July 6, 2004 to a four-year term and resigned on May 8, 2008. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.57.010, a PFD shall be governed by a board of directors consisting of five (5) members selected as follows: (a)(i) Two members appointed by the legislative authority of the City or Town; and (a)(ii) Three members appointed by the legislative authority based on recommendations from local organizations that may include, but are not limited to, the local chamber of commerce, local economic development council, and local labor council, etc. The position held by Kay Mahaffey must be filled by someone recommended by the entities referenced under subsection (a)(i). This position is considered an at large position. On May 4, 2007, a press release was issued soliciting for individuals interested in serving on the PFD Board for the remainder of the term previously held by Kay Mahaffey. After reviewing resumes and conducting interviews on June 19, 2007, the Edmonds PFD Board recommends Robert Rinehart be appointed to the vacant position. Mr. Rinehart's career includes service to the military, federal government, academia, and as a consultant on economic development and eldercare. He is Packet Page Page 171 of 444 also an Edmonds Daybreaker Rotarian and sits on the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee. Edmonds Center for the Arts Executive Director Joe McIalwain will be giving a brief introduction during the July 17, 2007 City Council meeting. If Mr. Rinehart is appointed to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board by the City Council, his term will expire on June 19, 2008. Fiscal Impact Attachments No files) attached. Form Routine/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/09/2007 09:52 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/09/2007 11:49 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/09/2007 01:17 PM APRV Form Started By: Stephen Started On: 06/29/2007 01:24 Clifton PM Final Approval Date: 07/09/2007 Packet Page Page 172 of 444 AM-1090 5. Proposed Vacation: Portion of Right -of -Way Adjacent to 17008 - 77th PL W Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 07/17/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave Time: 20 Minutes Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Public Hearing regarding the proposed vacation of a portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to 17008 - 77th Place West, Edmonds, Washington. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council to determine (1) whether the right-of-way should be vacated, and if so, (2) what the dollar amount paid to the City should be. Previous Council Action Council approved a resolution setting this hearing date. This lot is part of the Charlotte Gardens PRD which was approved by the City in 2005. Narrative The applicants, Donald & Teresa Wills, are requesting that the City vacate a portion of the right-of-way located adjacent to their lot, which is Lot 7 of the Charlotte Gardens PRD. The property is being sought to "increase my lot in a way that ... [would] release my property from a setback violation & allow deck construction." The property proposed for vacation is approximately 56 feet long and 10 feet deep running parallel to the the northern boundary of Lot 7. (See Exhibit 1 for vicinity maps and Exhibit 2 for application materials from the applicants.) Wick & Associates has submitted an appraisal of the property to be vacated. The initial appraisal, dated February 15, 2007, set a value of $2.50 per square foot for the property or a total of $1,350 for the 540 sq. ft. that the appraisal was based on. The applicants indicated that they were willing to pay the $1,400 that a vacation of 560 sq. ft. would require (see page 2 of Exhibit 2). Responding to questions from City staff, Wick & Associates submitted a supplemental letter increasing the appraisal to $3.00 per sq. ft., raising the value for the 540 sq. ft. vacation to $1,620 (this would in turn raise the valuation for the 560 sq. ft. requested by the applicant to $1,680). The original appraisal is attached as Exhibit 3, with the appraisal supplement included as Exhibit 4. The approach taken in the Wick appraisal differs from the approach staff has seen used in previous appraisals (see Exhibits 5 and 6 for examples). Here, the appraisal is based on the differential values of similarly sized and valued properties, calculating the appraised value based on the incremental difference in property valuations. Previous appraisals have first calculated the value of land on a per -square -foot basis, with that factor then applied to the specific parcel in question to arrive at a value. As already noted, the appraisal came up with a final valuation of $3.00 per sq. ft. Packet Page Page 173 of 444 If the appraisal had been done similar to other appraisals we have seen, the value could have been substantially higher (for example, $26-34 per sq. ft. based on the three comparables used in the initial appraisal). Nonetheless, even if the appraisal in the current case were to be higher, in the past the City Council has elected to reduce the price the City receives for a street vacation from an appraised amount. Note for example the ordinance passed by Council for the Pratt/Koon street vacation (File # ST-2004-103; see Exhibit 6). The Engineering Division reviewed the proposed street vacation and offered no objections (see memo in Exhibit 7). It remains for the Council to determine (1) whether the right-of-way should be vacated, and if so, (2) what the dollar amount paid to the City should be. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Maps Link: Exhibit 2: Wills Application Link: Exhibit 3: Wick Appraisal Link: Exhibit 4: Wick Appraisal - Supplement Link: Exhibit 5: Appraisal Example 1 Link: Exhibit 6: Appraisal Example 2 w/ Ordinance Link: Exhibit 7: Engineering Memo Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/13/2007 08:12 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/13/2007 08:16 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/13/2007 08:25 AM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Final Approval Date: 07/13/2007 Started On: 07/11/2007 04:09 PM Packet Page Page 174 of 444 Puget 7 7777= Sound SITE () Vicinity Map R AZ 0 175TH ST SW 171ST ST SW Packet Page Page 175 of 444 �\ V r \ - r r 270407-001-047-00 \ _ r r IN, r r - 4' HOGWIRE FENCE n C OJG'� 13 NCs �- r � CA c9�c �rAJ FND. 1/20 REBAR & CAP \ 3' CHAINLINK FENCE LS# MEYRING 2621 DN. 0.3' IN ASPHALT HOLE 0 INT. TALBOT RD. & 171ST ST 2-14-05 / / / / / \ 2 / C / / I / / / ♦ / / / / / Lis n rn c ./ ^�V 'O 7 >�S 500 /1'P // s 00 ♦ `� 00 F ♦ � O -9 Packet Page Page 476 of 444 p1•'� �� 8�1�.0oZ0'-`� '�Laro ^N^'I`'000z . V -rAA v E 7,153 S.F. N06'4994 VEY 2 DOro TOAL31.00' 28.00 7.00'oE 6.68'o of i.0'E rn �N90100'00'-• 62.14' IW o ON90'00'00"E oo ASPHAL T__ -6.7'E o 1.5'E 7 4,887 S.F. A gory LOT ,o,�'F •00, ).4'E !j Q�'fo� ti btAOQh ti ,o G 2 / 5,046 S.F. 6,964 S. 10' UE i 4 to 4,197 S.F. 4,553 S.F. t JCV / rM a --N90ro0'00"E-- � Ab'• , 9,668 S.F. CFO .\ J\ dam\ \ ` 8.t21 O � o0i p;� voco 0) �3 Acquisition Area Borrower/Client Don Wills _ Pro Address 17008 77th PI W City Edmonds COUflly Snohomish State WA Zip Code own Lender Don Wills 3YE - 81.00 17.00't4 6.C8'-Y Q� w w 3.0`E � 0 f) 0 iO as N90'00'00"E `n 62.14' "The larger parcel Is highlighted In yellow. ( W The area to be vacated Is approximated In green. s-LI� w N 9�0000 . Q 1.5'E �{ M 7 4,887 S.F. -CO a4�r -CO �r VL a '`� ��h 4 j , .0 —0.4'E 0s L- 70 Form MARPLAT—'MIInTOTAI" appraisal software by a la mode, Inc. -- 1-80ALAMODE Packet Page Page 177 of 444 city of edmonds land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT © HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION Q SHORT SUBDIVISION Q LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT JRC STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER; FILE # EAGA �-4 1;t ZONE DATE L3 REC'D BY cTa,q G FEES 1 jja`.00 RECEIPT #�� J HEARING DATE ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB XCC PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 1'7009 '7-?TL� PI' ctba O PROJECT NAME ([F APPLICABLE) PROPERTY OWNER DO uid M W ► 1S PHONE # _ I.0 -G2 Sb ADDRESS 1?00-I?'-' Pl- W • F--cA yq gdZL E-MAIL ADDRESS ChC 111 S C? i'HS n C-0 W - FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # C 3 -72 - 000 ~ ocD-1~ O SEC, _2 TWP, V � RNG. 4 C wll . DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTOR PROPOSED USE C;t,, V ct. e.! t e e& grs S' � R `w a v+s t. s-�r�.-� �� � � . l�r,,s ro sr . S y_ .�a o-t•�. c� -3• �' t,u-o � L ct? b •c Ge.d a.i � a tiQaLQ. �• CJ�lcW n t /- •P1GieA&R 10*t ill 0� GL S f�dvlCC rC�caaasz - r-tea, '• ✓1 o�a'f7ri�-��� a�%� dt{� a wr I"tq� ✓•a3 i a S o ace O sg us es APPLICANT ()aK.L(c k WL iLs :rr--- PHONE# Z0(.0 409 IM:o - ADDRESS 176t) ff -P� P I • Ly • 47 RV C E-MAIL ADDRESS A Ec-W .&S @ hrl 5 h • C� � _ FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT ��daa=LYA =e— DATE Zz /O % Property Owner's Authorization By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes o ins ec ' n a o g attendant to this application, SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE This application form was revised on 1/27/00. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220, 4ch1' L:ILIBRAKYIPLANNING1Forms & HandoutsTublic Handouts\Land Use Application.doc Packet Page Page 178 of 444 J. Graf City of Edmonds Building Dept. Attached is my application packet for a Street Vacation request. Inlcuded are: Land Use application for a Street Vacation Order to Correct Notice Adjacent property owners list with notarized signature List of property owners within 300' on the Edmonds city form Assessor's map 15 copies of the site plan Survey data showing requested vacation 2 copies of the Land Appraisal 8 I/z x 11 map of the site plan 8'/z x 11 transparency of the site plan Petition for Street or Alley Vacation Copies of emails between the Cityof Edmonds and myself Aerial photo of site Please note that my original request was for acquiring 540 sq feet of land from the City of Edmonds. Due to the appraisers evaluation I am able to ask that the City release 560 sq feet of land for me'to purchase. Using the appraised value for a square foot of $ 2.50, the additional 20 sq feet would add $ 50.00 to the value shown on the attached appraisal. The total appraised value for 560 sq feet of land would then become, $ 1,400.00. Please understand that I am seeking the 560 sq feet at an appraised value of $ 1,400.00. Thank you for all of your help in getting to the point of being able to submit this vacation request. Sincerely, Donald K Wills H 17008 771h Pl W Edmonds, WA 98026 206-409-7250 Packet Page Page 179 of 444 PETITION FOR STREET OR ALLEY VACATION TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON We, the undersigned owners of two-thirds of the real property abutting upon that public right-of-way described below, pursuant to RCW 35.79.010, do hereby petition the City of Edmonds to vacate said public right -of --way, described as follows: SOUTH 10.00 FEET OF THE 59 FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY NORTH OF LOT 7, CHARLOTTE GARDENS, EXCEPT THE EAST 34 FEET OF 77TH PLACE WEST, SITUATED IN THE SE'/4,NE % , SECTION 07, TOWNSHIP 27 N., RANGE 04 E., WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. �- BEING A PORTION OF THE SAME PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN A.F. NO. 200510145249 FILED FOR RECORD OCTOBER 14TH, 2005 IN THE BOOK OF SURVEYS IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY. a all situate in the City of Edmonds, County of Snohomish, State of Washington, and request that said City Council by Resolution fix a time and place when this Petition shall be heard and determined by that authority, which time shall not be more than sixty (60) days nor less than twenty (20) days after the passage of such Resolution. These pages are a group of pages containing an identical text and prayer intended by the signers of this Petition to be presented and considered as one Petition and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Petition. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. PRAYER OF PETITION: For the vacation of ! SiGlV'ATiJRE ! PRINTED NAME !` WILLS DONALD K II & 117008 77TH PL W - - - EDMONDS, WA 98020 3/3/2007 TERESA M Page _ of Street Vacation Petition Form Packet Page Page 180 of 444 LAND APPRAISAL REPORT Rummary Annraieal Nnnnrt File Nn. 7-0214 Borrower Don Wills Census Tract 502.00 Map Reference 455-Al Property Address 17008 77th PI W City Edmonds County Snohomish State WA Zip Code 98026 Legal Description See the Addendum Sale Price $ NIA Date of Sale N/A Loan Term NIA yrs. Property Rights Appraised ® Fee ❑ Leasehold ❑ Be Minimis PUB Actual Real Estate Taxes $ ** (yr) Loan charges to be paid by seller $ NIA Other sales concessions N/A Lender/Client Don Wills Address 17008 77th PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 Occupant Vacant site Appraiser Daniel Wick Instructions to Appraiser Estimate Current Market Value of the area of 77th PI W to be vacated b the Ci of Edmonds. —Taxes are not yet assessed. Location ❑ Urban ® Suburban ❑ Rural Good Avg. Fair Poor Built Up ® Over 75% ❑ 25%to 75% ❑ Under 25% Employment Stability ❑ ®❑ ❑ Growth Rate ❑ Fully Dev. ❑ Rapid ® Steady ❑ Slow Convenience to Employment ❑ ©❑ ❑ Property Values ® Increasing ❑ Stable ❑ Declining Convenience to Stropping ❑ ®❑ ❑ Demand/Supply ® Shortage ❑ In Balance ❑ Oversupply Convenience to Schools ❑ ®❑ ❑ Marketing Time ® Under 3 Mos. ❑ 4.6 Mos, ❑ Over 6 Mos. Adequacy of Public Transportation ❑ ®❑ ❑ Present land Use 75% 1 Family 3% 2-4 Family 3% Apts. 3% Conde 3% Commercial Recreational Facilities ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0% Industrial 16% Vacant Adequacy of Utilities ❑ ®❑ El _% Change in Present land Use Not Likely ❑ Likely (*) ❑ Taking Place (*) Property Compatibility ❑ ®❑ ❑ (*) From To Protection from Detrimental Conditions ❑ ®❑ ❑ Predominant Occupancy ® Owner ❑ Tenant % Vacant Police and Fire Protection ❑ ®❑ ❑ Single Family Price Range $ 210,000 to $ 6,600,000 Predominant Value $ 389,950 General Appearance of Properties ❑ ®❑ ❑ Single Family Age 1 yrs. to 80 yrs. Predominant Age 40 yrs. Appeal to Market ❑ ®❑ ❑ Comments including those factors, favorable or unfavorable, affecting marketability (e.g. public parks, schools, view, noise):The neighborhood is mostly residential in nature with commerical services on the main arterials. Puget Sound is about 2 blocks to the west. Dimensions Approximatey 64 x 30 x 79 x 110 = 4,887 Sq. R. or Acres ® Corner lot Zoning classification PRD Present Improvements ® do ❑ do not conform to zoning regulations Highest and best use ® Present use Other s ec' Public Other (Describe) OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Topo Mostly Level Elec. ® Street Access ® Public ❑ Private Size Typical for the area Gas ® Surface Asphalt Shape Irregular Water ® Maintenance Z Public ❑ Private View None San. Sewer ® Storm Sewer ® Curb/Gutter Drainage Adequate ❑ Underground Elect. & Tel. ❑ Sidewalk ® Street lights Is the property located In a HUD identified Special Flood Hazard Area? ❑ No [I Yes Comments (favorable or unfavorable including any apparent adverse easements, encroachmerds, or other adverse conditions): Flood Map: 53061 CI305E 1118/1999, zone X. Site dimensions and area were taken from the plat map recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor's office under recording number 20051614-5249. No adverse easements or encroachments are noted. The undersigned has recited three recent sales of properties most similar and proximate to subject and has considered these in the market analysis. The description includes a dollar adjustment reflecting market reaction to those items of significant variation between the subject and comparable properties. If a significant item in the comparable property is superior to or more favorable than the subject property, a minus (-) adjustment is made thus reducing the indicated value of subject; W a significant item in the comparable is interior to or less favorable than the subject property, a plus (+) adjustment is made thus increasing the indicated value of the subject. ITEM I SUBJECT PROPERTY COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 Address 17008 77th PI W 15003 Old Manor Way 8700 200th Ave SW 5707 180th St SW Edmonds L rrwood Edmonds Lynnwood ProAmity to Subject 3.39 miles NE 1.92 miles SW 1.35 miles SE Sales Price $ N/A $ 245,000 $ 250,000 IS 250,000 Price $ N/A $ $ IS Data Source Inspection, Cty Recs Cty Auditor AF#20060630-1838 CtV Auditor AF#20060731-0017 Metroscan AF#20061113-1107 Date of Sale and DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION + - $ Adjust DESCRIPTION + - $ Adjust DESCRIPTION + - $ Adjust. Time Adjustment N/A 06-30-06/18da s 07-31-06/119da 11-13-06/N/A Location Suburban/Avci SuburbaNA Suburban/Avg SuburbardAvg S' iew 540 sf 7,145 sf/None 9,148 sf/None 9,604 sf/None TO ra Mostly Level Mostly Level Mostly Level Mosby Level Wetlands None noted None noted None noted None noted Sher a Irre ular Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular Zod PRD R-8400 R-8000 R-84DO Sales or Financing Concessions N/A N/A Cash None Known Cash None Known Cash None Known NeIAd'. eta + 1$ + + ; $ Indicated Value of Subject 245,000, 250,0001 250,000 Comments on Market Data: The selected sales are the best available and all com arables used are closed sales. The area and fime searched had to bee anded to find similar com arables. Comparable #1 is a somewhat smaller site. Comparable #2 and #3 are larger than the subject site. Commends and Conditions of Appraisal: The AS IS value requires no repairs see the addenda for analysis and value conclusions Final Reconciliation: The sates comparison approach is considered to be the only valid approach to value vacant land. Some elements of the cost approach were considered in making adjustments to the com arables and arelving at the AS IS value. The income approach would not be considered by a typical buyer and is not used. 1 ESTIMATE TN W AS , OF SUBJECT PROP AS UP February 15 20 07 to be $ 1,350 ell raiser Trainee Dennis M. WICK, MAI SRA SRIVVA ❑ Did ® Did Not Physically Inspect Property raisers Review Ap ' er if applicable) Y21(I Wick & Associates Form LND—'MrnTOTAU' appraisal software by a la mode, Inc.—1-WO-ALAMODE Packet Page Page 181 of 444 Filed No. 7-02141 Page #2 Sunolemental Addendum Flip. Nn.7-n9aa Borrower/Clerd Don Wills Property Address 17008 77th PI W CRY Edmonds Courdy Snohomish State WA . Zip Code 98026 Lender Don Wills LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 7, Charlotte Gardens, According to the Plat thereof recorded under Snohomish County auditor's file number 200510145249, Records of Snohomish County, Washington. Parcel # 01-0372.000-007-00 CMA MARKET STUDY Currently there is a shortage of single farnily home for sale within area 730 of the Northwest Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS), which encompasses Edmonds and a portion of Lynnwood, for prospective buyers. Based on a MLS statistical survey of approximately the past 6 months there was an average of 176 homes selling per month with 495 active listings; this is a 1.81 to 1 ratio. Listing to sales relics between 3 to 8 are considered to be a balanced market. There are no significant concessions in use. Time adjustments are not applied due to generally recent sale dates. Average marketing time is 51 days, and the average sale price was $439,997. ADJUSTMENTS All comparables used are dosed sales. The sale date listed on the VACANT LAND form represents the closing date taken from the Auditor's file number noted on the Metroscan data service and county records. Adjustments have been made for: - Location adjustments are made based on the estimated market reaction to the respective locations. - Other items are based on the estimated market response to these amenities, which are considered to be less than their replacement cost. MARKETING AND EXPOSURE PERIOD Both the marketing and exposure time for the subject is estimated at 51 days. INTENDED USERS This report is intended for use only by the client (Don Wills) and and the City of Edmonds. Use of this report by others is not intended by the appraiser. This report and the conclusions made herein are copyrighted under U. S. Law. INTENDED USE This appraisal is intended to be used regarding a purchase of city owned right-of-way land. Without prior written approval from the author, the use of this report is limited to decision making regarding purchase and sale negotiations. All other uses are expressly prohibited. Reliance on this report by anyone other than the client and/or for any alternative purpose is prohibited. The author's responsibility is limited to the client. This report is intended for the client and the City of Edmonds only. Reliance on this report by anyone other than the client and/or for any alternative purpose is prohibited. The authors' responsibility is limited to the client. EXTENT OF THE APPRAISAL PROCESS Initial subject data was gathered from the Metroscan data. Approximately 20 listings, pendings, sales, expired sales and sold properties were analyzed on a cursory basis from Metroscan data. About 5 sales were researched in a 4 square mile area through Metroscan. The site was inspected in the field. Six properties were investigated from the street in the field. The written report was finished and delivered to the client, which completed the assignment. SCOPE This appraisal will value a strip of land currently owned by the City of Edmonds and known as 77th PI W. The appraisers have been asked to render a value opinion for the vacated area , which will be attached to the larger parcel (we note that a survey was not provided to the appraisers and the area to be vacated is approximated at 540 square feet and shown later in this report on a detailed plat map). The appraisal consists of site information, and uses the sales comparison approach to value. A paired sales analysis is performed on the comparable properties to arrive at a per square foot value of the excess land. Once this conclusion is reached it is then applied to the area to be vacated. We will also be taking into consideration the potential uses and benefits that the vacated area will have to its larger parcel and render a final conclusion based on the relative benefits to the larger parcel. The final value conclusion will consider all of these items. DEFINITIONS "Larger Parcel" as defined by the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fourth Edition is: ... the tract or tracts of land that are under the beneficial control of a single individual or entity and have the same, or an integrated, highest and best use. ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT The appraiser is not qualified to detect the presence of toxic or hazardous substances or materials, which may influence or be associated with the property or any adjacent properties. He has made no investigation or analysis as to the property or any adjacent properties, has made no investigation or analysis as to the presence of such materials, and expressly disclaims any duty to note the presence of such materials. Therefore, irrespective of any degree of fault, Wick & Associates and its principals, agents, and employees, shall not be liable for costs, expenses, damages, assessments, or penalties, or diminution in value, property damage, or personal injury (including death) resulting from or otherwise attributable to toxic or hazardous substances or materials, including without limitation hazardous waste, asbestos material, formaldehyde, or any smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids, solids, or gasses, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants, or pollutants. RENTS, EXPENSES & VACANCIES Are reported if required by USPAP or client. DEDUCTIONS AND DISCOUNTS None are required. PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS In this section we will discuss and analyze the contributory value of the subject area to be vacated. The larger parcel of which the area to be vacated will be attached to is already a legal tot and has a house on it. Therefore, the vacated area will become excess land to the larger parcel. The question then is what value does the area to be vacated have considering it will become a part of the larger parcel. In order to answer this question we will make a paired sales analysis of the comparables looking at their size difference and what the cost difference was for the additional land based on a square foot unit of measure. Form TADD—'WinTOTAV appraisal software by a la mode, Inc.—1-800-ALAMODE Packet Page Page 182 of 444 Supplemental Addendum File No.7-0214 Borrow/Client Don Wills Pro Address 17008 77th PI W city Edmonds Ccu Snohomish State WA Zip Code 98026 Lender Don Wills Comparable 1 is 7,145 square feet, and sold for $245,000. Comparables 2 and 3 are 9,148 and approximately 9,604, and sold for $250,000 each. The comparables have similar site characteristics and location is not considered to impact the comparables. Therefore the following chart shows the paired sales results for the excess land. Comp1 Comp2 Com 3 Sale Price 245,000 250,000 250 ODO Size in square feet 7,145 9,148 9 604 Overall price difference from comp 1 $5,000.00 $5 OD0.00 SF difference from Comp 1 2,003 2,459 Price difference per SF $2.50 $2.03 The above chart demonstrates that excess land value is $2.03 to $2.50 per square foot. The subject area as approximated on page 9 is an area of 10' x 54', which equates to a total area to be vacated of 540 square feet. The economies of scale theory suggests that a smaller land area would likely sell for a higher dollar amount. The subject area is somewhat smaller than the differences shown, which suggests and indicator at the high -end of the range. Overall, the appraisers conclude that the excess land value is $2.50 per square foot. Given the subject area of 540 square feet with an excess land value of $2.50 per square foot the area to be vacated would then have a value of $1,350. It is also noted that the subject area to be vacated would have 100% contributory value to the larger parcel. ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS $1,350 Form TAW — "WInTOTAL" appraisal software by a la made, inc.—1-WO-ALAMODE Packet Page Page 183 of 444 Wick & Associates Snohomish APPRAISAL AND REPORT IDENTIFICATION This Appiaisal Report Is m of the following types: ❑ Self Cordalned (A written report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(a) , persuantto the Scope of Work, as disclosed elsewhere in this reporL) ® Summary (A written report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(b) , persuantto the Scope of Work, as disclosed elsewhere in this reporL) ❑ Restricted Use (A written report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2(c) , persuantto the Scope of Work, as disclosed elsewhere in this report, restricted to the stated intended use by the specified client or intended user.) Comments on Standards Rule 2-3 1 certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: • The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct • The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. • I have no (or the specified) present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no (or the specified) personal interest with respect to the parties involved. I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or the parties involved with this assignment My engagement in this assignment was not corntngent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated insult, or the occurrence of a subsequenteveant directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. My analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. I have (or have not) made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification. (If there are exceptions, the name of each individual providing significant real property appraisal assistance is stated elsewhere in this report) Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification Note any USPAP related Issues requiring disciosure and any State mandated requirements: The appraiser did not review a title report and assumes there are no unusual title restrictions. ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATION continued from FNMA from 1004b -The term 'estimate' of value is hereby changed by this notice to mean opinion of value as required by USPAP. -That the tens 'Neighborhood' is hereby changed to mean 'Subject Market Area'. Any estimates for repairs are non -warranted opinions of the appraiser unless otherwise stated. To the best of our knowledge and belief, the reported analyses. opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, In conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional rafsal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its -duly authorized representatives. As of the date of this report, I Dennis M. Wick MAI SRA, SR1WA am currently certified under the continuing education ram of the Appraisal Institute. APPRMSER: Signature: - -7, � ' Gdi�G Name: Dan' Date Sig . ebruary 16, 2007 State Certification #: or State License #: 1000365 State: Expiration Date of Certification or License: 2123/08 Effective Date of Appraisal: SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (only If required): Signature: Name: Dennis M. Wick M RA, SRNVA Date Signed: February 2007 State Certification* 1100758 or State License #: State: WA Expiration Date of Certification or License: 12/27/2007 Supervisory Appraiser inspection of Subject Property: ® Did Not ❑ Exterior -only from street ❑Interior and Exterior Form IDD6 — WNTOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, Inc.—14&ALAMODE Packet Page Page 184 of 444 DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and slier, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typicality motivated; (2) both parties are wel informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S, dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions* granted by anyone associated with the sale. * Adjusbnents to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs witch are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments an be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third party institutional lender that is not already Involved in the property or transaction. Arry adjustment should not be calculated an a mechantcal dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgement. STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification that appears in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions: 1. The appraiser will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect either the properly being appraised or the title to it. The appraiser assumes that the title is good and marketable and, therefore, will not render arty opinions about the title. The property is appraised on the basis of it bang under responsible ownership. 2. The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appraisal report to stow approximate dimensions of the improvements and the sketch is included only to assist the reader of the report in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of its size. 3. The appraiser has examined the available good maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources) and has noted in the appraisal report whether the subject site is located in an identified Special Flood Hazard Area Because the appraiser is not a surveyor, he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied, regarding this determination. 4. The appraiser will rot give testimony or appear in court because he or she made an appraisal of the property in question, unless specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand. 5. The appraiser has estimated the value of the land in the cost approach at its highest and best use and the improvements at their contributory value. These separate valuations of the land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid If they are so used. 6. The appraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, needed repairs, depreciation, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that he or she became aware of during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report, the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or uapparent conditions of the property or adverse environmental conrtions. (including the. presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) that would make the property more or less valuable, and has assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, regarding the condition of the property. The appraiser will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist. Because the appraiser is not an expert in the field of environmental hazards, the appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the property. 7. The appraiser obtained the information, estimates, and opinions that were expressed in the appraisal report from sources that he or she considers to be reliable and believes them to be true and correct. The appraiser does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such hems that were furnished by other parties. 8. The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9. The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal that is subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations on the assumption that completion of the Improvements will be performed in a workmanlike manner. 10. The appraiser must provide his or her prior written consent before the lender/client specified In the appraisal report can distribute the appraisal report (including conclusions about the property value, the appraisers identity and professional designations, and references to any professional appraisal organizations or the firm with which the appraiser is associated) to anyone other than the borrower, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns; the mortgage Insurer, consultants; professional appraisal organizations; any state or federally approved financial Institution; or any department, agency, or instromerdalty, of the United States or any slate or the District of Columbia; except that the lender/client may distribute the property description section of the report only to data collection or reporting services) without having to obtain the appraser's prior written consent. The appraiser's written consent and approval must also be obtained before the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news; sales, or other media. Freddie Mac Farm 439 6-93 Page 1 of 2 Fannie Mae Form 1004B 6-93 Wick & Associates Packet Page Page 185 of 444 Form ACR—"WinTOTAL° appraisal software byalamod%Inc. —1-800-AtAMODE Ne No. 4 APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: The Appraiser certifies and agrees that: 1. 1 have researched the subject market area and have selected a minimum of three recent sales of properties most similar and proximate to the subject pro" for consideration in the sales comparison analysis and have made a dollar adjustment when appropriate to reflect the market reaction to those items of signdficand variation. If a significant item in a comparable property is superior to, or more favorable than, the subject property, I have made a negative adjustment to reduce the adjusted sales price of the comparable and, if a significant item in a comparable property is inferior to, or less favorable than the subject property, I have made a positive adjustment to increase the adjusted sales price of the comparable. 2. 1 have taken into consideration the factors that have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of market value in the appraisal report. I have not knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that all statements and information in the appraisal report are true and correct 3. 1 stated In the appraisal report only my own personal, unbiased, and professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions, which are subject only to the contingent and limiling conditions specified in this form. 4. 1 have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject to this report, and I have no present or prospective personal interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction. I did not base, either partially or completely, my analysis and/or the estimate of market value in the appraisal report on the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of either the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property. 5. I have no present or cordemplated future interest in the subject property, and neither my current or future employment nor my compensation for performing this appraisal is contingent on the appraised value of the property. 6. 1 was not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or any related party, the amount of the value estimate, the ailainmerd of a specific result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal. I did not base the appraisal report on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the need to approve a specific mortgage loan. 7. 1 performed this appraisal in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place as of the effective date of this appraisal, with the exception of the departure provision of those Standards, which does riot apply. I acknowledge that an estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market is a condition in the definition of market value and the estimate I developed is consistent with the marketing time noted in the neighborhood section of this report, unless I have otherwise stated in the reconciliation section. 8. 1 have personally inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property and the exterior of all properties listed as comparables in the appraisal report. I further certify that I have noted any apparent or known adverse conditions in the subject improvements, on the subject site, or on any site within the immediate vicinity of the subject property of which I am aware and have made adjustments for these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value to the extent that I had market evidence to support them. I have also commented about the effect of the adverse conditions on the marketability of the subject property. 9. 1 personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in the appraisal report. 9 1 relied on significant professional assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of the appraisal or the preparation of the appraisal report, I have named such Individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed by them in the reconciliation section of this appraisal report. I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. I have not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in the report; therefore, if an unauthorized change is made to the appraisal report, I will take no responsibility for it. SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: 0 a supervisory appraiser signed the appraisal report, he or she certifies and agrees that: I directly supervise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report, have reviewed the appraisal report, agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's certifications numbered 4 through 7 above, and am taking full responsibility for the appraisal and the appraisal report. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED: 17008 77th PI W, Edmonds, WA 98026 APPRAISER: SUPERVISORY PPRAISER /10 ly If required): Signature: G%f° Signature. Name: Dan rck Name: Deffin". Wick, MA RA SR1WA Date SI a ruary 16.2007 Date Signed: February . 007 State Certification #: State Certification #: 1'(00758 or State License #: 1000355 or State License #: State: State: WA Expiration Date of Certification or License: 2/23/08 Expiration Date of Certification or License: 12/27/2007 ❑ Did ® Did Not Inspect Property Freddie Mac Form 439 6-93 Page 2 of 2 Fannie Mae form 1004B 6-93 Form ACR —' WinTOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, Inc.—1-800-ALAMODE Packet Page Page 186 of 444 Plat Map Borrower/Merl Don Wills Pm Address 17008 77th PI W City Edmonds CGUV Snohomish State WA I Code 98026 Lender Don Wills 27040700103000 27040700102100 27040700101800 27040700101000 27040700102900 27040700104800 27040700107100 21040700102800 01037200099600 27040700104700 01037200000600 01037200000500 27040700100800 27040700104900 y 01037200000400 27040700103500 � ^" � 01037200000700 0t037200000300 ' 27040700107000 27040700103600' 27040700103700 01037200000200 27040700TO3400 01037200000100 27040700103300 00566000000100 27040700104100 00566000000200 00566000000300 00566000000400 27040700100300 00566000000700 27040700100200 00566100000100 00566100000200 �Q z00566000000600 P4.P 0 �- 27040700100500 0566100001100 00566000000500 00566100001000 00681600000400 inn Form MAP.PLAT — "WinTOTAL' appraisal software by a la mode, Inc.—1-BfiD-ALAMODE Packet Page Page 187 of 444 Acquisition Area Borrower/Client Don Wills _ Pro Address 17008 77th PI W City Edmonds COUflly Snohomish State WA Zip Code own Lender Don Wills 3YE - 81.00 17.00't4 6.C8'-Y Q� w w 3.0`E � 0 f) 0 iO as N90'00'00"E `n 62.14' "The larger parcel Is highlighted In yellow. ( W The area to be vacated Is approximated In green. s-LI� w N 9�0000 . Q 1.5'E �{ M 7 4,887 S.F. -CO a4�r -CO �r VL a '`� ��h 4 j , .0 —0.4'E 0s L- 70 Form MARPLAT—'MIInTOTAI" appraisal software by a la mode, Inc. -- 1-80ALAMODE Packet Page Page 188 of 444 Subject Photo Page Borrower/Client Don Wills Pro Address 17008 77th Pl W city Edmonds CourAy Snohomish State WA Zip Code 98026 Lender Don Wills View looking west 17008 77th PI W The approximate area to be vacated is outlined In yelow. We note all yellow outlines are approximate, and are not the exact area to be vacated. View looking SE View looking east Form PIC4x6.SR — "WinTOTAL' appraisal software 6y a la mode, inc. —1-800•ALAM00E Packet Page Page 189 of 444 WICK & ASSOCIATES 6830 NE Bothell Way • Suite C411 • Kenmore WA 98028 Phone (206) 417-7880 • Fax (206) 417-7780 May 15, 2007 Ms. Martha Pansa CITY OF EDMONDS — PLANNING DEPT. 121 5t" Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 CC. Don & Theresa Wills 17008 77'" PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 Re: Owners Address Dear Ms. Pansa: Don & Theresa Wills 77t' Place W — Street Vacation 17008 77th PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 V, MAY 17 2007 In accordance with your request, we have prepared additional comparable sales data in support of our appraisal of the above mentioned property to be vacated. The pupose of these additional sales is to: 1) confirm or deny that the market pays substantially less for excess land, and 2) further evaluate the conclusion of $2.50 per SF for excess land value to the subject. The following letter is to be made a part of the original appraisal with a report date of February 15, 2007, and for the above referenced property, Wick & Associates File # 7-0214. Found on a following page is a summary of additional comparable sales data showing differences in lot size and what the market paid for those differences based upon a square foot value. Every attempt was made to find similar lots compared to the subject lot at 17008 7711' PI W. The additional sales are all level lots located in similar residential communities compared to the subject. We note that few sales in the immediate area were able to be located and the area searched had to be expanded to find similar sales. Based upon our investigation these are the most similar sales for comparison and represent good alternatives to the subject. In review the subject is a 4,887 SF parcel that will have an approximate area of 540 SF attached to it through the vacation of a portion of 77tt' PI W. The 540 SF to be attached is essentially a small grassy patch of land that has little utility. The area will likely be unusable at any point in the future by the City of Edmonds due to its location next to a wetland, and its location next to existing homes, which would not likely be torn down to build an additional roadway. The area is a small 10' x 54' area that will be attached to the rear of the subject lot. It will be too small to reasonable use as a backyard, although will allow the subject's improvements to meet the zoning code. We note the currently existing house has a small alcove that encroaches into the set -back. Packet Page Page 190 of 444 Ms. Martha Pansa Page 2 As such, the area to be vacated by the city has an excess land value with respect to the larger parcel. We have located a total of 8 sales that represent good alternatives for prospective buyers, which suggests a similar subject value. The oomparables are first listed with each of their addresses; a chart is then presented showing the data comparisons from the individual sales. Atldre Sale,Date , Shale Pnce,;i Comparable 1 15003 Old Manor Way, Lynnwood Jun-06 $245,000 Comparable 2 8700 200th Ave SW, Edmonds Jul-06 $250,000 Comparable 3 5707 180th St SW, Lynnwood Nora-06 $250,000 Comparable 4 6530 NE 202nd St, Kenmore May-06 $240,000 Comparable 5 18813 92nd Ave NE, Bothell Feb-06 $255,000 Comparable 6 10909 Valley Rd, Bothell Dec-06 $270,000 Comparable 7 22318 3rd Ave SE, Bothell Nov-06 $248,000 Comparable 8 166XX 1st Ave SE, Bothell Aug-06 $240,000 Sublect, Comp 1 Comp 2: Gornp.3•: Cornp?4 Comp 5.. Comp.6" Comp 7:; Comp:8.; Sale Price 245,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 255,000 270,000 248,000 240,000 Square footage 4,887 7,145 9,148 9,604 8,759 10,862 15,022 10,454 12,545 After Acquisition 5,427 Percent of original 111% SF difference from Comp 1 NIA 2,003 2,459 1,614 3,717 7,877 3,309 5,400 Percent of size difference NIA 128% 134% 123% 152% 210% 146% 176% price difference from camp 1 NIA $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $25,000 $3,000 -$5,000 Price difference per SF NIA $2.50 $2.03 $3.10 $2.69 $3.17 $0.91 -$0.93 SF difference from Comp 2 NIA -456 -389 1,7141 5,874 1,306 3,397 Percent of size difference NIA 105% 96% 119% 164% 114% 137% price difference from comp 2 NIA $0 $0 $5,000 $20,000 -$2,000 -$10,000 Price difference per SF NIA $0.00 $0.00 $2.92 $3.40 -$1.53 -$2.94 SF difference from Comp 3 NIA -845 1,258 5,418 850 2,941 Percent of size difference I NIA 91% 113% 156% 109% 131% price difference from comp 3 NIA $0 $5,000 $20,000 -$2,000 -$10,000 Price difference per SF NIA $0.00 $3.97 .$3.69 ' 42.35 : -$3.40 SF difference from Comp 4 NIA 2,103 6,263 1,695 3,786 Percent of size difference NIA 124% 172% 119% 143% price difference from comp 4 NIA 5,0001 $20,000 -$2,000 -$10,000 Price difference per SF NIA $2.38 $3.19 '' -$1.18 -$2.64 SF difference from Comp 5 NIA 4,160 -408 1,683 Percent of size difference NIA 138% 96% 115% price difference from comp 5 NIA $15,000 -$7,000 -$15,000 Price difference per SF NIA $3.61 $17.16 -$8.91 SF difference from Comp 6 NIA -4,568 -2,477 Percent of size difference NIA 70% 84% price difference from comp 6 NIA -$22,000 -$30,000 Price difference per SF NIA $4.82 . $12.11 SF difference from Comp 7 NIA 2,091 Percent of size difference NIA 120% price difference from comp 7 NIA -$8,000 Price difference per SF NIA -$3.83 Packet Page Page 191 of 444 Ms. Martha Pansa Page 3 Shown on the previous data chart are the individual sale comparables and their respective differences from one another regarding size and price. The price difference is then broken down into a unit value of price per SF. Also included in the chart are percentage size differences. The chart represents an overall average price difference per SF of $3.55 per SF. Sale comparables 1, 2, and 3 are given somewhat more weighting due to their locational similarity to the subject and proximity. These comparables represent an average finding of $2.20 per SF of excess land value. Considering the comparables overall average price per square foot value of approximately $24.00/SF, the chart gives unquestionable evidence that the market does in fact pay much less for excess land value. The majority of indications are between $1.50 and $4.00 per SF. Giving more weighting to the comparables with more similarities, a value conclusion of $2.50 to $3.50 per SF is reasonable and is supported by the data. Due to the expanded area searched for comparable sales data an indication above $2.50/SF appears to now be suggested. A value conclusion of $3.001SF is made from the expanded data set. Therefore, 540 SF at $3.00/SF results in a value of: ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS $1,620 Hopefully this letter will meet your needs. We look forward to any questions you may have; please feel free to contact Daniel Wick at 206-417-7880 with any further assistance you may have. Sincerely, WICK & ASSOCIATES D&nnis M. Wick, M , SRA, SRNVA Real Estate Appr ser WA State Ce ' ication No. 11007 niel K. Wick Real Estate Appraiser Trainee WA State Certification No.1000355 7-021412 Packet Page Page 192 of 444 Valuation Appraisal Procedure The subject property represents a treed vacant land parcel that comprises a right-of-way for 8" Avenue North in Edmonds, Washington. The methodology followed in estimating the Market Value "As Is" is best described "across -the -fence" valuation methodology and it utilizes the Sales Comparison Approach. This is the appraisal methodology typically employed in the valuation of street vacation property. Land Valuation It should be noted that the subject does not carry a specific zoning designation, although, the adjacent properties are residentially zoned, and for this reason and based on discussions with City of Edmonds planner Star Campbell, it is estimated that the subject could also be residentially zoned. Therefore, we conducted a search for recent comparable sales with residential zoning. After researching land sale data in the general subject area and going back over three years, we selected four comparable sales in the general vicinity. A number of sales were not utilized as they had substantive views of the water and the Olympic Mountains, whereas the subject enjoys no such views. The comparisons represent parcels with general residential zoning, and this is considered appropriate for comparative analysis purposes. Before making adjustments for location and physical characteristics, the following five elements of comparisons need to be considered: non -realty items, property rights conveyed, conditions of sale, financing terms, and market conditions. For all of the land comparisons, the first four elements of comparisons are similar to the subject and no adjustments are required. As to the market conditions (recording dates), the comparisons reflect transactions that occurred from April, 2003 to April, 2004. Considering the economic conditions that have prevailed since the earliest sale, we have chosen to make an upward market conditions adjustment of one-half a percent per month since that time. This results in upward market conditions adjustment of 10% to Comparable 1, 6% to Comparable 2, 5% to Comparable 3 and 11% to Comparable 4. In the following table the land sales are summarized, with the stated "analysis price" per square foot representing the price adjusted for the five elements of comparison stated above. Confirmation of the sale data is based on reported information by the transacting parties or brokers involved in the sale and from Metroscan data. After the table is a locator map of the comparisons, followed by the comparative analysis that focuses on any necessary adjustments for location and physical characteristics. Raflo & Associates File: 2364-65 Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants Page 17 Packet Page Page 193 of 444 Valuation Summary of Land Comparisons Comp. Sale Sale Analysis No. Identification Date Price Size PricelSF' 1 Vacant Land Parcel 17907 75" Place W. Edmonds, WA 2 Vacant Land Parcel 932 Olympic Avenue Edmonds, WA 3 Vacant Land Parcel 1117 Daley Place Edmonds, WA 4 Vacant Land Parcel (2 lots) 743 Aloha Street Edmonds, WA 06103 $155,500 14,810 SF $11.55 02104 $287,500 22,216 SF $13.72 04104 $180,000 12,197 SF $15.50 04103 $320,000 20,473 SF $17.35 Footnote: i - As stated earlier, the indicated "analysis price" may include adjustments, where necessary, for non -realty items, property rights conveyed, conditions of sale, financing terms, and market conditions. F�acket Rage Page 194 of 444 Raflo & Associates Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants Page 18 Scale 7 : 25,000 0 2003 DeLorme_ Street Atlas USA® 2004. � o wo IM en �w www.delorme.com wo mo Imo ' V = 2,083.3 fl Data Zoom 13-0 Packet Page Page 195 of 444 � : �%. � \ \� � \� x� � \ . \. . � �\ . � . . z \ ^�\\\ / .- �\� �z� /\: Valuation Land Comparison 3 Land Comparison 4 Raflo & Associates File 2364.05 Real Estate Appmisem & Consultants Packet Page Page 197 of 444 Valuation Location and Physical Characteristics Adjustments The next phase of the comparative analysis focuses on the property -specific elements of comparison of location and physical characteristics. A preliminary value estimate will first be derived without considering the creek factor, but ultimately a discount will be applied to this preliminary value to obtain a final value estimate. Location: Comparison 1 represents a property to the north of the subject in a less preferred area, and an upward adjustment is required for this factor. On the other hand, Comparisons 2, 3, and 4 are in generally similar locations and no locational adjustments are considered necessary. Physical Characteristics: All of the comparisons are larger than the subject, and Comparison 4 comprises two lots of approximately 10,000 square feet each. No significant adjustments are considered necessary for Comparisons 1, 3, and 4. However, a slight upward adjustment to Comparison 2 is considered appropriate. In terms of topography, Comparison 1 does not require adjustments for topographical features. Comparisons 3 and 4 have relatively level topography, and downward adjustments are considered appropriate. Comparison 2 is extremely steep and an upward adjustment would be appropriate. Comparisons 2, 3 and 4 also have some water and/or mountain views, and so downward adjustments are required for this reason, as well. In the following table the comparisons are analyzed as to their ranking relationship to the subject. Based on the above comparative analysis, the sales are ranked as to their relative value position, i.e., inferior, similar, or superior, to the subject (prior to adjustment for the creek factor). Comparative Analysis Ranking Comp. No. Adjusted Price/SF � Ranking 1 $11.55 Inferior 2 $13.72 Gen. Similar 3 $15.50 Superior 4 $17.35 Superior I ia!,t 3?eeuuMtiS%= t�:i7:ui.Mui.S!,iP.u?�"ut�..:i^u�ti[��✓1,�;3.:�c'Sw:#�^wj'i�s���;�'����'�s""z.3'P.� Raflo & Associates rFiedMIAge Page 198 of 444 Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants Page 19 Valuation Based on the above comparative analysis ranking, a preliminary value estimate for the subject of approximately $13.00 to $14.50, say $13.75 per square foot is considered to be reasonable. This equates to a total of $90,750 (6,600 SF x $13.75/SF = $90,750). However, the analysis so far has not considered the impact of the creek. Due to the sensitive environmental nature of Shell Creek running through the subject property, the subject is not considered to be buildable. This situation can be likened to other factors that prevent development, such as wetlands or overhead power lines. On the other hand, while the subject may not be developable, it is not completely useless in that it could be utilized to create a more aesthetically pleasing environment. In terms of what discount to deduct, we have seen a factor of approximately 80% to 90% deducted for some unusable wetland property in Washington State. On the other hand, in an Appraisal Journal article by Richard M. Rhodes, he states that in negotiated settlements with owners regarding electrical transmission lines over California farmland, discounts run from 25% to 50% of the fee value of the land. In the same article, he points to parking areas beneath freeway viaducts in San Francisco where rental discounts have ranged from 30% to 80% less than similar, but unencumbered property. After considering all of the above factors, and in the absence of any information to the contrary, a discount of approximately 75% is considered appropriate for application to the preliminary value of the property, as if there were no creek running through it. Based on this discount, the final market value estimate for the subject is considered to be $90,750 less 75%, which equates to $22,687 rounded to $22,500. Final Value Estimate Considering the subject's location, physical characteristics, and marketability factors, it is our opinion that the market evidence supports a Market Value Estimate "As Is" for the subject, as of February 11, 2005, of: TWENTY TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($22,500) Exposure Time and Marketing Periods The following market and exposure time estimates were developed after reviewing market data provided by single family lot sales, from past interviews with real estate brokers, and based on our general experience with encumbered properties. After reviewing the various data, we have concluded that a reasonable exposure time for the subject property would be 9 to 12 months, and a reasonable marketing period for the subject property also would be 9 to12 months. Raflo & Associates F0acke1-Page Page 199 of 444 Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants Page 20 0006.90000 WSSlgJz 9/2/04 ORDINANCE NO.3520 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMOND'S, WASHINGTON, VACATING AND DECLARING SURPLUS A PORTION OF THE UNBUILT RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE VICINITY OF 6915 AND 6911 174TH STREET SW, ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS FOR SUCH VACATION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council initiated the vacation of certain unopened, right-of- way held in fee but reserved for right-of-way use in the vicinity of 6915 and 6911 174th Street SW in order to address certain access issues related to the adjacent properties, and -- . WHEREAS, the vacation was initiated on certain conditions; and WHEREAS, those conditions were met; and WHEREAS, a public hearing regarding the vacation was held by the City Council on 19th day of October, 2004, and WHEREAS, by ordinance the maximum compensation that could be required is one-halfofthe appraised val WHEREAS, the applicants have offered $1,500.00; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds due to'the following factors unique to this site, that the offer is reasonable: A. The subject tract is burdened by the access rights and has little or not value except to the neighboring property owners; (WSS580109.DOC;1100006.900000/) - I - Packet Page Page 200 of 444 B. The prior neighboring owners, for a period of 15 years, refused to purchase the site, electing to utilize their access right; C. Returning the property to the tax roles would compensate the City through additional, tax revenue overtime; and D. The property owners will incur additional costs to survey and assign the site by lot line adjustment. WHEREAS, the City Council finds it to be in the public interest to declare as surplus the property subject to the payment of compensation as determined herein, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Certain unopened right-of-way of 174th Street SW, located adjacent to 6915 174th Street SW and 6911 174th Street SW, and described on the attached Exhibit A is hereby vacated. Section 2. This vacation is subject to the condition that the sum of $1-,500.00 be paid by each of the abutting property owners. In the event that both or either sum is not paid, this vacation shall be void ab initio. The Mayor is authorized to execute a quit claim deed and - t e C1ty Clerk is hereby directed to file the deed in the land records of Snohomish County on, but only upon, confirmation of payment of the aforementioned sum. