2007.12.18 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
DECEMBER 18, 2007
7:00 p.m.
Call to Order and Flag Salute
1.Approval of Agenda
2.Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B. AM-1307
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of December 4, 2007.
C. AM-1323
Approval of claim checks #100756 through #100911 for December 6, 2007 in the amount of $541,453.93,
and #100912 through #101090 for December 13, 2007 in the amount of $241,639.75. Approval of payroll
holiday buyback checks #45833 through #45966 in the amount of $245,793.51, and payroll direct deposits and
checks #45967 through #46015 for the period of November 16 through November 30, 2007 in the amount of
$869,287.74.
D. AM-1300
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Merlin Kleven (amount undetermined), Max P. Campbell
(amount undetermined), and Cory Rice (amount undetermined).
E. AM-1310
Approval of lists of businesses applying for renewal of their liquor licenses with the Washington State Liquor
Control Board, April - December 2007.
F. AM-1322
Approval of annual award allocations by the Edmonds Arts Commission for 2008 Cultural Tourism Promotion
of events that bring visitors to Edmonds.
G. AM-1321
Professional Services Agreements (PSA) between City of Edmonds and Mike Doubleday, Patton Boggs, LLC
(Addendum #2), and Salter Joyce Zyker.
H. AM-1318
Purchase of a replacement SWAT bus.
I. AM-1306
Authorization for Mayor to sign professional services agreements with Duane Hartman & Associates, Inc.
(DHA) and Reid Middleton, Inc. for On-Call Surveying Services.
J. AM-1319
Report on final construction costs for the Screenings System Improvement Project and Council acceptance of
project.
K. AM-1320
Report on final construction costs for the Concrete Repairs Project and Council acceptance of project.
L. AM-1313
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee 2008 membership review and approval.
M. AM-1314
List of retiring board members and commissioners.
N. AM-1308
Resolution thanking Mauri Moore for her service on the City Council.
O. AM-1309 Resolution thanking Richard L. Marin for his service on the City Council.
Packet Page 1 of 357
O. AM-1309
Resolution thanking Richard L. Marin for his service on the City Council.
3. AM-1316
(60 Min)
Closed Record Review - Appeal of the Architectural Design Board decision to approve the Old Milltown
Phase II project at 201 5th Ave. S. (Appellant: Roger Hertrich / Applicant: Bob Gregg / File Nos.
APL-07-5 & PLN-07-67)
4.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)
5. AM-1324
(15 Min)
Report on City Council Committee Meetings.
6. AM-1311
(10 Min)
Presentation of Resolution thanking Mauri Moore for her service on the City Council.
7. AM-1312
(10 Min)
Presentation of Resolution thanking Richard L. Marin for his service on the City Council.
8. (5 Min)Mayor's Comments
9. (15 Min)Council Comments
10.Adjourn
Reception in Honor of Councilmembers Marin and Moore
Packet Page 2 of 357
AM-1307 2.B.
Approve 12/04/07 City Council Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
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 December 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 minutes.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 12-04-07 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/11/2007 09:40 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/11/2007 09:47 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/11/2007 10:04 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 12/11/2007 09:33
AM
Final Approval Date: 12/11/2007
Packet Page 3 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
December 4, 2007
Following a Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a real estate matter and
labor negotiations, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor
Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the
flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Hilary Scheibert, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer
Steve Fisher, Recycling Coordinator
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Haakenson requested the following additions to the agenda: a storm update as Item 3a, resolution
authorizing the Mayor and Staff to dispense with competitive bidding requirements in order to address
storm-related flooding and landslides as Item 3b, and a report from Snohomish County Cities regarding
proposed legislative priorities as Item 6b.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, 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 NOVEMBER 20, 2007.
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 27, 2007.
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #100405 THROUGH #100591 FOR NOVEMBER 21,
2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $551,767.41, AND #100592 THROUGH #100755 FOR
NOVEMBER 29, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $701.589.09.
Packet Page 4 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 2
E. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE RECYCLING GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR 2008-2009.
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR
SR. EX. COUNCIL ASSISTANT JANA SPELLMAN.
G. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATION FROM
CONSULTING ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS/CONSULTANT
TEAMS TO PREPARE DESIGN, COST ESTIMATES, IMPLEMENTATION AND
FUNDING PLANS FOR THE 4TH AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR.
H. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 164TH STREET SW
WALKWAY/74TH PLACE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND COUNCIL
ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
I. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE OLD WOODWAY
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DEMOLITION PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE
OF PROJECT.
J. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 2005 WATERLINE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
K. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE FRIAR TUCK LANE
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF
PROJECT.
3A. STORM UPDATE
Mayor Haakenson provided an update on the rain and wind event that occurred over the last two days. He
declared a State of Emergency for the City of Edmonds yesterday afternoon which allows the City to
apply for federal funds for damage to public property. He noted the gauges at the treatment plant showed
over 5 inches of rain in 36 hours, an enormous amount of rain in a short period of time particularly
following the weekend snowfall. All the creeks and streams in Edmonds drain into Puget Sound as do the
storm drains. During the peak of the heavy rains, it was also a high tide and consequently there was
nowhere for the stormwater to go and it backed up, flooding homes, streets and any low-lying areas. The
volume of water also soaked into hillsides, causing many landslides. The Public Works and Parks crews
were very busy and did an excellent job responding to incidents. He has received several telephone calls
and emails thanking City crews for their response.
Mayor Haakenson advised there were several areas that will require immediate, emergency work
including Olympic View Drive & 76th Avenue West. He noted in some areas where slides occurred, no
action could be taken until the rains ceased. He stated private property owners who sustained property
damage from the December 2-3 event may also be eligible for federal funds and should report their
information to the Emergency Services Coordinating Agency (ESCA) at 425-776-3722. He noted this
information would also be posted on the City’s website and on Channel 21.
Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would be asked tonight to approve a motion that would allow City
staff to waive any development fees such as permit fees and plan review fees for property owners to
repair damage from the storm event. The City will also expedite permit review on those projects.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
WAIVE DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS FOR WORK RELATED TO
REPAIRING DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE STORM EVENT. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 5 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 3
3B. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND STAFF TO DISPENSE WITH
COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO ADDRESS STORM-RELATED
FLOODING AND LANDSLIDES.
Public Works Director Noel Miller reported yesterday the City was hit by a severe Pacific Ocean weather
system that dropped over 5 inches of rain on the City. The event overburdened stormwater facilities on
Olympic View Drive & 76th Avenue West. He displayed photographs of the following conditions:
• Water coming out of catch basins and manholes.
• Water running down the streets and off private property.
• A worker clearing debris from a submerged culvert in a ravine.
• Slide debris on 190th uphill from Olympic View Drive where an embankment gave way.
• An overcapacity culvert on Perrinville Creek as it enters Puget Sound downstream of Olympic
View Drive.
• Slide debris on North Meadowdale Road.
• A storm surge from Lynnwood’s trunk line on 76th Avenue north of Perrinville post office that
City crews sandbagged to prevent water from entering private property.
He further displayed a photograph of a sinkhole created by the flooding, noting the repairs would be
significant due to the steep embankment into Perrinville Creek. He estimated the repair to be $300,000,
advising further information would be provided to the Council as costs became available. He displayed a
photograph of the washout on Olympic View Drive where half of the road was undermined, requiring
closure of Olympic View Drive. He noted the City was aware of a potential washout issue in this area
and the Engineering Division had already prepared a design. The contractor has indicated they can
mobilize and begin work on this repair next week.
Mr. Miller advised a substantial reimbursement for these repairs would be available via the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHA). He
recommended the Council adopt the resolution authorizing the Mayor and Staff to dispense with
competitive bidding requirements in order to address storm-related flooding and landslides and to
appropriate up to one million dollars from the Street and Combined Utility Capital Funds.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City would continue to use standard contracting forms, bonding
would be required, etc.; the Council would only be dispensing with the formal bidding process, the
process of obtaining prevailing wage, etc. The State statute establishing those requirements recognizes
those procedures can take 45-90 days to complete and are not appropriate in an emergency. The purpose
of the resolution is for the Council to find there is an emergency and to waive those procedures. He
pointed out the resolution includes a provision for the Staff and Mayor to report to the Council in January
2008 on the extent and cost for ratification of contracts and consultants.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if one million dollars was a cap on the expenditure. Mr. Miller answered
yes. Councilmember Plunkett clarified the Council was authorizing dispensing with the competitive
bidding process up to one million dollars. Mr. Snyder answered by State law the Mayor had the ability to
move funds within the General Fund and Utility Funds, however, could not move funds from the
Combined Utility Fund to the General Fund. Most of expenditures would come from the Stormwater
Drainage Fund or other portions of the Utility Fund. A second control exists via amendments to the
biennial budget and any actual costs would be reflected in the annual amendments.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how this would impact the budget long term. Mr. Miller answered how
the budget was impacted would be determined by the amount of reimbursement the City received from
FEMA and FHA. Mr. Snyder commented the Council periodically reviewed its utility rates and this
would be an issue to be considered.
Packet Page 6 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 4
Councilmember Orvis asked how long the criteria would be waived and how staff would prevent it being
applied to scheduled projects. Mr. Snyder answered it was limited to emergency expenditures related to
this storm event.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1156, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND STAFF TO DISPENSE
WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO ADDRESS STORM-
RELATED FLOODING AND LANDSLIDES AND TO APPROPRIATE UP TO ONE MILLION
DOLLARS FROM THE STREET AND COMBINED UTILITY CAPITAL FUNDS. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3C. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
WATER USE EFFICIENCY RULES BY ESTABLISHING WATER SAVING PROGRAMS AND
GOALS.
Public Works Director Noel Miller remarked the annual rainfall that occurs over the geographic area of
the City only amounted to half of the water Edmonds consumes in a year. He explained HB 1338, known
as the Municipal Water Law became effective January 22, 2007. This directs the Department of Health
(DOH) to adopt enforceable water use efficiency (WUE) programs for water suppliers.
He reviewed elements of the WUE:
• Planning - as part of a water system plan, water suppliers must:
¾ Collect production and consumption data.
¾ Forecast future water demand.
¾ Evaluate WUE measures.
¾ Calculate distribution system leakage.
¾ Implement WUE program to meet goals.
• Leakage - water suppliers must meet distribution system leakage standard of 10% or less by 2010.
¾ Due to the City’s annual leak monitoring and main replacement program, the City currently
meets this standard.
• Goals - water suppliers must set WUE goals and track their performance.
¾ Goals must be set through a public process by January 22, 2008.
¾ Must report annual performance to customers and DOH beginning July 1, 2008.
He reviewed WUE mandatory goals, advising Edmonds was currently in compliance with these goals:
• Source meter installation.
• Consumption meters installation.
• Meter calibration.
• Water loss control action plan.
• Customer education.
He reviewed additional WUE goals to evaluate:
• Rates that encourage water demand efficiency - the City currently utilizes a uniform rate (same
cost per unit of water for the amount of water consumed). Rate structures that would encourage
more water efficiency include seasonal rates (higher rates in the summer) and inclining block rate
(higher unit costs for larger water users).
• Use of reclaimed water - due to the location of the City’s treatment plant in a lowland area, reuse
would require additional treatment as well as separate pipes for disbursement; therefore, it was
not effective to reuse reclaimed water. He noted there were other methods such as a vehicle
washing station which is included in this year’s budget. He advised other methods would be
evaluated during the next update of the Water Comprehensive Plan.
Packet Page 7 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 5
Mr. Miller explained prior to adoption of the Municipal Water Law, the City was involved in a regional
WUE program with the City of Everett. Everett implemented a 6-year regional water conservation
program in 2001 with a purveyors advisory group as part of Everett’s 2001 Water System Plan. In
developing water use efficiencies to comply with WUE, the water purveyor advisory group evaluated
over 30 conservation measures (the rule requires at least 12 be evaluated). The group examined some of
the previous measures as well as many new ones. For each measure, savings potential and cost per CCF
(100 cubic feet) was determined.
The group used selection criteria with the objective of demonstrating sound stewardship of regional water
resources and to meet the intent of the WUE Rule. The program needed to be cost effective in the range
of avoided cost. The cost avoided or deferred by conservation was 35 cents per CCF.
He reviewed Everett’s updated regional program to comply with the Rule.
• New program has 8 primary measures.
• Designed to save 1.97 MGD through 2012 at a cost of $3.6 million or 47 cents per CCF.
• The costs are higher and savings less than the previous program because the least costly measures
have been exhausted.
Everett’s regional measures include a large school education component (required by the Rule); continues
the indoor/outdoor kits and school irrigation audits, adds leak detection, toilet and clothes washer rebates
for single family, multi-family and commercial customers; adds indoor water audits for businesses. He
introduced Recycling Coordinator Steve Fisher who provided outdoor and indoor kits for the Council and
the public. Additional Edmonds WUE goals include continuing annual water main replacement program
and completing the City building plumbing fixture retrofits. The kits and regional water use efficiency
measures equated to 2.5 cents per CCF or approximately 1% of the average water bill.
Mr. Miller reviewed a chart illustrating water purchased from the City of Seattle, Alderwood Water
District and the total annual water consumption for 1988 through 2006, noting the trend was a ½ percent
savings per year. The City’s WUE program exhibits sound stewardship of the water resources and goes
well beyond what was required by the Rule and builds on past success. The City will work with Everett
annually to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. He described required action by the Council: the
Council must take public comment, then approve the Water savings goal and formally adopt it as the
City’s WUE goal. He advised the goal was to continue to reduce annual water consumption by a
minimum of 1% on a per capita basis and participate in Everett’s Regional Water Efficiency Program.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the water usage chart, inquiring about the difference in the amount of
water purchased from Alderwood Water versus Seattle Water. Mayor Haakenson answered the City
purchased from whoever provided the least expensive water. Mr. Miller explained Seattle raised their
prices significantly in 1999 and the City determined it would be more cost effective to buy water year-
round from Alderwood.
Councilmember Orvis clarified the Council was not approving any rate changes tonight. Mr. Miller
agreed, explaining the Council needed to approve the water savings goal and compliance with the Rule
via establishing formal WUE requirements.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to an article in today’s Wall Street Journal regarding municipalities
restricting use of water for vehicle washing; Seattle was mentioned in the article as one of the leaders in
that effort. He noted some municipalities even ban fundraising car washes. He asked whether the City
was considering similar measures. Mr. Miller answered yes, noting it is driven more by stormwater
runoff requirements such as not getting soap into the stormwater system rather than the WUE Rule.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Packet Page 8 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 6
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commended Mr. Miller for the information he provided. He commented on the
amount of water the City purchased from Alderwood Water versus Seattle Water, concluding the City had
done an excellent job addressing the water situation.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public comment portion of the public
hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
ADOPT THE WATER EFFICIENCY MEASURES THAT THE CITY WILL USE TO
IMPLEMENT FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF THE REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES.
As different rate structures were considered, Councilmember Orvis cautioned the City not to inadvertently
develop a rate structure that was difficult on large families who may be conserving water but used more
water due to the number of family members.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 196TH STREET SW/88TH AVENUE WEST INTERSECTION
ENGINEERING STUDY.
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss explained in March 2007 the Council approved $20,000 to begin
a study of the 196th Street SW/88th Avenue West intersection and Gray & Osborne was selected to prepare
the engineering study. In November 2007 the City and Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) recommended improvements and their recommendation was approved by the Community
Services/Development Services Committee and forwarded to the City Council for a public hearing.
Tamara Nack, Gray & Osborne, explained the purpose of the study was to evaluate operational and
design deficiencies of the 196th Street SW/88th Avenue West intersection as well as evaluate alternates.
She displayed a vicinity map, identifying 196th Street SW (also known as Puget Drive and SR 524), 88th
Avenue West and the dead-end portion of 196th Street. She pointed out an important component in the
evaluation was 196th Street SW was a principal arterial and State Route which required that WSDOT
approve any improvements. She identified 88th Avenue W as a collector and the dead-end portion of
196th Street as a local access street.
Ms. Nack identified speed limits on 196th Street SW and results of their speed study:
East of 88th Avenue West West of 88th Avenue West
Average 85th
Percentile
Average 85th
Percentile
32 mph 36 mph 34 mph 39 mph
Next she reviewed the accident history for the intersection for the past three years (2004-2006),
explaining there had been eight accidents at the intersection attributable to the design of the intersection -
one in 2004, three in 2005 and four in 2006. She advised there were three accidents from the north leg,
one accident from a vehicle turning left onto 88th; the other four accidents occurred on the south leg, two
rear-end accidents and two collision accidents.
Next she reviewed traffic counts, summarizing there were approximately 13,000 vehicles per day on 196th
Street SW, 1300 vehicles per day on the south leg of 88th Avenue W, and 400 vehicles on the north leg of
88th Avenue West. She summarized the majority of movement was on 196th. She identified peak hour
volumes (7:30 to 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 to 5:00 p.m.), 1,000 vehicles on 196th, 120 on the north leg of 88th
and 60 on the south leg of 88th.
Packet Page 9 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 7
Ms. Nack explained in order to evaluate intersections, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) was used for geometric design and the Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) was used to determine whether a signal or stop signs were warranted. She
displayed a map of the intersection and reviewed existing curvature and sight distance.
She reviewed the intersection’s geometric design deficiencies:
Existing AASHTO
Horizontal Curve 360’ 485’
Intersection Sight Distance
South Leg
Left Turn 280’ 470’
Right Turn 400’ 382’
North Leg
Left Turn 455’ 470’
Right Turn 535’ 382’
Ms. Nack explained the City had adopted a level of service (LOS) D. She reviewed average delay per
vehicle for a stop control intersection, advising the existing LOS at the intersection was between C and D;
installation of a 4-way stop would reduce the LOS to F. She reviewed the average delay per vehicle for a
signalized intersection. She compared the LOS for a signal at this intersection to the existing LOS:
Road A.M. P.M.
Signal Existing Signal Existing
Intersection C C C C
196th Street SW (westbound) C A C A
Puget Drive (northeast bound) C A C A
88th Avenue West (southbound) C D B D
88th Avenue West (northbound) B B C C
She displayed a list of 11 signal warrants in the MUTCD, summarizing at a minimum an intersection
would need to meet one of the criteria to warrant a signal; the volumes on 88th Avenue West were not
high enough to meet the volume criteria:
Warrant 1: Minimum Vehicular Volume
Warrant 2: Interruption of Continuous Traffic
Warrant 3: Minimum Pedestrian Volume (100 pedestrians/hour)
Warrant 4: School Crossings
Warrant 5: Progressive Movement
Warrant 6: Accident Experience (at least 5 accidents/year)
Warrant 7: Systems
Warrant 8: Combination of Warrants
Warrant 9: Four-Hour Volumes
Warrant 10: Peak Hour Delay
Warrant 11: Peak Hour Volume
She reviewed the alternatives:
• Alternative A: No Improvement
• Alternative B: Limit Access on the north and south legs - left turn movements for traffic
southbound on 88th would be restricted, allowing straight through movement or right turn. She
displayed a map identifying out-of-direction travel in the neighborhood, estimating that
approximately 1,000 vehicles per day would be rerouted through the neighborhood.
Packet Page 10 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 8
• Alternative C: Four Way Stop Control ($1,000) - warrants are not met, LOS drops to F and
results in increased noise and air pollution due to stopping vehicles.
• Alternative D: Traffic Signal ($344,000) - warrants are not met, LOS C, results in increased noise
and air pollution due to stopping vehicles, and increased rear-end accidents due to stops on 196th
Street SW.
• Alternative E: Intersection Realignment ($2,369,000) - high cost attributable to retaining walls
due to the slope, drainage issues, and acquiring right-of-way.
• Alternative F: Roundabout ($3,966,000) - high cost due to reducing the current 8% grade to the
required 4% grade.
• Alternative G: Limit Access eastbound ($15,000) - vehicles traveling north on 88th could turn
right only; left turns and straight through travel would not be permitted. There would be no
change in the movement of traffic traveling southbound on 88th.
Ms. Nack explained staff met with WSDOT to review the study and alternatives; WSDOT will not
support alternative C or D because the intersection did not meet the warrants in the MUTCD. WSDOT
also did not support alternatives E or F primarily due to the cost. She reviewed the recommendation,
Alternative G, explaining WSDOT supports this alternative, the cost is approximately $15,000, the
improvement addresses the sight distance issue on the south leg, and there is no impact on Community
Transit or Edmonds School District bus routing.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether accident data for 2007 was available. Ms. Nack answered no.
Councilmember Orvis commented there were six accidents listed for 2006 and questioned why two were
excluded. Ms Nack answered one was a single vehicle accident that was not attributable to sight distance
at the intersection and the other accident was a rear-end westbound on 196th due to vehicle stopping for a
bicycle. Councilmember Orvis asked whether excess speed due to the absence of a signal could have
caused the first accident. Ms. Nack answered she did not believe so.
Councilmember Orvis referred to Warrant 7 which relates to trends in volume, noting the study identified
that as unknown for the signal and asked whether that could be established with further study. Ms. Nack
answered there was a very low probability it would meet the warrant. Councilmember Orvis asked if
realignment of the intersection would allow it to meet the warrant for a stop sign. She responded the
challenge with installing a 4-way stop at the intersection was it would drop the LOS to F and based on her
discussions with WSDOT, they would not support stop signs.
Councilmember Wambolt questioned whether the sight distance could be improved if the speeds of traffic
from Puget Drive were reduced. Ms. Nack agreed there was a correlation between speed and sight
distance; the lower the speed limit the less sight distance was required. Councilmember Wambolt
commented the speed limit downhill on Puget Drive was 30 mph. Ms. Nack agreed, noting uphill it was
35 mph. She noted a speed study would be required to change the speed limit. Councilmember Wambolt
commented the speed limit may not need to be changed, only enforced. He suggested installing speed
monitors such as were installed on 220th Street that display a driver’s speed which may cause drivers to
slow down. Ms. Nack commented their study showed the current average speed was 32-34 mph and the
85th percentile was 34-39 mph which means the majority of drivers were traveling the speed limit.
Councilmember Wambolt commented drivers traveling the speed limit was not his experience when
traveling in that area.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether ferry traffic at the Edmonds terminal was increasing. City
Engineer Dave Gebert agreed increases in ferry traffic were projected. Mayor Haakenson commented the
City was working with WSDOT and Lynnwood to direct all ferry traffic southbound on Hwy. 99 to SR
104 to keep traffic off 196th.
(Councilmember Moore left the meeting at 8:03 p.m.)
Packet Page 11 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 9
Councilmember Plunkett asked what the State would say if the City asked for a signal at that intersection.
Based on his experience with WSDOT, Mr. Gebert anticipated WSDOT would say no. Ms. Nack
explained staff met with WSDOT and they said no to a signal because it did not meet the warrants. If the
City wanted a signal at this intersection, she recommended continuing to monitor volumes and accidents
at the intersection and once they met the warrants, advocate for a signal.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether WSDOT’s negative response was based on warrants and not LOS.
She stated it was based on the warrants. She reiterated the volume of traffic on 88th was too low to
warrant a signal at this point.
Councilmember Orvis asked about the warrants at other intersections on 196th. Ms. Nack answered she
only considered this intersection. Mr. Hauss advised the records for the 196th Street SW/80th Avenue
West intersection indicated it met the warrants; in 1980 there were a total of four right-angle accidents
between westbound and southbound traffic. The City obtained a grant for that intersection and the signal
was approved by WSDOT.
Councilmember Dawson commented one of the difficulties with this intersection in addition to sight
distances was the need to watch traffic coming from different directions. She noted many people did not
use this intersection because of the dangers and perhaps that was the reason it did not meet the volume
warrant. She asked whether there was any way to measure vehicles that rerouted through the
neighborhood to avoid this intersection. Ms. Nack advised Gray & Osborne and City staff discussed the
theory that drivers avoided the intersection but had not been able to develop a way to prove it.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether “almost-accidents” could be considered, pointing out the danger
of turning left onto 88th Avenue West from 196th. Ms. Nack advised there was only one accident
documented for a vehicle turning left; emphasizing the importance of drivers reporting accidents. She
was not aware of using near-miss incidents to meet a warrant. Councilmember Dawson asked if staff
knew of a way to document the amount of traffic that rerouted through the neighborhood to avoid the
intersection. Mr. Gebert advised staff was beginning the update to the Transportation Comprehensive
Plan. During the last update, traffic counts and turning movements were considered for strategic
intersections. It may be possible to take traffic counts in that vicinity to evaluate the amount of rerouting
that is occurring.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Chris Kelly, Edmonds, thanked the Council for studying the intersection but was surprised the study
focused only on vehicular traffic and not on pedestrian traffic. He pointed out the difficulty students have
crossing the street to reach the park and to reach the Community Transit bus stop to Edmonds-Woodway
High School and the park. He noted the nearest marked crosswalk was ½ mile in either direction. He
requested the city consider striping and signing a crosswalk in addition to perhaps a stop sign. He
questioned the consultant’s indication that the speed limit at the intersection was 35 mph, pointing out it
was signed 35 mph westbound beyond the intersection and 35 mph eastbound beyond the intersection,
therefore, the uphill speed limit was 30 mph. He questioned whether traffic traveling 39 mph in a 30 mph
zone would affect the study and/or warrants.
Rick Behern, Edmonds, described the alternate route many neighborhood residents use to cross 196th.
He expressed concern that vehicles traveling north on 88th that were unable to turn left would use
Maplewood Lane instead to turn left onto 196th. Next he described the situation that occurs with vehicles
southbound on 88th Avenue West who enter the intersection and become trapped in the center of the
intersection by oncoming traffic.
Packet Page 12 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 10
Joel Valley, Edmonds, commented on new development that has occurred north of 196th. He expressed
concern with the crosswalk across 88th Avenue West on the north side, noting he drives his daughter
to/from school because of the dangers of using that crosswalk. He noted the speed of vehicles traveling
westbound on 196th and vegetation obstruct the sight distance of the crosswalk. Another problem was
only about half the drivers stopped at the stop sign at 88th and 196th. Another issue was how to signal
when traveling westbound on 196th to indicate an intent to continue straight on 196th.
John Pierre, Edmonds, commented in the study, Alternative G showed a no left turn sign for vehicles
traveling southbound on the north leg of 88th.
Mayor Haakenson explained that was not the recommendation by staff or the Community
Services/Development Services Committee; the only change recommended was the right turn only
northbound on 88th.
Mr. Pierre commented there had been six accidents at that intersection in 2007, one more would allow the
intersection to meet the warrants. He pointed out this was the most dangerous intersection in the City; the
major hazard was to northbound traffic approaching 196th from the south leg of 88th. The right turn onto
196th is hazardous due to the blind spot looking down Puget Drive. Few drivers attempt to cross to the
north leg of 88th or turn left to go down “snake hill” into Edmonds due to danger. Another danger is
traffic westbound on 196th attempting to turn left onto 88th due to the dark, tree covered chasm down
Puget Drive which can be further complicated by afternoon sun in a driver’s eyes. He summarized the
recommended alternative would accomplish little if anything because most of the traffic northbound on
the south leg of 88th already turned right onto 196th. He commented there was little interruption in flow of
traffic of the northbound traffic at the 196th Street SW/80th Avenue West intersection because the
approaching traffic from 80th activated the signal. He noted the 196th Street SW/88th Avenue West
intersection had similar traffic patterns with the major difference that the intersection at 196th Street
SW/80th Avenue West had no sight distance issues.
