HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007.09.04 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
September 4, 2007
Call to Order and Flag Salute
1.Approval of Agenda
2.Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B.AM-1151
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 28, 2007.
C.AM-1154
Approval of claim checks #98630 through #98782 for August 30, 2007 in the amount of $662,225.46.
D.AM-1148
Authorization to advertise for Statements of Qualifications from consultants for the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan Update.
E.AM-1149
Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Gray and
Osborne, Inc. for the 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway and 162nd Street SW Park projects.
F.AM-1155
Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Second Addendum to the Interlocal Agreement for vehicle maintenance
services between the City of Edmonds and the Town of Woodway.
G.AM-1157
Report on bids opened on August 28, 2007 for the MCC feeder installation at the WWTP and award to Ewing
Electric, Inc. for the amount of $30,582, including sales tax.
3.AM-1156
(5 Min)
Introduction of Student Representative Hilary Scheibert from Edmonds Woodway High School.
4.AM-1152
(30 Min)
Presentation regarding the Military Family Friendly Employer Program, and proposed resolution
declaring Edmonds to be military family friendly and encouraging area businesses to become a military
family friendly employment partner.
5.AM-1153
(30 Min)
Reconsideration: July 17, 2007 Public Hearing regarding the proposed vacation of a portion of the
public right-of-way adjacent to 17008 - 77th Place West, Edmonds.
6.AM-1158
(45 Min)
Closed Record Appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s denial of a side yard setback variance at 18600 Sound
View Pl. Appellant and Applicant: Dr. Raymond Bogaert (File Nos. V-2006-102 & AP-2007-4).
7.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)
8.(5 Min)Mayor's Comments
9.(15 Min)Council Comments
10.Adjourn
Packet Page 1 of 357
AM-1151 2.B.
Approval of 08-28-07 City Council Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/04/2007
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 August 28, 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.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Draft Minutes for 8/28/07
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/29/2007 11:24 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/29/2007 11:59 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/29/2007 03:28 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 08/29/2007 11:07
AM
Final Approval Date: 08/29/2007
Packet Page 2 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
August 28, 2007
Following a Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding pending litigation, the
Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Acting Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Bio Park, Ogden Murphy Wallace
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Haakenson advised Agenda Item 3 (Presentation regarding the Military Family Friendly Employer
Program, and Proposed Resolution Declaring Edmonds to be Military Family Friendly and Encouraging
Area Businesses to Become a Military Family Friendly Employment Partner) and Consent Agenda Item E
(Authorization for the Mayor to Sign a Second Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for Vehicle
Maintenance Services between the City of Edmonds and the Town of Woodway, Decreasing the Vehicle
Shop Rate) would be removed from tonight’s agenda and rescheduled for a future meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE
AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 2007
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #98471 THROUGH #98629 FOR AUGUST 23, 2007 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $500,868.04. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND
CHECKS #45390 THROUGH #45489 FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 1 THROUGH
AUGUST 15, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $828,834.25
Packet Page 3 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 2
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM PATRICIA TULLER
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) AND PATRICIA DZEIMA (AMOUNT
UNDETERMINED).
3. PRESENTATION REGARDING THE MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY EMPLOYER
PROGRAM, AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION DECLARING EDMONDS TO BE MILITARY
FAMILY FRIENDLY AND ENCOURAGING AREA BUSINESSES TO BECOME A MILITARY
FAMILY FRIENDLY EMPLOYMENT PARTNER
This item was removed from the agenda and will be rescheduled for a later date.
4. PRESENTATION BY PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ON THE UPDATED GROWTH
STRATEGY AND POLICIES
Norman Abbott, PSRC Director of Growth Management Planning, recalled approximately one year
ago four growth alternatives were presented; a preferred alternative has been selected and the Draft
Vision 2040 document prepared. He enumerated the documents provided to the Council including the
draft Vision 2040, EIS and Supplemental EIS, and the Regional View that serves as an Executive
Summary.
He provided a video narrated by Mike Lonergan, Chair of the PSRC Growth Management Policy Board
(GMPB), describing Vision 2040 which updates the long range vision for the Central Puget Sound area.
Mr. Lonergan described the membership of PSRC, King County, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap
Counties, 71 cities and towns, and four port districts, transit agencies and tribes, explaining the PSRC
worked on issues related to transportation, land use and economic development. PSRC distributes
approximately $160 million per year in federal funds throughout the region for transportation
improvements.
He explained Vision 2040 was the over-arching, long range growth management, economic and
transportation strategy for the region. Vision 2040 is supported by PSRC’s functional plans including
Destination 2030 for transportation and the Regional Economic Strategy. The primary purpose of Vision
2040 is to help local jurisdictions identify and accomplish regional objectives by providing broad
direction for the future. Vision 2040 consists of four parts, an environmental framework, a regional
growth strategy, multi-county planning policies, and actions and measures to implement the vision.
He explained the primary reason for updating the vision was anticipated population and employment
growth, estimated to be 1.7 million more people and 1.2 million more jobs in the region by 2040, bringing
the population in the region to nearly 5 million by 2020. He reviewed the update process including the
development of several possible growth scenarios which were reduced to four alternative growth patterns
that were analyzed in a draft EIS. Following an extensive public comment period, the GMPB selected a
preferred growth alternative which was analyzed in a supplement to the draft EIS. Both the supplement
and Vision 2040 will now undergo another widespread review process and written public comment
period.
He described elements of the current vision carried forward in Vision 2040 including urban growth
boundaries, rural areas remain and natural resource lands. Vision 2040 focuses growth in urban areas
particularly compact centers where services exist and calls for designated industrial and manufacturing
centers where intensive land uses accommodate present and future employment growth. The current
vision also includes an efficient transportation system that connects the centers. He described the
environmental framework of Vision 2040 and displayed a chart illustrating how the regional growth
strategy distributed each county’s share of the population growth by regional geography, noting the goal
Packet Page 4 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 3
was to concentrate much of the growth into metropolitan and core cities. He summarized on analysis, the
regional growth strategy performed better than current local plans.
He explained the multi-county planning policies provided direction for implementing the regional growth
strategy, embody the policy framework for Destination 2030 and Regional Economic Strategy and
establish a common framework for all levels of government. The policies cover five topics -
environment, development patterns, economy, transportation and public services. He commented on the
new environmental section that addresses the possible impacts of climate change and calls for coordinated
regional environmental planning. He explained Vision 2040 benefited local government by providing
decision-makers with a regional context for making local decisions, helps local government work together
to bend growth trends, addresses issues that are difficult to resolve at the individual jurisdiction level.
He described the outreach effort regarding Vision 2040 to solicit public comment. He provided PSRC’s
website, psrc.org that contained links to the document. He reviewed the timeline for review of Vision
2040: PSRC Boards review public comments and make final edits and PSRC prepare final draft Vision
2040 and final EIS this fall, GMPB conducts a public hearing and recommend the final Vision 2040 to the
Executive Board this winter, and in April 2008 the Executive Board will take the recommended Vision
2040 to the general assembly for action. He encouraged jurisdictions and the public to provide comment
through September 7, 2007 via letter, a comment form available on the PSRC website or via email.
Councilmember Moore asked what PSRC was seeking from local jurisdictions to add to Vision 2040.
Mr. Abbott answered they were seeking in a comment letter about the vision in the draft Vision 2040 and
how it fit with the city’s vision.
5. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER
5.60, GRAFFITI; DECLARING GRAFFITI A PUBLIC NUISANCE; PROHIBITING
DEFACEMENT OF PROPERTY WITH GRAFFITI AND POSSESSION OF GRAFFITI
IMPLEMENTS; IMPOSING CRIMINAL PENALTIES; REQUIRING THE REMOVAL OF
GRAFFITI; AND ESTABLISHING AN APPEALS PROCESS
Bio Park, Ogden Murphy Wallace, was present to advise the Council during this item.
Councilmember Dawson explained the Public Safety Committee has discussed graffiti numerous times
and agreed to present a very broad ordinance to provide the public a range of what other jurisdictions
have done to combat graffiti. She noted studies have shown the most effective way to combat graffiti in a
community prompt removal and if it was removed within 24 hours three times, the chances of it
reoccurring were virtually nil. Therefore, one of the objectives of the ordinance was to assist with the
prompt removal of graffiti. She acknowledged it could be difficult and expensive to remove graffiti. She
pointed out the Committee did not support the requirement in the ordinance for businesses to keep graffiti
implements behind the counter, check identification and not sell graffiti implements to minors. She noted
the current code contained a provision declaring graffiti a nuisance; however, an improved definition of
graffiti was necessary to assist with abatement.
Councilmember Plunkett explained another goal of the ordinance was to prevent graffiti. The code
currently required that an officer observe a person in the act of graffiti; the proposed ordinance would
allow an officer to stop a person possessing graffiti implements with the intent to commit graffiti.
Councilmember Dawson pointed out the ordinance was only part of the battle against graffiti but would
not be enough to combat graffiti; community involvement and vigilance was also required.
Packet Page 5 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 4
Acting Police Chief Al Compaan explained Seattle was one of the first cities in the Puget Sound area to
adopt a graffiti ordinance in 1996. He recalled a high level of tagging/graffiti was experienced in the
Puget Sound area during that era; graffiti had waned for awhile and was now reoccurring. He noted the
ordinance was intended to provide options for a multi-pronged approach - education to inform the public
regarding the importance of removing graffiti on their property, criminal enforcement, and civil sanctions
imposed via an abatement process for property owners unwilling to remove graffiti. He referred to the
provision in the ordinance regarding possession of graffiti implements with intent to commit a crime,
citing possession of burglary tools or drug paraphernalia as similar possession with intent to commit a
crime offense. He acknowledged vandalism was difficult for the Police Department to address; the
proposed multi-prong approach would provide some assistance.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about statistics regarding increase in graffiti. Chief Compaan answered
to date this year there had been 120 reported incidents of graffiti, although he noted many other incidents
were unreported. As graffiti was reported under vandalism and malicious mischief, it was difficult to
extract statistics for prior years. Anecdotally he acknowledged there was an increase in graffiti on
buildings, parks and signs.
Councilmember Marin asked how the trust fund in the ordinance would be funded. Chief Compaan
responded it would be funded via civil penalties assessed through the abatement process. He clarified the
Police Department would address criminal enforcement; Development Services would address abatement
and any civil penalties.
Councilmember Marin observed each department’s budget was currently used to address the cost of
graffiti removal; the trust fund proposed in the ordinance would provide a mechanism for funding
removal. Chief Compaan advised the ordinance allowed Council discretion regarding the use of those
funds.
Councilmember Dawson acknowledged it was very expensive to remove graffiti. She asked Chief
Compaan to comment on graffiti related to gang activity. Chief Compaan answered the majority of
graffiti/tagging in the City was non-gang related. He acknowledged some may view graffiti as art, others
view it as defacement. Councilmember Dawson commented the difference between art and graffiti was
permission.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether the Police Department had seen an increase in gang activity in
Edmonds in the past year. Chief Compaan acknowledged there had been some gang activity; the Police
Department worked closely with the schools and other Police Departments. Councilmember Dawson
noted her discussions with Edmonds School District indicated they are also concerned with graffiti on
district property.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained Development Services currently reacted to
graffiti by complaint or Police report and Code Enforcement Officer Mike Thies began an enforcement
action. He explained this typically begins with a letter to the property owner informing them of the
situation and requesting a schedule for removing graffiti. If the property owner ignores the letter, an
Order to Correct is issued. If the Order to Correct is ignored, a Notice of Violation is issued which
includes fines of $100/day, each day a separate offense. He could not recall an incident that reached that
level. The ordinance as currently structured followed that same process although the timeframes were
much shorter - five business days. He suggested that that timeframe may be too short.
Mr. Bowman suggested language from the Seattle ordinance be incorporated that allowed for no
monetary penalties to be assessed and listed factors that could be considered such as whether the
Packet Page 6 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 5
responsible party cooperated with efforts to abate the graffiti nuisance, whether the responsible party
failed to appear at the hearing, whether the responsible party made substantial progress in abating the
graffiti nuisance and any other relative factors. Councilmember Dawson agreed with Mr. Bowman’s
suggestion. She suggested including language to address the time period such as unless waived by the
Director for good cause. Mr. Bowman agreed language that allowed staff to work with the property
owner would be appropriate.
Councilmember Dawson noted Snohomish County had a Voluntary Correction Agreement that allowed
property owners to enter into an agreement to avoid delays in removing graffiti. She asked whether the
code currently contained language regarding a Voluntary Correction Agreement language. Mr. Bowman
advised it did not, explaining once staff sent a letter and the property owner responded with a proposal for
removal, staff considered whether it was reasonable and if so, that became an informal agreement. If the
property owner failed to act, staff proceeded with an Order to Correct and Notice of Violation.
Councilmember Dawson noted there currently were two levels of civil violation for nuisances in the code,
$100/day and $250/day; the ordinance proposes $250/day. She asked whether the $100/day fine would be
more appropriate. Mr. Bowman acknowledged the $100/day fine was sufficient to get people’s attention.
Councilmember Moore asked for a copy of the Seattle code. She sympathized with businesses that were
victimized by graffiti and then must undergo a process of being fined. She asked whether there had been
businesses/property owners who did not react promptly. Mr. Bowman answered no, there had been
relatively good response to graffiti removal. He noted the most common issue was the timeframe for
removal. He agreed with Councilmember Dawson’s statement that prompt removal was key.
Councilmember Moore asked whether five days for removal was too restrictive. Mr. Bowman answered
that timeline could be reflected in the ordinance along with language allowing development of a schedule
as approved by the Director.
Councilmember Marin commented on graffiti experienced by the church he attends and the difficulty they
had removing it. He noted one of the messages the second time the church was hit with graffiti was more
graffiti if it was removed. He supported Mr. Bowman’s suggestion to provide staff some leeway to work
with the property owner on the timeline for removal rather than further victimizing the property owner via
the timetable for removal.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Swan Seaburg, Edmonds, expressed concern with placing the responsibility for graffiti removal on the
property owner victimized by graffiti. He suggested working with the schools to change youths’ attitude
regarding graffiti. Remarking Edmonds was a retirement community, he questioned how seniors could be
expected to remove graffiti. He was offended by the approach proposed in the ordinance that penalized
the property owner, preferring the focus be on prevention and/or apprehending the offenders.
Mike Mestres, Edmonds, posed several questions including who did the graffiti/tagging, what they were
hoping to accomplish, why did they did it, when they did it, and where they did it. He recalled living a
higher crime neighborhood in St. Louis where generally the offenders lived in the neighborhood. He
anticipated the youth doing graffiti lived in Edmonds.
Steve Waite, Edmonds, suggested providing information to graffiti victims regarding methods for
removal such as via a handout at Development Services. He explained repairs generally were made via
covering the graffiti or removing it, although covering the graffiti was often unsightly such as on the
Packet Page 7 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 6
SR104 overpass. He noted it was possible to remove graffiti particularly if done within three days. He
commented on the importance of analysis prior to removal on historic structures or buildings with delicate
surfaces. He asked whether a citizen could apprehend a person in the act of graffiti.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett read a letter from Karen Wiggins, the owner of a commercial building in
downtown Edmonds, expressing her objection to punishing the victim with fines for failure to removing
graffiti in a timely manner. Although she had been able to remove graffiti on her building quickly, she
noted circumstances could prevent a property owner from prompt removal.
Chief Compaan emphasized the ordinance contained a range of options and was intended a plan of action
and to provide tools to address graffiti the most important of which were public education and the ability
for an officer to apprehend someone in possession of graffiti implements with the intent to commit a
crime. With regard to who was doing graffiti, he anticipated the majority were juveniles from the age of
13- 16 years of age. With regard to when, he anticipated most of it occurred in the evening hours when
businesses were closed and parks were empty. He agreed most of the offenders lived in the area. With
regard to why, he envisioned it was “just because,” noting graffiti was gaining popularity again. He
agreed neither an ordinance or police enforcement would solve the problem, it required parental and
school involvement.
With regard to Mr. Waite’s question about apprehending some in the act of graffiti, Chief Compaan
cautioned against apprehending someone committing a misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor crime. He
noted there were specific statutes that allowed a retailer to retain a shoplifter and citizens could make a
citizen’s arrest of a person committing a felony. He preferred a citizen to be a witness and allow the
Police Department to make the arrest.
Councilmember Moore asked whether anyone painting graffiti had been apprehended. Chief Compaan
answered a few had been apprehended. If it was a first offense, it would be referred to Juvenile Court and
the offender would be entitled to diversion, probationary type adjudication versus jail time.
Councilmember Moore asked whether he had had the opportunity to talk to an offender or their parents.
Chief Compaan answered in nuisance and problematic juvenile crime in general, the youth was usually
unable to give a logical reason why they committed the offense, not understanding the impact of their
crime to the community. The parental reaction differed, sometimes very supportive of the Police
Department and other times not supportive.
Councilmember Moore expressed concern with a property owner who was victimized by graffiti
receiving a notice that they would be required to pay fines if it was not removed, essentially victimizing
them again. She used an analogy of a property owner cleaning up after a fire. Mr. Bowman answered in
that instance, staff worked with the property owner who was typically also working with their insurance
company. The situation was usually resolved quickly; however, if it was not and became an unsafe
situation, an abatement process would begin. He could not recall an instance that reached the level where
fines were imposed.
Councilmember Moore asked whether there was vandalism insurance. Mr. Bowman was uncertain,
noting the City repaired the vandalism they experienced themselves. He explained under the current
process, fines were not immediately imposed. Staff requested a schedule of when the graffiti would be
addressed; it was only if the property owner ignored staff’s contact that the process proceeded. He noted
Packet Page 8 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 7
the Notice to Correct did not assess fines; it notified the property owner of the situation. If the Notice to
Correct was ignored, the Notice of Violation imposed a $100/day fine.
Councilmember Moore asked whether there was a specific timetable now. Mr. Bowman answered staff
worked with the property owner who provided an estimate of when they planned to remove the graffiti.
Staff typically agreed if their proposed timeline reasonable. He summarized that process was currently
workable.
With regard to the timetable, Bio Park, Ogden Murphy Wallace, advised the Public Safety Committee
asked for a timeline that would be acceptable to the court for abating the nuisance; the minimum time was
five days, the Council had the option to extend that time period. He referred to the provision in the
ordinance for parental liability for fines, noting parents could not be held liable for criminal activity, but
could be held liable for fines.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson reiterated the ordinance was very broad and the Council could narrow the focus.
Council President Olson inquired about the incidents on public versus public property. Mr. Bowman
answered graffiti on public property was addressed by the appropriate City department; Development
Services only responded to private property complaints. Council President Olson asked whether most
incidents were on residential property or commercial property. Mr. Bowman answered both although the
majority occurred on businesses. Mayor Haakenson advised most occurred on City park property, then
commercial and residential property such as fences, mailboxes, etc. Mr. Bowman offered to provide the
Council a copy of the graffiti handout Mr. Thies developed that he provides to victims of graffiti.
Councilmember Dawson commented the initial contact proposed by the ordinance was not a letter
imposing fines, but a letter describing why it was important to remove graffiti promptly and provided
information and resources regarding removal. Mr. Bowman answered it was similar to what staff did now
although staff currently asked for a schedule for removal. Councilmember Dawson referred to an effort at
the Snohomish County level to coordinate a team of experts to develop best practices for graffiti removal
as well as a brochure and graffiti removal kits. She advised there was a countywide planning meeting on
graffiti removal tomorrow. Councilmember Dawson asked on what other issues the City pursued code
enforcement. Mr. Bowman answered junk vehicles, trash/debris in a yard, etc.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to citizens expressing concern with penalizing property owners who
had been victimized, questioning who else could be accountable for cleanup. Mr. Bowman
acknowledged unfortunately the property owner was responsible for removal. He pointed out the
suggestions to allow a property owner to work with staff on a schedule for removal and giving
consideration to the property owner’s effort in the assessment of fines. Councilmember Wambolt noted
the five days began after the property owner received a letter, not five days after the graffiti occurred.
Councilmember Moore referred to the process staff currently followed and asked if the only difference in
the proposed ordinance was the imposition of a fine. Councilmember Dawson answered the code
currently identified graffiti as a nuisance and assessed a $100/day fine; the difference was the ordinance
defined graffiti and suggested a minimum timeline for removal due to the importance of prompt removal.
She agreed with the suggestion to allow the Director the ability to work with a property owner on the
timeline for removal. She noted the proposed ordinance also contained criminal penalties for the
possession of graffiti implements with intent to commit graffiti as well as a provision for parental
Packet Page 9 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 8
responsibility for restitution. She noted a homeowner’s policy would typically cover graffiti removal
depending on the cost of removal.
Councilmember Dawson suggested seeking feedback from local businesses and the Chamber of
Commerce and returning the ordinance with the suggestions that have been made for further discussion
by the Council. Although he was not opposed to seeking further input, Councilmember Plunkett assured
the merchants had been notified repeatedly of tonight’s presentation.
Councilmember Marin expressed support for the concept of removing graffiti. He suggested the trust
fund identified in the ordinance be allowed to be used to provide money to a property owner that was
financially unable to remove the graffiti. He also agreed with allowing the Director the ability to work
with a property owner on a schedule for removal.
Councilmember Moore agreed with the suggestion to provide the property owner recommendations on
graffiti removal and allowing the flexibility to negotiate a reasonable schedule for removal.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Councilmember Marin’s suggestion regarding providing funds to
assist with removal would be a gift of public funds. Mr. Park answered the only method would be to loan
the funds with a recovery of the funds.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested removing Section 5.60.040, Display and Storage of Graffiti
Implements, that required a merchant not display graffiti implements, prohibited the sale of graffiti
implements to minors, and required the display of signage regarding these prohibitions.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
REMOVE PARAGRAPHS A, B AND C FROM SECTION 5.60.040.
Councilmember Dawson advised the Public Safety Committee and staff recommended eliminating
Section 5.60.040 and 5.60.030(C), Furnishing to Minors, recognizing those provisions were not necessary
in Edmonds at this time.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Plunkett recommended a property owner who was tagged receive a strong letter from the
City that provided information and encouraged them to remove the graffiti within 5-10 days. He
recommended removing the fines from the ordinance, recognizing the current process Mr. Bowman
described had been sufficient and fines had not been required. He agreed the fines appeared to victimize
the victim.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
REMOVE THE FINES AND REPLACE THEM WITH A STRONG LETTER OF
ENCOURAGEMENT
Councilmember Dawson commented the reason no one had been fined was staff worked with property
owners but there was the threat of a fine if they did not comply. She pointed out the City’s code currently
provided for a fine for all nuisances if not abated after action was sought including graffiti. She did not
support the motion, finding it importance for staff to retain the existing tools to ensure abatement
including the existing fine. She envisioned the removal of fines would weaken the effort against graffiti.
Recognizing the trust fund identified in the ordinance would contain revenue from the payment of fines,
Councilmember Marin asked whether the funds could be used to assist with removal. He also asked
Packet Page 10 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 9
whether the trust fund could include contributions from community or service organizations. He noted
without fines, there would be no revenue for the fund to assist with removal. Mr. Park answered fines
were a revenue source for the City which constituted public funds and by constitutional prohibition could
not be used to improve private property without something in return. A separate fund could be
established for contributions managed by another organization. Councilmember Dawson commented if
graffiti was a public nuisance, abatement of the public nuisance was in the public’s interest and using the
funds for cleanup of a public nuisance was a public interest and may not be a gift of public funds. She
suggested further analysis be done on that issue, explaining the intent of declaring graffiti a public
nuisance was to allow the trust fund to be used to assist in cleanup efforts. She noted Snohomish County
allowed leftover paint to be used by the public for cleanup.
Mayor Haakenson noted the trust fund language allowed the Council to direct the expenditure of the
funds for removal of graffiti as well as payment of rewards for information leading to the conviction of
violation, cost of administering the ordinance, etc.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out even if the fines were removed the ordinance allowed criminal
enforcement based on intent which provided the Police Department the ability to prevent graffiti.
MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, MOORE AND ORVIS IN FAVOR;
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, MARIN AND
DAWSON OPPOSED.
Councilmember Dawson advised tomorrow there would be a continuation of the Snohomish County
graffiti summit that would include discussion regarding the graffiti paint-out event planned for October 6
as well as efforts to combat graffiti countywide.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
INCLUDE IN SECTION 5.60.060, NOTICE OF GRAFFITI, THAT WHEN THE CITY NOTIFIES
THE PARTIES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPERTY AND SENDS THE PARTIES AN
INFORMATIONAL LETTER DESCRIBING THE NATURE AND LOCATION OF GRAFFITI
AND REQUESTING THE GRAFFITI BE REMOVED PROMPTLY, INFORMATION BE
INCLUDED REGARDING THE PROPER WAYS TO REMOVE GRAFFITI FROM SURFACES.
Councilmember Dawson explained the intent was to include a brochure regarding methods for proper
removal, referring to language in the section that the letter would describe resources available to aid in
graffiti removal, identify any graffiti removal assistance programs available through the City or any
private graffiti removal contractors.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson advised the ordinance would be returned to the Council in a revised draft form. He
declared a brief recess.
6. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER’S APPROVAL
OF A 27-LOT PRELIMINARY PLAT (WOODWAY PLAT) LOCATED AT 23700 104TH
AVENUE WEST. (APPELLANT: LORA PETSO / APPLICANT: BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION
/ FILE NO. P-07-17 AND PRD-07-18)
Mayor Haakenson relayed staff and his recommendation to take oral argument from the appellant and the
applicant and continue the matter to a date certain to allow the City Council to fully review the extensive
record. Council President Olson advised the matter would be continued to September 18. City Attorney
Scott Snyder asked whether the date was within the statutory period. Mr. Bowman answered it was
Packet Page 11 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 10
outside the statutory period but the applicant was agreeable to continuing the matter to September 18.
Mayor Haakenson confirmed with the applicant and the appellant that September 18 was acceptable.
Mayor Haakenson explained on June 21, 2007, the Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing
on the application of Burnstead Construction for a 27 lot Planned Residential Development
(PRD)/Preliminary Subdivision, along with hearings on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
appeals of Lora Petso and Heather Marks/Cliff Sanderlin. The Hearing Examiner issued a decision on the
PRD/Preliminary Plat and SEPA appeals on July 20, 2007. Requests for reconsideration were filed by
Lora Petso and Heather Marks on August 2, 2007 and August 3, 2007. The Hearing Examiner issued
decisions on August 8, 2007 reaffirming the July 20, 2007 decision and denying the reconsideration
request.
He explained the record on this matter was extensive. The City Council was only able to consider the
Hearing Examiner's decision on the preliminary plat and had no authority to review the matters relating to
the SEPA appeals or the PRD decision. Those matters were subject to appeal to superior court.
As this was a quasi judicial matter, under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, Mayor Haakenson asked
whether any Councilmember had any conflicts of ex parte communications to disclose.
Councilmember Plunkett advised he had worked closely with Mr. Sanderlin and Ms. Marks on political
matters in the past and had also worked with Ms. Petso in the past. Mayor Haakenson asked whether he
could make a fair decision in this matter. Councilmember Plunkett advised he could.
Councilmember Orvis reported Mr. Sanderlin and Ms. Marks have contributed to his current campaign
and assisted with a recent fundraiser and he had worked with Ms. Petso in the past. Mayor Haakenson
asked whether he could make a fair decision in this matter. Councilmember Orvis answered he could.
Councilmember Moore advised she had spoke with Mr. Sanderlin and Ms. Marks in regard to political
matters and the Burnstead property development. Mayor Haakenson asked whether she could make a fair
decision in this matter. Councilmember Moore answered she could.
Councilmember Dawson advised one of the parties of record, Finis Tupper, had contributed to her
political campaign as had Ms. Petso. She advised their contributions would not affect her ability to make
a fair decision in this matter.
Mayor Haakenson asked if there were any objections to any Councilmembers’ participation. There were
no objections voiced and he advised all Councilmembers were approved for participation.
Mayor Haakenson advised the applicant raised the issue of who may participate in the closed record
review. The City Attorney recommends the Council consider his objection, the response of the appellant
and at least one party of record and enter a ruling prior to arguments. City Attorney Scott Snyder
explained the applicant’s representative, Mr. Lutz, provided a brief that cites the City’s appeal procedures
which refer to participation at this review proceeding of parties to the appeal, a term that is not defined.
He referred to the memo he provided to the parties and the Council which indicates there are logical
arguments for that position in the RCW 36.70.B and 36.70C.
The memo also explains that while not defined, that provision has been uniformly applied by the City to
permit parties of record to participate. Parties of record under RCW 36.70B.130, is a person who may
participate is someone who presents at the open record hearing in oral or written testimony or requests in
writing notice of further proceedings. He advised the sign-in sheet at the Hearing Examiner indicates the
Packet Page 12 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 11
person wishes to speak or request further notice. As a result anyone who presented testimony or
requested notice of the proceeding was a party of record under the definition the City has uniformly
applied in these proceedings. He noted a logical conundrum was if only the appellant can speak and the
applicant was the appellant, only the applicant could speak at a review proceeding before the Council. He
suggested the Council address this procedural issue before proceeding.
Councilmember Orvis advised Mr. Hertrich, a party of record, had also contributed to his current
campaign. Councilmember Dawson advised Mr. Hertrich had also contributed to her campaign.
Councilmember Wambolt advised Mr. Hertrich also contributed to his campaign. Mayor Haakenson
asked whether there were any objections to Councilmembers Orvis, Wambolt, or Dawson’s participation.
There were no objections voiced.
Jerry Lutz, representing applicant Burnstead Construction, advised the procedural issue they raised
was an attempt to bring as much structure as possible to this process. The City’s appeal process for the
Burnstead application which includes a preliminary plat applicant and a preliminary PRD and SEPA
review with different appeal procedures that applied to each process was complex enough that it would be
helpful to the process if the code language were fairly construed that the parties to the appeal meant Ms.