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. JWSS580109.D0Q1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page Page 201 of 444 1 APPROVED: MA ly R HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: (,6e CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE Y ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 10/22/2004 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 10/26/2004 PUBLISHED; 10/31/2004 EFFECTIVE DATE: 11/05/2004 ORDINANCE NO. 3520 wss580109.b01C;1ro0006.9000001} - 3 - Packet Page Page 202 of 444 r .s APPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT: 69XX 174th St SW (Parcel No. 005131-000-145-19) Edmonds, WA 98026 FOR: David/Courtney Pratt & Steve]Ksema Koon 6911 174th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 AS OF: July 24, 2004 BY: Peter N. Den Hollander, SRA Den Hollander Appraisals Real Estate Appraisers • Consultants (425) 74"267 - FAX (425) 353-5993 www.denhollander-appraisals.com Packet Page Page 203 of 444 EXHIBIT 3 Den Hollander Appraisals Real Estate Appraisers • Consultants 4719 78th PI SW Mukilteo, WA 98275 August 21, 2004 David/Courtney Pratt & StevelKsenia Koon 6911 174th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Re: Property: 69XX 174th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Borrower: Pratt & Koon File No.: 2004-07011 In accordance with your request, I have appraised the above referenced property and estimated its total contribution value as of July 24, 2004 to be: Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($16,000) The purpose of this appraisal is for purchasing a portion of the subject site from the City of Edmonds in order to preserve access and privacy as it now exists. The City of Edmonds asked to have a value based on what each portion will contribute to the value of adjacent sites that currently use this land. It has been a pleasure to assist you. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any of my staff if we can be of additional service to you. Peter N Den Ha4andSRA Appraiser Packet Page Page 204 of 444 LAND APPRAISAL REPORT Summary Appraisal Report File No. 2004-07011 Borrower Pratt & Koon Census Tract 502.00 Map Reference 455-B-2 Property Address 69XX 174th St SW _ City Edmonds County Snohomish State WA Zip Code 98026 - Legal Description See Addendum Portion Lot 145 Meadowdale Beach Parcel No: 005131-000-145-19 Sale Price $ n/a Date of Sale n/a Loan Term n/a yrs. Property Rights Appraised ® Fee ❑ Leasehold [IDe Minimis PUD Actual Real Estate Taxes $ n/a (yr) Loan charges to be paid by seller $ Other sales concessions _ Lender/Client David/Courtney Pratt & Steve/Ksenia Koon Address 6911 174th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 Occupant Vacant Appraiser Peter N. Den Hollander, SE Instructions to Appraiser Determine Market Value Location 77 Urban N Suburban Rural Good Avg. Fair Poor Built Up ® Over 75% ❑ 25% to 75% ❑ Under 25% Employment Stability ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Growth Rate ❑ Fully Dev. ❑ Rapid ® Steady ❑ Slow Convenience to Employment ❑ X ❑ ❑ Property Values ❑ Increasing ® Stable ❑ Declining Convenience to Shopping ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Demand/Supply ❑ Shortage ® In Balance ❑ Oversupply Convenience to Schools ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Marketing Time ® Under 3 Mos. ❑ 4-6 Mos. ❑ Over 6 Mos. Adequacy of Public Transportation ❑ ® ❑ ❑ _ Present Land Use 95% 1 Family Ol% 2-4 Family % Apts. % Condo 01% Commercial Recreational Facilities ❑ ❑ ❑ % Industrial 03% Vacant % Adequacy of Utilities ❑ El ❑ Change in Present Land Use [] Not Likely ® Likely (*) ❑ Taking Place (*) Property Compatibility ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ (*) From Vacant To Residential Protection from Detrimental Conditions [IN El ❑ Predominant Occupancy ® Owner 1-1Tenant 1 % Vacant Police and Fire Protection ❑ Z ❑ Single Family Price Range $ 175,000 to $ 900,000 Predominant Value $ 280,000 General Appearance of Properties ❑ X1I ❑ ❑ Single Family Age 0 yrs. to 50 yrs. Predominant Age 20 yrs. Appeal to Market ❑ ZII ❑ ❑ Comments including those factors, favorable or unfavorable, affecting marketability (e.g. public parks, schools, view, noise), The Meadowdale district of Edmonds is located three miles north of the Edmonds business district and two miles south of Mukilteo. This suburban residential neighborhood has above average appeal to the market. Shopping and freeway access are within four miles. Employment centers in downtown Seattle are approximately twenty miles south. No adverse factors were found that might affect marketability. Dimensions Approx. 75' x 75' x 50' x 150' x 55' = 8,276 Sq. Ft. or Acres ❑ Corner Lot Zoning classification RS-12 (Residential 12,000sf Min) Present Improvements Z do ❑ do not conform to zoning regulations Highest and best use ® Present use ❑ Other (specify) Legal Non -Conforming Public Other (Describe) OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Topo Sloping Below Street Elec. ® Street Access ® Public ❑ Private Size Typical for Area Gas ❑ Surface Asphalt Shape Irregular Water ® Maintenance ® Public ❑ Private View None San. Sewer ® ❑ Storm Sewer ❑ Curb/Gutter Drainage Appears Ade uate ❑ Underground Elect. & Tel, ❑ Sidewalk ® Street Lights Is the property located in a HUD Identified Special Flood Hazard Area? ® No ❑ Yes Comments (favorable or unfavorable including any apparent adverse easements, encroachments, or other adverse conditions): The subject site is an original "right of way" that was vacated in 1981. It is a non conforming "buildable lot" that the City would probably not allow to be developed because of accessibility concerns to the adjacent lots. The lots that abut this site to the north have been using this parcel for access for 28 years with each having their driveway extend across the subject site to connect to the p ublic street. The undersigned has recited three recent sales of properties most similar and proximate to subject and has considered these in the market analysis. The description includes a dollar adjustment reflecting market reaction to those items of significant variation between the subject and comparable properties. If a significant item in the comparable property is superior to or more favorable than the subject property, a minus (-) adjustment is made thus reducing the indicated value of subject; if a significant item in the comparable is inferior to or less favorable than the subject property, a plus (+) adjustment is made thus increasing the indicated value of the subject. ITEM I SUBJECT PROPERTY COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 Address 69XX 174th St SW 167XX 74th PI W 16419 44th Ave W 538 Homeland Dr Edmonds Edmonds Lynnwood Edmonds Proximily to Subject 8 Blocks NW 2 Miles NE 3.25 Miles SW Sales Price n/a 9 45,000 82,500 8,000 Price per Sq Ft. 2.20 MININEM s 3.44 4.67 Data Source Inspection MetroScan/NWMLS MetroScan/NWMLS Metroscan Buyer - Date of Sale and DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION + - Adjust DESCRIPTION + - Adjust DESCRIPTION + - Adjust, Time Adjustment n/a 6111/04 7/21/04 10/20/03 Location Averse Averse Averse Average • Site iew 8 2'76sf/No View 20 473sf/No View -25 000 23 958sf/No View -35 000 1 712sf/No View +12 000 Access Public Street Public Street Public Street Public Street Utilities Water/Sewer Water/Sewer Water/Sewer Water/Sewer Functional Utility Excess Land Steep Bldg Site -5 000 Building Site -30 000 Excess Land Improvements None None None None Sales or Financing Cash Cash Cash Concessions Net Ad'. Total + S 30,000 7 + 65 000 + - 12,000 Indicated Value of Subject.1111-1111111 15 000 17 500 20,000 Comments on Market Data: Sale #3 was the only recent sale found of excess land. Sales #1 and #2 are buildable lots with limited functional utility. Most residential lots are valued on their utility as a buildable lot with no consideration given to insii4nificant differences in size. The total contribution of the subject to adjacent properties is estimated to be $16 000. See addendum. Comments and Conditions of Appraisal: This appraisal is based on the assumption that the subject site would not qualify as a building site per city of Edmonds. Final Reconciliation: All reliance is placed on the sales comparison approach to value. There is no market for the subject site since the • only benefit would be to the adjacent lots as excess land. Each adjacent lot would increase in size by approximately 4 000sf and in value-by-aiwroximately $8 000. SnMATE TtA MARKET ALOE, AS PEFn 0, OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AS OF .July 24, 2004 20 04 to be $ 16,000 Peter N. D n Holla der, RA ❑ Did ❑ Did Not Physically Inspect Property Appraisers Review Appraiser if applicable [Y` K] _ ➢enHollander Appraisals (425) 745-3267 Fax # 353-5983 Form LND — "TOTAL for Windows" appraisal software by a la mode, inc.—1-800-ALAMODE Packet Page Page 205 of 444 Appraisal Report Addendum File No. 2004-07011 Borrower/Client Pratt & Koon Property Address 69XX 174th St SW Go Edmonds County Snohomish State WA Zip Code 98026 Lender David/Courtney Pratt & Steve/Ksenia Koon PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is for purchasing a portion of the subject site from the City of Edmonds in order to preserve access and privacy as it now exists. The City of Edmonds asked to have a value based on what each portion will contribute to the value of adjacent sites that currently use this land (Parcel No's 005131-000-144-08 & 005131-000-144-09). SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL This is a Limited Appraisal Report in a summary format. It is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standards Rule 2-2(c) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation. The Comparable Sales used in this analysis were taken from public records as reported by MetroScan, Northwest Multiple Listing Service and/or Snohomish County Assessor. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Continued) MEADOWDALE BEACH BLK 000 D-19 - TH PTN OF W 145FT LOT 145 LY NLY 174TH ST SW AS NOW CONSTRUCTED & SHOWN ON PLAT OF CHERRY CREST TGW VAC N 15FT OF TR 145 LY ELY OF W LN 71ST AVE PROJ NLY AUD FILE NO 2078769 & WLY OF E LN PLAT OF CHERRY CREST CONTINGENT TO ABV DESC PRTY AKA PTN OF VAC 174TH ST SW ORD2014 AUD FILE 8103100160 VOL 1702 PG 43 SALES HISTORY No other sales or listings of this property were found during the past three years. LIMITING CONDITIONS: Continued I have no (or the specified) present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no (or the specified) personal interest with respect to the parties involved. I have no bias with respect to the property that is subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Appraisal Institute's Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, which include the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. As of the date of this report, Peter N. Den Hollander, SRA has completed the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. Signature Name Peter N. Den Ho ander, Date Signed Au ust 21 2004 State Certification # 1700834 State WA Or State License # State Signature Name Date Signed State Certification # State Or State License # State DenHollander Appraisals (425) 745-3267 Fax # 353-5983 Form TADD2 — "TOTAL for Windows" appraisal software by a la mode, inc.—1-800-ALAMODE Packet Page Page 206 of 444 Plat Map Borrower Client Pratt & Koon Property Address 69XX 174th St SW CltV Edmonds County..Snohomish State WA Zip Cade 98026 Lender David/Courtney Pratt & Steve/Ksenia Koon Farm MAP.PLAT— "TOTAL for Windows" appraisal software by a la trade, inc.—1-S00-ALAMODE Packet Page Page 207 of 444 Location Map Borrower Client Pratt & Koon Prone" Address 69XX 174th St SW CitV Edmonds County Snohomish State WA Zip Code 98026 Lender David/Courtney Pratt & Steve/Ksenia Koon Form MARLOC — "TOTAL for Windows" appraisal software by a la mode, inc.—1-800-ALAMODE Packet Page Page 208 of 444 ` .r. 51, ON 1 g J eY} .°'.' 1 F' S � [ V 4i - Tf . 4 'ry - M=N h 3# C ._..a�; ,,.... MEN3 Et1}4..L"' ,� IR- x � xa a r1.5 Mv { Subject Photo Addendum Bwmur C6erd Pratt & Koon Address 69XX 174th St SW Edmonds CouW Snohomish State WA Zip Code 98026 Lems David/Courtney Pratt & StevelKsenia Koon Alternate Street Scene Packet Page Page 210 of 444 Comparable Sales Photo Addendum Borrower Client Pratt & Koon ftupo Address 69XX 174th St SW ft Edmonds County Snohomish State WA Zip Cade 98026 Lender David/Courtney Pratt & Steve/Ksenia Koon Comparable 1 167XX 74th PI W Prox. to Subject 8 Blocks NW Sale Price $45,000 Gross Living Area Above Grade Rooms Bedrooms Bathrooms Location Average View 20,473sf/No View Site Quality Age Comparable 2 16419 44th Ave W Prox to Subject 2 Miles NE Sale Price $82,500 Gross Living Area Above Grade Rooms Bedrooms Bathrooms Location Average View 23,958sf/No View Site Quality Age Comparable 3 539 Homeland Dr Prox to Subject 3.25 Miles SW Sale Price $8,000 Gross Living Area Above Grade Rooms Bedrooms Bathrooms Location Average View 1,712sf/No View site Quality Age Packet Page Page 211 of 444 DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2) both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions* granted by anyone associated with the sale. *Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs which are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third party institutional lender that is not already involved in the property or transaction. Any adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgement. STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification that appears in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions: 1. The appraiser will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised or the Title to it. The appraiser assumes that the title is good and marketable and, therefore, will not render any opinions about the title. The property is appraised on the basis of it being under responsible ownership. 2. The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appraisal report to show approximate dimensions of the improvements and the sketch is included only to assist the reader of the report in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of its size, 3. The appraiser has examined the available flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources) and has noted in the appraisal report whether the subject site is located in an identified Special Flood Hazard Area. Because the appraiser is not a surveyor, he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied, regarding this determination. 4. The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court because he or she made an appraisal of the properly in question, unless specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand. 5. The appraiser has estimated the value of the land in the cost approach at its highest and best use and the improvements at their contributory value. These separate valuations of the land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if they are so used. 6. The appraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, needed repairs, depreciation, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc,) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that he or she became aware of during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report, the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the property or adverse environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc,) that would make the property more or less valuable, and has assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, regarding the condition of the property. The appraiser will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist. Because the appraiser is not an expert in the field of environmental hazards, the appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the property. 7. The appraiser obtained the information, estimates, and opinions that were expressed in the appraisal report from sources that he or she considers to be reliable and believes them to be true and correct. The appraiser does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such items that were furnished by other parties. 8. The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9. The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal that is subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations on the assumption that completion of the improvements will be performed in a workmanlike manner. 10. The appraiser must provide his or her prior written consent before the lender/client specified in the appraisal report can distribute the appraisal report (including conclusions about the property value, the appraiser's identity and professional designations, and references to any professional appraisal organizations or the firm with which the appraiser is associated) to anyone other than the borrower; the mortgagee or its successors and assigns; the mortgage insurer; consultants; professional appraisal organizations; any state or federally approved financial institution; or any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia; except that the lender/client may distribute the property description section of the report only to data collection or reporting service(s) without having to obtain the appraiser's prior written consent, The appraiser's written consent and approval must also be obtained before the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media. Freddie Mac Form 439 6-93 Page 1 of 2 Fannie Mae Form 1004E 6-93 DenHollander Appraisals (425) 745-3267 Fax # 353-5983 Form ACR — "TOTAL for Windows" appraisal software by a la mode, inc,---1-800-ALAMODE Packet Page Page 212 of 444 rY � APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: The Appraiser certifies and agrees that: 1, 1 have researched the subject market area and have selected a minimum of three recent sales of properties most similar and proximate to the subject property far consideration in the sales comparison analysis and have made a dollar adjustment when appropriate to reflect the market reaction to those items of significant variation, If a significant item in a comparable property is superior to, or more favorable than, the subject property, I have made a negative adjustment to reduce the adjusted sales price of the comparable and, if a significant item in a comparable property is inferior to, or less favorable than the subject property, I have made a positive adjustment to increase the adjusted sales price of the comparable. 2. 1 have taken into consideration the factors that have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of market value in the appraisal report. I have not knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that all statements and information in the appraisal report are true and correct. 3. 1 stated in the appraisal report only my own personal, unbiased, and professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions, which are subject only to the contingent and limiting conditions specified in this farm. 4, 1 have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject to this report, and I have no present or prospective personal interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction. I did not base, either partially or completely, my analysis and/or the estimate of market value in the appraisal report on the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of either the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property. 5, 1 have no present or contemplated future interest in the subject property, and neither my current or future employment nor my compensation for performing this appraisal is contingent on the appraised value of the property. 6. 1 was not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or any related party, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a specific result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal. I did not base the appraisal report on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the need to approve a specific mortgage loan. 7. 1 performed this appraisal in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place as of the effective date of this appraisal, with the exception of the departure provision of those Standards, which does not apply. I acknowledge that an estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market is a condition in the definition of market value and the estimate I developed is consistent with the marketing time noted in the neighborhood section of this report, unless I have otherwise stated in the reconciliation section. 8, 1 have personally inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property and the exterior of all properties listed as comparables in the appraisal report, I further certify that I have noted any apparent or known adverse conditions in the subject improvements, on the subject site, or on any site within the immediate vicinity of the subject property of which I am aware and have made adjustments for these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value to the extent that I had market evidence to support them. I have also commented about the effect of the adverse conditions on the marketability of the subject property. 9. 1 personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in the appraisal report. If I relied on significant professional assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of the appraisal or the preparation of the appraisal report, I have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed by them in the reconciliation section of this appraisal report. I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. I have not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in the report; therefore, if an unauthorized change is made to the appraisal report. I will take no responsibility for it, SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: if a supervisory appraiser signed the appraisal report, he or she certifies and agrees that: I directly supervise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report, have reviewed the appraisal report, agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's certifications numbered 4 through 7 above, and am taking full responsibility for the appraisal and the appraisal report. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED: 69XX 174th St SW, Edmonds, WA 98026 APPRAI Signature Name: Peter N. Den o and S -P Date Signed: Au ust 21 2004 State Certification #: 1700834 or State License #: State: WA Expiration Date of Certification or License: 3/31/05 Freddie Mac Form 439 6-93 Page 2 of 2 SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (only if required): Signature: Name: Date Signed: State Certification #: or State License #: State: Expiration Date of Certification or License: ❑ Did ❑ Did Not Inspect Property Fannie Mae Form 1004B 6-93 Form ACR — "TOTAL for Windows" appraisal software by a la mode, inc.— 1 -800-ALAMODE Packet Page Page 213 of 444 r , Peter N. Den Hollander, SRA REAL ESTATE APPRAISER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION: Various Seminars/College Courses • Residential State Certification Review - AIREA - 1990 • Real Estate Appraisal Reform -OTS - 1990 • Relocation Appraisal Seminar - ERC - Reno 1992 • American Disabilities Act - NAIFA - 1993 • Residential Home Inspections - NAIFA - 1993 • Partners In Success - PHH Home Equity - 1993 • URAR and FIRREA Seminar - Appraisal Institute - 1994 • Understanding Limited Appraisals - Appraisal Institute - 1994 • State of Art Costing Technologies - AI & NAIA - 1994 • The Mortgage Broker Practices Act - AI & NAIA - 1994 • Relocation Appraisal Seminar - ERC - San Antonio 1994 • HUD/FHA Appraisal Training Seminar - US Dept. of Housing - 1994 • Perspectives on Appraisals - Norwest Mortgage, Inc. - 1994 • EDT and the Appraisal Profession - Appraisal Institute - 1995 • National Relocation Forum - ERC - Nashville - 1995 • PHH Regional Relocation Appraisers Conference - San Antonio - 1995 • Associates Relocation Partners For Progress Conference - Dallas - 1995 • Fannie Mae Seminar (Form #2055) Appraisal Institute - Tukwila, WA - 1995 • The Appraiser In Cyberspace/Using The Internet - Appraisal Institute - 1996 • Relocation Appraisal Seminar - ERC - Las Vegas - 1996 • PHH Regional Relocation Appraisers Conference - San Diego -1996 • Alternative Residential Reporting Forms - Appraisal Institute -1997 • Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice - Appraisal Institute - Kirkland - 1997 • Site Inspection for Appraisers - Bill King - 1997 • HFS Mobility Services National Appraisal Conference - Chicago - 1997 • VA Fee Appraisers Meeting - Feb 1998 • Internet Search Strategies for Real Estate Appraising - Appraisal Institute - Jan 1999 • Waterfront Properties Forum - Appraisal Institute - 1999 • FHA and The Appraisal Process - Appraisal Institute - Boston -1999 • Case Studies in Residential Highest & Best Use - Appraisal Inst. - Seattle - 2000 • Condemnation Appraisals Course 710 - Appraisal Inst - Seattle — 2000 • Appraisal Reporting Technology - a la mode, inc. - Renton - Aug 2001 • Online Strategies for Appraisers - a la mode, inc. - Renton - Aug 2001 • MetroScan for Windows - First American Real Estate Solutions - Everett - June 2002 • Stand. Of Prof. Practice (USPAP) - Appraisal Institute - Shoreline - Oct 2002 • What is a Backyard Worth? - Appraisal Institute - Seattle - Jan 2003 • Relocation Appraisers & Consulting, Inc. - Annual Conferences - 1995-2003 • Business Practices and Ethics (Course 420) - Appraisal Institute - Lake Oswego, OR - May 2003 American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers • Residential Course VIII - June 1976 • Mortgage Loans and the Secondary Market - 1979 • The Appraiser as an Expert Witness - 1986 • Standards of Professional Practice - 1988 • Standards of Professional Practice, Part C - 1997 Society of Real Estate Appraisers • Building Construction and Estimating Course - 1977 • Single Family Residential Demonstration Workshop - 1978 • FNMA Guidelines & FHLB Appraisal Standards - 1988 International Right of Way Association • Easement Valuation - 1989 • Income Approach to Valuation - 1989 Everett Community College A total of 34 credit hours in courses related to the real estate industry were taken in 1976. PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS: SRA--------------------Appraisal Institute CRA--------------------National Association of Review Appraisers Member ---------------- International Right of Way Association Member ---------------- Relocation Appraisers and Consultants State Certified --------Washington State 1700834 EXPERIENCE: Appraisal of real estate in Snohomish and King Counties since 1976. Experience in appraising real estate includes one to four family residences, condominiums, mobile homes, and vacant land. Testimony as an expert witness in Snohomish County Superior Court. Data sources include MetroScan and the Northwest Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS). DENH%L.ANDER,PETER NEAL '4718 78T P §W: � � � � _..MUKILTEO, WA;982T5-2728...... ':.€ ... �,, . r,E 4719 78TH PLACE SOUTHWEST . MUWJLTEO, WASHINGTON 98275 (425) 745-3267 • (425) 353-6097 • FAX (425) 353-5983 www.denhollander-appraisals.com Packet Page Page 214 of 444 Ir. Wills: oth myself (City Traffic Engineer) and Dave Gebert (City Engineer) have reviewed nd discussed your request for a street vacation equivalent to 10' wide running parallel to our existing back yard property line and we have collectively concluded that there are either any.short term or any future public needs or public interest is the subject right -of - ray. The roadway/parking/turn around area will never need to be widened and there are no resent or future public utility _needs for this right of way. you need any additional information please notify me before March 15th as that will be my ist day at the City. hanks ►on Sims, P. E. 'ity Traffic Engineer Ity of Edmonds 25-771-0220 ext. 1328 imso)ci. edmonds. wa. usIn AM-1098 Public Hearing: Amending Code Section 5.05.010, Definitions, Domestic Fowl Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 07/17/2007 Submitted By: Jana Spellman Submitted For: Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Time: 30 Minutes Department: City Council Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Public Hearing on a proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds City Code, Section 5.05.010, Definitions, (M) related to Domestic Fowl, and the Edmonds Community Development Code Section 17.35.040. 6. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff If after taking public testimony the Council believes that the ordinance should be passed, a motion to that effect would be appropriate. Previous Council Action During the April 17, 2007 Edmonds City Council Meeting, a citizen asked the Council to consider defining quail as poultry at the same time the Council was deliberating a proposed amendment to the ordinance related to animal control. Council President Pritchard Olson suggested that the definition for quail be considered separately from the issue that was presently being considered. Exhibit 1: Edmonds City Council Minutes, April 17, 2007 Narrative As suggested by Council President Pritchard Olson, a public hearing is set for this evening's Council Meeting related to a proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds City Code, Section 5.05.010, Definitions, (M) related to Domestic Fowl, and the Edmonds Community Development Code Section 17.35.040. Exhibit 2: Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds City Code, Section 5.05.010, Definitions, (M) related to Domestic Fowl, and the Edmonds Community Development Code Section 17.35.040. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Quail CM Exh 1 7-17-07 Link: Quail Exh 2 7-17-07 Form Routing/Status Packet Page Page 216 of 444 Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status I City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/13/2007 11:41 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/13/2007 11:43 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/13/2007 11:47 AM APRV Form Started By: Jana Started On: 07/13/2007 11:16 Spellman AM Final Approval Date: 07/13/2007 Packet Page Page 217 of 444 afternoon with Animal Control Officer Dawson. One of the alarming things to him was the difficulty returning cats to their owners without cat licenses. In addition, recent events have revealed there were many incidences of cats annoying neighbors via trespassing on their property. For Councilmember Plunkett, Council President Olson explained if there were a total of four Councilmembers interested in pursuing deleting cats from the exemption of roaming at large, it would be scheduled for a public hearing. Councilmember Plunkett expressed his support for a public hearing. Council President Olson commented she was in favor of further discussion and advised it would be scheduled for a public hearing on May 15. Councilmember Wambolt suggested the Council also consider the issues Mr. Martin raised, raising quail in the City and possibly redefining quail as poultry. Council President Olson suggested that be considered separately from deleting cats from the exception of roaming at large. Mayor Haakenson asked why quail were omitted from the definition of poultry. City Attorney Scott Snyder did not recall, advising it could be accomplished via a simple addition to the code. Councilmember Moore explained her intent was to remove the exception for cats and asked if anything else needed to be done. Mr. Snyder answered if cats were removed as an exception, how to identify cats in order to return them to their owner became an issue, hence the licensing provision. He noted there were several ways to do licensing; he simply added cats to the dog license section. He suggested the Council may want to consider whether the current licensing fees were sufficient. Councilmember Moore commented the reason she did not have Animal Control Officer Dawson attend tonight's meeting was because it required payment of three hours of overtime. She suggested Officer Dawson provide a memo to the Council rather than being present at the May 15 public hearing. r- stablashPeriod 10. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PERIOD IN WHICH TO PREPARE AN EstablishPeriod in which to APPLICATION AND FORMS OF DECISION. Prepare an Application (New Design Development Services Director Duane Bowman advised the proposed ordinance was to implement the Review Process) ordinance the Council passed regarding design guidelines. The City Attorney drafted the proposed ordinance as an interim zoning measure to allow staff to continue to accept applications but provide time to develop the process and procedures to implement the new ordinance. Staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance and set May 15, 2007 for a public hearing on the interim ordinance. City Attorney Scott Snyder pointed out the City was also short two staff persons. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND SETTING MAY 15, 2007 AS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance reads as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3639 — ESTABLISHING A PERIOD IN WHICH TO PREPARE AN APPLICATION AND FORMS OF DECISION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Non -Represented 11. APPROVAL OF NON -REPRESENTED COMPENSATION (NRC) POLICY Compensation Policy Human Resources Manager Debi Humane recalled the NRC Policy was presented to the Council in August 2006 and discussed again at the Council retreat. As requested by Council at the retreat she was presenting the NRC Policy to the Council again for consideration. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 17, 2007 Page 12 Exhibit 1 Packet Page Page 218 of 444 side of Caspers. Next he pointed out the CIP included $590,000 for this project; however, the packet identified $380,000 for this project and another page identified $116,000 for the consultant to engineer the project which totaled $532,000, not $590,000. He then referred to page 10 of the March 27 minutes where he suggested enacting cat licenses and holding a public hearing in regard to parks, pointing out both subjects had arisen again. Chat Issues Robert McCallum, Edmonds, was glad the Council planned to revisit the cat at large issue, particularly L1 now that trapping was no longer allowed. He cited three observations of cats in his yard within the past two days. He envisioned if animal control was able to talk to cat owners and convince them to keep their pet on their property, harmony would again reign in the neighborhood. Cat Issues Ray Martin, Edmonds, recommended the Council do what was right for the majority of Edmonds J citizens with regard to cats and he would agree with that action assuming the Council did their homework. He recommended the City take action to eliminate the root cause of this neighborhood dispute, the luring and gathering of animals on one property in their neighborhood and its public health ramifications by Update Definition of updating the definition of poultry in the animal ordinance. He pointed out there was no difference Poultry between quail and other fowl such as chickens, geese, turkeys, ducks, partridges, pheasants, grouse, etc. and their effect on the health of residential zones. He suggested waiting 6-12 months and conducting a survey regarding the public's experience with the revised ordinance. erm Limits Mike Muster, Edmonds, spoke against term limits, stating he did not need anyone to determine who he could/could not vote for. City Code 9. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE Chapter 5.05, CHAPTER 5.05 RELATING TO ANIMAL CONTROL. DISCUSSION WILL INCLUDE Animal Control DELETING CATS FROM THE EXEMPTION OF ROAMING AT LARGE AS WELL AS (Cats) REQUIRING LICENSING OF CATS. (REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.) Councilmember Moore explained she asked this be brought back to the Council to determine whether there were three other Councilmembers interested in striking the exception for cats from the roaming at large provisions in the code. She relayed her research regarding PAWS' support for confining cats and their practice of not adopting out animals to owners who had previously lost a pet due to it not being confined. She cited the Audubon Society's support for confining cats. The most convincing argument she heard in favor of deleting cats from the exemption of roaming at large came from the City's Animal Control Officer Debbie Dawson who supported restricting the movement of cats as 40% of her complaints were in regard to cats roaming at large. Officer Dawson also supported licensing of cats, pointing out cat owners did not support City services although cats represented 40% of the complaints. She also supported licensing to facilitate returning cats to their owners. Councilmember Moore noted although this began as a neighborhood dispute, it had become a bigger issue and the City needed to delete cats from the exemption of roaming at large. She referred to a packet of materials from Robert and Debbie McCallum who listed ten reasons for deleting cats from the exemption of roaming at large: 1) destruction of wildlife, 2) protection of cats, 3) minimizing health risks to humans, 4) ending neighborhood disputes by providing animal control equitable laws for managing domesticated pets, 5) ending the use of neighbor's gardens as litter boxes and cats spraying on private property, 6) educating and instructing minors about the environment and protection of the ecosystem, 7) making the laws uniform, 8) protecting homeowners' real property rights, 9) stopping the explosion of feral cats, and 10) because it was the fair and right thing to do. Councilmember Marin spoke in support of having a public hearing and possibly pursuing further action. He recalled 3-4 years ago when the Council was considering a spay/neuter ordinance, he spent an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 17, 2007 Page 11 Packet Page Page 219 of 444 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 6/4/07 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, SECTION 5.05.010 DEFINITIONS, (M) RELATED DOMESTIC FOWL, AND THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 17.35.040, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Code regulates the keeping of poultry for domestic use, and WHEREAS, in addition to chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese, other forms of fowl such as guinea fowl, pheasants, quail and pea fowl are or have been kept for meat or eggs, and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to expand the definition to include such other fowl, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds City Code Section 5.05.010 Definitions, paragraph (M) relating to poultry is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.05.010 Definitions. M. "Poultry" means domestic fowl normally raised for eggs or meat and includes, but is not limited to, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, pheasants, quail, guinea fowl, pea fowl and other similar domesticated birds. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to conflict with or eliminate any state wildlife licensing requirement with {WSS663818.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - Exhibit 2 Packet Page Page 220 of 444 relation to the keeping of any type of fowl. Large fowl over three feet in height or 301bs as mature adults, such as emus or ostriches, shall be considered "covered animals" and regulated as such. Section 2. The provisions of Edmonds City Code Section 17.35.040 Keeping of and covered animals in its residential zones is hereby amended by the addition of a new sub -paragraph G, relating to the registration of newly -defined poultry: 17.35.040 Keeping of poultry and covered animals in residential zones. G. The amendment of the definition of poultry was expanded by the passage of Ordinance No. . In order to permit owners of poultry not previously regulated under the provisions of this code, the same rights and privileges previously extended to other poultry owners, a new registration period is established commencing July 1, 2007 and extending for a period of six (6) months, ending on December 3, 2007 at 4:00 PM. Commencing on that date and for the period established, the keepers of pheasants, quail, guinea fowl and pea fowl may be kept as poultry as a nonconforming use if registered pursuant to the provisions of Sections D and E above. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS663818.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page Page 221 of 444 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. { WSS663818.DOC;1 /00006.900000/} Packet Page Page 222 of 444 -3- 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 CITY CODE, SECTION 5.05.010 DEFINITIONS, (M) RELATED DOMESTIC FOWL, AND THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 17.35.040, 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 {WSS663818.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 4 - Packet Page Page 223 of 444 AM-1085 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 07/17/2007 Submitted By: Conni Curtis Submitted For: Don Fiene Time: 15 Minutes Department: Engineering Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Public Hearing for the Six -Year Transportation Improvements Program (2008-2013) and proposed resolution adopting the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program and directing the same to be filed with the Secretary of Transportation and the Transportation Improvement Board. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council approve the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program, adopt the resolution and authorize recording of the documents by the City Clerk. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative 7. RCW 35.77.010 and RCW 36.81.121 require that each city and county update their Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) by July 31 of each year and file a copy of the adopted program with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The TIP document is intended as a planning tool for local, state and federally funded projects and is utilized by the State, Puget Sound Regional Council, Transportation Improvement Board and other funding agencies to develop the state-wide TIP and prioritize projects for competitive funding. It is not required to show projects that are locally funded. However, the City of Edmonds has traditionally shown all anticipated or planned projects. The first three years of the TIP are required to be financially constrained. The last three years of the TIP, however, are typically not financially constrained. Projects must be identified on the TIP for them to be eligible for State or Federal grants. In essence, the last three years of the TIP are a transportation improvement wish list. On the other hand, the six -year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is financially constrained and is a better indicator as to what transportation improvements will likely occur over the next six years. Since the adoption of the CIP in May, 2007, no projects have been added to the first three years of the TIP. One new project, a walkway nearMadrona Elementary School, has been added to the TIP for construction in 2011. The City Council has many opportunities to review projects and project lists prior to implementation. These opportunities include: Packet Page Page 224 of 444 --When the project is entered in the budget for funding with City funds --When Staff presents draft TIP for adoption --When Staff presents draft CIP for adoption --When Staff requests authorization to call for bids --When bids are accepted by Council --When a major update to the Transportation Element is reviewed by the Planning Board and City Council. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 07 TIP Resolution Link: 07 Six -Year TIP (2008-2013) Link: Madrona Walkway Description Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Dave Gebert 07/06/2007 11:29 AM APRV 2 Development Services Duane Bowman 07/06/2007 11:30 AM APRV 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/09/2007 09:52 AM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/09/2007 11:49 AM APRV 5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/09/2007 01:17 PM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 07/05/2007 01:07 PM Final Approval Date: 07/09/2007 Packet Page Page 225 of 444 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (TIP), AND DIRECTING FILING OF THE ADOPTED PROGRAM WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121, each city and county is required to annually update and adopt a Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) by July 31 of each year and file a copy of such adopted program with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the TIP on July 17, 2007; and, WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt such a program stating its desire and intent that the staff pursue additional forms of funding in order to accelerate street overlay/ improvements and walkway, sidewalk and bike way improvements in the City if such funds can be obtained; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A Transportation Improvement Plan is hereby adopted pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 to be effective on July 31, 2007 and to continue in full force and effect until amended. A copy of such Transportation Improvement Plan for the years 2008 to 2013 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. -1- Packet Page Page 226 of 444 Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby requested and directed to file a certified copy of the Transportation Improvement Plan with the Washington State Department of Transportation. RESOLVED this day of , 2007 APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. -2- Packet Page Page 227 of 444 IL O U3 O p � O EA O � O EA O 69 O O O O O p O O O � C: O p O O p p� O p O O O p O O O p O O O O p O p s9 O C Oo M � f9 O p EA O O O � p O o EA O O N Vi O O O O O O p p Ci O O O p O O O O O O O O O p N O O O p O O p O O O 0 0 In O @ N -da 2Ol o o a m- L° o 0 0� O 0 O 0� O O O O O ifl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O P O O p0 0 0 0 0 63 fA� 69 EA�(A H3 f0 fA fA� fA fAMEA fA O Efl 69 N Uj V n d3 EA M fA fA EA EA V3 fA (A C O N m C adi 2 U 2 m C adi C m d °' C O t CO 3 2 C O_ .- d 2 as d G .- U W U W W o U 'ci o U W T O T O T O >. O >. O T O T O @ LL @ o J LL @ o J o lL @ o a LL @ o D lL @ o D lL @ o J U T � -o LL @ o J � NO d O O E D � d @ O o @ O 0 O @ m N O@ N N N d E d d 0 d 0 N d m a n y n m E E Q m d o C o m o� in) cEoi E U�' C a D 2 a E D c a E D a9i d d f2 m O. c T @ N N @ N m fn d d � d d -d0 � m > '0 c 0 E E d E m d .2 a Q Q D N m U 2 D E a D E `2 o- -d0 E d E, a c O po �\ V u @ m u D E r Tco m 3.cm UO Q (5c) Utn Uvi Ua QUZN O O O O O O O O O O 63 fA O N EA O O � EA O O O EA N @ N @ -a L� N �p @ d (n J d U d (n J d B o@@ d (n o,- U (n J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U3 U3 � fA NM to O ul to eA b3 Y3 O O V N m � c O @ = C n O m 3 N C n O W U U T O a C O a 12 2 a o c(D U` @ @ O o O 0 J o J J a a d U U � Q C o m C @ E d E d >a? d`o o 2 a O N O o n E E , G Ca Z I > C O U O o N h D_ C C c ° - 6 m 2 c m 0.2 0 0 N Q U C Q c d 2 o o n aNi � U d in a�i d c co c N > O > N > d 2 £o, `O6a m N N w E Packet Page Page 228 of 444 M O N 0 C 0 C O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0000 0 0 0 �fA 43 EA ��� E� �Elj 63 fA E9 E9 fA��EA SEA O O O O O O O O Q p H3 H3 V3 � Fy V3 � EA fA � Ui O O �D O O p O N O (OO O O m O O O N O O O N O O r fA @ 1-9 @ @ ❑_ @ ❑_ @ U U0 d d. U _N U @@ @ N D UO Up d@ Up Oal- OOaF O,@ J N(nJ N(n J Oaa@o,@oO@DOa N(n J@(n J @(nJ @(nJ d(nJ d(nJ @(n J O @ (n J OU @ (n J R d(n J a @ O @(n J a @ @ (n J a N(n J LL� LL� 0 N U 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0.0. 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O � jQ s9 tAOtA tO tO e30000tA000tApEA tAO U3 U3O eA tA00fA tH uj OF900fAp L 06900EA0000000000U3 EROtA HiO �{j00 N r v eA EA H3 H3 EA V3 N V3 aJ M H3 EA fA N fA E9 � EA to � N fA 7 EA A V 69 y O m C N O O C N O O m C N O U OJ C N C O U m C @ O O O) C _ O N U OJ ._ O N U m C C O N U O) C N C O U O O O C m C N O U o s 2 °' xs 2 °' ors 2 @ 2�. @ 2 0 .� C o m C w 0 ° U w U W U w U w U w O U w o U w o U w o U U w o U T O O O T T Y U 2 2 2 i4 � >, is o is m O O m 0 0 .o O (9 ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ a2i a2i L° L° H F F F- 0. J J Nj C U� N O a O O O@ fn O J O J O J m J a LL p_ Z F- CO Z _ T Z O J o J ❑- >T a O O � C O E N N o U N O L CO' O C C N C 0¢ N C i6 2 N i0 2 N N @ E a N@ U N O C O C O C & 0 0 O :nLL @ am c d U �0U) V E mE dE O d `0 '@ao -No m o N o.@ m E E @ E 3 o °>' a is m o @ 0 x a c m aLOi a`oi c@ o na ILrnE aai > T>`3 U aD @ U a9 @� o a d c _ N - T ffi a U) y. U N CO _ N O m u 9 0 E SQ L C N C @ C N E>@ je U U l m E Uam 0 a O U) > 0> o d E oN > o >0 o @ ❑ E ooNoU of cOE NE U coa o L N L a O N L @ moe CL `m K m CL m of N C NOJ N -N (nN U)(n NU rnU (n U m C 2 0. Packet Page Page 229 of 444 0 0 N O O O N N N N O N N (V N N EA ff3 EA fA to O O O O O O t(J O O N N N V3 Vj EA O O O O O p 0 0 0 O O p O O g 0 0 N 0 p EA 63 � f9 E9 fA O O O O O O IQ inO N N In t» t» t» O O O O O O N N N O 69 EA EA 63 O O O � � O � to V3 N m U J m (ry ''o,- J N m U J LL !n LL (n LL (n JO LL fn O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N 0 0 t1i EA V3 fA fA U3 E+9 H) Fla C O C .0 (p C c O .0 .ON of U V w w U T iE E2 O @ @ U` o U' U @ N N 0 6 0 0 J � a @ m o Z O C d N L V N @ O N O @ O C N N M O O N N O O Q N@ N U m E D 2 O m N E > U o v o o a _ a m E2 a « O C E U N m T C C O N N _ U '.0 O ffi @ O n @ U U w & m m a w N Im m m N @ N a O N to a o tCuo rn Q N _ O N c a L r orn E _ @ m m@ @ o N O N ro O O th � FA fA fA N O N W m O t» t» to 10 n O 0) N EA EA V3 N O o r ro rn m (rJ � fA V3 H3 n O r � M fA EA fA O O O O O O O p O O p O O O O O O O O p 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 p N N O f9 EA V3 fA fA V3 �mL°mcmim��mmmE�—L°a—Em—t6 a�.�—" @ @ m N. m m 2 L° a� @ a@ O D@ O D@ O D O a O a@ O D O O a 0 a@ O @ O O a� 0 a 6 0 a «� O Ntn J d(nJ N(n J N(n J d(n J d(n J NUiJ dNJ N(nJ @6) @ (nJ UJ J O(nJ @(nJ v� LL v� v LL.� LL� v� vim. vim. LL.J ' O OOO � O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 0 O O O O 0 O O In O I� 1 O r O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O EIj EA O �j tO O FA �f9 O O to O pEA O EAN O N O O EAO t+) O r O O fA U3 O O Ui Elj N O 01� 0 0 6969N 0 69 0 0 Eflp 0 0 H3 tApEAM 0 0 N O O tJ163p O O V)f.9 O Ov O 6?� m O 2 2 O w U O ` O U O � � O U O) �mas2tasm o w` U O O w` U m O N � m O w U m N w 2 o U O O U O E O U 0 O ucr U 0 O C O W U p C W O O U c O o N U C C O C U V E C 6C N Q p 0 1m0 Q N C U OL O . Oo a o '> DC O a d t N v o O 6 O LL LL ll o J �s z o U n. ooa COa Z LL a LL m o Z z: N J O O aW J �LL w a U m m N o y O iri y d 26 @ G N N Nn N T N N N m U N @ C - X O O@ U @ Y O U C m s O s @ a N O m E.5 2 m O_ D E o m U c o N Y m > o 7 N@ o a u 3 D m m e L u m U� aO � 0 o N N U d m n m c U m o cTi & & m as E� m 2 L Ol E E 0 m m n LL .J �. y .L.- N N •2- o a 3 @ m o > ? U 0 o o 3 E U LL = U U Q Q 3 o O o D > o m >O m d @ Y @ T Q > s K d o 0aEiL o m FLim— E oo m -mo m N 3@ o. E _ Lo .o > O > ro D o ro �- m m o n Q > @ > �o r m r Q 2 a �E ` ' O�n F6oI�c a�,m I@ (��z Packet Page Page 230 of 444 E \ ( ƒ k / \ a \\ w )wu) T\o / / 6 ) ) 6 6 6 ca t \ \o - \ \ \\ w § \ / \ rL I 3 E {k / §{ t ( 2 \ \ ) / E \« (n (k � \\ Packet Page Page w17 444 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Nonmotorized Trans- ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $500,000 Madrona Elementary Walkway 229TH j ST 229TH pL 229TH m a \ / I ! �STO H P SNOHOWSH ,I � a t 237 231 ST ST 2315T ST SW Z a of a m ; PL1-T 232ND ST ti5ti� z 'Sa COUNTY SW \N� PL x ml _ 232ND HOLLY LANE m < a z 233RD n ST i LPL I ,t 233RD MAPLE LANE 2341H STJ 3 ' I MADRONA LANE '235TH I!1 a ST i x 0 h x 235TH ° 236TH PL v n I- 236TH ST SVJ ea,_----_ aST Q 23 p 2, P`J ?32TN pJ 2377H m � PL O�, \Z Madro na �ql- 238TH ST SW EleM r m' -� p /, 238TH 51 SW� W 3'9 o0, N ST II 239TH �1J 240TH PL a ,. 5�_ a x 1 s 24 ST SW _ _ J J 'o PL � _ _ _ - 3\ 240TH a 241SIPP,L SW I: `4ND PL F 3 242ND 5T SW 1A.�`L�'L�O �O ryQ a wa a a� a J q �✓ z x x xI 243RD PL\ 244TH ST SW 3 o KING COUNTY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: : Construct a walkway on 234 St SW from 97 PI West to 94 Ave West along the south side of the street. Also on 94th Ave West from 234th St SW to 236th St SW along the west side of the street. And on 236th St SW from 94th Ave West to SR-104 along the south side of the street. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. The current condition has a negative impact on pedestrian safety near Madrona Elementary School, located on the corner of 94th Ave and 236th Street. SCHEDULE: 2011 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $55,600 Construction $440,000 1 % for Art $4,400 OT $500,000 Packet Page Page 232 of 444 AM-1094 8. Closed Record Review: Rezone at 125 2nd Ave N. Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 07/17/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave Time: 20 Minutes Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action Information Subject Title Closed Record Review on the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the application by Rob Michel for a rezone from RM-2.4 to RM-1.5 for property located at 125 2nd Avenue North. (File No. R-2007-15) Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to uphold the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the rezone application. Previous Council Action None. Narrative This is an application by Michel Construction for a rezone from RM-2.4 to RM-1.5 for property located at 125 2nd Avenue North. The Planning Board held a public hearing on the subject application on May 23, 2007, and after deliberation, voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the change in zoning. A verbatim record of the hearing is attached as Exhibit 1. The staff report is included as Exhibit 2. An additional document submitted by the applicant is attached as Exhibit 3 (Higher -Density Development: Myth and Fact, by the Urban Land Institute). Fiscal Impact A ttn eh m o"tc Link: Exhibit 1: Hearing Transcript Link: Exhibit 2: Staff Report Link: Exhibit 3: Higher -Density Development Myth and Fact Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/12/2007 03:16 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/12/2007 03:54 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/12/2007 03:58 PM APRV Packet Page Page 233 of 444 Form Started By: Rob Started On: 07/12/2007 02:38 Chave PM Final Approval Date: 07/12/2007 Packet Page Page 234 of 444 CITY OF EDMONDS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF PLANNING BOARD HEARING File Number R-07-15 May 23, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPLICATION BY ROB MICHEL TO REZONE FROM RM-2.4 TO RM-1.5 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 125 — 2ND AVENUE NORTH Chair Guenther: We'll move on to Item 6, public hearings. A public hearing regarding an application by Rob Michel for a rezone from RM-2.4 to RM-1.5 for property located at 125 — 2ad Avenue North, File Number R-07-15. Since this is a public hearing, I need... Has there been any exparte communication? Any reason? Okay. So we'll move on to the staff report. Mr. Chave: Just a quick introduction. Mike Clugston is the new planner. He has just been hired by the City very recently. So this is his first opportunity to present something to the Planning Board, so be nice. Mr. Clugston: Yeah, if there's any problems, yell at Rob and then he'll yell at me. That would probably be good. I'll try to keep it brief. As you mentioned, we are looking at a rezone for a parcel at 125 — 2nd Avenue North. First of all, in your packets and on the screen you can see the Comprehensive Plan designation, and it's multiple family. We also have the current zoning, and as you already stated, it's multiple residential 2.4. The rezone request is to change that to 1.5. For rezones, there's a number of factors you need to look at and consider. Those are just real briefly, the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the surrounding area, changes, suitability and value. Those were, of course, all reviewed in the staff report. Mr. Clugston: The two areas I would like to focus on are the Comprehensive Plan. Again, the Comprehensive Plan identifies that are as multi -family high density. Both the 2.4 and 1.5 categories are in that designation so the change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clugston: The Zoning Ordinance, that's the main difference we are looking at, changing from 2.4, which is 2,400 square foot minimum lot size to 1.5, which is 1,500 square foot minimum lot size. Oh, per unit, right. The differences between those two zones are minimal. Setbacks, heights all those things are basically the same. So the only real difference is the minimum area per dwelling unit, the 2,400 versus the 1,500 square feet. Mr. Clugston: Surrounding area. It's a mixed -use area between the downtown and post office is across the street to the east. There's another multi -family dwelling directly to the north. There's several smaller single-family dwellings to the west, so it's a mixed area. Mr. Clugston: Changes to this parcel will essentially allow the increase of dwelling units, an increase in density. Right now, the parcel is about 10,800 square feet. The current zoning at 2,400 square foot per dwelling unit would equal about four dwelling units. By upzoning to 1.5 or 1,500 square foot, you would have the ability to put seven dwelling units on that same property. Mr. Clugston: Suitability. The property is economically and physically consistent with the multi -family high density Comprehensive Plan designations and the 2.4 and 1.5 classifications are essentially similar. Packet Page Page 235 of 444 Mr. Clugston: Value. It's anticipated there could be additional value on this parcel due to increased density through the upzoning. Mr. Clugston: So basically, after the analysis, staff recommends approval of the request to rezone this parcel from multi- family 2.4 to residential multi -family 1.5. I don't know if there's a question period now... Chair Guenther: Do you have any questions? Board Member Freeman: You said the height is not going to change. So it's 25 plus 5 in this area, isn't it? Mr. Clugston: Yes. Board Member Freeman: So we could have three floors, then, of residences. Is that correct? Mr. Chave: Yeah, it's going to depend, I guess potentially, if there's a little bit of topographic change. The applicant can address that. But, I mean, the basic difference is setbacks don't change, height doesn't change. None of the bulk or landscaping requirements, none of that changes. Board Member Freeman: So it's just a question of going to a more intense. Mr. Chave: It's simply the number of units permitted on the property. Board Member Freeman: On the property. Chair Guenther: Allowable floor area for whatever structure goes there would be the same for either zone designation. Mr. Chave: So logically, I mean if it were in a location where there were traffic concerns, you know, something like that, that would tend to want to reduce the number of dwellings just because of the number of comings and goings, that would be a legitimate reason to be concerned about the change in zoning and so forth. But in a downtown location like this that's really bordered by high density multi -family areas and the proximity to commercial and so forth and a grid system that handles traffic quite well. It's hard to find a reason to turn it down. Board Member Works: I have a question Rob. But we've still got this requirement that each unit that's built has to have 2 parking spaces. Now we have been talking about parking. Mr. Chave: Actually, in the multi -family zones, it's a sliding scale that depends on the number of bedrooms. Board Member Works: Okay, so we're not compelled then to have two... I was just looking at the site development standards. Mr. Chave: It simply depends on how many buildings they are doing per unit. Board Member Works: Okay, so it would depend on the design and the ADB would be concerned about that and not us. Mr. Chave: Ultimately, when they got to the building stage. Board Member Freeman: But it says here minimum parking spaces. I looked at that, too. This is not maximum or anything like this. You've got two all the way down. Mr. Chave: Actually, the parking standards in the parking chapter are what controls, and there is a sliding scale. Board Member Works: Oh, okay. Chair Guenther: As I recall, it's like if it was a studio, there would be one stall required. Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-15 May 23, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page Page 236 of 444 Mr. Chave: I think it goes from 1.2 to ... Board Member Freeman: There was some talk about changing it from minimum to maximum, but we haven't done that yet. Chair Guenther: We haven't done that yet. Board Member Works: That's for the future then. Mr. Chave: Yeah, in the commercial zones, in mixed -use downtown BD zones, the standard is one parking space per dwelling. But once you get into the multi -family units, it changes to the sliding scale. Board Member Works: Okay, but it's not a minimum of two per unit. Okay. Chair Guenther: Now it's the applicant's turn to present. Mr. Schlumberger: Good evening. I'm Scott Schlumberger. I'm presenting this rezone application on behalf of Michel Construction. Ms. Noyes: Can you spell your last name. Mr. Schlumberger: S C H L U M B E R G E R. Essentially, I don't think that I need to rehash everything that we've gone over as far as the six criteria. I am happy to answer any questions. There are a couple of points that I would like to address. One of which is on the third criteria, surrounding area. Any kind of multi -family structure that we build there would have the same bulk, same massing, same bulk standards, building height, setbacks, as would be under the existing zoning. So the building would be the same size. The only result would be an additional unit. Our current schematic is that we would put an additional one unit on the ground floor. That would increase the affordability of the project, which is a prime objective of ours, is to try and create a little bit more sustainability downtown. Mr. Schlumberger: The current bulk standards in the City of Edmonds, I believe, need to be updated. One way we can approach that is to increase the density under this rezone application and revisit some of those bulk standards at a later date. If you look at what is going on in other areas, basically, in urban infill, everybody is finding that higher density, to a point, it's more environmentally sound. It causes downtown businesses to flourish, and it basically improves... On a per capita basis, it's a better way to build. It does not impact the environment nearly as much as large units, which is what we would otherwise end up at the current zoning. We would end up building 2,000 square foot units, that would be close to $1 million. That's the market. We don't really want to do that. We would like to have greater variety. We'd like to provide something that fits in with a broader range of potential residents than just those that can swing the million dollar bat. Mr. Schlumberger: As far as the immediate surrounding area, as well. I wanted to point out the building right next to it is almost 40 feet tall. We would not be building something like that. I believe that, as I've already mentioned, the last point under value, keep in mind that real estate is a product and it's sold by the square foot. It's an oversimplification, but it basically is. By allowing us an additional unit or two on that site, we are not going to build a bigger building, but we're going to build large unit variety, and that's going to be beneficial to those who want to live downtown. That's what you need downtown to really get your business core to succeed. That's all I have on this. Chair Guenther: Any questions of the applicant? I was just curious why you included the traffic study in your submittal Mr. Schlumberger: Well, it's part of SEPA, so we had to redo our SEPA, so we had to redo our traffic study. Mr. Chave: Ultimately, the traffic study also contributes if there are any impact fees that go with the project. Chair Guenther: I just didn't understand. I tried to look at it and tried to understand what it was telling me, but I didn't... Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-15 May 23, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page Page 237 of 444 Mr. Schlumberger: Well, the irony of it is that under the trip generation manual we are replacing eight units with probably five. So it's a negative number, which that's kind of how the math works out. Chair Guenther: All right. Board Member Works: I have a question. It's an apartment building now. I take it they are very small apartments. Mr. Schlumberger: Yes. There's eight apartment buildings. The existing structure was built in 1955. The units are about 600 to 700 square feet. The plumbing is crazy. It's substandard. It's obsolete. It does fulfill a need, certainly, but it is beyond its... It was not built... Buildings built in 1955 didn't tend to be built very well. It's just a fact of post war construction. That building is worn out. Board Member Freeman: You said the building next door was over 40 feet. Is that the one to the south of it? Mr. Schlumberger: It's immediately to the south. Board Member Freeman: And the one to the north on the corner, which is the apartment block, is that a condominium. Mr. Schlumberger: That's a condominium, and that's, presumably (I haven't gone out and scope it), but that's presumably the same height that our building would be. Board Member Freeman: I looked at your building, and it's very low. It's got two floors. I wondered if it would be possible to go three floors and still keep within the height limit. Mr. Schlumberger: It wouldn't really be cost effective because it's a flat site. If it were a sloping site, and if we could get underneath it or if we could make it bigger and get all of the parking underneath then it would work, and we would do that. But the way it is currently, no, it wouldn't make sense to do that. Board Member Freeman: Another question that Rob or somebody else could answer. This that we are looking at now is just a rezoning. This is not project specific, is it? Mr. Chave: That's correct. Board Member Freeman: So what goes up eventually on the property we are not considering at all tonight? We're just considering the rezone. Mr. Schlumberger: Correct. Board Member Freeman: Because you could change your mind or you could sell the property once it's rezoned. Mr. Schlumberger: Correct. That's true. So you would have to look at it the worst case scenario. If we were to go from four units to seven units, which wouldn't make much of a difference. Objectively, that's what you should be looking for downtown because that's what supports your downtown is people. It's residents living downtown. Chair Guenther: All right. This is the part where I ask for public testimony. Any proponents or opponents please come forward. Mr. Chave: I think we have a woman who would like to speak first. Chair Guenther: Just please state your name and the city you live in. Mrs. Lundquist -Lin: My name is Diana Lundquist -Lin. I am one of the tenants there. My main concern is how long is this whole procedure or process going to take. I am doubly handicapped and I would need an extension of time. I would Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-15 May 23, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page Page 238 of 444 respectfully ask for that if the decision were to be positive. If negative, I can take it from there, but I do need to know the timeframe and also the extension of time. Those are the two main questions I have. Thank you. Mr. Jacobson: Jack Jacobson, 128 Sunset. I'm probably stepping on some toes, but when it was sold, I heard it was $1.2 million. When you could only build a four unit, that was $300,000 per unit. So now if we could possibly do a seven unit on it, we've reduced his per unit cost per land immensely. Is the City going to... Why don't we just throw this 2.4 out if we're going to start doing this, like we've got two applications tonight. Let's just forget about the 2.4. Let's let everybody have 1.5 and buy it knowing what you are going to do. It looks like he took a gamble buying it. He was going to put a four unit in there at that much money. It will impact some if you have seven units, which I would be a dollar that there will be more than five units there, but this property could be turned around a sold as a seven unit site if it all goes through. Mr. Jacobson: If we are going to change a lot rezoning, stand by, why there will be some more coming through once you open the door. But if that's what you decide to do, so be it. I disagree with the planner that it's a high density next door. It is a four -unit. That's all he could build when he built eight or ten years ago. I'm sure if he could have put a seven, he would have at least a five or a six there. But that's my objection. If we're going to change all, let's throw the 2.4 out the window and say we don't have that anymore, come on in with your application, and we'll give you the 1.5 and your land is worth a whole bunch more money. Thank you. Mrs. Lundquist -Lin: May I say something please? Mr. Chave: I don't think she used her three minutes. Chair Guenther: Yeah. Mrs. Lundquist -Lin: I just want to say, it's a minor issue, but there are eight units, unless I miscounted, as I live there, and I know there's four units downstairs and four units upstairs. I just wanted to make that correction, if I could. Thank you. Mr. Bernheim: Okay. Well, I'm Steve Bernheim, and I live a couple of blocks from here at 216 — 4`h Avenue North. I am very gratified to have heard the comments from that gentleman here because I could not have said my own comments better myself. I'm very happy and shocked and surprised to find someone so familiar with what's going on to have said what he said, and I endorse his comments wholeheartedly. If you will excuse me, I have made many notes while so instead of making a coherent presentation, I'm just going to put out all of the comments that have occurred to me. Mr. Bernheim: You need more people to support downtown? Let me tell you, there has been no presentation here regarding any of the costs associated with an increased density. The premise offered that more people downtown makes a more vibrant place, that may or may not be true, depending on what else you've got going. But certainly, I am not an economist, for heaven's sake, but traffic impact, road where, police impact, fire protection impact, fire inspection impact, expensive construction impact, water consumption impact, electricity consumption impact, trash collection impact, there are many impacts that have never been mentioned in this presentation. So to blindly presume that more people downtown, especially in an area that's zoned for fewer people, presumably with the advice and consent of everybody involved, is presumptuous and incorrect. There's certainly no record for it, that's for sure. So if there's any appeal from this, all I'm saying is there's so many more factors to consider. Mr. Bernheim: Let me tell you the reason I appeared here. It's because I live adjacent to an RM-1.5 property. In fact, it's the property that I sued the City about and won because the plan for it was illegally approved as a 3-story over high building. I sued when it was approved, and I won. The building was never built, and in the big grand scheme of the downtown zoning, much to my surprise, it was rezoned to RM-1.5, and now I know why, because it's going to be RM-1.4. And it's this gentleman here, that said it. I didn't even know I was coming here, because I agreed with Mr. Schlumberger, that I'm a green guy. I believe the regulations in the City should require sustainable building. They should require self -generating electricity through solar panels. They should require thermal hot water. They should require orientation towards the sun instead of towards the streets. All kinds of things like that. But to blindly accept that selling more units for the builder is a better deal for the City, I couldn't have said it better myself than this gentleman here. Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-15 May 23, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page Page 239 of 444 Mr. Bernheim: Let me mention one other thing. Of course, there's no benefit to the public here. We're giving away public land. We're giving away a right of the people that have presumably said let's control or constrain the growth. We're giving it away for nothing. We're not asking them for anything. We're saying, yeah, increase the density, sell another unit. We're also assuming that what he says about oh, it's going to be more affordable. Notice, what did he say about the people that are here tonight? Let's talk about affordable housing. It exists already. He said, there is a need for it. But then he said it's obsolete. Well, the units that are coming in aint going to be $212,000 or whatever they are, or they aren't going to be $685 per month. I don't know what you pay, I really don't. Maybe it's $1,275, I don't know. But it's going to cost at least $675 no matter what kind of unit it is. So if you want to talk about affordability, you've got to see the figures. You cannot accept his claim that just because it's a ground floor unit adjacent to a garage that it's going to be affordable, without any definitions or without any evidence. You've got to see those numbers. Mr. Bernheim: So let me remind you... So anyway, I live adjacent to one of these 1.5 properties that I spent $20,000 suing over and winning and not getting any of my money back from attorney fees because only the builders get attorney fees if they are improperly screwed over by regulations rather than the citizens. So you have got to prove the prices. There's no benefit to the public. You give this away, it's a free gift. You're not asking for sidewalks. You're not asking for walk throughs. You are not asking for rights -of -way. You are not asking for energy conservation. You're not asking for nothing. You are giving it away. Mr. Bernheim: There's no analysis presented by the staff of the purpose of the RM-1.5 zone. Why did the City, you know it was never mentioned, why did the City, in the first place, zone this area 1.5? I have no idea, but I hope somebody would ask, and I hope the reason why it was done at 1.5 would be refuted, and there would be some reason for it. In fact, what I heard was, we can't really think of any reason to oppose this. I hope it would just be the opposite. We can't really think of any reason to do this. If it's zoned 1.5, there's no reason. Mr. Bernheim: Let me repeat. I'm a green guy, and I'm in favor of Mr. Schlumberger, of everything he said, except I don't believe the motive. The motive is to sell another unit. Let's not... And the hypocrisy, I mean I think that's proven by what he said about the current building stock. He said ... Chair Guenther: Mr. Bernheim, can you summarize please? Mr. Bernheim: Well, there's not been any analysis of the affects of the increase in the density. None. So, although I agree that... And there's no guarantee that the building's going to be the same by bulk. That's what you pointed out, and the other thing that he pointed out was that this just gets turned over as a 35% profit if he puts it on the market tomorrow. So I'm in favor of what he does. I like Mr. Michel, and I'm in favor of this guy, I really like him. But there's something screwy going on that needs... Sorry, my final summary comment is that any changes in the zoning, what this gentleman said is exactly right. Any changes in zoning should be comprehensive, not one by one. Because I live next to one, and if it works like this, I made a big mistake. Thanks. Chair Guenther: All right, Mr. Schlumberger, do you have a rebuttal? Mr. Schlumberger: Yes, I do. I'll just take this in order. First of all, we committed to the seller that it would be a couple of years. Given the process, to answer your question, if we had everything done, which we don't, we're a long ways from having anything done, it would be a year and a half from this date. So it's definitely out in the future. Mr. Schlumberger: Regarding Mr. Jacobson's comments. The Bel Air was built 12 years ago. Things were a lot more affordable back then. Land was a lot cheaper. They built their four units, and on a relative basis, that's ... The world has changed a lot. Some of the density issues that the second speaker, or the third speaker, Mr. Bernheim, addressed, I'd invite you all to pick this up, "Higher Density Development: Myth and Fact," and I'll put it into the record that this is something that ULI did, the Urban Land Institute, did with the National Multi Housing Council and the Sierra Club and the American Institute of Architects. I'm happy to give you a copy of it or direct you to get a copy. I agree that we shouldn't just willy nilly say we want more. The fact is that some of the impacts that you addressed are myths. Higher density does not, by definition, result in all of these bad things. Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-15 May 23, 2007 Page 6 Packet Page Page 240 of 444 Mr. Schlumberger: Getting back to Mr. Jacobson. We didn't pay $1.2 million. It's in the public record, you can figure that out. It's frustrating, because I knew this was going to come up, that you think that we're going to get a whole lot more money. It doesn't work that way. The bulk standards are not going to change. The price per square foot of developed, salable area is going to be the same. It's going to actually cost a little bit more, because if we build more units, we've got extra kitchens, extra bathrooms, extra service panels, extra heating systems. All those systems all cost money. So you could say that on a per square footage basis, it will go up a little bit, but it's really not going to result in any kind of windfall whatsoever, to us, the owner of that land. I do think there will be some measurable benefits, which are described in this pamphlet, to the public; not everybody, unfortunately. That is a nature of rising land prices. I don't have an answer for that. There's not an easy answer for that. There are no other incentives currently, like there are in other municipalities, to build affordable housing, and that's unfortunately. Mr. Chave: So were you entering that into the record? Mr. Schlumberger: Yes. Mr. Chave: Thank you. We'll take that. Mrs. Lundquist -Lin: Do you have a copy for me? Mr. Schlumberger: I don't. Do you use a computer? Mrs. Lundquist -Lin: I do, but I'm not on the internet. Mr. Schlumberger: Because if you ... Mrs. Lundquist -Lin: And I'm color blind and I wouldn't be able to see Mr. Schlumberger: Well, we'll see what we can do for you. Mrs. Lundquist -Lin: Thank you. Mr. Schlumberger: Okay. Mr. Chave: Just an additional staff comment, a one minute primer on Growth Management Act is probably appropriate. The issues Mr. Bernheim in particular brought up, impacts on infrastructure and so forth, I mean that's why you do a Comprehensive Plan for an area for a particular density range. In the City of Edmonds, this area was called out for high - density multi -family. In the Comprehensive Plan, it clearly says that either RM-2.4 or RM-1.5 may be appropriate, depending on other factors in that area. Historically, this particular property was zoned RM-2.4. However, when you do the Comprehensive Plan analysis, all the density ranges, infrastructure, concerns and so forth are considered at that time. Really, it's just the specific site circumstance that dictates what type of zone you ultimately choose. Mr. Chave: In this particular case, I mean, the Comprehensive Plan clearly identifies traffic patterns and so forth to support these kinds of densities. The facilities are there, the utilities are there. I mean, it's really, if you are going to put density in a place, you want to put it in activity centers and so forth, such as downtown. If you're not going to put the density there, I mean where ... Under growth management, the idea is you really want to focus it in urban areas where the urban services are available. Otherwise, you're only alternative is sprawl and pushing it out in the areas where the impacts are severe. That's one of the real hallmarks of growth management is to try and focus those kinds of density developments in areas that the infrastructure is in place. That's downtown Edmonds. Mr. Chave: Now, as far as character of the area, visual impact, all those other things, Edmonds is fairly unique. Usually, when you have higher density zones, the way you get that additional density is through height or some kind of expansion of the bulk and so forth. Our multi -family zones, I would venture, are fairly unique in that there is no difference between RM- 2.4 and RM-1.5 in terms of height, bulk, and any other visual or light, air and so forth type of impact. It's a very peculiar Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-15 May 23, 2007 Page 7 Packet Page Page 241 of 444 situation in some sense, and it's something that the City may want to take a look at in coming years. Reevaluate how our multi -family zones are set up. Mr. Chave: So, at this point, what we're left with is, what's the difference between RM-2.4 and 1.5, what is the effect of that change? The only affect that we can identify is number of units, period. If the number of units that you are talking about really has no material impact on the infrastructure, it's very hard to identify any reason why it shouldn't be approved because you also have policies in the Comprehensive Plan that talk about encouraging density in downtown, encouraging more dwellings and so forth, more people living downtown to support the businesses and so forth, and actually some of that is cited on Page 5 of the Staff Report in the discussion of specific Comprehensive Plan policies. For example, it says afford a mix of uses downtown which include a variety of housing, commercial and cultural activities, provide greater residential opportunities and personal services with downtown, especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population. Those are the kinds of things that factor into your housing choices and the variety of densities that you try to provide. So I think that's some of the framework and reasoning that goes into this type of a change. Board Member Works: Can I ask a question of Rob? Chair Guenther: Yes. Board Member Works: There's eight small apartment units there now, but looking at the staff report, it said the proposed zoning change would increase the number of dwelling units permitted on the property from four to seven. Were the eight put in a long time ago? Is this something that's prehistoric? Mr. Chave: I think the evidence in the testimony was it was built in the 50's. Board Member Works: Right, built in the 50's and it's always been eight apartments, I guess. So if the owner were to do anything with it, they couldn't put eight apartments three now. Is that correct? Mr. Chave: No, if they were taking the building down, at that point, they have to conform with what the zoning allows. If there were refurbishing it without taking the building down, they could keep the eight units. Board Member Works: They could keep eight apartments. But if they take... Mr. Chave: Once the use is gone ... Board Member Works: Once the use is down, they can either have four or seven, depending on the zone? Mr. Chave: Yes. Board Member Works: So the eight apartments are non -conforming, is that the term you would use? Mr. Chave: Yes, essentially, the use would be non -conforming. Board Member Young: It's like RM.S. Mr. Chave: Affordable housing is an issue, but unfortunately, the City cannot control on any given site how many units, what the price of those units, etc. etc. I have to agree with Mr. Schlumberger, there isn't a direct, exact relationship between square footage, number of units and price, because whenever you add units, you do increase the costs, so there's an incremental increase in cost. But overall, you cannot ... If you're charging $600,000 for five units, you are not going to be able to $600,000 for six units because six units in the space of five means the units are smaller, and people are not going to pay the same price for a smaller unit. Board Member Young: I think we understand all of that, and I understand now why there are eight units there now. Whatever happens, our choice is how much fewer than eight units there are going to be. That to me is really the only issue. Mr. Bernheim brings up some good points, but environmentally, let's face it, whatever they build there with the current Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-15 May 23, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page Page 242 of 444 building code is going to be better than a building built in 1955. I know, I have a house built in 1951, and it's costing me a fortune just to bring it up to code. The impacts, which if we were talking about a net change and a net increase, aren't going to occur because we are going to take eight units there, and the activity level is not going to change noticeably, measurably, because there are going to be seven. But what we do have is eight affordable units right now being replaced by four or seven. They are going to be substantially less affordable than the eight right there now. However, the ... The new construction may be affordable by current Edmonds' standards, but it's certainly going to be less affordable than what's there now. That, to me, is what's troubling. Board Member Young: I need to know if we are at least not going to get into trouble over this or is there something that can be done to preserve possibly the eight last affordable apartment units in the City of Edmonds. I'm thinking that the answer is probably now. I'm not trying to take anybody's property rights away. Somebody bought the property and it's zoned A and they want it B. There aren't going to be any other impacts, but you know, we've lost eight units, and you're going to replace it with seven of totally different people than who can afford to live there now. I don't think there's anything we can do about it, unfortunately, but we do need it on the record, because that's something the City's going to have to address at some point, especially in view of our discussion earlier this evening, for which I apologize for being late, couldn't get away, the bus was late. Mr. Chave: What the City has done is, you know, in certain instances, they've worked with the Snohomish County Housing Authority, for example, to purchase some fairly large complexes. In other words, the Housing Authority purchased them and are maintaining them as lower -income projects. However, we can't do that everywhere. As you say, it's unfortunate, but it's not something that the rezone is going to address one way or another. Board Member Young: No, this is true. The rezone is not the context for trying to address this, but as you are aware, Seattle is wrestling with the idea of putting a cap on the number of condo conversions that can happen in any given year. You know, this is just a classic case, and nobody's a bad guy in any of this. It's just the way things are working. Maybe that's something we need to take up as an individual work item later, if nothing else. Mr. Chave: Right, and the one positive thing is, actually, the Housing Authority has been more active in recent years than ever before. So there is that one positive aspect, but unfortunately, they're just not going to be able to have the wherewithal to purchase every single unit or complex that is affordable. Board Member Works: Has there been any study about the loss of affordable apartments, in particular, in Edmonds. Mr. Chave: No Edmonds specific. Board Member Works: You don't know if this is ... Well we'll have to do something here, but obviously, we're not going to ... I just wondered if there's any kind of a study that would address this. Are there fewer or if there's going to be so much development on Highway 99, will there be more. Mr. Chave: Snohomish County Tomorrow, that sort of County -wide umbrella agency, has tried to work on affordable housing, monitoring of housing trends, all those kinds of things. I think they're gearing up to do another study in the next year or so. So it's something that is a broad concern across the County, but I don't think anyone has really come up with a master solution. It's sort of small solutions over time. For example, trying to work with the Housing Authority whenever possible. Board Member Freeman: Can I say something? Chair Guenther: Yes. Board Member Freeman: I agree, too, that affordable housing is a big problem here in Edmonds. But I think we have to be realistic, too. We have very high land prices, and especially when you get in downtown Edmonds. I think we tried to address that in changing the zoning along Route 104, so we could have less expensive housing there and on Route 99, and maybe in these neighborhood centers that we're going to get around to talking about. But this is in a prime location, and it's beautiful there, I know, but it is very, very expensive. I think that we have to move with the times. If you tried to refurbish Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-15 May 23, 2007 Page 9 Packet Page Page 243 of 444 this building to keep the eight apartments, it's going to cost a small fortune anyway, and they wouldn't be... It is rental, I take it, rental housing in there? They wouldn't be renting for the same price if they had to be brought up to code and refurbished. So I am in favor of this rezone request. Chair Guenther: Are there any other comments? You have a comment? Board Member Young: Let me just clarify one thing. I totally agree with you, and I wasn't suggesting that we not grant it to preserve affordable housing. But there's a difference between feeling like you have to vote for something and supporting it. I'm going to vote yes on the application, but that doesn't mean I support it you know, what do you want to call it, philosophically or whatever. Chair Guenther: I would like to have the deliberations after I close the public hearing. I haven't closed the public hearing and you're starting to deliberate. Board Member Young: Sorry chief. Chair Guenther: Hey, I've got the rules. Board Member Young: That's not an exparte communication is it, no, okay. Chair Guenther: I'm closing the public hearing now, and now I'm opening it up for Board deliberations, which I feel we have already started somewhat. Board Member Freeman: Sorry I jumped the gun. Chair Guenther: That's alright. One of my comments is that, as an architect, I'm aware that buildings, unless you deliberately set out to do that, aren't designed to last forever. There's just a useful life. I believe this building is 50+ years old, perhaps, and it's worn out. It's met its useful life. What was allowed to be built then nowhere meets the code now as far as energy code or trying to keep it insulated. I imagine the wiring is inadequate and the plumbing, I'm now sure if the copper pipes are starting to leak, and no telling how many times the toilets have been replaced. But there's just a useful life for buildings, and you have to let them go at times and replace them. I think that's where we are right now with this, also. So the buildings going to be replaced, but to replace to A can't be done. If we are trying to at least maintain our density that we have in the downtown, you would have to change the zoning of that just to keep the density somewhere close. I would support this. Board Member Bowman: I'm in favor of it. In our last few meetings, we discussed some rezoning issues, and several times I think, affordable housing came up; that there are more apartments being added to the inventory along 104, so I don't see the impact personally. Board Member Works: I will support it also. I think it is unfortunate that we are reducing the apartment stock in downtown, but that's out of compliance, and we're going from eight apartments to five, between four and seven. So I don't see what the impacts are going to be other than some maybe less. So I'll support it for all of the reasons given in the analysis by the Planning Department. Board Member Freeman: Can I just add something? Board Member Young: I already deliberated. Board Member Freeman: I said I would support it and gave one or two reasons, but I agree with the analysis given by the Planning Department, too. I do not want to see the stock of housing go in the wrong direction in the downtown area because it is definitely being stated by Mark, what's his name, the planner, Hinshaw, who is a well reputed planner, that we do need to increase the number of people living within a 15-minute walk of the downtown area. I do believe that, and I think he gives very good reasons for it. So I am all for increasing the density in that downtown area because if we don't do it there where it Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-15 May 23, 2007 Page 10 Packet Page Page 244 of 444 is already zoned multi -family, we're going to have to start looking at the single-family residences within a 15-minute walk, and that's going to be a lot more difficult to do than to just rezone this from 2.4 to 1.5. Chair Guenther: Do I hear a motion? Board Member Works: I move for approval to send this package to the City Council with approval. It's file R-2007-15, and it's a change from residential multi -family 2.4 to residential multi -family RM-1.5 Board Member Freeman: I'll second that. Mr. Chave: Do you want to base that on the recommendations and analysis in the staff report? Board Member Works: Sorry. Based on the recommendations that are in the staff report and the additional comments that have been made by the Board. Board Member Freeman: Can I second that now? Chair Guenther: You may second it. Board Member Freeman: I second it. Chair Guenther: All in favor say aye. Board Member Freeman: Aye. Board Member Works: Aye. Board Member Young: Aye. Board Member Bowman: Aye. Chair Guenther: Opposed. Passes unanimously. I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS. Karin Noyes, Transcriber Date Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-15 May 23, 2007 Page 11 Packet Page Page 245 of 444 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD From: Mike Clugston Planner Date: Planning Board Meeting of May 23, 2007 File: R-2007-15 Application by Michel Construction to rezone the subject property located at 125 2nd Avenue North from "Residential Multi Family — 2.4" to "Residential Multi Family RM — 1.5". Hearing Date, Time, and Place: May 23, 2007, at 7:00 PM, Edmonds City Council Chambers Public Safety Complex 250 - 5th Avenue North TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 2 A. APPLICATION................................................................................................................................2 B. RECOMMENDATION....................................................................................................................2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................ 2 A. SITE DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................. 2 B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA).................................................................................. 3 C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE ............................................ 3 D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN...................................................................................................................... 5 III. ATTACHMENTS.............................................................................................................................. 6 IV. PARTIES OF RECORD................................................................................................................... 6 City of Edmonds cza Planning Board Packet Page Page 246 of 444 I. INTRODUCTION A. APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Michel Construction 2. Site Location: 125 2nd Avenue North (see Attachment 1) 3. Request: Application for a rezone from "Residential Multi Family — 2.4" to "Residential Multi Family RM — 1.5" (see Attachments i 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) Chapter 20.100 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). b. RECOMMENDATION Based on Findings of Fact, Analysis, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to APPROVE the request for a rezone from "Residential Multi Family — 2.4" to "Residential Multi Family RM— 1.5". II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development and Zoning a. Facts: (1) Size and Shape: The parcel under review consists of approximately 10,800 square feet (sf) fronting on the west side of 2nd Avenue North (see Attachments 1 and 2). (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with an 8-unit multi- family structure of approximately 4,448 A (3) Zonin;: Current zoning of the subject property is Residential Multi Family, RM-2.4 (see Attachment 1). 2. Neighboring Development and Zoning a. Facts: (1) North: The parcel immediately to the north of the subject parcel is zoned RM-2.4 and contains a 4-unit condominium. R-2007-15 125 2nd RM rezone staff report.doc 2 Packet Page Page 247 of 444 (2) East: Across 2nd Avenue from the subject parcel is the Edmonds Post Office and parking lot. (3) South: A commercial office building is sited adjacent to the south and is zoned BD-2. (4) West: Across an alley are located several single-family residences located on parcels zoned RS-6. B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. a. Fact: A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on April 11, 2007. Because this is a non -project action, further environmental review will be required with any subsequent requests for specific project approvals. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. ECDC Section 20.40 (Rezones) a. Facts: (i) The RM zoning classification is included in Attachment 3 for reference. (ii) The applicant has submitted material in support of their application (see Attachment 4). Their discussion addresses the factors to be considered for a change in zoning. (iii) 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. R-2007-15 125 2nd RM rezone staff report.doe 3 Packet Page Page 248 of 444 b. Analysis: (i) Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for "Multi Family — High Density" use. Both the existing RM-2.4 and the proposed RM-1.5 categories are consistent with that designation. [2006 Comprehensive Plan, pg. 16] (ii) Zoning Ordinance. The purposes of the RM zone are given in ECDC 16.30 (see Attachment 3). According to 16.30.000.A, the RM zone serves "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. " With respect to site development standards, all bulk and setback requirements are identical between the RM-2.4 and the RM-1.5 zones, as are the uses permitted in each zone. The only difference is the minimum lot area requirements per dwelling unit. The RM-2.4 zone requires a minimum lot area of 2,400 sf while RM-1.5 requires 1,500 sf. The result of the proposed rezone would be to increase the potential number of dwelling units on the 10,800 sf parcel from 4 to 7. (iii) Surrounding Area. The subject parcel is in a mixed use area containing multi -family and office structures, public uses, and single- family residences. In general, more intensive uses lie to the east and south with less intensive uses to the north and west. The use on the subject parcel will remain multi -family, as it currently exists. (iv) Changes. The character of the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel has been relatively stable. A change in zoning is pending for parcels on the west side of Sunset Avenue, south of Bell Street, which is a block to the west. The proposed zoning change will increase the number of dwelling units permitted on the property from 4 to 7 units, but this is still less than the existing 8 units located there. Because of this, impact on the surrounding area should be minimal. A general intensification of density has occurred over the years, with newer projects replacing some lower density development. This overall trend is consistent with city comprehensive plan policies encouraging more residents within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center in order to focus development and support the City's downtown commercial area. (v) Suitability. The property in question is economically and physically consistent with the descriptions in the existing Multi Family — High Density Comprehensive Plan designation and in the existing RM-2.4 and proposed RM-1.5 zoning classifications. (vi) Value. It is expected that additional value will accrue to the subject property owners since additional intensity of use will be available to them as the result of the change from RM-2.4 to RM-1.5. Additional value may also be added to the city since, if redevelopment occurs, additional dwelling units will be permitted on the property, thereby potentially adding value to the tax base. R-2007-15 125 2nd RM rezone staff report.doc Packet Page Page 249 of 444 c. Conclusions• (i) The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the subject property. (ii) The proposed rezone is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. (iii)Based on the further facts and analysis contained above, planning staff concludes that the proposal meets all of the criteria for a change in zoning. D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I. Comprehensive Plan Policies: a. Facts: (i) This site is currently designated "Multi Family — High Density" (see discussion under C.l.b.(i), above). Excerpts from the Downtown/Waterfront and Residential Development sections of the Comprehensive Plan are included in Attachment 5. Policies for multi family development address compatible uses and the avoidance of negative impacts while encouraging a range of housing types and densities. Relevant policies for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center include: E. H. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. E.12. Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. E.15. Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population. b. Analysis: (i) Upzoning the subject parcel from RM-2.4 to RM-1.5 provides for increased densities which is a stated goal in the Comprehensive Plan. Impacts should be minimal if the change in zoning is approved, since the height and bulk of buildings will be unchanged. The downtown street grid system and available amenities (sidewalks, transit, available parks and recreation opportunities) support the intensity of development that is proposed by the rezone. c. Conclusions: (i) The proposal is consistent with the policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the "Multiple" district designated for the subject property. E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE R-2007-15 125 2nd RM rezone staff report.doc 5 Packet Page Page 250 of 444 No comments were received from City departments reviewing the proposal. F. PUBLIC COMMENTS No letters or written comments were received at the time this report was completed. III. ATTACHMENTS 1. AerialNicinity Map. 2. Comprehensive plan and zoning vicinity maps. 3. ECDC zoning regulations for RM zone. 4. Supporting material submitted by the applicant 5. Comprehensive Plan policies. IV. PARTIES OF RECORD Michel Construction 7907 212" St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 R-2007-15 125 2nd RM rezone staff report.doc Packet Page Page 251 of 444 �w `- " 4p. 1. • r y, -`` ATTACHMENT 1 �. File Ho_ R-2007-1 Packet Page Page 252 of 444 rX C U. CL E T V 0 E V W N�mi 0 ■ww r.ij cry "J►y 1 A LL LL ATTACHMENT 2 File No. R-2007-1 Packet Page Page 253 of 444 * k k k CL § § § 9 2 m d � � � � Nt LO _ \ k L a LL: $1 b ` ƒ k k k � # q k LTk § R § k Packet Page Page 254of 444 Edmonds Community Development Code 16.30.010 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 vari- ety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-fam- ily residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment; B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. 16.30.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Multiple dwellings; 2. Single-family dwellings; 3. Retirement homes; 4. Group homes for the disabled, foster family homes and state licensed group homes for foster care of minors; provided, however, that halfway houses and group homes licensed for juvenile offenders are not permitted uses in a residential zone of the city; 5. Boarding houses and rooming houses; 6. Housing for low income elderly in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.25 ECDC; 7. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020; 8. Primary schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 9. Local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 10. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. All permitted secondary uses in the RS zone, if in conjunction with a single-family dwelling; 2. Home occupations, subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.20 ECDC; 3. The keeping of one domestic animal; 4. The following accessory uses: a. Private parking, b. Private swimming pools and other private recreational facilities, 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 con- junction 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 subsec- tion (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 facili- ties; 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; ATTACHMENT 3 File No. R-2007-15 16-10.1 Packet Page Page 255 of 444 (Revised 6/05) 16.30.020 5. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facili- ties 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 require- ments of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 8. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the require- ments of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Condi- tional 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 resi- dents thereof; 2. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. [Ord. 3453 § 2, 2003; Ord. 3353 § 2, 2001; Ord. 3184 § 2, 1998; Ord. 3090 §§ 4, 5, 1996; Ord. 2820 §§ 1, 2, 1991; Ord. 2818 § 1, 1991; Ord. 2673 § 2, 1988; Ord. 2458 § 2, 1984; Ord. 2283 §§ 2, 3, 1982]. 16.30.020 Subdistricts. There are established three subdistricts of the RM zone, in order to provide site develop- ment standards for areas which differ in topog- raphy, location, existing development and other factors. These subdistricts shall be known as the RM-1.5, RM-2.4, and RM-3 zones. (Revised 6/05) Packet Page Page 256 of 444 16-10.2 Edmonds Community Development Code 16.30.040 16.30.030 Site development standards. A. Table. Minimum Lot Minimum Area Per Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Parking Sub Dwelling Unit4 Street Side Rear Maximum Coverage (Spaces District (Sq. Ft.) Setback Setback Setback Heightl,5 (%) Per Unit) RM-1.5 1,500 15, 10' 15' 25' 45% 2 RM-2.4 2,400 15' 10' 15' 25' 45% 2 RM-3 3,000 15'2 15'2 15' 25' 45% 2 t Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. 2 RS setbacks may be used for single-family homes on lots of 10,000 square feet or less in all RM zones. 3 See Chapter I7.50 ECDC for specific parking requirements. 4 See definition of townhouse. 5 Maximum height for accessory structures if 15 feet. B. Signs and Design Review. See Chapters E. Corner Lots. Corner lots shall have no 20.10 and 20.60 ECDC for regulations. rear setback; all setbacks other than street set- C. Location of Parking. No parking spaces backs shall be side setbacks. [Ord. 2559, 1986; may be located within the street setback. [Ord. Ord. 2526 § 4, 19851. 2559, 1986; Ord. 2424, 1984]. 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 set- back distances and locations in special situa- tions. 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. Eaves and chimneys may project into a required setback not more than 30 inches. Uncovered and unen- closed 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. 16-11 Packet Page Page 257 of 444 (Revised 3/07) 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 2/ 1 /07 R2/14/07gjz ORDINANCE. NO. 3627 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 1630 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 Plaiuiing Board in this regard, following a public hearing held before the Plamming 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 It _ The Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended by the repeal of Chapter 16.30 RM-Multiple Residential in order to incorporate provisions relating to a new zone to read as follows: (WSS651576DOGA/00006900000/) - I - Packet Page Page 258 of 444 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_ i _ 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; S. 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;t/00006.900000/) - 2 - Packet Page Page 259 of 444 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 l . Offices, other than local public facilities; tWSS651576.DOC,1/0000690000W) - 3 - Packet Page Page 260 of 444 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. I. 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,I/00006900000/) - 4 - Packet Page Page 261 of 444 16.30.030 Site development standards. A. Table. Minimum Sub Lot Area Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Minimum' District Per Dwelling Street Side Rear Maximum Height Coverage Parking (Spaces Unit4 Setback Setback Setback (%) Per Unit) (Sq- Ft-) RM-1.5 1,500 15' t0' i5' 25'f5 45% 2 RM-EW 11500 15' 10, 15, 25' 5.6,7 45% 2 RM-2.4 2,400 15' , El 15' 25'''5 45% 2 RM-3 3,000 15'22 15` 25'' S 45% 2 ' Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. 2 RS setbacks may be used for single-family homes on lots of 10,000 square feet or less in all RM zones. 3 See Chapter 17.50 ECDC for specific parking requirements- 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 Ieast 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 lowest 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. 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. IWSS651576.DOC;11000W900000/I - 5 - Packet Page Page 262 of 444 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 {wsS651576.DOC;1/00006.900000/) - 6 - Packet Page Page 263 of 444 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_DOQ1/00006.900000t) - % - Packet Page Page 264 of 444 E. To meet the goals of the Growth Management Act and the City of Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan for housing diversity and economical vitality. 16.50.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. I . 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; $. 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); It. 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;1/00006.900000/} Packet Page Page 265 of 444 2. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted or conditional use; 3. Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility meeting the criteria listed under subsections (C)(11) through (14) of this section, except that the facility may also be located along a designated transit route in addition to an arterial or collector street. C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Commercial parking lots; 2. Wholesale uses; 3. Hotels and motels; 4 Amusement establishments; 5 Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions; 6. Drive-in businesses; 7. Laboratories; 8 Fabrication of light industrial products; 9. Convenience stores; 10. Day-care centers; 11. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums; 12. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033; 13. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 14. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit_ 1. Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted or conditional use; 2. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC. (WSS65I576.Q0C 100006.900000/) - 9 - Packet Page Page 266 of 444 16.50.020 Site development standards. A. Table. Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Street Side Rear Height .Maximum Floor Area Setback Setback Setback 3 sq. ft. per BC None None None None' None' 2502 sq, ft. of tot area BC - 3 sq_ ft. per Edmonds None None None None' None' 35" a sq.ft. of lot Way 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 tine 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 further 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 (WSS651576.BOCJ100006.900000/) - 10 - Packet Page Page 267 of 444 (e) For any buildings fronting on Edmonds Way, the maximum height of the wail or facade 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 mill MIN -11 1Q-11;1 U.i ,ueena FORM IN I li >!!9� r1 s s s �It s . ■ H. M!Q( MI. !1.•9, M11.'�1 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: I. 