Karen Lingman, Edmonds, supported Alternative G as the best solution to the problem. She disagreed
that drivers did not cross 88th Avenue West or that drivers did not turn left onto 196th, commenting she
witnessed those traffic movements daily. She also disagreed that traffic rerouted through the
neighborhood to enter 196th. She was opposed to a signal at the intersection.
Robert Schwartz, Edmonds, commented on vehicles speeding across 196th on 88th to avoid oncoming
cars. He explained he often turned right at the 196th Street SW/88th Avenue West and turned around in
the church parking lot to travel westbound on Puget Drive. When walking, his family walks east on 196th
to a point where the sight distance is sufficient to cross safely.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented on the conflicts that vehicles westbound on 196th turning left
onto 88th experience with oncoming traffic on Puget Drive and traffic on the south leg of 88th. He
suggested creating a pocket for those slowing vehicles, envisioning there was sufficient right-of-way for
that improvement. He referred to the cost of realigning the intersection, suggesting incremental
improvements be made such as increasing the turning radius for drivers turning right off 88th onto 196th or
improving the sight distance down Puget Drive for drivers turning left from 88th onto 196th. He did not
support a signal at this intersection due to the difficulty for vehicles eastbound on Puget Drive to start
uphill as well as the noise it would create. He recalled the light at 196th Street SW/80th Avenue West was
installed while he was on the Council. Due to concerns with interrupting the flow of traffic on 196th, the
right turn pocket was widened so that right turns did not activate at the light.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented the solution was either widening 196th to two lanes in each direction
or making 196th a one-way street. He referred to residents’ desire for a signal at SR 104 and 1st NE,
advising it required a sixth accident for that intersection to meet the warrants for a signal.
Packet Page 13 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 11
Rick Colgan, Edmonds, pointed out his concern was pedestrians attempting to cross this intersection and
the virtual impossibility to cross from the north side of 196th to the south side to reach the park. He and
his friends referred to this intersection as “the intersection of death.” He suggested the design include a
north-south pedestrian access or an island that pedestrians could seek refuge on. He concluded whatever
design was selected, it needed to improve access for pedestrians.
D.J. Wilson, Edmonds, encouraged Council to continue to monitor the intersection if they adopted the
recommendation. He agreed with Mr. Hertrich’s suggestion for incremental improvements such as a 3-5
year phased approach to realignment. He suggested if this intersection was deemed by Council to be an
emergency, removing the competitive bidding requirements would be appropriate.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public comment portion of the public
hearing.
Ms. Nack acknowledged stated the bottom line was the intersection did not meet the warrants for a signal
at this time. With regard to pedestrian volumes to warrant a signal, she advised the warrant required 100
pedestrians an hour. With regard to taking a right turn when westbound on 196th, she acknowledged that
was a difficult turn. Consideration was given to a triangular island to define that turn and to provide
refuge for pedestrians crossing 196th. She advised this was not discussed in detail with WSDOT. With
regard to the concern with the amount of traffic that would be rerouted via Alternative G, she advised
approximately 30% of vehicles northbound on 88th turn left west or go straight; 70% turn right.
Mayor Haakenson commented on citizens’ frustration when they call requesting a crosswalk or stop sign
in their neighborhood and are told that there are rules (warrants) that must be followed. He asked the
outcome if the City installed a crosswalk regardless of the warrants. Ms. Nack recommended the City
contact their liability insurance company. She noted cities had installed crosswalks in locations that were
not warranted that were later removed. She referred to cities in Pierce County that installed flashing
crosswalks and later removed them due to accidents occurring in those crosswalks because of the false
sense of security they provided to pedestrians. She remarked traffic engineering was not an exact science
but was based on experience. Before the City installed signals, crosswalks or stop signs that did not meet
the warrants, she recommended the City talk with WCIA regarding the risks. Mr. Snyder explained the
City would become the virtual insurer for any accident that occurred regardless of who was liable or why
the accident occurred.
Mayor Haakenson asked who created the warrants and who required cities follow the warrants. Ms. Nack
advised it was a national standard established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers adopted
nationwide as well as in the RCWs. Mr. Snyder commented installing traffic controls that were not
warranted was one of the surest ways to lose the City’s insurance pool membership.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the City would be liable if the State installed the signal. Mr. Snyder
answered no, commenting because this was a State route, the State’s permission was required.
Councilmember Dawson referred to a comment by the public that there had been six accidents in 2007.
Ms. Nack answered she had no knowledge of the number of accidents in 2007. She advised there were
six accidents in 2006 but only four could be attributed to sight distance. Councilmember Dawson asked
whether six or more accidents in 2007 would change the discussion with WSDOT. Ms. Nack responded
the accident reports would need to be reviewed to determine the cause of the accidents and if they were
attributable to sight distance, it could change the discussion with WSDOT. She recalled as of June/July
2007 there had been only one accident at the intersection.
Packet Page 14 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 12
Councilmember Dawson recommended staff report to the Council on the number of accidents at this
intersection in 2007 and 2008 for further consideration of whether it met the warrants.
With regard to a crosswalk, Mr. Hauss explained in addition to the warrants, another consideration for a
crosswalk was a minimum sight distance. Because this is not a 4-legged intersection with good visibility
and due to the curvature of the roads, the 35 mph speed required a minimum sight distance of
approximately 300 feet and there was only 280 feet of sight distance at the intersection. He explained the
reason staff and the consultant did not recommend limiting movements on the north side was the ratio
between volume and accidents found it was 4-5 times more dangerous to make a left turn from the south
leg than the north leg of 88th.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about the City’s liability if the Council did not adopt the
recommendation to limit left turns and straight travel on the south leg of 88th. Mr. Snyder answered the
question would be whether the warrants were sufficient to continue that turning motion. Mr. Gebert noted
although the objective was to identify an alternative that improved the safety of the intersection, staff’s
second choice was no action. Because the objective of the study was to improve safety, staff and the
consultant’s recommendation was Alternative G. He noted the accident rates were not high, possibly
because drivers used different routes.
Councilmember Dawson asked for further information regarding routes that drivers would use if unable to
turn left from 88th on 196th or go straight through. She questioned whether residents of neighborhoods
where drivers may be rerouted had been notified of the public hearing so that they could comment on the
additional traffic their neighborhood may experienced. Ms. Nack commented routes drivers would take
would vary depending on driver behavior.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about the notice provided. City Clerk Sandy Chase answered the
mailing was to property owners within 300 feet of the location. Councilmember Dawson asked whether
the intersection of the other outlet, Maplewood Lane, was included in that mailing. Mr. Gebert answered
probably not. Councilmember Dawson observed a significant number of vehicles would be using
Maplewood Lane.
Councilmember Orvis commented 88th Avenue West was a collector; therefore, its role was to funnel
traffic in and out of the neighborhood. He referred to the consultant’s finding of unknown with regard to
Warrant 7, Systems. The definition of Warrant 7 is this warrant justifies the installation of a traffic signal
to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. He asked whether
Warrant 7 would apply if large numbers of people were not using the collector due to concerns with the
intersection’s safety. Ms. Nack answered when they met with WSDOT, she pushed for this warrant and
WSDOT was not interested. She commented this warrant could continue to be pursued; consideration
would also need to be given to five year projected traffic volumes. Before pursuing that warrant further,
she recommended the City discuss with WSDOT their willingness to explore that warrant.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
ADOPT OPTION G.
Councilmember Marin commented the five streets created dimensional challenges at this intersection and
he acknowledged there were no easy answers. He noted this intersection was different than 80th, where he
lives. He relayed his experience with a traffic light malfunction at the intersection of 196th and 80th
during yesterday’s storm, noting this was the situation before the traffic signal was installed and he
anticipated having to “make a mad dash” across the street. He commented vehicles were not traveling 30
mph in either direction on 196th. He noted the recommended improvement at the intersection required a
relatively small expenditure and would allow the improvement to be done quickly. He agreed it was
challenging for pedestrians crossing 196th and asked staff to consider signage discouraging pedestrians
Packet Page 15 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 13
from crossing the intersection and directing them to another crossing. He supported Alternative G
because he wanted some improvement to be made to the intersection.
Council President Olson commented the primary reason for the study was to identify an alternative to
make the intersection safer and staff, the consultant and WSDOT agreed the recommended alternative
would accomplish that goal. She noted the City would continue to monitor the intersection and if the
intersection met the warrants in the future, a traffic signal could be pursued. She did not support doing
nothing in the meantime.
Councilmember Orvis expressed concern with creating a dangerous situation elsewhere by pushing the
problem onto other streets in the neighborhood such as Maplewood Lane. Because 88th was a collector,
the City’s plans called for 88th to direct traffic to that intersection, therefore, the City should be
encouraging its use. He acknowledged there were major safety issues at the intersection, but the safety
solution was a traffic signal. He acknowledged the intersection did not meet the warrants and he did not
want to meet Warrant 6, Accident Experience (at least 5 accidents/year). He preferred to convince
WSDOT and the State legislature that the intersection met Warrant 7 as a traffic signal would be the
safest solution.
Councilmember Dawson was also concerned with pushing the problem elsewhere. She anticipated
drivers would turn left or right from the intersection of 196th Street SW & 84th Avenue West which was
also not a very safe intersection, rather than traveling to the signal at 80th Avenue West. She requested
further information about the intersection of 196th Street SW & 84th Avenue West to determine whether
that would be a safe situation. She agreed the City should continue to monitor the intersection, agreeing
without a signal the intersection was not safe for pedestrians. She was uncertain whether Alternative G
would improve the safety of the intersection. She agreed with Councilmember Orvis’ comment about 88th
Avenue being a collector.
Councilmember Wambolt acknowledged some citizens did not find value in Alternative G. This may be
a situation where the Council needed to tell staff and the consultant they wanted a traffic light and have
them figure out how to achieve it.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out the consultant and staff tried that. He referred to Councilmember Orvis’
comment that the City should talk to the State legislature and challenged Councilmembers to work with
the legislature.
Councilmember Wambolt accepted Mayor Haakenson’s challenge, commenting the difficulty for
pedestrians had been downplayed. He concluded the only solution was a traffic signal and the City
needed to find a way to get one.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out a similar situation on SR 104 at 238th where residents have begged the
State for a traffic signal. He noted drivers had been killed at that intersection and WSDOT still refused to
install a signal.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN IN FAVOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, DAWSON,
WAMBOLT, AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. (Councilmember Moore was not present for the vote.)
Councilmember Orvis suggested a resolution to the legislature.
Councilmember Plunkett commented any solution other than a traffic signal was only a bandaid and
would simply push the problem to another street. He thanked the consultant for the excellent study and
presentation and staff for their work. He was hopeful, perhaps via legislative action or additional
Packet Page 16 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 14
evaluation, that a signal could be installed. Mayor Haakenson suggested Councilmember Orvis and
Plunkett work on a resolution for Council consideration at the next Council meeting.
6B. REPORT FROM SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES REGARDING PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE
PRIORITIES.
Mukilteo Council President Jennifer Gregerson explained she along with Mukilteo Councilmember
Liias, Mayor Haakenson and Council President Olson serve on the Legislative Committee for Snohomish
County Cities. She recalled a presentation was made to the Council on legislative priorities last year; the
Legislative Committee lobbied the legislature with regard to those issues. She recalled last year’s
priorities included flexibility with REET funds for park maintenance in addition to park acquisition, auto
theft reform and support for a 4-year university in Snohomish County. She noted they were pleased with
the success with auto theft and work occurring throughout the County on a 4-year university. She
requested the Council’s input on the 2008 priorities.
Mukilteo Councilmember Marko Liias explained Tier One items were those that progress was
desirable during this legislative session. He identified Tier One issues:
• Support for coordination of Land Use Planning in Urban Growth Areas
• Oppose Statewide Franchises for Telecommunications
• Oppose Executive Session Recording
He also identified Tier Two issues:
• Support REET II flexibility
• Support 4-year University in Snohomish County
Ms. Gregerson encouraged the Council to provide feedback on these priorities. She explained the goal
was to reach consensus on 1-2 issues for Snohomish County.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out that as presentations were made to cities in Snohomish County, the
priorities may be tweaked slightly.
Mukilteo Councilmember Liias invited Councilmembers to a luncheon on December 11 at Everett
Community College as part of the Snohomish County Cities newly elected officials seminar.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented in addition to a signal at 238th & SR 104, a signal was needed at SR
104 & Pine Street. Next he advised of the Snohomish County Supreme Court Case on February 28, 2008
regarding the neighborhood park. He then referred to Mayor Haakenson’s column in the Edmonds
Beacon regarding purchasing the Safeway property, and suggested the Mayor form a volunteer committee
to consider whether there was sufficient interest in siting an events center in downtown Edmonds.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the November 28 Planning Board meeting where the Board
discussed the draft Six-Year Park Program. The program was designed to set goals and objectives,
identify needs, set policy, create action plans and create projects which are grant eligible. Another of the
goals was to develop parks as an economic generator for the City, and he suggested that goal be
considered in regard to the properties near the waterfront. Another priority in the Program was to acquire
park land, waterfront and open space. He noted park acquisitions were financed via REET funds. In
addition, he noted the City did not charge a Park Impact Fee. He referred to the number of new residents
in the Port Edwards project for whom the City must provide parks, yet they did not pay any Park Impact
Fee. He suggested the Council develop a Park Impact Fee to provide an additional source of revenue for
park acquisition. Concluding, he thanked the consultant for the presentation on the 196th Street SW/88th
Avenue W intersection, noting it was one of the best consultant reports he had heard. He reiterated his
recommendation to make incremental improvements to the intersection.
Packet Page 17 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 15
6A. BROADBAND PROJECT UP-DATE.
Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained the Edmonds Fiber Network (EFN) was a high
capacity fiber optic network potentially capable of providing digital phone, high definition television, and
internet services from competing providers to every public entity, home and business in Edmonds. He
provided an analogy of capacity: dial up was like a hypodermic needle (56K), DSL/Cable was like a
garden hose (1.5 - 5 Mbps), the EFN Connection was like a 3-foot water main (100 Mbps) and the EFN
backbone was like the Seattle bus tunnels (30 Gbps).
Mr. Clements reviewed the six goals for the project: (1) Help stabilize the City’s revenue base using a
non-property tax approach; (2) reduce customers’ broadband costs; (3) help the City’s economic growth;
(4) improve public safety; (5) provide better service and programming choices; and (6) reduce the City’s
carbon footprint.
He identified three potential customer classes, (1) City of Edmonds governmental use, (2) local
government, education, public heath use, and (3) residential and business uses. He advised the business
plan evaluated each use with regard to the six goals.
Mr. Clements highlighted key broadband project milestones in phase one:
December 2006 Broadband request for information issued
May 2007 NetRiver/Lynnwood launch customer
June 2007 Business Plan Proposal Award
September 2007 Fiber from City Hall to Public Works live
October 2007 Fiber connected to Westin and Internet
November 2007 City internet link converted to fiber
December 2007 Edmonds School District approves contract
The following upcoming actions were anticipated:
December 2007 Business Plan proposal delivered
January 2008 Stevens Hospital considers contract
February 2008 Edmonds Community College considers contract
February 2008 Business Plan combined with Municipal use
The City’s investment in the first phase included:
Date Appropriation Item
January 2006 $120,000 Fiber run from Seattle
Connection to WSDOT
Business Plan
June 2007 $ 56,000 Fiber Router Switching
Total $176,200
Projected 2008 revenue:
Source Appropriation
City Savings $ 10,000
PEG Customers (14) $234,000
Commercial (?) ?
Residential (?) ?
Total $244,000
Potential 2008 revenue with 30 commercial customers at $36,000/year, noting the market potential was
estimated at 1,000 commercial accounts with the existing equity:
Packet Page 18 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 16
Source Appropriation
City Savings $ 10,000
PEG Customers $ 300,000
Commercial (30) $1,080,000
Residential (?) ?
Total $1,390,000
Mr. Clements reviewed the second phase decision timeline:
February 2008 Business Plan combined with municipal use (smart water metering, video
arraignment, public safety WiFi, and field worker with WiFi.
February 2008 Clarification of Target Customers.
April 2008 Council considers Phase 2 of project (full or partial residential implementation,
full commercial implementation and governance models).
May 2008 Council adopts Phase 2 Plan.
Councilmember Plunkett commented his recent conversation with Rick Jenness, Community Technology
Advisory Committee (CTAC), helped him understand that by using the existing commercial investment
the City could obtain additional commercial clients and a great deal of additional revenue, potentially $10
million. Mr. Clements agreed, referring to the table that illustrated 30 commercial customers at
$36,000/year provided approximately $1.1 million in revenue and more with the market potential of 1,000
businesses. Councilmember Plunkett suggested separating businesses and residential customers, noting
further investment was required for residential customers.
Councilmember Plunkett commented there was additional commercial investment possible that the City
could not yet consider due to legal issues. Mr. Clements stated the City had fairly clear statutory
authority to provide service for public education and government. The State Attorney General has issued
an opinion that 35A cities have the authority to provide services to businesses and residences; the
financing needs to be clarified. Councilmember Plunkett commented if the City clarified the legal
aspects, it had the opportunity with little additional investment to pursue commercial customers.
Council President Olson commented it was never envisioned that the City would make the financial
investment for residential, other companies would have the opportunity to invest in residential services.
Mr. Clements anticipated the business plan would identify the investment and income from residential.
He noted the City may decide to have someone manage the network.
Councilmember Plunkett commented if the City provided residential service, the City would have to
provide the hardware to the house. Mr. Clements agreed either the City or its agent who would be
compensated by the City. Councilmember Plunkett summarized there were considerable costs associated
with residential service.
7. AUTHORIZATION TO RENEW CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH MILLTOWN PIZZA.
City Clerk Sandy Chase explained this was a one-of-a-kind agreement that the Council authorized
approximately one year ago with Milltown Pizza to lease public right-of-way to vend pizza in a location
in the vicinity of the ferry holding lanes. Richard Andrews, owner of Milltown Pizza, has made a request
to renew the Concession Agreement for 2008.
Councilmember Wambolt asked if there had been any review of the $100/month rental to determine
whether it was appropriate. Ms. Chase answered no, as there were no other similar leases in the city.
Packet Page 19 of 357
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2007
Page 17
Councilmember Dawson asked if anyone else had expressed interest in the concession. Ms. Chase and
Mayor Haakenson answered no. Councilmember Dawson recalled that had been her concern when the
Council first signed the agreement; since no one else had expressed interest, she supported renewing the
concession agreement.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there had been any complaints. Mr. Chase answered neither she
nor any other department received any complaints.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
AUTHORIZE RENEWAL OF THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH MILLTOWN PIZZA.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (The vote was 6-0; Councilmember Moore was not present
for the vote.)
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson expressed his thanks to City crews for the hours they put in over the week to address
the snow, rain, wind and flooding. He noted these types of events, previously referred to as hundred year
storms, were now occurring every five years. He noted five inches of rain produced a lot of water and it
was difficult to build something to retain that amount of water. When creeks and streams were unable to
enter Puget Sound, there was nowhere for the water to go and the water sought its own route. He noted
Edmonds was also at the mercy of other cities particularly Lynnwood because all their water flowed into
the city particularly through Perrinville Creek.
He noted City staff was also frustrated by their inability to control Lake Ballinger for Edmonds residents
as Mountlake Terrace controlled the weir that let the water out and they could not let the water out
because the downstream cities of Lake Forest Park and Kenmore were also flooding. He noted the
bottom-line was it was created as a result of additional building and impervious surfaces that prevented
the soil from absorbing the water.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Olson invited the public to attend the Port’s Waterfront Winter Festival on December
10 which will include the Christmas ship, caroling and Councilmembers roasting chestnuts and serving
hot cider.
Councilmember Dawson advised of the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County breakfast
on December 5 to discuss affordable housing topics. The meeting will include a presentation by a
representative of the Gates Foundation regarding the results of the Sound Families Initiative in
Snohomish County.
10. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Packet Page 20 of 357
AM-1323 2.C.
Approval of Claim Checks and Payroll Direct Deposits and Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
Submitted By:Debbie Karber
Submitted For:Dan Clements Time:Consent
Department:Administrative Services Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #100756 through #100911 for December 6, 2007 in the amount of
$541,453.93, and #100912 through #101090 for December 13, 2007 in the amount of $241,639.75.
Approval of payroll holiday buyback checks #45833 through #45966 in the amount of
$245,793.51, and payroll direct deposits and checks #45967 through #46015 for the period of
November 16 through November 30, 2007 in the amount of $869,287.74.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposits and checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council.
Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends
either approval or non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2007
Revenue:
Expenditure: $1,898,174.93
Fiscal Impact:
Claims: $ 783,093.68
Payroll: $1,115,081.25
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 12-6-07
Link: Claim cks 12-13-07
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 12/13/2007 10:43 AM APRV
Packet Page 21 of 357
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/13/2007 10:48 AM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/13/2007 10:52 AM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/13/2007 02:07 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Started On: 12/13/2007 10:08
AM
Final Approval Date: 12/13/2007
Packet Page 22 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100756 12/6/2007 068020 ADVANCED INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS 20012799 INV#20012799 EDMONDS PD
RELOADING VALVE ASSEMBLY
001.000.410.521.400.480.00 335.00
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.480.00 29.48
INV#20012803 EDMONDS PD20012803
S&W M&P.40 DRY FIRE WEAPONS
001.000.410.521.400.350.00 5,700.00
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.350.00 501.60
Total :6,566.08
100757 12/6/2007 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 07-470 JANITORIAL SERVICE
JANITORIAL SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00
Total :334.00
100758 12/6/2007 014940 ALL BATTERY SALES & SERVICE 110427582 FLEET SHOP BATTERY INVENTORY
FLEET SHOP BATTERY INVENTORY
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 193.85
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 17.25
FLEET SHOP INVENTORY - BULBS, LUGS,718175
FLEET SHOP INVENTORY - BULBS, LUGS,
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 89.94
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 8.00
Total :309.04
100759 12/6/2007 065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE 2025 TREE REMOVAL
TAKE DOWN OF FIR TREE @ FIRE STATION 16
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 750.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 66.00
1Page:
Packet Page 23 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :816.0010075912/6/2007 065413 065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE
100760 12/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-4028025 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 30.36
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.70
Total :33.06
100761 12/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-4021758 18386001
UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 96.17
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.56
Total :104.73
100762 12/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-4013860 FLEET UNIFORM SVC
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 54.62
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 4.86
FLEET UNIFORM SVC512-4020047
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.69
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.02
2Page:
Packet Page 24 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100762 12/6/2007 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
PW MATS512-4026272
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
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC512-4028026
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.60
Total :158.29
100763 12/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK 10479728 Uniforms - Bldg Div.
Uniforms - Bldg Div.
