The URL can be used to link to this page

2007.09.18 CC Agenda PacketAGENDA Edmonds City Council Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds September 18, 2007 7:00 p.m. Call to Order and Flat Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2• Consent Agenda Items A. Roll Call B. AM-1163 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2007. C. AM-1169 Approval of claim checks #98783 through #98891 for September 6, 2007 in the amount of $319,217.90 and #98892 through #99093 for September 13, 2007 in the amount of $318,362.23. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #45490 through #45583 for the period of August 16 through August 31, 2007 in the amount of $819,048.67. D. AM-1170 Findings of Fact regarding the September 4, 2007 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 and AP-2007-4). E. AM-1168 Approval of SRI Technologies, Inc. Contract for Temporary Capital Projects Manager. F. AM-1165 Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.40 Grading and Retaining Walls, and ECDC 20.110.030 Nuisance Section, to add a new paragraph to specify the City's regulation of rockeries, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. G. AM-1167 Proposed Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code 10.25.030 relating to the scope of the Civil Service system. 3. AM-1171 Continued City Council deliberation on the Closed Record Review held on 08/28/07 regarding an appeal (60 Min) 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) 4. AM-1166 Closed Record Review regarding the Planning Board approval to rezone property located at 9521 and (45 Min) 9531 Edmonds Way from Multi -Family Residential (RM-1.5) and Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Community Business - Edmonds Way (BC-EW). Applicants: A.D. Shapiro Architects/Valhalla Properties / File No. R-07-35. 5. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person) 6. AM-1164 Report on City Council Committee Meetings. (15 Min) 7. (5 Min) Mayor's Comments 8. (15 Min) Council Comments 9• Adjourn Packet Page 1 of 229 3-- Packet Page 2 of 229 AM-1163 2.B. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 09/18/2007 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 September 4, 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 September 4, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes. Link: Draft Minutes Fiscal Impact A ffarhmanfe Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/12/2007 09:36 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/12/2007 09:40 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/12/2007 09:43 AM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Started On: 09/12/2007 09:35 Chase AM Final Approval Date: 09/12/2007 Packet Page 3 of 229 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES September 4, 2007 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tern Olson in the Council Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Peggy Pritchard Olson, Mayor Pro Tern Ron Wambolt, Council President Pro Tern Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor ALSO PRESENT Hilary Scheibert, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Acting Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Gina Coccia, Planner Zach Lell, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2007. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #98630 THROUGH #98782 FOR AUGUST 30, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $662,225.46. D. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS FROM CONSULTANTS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE. E. 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 1 Packet Page 4 of 229 F. 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. 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. INTRODUCTION OF STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE HILARY SCHEIBERT FROM EDMONDS WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL. Mayor Pro Tern Olson introduced Student Representative Hilary Scheibert, a senior at Edmonds- Woodway High School and briefly described her interests and activities. Student Representative Scheibert expressed her appreciation for the opportunity to serve as Student Representative. Councilmember Dawson suggested delaying Agenda Item 4 until Caldie Rogers, President, Greater Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce, arrived. 5. RECONSIDERATION: JULY 17, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 17008 - 77Tx PLACE WEST, EDMONDS. City Attorney Zach Lell explained this was a reconsideration of a matter previously before the Council. The key issue for the Council was acceptance of the appraisal the petitioner previously offered with regard to the proposed right-of-way vacation. He explained the legal standards with regard to the compensation for a street vacation were flexible other than State Statute and the City's code established a limit on the compensation the City could require: one-half the appraised value of the vacated right-of- way. He advised the Council could direct the staff to obtain its own appraisal or direct the petitioner to obtain a new appraisal. Although not technically a quasi judicial matter, but because it was a contested proceeding, out of an abundance of caution Mr. Lell recommended Councilmembers disclose any ex parte communications with the petitioner or any interested party in this proceeding. Council President Pro Tern Wambolt read a letter from Nancy Monson, the property owner across the street from the subject property, into the record. The letter stated her opposition to the proposed vacation of the right-of-way, citing neighborhood opposition to the project due to the density and elimination of nearly all trees and natural growth in the area. Her letter pointed out the right-of-way preserved some green space and the owners who recently purchased the property did so with full knowledge of the right- of-way and setback requirements and she did not support waiving those requirements. She was in favor of preserving the character of the neighborhood and preserving green space. She also objected to the $1,680 proposed in compensation to the City for 560 square feet of right-of-way as $3.00/square foot, was considerably less than the assessed values in the neighborhood. Ms. Monson recommended the proposed right-of-way vacation not be approved. Councilmember Plunkett asked why Councilmembers needed to make disclosures if this was a legislative versus a quasi judicial matter. Mr. Lell agreed with the characterization of this matter as legislative rather than quasi judicial, acknowledging the disclosure requirement legally applied only to quasi judicial matters. However, as this was a contested proceeding, he advised Council out of an abundance of caution to make disclosures. He stated that any failure to make a disclosure was unlikely to prejudge the matter. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page 5 of 229 Councilmember Plunkett advised he received the letter from Ms. Monson as well as had a long discussion with her in which she described why the Council should not approve the right-of-way vacation, similar to the description in her letter. Council President Pro Tem Wambolt advised he also had a discussion with Ms. Monson. Councilmember Dawson recalled Council initially voted to approve the vacation and Council President Pro Tern Wambolt later requested reconsideration which the Council agreed to in order to have some additional questions answered. She recalled one of the issues raised previously was the code did not describe the appraisal methodology that should be used. Because the cost of another appraisal would be similar to any additional amount the City would acquire via a higher property value, the Council preferred to add language to the code regarding the appropriate methodology. She asked if that had been done and how discrepancies regarding the appropriate appraisal methodology would be avoided in the future. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised the code currently specified the type of appraiser who must conduct the appraisal but did not identify a method; it was presumed an acceptable method would be utilized. He responded to an earlier Council question regarding how the method for determining value via an appraisal was added to the code, explaining prior to 1993, the method for determining value was based on assessed value. The code was changed in 1993 to require an appraisal because assessed value was not necessarily related to the property value as assessments were not done on a regular basis and were typically triggered by a sale. Assessments were now done on a regular basis and more accurately reflected the property value. He suggested rather than mandating an appraisal methodology, returning to the assessed value basis for determining property value. He noted a benefit of using assessed value would be that no one would incur the cost of an appraisal. He planned to pursue this suggestion with the Assessor's Office and the Community Services/Development Services Committee. Councilmember Dawson asked whether staff had any knowledge of the assessed value of this property. Mr. Chave answered he did not. He recalled the appraisal report included assessed values for comparable properties which ranged from $26 to $34/square foot. He noted it may be difficult to determine the assessed value of this property as it was recently constructed. Councilmember Dawson asked the affect on the property owner if the Council did not vacate the property or if the Council determined a higher value for the property. Mr. Chave commented whether the assessed value or appraised value were used, it was only a starting point for determining the value of the vacation. He referred to examples in the packet. In this instance denying or delaying the vacation would have significant impacts on the applicant because something that was approved to be built but changed in the field did not comply with the code and unless resolved, the property owner would be required to remove the portion of the building that did not meet the code. He commented a delay in anticipation of a change in the code language was not advisable as any change would require review by the Planning Board, which was potentially a lengthy proceeding. Councilmember Dawson asked if staff had conversation with the property owner regarding whether they would be willing to pay a higher amount. Mr. Chave answered no. Councilmember Dawson recommended the Council determine whether they planned to vacate the property and if they wanted to require a higher amount, offer the property owners an option such as the assessed value of comparable properties of $26/square foot. Mr. Chave agreed that was a possible option. He did not recommend seeking another appraisal as the Council knew enough about the property's potential value to establish a value. Councilmember Dawson observed there was sufficient basis in the record to utilize half of the low end of the reasonable value of the property. Mr. Chave agreed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page 6 of 229 Council President Pro Tern Wambolt noted the current Snohomish County assessed value of the land was $300,000 for 4,792 square feet or $62.60/square foot. Half of that would be $31.30/square foot or $16,000. He recalled one of the reasons the applicants wanted the vacation was to build a deck. Mr. Chave was uncertain, recalling there was a problem with a chimney that was later converted to usable space. Councilmember Moore recalled City Attorney Scott Snyder informed Council they first must make a finding that the vacation was in the public's interest. Mr. Lell agreed that was inherent in any street vacation procedure; the Council was prohibited from vacating any publicly owned right-of-way unless there was a public purpose underlying the decision. Councilmember Moore asked whether it must be beneficial to the general public. Mr. Lell answered the Council had significant discretion; the definition of public interest or public purpose was broad enough to include whatever compensation the Council required, returning the property to the tax rolls, or eliminating any future City maintenance responsibility. He summarized it did not require that every member of the public necessarily benefited; only that the Council determined there was a public benefit. Councilmember Moore asked whether the City did any maintenance on this property. Mr. Chave answered he did not believe so, noting it was not paved or in any active use. Councilmember Moore referred to two on -street parking spaces in the right-of-way and staff's indication they were not needed. Mr. Chave commented that referred to the street end, not the area to be vacated. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO DENY THE REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. Council President Pro Tem Wambolt recalled when the Council last discussed this vacation, he was not satisfied with the value that had been determined. After reviewing the letter from Ms. Monson, he realized he had not examined closely enough whether the right-of-way should be vacated. He looked at the property over the weekend and observed there were two parking spaces that were being used on a Sunday afternoon. He commented there was no other space in this area for parking; one driveway did not appear to be able to accommodate the resident's vehicle due to the steepness of the grade. He noted there was also very little open space and the vacation of the right-of-way would eliminate a large percentage of the remaining open space. He found it was not in the public best interest to vacate this property. Councilmember Plunkett noted he raised the issue of reconsideration. He pointed out the area proposed to be vacated was not open space; the PRD already had open space and this land was owned by the City and was not part of their open space. The $62/square foot value was for improved land; this right-of-way was unimproved. For unimproved land, the assessed value was $29.76/square foot. He noted the assessed value of land on property on Talbot Road was $44.82/square foot. Staff believes the value is $26 - $32/square foot. He explained the assessed value of unimproved land of approximately $30/square foot equates to a market value for the vacation square footage of approximately $16,000. As the property is an economic remainder, its value was less than unimproved land, bringing the value down to $8,000. Thus the Council could determine a value of $1,500 to $3,000 appropriate and had in the past accepted $1,400 - $1,600 as payment for vacations of property worth $2,000 - $4,000. Based on his review, he found $1,400 acceptable and comparable to Council precedent in past vacations. Councilmember Marin advised he would vote against the motion. When the Council last deliberated, he voted against the motion as a protest vote, finding the property owner acted in good faith to seek an appraisal. He recommended proceeding with the value determined via the appraisal. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page 7 of 229 Councilmember Dawson agreed with Councilmember Marin and expressed her appreciation for Councilmember Plunkett's comments that established a basis for the property's value. She supported adopting the ordinance as previously drafted with compensation of $1400. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE WITHDREW HER SECOND AND THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Moore noted Councilmember Plunkett's comments clarified the public benefit and the Council precedent. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3662. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT OPPOSED. The ordinance approved is 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. 6. 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 City Attorney Zach Lell recommended establishing an oral argument schedule that includes an order of presentation for speakers and time limits. He recommended based on past practice the order of presentation be staff, a 10-minute presentation by the appellant who is also the applicant, and three minutes for each party of record, followed by rebuttal by the appellant if they reserved any time. As this was a quasi judicial matter and the Council was governed by the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, he recommended the Council disclose any ex parte communications as well as state for the record they had not prejudged the issue or were otherwise biased. Mayor Pro Tem Olson, Councilmembers Marin, Moore, Orvis, and Dawson and Council President Pro Tem Wambolt stated they had no ex parte communication and were not biased in any way. Councilmember Plunkett advised he had many communications with Vicki Haynes and Paul Lippert but not in regard to this matter. Mr. Lell advised as this was a closed record proceeding, the information provided to the Council must be limited to facts in the record contained in the Council packet. To the extent any party may attempt to interject new, factual testimony, he recommended the Council establish a rule under which any party wishing to object to information must do so by the end of the proceeding or the objection would be waived. Mayor Pro Tem Olson agreed. Planner Gina Coccia displayed a vicinity map and identified the property at 18600 Sound View Place. She relayed staff s recommendation that the Council uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny the variance. She summarized the applicant, Dr. Bogaert, applied for a variance to reduce the required 10- foot side setback on the north and south property lines to 5 or 8 feet. She clarified the original request was for a 5-foot setback on the north and south property lines and the revised request was for an 8-foot setback on the south property line for the house, 8-foot setback on the north for the house and a 5-foot setback on the north property line for the new, detached 3-car garage. She advised eaves were permitted in the setback area; the applicant requested the eaves be allowed to project into the setback. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page 8 of 229 Ms. Coccia referred to the staff report dated September 15, 2006 that contained staff s recommendation to deny the original variance application for the 5-foot setback. At the applicant's request, the hearing was continued to allow them to work with the neighbors on a solution that would adequately address their concerns. The applicant revised their application as described above and the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny the variance was based on the revised proposal. Councilmember Orvis asked the width of the lot. Ms. Coccia answered it was 50 feet wide with a 10-foot setback on each side, leaving a buildable width of 30 feet. Councilmember Orvis asked the buildable square footage of the lot without the variance. Ms. Coccia displayed a drawing provided as an attachment to the July 2007 staff report that identified maximum lot coverage and a building footprint. She advised the lot was over 15,000 square feet and over 300 feet deep but only 50 feet wide. She acknowledged the property owner could construct a narrow, long house without a variance. She noted the buildable footprint identified on the drawing was to illustrate their ability to build a long, narrow house. Councilmember Orvis noted the drawing identified the buildable footprint as 5,191 square feet. Applicant/Appellant Chris Thayer, counsel for the applicant, Raymond Bogaert, asked to reserve 3 minutes for rebuttal. He explained this was a non -conforming lot with dimensions of 50 x 300 feet, zoned RS-12 which required 10-foot side setbacks, resulting in a 30-foot wide buildable lot. As the drawing illustrated, the buildable footprint would accommodate a long, skinny, tall house. He explained the existing structure encroached on the setback as the structure predates incorporation into Edmonds. The proposed structure seeks a 2-foot setback variance on the north and south boundaries and 5-foot setback variance for the area of the garage. He pointed out the structures on the north and south and the existing structure on the Bogaert property currently encroach into the setbacks; the amount of the encroachments were described in his application. He summarized the net linear feet of variance sought for the new construction was substantially similar to the current encroachment by the existing structure although the depth of the encroachment into the setback was less. He recalled the majority of the objections voiced at the Hearing Examiner Meeting were that the proposed house would be located substantially west of the existing structure. He explained the existing structure was located far east on the narrow property and the current view from the house is a long narrow tract of land before the water; the neighbors' houses to the north and south were located closer to the water which the Bogaerts also wished to do as well as minimize the impact to the neighbors. He noted the neighbors' objections state the house proposed by the Bogaerts would impact their views and natural light entering their property. He referred to documentation and photographs they submitted disputing those assertions. He summarized the neighbors on the north and south would prefer the Bogaerts not build a new house closer to the water as it would result in a house between them versus the vacant portion of the Bogaerts property that exists between them now. He concluded whether the Bogaerts built their house further to the west should did not affect their variance request. Mr. Thayer acknowledged it was physically possible to build a 30-foot wide long, narrow and tall house within the 10-foot setbacks; however, that was not the type of structure envisioned by the Edmonds code. The structure the Bogaerts propose would address the neighbor's concerns as much as possible and would be aesthetically pleasing. He noted a 30-foot wide, 3-story townhouse type structure, a house the Bogaerts could construct without seeking a variance, would have more massing and look more imposing when viewed from the side. Instead the Bogaerts have proposed a structure with a minimal variance that would have no impact on the neighbors. Councilmember Plunkett interjected Ms. Haynes wrote him a letter that was included in the packet. Her letter was written as a Commissioner on the Historic Preservation Commission regarding historic overlays but did not make reference to this action. Mr. Lell advised if the letter did not have a direct bearing on Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 6 Packet Page 9 of 229 this application/proceeding, it was beyond the scope of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Out of an abundance of caution, he invited any parties of record and the appellant to rebut the substance of the letter. Councilmember Plunkett clarified the letter referred to the character of the neighborhood in general and did not reference a specific lot. He advised the letter would not bias him in any way. Mr. Lell advised it would not have a direct bearing on this proceeding and recommended the Council proceed. Mr. Thayer had no objection. Mr. Thayer continued, explaining the Hearing Examiner based her conclusion on, 1) the application was inconsistent with the existing RS-12 zoning regulations to phase out non -conforming uses and stated if the Bogaert's house were destroyed entirely in a natural disaster and they were required to rebuild, they would be required to comply with the existing zoning regulations. He commented the 10-foot sideyards envisioned for the RS-12 zone were not designed for a non -conforming, narrow lot as a RS-12 lot was intended to be 80 feet wide with 10-foot wide setbacks on each side. He disagreed with the Hearing Examiner's finding that non -conforming uses were to be uniformly phased out, noting the variance process was intended to recognize unique circumstances. As his allotted time had expired, Mr. Thayer urged the Council to review the materials in the record. Parties of Record Ron Nations, Edmonds, property owner to the south of the Bogaert property, explained his primary concern was maintaining an overall aesthetic sense in the community. He expressed concern with a reduction in their home's value, their sense of privacy, and sense of a small home in a quiet neighborhood by a large structure located closer to their home than regulations allow. He commented on the negative trend over the past 15 years of "wedging" large structures onto small lots after removing trees and shrubbery and wanted to avoid that trend in their neighborhood. He compared Edmonds to Woodway and Lynnwood, concluding large structures on small lots resulted in a more urban feel that was less livable and destroyed privacy, natural features, open space, and wildlife habitat. He pointed out these issues applied to lot setback as in accordance with physics, a reduction in the distance from a source of sound increased the sound. He was also concerned with visual impacts. Vicki Haynes, Edmonds, property owner to the south of the Bogaert property, expressed concern with the "saming" of Edmonds and the loss of its character. She pointed out one of the tests for granting a variance was whether it was detrimental. She found the proposed variance detrimental, pointing out the impact of reducing the setback with regard to available light, and sense of space, air and privacy. She reiterated Mr. Nations' comment about "wedging" houses on small properties. She acknowledged the properties were very deep and narrow and not well suited to large homes. She commented University Colony where these properties were located had a very special character extending back to the turn of the century. She requested the Council deny the variance request. Charles Greenberg, counsel representing the Wilsons, property owners to the north of the Bogaert property, began his comment. Mr. Thayer objected to the brief the Wilson's counsel faxed him at approximately noon today, questioning whether the City's code allowed for the filing of a brief by another party in a closed record appeal. Assuming the Council allowed the filing of the brief, he requested the brief not be admitted into the record as he had not had an adequate opportunity to review and/or rebut issues raised in the brief. Mr. Lell recommended procedural issues be addressed at the conclusion of argument. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised a copy of the brief was provided at Councilmembers places on the dais this evening. Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern the information was not provided in a timely manner. Mr. Lell explained the City's code allowed parties to an appeal to submit timely written argument but did not define timely submitted. He relayed Mr. Snyder's indication this has historically meant the Council has Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 7 Packet Page 10 of 229 received briefing up to and during closed record appeals. As that had been the Council's past practice, he recommended the Council continue that practice tonight. The appellant could raise an objection to any attempt in the briefing to interject factual assertions not contained in the closed record. Councilmember Dawson commented Mr. Lell's recommendation was that anything submitted up to and during the closed record proceeding was timely, and unless one of the parties requested a continuance, it was unlikely the Council would have an opportunity to review the information prior to their decision. Mr. Lell agreed, commenting the Council had the discretion to continue the matter to a future meeting to allow the Council an opportunity to review material that was submitted. Mr. Greenberg advised he consulted with Mr. Snyder and was advised information could be submitted as late as today knowing it may not be thoroughly reviewed under the circumstances. He preferred the materials be considered and if required continue the proceeding. Mr. Lell asked Mr. Thayer whether he was objecting to the substance of assertions made in the brief or the timeliness. Mr. Thayer answered there were no new facts raised in the brief but he had not had an opportunity to review it thoroughly. He relayed his client's preference not to continue this matter unless absolutely necessary. Mr. Greenberg continued with his comments and advised on appeal, the Council must consider whether the Hearing Examiner made an error in analyzing the issues. He noted the Hearing Examiner confirmed staff s recommendation that a variance was not appropriate. He pointed out the six requirements of the variance statute, asserting none of the requirements had been met with the exception of perhaps one. He referred to a similar situation outlined in the record where a 30 foot wide house was constructed within the required setbacks on a 50-foot lot on Sound View Place. He noted one of the requirements of the variance statute was special circumstances which the Hearing Examiner found was not met. He contended granting the variance would provide the Bogaerts a special privilege. He supported the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny the variance application. William Wilson, Edmonds, property owner immediately adjacent to the north of the Bogaert property, commented there was little time for their counsel to submit materials sooner. He referred to a letter his wife submitted today. He explained the houses in the area were currently staggered with one higher on the slope and back on the bluff, the next home forward and the next back, etc. He advised their original structure was constructed in 1919 and was located 4 feet from the north property line of the Bogaert property and a walkway is along the property line. The Haynes structure is also very close to the Bogaert's south property line. He disagreed with Mr. Thayer's statement that their only issue to the Hearing Examiner was the western placement of the Bogaert structure, explaining their primary concern was the reduction in the side setback because their home was located close to the property line. He noted the Bogaerts' existing home, located up the slope was less intrusive to neighbors. Mr. Lell asked Mr. Thayer if he had received the letter written by Ms. Wilson. Mr. Thayer answered no and was provided a copy. Nicole Wilson, Edmonds, property owner to the north of the Bogaert property, pointed out all property had restrictions and potential purchasers bore the burden of determining whether the property would meet current and fixture needs and if not, change one's vision or needs to suit the property rather than seeking to make the property conform. She commented a reasonable person could assume the City's codes would be enforced with variances granted only under extreme circumstances that constituted an undue hardship and not simply to accommodate a preference when an alternative was available. Walter Yeager, Edmonds, property owner to the north of the Wilsons, commented when these homes were built 80 years ago, most were summer homes with few regulations on setbacks, etc. He commented Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page 11 of 229 the former owner of the Wilson property dealt with the setback issue when they sought to expand their house by purchasing a 50-foot lot between their house and his house. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented large homes had been constructed on small lots in this area. Rebuttal Mr. Thayer referred to site plans contained in Exhibit B of the Bogaert application. The first, existing buildings and vegetation, illustrated the existing house, carport and vegetation. The next drawing illustrated the proposed residence, highlighting the areas where the variance was sought on the northern and southern boundaries of the most western portion of the residence and the northern boundary of the garage. He noted the Bogaerts were open to discussing whether the existing carport was retained. The next drawing was the buildable footprint that identified sight lines for the properties to the south and north. He pointed out this drawing illustrated even without a variance the Bogaerts could construct a long, narrow house that extended west on the property. He concluded these drawings showed the lengths to which the Bogaerts have gone to propose a structure that would have the least impact on their neighbors. He summarized the variance was consistent with the goals and purposes of the zoning ordinances and was reasonably necessary given the non -conforming nature of the lot that was too narrow for an RS-12 lot. Mr. Lell asked if there were any parties of record or the appellant/applicant had any objections that information provided was outside the record or any Appearance of Fairness challenges. No objections or challenges were voiced. Councilmember Moore explained the Council was restricted to the information contained in the record and could not ask questions if the answer was not contained in the documentation. The Council could not take into account emotional argument and must rule according to the regulations in place. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE VARIANCE. Councilmember Dawson found the Hearing Examiner made the correct decision and staff's recommendation was appropriate because under the City's code the request did not meet the variance criteria. With regard to whether this was the minimum variance necessary to achieve a buildable structure, she pointed out no variance would be required to build a structure. She noted although there had been emotional pleas made to the Hearing Examiner and Council, the Council must base their decision on whether the variance request met the provisions in the code. She noted none of the property owners, although their current structures encroached into the setback, would not be allowed to rebuild in the setback. She acknowledged the lot was narrow; however, a structure could be constructed that adhered to the setback requirements. Although the property owner might find a wider footprint more aesthetically pleasing, it was not required to construct a home on this lot and the code did not require property owners be allowed to construct the house of their choice. Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of the motion, commenting the Bogaerts made a reasonable request via exploring the possibility of a variance. He referred to Conclusion #2 of the Hearing Examiner's findings as the basis for his decision, agreeing the property owner was not denied the opportunity to build a new, more modern structure or move the structure closer to the water. He was confident a structure would be proposed in the future that would accomplish those objectives. Councilmember Moore expressed support for the motion, agreeing with the Hearing Examiner's conclusions. She noted the appellant's most compelling argument was the nonconforming lot; however, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 9 Packet Page 12 of 229 the nonconforming lot did not restrict them from building a house on the lot within the allowable footprint. She advised citizens' emotional arguments about removing trees did not affect her decision as residents did not have a right to retain trees unless they owned them nor did they have a right to staggered development as part of the character of the community. She supported the appellant's right to build their house as close to the water as regulations allowed, an action that denying the variance would not prohibit. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lell advised he would return with draft findings and conclusions for consideration at a future Council meeting. He asked whether the Council preferred to adopt the findings and conclusions by the Hearing Examiner rather than drafting additional findings and conclusions of the Council. Councilmember Dawson answered the Council's conclusions were consistent with the Hearing Examiner's decision. 4. 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. Councilmember Dawson advised Caldie Rogers, President, Greater Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce, was unable to attend last week's meeting and apparently was not able to attend tonight. She anticipated Ms. Rogers would prefer the Council take action rather than delaying action for two weeks. Councilmember Dawson explained the Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce developed this program to support military families. She explained in many regions, dependants of military families found themselves discriminated against in employment. Although Snohomish County has a positive relationship with military families, through the development of this program, the Chamber learned dependants of military families would apply for jobs and not get callbacks due to the base address on their resume. When they changed their address to a PO Box, they received a much greater response. She explained employers may be hesitant to hire a person who would only be stationed at a base for three years; however, three years was the average length of employment in today's workforce. The intent of this program was to educate the community and employers about the untapped resource in military family members who tend to be better educated, hardworking, understand concepts such as a drug free workplace, etc. Councilmember Dawson explained the program developed by Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce encouraged area businesses to become a military family friendly employment partner. Cities would be asked to provide businesses information about the Military Family Friendly program when they apply for a business license and decals would be distributed to businesses that identified them as a military Family Friendly Employer. She read the proposed resolution expressing the City's support for the Military Family Friendly concept: 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 10 Packet Page 13 of 229 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 19.�711091T.IIso IIaQ1IIK'%Yii/91 Councilmember Dawson expressed her appreciation to City Clerk Sandy Chase for her support of this concept. She noted this idea had already received recognition and awards although the official rollout had not yet occurred. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1152 DECLARING EDMONDS TO BE MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY AND ENCOURAGING AREA BUSINESSES TO BECOME A MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY EMPLOYMENT PARTNER. Councilmember Moore declared this a brilliant idea, noting this may be a resource for Snohomish County PUD who was desperately searching for linemen, a job that paid $50,000/year. She asked if this was modeled after another program or was a new idea. Councilmember Dawson stated the Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce created this program with the hope it would be replicated across the country. Councilmember Marin planned to attend the kickoff event. Raised as a military dependant and serving in the Navy Reserves, he was keenly aware of this problem. He expressed his thanks to the Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce for taking the lead on addressing this issue. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested having a representative from Snohomish County Council speak to the City Council about smaller homes that were being permitted in Snohomish County. Next, he reported the Taste of Edmonds was a great event with assistance provided by a lot of volunteers. He recalled 20 years ago the Council met twice a month and staff was seated at a table on one side of the room. He suggested Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 11 Packet Page 14 of 229 the Council consider having configuration again rather than having staff sit in the audience. He also suggested everyone attending Council meetings sign in to provide a record of who attends meetings and for safety reasons. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, stated he has been an attender at several hearings lately and attended one recently that he needed to relay a problem that he found with the actions and demeanor of the person in charge of that meeting. Responding to questions of City Attorney Lell, Mr. Hertrich stated the hearing he attended had nothing to do with a Council Meeting; it has to do with a different action that the City Council has nothing to do with. Mr. Hertrich stated that he objected to testimony made by the person that was in charge of the meeting, the Hearing Examiner. The hearing was regarding a remand which goes to Superior Court on appeal (if appealed). The person in charge indicated by their demeanor that they were a bit opposed to some of the people that were there and some of the things that they were saying. Mr. Hertrich stated he specifically objected at the meeting to the Hearing Examiner giving personal testimony. Mr. Hertrich stated the Hearing Examiner needs to be adjusted in their behavior. The previous Hearing Examiner would sit quietly, let everyone say what they wanted, take notes and maintain order but did not create an antagonistic atmosphere. Mr. Hertrich further explained that the hearing was regarding buffering and the wildlife area, it was separate from what the Council is dealing with and had to do with the PRD and SEPA. He added that the Hearing Examiner's attitude makes it difficult for a person who is not used to giving testimony. He suggested this issue be discussed when the Hearing Examiner makes a report to the City Council. Next, Mr. Hertrich pointed out the previous minutes did not capture all his remarks. With regard to comp time, he requested an accounting of the time the Mayor spends away from the City on vacation or comp time. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tern Olson announced Don Kreiman passed away over the weekend. She commented he would be greatly missed for his comments to the Council and involvement in various City committees including the Transportation and Parking Committee and because he was an all-around great guy. Mayor Pro Tern Olson encouraged the public to attend the Hot Autumn Nites car show on Saturday, September 8. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Pro Tern Wambolt reported on the exit conference held with the State Auditor. The results of the audit were that the City complied with State laws and regulations and its own policies and procedures in the areas they examined and internal controls were adequate to safeguard public assets. Councilmember Dawson reported a number of cities were partnering for the October 6 Paint -Out event sponsored by the Snohomish County Executive. Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace plan to paint a wall on the trail behind Funtasia that is continually painted with graffiti. She explained the event would include instruction on how to clean graffiti and information on paint products for various surfaces as well as opportunities to paint out graffiti in the community. She urged anyone interested in participating to sign- up in advance on Snohomish County's website. She noted the Realtors Association was also one of the partners/sponsors. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 12 Packet Page 15 of 229 Councilmember Plunkett welcomed City Attorney Zach Lell and new Student Representative Scheibert. Councilmember Orvis commented although he and Mr. Kreiman often disagreed on issues, he was a sincere person who was true to his beliefs and he would miss him. Councilmember Moore expressed her condolences to Don Kreiman's family. She noted Mr. Kreiman gave a lot to the community as a member of the Edmonds Daybreakers Rotary and an active member of the Chamber. He was a good friend and she would miss him terribly. Councilmember Moore complimented staff on the graffiti brochure distributed to the Council, commenting the brochure provided more information than she was aware the City provided. Next, she pointed out the Mayor's salary had nearly doubled from $60,000 over the past eight years, yet the Mayor's job description was only two paragraphs long and there were few details regarding time required to be spent on the job, vacation time, requirements to provide an annual report to the Council or set annual goals, etc. She suggested in 2008 the Council consider expanding the job description, noting the Directors' job descriptions were pages long and there were specifics with regard to the amount of vacation time earned, etc. She concluded a better description and requirements would assist in making the Mayor's job more transparent to the citizens. Councilmember Marin commented four years ago he ran against Don Kreiman for the Council and they became good friends through that process. They worked together on several committees since then and discovered they had many beliefs in common. He commented he was a great guy who would be missed. Student Representative Scheibert thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve as Student Representative. Mayor Pro Tern Olson thanked Mr. Lell for his assistance during the meeting. 10. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 4, 2007 Page 13 Packet Page 16 of 229 AM-1169 2.C. Approval of Claim Checks and Payroll Direct Deposits and Checks Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 09/18/2007 Submitted By: Debbie Karber Submitted For: Dan Clements Time: Consent Department: Administrative Services Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Infarmntinn Subject Title Approval of claim checks #98783 through #98891 for September 6, 2007 in the amount of $319,217.90 and #98892 through #99093 for September 13, 2007 in the amount of $318,362.23. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #45490 through #45583 for the period of August 16 through August 31, 2007 in the amount of $819,048.67. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposits and checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Fkeal Vear_ 2007 Revenue: Expenditure: $1,456,628.80 Fiscal Impact: Claims: $637,580.13 Payroll: $819,048.67 Link: Claim cks 09-06-07 Link: Claim cks 09-13-07 Route Seq Inbox Admin Services Fiscal Impact AttnehmPntc Form Routing/Status Approved By Date Status Kathleen Junglov 09/13/2007 10:14 AM APRV Packet Page 17 of 229 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/13/2007 10:19 AM APRV Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/13/2007 10:56 AM APRV Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/13/2007 11:01 AM APRV Form Started By: Debbie Karber Final Approval Date: 09/13/2007 Started On: 09/13/2007 09:31 AM Packet Page 18 of 229 vchlist 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 1 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98783 9/6/2007 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 0807540 SOFTBALL T-SHIRTS SPRING AND SUMMER SOFTBALL 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 999.32 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 88.94 Total : 1,088.26 98784 9/6/2007 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101503431 M5Z34 CAL GAS 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 320.94 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 17.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 30.12 Total : 368.56 98785 9/6/2007 071867 ALLEN, AUTUMN ALLEN0827 REFUND REFUND FOR CREDIT ON ACCT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 13.00 Total : 13.00 98786 9/6/2007 070254 ALLIED ELECTRONICS INC 46414C-00 05-09452 ELECTRICAL PARTS 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 66.83 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 6.75 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 6.54 Total : 80.12 98787 9/6/2007 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 7234 PLAQUE Page: 1 Packet Page 19 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98787 9/6/2007 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING (Continued) BRONZE PLAQUE FOR EDMONDS 125.000.640.594.750.310.00 190.00 Freight 125.000.640.594.750.310.00 5.57 Sales Tax 125.000.640.594.750.310.00 17.41 Total : 212.98 98788 9/6/2007 001430 AMERICAN RED CROSS 2515 LIFEGUARDING SUPPLIES LIFEGUARDING MANUAL AND CPF 001.000.640.575.510.310.00 91.00 Total : 91.00 98789 9/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3949709 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SE 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 33.76 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.00 Total : 36.76 98790 9/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3949711 18386001 UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 96.44 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.58 Total : 105.02 98791 9/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3938991 FLEET UNIFORM SVC FLEET UNIFORM SVC 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 17.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.55 Page: 2 Packet Page 20 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 98791 9/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 512-3938993 STORM/STREET UNIFORM SVC STORM/STREET UNIFORM SVC 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24 STORM/STREET UNIFORM SVC 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29 512-3940365 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 33.69 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.00 Page: 3 Packet Page 21 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 98791 9/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 512-3943638 PW MATS PW MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38 PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.12 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.46 512-3943639 STORM/STREET - UNIFORM SVC STORM/STREET - UNIFORM SVC 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24 STORM/STREET - UNIFORM SVC 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29 Page: 4 Packet Page 22 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 98791 9/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 512-3944957 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 33.69 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.00 512-3948324 PW MATS PW MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38 PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.12 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.46 Page: 5 Packet Page 23 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98791 9/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK (Continued) 512-3948325 STORM/STREET UNIFORM SVC STORM/STREET UNIFORM SVC 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24 STORM/STREET UNIFORM SVC 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29 Total : 173.63 98792 9/6/2007 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 562589 75179 DIESEL FUEL 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 3,707.84 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 296.63 Total : 4,004.47 98793 9/6/2007 064343 AT&T 425-771-1124 PARKS MAINT. BLDG PARKS MAINT. BLDG 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 34.67 425-771-4741 CEMETERY CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.200.420.00 67.75 Total : 102.42 98794 9/6/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 233X09052007 OPS COMMS Vehicles' wireless 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 95.61 Total : 95.61 98795 9/6/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 41787 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS Page: 6 Packet Page 24 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 98795 9/6/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) UB Outsourcing PRINTING area #10, 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 90.08 UB Outsourcing PRINTING area #10, 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 90.08 UB Outsourcing PRINTING area #10, 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 90.34 UB Outsourcing POSTAGE area #10 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 270.18 UB Outsourcing POSTAGE area #10 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 270.17 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.02 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.02 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.03 41801 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing PRINTING area #80, 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 113.23 UB Outsourcing PRINTING area #80, 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 113.23 UB Outsourcing PRINTING area #80, 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 113.56 UB Outsourcing POSTAGE area #80 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 339.31 UB Outsourcing POSTAGE area #80 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 339.30 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 10.08 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 10.08 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 10.10 Page: 7 Packet Page 25 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 98795 9/6/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 98796 9/6/2007 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 41850 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing PRINTING area #40, 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 122.85 UB Outsourcing PRINTING area #40, 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 122.85 UB Outsourcing PRINTING area #40, 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 123.23 UB Outsourcing POSTAGE area #40 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 368.73 UB Outsourcing POSTAGE area #40 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 368.72 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 10.93 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 10.93 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 10.97 Total : 3,023.02 9836882 Canon 5870 Copier Lease - 10/1 Page: 8 Packet Page 26 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98796 9/6/2007 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING (Continued) Canon 5870 Copier Lease - 10/1 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 101.35 Canon 5870 Copier Lease - 10/1 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 101.32 Canon 5870 Copier Lease - 10/1 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 101.33 Supply charge 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 25.01 Supply charge 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 25.00 Supply charge 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 24.99 Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 11.25 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 11.25 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 11.25 Total : 412.75 98797 9/6/2007 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 5285 Gymnastics Coach, #07-30 Gymnastics Coach, #07-30 001.000.640.574.200.440.00 23.94 Total : 23.94 98798 9/6/2007 071868 BECKER, SABRINA BECKER0829 REFUND REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 250.00 Total : 250.00 98799 9/6/2007 060502 BERG, COLIN BERG8260 TAIJIQUAN CLASSES TAIJIQUAN #8260 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 432.00 Total : 432.00 Page: 9 Packet Page 27 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98800 9/6/2007 069116 BJY NW LOCKBOX CPA SERVICES E-010 Plan Review 2007-0439 8710 Main S Plan Review 2007-0439 8710 Main S 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 1,471.55 E-044 Plan Review 2006-0783 18902 94th / Plan Review 2006-0783 18902 94th { 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 340.00 Total : 1,811.55 98801 9/6/2007 068032 BLANCH, ANN BLANCH8258 TAIJIQUAN CLASSES TAIJIQUAN # 8258 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 54.00 Total : 54.00 98802 9/6/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 611253-01 INV# 611253-01 EDMONDS PD - LC CAR DOOR OPENERS - LONG JIM: 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 59.75 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 5.32 Total : 65.07 98803 9/6/2007 060141 BRANOM INSTRUMENT 352444 3083 PRESSURE SWITCH 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 746.16 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 18.10 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 68.02 Total : 832.28 98804 9/6/2007 071865 BROOKSRAND ENVIRONMENTAL 11483 EDM001 MERCURY TESTING 411.000.656.538.800.410.11 315.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.11 1.34 Total : 316.34 98805 9/6/2007 071434 BRUNETTE, SISSEL BRUNETTE8364 PRENATAL FITNESS Page: 10 Packet Page 28 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98805 9/6/2007 071434 BRUNETTE, SISSEL (Continued) PRENATAL FITNESS #8364 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 140.00 Total : 140.00 98806 9/6/2007 065309 CAMPBELL PET COMPANY 0213588-IN INV# 0213588-IN CUST#0098020 EC PET WAGGINS (CAT CARRIERS) 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 97.50 Freight 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 12.35 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 8.00 Total : 117.85 98807 9/6/2007 071766 CAMPBELL, CONNIE CAMPBELL8738 INTRODUCTORY KAYAKING INTRODUCTORY KAYAKING @ MA 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 330.60 Total : 330.60 98808 9/6/2007 069458 CASCADE CONTROLS CORP. 0138244-01 242560 BUCKET/FEEDER CIRCUIT BREAKI 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 3,038.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 270.38 Total : 3,308.38 98809 9/6/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY110926 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 51.92 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 5.82 Page: 11 Packet Page 29 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98809 9/6/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY (Continued) LY110927 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 20.77 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 3.05 LY110928 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 10.38 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 2.12 Total : 134.56 98810 9/6/2007 071870 CHEW, SALINAH CHEW0831 REFUND REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 50.00 Total : 50.00 98811 9/6/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460682008 UNIFORMS Stn 17 - OPS 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 92.40 Stn 17 - ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 1,298.40 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.19 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 115.59 460707856 ALS UNIFORMS CREDIT Stn. 17 ALS uniform credit (Timm) 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 -1, 004.76 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 -107.32 Page: 12 Packet Page 30 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98811 9/6/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION (Continued) 460707878 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 132.66 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.80 Total : 546.96 98812 9/6/2007 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FINANCIAL 9459824 COPIER LEASE PW copier lease INSURANCE for PW 001.000.650.519.910.450.00 14.82 Total : 14.82 98813 9/6/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5546 INV# 5546 CUST#45 EDMONDS PD 1/3 ANNUAL MAINT - AFIS TERMINj 001.000.410.521.910.410.00 1,724.98 Total : 1,724.98 98814 9/6/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1825720 FAC MAINT - FINISH, COACHVAC V FAC MAINT - FINISH, COACHVAC V 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 662.56 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 59.19 Total : 724.25 98815 9/6/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1830664 OPS SUPPLIES Stations' supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 185.08 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 16.69 Total : 204.27 98816 9/6/2007 069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC 3-8674 UNIT EQ27PO - NEW 2008 FORD C Page: 13 Packet Page 31 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98816 9/6/2007 069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC (Continued) UNIT EQ27PO - NEW 2008 FORD C 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 22,492.00 Sales Tax 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1,799.36 Total : 24,291.36 98817 9/6/2007 069482 COMPRESSORS NORTHWEST 66681 STORM - REGULATOR(125 PSI) AK STORM - REGULATOR(125 PSI) AK 411.000.652.542.900.350.00 151.34 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.350.00 13.47 Total : 164.81 98818 9/6/2007 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING 510-0418 OPS UNIFORMS Batt Chiefs 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 55.91 510-0995 PREVENTION UNIFORMS Fire Marshal 001.000.510.522.300.240.00 73.88 510-1524 PREVENTION UNIFORMS Fire Inspector 001.000.510.522.300.240.00 17.67 510-1539 OPS UNIFORMS Admin BC 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 35.32 510-1884 ADMIN UNIFORMS Fire Chief 001.000.510.522.100.240.00 41.21 510-2341 OPS UNIFORMS Asst Chief 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 20.00 Total : 243.99 98819 9/6/2007 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING JULY-AUG 2007 INV FOR JULY-AUG 2007, EDMONE Page: 14 Packet Page 32 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98819 9/6/2007 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING (Continued) DRY CLEANING JULY/AUG 2007 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 799.76 Total : 799.76 98820 9/6/2007 069848 CRAM, KATHERINE CRAM8446 IRISH DANCE CLASSES IRISH DANCE 13+- 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 44.80 Total : 44.80 98821 9/6/2007 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 08/2007 DRS DEPARTMENT OF RETIREMENT S` 08/2007 DRS Contributions 811.000.000.231.540.000.00 190,321.04 Total : 190,321.04 98822 9/6/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 07-2786 MINUTE TAKING 8/28 Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 366.80 Total : 366.80 98823 9/6/2007 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL August 2007 Lobbyist General Government & Lobbyist General Government & 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 1,265.00 Lobbyist Edmonds Crossing 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 1,320.00 Total : 2,585.00 98824 9/6/2007 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 11672 UPS BROWN & CALDWELL UPS BROWN & CALDWELL 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 15.45 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 1.38 11748 UPS/BROWN & CALDWELL UPS/BROWN & CALDWELL 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 15.45 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 1.38 Page: 15 Packet Page 33 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98824 9/6/2007 070683 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL (Continued) Total : 33.66 98825 9/6/2007 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP JAMERSON0904 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP:- 122.000.640.574.100.490.00 122.00 Total : 122.00 98826 9/6/2007 066987 EDMONDS POLICE FOUNDATION 2007 2007 EDMONDS NIGHT OUT BUDG 2007 EDMONDS NIGHT OUT- 001.000.410.521.300.410.00 2,000.00 Total : 2,000.00 98827 9/6/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00650 LIFT STATION #7 LIFT STATION #7 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 20.64 1-00925 LIFT STATION #8 LIFT STATION #8 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 22.41 1-01950 LIFT STATION #1 LIFT STATION #1 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 22.41 1-02675 LIFT STATION #2 LIFT STATION #2 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 33.03 1-03950 Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Rest Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Rest 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 375.70 1-05350 Public Works Meter Shop Public Works Meter Shop 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 163.08 1-05705 LIFT STATION #6 LIFT STATION #6 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 42.01 1-13975 CITY HALL CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 456.50 Page: 16 Packet Page 34 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98827 9/6/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 1-14000 CITY HALL CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 83.93 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3 LIFT STATION #3 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 42.01 4-34080 LIFT STATION #14 LIFT STATION #14 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 22.41 Total : 1,284.13 98828 9/6/2007 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL 102903 INV#102903 CLIENT #5118 EDMON SPAY FELINE IMP# 6941 001.000.410.521.700.490.01 86.00 FELINE VACCINE - FVRCP - IMP #6 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 5.00 NEUTER DOG (30-59 LB) IMP#6990 001.000.410.521.700.490.01 97.50 Total : 188.50 98829 9/6/2007 071853 ERIE LANDMARK CO 23848 HPC Plaque - Planning Div HPC Plaque - Planning Div 001.000.620.558.600.490.00 214.00 Total : 214.00 98830 9/6/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0925416 17983 REPAIR KIT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 99.76 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.65 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.56 Total : 116.97 98831 9/6/2007 071869 FUNAKOSHI, KYLE FUNAKOSH10829 REFUND Page: 17 Packet Page 35 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98831 9/6/2007 071869 FUNAKOSHI, KYLE (Continued) REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00 Total : 500.00 98832 9/6/2007 067232 GERRISH BEARING COMPANY 2074260-01 OIL SEAL OIL SEAL 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.48 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 0.84 2074260-02 OIL SEAL OIL SEAL 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 21.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.65 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.37 Total : 39.34 98833 9/6/2007 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER8254 TAIJIQUAN CLASSES TAIJIQUAN CLASS #8254 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 47.25 GLEISNER8849 QIGONG & TAIJIQUAN CLASSES QIGONG # 8849 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 135.00 QIGONG #8288 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 40.50 QIGONG #8289 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 67.50 TAIJIQUAN #8256 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 141.75 TAIJIQUAN #8269 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 668.25 TAIJUQUAN #8261 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 47.25 Page: 18 Packet Page 36 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98833 9/6/2007 068617 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA (Continued) Total : 1,147.50 98834 9/6/2007 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 75 LEOFF 1 reimbursement LEOFF 1 reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 198.00 Total : 198.00 98835 9/6/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1041776 6035 3225 0267 0205 BATTERIES, GASSER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 93.23 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.30 1571547 60335 3225 0267 0205 BOLT, FILLER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 36.18 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.22 2032779 6035 3225 0267 0205 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 35.97 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.20 2206577 6035 3225 0267 0205 GARDEN SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 129.22 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.50 2207063 6035 3225 0267 0205 GRASS, HERBS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 34.42 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.06 Page: 19 Packet Page 37 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98835 9/6/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 3035555 6035 3225 0267 0205 WASHERS, BOLTS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 123.75 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.01 5036753 6035 3225 0267 0205 PRIMER, SOLVENT, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 27.08 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.41 5042635 6035 3225 0267 0205 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 87.88 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.82 6043944 6035 3225 0267 0205 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 82.23 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.32 6196566 6035 3225 0267 0205 SPADEFORKS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 59.94 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.33 6569705 6035 3225 0267 0205 PARTS KIT, SPRAYER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.95 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.22 8043586 6035 3225 0267 0205 PAINT, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 69.61 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.20 Page: 20 Packet Page 38 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98835 9/6/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 9033130 6035 3225 0267 0205 BOSCH BLADE, NOZZLES, GASSEI 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 50.75 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.52 9042140 6035 3225 0267 0205 TUBE, FELT, SQUARE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.42 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.64 Total : 951.38 98836 9/6/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 5092769 6035322501434934 stations' supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 64.93 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 5.78 Total : 70.71 98837 9/6/2007 068737 JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOC 107840 INV#107840 EDMONDS PD PRE -OFFER PHQ - MEHL, SACKVIL 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 24.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 1.72 Total : 25.72 98838 9/6/2007 071863 JOHNSON, GEORGE 3-19525 RE: #A-0707-023 UTILITY REFUND UB Refund # A-0707-023 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 44.59 Total : 44.59 98839 9/6/2007 015270 JONES CHEMICALS INC 361933 HYPOCHLORITE Page: 21 Packet Page 39 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98839 9/6/2007 015270 JONES CHEMICALS INC (Continued) HYPOCHLORITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 2,979.27 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 262.18 Total : 3,241.45 98840 9/6/2007 062477 KEEP POSTED 11262 WRITER'S CONFERENCE POSTING FOR WRITERS CONFERI 123.000.640.573.100.440.00 102.00 Total : 102.00 98841 9/6/2007 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER KIDZ8085 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER PROGRAMS KIDZ LOVE SOCCER #8085 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 939.40 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER #8086 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,067.50 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER #8087 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,622.60 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER #8088 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,409.10 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER #8089 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 256.20 Total : 5,294.80 98842 9/6/2007 068493 LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIP DISTRIBU 08270703 INV#08270703 EDMONDS PD FLIGHT GLOVES 001.000.410.521.230.310.00 37.95 KNEE PADS 001.000.410.521.230.310.00 22.95 Freight 001.000.410.521.230.310.00 7.95 001.000.410.521.230.310.00 6.06 Total : 74.91 Page: 22 Packet Page 40 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98843 9/6/2007 061900 MARC 0338224-1N 00-0902224 KLEAR KRETE SEALER 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 1,974.50 Sales Tax 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 175.73 Total : 2,150.23 98844 9/6/2007 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 70847059 123106800 STAINLESS STEEL ROD/CASTER/F 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 673.65 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 64.53 70973241 123106800 BATTERIES/SPRAY NOZZLE/HOSE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 256.76 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.00 Total : 1,003.94 98845 9/6/2007 068309 MERCURY FITNESS REPAIR INC P7081932 REPAIR SERVICE PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE FC 001.000.640.575.520.480.00 155.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.480.00 13.80 Total : 168.80 98846 9/6/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 323912314-069 323912314 IT CELL PHONE SERVIC Page: 23 Packet Page 41 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 98846 9/6/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) 98847 9/6/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 411191318-069 98848 9/6/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 976032312-069 PO # Description/Account Amount IT Cell Phone Service 7/25-8/24/07 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 155.52 Corr misapplied 8/06 pmt by Nextel 001.000.510.522.100.420.00 21.22 Corr misapplied 8/06 pmt by Nextel 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 20.19 Corr misapplied 8/06 pmt by Nextel 001.000.510.522.300.420.00 79.00 Corr misapplied 8/06 pmt by Nextel 001.000.510.526.100.420.00 54.85 Total : 330.78 Nextel - Bldg 7/25 to 8/24/2007 Bldg Nextel - Bldg 7/25 to 8/24/2007 Bldg 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 82.05 Corr of misapplied 8/06 pmt by Nexte 001.000.510.522.100.420.00 6.85 Corr of misapplied 8/06 pmt by Nexte 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 78.06 Corr of misapplied 8/06 pmt by Nexte 001.000.510.522.300.420.00 18.31 Corr of misapplied 8/06 pmt by Nexte 001.000.510.526.100.420.00 15.44 Total : 200.71 COMMUNICATIONS Operations 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 341.89 Prevention 001.000.510.522.300.420.00 69.80 ALS 001.000.510.526.100.420.00 54.84 Admin 001.000.510.522.100.420.00 26.72 Page: 24 Packet Page 42 of 229 vchlist 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 25 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98848 9/6/2007 067098 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) Total : 493.25 98849 9/6/2007 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S1632433.001 2091 C-275 SWITCHGEAR PARTS 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 2,708.08 Sales Tax 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 232.90 S1673026.001 2091 VFD RACEWAY 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 145.80 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 12.98 S1674329.001 2091 VFD RACEWAY 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 122.52 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 10.54 Total : 3,232.82 98850 9/6/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 487794 Office Supplies - L. Carl. Office Supplies - L. Carl. 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 145.07 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 12.91 Page: 25 Packet Page 43 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98850 9/6/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) 611558 Paper - MY, HR, CS Paper - MY, HR, CS 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 28.82 Paper - MY, HR, CS 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 28.81 Paper - MY, HR, CS 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 28.82 Office Supplies - HR 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 70.07 Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 2.57 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 8.80 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 2.56 Total : 328.43 98851 9/6/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 519347 Keyboard & floor mat Keyboard & floor mat 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 127.59 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 11.35 520129 Keyboard Keyboard 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 62.25 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 5.55 Total : 206.74 98852 9/6/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 392481 520437 BINDER/FRAME/MARKERS/DIVIDEI 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 52.35 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 4.66 Page: 26 Packet Page 44 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 98852 9/6/2007 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) 98853 9/6/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 200879 FBI:Z:��7L:�ftiZ�rZiI:Ic�i�i�i7��[y��/J3K�7►��:Lli��l�[�l 98855 9/6/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC KI'RI'Fll 492322 *1rZ1-1Zi1 487854 Description/Account Amount Total : 57.01 PW EXEC ADMIN - FOLDERS PW EXEC ADMIN - FOLDERS 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 42.71 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 3.80 WATER - LEAD OFFICE UPDATE, II WATER - LEAD OFFICE UPDATE, II 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 670.88 SEWER - ORGINIZER 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 25.49 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 59.71 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.27 SEWER - TELEMETRY PAPER AND SEWER - TELEMETRY PAPER AND 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 77.27 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 6.88 Total : 889.01 OPS SUPPLIES stations' office supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 65.92 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 5.86 Total : 71.78 Page: 27 Packet Page 45 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 98855 9/6/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 98856 98857 98858 Invoice (Continued) 9/6/2007 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 9836879 9/6/2007 027148 PARAMOUNT SUPPLY CO 668566 9/6/2007 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP CAMPCASH0905 PO # Description/Account Amount TONER FOR CAROLINE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 84.21 TONER FOR PATROL REPORT RM 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 180.07 RADIO CONTROLLED CLOCK 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 35.69 STAPLER & STAPLES - CRYSTAL 104.000.410.521.210.310.00 6.05 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.49 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.02 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 3.18 Sales Tax 104.000.410.521.210.310.00 0.54 Total : 333.25 COPIER CONTRACT COPIER CONTRACT 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 145.22 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 12.60 Total : 157.82 315400 SWITCH 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 454.55 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 6.75 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 41.05 Total : 502.35 DAYCAMP PETTY CASH REIMBUR; Page: 28 Packet Page 46 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98858 9/6/2007 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP (Continued) Reimb to Daycamp Petty Cash-Supp 001.000.640.575.530.310.00 95.93 Reimb to Daycamp Petty Cash-Misc 001.000.640.575.530.490.00 99.95 Reimb to Daycamp Petty Cash-TravE 001.000.640.575.530.430.00 144.00 Total : 339.88 98859 9/6/2007 070931 PATTON BOGGS LLP July-07 DC LOBBYIST FOR JULY 2007 DC Lobbyist for July 2007 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 4,000.00 Total : 4,000.00 98860 9/6/2007 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 158830 INV# 158830 CUST#2772 EDMOND: MAIL RADIO FOR REPAIR 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 24.45 Total : 24.45 98861 9/6/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 084-904-700-6 WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY 411.000.656.538.800.472.63 295.54 Total : 295.54 98862 9/6/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 31.90 0230757007 PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 31.90 1916766007 LIFT STATION #7 LIFT STATION #7 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 57.66 2753166004 PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & CC PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & CC 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 279.73 Page: 29 Packet Page 47 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98862 9/6/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) 2776365005 Public Works Public Works 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 4.28 Public Works 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 16.26 Public Works 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 16.26 Public Works 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 16.26 Public Works 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 16.26 Public Works 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 16.24 2986629000 LIFT STATION #13 LIFT STATION #13 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 89.14 3689976003 200 Dayton St -Vacant PW Bldg 200 Dayton St -Vacant PW Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 18.62 5254926008 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 89.04 5322323139 Fire Station # 16 Fire Station # 16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 151.89 5672895009 SEWER LIFT STATION #9 SEWER LIFT STATION #9 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 26.58 5903085008 FLEET Fleet 7110 210th St SW 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 46.73 6439566008 PUBLIC SAFETY -FIRE STATION PUBLIC SAFETY -FIRE STATION 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 158.13 Page: 30 Packet Page 48 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98862 9/6/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) 6490327001 ANDERSON CENTER ANDERSON CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 584.54 8851908007 LIFT STATION #8 LIFT STATION #8 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.79 9919661109 FIRE STATION #20 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 47.48 Total : 1,753.69 98863 9/6/2007 071702 RAILROAD MGMT CO III LLC 227908 MEADOWDALE STORM DRAIN CR( MEADOWDALE STORM DRAIN CR( 411.000.652.542.400.450.00 75.00 227954 EDMONDS STORM DRAIN CROSSI EDMONDS STORM DRAIN CROSSI 411.000.652.542.400.450.00 75.00 Total : 150.00 98864 9/6/2007 068484 RINKER MATERIALS 9413400934 WATER - ASPHALT WATER - ASPHALT 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 60.00 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.34 9413414171 WATER - ASPHALT COLD MIX WATER - ASPHALT COLD MIX 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 65.00 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.79 9413457705 WATER - ASPHALT COLD MIX WATER - ASPHALT COLD MIX 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 252.20 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 22.44 Page: 31 Packet Page 49 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98864 9/6/2007 068484 068484 RINKER MATERIALS (Continued) Total : 410.77 98865 9/6/2007 070290 ROSE CITY LABEL 7-1441 E PREVENTION SUPPLIES kids' badges 001.000.510.522.300.310.00 165.00 Freight 001.000.510.522.300.310.00 5.76 Total : 170.76 98866 9/6/2007 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY 08/30/07 INVOICE 8/30/07 EDMONDS ANIMA 7/30/07 - 5 ANIMAL CARCASSES 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 48.75 8/6/07 - 6 ANIMAL CARCASSES 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 