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_ (WSS651576_DOC;I/00006.900000/) - I I - Packet Page Page 268 of 444 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: I _ 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; {WSS651576.DOC;1/00006.900000/) - 12 - Packet Page Page 269 of 444 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. APPRO 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 IWSS651576-DOCi/00006.900000/; - 13 - Packet Page Page 270 of 444 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 (WSS651576.DQC,1/00006900000/) - 14 - Packet Page Page 271 of 444 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHING T OiNry COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH S.S. City of Edmonds; -passed ordir the cgntent of Saidordinance" as follows; AN ORDINANCE -:OF THECir TON, AMENDING CHAPTER: DENTIifL AND CHAPTER Bust ES IN DER -To AN ES AEGARDING ALONG EDMONDS WAY'AND SAME BEGOME 'EFFEf The-fulbtext Of is Ordinanoe DATED.ttris 21st day of Febru Published February 25, 2007CITY The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State, that said newspaper has been approved as a legal WC,a WasENOhington ton newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice s; Washrngton - 107, tbe: City.Counal of - the ae No;3627 A"summary of >IsUrig'of the title,, provides F EOMONOS, Wq$NlN(,- Summary of ordinance No. 3627 30 RM�(uIULTIPIF_ Ri=st- 50 R BC G- MM,uNtF:Y City of Edmonds CO : RgiAT�E CERTAIN /ING- -Rehi uacfrrw--rT�. -- -. G A TIME YVt-tEN,TtfE mailed upon reques.L 07_ — — C SANDRA.S:-CHASE a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition ofsaid paper on the following days and times, namely: February 25, 2007 F-i1 Y L MAR 0 5 2007 EDMUvli6 k�j i Y CLERK Account Name: City of Edmonds and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and swum to before me this day of February, 2007 Notary Publi and for/the State of Washington, residing COtrnty. Account Number 101416 --- Principal 26th P gtt5Sl a' "'USLIC 9- t 7-200g Order Number: E Packet Page Page 272 of 444 1272 d Re -Zone Application INTRODUCTION FEB 2 7 2007 The subject site, currently addressed as 125 2nd Ave N., contains approximately 10,800 sf and is located on the west side of 2"d Avenue N. between Bell and Main Streets in downtown Edmonds. Existing improvements include a 4,448 SF two- story brick apartment building constructed in 1955 that contains eight 1 BR/1 ba apartment units that are each approximately 528 sf. These improvements are near the end of their useful life and are visually unappealing and functionally obsolete. Adjoining land use immediately to the north includes the 4-unit Bella Vista Condominium, built in 1992, and a three story (40 foot high) 11,000 sf office building immediately to the south. Land use to the west, across the alley, is a mix of new and old single family and office/restaurant uses, whereas land use immediately east across 2"d Avenue is the downtown Post Office building and its parking lot. This application seeks to rezone the subject from RM 2.4 to RM 1.5 in accordance with the site's high -density multi -family Comprehensive Plan designation. This will increase the allowed unit count from 4 units to 7 units, however, the physical and market constraints of the site would likely result in a maximum of 5 units, thus increasing the density by only one unit, resulting in an effective density of 2,160 sf per unit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject parcels have been identified on the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (CECP) as high -density multi -family residential (RM) for at least the last ten years. The CECP specifically addresses rezone compatibility issues by establishing policy that RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets, such as those present at the subject site, and as a buffer between single family and higher intensity uses. The CECP stated goals, amongst many others, also include the desire to provide high -quality housing and diversity compatible with surrounding uses. Rezoning the site in accordance with its higher density CECP designation will help implement those goals and hence be consistent with the CECP. ATTACHMENT 4 File No. R-2007-15 Page 1 of 7 Packet Page Page 273 of 444 1272 d Re -Zone Application Specific and relevant policies stated within the CECP that are addressed by this application are as follows: Growth Management (pp. 2-3 CECP) A. General The proposed zoning change adheres to policy recognizing Edmond's population demographics and increasing demand for high quality multi -family housing, especially for an age cohort that requires less exterior (yard) maintenance and greater security than that found in lower density neighborhoods. The CECP also recognizes that development within Edmonds will largely occur in the form of redevelopment and infill projects such as the subject. B. Goals B.1. Citizen participation has already influenced the growth pattern of the community and of the CECP. This will not be altered by our proposal. B.2. The small size of this proposal will not measurably alter established levels of community services. B.3. This rezone proposal recognizes the residential dominance of Edmonds. It is a residential site and any future project will be residential. B.4. Values B.4.a. Efforts to preserve light should be easily met since the proposed zoning has identical bulk standards as the existing zoning. The only change would be the unit count. B.4.b. Urban privacy will be maintained through existing development standards that are very similar between existing and proposed zoning as well as compared to current use. B.4.c. View, open space, shorelines and other natural features will be preserved in the context of the small redevelopment project envisioned for the site. B.4.d. Air pollution will not be affected by rezoning. Water polluti6n would be mitigated upon future development through storm water detention improvements. Noise and visual pollution would be improved upon the redevelopment of the currently obsolete and non-descript improvements. B.5. Multi -family development, by definition, is intended to promote and balance the range of income and age groups that reside in a given area. RM-1.5 will promote greater affordability than lower densities since it will result in an additional developable unit and greater unit variety. Page 2 of 7 Packet Page Page 274 of 444 127 2"d Re -Zone Application Residential Development (CECP pp. 50-58) The next directly relevant section of the CECP that pertains to this application includes the housing goals stated on pages 53-55. B.1. Any future development will be scrutinized in the architectural design (ADB) review process to ensure harmony with its surroundings. B.2. Removal of the existing improvements will improve neighborhood aesthetics. B.2. Limited view encroachments may occur; however, any new construction will be minimally larger or higher than the existing improvements. The number of impacted neighbors will also be limited since the easterly land use is the Post Office parking lot. Sites further east slope upward, hence the westerly views will be unaffected. B.3. Retention of the existing apartment building is no longer economically feasible. The existing improvements have been in service since 1955 (52 years) and now suffer from several outdated systems. The plumbing has expensive problems, the electrical system is outdated, the parking is insufficient, and the units are awkwardly configured. This older apartment housing on the subject site no longer contributes to the parcel's highest and best use, nor is it architecturally significant. B.S. Protection of residential areas B.5.a. Privacy will be minimally impacted since the existing improvements would be replaced with a similar sized, although lower density project. B.5.b. Traffic will directly access the subject. B.5.c. Property values will be enhanced due to the aesthetic appeal of any new construction. B.5.d. The small size of any subsequent project will minimally impact private property from adverse environmental issues. B.9. Any subsequent residential development will be compatible with natural constraints. Page 3 of 7 Packet Page Page 275 of 444 127 2" d Re -Zone Application C. Housing goals — the subject rezone will slightly improve the available variety of unit sizes and prices by increasing the potential unit density of the site. This rezone will also implement the intent and goals of the Comprehensive Plan; in that the RM-1.5 zoning will assist the City of Edmonds in meeting its state mandated growth management goals requiring higher density residential urban development CA. PRD. The small size and lack of critical areas at the subject site does not encourage PRD development. C.2. Multiple Residential C.2.a. The subject site is located near an arterial street, thus it meets the stated goal of the CECP. C.2.b. Compatibility C.2.b.i. View impacts to surrounding should be small given the Post Office parking lot use to the east. C.2.b.ii. The height allowed in the proposed RM 1.5 zone is the same as that allowed in the current RM 2.4 zone. Similarly, building heights allowed in the RS 6 zone to the west are the same at 25'. C.2.b.iii. We believe the future design idiom will complement surrounding development and be vetted in the ADB process. C.2.c. Building Design Policies will be reviewed at an appropriate time and will reflect the intent of the CECP and ECDC. Community Culture, Urban Design, Utilities and Capital Facilities Elements (pp 70-100 CECP) This zoning application recognizes and responds to the changing demographics of Edmonds and the fact that there is very little developable multi -family land available. Other areas within the City react to the cultural needs of the community, whereas this site has limited, if any, cultural nexus relevant to the general populace. Urban design issues will be dealt with in the ADB review and permitting process. The small size of this site has little, if any, impact on the Utilities and Capital Facilities Elements of the CECP. Traffic impacts under the five -unit proposal will actually be less than the current use, so there are no traffic related concurrency issues associated with the rezone. Page 4 of 7 Packet Page Page 276 of 444 127 2nd Re -Zone Application ZONING ORDINANCE Chapter 16.00 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) describes the purpose of the zoning districts. These purposes include the alignment of compatible uses and to provide a means to implement the Comprehensive Plan. (the complete text of the current ECDC is incorporated herein by reference) Compatibility is evident due to the surrounding uses and the fact that the subject site buffers higher intensity uses to the south from lower intensity uses to the north and west. This rezone proposal is consistent with the purposes described within the ECDC Residential Zoning Ordinance sections 16.10.000 and 16.30.000. Specifically, the rezone will result in a greater potential variety of designs and units. Given the site dimensions, this rezone will likely result in one additional unit, at ground level, than would otherwise be permitted under the current zoning. Another aspect that justifies the rezoning recognizes the rather "blunt instrument" nature of the dwelling unit density element by itself, especially as pertains to the RM 2.4 designation. The City of Edmonds has two comprehensive plan designations for multi -family — high density and medium density. In practical conflict, the actual zoning classifications for RM 2.4 is considered to meet both Comp Plan designations, presumably because it straddles these two density designation — even though there is only a 600 sf difference between the RM 2.4 and RM 3.0 versus 900 SF between RM 2.4 and RM 1.5. The RM 2.4 designation begs the question as to its applicability in a downtown location. Downtown zoning should certainly reflect a higher allowed density so as to increase the number of residents who can enjoy a pedestrian oriented environment, support downtown businesses and increase the affordability of downtown living. SURROUNDING USES The area surrounding the subject site is comprised of commercial, multi -family, and single family residential development. This nominal zoning change would complement surrounding uses. Any subsequent development proposal, post rezoning, will address building design issues. Any future project will likely have very similar massing and bulk standards as the Bella Vista Condominium adjacent to the north. Page 5 of 7 Packet Page Page 277 of 444 127 2nd Re -Zone Application CHANGES The continuing CECP high -density multi -family designation and the surrounding use along 2nd Avenue are the primary factors justifying this zoning change. Other changes justifying this rezone application include the State and County mandated policies requiring Cities to provide their share of higher density urban infill development, as well as the obvious decline of the existing improvements. These properties have been held in stasis for a long time, slowly eroding in improved value until such time as the present when their underlying land value and Comprehensive Plan designation supports higher density multi -family development. It should also be noted that other RM zoned parcels have been taken out of inventory and/or developed to a lower density than intended on the CECP. These include the two office buildings under construction at 220th & 76th Avenue , which were zoned for 9 and 27 units, respectively; the 8 unit at 82" d PI, which could have been 10 units; and the 6-unit condo developed behind Beck's funeral home, which could have been 8 units. The conversion of the Old Woodway Elementary School from residential zoned land to Public Park will also remove a substantial inventory of land previously earmarked to meet the City's GMA obligations. In addition, the recent implementation of the BD zoning and its elimination of a third story severely reduces the feasibility of developing new residences within downtown, thus eliminating an untold number of potential units in the immediate area. SUITABILITY The property is economically suited for redevelopment under its current zoning; however, the site size and configuration would then result in four units over at grade parking. These four units would all be rather large and hence more expensive given current market conditions. Adding an additional, ground level unit would increase the economic viability of a project and benefit the community with a lower cost unit at ground level. They are no adverse impacts to public health, safety, or welfare related to granting this rezone application. Page 6 of 7 Packet Page Page 278 of 444 127 2nd Re -Zone Application VALUE The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare gain be measured in several ways. These gains include the improved aesthetic, fire safety, covered parking, and modern construction values realized by a new project. An additional public value will also be the ground level unit that will be more affordable than the upper units. Comparing these benefits to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owner is more difficult. The underlying land value has long been based on the presumption that it will eventually be zoned in accordance with its Comprehensive Plan designation. Thus the market has already factored in any value increase. An additional public benefit results from meeting the state mandated GMA requirements and replacing RM zoned land that has been lost to other uses. Attachments 1. Vicinity and Zoning Map with Property lines 2. Topographical survey 3. Aerial photo 4. DNS, Critical Areas, Environmental Checklist & Traffic Study 5. Adjacent owners and mailing labels Page 7 of 7 Packet Page Page 279 of 444 1. Vicinity and Zoning Naps Packet Page Page 280 of 444 0 Li 1 1 ! J C Packet Page Page 281 of 444 . Topographical cal urvey Packet Page Page 282 of 444 �z- U \ } G?6 /2\ w \ \) \/ \\` ƒ\( - / ri.\�` - - e �j\} j 0 &, §q;§ ;m, 7\{0 Packet Page Page aayk4 . Aerial Photo Packet Page Page 284 of 444 4. ITS, Critical arrears, Environmental Checklist & Traffic Study Packet Page Page 286 of 444 Name of Proposed Project: Owner/Appli ant: Nt� C'01,5-cr lq6 2 i 2nn, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS'}' q , 3 W—A-44 Name 7g07 427-� S i Al, 111' Oe Street/Mailing Address / City State Zip Telephone:) CITY OF EDMONDS WORK SHEET Applicant Contact Person: Name -7 Ia7 t;:? � 57, S, Iv. - #/6� S4eet/Mailing Address ee& ,1�„ . LSO City r State Zip Telephone:.. rat!^ �`/Gj 02, // Traffic Engineer who prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis: Firm Name 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Contact Name a. Street address (if known): (or '2h4p( AV,5( A/C b. Location: Telephone (Attach a vicinity map and site plan.) c. Specify existing land use: Aff — l� 00 d. Specify proposed type and size of development: !!2 0A11? 6"0 e. When will the project begin construction and when will it be completed? f. Define proposed access locations:. Z14 A VEc N 6A f 7/�� g. Define proposed sight distance at site egress locations:(` Packet Page Page 287 of 444 Page 1 2. TRIP GENERATION a. Existing Site Trip Generation Table: Land Use Daily (ADT) PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT j� K1F AhWT t*91T b b. Proposed Project Trip Generation Table: Land Use Daily (ADT) PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT ,&JDO MINrUWk c. Net New Project Trip Generation Table: Land Use Daily (ADT) PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT C2r s�� d. State assumptions and methodology for internal, link -diverted or passby trips: Packet Page Page 288 of 444 Page 2 3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Prepare and attach a graphic showing project trip distribution percentages and assignments. 4. SITE ACCESS ROADWAY/DRIVEWAYS AND SAFETY a. Have sight distance requirements at egress location been met per AASHTO requirements? b. Intersection Level of Service Analysis • Existing Conditions LOS Delays • Year of Opening LOS Delays • Five Years Beyond Change of Land Use LOS . Delays (Intersections to be evaluated shall be determined by the City of Edmonds Traffic Engineer.) c. Describe channelization warrants: d. Vehicle Storage/Queuing Analysis (calculate 50% and 95 % queuing lengths): 50% • Existing Conditions • Year of Opening • Five Years Beyond Change of Land Use e. If appropriate, state stop sign and signal warrants: f. Summarize local accident history: (Attach striping plan.) 95% Packet Page Page 289 of 444 Page 3 5. TRAFFIC VOLUMES a. Describe existing ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, on street adjacent to and directly impacted by the project. b. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, the year the project is fully open (with and without project traffic). c. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, five years after the project has been fully open (with and without project traffic). d. State annual background traffic growth factor and source: 6. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Summarize Level of Service Analysis below and attach supporting LOS analysis documentation. Provide the following documentation for each arterial street or arterial intersection impacted by ten or more peak - hour trips. Other City -planned developments must also be factored into the LOS calculations. Existing LOS: Existing Condition: Year of OpeninL- LOS: With Project: Without Project: Packet Page Page 290 of 444 Page 4 Five Years After Opening LOS: With Project: Without Project: Note any assumptions/variations to standard analysis default values and justifications: 7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS State recommended measures and fees required to mitigate project specific traffic impacts. Traffic impact fee shall be calculated from the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 (attached) and as identified in ECDC 18.82.120, except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in ECDC 18.82.130. 2- 5 5 4 A 4V Ake -ref �f CrId/7t f S\ENGR\Darrell\City t'rdet3HYA r���COnEtanRiy�$o` 9-04.aoe Page 5 Pvc-IjeCr ; OVIT #P20 Critical Areas Checklist CA File N°:=` ' ` -- Site Information (soils/ topography/ hydrology/ ve etation) 1_ Site Address/Location: � ,) &Ad Ave, 2. Property Tax Account Number: 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; no. If yes; how is site developed? Mcpm 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: Iess than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling. slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: A_ ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: IVA— ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round? --/JAAFlows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ;shrubs ;mixed urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: A 1. 2. 3. 4. For City Staff Use Only Plan Check Number, if applicable? - ' Site is Zoned? F- M -- I- - + _ SCS mapped soil type(s)? A i d evvUt�nd ofvbu�y► 10. V d C nl e X ' _ Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? NID - 5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? DETERMINATION STUDY REQUIRED Reviewed bv: WAIVER of • 1i2- y00-4- Land Use Element Scope Whenever there are references in this plan to categories of land use, they shall apply to areas shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map as follows: Plan Map Designation Land Use Type Compatible Zoning Density Classifications Units/Acre Activity Center Mix of uses; refer to specific See appropriate category below; plan designations within also refer to specific activity activity center ...... _.. center discussion in plan _. _.. Corridor Development Mixed use development See appropriate category below; corridor; refer to specific plan also refer to specific corridor designations within corridor .. ......... ......... _ discussion in plan _.... Designated Park or School Site Public Facility Single Family, Resource Single Family, Urban 3 Single Family, Urban 2 Single Family, Urban 1 Multi Family - High Density Multi Family — Medium Density Mixed Use Commercial Community Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Highway 99 Corridor Edmonds Way Corridor Westgate Corridor (Planned Business) Hospital / Medical Master Plan Development Public Use or Park/Open Space 16 Single family Multi family P-zone or appropriate R-zone compatible with neighborhood. RSW-12, RS-12, RS-20 <4 RS-10 < 4.4 RS-8 < 5.5 RS-6, RS-8 5-8 RM-1.5, RM-2.4 18-30 RM-2.4, RM-3.0 < 18 Commercial Mixed Use Commercial or mixture of zones BC, BN, or equivalent BN or equivalent based on neighborhood plan CG, CG2; transitional zones as appropriate BP, BN, BC, or similar commercial zone; RM zones BP, BN Special Use District Master Plan Public or Parks Hospital or Medical zone Master Plan Overlay or equivalent classification P, OS, or equivalent classification Land Use Packet Page Page 293 of 444 ATTACHMENT 5 File No. R-2007-15 into downtown. Redevelopment of this area should be done in a manner that is sensitive to and enhances the views down Main Street and from the adjoining parks and public areas. 8. Redevelop the area from the east side of SR-104 to the railroad tracks, from Harbor Square to Main Street, according to a mixed use master plan. This area could provide a significant opportunity for public/private partnerships. Under the right circumstances, consolidated parking or a pedestrian crossing to the waterfront could be possible as part of a redevelopment project. Every opportunity should be taken to improve the pedestrian streetscape in this area in order to encourage pedestrian activity and linkages between downtown and the waterfront. Uses developed along public streets should support pedestrian activity and include amenities such as street trees, street furniture, flowers and mini parks. Main and Dayton Streets should receive special attention for public art or art integrated into private developments to reinforce the visual arts theme for downtown. Redevelopment of this area should also take advantage of the ability to reconfigure and remove the ferry holding lanes paralleling SR-104 once the Edmonds Crossing project is developed. 9. Support redevelopment efforts that arise out of planning for the long term needs of the senior center. These plans should reinforce the center's place in the public waterfront, linking the facility to the walkways and parks along the shoreline. 10. New development and redevelopment in the downtown waterfront area should be designed to meet overall design objectives and the intent of the various "districts" described for the downtown area. Downtown Waterfront Plan Policies. The following policies are intended to achieve the goals for the downtown waterfront area: E.1. Ensure that the downtown waterfront area continues — and builds on — its function as a key identity element for the Edmonds community. E.2. Future development along the waterfront should support the continuation and compatible design of three regional facilities: Edmonds Crossing at Pt. Edwards; the Port of Edmonds and its master plan; and the regional parks, beaches and walkways making up the public shoreline. E.3. Utilize the Point Edwards site to its best community and regional potential by developing a multimodal transit center with compatible development in the surrounding area. In addition to the regional benefits arising from its multi modal transportation function, an essential community benefit is in removing intrusive ferry traffic from the core area which serves to visually and physically separate downtown from the waterfront. EA Establish a Point Edwards multimodal transportation center which provides convenient transportation connections for bus, ferry, rail, auto, pedestrians and bicycle riders and makes Edmonds an integrated node in the regional transportation system. The new terminal should be planned to reduce negative impacts to downtown Edmonds — such as grade separation/safety concerns and conflicts with other regional facilities — while providing the community with unique transportation resources and an economic stimulus to the larger community. E.5. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed -use development and pedestrian -oriented amenities and streetscape improvements, particularly along Land Use 33 Packet Page Page 294 of 444 Dayton and Main Streets. Development in this area should draw on historical design elements found in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an architectural tie throughout the Downtown Area. Pursue redevelopment of SR-104 and the existing holding lanes once the ferry terminal moves to Point Edwards. E.6. Enhance Edmonds' visual identity by continuing its pedestrian -scale of downtown development, enhancing its shoreline character, and protecting and building on the strong visual quality of the "5th and Main" core. E.7. Improve traffic conditions by removing ferry traffic impacts from the downtown core. E.B. Improve and encourage economic development opportunities by providing space for local businesses and cottage industries and undertaking supporting public improvement projects. Of particular significance is the enhancement of economic development opportunities resulting from the Edmonds Crossing project and the enhancement of Edmonds as an arts and water -oriented destination. E.9. Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, natural features (such as the Edmonds Marsh), and marina facilities. Improve public access to the shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous esplanade along the shoreline. The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master Program requirements placed on private development. E.10. Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring improved bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and adequate streets and parking areas. E.11. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. E.12. Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. E.13. Support the development and retention of significant public investments in the downtown waterfront area, including government and cultural facilities that help draw residents and visitors to downtown. E.14. Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds' attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources. These historic structures are a key component of the small town character of Edmonds and it's economic viability. Height limits that reinforce and require pedestrian -scale development are an important part of this quality of life, and should be implemented through zoning regulations and design guidelines. E.15. Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population. E.16. Provide for the gradual elimination of large and inadequately landscaped paved areas. 34 Land Use Packet Page Page 295 of 444 E.17. Provide pedestrian -oriented amenities for citizens and visitors throughout the downtown waterfront area, including such things as: • Weather protection, • Street trees and flower baskets, • Street furniture, • Public art and art integrated into private developments, • Pocket parks, • Signage and other way -finding devices, • Restrooms. E.18. Strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles whenever possible. E.19. Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation. E.20. Develop sign regulations that support the pedestrian character of downtown, encouraging signage to assist in locating businesses and public and cultural facilities while discouraging obtrusive and garish signage which detracts from downtown pedestrian and cultural amenities. E.21. Provide lighting for streets and public areas that is designed to promote comfort, security, and aesthetic beauty. E.22. Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with pedestrian activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed use areas in the downtown area. Downtown Waterfront Districts. In addition to the goals and policies for the downtown waterfront area, the Comprehensive Plan Map depicts a number of districts in the downtown waterfront area. These districts are described below. Retail Core. The area immediately surrounding the fountain at 51h and Main and extending along Main Street and Fifth Avenue is considered the historic center of Edmonds and building heights shall be pedestrian in scale and compatible with the historic character of this area. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses and the entry situated at street level. Uses are encouraged to be retail -compatible (i.e. retail or compatible service — e.g. art galleries, restaurants, real estate sales offices and similar uses that provide storefront windows and items for sale to the public that can be viewed from the street). The street front fagades of buildings must provide a high percentage of transparent window area and pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian -scale design features, differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. Buildings Land Use 35 Packet Page Page 296 of 444 situated around the fountain square must be orientated to the fountain and its associated pedestrian area. Arts Center Corridor. The corridor along 4th Ave N between the retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Performing Arts. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses, with commercial entries being located at street level. Building design and height shall be compatible with the goal of creating a pedestrian oriented arts corridor while providing incentives for the adaptive reuse of existing historic structures. Building entries for commercial buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian - scale design features, differentiating the lower floor from the upper floors of the building. The design of interior commercial spaces must allow for flexible commercial space, so that individual business spaces can be provided with individual doorways and pedestrian access directly to the public sidewalk. The streetscape should receive special attention, using trees, landscaping, and public art to encourage pedestrian activity. Private development projects should also be encouraged to integrate art into their building designs. Where single family homes still exist in this area, development regulations should allow for "live -work" arrangements where the house can accommodate both a business and a residence as principal uses. Uses supporting the arts center should be encouraged — such as restaurants, cafes, galleries, live/work use arrangements, and B&Bs. Downtown Mixed Commercial. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses., with commercial entries at street level. Buildings can be built to the property line. Building heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian scale development. The first floor of buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian -scale design features, differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. The design of interior commercial spaces must allow for flexible commercial space, so that individual business spaces can be provided with individual doorways and pedestrian access directly to the public sidewalk. When the rear of a property adjoins a residentially -designated property, floor area that is located behind commercial street frontage may be appropriate for residential use. Where single family homes still exist in this area, development regulations should allow for "live -work" arrangements where the house can accommodate both a business and a residence as principal uses. Downtown Mixed Residential. In this area, commercial uses would be allowed but not required (i.e. buildings could be entirely commercial or entirely residential, or anything in between). Height and design of buildings shall conform to the standards of the Downtown Mixed Commercial District. Buildings facing the Dayton Street corridor should provide a pedestrian - friendly streetscape, providing pedestrian amenities and differentiating the ground floor from upper building levels. Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site), and extending past the Commuter Rail parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for design -driven master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site's situation at the bottom of "the Bowl," could enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors. Any redevelopment in this area should be oriented to the street fronts, and provide pedestrian -friendly walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets. Development design should also not ignore the railroad side of the properties, since this is 36 Land Use Packet Page Page 297 of 444 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.I.a. Encourage single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view, open space, etc.). C.1. 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. C.2.a. i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets. C.2.b. Compatibility Policies. C.2. b. i. RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of 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 des ign 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 Land Use Packet Page Page 298 of 444 MYTH AND FACT National Multi L I V M HC Housing Council Ut I Packet Page Page 299 of 444 About NMHC—the National Multi Housing Council NMHC is a national association representing the interests of the nation's larger and most prominent apartment firms. NMHC advocates on behalf of rental hous- ing, conducts apartment -related research, encourages the exchange of strategic business information, and promotes the desirability of apartment living. One-third of Americans rent their housing, and 15 percent of all U.S. households live in an apartment home. Doug Bibby, President About Sierra Club The Sierra Club's members are 700,000 of your friends and neighbors. Inspired by nature, we work together to protect our communities and the planet. The Club is America's oldest, largest, and most influential grass -roots environmental organization. Larry Fahn, President About AIA the American Institute of Architects Since 1857, the AIA has represented the professional interests of America's archi- tects. As AIA members, more than 75,000 licensed architects, emerging profession- als, and allied partners express their commitment to excellence in design and livabil- ity in our nation's buildings and communities. Members adhere to a code of ethics and professional conduct that assures the client, the public, and colleagues of an AIA-member architect's dedication to the highest standards in professional practice. Douglas L. Steidl, President About ULI—the Urban Land Institute ULI—the Urban Land Institute is a nonprofit educational and research institute supported by its members. Its mission is to provide responsible leadership in the use of land to enhance the total environment. ULI sponsors educational programs and forums to encourage an open exchange of ideas and sharing of experiences; initiates research that anticipates emerging land use trends and issues and propos- es creative solutions based on that research; provides advisory services; and pub- lishes a wide variety of materials to disseminate information on land use and devel- opment. Established in 1936, the Institute has more than 24,000 members and associates from more than 80 countries representing the entire spectrum of the land use and development disciplines. Richard M. Rosan, President 2 1 Higher -Density Development --Packet age age o 444 Project Staff ULI Project Staff Rachelle L. Levitt Senior Vice President, Policy and Practice Gayle Berens Vice President, Real Estate Development and Practice Richard M. Haughey Director, Multifamily Development Project Director Principal Author Elam Thomas Sprenkle Contributing Authors Nancy H. Stewart Director, Book Program Managing Editor Barbara M. Fishel/Editech Manuscript Editor Betsy Van Buskirk Art Director Anne Morgan Graphic Design Diann Stanley -Austin Director, Publishing Operations Recommended bibliographic listing: Haughey, Richard M. Higher -Density Development: Myth and Fact. Washington, D.C.: ULI—the Urban Land Institute, 2005. ULI Catalog Number: N27 International Standard Book Number: 0-87420-941-2 ©2005 by ULI—the Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20007-5201 Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or in any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by an information storage and retrieval system without written permission of the publisher. Myth and Fact 3 Packet Page Page 302 of 444 ULI Review Committee Elinor R. Bacon President ER Bacon Development, LLC Washington, D.C. Maureen McAvey Senior Resident Fellow, Urban Development ULI—the Urban Land Institute Washington, D.C. Edward T. McMahon Senior Resident Fellow, Sustainable Development ULI—the Urban Land Institute Washington, D.C. Debra Stein President GCA Strategies San Francisco, California Representatives of the partners who directed this work: NMHC Doug Bibby, President Kimberly D. Duty, Vice President of Communications Michael H. Tucker, Director of Communications Sierra Club Neha Bhatt, Associate Washington Representative Challenge to Sprawl Campaign Eric Olson, Associate Washington Representative Challenge to Sprawl Campaign AIA David T Downey, Managing Director AIA Center for Communities by Design ULI Richard M. Haughey, Director, Multifamily Development 4 1 Higher -Density Development —Packet age age o 444 s this country continues to grow and change, communities are left to figure out where all these new people will live, work, and shop. New markets are emerging for real estate that offers a more convenient lifestyle than is offered by many low -density sprawling communities. New compact developments with a mix of uses and housing types throughout the country are being embraced as a popular alternative to sprawl. At the core of the success of these developments is density, which is the key to making these communities walkable and vibrant. Unfortunately, in too many communities higher -density mixed -use development is difficult to construct because of zoning and building codes that favor low -density development with segregated uses and because of opposition from the commu- nity. This publication looks at several myths surrounding higher -density develop- ment and attempts to dispel them with facts to help dismantle the many barriers such developments face. ULI is proud to have partnered with NMHC—the National Multi Housing Council, Sierra Club, and AIA—the American Institute of Architects on this publication. This convergence of interests highlights the importance each organization has placed on finding a new development pattern that better fits the needs of a growing and changing country. ULI will continue to provide forums in which all stakeholders can explore and debate issues about growth and development patterns and how properly designed and incorporated density can be used to accommodate new growth. ULI will conduct research, produce well-balanced information, and identify best practices on issues relevant to growth and density. Through these efforts, ULI and its partners hope to play a role in planning a better development pattern for the future. Harry H. Frampton III Chair Myth and Fact 5 Packet Page Page 304 of 444 Higher -Density Development: Myth and Fact merica's changing population is creating demand for new types of homes, offices, and retail outlets. Better solutions are needed to the challenges created by changing demographics, dwindling natural areas, smog and public health issues, shrinking municipal budgets, and traffic congestion. Commu- nities that answer these challenges will develop into great places to live. America will add roughly 43 million new residents —that's 2.7 million new residents per year —between now and 2020.' America is not only growing but also under- going dramatic demographic changes. The traditional two -parent household with children is now less than a quarter of the population and getting proportionally smaller. Single -parent households, single -person households, empty nesters, and couples without children make up the new majority of American households, and they have quite different real estate needs.2 These groups are more likely to choose higher -density housing in mixed -density communities that offer vibrant neighbor- hoods over single-family houses far from the community core. The fact is that continuing the sprawling, low -density haphazard development pat- tern of the past 40 years is unsustainable, financially and otherwise. It will exacer- bate many of the problems sprawl has already created —dwindling natural areas and working farms, increasingly longer commutes, debilitating traffic congestion, and harmful smog and water pollution. Local officials now realize that paying for basic infrastructure —roadways and schools, libraries, fire, police, and sewer services —spread over large and sprawling distances is inefficient and expensive. Most public leaders want to create vibrant, economically strong communities where citizens can enjoy a high quality of life in a fiscally and environmentally responsible manner, but many are not sure how to achieve it. Planning for growth is a compre- hensive and complicated process that requires leaders to employ a variety of tools to balance diverse community interests. Arguably, no tool is more important than increasing the density of existing and new communities, which includes support for infill development, the rehabilitation and reuse of existing structures, and denser new development. Indeed, well -designed and well -integrated higher -density devel- opment makes successful planning for growth possible. Density refers not only to high-rise buildings. The definition of density depends on the context in which it is used. In this publication, higher density simply means new residential and commercial development at a density that is higher than what is typically found in the existing community. Thus, in a sprawling area with single-family detached houses on one -acre lots, single-family houses on one-fourth or one -eighth acre are considered higher density. In more densely populated areas with single-family houses on small lots, townhouses and apartments are con- sidered higher -density development. For many suburban communities, the popu- lar mixed -use town centers being developed around the country are considered higher -density development. 6 1 Higher -Density Development --Packet Page age o 444 Most land use professionals and community leaders now agree that creating com- munities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses could be the antidote to sprawl when implemented regionally. And across the country, the general public is becoming more informed and engaged in making the tough land use choices that need to be made while understanding the consequences of continuing to grow as we have in the past. Many have also come to appreciate the "place -making" bene- fits of density and the relationship between higher -density development and land preservation. Media coverage of the topic of growth and development has also evolved. Past media coverage of growth and development issues was often limited to the heated conflicts between developers and community residents. Many in the media are now presenting more thoughtful and balanced coverage, and several editorial boards support higher -density developments in their communities as an antidote to regional sprawl. Yet despite the growing awareness of the complexity of the issue and growing sup- port for higher -density development as an answer to sprawl, many still have ques- tions and fears related to higher -density development. How will it change the neigh- borhood? Will it make traffic worse? What will happen to property values? And what about crime? Ample evidence —documented throughout this publication —suggests that well -designed higher -density development, properly integrated into an existing community, can become a significant community asset that adds to the quality of life and property values for existing residents while addressing the needs of a growing and changing population. Many people's perception of higher -density development does not mesh with the reality. Studies show that when surveyed about higher -density development, those interviewed hold a negative view. But when shown images of higher -density versus lower -density development, people often change their perceptions and prefer higher density! In a recent study by the National Association of Realtors® and Smart Growth America, six in ten prospective homebuyers, when asked to choose between two communities, chose the neighborhood that offered a shorter com- mute, sidewalks, and amenities like shops, restaurants, libraries, schools, and pub- lic transportation within walking distance. They preferred this option over the one with longer commutes and larger lots but limited options for walking.' The 2001 American Housing Survey further reveals that respondents cited proximity to work more often than unit type as the leading factor in housing choice.' Such contra- dictions point to widespread misconceptions about the nature of higher -density development and sprawl. Several of these misconceptions are so prevalent as to be considered myths. To some degree, these myths are the result of memories people have of the very - high -density urban public housing projects of the 1960s and 1970s that have been subsequently deemed a failure. Somehow, the concept of density became associated with the negative imagery and social problems of depressed urban areas. The reality Myth and Fact 7 Packet Page Page 306 of 444 is that complex interrelated factors such as the high concentration of poverty and poor educational and employment opportunities combined to doom the public housing projects. Even very -high -density housing can be practical, safe, and desir- able. For example, the mixed -income apartments and condominiums or luxury high rises in New York and Chicago —some of the safest and most expensive housing in the country —prove that density does not equal an unsafe environment. The purpose of this publication is to dispel the many myths surrounding higher - density development and to create a new understanding of density that goes beyond simplistic negative connotations that overestimate its impact and under- estimate its value. Elected officials, concerned citizens, and community leaders can use this publication to support well -designed and well -planned density that creates great places and great communities that people love. With the anticipated popula- tion growth and continuing demographic and lifestyle changes, consensus is build- ing that creating communities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses will be both necessary and desirable. Higher -Density Development: Myth and Fact is the sixth in a series of Urban Land Institute myth and fact booklets. The series is intended to clarify misconceptions surrounding growth and development. Other topics covered have included trans- portation, smart growth, urban infill housing, environment and development, and mixed -income housing. Higher -Density Develapment: Myth and Fact examines widespread misconceptions related to higher -density development and seeks to dispel them with relevant facts and information. Although the benefits of higher- density development are often understated, so are the detrimental effects of low -density development. The advan- tages and drawbacks of higher -density development are compared throughout this publication with the alternative of low -density development. In the process, mis- conceptions regarding low -density development are also addressed. 8 1 Higher -Density Development --Packet age age o 444 40VI Higher -density development overburdens public schools and other public services and requires more infrastructure support systems. The nature of who lives in higher -density housing —fewer families with children —puts less demand on schools and other public services than low -density housing. Moreover, the compact nature of higher -density development requires less extensive infrastructure to support it. ublic officials across the country struggle to afford the infrastructure need- ed to support sprawling development. A recent study analyzing the costs of sprawl estimated that more than $100 billion in infrastructure costs could be saved over 25 years by pursuing better planned and more com- pact forms of development.' The issue has transcended political parties and ideolo- gies and has become an issue of basic fiscal responsibility. California's Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has criticized "fiscally unsustainable sprawl,"' while Michigan's Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm has noted that sprawl "is hampering the ability of this state and its local governments to finance public facilities and service improvements."' NUMBER OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN PER 100 UNITS OF NEW HOUSING 80 70 z 60 W 50 x U 0 40 Mid- to Garden Owner- Cr High -Rise Apartments Occupied W 30 Apartments Single -Family z Homes 20 10 9 21 64 TYPE OF HOUSING Source: 1999 American Housing Survey (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999). Myth and Fact 9 Packet Page Page 308 of 444 M Y T H O N E ( F A C T O N E Progressive and conservative groups have identified sprawl as a real problem. Charter of the New Urbanism states that "placeless sprawl" is an "interrelated com- munity building challenge."' Conservative groups have concluded that "sprawl is in fact a conservative issue" with "conservative solutions" and that "sprawl was in large part created through government intervention in the economy."10 Indeed, numerous government policies over the last half century have led to and supported sprawl. Historically, federal spending for transportation has subsidized large-scale highway construction over other modes of transportation. Financing policies from the Federal Housing Administration have promoted suburban sub- divisions across the nation. Large lot exclusionary zoning has forced the artificial separation of land uses, leading to large distances between employment centers, housing, and retail. But many government agencies now realize they cannot afford to continue providing the infrastructure and public services that sprawl demands. Not only do local governments absorb much of the cost of more and more road- ways, profoundly longer water and electrical lines, and much larger sewer systems to support sprawling development, they must also fund public services to the new resi- dents who live farther and farther from the core community. These new residents need police and fire protection, schools, libraries, trash removal, and other services. Stretching all these basic services over ever-growing geographic areas places a great burden on local governments. For example, the Minneapolis/St. Paul region built 78 new schools in the suburbs between 1970 and 1990 while simultaneously closing 162 schools in good condition located within city limits." Albuquerque, New Mexico, faces a school budget crisis as a result of the need to build expensive new schools in outlying areas while enrollment in existing close -in schools declines. P R O F I L E Y1a`4 Located within walking distance of a Washington, D.C., Metro stop, the Market Common provides housing, offices, retail, and restaurants on a ten - acre site that was formerly a parking lot. The Market Common Clarendon Located on the site of a former parking lot and occupying roughly ten acres of land, the Market Common in Clarendon, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C., provides 300 Class A apartments, 87 townhouses, 100,000 square feet of office space, and 240,000 square feet of prime retail space. Located within walking distance of the Orange Line of Washington's extensive subway system, residents can leave their cars parked while they take public transit to work. They can also walk to a Whole Foods grocery store adjacent to the highly successful develop - ment. Prominent national retailers occupy the ground level of the ti _ z building, and structured parking is provided. The compact develop- ment form of the Market Common promotes walking, biking, and using =A public transit over autos. The apartments are attractive to young pro- fessionals without children, lessening the impact on the county's school system. The project is the result of a successful collaboration of McCaffery Interests, Arlington County officials, and citizens of the Clarendon neighborhood; it has spurred new retail, office, and residential construction on neighboring sites. 10 1 Higher -Density Development —Packet age age o 444 M Y T H O N E ( F A C T O N E Unfortunately for local governments, a growing body of evidence shows that sprawling development often does not pay enough property tax to cover the serv- ices it requires. A study conducted for a suburban community outside Milwaukee found that public services for an average -price single-family house in that commu- nity cost more than twice as much as the property taxes paid by the homeowner." One reason for the disparity between property tax revenue and the cost of public services is expenditures for public schools. Low -density suburbs and exurban areas generally attract families with more school -age children. In fact, single-family developments average 64 children for every 100 units, compared with only 21 chil- dren for every 100 units of garden apartments and 19 children for every 100 units of mid- to high-rise apartments.' The reason is that multifamily housing attracts predominantly childless couples, singles, and empty nesters. And although apartment renters do not pay property tax directly, apartment owners do. Apartments are also usually taxed at a higher commercial real estate tax rate," so a typical mixed -use development with retail, office, and apartments may subsidize the schools and other public services required by residents of low -density housing in the same community. This phenomenon is further exacerbated because many multi- family developments and retail and office establishments pay for their own trash dis- posal, shuttle buses, and security. Reducing the distance between homes, shops, and offices also reduces the cost of public infrastructure. According to one of many studies, "The public capital and operating costs for close -in, compact development [are] much lower than they [are] for fringe, scattered, linear, and satellite development."15 And many of these studies do not take into account the advantages created by making public transit PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD GROWTH: 2000-2010 20 15 Families Uj a with °C No Children x 10 0 cc CD W 5 c� a W 16.0 c o W a —5 Nonfamily Families Households with Children Under18 14.0% TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD Source: Projections of Number of Households and Families in the United States: 1995-2010 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996). — 3.0% Myth and Fact 11 Packet Page Page 310 of 444 M Y T H O N E ( F A C T O N E more feasible as well as making delivery of basic services like mail delivery, trash collection, and police and fire protec- tion more efficient. Another emerging body of research suggests that higher - density development is an important component of eco- nomic development initiatives and helps attract new employers. "Information economy" is a term used to define the growing industries based on the economics of the Internet, information goods, and intellectual property. Workers in this field are known as "knowledge workers," and many believe they are the future of the American econ- omy. These workers are comfortable with the latest technol- ogy and, because their skills are transferable, choose their jobs based on the attributes of the town or city where they are located. They seek out vibrant, diverse urban centers that offer access to technology, other knowledge workers, and lifestyle.16 The economic development game has changed. Employers now follow the workers rather than the other way around. Therefore, communities that focus on providing a high quality of life with the energy and vitality created by urban centers will be much more likely to attract these highly prized, talented, and productive workers than communi- ties of faceless sprawl. Companies that understand the appeal of these communities are making relocation deci- sions with these workers in mind. Studies have shown that increasing employment density increases labor productivity, generally by reducing commuting times." Thus, introducing higher -density projects into a community will actually increase that community's revenue without significantly increasing the infrastructure and public service burdens. Blending apartments into low -density communities can help pay for schools without drastic increases in the num- ber of students. Diversifying housing options and adding amenities like shops and offices close by will improve the quality of life and attract businesses and people that will strengthen the community's economic stability. Increasing density provides a real economic boost to the community and helps pay for the infrastructure and public services that everybody needs. P R O F I L E Highlands' Garden Village Built on the site of the Elitch Gardens amusement park in Denver, Highlands' Garden Village is a walk- able, transit -linked community and a financially viable model for environmentally responsible infill development. New York —based developer Jonathan Rose & Companies developed single-family homes, townhouses, seniors' and multifamily apartments, cohousing, offices, and retail space on the site. At the center, a historic theater and carousel from the original amusement park are being transformed Highlands' Garden Village reuses some structures from the amusement park previously located on the site. The compact development, combined with a variety of uses and housing types, uses public infrastructure more efficiently than low - density sprawling development. into a community performing arts center and a walking labyrinth. Berkeley, California —based Calthorpe Associates designed a plan that put new homes on three sides of a square -shaped village and a commercial "main street" on the fourth. Restaurants, studios, and shops line the street with live/work townhouses and offices above, giving residents the opportunity to live, work, and shop in the same community. The proximity of amenities, location near downtown, and convenience of public bus lines encourage people to walk and reduce travel costs. 