001.000.620.524.100.240.00 64.98
3Page:
Packet Page 25 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100763 12/6/2007 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
ACCT# 11960558596162761
Bldg credit from 2006
001.000.620.524.100.240.00 -14.82
Total :50.16
100764 12/6/2007 072021 ARCHER, PATRICK Rec #42907/42906 Refund of Bldg permit fees for permit~
Refund of Bldg permit fees for permit~
001.000.000.322.100.000.00 300.00
Total :300.00
100765 12/6/2007 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 566328 75179
DIESEL FUEL
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 3,037.28
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 242.98
Total :3,280.26
100766 12/6/2007 064343 AT&T 425-771-1124 PARKS MAINT. BLDG
PARKS MAINT. BLDG
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 34.60
CEMETERY425-771-4741
CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.200.420.00 37.60
Total :72.20
100767 12/6/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 43080 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
4Page:
Packet Page 26 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100767 12/6/2007 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
UB Outsourcing area #300 printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 150.48
UB Outsourcing area #300 postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 448.53
UB Outsourcing area #300 printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 150.48
UB Outsourcing area #300 printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 150.92
UB Outsourcing area #300 postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 448.52
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 13.39
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 13.39
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 13.44
Total :1,389.15
100768 12/6/2007 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 07-1038 INVS 07-1038; 07-1153; 07-1303
BURIAL SUPPLIES: UNGER
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 358.00
BURIAL SUPPLIES: PARKER
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 358.00
BURIAL SUPPLIES: PETERSON
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 358.00
Total :1,074.00
100769 12/6/2007 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2007-413 INV# 2007-413 EDMONDS PD
PRE-EMPLOY EXAM - SPEER
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 175.00
Total :175.00
100770 12/6/2007 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 010019616 Canon 5870 Copier Lease
5Page:
Packet Page 27 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100770 12/6/2007 (Continued)070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING
Canon 5870 Copier Lease
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 101.32
Canon 5870 Copier Lease
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 101.32
Canon 5870 Copier Lease
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 101.36
Supply charge
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 25.00
Supply charge
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 25.00
Supply charge
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 25.00
Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 11.25
Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 11.25
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 11.25
Total :412.75
100771 12/6/2007 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 362685 FLEET SHOP - INVENTORY - BRAKE KITS
FLEET SHOP - INVENTORY - BRAKE KITS
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 408.36
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 36.34
Total :444.70
100772 12/6/2007 070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC 220 Prof. Serv. - Bitco
Prof. Serv. - Bitco
001.000.620.558.800.410.00 251.75
Total :251.75
100773 12/6/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 629108 INV#629108 EDMONDS PD - KAMKA
6Page:
Packet Page 28 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100773 12/6/2007 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
LONG SLEEVE UNIFORM SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 239.85
SERVICE STRIPES
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.85
SHORTEN SLEEVES - MEN'S SHIRT
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 22.50
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 23.87
INV#631922 EDMONDS PD - POFF631922
SERVICE BARS FOR TWO SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 6.50
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 0.58
Total :299.15
100774 12/6/2007 002525 BOARD OF VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER 510 VOLUNTEERS BENEFITS
Disability fees
001.000.510.522.410.230.00 270.00
Total :270.00
100775 12/6/2007 070009 BOLA ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING 2 MUSEUM MASONRY RESTORATION PROJECT
MUSEUM MASONRY RESTORATION PROJECT
116.000.651.519.920.410.00 1,734.00
Total :1,734.00
100776 12/6/2007 069295 BROWN, CANDY CBROWN1130 CLASSROOM VISITS
BIRD NATURALIST CLASSROOM VISITS~
001.000.640.574.350.410.00 36.40
Total :36.40
100777 12/6/2007 064861 CAIN BOLT AND GASKET INC 72086 CIEDWA
7Page:
Packet Page 29 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100777 12/6/2007 (Continued)064861 CAIN BOLT AND GASKET INC
WAS PUMP CONVERSION
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 26.64
Freight
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 5.64
Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 2.37
Total :34.65
100778 12/6/2007 071942 CAMPBELL, JULANN CAMPBELL8636 OIL PAINTING CLASSES
OIL PAINTING #8636
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 492.80
OIL PAINTING #8635
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 492.80
Total :985.60
100779 12/6/2007 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC HNS8803 ISCSI
8Page:
Packet Page 30 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100779 12/6/2007 (Continued)069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
Mfg# EMT-AX150I-750~330-00335
001.000.620.558.600.640.00 2,025.00
Mfg# EMT-AX150I-750~330-00335
411.000.655.535.800.640.00 1,350.27
Mfg# EMT-AX150I-750~330-00335
001.000.620.532.200.640.00 2,025.00
Mfg# EMT-AX150I-750~330-00335
411.000.652.594.400.640.00 1,349.46
Mfg# EMT-AX150I-750~330-00335
411.000.654.534.800.640.00 1,350.27
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.640.00 180.23
Mfg# EMT-AX1-BASICPWC2~330-00335
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 337.50
Mfg# EMT-AX1-BASICPWC2~330-00335
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 225.05
Mfg# EMT-AX1-BASICPWC2~330-00335
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 225.05
Mfg# EMT-AX1-BASICPWC2~330-00335
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 224.91
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.640.00 120.17
Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.640.00 180.23
Sales Tax
411.000.652.594.400.640.00 120.10
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.640.00 120.17
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 20.03
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 20.03
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 20.02
9Page:
Packet Page 31 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100779 12/6/2007 (Continued)069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 30.03
Mfg# EMT-AX1-BASICPWC2~330-00335
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 337.49
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 30.04
Total :10,291.05
100780 12/6/2007 067446 CEM CORPORATION 304626 466915
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 39.52
SERVICING MICROWAVE
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 1,080.50
Total :1,120.02
100781 12/6/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN10071054 2954000
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 31.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 2.76
Total :33.76
100782 12/6/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 114165 FLEET SHOP REPAIR CUTTING ATTACHMENT &
FLEET SHOP REPAIR CUTTING ATTACHMENT &
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 46.50
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 4.14
Total :50.64
100783 12/6/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY114190 ALS SUPPLIES
10Page:
Packet Page 32 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100783 12/6/2007 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 50.65
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 14.77
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 5.82
MEDICAL SUPPLIESLY114191
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 62.30
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 6.75
ALS SUPPLIESLY114192
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 31.15
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 3.97
ALS SUPPLIESLY114266
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 30.04
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 2.67
Total :235.12
100784 12/6/2007 003515 CH2M HILL INC 3621823 E6MA.Services thru 09/28/07
E6MA.Services thru 09/28/07
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 1,674.21
Total :1,674.21
100785 12/6/2007 070792 CH2O 154485 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
11Page:
Packet Page 33 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100785 12/6/2007 (Continued)070792 CH2O
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 44.00
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.71
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.03
Total :55.74
100786 12/6/2007 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT8546 CHILDREN'S CLASSES
SATURDAY PLAY #8546
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 176.40
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #8544
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 82.60
Total :259.00
100787 12/6/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460774488 VOLUNTEERS UNIFORMS
Volunteers
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 22.56
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 2.01
OPS UNIFORMS460774489
Stn 16
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 124.20
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.05
UNIFORMS460775530
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
12Page:
Packet Page 34 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100787 12/6/2007 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
OPS UNIFORMS460775553
Stn 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 123.97
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.03
Total :496.06
100788 12/6/2007 072017 CLARK, STANLEY Rec #44162 Refund for Sub Division PLN 20070040
Refund for Sub Division PLN 20070040
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 738.75
Refund for sign post Stanley Sub Div~
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 150.00
Total :888.75
100789 12/6/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1858374 CLEANING SUPPLIES
CLEANER/DISINFECTANT FOR WEIGHT ROOM
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 49.30
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 4.39
Total :53.69
100790 12/6/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1861291 FAC MAINT - KITCHEN ROLL TOWELS, BIG
FAC MAINT - KITCHEN ROLL TOWELS, BIG
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 906.55
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 80.91
FAC MAINT - BRAWNY INDUSTRIAL TOWELSW1861291-1
FAC MAINT - BRAWNY INDUSTRIAL TOWELS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 144.42
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.85
13Page:
Packet Page 35 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100790 12/6/2007 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES
FAC - NO-TOUCH ROLL TOWELSW1862037
FAC - NO-TOUCH ROLL TOWELS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 400.56
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 35.87
Total :1,586.16
100791 12/6/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1864121 OPS SUPPLIES
Stns' cleaning supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 104.32
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 2.50
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 9.51
Total :116.33
100792 12/6/2007 062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC 008118 UNIT 40 - ACCIDENT REPAIRS
UNIT 40 - ACCIDENT REPAIRS
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 11,217.09
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 998.32
UNIT 679 - ACCIDENT REPAIRS008334
UNIT 679 - ACCIDENT REPAIRS
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 11,127.73
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 990.37
UNIT 236 - REPAIRS008737
UNIT 236 - REPAIRS
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 1,782.30
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 158.63
Total :26,274.44
14Page:
Packet Page 36 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100793 12/6/2007 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING 510-0729 OPS UNIFORMS
Batt Chiefs
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 77.12
PREV UNIFORMS510-0995
Fire Marshal
001.000.510.522.300.240.00 32.38
PREVENTION UNIFORMS510-1524
Inspector
001.000.510.522.300.240.00 17.67
OPS UNIFORMS510-1539
Admin/Training BC
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 29.43
ADMIN UNIFORMS510-1884
Fire Chief
001.000.510.522.100.240.00 29.44
OPS UNIFORMS510-2341
Asst. Chief
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 35.31
Total :221.35
100794 12/6/2007 070090 COUNTER ASSAULT 20007724 INV#20007724 EDMONDS PD - PO 6615
OC10 CROWD CONTROL 6.1 OZ
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 127.20
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 7.95
Total :135.15
100795 12/6/2007 067794 DALCO INC 39129 39129
NOZZLE/NIPPLE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 106.88
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.50
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.09
Total :123.47
15Page:
Packet Page 37 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100796 12/6/2007 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 39280 UNIT EQ17SD - RADIO AND PROGRAMMING
UNIT EQ17SD - RADIO AND PROGRAMMING
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 469.75
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 7.50
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 42.47
Total :519.72
100797 12/6/2007 064422 DEPT OF GENERAL ADMIN 201592280 FAC - TOILET SEAT COVERS
FAC - TOILET SEAT COVERS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 69.39
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.83
FAC - TOILET SEAT COVERS201592738
FAC - TOILET SEAT COVERS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 84.81
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.12
FAC MAINT - TT, LINERS SUPPLIES201592778
FAC MAINT - TT, LINERS SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 203.45
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.09
Total :387.69
100798 12/6/2007 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS November 2007 NOVEMBER 2007 DRS
November 2007 DRS Contributions
811.000.000.231.540.000.00 238,568.37
Total :238,568.37
100799 12/6/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 07-2815 MINUTE TAKING
11/20 & 11/27 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 305.20
Total :305.20
16Page:
Packet Page 38 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100800 12/6/2007 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL Nov-07 Lobbyist General Government &
Lobbyist General Government &
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 1,445.00
Lobbyist Edmonds Crossing
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 1,140.00
Total :2,585.00
100801 12/6/2007 007253 DUNN LUMBER 09237265 LUMBER
LUMBER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 50.83
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.52
Total :55.35
100802 12/6/2007 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER 210313 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 100.11
INTERPRETER FEE210314
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 82.87
Total :182.98
100803 12/6/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 88726 SUPPLIES
GREASE GUN
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 43.85
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.90
Total :47.75
100804 12/6/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 87548 UNIT 26 - ALTERNATOR
UNIT 26 - ALTERNATOR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 110.68
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.85
17Page:
Packet Page 39 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100804 12/6/2007 (Continued)007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
UNIT 26 RETURNED ALTERNATOR87618
UNIT 26 RETURNED ALTERNATORS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -110.68
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -9.85
UNIT 10 - PARTS87874
UNIT 10 - PARTS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 49.18
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.38
UNIT 238 - FLOOR MATS88444
UNIT 238 - FLOOR MATS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.75
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.83
UNIT 113 - CV AXL88492
UNIT 113 - CV AXL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 59.95
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.34
Total :153.43
100805 12/6/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 88743 OPS SUPPLIES
stations' supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 9.24
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 0.82
Total :10.06
100806 12/6/2007 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 11830 November 2007 luncheon - Mayor Haakenson
November 2007 luncheon - Mayor Haakenson
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 17.50
Total :17.50
100807 12/6/2007 007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC E368011 Pre-employment testing
18Page:
Packet Page 40 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100807 12/6/2007 (Continued)007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC
Pre-employment testing
001.000.220.516.210.410.00 89.00
Total :89.00
100808 12/6/2007 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 12627 WIDE FORMAT COPIES
WIDE FORMAT COPIES
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 5.70
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 0.51
Total :6.21
100809 12/6/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11
LIFT STATION #11
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 22.41
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE3-03575
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 185.05
LIFT STATION #123-07525
LIFT STATION #12
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 57.94
LIFT STATION #153-07709
LIFT STATION #15
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 20.64
LIFT STATION #43-09350
LIFT STATION #4
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 59.71
LIFT STATION #103-09800
LIFT STATION #10
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 25.95
LIFT STATION #93-29875
LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 27.72
Total :399.42
100810 12/6/2007 069055 EHS INTERNATIONAL INC.24578 EDMONDS LIBRARY - GOOD FAITH SURVEY
19Page:
Packet Page 41 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100810 12/6/2007 (Continued)069055 EHS INTERNATIONAL INC.
EDMONDS LIBRARY - GOOD FAITH SURVEY
116.000.651.519.920.410.00 600.00
Total :600.00
100811 12/6/2007 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 029601 ADMIN REPAIR/MAINT
Admin copier maint
001.000.510.522.100.480.00 85.50
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.100.480.00 7.61
Total :93.11
100812 12/6/2007 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0035843-IN INV#0035843-IN EDMONDS PD
RESERVE-RETIRED FLAT BADGES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 162.00
CHAPLAIN FLAT BADGE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 81.00
HANDLING CHARGE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.50
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.86
Total :254.36
100813 12/6/2007 071634 ESCHELON TELCOM INC 010495174 11/25/07 C/A 010495174
PR1-2 City Phone Service 10/25-11/25/07
001.000.390.528.800.420.00 869.01
Total :869.01
100814 12/6/2007 066004 ESRI 91656122 Q# 20307221 SNO CO MPA#2006MPA2886
Item 93194 ArcGIS Publisher Single Use310-00082
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 2,000.00
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 168.00
Total :2,168.00
100815 12/6/2007 009327 EVERETT ENGINEERING INC 19508 MOTOR BASE MACHINED
20Page:
Packet Page 42 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100815 12/6/2007 (Continued)009327 EVERETT ENGINEERING INC
MOTOR BASE MACHINED
411.000.656.538.800.410.21 162.75
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.21 14.00
Total :176.75
100816 12/6/2007 009880 FEDEX 2-390-29090 FedEx charges sending CT Grant
FedEx charges sending CT Grant
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 18.75
Total :18.75
100817 12/6/2007 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 113002 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 9,900.00
Total :9,900.00
100818 12/6/2007 072031 FIRE DISTRICT #7 07-022 TRAINING MISC
Fire Officer II-TA,DD,DW
001.000.510.522.400.490.00 1,350.00
Total :1,350.00
100819 12/6/2007 061589 GALLS INC 40415862000024 INV#40415862000024 ACCT#0001173855
CROWD CONTROL BAG
001.000.410.521.230.310.00 79.99
BALACLAVA
001.000.410.521.230.240.00 7.99
Freight
001.000.410.521.230.310.00 5.95
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.230.310.00 7.66
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.230.240.00 0.71
21Page:
Packet Page 43 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100819 12/6/2007 (Continued)061589 GALLS INC
INV#4041586200016 ACCT#00011738554041586200016
UPPER BODY CHEST PROTECTOR
001.000.410.521.230.310.00 99.99
ID PANELS (SET OF 4)
001.000.410.521.230.310.00 6.99
ARM PROTECTION
001.000.410.521.230.310.00 14.99
KEVLAR PROTECTIVE SLEEVES
001.000.410.521.230.310.00 14.99
SHIN GUARDS
001.000.410.521.230.310.00 39.99
GLOVES
001.000.410.521.230.240.00 15.99
Freight
001.000.410.521.230.310.00 13.04
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.230.310.00 16.79
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.230.240.00 1.52
Total :326.59
100820 12/6/2007 067232 GERRISH BEARING COMPANY 2075794-01 SHEAVE/COGGED BELT
SHEAVE/COGGED BELT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 49.39
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.65
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.90
COGGED BELT2075845-01
COGGED BELT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 22.52
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.61
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.50
22Page:
Packet Page 44 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100820 12/6/2007 (Continued)067232 GERRISH BEARING COMPANY
BORE SHEAVE/BUSHING2075939-01
BORE SHEAVE/BUSHING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 44.60
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3.97
Total :139.14
100821 12/6/2007 061410 GRCC/WETRC B3571 BAT RENEWAL/ROMERO
RENEWAL: BAT CERTIFICATION~
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 42.00
Total :42.00
100822 12/6/2007 068415 H & W EMERGENCY VEHICLES 44144 UNIT 484 - ENTRY DOOR HANDLE
UNIT 484 - ENTRY DOOR HANDLE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 93.62
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.45
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.44
Total :115.51
100823 12/6/2007 012900 HARRIS FORD INC FOCS228798 UNIT 236 - SERVICE REPAIRS
UNIT 236 - SERVICE REPAIRS
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 2,724.42
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 242.47
Total :2,966.89
100824 12/6/2007 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 80171 UNIT 132 - SENSOR ASSEMBLY
UNIT 132 - SENSOR ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 112.82
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.04
23Page:
Packet Page 45 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100824 12/6/2007 (Continued)012900 HARRIS FORD INC
UNIT 119 - WHEEL COVERS80215
UNIT 119 - WHEEL COVERS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 36.98
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.29
UNIT 484 - BRAKE SHOE KIT, RETAINER80449
UNIT 484 - BRAKE SHOE KIT, RETAINER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 120.02
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.68
UNIT 485 - SCREEN ASSEMBLY80619
UNIT 485 - SCREEN ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.86
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.66
UNIT 485 - SEAL80641
UNIT 485 - SEAL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.96
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.78
Total :348.09
100825 12/6/2007 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 6-8941 WATER/SEWER - HEATDISH
WATER/SEWER - HEATDISH
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 31.58
WATER/SEWER - HEATDISH
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 31.57
Total :63.15
100826 12/6/2007 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 061088 OPS SUPPLIES
Stations' supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 191.33
Total :191.33
100827 12/6/2007 070864 IDEARC MEDIA CORP 360001514247 C/A 360000657091
24Page:
Packet Page 46 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100827 12/6/2007 (Continued)070864 IDEARC MEDIA CORP
11/2007 Web Server Hosting for Internet
001.000.390.528.800.420.00 34.95
C/A 360000764828360001543524
11/2007 Web Server Hosting for Internet
001.000.390.528.800.420.00 34.95
Total :69.90
100828 12/6/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 74902851 COPIER LEASE
LEASE OF CANON IRC587OU
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 326.70
COPIER LEASE74931842
PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 22.87
Total :349.57
100829 12/6/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 74931839 C/A 467070-1003748A4
Finance Copier Rental 11/22-12/21/07
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 454.07
Additional Images B&W/Color 10/3-11/3/07
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 227.24
Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 60.64
Total :741.95
100830 12/6/2007 015270 JONES CHEMICALS INC 374203 54278825
HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 2,807.91
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 247.10
Total :3,055.01
100831 12/6/2007 069526 KEMCO SUPPLY OF WA INC 41852 INV# 41852 EDMONDS PD
25Page:
Packet Page 47 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100831 12/6/2007 (Continued)069526 KEMCO SUPPLY OF WA INC
PROTECTION PLUS GLOVES - L, XL
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 79.80
MICROTEX GLOVES - XL
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 59.90
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 12.43
Total :152.13
100832 12/6/2007 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS E2DB.24 E2DB.Services thru 10/31/07
E2DB.Services thru 10/31/07
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 965.87
Total :965.87
100833 12/6/2007 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 329098-001 Paper/toner for Bldg copier
Paper/toner for Bldg copier
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 1,203.56
Total :1,203.56
100834 12/6/2007 060132 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 1010605322 OPS SUPPLIES
earplugs
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 83.40
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 10.12
Total :93.52
100835 12/6/2007 071249 LEGACY ROOFING Rec# 044730 Refund for Permit #bld20070735
Refund for Permit #bld20070735
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 290.00
Total :290.00
100836 12/6/2007 066064 LISTEN AUDIOLOGY SERVICE INC 1828 INV# 1828 EDMONDS PD
HEARING TESTING & REPORTS
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 395.00
FUEL/MILEAGE CHARGE
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 35.00
26Page:
Packet Page 48 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :430.0010083612/6/2007 066064 066064 LISTEN AUDIOLOGY SERVICE INC
100837 12/6/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 096475 BUSINESS CARDS PD DS PW
Business Cards:~250-00174
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 15.14
Cory J. Ness250-00174
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 15.14
Jeannine L. Graf250-00174
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 15.14
Noel F. Miller250-00174
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 15.14
Mike Johnson250-00174
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 15.14
Todd Hanson250-00174
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 15.15
Tod Moles250-00174
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 15.15
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 1.35
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 1.35
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 1.35
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 1.35
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 4.03
Total :115.43
100838 12/6/2007 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 589695 MOWER & TRIMMER
PARK MAINTENANCE~
001.000.640.576.800.350.00 1,399.25
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.350.00 124.53
Total :1,523.78
27Page:
Packet Page 49 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100839 12/6/2007 019583 MANPOWER INC 16524895 Temp for Ross 11/18/07
Temp for Ross 11/18/07
001.000.620.558.800.410.00 81.15
Total :81.15
100840 12/6/2007 061900 MARC 0346104-IN 00-0902224
DISINFECTANT
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 178.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 4.24
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 16.24
00-09122240346105-IN
DISINFECTANT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 79.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.24
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.42
Total :289.14
100841 12/6/2007 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 3336 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 135.00
INTERPRETER FEE3348
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 45.00
INTERPRETER FEE3349
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 165.00
INTERPRETER FEE3361
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 75.00
INTERPRETER FEE3362
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 45.00
28Page:
Packet Page 50 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :465.0010084112/6/2007 069362 069362 MARSHALL, CITA
100842 12/6/2007 065829 MARTINSON, LINDA MARTINSON8598 BELLY DANCE TRIM & TONE
BELLY DANCE TRIM & TONE #8598
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 73.50
Total :73.50
100843 12/6/2007 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 76131539 123106800
GAUGE/NOZZLE/LIGHT BULB
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 284.70
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.08
12310680076641331
HOSE COUPLING/WELDING ROD/TUBE FITTING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 99.24
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.73
Total :397.75
100844 12/6/2007 069285 MERCER MD, JAMES 1010-007 ALS PROF SERVICES
Oct '07 med prog dir
001.000.510.526.100.410.00 1,644.75
Total :1,644.75
100845 12/6/2007 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 58647 DELIVERY CHARGE
DELIVERY OF RENTAL
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 30.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 2.67
SUPPLIES59557
CHAINSAW PROTECTIVE CHAPS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 127.90
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.38
29Page:
Packet Page 51 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100845 12/6/2007 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
SUPPLIES59583
BAR
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 29.95
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.67
Total :204.57
100846 12/6/2007 061689 MINUTEMAN PRESS 38828 DOOR HANGERS -TROOP 367 (3,000)
DOOR HANGERS -TROOP 367 (3,000)
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 251.54
TROOP 312 (4,000)
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 331.53
TROOP 300 (4,500)
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 378.96
Sales Tax
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 85.62
Total :1,047.65
100847 12/6/2007 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB8534 FUN FACTORY, ETC.
MINI ME FUN FACTORY #8534
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 504.00
TWILIGHT TOTS #8535
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 307.50
FUN FACTORY #8531
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,390.91
Total :2,202.41
100848 12/6/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 323912314-072 IT CELL PHONE SERVICE
IT Cell Phone Service 10/25-11/24/07
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 138.15
Total :138.15
100849 12/6/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 411191318-072 Nextel Cell Serv. Bldg 10-25 to 11-24-07
Nextel Cell Serv. Bldg 10-25 to 11-24-07
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 88.72
30Page:
Packet Page 52 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :88.7210084912/6/2007 067098 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
100850 12/6/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 976032312-072 COMMUNICATIONS
Admin
001.000.510.522.100.420.00 24.27
Operations
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 394.32
Prevention
001.000.510.522.300.420.00 69.44
ALS
001.000.510.526.100.420.00 53.84
Total :541.87
100851 12/6/2007 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 0085166 SODIUM BISULFITE
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,173.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 104.40
Total :1,277.40
100852 12/6/2007 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 514 HPC minutetaker 11-8-07
HPC minutetaker 11-8-07
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 120.00
PB Minutetaker 11/28/07000 00 518
PB Minutetaker 11/28/07
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 255.00
Total :375.00
100853 12/6/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 517707 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 44.32
Total :44.32
100854 12/6/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 045627 OFFICE SUPPLIES
31Page:
Packet Page 53 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100854 12/6/2007 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
CALENDAR REFILL
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 15.64
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.39
OFFICE SUPPLIES065253
PARK MAINTENANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 604.35
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 53.79
OFFICE SUPPLIES589231
CORRECTION FLUID, FOLDERS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 76.63
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 6.82
OFFICE SUPPLIES855810
TAPE, FOLDERS, APPT. BOOK
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 53.09
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.72
Total :816.43
100855 12/6/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 153192 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 95.71
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 8.51
Total :104.22
100856 12/6/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 011941 FAC MAINT - PRINTER CARTRIDGES
FAC MAINT - PRINTER CARTRIDGES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 63.22
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.62
32Page:
Packet Page 54 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100856 12/6/2007 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
PW ADMIN OFFICE SUPPLIES - TAB FOLDERS025389
PW ADMIN OFFICE SUPPLIES - TAB FOLDERS
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 46.84
WATER DEPT - DRY BOARD
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 50.31
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 4.17
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.47
PW RETURNED FLASH DRIVE035533
PW RETURNED FLASH DRIVE
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 -45.99
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 -4.09
PW RETURNED CORD UNTANGLER035566
PW RETURNED CORD UNTANGLER
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 -4.71
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 -0.42
PW ADMIN - FLASH DRIVE035614
PW ADMIN - FLASH DRIVE
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 45.99
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 4.09
PW OFFICE SUPPLIES - CALENDARS069149
PW OFFICE SUPPLIES - CALENDARS
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 122.63
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 10.91
PW OFFICE SUPPLIES WALL CALENDARS,138474
PW OFFICE SUPPLIES WALL CALENDARS,
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 58.51
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 5.20
33Page:
Packet Page 55 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100856 12/6/2007 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
PW ADMIN SUPPLIES - DESK CALENDARS,892678
PW ADMIN SUPPLIES - DESK CALENDARS,
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 160.63
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 14.29
PW ADMIN - FLASH DRIVE900401
PW ADMIN - FLASH DRIVE
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 45.99
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 4.09
PW ADMIN - CORD UNTANGLER911153
PW ADMIN - CORD UNTANGLER
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 4.71
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 0.42
Total :596.88
100857 12/6/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 046054 INV# 046054 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS
34Page:
Packet Page 56 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100857 12/6/2007 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
PENS FOR TRAFFIC
001.000.410.521.710.310.00 23.66
MEMO BOOKS FOR PATROL
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 10.42
WITE OUT TAPE - 10 PACK
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 17.23
BLUE PENS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 14.66
TONER FOR PROPERTY ROOM
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 190.17
DESK SUPPLIES FOR COREY NESS
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 81.22
PAPER CLIPS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.19
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.710.310.00 2.11
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 0.93
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.94
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 16.93
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 7.22
INV#048443 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD048443
NONSKID BOOKENDS
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 5.86
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 0.52
Total :375.06
100858 12/6/2007 064764 OKANO, IYOKO OKANO1129 SISTER CITY REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT FOR SISTER CITY SUPPLIES
623.200.210.557.210.490.00 254.00
35Page:
Packet Page 57 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :254.0010085812/6/2007 064764 064764 OKANO, IYOKO
100859 12/6/2007 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 00054671 WATER
23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 192.30
Total :192.30
100860 12/6/2007 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 56201 STORM DUMP FEES
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 155.15
STORM DUMP FEES56259
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 189.09
STORM DUMP FEES56275
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 210.10
STORM DUMP FEES56289
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 210.10
STORM DUMP FEES56298
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 210.10
STORM DUMP FEES56373
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 189.85
STORM DUMP FEES56379
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 189.85
STORM DUMP FEES56388
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 189.85
STORM DUMP FEES56394
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 147.65
36Page:
Packet Page 58 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100860 12/6/2007 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
STORM DUMP FEES56727
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 136.16
STORM DUMP FEES57489
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 170.09
STORM DUMP FEES57499
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 170.09
STROM DEPT DUMP FEES57507
STROM DEPT DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 170.09
STORM DUMP FEES57523
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 170.09
STORM DUMP FEES57531
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 170.09
STORM DUMP FEES57564
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 170.09
STORM DUMP FEES57577
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 170.09
STORM DUMP FEES57593
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 170.09
STORM DUMP FEES57624
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 174.45
STORM DUMP FEES57628
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 285.26
37Page:
Packet Page 59 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100860 12/6/2007 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
STORM DUMP FEES57643
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 174.45
STORM DEPT DUMP FEES57651
STORM DEPT DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 174.45
STORM DUMP FEES57658
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 174.45
STREET - TOP SOIL751739
STREET - TOP SOIL
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 93.15
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 8.28
Total :4,273.11
100861 12/6/2007 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 010019613 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
100862 12/6/2007 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK8647 PILATES
PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT~
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 504.00
Total :504.00
100863 12/6/2007 028400 PITNEY BOWES 769870 EZ SEAL SOLUTION FOR DM1000
EZ Seal for DM1000250-00180
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 105.51
Total :105.51
100864 12/6/2007 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING -CITY HALL
38Page:
Packet Page 60 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100864 12/6/2007 (Continued)064088 PROTECTION ONE
24 hour alarm monitoring-CH~
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 35.00
Total :35.00
100865 12/6/2007 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0020831-IN EDMCITW
SAFETY GLASSES
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 23.70
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 1.99
Total :25.69
100866 12/6/2007 030410 PUGET SOUND BUSINESS JOURNAL 40004449111 AD SPLIT WITH CHAMBER & PORT
Edmonds promo ad split with Port &
001.000.240.513.110.440.00 780.17
Total :780.17
100867 12/6/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 452.75
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP0230757007
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 362.60
LIFT STATION #71916766007
LIFT STATION #7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 55.90
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCIL2753166004
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCEL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 507.71
39Page:
Packet Page 61 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100867 12/6/2007 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
Public Works2776365005
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 33.73
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 128.18
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 128.18
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 128.18
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 128.18
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 128.16
LIFT STATION #132986629000
LIFT STATION #13
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 87.08
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg3689976003
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 400.57
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE5254926008
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 251.24
Fire Station # 165322323139
Fire Station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,033.74
SEWER LIFT STATION #95672895009
SEWER LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 24.54
FLEET5903085008
Fleet 7110 210th St SW
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 537.85
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION6439566008
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 977.04
40Page:
Packet Page 62 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100867 12/6/2007 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
ANDERSON CENTER6490327001
ANDERSON CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,380.16
LIFT STATION #88851908007
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.79
FIRE STATION #209919661109
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 388.81
Total :8,189.39
100868 12/6/2007 068337 RIDDELL, SHIVA RIDDELL1129 SISTER CITY REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT FOR DINNER SUPPLIES
623.200.210.557.210.490.00 88.05
Total :88.05
100869 12/6/2007 071825 ROAD CONSTRUCTION NW, INC E1CC.Pmt 4 E1CC.Services thru 10/31/07
E1CC.Services thru 10/31/07
112.200.630.595.330.650.00 87,112.34
Total :87,112.34
100870 12/6/2007 068691 SAM'S GUN SHOP LLC 360 INV# 360 EDMONDS PD - 2005 RANGE FEES
GUN GRIP
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 68.97
RANGE FEES FOR 2005
001.000.410.521.400.410.00 2,039.95
HOPPES GUN OIL
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 2.50
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 6.36
INV# 378 EDMONDS PD - 2006 RANGE FEES378
RANGE FEES FOR 2006
001.000.410.521.400.410.00 1,900.00
Total :4,017.78
41Page:
Packet Page 63 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100871 12/6/2007 072028 SHARED SALMON STRATEGIES 11/29/07 Reimbursement for Brackett Room rental
Reimbursement for Brackett Room rental
001.000.000.362.420.000.00 540.00
Total :540.00
100872 12/6/2007 036955 SKY NURSERY 261384 MULCH
FERTILE MULCH
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 45.94
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.09
MULCH266451
FERTILE MULCH
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 45.94
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.09
CITY WIDE BEAUTIFICATION/MULCH266655
FERTILE MULCH
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 45.94
Sales Tax
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 4.09
MULCH266667
FERTILE MULCH
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 45.94
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.09
Total :200.12
100873 12/6/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 3850013073 IRRIGATION CONTROL
IRRIGATION CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 28.28
UTILITY BILLING3890014081
750 15TH ST SW~
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 327.72
UTILITY BILLING4120014156
750 15TH ST SW~
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 16.70
42Page:
Packet Page 64 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100873 12/6/2007 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
UTILITY BILLING5040011628
750 15TH ST SW
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 149.61
Total :522.31
100874 12/6/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 136017647 463-001-867-1
9805 EDMONDS WAY/WESTGATE
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 28.98
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.74
Total :30.72
100875 12/6/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2260043795 SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 51.93
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER2670022181
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,577.14
SIGNAL LIGHT3710011507
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 51.25
SIGNAL LIGHT3800017489
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 50.82
STREET LIGHT4320012174
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 471.65
LOG CABIN5500019350
LOG CABIN
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 253.31
Total :4,456.10
100876 12/6/2007 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 36935 Rubber stamps for Bldg. Div.