Petso, the applicant and the City and limit discussion to those parties. He was sympathetic to the
arguments against this position articulated by Mr. Snyder, primarily past precedent, as well as the concept
of allowing parties an opportunity to speak, however, the parties who spoke at the hearing primarily
addressed PRD and SEPA issues. The preliminary plat issues were very minor and although there was
extensive discussion before the Hearing Examiner hearing regarding preexisting neighborhood drainage
issues, that was a SEPA and PRD issue, not a subdivision issue. He summarized for the protection of this
process and from a practical perspective because most of the issues parties of record would address were
irrelevant, it was preferable to limit discussion before the Council to Ms. Petso, the applicant and the City.
Appellant Lora Petso, Edmonds, recommended the City continue with its past practice of allowing all
parties to speak which allows for better decision-making. She noted the ordinance language was
permissive, not exclusive, and did not state only parties to the appeal were allowed to participate. The
language states the parties to the appeal may submit timely written statements or arguments. She noted
when she submitted her original appeal on a quick deadline, she was grateful for that language as it
allowed her to submit additional written information later. She agreed with Mr. Snyder’s logical
conundrum if the language were construed too strictly, she would not be allowed to speak.
With regard to the statement that this proceeding was limited to issues that were SEPA or otherwise
unrelated, she pointed out the subdivision law required compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance, public interest, etc. She expressed concern with the potential for interruptions when
those issues were raised in her presentation. Mayor Haakenson assured there would be a process for
parties to voice objections. Ms. Petso concluded the Council had a great deal of discretion in balancing
the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and other issues.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, advised he was a party of record and a number of the comments made by
Ms. Petso reflected his comments/ideas. Thus eliminating him as a party of record would eliminate a
portion of the record. He recommended the Council continue to follow its tradition of allow parties of
record to participate. He agreed many of the plat issues were intertwined with the PRD.
Heather Marks, Edmonds, recommended parties of records be allowed to participate. She pointed out
the notice the City issued stated the public was invited to attend although it was not a public hearing. The
notice stated it was a closed record review and State law required that no public testimony be permitted
except from parties of record. She had postponed her vacation to be able to attend tonight. She suggested
Packet Page 13 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 12
if parties of record were not allowed to participate, the closed record review be postponed and a new
notice provided. She noted both the SEPA and preliminary plat were considered by the Hearing
Examiner.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
THAT ALL PARTIES OF RECORD BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Snyder explained information provided to the Council tonight was argument based on the record and
no new testimony was allowed. Mayor Haakenson would describe a process whereby parties could voice
objections to information at the conclusion of presentations and provide an opportunity to provide
citations of the record. With regard to the evidentiary issue Ms. Petso raised, he concurred that to the
extent that evidence in the record applied to subdivision criteria, it could be provided.
Mr. Snyder explained Regulatory Reform was intended to eliminate multiple appeals of the same issue.
RCW 36.70B.160 requires cities to utilize consolidated permit application processes. He noted due to
procedural reasons contained in the record, a remand and a re-notice, issues related to the PRD were out
of sync with these issues. He recommended to the Council that to the extent evidence in the record
related to subdivision criteria it was appropriate and relevant. To the extent argument was made that the
Council lacked authority to rule on a subdivision plat because an issue related to another decision-making
process remained, that should be rejected and considered not relevant to tonight’s decision. Otherwise the
Council risked being seen in a review process as having held multiple hearings on the same subject. For
example, the Council did not have jurisdiction over the PRD or SEPA issues and denying a plat based on
concerns over which the Council did not have jurisdiction would be problematic.
Mayor Haakenson established a 15 minute time limit for the appellant and applicant, advising the
applicant, Ms. Petso may wish to reserve time for rebuttal. A 3-minute time limit was established for
comments by parties of record.
Due to the extensive record, Mayor Haakenson explained it was impossible for the Council to determine
whether argument provided was contained the record. Therefore if either party had objections to the
argument of the other based on the argument being outside the record or any other reason, objections
would be voiced at the close of the other party’s presentation. The party whose argument was objected to
would be given an opportunity to cite where that information appeared in the record and the Council
would determine whether the information should be excluded from consideration as outside the record.
Mr. Lutz questioned the order of presentation, requesting he be allowed to speak after the parties of
record. Mayor Haakenson advised typically the order of presentation was the appellant, applicant and
parties of record but the order could be modified if the Council wished. Mr. Lutz asked if that order was
retained he be allowed to briefly address issues raised by parties of record. Mr. Snyder explained the
rationale for the order of presentation was issues were limited to the record and issues raised by Ms. Petso
in her appeal; no other issues were relevant. Therefore, he should not be surprised by any comments and
because the appellant had the burden or persuasion, she was given an opportunity for rebuttal. He noted
the applicant and/or appellant could also object to argument outside the record provided by parties of
record.
Appellant
Ms. Petso reserved two minutes for rebuttal. Ms. Petso advised she purchased a copy of the tapes of the
Hearing Examiner hearing and would submit corrections to the transcript. She displayed an aerial map
identifying the existing ballfields where the subdivision would be located, an existing drainage ditch, and
a fish and wildlife conservation habitat conservation area. She advised only two of the lots were close to
Packet Page 14 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 13
the size of the existing lots; the small lot size combined with the reduced side setbacks produced a gutter-
to-gutter or continuous wall effect that she asserted would be more appropriate in the BC zone than this
south Edmonds neighborhood. She pointed out the large backyards of the existing subdivision to the west
which contrast sharply with the proposal. She noted all citizens would be direct neighbors to this project
as it was adjacent to City park land.
Ms. Petso explained under subdivision laws, the proposal must be consistent with purposes of the
subdivision chapter, all subdivision requirements, the Comprehensive Plan, be in the public interest and
meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance. Under the court cases where the plat contains clear zoning
violations, the subdivision could not be approved. In this instance the plat did not comply with the 35%
lot coverage requirement; therefore, it could not be approved. The drainage report shows the roof area
alone equates to 35% of the lot area; after subtracting required driveways and walkways, the subdivision
would not comply with the 35% requirement.
Ms. Petso pointed out the plat was based on four home designs and the project narrative states an intent to
avoid rows of identical homes; however, there was only one lot that could accommodate the largest home
under the 35% requirement and only if buffers, walkways and driveways were ignored. The Hearing
Examiner has indicated the applicant would not be permitted to ignore walkways, buffers and driveways.
Nineteen of the lots could only accommodate the smallest of the four home designs, assuming required
buffers, walkways and driveways are ignored. She summarized 19 of the 27 homes would be identical
under this proposal.
Ms. Petso reiterated the subdivision law states if there were clear zoning violations, the subdivision could
not be approved. In this instance, the plat is required to have 8,000 square foot lots, but did not. She
assumed there would be argument made that the 8,000 square foot requirement was waived due to the
PRD. Because the Hearing Examiner found the plat did not comply with the PRD ordinance, Ms. Petso
argued the subdivision could not be approved because the lots were not 8,000 square feet and did have an
approved PRD. She displayed a plat map, pointing out the Hearing Examiner found no perimeter buffer
had been provided. The Hearing Examiner is requesting a buffer along on the west and south sides of the
proposal; if such buffer is provided, it would not buffer the park property. The city’s ordinance requires a
greater buffer along a public way and the Comprehensive Plan identifies a park is a public way. She
acknowledged the Council could not decide the buffer issue; however, it was important information
because if the plat as conditioned could not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, the
subdivision could not be approved.
Ms. Petso explained adequate storm drainage was required under subdivision law. She identified the
wetland/drainage ditch that presently holds, infiltrates and naturally disposes of a portion of the
stormwater on the site and from an offsite tributary north of the site. The applicant proposes to fill this
facility although there is already flooding of the homes to the west at whose request the ditch was
installed approximately 25 years ago and to the south as drainage runs in that direction.
Ms. Petso referred to comments by ADB Member Schaefer who identified other drainage issues related to
the subdivision and urged the Councilmembers to read the ADB minutes. She noted Mr. Schaefer
appeared to have personal knowledge of the drainage system, observed that infiltration capacity would be
reduced over time, suggested heightened maintenance to prevent the reduction, and expressed concern
when informed the homeowners association would be charged with maintenance. He was also concerned
that Tract C in the plat was too small for the necessary drainage facility and wanted to avoid a situation
where it was later determined a larger facility was needed.
Packet Page 15 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 14
Ms. Petso concluded the burden was on the applicant to illustrate that the drainage would work which he
had not done. Of the six drainage test pits dug, none were on Tract C where the drainage facility was
proposed to be located; vault testing occurred offsite and produced a recommended infiltration rate of
only 3 inches per hour. It was subsequently stated that rate could be increased with point drains but there
was no onsite testing done. She pointed out nothing in the record identified the infiltration testing results
from test site EP2, the site closest to Tract C.
Ms. Petso referred to the subdivision law that states where environmental resources exist, the proposal
must minimize impacts. She noted this proposal fills the drainage ditch and cuts 46% of the trees in the
wooded portion of the site which did not represent minimizing the impacts.
She referred to the aerial view, pointing out the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area extended
beyond the wildlife corridor and provided an ideal perch for birds of prey adjacent to the park. She noted
bald eagles had recently been observed perched in the trees. She explained habitat in the trees including
downed logs and a varied understory made it an exceptionally valuable habitat. She displayed a
photograph of the area where the applicant planned to cut trees and construct the retaining wall to
accommodate Lot 17. She displayed a photograph from the vantage of the City’s park property,
commenting even if only the four trees on the end were cut to accommodate Lot 18, the backdrop to the
City’s park was reduced considerably.
Ms. Petso pointed out the subdivision ordinance also required minimizing grading. The site is already
95% level and the only grading that would be required would be to fill the drainage ditch or grade the
wooded area. She concluded neither filling the drainage ditch nor cutting the trees and building a
retaining wall minimized grading.
Ms. Petso explained the Comprehensive Plan provides that subdivision layouts, buildings and roads
should be designed so that the existing trees were preserved as well as contains other stronger language.
She urged the Council to refer to the Comprehensive Plan references in the written materials. She
explained Comprehensive Plans were generally policy documents; however, the courts have held that
where development regulations require compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as the City’s does, then
both the regulations and the Comprehensive Plan must be complied with. She pointed out the City’s
Comprehensive Plan covered drainage; critical area; parks, open space, and playfields; natural vegetation
and topography and compatibility of subdivisions; this proposal fails to meet any of the established levels
of service for drainage or playfields and makes no effort to protect critical areas, eliminating one and
seriously damaging another.
The Hearing Examiner noted Edmonds had chosen a policy of infill in preference to rezone, but Ms. Petso
found this proposal was more rezone than infill. She commented isolated problems in a subdivision could
generally be addressed via conditions, such as eliminating Lot 17 or 18 to protecting the trees and
requiring the undergrounding of utilities. She requested the Council reject the subdivision as there were
massive compliance failures that could not be conditioned - houses would not fit on lots, existing
neighborhoods would be flooded, and the lots must be 8,000 square feet or comply with the PRD
ordinance and this proposal does neither.
Mr. Lutz raised no objection to Ms. Petso’s presentation.
Applicant
Mr. Lutz explained there was a proceeding for the SEPA review for the preliminary plat application and
PRD. The purpose of the PRD was to modify for public benefit development terms that might otherwise
apply because of a strict application of the subdivision code in a manner that would make the
Packet Page 16 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 15
development more attractive. He explained there were aspects of Burnstead’s proposal that differed in
modest ways from the strict application of the code with the intent and Burnstead believes has met the
intent, of providing a better overall product. He acknowledged it was difficult in that context to have a
discussion of the closed record subdivision appeal when the majority of issues pertained to the PRD.
With regard to drainage, he explained drainage engineering for the plat was not complete as preliminary
engineering that supports the concept of the plat was done as part of preliminary plat approval. If the
preliminary plat and PRD were approved, final engineering would be done and staff would impose
conditions and approve the final engineering. He concluded what Ms. Petso was contesting was a failure
to have a final drainage design for the plat and PRD when it was not expected by the code.
Mr. Lutz explained the PRD would address drainage, open space and recreation, and the incorrectly
identified fish and wildlife habitat on a corner of the property. He noted the record reflected that issue
was considered and rejected by staff. He recalled the City had a map indicating there was a fish and
wildlife habitat area on the property that was later determined to be incorrect. He noted that was an issue
on remand from the Hearing Examiner as she wanted to ensure that issue was properly documented in the
file. He noted there was a hearing on Friday where there would be limited testimony on two remand
issues before the final PRD decision was issued. He summarized these were PRD, not subdivision issues.
He noted the Council could only consider subdivision issues and could not make a ruling based on issues
that were to be determined by the Hearing Examiner and appealed to Superior Court. He urged the
Council to respect the distinction between the processes.
Mr. Lutz referred to assertions made by Ms. Petso that were not supported by facts such as that there was
a wetland on the site. The report and testimony in the record states there was a drainage ditch on the site
and that there was no wetland that would be disturbed or destroyed by this development. There was also
testimony in the record that there was no fish and wildlife habitat corridor on the property although that
was an issue on remand. With regard to drainage, it has been addressed professionally at a preliminary
stage and further engineering would occur before the plat was built. He assured the drainage had been
professional designed and the record reflected that the drainage designed for the site specific conditions
would be adequate to protect the surround area from any impacts from this development. He
acknowledged Burnstead was not designing a system that would fix preexisting offsite drainage issues.
As the engineers testified in the record, the proposed system would provide better drainage control than
currently exists. The proposed system would fully control and meet City requirements to prevent offsite
drainage impacts from the development. Mr. Lutz advised traffic impacts would not be a problem.
Mr. Lutz provided supplemental information which was distributed to the Council. Mr. Snyder advised
Ms. Petso could review the materials and raise any objections to material that was outside the record. Mr.
Lutz indicated he had tried to explain in the materials and the Hearing Examiner had also made a point of
it in her response to the request for reconsideration, that Ms. Petso’s argument regarding lot coverage was
a misunderstanding of how lot coverage was calculated. He explained lot coverage was determined via
the amount of roof area on a lot; the buffer area and setbacks were not subtracted. He referred to page 7
of 9 of the Hearing Examiner’s order on reconsideration, advising the Hearing Examiner conditioned lot
coverage to be met at building permit approval as lot coverage was determined in the building permit
application process. Burnstead would know the size of each lot after final plat approved as it was
conceivable that the lot sizes could be altered between now and final approval. He noted Ms. Petso’s
argument was based on subdivision requirements of an 8,000 square foot lot rather than the proposed
PRD. He concluded compliance with lot coverage was determined at the time of building permit
application and approval; therefore, arguing about lot coverage at this point was premature.
Packet Page 17 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 16
Mr. Lutz explained they presented the housing types to the ADB; however, those were schematic street
view representations of the houses Burnstead typically builds, not proposed buildings for each lot.
Specific designs would be proposed during the building permit process and approved as part of the
building permit application. He encouraged the Council to read the Hearing Examiner’s decision, finding
it incredibly thorough and addressing the issues Ms. Petso raised. Mr. Lutz pointed out Ms. Petso had
arguments in her conclusions but were not arguments based on the facts, but a characterization of facts in
a manner that she believed supported an argument but the Hearing Examiner’s response indicated her
arguments mischaracterized facts and reached to suggest there was a legal problem that did not exist.
With regard to a procedural issue Ms. Petso raised, her assertion that the Hearing Examiner not viewing
the property before she held the hearing and viewing the property after the hearing was a fatal flaw that
justified the Council rejecting the plat. He explained the Hearing Examiner made the point that she
believed she better understood the arguments and issues having heard the testimony first and then viewing
the property before writing her report. He acknowledged it could be argued that was not what City code
required - City code requires the Hearing Examiner view the property prior to the hearing. He noted City
code also states any issue that was a procedural defect that did not prejudice anyone should penalize the
parties. He asserted the Hearing Examiner looked at the property, listened to testimony and any error in
the order was harmless error that did not justify rejection of the plat. He encouraged the Council to study
the record, particularly the Hearing Examiner’s report which outlined why the plat should be approved.
Mayor Haakenson asked for objections to Mr. Lutz’s presentation. Ms. Petso commented that while she
felt she was prohibited to arguing PRD issues such as whether the monument sign area was usable open
space, Mr. Lutz identified several issues that were addressed in the PRD; if she was unable to address
PRD issues that did not meet the requirements, Mr. Lutz also should not be able address PRD he felt met
the requirements. Mr. Snyder suggested this could be addressed by the Council in its decision-making
process. Ms. Petso argues that the PRD plat does not comply due to several factors; Mr. Lutz correctly
notes those factors were development regulation alterations made via the PRD process.
With regard to Mr. Lutz’s argument, Mr. Snyder noted there was nothing in the record about a hearing on
Friday. Although the remand was referenced in the Hearing Examiner’s decision, the date was not
relevant to the Council’s decision.
Parties of Record
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, identified the factors to be considered, character, compliance and
compatibility, which address how the project and the neighborhood relate. With regard to compatibility,
he pointed out the lots were close together and the ADB had reduced the front yard setback from 25 feet
to 15 feet which he asserted was not compatible with the neighborhood. He concluded the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan were not satisfied. With regard to whether there was a fish and
wildlife habitat area on the site, he noted if there was, it was a critical area and was not allowed to be used
as open space. This would require additional open space areas, changing the configuration of the project
and reducing the buildable area. He referred to testimony by a biologist Mr. Enenhisa (page 60 and 61 of
the transcript) who associated fish and wildlife habitat with streams and disputed there was a habitat area
on the site. The applicant later had a biologist visit the site who found some habitat and some wildlife
and there was testimony by local citizens regarding wildlife in the wildlife habitat area. He noted the
biologist only spent 40 minutes looking at the area and Mr. Enenhisa did not take any soil samples. He
also asserted the City’s critical area reconnaissance report was deficient.
Heather Marks, Edmonds, urged the Council to read her earlier testimony regarding traffic, drainage
and that the plat that indicates there would be an offsite pond/vault, yet at the hearing the applicant denied
that was planned, acknowledging it could happen if worked out with the City. She pointed out there were
Packet Page 18 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 17
no credentials listed for any of the consultants. With regard to the fish and wildlife habitat she advised it
met the fish and wildlife definition in the Edmonds Municipal Code Section 23.90.010.A.1.10. She
recalled two years ago mentioning at a Council meeting the presence of pileated woodpeckers on the site,
commenting there were a pair of pileated woodpeckers on the site now. She commented the Hearing
Examiner was wrong about Tract E where the trees and open space were located. She noted under
Section 21.75.090, the City could require the applicant during the plat process to provide park land or pay
a fee. She questioned why that had not been required and whether it could be required as part of this
hearing. She pointed out open space on Tract E would only be available to residents of the plat.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, found it appropriate for the Council to hold this hearing as plats and
subdivisions were was a legislative rather than an administrative decision. He envisioned when the plat
was built, the average person would find it more appropriate in the RS-6 zone than the RS-8 zone. He
referred to turnover in the Planning Department, commenting the proposed plat was an example of a
ministerial mistake. He objected to the applicant’s representative’s reference to the Friday meeting and
the revised plat which was not a part of this record. He displayed the plat map, pointing out the absence
of a 15-foot perimeter buffer. He referred to the variance granted at the ADB, questioning whether the
ADB had that legislative power and whether the Council was willing to give up that power. He urged the
Council to consider the development on the adjacent lots constructed in the 1980s, pointing out the
importance of considering the character and compatibility of neighborhoods. He pointed out the fish and
wildlife habitat area exists on the City’s critical area map; however, the applicant indicated it was in error.
He questioned how and when that was determined to be in error. He recommended the Council review
the map and consider why that critical area was included as usable open space when the code prohibited
it.
Colin Southcote-Want, Edmonds, recommended the Council deny the proposed subdivision, requesting
the Council apply the City’s rules and regulations. He displayed the plat map, advising a 15-foot buffer
was required around the development. A bigger issue was the 25-foot buffer adjacent to the park land
which was not reflected on the plat map. He concluded there were only two ways the Council could
approve the subdivision, 1) if all the lots sizes were 8,000 square feet or greater, or 2) it met the PRD
requirements. Because the plat did not include the 15-foot perimeter buffer, nor the 25-foot buffer
adjacent to the park, it failed the PRD test.
Mayor Haakenson asked for objections to the comments by parties of record. Ms. Petso had no
objections. Tiffany Brown, Burnstead Construction, acknowledged it was difficult to keep the issues
separate. With regard to Mr. Hertrich’s comments about wildlife, drainage, wetland and lot coverage, she
noted this was a preliminary plat for which preliminary engineering was done; full engineering was not
required nor was a code citation made where it was required for the preliminary plat. Mr. Snyder advised
the applicant was not permitted rebuttal, only objection to information provided that was outside the
record.
Ms. Brown objected to Mr. Hertrich’s comment about the 40 minute their wildlife biologist was on site.
She advised that occurred at the Hearing Examiner’s request for the PRD hearing that was not part of this
proceeding. If the PRD hearing could not be mentioned, she did not believe the extensive wildlife study
done after the Hearing Examiner’s decision should be cited as it was not part of the record. She also did
not find in the record Ms. Marks’ comments regarding pileated woodpeckers on the site. She also
objected to issues raised that were not part of Ms. Petso’s appeal such as the argument regarding payment
of park fees in lieu of park land dedicated in the plat. She did not find any reference in the record to the
25-foot buffer adjacent to park land.
Packet Page 19 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 18
With regard to the reference regarding the Friday meeting, Mr. Snyder suggested the Council not consider
that comment in their deliberations. Mayor Haakenson asked how Ms. Brown’s objections would be
addressed. Mr. Snyder suggested establishing a period of time the parties could provide written citation
to the portion of the record where these items appear.
Rebuttal
Ms. Petso advised lot coverage was not an issue to be addressed later; the subdivision ordinance stated
lots should contain a usable building area, if the building area would be difficult to develop, the lot should
be redesigned or eliminated. She urged the Council not to approve a subdivision that could not be built or
the result would tiny lots rather than ADB approved glorious houses. She pointed out drainage was also
not an issue to be addressed later. As Mr. Schaefer pointed out at the ADB meeting, if Tract C were
available for a drainage facility and it was not large enough and the overflow was channeled into the
Woodway Meadows system that floods Mr. Park’s house regularly and likely others with the overflow,
that was not an issue to be decided later. She argued there would be no room if it was determined later
the drainage was not engineered well enough now.
Ms. Petso explained the site visit was prejudicial because, 1) the demolition fencing was installed the day
of the hearing so the Hearing Examiner could not access the property after she missed the pre-hearing site
visit, and 2) the Hearing Examiner stated the reason for missing the pre-hearing site visit was she had
decided, based on information she told Ms. Petso she would not use to prejudice the proceeding, not to do
the visit before the hearing. She had knowledge from the Growth Management Hearings Board that
convinced her not to do the site visit when she was supposed to. Ms. Petso argued she was prejudiced by
this in two ways, 1) the Hearing Examiner was unable to access the site and 2) the reason she did not
attend the pre-hearing site visit was she was improperly using information she was not supposed to have
and that she told Ms. Petso would not bias her decision.
With regard to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, Ms. Petso pointed out the critical areas map
was Exhibit 2 and the area was defined in the Critical Areas Ordinance as urban open space. With regard
to wetlands, she noted because the biologist did not find a stream did not mean it was not a wetland. The
Critical Areas Ordinance defined a wetland as and area with wetland vegetation and was frequently
saturated which the drainage ditch was. She referred to photographs she and others provided of wetland
vegetation. Ms. Petso pointed out the Hearing Examiner found the PRD did not have a buffer and
therefore she did not approve it. Ms. Petso concluded without a PRD approval, there could not be a
subdivision approval.
Mayor Haakenson asked for objections to Ms. Petso’s rebuttal. Mr. Lutz objected to Ms. Petso alleging
the Hearing Examiner spoke to her outside the record and did something inappropriate due to work she
had done with the Growth Management Hearings Board. He observed there was discussion on the record
where the Hearing Examiner acknowledged she had worked for the Growth Management Hearings Board
and heard an appeal brought by Ms. Petso but felt she could be objective. He concluded there was
nothing in the record to suggest the Hearing Examiner acted improperly.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 40 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Snyder suggested parties be allowed until the close of business on September 13 to provide written
citations for items that were objected to. He identified the objections to be 1) the 40 minute remark, 2)
pileated woodpeckers, 3) appeals items outside the record, 4) paying park fees or dedicating park land, 5)
25-foot buffer, and 6) Ms. Petso’s allegations regarding the Hearing Examiner’s comments. Ms. Petso
Packet Page 20 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 19
requested the list be provided in writing. Mr. Snyder suggested the Council include that requirement in
the motion to continue the proceeding.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
CONTINUE THE CLOSED RECORD PROCEEDING TO SEPTEMBER 18, 2007, AND ALLOW
PARTIES UNTIL 5:00 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 13 TO PROVIDE WRITTEN CITATIONS FOR
ITEMS THAT WERE OBJECTED TO.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how the Council would consider whether or not the Hearing Examiner
was prejudice as that issue was not one of the tests under the review of subdivisions. Mr. Snyder
suggested consulting Ms. Petso’s appeal to determine whether that was an issue raised on appeal. He
recalled it was not, therefore, an issue outside the appeal was not relevant to this proceeding. Assuming
that it was not outside the appeal, Councilmember Plunkett pointed out a prejudice Hearing Examiner was
not one of the tests of the subdivision code. Mr. Snyder requested an opportunity to research that issue
and respond to the Council and parties by September 13.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Snyder explained the appellant had the burden of persuasion and must
persuade the Council by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. Councilmember Plunkett
commented the Council could take into account a layperson’s testimony regarding what they observed
and determine whether it was persuasive. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting the testimony would also need to be
balanced against other evidence in the record.
Mr. Snyder encouraged Councilmembers to ask any questions now; once the Council entered its
deliberative phase, there would not be opportunity to ask questions. He cautioned the Council not to ask
for new testimony and only to ask for clarification of a point in the argument.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the record contains questions Ms. Petso asked of the Hearing
Examiner and reference was made to an additional conversation Ms. Petso had with the Hearing
Examiner. He asked Ms. Petso whether that was contained in the record. Ms. Petso advised the second
comment was in the Hearing Examiner’s decision. She read in the Hearing Examiner’s decision
information that caused her to believe it was offered as an explanation for not making the site visit.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if a point was addressed in the record but not addressed by the parties was
he free to consider it in his decision. Mr. Snyder answered yes as far as evidence. He cautioned the
statements of decision-makers were not evidence. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether comments by
the Hearing Examiner that did not pertain to either party was something he could rely upon and draw a
conclusion. Mr. Snyder answered typically not unless the Hearing Examiner was taking official notice of
a City document. A hearing body could take official notice of documents but could not add or inject
evidence into a proceeding.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what would happen if Mr. Snyder concluded the Hearing Examiner being
prejudice could be considered and if the Council questioned whether comments of the Hearing Examiner
were prejudice. Mr. Snyder reiterated that was not an issue he had encountered before and requested an
opportunity to research it and provide the parties an opinion. Councilmember Plunkett clarified he
wanted to know whether he could rely on the Hearing Examiner’s comments with regard to whether she
was prejudice.
Packet Page 21 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 20
Clarifying that she was asking for details of why the project did/did not comply with the PRD ordinance
or how that would ultimately be resolved, Councilmember Dawson stated her understanding was Mr.
Lutz’s argument was it need not strictly comply with the subdivision ordinance because it was either PRD
or subdivision. She asked Mr. Lutz’s opinion regarding the ramifications of the Council upholding the
approval of the subdivision of the plat if the PRD were not approved. Mr. Lutz clarified the question was
if the applicant had an approved plat supported by a PRD application and the PRD application was
denied. He answered if the PRD application was denied they would be unable to develop the subdivision
without the PRD approval because without the PRD approval some of the things they asked for would not
be consistent with the code.
Councilmember Moore asked for a copy of Ms. Petso’s PowerPoint. Councilmember Dawson pointed
out all the information was contained in the record.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
CONTINUE THE CLOSED RECORD PROCEEDING TO SEPTEMBER 18, 2007, AND Mr.
SNYDER TO PROVIDE FROM THE MINUTES A COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS NOTED AND
THE PARTIES WOULD BE ALLOWED UNTIL 5:00 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 13 TO PROVIDE
WRITTEN CITATIONS FOR ITEMS THAT WERE OBJECTED TO.
Ms. Petso pointed out the record provided to the Council was not the entire record. Mayor Haakenson
advised the remainder of the records were available for review in the City Council office. The volume of
records was the reason two additional weeks were provided for the Council to conduct their review.
A requirement for parties to provide the materials they presented tonight including Ms. Petso’s
PowerPoint was added to the motion.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Snyder advised the Council could not discuss this matter nor could it be discussed at the podium
pending the Council’s decision. When the Council again considered this matter, they would be asked to
disclose any ex parte comments.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Stephen Andrews, LaRouche Political Campaign, referred to the current collapse of the financial system
nationally as well as on a worldwide level. He explained this took the form of foreclosure rates doubling
from 2006 to 2007 and the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market. This led to inflation and was a
systemic problem; the real estate market was a symptom of the functioning policies. He noted this began
with the deregulation in the 1970s and Greenspan’s decision and policies. He provided legislation based
on a solution President Franklin Roosevelt passed when he was in office.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, asked whether Mayor Haakenson was still bound by the non-disclosure
agreement with regard to the Waterfront Redevelopment. Mayor Haakenson answered there was no
longer a non-disclosure agreement. Mr. Hertrich questioned how the City tracked staff’s comp time and
learned no list was maintained, each Department Head was on the honor system including the Mayor. He
recommended the City establish a system for tracking comp time.
Shirley Wambolt, Edmonds, commented her husband, Councilmember Wambolt, spent every day
except Sunday as a Councilmember, reading, and reading. She announced she would become a U.S.
Citizen on September 6, 2007.
Packet Page 22 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 21
8. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SEASHORE TRANSPORTATION FORUM AGREEMENT
Council President Olson advised Councilmember Marin and she were members of the SeaShore Forum.
Over the past year they had been working on a new agreement. Cities in King County wanted Snohomish
County cities to participate in the Forum but because they voted on projects in Snohomish County, did
not feel should not vote on projects at the SeaShore forum. She read language Councilmember Marin
developed that states no jurisdiction shall cast a vote for funding recommendations of federal funding
allocated by the Puget Sound Regional Council in more than one forum or recommending body.