12 1 Higher -Density Development Packet age age o 444 f 4 MyTk Higher -density developments lower property values in surrounding areas. No discernible difference exists in the appreciation rate of properties located near higher -density development and those that are not. Some research even shows that higher -density development can increase property values. he precise value of real estate is determined by many factors, and isolating the impact of one factor can be difficult. Although location and school district are the two most obvious determining factors of value, location within a community and size and condition of the house also affect value. Several studies have examined whether multifamily housing has any impact on the value of nearby single-family detached houses. These studies have shown either no impact or even a slightly positive impact on appreciation rates. P R O F I L E Haile Plantation Haile Plantation is a Gainesville, Florida, icon. Although it is denser than surrounding communities, the values of homes in Haile Plantation are often higher than the values of houses in neighboring lower -density communities, because the traditional neighborhood design employed there makes Haile Plantation more desirable and valuable. Beginning with the master plan in 1979, Haile Plantation has been called one of the first new urban- ist communities in the country. Developers Bob Rowe and Bob Kramer in conjunction with the Haile Plantation Corporation developed the 1,700-acre site to include more than 2,700 units, ranging from single-family homes to townhouses and garden apartments. The sense of community has only grown with the expansion of the development to include a town center, a village green, trails, civic uses, and offices. Indeed, it is density and diver- sity that together add value to this popular Florida community. 0 Homes in Haile Plantation sell for more than neighboring 8z homes because prospective buyers view the traditional 0 Z neighborhood design as a valuable and desirable amenity. s Myth and Fact 13 Packet Page Page 312 of 444 MYTH TWO (FACT TWO For instance, one study by the National Association of Home Builders looked at data from the American Housing Survey, which is conducted every two years by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It found that between 1997 and 1999, the value of single-family houses within 300 feet of an apartment or condo- minium building went up 2.9 percent a year, slightly higher than the 2.7 percent rate for single-family homes without multifamily properties nearby." Another study, commissioned by the Family Housing Fund in Minnesota, studied affordable apartments in 12 Twin Cities neighborhoods and found "little or no evidence to support the claim that tax -credit family rental developments in [the] study eroded surrounding home values."" And a long-term study by Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies published in 2003 also confirms that apartments pose no threat to nearby single-family house values, based on U.S. Census data from 1970 to 2000.20 Not only is there compelling evidence that increased density does not hurt property values of nearby neighbors: researchers at Virginia Tech University have concluded that over the long run, well -placed market -rate apartments with attractive design and landscaping actually increases the overall value of detached houses nearby.' They cite three possible reasons. First, the new apartments could themselves be an indicator that an area's econ- omy is vibrant and growing. Second, multifamily housing may increase the pool of potential future homebuyers, creating more possible buyers for exist- ing owners when they decide to sell their houses. Third, new multifamily housing, particularly as part of mixed -use development, often makes an area more attractive than nearby communities that have fewer housing and retail choices.22 P R O F I L E Echelon at Lakeside Echelon at Lakeside is the only multifamily development in an upscale, master -planned single-family suburban neighborhood of Lakeside on Preston in Plano, Texas a suburb of Dallas. Florida -based developers Echelon Communities, LLC, overcame initial community opposi- tion from area residents through high -quality innovative design. The award -winning architecture blends seam- lessly with the surrounding neighborhood's traditional style. Larger -than -normal floor plans, individual entries, and attached garages combine to mirror the grand The award -winning apartments at Echelon at Lakeside were designed to blend with the neighboring luxury homes. estates in the surrounding communities. Although street elevations make the buildings appear to be one single- family home, they actually house several multifamily units. Memphis -based architects Looney Ricks Kiss used five building types and three building styles. All units include high -quality interior finishes; community amenities include a resort -style pool, fitness facility, clubroom, business and conference center, and full-time concierge. 14 1 Higher -Density Development Packet age age o 444 MYTH TWO IFACT TWO AVERAGE ANNUAL APPRECIATION FOR SINGLE—FAMILY DETACHED HOMES 13Y NEARNESS TO MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS PROXIMITY TO MULTIFAMILY Source: NAHB computations based on data in the American Housing Survey: 1997 and 1999 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1997 and 1999). Concerned citizens should use the entitlement process to demand high -quality development in their communities while understanding that density and adjacent property values are not inversely related. Higher -density real estate developers and investors in higher -density real estate need to appreciate the fact that most Americans' wealth is held in their home equity. Therefore, changes in property values can have very real consequences to existing property owners. Likewise, homeowners would benefit from knowing that developers make a substantial financial commitment when investing in new higher -density projects. This invest- ment is an incentive to make the project successful, which can give the commu- nity leverage in working with the developer. Such interrelated and overlapping economic interests among these stakeholders make it all the more likely that a mutually beneficial agreement can be reached. Such an agreement can result in a project that enhances the existing community, ensures the appreciation of resi- dents', developers', and the local government's financial interests, and addresses the needs of current and future residents of the community and region. Myth and Fact 15 Packet Page Page 314 of 444 MYTH Higher -density development creates more regional traffic congestion and parking problems than low -density development. Higher -density development generates less traffic than low -density development per unit; it makes walking and public transit more feasible and creates opportunities for shared parking. ost people assume that higher -density development generates more traffic than low - IVIdensity development and that regional traffic will get worse with more compact devel- opment. In fact, the opposite is true. Although residents of low -density single-family communities tend to have two or more cars per household, residents of high -density apartments and condominiums tend to have only one car per household." And according to one study using data from the National Personal Transportation Survey, doubling density decreases the vehicle miles traveled by 38 percent.2+ P R O F I L E Mockingbird Station The residents of Mockingbird Station in Dallas, Texas, are far less dependent on their cars, because they have a whole host of amenities at their doorstep. Dallas developer Ken Hughes partnered with Denver -based Simpson Housing Group to create the ten -acre pedestrian -oriented urban village, which includes 216loft apartments, an eight -screen film center and cafe, more than 90 shops and restaurants, offices, an enclosed public plaza, and parking, all directly linked to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light -rail system. Mockingbird Station provides direct platform access to DARTtrains, which offer residents an eight -minute commute to Dallas's central business district and a single train connection to the Dallas Convention Center, Reunion Arena, and other downtown entertainment. The new village is also immediately adjacent to the campus of Southern Methodist University and within walking distance of the university's new stadium and sports center. RTKL created architecture reminiscent of historic train stations but with a modern twist to the materials and detailing. Although only limited driving is necessary, a parking garage is provided but placed out of sight and underground. The myriad materials, architectural styles, and amenities create a vibrant transit -oriented community. Residents of Mockingbird Station can leave their cars in the garage and take an eight -minute train ride to downtown Dallas; they can also walk to shops, offices, and a movie theater. 16 I Higher -Density Development Packet Page Page bo 444 M Y T H T H R E E I F A C T T H R E E The reason is that higher -density developments make for more walkable neighbor- hoods and bring together the concentration of population required to support pub- lic transportation. The result is that residents in higher -density housing make fewer and shorter auto trips than those living in low -density housing." Condominium and townhouse residents average 5.6 trips per day and apartment dwellers 6.3 car trips per day, compared with the ten trips a day averaged by residents of low -density com- munities. (A trip is defined as any time a car leaves or returns to a home.) Increasing density can significantly reduce dependency on cars, but those benefits are even greater when jobs and retail are incorporated with the housing. Such mixed -use neighborhoods make it easier for people to park their car in one place and accomplish several tasks, which not only reduces the number of car trips required but also reduces overall parking needs for the community. But if retail uses are to survive, they must be near households with disposable income. Having those households within walking distance of the shops builds in a market for the stores. One study indicates that in some markets, 25 to 35 percent of retail sales must come from housing close to shops for the shops to be successful.26 P R O F I L E Southwest Station The Southwest Metro Transit Commission is a small suburban bus system near Minneapolis that serves downtown Minneapolis and numerous other employment and recreation centers, including Minnesota Twins baseball games. The American Public Transportation Association calls itthe "best small system in the country." In an effort to capital- ize and expand on the success of the system, the commission has encouraged transit -oriented devel- opment at its bus stops. In Eden Prairie, Minnesota,tz tz the commission completed a bus depot and five - story parking garage on 22 acres of excess right-of- way. In 2001, it started selling land around the tran- sit complex for retail and residential development. Restaurants, shops, and more than 250 apartments, condominiums, and townhouses soon followed. The new development generated revenue for the com- mission, new public transit riders, affordable con- venient housing, and a suburban lifestyle with the amenities usually afforded only to city dwellers. The Southwest Metro Transit Commission in suburban Minneapolis runs an award -winning bus system and has encouraged higher -density development around transit stops, like this one at Southwest Station in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Myth and Fact 17 Packet Page Page 316 of 444 MYTH THREEI FACT THREE With a typical family now making more car trips for family, personal, social, and recreational reasons than for commuting to work,' reducing the number of noncommuting trips takes on greater importance in the battle to reduce traffic congestion and parking problems. A case study in Washington, D.C., found that workers in dense downtown Washington made 80 percent of their mid -day trips by foot while suburban workers made 67 percent of their mid -day trips by car.28 Although a suburban office park would never reach the density levels of a down- town area, planners can still reduce the auto dependency of suburban office work- ers by using some of the same design techniques. Concentrating density around mw� AVERAGE D. 1 10 2 single-family Detached Apartment 4 2 10.0 6.3 0 TYPE OF HOUSING Source: Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th Edition, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1997). suburban offices, allowing and encouraging retail and restaurants in and near the offices, and planning for pedestrian and bike access can all reduce the number of lunchtime car trips required by office workers. Higher -density mixed -used developments also create efficiencies through shared parking. For example, office and residential uses require parking at almost exact opposite times. As residents leave for work, office workers return, and vice versa. In addition, structured parking becomes feasible only with higher -density developments. Higher -density development also makes public transit more feasible. When a com- munity that includes residences, shops, and offices reaches a certain threshold of density, public transit -shuttles, bus service, trams, or light rail becomes an option for residents. It is estimated that a minimum density of seven dwelling units per acre is needed to make local bus service feasible with an intermediate level of service.' Light rail needs a minimum density of nine dwelling units per acre to be feasible." When a community can take advantage of these options and increase the transportation choices for residents, relief is greater as total car dependency is further broken. Such choices are impossible for low -density developments. 18 1 Higher -Density Development —Packet age age o 444 POYT Higher -density development leads to higher crime rates. •�► The crime rates at higher -density developments are not significantly different from those at lower -density developments. eople sometimes associate density with crime, even though numerous studies show that no relationship exists between the two. A study in Irving, Texas, using geographic information systems and crime statistics, found no link between crime and density. In fact, it found that single-family neigh- borhoods are "not all associated with lower crime rates."" Another study conducted by the University of Alaska found no relationship between housing density and crime in Anchorage." P R O F I L E Westminster Place Although today Westminster Place is a thriving, safe community in midtown St. Louis, it was not always the case. The area, approxi- mately 90 acres, was well known by the St. Louis police department for its high rate of violent crime, which led to the area's becoming blighted. McCormack Baron Salazar, a St. Louis —based developer, brought the community back through the addition of higher -density mixed -income housing comprising affordable and market -rate units. The master plan included for -sale and rental housing, garden apart- ments, townhouses, single-family homes, and even an assisted liv- ing facility for seniors. A new community pool, a bustling retail cen- ter, and a magnet school are included as well. The new plan slowed traffic through the community, added landscaping and street and parking lot lighting, and new "eyes on the street," making it more difficult for criminals to go unnoticed. The area blossomed into a place where people once again feel safe walking. The success of the community spurred the revitalization of surrounding areas. Increasing the housing density, adding some market -rate housing, and developing a design that slowed traffic and added additional lighting changed Westminster Place from a crime -ridden neighbor- hood to a thriving, safe community. Myth and Fact 19 Packet Page Page 318 of 444 MYTH FOURI FACT FOUR P R O F I L E East Village East Village is a small urban revitalization project on the edge of downtown Minneapolis. Before the project was built, the neglected 2.9-acre site contained several deteriorating rental homes, old commer- cial buildings, and abandoned surface parking lots. The neighborhood wanted to improve the area and the image of one of the city's oldest neighborhoods, Elliot Park. The developers of the project, Central Community Housing Trust and East Village Housing Corporation, developed the new mixed -income housing and commercial community to encourage a sense of community and ownership. East Village now features community green space, pedestrian paths, and neighborhood businesses. Buildings sur- round the greenway that leads to Elliot Park, a city park with year-round activities and a community center. Brick, bay windows, and French balconies complement historic buildings in the area. In addition, all buildings have multiple entrances to encourage interaction among neighbors. An underground 350- space parking garage frees up space for landscaped areas. This once neglected area has won two awards for innovation and design and become an exceedingly successful vibrant and safe community. 40 is The additional "eyes on the street" created by the development of East Village in Minneapolis has led to a safer vibrant community. 20 1 Higher -Density Development Packet Page age o 444 MYTH FOURI FACT FOUR Arizona researchers found that when police data are analyzed per unit, apartments actually create less demand for police services than a comparable number of single- family houses. In Tempe, Arizona, a random sample of 1,000 calls for service showed that 35 percent originated from single-family houses and just 21 percent came from apartments. Similarly, a random sample of 600 calls for service in Phoenix, Arizona, found that an apartment unit's demand for police services was less than half of the demand created by a single-family house.13 One reason for the misperception that crime and density are related could be that crime reports tend to characterize multifamily properties as a single "house" and may record every visit to an apartment community as happening at a single house. But a multifamily property with 250 units is more accurately defined as 250 houses. To truly compare crime rates between multifamily properties and single-family houses, the officer would have to count each household in the multifamily commu- nity as the equivalent of a separate single-family household. When they do so, many find what the previous studies prove: that crime rates between different housing types are comparable. Higher -density developments can actually help reduce crime by increasing pedestrian activity and fostering a 24hour community that puts more "eyes on the street"' at all times. Many residents say they chose higher -density housing specifically because they felt more secure there; they feel safer because there are more people coming and going, making it more difficult for criminals to act without being discovered. This factor could explain why a ULI study of different housing types in Greenwich, Connecticut, shows that higher -density housing is significantly less likely to be bur- glarized than single-family houses " The relationships among design, management, and security became better understood in the past few decades with the publication of several seminal works, including Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design by Oscar Newman" and Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in our Communities by George Kelling and Catherine Coles." Many new higher - density developments include better lighting plans and careful placement of buildings and landscaping to reduce opportunities for crime, contributing to a safer community. With the emergence of better -quality designs, higher -density mixed -use develop- ment is an attractive and safe addition to a community, one that is increasingly attracting a professional constituency seeking safety features. In fact, the luxury segment is one of the fastest -growing components of the multifamily industry.38 Myth and Fact 21 Packet Page Page 320 of 444 I-NAYM917H Higher -density development is environmentally more destructive than lower -density development. 1W Low -density development increases air and water pollution and destroys natural areas by paving and urbanizing greater swaths of land. ow -density sprawl takes an enormous toll on our air, water, and land. The United States is now losing a staggering 2 million acres of land a year to haphazard, sprawling development.39 More than 50 percent of Americans live in places where the air is unhealthy to breathe,40 and childhood asthma and other respiratory diseases are on the rise." Almost half the damage to our streams, lakes, and rivers is the result of polluted runoff from paved surfaces.42 It is inefficient land use, not economic growth, that accounts for the rapid loss of open space and farms. Since 1994, housing lots larger than ten acres have account- ed for 55 percent of the land developed.' This loss of land often causes unexpect- ed economic challenges for rural communities, where farmland, forests, ranchland, and open space tend to be the economic drivers that attract businesses, residents, and tourists. Low -density sprawl compromises the resources that are the core of the community's economy and character. The majority of American homeowners think it is important to stop these trends. In fact, 76 percent of local ballot initiatives related to land conservation passed in November 2004, making $2.4 billion in fund- ing available for protection of parks and open space.' But purchasing land is only part of the solution and not always an option for financially strapped governments. Higher -density development offers the best solution to managing growth and pro- tecting clean air and clean water. Placing new development into already urbanized areas that are equipped with all the basic infrastructure like utility lines, police and fire protection, schools, and shops eliminates the financial and environmental costs of stretching those services farther and farther out from the core community. Com- pact urban design reduces driving and smog and preserves the natural areas that are assets of the community: watersheds, wetlands, working farms, open space, and wildlife corridors. It further minimizes impervious surface area, which causes ero- sion and polluted stormwater runoff. Two studies completed for the state of New Jersey confirm that compact development can achieve a 30 percent reduction in runoff and an 83 percent reduction in water consumption compared with conven- tional suburban development.45 22 1 Higher -Density Development Packet Page age o 444 M Y T H F I V E I F A C T F I V E P R O F I L E Prairie Crossing The developers of Prairie Crossing, George and Vicky Ranr saved $1 million in infrastructure costs through environmer sensitive design. The 677-acre conservation community is located in Grayslake, Illinois, 40 miles northwest of Chicag and one hour south of Milwaukee. The community feature 350 acres of open space, including 160 acres of restored prairie,158 acres of active farmland,13 acres of wetlands 22-acre lake, a village green, and several neighborhood p; Houses are sited to protect natural features such as hedge- rows, native habitat, and wetlands. Designed with colors and architecture inspired by the landscape, every home has a view of open space and direct access to ten miles of on -site walk- ing and biking trails. Wide sidewalks, deep front porches, and rear garages encourage neighbors to meet. The homes were built with U.S. Department of Energy —approved green building techniques. As a result, they are 50 percent more energy efficient than other homes in the Chicago area, and they sell for a 33 percent sales premium. Station Village is the last phase of Prairie Crossing. When complete, it will include residential, retail, and office space, all within walking distance of two commuter train stations. Residents can ride Metra's North Line to Chicago's Union Station or the Central Line to downtown Chicago and O'Hare Airport. More than half the land at Prairie Crossing was preserved as open space, and homes were built with approved green building techniques. Myth and Fact 23 Packet Page Page 322 of 444 M Y T H F I V E I F A C T F I V E P R O F I L E The Preserve USS Real Estate originally held a 550-acre tract of land in Hoover, Alabama, but sold 250 acres to the city, intending to create the Moss Rock Nature Preserve. The 680 single-family homes, 50,000 square feet of retail, and 50,000 square feet of office space are concentrated on the remaining 311-acre site. Before development of the Preserve, Hoover was characterized by sprawling conven- tional development and lacked a town center. The Preserve's future town center is planned to include 34 live/work units, 14 retail units, and two restaurants: at the heart of the community is the village green, an impressive eight -acre park with a town hall, a fitness center, a junior olympic swimming pool, and a kiddie pool. Residents have access to 15 acres of parks and seven miles of trails that connect to award -winning Hoover schools and the newly created Moss Rock preserve. Clustering development at the Preserve in Hoover Alabama, enabled the creation of the 250-acre Moss Rock Nature Preserve. 24 1 Higher -Density Development Packet Page age o 444 M Y T H F I V E I F A C T F I V E Many communities employ techniques such as infill and brownfield development to transform unused, abandoned lots into vibrant, revenue -generating components of the community. Some create direct incentives for higher -density development. The city of Austin, Texas, for example, created a program that rewards developers for locating projects in the city's existing neighborhoods and downtown. Others award points for a variety of attributes, such as transit access, the redevelopment of empty lots, and an increase in pedestrian facilities. By employing standards for fac- tors like open space, dense development, and impact on water quality, communi- ties can facilitate good urban design that preserves natural resources. Although a well -designed higher -density community offers residents a higher - quality environment, poorly planned sprawl does the opposite. Because low -density sprawl gobbles up so much land through large -lot zoning, it ends up destroying the very thing most people moved there for in the first place —the natural areas and farmland. It forces people to drive longer distances, increasing regional air quality problems. The average American man spends 81 minutes behind the wheel every day, while women average 63 minutes. And surveys show that the time spent driving has been consistently increasing every year.` The national road network, currently at 4 million miles according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, is still grow- ing at an alarming rate, mainly for the purpose of connecting new low -density sub- urbs back to core communities. Along with the water and air pollution, construc- tion of these highways perpetuates the cycle of sprawl, fragments wildlife habitats, and dries up a community's financial coffers. Increasing density not only improves air and water quality and protects open space but also redirects investments to our existing towns and cities. It can revitalize existing communities and create more walkable neighborhoods with access to public transit and hiking and biking trails. Pedestrian -friendly higher - density developments offer general health benefits as well. Mixed land uses give people the option to walk and bike to work, shops, restaurants, and entertain- ment. The convenience of compact communities may help fight diseases related to obesity." Higher -density communities are vital to preserving a healthy environ- ment and fostering healthy lifestyles. Myth and Fact 25 Packet Page Page 324 of 444 INAYMTMH Higher -density development is unattractive and does not fit in a low -density community. Attractive, well -designed, and well -maintained higher -density development attracts good residents and tenants and fits into existing communities. igher-density development comes in many forms. Some of the most attrac- tive well -planned modern development is built at a high density. Across America, appealing higher -density mixed -use town centers have been wildly popular with the public. Lushly landscaped boulevards, fountains, and showcase architecture have created a sense of place in areas previously known only for faceless, uninteresting low -density development. The enduring appeal P R O F I L E Post Riverside Atlanta is often called the poster child for suburban sprawl. However, it is also the home of Post Riverside, a revolutionary new mixed -use pedestri- an -oriented community developed by Atlanta -based Post Properties, Inc., and located on the banks of the Chattahoochee River between Atlanta's bustling Buckhead and Vinings communities. As is the trend nationally, 65 percent of all vehicle trips in Atlanta are to run errands, not to commute to work. With offices, shops, and restaurants within walking dis- tance of the apartments, Post Riverside residents depend on autos much less than their neighbors in lower -density areas. In addition, the community is connected to Atlanta's MARTA subway system and the Cobb County transit system. This award - winning 85-acre mixed -use development includes 25,000 square feet of retail space, 225,000 square M feet of office space, and 535 apartments, all designed around a gracious town square. For many people, this amenity -rich, low -maintenance lifestyle better suits their needs than a traditional single-family home in a low -density neighborhood. Post Riverside in Atlanta demonstrates that higher -density development can be attractive and successful in a commu- nity known for lower -density development. 26 I Higher -Density Development Packet Page Page 32b 0 444 MY T H S I X I F A C T S I X and desirability of older and more gracious higher -density neigh- borhoods —Georgetown in Washington, D.C., Beacon Hill and Back Bay in Boston, and Lincoln Park in Chicago —attest to the fact that some of the more desirable neighborhoods in America historically have been of higher density than that found in typical outer suburbs. This return to the design principles of the past is at the core of the new urbanist movement that took hold in the 1990s. The move- ment grew as many people came to miss the sense of community that was created by the mixed -density and mixed -use communities of the past. They realized that low -density subdivisions isolated their owners not only from pedestrian access to shops and offices but also from their neighbors. The growing sense of social alien- ation, highlighted in books like Robert Putnam's BowlingAlone,48 has led many back to the comfort of communities that are a reminder of the places where many of us grew up. These new communities combine the best design ideas of the past with the modern conveniences of today to provide residents with what has been missing from many sprawling areas —a sense of community. Today's developers, architects, and planners know that to attract customers and to secure zoning approvals and community acceptance, they must produce attractive and innovative properties that complement their surroundings. Design profession- als are driven to produce projects that meet users' demands, understand and respond to the context of a site, enhance its neighborhood, and are built to last.49In fact, attendance at a recent American Institute of Architects —sponsored conference on density far surpassed expectations, speaking to the interest among land use professionals in addressing the design issues associated with density.50 It is plausible that the high level of citizens' opposition to density may be based on an outdated notion of what higher -density development looks like. A University of North Carolina study revealed that when given a choice between two attractively designed communities, one higher density and the other low density; the majority preferred the higher -density option." Other visual preference surveys con- firm that there is an almost universal negative reaction to the visual appearance of commercial strip sprawl and an almost universal posi- tive reaction to traditional town -like communities of the past, com- munities that almost invariably included a mix of densities and uses " r MOOR P R O F I L E The Plaza at the Arboretum This award -winning mixed -use project in Santa Monica, California, developed by California -based Legacy Partners, achieves a density of 97.5 dwelling units per acre. The attractive seven -story building includes 10,000 square feet of retail space and 350 apartment units ranging from 612 to 1,555 square feet. The architecture firm Meeks and Partners used strong geometric forms to create a playful architectural character that fits nicely in the avant-garde Hollywood studio section of Santa Monica. The devel- opment includes a swimming pool, spa, fit- ness center, and clubhouse. Higher -density developments like the Plaza at the Arboretum present opportunities to create outstanding award -winning architecture. Packet Page Page 326 of 444 Myth and Fact 27 NIyMIrH No one in suburban areas wants higher -density development. Our population is changing and becoming increasingly diverse. Many of these households now prefer higher -density housing, even in suburban locations. hen many of us think of the American Dream, we envision married VVcouples with children living in single-family detached houses in the suburbs. The notion is that the only people who want to live in higher -density areas are those who cannot afford a traditional house with a back yard or who want to live in the middle of the city. Both percep- tions are flawed. This country's population is changing, and so are its real estate preferences. These lifestyle changes have significant implications for suburban development. For the first time, there are more single -person households (26.4 percent) than married - HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE: 2003 (PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL) 11.2 16.4 28.2 ❑ Married couples with children (23.3) ❑ Married couples without children (28.2) ❑ Other family households (16.4) ❑ Men living alone (11.2) ❑ Women living alone (15.2) ❑ Other nonfamily households (5.6) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, March; and Annual Social and Economic Supplement: 2003. 28 1 Higher -Density Development Packet Page age o 444 M Y T H S E V E N I F A C T S E V E N couple -with -children households (23.3 percent)." The groups growing the fastest, people in their mid-20s and empty nesters in their 50s, are the groups most likely to look for an alternative to low -density, single-family housing.54 A growing number of Americans are redefining their American Dream. They are seeking a more convenient and vibrant lifestyle. And while some seek this lifestyle in cities, many others seek the same lifestyle in the suburbs. According to a 2002 study by the National Association of Home Builders, more than half the renters questioned said they wanted to live in the suburbs.55 Moreover, a national survey of homebuyers' community preferences found that nearly three-quarters of all P R O F I L E King Farm This 430-acre community is characterized by the historic architecture of the region but offers an assortment of modern conveniences as well. Developed by King Farm Associates, LLC, King Farm is located in Rockville, Maryland, five miles from the Washington, D.C., beltway,15 miles from downtown D.C., and walking distance from the Shady Grove Metro station. The neighborhood was designed for pedestrians, but the King Farm shuttle makes getting around even easier. The shuttle runs a complimentary route between the King Farm Village Center, the Metro station, and the Irvington Center, a 90-acre commercial com- plex next to the Metro. In addition, two types of public bus service are available at King Farm. At the Village Center,120,000 square feet of retail space is within walking distance from both resi- dential and commercial development. The center also includes 47 loft apartments and a one -acre a village green. Watkins Pond and Baileys Common are King Farm's two residential villages. They offer s single-family homes, townhouses, condominiums, F 0 and luxury apartments intertwined with natural areas. The center of Watkins Pond is a 12-acre city park with tennis and basketball courts, a soc- cer and softball field, two playgrounds, several picnic areas, benches, and paths. King Farm is a successful higher -density suburban community that integrates housing, retail shops, offices, and public transit. Myth and Fact 29 Packet Page Page 328 of 444 M Y T H S E V E N I F A C T S E V E N I% P R O F I L E Victoria Gardens The city of Rancho Cucamonga, located roughly 60 miles east of Los Angeles in California's Inland Empire, has a rich agricultural history and, more recently, a history of low -density sprawl with no real city center. This situation is changing, however, with the opening of the first phases of a huge new mixed -use development known as Victoria Gardens. The development, designed by L.A.—based architects, Altoon + Porter, and being developed jointly by California -based developers Forest City California and the Lewis Investment Company, will create a vibrant higher -density downtown where none previously existed. Rapidly growing Rancho Cucamonga has been traditionally underserved by restaurants and entertainment options. The long-awaited addition of a "place" in the city has been well received by residents. The 147-acre development will eventually contain 1.3 million square feet of commer- cial and community space, including retail, entertainment, office, and civic uses with a cultural center and a library. Twenty acres of housing on site will allow people to live within walking distance of all the amenities of Rancho Cucamonga's new downtown. A higher -density downtown is emerging in sprawling Rancho Cucamonga at Victoria Gardens. Long-underserved residents now have a "place" to go for restaurants, retail, offices, and housing. 30 1 Higher -Density Development Packet Page age o 444 M Y T H S E V E N I F A C T S E V E N buyers prefer to live in a community where they can walk or bike to some desti- nations.56 The 2001 American Housing Survey further reveals that respondents cited proximity to work more often than unit type as the leading factor in housing choice.57 These surveys confirm that many people prefer the suburbs but want the amenities traditionally associated with cities, including living close to work. With the continuing decentralization of cities and the rise of suburban communi- ties with urban -like amenities, many people find that they can live and work in the suburbs with all the attributes of suburbia they desire without giving up walkability and convenience. A recent study confirms that in many regions, more office space is located in suburban locations than downtowns," providing an opportunity for people to live near their jobs. Communities and developers that have recognized and responded to the dual trends of decentralized offices and a growing desire for a more convenient lifestyle have been rewarded. Well -placed mixed -use, higher - density developments in the suburbs are increasingly popular, creating a new sense of place. Communities are being developed using the best concepts of traditional commu- nities —smaller lots, a variety of housing types, front porches and sidewalks, shops and offices within walking distance, and public transit nearby. Communities like Celebration in Florida and King Farm in Maryland have been so popular with the homebuying public that past worries over whether the demand exists for them have been replaced by concerns about their rapid price appreciation, putting them out of the reach of all but the highest -income households. Today's real demographic and lifestyle changes are inspiring a return to traditional development styles that offer walkable, bikeable, and more dynamic communities that put residents closer to shops, offices, and parks. Myth and Fact 31 Packet Page Page 330 of 444 I_NAY_ M1rH Higher -density housing is only for lower -income households. People of all income groups choose L40 = higher -density housing. ultifamily housing is not the housing of last resort for households un- able to afford a single-family house. Condominiums, for instance, are often the most sought after and highly appreciating real estate in many urban markets. The luxury segment of the apartment market is also rapidly expanding. Most people are surprised to learn that 41 percent of renters say they rent by choice and not out of necessity, and households making more than $50,000 a year have been the fastest -growing segment of the rental market for the past three years.59 Multifamily housing throughout the world has historically been the housing of choice by the wealthiest individuals because of the access and con- venience it provides. From Manhattan to Miami to San Francisco, higher -density housing has been prized for the amenity -rich lifestyle it can provide. Higher -density development can be a viable housing choice for all income groups and people in all phases of their lives. Many financially secure baby boomers, who have seen their children leave the nest, have chosen to leave behind the yard maintenance and repairs required of a single-family house for the more carefree and convenient lifestyle multifamily housing provides. Interestingly, their children, the echo boomers, are entering the age where many will likely live in multifamily housing. Just starting careers, many are looking for the flexibility of apartment liv- ing to follow job opportunities. Their grandparents, likely on a fixed income, may also prefer or need to live in multifamily housing as physical limitations may have made living in a single-family house too challenging. Providing balanced housing options to people of all income groups is important to a region's economic vitality. The availability of affordable multifamily housing helps attract and retain the workers needed to keep any economy thriving. In many American towns and cities, rapidly rising house prices are forcing working families to live farther away from their jobs. In fact, the lack of affordable housing is mentioned as the number one problem facing working families today." 32 1 Nigher -Density Development Packet Page age o 444 M Y T H E I G H T ( F A C T E I G H T P R O F I L E Rollins Square Rollins Square, a mixed -use development in Boston's South End, is a truly mixed -income community that provides housing for a wide spectrum of people in all income brackets. Twenty percent of the overall units are reserved for people whose income is 30 to 60 percent of the Boston area median income (AMI), 40 percent are for -sale condominiums reserved for working households with incomes 80 to 120 percent of the AMI, and the remaining 40 percent are market -rate units sell- ing for up to $750,000. The residences occupy two city blocks and integrate seamlessly into the existing neighborhood. The varying heights and diverse exterior materials give the appearance that the development was constructed over time. Rollins Square was developed by the Planning Office for Urban Affairs, Inc., a nonprofit developer associated with the Archdiocese of Boston. Packet Page Page 332 of 444 MYTH E I G H T I FACT EIGHT P R O F I L E I'On I'On is a 244-acre master -planned community along the deep -water marshes of Hobcraw Creek in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Just six miles east of Charleston, the com- munity features 700 single-family homes, community facili- ties, and a small-scale commercial area. Vince Graham, principal with the I'On Company, is developing six residential neighborhoods connected by narrow streets, pedestrian corridors, and community spaces. An I'On Guild member, one of 18 builders selected for experience, talent, and finan- cial strength, builds each individual home. The architecture Y is inspired by classic Lowcountry style with large balconies, 79 deep front porches, and tall windows on even taller homes. Z Homes now sell for $685,000 to $1.7 million. Community facil- o ities include I'On Square, I'On Club, the Creek Club, and the Mount Pleasant Amphitheater. Residents also enjoy easy access to the Cooper and Wando rivers, the Charleston har- bor, and the Atlantic Ocean. One neighborhood boat ramp and four community docks are available for crabbing and fishing. Two miles of walking trails are available for resi- dents; a five -acre pond, the Rookery, is a protected nesting site for wading birds. In addition, the public and private schools in Mount Pleasant are some of the best in the area. Some home prices in the well -planned higher -density community of 110n are approaching $2 million. The traditional neighborhood design combined with the community amenities made possible by higher densities have made the community one of the most desirable in the Charleston area. As the problem of affordability worsens, workers on the lower end of the salary scale may move to more affordable cities, leaving a labor shortage in their wake. Such shortages make a region less desirable as an employment center. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, access to a large and diverse labor pool is the most important factor in making corporate decisions on locations." Communities that do not provide housing for all income groups become less desirable corporate locations. 34 1 Higher -Density Development Packet age age o 444 NOTES 1. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/natprojtabOla.pdf. 2. http://factfinder.census.gov/servieUOT-Fable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-gr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&- ds_name=D&-_tang=en. 3. Emil Malizia and Jack Goodman, Mixed Picture: Are Higher -Density Developments Being Shortchanged by Opinion Surveys? (Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, July 2000), p. 12. 4. Smart Growth America and National Association of Realtors®, 2004 American Community Survey: National Survey on Communities (Washington, D.C.: Author, October 2004). 5. Robert W. Burchell et al., The Costs of Sprawl, 2000 (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002). 6. Sam Newberg and Tom O'Neil, "Making the Case," Multifamily Trends, vol. 6, no. 3, Summer 2003, p. 47. 7. "Schwarzenegger Embraces 'Smart Growth' Ideas to Curb Sprawl," CNN.com, Inside Politics, November 21, 2003. 8. Mark Muro and Rob Fuentes, Investing in a Better Future: A Review of the Fiscal and Competitive Advantages of Smarter Growth Development Patterns (Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2004). 9. Kathleen McCormick and Michael Leccese, eds., Charter of the New Urbanism (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999), P. V. 10. Michael E. Lewyn, "Why Sprawl Is a Conservative Issue. Part 1," The Green Elephant, Summer 2002, p. 1. 11. Brett Hulsey, Sprawl Costs Us All (Madison, Wisconsin: Sierra Club Midwest Office, 1996). 12. Ibid., p. 8. 13. U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999 American Housing Survey (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2000). 14. http://www.nmhc.org/content/servecontent.cfm?isPrinterFriendly= 1&IssueID=215&contentlD=827. 15. Muro and Fuentes, Investing in a Better Future, p. 15. 16. Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class (New York: Basic Books, 2002). 17. Timothy F. Harris and Yannis M. Ioannides, Productivity and Metropolitan Density (Boston: Tufts University Department of Economics, 2000), p. 6. 18. National Association of Home Builders, "Market Outlook: Confronting the Myths about Apartments with Facts" (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2001), p. 4. 19. Maxfield Research, A Study in the Relationship between Affordable Family Rental Housing and Home Values in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis: Author, November 2000)• 20. Alexander Hoffman, The Vitality of America's Working Communities (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2003). 21. Arthur C. Nelson and Mitch Moody, "Price Effects of Apartments on Nearby Single -Family Detached Residential Homes," Working Draft (Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Tech University, 2003). 22. Arthur C. Nelson, "Top Ten State and Local Strategies to Increase Affordable Housing Supply," Housing Facts & Findings, vol. 5, no. 1. 23. National Multi Housing Council, "Tabulations of 1999 American Housing Survey" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,1999). 24. Robert Dunphy and Kimberly Fisher, "Transportation, Congestion, and Density: New Insights," Transportation Research Record, 1996. 25. Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th ed., vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1997). 26. "How to Calculate Demand for Retail," New Urban News, March 2004, pp.10-11. 27. U.S. Department of Transportation, Our Nation's Travel:1995, NPTS Early Results Report (Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, 1997), p. 11. 28. G. Bruce Douglas III, at al., Urban Design, Urban Forms, and Employee Travel Behavior, TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference Papers (Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board,1997). 29. Robert Dunphy, Deborah Myerson, and Michael Pawlukiewicz, Ten Principles for Successful Development Around Transit (Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 2003). 30. Ibid. 31. Jianling Li and Jack Rainwater, "The Real Picture of Land -Use Density and Crime: A GIS Application," http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP508/p5O8. htm. 32. University of Alaska Justice Center, "The Strength of Association: Housing Density and Delinquency," Anchorage Community Indicators, series 3A, no. 1, http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/indicators/series03/ aciWa1.housing.pdf. 33. Elliott D. Pollack and Company, Economic and Fiscal Impact of Multi -Family Housing (Phoenix: Arizona Multihousing Association, 1996). Myth and Fact 35 Packet Page Page 334 of 444 NOTES (continued) 34. 1000 Friends of Oregon, Do Four-Plexes Cause Cannibalism? Winter 1999, pp. 2-3. 35. Marcus Felson and Richard B. Peiser, Reducing Crime through Real Estate Development and Management (Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 1997). 36. Oscar Newman, Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design (New York: Macmillan, 1972). 37. George Kelling and Catherine Coles, Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in our Communities (New York: Touchstone, 1997). 38. Gary Kachadurian, Debunking the Homeownership Myth (Washington, D.C.: National Multi Housing Council, 1998). 39. American Farmland Trust, Farmland Information Center, National Statistics Sheet, http://www.farmlandinfo.org/ agricultural statistics/. 40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA Issues Designations on Ozone Health Standards," News Release, April 15, 2004. 41. American Lung Association, "State of the Air: 2004," April 29, 2004, http://Iungaction.org/reports/sotaO4_full.html. 42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress," http://www.epa.gov/305b/. 43. Smart Growth America, http://smartgrowthamerica.org/openspace.html#and. 44. National Association of Realtors®, "On Common Ground: Realtors and Smart Growth, Winter 2005; and Trust for Public Land, "Voters Approve $2.4 Billion in Open Space Funding," press release (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2004). 45. Robert W. Burchell et al., Impact Assessment of the New Jersey Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan, Report II: Research Findings (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research, 1992); and Center for Urban Policy Research, The Costs and Benefits of Alternative Growth Patterns: The Impact Assessment of the New Jersey State Plan (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Author, 2000). 46. U.S. Department of Transportation, Our Nation's Travel (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1995), pp.13, 22. 47. H. Frumkin, "Urban Sprawl and Public Health," Public Health Reports, vol. 117, May/June 2002, pp. 201-217. 48. Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000). 49. www.designadvisor.org. 50. David Dixon, personal interview, American Institute of Architects, December 9, 2004. 51. http://www.nmhc.org/Content/ServeFile.cfm?FilelD=182. 52. http://www.nelessen.org/NAR_web_files/frame.htm. 53. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf. 54. http://www.nmhc.org/content/servecontent.cfm?issuelD=215&contentitemlD=1828. 55. National Association of Home Builders, "What Renters Want" (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2002). 56. http://www.nelessen.org/NAR_web_files/frame.htm#slidel263.htm. 57. Newberg and O'Neil, "Making the Case," p. 47. 58. Robert E. Lang and Jennifer LeFurgy, "Edgeless Cities: Examining the Noncentered Metropolis," Housing Policy Debate, vol. 14, no. 3. 59. http://www.nmhc.org/content/servecontent.cfm?issuelD=10&contentitemlD=1007. 60. Fannie Mae Foundation, Results of the Fannie Mae Foundation Affordable Housing Survey (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2002), p. 2. 61. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Trendsetter Barometer (New York: Author, 2002). 36 1 Higher -Density Development Packet age Page 335 o 444 AM-1095 9. Closed Record Review: Rezone at 318-320 Walnut St. Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 07/17/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave Time: 20 Minutes Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action Information Subject Title Closed Record Review on the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the application by Rob Michel for a rezone from RM-2.4 to RM-1.5 for property located at 318-320 Walnut Street. (File No. R-07-28) Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to uphold the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the rezone application. Previous Council Action None. Narrative This is an application by Michel Construction for a rezone from RM-2.4 to RM-1.5 for property located at 318-320 Walnut Street. The Planning Board held a public hearing on the subject application on May 23, 2007, and after deliberation, voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the change in zoning. A verbatim record of the hearing is attached as Exhibit 1. The staff report is included as Exhibit 2. An additional document submitted by the applicant is attached as Exhibit 3 (Higher -Density Development: Myth and Fact, by the Urban Land Institute). Fiscal Impact A ttn eh m o"tc Link: Exhibit 1: Hearing Transcript Link: Exhibit 2: Staff Report Link: Exhibit 3: Higher -Density Development Myth and Fact Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/12/2007 03:22 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/12/2007 03:54 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/12/2007 03:58 PM APRV Packet Page Page 336 of 444 Form Started By: Rob Chave Final Approval Date: 07/12/2007 Started On: 07/12/2007 03:13 PM Packet Page Page 337 of 444 CITY OF EDMONDS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF PLANNING BOARD HEARING File Number R-07-28 May 23, 2007 APPLICATION BY ROB MICHEL FOR REZONE FROM RM-2.4 TO RM-1.5 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 318 — 320 WALNUT STREET (FILE NUMBER R-07-28) Chair Guenther: Moving right along, we move to Item 6b, a public hearing regarding the application by Rob Michel for a rezone from RM-2.4 to RM-1.5 for property located at 318 — 320 Walnut Street (File Number R-07-28). Mr. Chave: Good evening. Chair Guenther: May I add that this is a public hearing. So has anybody had exparte communication regarding this piece of property? All right. We may proceed. Staff report please. Mr. Chave: This is a different location, same applicant. This one, in particular, is on the south side of Walnut, just west of 4th Avenue South and P Avenue South is further west. It's a little hard to see on the overhead here, but it's basically this group of properties that are hatched. The Comprehensive Plan map is illustrated here. Basically, it's in an area that's a large area that's designated for high -density multi -family development. You also have a portion of commercial along 5th Avenue, which is relatively nearby. This is the Petosa's complex, in particular, that you can see here. Further south of Howell, it starts to change a little bit. You have single-family and some public uses, as well. This particular area, starting to the southwest is zoned RS-6, single-family, but a little bit further south you have the park and so forth. Mr. Chave: In any case, when you look at the zoning pattern, currently the properties north of this one, across Walnut and to the east, across 4th, are all zoned RM-1.5. The properties to the west and south move into an RM-2.4 zone. That being said, some of the properties or developments that are actually in the 2.4 zone are actually at a much higher density, and we outlined a couple of those in the staff report. So it truly is kind of a mixture of different developments and densities in that area. Mr. Chave: When you look at the property, there are several residential structures on it now. Starting to look to the east, you see a larger multi -family. Projects down here are obviously larger multi -family, as well. Sort of smaller scale multi- family, but still taking up essentially the extent of their properties to the north and surrounding. A lot of the analysis is actually fairly similar for this proposal, compared to what we were talking about previously. Essentially, the difference between RM-2.4 and RM-1.5 is only in the number of units permitted. The height, bulk, all the other zoning regulations that would govern this kind of development are the same. So really all you are talking about is what the difference in dwelling units that are potentially permitted on the site. Mr. Chave: In this particular case, they've actually gotten ADB approval of a project that was I believe five units. Our understanding is when they go the approval of that project, it was for a certain look and so forth of the building. They actually also contemplated that the same building could be built but the number of units inside it could be increased from five to seven. So that goes by way of illustrating that, really, the only change the density will have, or the only affect the density or rezone will have is simply the number of units. The appearance, design, and so forth of the project really isn't affected. It's just the number of units. Similar to the discussion we just had, if you increase the number of units, you know, the prices will fall. It's a relative thing. Affordability downtown, especially with the property values these days, is still going to be a relative thing. But the prices will be less if you increase the number of units simply because you're working within the same number of square feet. Packet Page Page 338 of 444 Mr. Chave: We cite in the staff report the same Comprehensive Plan direction that really is supporting residences downtown and supporting density downtown for the reasons that the infrastructure's already there. The street system is there, the utilities are there, the support of all of the infrastructure that can handle this kind of development. It can handle this density of development. The Comprehensive Plan has concluded that. We did an EIS years ago on the Comprehensive Plan, and that's why the range of densities in the Comprehensive Plan for this location includes either 2.4 or 1.5. Both of those are handable under the existing infrastructure downtown. So you're just talking about, is a particular density change going to be an issue in this location. Again, there's no reason that we have found that an increase in a couple of units is going to impact the street system so that traffic can't move or it's going to be beyond capacity. All the utility capacities are fine. There is simply no reason to turn it down and there are reasons to approve it. It's going to increase the number of people. It improves affordability, you know, all those reasons that we cite in the staff report. So unless you've got questions, I'll turn it over to the applicant. Mr. Schlumberger: Thank you. I'm going to sound a little bit like a broken record again. Again, my name is Scott Schlumberger, on behalf of the applicant. All of the issues we talked about before pertain to this application, as well, that have already been gone over. Also, for this application, I would like to incorporate by reference that little white paper on your desk in case it comes up separately as far as what are some of the density issues that are germaine to urban infill development. I think we've gone over them. Mr. Chave: Just real quick for the applicant. When you're hearing, getting into the record all the points that you want to make, it's probably not a good idea to refer to another case because that is truly a separate case. So if there are any points that you want to reiterate just for this record, you would want to do that. Mr. Schlumberger: Thank you. Thank you. Just a point of clarification, I just wanted to include another copy, then, of that paper. Mr. Chave: I was referring to when you were talking about things that had been discussed. If there are any of those that you wanted to bring up again. Mr. Schlumberger: Certainly. Chair Guenther: You can certainly reiterate yourself. Mr. Schlumberger: Okay, I like to hear myself talk. Again, we go through the points. I believe that we've covered the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The need for downtown to provide more housing stock to allow the businesses that are downtown to succeed. There's been, with the whole BD 1 through 5, a significant reduction in the allowable housing that will be able to be built on an economic basis, and so this particularly site is quite a bit closer than say the site that we were discussing earlier. It's very close to those business districts which are right around the corner. We'd love to be able to provide housing that is going to be right next to those businesses. Mr. Schlumberger: I believe our proposal is consistent with the zoning ordinance, as far as a multi -family use. I think that the higher densities are certainly part of growth management, as well as part of the zoning ordinance for infill. Surrounding uses. The surrounding uses kind of vary. I think they've been touched upon by staff already. The projects to the south of the subject area, those are actually developed at a density of approximately 1,100 and 950 square feet per unit compared to the 1,500 that we're looking for. It's quite a substantially denser development, and I think it's important to keep that in mind. You've got something that's built to 950, is that horrible? I don't think it is. It provides what is needed. It provides smaller, more affordable units. That's an example of a project that was purchased by the Snohomish County Housing Authority, and we need that. Mr. Schlumberger: The changes, the 4t' point. Again, it's the general intensification of uses that we see. It is reflective of the cost of land and the affordability issues are the same. If we can build some more units, then on an overall basis, they become more affordable. Certainly, this rezone is suitable for the intended land use. The existing improvements, we actually built the triplex on the southern most part, the long box. We actually built that ourselves. We're not really proud of it any more. Over 21 years ago. The other existing improvements, a house that has been there for a long time, I believe that was Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-28 May 23, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page Page 339 of 444 built in the early 40's. We have had issues, wiring issues, heating issues, plumbing issues. It's worn out. The other house at the northwest corner, we acquired that relatively recently. We had to pay way too much money for it. It was built, I think, by somebody who watched ... Did a horrible job of renovating it. We went through it very carefully and decided that we don't really want to have that. I mean, those improvements are worn out. They actually look good, but it's got bad bones. Mr. Schlumberger: Value. Again, the last point, the relative gain to public health, safety and welfare. I think it's important to note that these improvements are worn out on a general basis. New construction would be better. We have already got approved by ADB a five, four to five unit for that site. We designed it as a seven unit, figuring it could go either way. So what ADB has approved as far as the windows and all of that, those are all going to stay the same. Those won't change. So I think that we want to replace some substandard improvements with some new stuff, and it would be nice to get a couple more units out of that. Chair Guenther: Any questions of our applicant? There doesn't appear to be any. Opening this part of the public hearing up to public comment. Please approach the podium, state your name, the city you live in, and keep your comments brief please. Mr. Bernheim: Just on principle, I object to the requirement to keep the comments brief. Chair Guenther: I can make the rules. Mr. Bernheim: No, I realize that. But I'm just maintaining my objection that I don't believe it's called for until the remarks exceed some kind of expectation. A public person should be entitled to make their remarks without intimidation by the Chair to keep their comments brief. Chair Guenther: We're keeping it fair for all of the other comments. Mr. Bernheim: Look, there's nobody here. Mr. Chave: Don't worry, they haven't given you a time limit. Mr. Bernheim: Look, all I'm saying is, you know, it's like point the thing in the eye. I say cut it out. Maintaining the diversity of the housing stock. Okay. Well, you're not maintaining the diversity of the housing stock. You're taking it in one direction. You're presuming the answer, so no wonder you're reaching these conclusions. There's been no analysis or even the question of why this was, what is it 2.4, is that what we're talking about, I mean why is it designated this way in the first place. Why is it designated this way in the first place? Was that to maintain the character or something like that? I think it was, so I mean all I'm saying is I'd like to hear those questions answered. Mr. Bernheim: Again, I want to repeat, despite my apparent antagonism, my support for this whole process to increase the sustainability of the location. But I believe that merely by allowing builders to increase the number of units within a certain envelope, that's only an incidental eco benefit. If you really want an eco benefit, you'll be examining eco benefits, and maybe you are. I'm not privy, I don't follow all this stuff. But like I said before, excuse just one second, let me do it. I would like to ask that my remarks from the previous record be incorporated verbatim in this record, and I would like to do that without having to repeat them all. (Mr. Bernheim's comments from the previous hearing are included below in italics.) Mr. Bernheim: Okay. Well, I'm Steve Bernheim, and I live a couple of blocks from here at 216 — 4rh Avenue North. I am very gratified to have heard the comments from that gentleman here because I could not have said my own comments better myself. I'm very happy and shocked and surprised to find someone so familiar with what's going onto have said what he said, and I endorse his comments wholeheartedly. If you will excuse me, I have made many notes while so instead of making a coherent presentation, I'm just going to put out all of the comments that have occurred to me. Mr. Bernheim: You need more people to support downtown? Let me tell you, there has been no presentation here regarding any of the costs associated with an increased density. The premise offered that more people downtown makes a more vibrant Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-28 May 23, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page Page 340 of 444 place, that may or may not be true, depending on what else you've got going. But certainly, I am not an economist, for heaven's sake, but traffic impact, road where, police impact, fire protection impact, fire inspection impact, expensive construction impact, water consumption impact, electricity consumption impact, trash collection impact, there are many impacts that have never been mentioned in this presentation. So to blindly presume that more people downtown, especially in an area that's zoned for fewer people, presumably with the advice and consent of everybody involved, is presumptuous and incorrect. There's certainly no record for it, that's for sure. So if there's any appeal from this, all I'm saying is there's so many more factors to consider. Mr. Bernheim: Let me tell you the reason I appeared here. It's because I live adjacent to an RM-1.5 property. In fact, it's the property that I sued the City about and won because the plan for it was illegally approved as a 3-story over high building. I sued when it was approved, and I won. The building was never built, and in the big grand scheme of the downtown zoning, much to my surprise, it was rezoned to RM-1.5, and now I know why, because it's going to be RM-1.4. And it's this gentleman here, that said it. I didn't even know I was coming here, because I agreed with Mr. Schlumberger, that I'm a green guy. I believe the regulations in the City should require sustainable building. They should require self -generating electricity through solar panels. They should require thermal hot water. They should require orientation towards the sun instead of towards the streets. All kinds of things like that. But to blindly accept that selling more units for the builder is a better deal for the City, I couldn't have said it better myself than this gentleman here. Mr. Bernheim: Let me mention one other thing. Of course, there's no benefit to the public here. We're giving away public land. We're giving away a right of the people that have presumably said let's control or constrain the growth. We're giving it away for nothing. We're not asking them for anything. We're saying, yeah, increase the density, sell another unit. We're also assuming that what he says about oh, it's going to be more affordable. Notice, what did he say about the people that are here tonight?. Let's talk about affordable housing. It exists already. He said, there is a need for it. But then he said it's obsolete. Well, the units that are coming in aint going to be $212,000 or whatever they are, or they aren't going to be $685 per month. I don't know what you pay, I really don't. Maybe it's $1,275, I don't know. But it's going to cost at least $675 no matter what kind of unit it is. So if you want to talk about affordability, you've got to see the figures. You cannot accept his claim that just because it's a ground floor unit adjacent to a garage that it's going to be affordable, without any definitions or without any evidence. You've got to see those numbers. Mr. Bernheim: So let me remind you... So anyway, I live adjacent to one of these 1.5 properties that I spent $20, 000 suing over and winning and not getting any of my money back from attorney fees because only the builders get attorney fees if they are improperly screwed over by regulations rather than the citizens. So you have got to prove the prices. There's no benefit to the public. You give this away, it's a free gift. You're not asking for sidewalks. You're not asking for walk throughs. You are not asking for rights -of -way. You are not asking for energy conservation. You're not asking for nothing. You are giving it away. Mr.Bernheim: There's no analysis presented by the staff of the purpose of the RM-1.5 zone. Why did the City, you know it was never mentioned, why did the City, in the firstplace, zone this area 1.5? I have no idea, but I hope somebody would ask, and I hope the reason why it was done at 1.5 would be refuted, and there would be some reason for it. In fact, what I heard was, we can't really think of any reason to oppose this. I hope it would just be the opposite. We can't really think of any reason to do this. If it's zoned 1.5, there's no reason. Mr. Bernheim: Let me repeat. I'm a green guy, and I'm in favor of Mr. Schlumberger, of everything he said, except I don't believe the motive. The motive is to sell another unit. Let's not... And the hypocrisy, I mean I think that's proven by what he said about the current building stock. He said ... Mr. Bernheim: Well, there's not been any analysis of the affects of the increase in the density. None. So, although I agree that... And there's no guarantee that the building's going to be the same by bulk. That's what you pointed out, and the other thing that he pointed out was that this just gets turned over as a 35% profit if he puts it on the market tomorrow. So I'm in favor of what he does. I like Mr. Michel, and I'm in favor of this guy, I really like him. But there's something screwy going on that needs... Sorry, my final summary comment is that any changes in the zoning, what this gentleman said is exactly right. Any changes in zoning should be comprehensive, not one by one. Because I live next to one, and if it works like this, I made a big mistake. Thanks. Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-28 May 23, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page Page 341 of 444 Mr. Bernheim: The last point I would like to make is it seems like you are giving something for nothing. I don't understand why there's not a quid pro quo. It's not... I don't believe, and there's no evidence in the record to show, that merely increasing the number of residents within walking distance of Petosa's or the other downtown areas, is automatically a benefit for the City of Edmonds. That hasn't been shown. There's been a determination that a certain kind of density should apply to a certain area, and now without any evidence and solely on the presumption that more people equals more benefit, you're increasing that number. Mr. Bernheim: I don't object to this objective. I mean, I really support it. I'm sure that within the next five years, Mr. Michel's company is going to be increasingly green in everything they do, materials, orientation, everything. It's just that this is ... I believe this kind of ... Particularly living next to a property that, for all I know, might be a subject of the identical proceeding, I feel like there should be a more comprehensive review of the objectives if that's honestly what's being sought rather than just the short-term gain of a particular project. Thanks. Chair Guenther: Anybody else from the public who would like to comment? Ms. Lundquist -Lin: I would just like to say that I was raised here in Edmonds, and then I ran away for 30 years. Chair Guenther: Excuse me. Please state your name and address for the record. Mrs. Lundquist -Lin: I'm sorry. Diana Lundquist -Lin. Mr. Chave: How do you spell that last name? Mrs. Lundquist -Lin: L U N as in Nora, D as in David, Q U I S, as in Same, T as in Tom, dash capital L I N. Okay. I just want to say I wanted to come back here. I had lived in California for some time, and you know, I have a hard enough time as it is with the double handicap. I don't drive. It is accessible to shopping, etc. I just want to live out my years here in Edmonds; to make the move would be a hardship, an extreme one because it's having to start all over and getting to know people here in Edmonds or nearby communities. I have more friends out of state than I do here, but that takes time. I like where I am at; I'm content. I like the set up. Yes, there's a few oldies but goodies, if you will. But I just, you know, what will be will be. But I just want to state that. It would make not only a hardship for me, but also for others as well. But I can only speak for myself. Thank you for your time. Chair Guenther: Mr. Schlumberger, do you have any rebuttal? Mr. Schlumberger: I don't think I have anything to add. Chair Guenther: Staff, any comments? Mr. Chave: No, I mean, one of the speakers was asking for where the analysis was, and why this kind of thing is good in the downtown area. That kind of analysis was part of the Comprehensive Plan, and that's why you have the designations the way they are and the policies that are cited in the report that are supporting this kind of action. You don't go through all the Comprehensive Plan analysis every time that you have one of these requests. The analysis was done for the Comprehensive Plan. As long as you are doing things that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meet the criteria that need to be addressed for a rezone, you are done at that point. Rehashing all of the background, all the analysis, all the reasoning that went into developing the plan and so forth, just isn't appropriate because that's why you did the plan. So I guess that just goes by way of explaining why the criteria are the way they are and why you cite the Comprehensive Plan policies when you review one of these applications. Board Member Works: What about this point of maybe we only need two multi -family designations. I mean, is this something that should be looked at the next time the Comprehensive Plan is comprehensively reviewed. Is this an issue? Mr. Chave: I think it has less to do with the Comprehensive Plan at this point, and more with the zoning. The Comprehensive Plan has been updated quite a bit, and it's pretty recent really. I mean the first one was back in 1995, and so forth, at least under GMA. The zoning ordinance and the zoning, especially the multi -family zones, really haven't been Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-28 May 23, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page Page 342 of 444 changed much at all since 1980. So they're a little bit open to question, I think, at this point. What we've been trying to do over the years is try to fit in density and so forth in a compatible way in the City. When the only difference between two classifications is just the number of units, but the bulk, size, everything else is the same, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Logically, if the infrastructure is there, then more units in the same place is what you want because you can support. Board Member Works: Less expensive. Mr. Chave: Yeah, and it reduces the cost. Board Member Works: Well, I'm wondering if this is something that we should take up at some time because it seems like it's kind of meaningless almost. You've got two that are the same. One the outside they look the same, so why are we going through all this? Mr. Chave: Quite honestly, yeah, that's the quandary that staff has seen. We've wrestled with, okay, what's the real difference between these, and what reasoning would result in recommending turning the thing down. I mean, the Comprehensive Plan says you can have either one. If the impacts really are negligible between the two, then the other policies in the plan supporting more affordability, more density to support commercial, just leads you to one conclusion. Board Member Works: Well, I can see, you know, a zone for the really high, the big apartment buildings that we have, for instance, on 104. But on these others, I can't, in my mind... Mr. Chave: If you had another situation where you had maybe a dead end street or some challenges as far as access and so forth, then the actual density could make a difference. But I think, by and large, when you're talking about a relatively dense area like downtown and a good infrastructure, good street system, it's very hard to develop reasoning in favor of 2.4 as opposed to 1.5. At least in the staff analysis. Board Member Bowman: I completely agree with you. Every time I read this as a new member of the Board, I look at 2.4 and 1.5 and go why are we debating this. Do people just like to split hairs. Mr. Chave: I think, like I said, the zoning dates from a different point in time. I think GMA and some of the things the City's been trying to do, encourage some density while still retaining character, sort of run up against some of the structure of the zone. Board Member Young: Can I suggest ... I totally agree with everything you guys are saying, but we're deliberating a specific request on a zone. What I will totally support is a discussion later about whether it is multi -family or single-family. I think that's a totally valid discussion to have, but not right at this point. Again, my concern is still, you know, let's face it. It's not that they're going to be cheaper, it's just that they're going to not be as expensive as they would be under scenario B. And that's something that I think we at least need to acknowledge. There's not going to be any change in the night life in Edmonds because, you know, you now have five units of multi -family as opposed to three single-family because most of the people who, we're discovering in Seattle, are paying so much for their house, they can't afford to go anywhere anyway. So as has been presented, there is something to be said for having that kind of density option close to where the services are for people who choose not to drive. So I will support it on that basis, but I do think we need to have the broader discussion on what is multi -family versus single-family at a different date. This one I will support. Chair Guenther: I just need to close the public hearing, then we can start deliberating. Board Member Young: Did I get ahead of you ... Chair Guenther: You got ahead of me again, darn it. All right. Board Member Young: I was counting on you to keep me in line. You're the one that blew it. Board Member Freeman: Are we having discussion? Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-28 May 23, 2007 Page 6 Packet Page Page 343 of 444 Chair Guenther: Now we can have discussion and deliberations. Board Member Freeman: Can I say something now because I sat back, you know, and waited until I was invited to speak this time. Board Member Young: Excuse me Board Member Freeman: I would also support it. But something that hasn't really been brought up here, which I think is important, value, the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare. When we look at this particular property, it is particularly close to a lot of the services downtown, including Petosa's, and we do have a lot of people here or a number of people don't drive. I think it's very important that we have as much housing for these people as we can. We talk about the impact. Well, there's no impact if you don't drive, but it does also encourage a more pedestrian lifestyle here, which we are pushing. So for this reason, I will always support increasing densities in this particular downtown area, adjacent to downtown. Chair Guenther: I agree with you. I also see as part of the value of this rezone is that it provides an opportunity to provide better housing stock for the residents of Edmonds rather than maintain substandard, worn out stock that's hard to maintain. I see that as a value to the public. I think we've covered the changes, that we're trying to intensify and get more people into urban areas. That's part of our City policy that's outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. That's my comments. I will support this rezone. Board Member Works: I'll support the rezone for the reasons that are stated in the City analysis. But I think on this Section 6 on value, I think it can be expanded to address the points that Cary has raised and the points that Janice has raised, and Jim where he talks about it's not going to be affordable housing, but it's going to be somewhat more affordable than it would have been if it had been left in the other zoning. I think maybe in the future this section on value could be expanded a little bit beyond just saying it's a value to the tax base and to the property owners. I think there's some other issues that have to do with value that maybe aren't so monetary. But I will support it for the reasons that have been outlined. Board Member Young: Is that a motion? Board Member Works: Should I make another motion? Chair Guenther: You're deliberations sound like a motion. You're on a role. Board Member Works: I'm on a roll. I move that the Planning Board approve File R-2007-28, which is the application by Michel Construction to rezone the subject properties located at 318 and 320 Walnut Street from RM-2.4 to RM-1.5. Mr. Chave: For the reasons ... Board Member Works: For the reasons that are cited by the staff analysis and the additional ones cited by other members of the Planning Board. Board Member Young: I'll second that. Chair Guenther: All in favor say aye. Board Member Freeman: Aye. Board Member Works: Aye. Board Member Young: Aye. Board Member Bowman: Aye. Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-28 May 23, 2007 Page 7 Packet Page Page 344 of 444 Chair Guenther: Opposed. None opposed. Motion carries. Board Member Freeman: Can I just say something before you wrap up the whole thing, please. Chair Guenther: Yes. Board Member Freeman: One thing here, we're talking about what we should do in the future, and talked about look at this 1.5 versus 2.4. The other thing I touched on earlier this evening, I really think we've got to look at the parking requirements. We have this area downtown where we are trying to get more people out and not using their cars. Having this as a minimum of two spots, or whatever it is, is causing problems, especially if we want to get smaller apartments because that would require more parking spots. We have a lot of single people living in this area who only have one car. We also have some people living in the area who don't drive at all. I just think that the parking requirement is, in a way, leading or gearing the size of the apartments and the cost of them. If we could reduce the parking requirements, we might be able to fit an extra apartment or dwelling unit in and get more people living there and also reduce the price of the units, too. I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS. Karin Noyes, Transcriber Date Planning Board Hearing Transcripts File Number R-07-28 May 23, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page Page 345 of 444 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY RE,PORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: EDMONDS PLANNING 130ARD From: Robert Chace, AICP Planning Manager Date: Pl=ing Board Meeting of May 23,2007 File. R-2007-28 Application by Michel Construction to rezonc the, subject properties located at 318 and 320 Walnut Street from Residential Multi Family — RM-2A to Residential Multi Family— RM- 1 .5 (File No.. R-2007-28). Hearing Date, Time, and Place: %Ijay 23, 2007, at 7 -00 PM, Edmonds City Council Chambers Public Safety Complex 2 ti 0 - 5h Avenue North TATILE OF CONTFKrS Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... ........................................ . ........... . 2 A...................................................... --- ................................................... ........ 2 S. RECOMMENDATION- ....... --- .......... —.— ......................................................... ......... ....... ........ - ') II. FINDINGS OF FACT A N D CON CLIUSIONS.........,..................................... ............................ — 2 A. SITE DcSCRTrr10N ........................................ ................................................................. 2 B. STATE EwRoNmEwrAL P01-ICY Acr {SEPA).................. ............... ... -- ........ 3 C. MMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT coo (ECDC) COMPLIANCE--- ................ ....... --- ....... 3 13. COMPREEWNSIVE PLAK ... ............................ ....... --.— ....... -- ....... ............ . 5 111. ATTACHMENT$ ............................................................................................................................. 6 V. PARTIES OF RECORD .............................................................................. . ................................. - 6 City of Edmonds ce Planning Board Packet Page Page 346 of 444 1. INTRODUCTION A. APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Michel Construction 2. Site Location: 318 and 320 Walnut Street (see Attachment 1) 3. Request: Application for a rezone from "Residential Multi Family — RM-2.4" to "Residential Multi Family — RM-1.5" (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) Chapter 20.100 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). b. RECOMMENDATION Based on Findings of Fact, Analysis, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to APPROVE the request for a rezone from "Residential Multi Family — RM-2.4" to "Residential Multi Family — RM-1.5". II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development and Zoning a. Facts: (1) Size and Shape: The parcels under review comprise a rectangular site of approximately 14,218 square feet with frontage on the south side of Walnut Street and the west side of the extension of 4th Avenue South (see Attachments 1 and 2). (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with several residential buildings. (3) Zoning: Current zoning of the subject properties is Residential Multi Family — RM-2.4 (see Attachment 1). 2. Neighboring Development and Zoning a. Facts: (1) North: The properties to the north of the subject property, across Walnut Street, areRM-1.5 and generally developed with multi R-2007-28 staff report. doc Packet Page Page 347 of 444 Page 2 family buildings. (2) East: Across 4th Avenue South is a multi family development (Emerald Place) containing 14 dwelling units developed under the RM-1.5 zone. Further east are commercial buildings fronting on 5th Avenue South. Southeast of the property is the commercial plaza anchored by Petosa's Family Market (zoned BD3). (3) South: Two multi family developments lie south of the property toward Howell Way. The adjoining development, Sound View, contains approximately 42 units. (4) West: A mix of residential units, including single famly, lie west of the subject property toward 3rd Avenue South. A series of multi family developments lie along the west side of 3rd Avenue Suoth. B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) a. Fact: A Determination of Nonsignificance for the change in zoning was issued on May 4, 2007. b. Fact: A previous SEPA determination (DNS) was issued for a proposed 5-unit multi family project on the subject site on February 14, 2007 (ADB-2006-149). Because the applicants have indicated a desire to increase the number of dwelling units to be located in the project from 5 to 7, an addendum to the previous SEPA DNS was issued on May 4, 2007. The addendum indicated that the preject design was not changing, only the number of units located within the building. 2. Conclusion: (i) SEPA requirements have been satisfied, both for the change in zoning and the development of a specific multi family project (consisting either of 5 or 7 dwelling units). C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 2. ECDC Section 20.40 (Rezones) a. Facts: (i) The RM zoning classification is included in Attachment 4 for reference. (ii) The applicant has submitted material in support of their application (see Attachment 3). Their discussion addresses the factors to be considered for a change in zoning. (iii) 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 R-2007-28 staff report. doc Packet Page Page 348 of 444 Page 3 consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district; and, (3) Surrounding. 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. b. Analysis: (i) Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for "Multi Family — High Density" use. Both the existing RM-2.4 and the proposed RM-1.5 categories are consistent with that designation. [2006 Comprehensive Plan, pg. 16] Also refer to the additional discussion under II.D, below. (ii) Zoning Ordinance. The purposes of the RM zone are given in ECDC 16.30 (see Attachment 4). According to 16.30.000.A, the RM zone serves "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. " With respect to site development standards, all bulk and setback requirements are identical between the RM-2.4 and the RM-1.5 zones, as are the uses permitted in each zone. The only difference is the minimum lot area requirements per dwelling unit, which determines the allowed density. The RM-2.4 zone requires a minimum lot area of 2,400 sf while RM-1.5 requires 1,500 sf. The result of the proposed rezone would be to increase the potential number of dwelling units on the site from 5 to 9. The applicant has an approved project design which will accommodate either a 5- or 7-unit project. (iii) Surrounding Area. The subject property is situated within a largely multi family area with a mixture of actual densities. Properties to the north and east are zoned RM-1.5 while areas south and west are zoned RM-2.4. The property directly south (Sound View) was developed with a higher density (32/acre) and the RM-1.5 zone allows (29/acre). Less intensive residential uses are located south of Howell Way. R-2007-28 staff report. doc Packet Page Page 349 of 444 Page 4 (iv) Changes. The character in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcels has been relatively stable in that multi family uses have been established for some time. A general intensification of density has occurred over the years, with newer projects replacing some lower density development. This overall trend is consistent with city comprehensive plan policies encouraging more residents within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center in order to focus development and support the City's downtown commercial area. (v) Suitability. The property in question is economically and physically consistent with the descriptions in the existing Multi Family — High Density Comprehensive Plan designation and in the existing RM-2.4 and proposed RM-1.5 zoning classifications. (vi) Value. It is expected that additional value will accrue to the subject property owners since additional intensity of use will be available to them as the result of the change from RM-2.4 to RM-1.5. Additional value may also be added to the city since, if redevelopment occurs, additional dwelling units will be permitted on the property, thereby potentially adding value to the tax base. c. Conclusions: (i) The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the subject property. (ii) The proposed rezone is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. (iii) Based on the facts and analysis contained above, planning staff concludes that the proposal satisfies the criteria for a change in zoning. D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. Comprehensive Plan Policies: a. Facts: (i) This site is currently designated "Multi Family — High Density" (see discussion under C.l.b.(i), above). Excerpts from the Downtown/Waterfront and Residential Development sections of the Comprehensive Plan are included in Attachment 5. Policies for multi family development address compatible uses and the avoidance of negative impacts while encouraging a range of housing types and densities. Relevant policies for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center include: E.11. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. E.12. Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. E.15. Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services R-2007-28 staff report. doc Packet Page Page 350 of 444 Page 5 within the downtown, especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population. b. Analysis: (i) Changing the zoning of the subject property from RM-2.4 to RM-1.5 provides for increased densities which arguably should promote more residential choices and support for downtown businesses. Impacts should be minimal if the change in zoning is approved, since the height and bulk of buildings will be unchanged. The downtown street grid system and available amenities (sidewalks, transit, available parks and recreation opportunities) support the intensity of development that is proposed by the rezone. This is generally consistent with the overall direction of the Comprehensive Plan. c. Conclusions: (i) The proposal is consistent with the policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan, and with the "Multi Family — High Density" designation for the subject property. E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE No comments were received from City departments reviewing the proposal. F. PUBLIC COMMENTS No letters or written comments were received at the time this report was completed. III. ATTACHMENTS 1. Comprehensive plan and zoning vicinity maps. 2. AerialNicinity Map. 3. Supporting material submitted by the applicant. 4. ECDC zoning regulations for RM zones. 5. Comprehensive Plan policies. V. PARTIES OF RECORD Michel Construction 7907 212`h St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 R-2007-28 staff report. doc Packet Page Page 351 of 444 Page 6 V, jSu ject Propertle r [RM-2.4] Ek - 1 z sp oningr Vicinity Map ... Rezones RS-ID A RS-MP 001 }1,A BOS = CG MP2 PRa i 4 RS-12 RM-3 B02 BP CG2 NIU RS-6 , w I RSW-12 RM�2.4 803 Bhp CAW P RS-8 RS-20 RM-1,5 OD4 BC MP1 1 CS Packet Page Page 352 of 444 PI HOWELL WAY N 4 54 11}p Feel FileR-2007-28 ATTACHMENT #1 A Pr [Slagle Family Urban If! Aft Comprehensive Plan Vicinity Map I� 0 50 100 F(!ut D on, ni ommI HOUVE File R- 007- 8 Packet Page Page 353 of 444 '!f ------ lr--- I bibct-Pr.4 Aerial Vicinity Ma Packet Page Page 354 of 444 " - Am W- W -k , r 1� i� N A r) 51) r[rr File R- 007- 8 ATTACHMENT # 4th & Walnut Re -Zone Application INTRODUCTION The subject site, currently addressed as 318 - 320 Walnut St. and 404 4th Ave S_, contains approximately 14,295 sf and is located at the southwest corner of Walnut and 4th Avenue South near downtown Edmonds. Existing improvements include three different structures containing 5 dwelling units that range in age from 1946 to 1989 and total approximately 6,650 sf. The improvements vary considerably in their respective condition_ None are considered to contribute significant aesthetic appeal. Adjoining land use in the vicinity is primarily multi -family structures zoned RM 1.5 to the north and east and RM 2.4 zoned land uses to the south and west. There are some remaining single-family structures to the west; whereas land in all other directions has been developed with multi -family structures. Many of the remaining single-family structures employ other uses, such as day-care, than typical single- family neighborhoods. This application seeks to rezone the subject from RM 2.4 to RM 1.5 in accordance with the site's high -density multi -family Comprehensive Plan designation. This will increase the allowed unit count from 5 (5.96) units to 9 (9.53) units; however, the physical and market constraints of the site would likely result in a maximum of 7 units, thus increasing the planned zone density by two units, resulting in an effective density of 2,042 sf per unit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject parcels have been identified on the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (CECP) as high -density multi -family residential (RM) for at least the last ten years. The CECP specifically addresses rezone compatibility issues by establishing policy that RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets, such as those present at the subject site, and as a buffer between single family and higher intensity uses. The CECP stated goals, amongst many others, also include the desire to provide high -quality housing and diversity compatible with surrounding uses. Rezoning the site in accordance with its slightly higher density zoning designation commensurate with its CECP designation will help implement those goals and hence be consistent with the CECP. Page 1 of 8 ATTACHMENT #3 Packet Page Page 355 of 444 4th & Walnut Re -Zone Application 2001 'L A1, 4; Specific and relevant policies stated within the CECP that are addres�'6"yO"� application are as follows: Growth Management (pp. 2-3 CECP) A. General The proposed zoning change adheres to policy recognizing Edmond's population demographics and increasing demand for high quality multi -family housing, especially for an age cohort that desires less exterior (yard) maintenance and greater security than that found in lower density neighborhoods. The CECP also recognizes that development within Edmonds will largely occur in the form of redevelopment and infill projects such as the subject. B.1. Citizen participation has already influenced the growth pattern of the community and of the CECP. This will not be altered by our proposal. B.2. The small size of this proposal will not measurably alter established levels of community services. B.3. This rezone proposal recognizes the residential dominance of Edmonds. It is a residential site and any future project will be residential. B.4. Values B.4.a. Efforts to preserve light should be easily met since the proposed zoning has identical bulk standards as the existing zoning. The only change would be the unit count. In addition, the proposed improvements will increase by only two units over that which is currently there. B.4.b. Urban privacy will be maintained through existing development standards that are very similar between existing and proposed zoning as well as compared to current use. B.4.c. View, open space, shorelines and other natural features will be preserved in the context of the small redevelopment project envisioned for the site. B.4.d. Air pollution will not be affected by rezoning. Water pollution would be mitigated upon future development through storm water detention improvements. Noise and visual pollution would be improved upon the redevelopment of the currently obsolete and non-descript improvements. The approved SEPA DNS as a five unit is incorporated by reference. No significant environmental impacts should result from an increase to seven units. Page 2 of 8 Packet Page Page 356 of 444 4th & Walnut Re -Zone Application B.5. Multi -family development, by definition, is intended to promote and balance the range of income and age groups that reside in a given area. RM-1.5 will promote greater affordability than lower densities since it will result in two additional developable units and greater unit variety. Residential Development (CECP pp. 50-58) The next directly relevant section of the CECP that pertains to this application includes the housing goals stated on pages 53-55. B.1. Any future development will be scrutinized in the architectural design (ADB) review process to ensure harmony with its surroundings. B.2. Removal of the existing improvements will improve neighborhood aesthetics. B.3. Limited view encroachments may occur; however, any new construction will be minimally larger or higher than the existing improvements. Sites further east slope upward, hence the westerly views will largely be unaffected. B.4. Retention of all the existing structures is no longer economically feasible. Some of the existing improvements have been in service since 1946 (61 years) and now suffer from several outdated systems. The plumbing and heating have expensive problems, the electrical system is outdated, the parking is insufficient, and the units are awkwardly configured. These improvements no longer contribute to the parcel's highest and best use, nor are they architecturally significant. B.5. Protection of residential areas B.5.a. Privacy will be minimally impacted since the existing improvements would be replaced with a similar sized project. B.5.b. Traffic will directly access the subject via the alley, increasing street parking along 4th Ave and eliminating the access from 4th Ave. This will measurably impove ingress/egress and actually improve street parking. B.5.c. Property values will be enhanced due to the aesthetic appeal of new construction versus the dilapidated condition of the existing improvements. B.5.d. The small size of any subsequent project will minimally impact private property from adverse environmental issues. B.6. Any subsequent residential development will be compatible with natural constraints. Page 3 of 8 Packet Page Page 357 of 444 4th & Walnut Re -Zone Application C. Housing goals — the, -.subject rezone will slightly improve the available variety of unit sizes and prices by increasing the potential unit density of the site. This rezone will also implement the intent and goals of the Comprehensive Plan; in that the RM-1.5 zoning will assist the City of Edmonds in meeting its state mandated growth management goals requiring higher density residential urban development C.1. PRD. The small size and lack of critical areas at the subject site does not encourage PRD development. C.2. Multiple Residential C.2.a. The subject site is located near an arterial street, thus it meets the stated goal of the CECP. C.2.b. Compatibility C.2.b.i. View impacts to surrounding properties should be small given the lower elevation of the site compared to sites to the east. C.2.b.ii. The height allowed in the proposed RM 1.5 zone is the same as that allowed in the current RM 2.4 zone. C.2.b.iii. We believe the future design idiom will complement surrounding development and has already been approved in the ADB process. C.2.c. General Building Design Policies will be reviewed at an appropriate time and will reflect the intent of the CECP and ECDC. Community Culture, Urban Design, Utilities and Capital Facilities Elements (pp 70-100 CECP) This zoning application recognizes and responds to the changing demographics of Edmonds and the fact that there is very little developable multi -family land available. Other areas within the City react to the cultural needs of the community, whereas this site has limited cultural nexus relevant to the general populace. Urban design issues have already been approved in the ADB review and permitting process. The small size of this site has little, if any, impact on the Utilities and Capital Facilities Elements of the CECP. Traffic impacts should be slightly improved since the project will use the alley and eliminate the curb cut along 4th Ave, potentially adding additional street parking. As a result there should be no traffic related concurrency issues associated with the rezone. Page 4 of 8 Packet Page Page 358 of 444 4th & Walnut Re -Zone Application ZONING ORDINANCE Chapter 16.00 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) describes the purpose of the zoning districts. These purposes include the alignment of compatible uses and to provide a means to implement the Comprehensive Plan. (the complete text of the current ECDC is incorporated herein by reference). Compatibility is evident due to the surrounding uses and the fact that the subject site buffers higher intensity uses to the south from lower intensity uses to the north and west. This rezone proposal is consistent with the purposes described within the ECDC Residential Zoning Ordinance sections 16.10.000 and 16.30.000. Specifically, the rezone will result in a greater potential variety of designs and units. Given the site dimensions, this rezone will likely result in two additional units than would otherwise be permitted under the current zoning. Another aspect that justifies the rezoning recognizes the rather "blunt instrument" nature of the dwelling unit density element by itself, especially as pertains to the RM 2.4 designation. The City of Edmonds has two comprehensive plan designations for multi -family — high density and medium density. In practical conflict, the actual zoning classifications for RM 2.4 is considered to meet both Comp Plan designations, presumably because it straddles these two density designation — even though there is only a 600 sf difference between the RM 2.4 and RM 3.0 versus 900 SF between RM 2.4 and RM 1.5. The RM 2.4 designation begs the question as to its applicability in a downtown location. Downtown zoning should certainly reflect a higher allowed density so as to increase the number of residents who can enjoy a pedestrian oriented environment, support downtown businesses and increase the affordability of downtown living. It should also be noted that many of the existing improvements in the RM 2.4 zoned area have actually been developed to a higher density than their RM 2.4 designation. The following lists nearby projects and their developed density in the immediate vicinity: # Address Zone # Units Land Area Density aerial SF/Unit view 1 404 3rd RM 2.4 41 88,000 2,146 2 424 3rd RM 2.4 53 105,415 1,988 3 417 3rd RM 2.4 44 48,787 1,109 4 303 Howell RM 2.4 44 41,817 950 5 325 Walnut RM 1.5 8 11,960 1,495 Average 190 295,979 1,558 Page 5 of 8 Packet Page Page 359 of 444 4th & Walnut Re -Zone Application l�jyh, SURROUNDING USES .> 1dOj The area surrounding the subject site is comprised of commercial, multi -family, and single family residential development. This nominal zoning change would complement surrounding uses. The ADB approved development proposalhas already addressed building design and massing issues. Any future project will likely have very similar massing and bulk standards as surrounding mult-family projects. CHANGES The continuing CECP high -density multi -family designation and the surrounding use along 4th Avenue are the primary factors justifying this zoning change. Other changes justifying this rezone application include the State and County mandated policies requiring Cities to provide their share of higher density urban infill development, as well as the obvious decline of the existing improvements. These properties have been held in stasis for a long time, slowly eroding in improved value until such time as the present when their underlying land value and Comprehensive Plan designation supports higher density multi -family development. It should also be noted that other RM zoned parcels have been taken out of inventory and/or developed to a lower density than intended on the CECP. These include the two office buildings under construction at 220th & 76th Avenue , which were zoned for 9 and 27 units, respectively; the 8 unit at 82"d PI, which could have been 10 units, and the 6-unit condo developed behind Beck's funeral home, which could have been 8 units. The conversion of the Old Woodway Elementary School from residential zoned land to Public Park will also remove a substantial inventory of land previously earmarked to meet the City's GMA obligations. In addition, the recent implementation of the BD zoning and its elimination of a third story severely reduces the feasibility of developing new residences within downtown, thus eliminating an untold number of potential units in the immediate area. Page 6 of 8 Packet Page Page 360 of 444 4th & Walnut Re -Zone Application SUITABILITY 200? The property is economically suited for redevelopment under its current tog; however, the site size and configuration would then result in four or five units over at grade parking. These units would then all be rather large and hence more expensive given current market conditions. Adding additional lower level units would increase the economic viability of a project and benefit the community with lower cost, non -view units. They are no adverse impacts to public health, safety, or welfare related to granting this rezone application. hG«ith The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare gain be measured in several ways. These gains include the improved aesthetic, fire safety, covered parking, and modern construction values realized by a new project. An additional public value will also be the lower -level units that will be more affordable than the upper units, as well as improved traffic circulation and additional parking around the subject. Comparing these benefits to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owner is more difficult. The underlying land value has long been based on the presumption that it will eventually be zoned in accordance with its Comprehensive Plan designation. Thus the market has already factored in any value increase. An additional public benefit results from meeting the state mandated GMA requirements and replacing RM zoned land that has been lost to other uses. Page 7 of 8 Packet Page Page 361 of 444 4th & Walnut Re -Zone Application Attachments 1. Vicinity and Zoning Map with Property lines 2. Topographical survey 3. Aerial photo 4. DNS for Critical Areas 5. Existing DNS SEPA Environmental Checklist 6. Revised Traffic Study 7. Adjacent owners and mailing labels with notarized affidavit Page 8 of 8 Packet Page Page 362 of 444 1. Vicinity and Zoning Maps Packet Page Page 363 of 444 lmomsm Packet Page Page 364 of 444 FL f gjfNG DLpT . Topographical Survey Packet Page Page 365 of 444 o 75 � M.89'44'34" E = — �• t — 10MV a TEET ` CONC. VERT. CURB T L 3 ig L HR 8"PINE 8 C AR 1�' SIGN 130.00, ' ` ICV z � k 60.00 8'SPRUCE 6�9 70.00' �.. ma. 2'j � � 4! ,5 68 lv.: ��6•, 'Sh � 3ti 30 -SPIGOT its 8 a• 6pYtD 'CWM �2 65 a 2p 5 2'-3' HIGH OIL CAP C CONC GA -0O_• CONC. PARCEL C ( r ' PARCEL A Cj = Ex. aLDc - O m o;� > 4g F 6c' ga��o EX. HOUSE i MAPLE(DBL) , r t3' HIGH DUMPSTER '1 6 C 56 m FF=f54.6 e CONC. WALL 13.6' rn " 0 � • ,.1��y � O, 22 5. ���' kph WOOD a.. '$� • - O FENCE °g 2 s • ti• 3' RAIL O mot-• m � _— a '�' � ti �O 6 9 Q.00 .,•trri ' I io S' WOOD44'14 CE 130 OO' _ ^f A g1•� TOP62g INV' p �tq 17.7, 6°gg - S8 3 18"SJ .� W n EX_ BLDG 3` RAIL . €��°13 FEN a. n FF f61.1 5� 6 "CHERRY m PARCEL B "� a � L t$t - � �; P> 6� 12'PINE 6g�h �_� - -- _ + � ^5. 5 vj a 22.9' e a r* w � �Ci ' WOOD m FENCE Co. 6t. 62 6 --'�'' 0 ` ik /" 14'PINE 130.00' m� r '�.. HIGH CONC. WALL/,,,,,IO'CHERR 6S• �Y 30.00 PIN 38.62 F EX. CS N 8944'14- E EX. c8 6g —i $ P to d3 T0P 60.45 INV. 58.59(4'SW) =-} o TOP 60.38 FOUND EX. IRON PIN x— INV. 58.51(4"W) INV. INV. 58.93(4"E) IMTH PLASTIC CAP INV. 58.88(4"W) t3 EX1RU CURB 57.71(18" E) INV. 57.62(18"N) NO'D LSA 17970 INV. 58.33(18"N) a� INV. 58.46(18"W) (0.40E & 0.03'N) E J t _ 1 Packet Page Page 366 of 444 3. Aerial Photo Packet Page Page 367 of 444 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-Multiple Residential in order to incorporate provisions relating - to a new zone to read as follows: {WSS651576.DOC;"aooa6:9000ao,' -1- ATTACHMENT #4 Packet Page Page 369 of 444 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. SingIe-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 Page 370 of 444 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;1/00006.900000/) - 3 - Packet Page Page 371 of 444 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 Page 372 of 444 16.30.030 Site development standards. A. Table. Minimum Sub Lot Area Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Minimum' Per Street Side Rear Maximum Coverage Parking District Dwelling Setback Setback Setback Height (%) (Spaces Unit4 Per Unit) (Sq. Ft.) RM-1.5 1,500 15' 10, 15 25" 5 45% 2 RM-EW 1,500 15' I0, 15' 25' 5'6'' 45% 2 RM-2.4 2,400 15' 10, 15' 25" 5 45% 2 RM-3 3,000 15r2 15i2 15' 25'1'5 45% 2 i Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. 2 RS setbacks may be used for single-family homes on lots of 10,000 square feet or less in all RM zones. 3 See Chapter 17.50 ECDC for specific parking requirements. 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 Ieast 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 lowest 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. 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;l/00006.900000/) -5- Packet Page Page 373 of 444 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 Iess; 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 (WSS651576.DOC;1/00006.900000/) - 6 - Packet Page Page 374 of 444 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;1/00006900000/) - 7 - Packet Page Page 375 of 444 E. To meet the goals of the Growth Management Act and the City of Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan for housing diversity and economical vitality. 16.50.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Single-family dwelling, as regulated in RS-6 zone; 2. Retail stores, offices and service uses, excluding intense uses, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment sales and services; 3. New automobile sales and service; 4. Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents; 5. Printing, publishing and binding establishments; 6. Bus stop shelters; 7. Community -oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code; 8. Multiple Dwelling Unit(s). This use may not be located on the ground floor of a structure; 9. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020; 10. Primary and high schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 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,-1/00006.900000/) - 8 - Packet Page Page 376 of 444 2. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted or conditional use; 3. Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility meeting the criteria listed under subsections (C)(11) through (14) of this section, except that the facility may also be located along a designated transit route in addition to an arterial or collector street. C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Commercial parking lots; 2. Wholesale uses; 3. Hotels and motels; 4 Amusement establishments; 5 Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions; 6. Drive-in businesses; 7. Laboratories; 8 Fabrication of light industrial products; 9. Convenience stores; 10. Day-care centers; 11. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums; 12. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033; 13. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 14. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted or conditional use; 2. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC. {WSS651576.DOC,1/00006.900000/} - 9 - Packet Page Page 377 of 444 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' 25112 sq. ft. of lot area BC- 3 sq. ft. per Edmonds None None None None' None' 353,4 sq.ft. of lot Way 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 further 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 (WSS651576.DOC,1/00006.900000/) - 10 - Packet Page Page 378 of 444 (e) For any buildings fronting on Edmonds Way, the maximum height of the wall or facade 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 nil oil 011 11 1HIM iwl I LOW UNION 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. (WSS651576_DOC-,1/00006.900000/) - I I - Packet Page Page 379 of 444 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; twss651576Doc;1/00006.900000/) - 12 - Packet Page Page 380 of 444 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. APPROVED: MAY(* GAAk 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;1 /00006.900000/} - 13 - Packet Page Page 381 of 444 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 (WSS651576.DOC,1/00006.900000/) - 14 - Packet Page Page 382 of 444 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHING T ON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH S.S. The undersigned, being first duly swom on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general SUMMARY OFORDINgNCE NO. 3627 circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal df the Crty of EdmorWs Washington newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice 0tti On the 2,day of February, 2oo7, the City Council of_ -the City of Edmonds, passed -Ordinance No_.3627 A summary -of the cgntent of said ordinance, consisting of the tM6,_provides as follows_ ANORDINANCE -OF THE CTY OF EDMONDS,INASNING- Summary of Ordinance No. 3627 TON, AMENDING CHAPTER 76.30-Rfv1MULTiRLE_.R€SI- DEPITIAL ANB CHAPTER 16.50I -8C COMM{{NtTy BUSINESS IN ORDER- .TO INCOR RA. CERTgIN City of Edmonds CHANGES REGARDING ZOOM' The -full text Of this Ordinance will be mailed upon -request DATED. this 21st day of Feb ruary„2007: CITY -.CLERK .SANDRA.S. CHASE Published: February 252007. a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition ofsaid paper on the following days and times, namely- February 25, 2007 ECENLD MAR 0 5 2007 iY LE DV Account Name: City of Edmonds and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period - Principal Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of February,2007 Notary Publi and to the State of Washington, residing t Ev ett, Sno County. y PC18Ll0 N� 9-1 7-2008 N - ----- — - - - - - Op i bHt Account Number 101416 Order Number: 673 Packet Page Page 383 of 444 into downtown. Redevelopment of this area should be done in a manner that is sensitive to and enhances the views down Main Street and from the adjoining parks and public areas. 8. Redevelop the area from the east side of SR-104 to the railroad tracks, from Harbor Square to Main Street, according to a mixed use master plan. This area could provide a significant opportunity for public/private partnerships. Under the right circumstances, consolidated parking or a pedestrian crossing to the waterfront could be possible as part of a redevelopment project. Every opportunity should be taken to improve the pedestrian streetscape in this area in order to encourage pedestrian activity and linkages between downtown and the waterfront. Uses developed along public streets should support pedestrian activity and include amenities such as street trees, street furniture, flowers and mini parks. Main and Dayton Streets should receive special attention for public art or art integrated into private developments to reinforce the visual arts theme for downtown. Redevelopment of this area should also take advantage of the ability to reconfigure and remove the ferry holding lanes paralleling SR-104 once the Edmonds Crossing project is developed. 9. Support redevelopment efforts that arise out of planning for the long term needs of the senior center. These plans should reinforce the center's place in the public waterfront, linking the facility to the walkways and parks along the shoreline. 10. New development and redevelopment in the downtown waterfront area should be designed to meet overall design objectives and the intent of the various "districts" described for the downtown area. Downtown Waterfront Plan Policies. The following policies are intended to achieve the goals for the downtown waterfront area: E.1. Ensure that the downtown waterfront area continues — and builds on — its function as a key identity element for the Edmonds community. E.2. Future development along the waterfront should support the continuation and compatible design of three regional facilities: Edmonds Crossing at Pt. Edwards; the Port of Edmonds and its master plan; and the regional parks, beaches and walkways making up the public shoreline. E.3. Utilize the Point Edwards site to its best community and regional potential by developing a multirnodal transit center with compatible development in the surrounding area. In addition to the regional benefits arising from its multi modal transportation function, an essential community benefit is in removing intrusive ferry traffic from the core area which serves to visually and physically separate downtown from the waterfront. EA Establish a Point Edwards multimodal transportation center which provides convenient transportation connections for bus, ferry, rail, auto, pedestrians and bicycle riders and makes Edmonds an integrated node in the regional transportation system. The new terminal should be planned to reduce negative impacts to downtown Edmonds — such as grade separation/safety concerns and conflicts with other regional facilities — while providing the community with unique transportation resources and an economic stimulus to the larger community. E.5. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed -use development and pedestrian -oriented amenities and streetscape improvements, particularly along Land Use 33 Packet Page Page 384 of 444 ATTACHMENT #5 Dayton and Main Streets. Development in this area should draw on historical design elements found in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an architectural tie throughout the Downtown Area. Pursue redevelopment of SR-104 and the existing holding lanes once the ferry terminal moves to Point Edwards. E.6. Enhance Edmonds' visual identity by continuing its pedestrian -scale of downtown development, enhancing its shoreline character, and protecting and building on the strong visual quality of the "5th and Main" core. E.7. Improve traffic conditions by removing ferry traffic impacts from the downtown core. E.B. Improve and encourage economic development opportunities by providing space for local businesses and cottage industries and undertaking supporting public improvement projects. Of particular significance is the enhancement of economic development opportunities resulting from the Edmonds Crossing project and the enhancement of Edmonds as an arts and water -oriented destination. E.9. Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, natural features (such as the Edmonds Marsh), and marina facilities. Improve public access to the shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous esplanade along the shoreline. The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master Program requirements placed on private development. E.10. Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring improved bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and adequate streets and parking areas. E.11. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. E.12. Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. E.13. Support the development and retention of significant public investments in the downtown waterfront area, including government and cultural facilities that help draw residents and visitors to downtown. E.14. Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds' attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources. These historic structures are a key component of the small town character of Edmonds and it's economic viability. Height limits that reinforce and require pedestrian -scale development are an important part of this quality of life, and should be implemented through zoning regulations and design guidelines. E.15. Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population. E.16. Provide for the gradual elimination of large and inadequately landscaped paved areas. 34 Land Use Packet Page Page 385 of 444 E.17. Provide pedestrian -oriented amenities for citizens and visitors throughout the downtown waterfront area, including such things as: • Weather protection, • Street trees and flower baskets, • Street furniture, • Public art and art integrated into private developments, • Pocket parks, • Signage and other way -finding devices, • Restrooms. E.18. Strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles whenever possible. E.19. Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation. E.20. Develop sign regulations that support the pedestrian character of downtown, encouraging signage to assist in locating businesses and public and cultural facilities while discouraging obtrusive and garish signage which detracts from downtown pedestrian and cultural amenities. E.21. Provide lighting for streets and public areas that is designed to promote comfort, security, and aesthetic beauty. E.22. Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with pedestrian activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed use areas in the downtown area. Downtown Waterfront Districts. In addition to the goals and policies for the downtown waterfront area, the Comprehensive Plan Map depicts a number of districts in the downtown waterfront area. These districts are described below. Retail Core. The area immediately surrounding the fountain at 5th and Main and extending along Main Street and Fifth Avenue is considered the historic center of Edmonds and building heights shall be pedestrian in scale and compatible with the historic character of this area. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses and the entry situated at street level. Uses are encouraged to be retail -compatible (i.e. retail or compatible service — e.g. art galleries, restaurants, real estate sales offices and similar uses that provide storefront windows and items for sale to the public that can be viewed from the street). The street front facades of buildings must provide a high percentage of transparent window area and pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian -scale design features, differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. Buildings Land Use 35 Packet Page Page 386 of 444 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 DU/Acre 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 228th 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 Packet Page Page 387 of 444 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.1.a. Encourage single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view, open space, etc.). C.1. 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. C.2. a. i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets. C.2.b. Compatibility Policies. C.2. b. i. RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of 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 Land Use Packet Page Page 388 of 444 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 55 Packet Page Page 389 of 444 MYTH AND FACT National Multi L I V M HC Housing Council Ut I Packet Page Page 390 of 444 About NMHC—the National Multi Housing Council NMHC is a national association representing the interests of the nation's larger and most prominent apartment firms. NMHC advocates on behalf of rental hous- ing, conducts apartment -related research, encourages the exchange of strategic business information, and promotes the desirability of apartment living. One-third of Americans rent their housing, and 15 percent of all U.S. households live in an apartment home. Doug Bibby, President About Sierra Club The Sierra Club's members are 700,000 of your friends and neighbors. Inspired by nature, we work together to protect our communities and the planet. The Club is America's oldest, largest, and most influential grass -roots environmental organization. Larry Fahn, President About AIA the American Institute of Architects Since 1857, the AIA has represented the professional interests of America's archi- tects. As AIA members, more than 75,000 licensed architects, emerging profession- als, and allied partners express their commitment to excellence in design and livabil- ity in our nation's buildings and communities. Members adhere to a code of ethics and professional conduct that assures the client, the public, and colleagues of an AIA-member architect's dedication to the highest standards in professional practice. Douglas L. Steidl, President About ULI—the Urban Land Institute ULI—the Urban Land Institute is a nonprofit educational and research institute supported by its members. Its mission is to provide responsible leadership in the use of land to enhance the total environment. ULI sponsors educational programs and forums to encourage an open exchange of ideas and sharing of experiences; initiates research that anticipates emerging land use trends and issues and propos- es creative solutions based on that research; provides advisory services; and pub- lishes a wide variety of materials to disseminate information on land use and devel- opment. Established in 1936, the Institute has more than 24,000 members and associates from more than 80 countries representing the entire spectrum of the land use and development disciplines. Richard M. Rosan, President 2 1 Higher -Density Development --Packet age age o 444 Project Staff ULI Project Staff Rachelle L. Levitt Senior Vice President, Policy and Practice Gayle Berens Vice President, Real Estate Development and Practice Richard M. Haughey Director, Multifamily Development Project Director Principal Author Elam Thomas Sprenkle Contributing Authors Nancy H. Stewart Director, Book Program Managing Editor Barbara M. Fishel/Editech Manuscript Editor Betsy Van Buskirk Art Director Anne Morgan Graphic Design Diann Stanley -Austin Director, Publishing Operations Recommended bibliographic listing: Haughey, Richard M. Higher -Density Development: Myth and Fact. Washington, D.C.: ULI—the Urban Land Institute, 2005. ULI Catalog Number: N27 International Standard Book Number: 0-87420-941-2 ©2005 by ULI—the Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20007-5201 Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or in any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by an information storage and retrieval system without written permission of the publisher. Myth and Fact 3 Packet Page Page 393 of 444 ULI Review Committee Elinor R. Bacon President ER Bacon Development, LLC Washington, D.C. Maureen McAvey Senior Resident Fellow, Urban Development ULI—the Urban Land Institute Washington, D.C. Edward T. McMahon Senior Resident Fellow, Sustainable Development ULI—the Urban Land Institute Washington, D.C. Debra Stein President GCA Strategies San Francisco, California Representatives of the partners who directed this work: NMHC Doug Bibby, President Kimberly D. Duty, Vice President of Communications Michael H. Tucker, Director of Communications Sierra Club Neha Bhatt, Associate Washington Representative Challenge to Sprawl Campaign Eric Olson, Associate Washington Representative Challenge to Sprawl Campaign AIA David T Downey, Managing Director AIA Center for Communities by Design ULI Richard M. Haughey, Director, Multifamily Development 4 1 Higher -Density Development —Packet age age o 444 s this country continues to grow and change, communities are left to figure out where all these new people will live, work, and shop. New markets are emerging for real estate that offers a more convenient lifestyle than is offered by many low -density sprawling communities. New compact developments with a mix of uses and housing types throughout the country are being embraced as a popular alternative to sprawl. At the core of the success of these developments is density, which is the key to making these communities walkable and vibrant. Unfortunately, in too many communities higher -density mixed -use development is difficult to construct because of zoning and building codes that favor low -density development with segregated uses and because of opposition from the commu- nity. This publication looks at several myths surrounding higher -density develop- ment and attempts to dispel them with facts to help dismantle the many barriers such developments face. ULI is proud to have partnered with NMHC—the National Multi Housing Council, Sierra Club, and AIA—the American Institute of Architects on this publication. This convergence of interests highlights the importance each organization has placed on finding a new development pattern that better fits the needs of a growing and changing country. ULI will continue to provide forums in which all stakeholders can explore and debate issues about growth and development patterns and how properly designed and incorporated density can be used to accommodate new growth. ULI will conduct research, produce well-balanced information, and identify best practices on issues relevant to growth and density. Through these efforts, ULI and its partners hope to play a role in planning a better development pattern for the future. Harry H. Frampton III Chair Myth and Fact 5 Packet Page Page 395 of 444 Higher -Density Development: Myth and Fact merica's changing population is creating demand for new types of homes, offices, and retail outlets. Better solutions are needed to the challenges created by changing demographics, dwindling natural areas, smog and public health issues, shrinking municipal budgets, and traffic congestion. Commu- nities that answer these challenges will develop into great places to live. America will add roughly 43 million new residents —that's 2.7 million new residents per year —between now and 2020.' America is not only growing but also under- going dramatic demographic changes. The traditional two -parent household with children is now less than a quarter of the population and getting proportionally smaller. Single -parent households, single -person households, empty nesters, and couples without children make up the new majority of American households, and they have quite different real estate needs.2 These groups are more likely to choose higher -density housing in mixed -density communities that offer vibrant neighbor- hoods over single-family houses far from the community core. The fact is that continuing the sprawling, low -density haphazard development pat- tern of the past 40 years is unsustainable, financially and otherwise. It will exacer- bate many of the problems sprawl has already created —dwindling natural areas and working farms, increasingly longer commutes, debilitating traffic congestion, and harmful smog and water pollution. Local officials now realize that paying for basic infrastructure —roadways and schools, libraries, fire, police, and sewer services —spread over large and sprawling distances is inefficient and expensive. Most public leaders want to create vibrant, economically strong communities where citizens can enjoy a high quality of life in a fiscally and environmentally responsible manner, but many are not sure how to achieve it. Planning for growth is a compre- hensive and complicated process that requires leaders to employ a variety of tools to balance diverse community interests. Arguably, no tool is more important than increasing the density of existing and new communities, which includes support for infill development, the rehabilitation and reuse of existing structures, and denser new development. Indeed, well -designed and well -integrated higher -density devel- opment makes successful planning for growth possible. Density refers not only to high-rise buildings. The definition of density depends on the context in which it is used. In this publication, higher density simply means new residential and commercial development at a density that is higher than what is typically found in the existing community. Thus, in a sprawling area with single-family detached houses on one -acre lots, single-family houses on one-fourth or one -eighth acre are considered higher density. In more densely populated areas with single-family houses on small lots, townhouses and apartments are con- sidered higher -density development. For many suburban communities, the popu- lar mixed -use town centers being developed around the country are considered higher -density development. 6 1 Higher -Density Development --Packet Page age o 444 Most land use professionals and community leaders now agree that creating com- munities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses could be the antidote to sprawl when implemented regionally. And across the country, the general public is becoming more informed and engaged in making the tough land use choices that need to be made while understanding the consequences of continuing to grow as we have in the past. Many have also come to appreciate the "place -making" bene- fits of density and the relationship between higher -density development and land preservation. Media coverage of the topic of growth and development has also evolved. Past media coverage of growth and development issues was often limited to the heated conflicts between developers and community residents. Many in the media are now presenting more thoughtful and balanced coverage, and several editorial boards support higher -density developments in their communities as an antidote to regional sprawl. Yet despite the growing awareness of the complexity of the issue and growing sup- port for higher -density development as an answer to sprawl, many still have ques- tions and fears related to higher -density development. How will it change the neigh- borhood? Will it make traffic worse? What will happen to property values? And what about crime? Ample evidence —documented throughout this publication —suggests that well -designed higher -density development, properly integrated into an existing community, can become a significant community asset that adds to the quality of life and property values for existing residents while addressing the needs of a growing and changing population. Many people's perception of higher -density development does not mesh with the reality. Studies show that when surveyed about higher -density development, those interviewed hold a negative view. But when shown images of higher -density versus lower -density development, people often change their perceptions and prefer higher density! In a recent study by the National Association of Realtors® and Smart Growth America, six in ten prospective homebuyers, when asked to choose between two communities, chose the neighborhood that offered a shorter com- mute, sidewalks, and amenities like shops, restaurants, libraries, schools, and pub- lic transportation within walking distance. They preferred this option over the one with longer commutes and larger lots but limited options for walking.' The 2001 American Housing Survey further reveals that respondents cited proximity to work more often than unit type as the leading factor in housing choice.' Such contra- dictions point to widespread misconceptions about the nature of higher -density development and sprawl. Several of these misconceptions are so prevalent as to be considered myths. To some degree, these myths are the result of memories people have of the very - high -density urban public housing projects of the 1960s and 1970s that have been subsequently deemed a failure. Somehow, the concept of density became associated with the negative imagery and social problems of depressed urban areas. The reality Myth and Fact 7 Packet Page Page 397 of 444 is that complex interrelated factors such as the high concentration of poverty and poor educational and employment opportunities combined to doom the public housing projects. Even very -high -density housing can be practical, safe, and desir- able. For example, the mixed -income apartments and condominiums or luxury high rises in New York and Chicago —some of the safest and most expensive housing in the country —prove that density does not equal an unsafe environment. The purpose of this publication is to dispel the many myths surrounding higher - density development and to create a new understanding of density that goes beyond simplistic negative connotations that overestimate its impact and under- estimate its value. Elected officials, concerned citizens, and community leaders can use this publication to support well -designed and well -planned density that creates great places and great communities that people love. With the anticipated popula- tion growth and continuing demographic and lifestyle changes, consensus is build- ing that creating communities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses will be both necessary and desirable. Higher -Density Development: Myth and Fact is the sixth in a series of Urban Land Institute myth and fact booklets. The series is intended to clarify misconceptions surrounding growth and development. Other topics covered have included trans- portation, smart growth, urban infill housing, environment and development, and mixed -income housing. Higher -Density Develapment: Myth and Fact examines widespread misconceptions related to higher -density development and seeks to dispel them with relevant facts and information. Although the benefits of higher- density development are often understated, so are the detrimental effects of low -density development. The advan- tages and drawbacks of higher -density development are compared throughout this publication with the alternative of low -density development. In the process, mis- conceptions regarding low -density development are also addressed. 8 1 Higher -Density Development --Packet age age o 444 40VI Higher -density development overburdens public schools and other public services and requires more infrastructure support systems. The nature of who lives in higher -density housing —fewer families with children —puts less demand on schools and other public services than low -density housing. Moreover, the compact nature of higher -density development requires less extensive infrastructure to support it. ublic officials across the country struggle to afford the infrastructure need- ed to support sprawling development. A recent study analyzing the costs of sprawl estimated that more than $100 billion in infrastructure costs could be saved over 25 years by pursuing better planned and more com- pact forms of development.' The issue has transcended political parties and ideolo- gies and has become an issue of basic fiscal responsibility. California's Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has criticized "fiscally unsustainable sprawl,"' while Michigan's Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm has noted that sprawl "is hampering the ability of this state and its local governments to finance public facilities and service improvements."' NUMBER OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN PER 100 UNITS OF NEW HOUSING 80 70 z 60 W 50 x U 0 40 Mid- to Garden Owner- Cr High -Rise Apartments Occupied W 30 Apartments Single -Family z Homes 20 10 9 21 64 TYPE OF HOUSING Source: 1999 American Housing Survey (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999). Myth and Fact 9 Packet Page Page 399 of 444 M Y T H O N E ( F A C T O N E Progressive and conservative groups have identified sprawl as a real problem. Charter of the New Urbanism states that "placeless sprawl" is an "interrelated com- munity building challenge."' Conservative groups have concluded that "sprawl is in fact a conservative issue" with "conservative solutions" and that "sprawl was in large part created through government intervention in the economy."10 Indeed, numerous government policies over the last half century have led to and supported sprawl. Historically, federal spending for transportation has subsidized large-scale highway construction over other modes of transportation. Financing policies from the Federal Housing Administration have promoted suburban sub- divisions across the nation. Large lot exclusionary zoning has forced the artificial separation of land uses, leading to large distances between employment centers, housing, and retail. But many government agencies now realize they cannot afford to continue providing the infrastructure and public services that sprawl demands. Not only do local governments absorb much of the cost of more and more road- ways, profoundly longer water and electrical lines, and much larger sewer systems to support sprawling development, they must also fund public services to the new resi- dents who live farther and farther from the core community. These new residents need police and fire protection, schools, libraries, trash removal, and other services. Stretching all these basic services over ever-growing geographic areas places a great burden on local governments. For example, the Minneapolis/St. Paul region built 78 new schools in the suburbs between 1970 and 1990 while simultaneously closing 162 schools in good condition located within city limits." Albuquerque, New Mexico, faces a school budget crisis as a result of the need to build expensive new schools in outlying areas while enrollment in existing close -in schools declines. P R O F I L E Y1a`4 Located within walking distance of a Washington, D.C., Metro stop, the Market Common provides housing, offices, retail, and restaurants on a ten - acre site that was formerly a parking lot. The Market Common Clarendon Located on the site of a former parking lot and occupying roughly ten acres of land, the Market Common in Clarendon, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C., provides 300 Class A apartments, 87 townhouses, 100,000 square feet of office space, and 240,000 square feet of prime retail space. Located within walking distance of the Orange Line of Washington's extensive subway system, residents can leave their cars parked while they take public transit to work. They can also walk to a Whole Foods grocery store adjacent to the highly successful develop - ment. Prominent national retailers occupy the ground level of the ti _ z building, and structured parking is provided. The compact develop- ment form of the Market Common promotes walking, biking, and using =A public transit over autos. The apartments are attractive to young pro- fessionals without children, lessening the impact on the county's school system. The project is the result of a successful collaboration of McCaffery Interests, Arlington County officials, and citizens of the Clarendon neighborhood; it has spurred new retail, office, and residential construction on neighboring sites. 10 1 Higher -Density Development —Packet age age o 444 M Y T H O N E ( F A C T O N E Unfortunately for local governments, a growing body of evidence shows that sprawling development often does not pay enough property tax to cover the serv- ices it requires. A study conducted for a suburban community outside Milwaukee found that public services for an average -price single-family house in that commu- nity cost more than twice as much as the property taxes paid by the homeowner." One reason for the disparity between property tax revenue and the cost of public services is expenditures for public schools. Low -density suburbs and exurban areas generally attract families with more school -age children. In fact, single-family developments average 64 children for every 100 units, compared with only 21 chil- dren for every 100 units of garden apartments and 19 children for every 100 units of mid- to high-rise apartments.' The reason is that multifamily housing attracts predominantly childless couples, singles, and empty nesters. And although apartment renters do not pay property tax directly, apartment owners do. Apartments are also usually taxed at a higher commercial real estate tax rate," so a typical mixed -use development with retail, office, and apartments may subsidize the schools and other public services required by residents of low -density housing in the same community. This phenomenon is further exacerbated because many multi- family developments and retail and office establishments pay for their own trash dis- posal, shuttle buses, and security. Reducing the distance between homes, shops, and offices also reduces the cost of public infrastructure. According to one of many studies, "The public capital and operating costs for close -in, compact development [are] much lower than they [are] for fringe, scattered, linear, and satellite development."15 And many of these studies do not take into account the advantages created by making public transit PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD GROWTH: 2000-2010 20 15 Families Uj a with °C No Children x 10 0 cc CD W 5 c� a W 16.0 c o W a —5 Nonfamily Families Households with Children Under18 14.0% TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD Source: Projections of Number of Households and Families in the United States: 1995-2010 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996). — 3.0% Myth and Fact 11 Packet Page Page 401 of 444 M Y T H O N E ( F A C T O N E more feasible as well as making delivery of basic services like mail delivery, trash collection, and police and fire protec- tion more efficient. Another emerging body of research suggests that higher - density development is an important component of eco- nomic development initiatives and helps attract new employers. "Information economy" is a term used to define the growing industries based on the economics of the Internet, information goods, and intellectual property. Workers in this field are known as "knowledge workers," and many believe they are the future of the American econ- omy. These workers are comfortable with the latest technol- ogy and, because their skills are transferable, choose their jobs based on the attributes of the town or city where they are located. They seek out vibrant, diverse urban centers that offer access to technology, other knowledge workers, and lifestyle.16 The economic development game has changed. Employers now follow the workers rather than the other way around. Therefore, communities that focus on providing a high quality of life with the energy and vitality created by urban centers will be much more likely to attract these highly prized, talented, and productive workers than communi- ties of faceless sprawl. Companies that understand the appeal of these communities are making relocation deci- sions with these workers in mind. Studies have shown that increasing employment density increases labor productivity, generally by reducing commuting times." Thus, introducing higher -density projects into a community will actually increase that community's revenue without significantly increasing the infrastructure and public service burdens. Blending apartments into low -density communities can help pay for schools without drastic increases in the num- ber of students. Diversifying housing options and adding amenities like shops and offices close by will improve the quality of life and attract businesses and people that will strengthen the community's economic stability. Increasing density provides a real economic boost to the community and helps pay for the infrastructure and public services that everybody needs. P R O F I L E Highlands' Garden Village Built on the site of the Elitch Gardens amusement park in Denver, Highlands' Garden Village is a walk- able, transit -linked community and a financially viable model for environmentally responsible infill development. New York —based developer Jonathan Rose & Companies developed single-family homes, townhouses, seniors' and multifamily apartments, cohousing, offices, and retail space on the site. At the center, a historic theater and carousel from the original amusement park are being transformed Highlands' Garden Village reuses some structures from the amusement park previously located on the site. The compact development, combined with a variety of uses and housing types, uses public infrastructure more efficiently than low - density sprawling development. into a community performing arts center and a walking labyrinth. Berkeley, California —based Calthorpe Associates designed a plan that put new homes on three sides of a square -shaped village and a commercial "main street" on the fourth. Restaurants, studios, and shops line the street with live/work townhouses and offices above, giving residents the opportunity to live, work, and shop in the same community. The proximity of amenities, location near downtown, and convenience of public bus lines encourage people to walk and reduce travel costs. 12 1 Higher -Density Development Packet age age o 444 f 4 MyTk Higher -density developments lower property values in surrounding areas. No discernible difference exists in the appreciation rate of properties located near higher -density development and those that are not. Some research even shows that higher -density development can increase property values. he precise value of real estate is determined by many factors, and isolating the impact of one factor can be difficult. Although location and school district are the two most obvious determining factors of value, location within a community and size and condition of the house also affect value. Several studies have examined whether multifamily housing has any impact on the value of nearby single-family detached houses. These studies have shown either no impact or even a slightly positive impact on appreciation rates. P R O F I L E Haile Plantation Haile Plantation is a Gainesville, Florida, icon. Although it is denser than surrounding communities, the values of homes in Haile Plantation are often higher than the values of houses in neighboring lower -density communities, because the traditional neighborhood design employed there makes Haile Plantation more desirable and valuable. Beginning with the master plan in 1979, Haile Plantation has been called one of the first new urban- ist communities in the country. Developers Bob Rowe and Bob Kramer in conjunction with the Haile Plantation Corporation developed the 1,700-acre site to include more than 2,700 units, ranging from single-family homes to townhouses and garden apartments. The sense of community has only grown with the expansion of the development to include a town center, a village green, trails, civic uses, and offices. Indeed, it is density and diver- sity that together add value to this popular Florida community. 0 Homes in Haile Plantation sell for more than neighboring 8z homes because prospective buyers view the traditional 0 Z neighborhood design as a valuable and desirable amenity. s Myth and Fact 13 Packet Page Page 403 of 444 MYTH TWO (FACT TWO For instance, one study by the National Association of Home Builders looked at data from the American Housing Survey, which is conducted every two years by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It found that between 1997 and 1999, the value of single-family houses within 300 feet of an apartment or condo- minium building went up 2.9 percent a year, slightly higher than the 2.7 percent rate for single-family homes without multifamily properties nearby." Another study, commissioned by the Family Housing Fund in Minnesota, studied affordable apartments in 12 Twin Cities neighborhoods and found "little or no evidence to support the claim that tax -credit family rental developments in [the] study eroded surrounding home values."" And a long-term study by Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies published in 2003 also confirms that apartments pose no threat to nearby single-family house values, based on U.S. Census data from 1970 to 2000.20 Not only is there compelling evidence that increased density does not hurt property values of nearby neighbors: researchers at Virginia Tech University have concluded that over the long run, well -placed market -rate apartments with attractive design and landscaping actually increases the overall value of detached houses nearby.' They cite three possible reasons. First, the new apartments could themselves be an indicator that an area's econ- omy is vibrant and growing. Second, multifamily housing may increase the pool of potential future homebuyers, creating more possible buyers for exist- ing owners when they decide to sell their houses. Third, new multifamily housing, particularly as part of mixed -use development, often makes an area more attractive than nearby communities that have fewer housing and retail choices.22 P R O F I L E Echelon at Lakeside Echelon at Lakeside is the only multifamily development in an upscale, master -planned single-family suburban neighborhood of Lakeside on Preston in Plano, Texas a suburb of Dallas. Florida -based developers Echelon Communities, LLC, overcame initial community opposi- tion from area residents through high -quality innovative design. The award -winning architecture blends seam- lessly with the surrounding neighborhood's traditional style. Larger -than -normal floor plans, individual entries, and attached garages combine to mirror the grand The award -winning apartments at Echelon at Lakeside were designed to blend with the neighboring luxury homes. estates in the surrounding communities. Although street elevations make the buildings appear to be one single- family home, they actually house several multifamily units. Memphis -based architects Looney Ricks Kiss used five building types and three building styles. All units include high -quality interior finishes; community amenities include a resort -style pool, fitness facility, clubroom, business and conference center, and full-time concierge. 14 1 Higher -Density Development Packet age age o 444 MYTH TWO IFACT TWO AVERAGE ANNUAL APPRECIATION FOR SINGLE—FAMILY DETACHED HOMES 13Y NEARNESS TO MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS PROXIMITY TO MULTIFAMILY Source: NAHB computations based on data in the American Housing Survey: 1997 and 1999 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1997 and 1999). Concerned citizens should use the entitlement process to demand high -quality development in their communities while understanding that density and adjacent property values are not inversely related. Higher -density real estate developers and investors in higher -density real estate need to appreciate the fact that most Americans' wealth is held in their home equity. Therefore, changes in property values can have very real consequences to existing property owners. Likewise, homeowners would benefit from knowing that developers make a substantial financial commitment when investing in new higher -density projects. This invest- ment is an incentive to make the project successful, which can give the commu- nity leverage in working with the developer. Such interrelated and overlapping economic interests among these stakeholders make it all the more likely that a mutually beneficial agreement can be reached. Such an agreement can result in a project that enhances the existing community, ensures the appreciation of resi- dents', developers', and the local government's financial interests, and addresses the needs of current and future residents of the community and region. Myth and Fact 15 Packet Page Page 405 of 444 MYTH Higher -density development creates more regional traffic congestion and parking problems than low -density development. Higher -density development generates less traffic than low -density development per unit; it makes walking and public transit more feasible and creates opportunities for shared parking. ost people assume that higher -density development generates more traffic than low - IVIdensity development and that regional traffic will get worse with more compact devel- opment. In fact, the opposite is true. Although residents of low -density single-family communities tend to have two or more cars per household, residents of high -density apartments and condominiums tend to have only one car per household." And according to one study using data from the National Personal Transportation Survey, doubling density decreases the vehicle miles traveled by 38 percent.2+ P R O F I L E Mockingbird Station The residents of Mockingbird Station in Dallas, Texas, are far less dependent on their cars, because they have a whole host of amenities at their doorstep. Dallas developer Ken Hughes partnered with Denver -based Simpson Housing Group to create the ten -acre pedestrian -oriented urban village, which includes 216loft apartments, an eight -screen film center and cafe, more than 90 shops and restaurants, offices, an enclosed public plaza, and parking, all directly linked to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light -rail system. Mockingbird Station provides direct platform access to DARTtrains, which offer residents an eight -minute commute to Dallas's central business district and a single train connection to the Dallas Convention Center, Reunion Arena, and other downtown entertainment. The new village is also immediately adjacent to the campus of Southern Methodist University and within walking distance of the university's new stadium and sports center. RTKL created architecture reminiscent of historic train stations but with a modern twist to the materials and detailing. Although only limited driving is necessary, a parking garage is provided but placed out of sight and underground. The myriad materials, architectural styles, and amenities create a vibrant transit -oriented community. Residents of Mockingbird Station can leave their cars in the garage and take an eight -minute train ride to downtown Dallas; they can also walk to shops, offices, and a movie theater. 16 I Higher -Density Development Packet Page Page 06 o 444 M Y T H T H R E E I F A C T T H R E E The reason is that higher -density developments make for more walkable neighbor- hoods and bring together the concentration of population required to support pub- lic transportation. The result is that residents in higher -density housing make fewer and shorter auto trips than those living in low -density housing." Condominium and townhouse residents average 5.6 trips per day and apartment dwellers 6.3 car trips per day, compared with the ten trips a day averaged by residents of low -density com- munities. (A trip is defined as any time a car leaves or returns to a home.) Increasing density can significantly reduce dependency on cars, but those benefits are even greater when jobs and retail are incorporated with the housing. Such mixed -use neighborhoods make it easier for people to park their car in one place and accomplish several tasks, which not only reduces the number of car trips required but also reduces overall parking needs for the community. But if retail uses are to survive, they must be near households with disposable income. Having those households within walking distance of the shops builds in a market for the stores. One study indicates that in some markets, 25 to 35 percent of retail sales must come from housing close to shops for the shops to be successful.26 P R O F I L E Southwest Station The Southwest Metro Transit Commission is a small suburban bus system near Minneapolis that serves downtown Minneapolis and numerous other employment and recreation centers, including Minnesota Twins baseball games. The American Public Transportation Association calls itthe "best small system in the country." In an effort to capital- ize and expand on the success of the system, the commission has encouraged transit -oriented devel- opment at its bus stops. In Eden Prairie, Minnesota,tz tz the commission completed a bus depot and five - story parking garage on 22 acres of excess right-of- way. In 2001, it started selling land around the tran- sit complex for retail and residential development. Restaurants, shops, and more than 250 apartments, condominiums, and townhouses soon followed. The new development generated revenue for the com- mission, new public transit riders, affordable con- venient housing, and a suburban lifestyle with the amenities usually afforded only to city dwellers. The Southwest Metro Transit Commission in suburban Minneapolis runs an award -winning bus system and has encouraged higher -density development around transit stops, like this one at Southwest Station in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Myth and Fact 17 Packet Page Page 407 of 444 MYTH THREEI FACT THREE With a typical family now making more car trips for family, personal, social, and recreational reasons than for commuting to work,' reducing the number of noncommuting trips takes on greater importance in the battle to reduce traffic congestion and parking problems. A case study in Washington, D.C., found that workers in dense downtown Washington made 80 percent of their mid -day trips by foot while suburban workers made 67 percent of their mid -day trips by car.28 Although a suburban office park would never reach the density levels of a down- town area, planners can still reduce the auto dependency of suburban office work- ers by using some of the same design techniques. Concentrating density around mw� AVERAGE D. 1 10 2 single-family Detached Apartment 4 2 10.0 6.3 0 TYPE OF HOUSING Source: Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th Edition, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1997). suburban offices, allowing and encouraging retail and restaurants in and near the offices, and planning for pedestrian and bike access can all reduce the number of lunchtime car trips required by office workers. Higher -density mixed -used developments also create efficiencies through shared parking. For example, office and residential uses require parking at almost exact opposite times. As residents leave for work, office workers return, and vice versa. In addition, structured parking becomes feasible only with higher -density developments. Higher -density development also makes public transit more feasible. When a com- munity that includes residences, shops, and offices reaches a certain threshold of density, public transit -shuttles, bus service, trams, or light rail becomes an option for residents. It is estimated that a minimum density of seven dwelling units per acre is needed to make local bus service feasible with an intermediate level of service.' Light rail needs a minimum density of nine dwelling units per acre to be feasible." When a community can take advantage of these options and increase the transportation choices for residents, relief is greater as total car dependency is further broken. Such choices are impossible for low -density developments. 18 1 Higher -Density Development —Packet age age o 444 POYT Higher -density development leads to higher crime rates. •�► The crime rates at higher -density developments are not significantly different from those at lower -density developments. eople sometimes associate density with crime, even though numerous studies show that no relationship exists between the two. A study in Irving, Texas, using geographic information systems and crime statistics, found no link between crime and density. In fact, it found that single-family neigh- borhoods are "not all associated with lower crime rates."" Another study conducted by the University of Alaska found no relationship between housing density and crime in Anchorage." P R O F I L E Westminster Place Although today Westminster Place is a thriving, safe community in midtown St. Louis, it was not always the case. The area, approxi- mately 90 acres, was well known by the St. Louis police department for its high rate of violent crime, which led to the area's becoming blighted. McCormack Baron Salazar, a St. Louis —based developer, brought the community back through the addition of higher -density mixed -income housing comprising affordable and market -rate units. The master plan included for -sale and rental housing, garden apart- ments, townhouses, single-family homes, and even an assisted liv- ing facility for seniors. A new community pool, a bustling retail cen- ter, and a magnet school are included as well. The new plan slowed traffic through the community, added landscaping and street and parking lot lighting, and new "eyes on the street," making it more difficult for criminals to go unnoticed. The area blossomed into a place where people once again feel safe walking. The success of the community spurred the revitalization of surrounding areas. Increasing the housing density, adding some market -rate housing, and developing a design that slowed traffic and added additional lighting changed Westminster Place from a crime -ridden neighbor- hood to a thriving, safe community. Myth and Fact 19 Packet Page Page 409 of 444 MYTH FOURI FACT FOUR P R O F I L E East Village East Village is a small urban revitalization project on the edge of downtown Minneapolis. Before the project was built, the neglected 2.9-acre site contained several deteriorating rental homes, old commer- cial buildings, and abandoned surface parking lots. The neighborhood wanted to improve the area and the image of one of the city's oldest neighborhoods, Elliot Park. The developers of the project, Central Community Housing Trust and East Village Housing Corporation, developed the new mixed -income housing and commercial community to encourage a sense of community and ownership. East Village now features community green space, pedestrian paths, and neighborhood businesses. Buildings sur- round the greenway that leads to Elliot Park, a city park with year-round activities and a community center. Brick, bay windows, and French balconies complement historic buildings in the area. In addition, all buildings have multiple entrances to encourage interaction among neighbors. An underground 350- space parking garage frees up space for landscaped areas. This once neglected area has won two awards for innovation and design and become an exceedingly successful vibrant and safe community. 40 is The additional "eyes on the street" created by the development of East Village in Minneapolis has led to a safer vibrant community. 20 1 Higher -Density Development Packet Page age o 444 MYTH FOURI FACT FOUR Arizona researchers found that when police data are analyzed per unit, apartments actually create less demand for police services than a comparable number of single- family houses. In Tempe, Arizona, a random sample of 1,000 calls for service showed that 35 percent originated from single-family houses and just 21 percent came from apartments. Similarly, a random sample of 600 calls for service in Phoenix, Arizona, found that an apartment unit's demand for police services was less than half of the demand created by a single-family house.13 One reason for the misperception that crime and density are related could be that crime reports tend to characterize multifamily properties as a single "house" and may record every visit to an apartment community as happening at a single house. But a multifamily property with 250 units is more accurately defined as 250 houses. To truly compare crime rates between multifamily properties and single-family houses, the officer would have to count each household in the multifamily commu- nity as the equivalent of a separate single-family household. When they do so, many find what the previous studies prove: that crime rates between different housing types are comparable. Higher -density developments can actually help reduce crime by increasing pedestrian activity and fostering a 24hour community that puts more "eyes on the street"' at all times. Many residents say they chose higher -density housing specifically because they felt more secure there; they feel safer because there are more people coming and going, making it more difficult for criminals to act without being discovered. This factor could explain why a ULI study of different housing types in Greenwich, Connecticut, shows that higher -density housing is significantly less likely to be bur- glarized than single-family houses " The relationships among design, management, and security became better understood in the past few decades with the publication of several seminal works, including Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design by Oscar Newman" and Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in our Communities by George Kelling and Catherine Coles." Many new higher - density developments include better lighting plans and careful placement of buildings and landscaping to reduce opportunities for crime, contributing to a safer community. With the emergence of better -quality designs, higher -density mixed -use develop- ment is an attractive and safe addition to a community, one that is increasingly attracting a professional constituency seeking safety features. In fact, the luxury segment is one of the fastest -growing components of the multifamily industry.38 Myth and Fact 21 Packet Page Page 411 of 444 I-NAYM917H Higher -density development is environmentally more destructive than lower -density development. 