Rubber stamps for Bldg. Div.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 95.27
43Page:
Packet Page 65 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :95.2710087612/6/2007 038100 038100 SNO-KING STAMP
100877 12/6/2007 038500 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC Dec-07 12/07 RECREATION SERVIES CONTRACT FEE
12/07 Recreation Servies Contract Fee
001.000.390.519.900.410.00 4,791.67
Total :4,791.67
100878 12/6/2007 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03583 garbage & recycle for PS
garbage & recycle for PS
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 501.05
garbage & recycle for FAC03585
garbage & recycle for FAC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 570.83
garbage & recycle for Library03586
garbage & recycle for Library
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 613.33
garbage & recycle-City Hall03588
garbage & recycle-City Hall
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 400.34
Total :2,085.55
100879 12/6/2007 070677 SPRINT Eng.November Engineerint Nextel thru 11/24/07
Engineerint Nextel thru 11/24/07
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 549.13
Total :549.13
100880 12/6/2007 040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING 155647 CITY WIDE BEAUTIFICATION
FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES~
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 1,212.55
Sales Tax
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 103.07
Total :1,315.62
100881 12/6/2007 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1261908 STREET - PROPANE TANK SUPPLIES
44Page:
Packet Page 66 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100881 12/6/2007 (Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
STREET - PROPANE TANK SUPPLIES
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 138.12
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 12.29
STREET - PROPANE TANK SUPPLIES1264134
STREET - PROPANE TANK SUPPLIES
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 11.66
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 1.04
Total :163.11
100882 12/6/2007 070837 SUNBELT RENTALS INC 13045470-001 CITY WIDE BEAUTIFICATION/MANLIFT
60' MANLIFT~
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 1,850.92
Sales Tax
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 163.65
Total :2,014.57
100883 12/6/2007 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10610828 SUPPLIES
ALUMINUM ENAMEL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 27.87
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.25
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.95
SUPPLIES10611329
S-HOOKS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 44.75
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.44
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.56
Total :91.82
100884 12/6/2007 071577 TAYLOR, KATHLEEN 1018 Taylor Consultant Serv. 11/20 to
45Page:
Packet Page 67 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100884 12/6/2007 (Continued)071577 TAYLOR, KATHLEEN
Taylor Consultant Serv. 11/20 to
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 1,072.50
Total :1,072.50
100885 12/6/2007 041100 TED'S CUSTOM UPHOLSTERY INC 25996 RECOVERING EQUIPMENT
RECOVERING OF EXERCISE EQUIPMENT IN
001.000.640.575.540.310.00 135.50
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.540.310.00 12.06
Total :147.56
100886 12/6/2007 069483 TERENCE LYNCH, ATTORNEY AT LAW 1129207 PRO TEM FEE
PRO TEM FEE
001.000.230.512.510.410.00 195.00
Total :195.00
100887 12/6/2007 065710 THE CHAMBERS MULTIMEDIA 840-012449 CEMETERY INTERNET
INTERNET ACCESS FOR CEMETERY SEXTON
130.000.640.536.200.420.00 27.52
Total :27.52
100888 12/6/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1555069 NEWSPAPER AD
Ordinance 3670
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 24.48
NEWSPAPER AD1555074
Ordinance 3672
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 144.00
NEWSPAPER AD1555076
Ordinance 3673
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 30.24
NEWSPAPER AD1555108
Ordinance 3671
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 24.48
46Page:
Packet Page 68 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
47
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100888 12/6/2007 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
NEWSPAPER AD1555109
Ordinance 3674
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 129.60
NEWSPAPER AD1555110
Ordinance 3675
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 23.04
Total :375.84
100889 12/6/2007 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION HERALD2008 2008 NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION
2008 SUBSCRIPTION~
001.000.640.574.100.490.00 138.00
Total :138.00
100890 12/6/2007 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 410766 MUSEUM
monthly elevator maint-museum
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 162.05
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 14.42
MONITORING-PS410767
monitoring-PS~
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 35.15
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE420758
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 130.00
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 11.57
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MONITORING420759
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 10.57
Total :363.76
100891 12/6/2007 071582 TRANSLATION SOLUTION CORP 3214 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 360.00
47Page:
Packet Page 69 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
48
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100891 12/6/2007 (Continued)071582 TRANSLATION SOLUTION CORP
INTERPRETER FEE3224
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 360.00
Total :720.00
100892 12/6/2007 072029 TRIAD COMPUTER CONNECTION INC SN777405 UPS BACK UP
UPS BACK UP
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 90.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 14.56
Total :104.56
100893 12/6/2007 063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 118395 2008 Support; UB; Financials; Payroll
2008 Support; UB; Financials; Payroll
001.000.250.514.300.480.00 3,721.87
2008 Support; UB; Financials; Payroll
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 23,346.27
2008 Support; UB; Financials; Payroll
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 3,721.87
2008 Support; UB; Financials; Payroll
001.000.220.516.100.480.00 3,045.17
2008 Support; UB; Financials; Payroll
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 5,365.56
2008 Support; UB; Financials; Payroll
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 5,365.56
2008 Support; UB; Financials; Payroll
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 5,365.55
Total :49,931.85
100894 12/6/2007 062388 US BANK OF WASHINGTON Retainage 4 E1CC.Road Const NW Retain 4
E1CC.Road Const NW Retain 4
112.200.630.595.330.650.00 4,584.86
Total :4,584.86
100895 12/6/2007 063398 US IDENTIFICATION MANUAL 150314 INV#150314 EDMONDS PD
48Page:
Packet Page 70 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
49
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100895 12/6/2007 (Continued)063398 US IDENTIFICATION MANUAL
US ID MANUAL UPDATE SERVICE THROUGH
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 79.50
Freight
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 3.00
Total :82.50
100896 12/6/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 44.86
EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY425-771-4741
EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.200.420.00 102.20
Total :147.06
100897 12/6/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-NW2-0887 Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet
Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 280.00
Total :280.00
100898 12/6/2007 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
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR425-206-1137
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.50
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-1141
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.43
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.22
49Page:
Packet Page 71 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
50
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100898 12/6/2007 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-4810
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.17
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 78.32
MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM425-206-8379
MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.88
PT EDWARDS SEWER PUMP STATION MONITOR425-640-8169
Phone line for Sewer Lift Station at Pt
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.78
LIFT STATION #1425-673-5978
Lift Station #1
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 49.36
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE425-712-8347
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 59.09
FS # 16425-771-0158
FS #16
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 236.38
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 49.36
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 118.84
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-6829
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 118.84
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST425-778-3297
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.49
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.34
50Page:
Packet Page 72 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
51
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,354.3810089812/6/2007 011900 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
100899 12/6/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-771-0152 FS #16-FAX LINE
FS #16-FAX LINE
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 52.58
FS #20 PHONE SERVICE425-778-2153
FS #20 PHONE SERVICE
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 48.91
FS #16 FRAME RELAY425-FLO-0017
FS #16 FRAME RELAY
001.000.510.528.600.420.00 354.94
Total :456.43
100900 12/6/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0608327686 CENTRALIZED IRRIGATION
CENTRALIZED IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 2.31
Total :2.31
100901 12/6/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0605708287 Bldg Cell 10/19 to 11/18/2007
Bldg Cell 10/19 to 11/18/2007
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 60.07
Total :60.07
100902 12/6/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0607650433 INV#0607650433 ACCT#470497482-00001
CELL PHONES 11/24-12/23/07
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 126.68
Total :126.68
100903 12/6/2007 006284 W S DARLEY AND CO CM-0021601 Cr for Dup Pmt ck 74693/76708
Cr for Dup Pmt ck 74693/76708
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -48.11
51Page:
Packet Page 73 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
52
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100903 12/6/2007 (Continued)006284 W S DARLEY AND CO
UNIT 476 - BALL VALVE KITPM642212
UNIT 476 - BALL VALVE KIT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 220.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.46
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.58
Total :202.93
100904 12/6/2007 061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH 007358 OPERATOR CERTF/KOHO
OPERATOR CERTF/KOHO
411.000.656.538.800.490.00 42.00
Total :42.00
100905 12/6/2007 070264 WASHINGTON OAKES RETIREMENT 91 Assisted Living Care (Jim Martin)
Assisted Living Care (Jim Martin)
009.000.390.517.370.290.00 3,902.12
Total :3,902.12
100906 12/6/2007 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL F0800224 REQUIRED ANNUAL TRAINING
DE,DH,TS,DW
001.000.510.522.400.490.00 400.00
Total :400.00
100907 12/6/2007 071359 WASSER CORPORATION 109675 564
PAINT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 156.24
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 13.75
564109676
PAINT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 318.60
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 28.04
Total :516.63
52Page:
Packet Page 74 of 357
12/06/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
53
10:32:31AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100908 12/6/2007 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 35836004 CITY WIDE BEAUTIFICATION
AZALEAS @ 5TH AND DAYTON
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 175.35
Sales Tax
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 15.62
DOWNTOWN STREET TREES36112001
RED SUNSET MAPLES, ETC., FOR DOWNTOWN
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 1,210.00
Sales Tax
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 107.69
Total :1,508.66
100909 12/6/2007 064234 WILDWATER RIVER TOURS INC AMUNDSON8719 EAGLE WATCH
SKAGIT BALD EAGLE WATCH~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 543.60
Total :543.60
100910 12/6/2007 066678 WSDA PESTICIDE MGMT DIVISION 2008 RENEWALS 2008 PESTICIDE LICENSE RENEWALS
2008 PESTICIDE LICENSE RENEWALS FOR:
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 125.00
Total :125.00
100911 12/6/2007 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 271 NOV 07 MONTHLY RETAINER
Monthly Retainer
001.000.360.515.230.410.00 6,000.00
Total :6,000.00
Bank total :541,453.93156 Vouchers for bank code :front
541,453.93Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report156
53Page:
Packet Page 75 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100912 12/13/2007 041695 3M XAM3522 SS58640 STREET - RED/WHITE TRK CONSP SHTG
STREET - RED/WHITE TRK CONSP SHTG
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 93.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 8.28
Total :101.28
100913 12/13/2007 000135 ABSCO ALARMS INC ABSCO ALARMS REC#045572. OVERPAID $95.
REC#045572. OVERPAID $95.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 95.00
Total :95.00
100914 12/13/2007 068201 ACTIVE NETWORK LTD INC006763 PRINTER PAPER
RECEIPT PAPER FOR ITHACA PRINTER
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 45.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 4.01
Total :49.01
100915 12/13/2007 063863 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS I000023112 STREET - REES BULLDOG MOMENTARY LED BLK
STREET - REES BULLDOG MOMENTARY LED BLK
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 490.50
BULLDOG MOMENTARY LED BLACK VER.2
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 451.50
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 81.01
Total :1,023.01
100916 12/13/2007 064615 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE 29885 DRAIN KIT
DRAIN KIT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 69.24
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.16
Total :75.40
1Page:
Packet Page 76 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100917 12/13/2007 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101641911 M5Z34
CENTERSHIELD GAS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 25.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.23
M5Z34101654071
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 48.35
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 4.30
M5Z34101703747
CENTERSHIELD GAS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 25.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.23
M5Z34101715949
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 45.58
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 4.06
Total :156.75
100918 12/13/2007 014940 ALL BATTERY SALES & SERVICE 110427850 FLEET BATTERY INVENTORY - 2 BATTERIES
FLEET BATTERY INVENTORY - 2 BATTERIES
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 123.90
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 11.03
UNIT 484 -BATTERIES897507
UNIT 484 -BATTERIES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 215.85
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.21
Total :369.99
100919 12/13/2007 001057 ALMY, DON ALMY1211 VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE SUPERVISION
2Page:
Packet Page 77 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100919 12/13/2007 (Continued)001057 ALMY, DON
VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE SUPERVISION @ EDMONDS
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 864.00
Total :864.00
100920 12/13/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-4034287 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 30.36
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.70
Total :33.06
100921 12/13/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-4028027 18386001
UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 91.85
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.17
Total :100.02
100922 12/13/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-4026271 FLEET UNIFORM SVC
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 19.50
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.74
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC512-4026273
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29
3Page:
Packet Page 78 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100922 12/13/2007 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
FLEET UNIFORM SVC512-4032573
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.53
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.01
PW MATS512-4032574
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
4Page:
Packet Page 79 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100922 12/13/2007 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC512-4032575
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC512-4034288
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.60
Total :134.00
100923 12/13/2007 068379 ARCHITECREATION INC MSC-07-0770 BRACKETT'S S. BENCH RE-COATING
MEMORIAL BENCH RECOATING @ BRACKETT'S
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 2,325.00
Sales Tax
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 206.93
Total :2,531.93
100924 12/13/2007 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 566553 PREMIUM FUEL - 4402 GAL
5Page:
Packet Page 80 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100924 12/13/2007 (Continued)071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
PREMIUM FUEL - 4402 GAL
511.000.657.548.680.340.12 11,429.36
ST EXCISE TAX, WA OIL SPILL RECOVERY
511.000.657.548.680.340.12 1,678.04
UNLEADED FUEL - 1999 GAL
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 5,002.90
ST EXCISE TAX, WA OIL SPILL RECOVERY
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 762.02
DIESEL FUEL - 2640 GAL
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 7,401.24
ST EXCISE TAX, WA OIL SPILL RECOVERY
511.000.657.548.680.340.13 253.57
VALVTECT BIO BLEND ANTI DEICER - 564 GAL
511.000.657.548.680.340.13 198.53
WA STATE SVC FEES
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 10.00
WA STATE SVC FEES
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 10.00
WA STATE SVC FEES
511.000.657.548.680.340.12 10.00
WA STATE SVC FEES
511.000.657.548.680.340.13 10.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.13 16.68
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 0.80
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 0.80
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.12 0.80
ST EXCISE TAX, WA OIL SPILL RECOVERY
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 1,011.65
BIO DIESEL - 660 GAL
511.000.657.548.680.340.13 2,000.00
6Page:
Packet Page 81 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :29,796.3910092412/13/2007 071124 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
100925 12/13/2007 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM
PARKS FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 39.58
Total :39.58
100926 12/13/2007 064343 AT&T 425-774-0944 STATION #20 FAX
STATION #20 FAX
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 34.59
Total :34.59
100927 12/13/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 871964442X12062007 87196442
PLANT CELL PHONES
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 61.26
Total :61.26
100928 12/13/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 871747052x12062007 DUANE BOWMAN WIRELESS SVC FROM
DUANE BOWMAN WIRELESS SVC FROM
001.000.620.558.800.420.00 4.75
Total :4.75
100929 12/13/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY X12062007 C/A 828698926
425.418.8755 Service 11/27-12/26/07
001.000.310.514.100.420.00 116.66
Total :116.66
100930 12/13/2007 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE1107 Background check services
Background check services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 65.00
Total :65.00
100931 12/13/2007 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2007-424 INV# 2007-424 EDMONDS PD
PRE-EMPLOY SCREENING
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 175.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 7.00
7Page:
Packet Page 82 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :182.0010093112/13/2007 012005 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH
100932 12/13/2007 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 5618 AD FOR CEMETERY
CLASSIFIED AD FOR CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.200.440.00 65.00
Total :65.00
100933 12/13/2007 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS 1217 E5GA.Services thru 11/23/07
E5GA.Services thru 11/23/07
412.300.630.594.320.650.00 4,047.97
Total :4,047.97
100934 12/13/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 636168 INV#636168 EDMONDS PD - MOORE
STRIKER 45 BOOTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 133.90
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 11.92
Total :145.82
100935 12/13/2007 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA CARLSON8567 ART FOR KIDZ
ART FOR KIDZ - ADVENTURES IN ART~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 282.17
Total :282.17
100936 12/13/2007 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC HQH7603 ISCSI
8Page:
Packet Page 83 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100936 12/13/2007 (Continued)069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
Mfg# EMT-AX-S207-750~330-00335
001.000.620.558.600.350.00 810.00
Mfg# EMT-AX-S207-750~330-00335
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 270.00
Mfg# EMT-AX-S207-750~330-00335
001.000.240.513.110.350.00 450.00
Mfg# EMT-AX-S207-750~330-00335
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 810.00
Mfg# EMT-AX-S207-750~330-00335
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 270.00
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.350.00 72.09
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.350.00 24.03
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 10.68
Sales Tax
001.000.240.513.110.350.00 40.05
Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 72.09
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 24.03
Mfg# EMT-AX-S207-750~330-00335
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 120.00
Mfg# EMT-AX-S207-750~330-00335
411.000.652.542.900.350.00 270.00
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 24.03
9Page:
Packet Page 84 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100936 12/13/2007 (Continued)069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
ISCSIHQW9071
Mfg# DAN-AX150UPS-120V~330-00335
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 19.20
Mfg# DAN-AX150UPS-120V~330-00335
001.000.240.513.110.350.00 72.00
Mfg# DAN-AX150UPS-120V~330-00335
411.000.652.542.900.350.00 43.20
Mfg# DAN-AX150UPS-120V~330-00335
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 43.20
Mfg# DAN-AX150UPS-120V~330-00335
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 43.20
Mfg# DAN-AX150UPS-120V~330-00335
001.000.620.558.600.350.00 129.60
Mfg# DAN-AX150UPS-120V~330-00335
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 129.60
Freight330-00335
001.000.620.558.600.350.00 33.44
Freight330-00335
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 11.15
Freight330-00335
411.000.652.542.900.350.00 11.15
Freight330-00335
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 11.15
Freight330-00335
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 33.44
Freight330-00335
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 4.95
Freight330-00335
001.000.240.513.110.350.00 18.58
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 2.15
Sales Tax
001.000.240.513.110.350.00 8.06
Sales Tax
10Page:
Packet Page 85 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100936 12/13/2007 (Continued)069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
411.000.652.542.900.350.00 4.84
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 4.84
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 4.84
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.350.00 14.51
Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 14.50
Total :3,924.60
100937 12/13/2007 067446 CEM CORPORATION 305964 466915
SERVICE MICROWAVE ANALYZER
411.000.656.538.800.480.22 857.50
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.480.22 59.63
Total :917.13
100938 12/13/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN11071056 HELIUM
HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BIRTHDAY PARTY
001.000.640.575.550.450.00 7.75
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.550.450.00 0.69
Total :8.44
100939 12/13/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY PC 12070058 2954000
SERVICE CHARGE
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 1.50
2954000RN1101071057
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 31.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 2.76
Total :35.26
11Page:
Packet Page 86 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100940 12/13/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 114472 WATER - CARBON DIOX
WATER - CARBON DIOX
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 38.13
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.39
Total :41.52
100941 12/13/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY114693 ALS SUPPLIES
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 30.04
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 2.67
ALS SUPPLIESRN11071055
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.450.00 15.50
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.450.00 1.38
Total :49.59
100942 12/13/2007 067314 CERTIFIED FOLDER DISPLAY SVC 359127 RACK CARD DISTRIBUTION FOR OCTOBER
Rack Card Distribution for October
120.000.310.575.420.410.00 585.52
Total :585.52
100943 12/13/2007 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT8545 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #8545
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 70.00
SATURDAY PLAYCHAPUT8547
SATURDAY PLAY #8547
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 170.80
Total :240.80
100944 12/13/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460779720 VOLUNTEERS
12Page:
Packet Page 87 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100944 12/13/2007 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
Volunteers
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 22.56
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 2.01
OPS UNIFORMS460779721
Stn 16
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 124.20
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.05
UNIFORMS460780765
Stn 17 - ALS
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 92.40
Stn 17 - OPS
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 92.40
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 8.22
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.22
OPS UNIFORMS460780790
Stn. 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 146.47
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 13.03
Total :520.56
100945 12/13/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5771 POSTAGE FOR CRAZE
EDMONDS PORTION OF POSTAGE FOR JANUARY
001.000.640.574.200.420.00 4,696.10
Total :4,696.10
100946 12/13/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5749 MAINT/OPERATION COSTS FOR DEC 07
MAINT/OPERATION COSTS FOR DEC 07
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 13,800.83
Total :13,800.83
13Page:
Packet Page 88 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100947 12/13/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5729 INV# 5729 CUST#47 EDMONDS PD
PRISONER ROOM/BOARD 09/07
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 4,907.92
Total :4,907.92
100948 12/13/2007 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 2-533584-460571 WATER USEAGE FOR THE MONTH OF NOV 07
WATER USEAGE FOR THE MONTH OF NOV 07
411.000.654.534.800.340.00 535.08
Total :535.08
100949 12/13/2007 070231 CNR INC 11298 DEC 07 MAINT PHONE SYSTEM
Dec 07 Phone Maintenance
001.000.390.528.800.480.00 736.67
Sales Tax
001.000.390.528.800.480.00 65.56
Total :802.23
100950 12/13/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1864862 005302
PAPER TOWELS/SOAP/TP/TISSUE
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 320.10
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 2.50
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 28.71
Total :351.31
100951 12/13/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1866565 FAC MAINT - MED, LG GLOVES
FAC MAINT - MED, LG GLOVES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 138.00
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.50
Total :153.00
100952 12/13/2007 072036 COLLINS, JENNIFER Survey Class Reimbur Reimbursement for Survey Class fee
14Page:
Packet Page 89 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100952 12/13/2007 (Continued)072036 COLLINS, JENNIFER
Reimbursement for Survey Class fee
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 366.84
Total :366.84
100953 12/13/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 9757 SLENKER BOOKS
SLENKER BOOKS
411.000.656.538.800.490.71 99.00
TRAVEL/KOHO
411.000.656.538.800.430.00 657.92
JOB POSTING
411.000.656.538.800.440.00 450.00
WEF MEMBERSHIP/LEIN
411.000.656.538.800.490.00 119.00
Total :1,325.92
100954 12/13/2007 062891 COOK PAGING WA 6941541 pagers-water
pagers-water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 7.90
pagers-streets
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 7.90
pagers-storm
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 15.80
pagers-facilities
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 23.70
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 0.80
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 0.80
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 1.59
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 2.38
Total :60.87
100955 12/13/2007 004867 COOPER, JACK F 95 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
15Page:
Packet Page 90 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100955 12/13/2007 (Continued)004867 COOPER, JACK F
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 240.00
Total :240.00
100956 12/13/2007 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING NOV 2007 DRY CLEANING NOV 2007 - EDMONDS PD
DRY CLEANING/LAUNDRY 11/07
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 636.27
Total :636.27
100957 12/13/2007 005850 CRETIN, LAWRENCE LCRETIN1209 ANDERSON CENTER MONITOR
ANDERSON CENTER MONITOR~
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 48.00
Total :48.00
100958 12/13/2007 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3198100 RFQ.Consultant Roster 2008
RFQ.Consultant Roster 2008
001.000.620.532.200.440.00 294.00
Total :294.00
100959 12/13/2007 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3198099 C-251 ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS
C-251 ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 224.00
Total :224.00
100960 12/13/2007 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 137411 PROGRAMED 3 RADIOS
PROGRAMED 3 RADIOS
511.100.657.548.680.480.00 105.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.548.680.480.00 9.35
Total :114.35
100961 12/13/2007 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 3972 WASTEWATER OPERATOR CERT RENEWAL 2008 -
WASTEWATER OPERATOR CERT RENEWAL 2008 -
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 15.00
WASTEWATER OPERATOR CERT RENEWAL 2008 -
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 15.00
16Page:
Packet Page 91 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :30.0010096112/13/2007 006626 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY
100962 12/13/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 07-2819 MINUTE TAKING
12/4 Council Mintues
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 274.40
Total :274.40
100963 12/13/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 07-2818 INV#07-2818 EDMONDS PD
TRANSCRIPTIONS CASE 05-3313
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 154.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE 07-4653
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 70.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE 07-2218
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 47.60
TRANSCRIPTIONS CASE 07-5061
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 196.00
Total :467.60
100964 12/13/2007 069605 EAGLE EYE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2007258 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR BLDG DEPT.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR BLDG DEPT.