58.50 8/13/07 - 5 ANIMAL CARCASSES 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 48.75 8/20/07 - 5 ANIMAL CARCASSES 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 48.75 8/27/07 - 4 ANIMAL CARCASSES 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 39.00 Total : 243.75 98867 9/6/2007 071864 SAFE APPROACH INC 156976 SAFETY NET SAFETY NET 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 485.63 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 13.51 Total : 499.14 98868 9/6/2007 069879 SALTER JOYCE ZIKER PLLC 17939 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Prof Services 8th & Walnut 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 14.55 Prof Services 5th & Dayton 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 396.00 Total : 410.55 98869 9/6/2007 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC 1071690 UTILITY BILLING - PINK NOTICE Pf Page: 32 Packet Page 50 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98869 9/6/2007 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC (Continued) UTILITY BILLING - PINK NOTICE P/ 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 227.48 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 53.19 King County Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 24.98 Total : 305.65 98870 9/6/2007 036955 SKY NURSERY 264994 WATER- 3WAY SOIL WATER- 3WAY SOIL 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 39.94 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.55 Total : 43.49 98871 9/6/2007 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY 238722633 SPORTS CAMP MULTI SPORT CAMP #8047 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 952.00 238723423 SKYHAWKS CAMP SKYHAWKS MULTI -SPORT #8059 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 1,064.00 238724099 SKYHAWKS SPORTS CAMPS SKYHAWKS SPORTS CAMPS:- 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 4,066.00 Total : 6,082.00 98872 9/6/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2340031869 MINI PARK RESTROOMS MINI PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 139.05 3010022725 BRACKETT'S LANDING BATH HOU; BRACKETT'S LANDING BATH HOU: 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 93.83 5100017325 IRRIGATION SYSTEM IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.62 Page: 33 Packet Page 51 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98872 9/6/2007 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) Total : 264.50 98873 9/6/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 730015261 463-001-705-3 23219 74TH AVE W/ BALLINGER 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 26.22 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.57 Total : 27.79 98874 9/6/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 112-000-511-9 22000 84TH AVE W Traffic Signal 220th St SW & 84th Av 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 54.37 2060014392 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.72 2060015456 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 28.77 2060018765 LIFT STATION #8 LIFT STATION #8 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 67.50 2180017895 BEACON LIGHT CROSS WALK BEACON LIGHT CROSS WALK 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.12 2340018510 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 71.30 2540794324 fire station # 16 fire station # 16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,450.60 2710014826 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 51.70 2790012476 LIFT STATION #9 LIFT STATION #9 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 153.89 Page: 34 Packet Page 52 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98874 9/6/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 2900012432 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.74 2960019335 LIFT STATION #3 LIFT STATION #3 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 107.95 3180012308 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.43 3260494996 DECORATIVE LIGHTS 115 2ND AVE deocrative lighting 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 31.91 3380016422 SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.74 3380016430 SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.74 3460019262 FIVE CORNERS WATER TANK FIVE CORNERS WATER TANK 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 185.57 3630019994 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 81.03 3720012057 LIBRARY LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,052.03 3900430020 Ballinger Lift Station 7403 Ballinger Ballinger Lift Station 7403 Ballinger 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.26 3980029445 LIFT STATION #14 LIFT STATION #14 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.26 Page: 35 Packet Page 53 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98874 9/6/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 4220016176 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 50.64 4320010194 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 33.71 4430018418 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 43.32 4650022645 FIRE STATION #20 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 685.41 4680011956 TRAFFIC SIGNAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 72.47 4840011953 Public Works Public Works 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 68.65 Public Works 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 260.85 Public Works 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 260.85 Public Works 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 260.85 Public Works 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 260.85 Public Works 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 260.85 4860014960 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 47.95 5240017631 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.98 Page: 36 Packet Page 54 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98874 9/6/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 5370016262 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 29.26 5390028164 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,604.98 5410010689 CITY HALL CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,295.14 5450010938 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 108.14 5450011118 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 108.83 5510015661 TRAFFIC LIGHT TRAFFIC LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 28.77 5720013258 LIFT STATION #1 LIFT STATION #1 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 756.53 7060000275 Fire station #16 Fire station #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 29.74 Total : 14,878.40 98875 9/6/2007 038500 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC Sept-07 09/07 RECREATION SERVIES CON 09/07 Recreation Servies Contract FE 001.000.390.519.900.410.00 4,791.67 Total : 4,791.67 98876 9/6/2007 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 140209 FAC MAINT - ELECTRIC SUPPLIES Page: 37 Packet Page 55 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98876 9/6/2007 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY (Continued) FAC MAINT - ELECTRIC SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 41.22 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.67 147505 PW FIBER PROJECT - SUPPLIES PW FIBER PROJECT - SUPPLIES 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 481.38 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 42.84 147506 PS - ELECT SUPPLIES PS - ELECT SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 86.26 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.68 Total : 663.05 98877 9/6/2007 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 8455 LS 1 - ALARM SERVICE LS 1 - ALARM SERVICE 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 390.26 Total : 390.26 98878 9/6/2007 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10576835 SUPPLIES RIVETS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.99 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.18 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.80 Total : 21.97 98879 9/6/2007 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 824688 PUBLIC SAFETY Sept 07 elevator maint-PS 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 35.15 Page: 38 Packet Page 56 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 39 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98879 9/6/2007 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (Continued) 834823 Sept 07 Sr Cnt Elevator Monitoring Sept 07 Sr Cnt Elevator Monitoring 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 104.00 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 9.26 834824 Aug 07 Sr Cnt Elevator Monitoring Aug 07 Sr Cnt Elevator Monitoring 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 10.57 Total : 158.98 98880 9/6/2007 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 7554709 WATER METER INVENTORY -- WATER METER INVENTORY -- 411.000.000.141.170.310.00 2,090.00 M-METER-01.5-010 411.000.000.141.170.310.00 1,415.00 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.170.310.00 311.95 7554711 WATER METER INVENTORY -- WATER METER INVENTORY -- 411.000.000.141.170.310.00 2,090.00 M-METER-01.5-010 411.000.000.141.170.310.00 1,415.00 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.170.310.00 311.95 Total : 7,633.90 98881 9/6/2007 043935 UPS 00002T4T13347 SHIPPING CHARGES SHIPPING CHARGES FOR PARK M 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 61.90 Total : 61.90 98882 9/6/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-DHO-0667 DEDICATED LINE FS #17 TO SNOC Dedicated Line FS #17 to Snocom 8/ 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 356.18 Page: 39 Packet Page 57 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 40 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98882 9/6/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST (Continued) 425-NW2-0887 Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 280.00 Total : 636.18 98883 9/6/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-1108 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 145.03 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 269.35 425-206-1137 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.50 425-206-1141 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.43 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.22 425-206-4810 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.17 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 78.32 425-206-7147 LIBRARY SCAN ALARM LIBRARY SCAN ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.88 425-206-8379 MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.88 425-673-5978 LIFT STATION #1 Lift Station #1 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 49.37 Page: 40 Packet Page 58 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 41 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 98883 9/6/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY STATIONS TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 28.89 TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 28.89 425-712-8251 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 13.78 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 68.90 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 56.49 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 56.49 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 79.92 425-712-8347 PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 59.15 425-771-0158 FS # 16 FS #16 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 236.63 425-775-1534 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 160.63 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 298.32 425-775-2455 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 49.37 425-775-7865 Radio Line between Public Works & l Radio Line between Public Works & 1 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 52.25 Page: 41 Packet Page 59 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 42 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98883 9/6/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST (Continued) 425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 118.96 425-778-3297 VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON S' VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON S' 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.51 VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON S' 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.37 425-RTO-9133 PUBLIC WORKS CPNNECTION TO Public Works Connection to 911 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48 Public Works Connection to 911 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78 Total : 2,164.20 98884 9/6/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-771-0152 FS #16-FAX LINE FS #16-FAX LINE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 52.25 425-778-2153 FS #20 PHONE SERVICE FS #20 PHONE SERVICE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 48.96 425-FLO-0017 FS #16 FRAME RELAY FS #16 FRAME RELAY 001.000.510.528.600.420.00 360.26 Total : 461.47 98885 9/6/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0578888414 965420720-00001 Page: 42 Packet Page 60 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 43 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98885 9/6/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) PRETREATMENT CELL 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 36.29 Total : 36.29 98886 9/6/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 470091643-00001 425-238-8846 cell phone -Tod Moles 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 56.01 470103273-00001 425-238-5456 cell phone -Mike Johnson 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 29.71 670091643-00001 425-327-5379 cell phone -unit #77 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 54.80 Total : 140.52 98887 9/6/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0582036851 INV# 0582036851 ACCT 470497482- CELL PHONE SERVICE 8/24-9/23/0' 104.000.410.521.210.420.00 125.42 Total : 125.42 98888 9/6/2007 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 31604296 INV#31604296 ACCT#1188339 EDM CASE OF CULTURE TUBES 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 93.12 Freight 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 6.74 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 8.88 Total : 108.74 98889 9/6/2007 071359 WASSER CORPORATION 109182 PAINT PAINT 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 318.52 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 28.03 Total : 346.55 Page: 43 Packet Page 61 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 44 09/05/2007 4:43:55PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98890 9/6/2007 063074 WESTERN POWER AND EQUIPMENT 794840 WATER/SEWER - BACKHOE* BUCI WATER/SEWER - BACKHOE* BUCI 411.000.654.534.800.350.00 1,298.09 WATER/SEWER - BACKHOE* BUCI 411.000.655.535.800.350.00 1,298.09 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.350.00 110.34 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.350.00 110.33 Total : 2,816.85 98891 9/6/2007 064213 WSSUA TREASURER 239 LEAGUE UMPIRING MEN'S AND CO-ED LEAGUE UMPIF 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 3,276.00 Total : 3,276.00 109 Vouchers for bank code : front Bank total : 319,217.90 109 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 319,217.90 Page: 44 Packet Page 62 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98892 9/13/2007 041695 3M XAM3522 SS45214 STREET - WHITE SCOTCHLITE REI STREET - WHITE SCOTCHLITE REI 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 247.50 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 22.03 Total : 269.53 98893 9/13/2007 069634 ACCURINT - ACCT 1201641 1201641-20070831 INV#1201641-20070831 EDMONDS SEARCHES AND REPORTS 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 52.60 Total : 52.60 98894 9/13/2007 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101512453 M5Z34 ADJUSTMENT/CYLINDER RENTAL 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 25.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 2.23 101524748 M5Z34 CYLINDER RENTAL 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 46.97 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 4.18 Total : 78.38 98895 9/13/2007 014940 ALL BATTERY SALES & SERVICE 110426731 FLEET BATTERY INVENTORY FLEET BATTERY INVENTORY 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 123.90 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 11.03 Page: 1 Packet Page 63 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 98895 9/13/2007 014940 ALL BATTERY SALES & SERVICE Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 110426935 FLEET BATTERY INVENTORY FLEET BATTERY INVENTORY 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 202.10 UNIT EQ10FI - BATTERY 511.200.657.548.680.310.00 52.95 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 17.99 Sales Tax 511.200.657.548.680.310.00 4.71 493042 UNIT EQ10FI - BATTERY UNIT EQ10FI - BATTERY 511.200.657.548.680.310.00 52.95 Sales Tax 511.200.657.548.680.310.00 4.71 714570 SHOP SUPPLIES - LAMPS, FUSE, F SHOP SUPPLIES - LAMPS, FUSE, F 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 81.10 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.22 714619 UNIT G12 - CHARGER UNIT G12 - CHARGER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.47 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.80 715242 UNIT 6 - LITEBOX UNIT 6 - LITEBOX 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 106.77 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.50 892701 SHOP - CORDLESS PACKS SHOP - CORDLESS PACKS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 54.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.81 Page: 2 Packet Page 64 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98895 9/13/2007 014940 ALL BATTERY SALES & SERVICE (Continued) 892836 SHOP - BATTERY LIFTER SHOP - BATTERY LIFTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.95 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.71 892870 SHOP - EXCHANGED CORDLESS F SHOP - EXCHANGED CORDLESS F 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -14.05 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -1.25 Total : 761.37 98896 9/13/2007 014940 ALL BATTERY SALES & SERVICE 894006 OPS SUPPLIES cordless drill batteries 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 318.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 28.30 Total : 346.30 98897 9/13/2007 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-000877086 FS 16 garbage for F/S #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 101.51 197-000876921 FIRE STATION #20 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 84.34 Page: 3 Packet Page 65 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98897 9/13/2007 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES (Continued) 197-000877015 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY Public Works Facility 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 20.76 Public Works Facility 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 78.88 Public Works Facility 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 78.88 Public Works Facility 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 78.88 Public Works Facility 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 78.88 Public Works Facility 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 78.87 Total : 601.00 98898 9/13/2007 001600 ANDERSON, WILLARD 76 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 140.00 Total : 140.00 98899 9/13/2007 066148 APWA 276 APWA 2007 FALL CONFERENCE -- APWA 2007 FALL CONFERENCE -- 001.000.650.519.910.490.00 400.00 Total : 400.00 98900 9/13/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3954323 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SE 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 33.76 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.00 Total : 36.76 98901 9/13/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3954325 18386001 Page: 4 Packet Page 66 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98901 9/13/2007 069751 ARAMARK (Continued) UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 96.29 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.57 Total : 104.86 98902 9/13/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3943637 FLEET UNIFORM SVC FLEET UNIFORM SVC 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 17.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.55 512-3948323 FLEET UNIFORM SVC FLEET UNIFORM SVC 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 20.10 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.79 512-3949710 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 33.69 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.00 512-3952984 FLEET UNIFORM SVC FLEET UNIFORM SVC 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 20.10 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.79 Page: 5 Packet Page 67 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 98902 9/13/2007 069751 ARAMARK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 512-3952985 PW MATS PW MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38 PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.12 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.46 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.47 512-3952986 STORM/STREET UNIFORM SVC STORM/STREET UNIFORM SVC 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29 STORM/STREET UNIFORM SVC 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24 Page: 6 Packet Page 68 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher front Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98902 9/13/2007 069751 ARAMARK (Continued) 512-3954324 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.00 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 33.69 Total : 173.23 98903 9/13/2007 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 562381 FLEET - PREMIUM GAS 6106 GAL WA ST SVC FEE 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 20.00 ST EXCISE TAX DIESEL, WA OIL SI 511.000.657.548.680.340.12 2,309.30 UNLEADED REGULAR - 4400 GAL 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 9,021.76 ST EXCISE TAX DIESEL, WA OIL SI 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 1,659.68 WA ST SVC FEE 511.000.657.548.680.340.12 20.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 1.60 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.12 1.60 FLEET - PREMIUM GAS 6106 GAL 511.000.657.548.680.340.12 13,088.20 Page: 7 Packet Page 69 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98903 9/13/2007 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM (Continued) 562382 FLEET- DIESEL 3120 GAL FLEET- DIESEL 3120 GAL 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 6,890.21 ST EXCISE TAX DIESEL, WA OIL SI 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 1,183.10 ST EXCISE TAX DIESEL, WA OIL SI 511.000.657.548.680.340.13 298.50 WA ST SVC FEE 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 20.00 WA ST SVC FEE 511.000.657.548.680.340.13 20.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 1.60 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.13 1.60 BIO-DIESEL 511.000.657.548.680.340.13 2,110.26 Total : 36,647.41 98904 9/13/2007 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM PARKS FAX MODEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 44.18 Total : 44.18 98905 9/13/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY X09072007 C/A 828698926 Cell Service 7/28-8/27/07 Admin Sen 001.000.310.514.100.420.00 117.57 Total : 117.57 98906 9/13/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 871964442x09052007 87196442 PLANT CELL PHONES 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 18.26 Total : 18.26 98907 9/13/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 871747052XO9052007 Duane Bowman wireless charges froi Page: 8 Packet Page 70 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98907 9/13/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY (Continued) Duane Bowman wireless charges froi 001.000.620.558.800.420.00 9.13 871860970X09052007 WIRELESS SERVICE FOR PLANNIP WIRELESS SERVICE FOR PLANNIP 001.000.620.558.600.420.00 18.26 Total : 27.39 98908 9/13/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 3X09062007 OPS COMMS vehicles' wireless 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 22.42 Total : 22.42 98909 9/13/2007 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 74634 MOVIE BANNER MOVIE BANNER 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 220.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 19.58 Total : 239.58 98910 9/13/2007 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 74640 UNIT 492 - FIRE GRAPHICS, MANU UNIT 492 - FIRE GRAPHICS, MANU 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 757.00 Sales Tax 511.200.657.594.480.640.00 67.37 Total : 824.37 98911 9/13/2007 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 68020 SENIOR SOFTBALL SR. SOFTBALL PLAQUE 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 19.35 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 1.73 Total : 21.08 98912 9/13/2007 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0807 Background check services Background check services 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 60.00 Page: 9 Packet Page 71 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98912 9/13/2007 069076 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS II` (Continued) Total : 60.00 98913 9/13/2007 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2O07-355 INV# 2007-355 EDMONDS PD PRE -EMPLOY POLYGRAPH SACKb 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 175.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 7.00 Total : 182.00 98914 9/13/2007 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 9836881 COPIER RENTAL OCT COPIER RENTAL OCT 001.000.230.512.501.450.00 188.55 Total : 188.55 98915 9/13/2007 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS 1036 ESGA.Services thru 08/24/07 ESGA.Services thru 08/24/07 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 2,911.69 Total : 2,911.69 98916 9/13/2007 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 355185 FLEET INVENTORY - BRAKE KIT, R FLEET INVENTORY - BRAKE KIT, R 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 252.98 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 22.52 Total : 275.50 98917 9/13/2007 070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC 209 Implement Bld History for data entry. Implement Bld History for data entry. 001.000.620.558.800.410.00 47.50 Total : 47.50 98918 9/13/2007 069116 BJY NW LOCKBOX CPA SERVICES E-012 2007-0517 UBC VALUATION. 2007-0517 UBC VALUATION. 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 1,145.67 E-013 2007-0557 UBC VALUATION 2007-0557 UBC VALUATION 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 1,418.83 Page: 10 Packet Page 72 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98918 9/13/2007 069116 BJY NW LOCKBOX CPA SERVICES (Continued) E-014 SUNDQUIST/2007-0551 - SUNDQUIST/2007-0551 - 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 1,484.93 E-015 PINSONEAULT/2007-0594 - PINSONEAULT/2007-0594 - 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 1,143.63 Total : 5,193.06 98919 9/13/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 612783 INV#612783 EDMONDS PD - DREYI ATAC 8" BOOTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 99.99 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 8.90 Total : 108.89 98920 9/13/2007 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 1462044 C-161 C-161 SCREENING SYSTEM IMPRC 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 2,751.94 Total : 2,751.94 98921 9/13/2007 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 280422 STREET - ROCK STREET - ROCK 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 2,669.91 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 202.91 Total : 2,872.82 98922 9/13/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN08071031 HELIUM HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BIRTHI 001.000.640.575.550.450.00 7.75 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.550.450.00 0.69 Total : 8.44 98923 9/13/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN08071033 2954000 Page: 11 Packet Page 73 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98923 9/13/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY (Continued) ARGON/N ITROG EN/OXYGEN 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 31.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 2.76 Total : 33.76 98924 9/13/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN08071029 SHOP - OXYGEN SUPPLY SHOP - OXYGEN SUPPLY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.75 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.69 Total : 8.44 98925 9/13/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY111116 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 30.04 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 2.67 LY111207 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 20.77 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 3.05 LY111208 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 20.77 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 3.05 Page: 12 Packet Page 74 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98925 9/13/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY (Continued) LY111209 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 41.53 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 4.90 Total : 167.28 98926 9/13/2007 003710 CHEVRON USA 7898305185709 INV#7898305185709 EDMONDS PD FUEL 104.000.410.521.210.320.00 272.97 CAR WASH 104.000.410.521.210.480.00 5.50 Total : 278.47 98927 9/13/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460711973 UNIFORMS Volunteers 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 46.36 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 4.12 460711974 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 189.31 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 16.85 460713016 UNIFORMS 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 Page: 13 Packet Page 75 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98927 9/13/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION (Continued) 460713035 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 132.66 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.80 Total : 602.34 98928 9/13/2007 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FINANCIAL 9491142 COPIER LEASE PW copier lease for PW 001.000.650.519.910.450.00 538.27 Total : 538.27 98929 9/13/2007 069947 CITRIX ONLINE 90526953 CUSTOMER # 605063 GoToMyPC Sery 12 users 5/12/07- 5 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 2,728.80 Total : 2,728.80 98930 9/13/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5564 MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS EDMONDS PORTION OF JOINT MA 001.000.640.576.800.510.00 24,686.20 Total : 24,686.20 98931 9/13/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5557 MAINT./OPERATIONS SANITARY S MAINT./OPERATIONS SANITARY S 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 13,800.83 Total : 13,800.83 98932 9/13/2007 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 2-533584-460571 WATER USEAGE FOR JULY 07 WATER USEAGE FOR JULY 07 411.000.654.534.800.340.00 510.00 Total : 510.00 98933 9/13/2007 070231 CNR INC 51501 Labor charges for 9/10/07 service cal Page: 14 Packet Page 76 of 229 vchlist 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 15 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98933 9/13/2007 070231 CNR INC (Continued) Labor charges for 9/10/07 service cal 001.000.640.574.100.480.00 55.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.480.00 4.90 Total : 59.90 98934 9/13/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1830447 SUPPLIES PAPER TOWELS, CLEANER, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1,254.14 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 111.62 Total : 1,365.76 98935 9/13/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1830930 005302 PAPER TOWELS/TRASH LINERS 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 113.02 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 2.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 10.28 Total : 125.80 98936 9/13/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1811865 FAC MAINT - CLEANERS, SANITIZE FAC MAINT - CLEANERS, SANITIZE 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 190.08 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.14 Page: 15 Packet Page 77 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98936 9/13/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES (Continued) W1828189 FAC MAINT - LINERS FAC MAINT - LINERS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 353.40 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 31.68 W1830024 FAC MAINT - TT, TOWELS, SEAT C FAC MAINT - TT, TOWELS, SEAT C 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1,107.58 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 98.80 Total : 1,806.18 98937 9/13/2007 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 29042 Edmonds City Code books Edmonds City Code books 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 140.00 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 12.46 Total : 152.46 98938 9/13/2007 068077 CODES KNOWLEDGE COMPANY 477 MAGIC TOYOTA/2007-0789 PLAN F MAGIC TOYOTA/2007-0789 PLAN F 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 5,033.00 Total : 5,033.00 98939 9/13/2007 062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC 8250 UNIT 413 - MIRROR REPAIR UNIT 413 - MIRROR REPAIR 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 110.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 9.79 Total : 119.79 Page: 16 Packet Page 78 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98940 9/13/2007 065364 CONTRACT HARDWARE INC 0033687-IN PS - LOCK BODY PS - LOCK BODY 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 121.72 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.83 Total : 132.55 98941 9/13/2007 066551 COYOTE CLEANING SYSTEMS 5208 INV#5208 CUST# EDMONDS - ANIN 24X33 2 MIL BLACK PLASTIC BAGS 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 216.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 19.22 Total : 235.22 98942 9/13/2007 005810 CRAIN, DOUGLAS 78 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,009.85 Total : 1,009.85 98943 9/13/2007 005965 CUES INC 273666 SEWER - TV TRUCK SUPPLIES - C, SEWER - TV TRUCK SUPPLIES - C, 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 731.30 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.30 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 65.03 273718 SEWER - TV TRUCK SUPPLIES - PI SEWER - TV TRUCK SUPPLIES - PI 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 320.47 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 6.15 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 28.81 Total : 1,157.06 98944 9/13/2007 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 136397 INV# 136397 CUST#267 EDMONDS Page: 17 Packet Page 79 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98944 9/13/2007 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 (Continued) REPAIR/CALIBRATE GHD-03890 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 135.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 11.62 Total : 146.62 98945 9/13/2007 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2007080137 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 Scan Services for August, 2007 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 361.15 Bill No 1139874 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 310-00076 VMWare Workstation latest version 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 368.10 310-00076 VISTA Business part # 66J-00654 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 0.50 Office Pro Plus part #79P-00031 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 0.50 Adobe Photoshop part #23102427 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 19.14 Freight 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 10.00 Bill No 1140018 Windows SVR ENT parts #P72-0178 Windows SVR ENT parts #P72-0178 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 0.50 Total : 759.89 98946 9/13/2007 047610 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Util Fran Ext Fee ESGA.Utility Franchise Extension Fe( ESGA.Utility Franchise Extension Fe( 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 300.00 Total : 300.00 98947 9/13/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 07-2788 MINUTE TAKING 9/4/07 Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 193.20 Total : 193.20 Page: 18 Packet Page 80 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98948 9/13/2007 070842 DUNHAM, YVONNE DUNHAM SIDE SEWER PERMIT VOIDED - SF SIDE SEWER PERMIT VOIDED - SF 001.000.000.257.620.000.00 145.00 Total : 145.00 98949 9/13/2007 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER 207002 INTERPERTER FEES INTERPERTER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 114.55 Total : 114.55 98950 9/13/2007 069605 EAGLE EYE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2007226 PLAN REVIEW, LOVELL,VALHALLA PLAN REVIEW, LOVELL,VALHALLA 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 9,753.01 Total : 9,753.01 98951 9/13/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 85297 SUPPLIES OIL FILTER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.65 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.59 85677 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.56 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.76 85735 SUPPLIES THREADLOCKS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.30 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.92 Total : 27.78 98952 9/13/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 85326 FAC MAINT - PB BLASTER SUPPLII Page: 19 Packet Page 81 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98952 9/13/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS (Continued) FAC MAINT - PB BLASTER SUPPLII 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.85 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.61 Total : 7.46 98953 9/13/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 85603 OPS SUPPLIES red tape 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 6.99 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 0.62 Total : 7.61 98954 9/13/2007 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 155879 INV#155879 CLIENT#3713 EDMON[ EUTHANIZE LAB MIX #7060 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 20.80 156575 INV#156575 CLIENT #308 EDMOND MEDICATION FOR DASH 001.000.410.521.260.410.00 94.50 WELLNESS EXAM - DASH 001.000.410.521.260.410.00 39.20 SHOTS FOR DASH 001.000.410.521.260.410.00 28.80 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.260.410.00 8.41 Total : 191.71 98955 9/13/2007 066759 EMER NORTHWEST 1414 ALS REPAIR/MAINT new straps 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 45.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 4.01 Total : 49.01 98956 9/13/2007 069686 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CO 72927 SOFTWARE SUPPORT Page: 20 Packet Page 82 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98956 9/13/2007 069686 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CO (Continued) SOFTWARE SUPPORT 411.000.656.538.800.410.11 895.00 Total : 895.00 98957 9/13/2007 071634 ESCHELON TELCOM INC 010495174 C/A 010495174 PR1-2 City Phone Service 8/25-9/25/ 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 869.25 Total : 869.25 98958 9/13/2007 009410 EVERETT STEEL COMPANIES 369770 SUPPLIES STAINLESS STEEL SHEETS, TUBE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 842.88 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 72.49 Total : 915.37 98959 9/13/2007 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU11113 INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 39.24 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.55 Total : 41.79 98960 9/13/2007 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 08302007 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 9,190.00 Total : 9,190.00 98961 9/13/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0104548-2 WATER INVENTORY -- Page: 21 Packet Page 83 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98961 9/13/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) WATER INVENTORY-- 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 190.26 WATER - SUPPLIES- 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 96.78 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 16.93 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.61 0116778 SEWER INVENTORY - SEWER INVENTORY- 411.000.000.141.150.310.00 209.07 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.150.310.00 18.61 Total : 540.26 98962 9/13/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0884632 PS - CHECKSTOP STRNR COMPLE PS - CHECKSTOP STRNR COMPLE 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 132.06 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.47 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.59 Total : 154.12 98963 9/13/2007 069940 FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SVC 900JJM0708 INV# JJM0708 EDMONDS PD CREDIT CHECKS 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 39.18 Total : 39.18 98964 9/13/2007 063181 FITTINGS INC 00011267 SHOP SUPPLIES - BOSFLEX 3/8" R Page: 22 Packet Page 84 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98964 9/13/2007 063181 FITTINGS INC (Continued) SHOP SUPPLIES - BOSFLEX 3/8" R 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 49.67 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.12 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.42 Total : 65.21 98965 9/13/2007 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 99103 August 2007 Section 125 plan chargE August 2007 Section 125 plan chargE 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 50.90 August 2007 Section 132 plan chargE 811.000.000.231.590.000.00 30.90 Total : 81.80 98966 9/13/2007 062400 GENERAL FIRE APPARATUS 1118686 OPS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING lite force plus helmets 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 330.00 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 8.