Snohomish County cities shall not have voting rights at SeaShore for voting rights for allocations in King
County.
Councilmember Marin agreed funding recommendations had been a thorny issue for some time; there was
a great opportunity for many cities to participate in the SeaShore Forum and provide input on
transportation issues. The proposed language would address the conflict regarding funding
recommendations.
Councilmember Dawson advised she was in Washington DC last week with a team from Snohomish
County on coordinated transportation planning, SNOTRAC, Snohomish County Special Needs
Transportation Coalition, who serves a purpose similar to SeaShore by voting on projects that receive
federal funding. One of the things they worked on in Washington DC was how to make SNOTRAC more
relevant as well as updating the statement of executive sponsorship that had not been updated since 2003.
She noted Edmonds as well as other Snohomish County cities could benefit from participating in
SNOTRAC as the group has been under underutilized and under-recognized in Snohomish County. She
offered to provide further information on coordinated transportation planning in Snohomish County. She
noted one of the focuses of the Washington DC trip was unmet transportation needs for veterans.
Council President Olson commented she was excited to learn about SNOTRAC as it had appeared
Snohomish County did not have an organization comparable to SeaShore that provided education to
cities.
Councilmember Moore was also excited about SNOTRAC as a way to increase Snohomish County’s
advocacy with regard to transportation.
The proposed agreement was acceptable to the Council.
9. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Mayor Haakenson reported he attended the SnoCom Board meeting in Councilmember Dawson’s absence
and voted in favor of the annual budget which included a 4% increase.
Council President Olson reported she attended two Community Technology Advisory Committee
meetings; they were making a lot of great progress and were working with Edmonds and Everett
Community Colleges. She emphasized this was a potential revenue source for the City.
Councilmember Wambolt advised most of the items discussed at the August 13 Port meeting had been
reported in the press. At the August 27 Port meeting, Commissioners received a report by Bob Drewel
from PSRC regarding accomplishment of 16 of the 18 objectives for 2006. Another interesting statistic
Mr. Drewel provided was the four-county area used the most engineers per capita of any place in the
United States but was 34th in producing engineers, revealing the need for more educational institutions in
Packet Page 23 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 22
this area. The Port also reviewed their second quarter performance and gross profits which were up 19%
from 2006.
Councilmember Marin reported he MC'd the groundbreaking of the Mukilteo Sounder station today.
Edmonds has been fortunate to have a stop in Edmonds since 2003 and it was unfortunate it had taken this
long for Mukilteo to have a stop. He noted once the interim Mukilteo station was completed next spring,
the Edmonds project could proceed.
Councilmember Moore reported the Edmonds Community College annual Board retreat included
discussion regarding the importance of recruitment and retention of students, issues they would be
focusing on over the coming year.
Councilmember Dawson commented SnoCom had been seeking funding for an interconnect between
SnoCom and SnoPak. Although it was originally believed funding they applied for would not be realized,
they had received $300,000 for the interconnect.
Mayor Haakenson advised the concept of forming a Public Safety Technology Committee was also
discussed at the SnoCom meeting. Councilmember Dawson explained the intent of the committee was to
form a group of technical people throughout the cities and agencies in Snohomish County. Discussion
has been ongoing regarding the role of the committee such as who they would answered to, who the
members would be and whether they would be appointed by the cities or comm centers, what the
technology needs of public safety personnel are, etc. and ensuring decision-makers are able to participate
in decisions regarding technology before projects are underway. Mayor Haakenson commented although
the idea of that committee was good, he suggested consideration be given to consolidating some of the
committees rather than creating more committees. Councilmember Dawson summarized the cities could
not work in isolation with regard to public safety issues and a great deal of work was occurring at SERS,
SnoPac, SnoCom, etc.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Wambolt read a guest column that would appear in this week’s Edmonds Beacon
regarding misleading and incomplete campaign rhetoric during the past several weeks about the City’s
financial situation.” Councilmember Moore objected; Mr. Snyder advised the column did not name
names and addressed the City’s financial situation. Councilmember Wambolt continued that as a member
of the City Council’s Finance Committee, he felt obligated to communicate the real financial outlook for
the City. He highlighted initiatives that have eliminated significant amounts of the City’s revenue,
pointing out that because the City did not have a mall or gambling, it was critical to identify new sources
of revenue. He described several revenue sources being pursued including, 1) the Hwy. 99 Task Force’s
report that in 1-2 years a $90 million Walgreens development will begin at 220th and Hwy. 99, 2) the
Harbor Square and Antique Mall redevelopment effort, 3) the Community Technology Advisory
Committee was optimistic about the revenue broadband would provide, 4) progress will soon resume on
neighborhood commercial centers, and 5) as a result of sales tax sourcing sales tax would be paid at the
point of destination versus the current point of sale which will benefit Edmonds. He summarized it was
too soon to estimate how much revenue would be realized from these sources. His point was that
Councilmembers, the Mayor, City staff and volunteer citizens continued to work on these initiatives to
increase revenue so that City services could be retained.
Packet Page 24 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 23
Councilmember Marin advised last week each Councilmember received a 3-ring binder containing
information about the work being done on the Harbor Square/Antique Mall redevelopment. He
commented it was exciting that the group had not given up and was still pursuing redevelopment that
would be an amenity for the community. He expressed his appreciation for the deliberative process that
was occurring.
Councilmember Marin recognized the wonderful job that was done on the 164th Street walkway project.
Mayor Haakenson explained the contractor did a great job and was very conscientious, even sleeping in
his truck on site to ensure his work was not disturbed. Neighbors brought the contractor food and a
birthday cake on his birthday.
Councilmember Moore announced the Running of the Balls on Saturday, September 8, a non-profit event
that supported the Sno-King Youth Club. She encouraged the public to attend the event that would move
5,000 balls down Main Street and include activities, celebrities, and entertainment.
As it appeared a contract rezone would be requested for Harbor Square, Councilmember Plunkett asked
when the Council should discontinue talking about it. Mr. Snyder answered when the application was
submitted. He cited the difference between the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine regarding things outside
the record and pre-judgmental bias. He cautioned a Councilmembers could lose their right to vote by
statements indicating their mind was so firmly made up it could not be changed.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:47 p.m.
Packet Page 25 of 357
AM-1154 2.C.
Approval of Claim Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/04/2007
Submitted By:Debbie Karber
Submitted For:Dan Clements Time:Consent
Department:Administrative Services Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #98630 through #98782 for August 30, 2007 in the amount of
$662,225.46.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim 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: $662,225.46
Fiscal Impact:
Claim Cks $662,225.46
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 8-30-07
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 08/29/2007 03:27 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/29/2007 03:28 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/29/2007 03:30 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/29/2007 03:45 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Started On: 08/29/2007 03:00
PM
Packet Page 26 of 357
Final Approval Date: 08/29/2007
Packet Page 27 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98630 8/30/2007 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 245034 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
98631 8/30/2007 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 07-326 JANITORIAL SERVICE
JANITORIAL SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00
FLOOR MAINTENANCE07-327
FLOOR MAINTENANCE
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 273.33
Total :607.33
98632 8/30/2007 071820 AHBL INC 64111 MUSEUM PROJECT - PROF SVC - FINAL PMT
MUSEUM PROJECT - PROF SVC - FINAL PMT
116.000.651.519.920.410.00 90.00
Total :90.00
98633 8/30/2007 001030 ALLIED SYSTEMS PRODUCTS INC IN091074 INV# IN091074 EDMONDS PD
2008 FILE LABELS
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 83.65
Freight
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 5.38
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 7.92
Total :96.95
98634 8/30/2007 065568 ALLWATER INC 082307043 COEWASTE
DRINKING WATER
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 31.75
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 0.62
Total :32.37
1Page:
Packet Page 28 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98635 8/30/2007 001430 AMERICAN RED CROSS 2502 LIFEGUARDING SUPPLIES
LIFEGUARDING BOOKS AND MASKS
001.000.640.575.510.310.00 395.00
Total :395.00
98636 8/30/2007 001634 AQUA QUIP 513257 08239
CHLORINE TABLETS
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 116.99
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 10.41
Total :127.40
98637 8/30/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3944956 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 33.76
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.00
Total :36.76
98638 8/30/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3944958 18386001
UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 93.54
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.33
Total :101.87
98639 8/30/2007 070251 ASHBROOK SIMON-HARTLEY 81214 BFP ROLLER
BFP ROLLER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4,800.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 595.88
Total :5,395.88
98640 8/30/2007 071120 ASHLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICALS 2500039058 113009/0702
POLYMER
411.000.656.538.800.310.51 1,937.50
2Page:
Packet Page 29 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,937.50986408/30/2007 071120 071120 ASHLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
98641 8/30/2007 001699 ASSOC OF WA CITIES IVC000956 ADMIN MISC
salary survey
001.000.510.522.100.490.00 85.00
Total :85.00
98642 8/30/2007 064343 AT&T 730386050200 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works Fax Line
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 3.06
Public Works Fax Line
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 11.64
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 11.64
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 11.64
Public Works Fax Line
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 11.64
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 11.63
Total :61.25
98643 8/30/2007 064343 AT&T 425-771-0152 STATION #16 FAX
STATION #16 FAX
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 34.98
Total :34.98
98644 8/30/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 206-660-2168 C/A 129795740
Cell phone Gene - final bill
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 200.20
Total :200.20
98645 8/30/2007 063547 ATCO INTERNATIONAL I0179726 981656
STEEL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 176.85
Total :176.85
3Page:
Packet Page 30 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98646 8/30/2007 071862 AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY AZUSA0828 SCHOLARSHIP
SCHOLARSHIP FOR:~
117.300.640.573.100.410.00 1,500.00
Total :1,500.00
98647 8/30/2007 002343 BILL HATCH SPORTING GOODS I13632 SOFTBALLS
USSSA SOFTBALLS FOR LEAGUE PLAY
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 423.50
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 37.69
Total :461.19
98648 8/30/2007 069698 BLAZE CONE COMPANY INC 16747 INV#16747 EDMONDS PD
18" 3 LB CONES W/6" BANDS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 228.75
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 30.00
Total :258.75
98649 8/30/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 611253 INV#611253 EDMONDS PD - TRANZPORT HOOD
TRANZPORT HOODS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 49.50
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 4.41
Total :53.91
98650 8/30/2007 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 1460909 C-249 PROCESS CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS
C-249 PROCESS CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 1,126.55
Total :1,126.55
98651 8/30/2007 071360 CASCADE INDUSTRIES NW INC 2259 C-261 CLARIFIER REPAIR
C-261 CLARIFIER REPAIR
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 71,760.00
Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 6,386.64
4Page:
Packet Page 31 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :78,146.64986518/30/2007 071360 071360 CASCADE INDUSTRIES NW INC
98652 8/30/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 110790 WELDING SUPPLIES
OXYGEN
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.23
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.54
Total :18.77
98653 8/30/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460701590 UNIFORMS
Volunteers
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 46.36
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 4.12
UNIFORMS460701591
Stn. 16
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 89.44
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 7.95
UNIFORMS460702629
Stn 17 - ALS
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 92.40
Stn 17 - Ops
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 92.40
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 8.22
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.22
OPS UNIFORMS460702648
Stn. 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 132.66
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.80
5Page:
Packet Page 32 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98653 8/30/2007 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
UNIFORMS460706820
Volunteers
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 46.36
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 4.12
OPS UNIFORMS460706821
Stn. 16
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 89.44
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 7.95
Total :641.44
98654 8/30/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5431 MAINT/ OPERATIONS SEWER - AUG 2007
MAINT/ OPERATIONS SEWER - AUG 2007
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 13,800.83
Total :13,800.83
98655 8/30/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1827269 CLEANING SUPPLIES
BREAK-UP CLEANER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 270.07
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.04
Total :294.11
98656 8/30/2007 071308 COLELLA, TERESA COLELLA0831 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT
SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT~
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 624.00
Total :624.00
98657 8/30/2007 004595 CONKLIN APPLIANCE P080819 PS - ICE MAKER KIT
PS - ICE MAKER KIT
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 99.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.81
Total :107.81
6Page:
Packet Page 33 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98658 8/30/2007 069848 CRAM, KATHERINE CRAM8441 IRISH DANCE CLASSES
IRISH DANCE 13+~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 168.00
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #8437
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 201.60
Total :369.60
98659 8/30/2007 066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS 0807 2989771 5374044 INV# 0807 2989771 5374044 EDMONDS PD
5 GALLON BOTTLES DRINKING H20
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 69.90
HOT/COLD DISPENSER RENTAL
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.00
ENERGY SURCHARGE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.96
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.89
Total :82.75
98660 8/30/2007 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3194828 E7AC.RFQ SR99/76th Improvements
E7AC.RFQ SR99/76th Improvements
112.200.630.595.330.650.00 213.50
Total :213.50
98661 8/30/2007 070862 DALTON, RYAN DALTON0820 OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT
OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT~
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 144.00
Total :144.00
98662 8/30/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 07-2782 MINUTE TAKING
8/7 & 8/20 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 252.00
Total :252.00
98663 8/30/2007 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER 207003 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 62.28
7Page:
Packet Page 34 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98663 8/30/2007 (Continued)060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER
INTERPRETER FEE207004
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 107.28
Total :169.56
98664 8/30/2007 068357 EARTH TECH 92358-15-421158 E5FG.Services thru 07/27/07
E5FG.Services thru 07/27/07
412.200.630.594.320.650.00 3,094.32
Total :3,094.32
98665 8/30/2007 071596 EBORALL, STEVE EBORALL8511 ART DAZE
ART DAZE #8511
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 162.50
Total :162.50
98666 8/30/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 85020 SUPPLIES
CORE TOOL, FASTENERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.60
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.50
Total :6.10
98667 8/30/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 85024 2000
ELECTRICAL FITTINGS
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 66.23
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 5.89
Total :72.12
98668 8/30/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 85318 OPS SUPPLIES
Epoxy - Stn. supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 4.05
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 0.36
Total :4.41
8Page:
Packet Page 35 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98669 8/30/2007 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CHAMBER0820 REFUND
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 1,500.00
Total :1,500.00
98670 8/30/2007 008550 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 9676 SISTER CITY PRINTING
PRINTING JOB FOR SISTER CITY
623.200.210.557.210.490.00 59.00
Sales Tax
623.200.210.557.210.490.00 5.25
Total :64.25
98671 8/30/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 CITY PARK
CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 315.79
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 712.18
SPRINKLER1-00875
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.72
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER1-02125
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 59.58
SPRINKLER1-03900
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 48.96
SPRINKLER1-05125
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 47.19
GAZEBO IRRIGATION1-05285
GAZEBO IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.41
CORNER PARK1-05340
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 47.19
9Page:
Packet Page 36 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98671 8/30/2007 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05650
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP1-05675
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 668.50
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05700
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 116.23
CORNER PARK1-09650
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 47.19
SW CORNER SPRINKLER1-09800
SW CORNER SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 63.12
PLANTER1-10780
PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 57.81
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH1-16130
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 50.73
CORNER PARKS1-16300
CORNER PARKS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 54.27
CITY HALL TRIANGLE1-16450
CITY HALL TRIANGLE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 164.60
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX1-16630
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 52.50
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER1-17475
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 40.11
10Page:
Packet Page 37 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98671 8/30/2007 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD1-19950
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 42.58
WATER1-36255
1141 9TH AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 40.11
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)2-25150
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 36.57
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)2-25175
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 54.27
SPRINKLER2-28275
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 43.65
MINI PARK2-37180
MINI PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.06
WATER7-05276
820 15TH ST SW
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 92.69
STORM DRAIN8-40000
23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 3,240.01
Total :6,195.66
98672 8/30/2007 069055 EHS INTERNATIONAL INC.24358 E5MC.Services thru February 2007
E5MC.Services thru February 2007
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 2,693.00
E5MC.Services thru July 200724470
E5MC.Services thru July 2007
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 10,964.55
Total :13,657.55
98673 8/30/2007 071857 EKREM, JANA EKREM0821 REFUND
11Page:
Packet Page 38 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98673 8/30/2007 (Continued)071857 EKREM, JANA
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 365.00
Total :365.00
98674 8/30/2007 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 027161 ADMIN MAINT
copier maint
001.000.510.522.100.480.00 67.73
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.100.480.00 6.03
Total :73.76
98675 8/30/2007 071858 ENNIS, CATHERINE ENNIS0822 REFUND
CLASS REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 80.00
Total :80.00
98676 8/30/2007 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C 4195 FS 16 & CH - SERVICE AND REPAIRS
FS 16 & CH - SERVICE AND REPAIRS
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 1,790.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 159.31
Total :1,949.31
98677 8/30/2007 071859 EVISTON, SUZANNE P 8/8/07 INV #8/8/07 EDMONDS PD - ROCKY
BOARD FOR ROCKY - 6 DAYS
001.000.410.521.260.410.00 150.00
Total :150.00
98678 8/30/2007 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU11053 SUPPLIES
ALUMINUM SLEEVES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 27.07
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.41
12Page:
Packet Page 39 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98678 8/30/2007 (Continued)066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
SUPPLIESWAMOU11070
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 28.34
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.52
Total :60.34
98679 8/30/2007 009880 FEDEX 2-210-89378 Transportation Charges - Bldg Div
Transportation Charges - Bldg Div
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 16.13
Total :16.13
98680 8/30/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0922145 17983
PIPE FITTING1
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 155.31
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.28
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 15.62
Total :191.21
98681 8/30/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0878724 37355
PVC CEMENT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 27.95
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.49
Total :30.44
98682 8/30/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0113701 SEWER INVENTORY - ~
13Page:
Packet Page 40 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98682 8/30/2007 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
SEWER INVENTORY - ~
411.000.000.141.150.310.00 60.72
S-TEEPVC-08-010
411.000.000.141.150.310.00 100.71
S-BENDPVC-06-010
411.000.000.141.150.310.00 34.67
S-PIPEPVC-08-030
411.000.000.141.150.310.00 111.41
Sales Tax
411.000.000.141.150.310.00 27.37
Total :334.88
98683 8/30/2007 069469 FLINT TRADING INC 87498 STREET - BD 6" WHITE LINE~
STREET - BD 6" WHITE LINE~
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 1,863.54
18" DO NOT BLOCK
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 299.88
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 292.06
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 218.54
Total :2,674.02
98684 8/30/2007 011480 GAYDOS, KEN CONFERENCE INTERN'L CONF/POLICE CHAPLAINS/GAYDOS
AIR FARE/K.GAYDOS~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 561.00
LODGING/K.GAYDOS~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 339.00
REGISTRATION/K.GAYDOS~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 145.00
Total :1,045.00
98685 8/30/2007 071845 GENERAL PACIFIC INC 1083322-01 WATER METER INVENTORY - ~
WATER METER INVENTORY - ~
411.000.000.141.170.310.00 2,150.00
14Page:
Packet Page 41 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :2,150.00986858/30/2007 071845 071845 GENERAL PACIFIC INC
98686 8/30/2007 067232 GERRISH BEARING COMPANY 2074168-01 2074168-01
BEARINGS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 228.20
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.31
Total :248.51
98687 8/30/2007 018495 GLACIER NORTHWEST 90204132 STREET - CEMENT
STREET - CEMENT
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 432.90
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 38.53
Total :471.43
98688 8/30/2007 012199 GRAINGER 9437538219 SUPPLIES
DUCT TAPE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 100.32
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.93
Total :109.25
98689 8/30/2007 012560 HACH COMPANY 5256914 112830-000
NITRIFICATION INHIBITOR/PIPET/PIPET TIPS
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 277.89
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 25.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 26.65
Total :329.54
98690 8/30/2007 070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE 132093 UNIT 100 - SERVICE
UNIT 100 - SERVICE
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 45.92
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 4.08
15Page:
Packet Page 42 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98690 8/30/2007 (Continued)070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE
UNIT 621 - BRAKE PARTS140238
UNIT 621 - BRAKE PARTS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 412.48
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 36.70
UNIT 621 - PARTS140239
UNIT 621 - PARTS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 46.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.14
UNIT 124 - CLAMPS140240
UNIT 124 - CLAMPS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 27.20
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.42
UNIT 100 - MT 90 FRONT AND REAR149886
UNIT 100 - MT 90 FRONT AND REAR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 219.12
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.49
UNIT 621 - CLUTCH PARTS150571
UNIT 621 - CLUTCH PARTS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 201.36
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.91
UNIT 621 - OIL150572
UNIT 621 - OIL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 95.52
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.50
UNIT 621 - PISTONS150835
UNIT 621 - PISTONS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 99.04
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.82
16Page:
Packet Page 43 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98690 8/30/2007 (Continued)070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE
UNIT 100 - REPAIRS151864
UNIT 100 - REPAIRS
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 35.70
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 3.18
UNIT 100 - BRAKE REPAIRS151865
UNIT 100 - BRAKE REPAIRS
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 134.70
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 12.00
UNIT 100 - REPAIRS~152920
UNIT 100 - REPAIRS~
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 61.52
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 9.93
UNIT 124 - BATTERY166667
UNIT 124 - BATTERY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 83.96
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.48
Total :1,597.57
98691 8/30/2007 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 00789648 036570
CPVC PIPE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 94.20
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.38
Total :102.58
98692 8/30/2007 068988 HAWKINS, JAIME Overtime Pay Overtime Pay-8/15 thru 8/31
Overtime Pay-8/15 thru 8/31
001.000.620.532.200.120.00 325.71
Total :325.71
98693 8/30/2007 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD 5323327 WATER - 3/4" EXTRACTING TOOL
17Page:
Packet Page 44 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98693 8/30/2007 (Continued)071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD
WATER - 3/4" EXTRACTING TOOL
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 238.48
WATER - 1" EXTRACTING TOOL
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 251.45
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 41.64
Total :531.57
98694 8/30/2007 070864 IDEARC MEDIA CORP S/P3337719 CUSTOMER # S114983
8/2007 Web Server Hosting for Internet
001.000.390.528.800.420.00 69.90
Total :69.90
98695 8/30/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 74115929 COPIER LEASE
COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 812.53
Total :812.53
98696 8/30/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 74087641 INV#74087641 ACCT#467070-COMBINED INV
COPIER RENTAL 8/13-9/12/07
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 821.73
ADDITIONAL COPIES
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 447.23
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 112.95
Total :1,381.91
98697 8/30/2007 069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC E5FF.Ret Release E5FF.Retainage Release
E5FF.Retainage Release
412.200.630.594.320.650.00 7,502.52
E5JA.Pmt 4 thru 07/31/07E5JA.Pmt 4
E5JA.Pmt 4 thru 07/31/07
412.100.630.594.320.650.00 387,859.87
E5JA.Retainage 4
412.100.000.223.400.000.00 -17,808.08
18Page:
Packet Page 45 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :377,554.31986978/30/2007 069179 069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC
98698 8/30/2007 069264 J & K ASSOCIATES 173133 STREET - CRACK SEALER
STREET - CRACK SEALER
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 2,762.16
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 234.78
Total :2,996.94
98699 8/30/2007 071860 JONES, CYNTHIA ANN 131210 REFUND #131210 - SPAY/NEUTER
SPAY/NEUTER REF. IMP. #6927
001.000.000.343.930.000.00 50.00
Total :50.00
98700 8/30/2007 016600 KROESENS INC 79581 OPS UNIFORMS
Allison work boots, etc.