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 20,311.37
Total :20,311.37
100965 12/13/2007 065045 EAGLE POINT SOFTWARE 0221035-IN Maintenance Agreement thru 12/17/08
Maintenance Agreement thru 12/17/08
001.000.620.532.200.480.00 2,250.00
Total :2,250.00
100966 12/13/2007 071842 EATON ELECTRICAL INC 25235694 208525
c-275 SWITCHGEAR IMPROVEMENTS
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 10,000.00
Total :10,000.00
100967 12/13/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 88754 SEWER - TRUCK SUPPLIES
17Page:
Packet Page 92 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100967 12/13/2007 (Continued)007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
SEWER - TRUCK SUPPLIES
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 29.77
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.65
Total :32.42
100968 12/13/2007 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 11840 Yearly membership dues - 2008
Yearly membership dues - 2008
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 425.00
Total :425.00
100969 12/13/2007 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO R21285 SEWER - CONFINED SPACE CARDS (500)
SEWER - CONFINED SPACE CARDS (500)
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 123.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 10.95
Total :133.95
100970 12/13/2007 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 158757 INV#158757 CLIENT#3713 EDMONDS AC
EXAM - IMPOUND #7215
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 39.20
INJECTIONS - IMPOUND #7215
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 43.20
INV#159161 CLIENT#3713 EDMONDS AC159161
EXAM - IMPOUND #7196
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 39.20
Total :121.60
100971 12/13/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025 CITY MARINA BEACH PARK
CITY MARINA BEACH PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 21.87
CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK6-03575
CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 39.23
18Page:
Packet Page 93 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100971 12/13/2007 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 28.95
Total :90.05
100972 12/13/2007 065673 ERICKSON, CHUCK 20070005 DESIGN HPC LOGO.
DESIGN HPC LOGO.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 1,520.00
Total :1,520.00
100973 12/13/2007 069586 ESPIRITU, KRISTA ESPIRITU8618 HULA
HULA KIDS #8618
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 294.00
Total :294.00
100974 12/13/2007 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU11741 SUPPLIES
NITRILE GLOVES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 184.06
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.73
Total :204.79
100975 12/13/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 1065573 UNIT EQ17SD - PVC PLUGS
UNIT EQ17SD - PVC PLUGS
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 54.12
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 4.82
19Page:
Packet Page 94 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100975 12/13/2007 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
UNIT EQ17SD - CAP, SUPPLIES1065574
UNIT EQ17SD - CAP, SUPPLIES
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 126.03
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 15.84
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 12.63
Total :213.44
100976 12/13/2007 069940 FIRST ADVANTAGE SBS 139275 INV#139275 ACCOUNT#ODY900JJM EDMONDS PD
CREDIT CHECK
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 10.50
Total :10.50
100977 12/13/2007 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 113073 November 2007 - Section 125 fees
November 2007 - Section 125 fees
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 50.00
November 2007 - Section 132 plan &
811.000.000.231.590.000.00 33.60
Total :83.60
100978 12/13/2007 011210 GC SYSTEMS INC 000018697A WATER - REPLACEMENT SWITCH FOR 4"
WATER - REPLACEMENT SWITCH FOR 4"
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 460.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.40
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 41.04
Total :507.44
100979 12/13/2007 018495 GLACIER NORTHWEST 90315142 STREET - CONCRETE
STREET - CONCRETE
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 456.75
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 40.65
20Page:
Packet Page 95 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100979 12/13/2007 (Continued)018495 GLACIER NORTHWEST
STREET - CONCRETE90315143
STREET - CONCRETE
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 101.50
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 9.02
Total :607.92
100980 12/13/2007 012199 GRAINGER 9499269166 FAC - JANITOR CART
FAC - JANITOR CART
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 152.93
VINYL COLLECTION BAG
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 42.48
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 17.39
Total :212.80
100981 12/13/2007 061410 GRCC/WETRC B1862 B1917 RENEWALS BAT CERT RENEWAL FOR MCMURPHY, WAITE
BAT CERT RENEWAL FOR MCMURPHY, WAITE
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 84.00
Total :84.00
100982 12/13/2007 012560 HACH COMPANY 5382046 112830-000
NITRIFICATION
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 78.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 15.05
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 8.18
Total :101.23
100983 12/13/2007 071218 HARBOR PACIFIC CONTRACTORS INC 10 C161
C-161 SCREENINGS SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 1,089.00
21Page:
Packet Page 96 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100983 12/13/2007 (Continued)071218 HARBOR PACIFIC CONTRACTORS INC
C-1619
C161 SCREENINGS SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 3,160.73
Total :4,249.73
100984 12/13/2007 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 2126-87 OPS PROF SERVICES
BK, DK
001.000.510.522.200.410.00 1,346.00
Total :1,346.00
100985 12/13/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 132154 60353 3225 0095 9949
BUSHING/TOTE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 97.04
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.64
60353225009599492566203
ADAPTER/HANDLE/SOLDER/MAPP GAS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 86.96
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.74
60353225009599493091861
PAINT SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 78.51
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.99
Total :285.88
100986 12/13/2007 062899 HUFF, ARIELE HUFF8630 WRITE ABOUT YOUR LIFE ONLINE
WRITE ABOUT YOUR LIFE: ONLINE
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 249.20
Total :249.20
100987 12/13/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 74931833 RENT ON SMALL COPIER - RECEPTION FROM
RENT ON SMALL COPIER - RECEPTION FROM
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 75.89
22Page:
Packet Page 97 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100987 12/13/2007 (Continued)070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES
RENT ON LARGE COPIER 11/22-12/21/07.74931835
RENT ON LARGE COPIER 11/22-12/21/07.
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 991.69
RENT - ENGINEERING COLOR COPIER~74931837
RENT - ENGINEERING COLOR COPIER~
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 356.11
Total :1,423.69
100988 12/13/2007 061546 INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS SUPPLY 751690 SEWER - LIFT ST 12 - METER ANALOG FREQ
SEWER - LIFT ST 12 - METER ANALOG FREQ
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 153.40
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 8.40
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 14.40
SEWER - LIFT ST 12 - METER ANALOG751822
SEWER - LIFT ST 12 - METER ANALOG
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 153.40
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.70
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 14.34
Total :351.64
100989 12/13/2007 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 2674587 PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00
Total :15.00
100990 12/13/2007 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PART WAREHOUSE 455368 UNIT 237 - WIPER BLADES
23Page:
Packet Page 98 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100990 12/13/2007 (Continued)069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PART WAREHOUSE
UNIT 237 - WIPER BLADES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 102.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.85
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.69
Total :118.54
100991 12/13/2007 072039 JENKINS, KATE 07/06/2007 PR Ref-Collected Fds by ck & Visa
PR Ref-Collected Fds by ck & Visa
001.000.000.111.100.000.00 88.00
Total :88.00
100992 12/13/2007 066913 KDL HARDWARE SUPPLY INC 349755 OPS SUPPLIES
Stn 20 door locks
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 614.68
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 13.09
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 55.87
Total :683.64
100993 12/13/2007 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 12007-124 BACKPACK BLOWER
REDMAX 62 BACKPACK BLOWER
001.000.640.576.800.350.00 431.99
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.350.00 38.45
SUPPLIES12007-125
ALUMINUM SCOOP
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 41.99
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.74
Total :516.17
100994 12/13/2007 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 11007-283 FLEET SHOP - WORK GLOVES
24Page:
Packet Page 99 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100994 12/13/2007 (Continued)068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY
FLEET SHOP - WORK GLOVES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 47.40
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.21
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.59
Total :56.20
100995 12/13/2007 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 130657 FLEET RETURNED GY CASINGS
FLEET RETURNED GY CASINGS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -60.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -5.34
UNIT 19 - ALIGNMENT PARTS135738
UNIT 19 - ALIGNMENT PARTS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 51.95
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.62
UNIT 38 - ALIGNMENT PARTS135912
UNIT 38 - ALIGNMENT PARTS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 51.95
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.62
Total :47.80
100996 12/13/2007 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 17224 2795
SERVICE HEAT PUMP
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 221.55
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 19.72
Total :241.27
100997 12/13/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 096567 OFFICE SUPPLIES
25Page:
Packet Page 100 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100997 12/13/2007 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
LETTERHEAD & ENVELOPES FOR ARTS
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 212.00
Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 18.87
OFFICE SUPPLIES096570
#10 ENVELOPES
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 131.25
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 11.68
Total :373.80
100998 12/13/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 096478 INV#096478 EDMONDS PD
6 REAMS OF LETTERHEAD
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 358.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 31.86
Total :389.86
100999 12/13/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 096519 BUSINESS CARDS PD DS
Business Cards:~250-00179
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.87
Andrew M. Mehl250-00179
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.87
M. K. Moore250-00179
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.88
Michael D. Clugston250-00179
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 16.88
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 4.51
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 1.50
26Page:
Packet Page 101 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
100999 12/13/2007 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
PRINT NON RESIDENT BUS LIC APPS096520
Print Order:~250-00182
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 187.00
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 16.64
BUSINESS CARDS DEV SVCS096537
Business Cards:~250-00181
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 37.50
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 3.34
LETTERHEAD CITY CLERK DEPT096589
Letterhead City Clerk Department250-00183
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 480.00
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 42.72
Total :840.71
101000 12/13/2007 018970 LYNNWOOD DODGE 259375-1 UNIT 10 - AB TUBE OIL
UNIT 10 - AB TUBE OIL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 64.94
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.77
Total :70.71
101001 12/13/2007 066191 MACLEOD RECKORD 4759 E5MC.Services thru 11/30/07
E5MC.Services thru 11/30/07
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 4,961.28
Total :4,961.28
101002 12/13/2007 072033 MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION R0911465169 SUBSCRIPTION
Subscription 24 months/Admin Dir
001.000.310.514.100.490.00 42.00
Total :42.00
101003 12/13/2007 019594 MARTIN, JAMES W 97 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
27Page:
Packet Page 102 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101003 12/13/2007 (Continued)019594 MARTIN, JAMES W
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 150.00
Total :150.00
101004 12/13/2007 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 96 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.290.00 1,650.00
Total :1,650.00
101005 12/13/2007 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC C 54737 PS - CEILING TILE, CUTTER, SPRAY PAINT
PS - CEILING TILE, CUTTER, SPRAY PAINT
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 341.76
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.42
Total :372.18
101006 12/13/2007 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 59541 PARTS
CARBURETOR OVERHAUL KIT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.78
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.32
Total :16.10
101007 12/13/2007 072034 MONSTERS, MOULAGE & MAYHEM 52221 TRAINING SUPPLIES
moulage supplies for exercise
001.000.510.522.400.310.00 200.00
Total :200.00
101008 12/13/2007 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0214406-IN OPS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
rain gear
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 249.20
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 12.96
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 23.33
28Page:
Packet Page 103 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :285.4910100812/13/2007 064570 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
101009 12/13/2007 067694 NC POWER SYSTEMS CO.SCP07110008 0071490
LOAD TEST/LATE PAYMENT
411.000.656.538.800.480.22 37.02
Total :37.02
101010 12/13/2007 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0354219-IN FLEET FILTER INVENTORY
FLEET FILTER INVENTORY
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 103.68
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 8.92
BULK OIL - 110 GAL0354491-IN
BULK OIL - 110 GAL
511.000.657.548.680.340.21 846.45
ENV FEES
511.000.657.548.680.340.21 7.62
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.21 73.46
Total :1,040.13
101011 12/13/2007 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB8532 FUN FACTORY
FUN FACTORY #8532
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,453.50
Total :1,453.50
101012 12/13/2007 072032 NORR, JULIE NORR8725 GINGERBREAD HOUSE
PINT SIZED GINGERBREAD HOUSE~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 201.60
Total :201.60
101013 12/13/2007 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0630314 CREDIT FOR HONEY BUCKET
CREDIT FOR HONEY BUCKET @ MARINA BEACH
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 -38.00
CREDIT FOR HONEY BUCKET0630315
CREDIT FOR HONEY BUCKET @ CIVIC CENTER
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 -19.00
29Page:
Packet Page 104 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101013 12/13/2007 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0632376
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 196.04
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0633291
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02
CREDIT FOR HONEY BUCKET0635889
HONEY BUCKET CREDIT FOR MARINA BEACH
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 -165.22
Total :71.84
101014 12/13/2007 066628 NORTHWEST DISTRIBUTING CO 031076 UNIT 484 - CLEANERS
UNIT 484 - CLEANERS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 121.65
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.33
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.34
Total :135.32
101015 12/13/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 129549 Copy paper
Copy paper
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 6.52
Copy paper
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 6.52
Copy paper
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 6.52
Visitor badges
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 31.47
Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 0.58
Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 3.38
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 0.58
30Page:
Packet Page 105 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :55.5710101512/13/2007 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
101016 12/13/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 199723 OFFICE SUPPLIES
CLIPS & CALENDAR
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 4.84
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.43
OFFICE SUPPLIES216894
TONER CARTRIDGE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 168.42
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.99
Total :188.68
101017 12/13/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 218815 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 262.34
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 23.35
Total :285.69
101018 12/13/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 100892 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - DS DEPT.
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - DS DEPT.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 131.23
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 11.67
CHAIR-PLANNING104811
CHAIR-PLANNING
001.000.620.558.600.350.00 260.15
CARD STOCK
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 62.48
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.350.00 23.15
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 5.56
31Page:
Packet Page 106 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101018 12/13/2007 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
SIGN HOLDER (BACK ORDERED) FOR983134
SIGN HOLDER (BACK ORDERED) FOR
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 8.26
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 0.74
Total :503.24
101019 12/13/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 166905 Labels, Adding machine tape, Tabs,
Labels, Adding machine tape, Tabs,
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 100.92
Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 8.98
Toner, achive boxes, heaters209688
Toner, achive boxes, heaters
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 278.72
Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 24.80
Total :413.42
101020 12/13/2007 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 662934 Nov 07 Legal Fees
Nov 07 Legal Fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 13,930.98
Nov 07 ECDC Rewrite 2006-2007
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 800.00
NOV 07 RETAINER FEES662937
Nov 07 Monthly retainer fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 14,955.50
Total :29,686.48
101021 12/13/2007 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00047337 STORM - 25' WATER FILL HOSE
32Page:
Packet Page 107 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101021 12/13/2007 (Continued)002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
STORM - 25' WATER FILL HOSE
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 267.35
Freight
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 9.71
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 24.66
UNIT EQ17SD - GASKET CAP & STRAIN00047665
UNIT EQ17SD - GASKET CAP & STRAIN
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 31.80
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 9.20
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 3.65
Total :346.37
101022 12/13/2007 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION 403574 COPY FEES FOR PW
B/W COPY FEES (ADDITIONAL USEAGE) for PW
001.000.650.519.910.480.00 28.41
COLOR COPY FEES
001.000.650.519.910.480.00 35.07
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.480.00 5.65
Total :69.13
101023 12/13/2007 063588 PACIFIC POWER PRODUCTS CO 6229331-00 UNIT 476 - FILTER KIT, OIL ANALYSIS
UNIT 476 - FILTER KIT, OIL ANALYSIS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 596.38
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 53.08
Total :649.46
101024 12/13/2007 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 49279 DUMP FEES
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 139.43
33Page:
Packet Page 108 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101024 12/13/2007 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
DUMP FEES49291
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 139.43
DUMP FEELS49316
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 159.35
DUMP FEES49850
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 149.42
DUMP FEES49861
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 149.42
DUMP FEES49885
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 149.42
DUMP FEES51482
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 151.74
DUMP FEES51498
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 151.74
Total :1,189.95
101026 12/13/2007 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 56201 STORM DUMP FEES
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 155.15
STORM DUMP FEES56259
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 189.09
STORM DUMP FEES56275
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 210.10
STORM DUMP FEES56289
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 210.10
34Page:
Packet Page 109 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101026 12/13/2007 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
STORM DUMP FEES56298
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 210.10
STORM DUMP FEES56373
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 189.85
STORM DUMP FEES56379
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 189.85
STORM DUMP FEES56388
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 189.85
STORM DUMP FEES56394
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 147.65
STORM DUMP FEES56727
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 136.16
STORM DUMP FEES57489
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 170.09
STORM DUMP FEES57499
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 170.09
STROM DEPT DUMP FEES57507
STROM DEPT DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 170.09
STORM DUMP FEES57523
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 170.09
STORM DUMP FEES57531
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 170.09
35Page:
Packet Page 110 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101026 12/13/2007 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
STORM DUMP FEES57564
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 170.09
STORM DUMP FEES57577
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 170.09
STORM DUMP FEES57593
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 170.09
STORM DUMP FEES57628
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 285.26
STORM DEPT DUMP FEES57651
STORM DEPT DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 174.45
STORM DUMP FEES57658
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 174.45
BRUSH DUMP FEES57676
BRUSH DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 174.45
BRUSH DUMP FEES57688
BRUSH DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 161.37
STORM - BRUSH DUMP57689
STORM - BRUSH DUMP
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 161.37
DUMP FEES57690
DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 174.45
BRUSH DUMP FEES57713
BRUSH DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 100.85
36Page:
Packet Page 111 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101026 12/13/2007 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
DUMP FEES57876
DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 174.97
DUMP FEES57881
DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 174.97
DUMP FEES57885
DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 174.97
DUMP FEES57896
DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 174.97
DUMP FEES57908
DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 218.71
DUMP FEES58258
DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 139.66
DUMP FEES58522
DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 174.80
DUMP FEES58535
DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 174.80
DUMP FEES58545
DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 174.80
STORM DAY DUMP FEES58751
STORM DAY DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 222.87
STORM DAY DUMP FEES58761
STORM DAY DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 174.80
Total :6,575.59
37Page:
Packet Page 112 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101027 12/13/2007 027148 PARAMOUNT SUPPLY CO 723678 315300
NUTS & BOLTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 185.20
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 15.15
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 17.83
315400724470
SOLENOID
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 168.80
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 6.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 15.55
Total :408.53
101028 12/13/2007 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.651045 FS 20 - PAINT, SUPPLIES
FS 20 - PAINT, SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 33.97
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.02
Total :36.99
101029 12/13/2007 072030 PATRIOT FIRE PROTECTION INC PATRIOT FIRE REC#45584. WITHDRAWN AP.
REC#45584. WITHDRAWN AP.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 209.50
Total :209.50
101030 12/13/2007 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 88804 INV#88804 EDMONDS PD - CASE #07-4822
TOW VOLVO 067ULB CASE 07-4822
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 136.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 12.10
Total :148.10
101031 12/13/2007 008400 PETTY CASH - EPD PETTY CASH EPD PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
38Page:
Packet Page 113 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101031 12/13/2007 (Continued)008400 PETTY CASH - EPD
TONER CARTRIDGE~
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 69.03
CUPS & BATTERIES FOR THE DEPT.
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 82.34
PARKING - CHIEF COMPAAN~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 8.00
KEYS MADE/ANIMAL CONROL
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 4.90
KEYS MADE/ANIMAL CONTROL
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 2.45
MAILING FEES FOR BALLISTIC SHIELD
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 123.44
FUEL/WASPC CONFERENCE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 28.41
EXPANSION FOLDER/SGT. ANDERSON~
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 10.88
DONUTS/HOSTING ACCESS TRAINING~
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 26.25
LUNCH FOR ORAL BOARD MEMBER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.57
PARKING FEES/SGT. ANDERSON~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 17.00
Total :380.27
101032 12/13/2007 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC PCASH1211 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
39Page:
Packet Page 114 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101032 12/13/2007 (Continued)008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC
SUPPLIES
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 12.09
SISTER CITY FRIENDSHIP PARTY COFFEE
623.200.210.557.210.490.00 26.14
PHOTOS
117.100.640.573.100.490.00 7.03
TAPE
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 7.61
GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 29.36
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR DISCOVERY
001.000.640.574.350.430.00 5.82
AIRPORT PARKING FOR SISTER CITY
623.100.210.557.210.490.00 6.00
PHOTOS
001.000.640.574.200.490.00 6.12
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 15.43
ADHESIVE PUTTY
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 3.15
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 7.62
Total :126.37
101033 12/13/2007 070160 POETS & WRITERS INC 0308109855 WOTS ADVERTISING
WRITE ON THE SOUND ADVERTISING
123.000.640.573.100.440.00 450.00
Total :450.00
101034 12/13/2007 065105 PORT SUPPLY 6972 UNIT 492 - SUPPLIES
UNIT 492 - SUPPLIES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 49.18
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.38
40Page:
Packet Page 115 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :53.5610103412/13/2007 065105 065105 PORT SUPPLY
101035 12/13/2007 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 20082462 FLEET ANNUAL REGISTRATION FEES FOR 2008
FLEET ANNUAL REGISTRATION FEES FOR 2008
511.000.657.548.680.490.00 110.00
Total :110.00
101036 12/13/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 084-904-700-6 WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY
WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY
411.000.656.538.800.472.63 1,891.97
Total :1,891.97
101037 12/13/2007 065579 QUIKSIGN 56232 ADB-07-64 (TGB) SIGN INSTALLATION.
ADB-07-64 (TGB) SIGN INSTALLATION.
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 156.00
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.410.11 13.88
Total :169.88
101038 12/13/2007 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 083539 INSCRIPTIONS
ON SITE INSCRIPTIONS
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 460.00
Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 40.94
Total :500.94
101039 12/13/2007 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 0710039/40 CONSULTANT SERICES THROUGH 10/12/07.
CONSULTANT SERICES THROUGH 10/12/07.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 5,310.91
SMP CONSULTANT THROUGH 10/12/07.0710050
SMP CONSULTANT THROUGH 10/12/07.
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 4,982.50
Total :10,293.41
101040 12/13/2007 071099 RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES ZN826701 WATER- BINDER SUPPLIES FOR CARD STORAGE
41Page:
Packet Page 116 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101040 12/13/2007 (Continued)071099 RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES
WATER- BINDER SUPPLIES FOR CARD STORAGE
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 72.24
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.26
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.08
Total :86.58
101041 12/13/2007 068484 RINKER MATERIALS 9414214136 STREET - ASPHALT
STREET - ASPHALT
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 67.60
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 6.02
ASPHALT DUMP FEES9414214137
ASPHALT DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 42.91
DUMPED CONCRETE FEES9414261203
DUMPED CONCRETE FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 317.30
DUMP FEES9414278201
DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 52.61
STREET - COLD MIX ASPHALT9414287497
STREET - COLD MIX ASPHALT
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 341.90
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 29.40
Total :857.74
101042 12/13/2007 069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC 11616 WINTER CRAZE MAILING PREP
BULK MAIL PREP FOR WINTER 2008 CRAZE
001.000.640.574.200.490.00 93.33
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.200.490.00 8.31
42Page:
Packet Page 117 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101042 12/13/2007 (Continued)069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC
WINTER 2008 CRAZE11619
EDMONDS PORTION OF WINTER 2008 CRAZE
001.000.640.574.200.490.00 7,470.63
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.200.490.00 664.89
Total :8,237.16
101043 12/13/2007 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY 12/01/07 12/01/07 STATEMENT - EDMONDS PD
PICK UP 8 CARCASSES
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 78.00
PICK UP 6 CARCASSES
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 58.50
PICK UP 5 CARCASSES
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 48.75
PICK UP 2 CARCASSES
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 19.50
Total :204.75
101044 12/13/2007 064628 SANDERSON SAFETY SUPPLY CO 1215896-01 ADAPTER
ADAPTER
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 443.25
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 15.41
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 40.82
Total :499.48
101045 12/13/2007 061482 SEA-WESTERN INC 120546 OPS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
Coat & flashlight
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 839.00
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 6.86
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 75.28
43Page:
Packet Page 118 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :921.1410104512/13/2007 061482 061482 SEA-WESTERN INC
101046 12/13/2007 060855 SILVER LAKE TROPHY &16797 2007 Employee of the year award and
2007 Employee of the year award and
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 86.80
Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 7.72
Total :94.52
101047 12/13/2007 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0070702-IN UNIT EQ17SD - LED AMBER, CHROME FLANGE
UNIT EQ17SD - LED AMBER, CHROME FLANGE
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 247.50
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 16.50
UNIT EQ17SD- 600 LIN.SUPER LED STEADY0071361-IN
UNIT EQ17SD- 600 LIN.SUPER LED STEADY
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 798.00
UNIT EQ02PO - REAR DECK TALON, SPEAKER0071377-IN
UNIT EQ02PO - REAR DECK TALON, SPEAKER
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 279.50
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 18.50
UNIT EQ02PO - VEHICLE BASE0071697-IN
UNIT EQ02PO - VEHICLE BASE
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 65.80
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 46.70
UNIT EQ17SD - 600 LIN. SUPER LED0071706-IN
UNIT EQ17SD - 600 LIN. SUPER LED
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 798.00
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 42.00
44Page:
Packet Page 119 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101047 12/13/2007 (Continued)068489 SIRENNET.COM
DARE UNIT - DOMINATOR 8 LIGHT BAR0071707-IN
DARE UNIT - DOMINATOR 8 LIGHT BAR
001.000.410.521.310.350.00 345.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.310.350.00 20.50
Total :2,678.00
101048 12/13/2007 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-178663 UNIT 484,485,486,491 - SUPER Z CHAIN
UNIT 484,485,486,491 - SUPER Z CHAIN
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 256.32
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.04
Total :278.36
101049 12/13/2007 060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL, ABA 02100021 C/A 103172323V/14025313 FLEET SHOP - HEX DRIVER SET
FLEET SHOP - HEX DRIVER SET
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 89.25
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.95
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.83
Total :108.03
101050 12/13/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2110016462 IRRIGATION CONTROL
IRRIGATION CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.72
IRRIGATION SYSTEM5070014260
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.26
SIERRA PARK BALLFIELD5320018384
SIERRA PARK BALLFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.72
Total :90.70
101051 12/13/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 508009708 620-001-500-3
45Page:
Packet Page 120 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101051 12/13/2007 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
VARIOUS LOCATION
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 14.98
Total :14.98
101052 12/13/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 3050047152 SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 56.71
TRAFFIC SIGNAL4510017488
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.72
TELEMETRY SYSTEM4640017416
TELEMETRY SYSTEM
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 28.98
STREET LIGHTING6000013000
STREET LIGHTING
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 8,462.72
STREET LIGHTING6100013009
STREET LIGHTING
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 7,944.24
STREET LIGHTING6100013306
STREET LIGHTING
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 170.07
STREET LIGHTING6200013008
STREET LIGHTING
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 1,814.76
Total :18,508.20
101053 12/13/2007 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 37018 INV#37018
#7010 DATER INK PADS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 7.20
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 2.50
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 0.86
46Page:
Packet Page 121 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
47
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :10.5610105312/13/2007 038100 038100 SNO-KING STAMP
101054 12/13/2007 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I000190013 DUMP CHARGES
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 424.71
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 15.29
Total :440.00
101055 12/13/2007 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT C/A C000569 AR136474-136476 EDMONDS PD
HEP B VACCINE
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 62.00
HEP B VACCINE
001.000.410.521.110.410.00 62.00
HEP B VACCINE
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 62.00
Total :186.00
101056 12/13/2007 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03587 DUMP CHARGES
DUMP CHARGES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 581.48
Total :581.48
101057 12/13/2007 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03584 RECYCLING
RECYCLING
411.000.656.538.800.475.66 25.70
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.475.66 1.54
Total :27.24
101058 12/13/2007 072038 STERLING MEATS INC 42121 Holiday breakfast ham
Holiday breakfast ham
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 95.68
Total :95.68
101059 12/13/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1554783 RFQ.Consultant Roster 2008
47Page:
Packet Page 122 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
48
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101059 12/13/2007 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
RFQ.Consultant Roster 2008
001.000.620.532.200.440.00 132.48
Total :132.48
101060 12/13/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 148134-11/30/2007 GIS Intern, #07-47 ad
GIS Intern, #07-47 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 18.48
Meter Reader, #07-49 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 36.96
Parks MW I, #07-48 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 49.28
Total :104.72
101061 12/13/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1555061 101416
C-251 ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 97.92
Total :97.92
101062 12/13/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1556562 NEWSPAPER AD
Closed Record Review Notice
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 60.48
Total :60.48
101063 12/13/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1553872 LEISER/V-07-81 LEGAL NOTICES.