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 29.07 Total : 367.07 98967 9/13/2007 067232 GERRISH BEARING COMPANY 2074288-01 GEAR REDUCER GEAR REDUCER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,448.92 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 100.43 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 137.89 Total : 1,687.24 98968 9/13/2007 070013 GLASS DOCTOR 52953 UNIT 1 - MIRROR Page: 23 Packet Page 85 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98968 9/13/2007 070013 GLASS DOCTOR (Continued) UNIT 1 - MIRROR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.67 Total : 32.67 98969 9/13/2007 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 080547 FLEET INVENTORY - — FLEET INVENTORY - 511.000.657.548.680.340.30 1,285.74 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.30 114.43 080636 FLEET INVENTORY - 4 TIRES FLEET INVENTORY - 4 TIRES 511.000.657.548.680.340.30 572.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.30 50.91 Total : 2,023.08 98970 9/13/2007 012199 GRAINGER 9439553356 SEWER - MEGOHMMETER SEWER - MEGOHMMETER 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 109.08 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 9.38 Total : 118.46 98971 9/13/2007 071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC 06713.00-10 E6DA.Services thru 08/25/07 E6DA.Services thru 08/25/07 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 3,463.72 07523.00-4 E7AB.Services thru 08/25/07 E7AB.Services thru 08/25/07 112.200.630.595.330.650.00 330.68 Total : 3,794.40 98972 9/13/2007 071446 GREAT FLOORS COMMERCIAL SALES 31887-202 SR CENTER - REPLACE FLOORS Page: 24 Packet Page 86 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98972 9/13/2007 071446 GREAT FLOORS COMMERCIAL SALES (Continued) SR CENTER - REPLACE FLOORS 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 4,940.92 Sales Tax 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 462.89 31888-R-202 SR CENTER - RETENTION FOR W( SR CENTER - RETENTION FOR W( 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 260.05 Total : 5,663.86 98973 9/13/2007 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 76767 UNIT 489 - FLOOR CO KIT UNIT 489 - FLOOR CO KIT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 48.13 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.28 76937 UNIT 43 - BRAKE SHOE KITS, SEAL UNIT 43 - BRAKE SHOE KITS, SEAL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 280.88 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 25.00 77040 UNIT 43 - BRAKE SHOE KIT UNIT 43 - BRAKE SHOE KIT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 92.46 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.23 77186 UNIT 482F - REAR AXEL OIL, OIL A UNIT 482F - REAR AXEL OIL, OIL A 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 55.85 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.97 77223 UNIT 129 - FUEL CAP ASSEMBLY UNIT 129 - FUEL CAP ASSEMBLY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.54 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.03 Page: 25 Packet Page 87 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98973 9/13/2007 012900 HARRIS FORD INC (Continued) CM76937 UNIT 43 - RETURNED BRAKE SHOE UNIT 43 - RETURNED BRAKE SHOE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -99.82 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -8.88 Total : 423.67 98974 9/13/2007 012900 HARRIS FORD INC FOCS224987 UNIT 718 - WARRENTY REPAIRS UNIT 718 - WARRENTY REPAIRS 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 53.23 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 4.74 Total : 57.97 98975 9/13/2007 070074 HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO 87021764372006 POLICE # 87021764372006 Sr Ctr Flood Ins 11/1/07-11/1/08 001.000.390.519.900.460.00 1,801.00 Total : 1,801.00 98976 9/13/2007 071872 HARTZELL, DIANE HARTZELL0904 REFUND CLASS REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 16.00 Total : 16.00 98977 9/13/2007 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 12150424 WATER INVENTORY -- WATER INVENTORY -- 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 698.28 W-MTRLIDDI-02-010 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 935.64 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 145.41 Total : 1,779.33 98978 9/13/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 7038128 6035322500959949 Page: 26 Packet Page 88 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98978 9/13/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) POLY SHEET 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 114.81 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.22 7068210 6035322500959949 PAINT SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 49.11 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.37 8072006 6035322500959949 PAINT SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.70 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 0.86 Total : 189.07 98979 9/13/2007 071642 HOUGH BECK & BAIRD INC 7223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR C 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 3,798.10 Total : 3,798.10 98980 9/13/2007 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 18046 E7FA.Services thru 08/25/07 E7FA.Services thru 08/25/07 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 2,490.00 18094 E1 DB.Services thru 08/25/07 E1 DB.Services thru 08/25/07 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 287.91 18097 E7FB.Services thru 08/25/07 E7FB.Services thru 08/25/07 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 162.28 18102 ESJA.Services thru 08/25/07 ESJA.Services thru 08/25/07 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 1,248.25 Total : 4,188.44 Page: 27 Packet Page 89 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98981 9/13/2007 071876 IDEKER, JOE IDEKER0727 REFUND REFUND/TRANSFER 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 109.00 Total : 109.00 98982 9/13/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 74152760 COPIER LEASE PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEA 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 27.54 Total : 27.54 98983 9/13/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 74152758 FINANCE COPIER RENTAL Finance Copier Rental 8/22-9/21/07 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 454.07 Meter charge 7/3-8/3/07 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 202.80 Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 58.47 Total : 715.34 98984 9/13/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 74152752 RENT ON D.S. RECEPTION COPIEI RENT ON D.S. RECEPTION COPIEI 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 115.26 74152755 RENT ON D.S. LARGE COPIER RENT ON D.S. LARGE COPIER 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 1,099.35 74152756 RENT ON D.S. ENG COLOR COPIE RENT ON D.S. ENG COLOR COPIE 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 738.08 Total : 1,952.69 98985 9/13/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 74226332 CANON IMAGE RUNNER 9070 LEA; 250-00166 Canon Image Runner 9070 Lease- 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 886.25 Total : 886.25 98986 9/13/2007 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 2632460 Meadowdale Pre -School Internet 9/1- Page: 28 Packet Page 90 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98986 9/13/2007 068952 INFINITY INTERNET (Continued) Meadowdale Pre -School Internet 9/1- 001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00 2643102 INTERNET ACCESS MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTEI 001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00 Total : 30.00 98987 9/13/2007 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PART WAREHOUSE 448445 UNIT 238 -COIL UNIT 238 -COIL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 105.16 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.36 448446 SHOP - WASH BRUSH, GLASS CLE SHOP - WASH BRUSH, GLASS CLE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 67.02 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.96 Total : 187.50 98988 9/13/2007 069894 ITT SHARED SERVICES 03032780 088364 DIFFUSER/GUIDE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,000.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 185.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 105.47 Total : 1,290.47 98989 9/13/2007 065056 JOHNSON, TROY TJOHNSON0909 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 9/9/07 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 165.00 Total : 165.00 98990 9/13/2007 067877 KINGSTON LUMBER 971084 STREET - STAINLESS HANGERS A Page: 29 Packet Page 91 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98990 9/13/2007 067877 KINGSTON LUMBER (Continued) STREET - STAINLESS HANGERS A 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 1,324.51 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 113.91 Total : 1,438.42 98991 9/13/2007 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Addendum 4.1 E1 DB.Services thru 07/31/07 E1 DB.Services thru 07/31/07 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 2,419.79 E2DB.22 E2DB.Services thru 07/31/07 E2DB.Services thru 07/31/07 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 1,388.46 Total : 3,808.25 98992 9/13/2007 016600 KROESENS INC 79819 OPS UNIFORMS KM nametag, etc. 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 11.90 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 1.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 1.19 80333 OPS UNIFORMS Boots (DW,CK) 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 295.40 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 26.29 80391 OPS UNIFORMS Ford boots 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 121.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.77 Total : 468.05 98993 9/13/2007 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 324843-001 Survey Vest for JoAnne Zulauf Page: 30 Packet Page 92 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98993 9/13/2007 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC (Continued) Survey Vest for JoAnne Zulauf 001.000.620.532.200.240.00 108.00 Sales Tax 001.000.620.532.200.240.00 9.61 Total : 117.61 98994 9/13/2007 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 0021659 Antonyuk Retaining Wall Review Antonyuk Retaining Wall Review 001.000.000.245.900.621.00 1,885.05 Total : 1,885.05 98995 9/13/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 095533 BUSINESS CARDS PD DS P&R 250-00163 Business Cards:- 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.00 250-00163 Duane V. Bowman 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 16.00 250-00163 Jennifer Collins 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 16.00 250-00163 JoAnne Zulauf 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 16.00 250-00163 Jeanie McConnell 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 16.00 250-00163 Cliff Edwards 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 16.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 1.42 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 5.69 Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 1.43 Total : 104.54 98996 9/13/2007 071877 MAIN MEDIA 26741 PARK SIGNS Page: 31 Packet Page 93 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 98996 9/13/2007 071877 MAIN MEDIA (Continued) ADDITIONAL TOBACCO FREE PAR 125.000.640.575.500.310.00 1,097.60 Sales Tax 125.000.640.575.500.310.00 94.39 Total : 1,191.99 98997 9/13/2007 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 3146 INTERPERTER FEES INTERPERTER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 135.00 Total : 135.00 98998 9/13/2007 066397 MCCONNELL, JEANIE Overtime Pay Overtime Pay-8/15 thru 8/31 Overtime Pay-8/15 thru 8/31 001.000.620.532.200.120.00 372.57 Total : 372.57 98999 9/13/2007 063773 MICROFLEX 00017254 Annual support fee 9/1/07-8/31/08 Annual support fee 9/1/07-8/31/08 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 930.90 Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 82.85 Total : 1,013.75 99000 9/13/2007 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 54255 UNIT 110 - PROPANE UNIT 110 - PROPANE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.89 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.26 54372 LIBRARY - SEWER SNAKE RENTAL LIBRARY - SEWER SNAKE RENTAL 001.000.651.519.920.450.00 55.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.450.00 4.90 Total : 63.05 99001 9/13/2007 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC 110120595 UNIT 11 - ANTENNA, MIRROR BRAT Page: 32 Packet Page 94 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99001 9/13/2007 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC (Continued) UNIT 11 - ANTENNA, MIRROR BRAT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 45.72 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.93 Total : 49.65 99002 9/13/2007 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0203207-IN WATER - YELLOW POLY BIB PAN' WATER - YELLOW POLY BIB PAN' 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 52.20 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 11.10 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.62 0207776-IN WATER/SEWER - COOLER, SUPPL WATER/SEWER - COOLER, SUPPL 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 26.40 WATER/SEWER - COOLER, SUPPL 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 26.40 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 10.50 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 10.50 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.29 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.28 Total : 149.29 99003 9/13/2007 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0322006-IN FLEET FILTER FLEET FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 -39.66 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 -3.41 Page: 33 Packet Page 95 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99003 9/13/2007 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM (Continued) 0344276-IN FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 52.11 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 4.48 0344280-IN PS-1 - FILTERS FOR LIFT STATION PS-1 - FILTERS FOR LIFT STATION 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 151.46 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.02 0344989-IN PS-1 - FILTER PS-1 - FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 89.55 FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 104.74 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.70 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 9.01 Total : 389.00 99004 9/13/2007 063034 NORTH CENTRAL LABORATORIES 223171 13465 DO MODULE 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 155.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 6.51 Total : 161.51 99005 9/13/2007 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S1710526.001 2091 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 113.74 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 9.67 Total : 123.41 Page: 34 Packet Page 96 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99006 9/13/2007 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 0082419 SODIUM BISULFITE SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 841.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 74.89 Total : 916.39 99007 9/13/2007 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0553905 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 398.38 0554270 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 180.29 0565692 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 360.58 Total : 939.25 99008 9/13/2007 066628 NORTHWEST DISTRIBUTING CO 030092 UNIT 237 - AQUAPEL UNIT 237 - AQUAPEL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 240.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.33 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.40 Total : 263.73 99009 9/13/2007 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 497 V-06-102 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT. V-06-102 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT. 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 330.00 Total : 330.00 99010 9/13/2007 071873 O'NEIL, LACEY ONEIL0905 REFUND CLASS REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 46.00 Total : 46.00 Page: 35 Packet Page 97 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99011 9/13/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 557066 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 49.84 Service charge 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 3.95 Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 4.44 Total : 58.23 99012 9/13/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 633175 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - D.S. DE MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - D.S. DE 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 324.19 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 28.85 Total : 353.04 99013 9/13/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 513243 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 295.30 517709 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.500.310.00 47.06 675625 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.500.310.00 622.97 Total : 965.33 99014 9/13/2007 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0000130 WATER 220TH ST SW & 84TH AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 84.01 0001520 WATER 820 15TH ST SW 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 27.18 0001530 WATER 820 15TH ST SW 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 136.80 Page: 36 Packet Page 98 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99014 9/13/2007 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT (Continued) 0002930 WATER 5TH & ST RTE 104 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.69 0005060 WATER 9803 EDMONDS WAY 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.73 Total : 298.41 99015 9/13/2007 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0002920 WATER FOR L/S #13 WATER FOR L/S #13 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 28.97 0021400 FIRE STATION #20 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 100.91 Total : 129.88 99016 9/13/2007 063750 ORCA PACIFIC 030447 YOST POOL SUPPLIES YOST POOL CHEMICALS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 175.51 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.62 Total : 191.13 99017 9/13/2007 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00046745 UNIT 55 - ROCKER SWITCH UNIT 55 - ROCKER SWITCH 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 32.80 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.18 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.74 Page: 37 Packet Page 99 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99017 9/13/2007 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY (Continued) 00046798 UNIT 31 - POLY BUSHINGS UNIT 31 - POLY BUSHINGS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 280.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 59.83 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.25 Total : 415.80 99018 9/13/2007 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. 608560 PAINT SUPPLIES PAINT AND SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.95 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.60 Total : 19.55 99019 9/13/2007 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. 609203 FAC MAINT - PARTICLE MASK W/E FAC MAINT - PARTICLE MASK W/E 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 33.53 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.99 Total : 36.52 99020 9/13/2007 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK8161 PILATES PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT #81 E 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 364.00 PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT #81 E 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 490.00 Total : 854.00 99021 9/13/2007 062770 PENTEC ENVIRONMENTAL INC 709107 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISC. SMALL PROJECTS 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 687.50 Total : 687.50 99022 9/13/2007 063890 PERFORMANCE SIGN PRODUCTS INC 44134 STREET - SIERRA PARK SIGNS SU Page: 38 Packet Page 100 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 39 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99022 9/13/2007 063890 PERFORMANCE SIGN PRODUCTS INC (Continued) STREET - SIERRA PARK SIGNS SU 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 141.66 Freight 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 5.00 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 12.61 Total : 159.27 99023 9/13/2007 028400 PITNEY BOWES 907498 Mail Opener Maint Contract 10/1/07- Mail Opener Maint Contract 10/1/07- 001.000.310.514.230.480.00 245.00 Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.480.00 21.81 Total : 266.81 99024 9/13/2007 070431 PITNEY BOWES PURCHASE POWER 8000-9000-1058-7875 PURCHASE POWER ACCT ANNUAI 250-00165 Purchase Power Account- 001.000.250.514.300.420.00 39.99 Total : 39.99 99025 9/13/2007 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 159116 INV#159116 CUST#2772 EDMONDE SEND RADIO FOR REPAIR 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 49.95 Total : 49.95 99026 9/13/2007 065105 PORT SUPPLY 3558 UNIT 98 - NYLON CLEATS UNIT 98 - NYLON CLEATS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.37 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.02 3662 UNIT 98 - FASTENERS UNIT 98 - FASTENERS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.90 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.70 Page: 39 Packet Page 101 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 40 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99026 9/13/2007 065105 PORT SUPPLY (Continued) 4418 UNIT EQ10F1- FUSES, AT FLUID UNIT EQ10F1- FUSES, AT FLUID 511.200.657.548.680.310.00 122.19 FUSE BLOCK 511.200.657.548.680.310.00 67.00 Sales Tax 511.200.657.548.680.310.00 10.88 5184 UNIT 95 - 30W FLRSCNT INT LITE UNIT 95 - 30W FLRSCNT INT LITE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 50.49 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.49 Total : 276.04 99027 9/13/2007 070257 POSTINI INC 348762 INTERNET ANTI -VIRUS & SPAM MA 10/07 Internet Anti -Virus & Spam Ma 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 489.15 Total : 489.15 99028 9/13/2007 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING -Cl 24 hour alarm monitoring-CH- 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 35.00 Total : 35.00 99029 9/13/2007 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 07-572 COURT SECURITY COURT SECURITY 001.000.230.512.500.410.00 2,100.00 Total : 2,100.00 99030 9/13/2007 065579 QUIKSIGN 55952 S-07-57,58 SIGN INSTALLATION. S-07-57,58 SIGN INSTALLATION. 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 156.00 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 13.88 Page: 40 Packet Page 102 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 41 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99030 9/13/2007 065579 QUIKSIGN (Continued) 55956 ADB-07-61 SIGN INSTALLATION. ADB-07-61 SIGN INSTALLATION. 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 156.00 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 13.88 55957 S-07-33 SIGN INSTALLATION. S-07-33 SIGN INSTALLATION. 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 156.00 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 13.88 Total : 509.64 99031 9/13/2007 071702 RAILROAD MGMT CO III LLC 228902 CUSTOMER ID 502531 MEADOWDALE STORM DRAIN CR( 411.000.652.542.400.450.00 75.00 Total : 75.00 99032 9/13/2007 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 0708104 ESMC.Services thru 08/17/07 ESMC.Services thru 08/17/07 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 4,339.90 0708113 E6DB.Services thru 08/17/07 E6DB.Services thru 08/17/07 112.200.630.595.330.650.00 3,291.71 0708133 E2FA.Services thru 08/24/07 E2FA.Services thru 08/24/07 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 430.00 ESGA.Services thru 08/24/07 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 865.00 Total : 8,926.61 99033 9/13/2007 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 0706018 BURNSTEAD CONST. PLAT - CONE BURNSTEAD CONST. PLAT - CONE 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 6,900.00 Total : 6,900.00 Page: 41 Packet Page 103 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 42 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99034 9/13/2007 067447 RILEY, CHARLES H. 77 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 96.00 Total : 96.00 99035 9/13/2007 068484 RINKER MATERIALS 9413603694 WATER - ASPHALT COLD MIX WATER - ASPHALT COLD MIX 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 146.25 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 13.03 9413656672 WATER- ASPHALT PC C WATER- ASPHALT PC C 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 60.00 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.34 9413677055 STREET - WASHED SAND STREET - WASHED SAND 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 96.81 STORM - DUMPED ASPHALT 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 48.02 SERVICE FEES 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 5.10 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 8.77 Total : 383.32 99036 9/13/2007 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 7-137628 UNIT 55 - LIFT MOTOR CCW UNIT 55 - LIFT MOTOR CCW 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 150.83 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.91 Total : 161.74 99037 9/13/2007 069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC 10809 BULK MAIL PREP Page: 42 Packet Page 104 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 43 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99037 9/13/2007 069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC (Continued) CITY OF EDMONDS PORTION OF- 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 93.33 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 8.31 10814 FALL CRAZE EDMONDS PORTION OF FALL CRP 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 7,659.05 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 681.66 Total : 8,442.35 99038 9/13/2007 070839 SCHIFFLER, KENNETH A 07252007 PRO TEM JUDGE FEES PRO TEM JUDGE FEES 001.000.230.512.510.410.00 520.00 Total : 520.00 99039 9/13/2007 071874 SCHONBERG, LANI SCHONBERGO904 REFUND CLASS REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 50.00 Total : 50.00 99040 9/13/2007 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 03-886772 UNIT 332 - PAD AND SEAL ASSEME UNIT 332 - PAD AND SEAL ASSEME 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 73.96 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.58 Total : 80.54 99041 9/13/2007 069665 SEATTLE MACK SALES & SERVICE R036714 UNIT 55 - ABS LIGHT REPAIR FEES UNIT 55 - ABS LIGHT REPAIR FEE: 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 1,114.48 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 99.19 Total : 1,213.67 99042 9/13/2007 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET CTCS190911 UNIT 102 - AIR BAG LIGHT CIRCUI- Page: 43 Packet Page 105 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 44 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99042 9/13/2007 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET (Continued) UNIT 102 - AIR BAG LIGHT CIRCUI- 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 511.22 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 45.50 Total : 556.72 99043 9/13/2007 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET 235822 UNIT 114 - FILTER KITS UNIT 114 - FILTER KITS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 56.22 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.00 235823 UNIT 16 - PUMP UNIT 16 - PUMP 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 60.16 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.35 235844 UNIT 16 - STRAINER UNIT 16 - STRAINER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.68 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.68 236241 UNIT 413 - PAD KIT, ROTOR UNIT 413 - PAD KIT, ROTOR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 202.77 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.05 236536 UNIT 413 - MIRROR UNIT 413 - MIRROR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 100.80 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.97 Page: 44 Packet Page 106 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 45 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99043 9/13/2007 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET (Continued) 236678 UNIT 117 - SWITCH UNIT 117 - SWITCH 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 239.72 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.34 Total : 726.74 99044 9/13/2007 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0065793-IN UNIT EQ10FI- POLE SUPPORT, SIC UNIT EQ10FI- POLE SUPPORT, SIC 511.200.657.548.680.310.00 92.80 Freight 511.200.657.548.680.310.00 19.33 0066808-IN UNIT EQ10FI - MIRROR BEAMS R/F UNIT EQ10FI - MIRROR BEAMS R/F 511.200.657.548.680.310.00 295.80 0067116-IN UNIT EQ10FI - RED 6 LAMP DOMIN UNIT EQ10FI - RED 6 LAMP DOMIN 511.200.657.548.680.310.00 270.00 Freight 511.200.657.548.680.310.00 27.00 63689A-IN UNIT EQ10FI - RETURNED LIGHTS UNIT EQ10FI - RETURNED LIGHTS 511.200.657.548.680.310.00 -183.30 Total: 521.63 99045 9/13/2007 036955 SKY NURSERY 265184 GARDENING SUPPLIES MUMS & PANSYS 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 57.11 Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 5.08 265191 GARDENING SUPPLIES MUMS, PANSIES 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 81.84 Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 7.28 Page: 45 Packet Page 107 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 46 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99045 9/13/2007 036955 036955 SKY NURSERY (Continued) Total : 151.31 99046 9/13/2007 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY 238724723 SPORTS CAMPS BASEBALL #8040- 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 1,584.00 Total : 1,584.00 99047 9/13/2007 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT 1000 177855 02/07 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS &' 2nd Q 07 Liquor Board Profits & Tax( 001.000.390.567.000.510.00 2,880.40 Total : 2,880.40 99048 9/13/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2460018753 CITY PARK RESTROOMS CITY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 35.52 2470011830 PARK & MAINTENANCE SHOP PARK & MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 519.33 3280017173 PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 64.12 3660016779 PARK GAZEBO PARK GAZEBO 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.74 3690017839 PLAYFIELD LIGHTS PLAYFIELD LIGHTS 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 107.74 5030011778 CITY PARK SOUTH RESTROOMS 8 CITY PARK SOUTH RESTROOMS 8 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 204.65 Total : 961.10 99049 9/13/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 382011276 620-001-500-3 VARIOUS LOCATIONS 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 7.10 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 0.97 Page: 46 Packet Page 108 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 47 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99049 9/13/2007 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) Total : 8.07 99050 9/13/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 6000013000 STREET LIGHTING STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 8,448.65 6100013009 STREET LIGHTING STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 7,944.24 6100013306 STREET LIGHTING STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 170.07 6200013008 STREET LIGHTING STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 1,814.76 Total : 18,377.72 99051 9/13/2007 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 49254 DUMP FEES DUMP FEES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,081.04 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 38.96 Total : 1,120.00 99052 9/13/2007 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 49486 DUMP FEES DUMP FEES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 17.38 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 0.62 Total : 18.00 99053 9/13/2007 064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 2007122 INV#2007122 EDMONDS PD 60.50 BOOKINGS - AUGUST 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 5,367.56 850.50 HOUSING DAYS - AUGUST 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 49,711.73 Total : 55,079.29 Page: 47 Packet Page 109 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 48 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99054 9/13/2007 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03583 garbage & recycle for PS garbage & recycle for PS 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 487.49 03585 garbage & recycle for FAC garbage & recycle for FAC 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 556.90 03586 garbage & recycle for Library garbage & recycle for Library 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 599.41 03588 garbage & recycle -City Hall garbage & recycle -City Hall 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 379.46 Total : 2,023.26 99055 9/13/2007 070677 SPRINT Eng.Aug 2007 Engineering Nextel thru 08/24/07 Engineering Nextel thru 08/24/07 001.000.620.532.200.420.00 689.17 Total : 689.17 99056 9/13/2007 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC 77802 E7CA.Roberts thru 08/25/07 E7CA.Roberts thru 08/25/07 125.100.620.595.300.650.00 520.00 78003 E7CA.Roberts thru 09/01/07 E7CA.Roberts thru 09/01/07 125.100.620.595.300.650.00 747.50 Total : 1,267.50 99057 9/13/2007 031060 STEARNS FINANCIAL SERVICES 7109034-IN RADIX MONTHLY MAINT OCT 07 RADIX MONTHLY MAINT OCT 07 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 166.28 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 14.81 Total : 181.09 99058 9/13/2007 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 2596408 WATER- SUPPLIES -QUICK ACTIN Page: 48 Packet Page 110 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 49 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99058 9/13/2007 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC (Continued) WATER- SUPPLIES -QUICK ACTII` 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 200.50 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 17.24 2596409 WATER - KRYLO BLUE UPSIDE DC WATER - KRYLO BLUE UPSIDE DC 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 193.68 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 16.66 Total : 428.08 99059 9/13/2007 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 165952 15644 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 327.45 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 6.52 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 29.72 Total : 363.69 99060 9/13/2007 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 154877 CITY HALL - ELECT SUPPLIES CITY HALL - ELECT SUPPLIES 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 16.45 FS 20 - ELECT SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 129.92 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 1.46 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.57 Total : 159.40 99061 9/13/2007 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 8368 SEWER - TELEMETRY - PHONE LIP SEWER - TELEMETRY - PHONE LIP 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 237.50 Page: 49 Packet Page 111 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 50 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99061 9/13/2007 065578 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC (Continued) Total : 237.50 99062 9/13/2007 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10576123 SUPPLIES PUSHNUTS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 55.49 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.94 Total : 60.43 99063 9/13/2007 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10568741 STREET - WASHERS, SCREWS, Bf STREET - WASHERS, SCREWS, B/ 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 55.42 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 4.93 10578541 FLEET SHOP - SCREWS, NUTS, W, FLEET SHOP - SCREWS, NUTS, W, 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 326.21 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.03 18808871 WADE JAMES -MACH SCREWS WADE JAMES -MACH SCREWS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 36.16 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.22 Total : 454.97 99064 9/13/2007 071577 TAYLOR, KATHLEEN 1012 CONSULTING SVCS - PLANNING D CONSULTING SVCS - PLANNING D 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 1,560.00 Total : 1,560.00 99065 9/13/2007 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 40884 FLEET - 5 T SHIRTS FLEET - 5 T SHIRTS 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 55.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 4.90 Page: 50 Packet Page 112 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 51 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99065 9/13/2007 040916 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA (Continued) Total : 59.90 99066 9/13/2007 065710 THE CHAMBERS MULTIMEDIA 000397 INTERNET ACCESS CEMETERY INTERNET ACCESS 130.000.640.536.200.420.00 17.95 Total : 17.95 99067 9/13/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 148134-8/31/07 Water/Sewer Maint. Laborer, #07-31 Water/Sewer Maint. Laborer, #07-31 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 38.30 Vehicle & Equipment Mech., #07-32 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 38.30 DST 1, 2 or 3, #07-34 ad 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 45.96 Computer Support Tech, #07-34 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 34.47 Gymnastics Coach, #07-30 ad 001.000.640.574.200.440.00 34.47 WWTP Lab Tech, #07-38 ad 411.000.656.538.800.440.00 33.88 Lab Tech, #07-38 ad 411.000.656.538.800.440.00 27.72 Total : 253.10 99068 9/13/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1531746 NEWSPAPER AD Council & Plan. Bd. Agendas 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 1,269.47 1532130 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3661 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 28.80 1532131 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3660 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 141.12 1532132 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3659 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 23.04 Page: 51 Packet Page 113 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 52 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99068 9/13/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY (Continued) 1532133 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3658 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 23.04 Total : 1,485.47 99069 9/13/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1527523 JORDAN/S-07-29 LEGAL NOTICES. JORDAN/S-07-29 LEGAL NOTICES. 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 15.12 1530502 MICHEL/P-07-50 LEGAL NOTICES. MICHEL/P-07-50 LEGAL NOTICES. 