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 151.10
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 13.45
Total :164.55
98701 8/30/2007 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 323164-001 Survey Vest - Jeanie
Survey Vest - Jeanie
001.000.620.532.200.240.00 79.75
Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.240.00 7.10
Survey Vest - Jennifer324446-001
Survey Vest - Jennifer
001.000.620.532.200.240.00 108.00
Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.240.00 9.61
Total :204.46
98702 8/30/2007 065791 LEIRA L.CLARKE 2007 LEIRA CONFERENCE - L.CLARKE/EDM
REGISTRATION/L.CLARKE~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 210.00
19Page:
Packet Page 46 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :210.00987028/30/2007 065791 065791 LEIRA
98703 8/30/2007 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 15972 2795
HVAC REPAIRS
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 224.35
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 19.97
Total :244.32
98704 8/30/2007 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 526297 UNIT 467 - ACETONE
UNIT 467 - ACETONE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.10
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.88
UNIT 100 - CHROME526359
UNIT 100 - CHROME
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.09
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.54
UNTI 100 - CLEANING SUPPLIES526360
UNTI 100 - CLEANING SUPPLIES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.87
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.04
UNIT 116 - SUPPLIES526418
UNIT 116 - SUPPLIES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.50
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.11
UNTI 476 - SUPPORT526597
UNTI 476 - SUPPORT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.11
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.88
20Page:
Packet Page 47 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98704 8/30/2007 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
UNIT 31 - FAN526876
UNIT 31 - FAN
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.88
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.10
UNIT 46 - SUPPLIES526878
UNIT 46 - SUPPLIES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.58
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.76
UNIT 55 - BELTS527137
UNIT 55 - BELTS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.41
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.06
UNIT 495 - MIRROR527519
UNIT 495 - MIRROR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 60.27
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.36
UNIT 99 - WIPER BLADES527522
UNIT 99 - WIPER BLADES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.18
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.53
UNIT EQ01WR - HOSE, SUPPLIES527631
UNIT EQ01WR - HOSE, SUPPLIES
511.100.657.548.680.310.00 23.72
Sales Tax
511.100.657.548.680.310.00 2.11
UNIT 130 - BATTERY TERMINALS527709
UNIT 130 - BATTERY TERMINALS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 44.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.92
21Page:
Packet Page 48 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98704 8/30/2007 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
UNIT 31 - RETURNED FAN527710
UNIT 31 - RETURNED FAN
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -34.88
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -3.10
UNIT 485527744
UNIT 485
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.56
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.14
UNIT 485 - MARK LAMP527745
UNIT 485 - MARK LAMP
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.89
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.52
UNIT EQ23FM - REAR CRS VIEW AS527858
UNIT EQ23FM - REAR CRS VIEW AS
511.100.657.548.680.310.00 93.95
Sales Tax
511.100.657.548.680.310.00 8.36
UNIT EQ01WR - FUSE528086
UNIT EQ01WR - FUSE
511.100.657.548.680.310.00 2.20
Sales Tax
511.100.657.548.680.310.00 0.20
UNIT 11 - OIL FILTER528243
UNIT 11 - OIL FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.54
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.29
UNIT 11 - FUEL FILTER528297
UNIT 11 - FUEL FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.26
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.09
22Page:
Packet Page 49 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98704 8/30/2007 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
UNIT 96 - ADAPTERS, SEAL528491
UNIT 96 - ADAPTERS, SEAL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.05
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.16
UNIT 96 - HALIGON BULBS, FITTINGS528507
UNIT 96 - HALIGON BULBS, FITTINGS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.42
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.35
Total :481.00
98705 8/30/2007 018970 LYNNWOOD DODGE 246873 UNIT 126 - REPAIRS
UNIT 126 - REPAIRS
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 1,651.97
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 147.02
Total :1,798.99
98706 8/30/2007 061900 MARC 0338062-IN 00-0902224
DE-LIMER
411.000.656.538.800.310.59 794.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.59 70.67
Total :864.67
98707 8/30/2007 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 3179 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 45.00
INTERPRETER FEE3180
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 45.00
INTERPRETER FEE3181
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 45.00
23Page:
Packet Page 50 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98707 8/30/2007 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
INTERPRETER FEE3184
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 45.00
INTERPRETER FEE3186
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 135.00
INTERPRETER FEE3189
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 105.00
Total :420.00
98708 8/30/2007 065829 MARTINSON, LINDA MARTINSON8387 BELLY DANCE CLASSES
BELLY DANCE CLASS #8387
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 154.00
Total :154.00
98709 8/30/2007 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 70133816 123106800
NYLON ROPE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 43.97
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.08
12310680070135370
PIPE FITTING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 37.24
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.60
12310680070495681
CHEMICAL SPRAYER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 76.26
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 12.47
Total :183.62
98710 8/30/2007 069285 MERCER MD, JAMES 1007-007 ALS PROF SERVICES
24Page:
Packet Page 51 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98710 8/30/2007 (Continued)069285 MERCER MD, JAMES
July Med Prgm Dir
001.000.510.526.100.410.00 1,644.75
Total :1,644.75
98711 8/30/2007 069592 METROCALL Q0298897H INV#Q0298897H 0298897-0 EDMONDS PD
PAGER SERVICE 8/27-9/26/07
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 79.97
Total :79.97
98712 8/30/2007 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 53476 17967
PROPANE GAS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 15.90
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.42
Total :17.32
98713 8/30/2007 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 53786 CITY HALL - GLASS CARRIER - RENTAL
CITY HALL - GLASS CARRIER - RENTAL
001.000.651.519.920.450.00 48.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.450.00 4.27
Total :52.27
98714 8/30/2007 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0206261-IN WATER/SEWER - SQWINCHER COOLERS
WATER/SEWER - SQWINCHER COOLERS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 33.85
WATER/SEWER - SQWINCHER COOLERS
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 33.85
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.01
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.01
Total :73.72
98715 8/30/2007 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0343706-IN FLEET INVENTORY - BULK OIL
25Page:
Packet Page 52 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98715 8/30/2007 (Continued)024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
FLEET INVENTORY - BULK OIL
511.000.657.548.680.340.21 1,692.90
ENV FEES
511.000.657.548.680.340.21 15.24
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.21 146.90
Total :1,855.04
98716 8/30/2007 024600 NEUERT, L L 73 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 331.35
Total :331.35
98717 8/30/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 832127721-034 INV#832127721-034 EDMONDS PD
MOTOROLA IC502 PHONES
001.000.410.521.220.350.00 119.98
CELL PHONE SERVICE 7/18-8/17/07
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1,320.12
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.350.00 10.68
Total :1,450.78
98718 8/30/2007 023800 NFPA 3931235Y OPS SUPPLIES
MC ordered Halloween bags
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 91.80
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 7.95
Total :99.75
98719 8/30/2007 071861 NOISE BLANKETS AND MORE 072707 SKATE PARK NOISE BLANKETS
NOISE BLANKETS FOR CIVIC SKATE PARK
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 3,705.00
Total :3,705.00
98720 8/30/2007 063034 NORTH CENTRAL LABORATORIES 222038 13465
26Page:
Packet Page 53 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98720 8/30/2007 (Continued)063034 NORTH CENTRAL LABORATORIES
BOD STANDARD
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 258.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 10.91
Total :268.91
98721 8/30/2007 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 0081914 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
98722 8/30/2007 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0546494 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0547799
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 180.29
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0556786
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 92.20
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0556787
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0559622
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02
Total :566.55
98723 8/30/2007 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 496 Verbatim Transcripts (P-07-17, AP 07-1,
Verbatim Transcripts (P-07-17, AP 07-1,
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 1,020.00
Total :1,020.00
27Page:
Packet Page 54 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98724 8/30/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 341564 Desk - Jeanie
Desk - Jeanie
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 925.53
Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 82.37
Total :1,007.90
98725 8/30/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 079669 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 183.81
SUPPLIES337779
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 94.03
SUPPLIES438857
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 319.81
SUPPLIES675676
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 3.15
Total :600.80
98726 8/30/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 020670 OFFICE SUPPLIES
LABELS, SHEET PROTECTORS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 60.97
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 5.42
OFFICE SUPPLIES967370
LABELS
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 22.44
INKJET CARTRIDGES, TAPE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 61.79
Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 2.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.49
28Page:
Packet Page 55 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98726 8/30/2007 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
OFFICE SUPPLIES988073
TAPE, PENS, ENVELOPES, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 111.03
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.77
Total :278.91
98727 8/30/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 249456 520437
LEGAL PADS
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 26.77
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 2.39
Total :29.16
98728 8/30/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 199150 Office Supplies - DSD
Office Supplies - DSD
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 27.42
Office Supplies DSD433315
Office Supplies DSD
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 488.05
Total :515.47
98729 8/30/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 456639 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 132.29
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 11.78
Total :144.07
98730 8/30/2007 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00046238 STORM - SEWER HOSE
29Page:
Packet Page 56 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98730 8/30/2007 (Continued)002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
STORM - SEWER HOSE
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 1,396.71
Freight
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 52.38
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 128.97
Total :1,578.06
98731 8/30/2007 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 9836878 ADMIN LEASE
Copy machine lease
001.000.510.522.100.450.00 137.06
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.100.450.00 12.20
Total :149.26
98732 8/30/2007 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.598005 MCH - PAINT SUPPLIES
MCH - PAINT SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 71.12
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.33
Total :77.45
98733 8/30/2007 027280 PATRICKS PRINTING 35815 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 430.49
Total :430.49
98734 8/30/2007 070003 PAXTON, LAUREL PAXTON8200 SUMMER THEATRE CAMP
SUMMER THEATRE CAMP #8200
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 3,262.00
Total :3,262.00
98735 8/30/2007 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK8072 WIGGLES & GIGGLES
WIGGLES & GIGGLES #8072
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 201.60
30Page:
Packet Page 57 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :201.60987358/30/2007 069944 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH
98736 8/30/2007 007800 PETTY CASH tc petty parking-Waters
parking-Waters
001.000.310.518.880.430.00 2.00
sno cnty records-Storm/sewer liens
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 50.00
coffee-DS
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 42.48
rubbing alcohol-for copier
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 2.79
pastires for comm outreach meeting
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 28.85
jury duty-mileage reimb-Bob Delisle
001.000.651.519.920.430.00 11.64
sno cnty & cities meeting-Marin 08/16
001.000.110.511.100.490.00 35.00
sno cnty & cities meeting-Haakenson,
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 70.00
coffee-DS
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 37.12
parking-meeting at county-chesterfield
001.000.620.532.200.430.00 3.00
SCCFOA meeting
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 10.00
recording-Sno Cnty
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 104.00
mileage reimb-Carl scc dinner
001.000.210.513.100.430.00 9.89
Total :406.77
98737 8/30/2007 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS 07/30-08/23/07 PW - MILEAGE FOR C RAYMOND CLASS
31Page:
Packet Page 58 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98737 8/30/2007 (Continued)008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
PW - MILEAGE FOR C RAYMOND CLASS
001.000.650.519.910.430.00 15.52
STORM - VCR TAPES
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 5.64
WATER - UNIFORM JEANS FOR ~
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 60.76
WATER - CELL PHONE CASES FOR WW AND 77
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 32.64
WATER - GAS FOR UNIT 117
411.000.654.534.800.320.00 5.00
WATER- PORTABLE CALCULATOR
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 20.66
WATER- VINEGAR FOR WATER TESTING
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 39.48
SEWER - TELEMETRY PRINTER RIBBON
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.61
UNIT 234,235,236,237,238,239 LICENSE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 127.50
Total :314.81
98738 8/30/2007 065105 PORT SUPPLY 1046 UNIT 489 - FUSE SUPPLIES
UNIT 489 - FUSE SUPPLIES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 54.38
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.84
UNIT M16 - PAINT BRUSH SUPPLIES1375
UNIT M16 - PAINT BRUSH SUPPLIES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.58
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.23
UNIT M16 - GEAR LUBE1385
UNIT M16 - GEAR LUBE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 25.77
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.28
32Page:
Packet Page 59 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98738 8/30/2007 (Continued)065105 PORT SUPPLY
UNIT 64 - FUSE SUPPLIES2803
UNIT 64 - FUSE SUPPLIES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 28.08
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.50
UNIT 64 - RETURNED FUSE SUPPLIES3169
UNIT 64 - RETURNED FUSE SUPPLIES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -28.08
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -2.50
UNIT 97 - HANDRAIL328
UNIT 97 - HANDRAIL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 106.36
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.47
UNIT 476 - GROMET KITS424
UNIT 476 - GROMET KITS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.78
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.04
UNIT 95 - FLORESCENT LITE8963
UNIT 95 - FLORESCENT LITE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 50.49
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.49
Total :273.71
98739 8/30/2007 071184 PROCOM 2007-1193 08/07 PROF SERV FIBER OPTIC PROJ
08/07 Prof Serv Fiber Optic Proj
001.000.390.528.200.410.00 3,732.98
Total :3,732.98
98740 8/30/2007 071373 PROSOURCE ONE 2725717 GARDENING SUPPLIES
33Page:
Packet Page 60 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98740 8/30/2007 (Continued)071373 PROSOURCE ONE
ROUNDUP, CASORON
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 650.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 57.20
Total :707.20
98741 8/30/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 6,777.85
Total :6,777.85
98742 8/30/2007 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 0707163 E6DB.Services thru 07/20/07
E6DB.Services thru 07/20/07
112.200.630.595.330.650.00 8,265.28
Total :8,265.28
98743 8/30/2007 068337 RIDDELL, SHIVA RIDDELL0822 REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ZOO ADMISSION FOR
623.200.210.557.210.490.00 287.50
Total :287.50
98744 8/30/2007 067447 RILEY, CHARLES H.72 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 150.00
Total :150.00
98745 8/30/2007 069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 01804-215865 UNIT 113 - WINDSHIELD REPAIR
UNIT 113 - WINDSHIELD REPAIR
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 29.95
Total :29.95
98746 8/30/2007 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2180610 STREET - ASPHALT
34Page:
Packet Page 61 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98746 8/30/2007 (Continued)033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL
STREET - ASPHALT
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 1,375.00
Freight
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 75.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 129.05
Total :1,579.05
98747 8/30/2007 064628 SANDERSON SAFETY SUPPLY CO 1199628-01 METER ACCESSORIES
METER ACCESSORIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 34.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.22
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3.85
METER ACCESSORIES1199628-02
METER ACCESSORIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.18
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.53
GAS METER1201484-01
GAS METER
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 253.97
GAS METER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 253.96
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 7.19
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.19
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 23.25
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 23.24
35Page:
Packet Page 62 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :634.58987478/30/2007 064628 064628 SANDERSON SAFETY SUPPLY CO
98748 8/30/2007 071007 SAWDON, MANDY SAWDON0825 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR~
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 345.00
Total :345.00
98749 8/30/2007 061482 SEA-WESTERN INC 118085 OPS REPAIRS & MAINT
MSA ultraelite parts & accessories
001.000.510.522.200.480.00 2,166.54
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.480.00 192.82
Total :2,359.36
98750 8/30/2007 071847 SHELDON'S CUSTOM CABINETS LTD 080807 PS - PD LOCKERS~
PS - PD LOCKERS~
001.000.410.521.220.350.00 3,780.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.350.00 336.42
Total :4,116.42
98751 8/30/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2060028723 YOST PARK POOL
YOST PARK POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,123.12
UTILITY BILLING3110774142
23202 EDMONDS WAY
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 91.94
BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION5680012803
BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 28.28
Total :2,243.34
98752 8/30/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 517015142 958-001-000-8
WWTP ELECTRICITY
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 20,343.91
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 1,220.63
36Page:
Packet Page 63 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :21,564.54987528/30/2007 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
98753 8/30/2007 038700 SO SNO CO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 19776 Membership dues 9/1/07-9/1/08
Membership dues 9/1/07-9/1/08
001.000.390.519.900.490.00 600.00
Total :600.00
98754 8/30/2007 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC 77467 E7CA.Roberts thru 08/10/07
E7CA.Roberts thru 08/10/07
125.100.620.595.300.650.00 1,592.50
E1DB.Roberts thru 08/10/07
125.100.620.595.300.650.00 130.00
E5JA.Roberts thru 08/10/07
412.100.630.594.320.650.00 130.00
E5MC.Roberts thru 08/10/107
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 260.00
E1CC.Roberts thru 08/10/07
112.200.630.595.330.650.00 130.00
E7CA.Roberts thru 08/17/0777681
E7CA.Roberts thru 08/17/07
125.100.620.595.300.650.00 2,080.00
Total :4,322.50
98755 8/30/2007 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO September 2007 SEPTEMBER 2007 STANDARD INSURANCE PREM
September 2007 Insurance Premiums
811.000.000.231.550.000.00 18,358.18
Total :18,358.18
98756 8/30/2007 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 2558614 To correctr credit taken 8/16/07 Ck
37Page:
Packet Page 64 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98756 8/30/2007 (Continued)009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC
To correctr credit taken 8/16/07 Ck
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 12.65
To correctr credit taken 8/16/07 Ck
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 12.64
2001 SNO. CO. TAX RATE
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1.09
2001 SNO. CO. TAX RATE
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.08
Total :27.46
98757 8/30/2007 067148 STERNBERG LANTERNS INC 00112023 STREET - LARGE GASLITE POST
STREET - LARGE GASLITE POST
111.000.653.542.630.310.00 2,604.00
Total :2,604.00
98758 8/30/2007 040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING 139714 CITY WIDE BEAUTIFICATION
PRO MIX, PERLITE, ETC., FOR CITY WIDE
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 355.26
Sales Tax
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 30.20
CITY WIDE BEAUTIFICATION141047
PRO MIX, ALFALFA MEAL, DEADLINE, ETC.,
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 395.11
Sales Tax
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 33.58
CITY WIDE BEAUTIFICATION142452
PEAT MOSS, FERTILIZER, ETC. FOR CITY
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 349.70
Sales Tax
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 29.72
Total :1,193.57
98759 8/30/2007 060801 SUBURBAN PROPANE 138247 STREET - BULK TANK RENT 1 YEAR
38Page:
Packet Page 65 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98759 8/30/2007 (Continued)060801 SUBURBAN PROPANE
STREET - BULK TANK RENT 1 YEAR
111.000.653.542.310.450.00 60.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.450.00 5.34
Total :65.34
98760 8/30/2007 061912 SUN SUPPLY 00660160-IN STORM - WHITE PVC BOARD FOR STOCK
STORM - WHITE PVC BOARD FOR STOCK
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 26.09
Total :26.09
98761 8/30/2007 071723 SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC EM4418 INV#4418 - A.GREENMUN/EDMONDS PD
REGISTRATION/GREENMUN~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 129.00
LATE REGISTRATION FEE~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 25.00
Total :154.00
98762 8/30/2007 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10572222 SUPPLIES
PUSHNUTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 29.02
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.58
SUPPLIES10574003
PUSHNUTS, NYLONE ROPE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 171.81
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.30
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.21
39Page:
Packet Page 66 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98762 8/30/2007 (Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC
SUPPLIES10575117
FENDER WASHERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 32.50
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.22
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.27
Total :269.91
98763 8/30/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1528619 E7AC.RFQ SR99/76th Improvements
E7AC.RFQ SR99/76th Improvements
112.200.630.595.330.650.00 100.80
Total :100.80
98764 8/30/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1528174 NEWSPAPER AD
Hearing Re: 77th Pl W
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 109.36
NEWSPAPER AD1528230
Hearing re:Graffiti
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 40.32
NEWSPAPER AD1528232
Ordinance 3657
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 25.92
NEWSPAPER AD1530064
Closed Record (Petso/Burnstead)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 128.64
NEWSPAPER AD1531145
Closed Record (Bogaert)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 38.88
Total :343.12
98765 8/30/2007 067636 TIFCO INDUSTRIES 70382859 SHOP SUPPLIES - WELDING SHIELD BLANKET,
40Page:
Packet Page 67 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98765 8/30/2007 (Continued)067636 TIFCO INDUSTRIES
SHOP SUPPLIES - WELDING SHIELD BLANKET,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 128.74
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.97
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.69
Total :153.40
98766 8/30/2007 070898 TITAN SALES GROUP 2007-2048 UNIT 98 - NOZZELS, ROOT CUTTER, WART
UNIT 98 - NOZZELS, ROOT CUTTER, WART
511.100.657.548.680.350.00 5,938.00
Freight
511.100.657.548.680.350.00 58.68
Sales Tax
511.100.657.548.680.350.00 533.70
Total :6,530.38
98767 8/30/2007 070037 TRIMAXX CONSTRUCTION INC 130906 HYDRANT PERMIT DEPOSIT REFUND
HYDRANT PERMIT DEPOSIT REFUND
411.000.000.245.110.000.00 950.00
Total :950.00
98768 8/30/2007 068225 TRUCK BUILDERS LLC 17793 UNIT EQ23FM - SPRAY ON
UNIT EQ23FM - SPRAY ON
511.100.657.548.680.350.00 700.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.548.680.350.00 62.30
Total :762.30
98769 8/30/2007 065934 TUNE TALES TUNETALES8432 TUNE TALE CLASSES
41Page:
Packet Page 68 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98769 8/30/2007 (Continued)065934 TUNE TALES
PAYMENT 2 OF 2~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 445.90
TUNE TALES MUSIC SUMMER #8433~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 401.45
TUNE TALES MUSIC SUMMER~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 531.65
Total :1,379.00
98770 8/30/2007 063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC INV0111477 UB-Import new serivce locations
UB-Import new serivce locations
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 1,500.00
UB-Import new serivce locations
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 1,500.00
Total :3,000.00
98771 8/30/2007 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 7618714 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 509.70
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.93
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 46.15
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES7618997
RAINBIRD PC/FC ROTOR
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 393.00
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.37
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 35.41
Total :1,002.56
98772 8/30/2007 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 7606594 WATER INVENTORY - 3" COMPOUND METER
42Page:
Packet Page 69 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98772 8/30/2007 (Continued)061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
WATER INVENTORY - 3" COMPOUND METER
411.000.000.141.170.310.00 1,596.40
Sales Tax
411.000.000.141.170.310.00 140.49
Total :1,736.89
98773 8/30/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE
City Park T1 Line 8/16-9/16/07
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 407.57
Total :407.57
98774 8/30/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-NW4-3726 FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOCOM
FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOCOM
001.000.510.528.600.420.00 247.00
Total :247.00
98775 8/30/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 464229910-1 206-999-9374
sewer lead cell phone
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 68.05
425-870-0617469985965-1
Cell phone-Jim Waite
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 61.98
Cell phone-Jim Waite
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 61.97
Total :192.00
98776 8/30/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0580108628 Bldg official Cell 7-19 to 8-18-2007
Bldg official Cell 7-19 to 8-18-2007
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 60.03
Total :60.03
98777 8/30/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0579210937 INV# 0579210937 ACCT#764226609-00001
SWAT BUS PHONE
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1.90
Total :1.90
43Page:
Packet Page 70 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
98778 8/30/2007 070264 WASHINGTON OAKES RETIREMENT 74 Assisted Living Care - Jim Martin
Assisted Living Care - Jim Martin
009.000.390.517.370.290.00 3,815.00
Total :3,815.00
98779 8/30/2007 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL M.GREENE TRAIN THE TRAINER - M.GREENE/EDMONDS
REGISTRATION/M.GREENE~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 40.00
Total :40.00
98780 8/30/2007 045912 WASPC 70136 ELECTRONIC MONITORING SERVICES
ELECTRONIC MONITORING SERVICES
001.000.230.523.200.510.00 402.50
Total :402.50
98781 8/30/2007 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 256 AUGUST 07 MONTHLY RETAINER
Aug-07 Monthly Retainer
001.000.360.515.230.410.00 6,000.00
Total :6,000.00
98782 8/30/2007 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0116258 STREET - 60X36.080 ALUM BLANKS
STREET - 60X36.080 ALUM BLANKS
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 207.45
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 20.98
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 20.10
Total :248.53
Bank total :662,225.46153 Vouchers for bank code :front
662,225.46Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report153
44Page:
Packet Page 71 of 357
08/29/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
2:51:50PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
45Page:
Packet Page 72 of 357
AM-1148 2.D.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/04/2007
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Dave Gebert Time:Consent
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to advertise for Statements of Qualifications from consultants for the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan Update.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize Staff to advertise for Statements of Qualifications from consultants for the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The City of Edmonds is currently in the process of updating the Comprehensive Transportation
Plan. Under the Growth Management Act, the City is required to perform a major update to the
plan every six to ten years. Our last major update was done in 2002. The plan lists all the existing
transportation conditions for all users (drivers, pedestrians, bikers and transit) as well as possible
improvements. The main objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to identify improvements
necessary to provide a system for all modes of transportation that will function safely and
efficiently through the year 2028.
The adopted 2007-2008 Fund 112 budget includes funding in 2008 for the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan update.
Staff plans to select a consultant for award of a contract by December 2007, and for the consultant
to begin work in January 2008.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Dave Gebert 08/24/2007 11:08 AM APRV
Packet Page 73 of 357
2 Development Services Duane Bowman 08/24/2007 11:11 AM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/27/2007 09:07 AM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/27/2007 01:00 PM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/27/2007 02:06 PM APRV
Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 08/24/2007 10:18
AM
Final Approval Date: 08/27/2007
Packet Page 74 of 357
AM-1149 2.E.
76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway--162nd Street Park
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/04/2007
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Don Fiene Time:Consent
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with
Gray and Osborne, Inc. for the 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway and 162nd Street SW
Park projects.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with
Gray and Osborne, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $157,000 for Phase 2/Final Design of the 76th
Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway project ($109,160) and the 162nd Street SW Park project
($47,840).
Previous Council Action
On September 25, 2006, Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Professional Services
Agreement with Gray and Osborne, Inc. On June 5, 2007, Staff and the Consultant gave a
presentation regarding the recommended alternatives for the Walkway and Park projects.
Narrative
Gray and Osborne, Inc. was selected for the design of this project. The Consultant and Staff agreed
that the project be split into a preliminary design and design phase due to the complexity of the
project and the need to look at several alternative solutions. The 76 th Avenue West/75th Place
West Walkway and the 162 nd Street SW Park projects are both budgeted for 2007-2008. The
initial contract award was for the Alternatives Analysis and the Preliminary Design (Phase 1) of
the project in the amount of $112,600. The Consultant and Staff (Engineering Division & Parks
Department) looked at different alternatives for walkway design/alignment/construction techniques,
as well a couple of park design alternatives. A public meeting was held regarding the proposed
walkway and park on April 26, 2007.
Gray and Osborne has now completed the Preliminary Design report. The recommended
alternative for the walkway was presented to Council on June 5, 2007. The proposed plan is to
build the walkway on the east side of 76th Avenue West/ 75th Place West, from Meadowdale
Beach Road to 162 nd Street SW, and on the west side of 75th Place West along the frontage of the
proposed 162nd Street SW Park.
Phase 2 is the final design for the Walkway and Park projects. Staff and Gray and Osborne have
now agreed upon a scope and budget for Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement
Packet Page 75 of 357
for the final design of the projects.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: G & O Addendum 1
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Dave Gebert 08/27/2007 07:40 AM APRV
2 Development Services Duane Bowman 08/27/2007 08:52 AM APRV
3 Parks and Recreation Brian McIntosh 08/27/2007 10:02 AM APRV
4 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/27/2007 02:06 PM APRV
5 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/27/2007 02:08 PM APRV
6 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/28/2007 02:43 PM APRV
Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 08/24/2007 12:23
PM
Final Approval Date: 08/28/2007
Packet Page 76 of 357
Packet Page 77 of 357
Packet Page 78 of 357
Packet Page 79 of 357
Packet Page 80 of 357
Packet Page 81 of 357
Packet Page 82 of 357
Packet Page 83 of 357
Packet Page 84 of 357
Packet Page 85 of 357
Packet Page 86 of 357
Packet Page 87 of 357
Packet Page 88 of 357
Packet Page 89 of 357
Packet Page 90 of 357
Packet Page 91 of 357
Packet Page 92 of 357
Packet Page 93 of 357
Packet Page 94 of 357
Packet Page 95 of 357
Packet Page 96 of 357
Packet Page 97 of 357
AM-1155 2.F.
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SECOND ADDENDUM TO
THE INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF WOODWAY
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/04/2007
Submitted By:Kim Karas
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:Consent
Department:Public Works Type:Action
Review Committee:Finance
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Second Addendum to the Interlocal Agreement for vehicle
maintenance services between the City of Edmonds and the Town of Woodway.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize the Mayor to sign the Second Addendum to the Interlocal Agreement with the Town of
Woodway.
Previous Council Action
Previously the Council authorized the Mayor to sign the original agreement on June 6, 2001 and
the first addendum was authorized on November 5, 2003.
Narrative
The Town of Woodway has requested the City of Edmonds to continue the ongoing maintenance of
their police patrol vehicle. This Second Addendum continues the Agreement until such time that
either party elects to give a notice of termination.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Original Agreement
Link: 1st Addendum
Link: 2nd Addendum
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/30/2007 09:16 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/30/2007 09:20 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/30/2007 12:04 PM APRV
Form Started By: Kim
Karas
Started On: 08/29/2007 03:17
PM
Final Approval Date: 08/30/2007
Packet Page 98 of 357
Packet Page 99 of 357
Packet Page 100 of 357
Packet Page 101 of 357
Packet Page 102 of 357
Packet Page 103 of 357
Packet Page 104 of 357
Packet Page 105 of 357
Packet Page 106 of 357
Packet Page 107 of 357
PW ADMINISTRATION\Town Of Woodway-FLT\Edmonds.Town of Woodway Addendum 2 revised.doc Page 1 of 3
SECOND ADDENDUM
to
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SERVICES
Between
THE CITY OF EDMONDS
And
THE TOWN OF WOODWAY
This Second Addendum to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Vehicle Maintenance
Services ("Agreement") between the City of Edmonds ("Edmonds") and the Town of
Woodway ("Woodway") is entered into by and between Edmonds and Woodway as of the
date indicated below.
I. RECITALS
WHEREAS, Edmonds and Woodway (collectively, "the Parties") entered into
the Agreement on June 6, 2001 for the purpose of establishing a formal arrangement under
which Edmonds would provide periodic automotive maintenance services for vehicles
owned by Woodway; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement required Woodway to reimburse Edmonds for said
services at the rate of $48.00/hr., exclusive of, inter alia, replacement automotive parts and
materials, procurement expenses, and disposal charges; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to preserve the framework of their contractual
relationship under the Agreement, but revise the duration provisions and establish a new
reimbursement rate for services rendered pursuant thereto and filing options; and
WHEREAS, the governing bodies of both Parties have taken appropriate action
to approve the Parties' respective execution of this Second Addendum;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein,
or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, the Parties mutually agree as follows:
II TERMS
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 2 - TERM OF THE AGREEMENT.
The Term of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows:
Section 2. Term: The Agreement and this Second Addendum shall be effective
upon full execution of the Parties hereto. This agreement shall remain in effect
for one year and shall automatically renew for continuous one year periods of
time unless terminated in accordance with Section 3 of the original agreement or
revised by a writing signed by both Parties.
SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 6(A) OF THE AGREEMENT.
Packet Page 108 of 357
PW ADMINISTRATION\Town Of Woodway-FLT\Edmonds.Town of Woodway Addendum 2 revised.doc Page 2 of 3
Section 6(A) of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows:
…
A. Edmonds shall charge Woodway a fee of $77.00 per hour,
exclusive of replacement parts and materials, for routine automotive
maintenance services performed under this Agreement, said amount roughly
approximating the actual cost of providing such services.
Replacement of automotive parts and necessary materials, including but not
limited to oil, tires and various vehicle fluids, shall be billed separately to
Woodway at cost plus any procurement expense incurred by Edmonds. Any
disposal fee incurred by Edmonds in disposing automotive parts and materials
from Woodway vehicles, including but not limited to any hazardous waste
disposal charge, shall likewise be billed separately to Woodway at cost.
…
SECTION 3. OTHER TERMS NOT SUPERSEDED:
This Second Addendum modifies, but does not supersede, the Agreement. Except as
specifically stated in this Second Addendum, each and every term, covenant and condition of
the Agreement shall remain in effect as if this Second Addendum did not exist and shall
govern the modified terms contained in this Addendum. If the terms of this Second
Addendum conflict with the terms of the Agreement, the terms of this Second Addendum shall
control.
SECTION 4. FILING.
Pursuant to RCW 39.34.040 Within 10 days of the execution of this Second Addendum
by both Parties, Woodway shall file a copy of the executed Second Addendum with the
Snohomish County Auditor. or in the alternative this Second Addendum, may be listed by
subject on the Woodway or Edmonds City web site or other electronically retrievable public
source.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties have fully executed this Second Addendum as of the
last date written below.
DONE this_______day of___________, 2007.
CITY OF EDMONDS
By:
Mayor Gary Haakenson
Packet Page 109 of 357
PW ADMINISTRATION\Town Of Woodway-FLT\Edmonds.Town of Woodway Addendum 2 revised.doc Page 3 of 3
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
By:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
By:
Grant K. Weed, Special Counsel to Edmonds
TOWN OF WOODWAY
By:
Mayor Carla Nichols
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
By:
City Attorney
Packet Page 110 of 357
AM-1157 2.G.
Electrical installation project at the WWTP
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/04/2007
Submitted By:Steve Koho Time:Consent
Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Report on bids opened on August 28, 2007 for the MCC feeder installation at the WWTP and
award to Ewing Electric, Inc. for the amount of $30,582, including sales tax.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorization to award contract for the MCC Feeder Installation project to Ewing Electric, Inc for
the amount of $30,582, including sales tax.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
New electrical cables need to be installed at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in order to
provide adequate electrical supply to a motor control center. The current cables and breakers in the
Influent Building would be over their rated capacity in a peak storm situation. New cables need to
be provided and installed between the plant's incoming power station and the Influent Building.
This project must be completed before new power breakers are installed at the incoming power
switchgear in mid-September.
Staff used the small works foster to obtain competitive quotes. Five firms were contacted, and three
provided bids. The low bid was from Ewing Electric, Inc. in the amount of $30,231. An additional
$351.00 was required to be added for bonding purposes, bringing the total to $30,582.
The expense will be charged to Capital Fund 414, which is the dedicated improvement fund for the
Treatment Plant in which other agencies pay their proportionate shares (approximately 50% of
capital expenditures).
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: MCC Feeder bid tab
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Public Works Noel Miller 08/30/2007 10:56 AM APRV
Packet Page 111 of 357
2 City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/30/2007 12:05 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/30/2007 01:05 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/30/2007 02:29 PM APRV
Form Started By: Steve
Koho
Started On: 08/30/2007 10:09
AM
Final Approval Date: 08/30/2007
Packet Page 112 of 357
MCC Feeder Installation
BID TAB
Bids opened August 28, 2007
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITSUNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE
OF ITEM
MCC Feeder Installation 1.0 LS $27,760 $27,760 $27,843 $27,843 $29,053 $29,053 -$ -$ -$ -$
Subtotal $27,760 Subtotal $27,843 Subtotal $29,053 Subtotal -$ Subtotal -$
8.9% Tax $2,471 8.9% Tax $2,478 8.9% Tax $2,586 8.9% Tax -$ 8.9% Tax -$
TOTAL $30,231 TOTAL $30,321 TOTAL $31,639 TOTAL -$ TOTAL -$
Ewing Electric Dutton Electric Company Burke Electric Crawford Electric Main Street Electric
No Bid Received No Bid Received
Packet Page 113 of 357
AM-1156 3.
Introduction of Student Representative Hilary Scheibert from Edmonds
Woodway High School
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/04/2007
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Pritchard Olson Time:5 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Introduction of Student Representative Hilary Scheibert from Edmonds Woodway High
School.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Council President Pritchard Olson will introduce Hilary Scheibert the new Student Representative
from Edmonds Woodway High School.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/30/2007 09:49 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/30/2007 11:27 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/30/2007 12:04 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 08/30/2007 09:30
AM
Final Approval Date: 08/30/2007
Packet Page 114 of 357
AM-1152 4.
Military Family Friendly Employer Program
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/04/2007
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Submitted For:Councilmember Deanna Dawson Time:30 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Presentation regarding the Military Family Friendly Employer Program, and proposed
resolution declaring Edmonds to be military family friendly and encouraging area businesses
to become a military family friendly employment partner.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Adopt the attached resolution.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Caldie Rogers, Chamber President with the Greater Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce,
will give a presentation on the Military Family Friendly Employer Program. Ms. Rogers provided
a briefing packet which is attached as Exhibit 1.