LEISER/V-07-81 LEGAL NOTICES.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 46.74
PRESTON/CU-07-86 LEGAL NOTICES.1554784
PRESTON/CU-07-86 LEGAL NOTICES.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 15.84
TGB/ADB-07-64 LEGAL NOTICES1555082
TGB/ADB-07-64 LEGAL NOTICES
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 24.48
Total :87.06
101064 12/13/2007 070197 THE ECONOMIST DanClements Subscription 2 years
48Page:
Packet Page 123 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
49
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101064 12/13/2007 (Continued)070197 THE ECONOMIST
Subscription 2 years
001.000.310.514.100.490.00 219.00
Total :219.00
101065 12/13/2007 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES C/A 042483000 Meter Reader, #07-49 ad
Meter Reader, #07-49 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 315.14
Meter Reader, #07-49 ad
411.000.654.534.800.440.00 315.14
Parks MW I, #07-48 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 315.14
Parks MW I, #07-48 ad
001.000.640.576.800.440.00 315.14
Total :1,260.56
101066 12/13/2007 070040 TOTAL RECLAIM INC 59308 Computer parts & monitors for recycling
Computer parts & monitors for recycling
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 221.00
Total :221.00
101067 12/13/2007 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 37156 PW - FENCE REPAIR
49Page:
Packet Page 124 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
50
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101067 12/13/2007 (Continued)041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC
PW - FENCE REPAIR
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 207.40
PW - FENCE REPAIR
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 207.40
PW - FENCE REPAIR
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 207.40
PW - FENCE REPAIR
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 207.40
PW - FENCE REPAIR
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 207.40
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 18.46
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 18.46
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 18.46
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 18.46
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 18.46
Total :1,129.30
101068 12/13/2007 068249 TRAUTMANN MAHER & ASSOCIATES 11/30/07 MEBT Services - November 2007
MEBT Services - November 2007
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 23.30
Total :23.30
101069 12/13/2007 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 13861 UNIT EQ17SD - KEYS
UNIT EQ17SD - KEYS
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 13.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1.16
Total :14.16
101070 12/13/2007 042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE 98 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
50Page:
Packet Page 125 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
51
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101070 12/13/2007 (Continued)042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 150.00
Total :150.00
101071 12/13/2007 071590 TRT LCC Edmonds-Exp(Nov07)EXPENSES POSTAGE & COPY.
EXPENSES POSTAGE & COPY.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 19.16
HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES FOR NOV. 2007.Edmonds-Nov07
HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES FOR NOV. 2007.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 3,500.00
Total :3,519.16
101072 12/13/2007 065934 TUNE TALES INC TUNETALES8558 MUSIC CLASSES
TUNE TALES #8558~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 970.20
TUNE TALES #8559~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 646.80
TUNE TALES #8560~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 577.50
TUNE TALES #8561~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 513.56
Total :2,708.06
101073 12/13/2007 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA0203784-WA STREET/STORM - DOT
STREET/STORM - DOT
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 65.00
Total :65.00
101074 12/13/2007 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 490338 391128
SOLENOID VALVE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 429.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 17.67
Total :446.67
101075 12/13/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
51Page:
Packet Page 126 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
52
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101075 12/13/2007 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 45.51
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1691
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 44.86
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-5055
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 57.17
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM425-776-5316
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 107.57
Total :255.11
101076 12/13/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425 771 5553 03 0210 1014522641 07
AUTO DIALER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 56.10
03 0210 10795869413 10425 NW1-0060
BPS TELEMENTRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.12
03 0210 1099569419 02425 NW1-0155
TELEMENTRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 216.25
Total :313.47
101077 12/13/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-AB9-0530 1ST & PINE CIRCUIT LINE PT EDWARDS
1st & Pine Circuit Line for Pt Edwards
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.40
Total :40.40
101078 12/13/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 269992985-1 425-308-9867
cell phone-water watch
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 36.04
52Page:
Packet Page 127 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
53
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101078 12/13/2007 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
425-870-0617469985965-1
Cell phone-Jim Waite
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 19.67
Cell phone-Jim Waite
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 19.67
Total :75.38
101079 12/13/2007 069372 VIKING PROPERTIES VIKING PROPERTIES REC#045760. NO WORK WAS EVER STARTED ON
REC#045760. NO WORK WAS EVER STARTED ON
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 981.10
Total :981.10
101080 12/13/2007 061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH WWO CERT RENEWAL 08 WATER WORKS OPERATOR CERT RENEWAL FOR -
WATER WORKS OPERATOR CERT RENEWAL FOR -
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 21.00
WATER WORKS OPERATOR CERT RENEWAL FOR -
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 21.00
WATER WORKS OPERATOR CERT RENEWAL FOR
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 252.00
WATER WORKS OPERATOR CERT RENEWAL FOR
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 252.00
Total :546.00
101081 12/13/2007 045515 WABO 7508 08 JEANNINE/2008 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL.
JEANNINE/2008 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL.
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 75.00
Total :75.00
101082 12/13/2007 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-6237 DEC 3RD STORM CLEANUP/104TH AVE W
DEC 3RD STORM CLEANUP/104TH AVE W
111.000.653.542.710.410.00 615.00
Total :615.00
101083 12/13/2007 045912 WASPC INV019844 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION/CHIEF COMPAAN
CONFERENCE REG/COMPAAN~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 300.00
53Page:
Packet Page 128 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
54
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :300.0010108312/13/2007 045912 045912 WASPC
101084 12/13/2007 071359 WASSER CORPORATION 109965 564
PAINT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 295.86
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 83.49
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 26.04
Total :405.39
101085 12/13/2007 061395 WASTE MANAGEMENT NW 4824726-2677-9 201-0170717-2677-6
ASH DISPOSAL
411.000.656.538.800.474.65 2,952.62
Total :2,952.62
101086 12/13/2007 069125 WASTE NEWS 2008-2009 RENEWAL SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 2YR
SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 2YR
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 109.00
Total :109.00
101087 12/13/2007 064234 WILDWATER RIVER TOURS INC AMUNDSON8720 BALD EAGLE WATCH
SKAGIT BALD EAGLE WATCH~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 434.88
Total :434.88
101088 12/13/2007 071631 WILLIAMS, SUE WILLIAMS8847 KNITTING CLASS
SOCKS DEMYSTIFIED~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 46.80
Total :46.80
101089 12/13/2007 066678 WSDA PESTICIDE MGMT DIVISION MCGOWAN2008 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
2008 PESTICIDE/SPI LICENSE RENEWAL
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 25.00
Total :25.00
101090 12/13/2007 072035 ZULAUF, JOANNE Survey Class Reimbur Reimbursement for Survey Class fee
54Page:
Packet Page 129 of 357
12/13/2007
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
55
10:05:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
101090 12/13/2007 (Continued)072035 ZULAUF, JOANNE
Reimbursement for Survey Class fee
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 366.84
Total :366.84
Bank total :241,639.75178 Vouchers for bank code :front
241,639.75Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report178
55Page:
Packet Page 130 of 357
AM-1300 2.D.
Claims for Damages
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Submitted For:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Merlin Kleven (amount undetermined), Max P.
Campbell (amount undetermined), and Cory Rice (amount undetermined).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages.
Previous Council Action
Not applicable.
Narrative
Claims for Damages have been received from the following individuals:
Merlin Kleven
635 Pine Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
(Amount undetermined)
Max P. Campbell
21608 52nd Avenue W.
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
(Amount undetermined)
Cory Rice
23406 Humber Lane
Edmonds, WA 98020
(Amount undetermined)
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Kleven Claim for Damages
Link: Campbell Claim for Damages
Link: Rice Claim for Damages
Packet Page 131 of 357
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/11/2007 08:25 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/11/2007 08:43 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/11/2007 09:40 AM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Hynd
Started On: 12/04/2007 09:59
AM
Final Approval Date: 12/11/2007
Packet Page 132 of 357
Packet Page 133 of 357
Packet Page 134 of 357
Packet Page 135 of 357
Packet Page 136 of 357
Packet Page 137 of 357
Packet Page 138 of 357
AM-1310 2.E.
WSLCB Lists
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
Submitted By:Linda Carl
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Approval of lists of businesses applying for renewal of their liquor licenses with the Washington
State Liquor Control Board, April - December 2007.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Please approve the attached lists of businesses.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Police Department, the City Clerk's Office, and the Mayor's Office have reviewed the attached
lists and have no concerns.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: WSLCB lists
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/12/2007 11:00 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/12/2007 11:03 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/12/2007 04:18 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 12/12/2007 10:44
AM
Final Approval Date: 12/12/2007
Packet Page 139 of 357
Packet Page 140 of 357
Packet Page 141 of 357
Packet Page 142 of 357
Packet Page 143 of 357
Packet Page 144 of 357
Packet Page 145 of 357
Packet Page 146 of 357
Packet Page 147 of 357
Packet Page 148 of 357
Packet Page 149 of 357
AM-1322 2.F.
Edmonds Arts Commission 2008 Cultural Tourism Promotion Awards
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
Submitted By:Frances Chapin Time:
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of annual award allocations by the Edmonds Arts Commission for 2008 Cultural Tourism
Promotion of events that bring visitors to Edmonds.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of 2008 annual award recommendations by the Edmonds Arts Commission of budgeted
Cultural Tourism Promotion contracts to promote cultural events that bring visitors to Edmonds.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Edmonds Arts Commision Tourism Promotion Awards Committee and staff reviewed seven
applications requesting a total of $12,910 for 2008 funding. Allocations totaling $9,050 were
approved at the Arts Commission meeting on December 3, 2007. The funding for these contract
awards is from the portion of the Lodging Tax Tourism Promotion Fund allocated to the Arts
Commission per Resolution #630. The expenditure is part of the approved 2008 budget for the
123 Fund. Each applicant organization awarded meets the requirements set forth by the Edmonds
Arts Commission.
The following contract awards are recommended for Council approval: Cascade Symphony
Orchestra - $1600 for radio promotion; Driftwood Players - $1600 for the 50th season brochure;
Olympic Ballet - $1750 for print and radio advertising for five season events; Jazz Connection -
$1100 for print and radio advertising; Friends of Frank DeMiero Foundation - $1000 for print and
radio advertising for three jazz festival concerts; Edmonds Art Studio Tour (EAFF) - $900 for tour
brochures; KSER - $600 for on air promotion of Edmonds; and due to the fact that some cultural
events may be developed later in the year, an allocation of $500 for emerging events that may
receive Arts Commission approval later in the year.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2008
Revenue:
Expenditure: $9.050
Fiscal Impact:
Budgeted expenditure from the 123 Fund
Packet Page 150 of 357
Attachments
Link: EAC Tourism Promotion Application Form
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/13/2007 02:07 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/13/2007 02:10 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/13/2007 02:36 PM APRV
Form Started By: Frances
Chapin
Started On: 12/12/2007 05:43
PM
Final Approval Date: 12/13/2007
Packet Page 151 of 357
City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department
Contracts for Cultural Tourism Promotion - 2008
GUIDELINES
OBJECTIVE: To award contracts for services to promote cultural/art events/programs that strengthen
community based arts organizations and contribute to economic vitality through attracting
audience from outside of Edmonds. This objective is accomplished through funding
provided to the Edmonds Arts Commission by the City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Fund per
City Council Resolution 630. Generally no more than $2,000 will be awarded to any one
organization.
ELIGIBILITY: Projects for promotion of cultural events/programs to attract visitors to Edmonds are eligible.
Projects could include advertising, publicizing, or otherwise distributing information on
activities or events for the purpose of attracting and welcoming visitors to Edmonds.
Proposals that are exclusively for an organization’s membership or other exclusive group
will not be considered.
DEADLINE: The deadline is Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 5 p.m. Incomplete or late
applications will not be considered. Applications will be reviewed by the Arts Commission
and awards will be voted on at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting. Contract
awards are recommended pending City Council approval. Applicants will be notified by the
end of February, 2008.
PROCEDURES: Applications must be submitted on the attached form. We do not anticipate that you
will need more space than the amount allowed to answer questions. Cover letters may
be added but will not substitute for an application form.
Please send or deliver FOUR (4) copies including original of your completed application
to:
Edmonds Arts Commission, 700 Main Street, Edmonds WA 98020
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please contact the Cultural Services/Arts Office, Frances Chapin or Kris
Gillespie, Edmonds Arts Commission, 425-771-0228, or chapin@ci.edmonds.wa.us
REVIEW CRITERIA
In awarding these contracts for services to promote cultural tourism the Edmonds Arts Commission uses the
following criteria to evaluate the applicant organization:
(40%) 1. Promotion of artistic quality: the degree of professionalism exhibited in events/programs
sponsored by the organization; the extent to which these events/programs attract visitors to the community
and improve the community's reputation for and appreciation of the arts.
(15%) 2. Community Cultural Plan: the extent to which the organization supports the goals or implements
strategies of the Community Cultural Plan.
(15%) 3. Public participation: the degree to which the public is involved in organizing, implementing and
evaluating the projects of the organization; attendance by the public.
(15%) 4. Financial need: the demonstration of financial need is reflected in a realistic budget, reasonable
ratio of program expenditures to administrative costs and evidence of other funding sources, i.e. donations.
(15%) 5. Management capabilities: demonstration of the ability to complete and evaluate the project
successfully, i.e. board resources, skilled personnel, previous successful programs. Previous year recipients of
EAC Cultural Touism Awards will be reviewed contingent on submission of a satisfactory Final Report
Packet Page 152 of 357
Promotion Contract Award
Application Form
Edmonds Arts Commission
FISCAL YEAR 2008
January 1 - December 31, 2008
1. Applicant Organization
LEGAL NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
ADDRESS:
CITY: STATE: ZIP:
ORGANIZATION CONTACT: PHONE:
BOARD PRESIDENT:
INCORPORATION DATE: IRS DETERMINATION #
2. Organization Profile: Briefly describe the mission and goals of your organization and your
programs and services.
3. Event/Program Information (what event or program you are promoting)
PROGRAM TITLE:
PROGRAM START DATE: PROGRAM END DATE:
4. Project Description (Be specific, this is what you will spend the money on, not necessarily the
overall event. For example, radio advertising, print advertising, banner, etc.)
TOTAL REQUEST $
5. Project Evaluation – Please answer the following questions with regard to the specific project
you are requesting funds for (e.g. brochure, radio ads, poster etc.). Include additional information on
your overall program if applicable.
a. How can you demonstrate that this project encourages people to come to Edmonds?
Packet Page 153 of 357
2008 EAC Promotion Award Application 2
b. Who is your intended audience? (e.g. radio ads reach what geographic area?) What is your anticipated
attendance (#)? How will you report on and evaluate the effectiveness of the project in attracting visitors to
Edmonds this year?
c. How are volunteers and the greater public involved in organizing, implementing and evaluating this
proposed event/program?
d. How does your specific project and your overall program further the goals of the Community Cultural
Plan (for a copy of the plan, call the Arts Office, 771-0228)?
6. Organization Budget Overview
Fiscal year starting & ending dates: To:
Most recently completed fiscal year actuals Revenue: Expense:
Current fiscal year projected: Revenue: Expense:
7. Please provide the following supportive documentation with your application:
__ 1. I.R.S. Determination Letter (501(c)(3) Status) or WA State non-profit designation
__ 2. A current copy of your approved Operating Budget
__ 3. Current Board List (with contact information)
__ 4. Three letters of support for the project. These letters may be from up to two board members, plus
participants and/or recipients of your program/services attesting to the value/need of your proposal
and your ability to complete the project.
Remember to include 4 complete copies of your application (one original and three copies).
> NOTE: incomplete grant requests will not be considered <
Packet Page 154 of 357
AM-1321 2.G.
Mike Doubleday, Patton Boggs, LLC, & Salter Joyce Zyker Agreements
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Time:Consent
Department:Community Services Type:Action
Review Committee:Finance
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Professional Services Agreements (PSA) between City of Edmonds and Mike Doubleday, Patton
Boggs, LLC (Addendum #2), and Salter Joyce Zyker.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
City staff and the Mayor recommend approving subject professional services agreements. The
City Council Finance Committee also recommends that the City Council approve the agreements.
Previous Council Action
Mike Doubleday
January 3, 2007 - City Council approved a one-year Professional Services Agreement between the
City of Edmonds and Mike Doubleday. Mr. Doubleday has provided services on behalf of the City
the past three years.
Patton Boggs
January 16, 2007 - City Council approved a one-year Professional Services Agreement between the
City of Edmonds and Patton Boggs LLP. Patton Boggs has provided services on behalf of the City
the past two years.
Salter Joyce Zyker
No Council action in 2007. Salter Joyce Zyker has provided services on behalf of the City
for three years.
Narrative
Mike Doubleday provides intergovernmental support at the State level by providing advocacy for
transportation funding, projects such as Edmonds Crossing and Edmonds Center for the Arts, sales
tax sourcing, and other legislation that may positively or negatively impact the City of Edmonds.
He also monitors legislative activites and provides monthly and year end reports to the City.
Patton Boggs provides intergovernmental support for the City of Edmonds and has worked to help
secure funding for Edmonds Crossing and Edmonds Center for the Arts. Patton Boggs has
also helps to monitor legislation and draft position statements related to such items as national
franchising, Federal Communications Commission rulings, etc. They also provide regular
notifications on potential funding sources for a variety of issues.
Salter Joyce Zyker serves as an advisor, providing legal services and assistance in the area of
Packet Page 155 of 357
Salter Joyce Zyker serves as an advisor, providing legal services and assistance in the area of
environmental law in order to support the City Attorney coordinating the provision of services
under the direction of the City. This firm performs environmental legal work on an as needed
basis.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2008
Revenue: $ 93,670
Expenditure: $ 93,670
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditures
Patton Boggs $ 48,000
Doubleday $ 35,670
Salter Joyce Zyker $ 10,000 (potential)
$ 93,670 Total
Revenue
Community Services $ 80,000
Public Works $ 5,000
Non-departmental $ 8,670
$ 93,670 Total
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - Mike Doubleday
Link: Exhibit 2 - Patton Boggs
Link: Exhibit 3 - Salter Joyce Zyker
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/12/2007 05:16 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/13/2007 09:44 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/13/2007 09:50 AM APRV
Form Started By: Stephen
Clifton
Started On: 12/12/2007 04:31
PM
Final Approval Date: 12/13/2007
Packet Page 156 of 357
City of Edmonds
121 FIFTH AVENUE N. ● EDMONDS, WA 98020 ● 425-771-0239
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Gary Haakenson
Mayor
L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0016_1321_Mike Doubleday 2008 Professional Services Agreement.doc
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
MIKE DOUBLEDAY
GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS SERVICES
FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS
January 1, 2008 – Dec 31, 2008
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter
referred to as the “City”, and Mike Doubleday, hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant”;
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a
consultant to provide advocacy for local transportation funding, projects such as Edmonds
Crossing and Shell Valley Emergency Access Road, and other legislation that may impact the City
of Edmonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and
between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Scope of Work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to
accomplish the above-mentioned objectives in accordance with the specifics noted below.
A. General Description. Provide advocacy for: local transportation funding,
projects such as Edmonds Crossing and Shell Valley Emergency Access Road,
and other legislation that may impact the City of Edmonds. Monitor legislative
activities using the City of Edmonds 2008 Legislative Agenda as a non-
exclusive scope of work, and provide regular updates to the City
B. Term. This contract shall cover intergovernmental services provided from
January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008.
C. Deliverables. Work with the Snohomish County Council, local State legislative
delegations, appropriate State departments, legislative leadership, the Governor,
and other intergovernmental representatives to: 1.) Assist with the passage of
legislation favorable to the City of Edmonds; and 2.) Assist with the defeat or
veto of legislation that either fiscally harms the City, or imposes unfunded
program mandates. Provide monthly and year end reports to the City.
2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services
rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full
Packet Page 157 of 357
Intergovernmental Contract, Page 2
compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials,
supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work.
A. Amount. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement
shall be $2,585 per month when the legislature is not in session, and $4,135 per
month while the legislature is in session. Payments shall not exceed $35,670 for
activities performed during a 12 month period All expenses are included in the
fee: no expenses shall be reimbursed without prior written approval by the City.
Should the legislature meet for part of a month, payment will be prorated based
upon the percentage of days convened during the month.
B. Process. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for
payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the
appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may
submit vouchers to the City on or before the fifth of each month for services
performed during the previous month. Billings shall show the amount of time
spent working each major issue so the City will be advised of the
intergovernmental costs of supporting each issue.
C. Record Retention. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this
Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City
for a period of three (3) years after final payment. Copies shall be made
available upon request.
3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any
and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the
services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of
Consultant and shall not be considered public records, provided, however, that:
A. Final Document. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the
Consultant shall be come the property of the City upon their presentation to and
acceptance by the City and shall at that date become public records.
B. Copies. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect,
review and, subject to the approval of the Consultant, copy any work product.
C. Default. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in
the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein
provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work
done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and
tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final
payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no
additional cost.
4. Hold harmless agreement. In performing the work under this contract, Consultant agrees
to protect, indemnify and save the City harmless from and against any and all injury or
Packet Page 158 of 357
Intergovernmental Contract, Page 3
damage to the City or its property, and also from and against all claims, demands, and
cause of action of every kind and character arising directly or indirectly, or in any way
incident to, in connection with, or arising out of negligent work performed under the terms
hereof, caused by the fault of the Consultant, its agent, employees, representatives or
subcontractors.
Consultant specifically promises to indemnify the City against claims or suits brought
under Title 51 RCW by its employees or subcontractors and waives any immunity that the
Consultant may have under that title with respect to, but only to, the City. Consultant
further agrees to fully indemnify City from and against any and all costs of defending any
such claim or demand to the end that the City is held harmless therefrom. This paragraph
shall not apply to damages or claims resulting from the sole negligence of the City.
5. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain
in full force and effect during performance of all work pursuant to his contract a policy of
business general liability insurance providing coverage of at least $1,000,000 per
occurrence and shall name the City as a named insured, and shall include a provision
prohibiting cancellation of said policy, except upon thirty (30) days written notice to the
City. Certificates of coverage shall be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of
execution of this Agreement.
6. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin or
physical handicap.
7. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent
contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or
representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative
of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents,
employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this contract.
8. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant’s status as an
independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must meet
the approval of the City. During pendency of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not
perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of
Edmonds or for any project subject to the administrative or quasi-judicial review of the
City without written notification to the City and the City’s prior written consent.
9. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may
terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such
termination no fewer than ten (10) days in advance of the effective date of said
termination.
10. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform services in
addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to additional
compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable
Packet Page 159 of 357
Intergovernmental Contract, Page 4
for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation
is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If
conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City
understands that a revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided,
however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to
render or the City to pay for services rendered in excess of the payments discussed in
Section 2.A, unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by
both parties.
11. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary knowledge,
skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and any
persons employed by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a
professional manner consistent with sound practices, in accordance with the usual and
customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of
Services.
12. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation
provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision.
13. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the contractor shall not be assigned or
subcontracted without the express written consent of the City.
14. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or
retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the
Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any
company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant,
any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent
upon or resulting from the award of making this contract. For breach or violation of this
warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its
discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full
amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
15. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall
comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances. Including
regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and
accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described
in the Agreement to assure quality of services.
A. B&O Taxes. The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business
and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement.
B. Public Disclosure Commission. The Consultant shall be responsible to register
with the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) and provide notice to the City
regarding any obligation on his part to report his services to any State or
Federal agency. Additionally, Contractor and the City shall sign and Contractor
shall forward to the Public Disclosure Commission a registration of lobbyist
Packet Page 160 of 357
Intergovernmental Contract, Page 5
form (if necessary) before doing any lobbying or within 30 days after being
employed as a lobbyist, whichever occurs first (RCW 42.17.150). Contractor
shall be otherwise responsible for compliance with all requirements of chapter
42.17 RCW (lobbying disclosure).
C. Potential Conflicts. The contractor shall not advocate or promote any
legislative objectives on behalf of existing or potential clients that are
determined by the City to be in conflict with City of Edmonds’ legislative
objectives. The City acknowledges that contractor currently represents the
Cities of Bellevue and Burien before the state legislature, and is a member of a
consulting team providing staff services to the Regional Transportation
Investment District (RTID).
16. Notices. Notices shall be sent to the following address, with receipt of any notice being
deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice.
City of Edmonds Contractor
Dan Clements Mike Doubleday
City of Edmonds Doubleday Government Relations
121 Fifth Avenue North 1561 NW 190th Street
Edmonds, WA 98020 Shoreline, WA 98177
425-771-0239 425-533-6305
clements@ci.edmonds.wa.us mikedoubleday@earthlink.net
DATED THIS ________ DAY OF _____________________, 2007.
CITY OF EDMONDS
By:
Mayor Gary Haakenson
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
W. Scott Snyder
CONSULTANT
Packet Page 161 of 357
Intergovernmental Contract, Page 6
By:
Its:
Packet Page 162 of 357
City of Edmonds
121 FIFTH AVENUE N. ● EDMONDS, WA 98020 ● 425-771-0239
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Gary Haakenson
Mayor
L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0017_1321_Patton Boggs 2008 Professional Services Agreement - Addendum #2.doc
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
PATTON BOGGS LLP
GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS SERVICES
FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS
Addendum #2
January 1, 2008 – Dec 31, 2008
THIS SECOND ADDENDUM (“Second Addendum”) to the Professional Services
Agreement entered into between the City of Edmonds (“the City") and Patton Boggs LLP,
("Consultant").
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, the City and Consultant (collectively, “the Parties”) executed the Agreement
on January 17, 2006 in order to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting
firm to provide lobbying and advocacy services for or related to: local transportation funding,
Edmonds Crossing, Edmonds Center for the Arts, homeland security, telecommunications, and
other legislative or federal grant matters that may impact the City of Edmonds;
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend the Agreement for the purposes of defining their
respective rights, duties and obligations regarding the additional services Consultant will provide
to the City hereunder;
WHEREAS, Consultant is willing and able to timely provide said additional services; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing hereunder, the Parties
hereby amend the Agreement and execute this First Addendum under the terms and conditions
set forth herein.
TERMS
1. Underlying Agreement: Amendment. The underlying Agreement between the Parties,
executed on January 17, 2006, is hereby amended to, but only to the extent set forth herein.