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 23.04 1531183 SHAPIRO/ADB-07-59 LEGAL NOTIC SHAPIRO/ADB-07-59 LEGAL NOTIC 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 25.92 Total : 64.08 99070 9/13/2007 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 215304 SUPPLIES CONTROLLER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.00 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.34 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.17 Total : 26.51 99071 9/13/2007 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 214217 FLEET - EMERGENCY EYEWASH FLEET - EMERGENCY EYEWASH 511.000.657.548.680.490.00 947.91 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.490.00 48.22 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.490.00 88.66 Total : 1,084.79 99072 9/13/2007 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES C/A 042483000 WWTP Lab Tech, #07-38 ad Page: 52 Packet Page 114 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 53 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99072 9/13/2007 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES (Continued) WWTP Lab Tech, #07-38 ad 411.000.656.538.800.440.00 355.00 Lab Tech, #07-38 411.000.656.538.800.440.00 355.00 Water/Sewer Maint. Laborer, #07-31 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 353.08 Vehicle & Equipment Mechanic, #07- 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 353.08 DST 1,2or3 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 353.08 Computer Support Tech, #07-34 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 327.64 Total : 2,096.88 99073 9/13/2007 069357 THES, MIKE Mike Thies CODE ENFORCEMENT 2007 FALL CODE ENFORCEMENT 2007 FALL 001.000.620.558.800.490.00 225.00 Total : 225.00 99074 9/13/2007 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 2524 FENCING SUPPLIES TUBING, FENCING SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 212.11 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.88 Total : 230.99 99075 9/13/2007 071590 TRT LCC 6 HEARING EX. SERVICES FOR JUL` HEARING EX. SERVICES FOR JUL` 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 3,561.58 Total : 3,561.58 99076 9/13/2007 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 7635284 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES Page: 53 Packet Page 115 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 54 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99076 9/13/2007 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY (Continued) NOZZLES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.62 Total : 7.62 99077 9/13/2007 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 7542150 WATER- SUPPLIES - 8" FLEX CPLC WATER- SUPPLIES - 8" FLEX CPLC 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 35.35 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.15 Total : 38.50 99078 9/13/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 44.92 425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL 001.000.640.575.560.420.00 56.87 425-771-4741 EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.200.420.00 50.33 Total : 152.12 99079 9/13/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425 771-5553 03 0210 1014522641 07 AUTO DIALER 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 56.15 425 NW 1-0060 03 0210 1079569413 10 BPS TELEMENTRY 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.12 425 NW 1-0155 03 0210 1099569419 02 TELEMENTRY 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 216.25 Total : 313.52 Page: 54 Packet Page 116 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 55 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99080 9/13/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-640-8169 PT EDWARDS SEWER PUMP STAT Phone line for Sewer Lift Station at P 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.79 Total : 40.79 99081 9/13/2007 068265 VERIZON ONLINE 75992338 ACCT #8372119 City of Edmonds Internet 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 667.00 Total : 667.00 99082 9/13/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0582705255 CENTRALIZED IRRIGATION CENTRALIZED IRRIGATION 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 2.97 Total : 2.97 99083 9/13/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 269992985-1 425-308-9867 cell phone -water watch 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 36.04 371017793-00001 INVOICE # 0579474578 FAC MAINT - GENE EVANS CELL 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 90.31 769986915-01 425-231-2668 cell phone -water lead 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 39.36 770096328-00001 425-238-8252 cell phone -Dave Sittauer 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 4.34 Total : 170.05 99084 9/13/2007 046100 WA ST ASSOC OF FIRE CHIEFS INC 329 FIRE MECHANIC'S WORKSHOP - - FIRE MECHANIC'S WORKSHOP - - 511.000.657.548.680.490.00 475.00 Total : 475.00 99085 9/13/2007 069922 WA TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERV ROB CHAVE 2007 YEARLY MEMBERSHIP RENE' 2007 YEARLY MEMBERSHIP RENE' 001.000.620.558.600.490.00 75.00 Page: 55 Packet Page 117 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 56 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99085 9/13/2007 069922 069922 WA TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESEF (Continued) Total : 75.00 99086 9/13/2007 045517 WACA A. DAVIS PNW CONFERENCE - A.DAVIS/EDI• REG ISTRATION/D. DAVIS- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 175.00 D.DAWSON PNW CON FERENCE/D.DAWSON-E REG I STRAT I O N/D. DAW SO N- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 175.00 Total : 350.00 99087 9/13/2007 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 37660 UNIT 679 - TOWING UNIT 679 - TOWING 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 136.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 12.10 Total : 148.10 99088 9/13/2007 061395 WASTE MANAGEMENT NW 0773916-2677-5 202-0001256-2677-0 ASH DISPOSAL 411.000.656.538.800.474.65 2,412.43 Total : 2,412.43 99089 9/13/2007 071875 WESTBROOK, ROBIN WESTBROOK0905 REFUND CLASS REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 66.00 Total : 66.00 99090 9/13/2007 049208 WESTERN EQUIP DIST INC 526566 UNIT 109 - 3 BLADES 25.18" UNIT 109 - 3 BLADES 25.18" 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 71.16 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.50 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.18 Total : 87.84 99091 9/13/2007 071866 WESTERN STATES FIRE PROTECTION WESTERN STATES 2007-0850 OVERPAID. Page: 56 Packet Page 118 of 229 vchlist Voucher List Page: 57 09/13/2007 9:23:49AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 99091 9/13/2007 071866 WESTERN STATES FIRE PROTECTION (Continued) 2007-0850 OVERPAID. 001.000.000.257.620.000.00 62.00 Total : 62.00 99092 9/13/2007 066634 WINDOWS IT PRO MAGAZINE 283509 CUSTOMER # 283509 2 yr Subscription M Waters 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 99.95 Total : 99.95 99093 9/13/2007 051280 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY 63909255 FLEET SHOP - ZEP CHERRY BOME FLEET SHOP - ZEP CHERRY BOME 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 40.20 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.70 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.53 Total : 55.43 202 Vouchers for bank code : front Bank total : 318,362.23 202 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 318,362.23 Page: 57 Packet Page 119 of 229 AM-1170 2.1). Council Findings (Appeal V-2006-102 Bogaert) Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 09/18/2007 Submitted By: Diane Cunningham Submitted For: Rob Chave Time: Consent Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Findings of Fact regarding the September 4, 2007 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 and AP-2007-4). Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the proposed Findings of Fact (Exhibit 1). Previous Council Action On September 4, 2007 the City Council held a closed record appeal of the Hearing Examiner's underlying decision to deny the variance request. Narrative On September 4, 2007 the City Council held a closed record appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny the subject variance request. The City Attorney has prepared Findings to implement the Council action (see Exhibit 1). Link: Bogaert Finding of Fact Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Development Services Duane Bowman 09/13/2007 12:18 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/13/2007 01:44 PM APRV 3 Mayor 4 Final Approval Form Started By: Diane Cunningham Final Approval Date: 09/13/2007 Gary Haakenson 09/13/2007 01:55 PM APRV Sandy Chase 09/13/2007 04:02 PM APRV Started On: 09/13/2007 10:31 AM Packet Page 120 of 229 BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL In RE the Application of: Dr. Raymond Bogaert File Nos: V-2006-102 AP-2007-4 This matter came before the Edmonds City Council on September 4, 2007 as a closed - record appeal of the Hearing Examiner's underlying decision. For its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council hereby adopts by reference the decision of the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner dated August 2, 2007 as fully as if set forth herein. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision was designated as Exhibit 3 in the record of the proceeding before the City Council. DECISION The appellant has not demonstrated satisfaction of the variance criteria enumerated at ECDC 20.85.010 with respect to the application at issue. The relevant standards include ECDC 20.85.010(F), which predicates variance approval upon the applicant's demonstration that "the. . . variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning." The record clearly indicates that current zoning regulations would not prohibit the appellant from constructing a new, legally compliant residence upon the subject property. A variance is not warranted under these circumstances. For the reasons set forth in the Hearing Examiner's August 2, 2007 decision, the City Council denies the appellant's appeal and AFFIRMS the decision of the Hearing Examiner. DONE this day of , 2007. CITY OF EDMONDS Mayor Gary Haakenson ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: { JZL672967.DOC;1 /00006.900000/1 Packet Page 121 of 229 W. Scott Snyder, City Attorney { JZL672967.DOC;1 /00006.900000/1 Packet Page 122 of 229 AM-1168 2.E. SRI Technologies, Inc. Contract for Temporary Capital Projects Manager Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 09/18/2007 Submitted By: Debi Humann Time: Consent Department: Human Resources Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Approval of SRI Technologies, Inc. Contract for Temporary Capital Projects Manager. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council approve contract with SRI Technologies, Inc. for a temporary Capital Projects Manager. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The Engineering Division has experienced extended position vacancies in 2007 due to the retirement of two long time City employees and the resignation of a third employee to pursue an opportunity in the private sector. In May 2007, to help accomplish the Engineering Division workload while recruiting to fill the vacancies, a retired City employee was hired through a temporary employment agency (SRI Technologies, Inc.) as a temporary Capital Projects Manager. The contract with SRI Technologies for the temporary Capital Projects Manager was limited to an amount of less than $30,000. The temporary Capital Projects Manager has managed the 2007 Street Overlay contract and assisted with several other critical capital projects including the 164th Street SW Walkway project, the Old Woodway Elementary School Demolition project, the Watermain Replacement project, and the 100th Avenue W Right -of -Way Stabilization project. He has been essential to the successful execution of these projects. Without this temporary Capital Projects Manager, the City would not have had the resources to accomplish the 2007 Street Overlay project. The total cost to date (May 1, 2007 through August 31, 2007) of the temporary Capital Projects Manager is $22,912.50. It is estimated that he will be required for an additional four to six weeks on a part-time basis to complete the street overlay project. Although all vacant positions in the Engineering Division have now been filled, it took several months longer than anticipated, and it is expected to take another six to eight months to train the new employees, all of whom have limited experience. The Engineering Division needs additional assistance to manage its project workload during this time while the new employees are getting up to speed, and proposes to retain the temporary Capital Projects Manager on a part-time, as needed Packet Page 123 of 229 basis to assist with this workload. The cost of the temporary Capital Projects Manager will be charged to the capital projects he manages and paid from funds budgeted for these projects. Due to the longer than originally anticipated need for the temporary Capital Projects Manager, it is estimated that the total cost of the SRI Technologies contract will exceed $30,000 and therefore requires Council approval. A copy of the proposed SRI Technologies contract is attached. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: SRI Technologies, Inc. Temporary Contract Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Dave Gebert 09/13/2007 07:11 AM APRV 2 Development Services Duane Bowman 09/13/2007 09:24 AM APRV 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/13/2007 09:45 AM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/13/2007 10:56 AM APRV 5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/13/2007 11:01 AM APRV Form Started By: Debi Humann Started On: 09/12/2007 05:51 PM Final Approval Date: 09/13/2007 Packet Page 124 of 229 TECHNOLOGIES INC. 1607 116t" Ave NE, Ste 101 — Bellevue, WA 98004 425-455-3883 Standard Contractual Terms and Conditions For CITY OF EDMONDS 1. It is understood and agreed that assigned employees will be offered The City of Edmonds standard work week (number of hours) to perform their duties. 2. Should there be any overtime, we will invoice you at the overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in any one -week; or thirty-two (32) hours in a holiday week. 3. When applicable, a per diem allowance will apply for any assigned employee residing beyond fifty (50) miles from City of Edmonds's facility. 4. All billings will be issued weekly and terms of payment are net on receipt of invoice. 5. SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. provides the required insurance coverage of our employees while working on your premises. When requested, a Certificate of Insurance will be submitted to you indicating the full extent of our coverage. 6. The overhead, profit, and labor rate factors that comprise the proposed hourly billing rates (other than item 3 above) cover the entire cost of SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC'S services to you, including expense of maintaining proper payroll and accounting records, worker's compensation insurance, federal and state unemployment insurance, all statutory taxes and any other overhead expense incurred by The City of Edmonds. 7. No billing shall be issued for time lost by our employees because of illness or any other personal reason. 8. All reproductions and materials other than those quoted, necessary to complete all tasks will be billed at cost. 9. In furtherance of the particular requirements of The City of Edmonds, it is acknowledged and agreed by the parties that any and all personnel assigned to The City of Edmonds by SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. are subject to the direct control and supervision of The City of Edmonds. SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'s obligations hereunder relate solely to the assignment of personnel and the payments provided for herein are based solely on the value thereof. SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. shall have no responsibility of liability for the acts or omissions committed by the personnel in the performance of their assignment for The City of Edmonds or for their work product. The City of Edmonds shall indemnify, defend and hold SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. harmless against any claims, losses, liabilities, or damages (and reasonable expenses related thereto, including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of defense, and investigation) arising from or in connection with any acts or omissions or alleged acts or alleged omissions of the work product of the personnel assigned hereunder. Corporate Office: 1250 Bank Drive — Schaumburg, IL 60173 - 847-330-1222 Packet Page 125 of 229 TECHNOLOGIES INC. 1607 116" Ave NE, Ste 101 — Bellevue, WA 98004 425-455-3883 10. SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INUS responsibility under any agreement to provide services is to exert the best effort possible to carry out the scope as defined. In doing so, SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. shall in all respects be guided by such instructions as may from time to time, be given by The City of Edmonds. All work performed by the personnel assigned to The City of Edmonds is subject to The City of Edmonds direction and responsibility. 11. SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. currently has an Affirmative Action Program in the corporation and SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. will comply with all of the Rules and Regulations of the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. 12.If, subsequent to execution of this contract, and legislation enacted by a government entity increases the taxes or costs imposed on SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. in the performance of the contract, City of Edmonds agrees to be responsible for such increase. 13. EMPLOYEE shall not accept employment directly or indirectly or enter into any other business relationships as an individual or other entity with CITY OF EDMONDS for a period of one (1) year following the termination of employment with SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., without the written consent of SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 14. City of Edmonds directed travel from the assigned job site will be billed to the City of Edmonds on an expense report with receipts attached. We agree to the Terms and Conditions set forth in the SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Contractual Terms and Conditions. CITY OF EDMONDS SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Date Date Corporate Office: 1250 Bank Drive — Schaumburg, IL 60173 - 847-330-1222 Packet Page 126 of 229 AM-1165 ECDC 18.40, Grading and Retaining Walls & ECDC 20.110.30, Nuisance Section Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 09/18/2007 Submitted By: Dave Gebert Time: Department: Engineering Type: Review Committee: Community/Development Services Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Consent Action 2.F. Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.40 Grading and Retaining Walls, and ECDC 20.110.030 Nuisance Section, to add a new paragraph to specify the City's regulation of rockeries, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council adopt the proposed ordinance. Previous Council Action On June 19, 2007, Council adopted Ordinance No. 3 65 1, revising Title 19 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, including adoption of the 2006 International Building and Supplemental Codes. On September 11, 2007, the Community Services/Development Services Committee reviewed the proposed ordinance and forwarded it to the full Council for adoption on consent agenda. Narrative On June 19, 2007, Council adopted revisions to Title 19, Building Codes, of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), effective July 1, 2007. The revised Title 19 includes revisions pertaining to regulation of grading, retaining walls, and rockeries, including exempting the construction of rockeries from the requirement for a building permit. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements, also addresses grading, retaining walls and rockeries in Chapter 18.40, primarily to address situations not covered by the building codes, such as site improvements for subdivisions and short plats. Now Chapter 18.40, Grading and Retaining Walls, also requires revisions to avoid duplication and ensure consistency with the revised Title 19. The rationale for exempting rockeries from the requirement for a building permit was that rockeries are primarily utilized for erosion protection of free-standing cut slopes in firm, stable, undisturbed and competent native soil, or as landscaping features. As such, the City ofEdmonds does not consider rockeries to be retaining walls or to raise issues of critical public interest or safety, if properly located and less than a certain height. However, in recent years, the City has prohibited construction of rockeries in certain situations where, if erected, they could pose a threat to the public interest and/or safety. These situations Packet Page 127 of 229 where construction of rockeries has been prohibited have been enforced through the process of requiring permits for rockery construction. With the revised Title 19 now exempting rockeries from the requirement for a permit, Staff recommends that these situations where construction of rockeries has been prohibited within the City of Edmonds in recent years should be formally adopted in code. The situations/conditions under which it is proposed that construction of rockeries be prohibited in Edmonds are as follows: 1. Rockeries that encroach or are located in, on, or over (developed or undeveloped) City right-of-way. Rockeries on private property adjacent to City right-of-way must be set back from the City right-of-way a minimum horizontal distance equal to the height of the rockery. 2. Rockeries constructed over public utility easements. 3. Rockeries constructed in a manner that will adversely affect drainage, or create a sight distance hazard. 4. Rockeries that support a surcharge. 5. Rockeries that impound flammable materials. 6. Rockeries exceeding three feet in Setback Area Height within a setback. (Setback Area Height is defined as the height measured vertically from the original ,grade to the highest point of the uppermost rock.) 7. Rockeries placed against fill, when rockery exceeds three (3) feet in height. (Rockery height is defined as the height measured vertically from the finished grade at the toe of the rockery to the highest point of the uppermost rock.) 8. Rockeries constructed in designated geologically hazardous areas other than erosion hazard areas, pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 23.80. 9. Rockeries constructed within the designated Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area of North Edmonds. 10. Rockeries exceeding twelve (12) feet in height. (Rockery height is defined as the height measured vertically from the finished grade at the toe of the rockery to the highest point of the uppermost rock.) All of the above situations except #8 and #9 are situations where construction of rockeries has previously been prohibited by the City of Edmonds. Although not prohibited in the past, construction of rockeries in situations #8 and #9 has been very tightly controlled and limited through our permit process. Staff recommends that construction of rockeries should also be prohibited in these situations. Compliance with the City's prohibitions for rockeries will be enforced on an exception or complaint basis. Attached is a proposed ordinance revising ECDC Chapter 18.40, Grading and Retaining Walls, and ECDC 20.110.030, Nuisance Section, to ensure consistency with the revised Title 19 and to codify the above prohibited rockeries. On September 11, 2007, the Community Services/Development Services Committee reviewed the proposed ordinance and forwarded it to the full Council for adoption on consent agenda. Fiscal Impact A ttnehmPntc Link: Proposed Ordinance Packet Page 128 of 229 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Development Services Duane Bowman 09/12/2007 11:17 AM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/12/2007 03:09 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/12/2007 04:03 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/12/2007 04:30 PM APRV Form Started By: Dave Gebert Started On: 09/12/2007 10:40 AM Final Approval Date: 09/12/2007 Packet Page 129 of 229 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 3/14/07 R.8/24/07gjz ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.40 GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS, AND ECDC 20.110.030 NUISANCE SECTION, TO ADD A NEW PARAGRAPH TO SPECIFY THE CITY' S REGULATION OF ROCKERIES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 3651, the City Council adopted revisions to Title 19 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, including adoption of the International Building Code; and WHEREAS, the revised Title 19 adopted by Ordinance No. 3651 included revisions pertaining to regulation of grading, retaining walls, and rockeries, and WHEREAS, in practice, the erection of rockeries is a craft and is primarily utilized for erosion protection of cut slopes and as landscaping features, and as such, the City does not consider rockeries to be retaining walls; and WHEREAS, the City Council, in adopting Ordinance No. 3 65 1, amended Title 19 to deregulate the construction of rockeries in order to recognize the utility of rockeries as erosion protection measures and as landscaping features which, if properly located and less than a certain height, do not raise issues of critical public interest and therefore, should not be subject to regulations, and {WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - Packet Page 130 of 229 WHEREAS, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.40, Grading and Retaining Walls, now also requires revisions to avoid duplication and ensure consistency with the revised Title 19, and WHEREAS, there are certain conditions where rockeries, if erected, could pose a threat to the public interest and/or safety and should, therefore, be prohibited within the City of Edmonds; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.40 Grading and Retaining Walls is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: Sections: 18.40.000 Grading 18.40.010 Retaining walls 18.40.020 Prohibited rockeries 18.40.000 Grading A. Grading defined. Grading shall be as defined in the International Building Code. B. Permit required. Except as provided in ECDC 19.00.010 and below, no person shall do any grading without first obtaining a permit from the building official. For grading proposed in conjunction with an approved subdivision or short plat, a separate grading permit is not required; however, grading plans and details shall be included on the subdivision/short plat civil plans, and plan approval by the City Engineer will constitute approval of the grading. C. Application. The building official shall establish submittal requirements for application, review and approval of grading permits. For grading proposed in conjunction with an approved subdivision or short plat, as a minimum, all submittal requirements established by the building official for grading permits shall be included on or submitted with the subdivision or short plat civil plans; and grading plans and calculations shall be prepared, {WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 131 of 229 stamped and signed by a Washington State licensed professional engineer. l 8.40.010 Retaining walls. A. Retaining walls defined. Retaining walls, including shoring structures, are structural systems that provide lateral support for vertical or near -vertical slopes in soil, including fill. The term "retaining wall" shall not include a rockery, and the City of Edmonds does not consider rockeries to be retaining walls. A rockery is a combination of rocks intended for erosion control or protection of a free-standing cut slope in firm, stable, undisturbed and competent native soil, or as a landscaping feature. B. Permit Required. Except as provided in ECDC 19.00.010 and herein below, no person shall erect a retaining wall without first obtaining a permit from the building official. For retaining walls proposed for construction in conjunction with an approved subdivision or short plat, a separate retaining wall permit is not required; however, retaining wall details shall be included on the subdivision/short plat civil plans, and plan approval by the City Engineer will constitute retaining wall approval. C. Application. The building official shall establish submittal requirements for application, review and approval of retaining wall permits. For retaining walls proposed for construction in conjunction with an approved subdivision or short plat, as a minimum, all submittal requirements established by the building official for retaining wall permits shall be included on or submitted with the subdivision or short plat civil plans. 18.40.020 Prohibited rockeries. A. The following types of rockeries are prohibited. No person shall construct a rockery within the City of Edmonds under the following circumstances or in the following situations: 1. No rockery may encroach into or be located in, over or on any City right of way. The term "right of way" shall include developed or undeveloped rights of way. Rockeries on private property adjacent to city right of way must be set back from the city right of way a minimum horizontal distance equal to the height of the rockery. 2. No rockery shall be constructed over a public utility easement (recorded or prescribed). {WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - Packet Page 132 of 229 3. No rockery shall be constructed in a manner which adversely affects drainage or creates a sight distance hazard as determined by the City Engineer. 4. No rockery shall support a surcharge. The term "surcharge" shall have that meaning assigned in the State adopted Building Code. 5. No rockery shall impound flammable materials. Flammable materials are materials as regulated by the State adopted Fire Code. 6 No rockery may exceed three feet in setback area height within a setback. The term "setback area height" is defined as the height measured vertically from the original grade of the soil to the highest point of the upper most rock. It is the property owner's responsibility to verify original grade and compliance with setback area height by submitting a professional land surveyor letter and section view when an enforcement action is initiated due to a violation of this section. 7. No rockery shall be placed against fill where the rockery exceeds three feet in height. The height of a rockery shall be determined as the height measured vertically from the finished grade of the soil at the exposed toe of the rockery to the highest point of the upper most rock. It is the property owner's responsibility to establish a defense to any enforcement action initiated due to a violation of this section by verifying the finished grade and compliance with maximum allowable height by submittal of a professional land surveyor letter and section view. 8. Rockeries are prohibited in designated geologically hazardous areas other than erosion hazard areas as defined in Chapter 23.80 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and within the designated Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area of North Edmonds unless as provided by ECDC 19.10.070E. 9. No rockery shall exceed twelve feet in height. The height of a rockery shall be determined as the height measured vertically from the finished grade of the soil at the exposed toe of the rockery to the highest point of the upper most rock. It is the property owner's responsibility to verify finished grade and compliance with maximum allowable height by submitting a professional land surveyor letter and section view when an enforcement action is initiated due to a violation of this section. {WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 4 - Packet Page 133 of 229 B. No person shall construct a prohibited rockery in the City of Edmonds. The violation of any provisions of this section shall be punishable as a misdemeanor in accordance with the provisions of the Edmonds City Code. It shall be a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any provision of this section is committed or allowed to continue. Construction of a rockery prior to October 1, 2007 shall be an affirmative defense to an enforcement action for violation of this section. C. In addition to the preceding criminal remedy, the construction of a prohibited rockery after October 1, 2007 shall be considered a nuisance and shall be subject to abatement in accordance with the civil enforcement procedures of Chapter 20.110 ECDC. Section 2. The Edmonds Community Development Code Section 20.110.030 Nuisance Section is hereby amended by the addition of a new paragraph (J) relating to rockeries to read as follows: 20.110.030 Nuisance section. J. Violations of the provisions of ECDC 18.40.020 Prohibited rockeries. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 5 - Packet Page 134 of 229 APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: l 0/01 /2007 ORDINANCE NO. {WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/ - 6 - Packet Page 135 of 229 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2007, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.40 GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS, AND ECDC 20.110.030 NUISANCE SECTION, TO ADD A NEW PARAGRAPH TO SPECIFY THE CITY'S REGULATION OF ROCKERIES, 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 {WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/1- 7 - Packet Page 136 of 229 AM-1167 Ordinance Amending ECC 10.25.030 (Civil Service) Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: Submitted By: Department: Review Committee: 09/18/2007 Debi Humann Human Resources Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Tnfnrmatinn Time: Consent Type: Action 2.G. Subject Title Proposed Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code 10.25.030 relating to the scope of the Civil Service system. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council approval of the attached Ordinance allowing for updates to the Edmonds City Code in regards to Civil Service Rules and Regulations and allows for recent court decisions to be applied in accordance with State law. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The attached Ordinance, as explained in the memorandum from Scott Snyder, allows: 1. The inclusion of non-commissioned police personnel in civil service in accordance with State law; 2. Permits a Police Chief, appointed from within the department, to return to his or her vested civil service rank if removed without cause from the at -will position of Chief of Police; and, 3. Updates the ECC to include new statutory provisions which authorize the Chief of Police to designate certain positions as outside of the "classified" civil service. The Ordinance was recommended by Scott Snyder, City Attorney, and has been reviewed and agreed to by Police Management as well as the Civil Service Commission. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Memo from the City Attorney Link: Proposed Ordinance Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/13/2007 08:43 AM 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/13/2007 08:58 AM Status APRV APRV Packet Page 137 of 229 Final Approval Sandy Chase Form Started By: Debi Humann Final Approval Date: 09/13/2007 09/13/2007 08:59 AM APRV Started On: 09/12/2007 05:38 PM Packet Page 138 of 229 DEN ff IRHY L CE P. L. L. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DRAFT MEMORANDUM DATE: August 16, 2007 TO: Edmonds City Council City of Edmonds FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney RE: Proposed Ordinance Amending ECC 10.25.030 This memo addresses three changes in current ordinance ECC 10.25.030. This ordinance governs the coverage of the Police Department in civil service. The Amendments address three different issues: 1. The inclusion of non-commissioned police personnel in civil service in accordance with State law; 2. Permitting a Police Chief, appointed from within the department, to return to his or her vested civil service rank if removed without cause from the at -will position of Chief of Police; and 3. Updating this section to include new statutory provisions which authorizes the Chief of Police to designate certain positions as outside of the "classified" civil service. NON-COMMISSIONED PERSONNEL. In 1993, Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals held that the then -existing language of Chapter 41.12 RCW required all full-time members of the police department to be included within the scope of civil service. Teamsters v. Moses Lake, 70 Wash. App. 404 (1993). This ruling came as a surprise. City Civil Service Commissions, whether functioning under State law or having enacted their own systems, uniformly included only full-time, commissioned law enforcement officers within their civil service structures. Many west -side cities, Edmonds among them, elected to wait for a challenge so that they could raise legal issues not briefed in the Moses Lake case before Division 11 or III of the Court of Appeals. A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • 206.447.7000 • Fax: 206.447.0215 • Web: www.omwlaw.com rSS670810.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 Packet Page 139 of 229 Edmonds City Council August 16, 2007 Page 2 In the intervening years, the State legislature made changes in the civil service statute intended to address other issues. One of these changes eliminated any statutory construction argument that the State legislature did not intend to cover non-commissioned personnel. Revisions to RCW 41.12.050, discussed in depth later in this memo, authorized the Police Chief to remove certain positions from civil service, among them an executive secretary or assistant. If the non- commissioned position of executive secretary or executive assistant were not in civil service to start with, why would the State legislature need to authorize the removal of the position from civil service? The City has been attempting to negotiate a resolution with the Edmonds Police Officers Association. To date, this effort has not been successful. However, the City should bring its civil service ordinance into compliance with the requirements of State law. A city may either use the State system as contained in the State statute or may adopt its own system. By adopting its own system, Edmonds has obtained the authorization to make deviations from the express letter of State law so long as the changes "substantially accomplish" the purposes of civil service law. An example is the use of the "Rule of Three" or other variations permitting flexibility in hiring from eligibility lists. The City has adopted its own system and in order for that system to comply with statutory requirements, it needs to make this amendment. AUTHORIZATION OF A RIGHT TO RETURN FOR THE CHIEF. This ordinance was originally drafted to incorporate the provision contained in paragraph 4 of the draft ordinance. This request from the Mayor is designed to encourage persons in the Edmonds civil service system to apply for the job of Police Chief. The position of Chief of Police is outside of civil service, and the Chief holds the position "at will." An at -will employee may be removed at any time for any reason. Such a provision can serve as a disincentive to apply for the position to an officer who is vested in the civil service system and nearing retirement. The Mayor or Police Chief can speak to this issue. CLASSIFIED VERSUS UNCLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE. In 2002, the legislature enacted changes which authorize the Chief of Police to remove a certain number of positions such as an executive secretary or assistant, a deputy or assistant chief, commanders and other high-ranking officers from the "classified" civil service and place the position in the "unclassified" service. In practical terms, a person in the "classified" civil service has the right to be selected, promoted, transferred, suspended and discharged in accordance with civil service requirements. A person in the "unclassified" civil service has the same job protections regarding suspension, demotion or removal as an individual in the "classified" service, but may be selected and promoted at the discretion of the Police Chief. Therefore, the only significant difference between the "classified" and "unclassified" civil service is the ability of the Police Chief to designate his or her command staff. Once appointed, however, persons in these positions may be removed only for cause. { WSS670810.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 Packet Page 140 of 229 Edmonds City Council August 16, 2007 Page 3 The language from the 1930s era civil service statute can be arcane. The last sentence of Section 5 is taken directly from the statute and contains the statutory requirement that persons in the unclassified civil service be disciplined or removed only in accordance with the Civil Service Chapter. WSS:gjz { WSS670810.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 Packet Page 141 of 229 0006.9000 WSS/gjz 7/09/07 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 10.25.030 RELATING TO THE SCOPE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Code establishes provisions regarding civil service coverage for its police department, which have not been amended for some years; and WHEREAS, RCW 41.12.050 relating to scope of civil service coverage and the process for exclusion has been amended; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to incorporate the provisions of RCW 41.12.050; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to provide for a right to return to vested civil service status where a chief was promoted from within the classified service; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds City Code, Section 10.25.030 Scope is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.25.030 Scope. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all full-time police personnel of the City except as provided herein. 1. The position of police chief shall be exempt from civil service coverage. The police chief shall have the authority to {wss667575.Doc;1/00006.900000/) - I - Packet Page 142 of 229 exclude an additional number of positions, to be designated the unclassified service. The number of such persons who may be designated shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of RCW 41.12.050. 2. The selection of specific provisions to be in the unclassified service and exempt from civil service shall be made by the police chief, who shall notify the Civil Service Commission of his or her selection. Subsequent changes in the designation of which positions are in the unclassified service may be made only with the concurrence of the police chief, the Mayor, and the Civil Service Commission, and then only after the Civil Service Commission has heard the issue in an open hearing. 3. If a position initially selected by the police chief to be in the unclassified service is in the classified civil service at the time of selection, and if the position is occupied, the employee occupying the position has the right to return to the next highest position or like position in the classified Civil Service. 