A proposed resolution for the City Council's consideration declaring Edmonds to be military family
friendly and encouraging area businesses to become a military family friendly employment partner
is attached as Exhibit 2.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - Briefing Packet
Link: Exhibit 2 - Resolution
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/29/2007 11:24 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/29/2007 11:59 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/29/2007 03:28 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 08/29/2007 11:11
AM
Final Approval Date: 08/29/2007
Packet Page 115 of 357
Packet Page 116 of 357
1
Marysville
Military Family Friendly
Employment Partnership Initiative
Packet Page 117 of 357
2
Military Family-Friendly Employment Partnership
A win-win-win for Snohomish County
Situation
Hiring the family members of our military forces is now cited by top military officials as the second greatest
concern facing today’s U.S. military both here and abroad – second only to the threat posed by payday loan
operations. This bias is based on the perception that military families move frequently and are less reliable and
less skilled than other workers.
Yet family members of military personnel are well educated, skilled and highly trained to be top-performing
employees in any number of industry sectors.
“As a former military spouse, I have personally experienced the reluctance of employers to hire military spouses
throughout this country. Although equipped with degrees in psychology and marketing, employment doors in
those fields remained closed to me one duty station after another. Frustrated, I finally dared a landscape
contractor to hire me. Convincing him that he did not have to pay for my health insurance, he accepted my dare.
Putting in sprinkler systems, spas, swimming pools and landscaping for four years was not what I had expected to
do with my college degree,” reports Melissa West, Military Affairs Chairman for The Greater Marysville Tulalip
Chamber of Commerce – Carlson Wagonlit Travel, Marysville.
Proposal
The Greater Marysville Tulalip Chamber’s Military Affairs Division is spearheading a county-wide coalition to
ensure Snohomish County remains “military friendly,” asking employers throughout the county to participate in a
Snohomish County Military Family-Friendly Employment Partnership. Colleges; chambers of commerce;
municipal, county, tribal and state governments; as well as military and civilian agencies and the media will be
asked to reach out to the entire county’s business community.
The goal of the partnership initiative is to help military spouses and family members attain financial security and
achieve employment goals, while corporate partners have access to a readily available, diverse and talented pool
of candidates.
Employers will be educated on the many advantages of hiring military family members, with a request to sign a
non-binding partnership agreement affirming their support of this new workforce. This non-binding partnership
pledge confirms an employer’s intent to work toward increased employment and career opportunities for military
family members, who represent a vast array of education and experience.
Anticipated Result
As the partnership grows, so will the scope and actions of this county-wide initiative. Military spouses will be
gainfully employed, Snohomish County and its employers will benefit from a versatile, experienced workforce,
and ultimately, a successful role model for use by other military communities across the state, the nation and
around the world will have been established.
We believe that Snohomish County’s growing employment opportunities makes the Snohomish County Military
Family-Friendly Employment Partnership Initiative a win-win-win partnership.
Packet Page 118 of 357
3
Greater Marysville Tulalip Military Affairs Mission Statement
Military Family Friendly Employment Partnership Initiative
To serve as an employment resource linking employers throughout Snohomish County to the talented
workforce represented by the families of the Puget Sound Military forces who have, are, and/or will be
relocating to Snohomish County.
Action Steps
• Educate and inspire Snohomish County employers to tap into the talented employee pool
represented by the families of relocating Military personnel.
• Conduct Editorial Boards gaining support from all area media to participate in a coordinated
media blitz.
• Gain formal resolutions of support from all municipal, tribal and county councils.
• Formalize Snohomish County employers’ support through individual non-binding partnership
agreements affirming their support of this new workforce that represents such a vast array of
education and experience, and to pledge their best efforts to increase employment and career
opportunities to military spouses and family members.
• Develop and distribute Military Family Friendly Employer logo identifiers.
• Identify and coordinate services offered by all private and/or public Snohomish County
employment resources.
• Identify and coordinate support services that will assist Military family members both in their
employment search and their successful engagement of employment.
• Launch a www.militaryspousejobsearch.org as an association page to the Department of Labor’s
America’s Job Bank that will provide military spouses a portal for their resumes and allow
MFFEP partners the opportunity to post jobs on the site and view spouse resumes.
• Pursue partnership development and new partner recruitment thus strengthening local
relationships, and working on partner best practices and strategic communication plans.
• Provide entrepreneurial development support to Military family members interested in new
business start-ups.
• Serve as a gateway to community volunteer opportunities and programs
Packet Page 119 of 357
4
Snohomish County Military Family Friendly Employer
Partnership Agreement
I affirm my organization’s support of Snohomish County’s highly skilled workforce comprised of
military family members who represent a vast array of education, talent and experience.
I pledge our company’s best efforts to increase employment and career opportunities to military spouses
and children relocating to Snohomish County.
With this agreement, I understand that I can attract talent comparable to a nation-wide search, without
the costly burden of advertising or relocation costs, commissions or similar costs associated with
commercial recruiting firms by posting our company’s job openings through Naval Station Everett, the
Military Spouses’ Career Network, and the Department of Labor’s America Job Bank.
_______________________________________________ ______________________________
Signature Date
_______________________________________________ ______________________________
Print Name Title
_______________________________________________ ______________________________
Company Name Phone
_______________________________________________ _____________________________
Address Fax
_______________________________________________ _____________________________
Address E-Mail
_______________________________________________ _______ Yes, please link to my site
Website
_______________________________________________ Current # of Employees __________
Type of business/industry/organization
Jobs your company offers:
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Return to:
Snohomish County Military Family Friendly Employment Partnership Initiative
c/o The Greater Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce
8825 34th AVE NE, Suite C, Tulalip, WA 98271.
(360) 659-7700 * Fax (360) 653-7539 * E-mail Services@MarysvilleTulalipChamber.com
Packet Page 120 of 357
5
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS DECLARING EDMONDS TO BE
MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY AND ENCOURAGING AREA BUSINESSES TO BECOME
A MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY EMPLOYMENT PARTNER
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds hosts a vast number of military families who are either permanently or
temporarily stationed in the area; and
WHEREAS, military spouses and family members are often faced with employer bias because of
stereotypes such as availability and potential length of employment; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds has and wishes to continue to experience economic development and
the creation of family wage jobs; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds supports strongly a diverse and inclusive qualified workforce; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds supports fully our troops and their families; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds is an equal opportunity employer; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds hereby makes the following finding of fact:
A. Today's employers are faced with an unprecedented challenge of meeting their staffing needs in
today's high-technology, service-oriented economy. The demand for motivated, qualified
personnel has outstripped supply in many industries. Without new sources of talent, growth,
productivity and profits will be constrained by shortages in the labor market.
B. Military family members provide an advantage to employers searching for high levels of talent,
training, and unique skills cultivated by the rigors of military family life.
C. Military family members are highly educated and trained in a variety of disciplines. More than
one-fifth of spouses have earned a baccalaureate degree and one in twenty holds one or more
graduate or professional degrees. Many more are licensed or certified in skilled trades or
professional fields.
D. The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average job tenure of
employees has been on a steady decline over the past decade. Across all industries, the average
tenure is between three and four years. The median tour of duty for military personnel is 3 years,
suggesting that their accompanying spouses are likely to be employed for an "average" period, if
they find employment shortly upon arrival.
E. Approximately 6500 sailors and civil service persons are assigned to Naval Station Everett with
an estimated 10,000 family members. Of this number there are about 5% per month that rotates
in and out. This means about 825 sailors plus family members, per month, are coming into and
out of Naval Station Everett.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
THE CITY OF EDMONDS IS A MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY PARTNER AND
ENCOURAGES AREA BUSINESSES TO JOIN THE MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY
PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE
Packet Page 121 of 357
6
Tap the Resource!
Today's Staffing Climate
Unemployment is at its Lowest Point in Over 26 Years … Today's employers are faced with an
unprecedented challenge of meeting their staffing needs in today's high-technology, service-oriented
economy. The demand for motivated, qualified personnel has outstripped supply in many industries.
Without new sources of talent, growth, productivity and profits will be constrained by shortages in the
labor market.
Lifelong Employees are No Longer the Norm … Some employees are taking advantage of the
strong economy and changing jobs-- moving to positions that offer greater compensation, a more
compatible quality of life, more flexibility, or professional advancement. Downsizing from a decade ago
continues to haunt the labor force; many have surrendered ideas of a single-employer career and are
instead, looking to find stability and advancement on their own terms. Where once companies were
populated with individuals who had risen through the ranks, today's employees have the lowest average
tenure with their company than at almost any point in history. Companies have to look outside their
ranks to sustain their continued existence and growth.
Employers Need Ways to Maintain Flexibility in Staffing, Yet Still Attract Dedicated, Highly-
Skilled Employees … But despite the strength of today's economy, you know that factors change-- in
today's global economy, things are more volatile than ever before. Profits, and in some cases survival,
are predicated upon an organization's ability to respond quickly and decisively. Maintaining a labor
force with the flexibility and agility to respond to evolving forces in a timely manner remains a
challenge. Some companies have turned to the temporary labor industry to provide this flexibility. That
flexibility comes at price-- commissions on top of salaries, as well as a workforce that is fundamentally
unstable. Temporary employees may come and go as they receive more "permanent" positions from
your competitors. How to balance your need for flexibility and prospective employees' desires for
stability?
The Employer's Advantage
Today's Military Spouses are the Solution to the Shortage of Dedicated, High-Quality
Employees …Traditionally overlooked as a viable source of talent, today's military spouses are proving
their advantage to employers. Combining talent, training, and unique skills cultivated by the rigors of
military family life, military spouses are the solution to your staffing challenges.
Military spouses are educated, highly-skilled, and trained in a variety of disciplines … Whatever
your needs, chances are there is a military spouse who is perfectly suited to them! Over half of all
military spouses have some college training. More than one-fifth has earned a baccalaureate degree. One
in twenty holds one or more graduate or professional degrees. Many are licensed or certified in skilled
trades or professional fields, with experience in a variety of different types and sizes of organizations,
and invariably in different parts of the country-- or even the world. If you're looking for an employee
who is bilingual, or one who has proven their ability to "hit the ground running"-- look no further than
the military spouses in your community. Chances are there is one who possesses the skills and abilities
you seek.
Packet Page 122 of 357
7
Military Spouses are Change Masters … The unique nature of military family life demands that
spouses remain ready to adapt and adjust to change. Accordingly, military spouses develop coping
mechanisms for dealing with and adapting to change. These skills are an asset in the workplace. It is said
that in business today, the only constant is change. Those who have developed within themselves the
capacity to function in the midst of change are the employees on whom you can depend during turbulent
times. Change, instability, ambiguity-- they can turn an organization upside down and create chaos. But
those who can continue to function, those who thrive on change--they produce and they can lead, as they
adapt and adjust to accommodate the changing environment. Military spouses are change masters!
Military Spouses are Multi-Skilled … Largely as a result of their geographic mobility, military
spouses have garnered experience in a variety of organizations and in a variety of settings. Part of
adapting to change entails the development of new skills appropriate to the novel situation. While the
resumes of some military spouses may appear "unfocused" or disjointed as a result of their need to make
the most of whatever opportunities may have existed in a given location, the fact is, those resumes
demonstrate a variety of skills, experience in a multitude of settings, and the adaptability to be able to
leverage their existing knowledge and experience to learn the new skills needed to tackle the demands of
a each new job.
Military Spouse has Diverse, Applicable Experience … Unlike employees who have spent much of
their career within the same organization; military spouses often have diverse experience within their
career field. Having seen and done things in more than one way, they can bring that experience of
lessons learned to new positions, bringing to bear the best practices gleaned from exposure to many
different settings. Organizations in search of "new blood" may find military spouses to be a major
infusion of new ideas, best practices, strategic knowledge and a worldly view that exists in no other
applicant population.
Military Spouses can Bring to Bear Inter- and Intra-Industry Experience … As is typical of the
diversity of their experience; some military spouses' careers have combined experience in their field
across industries, along with different positions within a single industry. This unique breadth of
knowledge and exposure enables them to see things from a much more complete perspective. This cross-
perspective orientation is similar to the strategy employed in leading managerial development programs-
- because it is the kind of diverse experience that is essential to competent, well-rounded leaders.
Military Spouses can Impart a Fresh Perspective and Renewed Energy in Your Organization …
If there's one place you're not likely to find a military spouse, it's in a rut! Their periodic mobility
ensures that. It also ensures that military spouses will usually be in a fresh and energized state-- striving
to demonstrate how quickly they learn their new job and contribute to the success of your organization,
or working to sustain that same high level of commitment, recognizing that your assessment of them as
an employee matters in their upcoming job search. Military spouses never have the opportunity to
become "dead wood"...!
The Military Family Lifestyle Encourages Military Spouses to Become Goal-Oriented, and to
Strive for Immediate and Continuous Results … When it comes to the accomplishment of goals, most
employees who do set goals recognize that they have a lifetime to accomplish them. For the military
spouse who knows he/she may be moving on in a few years, there is an impetus to make significant
progress in the near-term. Procrastination doesn't pay-- and military spouses know that a change is
always inevitable. Transfers become milestones for military spouses-- and the continuing necessity to
sum up what they've accomplished for your organization, as for those before, serves to reinforce a
results-driven orientation.
Packet Page 123 of 357
8
Military Spouses can Act in the Long-Term Interests of the Organization … That same labor
force flexibility that you seek as an employer is an ominous threat to employees. As your organization
strives to stay ahead of the competition, your employees strive to ensure attainment of their own
personal goals. For many, a goal of self-preservation, even to the detriment of the organization's long-
term needs, exists. Employees may act in a manner that justifies their continued employment, instead of
in a way that may increase the efficiency of your operations, eventually eliminating their job. Lacking a
long-term motive for self-preservation, military spouses can assist in developing and implementing
improved business practices that may reduce your labor costs in the long-run.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Figures Indicate that Military Spouses are No Less "Stable" than
their Counterparts … The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the
average job tenure of employees has been on a steady decline over the past decade. Across all industries,
the average tenure is between three and four years. The median tour of duty for military personnel is 3
years, suggesting that their accompanying spouses are likely to be employed for an "average" period, if
they find employment shortly upon arrival.
Military "Homebasing" Will Add to Spouses' Employment Stability … In an effort to reduce its
own relocation expenses, the Department of Defense and Coast Guard have sought to reduce the
frequency of geographic transfers of military personnel and their families. Additionally, the Base
Realignment and Closure Act resulted in the consolidation of many military facilities, reducing the need
for some transfers. Extensions to tours of duty and coordination enabling sequential tours in the same
geographical location have become more common, and assisted the armed forces in reducing their costs-
-while at the same time, promoting increased stability of the military spouse workforce. Military spouses
may remain in an area for three, four, or even six years-- something quite uncommon previously.
Spouses who are employed are also far more likely to remain in the geographic area to continue their
employment when the military member deploys or is ordered on an unaccompanied tour to an overseas
location. This promotes increased stability for the local economy, which directly benefits local
employers.
Turnover Among Military Spouses is More Predictable Than Among Their Counterparts …
Although military spouses and their counterparts are likely to stay with an employer for the same length
of time on average, compared to others; there is less variability in the tenure of military spouses. This
translates to greater predictability and makes it easier for organizations to manage their turnover rate
effectively. Employers who demonstrate an open willingness and commitment to hire military spouses
also tend to cultivate a more trusting environment-- working together, military spouses and their
employers can plan for impending transfers, providing ample time to hire and train replacements-- rather
than the minimal notice to the employer afforded by typical employees, which often leaves the employer
undermanned. Staffing shortages generate animosity among those who must pick up additional
responsibilities and the overtime costs and disruption to operations can grow rapidly; chronic shortages
can increase turnover among other employees, creating a vicious cycle. Predictable, well-managed
turnover sustains organizational performance, controls recruiting costs, and maintains workforce morale.
Military Spouses Can Take Advantage of Free and Low-Cost Career Development and Training
Resources … Recognizing the unique demands placed on military families, the Department of Defense
and its components have developed training programs for military family members that help develop
essential life skills-- from anger management, to team building, to leadership and health and wellness
issues. Many of these programs have direct applicability to employees' success and value in the
workplace. In addition, some military installations offer a variety of classes in career development,
computer skills, foreign languages, and other employment topics-- including some commercially-
Packet Page 124 of 357
9
available training programs that your own employees have benefited from. Using their collective
numbers, the military family service organizations have been able to offer such training opportunities to
military spouses at reduced cost, compared to individual training paid for by employers. When they
avail themselves of these resources, your military spouse employees can help you stretch your training
dollars while they continue to improve their skills to the benefit of your organization.
Military Spouses Understand the Importance of a Drug-Free Lifestyle … Few topics are more
controversial that drug testing in the workplace and in many states the practice is strictly curtailed or
prohibited. Employee drug use has been shown to negatively impact job performance and to impair
safety in some industries-- yet the legal issues surrounding testing programs are a strong deterrent for
even conscientious employers who want to retain the most able workforce. The military's much-
publicized "zero tolerance" policy on illicit drug use and possession and its rigorous random testing
program has led to drug use figures which are significantly below those of other segments of society.
The severity of sanctions for the possession or use of drugs on military property, including in
government-owned housing, coupled with a social culture that severely discourages illicit drug use,
impacts military spouses. While it may not provide the same level of assurance as an employee drug
testing program, this social influence on military spouses likely reduces the need for such testing-- and
comes at no cost to employers.
Advertising Job Openings Through Your Local Military Installation Costs You Nothing … Most
military installations operate job placement offices for military spouses, and will gladly refer qualified
applicants to you for consideration. Some will even allow you to post jobs anonymously and pre-screen
applicants based on criteria that you provide. Your local military installation can advise you of the
services they offer employers, and how to take advantage of them. Employers seeking to fill full- or
part-time positions at multiple locations may elect to advertise free at the MSCN web site. Installation
newspapers are another excellent source for reaching prospective military spouse employees in the local
area. As some are operated on a cost-recovery basis or by commercial enterprises, nominal advertising
fees may apply; however, such fees are generally more cost-effective than other types of print
advertising and are particularly effective for targeting military spouses already living in the local area.
You Will Have Access to Military Spouses and Retiring/Transitioning Service Members, All of
Whom Offer Outstanding Training and Experience … Your local military installation's job
placement office can assist you in finding well-qualified applicants. In addition to military spouses
(some of whom have prior military service themselves), the transition assistance coordinator can help
put you in contact with service members who are retiring or leaving active duty. These individuals often
have militarily-unique skills and experience that defense contractors seek, and the leadership skills,
outstanding work ethic, dedication, and other valuable attributes that all employers search for. You may
even find a husband/wife team that is ideally suited for the positions you seek to fill.
You Can Attract Talent Comparable to a Nation-Wide Search, Without the Costly Burden of
Relocation Expenses … Because the government pays most relocation expenses of military families
moving to your area, you can attract talent comparable to a nationwide search of job candidates, without
the high cost of paying them to relocate. Coupled with the lack of commissions and similar costs
associated with commercial recruiting firms, hiring military spouses through your local military
installation or the Military Spouses' Career Network can greatly reduce your company's recruiting costs!
The Military Spouse Advantage Is
the Employer's Advantage
Packet Page 125 of 357
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS
DECLARING EDMONDS TO BE MILITARY
FAMILY FRIENDLY AND ENCOURAGING AREA
BUSINESSES TO BECOME A MILITARY FAMILY
FRIENDLY EMPLOYMENT PARTNER
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds hosts a vast number of military families who are either
permanently or temporarily stationed in the area; and
WHEREAS, military spouses and family members are often faced with employer bias
because of stereotypes such as availability and potential length of employment; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds has and wishes to continue to experience economic
development and the creation of family wage jobs; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds supports strongly a diverse and inclusive qualified
workforce; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds supports fully our troops and their families; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds is an equal opportunity employer; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds hereby makes the following finding of fact:
A. Today's employers are faced with an unprecedented challenge of meeting their
staffing needs in today's high-technology, service-oriented economy. The demand
for motivated, qualified personnel has outstripped supply in many industries.
Without new sources of talent, growth, productivity and profits will be
constrained by shortages in the labor market.
B. Military family members provide an advantage to employers searching for high
levels of talent, training, and unique skills cultivated by the rigors of military
family life.
C. Military family members are highly educated and trained in a variety of
disciplines. More than one-fifth of spouses have earned a baccalaureate degree
and one in twenty holds one or more graduate or professional degrees. Many more
are licensed or certified in skilled trades or professional fields.
D. The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average
job tenure of employees has been on a steady decline over the past decade. Across
all industries, the average tenure is between three and four years. The median tour
of duty for military personnel is 3 years, suggesting that their accompanying
spouses are likely to be employed for an "average" period, if they find
employment shortly upon arrival.
Packet Page 126 of 357
-2-
E. Approximately 6500 sailors and civil service persons are assigned to Naval
Station Everett with an estimated 10,000 family members. Of this number there
are about 5% per month that rotates in and out. This means about 825 sailors plus
family members, per month, are coming into and out of Naval Station Everett.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
THE CITY OF EDMONDS IS A MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY PARTNER AND
ENCOURAGES AREA BUSINESSES TO JOIN THE MILITARY FAMILY
FRIENDLY PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE.
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. ____
Packet Page 127 of 357
AM-1153 5.
Reconsideration: Proposed vacation of a portion of right-of-way adjacent to
17008 - 77th PL West.
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/04/2007
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Submitted For:Rob Chave Time:30 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Reconsideration: July 17, 2007 Public Hearing regarding the proposed vacation of a portion
of the public right-of-way adjacent to 17008 - 77th Place West, Edmonds.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
None required; this is a Council reconsideration deliberation.
Previous Council Action
City Council held a public hearing on the proposed street vacation on July 17, 2007, and voted to
approve the vacation subject to the payment of the required compensation ($1,400) to the City. The
final ordinance completing the vacation was on the August 7, 2007, Council consent agenda, but
was deferred pending Council reconsideration on September 4, 2007.
Narrative
This is a Council reconsideration of the action approved by Council on July 17, 2007.
The proposed ordinance from the August 7, 2007, Council consent agenda is attached as Exhibit 1.
Approval of this ordinance would complete the Council action of July 17, 2007. The Council
minutes are attached as Exhibit 2. The original agenda memo from July 17, 2007, is attached as
Exhibit 3 (without attachments).
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Proposed Ordinance
Link: Exhibit 2: Council minutes 7/17/2007
Link: Exhibit 3: Council agenda memo 7/17/2007
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/29/2007 03:28 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/29/2007 03:30 PM APRV
Packet Page 128 of 357
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/29/2007 03:45 PM APRV
Form Started By: Rob
Chave
Started On: 08/29/2007 02:28
PM
Final Approval Date: 08/29/2007
Packet Page 129 of 357
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
7/23/07
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, VACATING CERTAIN UNOPENED STREET
RIGHT OF WAY OF 77TH PLACE WEST LOCATED
ADJACENT TO 17008 - 77TH PLACE WEST AS DESCRIBED
HEREIN; ESTABLISHING THE TERMS OF VACATION, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 17, 2007; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said public hearing, the Edmonds City Council
determined that:
A. Certain unopened street right of way located at 17008 - 77th Place West,
Edmonds, Washington, shown on the attached Exhibit A is surplus to the needs of the City;
B. That the sum of One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($1,400.00)
represents an appropriate compensation to the public for the said right of way is approximately
one-half of the fair market value and is an amount offered to buy the applicant as consideration
for the vacation;
C. Said sum, while in excess of one-half of the appraisal provided in the
record is, in light of factors personal to the owner and the assessed valuation of the property, a
better indication of the fair market value of the tract to be vacated; and
D. No property will be landlocked by said vacation or otherwise deprived of
access, NOW, THEREFORE,
{WSS668831.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 -
Packet Page 130 of 357
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Certain unopened right of way of 77th Place West, located adjacent to
17008 - 77th Place West, Edmonds, Washington, is hereby vacated. The tract to be vacated is
shown on the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
Section 2. In consideration for said vacation, the applicant has paid the sum of
One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($1,400.00) to the City, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged. The City Clerk is accordingly authorized to record a copy of this ordinance of
vacation in the land records of Snohomish County.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
{WSS668831.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 -
Packet Page 131 of 357
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
{WSS668831.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 -
Packet Page 132 of 357
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, VACATING CERTAIN
UNOPENED STREET RIGHT OF WAY OF 77TH PLACE WEST LOCATED ADJACENT
TO 17008 - 77TH PLACE WEST AS DESCRIBED HEREIN; ESTABLISHING THE TERMS
OF VACATION, 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
{WSS668831.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 4 -
Packet Page 133 of 357
10 ft
56 ft
Area to be
vacated.
Packet Page 134 of 357
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 17, 2007
Page 2
F. ORDINANCE NO. 3654 – AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 21.40.030 HEIGHT,
(C) HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS TO REPEAL SUBSECTION (1) RELATED TO A
NONEXISTENT ZONE.
3. CONFIRMATION OF CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF JOE MCIALWAIN TO LODGING
TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Mayor Haakenson advised the Council interviewed Mr. McIalwain prior to tonight’s meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
APPROVE MAYOR HAAKENSON’S RECOMMENDATION TO APPOINT JOE MCIALWAIN
TO THE LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Councilmember Marin commented Mr. McIalwain was very qualified and had put his heart and soul into
the community.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPOINTMENT OF EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD MEMBER TO FILL
VACANCY.
Edmonds Center for the Arts Executive Director Joe McIalwain explained two of the original members of
the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board, Kay Mahaffey and Jan Conner, recently stepped down from
their positions. Each played an important role of the development of the PFD and saw the project through
the renovation and grand opening of the Center. The PFD accepted applications and conducted
interviews of several qualified candidates and recommended the appointment of Bob Rinehart. Mr.
McIalwain described Mr. Rinehart’s background.
Mr. Rinehart commented he came to Edmonds wanting to be a part of the community. He viewed serving
on the PFD Board as an honor.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
ACCEPT THE NOMINATION OF BOB RINEHART TO THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES
DISTRICT BOARD.
Councilmember Moore commented Mr. Rinehart “hit the ground running” when he moved to Edmonds,
was a leader in the community and was very well suited to serving on the PFD Board.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 17008 - 77TH PLACE WEST, EDMONDS.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether a vacation was a legislative action. City Attorney Scott Snyder
answered yes, explaining there were certain limitations on the amount the Council could require if the
vacated property was originally dedicated by the party now requesting the vacation but that was not
applicable in this case.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was an application to vacate public right-of-way within a
recently approved Planned Residential Development (PRD). The owners of Lot 7 were interested in a
vacation of an area on the northern boundary of their property to allow expansion of their footprint and
build a deck which they would be unable to accomplish without the vacation. He explained the public
Ord# 3654
Repeal ECDC
21.40.030(C)(1)
Lodging Tax
Advisory
Committee
Appointment
Public Facilities
District Board
Appointment
Vacate Portion
of Right-of-
Way Adjacent
to 17008 - 77th
Pl W
Packet Page 135 of 357
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 17, 2007
Page 3
right-of-way contained two on-street parking spaces. He relayed Engineering’s finding that they
anticipated no potential use of this property.
Mr. Chave explained the property appraisal used a very different method and arrived at a much lower
valuation; typically a per square foot value was developed and applied to the property. Staff contacted the
appraiser who verified it was an appropriate appraisal.
Councilmember Wambolt asked who paid the cost of the appraisal. Mr. Chave answered the applicant.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to the ordinance that states the maximum compensation that could be
required was one half the appraised value, inquiring whether that practice was always followed. Mr.
Snyder advised that was the limit under State statute. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the
Council had any latitude with regard to how the property was appraised. Mr. Snyder answered the
Council would need to make a finding that the value was properly established. Mr. Chave advised staff
included two other appraisals in the packet as examples.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Don Wills, Edmonds, the proponent of the request, explained when staff instructed them to have the
property appraised, he researched appraisers via the internet and selected one located in Bothell. With
regard to the City’s usual method of a square footage valuation, he pointed out the amount of land was
560 square feet, an amount commonly referred to as an uneconomic remainder. He noted the discrepancy
in the valuation was due to the limited amount of land available. He inquired about the process if the
Council determined their appraisal was incorrect and whether there was any ability to negotiate.
Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Moore asked staff to clarify the process. Mr. Snyder answered the Council was required
to make a finding that the vacation was in the public’s interest. Typically there were two considerations,
whether the City needed the property for another purpose and whether citizens received a reasonable
benefit from the vacation. The Council was free to negotiate if they did not feel the appraisal fairly
represented the fair market value of the property.
Councilmember Dawson commented it appeared this was the first time this issue had arisen as appraisals
were typically done in the manner Mr. Chave described. She asked whether consideration had been given
to establishing a policy for future dedications regarding how appraisals would be done. Mr. Chave stated
typically appraisers utilized the square footage method versus this method which resulted in a much lower
value. He referred to the appraisal examples in the packet, noting the Council often reduced the property
value. He agreed it may be appropriate to establish a standard appraisal methodology.
Councilmember Dawson observed if the Council rejected the appraisal, the options were to require the
applicant to have a second appraisal done or for the City to have their own appraisal done. If the Council
wanted a second appraisal, Mr. Chave suggested the City have their own appraisal done. Councilmember
Dawson asked the approximate cost of an appraisal. Mr. Chave relayed Mr. Wills’ comment that the
estimates they received were $400 - $1200, they paid $400 for this appraisal. Mr. Chave commented
most appraisals were more expensive than that. Councilmember Dawson asked the difference between
the appraisals. Mr. Chave answered appraisals of similar property ranged from $4 to $11 per square foot.
He noted another concern with this appraisal was it referenced property outside the area that he did not
feel was comparable.
Councilmember Marin observed the applicant appeared to have followed the City’s process.
Packet Page 136 of 357
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 17, 2007
Page 4
Mr. Wills stated the reason they were requesting the vacation was the City determined a window seat on
the back of the house encroached into the setback. He noted they already removed the deck and French
doors from the house and were told at final inspection for occupancy they had to remove the window seat.
He explained they had approved plans for all the changes that were made and they had been inspected;
however, on November 16, 2006 the Planning Department determined there was an encroachment. He
noted this was the first knowledge they had of it, acknowledging the builder may have been aware.
Mr. Snyder explained property was usually vacated when the City identified unusable right-of-way and
wanted to eliminate the City’s liability for that property and return the property to the tax rolls. What was
unusual about this appraisal was, although it provides a square foot value, it used unimproved property
which does not determine fair market value. He noted the unique value of the right-of-way to this
property tended to skew how fair market value was determined. The Council had discretion to negotiate,
determine it was not in the public’s best interest to proceed, or send it back procedurally. He commented
likely what would be gained by another appraisal would be lost in the price paid for the property. Mayor
Haakenson commented the Wills had already paid the City $1525 for the street vacation.
For Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Chave advised the initial appraisal was revised to be slightly higher at
$3 per square foot for a total appraised value of $1680 and Council could require payment of half that
amount. Mr. Snyder explained the Council could determine fair market value; the appraisal was to
provide a basis for the public benefit. If the Council felt the value was higher, the Council could make
that determination. Councilmember Dawson summarized the Council could find the property was worth
more than the appraisal indicated. She noted the property owner had offered to pay $1400 and asked
whether the Council could make a finding that the value was $3000 and require payment of $1400. Mr.
Chave agreed that would be appropriate. Mr. Chave agreed the vacation would add value to the property
and result in additional taxes for the City.
Councilmember Moore referred to the applicant’s indication that the plans were approved and then later
an encroachment was identified. Mr. Chave recalled the building permit was approved when the plans
showed it as a chimney which was allowed to encroach into the setback. When the structure was finished
and inspected, it was no longer a chimney but livable space which was when the issue of encroachment
arose. Councilmember Moore asked the difference between a vacation request and an encroachment
permit. Mr. Chave answered the City would never allow part of a building to encroach, only things that
were easily removable and would not be a hindrance should the City decide to develop the right-of-way.
Mr. Snyder explained an encroachment permit was for something in the right-of-way, this was for
encroachment into the setback. He noted a variance would not be permitted as it was due to the action of
the owner/builder.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out this was an example of a builder putting too much home on too
little land; there was no room for a deck on three sides of the home. Although the vacation was a small
piece of land, 540 square feet, it represented more than 10% of the 4,792 square foot lot. He noted for tax
purposes the property was appraised at $300,000 or $62.60 per square foot. This property was far more
valuable to the buyer than the City and would significantly enhance the value of the property to the buyer.
Mayor Haakenson remanded to Council for action.
Councilmember Dawson found the vacation was in the best interest of the public. She also found based
on the record that the value of the property was at least $3,000 and the property owner had offered to pay
$1400.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
VACATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ACCEPT THE OFFER OF $1400 FOR THE VACATED
LAND.
Packet Page 137 of 357
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 17, 2007
Page 5
Councilmember Wambolt spoke against the motion, finding it was not a fair return to the City and was a
windfall for the property owner. He preferred to develop a fair market value using the usual method.
Councilmember Dawson commented the City did not have a standard appraisal method. If the City
obtained a second appraisal, the cost likely would exceed the amount the property owner would pay. She
found it was not in the city’s best interest to seek a second appraisal. She noted in the past the City has
vacated property for substantially less than the appraised value; in one example property was appraised
for $8,000 and the Council accepted payment of $1500.
Councilmember Marin spoke against the motion, preferring to accept half the value determined by the
appraisal due to the property owner acting in good faith.
Council President Olson commented the proposed solution was win-win for the property owner and the
City.
Councilmember Wambolt commented this would motivate builders to continue building substandard
PRDs and then wait for the City to bail them out. He pointed out this home would be far more expensive
on a larger parcel.
MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT AND MARIN OPPOSED.
Mayor Haakenson commented this was the first time an appraisal had been submitted using this
methodology; all others had used the other method. He asked whether the Council could direct staff to
require that methodology. Mr. Snyder advised staff could establish parameters for appraisals. He
explained the appraisal was intended to provide a piece of evidence for the Council’s decision; prior to
requiring appraisals, the Council used a square footage percentage of assessed valuation. It was the
consensus of the Council to have staff develop language regarding a standard appraisal practice. Mayor
Haakenson urged the Wills to take action against their builder as the plans were approved for one thing
and he built something else.
6. 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.
Councilmember Wambolt recalled the ordinance regarding cats was precipitated by cats attacking a
neighbor’s quail. A question then arose why quail were not included in the definition of domestic fowl
which he recalled City Attorney Scott Snyder indicated was an oversight. A decision was made to hold a
public hearing to invite public comment on the addition of quail to the definition of domestic fowl.
For Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Snyder stated the definition of fowl had been in the ordinance for many
years. Apparently the definition was developed using the most common domestic fowl, chickens, and did
not include others. Councilmember Dawson asked what change was proposed to the ordinance. Mr.
Snyder explained this type of ordinance was typically directed toward animals raised for food and kept in
backyard coops versus an indoor animal. The definition of poultry was domestic fowl normally raised for
eggs or meat and includes chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese, an inclusive rather than exclusive list.
Councilmember Moore commented on her experience working on a ranch in Texas where they raised
quail, turkeys, pheasants, chuckers, other fowl used for food and hunting.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Amend Code
Definitions:
Domestic Fowl
Packet Page 138 of 357
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.
If the appraisal had been done similar to other appraisals we have seen, the value could have been
Packet Page 139 of 357
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
Started On: 07/11/2007 04:09
PM
Final Approval Date: 07/13/2007
Packet Page 140 of 357
AM-1158 6.
Closed Record Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's denial of a variance at 18600
Sound View Pl.
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/04/2007
Submitted By:Gina Coccia
Submitted For:Gina Coccia Time:45 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Closed Record Appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s denial of a side yard setback variance at
18600 Sound View Pl. Appellant and Applicant: Dr. Raymond Bogaert (File Nos. V-2006-102
& AP-2007-4).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Uphold the decision of the Hearing Examiner to deny the variance.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Christopher L. Thayer, on behalf of Dr. Raymond Bogaert, applied for variances to reduce the
required north and south side setback for the construction of a new house from 10' to 8' and to
reduce the required north side setback from 10' to 5' for the construction of a new 3-car garage (File
V-2006-102). The variances were to also allow for the standard 30" eave encroachment into the
setbacks. The property is located at 18600 Sound View Place in the Single-Family Residential
(RS-12) zone. A public hearing was held on July 19, 2007 and staff recommended denial of the
variance request. The Hearing Examiner has denied the variance request, and the Applicant has
appealed this decision to the City Council (File APL-2007-4). Exhibit 1 is the Applicant's appeal
letter. Exhibit 2 is the verbatim transcript of the public hearing. Exhibit 3 is the Hearing
Examiner's decision. Exhibit 4 is the staff report and attachments.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Appeal Letter
Link: Exhibit 2: Verbatim Transcript
Link: Exhibit 3: Hearing Examiner Decision
Link: Exhibit 4: Staff Report & Attachments
Form Routing/Status
Packet Page 141 of 357
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 08/30/2007 03:26 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/30/2007 04:14 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 08/30/2007 04:47 PM APRV
Form Started By: Gina
Coccia
Started On: 08/30/2007 10:43
AM
Final Approval Date: 08/30/2007
Packet Page 142 of 357
Packet Page 143 of 357
Packet Page 144 of 357
Packet Page 145 of 357
Packet Page 146 of 357
Packet Page 147 of 357
Packet Page 148 of 357
Packet Page 149 of 357
Packet Page 150 of 357
Packet Page 151 of 357
Packet Page 152 of 357
Packet Page 153 of 357
Packet Page 154 of 357
Packet Page 155 of 357
Packet Page 156 of 357
Packet Page 157 of 357
Packet Page 158 of 357
Packet Page 159 of 357
CITY OF EDMONDS
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING EXAMINER HEARING
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2007
Ms. Rice: If you haven’t already; and you would like a copy of the decision, make sure you’ve signed at the sign in sheet.
Great. Good afternoon, thanks everyone for being here. My name is Sharon Rice, I’m a member of the firm, Cole, Rice,
Taylor. Our firm has been appointed by the Edmonds City Council to provide land use hearing examiner services for land
use applications and appeals in the City. As a presiding official today, I have jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter on
today’s agenda pursuant to the City’s code and State statutes.
Ms. Rice: Before we begin, I just want to go over some procedures to make sure we all understand our mutual rights and
responsibilities, myself included. First, the number one thing to remember in all land use applications is that the applicant
bears the burden of proof. And this is a legal term that means it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that the application satisfies the criteria for approval under City code. And today, we are hearing a
variance application, and those criteria are in the Edmonds Community Development at Chapter 20.85. We’ll go over those
in detail in the course of the hearing.
Ms. Rice: The second thing to remember is that as examiner, I am limited in my findings to the universe of evidence that’s
offered into the record. I literally can’t go outside the record to rely on any facts or evidence at all. And my conclusions and
decisions and decision have to flow from my findings, and that means that all evidence I can rely on has to be offered before
the record closes. Typically, the record closes at the end of the hearing, and I expect that to happen today. So if there’s
something that’s not here that you think I need, you need to bring it to my attention before I close the hearing today. That’s
important because, generally, no new evidence is admitted on appeal, at any level. Just keep that in mind.
Ms. Rice: Another important thing to know is that I will not issue a decision in this matter today. State law and City code
require my decision to be issued in writing. It’s going to be issued in the format called findings of fact and conclusions of
law; it’s very orderly and detailed. And by reading the document you will be able to see what facts I believe are relevant to
the application, what facts I believe lead to the conclusions that are necessary by applying those facts to the criteria, and my
decision should make sense following that format. By City code, I have 10 working days after close of the record to issue
that decision. So if the record closes today, you can expect a decision on August 2nd. If it doesn’t close today, it will close 10
days after the close of the record, I’m sorry. The decision will be issued 10 days after the close of the record, whatever date
that is.
Ms. Rice: And today, as far as order of presentation, I will hear from the City staff first, and they will present their analysis
of whether or not the application satisfies criteria for approval. After that, we will hear from the applicant, again, who has the
burden, and the applicant will have an opportunity to correct, amend, contradict, suggest, agree, with anything that’s been
said by the City. After that, we will hear from members of the public. Everyone whose here will have a chance to testify if
they wish, so please keep in mind your turn is coming. And please do afford the current speaker the same courtesy you wish
to be afforded when it is your turn.
Ms. Rice: Also, testimony at land use hearings is given under oath, and so at this time I’m going to administer a group oath.
This is for the purpose of enhancing the credibility of the record, you know, anybody whose thinking about sitting, this will
scare you into telling the truth. If at this time you would please raise your right hand if you intend to testify. Do you swear
or affirm that the testimony given here today will be true? If so, say I do. Thank you very much, and the record will reflect
that they are all under oath.
Packet Page 160 of 357
Ms. Rice: Okay, are there any questions on the procedures I have laid out? Pretty standard stuff. I will now call to order the
public land use hearing on File Number V-2006-102, which is the application of Christopher Thayer on behalf of Dr. Randy
Bogart, for variances to reduce the required north side setback for a house from 10 to 8 feet. And the required north, hum,
that this says, but I know we’re talking about north and south side setbacks. So one from 10 to 8 and one from 10 to 5. Oh,
there it is, and also one from 10 to 8, the south setback. And also to allow the 30-inch ease encroachment that is standard and
to the setbacks as reduced. Property located at 18600 Sound View Place in Edmonds. That parcel is zoned single-family
residential RS-12. We have an applicant representative. If I could at this point have the applicant representative and
applicant introduce themselves, and then the staff introduce themselves, and then we’ll clarify who this other person is sitting
over here.
Mr. Thayer: My name is Chris Thayer. I’m here on behalf of Dr. Bogart.
Ms. Rice: I’m sorry. Thank you for standing, but if could have you seated and speak into the microphone because we are
recording everything today.
Mr. Rising: My name is Steve Rising. I’m the Bogart’s architect for the proposed project.
Ms. Rice: You’re all together? Yeah. You’re not some stranger who’s just moved up to the front of the room. And for the
City we have. . .
Ms. Coccia: I’m Gina Coccia, I’m a planner in the Planning Division.
Ms. Rice: Great.
Ms. Taylor: Kathleen Taylor, associated planner.
Ms. Rice: Okay. I think just before we start, I want to make note that in advance of the hearing I was given a packet of
information. It involves a staff report dated July 12, 2007. Attached to the staff report are 8 attachments. Those include a
staff report from a previous hearing on a similar or related application dated 9/15/2006, and then various revised statements
from the applicant, revised site plans, some site sections, upper and lower floor plans, neighbor’s proposed site plan regarding
the application BLD-2007-0699, and affidavit of posting, and also some comment letters. Those are attached to the existing
staff report, numbered 1 through 8. In advance of the hearing, Ms. Coccia offered additional letters. Did you say there are
three?
Ms. Coccia: That’s correct.
Ms Rice: So what I’m going to do with those letters, I’m going to introduce them by names. Everything else is listed by
name in the staff report on Page 7, but right now, I have three new letters, and I will number them. Exhibit 1, Attachment 9,
will be the July 13th letter from Neil and Jeannie Robblee. Exhibit 1, Attachment 10, will be a letter from Triad Law Group
signed by Charles Greenberg and dated July 17th. And Attachment 11 to Exhibit 1 will be a letter dated July 17th from Vicky
Haynes, and it has also attached to it a letter dated September 13, 2006 and another letter dated September 20, 2006. All of
those will be Attachment 11 to the staff report, which is Exhibit 1. Before we go any further, are there any objections from
the parties to anything that’s been offered as exhibits?
Mr. Thayer: I know I’ve never seen them before.
Ms. Rice: Okay, do we have copies for the applicant?
Ms. Coccia: Sure there’s one copy available right now, and she just handed to me 10 minutes ago.
Ms. Rice: If you have additional copies, we should provide one to the applicant. And actually, just for the general rule,
when you come to hearings, try to bring three copies of everything because there’s one for the official record, one for the
examiner to mark up and then one for the other party.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 161 of 357
Ms Haynes: Excuse me, I made three copies, and I have some additional ones if that would be helpful.
Ms. Rice: Okay, so we have . . . The applicant has a copy, and the examiner has a copy, and does City staff have copy.
Ms. Coccia: Yes.
Ms. Rice: So you’ve got them all. You, in fact, brought extras. Excellent. Well, if you’d like, you can pass your letter
around or you can put it over there by the sign in sheet as people can read it as well. Is that the Haynes letter?
Ms. Coccia: Yes.
Ms. Rice: Okay great. So that’s Attachment 11 to Exhibit 1. Any objections to the exhibits are offered? I see Mr. Thayer is
reviewing the letter quickly. It is a public hearing, and public comment is allowed, so as far as admissibility, I don’t know if
you would have any objection to it. You might want to respond to it during your presentation, and that would be fine.
Mr. Thayer: No objection.
Ms. Rice: Great, then we will admit them all. And we’ll start with staff presentation.
Ms. Coccia: I’m Gina Coccia, I’m a planner in the Planning Division. Next to me is associated planner, Kathleen Taylor,
she is currently a consultant for the Planning Division, but she’s worked here for many years and she’s processed many
variance applications, so I’d like to have her here today in case there’s some questions that maybe she could field.
Ms. Coccia: First, the staff report was mailed out as noted. We received three public comment letters, and they were all
entered into the record. I will provide a brief introduction on this project because I know the applicant would like to make a
more thorough presentation. We’re going to try to hook up his lap top later. So let me make sure the site plan is up on the
overhead so everyone knows where we’re talking about. The property is located at 18600 Sound View Place in an RS-12
zone, and the applicant has applied for a variance to reduce the normally 10-foot side setback along the north and south
property lines to a distance of either 5 or 8 feet. The original request was for a 5-foot side setback on both of these property
lines. The revised request is for an 8-foot setback on the south property line for the new house and an 8-foot setback along
the north property line for the new house. And also a 5-foot setback along the north property line for the new detached
garage. Also, eves are typically permitted to be repeated in the setback area a distance of two 30 inches, and they have asked
that the eves also be permitted in the setback area.
Ms. Coccia: Staff has made a recommendation to deny the original variance application, which requested 5-foot setbacks.
At the applicant’s request, the hearing was continued to a later date so that he could work with the neighbors on a solution
that would more adequately address their concerns. The applicant revised the application and has submitted several graphics
which illustrate what they could with and without a variance. I’m going to put up the elevations that show the new sketches.
The applicant would still like the hearing examiner to consider the original 5-foot setback variance request. Staff originally
recommended denial of the variance, and even with the revised application, staff still recommends denial of the variance.
Ms. Coccia: A variance is a method by which citizens are granted modifications from the strict application of specific
provisions in the zoning code due to a hardship beyond the control of the applicant. In this case, the applicant has requested a
reduction of the regular 10-foot side setback that’s required for all structures in the RS-12 zone. Pursuant to Edmonds
Community Development Code, Chapter 20.85 for variances, note it says no variance may be approved unless all of the
following findings can be made. There are six, and I’ll go through all of them.
Ms. Coccia: Special circumstances. It says that because of special circumstances related to the property, the strict
enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use, rights, and privileges permitted to other properties in
the vicinity with the same zoning. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the
property, public necessity as in public structures. And this is set forth in ECDC Chapter 17.000.030. And environmental
factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any
factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with zoning
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 162 of 357
ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make a more profitable use of the property, nor any factor
resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. So staff agrees that due to the slope and the
narrow lot width of 50 feet, an argument could be made that special circumstances may exist on the property.
Ms. Coccia: Next criteria is special privilege. That the approval of a variance would not be a grant of special privilege to
the property in comparison with the limitations of the other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. So basically, if
you can meet all of the other criteria, this one takes care of itself in that it wouldn’t be a special privilege. But since staff
didn’t feel that this project met all of the other variance criteria, then they couldn’t have met this one. This is an area that was
annexed into the City of Edmonds in 1961. The zoning code was established in 1956, so this explains why some of the
homes in the area appear to be located close to property lines.
Ms. Coccia: Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
This needs to be found. The original staff report notes that one of the comprehensive plan policies encourages those building
custom homes to design and construct custom homes that harmonize with the surroundings. And another policy that they
encroachment of views should be minimized. The applicant will argue that the views will remain the same, and then they
have some illustrations that I’ve included as attachments. So they can go over these.
Ms. Coccia: Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of a variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance
and the zone district in which the property is located. This just means that the variance would have to be approved for the
proposed residence to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance, setbacks.
Ms. Coccia: Number 5. Not detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved would not be
significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or ?? to the property or improves in the vicinity in the same
zone. The staff report notes that the views that the neighbors currently enjoy would be compromised, and staff felt that
would be detrimental.
Ms. Coccia: Minimum variance. This says that the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the
rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. I’m going to put up a picture of a lot down the street.
It came in as a development application, coincidentally, and you can see that it’s of similar size and shape to this lot. I
apologize if that’s out of focus a little. I still have my glasses on, that’s why. I think that this is the main point that is missed,
and again, if it’s found that one of the six variance criteria is missed, then you miss all of them. The staff report argues that
the minimum variance is no variance, because the owners could build a long, skinny house. Co coincidentally, the neighbor
just down the street has applied for this building permit, and their property is also approximately 50 feet wide. And they have
proposed a design that appears to meet the required 10-foot side setbacks for the zone. This permit has not been approved;
it’s only been recently applied for. But it serves to show that the property can probably be developed with a 30-foot wide
single-family house, without the need for a variance.
Ms. Coccia: Also, the garage that was proposed is a 2-car garage down the street her; not a 3-car garage as the applicant is
requesting. So the 2-car garage fits on the property and is accessed directly from the east, without the need for a larger
turnaround area like the applicant is proposing. They are proposing a 30-foot wide house, which appears to meet setbacks
without a variance, so staff concludes that the project is not the minimum necessary.
Ms. Coccia: In conclusion, staff recommends denial of both setback variances. However, if the hearing examiner wishes to
approve the setback variances, staff recommended some conditions which are included in the staff report. So, I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Ms. Rice: So do I understand you correctly, Ms. Coccia, that the primary criterion that staff feels this application does not
satisfy is the last criteria.
Ms. Coccia: Correct.
Ms. Rice: So you spoke briefly about the fact that some of the other lots in the area have narrower setbacks from structure to
property line than 10 feet, and you said this had to do with when the zoning was established. Could you go over that again?
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 163 of 357
Ms. Coccia: Sure. A lot of these lots were created prior to 1956, which is when we adopted our first zoning ordinance. We
didn’t have setbacks prior to then so you could build your house, you know, I suppose, wherever it was permitted. But then
in 1961 when this area was annexed into the City of Edmonds, that’s when you would have to apply for a building permit and
meet the required setbacks. So anything prior to 1956 and also prior to 1961 we’d have to look at real carefully.
Ms. Rice: Do you know. . . In the course of your review did you determine whether there are homes in this neighborhood
with reduced setbacks that came into being through some other method than they predate the zoning?
Ms. Coccia: The applicant did a lot of research and dug up several variances that were approved by the City. However, I
didn’t make note of them because I thought it was kind of like comparing apples to oranges because a lot of the time, it was
for like a garage or something like that. So there are variances that have been approved, and also denied, in the vicinity.
Ms. Rice: Okay. My understanding is that the minimum width currently in effect in the zone is bigger than 50 feet. Is that
right?
Ms. Coccia: Right.
Ms. Rice: And so that is, what is the minimum lot width allowed?
Ms. Coccia: I believe it’s 80 feet.
Ms. Rice: Thanks.
Ms. Coccia: In an RS-12 zone, the minimum lot width is 80 feet. That means if you had a property in the RS-12 zone and
you wanted to subdivide the property, one of the development standards that your surveyor would have to show on your map
is that each new lot is at least 80 feet wide and can ?? an 80-foot diameter circle on each new lot.
Ms. Rice: Okay. So the current lot, the subject property, is legally non-conforming?
Ms. Coccia: Yes.
Ms. Rice: My understanding is that. . . Well, I viewed the site before the hearing, and there is a house on the site. My
understanding is that the current setbacks are less than 10 feet. Is that correct?
Ms. Coccia: Yes. I’ll put up the site plan that the applicant prepared. It looks like it shows an existing 5½-foot side yard
setback to the north. And it’s about 8 feet 7¾ inches to the south. And it looks like the existing carport is pretty much right
on the south property line.
Ms. Rice: If the applicant chose to remodel the existing house without demolishing it, would they be required to somehow
alter or make the existing non-conforming setbacks into conforming setbacks?
Ms. Coccia: No, they would have to show that all new additions meet the current required setbacks for the zone.
Ms. Rice: But they could keep the current non-conforming setbacks.
Ms. Coccia: As long as they’re not touching. Kathleen might have something to add.
Ms. Taylor: Only for that portion of the building that’s already constructed. So if it was one level and they wanted to add a
second level, the second level would have to meet the code.
Ms. Rice: Okay. Could you go over again the department’s interpretation of the special privilege criteria?
Ms. Coccia: Sure. The special privilege criteria says that the approval of a variance would not be a grant of special privilege
to the property in comparisons to the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. So it’s my
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 164 of 357
understanding that if you can meet all of the other variance criteria, all of the other five, then it wouldn’t be a grant of special
privilege because we would approve a variance because you’ve proven that you meet all the other ones. So if someone else
with the same circumstances came along and was requesting something similar, it’s my understanding that they would meet
the special privilege criteria, if these folks met it.
Ms. Taylor: So the special privilege relates to the circumstances of the lot. For example, it wouldn’t be a special privilege if
there were two lots that had the same width and the same critical areas restriction. Do you see what I’m saying?
Ms. Rice: No.
Ms. Taylor: I’m not being very clear.
Ms. Rice: Well, I’m just trying to establish why their special privilege relates to existing development in the area or whether
it relates to existing lots in the area, I guess is really what I’m trying to show.
Ms. Taylor: I’m not sure I’m following your comment exactly, but the way I will answer is that in the past, if the applicant
can demonstrate that other people are in a similar situation and have been granted something similar, then for them to be
granted this would not be a special privilege because other people before them have been granted it.
Ms. Rice: Okay. And so this similar situation relates to restrictions on the lot, right?
Ms. Taylor: Now how do you mean lot versus development?
Ms. Rice: Well, I’m saying that there are other homes in the neighborhood that have reduced setbacks.
Ms. Taylor: Right.
Ms. Rice: And those lots, whether they’re 50-feet wide or 80-feet wide or 120-feet wide, they still have this less than 10-foot
setback. So does the criteria. . . Does the standard for development on the subject property then become other houses in the
property have reduced setbacks, or in the neighborhood have reduced setbacks. And so, therefore, our house should also be
allowed to have a reduced setback. So that relates to the development on a lot, or does it more relate to the fact that this other
50-foot lot also has a reduced setback or does not have a reduced setback?
Ms. Taylor: So if this lot that’s 50-feet in width. So if there were other lots that were 50-feet in width versus their lots are
60-feet, 70-feet, but they still got some setback relief or they are constructed closer to the property line. In the past, that has
been left up to the hearing examiner for interpretation, and I have seen cases where the applicant has argued that it didn’t
matter the size of the lot. It’s just that similar situation on neighboring lots.
Ms. Rice: Okay, that answers my question. Sorry, I don’t know why I’m having a hard time being clear about that.
Ms. Rice: And then, Ms. Coccia, could you just briefly expand on what you said. The applicant has submitted previously
approved variances and evidence, and I did see there’s a stack of them, there’s at least seven of them in here, I think. And I
trust the applicant will speak to those. But what I want to ask you is you said you didn’t really look at them because that
would be like comparing apples to oranges. Can you expand on that?
Ms. Coccia: I did look at them, but I didn’t feel there was a case in there that was similar enough to what they are proposing
to speak to it.
Ms. Rice: So the facts ought to distinguish.
Ms. Coccia: But the applicant’s more than welcome to go through why they felt that those were important ones.
Ms. Rice: Okay. Then we will turn to the applicant. Mr. Thayer.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 165 of 357
Mr. Thayer: Thanks your honor. Let me say, I’m having technical difficulty. I have a power point presentation, which will
make every thing easier for everybody if I can get it to work. I’m having trouble with my projector, so I ask that we take a 5-
minute break so I can transfer that or hook up my laptop to use the projector’s that here. Or I will call my technical
assistance guy so he can tell me what I’m doing wrong.
Ms. Rice: Tell me this. Can you tell me this? Can you give us an idea how long your power point presentation is?
Mr. Thayer: It’s just going to be used to facilitate my presentation to you. I have the photographs that are in the materials
already. I have some blow ups of some of the plans, and it would be easy to point at things so that you will be able to follow
me.
Ms. Rice: I agree. 20 minutes?
Mr. Thayer: I don’t know how long the presentation will take.
Ms. Rice: It will depend on how many questions I have. All right.
Mr. Thayer: My presentation might take five minutes.
Ms. Rice: Great. Yeah, let’s take a 5-minute break and see if you can get that set up.
Mr. Thayer: Thank you very much.
Ms. Rice: Are we ready? Great. Then we will go back on the record, if I can have everybody take their seats, we’ll get back
underway.
Mr. Thayer: Thank you very much. This is Chris Thayer here again, on behalf of the applicant.
Ms. Rice: I’m sorry. Just one second. Could everyone please have a seat so we can hear what is being said for the record?
Thank you very much. Mr. Thayer go ahead
Mr. Thayer: Thanks very much. I’ll do a brief introduction, and I’m going to have Mr. Steve Rising, the Bogart’s architect,
kind of walk through some of the plans and outline what we are proposing and how we’ve come to what we’re proposing
now, because it differs from what we had initially proposed. One thing I wanted to point out to the court is that there is
existing, in terms of the existing encroachments on the Bogart property, in terms of the existing structures that encroach
beyond the required setback. Along the north side there’s 12 feet 6 inches that extend into the setback approximately 5½
feet. 5½ feet from the property.
Ms. Rice: And what structure is that?
Mr. Thayer: The house.
Ms. Rice: The house. On the north side.
Mr. Thayer: Correct.
Ms. Rice: Is 5.5 feet.
Mr. Thayer: And then the south side, there is 49½ that extends as close as 4 feet then there’s another 6 feet that’s between 4
and 7 feet.
Ms. Rice: Okay, just to clarify. What you’re saying is there’s 49.5 feet of house length that is only 4 feet from the south
property line?
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 166 of 357
Mr. Thayer: It varies between 4 and 7.
Ms. Rice: Okay, as close as 4 and as far as 7 feet.
Mr. Thayer: The majority is over 43½ feet from the property line.
Ms. Rice: And that’s the existing residence on site?
Mr. Thayer: The existing residences on site, plus the carport, which is on the south property line. It’s 18 feet 2 inches. So
adding all that up, approximately 80 linear feet of existing structures encroach fairly substantially into the setbacks, and that
is because the residence was constructed at a time that setbacks were not required.
Ms. Rice: Do you know what the year is, of construction?
Mr. Thayer: We don’t, but it’s a pretty old house.
Ms. Rice: Okay.
Mr. Thayer: And there’ll be more evidence presented later. The properties of the neighbors to the north and neighbors to
the south, they also encroach into the 10-foot setbacks on their property. For at least these three houses, the house
immediately to the south owned by the Haynes, my client’s house, the Bogart’s house, and the house to the north, the
Wilsons. All of those properties encroach into the 10-foot setback.
Ms. Rice: Got it.
Mr. Thayer: A quick look around the neighborhood indicates this is quite common, but we know for a fact that for these
three properties, that they do. And just to keep in mind when we go through the rest of this is that the proposed structure will
have 93 linear feet that will encroach into setback. However, they will encroach at a much lesser amount. 22½ feet will only
encroach 2 feet in the setback, and the other 35 feet will only encroach 2 feet into the setback, so leaving an 8-foot setback.
And then the proposed garage will be five feet from the property line. And that’s 43 feet. So the total linear feet is pretty
similar. The amount of the encroachment into the setback in terms of depth is less. I think it kind of helps to get the big
picture of what we’re talking about.
Mr. Thayer: Mr. Steve Rising is the architect on this project. We’re going to have him walk through things. Any time you
have questions, please ask Mr. Rising and either he or I will attempt to clarify. The first slide we’re looking at here is the
initial plan that was prepared after consultation with the City and Planning Department. There was an impression that,
through a basic background discussion, that what was being proposed wasn’t going to be a problem. This is the initial
drawing, and this is the initial application form. It includes a longer section to the north and to the south that protruded into
the setback. There’s 70 linear feet on the north and I’m not quite sure what it is on the south. I’ll review this briefly, and
you’ll see that in response to the safety concerns and the neighbor’s concerns, we’ve come up with a new plan that we think
does a really good job of addressing everybody’s concerns here. So, Steve, could you explain this a little bit for them.