2. Amendment of Section 2(A) of the Agreement. Section 2(A) of the Agreement is hereby
revised to provide in its entirety as follows:
A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this
Agreement shall be a flat fee basis of $4,000 per month. Payments
Packet Page 163 of 357
Intergovernmental Contract, Page 2
shall not exceed $48,000 for activities performed during a 12
month period; PROVIDED, in addition to the base amount set
forth in the underlying agreement, the current “do not exceed”
amount is FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS AND
NO/100 ($48,000.00), which is hereby amended and increased by
the sum of FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND AND NO/100
($48,000.00). In no event shall the payment for all work
performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of ONE
HUNDRED FORTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS AND
00/100 ($144,000.00). All expenses including, but not limited to,
work performed, materials, supplies, equipment, local and out-of-
town travel, meals, telephone and electronic communications,
utilities, postage, fax, photocopying, and printing are included in
the fee; no expense shall be reimbursed without prior written
approval by the City;
3. Revised Scope of Services. As consideration for the additional compensation
authorized under section 2 of this Second Addendum, Consultant shall provide the same services
as those specified under the base Agreement.
4. Amendment and Merger. Except to the limited extent set forth specifically
herein, the underlying Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Any prior
understandings, written or oral, shall be deemed merged with the provisions of this Addendum.
Neither this Addendum nor the Agreement shall be amended except in writing without the
express written consent of the Parties hereto.
DONE THIS _____ day of ________________, 2007.
CITY OF EDMONDS
By:
Mayor Gary Haakenson
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
W. Scott Snyder
Packet Page 164 of 357
Intergovernmental Contract, Page 3
CONSULTANT:
By ________________________
Its ________________________
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 20 , before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn,
personally appeared ,to me known to be the
of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said
instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said
instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above
written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
Packet Page 165 of 357
City of Edmonds
121 FIFTH AVENUE N. ● EDMONDS, WA 98020 ● 425-771-0239
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Gary Haakenson
Mayor
L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0018_1321_Salter Joyce Zyker 2008 Professional Services Agreement.doc
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
SALTER JOYCE ZIKER, PLLC
LEGAL SERVICES
FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS
January 1, 2008 – Dec 31, 2008
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on the date last below written between the City of
Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation, (“the City”) and the law firm of Salter Joyce
Ziker, PLLC, (the "Attorneys").
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF the terms and conditions set forth below, the
parties agree as follows:
1. Services to be Provided. Attorneys will serve as an advisor, providing legal
services and assistance in the area of environmental law in order to support the City Attorney
coordinating the provision of services under the direction of the City through its Community
Services Director. The work provide shall include all services and material necessary to
accomplish the objectives in accordance with the Scope of Service, which is marked as Exhibit
A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
2. Payment for Services. Legal services performed under this Agreement shall be
not exceed $10,000. The City will not be charged separately for normal secretarial or clerical
work, the expense for which has been calculated into the Attorney's hourly rate. All expenses
including, but not limited to, work performed, materials, supplies, equipment, local travel, meals,
telephone and electronic communications, utilities, postage, fax, photocopying, and printing are
included in the fee: no expenses shall be reimbursed without prior written approval by the City.
Reimbursement will be made by the City for expenditures for court related costs and fees,
copying, postage, and computer aided legal research, when made on behalf of the City, and for
travel or long distance telephone calls outside of the metropolitan Seattle area when required on
City business. Direct costs for experts, printing and other litigation support services provided by
third parties in the course of litigation may be forwarded to the City for direct payment.
3. Termination of Agreement. The attorney/client relationship is a personal one
involving the ability of the parties to communicate and maintain credibility. Therefore, the City
reserves in its sole discretion the right to terminate this Agreement upon reasonable notice. The
Attorneys agree that they will not terminate the Agreement without providing for a reasonable
period of transition mutually agreed upon by the parties.
Packet Page 166 of 357
Intergovernmental Contract, Page 2
4. Designation and Approval of Principal Service Providers. At the date of
execution of this Agreement, it has been the representation of the Attorneys that legal services to
the City will be provided principally by William F. Joyce, WSBA #15797. The parties recognize
that services may be provided by others in the firm based upon their expertise and the need to
provide services at appropriate billing rates by junior and senior attorneys, paralegals and legal
assistants within the firm in order to achieve the most cost effective provision of legal services.
The City reserves the right to review and approve each attorney providing service to the City.
By execution of this Agreement, the City specifically approves a provision of services through or
under the direction of William F. Joyce by the attorneys shown in the Attorney's proposal,
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
5. Ownership of Work Product. All data, materials, reports, memoranda and any
other documents developed under this Agreement whether finished or not shall become the
property of the City, shall be forwarded to the City at its request and may be used by the City as
it sees fit. The City agrees that if products prepared by the Attorneys are used for purposes other
than those intended in this Agreement, City does so at City's sole risk and agrees to hold the
Attorneys harmless for such use.
6. Insurance. The Attorneys shall maintain proof of professional liability insurance
the minimum amount of $2,000,000.
7. Discrimination. Attorneys agree not to discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment or any other person in the performance of this Agreement because of
race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sex, age, or physical, mental or sensory
handicap, except where a bona fide occupational qualification exists.
8. Hold Harmless. Attorneys agree to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the
City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents from and against any and all
claims, judgments or awards of damages, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or
omissions of Attorneys. The City agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Attorneys
from and against any and all claims, judgments or awards of damages, arising out of or resulting
from the acts, errors or omissions of the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and
agents.
9. Independent Contractor. The Attorneys are and shall be at all times during the
term of this Agreement independent contractors and shall indemnify and hold harmless the City
from all costs associated with the wages and benefits of the Attorneys’ employees.
10. Rules of Professional Conduct. All services provided by Attorneys under this
Agreement will be performed in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys
established by the Washington Supreme Court.
11. Work for Other Clients. Attorneys may provide services for clients other than the
City during the term of this Agreement, but will not do so where the same may constitute a
conflict of interest unless the City, after full disclosure of the potential or actual conflict,
Packet Page 167 of 357
Intergovernmental Contract, Page 3
consents in writing to the representation. Any potential conflicts shall be handled in accordance
with the Rules of Professional Conduct referred to above.
12. Subcontracting or Assignment. Attorneys may not assign or subcontract any
portion of the services to be provided under this Agreement without the express written consent
of the City.
13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire integrated agreement
between the City and the Attorneys, superseding all prior negotiations, representations or
agreements, written or oral. This Agreement may be modified, amended, or added to, only by
written instrument properly signed by both parties hereto.
DONE THIS _____ day of ________________, 2007.
CITY OF EDMONDS:
By:
Mayor Gary Haakenson
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk W. Scott Snyder
CONSULTANT:
By ________________________
Its ________________________
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 20 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared
,to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and
deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that
he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of
said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
Packet Page 168 of 357
Intergovernmental Contract, Page 4
Exhibit A
WILLIAM JOYCE
SALTER JOYCE ZIKER, PLLC
1601 FIFTH AVE., SUITE 2040
SEATTLE WA 98101-1686
wjoyce@sjzlaw.com
(206) 957-5960 x5951
Scope of Services
January 1, 2008 – Dec 31, 2008
1. Services
1.1 General Description
Advise the City and support the City Attorney in matters relating to
environmental law, e.g., legal support for cost recovery, grant funding, and
remediation at and adjacent to 810 Walnut Street, Edmonds, Washington, Unocal
/Chevron site, and miscellaneous activities.
1.2 Schedule
Contractor shall work January 1 through December 31, 2008.
2. Compensation
2.1 Amount
Contractor will be compensated at the rate of $230/hour. Associate attorneys
(with the City’s approval only prior to commencement of work) would be billed
at $170/hour. Paralegals would be billed at $90/per hour. The City will
compensate the Contractor for his hourly monthly totals, but in no event will the
entire amount exceed $10,000.
2.2 Activities Covered
The fees specified in Section 2.1 will be full compensation for all costs incurred
by the Contractor in fulfilling the requirements of this Agreement, including but
not limited to, work performed, materials, supplies, equipment, local and out-of-
town travel, meals, telephone and electronic communications, utilities, postage,
fax, photocopying and printing.
2.3 Billing Procedures
Packet Page 169 of 357
Intergovernmental Contract, Page 5
On or before the 5th day of each month, beginning on January 1, 2008, contractor
will submit an invoice to the City for services performed during the previous
month. The invoice will be in a form and content reasonably acceptable to the
City and will describe:
a) Services performed
b) Number of hours expended in performing the services
c) Base contract amount
d) Amount invoiced to date
e) Current invoiced amount
f) Contract balance amount
3. Other Provisions
3.1 Insurance
Contractor carries business liability insurance and will name the City of
Edmonds as an additional insured and provide the City with a certificate of
insurance.
3.2 Termination
Either party may terminate the contract upon written notice to the other.
3.3 Avoidance of Potential Conflicts
The Contractor shall not engage in any activity on behalf of existing or potential
clients that are determined by the City to be in conflict with any City project
objective.
Packet Page 170 of 357
AM-1318 2.H.
SWAT Bus Purchase
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
Submitted By:Suzanne Obrien
Submitted For:Gerry Gannon Time:Consent
Department:Police Department Type:Action
Review Committee:Public Safety
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Purchase of a replacement SWAT bus.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
On 12/11/07 Public Safety Committee, Council Member Olson and Council Member Plunkett
made a recommendation that the "Purchase of a SWAT Bus replacement" be placed on the Consent
Agenda for approval by full council.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Our current SWAT bus was purchased in June 1998 and has 708,000 miles. Because of the age of
the bus, parts are very difficult to locate. The SWAT Team has used the bus for its annual training
which takes place in Eastern Washington. Our Fleet Manager feels the bus is no longer safe to
make the trip over the mountains to Eastern Washington.
The new bus will come from Community Transit. The bus has been inspected by our Fleet
Manager, Dave Sittauer. Dave feels the bus we are considering is in good condition and will be a
good replacement for our current bus. The cost of the bus will be $1,500 plus tax and licensing. In
addition, the City will have to purchase the tires because the current tires are leased from
Firestone. The cost of the tires will be $1,928.60 including tax. The money to purchase the bus
will come from the current "Special Operations" budget.
The Vehicle Sale Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney and has been approved in its
current version.
We are asking that the Chief of Police or his designee be allowed to sign the purchase agreement
between the City of Edmonds and Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area
Corporation, also know as Community Transit.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Vehicle Sale Agreement
Packet Page 171 of 357
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 12/12/2007 03:32 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/12/2007 04:02 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/12/2007 04:18 PM APRV
Form Started By: Suzanne
Obrien
Started On: 12/12/2007 02:36
PM
Final Approval Date: 12/12/2007
Packet Page 172 of 357
VEHICLE SALE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT between the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area
Corporation, hereinafter called “Community Transit”, and City of Edmonds, as follows:
In consideration of the mutual promise of the parties, it is hereby agreed as follows:
1. Community Transit shall provide to the City of Edmonds, the following described
bus: 1989 TMC RTS T80-206 VIN#: 1TUMDT9A4KR826304. In exchange; the
City of Edmonds shall pay $1,500.00 without tires. Any tax due will be paid by the
City of Edmonds at the time of licensing.
2. Community Transit shall provide to the City of Edmonds, the six (6) Firestone tires
that are currently on the above bus. In exchange; the City of Edmonds shall pay
$1,928.60. This amount includes Washington State Sales Tax. This amount will be
remitted to First Transit for payment to Firestone for the purchase of the tires and
satisfaction of all obligations under the current lease between Community Transit and
Firestone.
3. Community Transit warrant to the City of Edmonds the following: (i) Community
Transit is the sole owner and free and clear titleholder of the aforementioned bus, (ii)
Community Transit has the legal right to sell such bus, and (iii) Community Transit
shall deliver the bus and the tires free and clear of all liens, debt and encumbrances.
The City of Edmonds shall not assume any debt or obligation associated or connected
to said bus or tires. Community Transit is selling the aforementioned bus and tires to
City of Edmonds AS IS, WHERE IS, and WITH ALL FAULTS and WITHOUT
RECOURSE regarding the condition of the aforementioned bus. Community Transit
makes NO expressed or IMPLIED WARRANTIES or GUARANTEES of any kind
regarding the aforementioned bus and tires other than provided herein.
4. Upon payment as provided under this agreement, Community Transit shall deliver
and convey title to bus and tires, and the City of Edmonds shall take possession of the
same. It shall be the responsibility of Community Transit to ensure that the bus and
tires are delivered in the same condition as when last inspected by the City of
Edmonds. Community Transit shall cooperate with the City of Edmonds as
reasonably necessary to finalize transfer of title and registration of bus and tires.
5. The City of Edmonds shall hold Community Transit harmless from any and all
liability or damages arising from Community Transit’s performance of this
agreement unless such liability arises from the sole negligence of Community
Transit, its agents or employees.
{BFP678393.DOC;1/00006.900160/}
Packet Page 173 of 357
6. Community Transit shall hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all
liability or damages arising from the City of Edmonds’s performance of this
agreement unless such liability arises from the sole negligence of the City of
Edmonds, its agents or employees.
CITY OF EDMONDS
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
AREA CORPORATION
By:
By:
Emmet Heath, Director of Administration Date
Name & Title Date
{BFP678393.DOC;1/00006.900160/}
Packet Page 174 of 357
AM-1306 2.I.
On-Call Surveying Consultant Contracts
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Dave Gebert Time:Consent
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign professional services agreements with Duane Hartman &
Associates, Inc. (DHA) and Reid Middleton, Inc. for On-Call Surveying Services.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize the Mayor to sign professional services agreements with Duane Hartman &
Associates, Inc. (DHA) and Reid Middleton, Inc. for On-Call Surveying Services.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The City has a recurring need for periodic professional land surveying services on an as-required
basis in support of capital project designs, private development reviews, and other City
requirements. The most efficient means of procuring these services is to have surveying firms
available through on-call contracts. With on-call contracts in place, Staff can then obtain the
services of the on-call surveying firms by issuing task orders for specific projects on an as-required
basis.
In order to provide the City a choice for obtaining these services on specific projects as the
requirements come up and to ensure the City options to avoid potential conflict of interest on
specific projects, it is most advantageous to have more than one firm available through on-call
contracts.
Following established City procedures for selecting consultants using the
Architectural/Engineering Consultant Roster, Staff has selected the two firms of Duane Hartman &
Associates, Inc. (DHA) and Reid Middleton, Inc. for award of on-call surveying contracts for
services beginning in January 2008. Attachment 1 is a selection memo documenting the selection
process.
The initial period of performance for these on-call contracts will be January 1, 2008 through
December 31, 2008, with the City having the option to extend the contracts for two additional
one-year periods. Execution of the on-call contracts does not obligate the City to the issuance of
task orders or expenditure of funds. Obligation of funds will occur upon issuance of task orders.
The budget will be established separately for each task order with funding provided by approved
Packet Page 175 of 357
project budgets. The maximum amount of each contract is not-to-exceed $50,000 per year total for
all task orders issued.
The proposed On-Call Surveying contracts are provided as Attachments 2 and 3.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: On-Call Survey Selection Memo
Link: DHA Agreement
Link: Reid Middleton Agreement
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Dave Gebert 12/10/2007 04:30 PM APRV
2 Development Services Duane Bowman 12/10/2007 05:32 PM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/11/2007 08:25 AM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/11/2007 08:43 AM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/11/2007 09:40 AM APRV
Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 12/10/2007 04:00
PM
Final Approval Date: 12/11/2007
Packet Page 176 of 357
Packet Page 177 of 357
Packet Page 178 of 357
Packet Page 179 of 357
Packet Page 180 of 357
Packet Page 181 of 357
Packet Page 182 of 357
Packet Page 183 of 357
Packet Page 184 of 357
Packet Page 185 of 357
Packet Page 186 of 357
Packet Page 187 of 357
Packet Page 188 of 357
Packet Page 189 of 357
Packet Page 190 of 357
Packet Page 191 of 357
Packet Page 192 of 357
Packet Page 193 of 357
Packet Page 194 of 357
Packet Page 195 of 357
Packet Page 196 of 357
Packet Page 197 of 357
Packet Page 198 of 357
Packet Page 199 of 357
Packet Page 200 of 357
AM-1319 2.J.
Council Acceptance of Capital Project (Screenings System)
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
Submitted By:Steve Koho Time:Consent
Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Report on final construction costs for the Screenings System Improvement Project and Council
acceptance of project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council accept the Screenings System Improvement project.
Previous Council Action
On February 28, 2006, Council awarded a construction contract to Harbor Pacific Contractors.
On February 15, 2005, Council authorized an agreement with Brown & Caldwell to provide design
and construction services for implementing improvements to the Treatment Plant's Screenings
System.
Narrative
The Screenings System Improvement project is complete. The project was designed by Brown &
Caldwell, inspected and accepted by Brown & Caldwell and City staff.
Project Budget $1,625,000
Contractor (Harbor Pacific Contractors) $1,194,726
Consultant
Brown & Caldwell $269,424
Stantec $ 11,949
Total Consultants $281,373
Miscellaneous
Advertising $3,097
Materials $7,137
Services $6,616
Total Miscellaneous $16,850
Packet Page 201 of 357
Total Project Costs $1,492,949
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Public Works Noel Miller 12/12/2007 04:48 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/12/2007 05:16 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/13/2007 09:44 AM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/13/2007 09:50 AM APRV
Form Started By: Steve
Koho
Started On: 12/12/2007 04:06
PM
Final Approval Date: 12/13/2007
Packet Page 202 of 357
AM-1320 2.K.
Council Acceptance of Capital Project (Concrete Repairs)
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
Submitted By:Steve Koho Time:Consent
Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Report on final construction costs for the Concrete Repairs Project and Council acceptance of
project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council accept the Concrete Repairs Project.
Previous Council Action
On July 31, 2007, Council awarded a construction contract to Washington Industrial Coatings, Inc.
Narrative
Project Budget $151,599
Contractor (Washington Industrial) $161,361
Miscellaneous
Materials $2,150
Services $2,309
Total Miscellaneous $4,459
Total Project Costs $165,820
Project expenses were greater than the budget due to additional damage found during construction.
There are sufficient funds in the Treatment Plant's Capital Improvement Fund 414 to cover the
additional project expenses.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Packet Page 203 of 357
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Public Works Noel Miller 12/13/2007 02:16 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/13/2007 02:36 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/13/2007 02:46 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/13/2007 02:49 PM APRV
Form Started By: Steve
Koho
Started On: 12/12/2007 04:23
PM
Final Approval Date: 12/13/2007
Packet Page 204 of 357
AM-1313 2.L.
LTAC membership
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
Submitted By:Linda Carl
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee 2008 membership review and approval.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Please approve membership for 2008.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The current members have all requested to be reappointed in 2008. By code, membership of the
LTAC expires annually on December 31 and requires City Council review and approval prior to the
new year. The current members are: Jan Conner, Chris Burdett, Hellon Wilkerson, Frances Chapin,
Bobby McBride, and Joe McIalwain.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 12/12/2007 03:42 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/12/2007 04:02 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/12/2007 04:18 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 12/12/2007 11:07
AM
Final Approval Date: 12/12/2007
Packet Page 205 of 357
AM-1314 2.M.
Retiring Board Members and Commissioners
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
Submitted By:Linda Carl
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
List of retiring board members and commissioners.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Ten board members and commissioners have indicated that they plan to retire by the end of this
year. The list is attached.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: List
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 12/12/2007 03:45 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/12/2007 04:02 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/12/2007 04:18 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 12/12/2007 11:22
AM
Final Approval Date: 12/12/2007
Packet Page 206 of 357
Packet Page 207 of 357
AM-1308 2.N.
Resolution Thanking Mauri Moore
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Peggy Pritchard Olson Time:Consent
Department:City Council Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Resolution thanking Mauri Moore for her service on the City Council.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Resolution thanking Mauri Moore for her service on the City Council.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Councilmember Moore Reso
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 12/12/2007 03:34 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/12/2007 04:02 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/12/2007 04:18 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 12/12/2007 10:40
AM
Final Approval Date: 12/12/2007
Packet Page 208 of 357
Resolution
No: 1157
A Resolution Of The Edmonds City Council Thanking Councilmember
Mauri Moore for Her Service To The Edmonds City Council
Whereas, Mauri Moore was elected to serve on the City Council from January,
2004 to December, 2007; and
Whereas, Councilmember Moore represented the City’s interest while serving on the
following committees: Community/Development Services, Community
Outreach, PFD Oversight, and Community Technology Advisory. She
further served on the 2004, 2005 and 2006 Seashore Transportation
Forum, Long-Range Task Force, Puget Sound Regional Council, South
Snohomish Cities Alternate, Historic Preservation Commission and the
Snohomish County Economic Development Board. Ms. Moore played a
pivotal roll in bringing the Community Technology Advisory Committee to
fruition and deserves special recognition for lending her considerable
talents and energy to all of the committees she served on; and
Whereas, Ms. Moore. is to be celebrated for her enthusiastic support of the citizens’
of Edmonds. She always listened and then thoroughly investigated their
comments and suggestions, then did her utmost to bring some of these
ideas to completion.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that Mauri Moore be commended and recognized for her
service to the City of Edmonds. And last, but not least, a huge thanks to
Councilmember Mauri Moore and best of luck to her in future endeavors.
Passed, approved, and adopted this 18th day of December, 2007.
Gary Haakenson, Mayor Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard L. Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Attest: City Clerk
Packet Page 209 of 357
AM-1309 2.O.
Resolution Thanking Richard L. Marin
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Peggy Pritchard Olson Time:Consent
Department:City Council Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Resolution thanking Richard L. Marin for his service on the City Council.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Resolution thanking Richard L. Marin for his service on the City Council.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Councilmember Marin Reso
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 12/12/2007 03:37 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/12/2007 04:02 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/12/2007 04:18 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 12/12/2007 10:42
AM
Final Approval Date: 12/12/2007
Packet Page 210 of 357
City of Edmonds
Incorporated 1890
Resolution
No. 1158
A Resolution Of The Edmonds City Council Thanking Councilmember Richard L. Marin for His Service To
The Edmonds City Council
Whereas? Richard L. Marin has served on the Edmonds City Council since January 30, 2001 when he was appointed to
fill a vacancy with the knowledge he would have to go through the rigorous election process in November of 2001.
He was then elected to the Council in November of 2001 and re-elected in November of 2003. He served as Council
President from January to December 2005 and during his tenure, not only as a Councilmember but as Council
President, served the citizenry with grace and style and always remembered that it was his duty to serve for the good
of all the citizens of Edmonds; and
Whereas, Due to Mr. Marin’s positive attitude and respect for all he came into contact with, regionally and locally, he has
earned the admiration of not only the City staff but the public at large. Councilmember Marin has been a hands-on
Councilmember and always walked the talk by carefully researching all aspects of anything he was involved with. As
a member of the Community Transit Board, he used the bus system extensively. While on the Sound Transit Board,
he exercised an all-embracing method by researching every project so he could accurately report back to the citizens
of Edmonds.
Whereas, During his tenure on the Council Councilmember Marin has distinguished himself by serving tirelessly by sitting
on the following: Community Outreach Committee, Highway 99 Task Force, Long-Range Task Force, Snohomish
County Health District, WRIA 8, Seashore Transportation Forum 2007, Snohomish County Tomorrow, Community
Transit, and Sound Transit Boards and the Finance, Public Safety, and Community/Development Services
Committees. Mr. Marin deserves special recognition for all that he has achieved but deserves exceptional
recognition for his outstanding service to the citizens for his work with the Snohomish County Health District,
Community Transit, and Sound Transit. He exhibited selfless dedication to making sure the voice of Edmonds’
citizens was heard.
Whereas, Mr. Marin is to be thanked ten-fold for serving his country as a Captain in the United States Navy, now retired,
during his tenure as a Councilmember, and is to be celebrated for doing so while diligently working towards making
the City of Edmonds a better community not only for the present but into the future as well;
Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, that Richard L. Marin be highly praised and recognized for all he has accomplished
during his tenure as a Councilmember and Council President. His presence and positive attitude will be missed. The
Council wishes him the very best in the future with any endeavor he chooses to undertake.
Passed, Approved, and Adopted this 18th day of December, 2007.
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Attest: City Clerk
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Packet Page 211 of 357
AM-1316 3.
Closed Record Review - Old Milltown Phase II Project
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
Submitted By:Michael Clugston Time:60 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Closed Record Review - Appeal of the Architectural Design Board decision to approve the
Old Milltown Phase II project at 201 5th Ave. S. (Appellant: Roger Hertrich / Applicant:
Bob Gregg / File Nos. APL-07-5 & PLN-07-67)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Deny the appeal (APL-07-5) and uphold the decision of the Architectural Design Board to approve
the application PLN-07-67.
Previous Council Action
None on this application/appeal. However, Council did hear and uphold an appeal (APL-06-3)
regarding Phase I of the Old Milltown project (PLN-06-94). The ADB subsequently approved a
revised project for Phase I (PLN-07-02).
Narrative
This is the second phase of the Old Milltown development project. Phase I was approved by the
ADB earlier in 2007 (PLN-07-02). Phase II consists of the addition of a partial third floor with
three condominium residences along with refurbishing three storefronts on Dayton Street.
Because the project is located within the BD-1 zone, the Code requires a two-part public hearing
process described in ECDC 20.12. Part one of the public hearing began on October 3, 2007; the
second part of the public hearing occurred on November 7, 2007. The appeal was filed after the
two-part public hearing process was concluded.
The appellant states that the Old Milltown building does not meet ground floor entry requirements
for the Dayton Street entrance (at 62.5 feet on Elevation drawing A-3.3 - Staff Report Attachment
9). These requirements only apply for buildings that are constructed to BD-1 requirements.
Because the first and second floor remodel was approved under the old BC zoning requirements
(PLN-07-02 and BLD-2007-0845), these floors are now considered to be part of the ‘existing
building.’ For this reason, only the third floor addition to Old Milltown (Phase II) must be built to
the newer BD-1 requirements. Specifically, Footnote 4 of the table under ECDC 16.43.030.A
states that:
“Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing height of the
ground floor to meet the specified minimum height so long as the addition or remodel does not
increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25 percent.” In the case
Packet Page 212 of 357
of Old Milltown, Phase II is being added onto the top of the existing structure approved in Phase I
of the project (PLN-07-02 and BLD-2007-0845) and is therefore not expanding the building
footprint nor the frontage. As a result, the minimum first floor height requirement does not apply
and the Old Milltown building may be built to a maximum of 30 feet. This was brought up and
discussed at the ADB (see ADB discussion on page 19 of Exhibit 2).
That said, there seems to be another question raised on the relation of the entries and ground floor
to the street. ECDC 16.43.030.B sets forth requirements for the development of the ground floor in
the BD zone. However, 16.43.030.B.2(c) describes how these standards are applied to corner lots.
Because the project under appeal is a corner lot, the code clearly requires that the ground floor
standards apply to 5th Avenue South, and not Dayton Street (see ADB discussion on page 19 of
Exhibit 2).
On December 13, 2007, Dennis Reynolds, Attorney representing applicants Bob Gregg and Ed and
Barbara Lee, submitted a written statement which is attached as Exhibit 4. The City Attorney has
reviewed the document and advised providing copies to the City Council.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Letters of Appeal
Link: Exhibit 2: Verbatim Transcripts of ADB hearing
Link: Exhibit 3: Staff Report
Link: Exhibit 4 - Applicant Statement (Gregg & Lee)
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/13/2007 09:21 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/13/2007 09:44 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/13/2007 09:50 AM APRV
Form Started By: Michael
Clugston
Started On: 12/12/2007 02:13
PM
Final Approval Date: 12/13/2007
Packet Page 213 of 357
Packet Page 214 of 357
Packet Page 215 of 357
Packet Page 216 of 357
November 29, 2007
Edmond City Council
121 5th Ave N.