4. When the Police Chief has been appointed from within the department and has previously established tenure within the classified service, he or she shall retain the civil service rank to which he or she has vested. The Chief serves at will and may be removed with or without cause at any time. In the event that the Chief is removed without cause, the Chief may, at his or her option, return to the last tenured position in the classified service. Civil service tenure may be terminated only for cause in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. 5. All appointments to and promotions in the classified service of the department shall be made solely on merit, efficiency and fitness except as specifically provided in RCW 35.13.360 through 35.13.400, which shall be ascertained by open, competitive examination and impartial investigation. No person in the unclassified service shall be reinstated in or transferred, suspended or discharged from any such place, position, or employment, contrary to the provisions of this chapter. {wss667575.Doc;1/00006.900000/) - 2 - Packet Page 143 of 229 Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: C W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {wss667575.Doc;1/00006.900000/) - 3 - Packet Page 144 of 229 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2007, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 10.25.030 RELATING TO THE SCOPE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM, 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 {wss667575.Doc;1/00006.900000i}- 4 - Packet Page 145 of 229 AM-1171 Continued Closed Record Review Appeal of Burnstead Preliminary Subdivision Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: Submitted BY: Department: Review Committee: Action: 09/18/2007 Duane Bowman Development Services Information Time: 60 Minutes Type: Action Subject Title Continued City Council deliberation on the Closed Record Review held on 08/28/07 regarding 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) 3. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision and direct the City Attorney to prepare necessary findings of fact. Previous Council Action This matter was continued from the August 28, 2007 City Council meeting. Narrative The City Council concluded oral arguments and continued the matter to September 18, 2007 to allow the City Council to review the record. In addition, the appellant, applicant and parties of record were given until 5:00 p.m. on September 13, 2007 to submit any written objections to oral argument at the August 28th meeting. Attached are the minutes from the August 28, 2007 meeting along the written objections submitted. Please bring your packet from the August 28th meeting. Should you need another copy of the packet, please contact Sandy Chase, City Clerk. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - City Council minutes 82807 Link: Exhibit 2 - Petso Objections Link: Exhibit 3- Marks Statement Link: Exhibit 4 -Burnstead Objections Link: Exhibit 5 - Lutz (Burnstead) Citation Form Routing/Status Packet Page 146 of 229 Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/14/2007 09:17 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/14/2007 09:58 AM APRV Final Approval Form Started By: Duane Bowman Final Approval Date: 09/14/2007 Sandy Chase 09/14/2007 09:58 AM APRV Started On: 09/14/2007 08:18 AM Packet Page 147 of 229 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED 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 51h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Acting Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Services 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 change to Mayor Haakenson advised Agenda Item 3 (Presentation regarding the Military Family Friendly Employer genda 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 COUNCILMEMBER 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: oll Call A. ROLL CALL pprove 8i20/07 B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 2007. Minutes [Approve Claim C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #98471 THROUGH #98629 FOR AUGUST 23, 2007 IN Checks 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. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 1 Packet Page 148 of 229 Claims for amages D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM PATRICIA TULLER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) AND PATRICIA DZEIMA (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). Military Family 3. PRESENTATION REGARDING THE MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY EMPLOYER Employer Friendly oyer PROGRAM, AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION DECLARING EDMONDS TO BE MILITARY mpl Program 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. Puget Sound Regional 4. PRESENTATION BY PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL (PSRQ ON THE UPDATED Council Update 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 including King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties, 71 cities and towns, and four port districts, transit agencies and tribes. He explained 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 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page 149 of 229 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 is 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 fits with the city's vision. Proposed 5. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER Ordinance re: 5.60, GRAFFITI, DECLARING GRAFFITI A PUBLIC NUISANCE; PROHIBITING Graffiti DEFACEMENT OF PROPERTY WITH GRAFFITI AND POSSESSION OF GRAFFITI IMPLEMENTS; IMPOSING CRIMINAL PENALTIES; REOUIRING 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 is 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. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page 150 of 229 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 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 responsible party cooperated with efforts to abate the graffiti nuisance, whether the responsible party Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page 151 of 229 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 in 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 SR104 overpass. He noted it was possible to remove graffiti particularly if done within three days. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page 152 of 229 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 as 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 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 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. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 6 Packet Page 153 of 229 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 was 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 responsibility for restitution. She noted a homeowner's policy would typically cover graffiti removal depending on the cost of removal. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 7 Packet Page 154 of 229 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 important 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 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 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page 155 of 229 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. Closed Record 6. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S APPROVAL Review re: OF A 27-LOT PRELIMINARY PLAT (WOODWAY PLAT) LOCATED AT 23700 104TH Woodway Plat (Petro Appeal) 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 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. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 9 Packet Page 156 of 229 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. The Mayor 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 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 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 10 Packet Page 157 of 229 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 allowing parties of record to participate. He agreed many of the plat issues were intertwined with the PRD. Heather Marks, Edmonds, recommended parties of record 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 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. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 11 Packet Page 158 of 229 COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, 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 in 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 of 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 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 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 12 Packet Page 159 of 229 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 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 as 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. 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 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 13 Packet Page 160 of 229 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 infll 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 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 Bumstead 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. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 14 Packet Page 161 of 229 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 professionally designed and the record reflected that the drainage designed for the site specific conditions would be adequate to protect the surrounding 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 approval 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. 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 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 15 Packet Page 162 of 229 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 not 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 to address PRD issues 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 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 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 16 Packet Page 163 of 229 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 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 minutes 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. 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 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 17 Packet Page 164 of 229 the result would be 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 an 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 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. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 18 Packet Page 165 of 229 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. 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. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 19 Packet Page 166 of 229 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 National Stephen Andrews, LaRouche Political Campaign, referred to the current collapse of the financial system 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. aterfront Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, asked whether Mayor Haakenson was still bound by the non -disclosure Redevelopment agreement with regard to the Waterfront Redevelopment. Mayor Haakenson answered there was no Department longer a non -disclosure agreement. Mr. Hertrich questioned how the City tracked staff s comp time and Head Comp learned no list was maintained, each Department Head was on the honor system including the Mayor. He Time 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. 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SEASHORE TRANSPORTATION FORUM AGREEMENT Seashore Transportation Forum 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, they did not feel they 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. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 20 Packet Page 167 of 229 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 SNOTRACCouncilmember 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 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 COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS snocom 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. CTAC 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. Port Councilmember Wambolt advised most of the items discussed at the August 13 Port meeting had been commission 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 this area. The Port also reviewed their second quarter performance and gross profits which were up 19% from 2006. sound Transit 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. dmonds Councilmember Moore reported the Edmonds Community College annual Board retreat included °mmurnt' discussion regarding the importance of recruitment and retention of students, issues they would be College focusing on over the coming year. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 21 Packet Page 168 of 229 Councilmember Dawson commented SnoCom had been seeking funding for an interconnect between snoPak and SnoCom and SnoPak. Although it was originallybelieved funding the applied for would not be realized, snoPak g g Y pp they had received $300,000 for the interconnect. SnoCom 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 answer to, who the members would be and whether they would be appointed by the cities or communication 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 City's Financial Councilmember Wambolt read a guest column that would appear in this week's Edmonds Beacon Situation 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. arbor square I Councilmember Marin advised last week each Councilmember received a 3-ring binder containing edevelopment 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. 164th St. Councilmember Marin recognized the wonderful job that was done on the 164th Street walkway project. [Walkway Mayor Haakenson explained the contractor did a great job and was very conscientious even sleeping in roject Y p g J 1S' � P� g his truck on site to ensure his work was not disturbed. Neighbors brought the contractor food and a birthday cake on his birthday. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 22 Packet Page 169 of 229 sno-King Councilmember Moore announced the Running of the Balls on Saturday, September 8, a non-profit event Youtvent club 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. Hazbor Squaze 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. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 28, 2007 Page 23 Packet Page 170 of 229 September 13, 2007 Sandy Chase, City Clerk City of Edmonds 121 5t' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Citation to the record Dear Ms. Chase, HAND DELIVERED RECEIVED SEP 13 2007 EDMONDS CITY CLERK If this letter is not itself provided to the council members as part of their record for deliberation, please provide at least the Appendix, which "fills out" some omissions in the transcript provided by the City. This omission, particularly if not corrected, could constitute yet another violation of the appearance of fairness doctrine. 1. Hearing Examiner reliance on facts outside the record: While the record contains several examples of Hearing Examiner bias and misconduct, I did not intend to allege that the hearing examiner spoke to me outside the record. The challenged comments were based on the following text located in Footnote 1 on Page 3 of the Hearing Examiner decision: The Hearing Examiner acknowledges that ECDC 20.100.010(C) labels the site visit as a "pre -hearing" activity. However, due to the public involvement in this matter and in actions taken by the City preceding this action, the Hearing Examiner believed a that a site visit was best conducted after receiving information from the members of the public who best understood the area — the neighboring property owners. At the time the Hearing Examiner decided to omit the mandatory pre -site visit, there actually had been no public involvement in this matter (the ADB meeting did not include public participation). Thus, even as she assured me she could be fair despite her Packet Page 171 of 229 involvement with my GMA appeal, that this matter stood alone, she had already allowed knowledge from the appeal to influence her handling of this matter, and essentially talked herself out of the mandatory pre -hearing site visit. I am relieved that Mr. Lutz also recalled that the hearing examiner indicated that she felt she could be fair. (See Minutes at page 18, "He observed there was some 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.") This is one of those Watergate Tape issues. I have reproduced a portion of the discussion here from the tape, as the transcript provided by the City is even less complete than my effort here. (Text omitted from the City transcript is underlined). Ms. Petso: So you didn't research the relevant case law on that matter? Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: No, I did not. Ms. Petso: And you didn't participate in draftin the opinion? Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: No, I did not. Ms. Petso: Thanks. Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Ok, so hearing that, I assume there is no objection from the other parties, there doesn't appear to be an objection from Ms. Petso which would be the most direct and also feeling that I can still be unbiased, impartial, in hearing this matter because its determined on its own facts and circumstances we can go ahead and proceed. Oh, and I certify that the forgoing is a true and correct representation of the discussion on the hearing tapes that I purchased from the City, to the best of my knowled d transcribe that discussion. September 13, 2007. Of course, I did not find out until later that she had not made the required site visit. From page 33 of the transcript we have: Packet Page 172 of 229 Ms. Petso: I would like to ask were you able to make your site visit, and did you do it today. Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: No I haven't. Ms. Petso: Oh, you have not done the site visit. Okay, it's my understanding that's supposed to occur before the hearing and new fences have gone up today, which are going to make that a lot more difficult for you to get in. There was further discussion of the prior fencing, which still allowed some site access, and the effect of the demolition fencing that went up the day of the hearing, and which made proper site access much more difficult. (p. 43) There was also further mention that the pre -hearing site visit is required, not optional. (p. 71). Based on the forgoing, it is clear that my comments to council were entirely based upon information provided in record in this proceeding. 2. Ms. Brown's objection to 25 foot buffering discussion. In addition, it appears Ms. Brown attempted to object to 25 foot buffering along the park as being "out of the record", but buffering is discussed several times. See, as an example, page 45. Ms. Petso:... It is clear that this one intended to have a natural buffer and not just a fence with a couple of trees. The perimeter buffer shall either provide the same front, side and rear setbacks for all lots along the perimeter, that would be to create a subdivision kind of effect, you know, not go house to house like we've been talking about with 10 feet between each, or so if you want to cluster, if you want to knock it down to 10 feet between homes, you should provide a landscape buffer, open space, or recreation area of a depth equal to the rear setback. I don't know if the rear setback might be 15, 20, or 25 feet, but a fence doesn't provide a 15, 20, or 25 foot buffer... There is even one time where I ask Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor if she needs citations regarding buffering, but she indicated that was not required. (p. 42). Packet Page 173 of 229 Buffering was discussed at the hearing, and is an element of the City code. It is both in the record, and also subject to "judicial notice." You simply can't object to City code as not being part of the record. 3. Pileated Woodpecker I don't know if I am supposed to reply to other objections, but Ms. Marks mentions the pileated woodpecker on page 52 of the transcript. Ms. Marks:... pileated woodpeckers are frequent visitors to the property .. . Packet Page 174 of 229 Appendix: As you will recall, I reserved the right at the hearing to "complete" the transcript provided by the City. While I have not yet had time to check and correct all the errors, please provide the following to council to fill out the discussion at the top of page 3 of the transcript. The underlined material was omitted from the original transcript, yet was referenced by both Mr. Lutz and myself at the City Council meeting. Ms. Petso: So you didn't research the relevant case law on that matter? Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: No, I did not. Ms. Petso: And you didn't participate in draftingthe he opinion? Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: No, I did not. Ms. Petso: Thanks. Ms. Ainsworth -Taylor: Ok, so hearing that, I assume there is no objection from the other parties, there doesn't appear to be an objection from Ms. Petso which would be the most direct and also feeling that I can still be unbiased, impartial, in hearing this matter because its determined on its own facts and circumstances we can go ahead and proceed. Packet Page 175 of 229 RECEIVED Heather Marks & Cliff Sanderlin 10522 Robbers Roost Road, Edmonds, WA 98020 Ms. Sandy Chase, City Clerk Sept. 5, 2007 City of Edmonds 121 — 5th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Citation to the Record Dear Ms. Chase: SEP 0 7.2007 My original comment about pileated woodpeckers was made in both my written and oral presentations at the hearing June 21, 2007. See page 3, section: ANIMALS: "h. This is incorrect. Animals, c)The answer acknowledges that a portion of the property is within a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area. In addition, that area is part of the larger area directly adjacent to it. Birds including but not limited to great horned owls, eagles, robins, swallows, killdeer, hawks, Canadian geese and pileated woodpeckers are frequent visitors to the property in addition to songbirds, among them Bewick's wren, winter wren, and chickadees. Every spring, the swallows feed on insects they catch in the grassy area near the baseball diamond." Sincerely, Heather Marks, MSW Packet Page 176 of 229 09/13/2007 16:54 FAX 206 4470215 10004 PeTkins Coin The PSE Buliding 0865 N-E- Fourth Street, Su itc 700 R. Gcnrd Lutz BeIlGvue WA 98o04-5579 PNorE (425)635-1403 PMONL-4,103i-14o0 FAX-. (425) 635-2403 FN1. 425.635.2400 LuMa», A.u121§perki05c0ie.c0m vrwvKperkinscvie.evm September 13, 2007 VIA FACSUMLE AND ELECTRONIC DELIVERY Scott Snyder Ogden Murphy Wallace 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, Washington 98101-1686 Re: Clarification of objections and Additional Comments regarding the Edmonds. City Council Closed -Record Review of the Burnstead Subdivision Approval (File No. P-2007-17) Bear Mr, Snyder: As you know, the Edmonds City Council (the "Council") heard oral arguments during the Council meeting on August 28, 2007 (the "Council Meeting") concerning its closed -record review of the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated July 20, 2007 (the "Examiner's Decision"), which approved Burnstead Construction's ("Burnstead") preliminary plat. Burnstead submits this letter to clarify several ofBur3lstead's objections made during the Council. Particularly, this letter responds to your letter regarding citation to the record, dated August 31, 2007. CLARIFICATION Ott OBJECTIONS A. Objection made by Tiffiny Brown to which no party of record was requested t-a respond. The Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes from August 28, 2007 (the "Council Minutes") reflect the following comments made by Roger Hertrich: "rIhe 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." See Council Minutes,. p. 16. Ms. Brown objected to such testimony from the parties of record regarding the extensive wildlife study. "[Ms. Brown] did not believe the extensive wildlife study done after the Hearing 65693-ODO 11LEGAL 13545I29.1 ANCHORAGE • BEIJiNC, BELLEVUE • 8815E - CHiCAGO - DENVER HONG KONG - LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK • OLYMPIA PHOENIX - PORTLANO - SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE - WASHINCTON, D.C. Perkins Cole LLP and Affiliates Packet Page 177 of 229 09/13/2007 16:55 FAX 206 4470215 Z 005 Scott Snyder September 13, 2007 Page 2 Examiner's decision should be cited as it was not part of the record." See idat p. 17. However, your letter did not require any party to respond to Ms. Brown's objection. Ms. Brown's objection should be upheld since the referenced study was not conducted until after the Examiner's Decision, in response to the two limited Planned Residential Development ("PRD") remand issues. In addition, the comments did not pertain to the plat appeal but rather PRD issues, and thus are outside the scope of the Council's review. Bumstead respectfully requests that the Council not consider any comments made concerning the extensive wildlife study, including those comments made regarding the methodology by which the study was conducted and the credentials of the professional who conducted it. Such study is outside of the record. Mr. Hertrich also stated that a "biologist" visited the site. See id_ at p. 16. The qualificaticns of the person who conducted a study that is not properly part of the record should also be stricken from the record. For your information, Burnstead retained a certified wildlife specialist to, conduct the subsequent wildlife study; the study was not performed by Burnstead's wetland biologist. The wildlife specialist's qualifications are part of the record in the PRD remand hearing, but should be excluded from the record before the Council in the closed record plat appeal hearing. B. Ms. Brown's Objections were mistakenly treated as rebuttal testimony. Ms. Brown made a number of objections to testimony from the parties of record during the Council Meeting that Burnstead believes were misconstrued. "Tiffany Brown ... acknowledged it was difficult to keep the issues separate. With regard to Mr. Hertrich's comments about wildlife, drainage, wetland and lot coverage, [Ms. Brown] 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:' SeQ id. at 17. After Ms. Brown's objections, you advised her that rebuttal was not permitted. See id. However, Ms. Brown's comments were not meant as rebuttal; they were intended as objections to the preceding comments of the various parties of record who are not parties to the Petso plat appeal. 1. PRD and SEPA issues are outside the scope of the Council's review_ Ms. Brown's first objection was intended to emphasize that wildlife, drainage, wetland and lot coverage are PRD and SEPA issues. The ECDC does not allow the Council to review the Hearing Examiner's decision on a preliminary PRD or SEPA threshold determination, as t1le Hearing Examiner makes final decisions for the City on those issues, subject only to appeal to the superior court. ECDC 20.35.080(A)(4), 20.15A.240(C), 20.105.030(D) and 20.105.070. The Council may only consider those issues raised that concern the preliminary plat approved by the Hearing Examiner. ECDC 20.105.010 (B), 20.100.010(B)(5). Ms. Brown's comment objected 65693-0001 /LEGAL 13545129.1 Packet Page 178 of 229 09/13/2007 16:55 FAIL 206 4470215 [in 006 Scott Snyder September 13, 2007 Page 3 to those issues that, despite the desire of the various parties of record to speak about them b ore Council. are outside of the scope of the Council's closed -record review because they are PRD and SEPA issues. The Examiner's Decision characterizes wetlands as a SEPA issue, See Examiner's Decision, p. 17. The Order on Reconsideration (the "Reconsideration") notes Ms. Petso herself argued. that The wetlands issue was not properly evaluated under SEPA. See Reconsideration, p. 5. The question of the presence of a FWHCA is also a PRD and SEPA issue. See Examiner's Decision, pp. 32 and 35. In fact, the Examiner's Decision remanded Burnstead's request for PRD approval to ensure protection of the FWHCA. The Examiner's Decision also notes that stormwater control and stormwater management are PRD and SEPA issues. See Examiner's Decision, pp. 30 and 32. Thus, the Council should not consider )FWHCA, drainage, or wetland issues during its closed -record review. Additionally, the argument by both the various parties of record and Ms. Petso that Burnstead's plat did not comply with the 35% lot coverage requirement is based on artistic renderings of the site_ Burnstead submitted these renderings as an aspect of ADB review. ADB review is specific to the PRD process. Issues associated with the ADB report, including lot coverage, should not be considered by the Council during its Petso plat appeal review, Further, the testimony is irrelevant, because compliance with lot coverage requirements is determined during the b161ding permitting process and any appeals based on alleged lot coverage violations are premature. 2, Comments on Burnstead's final engineering design for drainage should not be considered; such design does not yet exist and is thus outside of the record. The second portion of Ms. Brown's comment regarding "full engineering" was intended to object to the drainage engineering issues as being outside the record. Various parties of roc.ord and Ms. Petso argued that Burnstead's stormwater testing and drainage design were incomplete and ultimately inadequate. See id. at pp.13-14. This is, in effect, an argument that Burnstead should have produced a final drainage design for the preliminary plat. However, ECDC does .not require full drainage design at the preliminary plat stage. Full drainage design is not required until final engineering. Ms. Brown's objection should therefore be upheld and the Council should not consider comments on alleged improper final design of a drainage system that its yet to be designed, Such a design and the requirements for it are outside of the record at this .stage. C. Nothing in the public hearing transcript suggests that the Hearing Examiner was biased or that her site visit was conducted based on improper information. On page 18 of the record, I objected to Ms. Petso's allegations that the Hearing Examiner "spoke to her outside of the record and had done something inappropriate due to work she had done with 65693.000 i.1.5GAL13545129.1 Packet Page 179 of 229 09/13/2007 16:55 FAX 206 4470215 @] 007 Scott Snyder September 13, 2007 Page 4 the Growth Management Hearings Board." Butnstead understands that Ms. Petso was requested to provide citations to the record supporting her arguments. After reviewing the public hearing transcript, Bumstead is confident that nothing in the record suggests that the Hearing Examiner was biased or lied about being biased. The Hearing Examiner raised this issue in the Hearing Examiner's opening statement. Specifically, shy; disclosed that she worked with the Growth Management Hearings Board and acknowledged that Ms. Pctso had, filed some sort of action with the Board_ See Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts, p. 2. However, the Heating Examiner notes that she "participated in no way in [Ms_ Petso's) decision," and asked if Ms. Petso had any objections to her presiding over the hearing. See id. Ms. Petso questioned the Hearing Examiner about the matter. The transcript reflects that after questioning, Ms. Petso consented to the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Petro should not now be allowed to assert objections that are unfounded and which she did not preserve when she had the opportunity. The Hearing Examiner conducted a site visit after the hearing. Although ECDC suggests that site visits should be conducted pre -hearing, ECDC 20.105.050 provides that no procedural irregularity or informality shall affect the final decision unless the substantial rights of a person with a demonstrable beneficial interest are adversely affected. None of Ms. Petso's substantial rights were adversely -affect—the required site visit was conducted. Moreover, foot note nazrlber one of the Examiner's Decision provides sound and just reasoning as to why the Hearing Examiner conducted the site visit after, as opposed to before, the hearing. See Examiner's Decision, p. 3. n of Burnstead's clarifying comments. We look forward to the uncil's decision. 65693.0001 ILEGA413 545129.1 Packet Page 180 of 229 09/13/07 15:44 FAX 4256352400 PERKINS COIE Z002 Sp 1 0 2007 R. GEPARD LuTZ Direct Phone: 425,635.1403 Dirca Fax 425.635.2403 email: Ji,utzGperkinscoie.com September 13, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE Edmonds City Council c/o Ms. Sandra Chase City Clerk City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edynonds, WA 98020 Perkins Coin The PSE Building 10885 N.E. Fourth Street, Suite 700 6ellevue, WA 98004: SS79 PHONE; 425.635•1400 FAX: 425.695.24.00 www.perkinscoie.com Re: Burnstead Consent to Exclusion of Butrnstead's Hearing Examiner Hearing Date .Reference from the Edmonds City Council's Closed -Record Review of Burnstead Subdivision Approval (fifle No. P-2007-17) Dear Council Members: Applicant Burnstead Construction ("Burnstead") submits this letter to the Edmonds City Council ("Council") regarding the Council's closed -record review of the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated July 20, 2007, approving a preliminary plat for the above referenced project ("Project"). Particularly, this letter responds to the Council's request for clarification of matters which were objected to during the Council meeting held on August 28, 2007 (the "Council Meeting'). During the Council Meeting, I referenced the date of the final hearing on the two limited Planned Residential Development ("PRD") remand issues. See Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes, August 28, 2007, p. 15. City Attorney Scott Snyder "noted there was nothing in the record about a hearing on Friday" in response to my comment. See id. at p. 16. Burnstead has no objection to strike the date of the PRD remand hearing as being outside of the record. 65693-0001/LEGAL13 545116.1 ANCHORAGE • BEIJING BF.LLCVUE • BOISE • CHICAGO • DENVER HONG KONG • LOS ANOELES MCNLO PARK • OLYMPIA PHOENIX • PORTLAND - SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE • WASHINGTON. D.C. Perkins Coic LLP and Affiliates Packet Page 181 of 229 09/13/07 15:44 FAX 4256352400 PERKINS COIE IM 001 FACSIMILE' COVER SHEET CONFIDEN'I'IALANI)PIZIN'ILErl;i) If there are any problems with this transmission, please call 425.635.1400 DATr,: September 13, 2007 CLIENT NtimsF-R: 65693-1 Perkins Coie The PSE Building io885 N.E. Fourth Street, Suite 700 Bellevue, WA 98004-5579 PHONE! 425-635-1400 FAX 425.635.2400 COVER SHEET 8c 1 PAGES www.perkinscole.com RETURN TO: (NAME) Karen v. Cam bell (Lxr.) 1606 (ROOMNo.) 700 ORIGINALS WILL BE SENT TO YOU SENDER: TELEPHONE: FACSIMILE: R. Gerard Lutz (425) 635-1403 (425) 635-2403 RECIPIENT: COMPANY. TELEPHONE: FACSIMILE: Edmonds City Council Edmonds City Council, City of 425.771-0248 425.771.0254 Members, c/o Sandra Edmonds Chase, Ci!y Clerk This Fax contains confidential, privileged information intended only for the intended addressee. Do not read, copy or disseminate it unless you are the intended addressee. Tf you have received this Fax in error, please email it back to the sender at perkinscoie.com and delete it from your system or call us (collect) immediately at 425.635.1400, and mail the original Fax Lo Perkins Cole LLP, The PSE Building, 10885 N,B. Fourth Street, Suite 700, Bellevue, WA 9SO04-5579. ANCHORAGE • BEIJING • BELLEVUE - BOISE - CHICAGO • DENVER - L05 ANGELES • MENLO PARK OLYMPIA • PHOCNIX • PORTLAND • SAN FRANCISCO - SEATTLE - SHANGHAI • WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Cole LLP and Affiliates Packet Page 182 of 229 AM-1166 4. Closed Record Review R-07-35 Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 09/18/2007 Submitted By: Diane Cunningham Submitted For: Rob Chave Time: 45 Minutes Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Information Subject Title Closed Record Review regarding the Planning Board approval to rezone property located at 9521 and 9531 Edmonds Way from Multi -Family Residential (RM-1.5) and Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Community Business - Edmonds Way (BC-EW). Applicants: A.D. Shapiro ArchitectsNalhalla Properties / File No. R-07-35. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance approving the changes in zoning, as recommended by the Planning Board. Previous Council Action The City Council approved an amendment to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) in February, 2007 which created the zones that the applicants are now seeking to apply to the subject properties (see Ordinance #3627, Attachment 4 of Exhibit 2). Narrative The applicants are requesting a change in zoning for properties they own within the Edmonds Way Corridor (SR-104). The Planning Board held a public hearing on the request July 25, 2007 and after deliberations, recommended that the City Council approve the changes in zoning. The Planning Board action and their reasoning is contained in the verbatim transcript (Exhibit 1). The staff report and additional comment letters are contained in Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively. Parties of record for the City Council closed record review are listed in Exhibit 4. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Planning Board hearing transcript Link: Planning Board Staff Report Link: Additional Comment Letters Link: Parties of Record Form Routing/Status Packet Page 183 of 229 Route Seq Inbox 1 Development Services 2 City Clerk 3 Mayor 4 Final Approval Form Started By: Diane Cunningham Final Approval Date: 09/13/2007 Approved By Date Status Duane Bowman 09/13/2007 12:16 PM APRV Sandy Chase 09/13/2007 01:44 PM APRV Gary Haakenson 09/13/2007 01:55 PM APRV Sandy Chase 09/13/2007 04:02 PM APRV Started On: 09/12/2007 04:23 PM Packet Page 184 of 229 CITY OF EDMONDS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF PLANNING BOARD HEARING File Number R-07-35 July 25, 2007 Chair Guenther: Public hearing on the rezone by A.D. Shapiro Architects and Valhalla Properties at 9521 and 9531 Edmonds Way. The application is to rezone the subject property from RM-1.5 and RS-6 to BC-EW. File Number R-07-35. All right. Rob. Mr. Chave: The application is to rezone properties, which basically lie just east of the carwash property in the Westgate Center Commercial Area. These properties lie below the bluff that was recently developed with a single-family subdivision, and also includes two properties that run perpendicular to Edmonds Way and actually go as far as 228th Street Southwest. Mr. Chave: When the application was reviewed, we looked were required to make an environmental determination under the State Environmental Policy Act. When we did that, we actually included two mitigating conditions, one of which was to say that there would be no access from this future development to 228th, so the access would have to be on Edmonds Way. Secondly, that any access onto Edmonds Way would require that there be consolidated exists, entries, driveways, and so forth. Mr. Chave: We did, just a couple of days ago, received a comment note from Washington State Department of Transportation saying they really had no issues with the application except that they did want to review and approve any conditions that the City was imposing at the time of development. So in other words, they wanted to look at the configuration of the access to make sure that it met their approval, as well. Mr. Chave: The application, as we indicated, is basically to change the zoning to the new Edmonds Way mixed use, which is BC-EW. That zone is, generally, considered to be consistent with the Edmonds Way Corridor designation. So we look site by site to make a determination of whether the rezone is appropriate, and that's partially the reason why we did the conditions in the SEPA determination. We felt that, generally, the application was in order, but we wanted to make sure and make clear that there was no chance for adverse traffic impacts going forward. Mr. Chave: The applicant and staff report outline sort of the reasoning, I guess, of running through the criteria. I think the applicant has a presentation, so I won't repeat what he's probably going to state in his presentation. Basically, the staff recommendation is for the Planning Board to recommend approval to the City Council. We thought it was consistent with the criteria or met the criteria for a rezone. Also, it was consistent with the direction in the Comprehensive Plan, which generally is to encourage mixed -use, multi -family, and so forth along arterials, especially major arterials such as 104 in this particular case. I think at this point, if you have questions, I would be happy to answer. Otherwise, I think the applicant's got a presentation. Vice Chair Dewhirst: Rob, on both the Comp Plan, the vicinity map, and the zoning vicinity map, this rezoning was leaving a slight sliver of land between, I don't quite understand the map. Is it leaving a sliver, or are they not rezoning their whole parcel? Mr. Chave: The property ownership has changed a bit in this particular location in recent years, so parcels have been bought and sold, and portions of parcels have been bought and sold, but the Comprehensive Plan and zoning have not been updated accordingly. So what's you've got is, basically, there's a little portion of the property, actually, if you look at the site plan, or the ownership plan they submitted, which is the I I" by 17" map that is before Attachment 3. Actually, notice that their Packet Page 185 of 229 western property line has some jigs and jogs on it, whereas the property information we have from the County just has pretty much a squared off line. I suspect the County map is just slightly out of date, so that's something we're going to have to verify and check on. It was advertised, the various parcels; it's just a question of what is the actual recorded boundary of the parcel. Otherwise, you're right. I believe part of the property, and the applicants can correct me, was actually sold to the single-family development up the hill. Again, the zoning wasn't changed to reflect that sale. So this is something, depending on what happens with this action, the Planning Board may want to come back and review the boundaries and make an appropriate correction at a later time. Vice Chair Dewhirst: But the legal description they submitted covers the land that they own? Mr. Chave: I mean, that's our understanding. They are not asking for any more, because they don't own it. Vice Chair Dewhirst: Okay, because it just didn't make sense. I mean, there are a number of answers that were possible, but okay, never mind. Board Member Works: Rob, I just had a question about the letter that you received. The way I read it, the part about drainage, that is not ... He's not talking about the property we're considering, but it's the lots next to it. Is that ... I wasn't sure where he lived exactly. Mr. Chave: You know, I'm not even sure it's the lot next to it. I think it's the two lots that are right adjacent to 95`h. So it's another lot removed. Board Member Works: Okay, all right. Mr. Chave: But yeah, there is a low depression area there, and nobody has done an evaluation to say that the wetland isn't just a drainage depression. Board Member Works: But it's not related to this piece of property? Mr. Chave: No. Board Member Works: Okay, that's what I thought, but it wasn't clear to me where he was talking about. Board Member Reed: I have a question on that same subject because I saw that note in the letter. I think you even refer to it somewhere in the staff report as a mentioned letter and a possible drainage issue. What I don't understand is, is that something that should have been addressed in the SEPA determination in addition to those access issues on 2281n Mr. Chave: Only if the drainage issue was on the properties or directly effected by their properties. You know, there's no evidence of wetlands, drainage problems, etc. on their properties. What they would have to do during development is have a stormwater plan that controls and takes care of drainage issues. So there's nothing to indicate at this point in time that there's a problem with their property. Board Member Reed: So the development could maybe improve that situation, is that sort of what you're saying? Mr. Chave: No necessarily. Board Member Reed: It doesn't have to, but could it? Mr. Chave: Unknown. I would be surprised because if the properties that the letter writer is mentioning are truly lower, controlling runoff on this property, you know I am not going to speculate. It could have some marginal effect, but it's probably not much unless it was actually contributing directly to the water on the property. But if it's low, probably not. Board Member Reed: Okay. Thank you. Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-07-35 July 25, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page 186 of 229 Board Member Young: Just to follow that up and really close the loop on it. Actually, this wouldn't be, and I'm paraphrasing here, so check me if I am misinterpreting this. This wouldn't be the point in time to deal with that as a wetland anyway because we don't know where the drainage is going to go because there's no site plan or anything submitted, which is totally appropriate. But the impact, if there is going to be any, would be considered during what, the application for a building permit? Mr. Chave: Yeah. Board Member Young: Okay. That's what I thought. Mr. Chave: At that point they have to show that they have a feasible stormwater control system, and it's regulated an approved by the engineers. Board Member Young: Okay, so if it's off site here, it doesn't effect what we're considering. Chair Guenther: Before I call Mr. Shapiro up, just to remind everybody, this is a public hearing and as part of the appearance of fairness, I need to ask if anybody's had ex parte communications or anything. All right no problems with that, just a little housekeeping. Mr. Shapiro, please. Mr. Shapiro: Could we shut the blinds so it will improve the contrast? Mr. Chave: I don't think it's an issue. Mr. Shapiro: All right. My name is Tony Shapiro with A.D. Shapiro Architects, representing Valhalla Properties, and SGA Corporation. Thank you for this opportunity to present this project. We are excited about the prospects of turning this old gravel pit into something that is of value to the City and community. I know we're all familiar with Edmonds Way, and this just a brief aerial showing the location of our site, which is more in the Westgate Commons area. It's just outside of the Westgate zone, but it's right in this end, so it's at the tail west end of the Edmonds Corridor Comp Plan area, so back down in here. This site, historically, has been a gravel pit. I believe it was mined in the 30's and 40's and maybe into the 50's. It was recently bought by Rob Michel, who as Rob said, cut off the upper portion and made single-family houses and sold them separately, and then sold the lower lot to my client. Prior to that, my client had owned the two lots, which we're calling Lots 2 and 3, the narrow lots that go to 228th, separately. So now we are proposing to rezone these three parcels in unison into a single zone. Mr. Shapiro: Currently, the zoning, well here's just a map of the Comp Plan, showing kind of the tail end of the Edmonds Way Corridor, which ends with this site. Another more detailed map with some of the multi -family across the street. I believe the properties that the letter from Mr. Martin was talking about are these; there are either two or three properties in here. Mr. Martin's parcel is right here, and then our subject properties. Here's a little closer aerial of it. Mr. Shapiro: The grade change is significant, even from 228th down to Edmonds Way; I think we're talking of probably a 35-foot grade change. It gets very steep up in this zone. It graduals out down in here, and then it gets very steep over at this part of the site again, which is probably about a 40-foot, 45-foot grade change. The site also slopes pretty significantly from what we're calling the western end up into this zone. We probably have I believe about a 6 to 8-foot grade change, maybe not quite that much, but approaching six foot across Edmonds Way, which is a significant impact upon a retail building or a commercial building, and how it responds to the floor levels. This is a speculative building, and to try to determine where a grade change will occur or be picked up into the finished floor is a challenge foreseeing during the design phase of the project. It looks like some of our slides got, I'm not sure what this was. That was my lettering probably. Board Member Young: I couldn't agree more. Mr. Shapiro: We'll move on here. Here are some surrounding properties, Westgate Chapel. I hope some of the verbiage did not do that, as well. Here is a shot down the street with the gas station. It's hard to discern some of the grade change that we're talking about, but it is significant across here and this hillside, which is a very stable hillside. We've had extensive soil exploration done by Golder Associations. It is a very stable hillside, yet at the same time, ultimately, we would like to Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-07-35 July 25, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page 187 of 229 propose carving this out and utilizing a lot of that ground and stabilizing that slope even further. Here, you might be able to see a little bit of this grade change that we're talking about going up Edmonds Way, so there is a significant vertical drop across this site. Mr. Shapiro: We also have a utility easement coming down adjacent to the two narrow parcels that crosses the front site, which we cannot build anything under. So there are some significant determinants to the project that will limit how the site gets laid out. There's really no way that we could avoid those power lines, even though that substation may be modified in the future. Another more comprehensive shot. Mr. Shapiro: I would just like to touch upon all the points of the Comp Plan criteria that we have to comply with to warrant changing this. So, if we could just run through that quickly. Sufficient number of sites suited for commercial uses. Essentially, the City is saying that we want to have enough sites being commercial in our town that will not essentially remove commercial activity from our City. We feel that, obviously, this site we want to keep it commercial. We are actually changing it back to commercial from single-family and multi -family. So we feel that this move strengthens that criteria, B.1 criteria, by adding more to the inventory of commercial properties in the City. Again, we're asking for a mixed -use designation, yet we still have a significant component that is going to be commercial activity on this site. We feel that the site is well -suited for multi -family, as well, because of the adjacent multi -family up and down the street. The majority of the commercial property on Edmonds Way is located at what we're calling the west end of Edmonds Way down to the Westgate Area, so we will be in that part of town on Edmonds Way than further up the road. We feel that the grade change enables these proposed sites to fit into the use pattern between the commercial and residential areas in this part of Edmonds Way because of the significant grade change and what we feel will be a minimal impact upon the adjacent single -families. Mr. Shapiro: Again, I think this slide got misplaced. This is a zoning map. We have a little diagram showing some of the proposed change that we would like to implement and try to illustrate the significant grade change that we have on this site. This line here, if you can discern it, is the existing grade. We would hope to be able to terrace the hillside to the point that we would do soil nailing and shore it and recoup some of this lost land, expanding the usefulness of the site, which would enable this property to house both commercial, parking, residential and office space potentially. We are not stipulating which uses are going to be included in the ultimate development, but this zone would permit those types of uses. Mr. Shapiro: The subject parcels fall into the Edmonds Way Corridor designation. Again, because of the grade change, has minimal impact on adjacent single-family, with the southwest corner of the property being more than 40 feet below the single-family above. Mr. Shapiro: One of the other criteria by the Comp Plan stipulates that parcels of land previously planned or zoned for commercial use but which are now or will be identified as unnecessary or inappropriate for such use by additional analysis should be reclassified for other uses. Again, we don't really fall into that criteria at all, but I just wanted to include that in our submission to the City. Mr. Shapiro: The third point is a proliferation of strip retail areas along Edmonds Way and other Edmonds streets and highways and the development of commercial uses should discourage that type of land use. We are also proposing that we would move away from that notion with this mixed -use development we would like to see here, which we hope would put commercial against Edmonds Way, with perhaps commercial right above it and housing above that. That is the objective of this new zone, and we feel that this site is well suited for incorporating that zone here. We have additional mixed -use functions that could occur above Edmonds Way and could mix nicely with this project and property. Mr. Shapiro: The fourth stipulation by the Comp Plan is that design and location of all commercial sites should provide for convenient and safe access for customers, employees and suppliers. Again, Edmonds Way is a very busy street, carrying more than 20,000 cars a day. Right now, there are two curb cuts onto the site, and we would hope to retain those two curb cuts as we develop it. We are also proposing and working with the Planning Department to provide access for the property to what we are saying the east of us. The staff has stipulated in the SEPA that we would provide that access, and we see no problem in incorporating that either through perhaps a little loop back, we might put a building right up against the street edge, or we may put a double loaded parking up against street edge. So that has yet to be determined, but the ultimate goal of providing cross parking easements to adjacent properties, we will more than happily work to incorporate. Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-07-35 July 25, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page 188 of 229 Mr. Shapiro: We would also agree with the requirement in the SEPA determination not to access 228th. Atone point, we were considering that, and we will remove any future plans of accessing 228th with say residential access to the upper levels. Mr. Shapiro: So now, touching upon the zoning criteria and seeing if we comply with the zoning objectives for a possible rezone is whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. The BC-EW zone, one of its objectives is to provide for areas of commercial uses offering various goods and services according to the different geographical areas and various categories of customers they serve. We feel that the BC-EW designation will permit flexible planning in the ultimate development of the property and enable us to do both smaller retail type facilities on this site. We also see office space as being a potential on this site. A restaurant would also be a nice use, but we may have challenges meeting the parking criteria to get a restaurant suited on here. So we feel any of those uses would be an appropriate ultimate function on this property. Mr. Shapiro: The second criteria in the rezone is to provide for areas where commercial uses may concentrate for the convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationships to each other. We feel that this site does have these potentials. The sketch, which can't really be discerned very easily, stipulates that the building could lay in this fashion, with parking in front for retail access and then housing or office above. So this is just a conceptual sketch showing how the site might ultimately be utilized. We have also discussed other proposals of bringing the building up to street edge. So we feel that the site is large enough to encounter multiple different solutions that would achieve the objective of this second point of the zoning requirements. Mr. Shapiro: The third point is to provide for residential uses, community facilities and institutions that may appropriately locate in commercial areas. Again, touching upon the same aspects that we would have a broad flexibility in applying these different types of functions into this property, with the BC-EW designation. Mr. Shapiro: The fourth point, to require adequate landscaping, off-street parking, and loading facilities. We would work to incorporate that. We would put street front landscaping. We would strive to bring the commercial as close to the street as possible and try to enliven Edmonds Way as much as that would. Delivery and garbage pickup, we would strive to put towards the back of the site. The site is deep enough to accommodate that. We would want to maximize store front exposure onto Edmonds Way. We would also separate the multi -family housing and office space from the ground floor activity and the business of Edmonds Way through grade changes. Actually, the sloping of the site lends itself quite naturally to that. This graphic here is trying to depict the notion of driving back up and on top of the retail area with parking. The slope, if we say the finished floor of the retail is more down in this area, and we pick up say five or six feet here, and then we ramp up another five, six, eight feet, we will be able to get on top of the retail with our parking area, and therefore, try to diminish as much as possible the parking that would occur at street edge. Mr. Shapiro: The other concept we are considering is bringing the building all out to street edge and driving around behind the building and beginning to ramp. We could get enough height through this ramp, and then you would park on top of the building here. So the notion that we have to have parking up against Edmonds Way, which we find undesirable, the developer, our client, is a little concerned about exposure, the traditional retail being that people like to see a parking stall and not have to walk up and down stairs to get into their store, is not as keen on this notion. But again, we aren't here showing any solutions; we are just talking about different possibilities and the flexibleness that this site does present. So we feel this site does adequately and appropriately pose potentials for this new zone. Mr. Shapiro: So going to the third criteria about, well this talks about some of the existing land use, the surrounding land use, and how we feel that we do have some natural separation, yet we are also still part of the Westgate Area with this, hopefully, major retail component here and would still blend with the rest of the surrounding City. Mr. Shapiro: One of the last points or questions is whether there have been enough or sufficient changes in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in the City policy to justify this rezone. I think we'll all have to agree that Edmonds is getting more dense, as well is our whole region. Edmonds Way, we believe, is a natural place for higher densities to occur because of the traffic. It does pose problems from a privacy standpoint and the willingness of housing tenants to live adjacent to such a busy street. The architectural solution would ultimately have to address that challenge, but we feel that this site does have big enough mass to enable us to work to diminish that natural conflict between housing and a busy road like Edmonds Way. We can also see other multi -family developments up and down Edmonds Way that are more the garden style Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-07-35 July 25, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page 189 of 229 apartments. We don't feel that housing is so foreign to Edmonds Way to say this is not an appropriate site for a housing complex to be sited. We feel that this would also continue with the trend that Edmonds is encountering of higher density living as we move into this century. Mr. Shapiro: One of the last points is suitability, whether the property's economically and physically suitable for uses allowed under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. We feel that single-family zones on Edmonds Way is an inappropriate zone designation for such a busy street. These properties, as they approach 228th, have such a significant grade change that we feel the BC-EW designation backing up to 228th would not be a major mishap. I believe that the zone requires a 15-foot setback against that street edge, so we would still have separation from that with the ultimate housing that would be facing 228th, even thought 2281h is single-family up above and this would be a multi -family complex at that level. Also, as we've talked about earlier, the site is large enough to enable us to separate these different functions and the traffic and services that need to service these type of buildings. Mr. Shapiro: And value. The last point is value of the property. Are we adding to the value of the property by this change and enhancing the surrounding property values, as well? We do believe that this is an appropriate use for property off of Edmonds Way. The existing zoning of a straight multi -family zone, say a town house solution or a condo solution on that large parcel adjacent to a car wash and bank, is not the most appropriate use for this site. We feel the increased density permitted by this change would help Edmonds maintain its compliance with the Growth Management Act. Mr. Shapiro: With that, that ends our formal presentation. I'm open for any questions or however, you want to proceed. Chair Guenther: I have a question. I know your designs you showed us are purely conceptual at this point, but I was just curious. Part of the code is to include low -impact and sustainable development in the site design. I was just curious about what kind of elements you have considered at this conceptual stage. Mr. Shapiro: Well, there's no trees per say. There are trees on the two sites we would strive to maintain or retain. We have not really, to be quite honest, thought through sustainable aspects on this site to any great detail. We feel that carving into this hillside and making the cut more steep would stabilize the site. Our soils engineering has said that if we come back in and carve into that bank and soil nail it, it would stabilize that, even though it is actually a very stable structure now, thereby enabling us to utilize the property to a higher level. So we have not really thought through how we would enhance the environmental aspects at this point. Chair Guenther: Any other questions? Board Member Reed: I want to resolve what I think is a conflict, and that is, you were going through points that you had in your April 18th letter on the different things that you intended to do. Attachment 4 is the zoning ordinance. Mr. Shapiro: Yes. Board Member Reed: and the purposes are listed on Page 1. And although the first three are somewhat similar, they are totally different than what's in the April 18th. Unless I'm reading the wrong... Maybe I'm comparing apples and oranges, but... Mr. Shapiro: I actually paraphrased. I copied from our April 18th submission and then tried to avoid reading all that verbiage, so I made bullet points as best I could. Board Member Reed: I think maybe... I don't know if the ordinance was still proposed when you did this letter? Mr. Shapiro: No, it was in effect. It was in effect. Board Member Reed: Then, I guess I'm not looking at the right document. Mr. Shapiro: What points have I deviated from? Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-07-35 July 25, 2007 Page 6 Packet Page 190 of 229 Board Member Reed: Well in the 16.50 BC Community Business, which now incorporates the BC-EW zone, it starts with five purposes, A, B, C, D, and E. That's on the first page of Attachment 4. Then there maybe another document somewhere that I'm not referencing and I'm misunderstanding. I just want to clear it up, that's all. Mr. Shapiro: Okay, so there's A, B, C, D and E. Right? Board Member Reed: Correct. That's on Attachment 4, and I was trying to compare that to the bottom of your Page 2, which are the five points you just went through. Mr. Shapiro: That's correct. Board Member Reed: And they're different. That's my question. Mr. Shapiro: Well, let's go back to point... The verbiage is essentially whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes, so that verbiage is there now. So this Point A, the criteria is to provide for areas of commercial uses offering various goods and services. We talk about in the April 18t' submission, established pattern of small businesses located along residential parcels. We say here in the presentation, our proposal would continue the trend of small businesses along the Edmonds Way Corridor and add multi -family housing and office space along with this commercial component. Again, our proposal would continue this trend and added multi -family housing and office space along with this commercial component. I would think that point is fairly consistent. Board Member Reed: I think that there are consistencies, and I don't want you to go back through them and try to address anything differently. I was just curious as to why they were different. Mr. Shapiro: Well, and I didn't use the exact same verbiage. I was trying to break it up a little bit and add some interest, at the same time abbreviate yet I incorporated pretty much the points that were ... Chair Guenther: Excuse me. I was just curious. Is John trying to compare the purposes of the section as opposed to the criteria that we judge the rezone? Is that the point you are making? Board Member Reed: It says purposes of the proposed zone district, and I'm just asking ... Chair Guenther: Right, there's purposes and then we also have a different set of criteria to judge the rezone. Board Member Henderson: There's a set of criteria that you have to take into account before you grant a rezone, and then this is the purposes of that particular zone, which is different. Board Member Reed: Well, let's move on because I understand what he has in his letter, and I understand what he's saying with respect to how the plans they have comply with the items in the letter. I just thought that the two were supposed to be the same, but I guess I'm looking in the wrong spot. That's okay, let's move on past it. Chair Guenther: All right. Are there any questions of the applicant? Board Member Freeman: Yeah, I have one, if I can find it now because I've been flipping back and forth. Ms. Noyes: I can't hear you very well. Board Member Freeman: I'm sorry; I just have to find it now. It's on Page 4 of the 18'b submission. I just want to clarify here; you have traffic to and from the project will be off Edmonds Way, with a possibility of a private entrance on 228`h Now, you said you changed your mind about that. Mr. Shapiro: Well yes, and that is a difference between the two. could access off of 228`h, but the Planning Staff has determined accordingly. This presentation addresses that. It says that we will not. When we submitted on April 18`h, we were hoping we that it would be undesirable and worded the SEPA Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-07-35 July 25, 2007 Page 7 Packet Page 191 of 229 Board Member Freeman: That's what I thought I heard you say. I say this in here, and that's just because it was done before this determination of non -significance. So we can forget about that? Mr. Shapiro: That's right, we would not propose to access from 228th Board Member Freeman: Okay. Chair Guenther: This is the section for the public testimony. If there's anybody from the audience who would like to come up and make testimony on this application, please come forward. All right, seeing none, we will close that part. There's no rebuttal from the applicant on that, I would imagine. Any comments from the staff? Mr. Chave: The only thing that didn't come up is in terms of landscaping along Edmonds Way. In the City's Street Tree Plan there is a requirement for street trees along there. So that will actually be something they'll have to reflect in the future development. That's something that will help soften the effect on Edmonds Way. Board Member Freeman: These are street trees on the actual street, are they? Mr. Chave: Yeah. And there are other landscaping requirements within the site perimeter, and so forth. But on Edmonds Way, it's also required to have certain street trees. Vice Chair Dewhirst: What about landscaping along 2281h in the back? Mr. Chave: That's something they are going to have to deal with when they deal with a specific development proposal. The main thing, I think, is there is a topography change there, so that's probably going to dictate whether they step back or set back from 228 h a little bit. Vice Chair Dewhirst: There's a hell of a drop off there. Mr. Chave: Yeah. Board Member Young: This is just kind of a clarification thing from staff. I'm inclined to support this because it meets all of the criteria, but I just, for the record and everybody's protection including the applicant's, could you run once again how this Edmonds Way BC zone is going to get implemented if it goes any further than these three parcels that we're looking at right now? Mr. Chave: Again, it was adopted into the City's Development Code specifically to provide an option for development within the Edmonds Way Corridor. Historically, all kinds of different zones have occurred within the corridor. Some of that is because of what the prior zoning was when those areas were annexed; that's probably the principle determinant. But otherwise, you find sort of a combination of commercial, mixed -use and multi -family. What we've been seeing in recent years is a desire to intensify some of the development along Edmonds Way. That's partially why the Edmonds Way Corridor designation was created and applied there because it was felt that trying to have everyone conform to a single zone was not going to work very well with the history of how development had occurred, but we wanted to provide options for people to choose. No matter which option you chose, it would ultimately support the corridor designation. So it's going to depend upon the particular site, whether you think it's appropriate for commercial, for mixed -use, multi -family, whatever. In this particularly case, because of its big change in topography and proximity to commercial uses and so forth, it seems like an appropriate designation. But again, it's going to vary depending on where you are in the corridor whether any particular zone that's proposed create problems that can't be mitigated or dealt with. Board Member Young: Well old gravel pits aside, would the BC-EW zone just hypothetically be available to somebody who chose to develop the old Albertson's site. Mr. Chave: Actually, no because technically, it's not within the Edmonds Way Corridor Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-07-35 July 25, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page 192 of 229 Board Member Young: Okay. Mr. Chave: You may recall that Firdale, Five Corners are neighborhood commercial areas that the Board has dealt with to some degree. Westgate is another one of those. It's actually designated as a different kind of commercial area. It's a community commercial area, but most of the zoning there, the vast majority, is actually neighborhood commercial, which really doesn't reflect the intensity of development that occurs right around that intersection. That's another key area that demands a neighborhood commercial plan and some zoning that actually makes sense for it. Right now, there's I think a bit of a disconnect. I think your notion is right. There's more intense zoning that's appropriate for Westgate, but right now, it's not specifically called out that way. Board Member Young: Okay, any place else in the Corridor this could go then? Mr. Chave: No, the BC zoning is really geared towards the Edmonds Way Corridor. Board Member Young: No, any place else in the Edmonds Way Corridor that somebody can apply for an Edmonds Way Zone. Mr. Chave: Yeah, that's quite possible. In fact, Mr. Shapiro has applied for another location. Board Member Young: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we're not, for the applicant's protection as well as ours, is I want to put this spot zoning thing to bed once and for all. Mr. Chave: That's a good point. Again, you're going to have evaluate each site as to whether its appropriate or not appropriate for the zone. Board Member Young: Okay. Vice Chair Dewhirst: If we're ready, I'll make a motion. Chair Guenther: I need to close the hearing first. I'll close the public hearing, so now we can deliberate, if we so choose to deliberate. Board Member Henderson: I think Mr. Shapiro has adequately addressed all of the issues with the zone change. I think he did a good job on the scores, so I'm supporting the zone change. Board Member Works: I would agree with that. It appears that all of the criteria have been met, and I think the Architectural Design Board will be looking at it very closely, obviously. I certainly would support it because it seems to, as I said, meet all of the criteria. Both the City's addressed them and Mr. Shapiro has addressed them to my satisfaction. Mr. Chave: Just for my clarification. Is that also based on the analysis and details in the staff report. Board Member Works: Yeah, that's what I said; the City has addressed them, so definitely the staff report. Chair Guenther: John. Board Member Reed: Just a couple of comments. I am going to support this application, but I do have a couple of concerns I want to make sure are at least noted. When we forwarded this BC Edmonds Way zone, I voted against it. The reason I did was because it had a 35-foot height limit stated and then two additional 5-foot increases. But it did end up with a 45-foot restriction along the frontage of Edmonds, and I personally thought that was a little bit too much. I supported the other change for the RM-EW. This property has a 434 foot frontage, according to the staff memo, along Edmonds Way. I think some of the things Tony mentioned in his presentation, if they happen, are going to be helpful because you are talking about moving it off of the street a bit, in other words, setting it back. And then there are also some step back requirements in here for heights. I get confused on how the heights work when I hear about a 40-foot elevation change and a 45-foot maximum elevation of the building, and when you start taking averages, I just don't understand exactly how that's all going Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-07-35 July 25, 2007 Page 9 Packet Page 193 of 229 to work. I agree with what you said, Judith, that when the design people get a hold of that, that's extremely important. I just want that noted. I will support the application. Board Member Reed: The other comment I need to make was changing ?? (the tape switches sides here) into residential properties. I'm not talking about the properties toward Highway 99, whichever direction that is, because I think those are ultimately going to end up in maybe a similar zoning situation. But the property up on the top of the hill, this property goes immediately adjacent to and behind those houses, and then right across the street, 228th, is all residential, so this needs to be sensitive to that when the actual design takes place. Chair Guenther: Thank you. Vice Chair Dewhirst: I also will support this, but I would like to suggest two conditions of the rezone. One is that it be mixed -use of residential plus other uses. If you read the zoning district, it can be a strictly all commercial, which I think would be a mistake going up that hill. Secondly, I would propose a minimum of a 25-foot landscape buffer along the 228th Street frontage, which would be equal to the front setback of an RS-8 zone. Mr. Chave: Because it's a rezone, the motion can't include conditions, unless it were a contract rezone and the applicant .. . Vice Chair Dewhirst: Can't we condition it? I thought we could. Mr. Chave: No. Not rezones. Contact rezones, if the applicant were offering conditions to mitigate or deal with concerns in the development. But in this case, it's just a simple change in zoning. Board Member Freeman: Well, I will support this, too, because I believe it meets all the conditions that have been laid out, and I agree with the Staff Report. However, I think there's another benefit that hasn't been specified here, and that's under the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare. I want to emphasis welfare. At the Council Meeting last night, Council Member Marin talked about his concern about having enough housing for elderly people who can no longer drive. He gave the figures, and I think he said the average male lives six years beyond when they are capable of driving. I'm not sure whether that's national statistics or state, I'm not sure. For the female, it was 12 years. This is very, very close, within easy walking distance to a lot of the services that people who can't drive need. That's the grocery store, maybe two if we are lucky, the drugstore, dry cleaners, and everything else like that. I don't know whether there's a bank there. Is there a bank there? Vice Chair Dewhirst: Uh huh. Board Member Freeman: Okay, so this is an excellent place for people who can no longer drive to live and still be able to function and stay in their own homes, and I think that that hasn't been brought out here. So I would certainly support this. Chair Guenther: Okay. I'm going to support this, also. It will just be repeating everybody else's comments, but it's mostly as it's laid out in the application and in the staff findings and analysis. Do we have a motion? Board Member Henderson: I move for approval. Board Member Freeman: I'll second it. Chair Guenther: All in favor, say aye. Chair Guenther: Aye. Vice Chair Dewhirst: Aye. Board Member Freeman: Aye. Board Member Young: Aye. Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-07-35 July 25, 2007 Page 10 Packet Page 194 of 229 Board Member Henderson: Aye. Board Member Works: Aye. Board Member Reed: Aye. Chair Guenther: Opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS. Karin Noyes, Transcriber Date Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts File Number R-07-35 July 25, 2007 Page 11 Packet Page 195 of 229 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD From: ,Robert Chave, AICP Planning Manager Date: Planning Board Meeting of July 25, 2007 File: R-2007-35 Application by A.D. Shapiro Architects / Valhalla Properties for a rezone of properties at 9521 & 9531 Edmonds Way from the current zoning of Multiple Residential — RM-1.5 and Single Fainily -- RS-8 to Coinniunity Business — Edmonds Way (BC-EW). Hearing Date, Time, and Place: Jul 25 2007 at 7:00 PM Edmonds City Council Chambers Public Safety Complex 250 - 51h Avenue North TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................2 A. APPLICATION.............................................................................................................................2 13. RECOMMENDATION.......................................................................................................................2 H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................2 A. SI"I'E DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................2 B. STATt ENVIRONMIiNTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA).................................................................................3 C. FDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COD% (I -,CDC) COMPLIANCE...............................................3 D. COMPRETM.NSIVI:PLAN............. 1.1-1,.,............................. ............................................ ..................... ,6 111. ATTACHMENTS..............................................................................................................................7 V. PARTIES OF RECORD...................................................................................................................7 City of Edmonds c;)R Planning Board Packet Page 196 of 229 I. INTRODUCTION A. APPLICATION 1. Applicant: A.D. Shapiro Architects / Valhalla Properties. 2. Site Location: 9521 & 9531 Edmonds Way (Refer to Attachment 1). 3. Request: Application for a rezone from "Multiple Residential — RM-1.5" and "Single Family Residential --- RS-8" to "Community Business — Edmonds Way" (see Attachment 2). 4. Review Process: a. Rezone - Planning Board conducts a public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council for final decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40 (REZONES). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20,100 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW), b. RECOMMENDATION Based on Findings of Fact, Analysis, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to APPROVE the requested rezone to "Community Business — Edmonds Way.,, II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION Site Development and Zoning a. Facts: (1) Size and Shape: The area under review is on the north side of Edmonds Way, directly east of commercially developed properties and is approximately 2 acres in size. The site has approximately 434 feet of frontage on Edmonds Way (State Route 104); the eastern portion of the site also has approximately 120 feet of frontage on 228"' ST SW. (2) Land Use: The western parcel is undeveloped, while the eastern two parcels each contain an existing house. (3) Zonin : Current zoning of the subject properties is a mixture of RM-1.5 and RS-8, as shown on the vicinity map (see Attachment 1). Note that the zoning/vicinity map furnished by the applicant has a slightly different western boundary than the maps prepared by the R-2007-35 staff repov7.doc Packet Page 197 of 229 Page 2 City. The applicant's request is based on the property they actually own, as compared to the current City zoning map. If the change in zoning is approved, the City will have to adjust its zoning boundary to match the applicant's property boundary. 2. Neighboring Development and Zoning a. Facts: (1) North: Single family development lies north of the property within the RS-8 zone, up a steep bluff, with additional homes located in the RS-8 zone on the north side of 228"' ST SW (see Attachment 1). (2) East: Properties immediately cast are also zoned RS-8 with single family residences. East of 951h Avenue W lies a small commercial site zoned BP — Planned Business. (3) South: An area of multi family development zoned RM-1.5 lies along the south side of Edmonds Way (see Attachment 1). (4) West: Properties to the west, on both sides of Edmonds Way, are zoned BN and consist of commercial development which is part of the larger Westgate community shopping area. B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) a. Fact: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on July 3, 2007, for the change in zoning (see Attachment 3). Two conditions were included as mitigation measures in the SEPA determination, which will apply to any future development on the properties under the proposed zoning: (1) Access provided to any future development of the properties under the proposed zoning shall only be from Edmonds Way (SR-104). No access shall be provided from the development to or from 228"' Street SW, (2) Future development of the site shall make use of shared access drives to minimize the number of access points on Edmonds Way (SR-104). 