Ms. Rice: My first question for Mr. Rising, is how do you spell your last name?
Mr. Rising: R I S I N G.
Ms. Rice: Thank you.
Mr. Rising: So this is the initial proposal, as Chris said, and it came directly from our being told by Meg Gruwell that a
variance shouldn’t be any kind of a problem. All of the property was ??. We talked about what that was. Subsequent to that
conservation and to the submittal of the variance application, one of the guys in my office went down and talked to two
planners, I don’t know their names, to get a feel for what this proposal, what their reaction would be. In both cases, they said,
it looks good, it looks great, submit it. So we were a little surprised and disappointed to find out that there was objection. So
what this shows, as Chris said, is 5 feet from the north property line with a chimney, and closer projection to the south, the
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 167 of 357
garage and carport are similar. So what we did is took a big step back before the hearing and went, wow, we thought there
was no issue. Let’s take a look. Let’s solicit feedback from the neighbors and from the City about what might be more sort
of settling.
Mr. Rising: The next slide here is the buildable footprint, based on lot coverage. So this is the 10-foot setback and sort of
we’re allowed to build a long, skinny house that’s this large. And that’s still leaving the existing carport.
Ms. Rice: Just to clarify. Buildable footprint based on coverage. So this has 10-foot setbacks on the sides. Do you mean
this is the maximum 35% lot coverage within those setbacks.
Ms. Rising: Yeah.
Ms. Rice: Okay. What is the length?
Mr. Rising: Respecting the setbacks and pushing it . . .
Ms. Rice: What would the length of that overall structure be? Did you happen to note that?
Mr. Rising: I do not happen to know that. It looks like it’s 100’s of feet, but no, I don’t know that. We would never build
this . . .
Mr. Thayer: This was to show what we could build and also . . . They’re somewhat theoretical because we had to take an
arbitrary point. But their viewpoint from the neighbors to the north and south, as you can see, if a neighbor were standing in
that position on that deck of the property to the north, the Wilson’s property, the views and the fact that they effectively
wouldn’t be obstructed. And then when you look to the south, you can see the existing views are not obstructed. In a kind of
lighter color there, you can see the existing vegetation. The purpose of this is to show here is where we could build.
Ms. Rice: I’m sorry, can we go back? This site is oriented with north sort of up in the upper left corner of the screen. Show
me. . . Can you point to or tell me where the critical areas setback is in relation to this maximum allowed coverage
depiction?
Mr. Thayer: It would be to the far left.
Ms. Rice: And so is this coverage area, the hypothetically allowed coverage area, abutted up against the critical area setback
line.
Mr. Thayer: It is like 30 feet back.
Ms. Rice: From the critical areas setback line?
Mr. Thayer: Yes.
Ms. Rice: Okay.
Mr. Thayer: There’s the railroad trains cut through there, and I believe this is up to 25 to 30 feet back from the grade.
Ms. Rice: It was just hypothetical. I just wanted to be oriented. Okay. Thanks. Go ahead.
Mr. Thayer: So it’s actually 25 feet back. There’s a little connection at the upper left, and that’s . . . So what this is is just
basically saying, here’s the setbacks, here’s the lot coverage, this is what we can do. There are a couple of, in reality, of
course, we would be pulling that as required from the bluff. Actually, I don’t know if that’s true. We’re 25 feet, that’s what
this diagram shows.
Ms. Rice: Okay.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 168 of 357
Mr. Rising: This is the initial proposal and then the outline of the buildable envelope. It’s similarly now looking at the
allowable height, and then the diagram, the lower diagram, begins to describe the massing of the proposed structure.
Ms. Rice: Okay, so there are two images on the slide. The upper one is the hypothetical allowable development envelope
and vertical orientation from grade up. Then below that is the depiction of what’s proposed.
Mr. Rising: Yes.
Ms. Rice: Great.
Mr. Rising: And that’s to give an idea of the massing.
Ms. Rice: And this is an overhead view of the same thing?
Mr. Rising: This is a section view. So the dashed line. . . so this would be cutting sidewalks through the width of the site.
And this shows the proposed mass and the dashed line shows the buildable. So on the upper image, you can see the 2-foot
projection proposed. You can both see that it’s a little lighter than, right, the setback volume, and it’s also substantially lower
than the setback volume, which will take you further. But that was a deliberate decision to not block light that we could
otherwise block to the adjacent properties. So there are images here. One is at the wider western portion of the home and the
lower one is at the narrower eastern, we’ll call it half, of the home where to the left is the beef of this house. Having literally
pulled that back to create more landscape buffer, so that 17 feet is pulled back where we skinnied it up deliberately where we
could within the program of the house and then retaining the 10-foot setbacks on the north.
Mr. Thayer: To make this a little more clear, here’s our revised proposal. And Steve can talk about what he’s trying to
accomplish here with this design.
Mr. Rising: So the revised proposal was redesigned, it’s a redesigned product after talking to the City and getting
information that we could from the neighbors. There were objections to the proposed variance. We were actually, as I said,
surprised, so we took a step back and said, okay, where can we make this smaller and work with, you know, and still get the
width of the building to work. So to the north, that’s the projection which was shortened up quite a bit, we pulled the
majority of the north façade back 10 feet. In south we actually moved it further north to where it’s proposed now at 8 feet.
The garage stayed essentially the same.
Mr. Thayer: Why don’t you explain a little bit about why you designed the garage the way you have in an effort to
minimize impacts on . . .
Mr. Rising: We did a deliberate sort of choice here to avoid, and I thought it was in keeping with the comprehensive plan
goals, to actually provide more view and light through the property by trying to turn the mass of the garage sideways and sort
of burying it into the hillside. And so we deliberately avoided making a 30 foot high by 30 feet wide garage mass, which the
building permit proposal previously refers to for a two-car garage. It wasn’t a full 30 feet wide. So we were actually trying
to preserve sight lines through the property by turning the thing and reducing its mass and block of view. Unfortunately, the
only way to do that is to, and Gina had checked this with engineering, in order to get a car out, we really had no alternative
but to push the garage into the north setback. (Inaudible) . .to deep for a garage, and the 20-foot turnaround so the apron in
front of the garage, which is essentially a minimum to comfortably get a car turned around there.
Mr. Thayer: If I may, there won’t be any points for drawing, but the proposed garage is in line with the house. If we were
to build a 3-car garage that did not require a variance to setbacks, it would be like this. But the result is this would be how
high. . .
Mr. Rising: Well if you have 30 feet. The difficulty with that is that in order, we have a sloped approach, Gina had brought
up, or there’s reference in the report to maintaining a work of a legal sort of driveway maximum slope, and in order to get the
apron, in order to get in the garage, what we have to do is build up a platform, we’ve still got to put a bridge on that. You
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 169 of 357
know, we never really designed this because we really thought that this would be the highest impact of the garage on the site
and the neighborhood. But I’m guessing it would be about 30 feet from where the front garage doors are.
Mr. Thayer: The idea is that the impact on the neighbors to the east looking to the west, if you put a 3-car garage there,
which there’s no dispute it could be done without a variance, but if we put a 3-car garage there, it’s going to be less attractive,
less aesthetically pleasing. It’s going to impact the neighbors’ view, light and enjoyment of the area. And the Bogarts are
trying to do everything as much as possible to be consistent with the goals and ideals of the comprehensive plan and local
zoning. I think we can actually accomplish more of that by getting really a pretty small variance.
Mr. Rising: And this allowed us to carry the north wall to the hill, literally. I mean, literally it excavated, I can’t remember
the exact dimension, but five six feet for the retaining wall, and it seemed like it was within the character of the
neighborhood. It seemed like everybody had carports and garages that were closer than 10 feet to the property line. That
includes the neighbor to the north, as well.
Ms. Rising: Well I think there is another issue here. We really were trying to articulate the mass to be less of a block. And
the reason one does that is it tends to, and this I guess would be subjective, it’s done in architecture all the time, it tends to
reduce your perception of the sizes of the map by articulating the façade. We did that both on the left, we tried to project the
deck to the left, purposefully, it’s pretty thin to, I mean, I don’t think the property itself really looks through there anyway
because of the existing hedge, but the idea is to allow the most light towards the north and to the south through the structure.
We actually did not put the house as far west as we could. Both concerns of what’s acceptable to the geotechnical and the
buffer reduction, and so right, so what we were really trying to do in both cases, on the north and south side, was to maintain
as much vegetation as we could. The idea on the bottom right corner of the house was that there would be a courtyard.
Those steps go down into a courtyard, intending to preserve a landscaped or provide for more landscaped area there. That, to
me, is beneficial to the neighbor to the south. You know, it’s yeah, anything that I’ve missed.
Mr. Thayer: Just so that we’re clear. What I’m drawing here now, getting a little bit better at this, those are the only
sections requiring a 2-foot variance. And then all along the northern end of the garage, this area here, that’s where I’m
talking about a variance. This is another look at. . . This is the revised layout elevation, again showing the potential
buildable mass and then what is actually being constructed.
Mr. Rising: You know, it’s particularly, one view of this is to look at garage massing here. Because, you know, you can
see, I hope, what we were trying to achieve by really holding that low. And again, we were operating still on the premise that
that seemed to consistent with what had been done elsewhere in the neighborhood.
Mr. Thayer: This is the garage.
Ms. Rice: Yeah. I’ve found the slide you’re now showing in my record as Attachment 4.
Mr. Thayer: Okay.
Mr. Rising: So this is the lower floor plan, and this is included really just to show what the width of the building that we’re
trying to work with is. The tight spot across here is, you know, it’s the width of the bedroom and the width of an exercise
room. So those are of variable standards, I suppose, in architecture, but in a property and home of this size or this location,
which is waterfront Edmonds, those spaces are none too big. It’s more of a factor in the upper floor, where you know, again,
it’s not like we’re trying to design huge spaces that push in. The dimension that most concerns me, Chris has circled the
living room, which is actually big enough to put a seating group into and walk around and then get a dining to the south of it.
The kitchen, again, I truly wish we had a width of the original proposal because it would make a huge difference to the living
room, or excuse me, to the kitchen. That’s in reality, again, by the standards of homes this size and this location, those are
none too large.
Ms. Rice: Question. When I read in advance, there was some discussion of the chimneys extending another 2½ feet into the
setback, but as I’m looking at your upper floor plan and your lower floor plan, they don’t appear to do that.
Mr. Thayer: We took that out of the revised proposal.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 170 of 357
Ms. Rice: Okay. So the chimney only sticks out maybe a few inches.
Mr. Thayer: Pardon me.
Ms. Rice: I’m looking at the lower floor plan, and it looks like the chimney barely extends past the house at all.
Mr. Thayer: That’s correct.
Mr. Rising: We pulled it back. So what we had done with the original projection is that there’s a pretty normal allowable
projection of the chimney. Then we realized that issues were brought up, and we simply pulled it in. However, that actually
takes dimension out of the interior. When you pull the chimney in, you are in essence, perceptually moving the wall into the
room.
Mr. Thayer: The slide we’re looking at now gives you another look at the massing. It also shows the encroaching structure
from the neighbors, which I’ll detail eventually when I get into my slides. But we have encroachment in the setback on the
north and on the south. Also this up here on the Wilson’s property. This shows sight lines with the buildable mass; I think
this is a good comparison and I can push back and forth. Here’s our proposal; there’s potential. We could build a long,
skinny house there; here’s what we’re proposing.
Mr. Rising: So what we were trying to do is avoid . . . We’ve never contended that you couldn’t build a 30-foot wide
building. It seemed consistent that there were encroachments into setbacks. And what we were trying to do is not do a 3-
stories without a ??. With 30 feet wide, it. . .
Mr. Thayer: The other property Mr. Rising’s referring to, I think, is Attachment 6 to the City’s report, which is her ?? for
another narrow RS built lot. They were proposing to build a 3-story, tall, skinny townhouse.
Mr. Rice: Got it.
Mr. Thayer: Steve’s saying he didn’t think that a 3-story skinny town house is consistent with the houses in the
neighborhood. Is it technically feasible, yes.
Mr. Rising: That’s not important. Yes, It’s technically feasible to build a house with 30 feet width, but it’s certainly
arguable that it’s more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Thayer: This is a shot of the existing vegetation and the sight lines. And I’ll bring this up again when I talk more.
Steve, why don’t you tell me what you were trying to show, here.
Mr. Rising: So this is a diagram presenting what appears, right, to be the cut off angles of the view from the neighbors’
properties. Because that’s something that’s been brought up as why the project, as proposed, why our proposal is
detrimental. The weakness of that argument, from my perspective, really is whether the variance, right, the two feet, is at all
additionally detrimental. Obviously Mr. Bogart has the right to, we have the buildable footprint, which, and the setbacks are
dashed here. So what we’re doing is sort of showing that the dashed line is what we’re sort of by setback allowed to build to
anyway. And these are simply the preexisting view angles. The vegetation was actually, that’s pretty accurate. Just to be
clear here, what we’re discounting is the tall trunks, you know, because those are actually, you seen underneath those. Of the
two trees on the north property.
Mr. Thayer: These here. These are large fir trees.
Mr. Rising: Yeah, and that’s really not part of the argument at all. What we’re really talking about is the existing vegetation
that are essentially hedges by practicality.
Ms. Rice: Okay.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 171 of 357
Mr. Thayer: Here’s just a couple of quick illustrations showing what the proposed house would look like and how it would
be built into the hill and how Mr. Rising has designed in various features to break up the mass. Although there are
streamlined, it does have a pitched roof, and Steve can talk briefly about the design features that we’re used to make this a
less imposing structure.
Mr. Rising: So what we were trying to do is actually, well again, on the left side is to keep that whole deck area as thin
across the view angles to the north and south. You know, the steps in both the north and south side, and actually the left side
are all intended to reduce your perception of mass. We were trying to bring the roof line down towards the existing grade as
you go east, so we’re trying actually to keep roof lines and in many respects, we’re really trying to get the feel more
sensitively sited to the slope of the land. You know, we didn’t want to do a giant excavation or build a 3-story house. We
were actually trying to keep it low where we could. The heights that are shown in other diagrams are essentially high points
within this design. For instance, the main house, in other words, we’re showing a diagram of heights, its maximum heights.
It’s not the lower point and roof pitch. You can see the slope of the garage roof is intended to drop is intended to drop as low
as we can get it on the north side. You can see how on the right side of the garage, we’re building into the hillside to try to
reduce the mass of it. In both this configuration, but also in comparison to the alternative building 30 feet across, we’re
trying to maintain light through the property as we kept the view angles. So by keeping it low and breaking up the mass.
Mr. Thayer: One second. This shows the location of the Bogart property. I blew this up as much as we could. You’ll see a
wide variety of sizes and shapes for the lots in the area, but you will notice that their lot is the exception and not the rule.
There are other long, skinny lots. Some of those long, skinny lots I believe to be jointly owned by the same parties. But
nonetheless, there are other long, skinny lots in Edmonds. However, they are the exception and not the rule. In part because
of the unusual features of the Bogart’s property that they are forced to request a variance.
Mr. Thayer: I’d like to go through some photographs. These are attached to our submission, which was attached to the
City’s report, but just to give you some perspective. This is the existing house, looking more or less west, looking from the
driveway down into the house. This is the existing carport looking southwest at this point. This is standing in the driveway
looking north and west. This is a structure owned by the Wilsons that encroaching into the setback. This is the view from
the Bogart’s current residence, looking out more or less west out onto Puget Sound. There’s another picture; you’ll get an
idea that the existing house is set quite far back from the water. Why the original owners built the house so far back from the
water, I don’t know. Certainly, it does not take full advantage of the spectacular views that are available at this wonderful
piece of property. This is looking to the north and west. That’s the Haynes, pardon me, the Wilson house that you can see
through the existing vegetation. Again, a good portion of that is encroaching onto the boundary line setback.
Ms. Rice: Got it.
Mr. Thayer: This is the Haynes residence as seen from the Bogart’s property. Again, this would be looking approximately
southwest, mainly south. This is part of their residence encroaches onto the 10-foot setback. This is the Wilson residence
seen from the Bogart property. You can see the deck. This is the Haynes’ deck to the south, encroaching. This is looking
directly back at the Bogart residence to the left and basically north would be the Wilson’s residence. To the right, more or
less south, would be the Haynes’ residence. You see the intense vegetation and the two large fir trees. From a better angle,
here, you can see the Bogart residence on the right. You see the Wilson residence on the left, and you can see the cedar trees
and rhododendrons and other shrubs that extend almost all the way out to the bluff. This is a giant laurel hedge on the
southern boundary between the Bogart property and the Haynes residence. You can see the edge of their deck sticking out.
This is just a shot looking down the western edge of the Bogart property onto the Burlington Northern right-of-way. It’s
actually a pretty steep slope there but it doesn’t show on the picture.
Mr. Thayer: This is another residence on Sound View Place as I was leaving the Bogart residence. There was some
comment by Meg Gruwell in her initial report about the proposed structure not being in conformity with other houses in the
neighborhood. This is just an example, this is a much more flat sided, slab, modern looking home than what the Bogarts are
proposing. And this is just to show that there are more modern looking houses in the neighborhood. They do all have
pitched roofs. I don’t think that’s a major point of contention.
Ms. Rice: I also don’t think it relevant to the variance per say.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 172 of 357
Mr. Thayer: It was referenced in Ms. Gruwell’s report in terms of whether or not the proposed residence was consistent
with the neighborhood. So I will go on. This is the existing residence, kind of showing the existing vegetation, showing the
sight lines, and we’ve already been through this a bit. But we have encroachment here. The Bogart’s garage is basically on
the property line. There’s encroachment into the setback here. There’s encroachment into the setback here. There’s
encroachment all along here.
Mr. Rising: I’m going to interject here. So Gina has brought up this image to show that setback. The survey will actually
show that there’s a raised portion, that 4 feet that we referenced earlier on the right, and so in fact, this is for vegetation. It
doesn’t show the full existing encroachment into the variance on that last. The survey will clearly show that.
Mr. Thayer: But just so we have an idea here. The property to the north has substantial encroachments into the setback
requirement. The property to the south has substantial encroachments into the setback requirement. The existing structures
on the Bogart property have encroachments into the setback.
Ms. Rice: I don’t want to be cutting you off, but we do have a large audience that would like to testify. So could you not
repeat things that you’ve already said. Justo to help us stay on . . .
Mr. Thayer: Sure.
Ms. Rice: Thank you.
Mr. Thayer: We’ll go to the factors to be considered for the granting of variance.
Ms. Rice: Great.
Mr. Thayer: Special circumstances. Hopefully, you’ve had the opportunity or will have the opportunity to review my letter
dated April 9, 2007, where I detailed this at greater length. But as to the special circumstances, this is a long, narrow lot. It’s
50-feet wide and doesn’t conform for the RS-12 zone, which requires 80-foot wide lots. Given the 10-foot setbacks, that
leaves a 30-foot buildable corridor. The topography is also a little unusual in that it’s on a significant slope. There’s a
railroad right-of-way to the immediately west, which also has an associated critical area with the steep slope. There’s another
requirement under the code, 28.05.010, with regard to special circumstances. These special circumstances are not personal to
the Bogarts. This is a feature of the property. It’s not something that exists as a result of anything specific to the Bogarts,
themselves.
Mr. Thayer: Looking at the other variance application files that I reviewed, the non-conforming size appeared to me to be,
as a general matter, accepted as a special circumstance. If you have a piece of property that does not conform to the zoning
requirements, that was, effectively considered a special circumstance.
Ms. Rice: I’m going to just say now. I noted that there were several previous variances and the staff reports that go with
those decisions in the record. I haven’t read them. I will read them. But every application for variance is decided on its own
merits, and I have discretion to consider what has been done in the past. But this application won’t be decided on what has
been done in the past. It will be based on its own merits.
Mr. Thayer: I understand. I didn’t believe they constituted any kind of precedent, but I thought them illustrative of what
has been done in the past and perhaps will provide you with some guidance with what other hearing examiners have
considered to be special circumstances.
Ms. Rice: Sure. No, I appreciate it. I just wanted to have that stated for the record.
Mr. Thayer: Thank you. No special privilege, and that goes to whether or not the requested variance would give the
applicant some sort of special or unusual privilege. I think the way to consider that is to look at the fact that the existing
improvements on the Bogart’s property encroach. The neighbors to the north and south have encroachments into the
setbacks. Ms. Gruwell’s report acknowledges approval of setback variances for seven properties on Sound View Place. We
have examples of a number of hearing examiner findings where variances were granted. I would point out that, I think the
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 173 of 357
Wilson’s argued that those all related to depth and garages, but that is not correct. I think the Dahls had also included an
addition to a home. But respecting the hearing examiners prior comment, I’m not going to belabor the point. Basically,
we’re not asking for a special privilege. We’re asking for the same rights that are afforded to the other neighbors, not just the
neighbors to the north and south, but the neighbors in the immediate neighborhood. The Bogarts want to be able to develop
their property in a reasonable and respectful manner. They’re not asking for some sort of special privilege. They’ve gone to
great lengths and not an insignificant expense to come up with a proposal that would be least impactful on their neighbors
and on the neighborhood. They’re not asking to build a McMansion here. They’re asking to build a very modest, nice house,
which is consistent with waterfront property in the Puget Sound area.
Mr. Thayer: Furthermore, the application is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan promotes
high-quality residential development. The proposal harmonizes with the surroundings. Mr. Risings gone to great length to
design a home to allow free flow of light and to break up the hard, long, straight lines so that it would be less imposing. It
will be an aesthetically pleasing home and will fit in with the nice homes in the area. There is anticipated to be some
testimony from the neighbors to the north and to the south who’ve made some sort of vague reference to an impact upon their
views. As I’ve shown you on the slides, the views of the neighbors to the north and south are primarily, if not exclusively,
essentially directed to the west out to the Puget Sound. The proposed construction and the very slight variance, and the only
variance could even be argued to impact their view is a 2-foot variance for a modest section up north and a 2-foot variance
for another modest section along the southern edge. So what the neighbors are effectively arguing is that that extra two feet
is somehow materially adversely impacting their views. When you look at the existing vegetation, they don’t have any views
to the north or to the south. Moreover, the Bogarts have a right to build on their property if they had to within the 30-foot
setback requirement.
Ms. Rice: Understood.
Mr. Thayer: A house that would block their views even more than what is being promoted.
Ms. Rice: Got it.
Mr. Thayer: We don’t want to do that. And that gets to the last point, which is the alternative construction if there was no
variance would actually be more impactful on the neighbors. They will have a greater mass. They will have the potential to
block more view, but no variance would be required. We’re actually, effectively, trying to do a favor to the neighbors to the
north and south.
Mr. Thayer: Zoning ordinance, 16.10.100. It encourages the preservation of light, including sunlight, the privacy of
neighbors, the views of neighbors, shorelines and other natural features, air, water, noise and additional pollution. We
believe that the proposed structure accomplishes all of that. That the alternative structure can be a 3-story, long, skinny
house, we’d be more likely to have an adverse impact on the values than the proposed structure. And that goes for the
garage, as well. I see the hearing examiner nodding so . . .
Ms. Rice: I do understand.
Mr. Thayer: So I won’t raise that point. Not detrimental. The Bogarts are asking for the same privileges afforded to their
neighbors, and that is the neighbors have existing encroachments. They also have houses that are built further west on their
properties. They more fully take advantage of the spectacular views of Puget Sound. For whatever reason, the prior owner of
this property the Bogarts now have built their house way far back away from the water, and they really can’t take advantage
of the waterfront view for this beautiful piece of property. They just want the same rights to build a house, a reasonable
house, that will afford them the same rights as their neighbors have.
Mr. Thayer: We’ve gone to great lengths to address the concerns of the neighbors. My office specifically encouraged and
attempted to solicit proposals from the neighbors, through their counsel, to see if there was some compromise or something
that could be worked out. Despite repeated offers that a proposal would be forthcoming, no proposal was ever made, so we
just brought this back for hearing. We thought we would just go ahead and present it as is.
Ms. Rice: Okay.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 174 of 357
Mr. Thayer: And it’s not for lack of effort. This proposal will be more aesthetically pleasing and have less massing than
the alternative. The alternative is a tall, skinny house, which as I said, is most likely to be more objectionable by the
neighbors and it won’t be as aesthetically pleasing nor really consistent with the surrounding houses in the area. But they
wouldn’t require a variance. And I think one of the things to focus on is we’re only talking about, for the most part, is a few
foot encroachment with regard to the residence. And I would submit that the actual impact on the neighbors to the north and
south is dimenimous at most.
Ms. Rice: Okay.
Mr. Thayer: And that their views would be retained. I would submit that there’s no impact, but if there’s any impact, it
would be negligible compared to the impact that there would be if no variance were granted.
Mr. Thayer: And that gets to the last topic. The City noted that a neighbor is proposing to build a 30-foot wide, 3-story
town house style house on a similar lot. The Bogarts have never contended that this is impossible. They just believe that it is
not desirable. It’s not only not desirable for them, but we believe it’s less desirable for the neighborhood, less desirable for
the neighbors to the north and south, and less desirable for the neighbors to the east who would like to retain their views to
the west. We also believe that the tall, skinny townhouses, which living in Seattle, myself, you can’t go three blocks without
seeing one, we would submit that those are incongruous with development in the City of Edmonds and not consistent with
the character of the houses there. The Bogarts believe the house that they’ve proposed is a modest, reasonable house that is
consistent with the development and use of this type of property at the waterfront in Edmonds.
Mr. Thayer: So we submit that the request variance is in fact the minimum variance. I’m not here to say that a house can’t
be built with no variance. What we are saying is a house built with no variance would have a more negative impact on the
neighbors in the neighborhood than allowing a very minor variance we’re asking for.
Ms. Rice: Okay.
Mr. Thayer: Thank you.
Ms. Rice: Thank you. Can we have the lights up? And then I will now take public comment. Now that we can sort of see
each other. Show of hands, please, who would like to . . . Sir, please come forward to the podium. That podium right there.
And if you could speak into the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. Go ahead and, there you go.
Mr. Wilson: My name is Bill Wilson. Nicole, my wife, and I live at 18518 Sound View Place. It’s the property
immediately to the north of the proposed building site. We purchased in 2002 and have lived there since 2003. I will try to
keep this brief because I think we only have the room until 5:00 and there are a lot of people who want to speak. We’ve
loved living in the University Colony area, not only because of the spectacular views but because of the character and style of
the community. In our immediate area, each home has retained the spectacular views over the years despite remodels and
building, due to the layout of the homes, in my opinion. Alternative property, or adjacent properties have been laid out with
homes either placed low and forward on the property or high and back on the property so that the widespread views can be
enjoyed by all. The properties set back at a considerably higher altitude look over the forward placed properties, pretty much
with an unobstructed view, other than maybe some trees which are on some properties, including the proposed Bogart site.
Mr. Wilson: It is true that some of the oldest houses, and in this case ours included, have portions that extend near the
property lines into the setback areas. In the case of our house, it was built in three sections. The initial section was placed in
1919, and that is the southern most portion of our house, which abuts the, nearly abuts the property line of Dr. Bogart. So
that was placed decades before there was any building code in the City of Edmonds. Since then, the house had been added
on again in the 1930’s and finally the final addition in the 1960’s to the north.
Mr. Wilson: Traditionally, and is currently the case, the forward set homes are considerably lower in elevation on the slope,
which allows the upper back set homes to have the views over the top. The other homes also have unobstructed views across
their own properties, as well. This staggering affect of the adjacent homes has really been key to all the homes in the area
being able to enjoy the beautiful views and privacy, which is a huge part of the character of the University Colony area,
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 175 of 357
where the homes are not wall to wall, as a more urban type setting would typically be. For example, starting from the south
in our immediate area, the house owned by the Haynes, which is immediately south of the Bogart property is placed forward
and at a low elevation. Going to the north, the Bogart property is placed back at a considerably higher elevation that looks
over the top of both adjacent homes. Just to the north of that, the Neudorfer property is back and at an elevation where they
look over the top of our home, with no obstruction in their view. And just to the north of us are the Yeagers, which are
placed forward, etc.
Mr. Wilson: Indeed, many of these homes, especially those built long ago, extend into the now required side setbacks.
Because of this, the staggering of the homes has been essential. Of the previously mentioned properties, I know that the
Haynes property extends into the side setbacks. The Bogart property extends into the side setbacks, and our property does as
well, as explained thoroughly by Mr. Rising. The very fact that the Haynes property is within the northern setback, just south
of the Bogart property, and our property sits within its southern side setback just to the north of the Bogart property, is
precisely why it is not a prudent idea to insert what some might think is a disproportionately large house into that narrow
space where the homes are very tightly placed already. It is true that the current Bogart house does extend into the side
setbacks, as well, but because of the staggered effect and the fact that it’s placed back, there’s still extreme privacy to all
involved, which certainly would not be the case with this current proposal. Certainly, to grant a variance of the side setbacks
in a situation where a large home is being placed between two homes which already extend into the side setback would seem
incongruent with the intent of the building code, in my opinion.
Mr. Wilson: I don’t want to be redundant at all, but . . . Although the existing 2-story house on the Bogart property extends
into the side setbacks to some degree, it and I believe the other homes, are not at all obtrusive, in that each property’s
afforded scenic views, as well as considerable privacy, again, because of the traditional neighborhood layout of forward and
rear placed homes. So in summary, my wife and I have to oppose the request for a side setback variance. It seems that that
opinion is also shared by the City planning committee. Just to touch on a couple of points, I think the fact that it is a long,
narrow lot, I think the factor that it’s a narrow lot, not that it’s long, is not really a unique feature. There are other properties
in the area, which are very similar, almost identical. The Haynes, which is immediately to the south, is almost identical
dimensions and topography to the Bogart property. In the Planning Department’s summary they looked at an example of
another home with similar dimensions with construction which complies to the required setbacks and building code.
Mr. Wilson: I think, finally, in summary, placing a large structure between two already tightly spaced homes would be a
mistake. To grant a variance to the side setbacks would further worsen the effect, in my opinion. Personally, I think the
views are affected. The view lines that were shown by Mr. Thayer were actually, especially the line that was more oblique,
was actually to the west, and the other one is a little bit more to the northwest. So the sun sets right now sort of between
where the two lines are. During the winter, the sun is below the lower sight line. The foliage or the vegetation that Mr.