1W Low -density development increases air and water pollution and destroys natural areas by paving and urbanizing greater swaths of land. ow -density sprawl takes an enormous toll on our air, water, and land. The United States is now losing a staggering 2 million acres of land a year to haphazard, sprawling development.39 More than 50 percent of Americans live in places where the air is unhealthy to breathe,40 and childhood asthma and other respiratory diseases are on the rise." Almost half the damage to our streams, lakes, and rivers is the result of polluted runoff from paved surfaces.42 It is inefficient land use, not economic growth, that accounts for the rapid loss of open space and farms. Since 1994, housing lots larger than ten acres have account- ed for 55 percent of the land developed.' This loss of land often causes unexpect- ed economic challenges for rural communities, where farmland, forests, ranchland, and open space tend to be the economic drivers that attract businesses, residents, and tourists. Low -density sprawl compromises the resources that are the core of the community's economy and character. The majority of American homeowners think it is important to stop these trends. In fact, 76 percent of local ballot initiatives related to land conservation passed in November 2004, making $2.4 billion in fund- ing available for protection of parks and open space.' But purchasing land is only part of the solution and not always an option for financially strapped governments. Higher -density development offers the best solution to managing growth and pro- tecting clean air and clean water. Placing new development into already urbanized areas that are equipped with all the basic infrastructure like utility lines, police and fire protection, schools, and shops eliminates the financial and environmental costs of stretching those services farther and farther out from the core community. Com- pact urban design reduces driving and smog and preserves the natural areas that are assets of the community: watersheds, wetlands, working farms, open space, and wildlife corridors. It further minimizes impervious surface area, which causes ero- sion and polluted stormwater runoff. Two studies completed for the state of New Jersey confirm that compact development can achieve a 30 percent reduction in runoff and an 83 percent reduction in water consumption compared with conven- tional suburban development.45 22 1 Higher -Density Development Packet Page age o 444 M Y T H F I V E I F A C T F I V E P R O F I L E Prairie Crossing The developers of Prairie Crossing, George and Vicky Ranr saved $1 million in infrastructure costs through environmer sensitive design. The 677-acre conservation community is located in Grayslake, Illinois, 40 miles northwest of Chicag and one hour south of Milwaukee. The community feature 350 acres of open space, including 160 acres of restored prairie,158 acres of active farmland,13 acres of wetlands 22-acre lake, a village green, and several neighborhood p; Houses are sited to protect natural features such as hedge- rows, native habitat, and wetlands. Designed with colors and architecture inspired by the landscape, every home has a view of open space and direct access to ten miles of on -site walk- ing and biking trails. Wide sidewalks, deep front porches, and rear garages encourage neighbors to meet. The homes were built with U.S. Department of Energy —approved green building techniques. As a result, they are 50 percent more energy efficient than other homes in the Chicago area, and they sell for a 33 percent sales premium. Station Village is the last phase of Prairie Crossing. When complete, it will include residential, retail, and office space, all within walking distance of two commuter train stations. Residents can ride Metra's North Line to Chicago's Union Station or the Central Line to downtown Chicago and O'Hare Airport. More than half the land at Prairie Crossing was preserved as open space, and homes were built with approved green building techniques. Myth and Fact 23 Packet Page Page 413 of 444 M Y T H F I V E I F A C T F I V E P R O F I L E The Preserve USS Real Estate originally held a 550-acre tract of land in Hoover, Alabama, but sold 250 acres to the city, intending to create the Moss Rock Nature Preserve. The 680 single-family homes, 50,000 square feet of retail, and 50,000 square feet of office space are concentrated on the remaining 311-acre site. Before development of the Preserve, Hoover was characterized by sprawling conven- tional development and lacked a town center. The Preserve's future town center is planned to include 34 live/work units, 14 retail units, and two restaurants: at the heart of the community is the village green, an impressive eight -acre park with a town hall, a fitness center, a junior olympic swimming pool, and a kiddie pool. Residents have access to 15 acres of parks and seven miles of trails that connect to award -winning Hoover schools and the newly created Moss Rock preserve. Clustering development at the Preserve in Hoover Alabama, enabled the creation of the 250-acre Moss Rock Nature Preserve. 24 1 Higher -Density Development Packet Page age o 444 M Y T H F I V E I F A C T F I V E Many communities employ techniques such as infill and brownfield development to transform unused, abandoned lots into vibrant, revenue -generating components of the community. Some create direct incentives for higher -density development. The city of Austin, Texas, for example, created a program that rewards developers for locating projects in the city's existing neighborhoods and downtown. Others award points for a variety of attributes, such as transit access, the redevelopment of empty lots, and an increase in pedestrian facilities. By employing standards for fac- tors like open space, dense development, and impact on water quality, communi- ties can facilitate good urban design that preserves natural resources. Although a well -designed higher -density community offers residents a higher - quality environment, poorly planned sprawl does the opposite. Because low -density sprawl gobbles up so much land through large -lot zoning, it ends up destroying the very thing most people moved there for in the first place —the natural areas and farmland. It forces people to drive longer distances, increasing regional air quality problems. The average American man spends 81 minutes behind the wheel every day, while women average 63 minutes. And surveys show that the time spent driving has been consistently increasing every year.` The national road network, currently at 4 million miles according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, is still grow- ing at an alarming rate, mainly for the purpose of connecting new low -density sub- urbs back to core communities. Along with the water and air pollution, construc- tion of these highways perpetuates the cycle of sprawl, fragments wildlife habitats, and dries up a community's financial coffers. Increasing density not only improves air and water quality and protects open space but also redirects investments to our existing towns and cities. It can revitalize existing communities and create more walkable neighborhoods with access to public transit and hiking and biking trails. Pedestrian -friendly higher - density developments offer general health benefits as well. Mixed land uses give people the option to walk and bike to work, shops, restaurants, and entertain- ment. The convenience of compact communities may help fight diseases related to obesity." Higher -density communities are vital to preserving a healthy environ- ment and fostering healthy lifestyles. Myth and Fact 25 Packet Page Page 415 of 444 INAYMTMH Higher -density development is unattractive and does not fit in a low -density community. Attractive, well -designed, and well -maintained higher -density development attracts good residents and tenants and fits into existing communities. igher-density development comes in many forms. Some of the most attrac- tive well -planned modern development is built at a high density. Across America, appealing higher -density mixed -use town centers have been wildly popular with the public. Lushly landscaped boulevards, fountains, and showcase architecture have created a sense of place in areas previously known only for faceless, uninteresting low -density development. The enduring appeal P R O F I L E Post Riverside Atlanta is often called the poster child for suburban sprawl. However, it is also the home of Post Riverside, a revolutionary new mixed -use pedestri- an -oriented community developed by Atlanta -based Post Properties, Inc., and located on the banks of the Chattahoochee River between Atlanta's bustling Buckhead and Vinings communities. As is the trend nationally, 65 percent of all vehicle trips in Atlanta are to run errands, not to commute to work. With offices, shops, and restaurants within walking dis- tance of the apartments, Post Riverside residents depend on autos much less than their neighbors in lower -density areas. In addition, the community is connected to Atlanta's MARTA subway system and the Cobb County transit system. This award - winning 85-acre mixed -use development includes 25,000 square feet of retail space, 225,000 square M feet of office space, and 535 apartments, all designed around a gracious town square. For many people, this amenity -rich, low -maintenance lifestyle better suits their needs than a traditional single-family home in a low -density neighborhood. Post Riverside in Atlanta demonstrates that higher -density development can be attractive and successful in a commu- nity known for lower -density development. 26 I Higher -Density Development Packet Page Page 6o 444 MY T H S I X I F A C T S I X and desirability of older and more gracious higher -density neigh- borhoods —Georgetown in Washington, D.C., Beacon Hill and Back Bay in Boston, and Lincoln Park in Chicago —attest to the fact that some of the more desirable neighborhoods in America historically have been of higher density than that found in typical outer suburbs. This return to the design principles of the past is at the core of the new urbanist movement that took hold in the 1990s. The move- ment grew as many people came to miss the sense of community that was created by the mixed -density and mixed -use communities of the past. They realized that low -density subdivisions isolated their owners not only from pedestrian access to shops and offices but also from their neighbors. The growing sense of social alien- ation, highlighted in books like Robert Putnam's BowlingAlone,48 has led many back to the comfort of communities that are a reminder of the places where many of us grew up. These new communities combine the best design ideas of the past with the modern conveniences of today to provide residents with what has been missing from many sprawling areas —a sense of community. Today's developers, architects, and planners know that to attract customers and to secure zoning approvals and community acceptance, they must produce attractive and innovative properties that complement their surroundings. Design profession- als are driven to produce projects that meet users' demands, understand and respond to the context of a site, enhance its neighborhood, and are built to last.49In fact, attendance at a recent American Institute of Architects —sponsored conference on density far surpassed expectations, speaking to the interest among land use professionals in addressing the design issues associated with density.50 It is plausible that the high level of citizens' opposition to density may be based on an outdated notion of what higher -density development looks like. A University of North Carolina study revealed that when given a choice between two attractively designed communities, one higher density and the other low density; the majority preferred the higher -density option." Other visual preference surveys con- firm that there is an almost universal negative reaction to the visual appearance of commercial strip sprawl and an almost universal posi- tive reaction to traditional town -like communities of the past, com- munities that almost invariably included a mix of densities and uses " r MOOR P R O F I L E The Plaza at the Arboretum This award -winning mixed -use project in Santa Monica, California, developed by California -based Legacy Partners, achieves a density of 97.5 dwelling units per acre. The attractive seven -story building includes 10,000 square feet of retail space and 350 apartment units ranging from 612 to 1,555 square feet. The architecture firm Meeks and Partners used strong geometric forms to create a playful architectural character that fits nicely in the avant-garde Hollywood studio section of Santa Monica. The devel- opment includes a swimming pool, spa, fit- ness center, and clubhouse. Higher -density developments like the Plaza at the Arboretum present opportunities to create outstanding award -winning architecture. Packet Page Page 417 of 444 Myth and Fact 27 NIyMIrH No one in suburban areas wants higher -density development. Our population is changing and becoming increasingly diverse. Many of these households now prefer higher -density housing, even in suburban locations. hen many of us think of the American Dream, we envision married VVcouples with children living in single-family detached houses in the suburbs. The notion is that the only people who want to live in higher -density areas are those who cannot afford a traditional house with a back yard or who want to live in the middle of the city. Both percep- tions are flawed. This country's population is changing, and so are its real estate preferences. These lifestyle changes have significant implications for suburban development. For the first time, there are more single -person households (26.4 percent) than married - HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE: 2003 (PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL) 11.2 16.4 28.2 ❑ Married couples with children (23.3) ❑ Married couples without children (28.2) ❑ Other family households (16.4) ❑ Men living alone (11.2) ❑ Women living alone (15.2) ❑ Other nonfamily households (5.6) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, March; and Annual Social and Economic Supplement: 2003. 28 1 Higher -Density Development Packet Page age o 444 M Y T H S E V E N I F A C T S E V E N couple -with -children households (23.3 percent)." The groups growing the fastest, people in their mid-20s and empty nesters in their 50s, are the groups most likely to look for an alternative to low -density, single-family housing.54 A growing number of Americans are redefining their American Dream. They are seeking a more convenient and vibrant lifestyle. And while some seek this lifestyle in cities, many others seek the same lifestyle in the suburbs. According to a 2002 study by the National Association of Home Builders, more than half the renters questioned said they wanted to live in the suburbs.55 Moreover, a national survey of homebuyers' community preferences found that nearly three-quarters of all P R O F I L E King Farm This 430-acre community is characterized by the historic architecture of the region but offers an assortment of modern conveniences as well. Developed by King Farm Associates, LLC, King Farm is located in Rockville, Maryland, five miles from the Washington, D.C., beltway,15 miles from downtown D.C., and walking distance from the Shady Grove Metro station. The neighborhood was designed for pedestrians, but the King Farm shuttle makes getting around even easier. The shuttle runs a complimentary route between the King Farm Village Center, the Metro station, and the Irvington Center, a 90-acre commercial com- plex next to the Metro. In addition, two types of public bus service are available at King Farm. At the Village Center,120,000 square feet of retail space is within walking distance from both resi- dential and commercial development. The center also includes 47 loft apartments and a one -acre a village green. Watkins Pond and Baileys Common are King Farm's two residential villages. They offer s single-family homes, townhouses, condominiums, F 0 and luxury apartments intertwined with natural areas. The center of Watkins Pond is a 12-acre city park with tennis and basketball courts, a soc- cer and softball field, two playgrounds, several picnic areas, benches, and paths. King Farm is a successful higher -density suburban community that integrates housing, retail shops, offices, and public transit. Myth and Fact 29 Packet Page Page 419 of 444 M Y T H S E V E N I F A C T S E V E N I% P R O F I L E Victoria Gardens The city of Rancho Cucamonga, located roughly 60 miles east of Los Angeles in California's Inland Empire, has a rich agricultural history and, more recently, a history of low -density sprawl with no real city center. This situation is changing, however, with the opening of the first phases of a huge new mixed -use development known as Victoria Gardens. The development, designed by L.A.—based architects, Altoon + Porter, and being developed jointly by California -based developers Forest City California and the Lewis Investment Company, will create a vibrant higher -density downtown where none previously existed. Rapidly growing Rancho Cucamonga has been traditionally underserved by restaurants and entertainment options. The long-awaited addition of a "place" in the city has been well received by residents. The 147-acre development will eventually contain 1.3 million square feet of commer- cial and community space, including retail, entertainment, office, and civic uses with a cultural center and a library. Twenty acres of housing on site will allow people to live within walking distance of all the amenities of Rancho Cucamonga's new downtown. A higher -density downtown is emerging in sprawling Rancho Cucamonga at Victoria Gardens. Long-underserved residents now have a "place" to go for restaurants, 30 1 Higher -Density Development Packet Page age o 444 M Y T H S E V E N I F A C T S E V E N buyers prefer to live in a community where they can walk or bike to some desti- nations.56 The 2001 American Housing Survey further reveals that respondents cited proximity to work more often than unit type as the leading factor in housing choice.57 These surveys confirm that many people prefer the suburbs but want the amenities traditionally associated with cities, including living close to work. With the continuing decentralization of cities and the rise of suburban communi- ties with urban -like amenities, many people find that they can live and work in the suburbs with all the attributes of suburbia they desire without giving up walkability and convenience. A recent study confirms that in many regions, more office space is located in suburban locations than downtowns," providing an opportunity for people to live near their jobs. Communities and developers that have recognized and responded to the dual trends of decentralized offices and a growing desire for a more convenient lifestyle have been rewarded. Well -placed mixed -use, higher - density developments in the suburbs are increasingly popular, creating a new sense of place. Communities are being developed using the best concepts of traditional commu- nities —smaller lots, a variety of housing types, front porches and sidewalks, shops and offices within walking distance, and public transit nearby. Communities like Celebration in Florida and King Farm in Maryland have been so popular with the homebuying public that past worries over whether the demand exists for them have been replaced by concerns about their rapid price appreciation, putting them out of the reach of all but the highest -income households. Today's real demographic and lifestyle changes are inspiring a return to traditional development styles that offer walkable, bikeable, and more dynamic communities that put residents closer to shops, offices, and parks. Myth and Fact 31 Packet Page Page 421 of 444 I_NAY_ M1rH Higher -density housing is only for lower -income households. People of all income groups choose L40 = higher -density housing. ultifamily housing is not the housing of last resort for households un- able to afford a single-family house. Condominiums, for instance, are often the most sought after and highly appreciating real estate in many urban markets. The luxury segment of the apartment market is also rapidly expanding. Most people are surprised to learn that 41 percent of renters say they rent by choice and not out of necessity, and households making more than $50,000 a year have been the fastest -growing segment of the rental market for the past three years.59 Multifamily housing throughout the world has historically been the housing of choice by the wealthiest individuals because of the access and con- venience it provides. From Manhattan to Miami to San Francisco, higher -density housing has been prized for the amenity -rich lifestyle it can provide. Higher -density development can be a viable housing choice for all income groups and people in all phases of their lives. Many financially secure baby boomers, who have seen their children leave the nest, have chosen to leave behind the yard maintenance and repairs required of a single-family house for the more carefree and convenient lifestyle multifamily housing provides. Interestingly, their children, the echo boomers, are entering the age where many will likely live in multifamily housing. Just starting careers, many are looking for the flexibility of apartment liv- ing to follow job opportunities. Their grandparents, likely on a fixed income, may also prefer or need to live in multifamily housing as physical limitations may have made living in a single-family house too challenging. Providing balanced housing options to people of all income groups is important to a region's economic vitality. The availability of affordable multifamily housing helps attract and retain the workers needed to keep any economy thriving. In many American towns and cities, rapidly rising house prices are forcing working families to live farther away from their jobs. In fact, the lack of affordable housing is mentioned as the number one problem facing working families today." 32 1 Nigher -Density Development Packet Page age o 444 M Y T H E I G H T ( F A C T E I G H T P R O F I L E Rollins Square Rollins Square, a mixed -use development in Boston's South End, is a truly mixed -income community that provides housing for a wide spectrum of people in all income brackets. Twenty percent of the overall units are reserved for people whose income is 30 to 60 percent of the Boston area median income (AMI), 40 percent are for -sale condominiums reserved for working households with incomes 80 to 120 percent of the AMI, and the remaining 40 percent are market -rate units sell- ing for up to $750,000. The residences occupy two city blocks and integrate seamlessly into the existing neighborhood. The varying heights and diverse exterior materials give the appearance that the development was constructed over time. Rollins Square was developed by the Planning Office for Urban Affairs, Inc., a nonprofit developer associated with the Archdiocese of Boston. Packet Page Page 423 of 444 MYTH E I G H T I FACT EIGHT P R O F I L E I'On I'On is a 244-acre master -planned community along the deep -water marshes of Hobcraw Creek in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Just six miles east of Charleston, the com- munity features 700 single-family homes, community facili- ties, and a small-scale commercial area. Vince Graham, principal with the I'On Company, is developing six residential neighborhoods connected by narrow streets, pedestrian corridors, and community spaces. An I'On Guild member, one of 18 builders selected for experience, talent, and finan- cial strength, builds each individual home. The architecture Y is inspired by classic Lowcountry style with large balconies, 79 deep front porches, and tall windows on even taller homes. Z Homes now sell for $685,000 to $1.7 million. Community facil- o ities include I'On Square, I'On Club, the Creek Club, and the Mount Pleasant Amphitheater. Residents also enjoy easy access to the Cooper and Wando rivers, the Charleston har- bor, and the Atlantic Ocean. One neighborhood boat ramp and four community docks are available for crabbing and fishing. Two miles of walking trails are available for resi- dents; a five -acre pond, the Rookery, is a protected nesting site for wading birds. In addition, the public and private schools in Mount Pleasant are some of the best in the area. Some home prices in the well -planned higher -density community of 110n are approaching $2 million. The traditional neighborhood design combined with the community amenities made possible by higher densities have made the community one of the most desirable in the Charleston area. As the problem of affordability worsens, workers on the lower end of the salary scale may move to more affordable cities, leaving a labor shortage in their wake. Such shortages make a region less desirable as an employment center. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, access to a large and diverse labor pool is the most important factor in making corporate decisions on locations." Communities that do not provide housing for all income groups become less desirable corporate locations. 34 1 Higher -Density Development Packet age age o 444 NOTES 1. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/natprojtabOla.pdf. 2. http://factfinder.census.gov/servieUOT-Fable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-gr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&- ds_name=D&-_tang=en. 3. Emil Malizia and Jack Goodman, Mixed Picture: Are Higher -Density Developments Being Shortchanged by Opinion Surveys? (Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, July 2000), p. 12. 4. Smart Growth America and National Association of Realtors®, 2004 American Community Survey: National Survey on Communities (Washington, D.C.: Author, October 2004). 5. Robert W. Burchell et al., The Costs of Sprawl, 2000 (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002). 6. Sam Newberg and Tom O'Neil, "Making the Case," Multifamily Trends, vol. 6, no. 3, Summer 2003, p. 47. 7. "Schwarzenegger Embraces 'Smart Growth' Ideas to Curb Sprawl," CNN.com, Inside Politics, November 21, 2003. 8. Mark Muro and Rob Fuentes, Investing in a Better Future: A Review of the Fiscal and Competitive Advantages of Smarter Growth Development Patterns (Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2004). 9. Kathleen McCormick and Michael Leccese, eds., Charter of the New Urbanism (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999), P. V. 10. Michael E. Lewyn, "Why Sprawl Is a Conservative Issue. Part 1," The Green Elephant, Summer 2002, p. 1. 11. Brett Hulsey, Sprawl Costs Us All (Madison, Wisconsin: Sierra Club Midwest Office, 1996). 12. Ibid., p. 8. 13. U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999 American Housing Survey (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2000). 14. http://www.nmhc.org/content/servecontent.cfm?isPrinterFriendly= 1&IssueID=215&contentlD=827. 15. Muro and Fuentes, Investing in a Better Future, p. 15. 16. Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class (New York: Basic Books, 2002). 17. Timothy F. Harris and Yannis M. Ioannides, Productivity and Metropolitan Density (Boston: Tufts University Department of Economics, 2000), p. 6. 18. National Association of Home Builders, "Market Outlook: Confronting the Myths about Apartments with Facts" (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2001), p. 4. 19. Maxfield Research, A Study in the Relationship between Affordable Family Rental Housing and Home Values in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis: Author, November 2000)• 20. Alexander Hoffman, The Vitality of America's Working Communities (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2003). 21. Arthur C. Nelson and Mitch Moody, "Price Effects of Apartments on Nearby Single -Family Detached Residential Homes," Working Draft (Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Tech University, 2003). 22. Arthur C. Nelson, "Top Ten State and Local Strategies to Increase Affordable Housing Supply," Housing Facts & Findings, vol. 5, no. 1. 23. National Multi Housing Council, "Tabulations of 1999 American Housing Survey" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,1999). 24. Robert Dunphy and Kimberly Fisher, "Transportation, Congestion, and Density: New Insights," Transportation Research Record, 1996. 25. Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th ed., vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1997). 26. "How to Calculate Demand for Retail," New Urban News, March 2004, pp.10-11. 27. U.S. Department of Transportation, Our Nation's Travel:1995, NPTS Early Results Report (Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, 1997), p. 11. 28. G. Bruce Douglas III, at al., Urban Design, Urban Forms, and Employee Travel Behavior, TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference Papers (Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board,1997). 29. Robert Dunphy, Deborah Myerson, and Michael Pawlukiewicz, Ten Principles for Successful Development Around Transit (Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 2003). 30. Ibid. 31. Jianling Li and Jack Rainwater, "The Real Picture of Land -Use Density and Crime: A GIS Application," http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP508/p5O8. htm. 32. University of Alaska Justice Center, "The Strength of Association: Housing Density and Delinquency," Anchorage Community Indicators, series 3A, no. 1, http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/indicators/series03/ aciWa1.housing.pdf. 33. Elliott D. Pollack and Company, Economic and Fiscal Impact of Multi -Family Housing (Phoenix: Arizona Multihousing Association, 1996). Myth and Fact 35 Packet Page Page 425 of 444 NOTES (continued) 34. 1000 Friends of Oregon, Do Four-Plexes Cause Cannibalism? Winter 1999, pp. 2-3. 35. Marcus Felson and Richard B. Peiser, Reducing Crime through Real Estate Development and Management (Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 1997). 36. Oscar Newman, Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design (New York: Macmillan, 1972). 37. George Kelling and Catherine Coles, Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in our Communities (New York: Touchstone, 1997). 38. Gary Kachadurian, Debunking the Homeownership Myth (Washington, D.C.: National Multi Housing Council, 1998). 39. American Farmland Trust, Farmland Information Center, National Statistics Sheet, http://www.farmlandinfo.org/ agricultural statistics/. 40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA Issues Designations on Ozone Health Standards," News Release, April 15, 2004. 41. American Lung Association, "State of the Air: 2004," April 29, 2004, http://Iungaction.org/reports/sotaO4_full.html. 42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress," http://www.epa.gov/305b/. 43. Smart Growth America, http://smartgrowthamerica.org/openspace.html#and. 44. National Association of Realtors®, "On Common Ground: Realtors and Smart Growth, Winter 2005; and Trust for Public Land, "Voters Approve $2.4 Billion in Open Space Funding," press release (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2004). 45. Robert W. Burchell et al., Impact Assessment of the New Jersey Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan, Report II: Research Findings (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research, 1992); and Center for Urban Policy Research, The Costs and Benefits of Alternative Growth Patterns: The Impact Assessment of the New Jersey State Plan (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Author, 2000). 46. U.S. Department of Transportation, Our Nation's Travel (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1995), pp.13, 22. 47. H. Frumkin, "Urban Sprawl and Public Health," Public Health Reports, vol. 117, May/June 2002, pp. 201-217. 48. Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000). 49. www.designadvisor.org. 50. David Dixon, personal interview, American Institute of Architects, December 9, 2004. 51. http://www.nmhc.org/Content/ServeFile.cfm?FilelD=182. 52. http://www.nelessen.org/NAR_web_files/frame.htm. 53. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf. 54. http://www.nmhc.org/content/servecontent.cfm?issuelD=215&contentitemlD=1828. 55. National Association of Home Builders, "What Renters Want" (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2002). 56. http://www.nelessen.org/NAR_web_files/frame.htm#slidel263.htm. 57. Newberg and O'Neil, "Making the Case," p. 47. 58. Robert E. Lang and Jennifer LeFurgy, "Edgeless Cities: Examining the Noncentered Metropolis," Housing Policy Debate, vol. 14, no. 3. 59. http://www.nmhc.org/content/servecontent.cfm?issuelD=10&contentitemlD=1007. 60. Fannie Mae Foundation, Results of the Fannie Mae Foundation Affordable Housing Survey (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2002), p. 2. 61. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Trendsetter Barometer (New York: Author, 2002). 36 1 Higher -Density Development Packet age Page o 444 AM-1074 11. City Council Rules of Procedure Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 07/17/2007 Submitted By: Stephen Clifton Submitted For: Council President Pritchard Olson Time: 30 Minutes Department: Community Services Type: Information Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Discussion of City Council Rules of Procedure including: (1) Cancellation of Meetings, (2) Executive Sessions, (3) Government Access Channel 21, and (4) Committee Assignments. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff No recommendation as this is a City Council policy issue. Previous Council Action Narrative The following documents are provided for discussion purposes: Exhibit 1 is a memorandum from City Attorney Scott Snyder that addresses Executive Sessions and Cancellation of Council Meetings. Exhibit 2 is a draft ordinance addressing the issue of cancellation of meetings. Exhibit 3 is a draft resolution addressing the issue of Executive Sessions. Exhibit 4 is a memorandum from the City Attorney relating to the use of Government Access Channel 21, and also addresses Committee Assignments. Exhibit 5 is a memorandum prepared by Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director, regarding Government Access Channel 21. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - Attornev Memo re: Meeting Cancellations/Exec Sessions Link: Exhibit 2 - Cancellation of Meetings Ordinance Link: Exhibit 3 - Executive Sessions Resolution Link: Exhibit 4 - Attorney Memo re: Ch 21 & Committee Assignments Packet Page Page 427 of 444 Link: Exhibit 5 - Stephen Clifton Memo Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/12/2007 09:42 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/12/2007 09:45 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/12/2007 09:47 AM APRV Form Started By: Stephen Started On: 06/26/2007 11:25 Clifton AM Final Approval Date: 07/12/2007 Packet Page Page 428 of 444 DEN RECEIVED VIPHY JUN 0 4 2007 PP..L. L. C. ,EDMONDS CITY CLERK -A T T'O R N EY S A T L A W MEMORANDUM DATE: June 1, 2007 To: Peggy Pritchard -Olson, President Edmonds City Council Sandra Chase, City Clerk City of Edmonds CC: Edmonds City Council Members FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney RE: Executive Sessions: Cancellation of Council Meetings and Draft Ordinance for Council Discussion Executive Session Attached is a draft of a resolution amending Council Rules of Procedure to add a process to release confidential executive session information for your review. Council Minutes from the Retreat are attached. Public Records Angela Belbeck, our office's Public Disclosure Act expert, recently conducted staff training on public records release. We are available for council committee discussion regarding adoption of the Model Rules generated by the Attorney General. Cancellation Sandy and I have discussed the appropriate process to cancel a council meeting. My understanding is that there were some questions and concerns regarding the process utilized to cancel meetings following the death of Police Chief David Stern. EXHIBIT 1 A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 . 206.447.7000 • Fax: 206.447.0215 • Web: www.omwlaw.com { WSS663550.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 Packet Page Page 429 of 444 Petty Pritchard -Olson, President Sandra Chase, City Clerk June 1, 2007 Page 2 Statutory Structure Under the statutes, the Mayor presides at council meetings but council meeting dates are established by the City Council. RCW 35A.12.110. The City Council designates its regular meeting times and places. Ibid. Special meetings may be called from time to time under a process established by state law. Nothing in the structure authorizes anyone other than the City Council to cancel a meeting. The Open Public Meetings Act gives some further direction but also does not specifically address cancellation. RCW 42.30.090 provides that the governing body may adjourn its meetings. Less than a quorum of the City Council may also adjourn a meeting. If all members of the Council are absent, the City Clerk is required to post notice of cancellation on the door of the meeting place. You can see that there is a hole in the statutory process. There is no specific provision for cancellation of a meeting in advance. Given the inconvenience to members of the public, the staff and City Council when a quorum is not present or there are other valid reasons to cancel a meeting, having some procedure in place for cancellations seems appropriate. The difficulty is that since the Council sets its meeting dates, unless it delegates the authority to Council, a legal conundrum is created. The City Council can only act at a public meeting by action of a quorum of the Council. Therefore, you would have to call a meeting to cancel a meeting. a "call around" by phone or e-mail would be an illegal meeting An alternative would be to delegate by ordinance authority to the Council President to cancel meetings due to specified factors. In the draft ordinance, I have listed an emergency, lack of quorum, and lack of business. These grounds are suggested only. The Council may have others or have difficulties with some which I have put forward for discussion. The extent of the authority to be granted to the City Council President is, of course, at the Council's discretion. WSS:gjz Attachments { W�S6635�0.DOF;1/OOA8.9?0000/} acket age age o 444 0006.900000 WSS/gjz 5/31/07 -- DISCUSSION DRAFT -- ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, CHAPTER 1.04 COUNCIL MEETINGS TO ADD A NEW SECTION 1.04.140 CANCELLATION OF MEETINGS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, state statute provides that the City Council meet at such times and places as it designates, and WHEREAS, the City Council may adjourn its meetings but no provision is specifically made for cancellation, and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to delegate to the Council President the authority to cancel meetings when he or she finds that there is insufficient public business, a lack of a quorum, an emergency, or other reason which indicates that a regularly scheduled Council meeting should be cancelled in advance in order to avoid inconvenience to the public, a waste of public money through staff attendance and other costs, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds City Code Chapter 1.04 Council Meetings is hereby amended by the addition of a new section 1.04.040 Cancellation of regularly scheduled meetings, which shall read as follows: EXHIBIT 2 {WSS663552.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - Packet Page Page 431 of 444 1.04.040 Cancellation of regularly scheduled meetings. In the event that a quorum of the Council will not be available for a meeting, insufficient business exists to justify a regularly scheduled meeting, an emergency such as inclement weather, or other cause makes meeting attendance inappropriate or unreasonable, or other reasonable causes determined by the Council President, the Council President may cancel a meeting. Upon cancellation, the City Clerk shall post the notice of cancellation in accordance with Section 1.04.015, provide notice of cancellation on the City's web site and provide individual notice of cancellation to City Council Members. If a public hearing was scheduled on that date, reasonable efforts shall be made by staff to contact interested parties, applicants or appellants, given the amount of time available before the established meeting time and date. 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. 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: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. IWSS663552.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page Page 432 of 444 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 CITY CODE, CHAPTER 1.04 COUNCIL MEETINGS TO ADD A NEW SECTION 1.04.140 CANCELLATION OF MEETINGS, 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 {WSS663552.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 3 - Packet Page Page 433 of 444 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 5/31/07 -- DISCUSSION DRAFT -- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt additional Rules of Procedure to govern its meetings, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to amend the Rules of Procedure adopted pursuant to Resolution No. to include the following new provisions: 1.1 The Mayor or Chair of a City Council meeting shall make an effort to recognize Council Members in either the order in which they have requested to be recognized, or some other logical fashion, offering each Council Member who wishes to speak an opportunity to speak before other Council Members respond. 1.2 Executive Sessions: Prior to adjournment of an executive session, the Council shall, by consensus, determine what, if any, information may be released regarding the executive session. A discussion to release information shall be confirmed by voice motion in open session. The City Council can take action only in open session at a public meeting. In the absence of a motion and vote, no confidential information shall be released. In the event that, at a later date, the Mayor, Council President or a Council Member wishes to refer to or place EXHIBIT 3 IWSS663567.DOC;1/00006.900000/} Packet Page Page 434 of 444 information relating to executive session in the public record, the Mayor, on behalf of the Mayor or the staff or a Council Member, shall ask the Council President to place an item on an agenda for such a motion and vote. The Council Agenda item shall notify Council Members of the procedural issue to be discussed, but shall not itself release confidential information relating to the executive session. 1.3 Nothing herein shall be deemed to limit notice of the purpose of an executive session required to be announced under the Open Public Meetings Act. RESOLVED this _ day of , 2007. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. {WSS663567.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page Page 435 of 444 DEN ff IRHY L CE P. L. L. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW MEMORANDUM DATE: July 11, 2007 TO: Peggy Pritchard -Olson, Council President City of Edmonds City Council FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney RE: Approaches to the Use of Public Facilities During the Campaign Season Stephen Clifton has provided a memo regarding the use of Channel 21 based on advice which I previously have given to the City Council. His memo assumes the status quo -- that is, a situation in which the City Council does not adopt further rules regarding the use of public facilities such as Channel 21 to advertise meetings. The purpose of this memo is to provide some other approaches or alternatives for Council consideration. As we have discussed in other contexts, a public meeting occurs when a quorum of the City Council discusses public business. One potential approach would be for the City Council to better define what meetings are appropriate for its members as official public meetings. This has two aspects. First, as you know, the list of Council committee meetings is outdated. The active committees in which the City Council, through its individual members participates change annually. New committee assignments are created and other committees either fulfill their functions or cease to meet. You have suggested as to whether or not the list of official committee meetings should be replaced with a more general rule regarding these assignments. The second aspect is whether the Council wishes to limit the use of public facilities, whether it be the Council Chambers or Channel 21, to meetings attended by a quorum of the City Council. City Councilmembers would be free to attend meetings of constituent groups, meet with individual constituents and gather information as he or she deems appropriate. Public facilities would be used for a meeting or to publicize a meeting only when that meeting is called by a majority of the City Council or by the Council President through delegated powers. In other words, only official Council meetings where a quorum of the Council are present would be able to utilize City resources to announce the meeting or City facilities to hold it. A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • 206.447.7000 • Fax: 206.447.0215 • Web: www.omwlaw.com rSS667794.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 Packet Page Page 436 of 444 Peggy Pritchard -Olson, Council President July 11, 2007 Page 2 I look forward to discussing these issues with the City Council on Tuesday. The City Council has a wide degree of latitude when it comes to allocating resources to its functions. As we discussed at the retreat, state statute recognizes the City Council as a legislative body. The Council's individual members are given no particular authority or power outside of their function as members of a legislative body. Councilmembers function as a part of the City Council from it. WSS:gjz { WSS667794.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 Packet Page Page 437 of 444 OF EDAI O City of Edmonds Community Services Department FSt. ggo Date: July 17, 2007 To: Mayor Haakenson and City Council members From: Stephen Clifton, AICP, Community Services Director Subject: Parameters of Use for Channel 21 As requested by Council member Olson, this item has been placed on the City Council agenda initially as a discussion item. If the Council wishes to take action following a discussion of this topic, they can direct the City Attorney and/or staff to prepare appropriate documents. This particular topic for discussion relates to the use of Channel 21 for the purposes of notifying the public about a meeting(s) where a council member wants to meet with his or her constituents At present, neither the council's adopted rules regarding Channel 21 or its restrictions on campaign use of public facilities specifically address advertising meetings between council members and their constituents. The most closely analogous situations to date have been the mayor's neighborhood meetings. Some guidelines, as provided by the City Attorney, regarding the use of public property --in this case Channel 21--to advertise a meeting and the necessary limitations are as follows. RCW 42.17.130 prohibits the use of public office or agency facilities for campaign purposes. The prohibition is not absolute and does not apply to "[a]ctivities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office..." The Public Disclosure Commission has adopted a rule at WAC 390-05-273 which defines "normal and regular conduct." That regulation defines "normal and regular conduct" to be conduct which is: 1. Lawful --either specifically authorized, either expressly or by necessary implication; and 2. Usual --"not effected or authorized in or by some extraordinary means or manner." The city's duty is defined in the same WAC rule: "No local office or agency may authorize a use of public facilities for the purpose of assisting a candidate's campaign..." The City Attorney has, however, consistently advised the council and mayor that communications with the constituents of an elected official are a normal part of the business of any public office. Regarding parameters of use for Channel 21, if a Council member wishes to announce a Council member/constituent meeting during a council meeting, or post a notice of such a meeting on Channel 21, a recommendation from the City Attorney is for council members to observe the following guidelines: City of Edmonds cat Community Services Packet Page Page 438 of 444 1. No campaign signs, literature or other evidence of campaigning should be evident during a constituent meeting; and 2. A Council member shall neither solicit or accept donations for his or her campaign, during the meeting. 3. Items 1 and 2, in addition to any other activity that are regulated by the PDC under its rules regarding campaign contributions or campaign advertising should be presumed to be a campaign activity. The City Attorney's role can not be to advise a council member about a particular campaign or campaign issues. Therefore, council members need to consult their campaign committee(s) regarding these rules. What the City Attorney can advise the City Council about are activities that have been advertised through the use of city facilities. The most difficult part of a constituent meeting will be responding to any questions raised that inquire into a council member's candidacy. When this happens, it is suggested that a council member defer them to a more appropriate forum. An example would be "This is a constituent meeting, and while I may be able to discuss some issues on the council's agenda, I can not campaign at this meeting." Because there are lawful ways for council members to conduct meetings and the use of Channel 21 has not been prohibited by the council, the City Attorney can not advise against this practice, but he has warned that council members need to be scrupulous in observing the difference between meetings with their constituents as sitting council members and using public facilities to conduct a campaign. As noted in past communication with the City Council, the council's adopted rules do not currently address or limit the council or individual councilmember's use of Channel 21 for the conduct of council business, although this particular use could be been questioned. Since use of a public facility for the conduct of council business can be directly expressed or by necessary implication, the council could chose to adopt a rule(s), spelling out how and when Channel or the City's web site may be used by its members. Packet Page Page 439 of 444 AM-1091 12. Report on City Council Committee Meetings Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 07/17/2007 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 minutes for the following City Council Committee meetings: 1. Community/Development Services Committee 07-10-07 2. Finance Committee 07-10-07 3. Public Safety Committee Minutes 07-10-07 Fiscal Impact A ++o�hmnn+a Link: 07-10-07 CSDS Comm Minutes Link: 07-10-07 Finance Comm Minutes Link: 07-10-07 Public Safety Comm Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/12/2007 03:29 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/12/2007 03:54 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/12/2007 03:58 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Started On: 07/11/2007 04:52 Chase PM Final Approval Date: 07/12/2007 Packet Page Page 440 of 444 Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting July 10, 2007 Elected Officials Present: Mauri Moore, Council member Richard Marin, Committee Chair Peggy Pritchard -Olson, Council President Gary Haakenson, Mayor Staff Present: Duane Bowman, Dev. Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Committee Chair Marin convened the meeting at 6:00 P.M. A. Discussion regarding plug-in hybrid cars and charging stations. Richard Marin introduced the topic. He noted that this topic had been continued until the entire CS/DS committee could review the topic. He expressed the opinion that this looked like a good idea but that the city staff needs to examine the costs, alternatives and how other cities have addressed the concept. Council member Moore concurred. Representatives from the Seattle Electric Car Coalition noted that they could provide the city background information. ACTION: CS/DS Committee directed the Public Works Director to investigate the concept of providing a plug-in for electric vehicles including cost estimates, alternatives, experience of other jurisdictions and the possible costs of a short term lease for an electric vehicle and report back to the committee at the August 14, 2007 committee meeting. B. Consideration of request by a non-profit organization to waive ECDC 20.60.020, General Regulations for Permanent Signs, Subsection (E) — "No sign shall have blinking, flashing, fluttering or moving lights or other illuminating device which has a changing light density or color..." Duane Bowman introduced the topic. He noted that this provision in the code has worked well for a very long time. The City could do something separate for non-profit organizations but it would potentially create ill will with for profit businesses who would not be allowed blinking, flashing signs. After discussing the matter, including comment from the citizen who raised the issue, the committee concluded that the sign regulations should not be amended. ACTION: No action taken. C. Discussion of Building Permit application timelines. This item will considered at a special meeting of the CS/DS Committee on July 26, 2007 to take input on legislative issues related to building permit timelines. Staff will not be required to attend. The Committee meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Packet Page Page 441 of 444 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES July 10, 2007 6:00 PM Present: Councilmember Ron Wambolt Councilmember Dave Orvis Staff: Judge Douglas Fair Dan Clements Committee Chair Orvis called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Item A: Judicial Salary Certification for State Funding Reimbursement Judge Fair provided Committee members with background information on the history of the Judge's compensation. It was the Committee's consensus to forward the recommendation to negotiate the salary term of the contract to keep the City eligible for court improvement account funds to the full Council as a consent item. Item B: SRO Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District Dan Clements provided an overview of the School Officer Reserve program and the interlocal agreement which provides for a 50% salary reimbursement. Committee members recommended moving the interlocal agreement with the Edmonds School District for school resource officers to the full Council as a consent item. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 PM. V:\WORDATA\FINANCE COMM MINUTES\2007 FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES\FINANCE - 070710.DOC Packet Page Page 442 of 444 Minutes Public Safety Committee Meeting July 10, 2007 Committee Members Present: Council member Chair Deanna Dawson Council member Michael Plunkett Staff Present: Acting Police Chief Al Compaan Municipal Court Judge Doug Fair Attorney Bio Park, City Attorney's Office Guests: Mayor Gary Haakenson Chris Fyall, Editor, Edmonds Beacon The meeting was called to order at 1800 hours A. Discussion regarding graffiti. Item for discussion was the review of draft graffiti ordinance. Mr. Park stated that he had drafted a broad ordinance and had used language that would survive judicial review by looking at case law involving similar ordinances. For example, possession of graffiti implements requires a showing of intent, not just mere possession. During the review, Council Member Dawson, Council Member Plunkett and Acting Police Chief Compaan felt that displaying for sale and the furnishing to minors language contained in 5.60.040 and 5.60.030(C) should be eliminated. However, Council Members Dawson and Plunkett agreed that the public should have the opportunity to review broader language contained in the draft for discussion purposes . That way the public would have an opportunity to review the draft in its original form even though staff and the committee agreed that the previously referred to sections should be eliminated before a final draft is completed. Council member Dawson also mentioned that Snohomish County will be hosting a "Graffiti Summit" on July 26, 2007 at 8:30 AM for purposes of bringing together interested stakeholders including elected officials, city and county staff, citizens, business and property owners to exchange ideas and partner together on the issue of graffiti. Acting Chief Compaan asked if Council Members Dawson and Plunkett were agreeable if he communicated directly with Mr. Park regarding some non -substantive language issues in the draft. They agreed that would be fine. Action: On July 10, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. The committee reviewed the "Draft Graffiti Ordinance" and Council Members Dawson and Plunkett recommended the draft ordinance be placed on the City Council Agenda for a public hearing to be scheduled at a time to be determined by the City Clerk. B. Judicial salary certification for State funding reimbursement. Judge Fair provided information to the committee that stated recent judicial salary increases at the state level will require the City to increase the judicial salary in order to remain eligible for continued court improvement fund accounts. The State provides reimbursement to the City for a portion of the judge's salary, but only if the City pays a salary equivalent to 95% or greater of a Packet Page Page 443 of 444 district court judge's salary, pro rated by the number of hours worked. Because of this, raising Judge Fair's salary would result in a net financial gain to the City in 2007. Council Member Dawson asked if the increase is approved would it become permanent. Judge Fair stated it was his opinion that the "base salary" would not be increased above the $63,751 amount negotiated in February of 2006. Judge Fair also noted that the City Council could roll the salary back to that amount at any time and added this increase was not permanent. Council Member Dawson asked Judge Fair if he would check with the City Attorney Scott Snyder to confirm that this was in fact the case. Council Members Dawson and Plunkett stated that if City Attorney Scott Snyder confirms this information, the matter should be placed on consent for approval. Action: On July 10, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. Discussion was held on the "Judicial Salary Certification for State funding reimbursement." Council Members Dawson and Plunkett stated after confirmation is received from City Attorney Scott Snyder that City Council could roll the salary back at any time and that this increase was not permanent they were recommending this item be placed on the consent agenda, date to be determined, for review and approval of the judicial salary increase to $70,136 effective September 1, 2007. C. Request for a contract amendment from City Prosecutor. Council Member Dawson noted she was pulling this item from the agenda with the recommendation that staff work with the city prosecutors (Zachor and Thomas, P.S.) on any contractual issues and then, if necessary, the matter can be put back on the agenda. Action: On July 10, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. Council Member Dawson pulled this item from the agenda with recommendations that the staff work with the city prosecutors on any contractual issues and then, if necessary, the matter can be put back on the agenda. Meeting adjourned at 1825 hours Packet Page Page 444 of 444