2. Conclusion: (i) SEPA requirements have been satisfied for the proposed change in zoning. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 2. ECDC Section 20.40 (Rezones) a. Facts: (i) The BC-EW zoning classification is included in Attachment 4 for reference. (ii) The applicant has submitted material in support of their application (see Attachment 2). Their discussion addresses the factors to be considered for a change in zoning. (iii) Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.40.010 R-2007-35 staff report.doc Packet Page 198 of 229 Page 3 provides that, at a minimum, the following factors shall be considered in reviewing an application for a rezone: (1) Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and, (2) Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district; and, (3) Surrounding At-ca. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property; and, (4) Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone: and, (5) Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning; and (6) Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. b. Analysis: (i) Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as part of the "Edmonds Way Corridor." Both the existing RM-1.5 and the proposed BC-EW zones are consistent with that designation, while the RS-8 zone is not. [2007 Comprehensive Plan, pg. 16] Also refer to the additional discussion under II.D, below. (ii) Zoning Ordinance. The purposes of the proposed BLEW zone are given in ECDC 16.50.005 (see Attachment 4), and are listed below. The proposed BC-EW zone is specifically intended for application within the Edmonds Way Corridor, and is appropriate to be applied when design transitions and buffering can be provided. A. To reserve areas for those retail stores, offices, service establishments and amusement establishments which offer goods and services to the entire community; B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings; C. To allow for mixed -use development which includes multiple dwelling units) that support business uses. D. To implement the policies of the Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor. E. To meet the goals of the Growth Management Act and the City of Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan for housing diversity and R-2007-33 staff reRort.doc Packet Page 199 of 229 Page 4 economical vitality. (iii) Surrounding Area. The site is located generally along SR-104 at the base of a bluff (see topographic snap, Attachment 1). The change in topography to the north should help provide a significant buffer between future development of the site and properties situated at the adjoining higher elevations. The SEPA MDNS issued for the rezone proposal contains a condition which does not allow access to 228"' ST SW; this should also assist in helping the project fit into its surroundings. Design review should also address how development of the site transitions to the east. The letter from Mr. Martin (Attachment 5) indicates that the low-lying properties just west of 95"' PL W may have some environmental constraints, so it is uncertain what development may be appropriate for that area. The Edmonds Way Corridor, however, does not envision single family development to be the long-term use adjacent to SR-104. (iv) Changes. The trend is toward an overall intensification of uses along SR-104. The subject properties were designated as part of the Edmonds Way Corridor in 2005. Several other changes in plan designations and zoning have occurred along Edmonds Way and in the vicinity since 2001, including an expansion of the Edmonds Way Corridor plan designation along with additions to multi family zoning near the PUD substation and 95th PL W. Further west, several new projects were constructed in the Westgate Corridor, including an Alzheimer care facility and an assisted living facility and a redevelopment centered on the southwest corner of the Westgate/9th Avenue intersection. Westgate Chapel, to the east of 95"' PL, has also undergone expansion in recent years. (v) Suitabilify. The property in question appears to be economically and physically suitable for development under the proposed BC-EW zone. The SR-104 corridor provides significant opportunities for transit service, and the local topography will help orient future development of the site to SR-104 and away from single family neighborhoods to the north and across 228"' ST SW. (vi) Value. In addition to the increased value that the property owner may realize from the change in zoning, additional value should also be added to the city since, if redevelopment occurs, additional small-scale commercial development will be available to residents in the vicinity. The development of additional dwelling units and employment within areas designated for this type of development supports the City's GMA responsibilities in a way that reduces the potential for additional changes in zoning in areas that don't have the supporting infrastructure or services available. This development will be served by a high - volume arterial and public transit that are necessary to support mixed use development. c. Conclusions: (i) The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use R-2007-35 staff repoi7.doc Packet Page 200 of 229 Page 5 designation for the subject property. (ii) The proposed rezone is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. (iii)Based on the facts and analysis contained above, planning staff concludes that the proposal satisfies the criteria for a change in zoning. D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. Comprehensive Plan Policies: a, Facts: (i) This site is currently designated as part of the "Edmonds Way Corridor. Relevant policies for the Edmonds Way Corridor include: F. Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions of Edmonds Way between the 1001h Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and .Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. F.1. Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. F.2. Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development, F3. Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and of manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. F.4. Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible. b. Analysis: (i) The Comprehensive Plan Policies noted above encourage the siting of multi -family residential or commercial uses within the Edmonds Way Corridor, so long as traffic impacts and transitions can be addressed. The R-2007-35 staff report. doc Packet Page 201 of 229 Page 6 proposed mixed use Edmonds Way zoning is consistent with the stated intent. c. Conclusions: (i) The proposal is consistent with the policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan, and with the "Edmonds Way Corridor" designation for the subject property. E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE No comments were received from City departments reviewing the proposal. However, the SEPA MDNS for the proposal was developed after consulting with the City Engineering Division with the expressed purpose of mitigating any potential traffic impacts arising from future development of the site. F. PUBLIC COMMENTS A comment letter has been received and is included as an Attachment 5 to this report. III. ATTACHMENTS 1. Comprehensive plan, zoning, and aerial/topo vicinity maps. 2. Supporting material submitted by the applicant. 3. SEPA Determination 4. ECDC zoning regulations for BC-EW zone. 5. Comment Letter. V. PARTIES OF RECORD A.D Shapiro Architects Valhalla Properties James Martin 624 Edmonds Way PO Box 520 9514 228"' ST SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 R-2007-35 staff report.doc Packet Page 202 of 229 Page 7 0 r- AdW 100 Zoning Vicinity Map Rezones RS-10 A RS-MP BD1 Wwil BD5 CG [W MP2 PRD 1 RS-12 RM-3 BD2 E22 BP CG2 - MU RS-6 51 RSW-12 RM-2.4 BD3 BN CW P RSaket gage 2M64929 RM-1.5 BN BC MPi pS 4-��OvEDg N 0 100 200 Feet 147 1 Pl File R-2007-35 Aerial Vicinity Map e Dp° A 0 100 200 MW Feet ��. jv9' Packet Page 205 of 229 File R-2007-35 0 50 100 goo Feet city of edmonds land use application Cl ARCHITFCTURAL DESIGN REVIEW © COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Q CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT © HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAT, SUBDIVISION Q SHORT SUBDIVISION Cl LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT © PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Q OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT Q STREET VACATION ,l' Rt?ZO lE © SHORELINE PERMIT Q VARIANCE / REASONABLE Usp- EXCEPTION Q OTHER: FILE # i ONE VA t • 5 / DATE REC'D BY t FEE y 56.CXD REGSIPT#�� HEARING DATE Q HE O STAFF Q PB U ADB © CC PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION �. -� (P&telh � � � q 52-I , q5 -f_-- PROJECT NAME (IF A{PPP�L�ICABLE) _ U l/ � c��7�-� - 0-6w MQLLs. PROPERTYOWWN,ERW Y: �Y_ 2��- 1 1j z{ P%IHO/N/E�#�Tf��J�7,��r�� ADDRESS . J" Q E-,MAIL ADDRESS FAx # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and a agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action of inaccurate or incomplete information furnishejbth By my signature, I certify that the informat' knowledge and that I am authorized to file i SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT WP, RNG. PHONE # ' 1 70 — FAX # *2577q ,'3D 32- PHONE # `-56 FAx # _�� 710 —30 in consideration on the processing of the application ds harmless from any and all damages, including do based in whole or part upon false, misleading, hi /her/its agents -or employees. ew' h submitted are true and correct,to the best of my ie chalf of the owner as listed below. DATE property Owners Authorization \1 By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject an use application, and grant my permiss' n for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes o ins tic n and posting attendant to this application, SIGNATURE OF OWNER J4 DATE This application form was revised on 1/27100. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220, L:tLFBP,ARY\P1,ANNTNGSFomu & Handouis\Public Handcuts\Und Use Application.doc Packet Page 207 of 229 ATTACHMENT 2 File No. R-07-35 c April18, 2007 Mr. Rob Chave nr� Manager, Planning Division �z ";, _ f : Q City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave North PEW"T cOUNIT ER Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Westgate Commons Rezone (Three parcels on Edmonds Way) 9521 & 9531 Edmonds Way & adjacent parcel — no address Project: Westgate Commons Mined Use, Arch Project No:12361-00 Request: This rezone request entails rezoning one (1) RM1.5 parcel to BGEW and two RS-8 parcels to BGEW for the purposes of building a mixed -use complex to be completed through two phases. Phase I entails the construction of a mixed -use facility fronting Edmonds Way, while Phase II includes mixed -use construction on the two eastem parcels which would maintain a residential character along 2281h Street. Access will be provided from Edmonds Wayv,ith a possible access from. 228th street for housing purposes only. NARRATIVE ADDRESSING fi POINT REZONE CRITERIA 1. Comprehensive Plan — Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan The following summary pulls from the Commercial Land Use section of the Cornprehensive Plan. • B.1 Sufficient number of sites suited for commercial uses should be reserved for there purposes The great majority of such cites should be selected firm parcels of land already idenLifaed in the eamprehensive plan for commercial use andl or .Zoned for such use. Edmonds Way is the primary east/west access froze. Interstate 5 and Highway 99 into downtown Edmonds. This arterial has multiple commercial centers and multi faanily residential housing along its length with a vast majority of commercial being at the Westgate neighborhood. Our sites not only fit into this existing use pattern but also enhance it with both commercial and residential uses. The proposed mixed -use function will house one level of commercial, a parking deck above the commercial space for the residential units and office space, two levels of office space along the west side of the parcel, and two levels of residential units along the north property line above the parking deck The subject parcels have an Edmonds Way Corridor designation under the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.. Packet Page 208 of 229 Mr. Rob Chave Westgate Commons Mixed Use Rezone Request Page 2 Our proposal will have a minimum impact on the adjacent single-family properties to the north from a traffic, light, glare, and noise vantage point, due in part to the grade change along the backside of the subject parcel. The SW comer of our property is more than 40 feet below the SW property of the adjacent single family zoned property. This grade change will eliminate anyphysical conflicts that nonnally would result. • B.3 the proliferation of strip commercial areas along Edmonds streets and highways and the development of commercial uses poorly related to surrounding land uses should be strongy discouraged Situated just east of the old Albertson's site, on Edmonds Way, our proposed commercial use will be set on three different levels. The ground floor space vAU be compromised of small- scale retail, office, and perhaps restaurant functions, if parking allows. Additional mixed -use functions will be on the floors above the ground floor retail, with building fronting directly on Edmonds Way. The residential component will entail mid -range residential condominiums on the upper floors. • B.4: Design and location of all commercial sites should provide for convenient and safe access for customers, employees and suppliers. The proposed rezone would maintain Edmonds Way as a primarystreet for use bythe general public. We propose for the residential garage entry to have access via a ramp from the Edmonds Way level and possibly an entrance on the eastern lots from 228Th Street for housing purposes only. • B.5. All commerdal developments should be carefully located and designed to eliminate or minimise the adverse impacts of heavy traffic volume and other related problems on surrounding land uses. A BLEW designation pern its 0' setback from the front property line. Our proposal will hold the building edge off of the property line paralleling Edmonds Way 10' ± to maintain aline of sight along Edmonds Way. Our proposed project would maintain vehicular and pedestrian traffic along Edmonds Way and support the quieter residential atmosphere on 228th Street. 11. Zoning Ordinance — Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. BC-EW zone: • A. To provide for areas for commercial uses offing vatious goods and services according to the different geographical areas and various categories of customers they serve; Along the Edmonds Way Corridor there is an established pattern of small businesses located among residential parcels. Our proposal would continue this trend and add multi family housing and office space along with this commercial component. Packet Page 209 of 229 Mr. Rob Crave Westgate Commons Mixed Use Rezone Request Page 3 + B, To provide for areas where cammercial uses may concentrate far the convenience of the public and in muiwalll beneficial relationships to each other; The location of this site is ideally suited for street front commercial space, which will serve the adjacent residents and pedestrians along Edmonds Way. + G. To provide for residential uses, community facilities and institutions, which may appropriately locate in commercial areas; Our proposed project will provide both residential and commercial facilities, which will augment and increase the residential and commercial diversity already found along Edmonds Way and 228th Street. • D. To require adequate landscaping and ofstreet parking and loading facilities; While we have not designed the proposed facility yet, we intend to have some street front landscaping, to supplement the commercial storefront aspect of the development. We will propose grade parking, as well as, deck parking, and street level garbage pick up/delivery off of Edmonds Way. This will enable us to maximize storefront exposure onto Edmonds Way while providing multi-familyhousing and office space. • E. To protect commercial uses from hazards such as fire, explosion and noxious fumes, and also nuisances created by industrial uses such as noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glary and heavy tMck traffic. The proposed development will limit vehicle traffic to two entrance/exit locations off of Edmonds Way and a possible private entrance/exit off of 228th Street. We will maintain a 15'+/- landscaped separation between the mixed -use development and single-family parcels to the north. 111. Surrounding Area: — the relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property. Should the subject parcel be rezoned for this specific building use, it will mesh with the immediate neighborhood in the following ways: The proposed mixed -use building will maintain a minimum 15' setback from the surrounding single-family zoned parcels. This separation will be configured in an exterior landscaped open space. • The surrounding land uses include retail, residential, (both, multi family as well as single familyj, and service functions. The proposed project will house uses of a like nature, which will support and enhance the character of the existing neighborhood. Packet Page 210 of 229 Mr. Rob Chave Westgate Commons Mixed Use Rezone Request Page 4 Public traffic to and from the project would be off of Edmonds Way with the possibility of a private entrance on 228rh Street. We foresee only a small service function, (delivery and garbage pick up), occurring off of Edmonds Way. IV. Changes: — whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in City policy to justify the rezone. The surrounding area, along Edmonds Way, has many different multi -family complexes already in existence. We feel that granting a rezone to BGEW will enable us to continue this trend toward higher density within the context of a residential area while also adding commercial and office space to serve the local community. V. Suitability: — whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. The proxirnity of this property to the main arterial into Edmonds and a vital link to the peninsula, leads one to apply a commercial use to this property. However many of the adjacent properties have been built out as residential, and Edmonds is mainly a residential community. We believe that the proposed mix of both residential and commercial achieves the best and highest use for this property in serving the needs of the community and enables our client to achieve the highest economic return for his investment. VI. Value: — the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. Edmonds Way is an active thoroughfare and the existing zoning would allow for only a residential use. It is our contention that this is an undesirable solution because it does not allow the property to take full advantage of its position along Edmonds Way. Our proposed housing configuration will be set above the commercial space with its own parkirrg area. The increased density proposed would also help Edmonds comply with the GMA mandates that call for denser housing that has access to bus and transit lines. Packet Page 211 of 229 NM/L (UZ) XVi MK-RLG (Sib) um VOA VU—pa'AIM I OO Pg K9 GM6 Y,� "SOhOi4a9 a $ 3 r"1 as fl-pang SUOT IOD a}� �sa� a� I '21 91V Y96 P, Cn 1- oa 01. ,6 Gpp�' tti. LO LL Packet Page 212 of 229 oz ev,yo ~-=: 4 CITY OF EDMONDS Esa 8�0 121 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0224 ROW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignifcance (DNS) MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFiCANCE Description of proposal: Rezone of three properties comprising a total of 86,500 sq. ft. (M2 acres) from RM-1.5 and R5-8 to BC-EW for future mixed use development oriented to Edmonds Way (SR-104). Project name: Westgate Commons. File No.: R-2007-35 Proponent: Shapiro/Valhalla Properties. Location of proposal, including street address if any: Vicinity of 9521 and 9531 Edmonds Way. Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A ROW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C240 and WAC 197-11-158 andtor mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 4321.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by July 17 2007. Project Planner: Mike Clugston Responsible Official: Robert Chave Position/Title: Manager - Planning Division Phone: 425-771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: June 29, 2007 Signature: 44 dviF XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than _ July 17, 2007. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals_ XX Posted on July 3, 2006, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist_ Page t of z ATTACHMENT 3 SF,PA t)REA1s-fiNA7lON SffAPIRO� W£STGA7"E Cf1Mi�[ONS.I)DC 6129107.SEPA File No. R-07-3 5 Packet Page 213 of 229 Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Environmental Review Section XX Edmonds School District No. 15 Department of Ecology Attn-: Planning and Property Manager P.O_ Box 47703 20420 68th Avenue West Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 XX COMCAST XX Community Transit Attn: Brent Russell Outside Plant Engineer, North Region 7100 Hardeson Road 410 Valley Ave NW #12 Everett, WA 98203 Puyallup, WA98371-3317 XX Department of Fish & Wildlife XX Olympic View Water S, Sewer District 23725 Edmonds Way 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Edmonds, WA 98020 Mill Creek, WA 98012 XX Washington State Dept. of Transportation XX Snohomish County Health District Attn-. Bruce Straughn Attn: Ramin Pazooki 3020 Rocker Ave SnoKing Developer Services, MS 221 Everett, WA 98201-3900 15700 Dayton Ave. N. PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 XX Puget Sound Energy 9 Attn_ Elaine Babby XX Washington State Dept. of Community, PO Box 97034; M/S EST-11 W Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 Trade & Economic Development905 Columbia Street SW P.D. Box 48300 XX Dean Saksena, Senior Manager 9 er Olympia, WA 98504-8300 Snohomish Co. PUD PO Box 1107 XX Puget Sound Regional Council Everett, WA 98206-1107 Attn.: S.R.C. 1011 Westerly Avenue, Suite 500 XX Kojo Fordjour Department of Seattle, WA 98104-1035 Transportation Environmental Manager XX Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of 2911 2"d Ave. Engineers Seattle, WA 98121-1081 P.O_ Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 XX A.D. Shapiro Architects 624 Edmonds Wa XX Snohomish County Public Works Edmonds, WA 98 n Attn.: Environmental Coordinator 2930 Wetmore, #fi101 Everett, WA 98201 XX MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL: 1, ACCESS PROVIDED TO ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES UNDER THE PROPOSED ZONING SHALL ONLY BE FROM EDMONDS WAY.(SR- 104). NO ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM THE DEVELOPMENT TO OR FROM 228 " STREET SW. 2. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE SHALL MAKE USE OF SHARED ACCESS DRIVES TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ON EDMONDS WAY (SR-104). Page 2 of 2 SEPA I)LU MNAT[ON SHAPMO WFSTGATE COMMONS,DOC 6129'0-7-F4 cet Page 214 of 229 Chapter 16.50 BC — COMMUNITY BUSINESS Sections: 16.50.000 Purposes. 16.50.010 Uses. 16.50.020 Site development standards. 16.50.030 Operating restrictions. 16.50.000 BC and BC - Edmonds Way This chapter establishes two distinct zoning categories, BC and BC - Edmonds Way. 16.50.005 Purposes. The BC and the BC - Edmonds Way zones have the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC. A. To reserve areas for those retail stores, offices, service establishments and amusement establishments which offer goods and services to the entire community; B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings; C. To allow for mixed -use development which includes multiple dwelling unit(s) that support business uses. D. To implement the policies of the Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor. E. To meet the goals of the Growth Management Act and the City of Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan for housing diversity and economical vitality. 16.50,010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. Single-family dwelling, as regulated in RS-6 zone; Packet Page 215 of 229 ATTACHMENT 4 File No. R-07-35 2. Retail stores, offices and service uses, excluding intense uses, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment sales and services; 3. New automobile sales and service; 4. Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents; 5. Printing, publishing and binding establishments; 6. Bus stop shelters; 7. Community -oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code; 8. Multiple Dwelling Unit(s). This use may not be located on the ground floor of a structure; 9. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17,100.020; 10. Primary and high schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 11. Local public facilities subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 12. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Limited assembly, repair or fabrication of goods incidental to a permitted or conditional use; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted or conditional use; 3. Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility meeting the criteria lasted under subsections (C)(11) through (14) of this section, except that the facility may also be located along a designated transit route in addition to an arterial or collector street. Packet Page 216 of 229 C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. I . Commercial parking lots; 2. Wholesale uses; 3. Hotels and motels; 4 Amusement establishments; 5 Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions; 6. Drive-in businesses; 7. Laboratories; S Fabrication of light industrial products; 9. Convenience stores; 10. Day-care centers; 11. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums; 12. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033; 13. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 14. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted or conditional use; 2. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC. 16.50.020 Site development standards. Packet Page 217 of 229 A. Table. Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Street Side Rear Height Floor Area Setback Setback Setback 3 sq. ft. per BC None None None None' None' 25: sq. ft. of lot area BC - 3 sq. ft. per Edmonds None None None None' None' 353'" sq.ft. of lot Way I I I area I The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. z Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height are modulated in design and are designed as a hip, gable, arch, shed or other similar roof form (see illustrations). Vertical parapet walls or flat roofs with a pitch of less than 3-in-12 are not allowed to protrude above the 25-foot height limit unless they are part of an approved modulated design. 3 The stated height limit may be increased to 40 feet provided that: (a) The street setback of any proposed building shall be increased to 4 feet in depth. Type III landscaping shall be located within this setback. This landscaping may be located immediately adjacent to the building, or may be combined with other landscaping within or adjoining the right of way. In addition, the third and forth stories of any proposed building shall be further stepped back an additional 6 feet from the street frontage along all street fronts; (b) Where the proposed development abuts a single-family residential (RS) zoned property, in addition to complying with subsection (a), the proposed development shall modulate the design of any building facades facing the single-family residentially (RS) zoned property; (c) The proposed development integrates low impact development techniques where reasonably feasible. For the purposes of this section, low impact development techniques shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: the use of bioswales, green roofs, and grasscrete. "Reasonably feasible" shall be determined based upon the physical characteristics of the property and its suitability for the technique; cost alone shall not render the use of low impact techniques unreasonable or unfeasible. (d) The required setback from R zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with Type I landscaping permanently maintained by the owner of the BC lot; and Packet Page 218 of 229 (e) For any buildings fronting on Edmonds Way, the maximum height of the wall or fagade along Edmonds Way shall not exceed 45 feet as measured at the Edmonds Way property line. 4 In addition to any height bonus under note 3, the building may extend up to an additional five feet if all portions of the building above the height limit (after adding the height bonus under note 3) integrate distinctive architectural features that enhance and are integrated into the overall design of the building. For purposes of this section, distinctive architectural features may include articulation, changes of materials, offsets, angles or curves of facades, or by the use of distinctive roof forms. Exainples of Modulated Roof Des igus ■■■ j"�w�ll!! ,�r!!iYllt�■■!r M1 IM11 _lam is — Elm MI w� ■ ■ ■I■ ■ � B. Ground Floor. Development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses to a minimum depth of 30 feet as measured from the street front of the building, with the following exceptions or clarifications: 1. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is allowed. 2. This provision shall not apply when a single-family use is the primary use on the property. Packet Page 219 of 229 3. With respect to, but only to, property located on the Fifth Avenue entrance corridor, south of Walnut Street, in which the first 60 feet of the building as measured from Fifth Avenue consists only of commercial uses; and with respect to which the subject property shares a property line with a single-family or multifamily zoned properties, then multifamily units may be located on the ground floor in such a manner that they face the adjacent residentially zoned property. 4. In the BC - Edmonds Way zone, where the street frontage of the total site proposed for development exceeds 150 feet in length, this requirement shall apply to only 60% of the ground floor street frontage of any proposed building. The remaining 40% may include any other uses permitted in the BC - Edmonds Way zone, including, but not limited to, oft -street parking or live/work space. C. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. D. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units. E. Screening. The required setback from R zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BC lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback. F. Satellite Television Antennas. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and reviewed by the architectural design board. 16.50.030 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; Packet Page 220 of 229 Seasonal farmers' markets; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. Packet Page 221 of 229 Packet Page 222 of 229 Page 1 of l Chave, Rob From: Vogler, Celine Y. [VoglerC@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 5:48 PM To: Chave, Rob Subject: R-2007-35 Westgate Commons Hi Rob: We are in receipt of The MDNS for the above reference project. We will need to approve the channelization changes on SR 104 and verify the city's approved deviation. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me. Sincerely, Celine Vogler Assistant Local Agency & Development Services Manager Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region, Snohomish -King Area, MS 240 P.O. Box 330310 15700 Dayton Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Ph. (206) 440.4711 Fx. (206) 440.4806 VoaierC@wsdot.wa.gov htip�//www.wsdot.wa.gov/Northwest/DevelopmentServices/ 7/24/�AQJt page 223 of 229 July 20, 2007 Michael Clugston, Planner Development Services Department City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: File# R-2007-35 9521 & 9531 Edmonds Way Dear Mr. Clugston, jo , I am>writing to support the proposed rezone of the property at 9521 & 9531 Edmonds Way from Residential to Community Business —Edmonds Way. As an adjacent property owner of Lots 1, 6, 7, and 8 of the Plat of K. Elise, I believe that the rezone will allow a more appropriate redevelopment of the subject property. The location of the subject property is at the bottom of a slope that begins on our property and physically separates the subject property from our adjacent residential uses. The property is better suited to join the type of community businesses that line both sides of Edmonds Way in the area. I am also very supportive of the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued on June 29, 2007. These measures would limit access to Edmonds Way and encourage shared access drives. Both of these mitigation measures will ensure that the project is compatible with surrounding development. Please include my comments in the official record, and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sinc , r Marko Liias President 2306 119TH STREET SW, EVERETT, WA 98204 OFFICE: 425-290-7660 FAX: 425.290-9941 Packet Page 224of229 info0buiItbyregaI.com www.builtbyrogal.com Parties of Record R-2007-35 - Shapiro / Valhalla Properties Applicants: Shapiro, Tony Valhalla Properties SGA Corporation Public (from letters received: Martin, James Vogler, Celine Y. (WSDOT) Liias, Marko Packet Page 225 of 229 AM-1164 6. Report on City Council Committee Meetings Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 09/18/2007 Submitted By: Sandy Chase Time: 15 Minutes Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Information Review Committee: Action: Information Subject Title Report on City Council Committee Meetings. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached are copies of the following City Council Committee Meeting Minutes: 1. Community Services/Development Services Committee - 9/11/07 2. Finance Committee - 9/11/07 Link: CS/DS Committee Minutes Link: Finance Committee Minutes Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/13/2007 09:02 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 09/13/2007 10:56 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/13/2007 11:01 AM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Started On: 09/12/2007 09:41 Chase AM Final Approval Date: 09/13/2007 Packet Page 226 of 229 Community Service/Development Services Committee Meeting September 11, 2007 Elected Officials Present: Mauri Moore, Council member Richard Marin, Committee Chair Peggy Pritchard -Olson, Council President Gary Haakenson, Mayor Staff Present: Duane Bowman, Dev. Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Dave Gebert, City Engineer Dave Sittauer, Fleet Maintenance Manager Committee Chair Marin convened the meeting at 6:00 P.M. and introduced Hilary Schiebert, Student representative. A. Continued Discussion regarding plug-in hybrid cars and charging stations. Noel Miller, Public Works Director, introduced the topic and reviewed the proposal outlining how a recharging station could be constructed in the Public Safety Building parking lot near the south entrance into the parking lot off 5`" Avenue. The site was chosen for its location to existing electrical conduit and junction box. The estimated cost for constructing the charging station was 80 hours of staff time and $5,000 worth of materials. Chair Marin asked about how people would pay for the usage of the station. Mr. Miller responded that had not been finalized. Dave Gebert suggested that the City might want to look into the same sort of payment method that tennis courts use to turn on power to lights. There was consensus from the committee members that staff should explore this possibility. Dave Sittauer, Fleet Manager, discussed hybrid and electric vehicles in the fleet. Right now there are no hybrid or electric vehicles scheduled in the current budget. Technology has not caught up with producing them and their cost is higher than a normal vehicle replacement. The Public Works Department will continue to monitor the technology and at the appropriate time in the budget process will present options for consideration. The Committee concurred with his assessment. ACTION: CS/DS Committee directed the Public Works Director to prepare the necessary ordinance and payment method and bring it forward to the full City Council for approval. B. Follow-up discussion from the July 26 special meeting regarding legislative issues concerning building permit application timelines. Duane Bowman introduced the topic. He noted that all the comments really boiled down to two main topics; timely, thorough permit reviews and the code re -write. He reviewed the experiment where the Development Services Department closed the permit counter for two consecutive Wednesdays in August and successfully reduced 79 overdue reviews down to 7. This demonstrated that if the plan reviewers were given substantial quiet time to focus on permit reviews, they could accomplish a lot of work. Mr. Bowman outlined four recommendations in response to the issues raised at the July 26, 2007 CS/DS meeting. They were: Packet Page 227 of 229 CS/DS Committee Minutes September 112007 Page 2 • Establish a process to share code sections on-line to allow feedback on code re -write chapters. • Do a code change to eliminate the 28 day planning application completeness process. Open the Development Services Department to match City Hall hours 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, with no permit applications accepted after 4 p.m. On Wednesdays, the counter would be closed all day but phone calls would be taken and directed to voice mail. Building inspections would take place. This day would be devoted to plan review with emphasis on overdue reviews to be completed first. • Develop a process for meeting with a permit applicant if more than two reviews occur, if necessary. Mr. Bowman said he could do an administrative decision to implement completeness at the counter process for planning land use permit applications that had all the required submittals and would pursue a code amendment through the rewrite process. Ms. Moore asked why the City had not done this before. Mr. Bowman responded that the code establishes the 28 day completeness requirement, hence the recommendation to amend the code. Because we will be moving forward with a code amendment in the near future, we could do administrative policy in advance of the amendment to start the process sooner. Ms. Moore inquired about "subject to field inspection" type permits. Mr. Bowman explained that type of permit approval could pose significant problems for the field inspector if agreement couldn't be reached in the field and the applicant challenges that he has a permit. Ms. Moore requested staff to investigate how/or if other cities utilize "subject to Field inspection" permits. ACTION: No action taken. The CS/DS committee supported the administrative actions outlined in Director Bowman's report C. Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.40 Grading and Retaining Walls, and ECDC 20.110.030 Nuisance Section, to add a new paragraph to specify the City's regulation of rockeries, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. David Gebert, City Engineer introduced the topic and explained the purpose for the proposed ordinance was to bring the issue of rockery regulation into compliance with the building code. He reviewed the ordinance and the Committee concurred with the recommended ordinance changes. ACTION: The CS/DS committee directed staff to bring the ordinance to the full City Council on the consent agenda. The Committee meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m. Packet Page 228 of 229 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES September 11, 2007 6:00 PM Present: Councilmember Ron Wambolt Councilmember Dave Orvis Staff: Kathleen Junglov Debra Sharp Noel Miller Dan Clements Public: Martha Orvis Committee Chair Orvis called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Item A: Broadband Up -Date Dan Clements discussed last week's meetings with PacketFront/DynamicCity, and bond counsel from Foster Pepper. Of particular interest were technical discussions relating to the two main types of fiber networks: active and passive. Jeff Fishburn, Vice President for Engineering/Americas is scheduled to attend the next CTAC meeting to further review this topic. It was also reported that discussions with PacketFront/DynamicCity and bond counsel about financing a possible network also proceeded quite well. Bond counsel is researching requirements for issuing tax exempt debt for the three business cases under consideration. Item B: Grinding quipment Purchase The Committee next reviewed a request from Public Works to purchase a "zipper" grinder for use on streets. After reviewing safety and other rationale the Committee voted to forward this item to the full Council for their consideration. This equipment was not budgeted in the 2007-08 budget. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 PM. V:\WORDATA\FINANCE COMM MINUTES\2007 FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES\FINANCE - 07091 LDOC Packet Page 229 of 229