Thayer referred to is to some degree more obstructive, depending on the season. During the winter, we’re able to see the
winter sunsets, and that would certainly no longer be the case with this structure as proposed on the Bogart property.
Mr. Wilson: Finally, I just was a little . . . I just wanted to . . . Perhaps this is a question, but I was a little confused because
if the letter from Mr. Thayer, and also again stated, they refer to the revised proposal, but I believe, is it correct that you’re
also asking that the original proposal be considered, as well?
Ms. Rice: Yeah, my understanding is that the first request is that the original 5-foot reduction be honored. But in the event
that that’s rejected, the revised proposal is offered as an alternative.
Mr. Wilson: Okay. So we, just still on the record, oppose each of the proposals. Thank you.
Ms. Rice: Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. Anyone else who would like to speak? Please.
Someone from the audience tried to address the hearing examiner, but the comments were not audible.
Ms. Rice: Could I have comments from anybody else who doesn’t represent the Wilson’s first because the Wilson’s already
did have a chance? Okay, please go ahead. Your name and address for the record.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 176 of 357
Ms. Haynes: My name is Vicky Haynes. I live at 18602 Sound View Place, immediately to the south of the Bogarts. In the
letter that I submitted to you. . .
Ms. Rice: Attachment 11?
Ms. Haynes: Attachment 11. In Attachment 11 I talk about some thing that I’ll just mention briefly. I fell in love with my
University Colony in 1971 and bought my home in 1992. Yes, the view was certainly one of the endearing reasons for
wanting that piece of property, but it was more than that. There is tremendous privacy. There is a tremendous sense of
space. There is tremendous character. It is a part of Edmonds that is unique. It is like no other part. And just as we imagine
the ?? of America, we are dangerously approaching the same with Edmonds.
Ms. Haynes: Dr. Wilson talked about the staggered houses and the affect of that. The affect of that is to preserve character
and space and light and privacy. And while it could be argued that I still will have a magnificent view, and I will, those other
factors are deeply important. I think it’s also important to reemphasize that we’re talking here, when we talk encroachments,
which indeed, there are encroachments on all sides, that we’re talking historically. We are not talking in the moment. We’re
talking about a colony that was begun approximately 1916 – 1919, and homes that were begun at that same time. (Inaudible)
. . . that’s where they felt they could best be placed to preserve the character. Indeed, beyond the historical encroachments
that have nothing to do with the present, nor present intent, on either the Wilson’s or my part. Beyond that, the hardship that
is faced here by the long, narrow, I share. And it was a hardship that I incurred when I bought the property. It came with the
territory. I too, if I were to ask to have something done to my home, would have to face the problems of the current
variances. A
Ms. Haynes: As far as the garage sight lines are concerned, please note that the homes to the east, the immediate east, are
elevated, and they would not be looking directly at the garage. They would be looking over the garage for the most part. I
also want you to imagine, if you will, that currently with the staggered house, we have where are located a continuous yard.
It’s as if there are no fences because there are none, and it’s as if, in a sense, all of our property, in a way, belongs to all of
that. And if we try and squeeze a home between these two homes, which indeed do violate the current setbacks, that’s all
going to change.
Ms. Haynes: I really urge you, thought these are extra legal matters, to think not only in terms of what is being presently
asked, which I also ask you to deny, but also to think about unique and very special nature of the neighborhood. Something
will indeed be lost, which if it is lost, can never be regained. Thank you.
Ms. Rice: Thank you Mrs. Haynes. I do want to hear from additional members of the public, but before we do go forward, I
just want to remind everybody, the only issue that’s up for discussion is whether or not the new home can encroach into
setbacks. The Bogarts are free to build a home inside the setbacks at anyplace on their property. Just so we’re clear, we’re
just talking about encroachments. So, since we are running short on time, if I could ask you to address comments specifically
to the issue of the encroachment that would be most relevant. So please. And could I have your name and address, please?
Mr. Yeager: My name is Walter Yeager, and the address is 18504 Olympic View Drive. It’s the second property north of
the Bogart’s proposed construction. I was going to speak just to substantiate the staggered nature, both vertically and
horizontally of the homes and the variety. But you did ask a question, I could add some to your question. You asked when
the home was built, owned by the Wilsons. I first looked at the property in 1958, and the house was there and had been for a
long time, and the southern part of the house was where it is now. But in those days, that house was a 50-foot lot. When
they extended to the north, towards my house, why they purchased a 50-foot long, narrow lot to add to their 50-foot long,
narrow lot. So there is a question of, you know, trying to abide by variances in past history.
Ms. Rice: Okay, thank you. Other persons wishing to give comments please. Yes, please go ahead now.
Ms. Swift: My name is Joan Swift, 18520 Sound View Place. That is not adjacent to the Bogart property as it might seem.
We’re across the street. The City gave us the wrong house number, and it’s been that way for 33 years. I have lived there for
33 years, so I’ve seen many, many changes in this neighborhood. I guess, I don’t want to repeat anything that’s been said
here about the history of the colony and the mixed up lot lines and all the encroachments and that sort of thing, because that’s
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 177 of 357
been said before. When my house was built in 1972, I guess that area had been in the City for what, about 20 years, 19 years,
whatever you said, 1951, it was in the 50’s sometime
Ms. Coccia: 1961 is when it was annexed.
Ms. Swift: 61, I thought it was the 60’s. That’s my ears. I think the builder got very, and I’m glad of this, got lots of
privileges. The house was built on a 50-foot lot. I was in California at the time and had nothing to do with this. He was
given a 2-foot variance to the north, a 2-foot variance to the west, and a 2-foot variance to the south, plus a variance for
building on a substandard lot. These variances enabled the house to not look like a square rectangular, not square
rectangular, excuse me, a rectangular box. Although it does not have the detail that a custom designed house would have. He
then went and built on the 50-foot lot next door, which he had the opportunity of combining with the other 50-foot lot and
making 100-foot lot, but he didn’t. He built another house with an 8-foot variance into the front setback. Both of these
houses represent, I think, special privilege. Maybe that did not exist in 1972 as one of the criteria, I don’t know. But I think
that the 2-foot variances that Mr. Bogart is asking for, Dr. Bogart, excuse me, is asking for are no different.
Ms. Swift: Dr. Wilson spoke of the staggering of the homes, and the first thing that struck me is this house on Astrala Hill’s
property, deceased Astrala Hill, 18720 Sound View Place. That appears to be, from the drawing up here and here, and 3-
story house, very, very close to the edge of the bank. There is no staggering nor attempt to stagger, and I probably should say
that the houses that Vicky Haynes and Bill and Nicole Wilson are living in are charming and have parts that were built
decades and decades ago and will eventually probably maybe next year, maybe not by these owners, but by some other
owner, be torn down and they may want variances of the same. They will, of course, have to move away from the
encroachments they’re occupying that they’re occupying now. But they may still want variances, and that’s something
maybe these people should be thinking about. I don’t think that 2-feet, 5-feet is over the top, I think, but I’m not speaking to
the garage. I’m speaking of the original drawing submitted in 2006, with 5-foot variance, 5-foot into the setback. I think that
was too much, but I don’t think that 2-feet is going to make that much different in as much as he will go ahead and build in
the legal area anyway, and it will not be as attractive. Thank you.
Ms. Rice: Thank you. Others. Yes please.
Mr. Nations: My name is Ron Nations. I live at 18602 Sound View Place. Vicky and I have lived there for 15 years, and in
that 15 years, I’ve watched the neighborhood lose some of its quality already, and I’m deeply concerned to put a halt to that
trend; to slow that trend or stop that trend. I’d love to reverse the trend if it were possible. One of the reasons we moved
there was a sense of wildlife, of trees, of unsettled open spaces. I still remember how it used to feel when I would come
driving home, and as I came up Sound View, I would see all the trees running up and down Sound View Place, and it was a
sense. . . I like to go camping; I’m a camper and an outdoor kind of guy. When I come home from work to see all those
trees and to hear the birds singing, it’s like really coming home in a special sense, in a spiritual sense, and a deeply
meaningful sense. And I treasure that feeling tremendously. It broke my heart to watch forests get knocked. I mean small
forests knocked down to put up big houses all along Sound View Place, and it’s happened many, many times since we have
lived there. I can count from Wharf Street moving northward to where our house is and two or three lots north, when we first
moved in there, there were five houses in a space that’s now occupied by 10 houses. And the houses that have been recently
constructed are far larger than the houses that were there before. So the effect of an increased sense of crowding is even
more intense than it would have been had they all been the same size.
Mr. Nation: That is really the core of the problem with the Bogart’s plan. Regardless of what their attorney says about how
they’ve been so careful and so sensitive, this is a very large house in comparison with the houses that immediately surround
it. If you look carefully at those diagrams, and I don’t have a little jazzy computer set up to put all the things on the screen,
but if you were to look at those, you would see that the most comparable structures in that diagram in that immediate vicinity
is our house and their proposed garage in terms of square footage.
Ms. Nation: If you look at it, they’re approximately the same size. Their house dwarf’s the surrounding houses, and that to
be wedged in between two houses, it’s as though where Vicky’s sitting over here and where I’m sitting is a way that the
Wilson’s house in her case, and in my case, our house are situation. The slope would be, or rather the cliff bank, would be
where these rails are. There is a huge open space. When we stop outside onto our deck, especially during the summer
months, we use the northern side of our deck. Our deck is around the west side our house and the north side of our house
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 178 of 357
approximately. Our house is actually not oriented perfectly to the compass. Anyway, the Wilson’s house would sit like this,
our house would sit like this, and here’s the cliff. We look out this way, but when I step out onto my deck, and in the
southern months I want to be on the northern part of my deck, I look straight north, and I don’t see anything in there. The
Wilson’s house is back, and then I see two, three, four lots north. It’s an unobstructed view that’s tremendously valuable in
terms of privacy, in terms of sense of being in nature, a sense of having fresh air, and sense of having contact with the birds
and the squirrels, the raccoons that move around.
Mr. Nation: If you put a very large structure, and do not make the mistake of believing these guys that this is not a very
large structure, especially relative to its immediately context. You put a huge structure in there, and we lose all of that. And
I think the real problem with the Bogart’s plan is that they want to come so far down the slope, and they keep scratching their
heads and saying, it’s such a mystery why that other house is built so far off the slope; it exactly conforms the pattern of the
neighborhood. It’s no mystery. The house was built up there so it wouldn’t be directly looking in the windows of the
neighbor’s house. If one doesn’t like to step outside one’s door and immediately find themselves in the neighbor’s front
yard. Or rather looking in their kitchen window, and that’s what the Bogart’s plan is is to wedge their house in between our
house and the Wilson’s, obstructing all this view, and making it so we’re all going to be in each other’s kitchens every time
we come outside the door. To me, that’s a very poor plan.
Mr. Nation: I believe at one point, correct me if I’m wrong, it was offered to the Bogarts they could have whatever setbacks
they wanted if they’d stay upon the western part of the slope, or pardon me, upon the eastern part of the slope, which is up
high, and then they could build a larger house. But they’ve insisted on bringing this entire structure and carport and
pavement leading up to the garage, shifting it our way and down the slope. It wipes out a lot of natural setting, and it
destroys an awful lot of views. It is not true, regardless of what their attorney says, I do not step outside my door and stare
only westward. I step outside and enjoy the view to the north, the south and the east. And to put a great big structure right
there, very close to me, is going to be a tremendous impediment to my enjoyment of that. I’m wanting us to get back to the
concept that nature is good, trees are good, birds are good, fresh air is good, space is good. Wedging houses in, consider the
model of Woodway and the way they’ve preserved their trees and spacing, and the example of Ballard, where it’s, I don’t
know if there’s a tree left in Ballard. I used to live in Ballard 30 years ago, and I loved it. But you know, places become
urban wastelands when you take out all the trees and wedge the houses in shoulder to shoulder to shoulder. We have the
advantage here, we have a lot that’s 285 feet deep, so is the Bogarts, 285 feet. So if one house is at the west end of that and
one is at the east end of that, it’s practically like we’re not even neighbors. I don’t even see the Bogarts when I step outside
my house. The first people I would see would be the Wilsons, and I have to work to see them.
Mr. Nation: This question about the shrubbery blocking their views, the shrubbery is there because we value privacy.
We’ve attempted to construct privacy around our homes by having shrubbery. There is one big laurel hedge, but it’s not a
very long laurel hedge, and most of what’s around us are low trees like holly trees, is the predominant thing right near our
house, and a couple of mountain ash and a hawthorne tree, and then some low azaleas and rhododendrons. We see around
the those and through those and over those in a way we would not see around or through or over a big slab of a structure
sitting there. So it would be a big blockage of views. While you have the shrubbery there, that’s a very nice sense of privacy
that you have, and a sense of nature. Plugging in a big house in between the two defeats all that.
Ms. Rice: Again, we’re not talking about where on the lot, east to west, the house can go. We’re just talking about where on
the lot the setbacks. . .
Mr. Nation: Except there was a key point that we said they could have their variances if they’d stay up higher on the slope.
Ms. Rice: Did you want to speak to the encroachment into the setback?
Mr. Nation: Is that not relevant, is that not the encroachment, itself, that I’m speaking to?
Ms. Rice: No, you were talking about east to west, where the house is going to go on the lot. What we want to focus on is
whether or not they should be allowed encroach into the 10-foot side yard setback.
Mr. Nation: I feel you are not understanding my point. If they were to stay upon the upper part of the lot, we would happily
say, go ahead and have your encroachments.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 179 of 357
Ms. Rice: That’s not relevant to the application.
Mr. Nation: That’s not?
Ms. Rice: No.
Mr. Nation: One last point. Our encroachment on their space, to my knowledge, is our deck.
Ms. Rice: Did anyone else want to testify specifically about the encroachment issue? Please.
Mr. Greenberg: My name is Charlie Greenberg and I . . .
Ms. Rice: Could I get you to say it into the Microphone.
Mr. Greenberg: Sure, Charles Greenberg, and I’m working with the Wilsons. Obviously, I don’t have a heck of a lot of
time, but I thought I’d just mention a couple of features. You obviously, in the interest of time, are wanting to know how
this, it’s the variance, you know the strict application of the variance.
Ms. Rice: That’s all I’m deciding is the variance.
Mr. Greenberg: Right, right. In preparing a letter that I submitted on behalf of the Wilsons that you have undoubtedly had
a chance to take a look at, I went through what I thought were the elements. In large part, I think on behalf of the Wilson’s
we drew on many of the conclusion that have been drawn by the staff for the City of Edmonds. I think that’s, we tried to hit
on, you know, the relevant issues. I haven’t seen case law that would militate one way or the other. The bottom line is the
Wilsons are in a house that predates the building code, and I believe it’s the same case with Haynes. So now the issue is, you
know, do we allow the Bogarts. . . I mean, I heard counsel, and I think I heard Mr. Rising speak multiple times about they
want to enjoy what the neighbors to the north and the south enjoy, which is a reduction in setback. And it seems to me and
important distinction factor is that the Wilsons and Haynes have been there for years and predating the code, so I think it’s a
distinguishing feature. I would anticipate that if the Haynes or Wilsons build in the future, it would be a different set of
circumstances. So it seems to me not terribly appropriate to just, you know, draw the bare bones analogy, you know if
Haynes can do it, Wilsons can do it, then we can do it.
Mr. Greenberg: A couple of other just brief items. I for one, found the development code instructive, and this was
something that the City had made mention of, and that is Section 16.10.000, where we talk about preserving not only for the
subject property, itself, but for the neighbors, light, privacy, views, open spaces. One might argue, you know, whether it’s 5-
feet reduction in setback or 2-feet reduction in setback, given the circumstances that are associated with these properties, it
seems to me that it is a violation of this section of the code to grant the variance, whether it’s 2 or 5 feet.
Mr. Greenberg: As far as special circumstances, I think the City said it best. If there’s somebody else building, despite the
character of the house or the height of the house, because view, as you noted, we’re not here to determine those factors. We
only know that under very similar circumstances, the same width of lot and same setback rules, somebody’s able to build and
basically give credence to the setback rules, which obviously were allowing the rules to do what they were designed to do
when you do that. So I found that really quite instructive when I was made aware of this building permit application that is in
place.
Mr. Greenberg: The same thing with the comprehensive plan’s goals and policies. If you take a look at specific elements in
the plan’s goals and policies, encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines
which enable them harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identify and desirability. I guess in light of
what we have here, you know, in a different time and a different place, it may have made sense, but given the situation we
have here, I don’t think what is being proposed is consistent with these plans, goals and policies. So in closing, on behalf of
the Wilsons, and having listened to the input today, like I said, variances are designed to accomplish a goal, and it seems to
me, the issue is not whether it is 2 feet or 5 feet because in this case, any reduction in variance, given the locale of the various
homes and the scenarios that we’re looking at, I just don’t think it’s appropriate. Thank you.
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 180 of 357
Ms. Rice: Thank you. All right. It’s 5:00, and I’m not positive that everybody who wants speak has spoken. We’re
supposed to be kicked out of the room, here, at 5:00. Is that correct? Do we happen to know if there is somebody coming in?
Ms. Coccia: We don’t know, so you need to. . . How many more minutes do you think you need?
Ms. Rice: Well, I want to hear from the applicant, again, and then I want to hear from the City in response to public
comments. So are there other members of the public who wish to testify? I don’t see any other members of the public that
wish to testify, so I don’t know if the applicant feels like maybe we should just. . . I don’t want to continue this to another
date. Just sort of, if we could make our final comments and then if somebody comes in, we’ll just kind of ignore them for a
few minutes.
Ms. Coccia: Kathleen’s going to be checking.
Ms. Rice: Thank you.
Mr. Thayer: I can wrap up.
Ms. Rice: Okay, thanks Mr. Thayer.
Mr. Thayer: Thank you. Very quickly. I think the major focus needs to be, really for the most part on what is effectively a
2-foot variance on the north and south sides. We didn’t hear hardly any testimony or discussion about the effect of the
garage. They were just focusing on the 2-foot variance they requested to the north and to the south. I didn’t hear any
testimony as to the material or even the minimus impact that the actual variance would have, the granting of the variance. I
heard a lot of complaining about having a house built further west on the lot, so that it would be between the Haynes’ house
and the Wilson’s house. I understand why they may not want that, but that is not, as you point out, relevant to whether or not
my client should get the variance. If they don’t get the variance, they’re going to build a house to the west that, to be honest,
is going to be most likely impact their values to their light, view, etc. more than this very small variance would.
Mr. Thayer: I just want to point out again, I don’t recall any testimony as to how the 2-foot variance, north and south, was
going to impact either properties, or any of the properties. I heard people who are not excited about a new home being built.
I heard people who are not excited about neighborhoods changing because of new development. I understand those concerns,
but they’re not relevant to my client’s variance application.
Mr. Thayer: Lastly, I guess I would, two quick things. One is what have you admitted into evidence, and do we need to
cover anything else to get it admitted evidence. Do you have sufficient things to consider? I assume you’ve admitted the
packet submitted by the City, which includes my submission. Is that correct?
Ms. Rice: That’s correct. I identified at the beginning of the hearing, we have Exhibit 1, which is the staff report dated July
12th, and it has 8 attachments. Amongst those 8 attachments, I have this from the applicant, which involves letters from you
and the previous variance decisions and planning staff reports. And then I also have Attachments 3, is a revised site plan.
Attachment 4, site sections. Attachment 5, revised upper and lower floor plans. Attachment 6, neighbors’ proposed site plan.
Mr. Thayer: Do you have all the attachments for my submission, the photographs, the drawings. . .
Ms. Rice: I do, I have, let me compliment you. These are excellent black and white photographs. These are great. Not that
the photographs, themselves are great, I mean they are, they’re lovely. But I mean the copy quality is better than usual. I can
actually see them; they’re nice. No thank you.
Mr. Thayer: It sounds like you have everything you need. The only other thing that I would say, if you have any questions
that either I, Dr. Bogart, or Mr. Rising can answer at this time, while we’re here.
Ms. Rice: I don’t believe I have any further questions for the applicant. Thank you. In addition to the 8 attachments that
were attached to Exhibit 1 before the hearing, we now have also Attachment 9, 10 and 11, which were the comment letters
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 181 of 357
from the Robley’s, from Mr. Greenberg on behalf of the Wilsons and from Ms. Haynes. So those are all admitted. Okay. It
looks like we have a couple of minutes. Ms. Coccia, do you want to speak to public comment, please?
Ms. Coccia: Sure, I just wanted to clarify a few items. The minimum rear setback in the RS-12 zone is 25 feet, so that
illustration that showed the maximum building coverage showed it to a 25-foot rear setback. I’m not sure if that took into
consideration the slope involved in the property. That’s always sorted out with the building permit. Typically, our code says,
in Chapters 23.40 and 23.80 that if someone were to build on a property that has a steep slope, that is a slope over 40%, there
would be a 50-foot buffer from the top of that slope and then a 15-foot building setback. So it’s a total of 65 feet. However,
if they want to get a geotechnical engineer involved, the geotechnical engineer might find that they can be sited much closer
to the steep slope. So I just wanted to clear that up. And that’s always determined with the building permit.
Ms. Rice: You mean the actual required setback is determined at time of building permit.
Ms. Coccia: Right. For critical areas that is correct.
Ms. Rice: Thank you.
Ms. Coccia: Also, they mentioned, I think he might maybe have just misspoke, but you said that the neighbor’s building
permit application had a 30-foot garage, and I think you said 30-foot height, but that’s incorrect. The maximum height of all
detached accessory structures is 15 feet, and that’s measured from average original grade. Also with the building permit that
just came in being reviewed, there’s several errors that I just noticed, you know, on the site plan that will need to be
corrected, obviously.
Ms. Rice: The point of admitting or offering Attachment 6 is to show that somebody else did design a house on a narrow lot
that honors the 10-foot setbacks. It’s not being offered for any other purpose.
Ms. Coccia: Great. Thank you. Also, I wanted to point out there was mention of a 3-car garage, and everyone that’s
building these new homes has a 3-car garage. But I review building permits as part of my job, and I noticed that there are
also a lot of 2-car garages that come in with building permits, as well. So I’m not really sure if a 3-car garage is the
minimum necessary or if the 2-car garage would be the minimum necessary.
Ms. Coccia: Let’s see, I think that’s about all I had to speak on. Thank you.
Ms. Rice: Could you explain or expand a little bit on what the 3 versus 2-car garage has to do with the variance.
Ms. Coccia: Sure. If the applicant wanted to propose a 2-car garage, they could. The driveway would come in from the
east, and you would just have to pull straight back out onto Sound View Place. Or they could orient it where there’s a turn
around in the driveway. If you orient it so there’s a turnaround in the driveway so you can back out and then go straight onto
Sound View Place, then you’ll need to push that structure further north or further south, however you design it. And that’s
why they’re asking for a variance. But I did want to also mention that they are showing that the garage they’re proposing is
taking into consideration the topography, and they are building into the slope. And they’d like to do that to reduce the bulk
of it, which I thought was nice. However, it doesn’t meet setbacks.
Ms. Rice: Okay.
Mr. Thayer: If I could make one last comment on the garage.
Ms. Rice: Yes.
Mr. Thayer: One of the people who spoke indicated that the properties to the east are elevated so that if a garage had to be
built facing with the garage door east within the setback which we have submitted, would be a taller, more obtrusive
structure. People who spoke indicated that people to the east are elevated and you can see over. I don’t think our point is
whether or not you can see over it or not, it’s what you see when you look at the road. What you’re going to see when you
look at the road with the proposed design is going to be a garage that’s sunk into the hill that’s very unobtrusive. The home
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 182 of 357
is sunk into the hill, as well, so it will blend and be aesthetically pleasing. If they had to turn that garage 180 degrees and
squeeze it in within the setback requirements, it’s going to be the first thing you see from the road is this big garage. And
with the limitations on how it can be designed within the space and with the layout, then it will be more opposing and less
attractive, less aesthetically pleasing. Sure it would be functional, but I don’t think anybody in the neighborhood would be
happy with it as compared to the wonderful design Mr. Rising has come up with.
Ms. Rice: Okay. Well, I appreciate that for all people who are here today, you’ve taken a lot of time to be here. Obviously,
it’s because this is very important to you, and I appreciate that on behalf of everybody. It is difficult when next door changes,
and I understand that this is personal. I will reviewing all of the information that has been submitted. I will be applying the
facts in the record to the criteria for variance approval, and I will only be looking at the variance from the side yard setback in
making my decision. It’s the only thing I have jurisdiction to consider. So just keep in mind I’m going to be focusing on the
facts that you have all presented and on the criteria for approval. I believe that I have everything. So we’re going to close the
record and adjourn the hearing. Again, because the record is closing today, you can look for the decision on or before
August 2nd. Thanks very much for being here; I appreciate everyone’s testimony.
I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS.
__________________________________________________________ ____________________________________
Karin Noyes, Transcriber Date
Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts
File Number V-2006-102
July 19, 2006 Page 24
Packet Page 183 of 357
Packet Page 184 of 357
Packet Page 185 of 357
Packet Page 186 of 357
Packet Page 187 of 357
Packet Page 188 of 357
Packet Page 189 of 357
Packet Page 190 of 357
Packet Page 191 of 357
Packet Page 192 of 357
Packet Page 193 of 357
Packet Page 194 of 357
Packet Page 195 of 357
Packet Page 196 of 357
Packet Page 197 of 357
Packet Page 198 of 357
Packet Page 199 of 357
Packet Page 200 of 357
Packet Page 201 of 357
Packet Page 202 of 357
Packet Page 203 of 357
Packet Page 204 of 357
Packet Page 205 of 357
Packet Page 206 of 357
Packet Page 207 of 357
Packet Page 208 of 357
Packet Page 209 of 357
Packet Page 210 of 357
Packet Page 211 of 357
Packet Page 212 of 357
Packet Page 213 of 357
Packet Page 214 of 357
Packet Page 215 of 357
Packet Page 216 of 357
Packet Page 217 of 357
Packet Page 218 of 357
Packet Page 219 of 357
Packet Page 220 of 357
Packet Page 221 of 357
Packet Page 222 of 357
Packet Page 223 of 357
Packet Page 224 of 357
Packet Page 225 of 357
Packet Page 226 of 357
Packet Page 227 of 357
Packet Page 228 of 357
Packet Page 229 of 357
Packet Page 230 of 357
Packet Page 231 of 357
Packet Page 232 of 357
Packet Page 233 of 357
Packet Page 234 of 357
Packet Page 235 of 357
Packet Page 236 of 357
Packet Page 237 of 357
Packet Page 238 of 357
Packet Page 239 of 357
Packet Page 240 of 357
Packet Page 241 of 357
Packet Page 242 of 357
Packet Page 243 of 357
Packet Page 244 of 357
Packet Page 245 of 357
Packet Page 246 of 357
Packet Page 247 of 357
Packet Page 248 of 357
Packet Page 249 of 357
Packet Page 250 of 357
Packet Page 251 of 357
Packet Page 252 of 357
Packet Page 253 of 357
Packet Page 254 of 357
Packet Page 255 of 357
Packet Page 256 of 357
Packet Page 257 of 357
Packet Page 258 of 357
Packet Page 259 of 357
Packet Page 260 of 357
Packet Page 261 of 357
Packet Page 262 of 357
Packet Page 263 of 357
Packet Page 264 of 357
Packet Page 265 of 357
Packet Page 266 of 357
Packet Page 267 of 357
Packet Page 268 of 357
Packet Page 269 of 357
Packet Page 270 of 357
Packet Page 271 of 357
Packet Page 272 of 357
Packet Page 273 of 357
Packet Page 274 of 357
Packet Page 275 of 357
Packet Page 276 of 357
Packet Page 277 of 357
Packet Page 278 of 357
Packet Page 279 of 357
Packet Page 280 of 357
Packet Page 281 of 357
Packet Page 282 of 357
Packet Page 283 of 357
Packet Page 284 of 357
Packet Page 285 of 357
Packet Page 286 of 357
Packet Page 287 of 357
Packet Page 288 of 357
Packet Page 289 of 357
Packet Page 290 of 357
Packet Page 291 of 357
Packet Page 292 of 357
Packet Page 293 of 357
Packet Page 294 of 357
Packet Page 295 of 357
Packet Page 296 of 357
Packet Page 297 of 357
Packet Page 298 of 357
Packet Page 299 of 357
Packet Page 300 of 357
Packet Page 301 of 357
Packet Page 302 of 357
Packet Page 303 of 357
Packet Page 304 of 357
Packet Page 305 of 357
Packet Page 306 of 357
Packet Page 307 of 357
Packet Page 308 of 357
Packet Page 309 of 357
Packet Page 310 of 357
Packet Page 311 of 357
Packet Page 312 of 357
Packet Page 313 of 357
Packet Page 314 of 357
Packet Page 315 of 357
Packet Page 316 of 357
Packet Page 317 of 357
Packet Page 318 of 357
Packet Page 319 of 357
Packet Page 320 of 357
Packet Page 321 of 357
Packet Page 322 of 357
Packet Page 323 of 357
Packet Page 324 of 357
Packet Page 325 of 357
Packet Page 326 of 357
Packet Page 327 of 357
Packet Page 328 of 357
Packet Page 329 of 357
Packet Page 330 of 357
Packet Page 331 of 357
Packet Page 332 of 357
Packet Page 333 of 357
Packet Page 334 of 357
Packet Page 335 of 357
Packet Page 336 of 357
Packet Page 337 of 357
Packet Page 338 of 357
Packet Page 339 of 357
Packet Page 340 of 357
Packet Page 341 of 357
Packet Page 342 of 357
Packet Page 343 of 357
Packet Page 344 of 357
Packet Page 345 of 357
Packet Page 346 of 357
Packet Page 347 of 357
Packet Page 348 of 357
Packet Page 349 of 357
Packet Page 350 of 357
Packet Page 351 of 357
Packet Page 352 of 357
Packet Page 353 of 357
Packet Page 354 of 357
Packet Page 355 of 357
Packet Page 356 of 357
Packet Page 357 of 357