Edmonds WA 98020
RE: Roger Hertrich Appeal of ADB 2007-67 decision 11/07/07
Applicants: Ralph Allen, Bob Gregg and Edward & Barbara Lee
Address: 201 5th Ave S, Edmonds WA 98020
Dear City Council:
As a party of record, please accept my written comments for your consideration
during the review of the above referenced Architectural Design Board decision and
subsequent Hertrich Appeal.
A procedural error has been made with the approval of the proposed design
presented by the applicants and the reviewed by the city staff and the ABD. The design
fails to comply with the zoning standards established in ECDC 16.43.030 BD 1 Site
Development Standards for the Downtown Business Zones. As depicted in the
architectural drawings submitted by the applicants the building is not entitled to the extra
5 ft building height, because the ground floor of the approved first floor is lower than the
required 7” from street frontage along Dayton St.
Code standards are as follows: ECDC 16.43.030 Maximum Building Height is 25
ft, ECDC 16.43.030(C) (b) Within the BD1 zone, building height may be a maximum of
30 feet in order to provide for a minimum height of 15 feet for the ground floor.Ground
Floor ECDC 16.43.030 (B) Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for
development of the ground floor of buildings in the BD zones. (1.) When a commercial
use is located on the ground floor, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry
shall be within seven inches of the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. “Grade” shall be
as measured at the entry location. ( 2.) When the street frontage of a building is on a slope
which does not allow both the elevation of the entry and ground floor to be entirely
within seven inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, the building may be designed so
that either: (a.) The entry for the commercial portion of the ground floor is located within
seven inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the commercial portion of the
ground floor is within seven inches of the grade level of the entry; or (b.) The building
may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground floor combination is
within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk.
See Staff Report 10/31/2007 E. ECDC Compliance b. Ground Floor “…BDA
ground floor requirements do apply to the shops on the Upper Dayton portion of the
redevelopment…. This will be verified with the building permit review.”
- 1 -
Packet Page 217 of 357
The development standards are mandatory. If the applicants desire to deviate from
the development standards a variance is required. ECDC 20.95 Variance of ECDC 16
requirements.
Procedurally, the ADB is required to make findings of Zoning Ordinance
compliance ECDC 20.11.020(B). No variance has been applied for or approved. The
evidence in the record including the architectural drawings and testimony of the staff
clearly demonstrate the ground floor requirement is in noncompliance with the ECDC
16.34.030. The staff and the ADB lack the legislative authority to grant a variance or
change the plain meaning of the code language to allow the approval of a nonconforming
structure in our community. Per the ECDC, only the Hearing Examiner can grant such a
variance.
My written comments are consistent with my testimony of November 7, 2007 to
the ADB on this application.
Yours truly,
Finis Tupper
711 Daley St.
Edmonds WA 98020
425 778-9465
- 2 -
Packet Page 218 of 357
CITY OF EDMONDS
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF ARCHITCTURAL DESIGN BOARD
HEARING
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007
Chair Schaefer : We are now down to Item 7b. This will be a public hearing for File Number ADB-2007-67, application
by Ralph Allen of Grace Architects, representing Bob Gregg and Edward and Barbara Lee, for Phase 2 of the Old Mill Town
development at 201 – 5th Avenue South consisting of the addition of a partial third floor containing three condominium
residences. The site is zoned Downtown Mixed Commercial (BD-1) and is subject to district-based design review. This is
considered “Phase 1” of the public hearing.
Chair Schaefer: Since it’s a relatively new practice, I just wanted to refresh and inform people that this is a two-phase
hearing. Tonight’s hearing is about developing a checklist and prioritizing that checklist for different features of the code and
the guidelines and how they’re to be applied to the review of this project during the second phase. So tonight’s focus is on
the checklist that comes to the Board for this Phase 1 of the hearing. The hearing will be continued. We will take testimony
tonight, and the hearing will be continued to another date. That date will be fixed tonight, so everybody knows when the
second part of the hearing, when the continuance is until. At the second hearing is when we will be looking at the detailed
design elements and the compliance aspects of the project with code and with guidelines. So what we’re looking to find out
tonight is what are our priorities in terms of giving direction to the project applicant as to what they may be looking to revisit
in their design concept. We’re at the concept stage at this point.
Chair Schaefer: So with that, I’ll turn it over to staff for a staff report.
Mr. Clugston: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Mike Clugston, planner with the City of Edmonds. I encourage
members of the audience to pick up a copy of the staff memo and design guidelines checklist if you haven’t already. Please
sign in as well. Tonight we are looking at a proposal for further redevelopment of the Old Milltown site at 201 – 5th Avenue
South. The applicants, Bob Gregg and Ed and Barbara Lee, are represented Ralph Allen of Grace Architects. They are
proposing the addition of three condominium residences on a partial third floor of the Old Mill Town building that is
currently being renovated. The three storefronts up Dayton Street to the east are proposed to be refurbished, as well. Mr.
Allen can go into more detail regarding the project in just a bit.
Mr. Clugston: There we go. Well, we’ve got to look at the zoning map for the site, it’s on 5th and Dayton. The subject
property is located in the downtown retail core, the BD-1 zone, and any development there must meet the requirements of
that zoning district. Projects in the BD-1 zone require district-based design review. Because the project triggers the SEPA
threshold, this review is a two-phase ADB hearing process.
Mr. Clugston: Tonight we get into Phase 1 of that process. In this phase the ADB will make factual findings regarding the
particular characteristics of the proposed development and complete the design guidelines checklist. Following testimony
related to and the ADB’s completion of the design guideline checklist, the public hearing will be continued to a specific date.
Phase 2 of the public hearing will allow the applicant to redesign the initial proposal to integrate the input of the public and
the ADB relative to the checklist. The project materials will again be submitted and staff would prepare a staff report and
bring the project before the ADB again. Also, staff will issue a SEPA Determination prior to Phase 2 of the public hearing.
Packet Page 219 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 2
Mr. Clugston: To summarize, tonight the Board will go over the design checklist and prioritize those elements that are
appropriate for this project so the applicant may incorporate the information into the submission for Phase 2 of the hearing.
Once the checklist is complete, we’ll need to schedule a date for the continuation of this public hearing. Does the Board have
any questions?
Chair Schaefer: Other than on the procedures, is there anything else that staff has to report in terms of this project?
Mr. Clugston: Not at this time. Everybody has a copy of the staff report. I imagine the applicant would like to go through
their proposal.
Board Member Bullock: I’ve got one question, and I don’t want to go into a long explanation, but one of the letters that we
got tonight referenced some kind of developer’s agreement between the applicant and the City Council. Are you aware of
anything like that?
Mr. Clugston: Yeah, I’m sorry. I forgot to mention we did receive two letters in the last couple of days from citizens.
Thank you for bringing that up, Steve. One from Elizabeth Larman and the other from Barbara Chase. They were
distributed before. . .
Mr. Clugston: About the agreement, yes. There is an agreement between the City and Gregg Production Associates, Inc.
regarding vesting of the particular requirements for this project.
Board Member Bullock: And so what’s it vested to?
Mr. Clugston: The BD-1 requirement, the BD-1 zoning requirements, the BD-1 review requirements, which is why we’re
doing this process.
Board Member Bullock: But it doesn’t really need to be vested to that because that’s what the current code is, right?
Mr. Bowman: That is the stated agreement, the settlement agreement that they entered into. They’re vested to the code
requirements that exist on the day of this agreement. That was to ensure if there were any other changes in the interim, they
would be vested to the code that existed at that time.
Board Member Bullock: And that’s . . .
Mr. Bowman: The agreement was effective June 6th of 2007, and these regulations that you’re looking at right now are
what they’re vested to.
Board Member Bullock: Gotcha. It’s just to cover in the event that they might change in the future.
Mr. Bowman: Correct.
Board Member Bullock: Gotcha. Thank you. That’s all.
Chair Schaefer: Okay, the applicant. Okay, there we go. We have graphics. With staff concluding its report, the applicant
is welcome to make a presentation.
Mr. Gregg: Good evening, my name is Bob Gregg, I’m one of the applicants for this project. I limit my remarks to just
introduce the team. Ralph Allen from Grace Architects, Ed and Barbara Lee,
There was a problem with the microphone, so Mr. Gregg started his presentation over.
Mr. Gregg: Good evening. How about that. Can you hear in the back? John can you hear me? All right. How about that.
How’s that John. All right. Good evening, my name is Bob Gregg. I’ll limit my initial remarks to simply introducing the
Packet Page 220 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 3
team. Ralph Allen from Grace Architects. Barbara and Ed Lee, the co applicants, and Dennis Reynolds, our land use
attorney. With that, I’ll turn it over to Ralph.
Mr. Allen: Thank you and good evening. Good to see you all. We actually brought a CD, but I guess the laptop isn’t
available, so we’ll just use our submittal to kind of talk you through some of the main features of the design, if that works for
you. There’s three or four main highlights I really want to point out. First of all, by way of recap, this is a three-unit private
condominium development essentially on the roof of the Old Mill Town Project. It is under the height restrictions, which
we’ll demonstrate at the next phase. There’s some really strong highlights here, and I think the first one I want to point out is
the extensive degree of setbacks and a roofscape that is maintained in this design. On A.3.1 on the lower right hand image,
it’s kind of an aerial view, you can have a look at how that really plays out. Notably along 5th and as you turn the corner up
to Dayton and then actually intermittently on Dayton, as well, are really extensive rooftop patio areas, which will be
alternatively landscaped with rooftop landscaping and use areas. It’s punctuated with a gazebo like structure at the actual
corner of 5th and Dayton.
Mr. Allen: One of the clear features that the owners have been very insistent on is that we’re recycling many of the major
timbers that have come out of Old Milltown, and I’ll tell you, that’s no small effort to do that. Anybody that’s walked by the
site now and sees that stack of timber that’s there. It’s going to look great when it’s done, and it’s going to need a lot of work
to get there. So there’s a real commitment to put that face forward, and that framing is brought in to where we’re doing some
very intricate and expressive joinery in the heavy timber framing that we use in the gazebo structure, itself, so that the view
actually as you walk down 5th along the building will be to look up and actually see this beautifully detailed timber from the
original building.
Mr. Allen: Further set back from that we’ve also, and you can see it best, I think on the A.3.0, is along the front faces, and
let’s look at the upper left hand currently. Along the front faces of the primary living areas of all three units, we’ve
developed a heavy timber column, knee brace and beam language that will extend back into a raised ceiling portion over each
of the three living rooms, and again, will be visible at every unit from various locals along the street. So this material that
we’ve gone to some considerable effort, even with these extensive setbacks, to get this really exquisite material brought back
and utilized where people can actually see it and appreciate it.
Mr. Allen: Beyond the setbacks, there’s a term, I guess I’ll have use as normalization, because you’ll see there’s kind of a
rotational hub and spoke configuration to the plan. What we’ve done with each of these primary living areas I was just
talking about is we’ve normalized each of those to a primary face or entry part of the building, and we’ve done each one of
these as a massive stone fireplace element, and then next to that, it opens into this open timber framing, and wood clad
windows that will be part of the living room. The first one normalizes parallel to 5th, so there’s a very clear regular
orientation to that access. The next one comes around and is at a 45 degree angle, which orients to the primary entry on 5th
and Dayton to the retail/restaurant space that’s going in there. And then coming around on upper Dayton, we’ve pulled out a
bay window out over the existing upper Dayton concrete, which is kind of a surprise element that we like. And then the
heavy timber expression rotates around another 45 degrees from there. So there’s a great deal of variety and modulation that
should run across this whole development as it relates to the roofline and the massing of the building.
Mr. Allen: I think beyond that, I really want to emphasize the use of materials. We’ve talked about the heavy timber being
brought in; it will be quite visible. You’ll also notice there’s kind of a tertiary language we’re bringing into this in the new
braces that tie the columns to the timber beams, we’re bringing a lively arched language into that. You’ll notice down in the
awnings that stretch across the base along 5th and Dayton, our primary support bracket is also a curved steel structure. So
we’re getting kind of a tracery sensibility that works from the street and ties up to the rooftop development, as well. And it’s
always a challenge to try and create a very clear distinction between the commercial base of the building, and we have two
stories of retail and commercial here, and the residential upper floor. We feel that with our setbacks and our material
differences that we’ve achieved that, but we’ve also created a tie so that it really feels like a cohesive project by using things
like this sort of architecture vernacular. The other primary material is going to be a high-grade cedar shingles, which is we
think very appropriate for the building as a cap piece to the existing concrete walls that are in existence, as those of you who
walk by the site see that they’re still there, with some effort to keep them. And also, as a historic tie to what this whole place
started on in terms of the history of cedar shingles, as it relates to the history of this town, it just seems very appropriate to us.
Packet Page 221 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 4
Mr. Allen: Uh, let’s see. I think those are our primary comments that I wanted to hit tonight. Oh, thanks Bob, and just to
point out that the existing setback at the upper Dayton building, it’s about six or seven feet off the property line currently. It
is going to remain. We’re actually going to retain the existing concrete walls up there, as well. We’ll create a different series
of store fronts in the grade level openings, and then allow that back unit to interact as we’ve shown. But we are maintaining
that setback and the resultant kind of open space that it has engendered for so many years. I think those are my highlights. If
you’d like to do questions, that would be fine.
Chair Schaefer: Questions for the applicant.
Board Member Mestres: I think I may have asked this questions before in a prior ADB meeting, but obviously you’re
referencing what was the old Mill Town in many of the design elements. What other buildings are you referencing in the
area that are being utilized in this design, within the Dayton and 5th area?
Mr. Allen: Specifically.
Board Member Mestres: Well, I mean, just within the realm of the fact that we tried to, within the eclectic designs that are
characteristic of this area, there are certain . . .
Mr. Allen: I did do a quick inventory of kind of components that are out there. You’ll notice that we have our kind of
primary roof form is a sloping shed roof of varying steepnesses, from fairly shallow to a little bit steeper. There are bay
windows that come out. And what’s that tea house café? It’s a wonderful building that actually presents the low side of the
shed roof to the street, and it opens to a big courtyard in back.
Board Member Mestres: A new café, huh.
Mr. Allen: And I just, you know. The shed roof idea is not new, certainly, to this building style and it’s not uncommon, as
well. Another ??, and you know, we planners like to land on planned patterns of use, and the hub and spoke orientation of
this plan is a knock off of the core drive circle. Not literally, but actually, we looked at that quite closely when we worked on
this geometry. And that pattern would be visible from certain angles. We’re not hitting people over the head with it, but it is
an undertone and underlying plan pattern that goes right to the heart of the City. The combination of the curved arched
forms, and the Phase 1 has arched openings in the recess, and we brought that into the knees, like I was just talking about,
and utilizes a completely different vernacular of the old library here to mime square and arched openings actually quite
effectively. So I did actually did do a fairly extensive inventory a couple of times, really looking around the City, because I
wanted this place to feel like it really belonged here because even on the corner, for heaven’s sakes, look at the courtyard in
front of the ??, I mean there’s a gazebo form there, and we’ve brought that up into a covered area at the corner of the
building. So I think there’s quite a few of those. I don’t think your intent is that we do a literal copy of other buildings, but
that we are sensitive to the surroundings in terms of our form, texture and language.
Board Member Mestres: In meeting that we’ve had with the Historical Commission, it’s been pretty much acknowledged
that one of the design standards of the Edmonds BD-1 zone is it’s eclectic nature, I mean from 1890 to 1977, so we’re not
really holding you to a specific design standard, I’m just wondering if you can sensible illustrate where some of these ideas
have come from. That was my question.
Mr. Allen: I think I can probably come up with a few more, if I look back at my notes, but I think that’s a pretty good
portrayal of the companions that are out there in this realm. And the basic for and kind of intent of the plan and the design
really came from the major driving element to create one, a sense of privacy for the condominiums, a sense of open space at
the edge of the building for the public so they aren’t feeling overwhelmed with the building coming right out to the edge of
that third floor. And the strong desire of the Lee’s to really recycle some of this beautiful material into their new home in a
meaningful way. So those are the real form givers, and we certainly looked long and often at the companions that are out
there that relate to it here in the core area.
Chair Schaefer: Anything else from the Board?
Packet Page 222 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 5
(Board Member O’Neill was not close enough to the microphone to get his comments, but he noticed that the applicant shows
four elements in the isometric drawings, but only three units asked a question here.)
Mr. Allen: It’s actually, one larger unit, and two smaller units. The two elements on Dayton are two units, and then one
that come out strongly to 5th and runs all the way to the back of the property, as well.
Chair Schaefer: Thank you. I’d like at this point in time to open up the hearing to public comment. I would first note we
did receive two written submittals of comments. One is from Elizabeth Larman, and the other from Barbara Chase. And
these have been received by all the Board Members for us to review. At this point, I’d like those that are here. Oh, and there
was a question asked in one of these if having submitted written comment, does that allow them to come back and speak at
the second, the continued hearing? And I see absolutely no reason why they wouldn’t be welcome at the next hearing. So
can we send a reply back to, let’s see, which one was it, it was Ms. Larman, if we could send a reply back to Ms. Larman to
notify her that, yes, in fact she is able to come back and be a party of record in Phase 2.
Chair Schaefer: We have collected the sign in sheet, and if you want to just take them in the order they signed up.
Board Member Bullock: Before we do that Mr. Chair Schaefer, maybe just for clarification for everybody that’s in here,
too, I think, and I might be corrected, but I think since both Phase 1 and Phase 2 are considered the same public hearing, it’s
just a continuation of it, anybody is going to be able to come to Phase 2 and participate whether or not they participated
tonight. But tonight is all about us establishing what the criteria is going to be for judging this project in Phase 2.
Chair Schaefer: Thank you. So if you decide you don’t want to speak tonight, but you want to speak in two weeks, you’re
very welcome to do so. So let’s start with the top of the list, and if you would please, begin by stating your name and address
for the record, and if you would, please, limit your comments to three minutes. Do you want to read off the first name.
Ms. Hynd: Al McFarlane.
Chair Schaefer: Welcome back.
Mr. McFarlane: Thank you. I have about ten points. If it is a three-story building, but no vicinity plan, parking and street
access. Number three, doesn’t fit in with other buildings around it. What are the elevations? You have made us feel better
with what you have said about saving a lot of the. . . This thing is a drawing card. It’s going to make money for Edmonds.
To do anything that would cause it to get into another feel would be a great change. Okay. Insufficient setbacks to hide a
third story. I don’t know about what you have been talking about, but I’m sure that we’re getting closer. Impedes views.
Well, what can you do? I don’t know what’s behind there, but let’s not try to block another bunch of people from seeing the
water. The legality of massing questionable, Star Feathers building is joined to 5th Avenue Building. The massing should be
calculated on the whole and not on the separate pieces. Well, you’ve answered a lot of my questions. Which zone rules is
Mr. Gregg using? The BC rule or the BD-1 rule, not certain points from both. Have other plans/elevations been done, and if
so, why not submitted? One part of this that we haven’t opened up for discussion is the, it has several names, the park, it has
a little different names, on the southwest corner of that block. Can you give us any ideas of what you’re thinking about on
that particular wonderful piece of property that drags people to Edmonds?
Chair Schaefer: Sir, that’s not really, uh, sir, Mr. McFarlane. We’re not in a situation that we’ll respond to public
comments, so.
Mr. McFarlane: Okay, well thank you very much.
Chair Schaefer: Thank you sir.
Ms. Hynd: John Reed.
Mr. Reed: I was signing up to receive notice, but I’ll go ahead and talk since I wanted to anyway. Most of my comments
are procedural and not a lot about the design, but I do have a couple. First, just to remind you want we’re dealing with is
what I’m going to call Plan 2, and I most of you were on the ADB and know the history of the first round on Old Mill Town,
Packet Page 223 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 6
so we’re talking about an addition to Plan 2, which you’ve already approved, and which Council has now approved. And the
first point is, the property is subject to a development agreement that was approved by Council on June 5th and executed on
June 6th, and it says, applications submitted for the development or refurbishment of Old Mill Town property shall be
governed by the zoning, design review and other applicable City development standards as they existed on April 15, 2007,
which I understand is when the permit application was first submitted for Plan 2. I think that’s correct.
Mr. Reed: So this is under BD-1 is my understanding. It’s underneath the new two-phase design process, and I think the
design guidelines, there’s a 22-page set of design guidelines that the checklist you’re working with tonight is part of that. If
that’s incorrect, you better make sure that you’re under the right standards, because that could create some problems. And
also the June 5th Council minutes are somewhat instructive, and although it’s not a part of your packet, it might be helpful for
you to review that just to see what the discussion was with respect to the development agreement.
Mr. Reed: Second, ECDC 20.12.020, in paragraph A.2, a, b, and c, defines specific things that are supposed to be provided
in this Phase 1 hearing. There’s been some discussion about vicinity plans, what buildings are in the area, but a lot of time
was spent developing those, and I know because I’m on the Planning Board, and we worked with it. If you don’t have
something or if something is not a part of the record that was provided to the public as defined in that section, then I think
you have to deal with that. And I think there may be some things missing. I’m not going to discuss what they are and debate
it, but I would certainly recommend that you take a look at that. I thought this was the first two-phase hearing, but I learned
before the meeting started this is your second one. This is a new process, and I encourage you to go through it very carefully,
to take your time. I know it takes a long time in these meetings because we’ve all done them, but that’s very, very important.
And if there’s something that is unclear, I don’t know that it’s fair if it’s not presented in Phase 1 and should have been to say
well, we’ll find out about that in Phase 2. Elevations are not required in this phase the way I read the agreement, and it might
even be questionable whether they’re required in Phase 2, but I think in this situation you need them, and I think I heard that
they’re going to be provided. I think that’s extremely important in this situation.
Mr. Reed: One question I have and I don’t have any opinion on this, is there is now a new applicant involved in the process,
Mr. and Mrs. Lee. Does that have any affect on what happened in Plan 2, the Phase 1, I don’t know? We’re under the BD-1
zoning in 16.43 of the development code, and you have to apply that code in full. It’s really a staff decision, but I think it
would be wise for you to look into those things to make sure that they’re met, and that includes a 15-foot first floor. There
may be some affect on that because of an issue of the building and its existence. There are no step backs required. They’re
offering those, and I think that’s a good thing. You can’t go to the BC zone because that one is not a part of what the
requirements are under the development agreement. You have to look at the below ground rules, all those different things,
and you’ll be seeing better drawings on those. It’s under the 2006 Comp Plan, that’s another important aspect.
Mr. Reed: Another thing you need to ask about, I think, is you have approved, or the Council has approved on your
recommendation, Plan 2 of Phase 1, this an addition to Plan 2 of Phase 1. I couldn’t tell from what I looked at in the packet
whether there are any changes to what’s already been approved. All those changes need to be identified, and I saw some
comments about store fronts on Dayton, three store fronts, when the only new one is the Star Feathers one. But you have to
check out the changes, I think and see what is going on there. There may be things that have changed because of permit
reasons, I don’t know, but I think that’s a really important aspect. I didn’t see anything in these plans about parking. That’s
mentioned in Phase 1, it’s also mentioned in Phase 2.
Mr. Reed: So those are generally, there mostly procedural types of comments. Just two things on the design. My questions
are, and I think the decisions with respect to this are, one, does this proposed third floor, which is the primary part of the
proposal, fit in with everything else in the surrounding area? You’ve heard some comments on that, and I encourage you to
ask hard questions there. Tonight’s your chance to tell Mr. Gregg and the Lee’s, look, you need to make some changes here
and here’s why. That’s what the check list is for. And then the other aspect is does the third floor fit in with the first and
second floors? You’re being told it does, but I think it’s up to you as the ADB and the design knowledgeable people, and I’m
far from that, to carefully evaluate that aspect of the proposal. Thank you.
Chair Schaefer: Thank you.
Ms. Hynd: Tom Snyder.
Packet Page 224 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 7
Mr. Snyder: My name is Tom Snyder. I live at 837 Dayton Street. I’m not particularly familiar with all the details here. I
just came for a little information. My initial response is the questions that were just brought up regarding the addition of the
third floor. Why this request? It appears from what I’m gathering here, this is a change to the original design. That would
be one initial question. The other question, of course, that the Board needs to consider, what is the benefit to the
community? If you are going to approve this, what I believe is a variance, you can correct me if I’m wrong, because it hasn’t
been really made clear at this point to me. I would see it more as a detriment, anything increasing the building height and
getting away from the small town atmosphere. We begin to see what I call a concrete corridor on 5th Avenue, which is
contrary to the small town atmosphere. Years ago when I was on the Planning Board and the Highway 99 Study there and the
Highway 99 program, we talked about trying to get away from a sea of asphalt. And the parking lots that abutting the
sidewalks, there was no vegetation there. Again, with a concrete corridor idea, I see less vegetation. I think this is a
detriment to the community and our property values. So that’s my quick comment.
Chair Schaefer: Thank you.
Ms. Hynd: Georgia Snyder.
Ms. Snyder: No comment.
Ms. Hynd: Carol Close.
Ms. Close: No comment.
Ms. Hynd: Mary Stobbel.
Ms. Stobbel: My name is Mary Stovel, can you hear me?
Chair Schaefer: Yes, thank you.
Ms. Stovel: I live directly behind Old Mill Town. I’m the first house going up the street, 522 Dayton, and I have a bed and
breakfast, and I’ve had it for 20 years, and I have repeat people that have been coming back because of the view. So
naturally, my concern is this third story, how that will affect my property and my view. And that is my concern. Thank you.
Chair Schaefer: Thank you.
Ms. Hynd: Caroline Rudolph.
Ms. Rudolph: No comment.
Ms. Hynd: No comment. Jane Snyder.
Ms. Snyder: No comment.
Ms. Hynd: Lorna Mussio.
Ms. Mussio: No comment right now.
Ms. Hynd: Bud Kopp.
Mr. Kopp: My name is Bud Kopp, 9792 Edmonds Way. I’ve been a resident here in Edmonds since 1960. If anyone’s seen
any changes in this town, I have. When I came out here, there was one stop light in south county. So I have a little bit of a
feel for the changes that are going on here and what I’ve seen in those last (The tape stopped here) I have a tendency to look
at the overall big picture, and what I see is I hear people in Edmonds clamoring about masses and concrete corridors and
these kind of things, and I don’t see that. This project seems to me it does the opposite. It preserves a façade that has been
here since the beginning of the century. Not only that, but it also adds foliage up on top. From the street, I don’t even think
Packet Page 225 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 8
you’ll see the residences up there, they’re set back too far. The recycling of the timbers I though was a rather nice touch,
which I know wasn’t necessary, but I know is pretty expensive.
Mr. Kopp: It seems to me, also, that if you take the idea of what keeps the charm of the City of Edmonds, then this
particular project seems to be right on line with doing that. It doesn’t put up a glass and steel barrier; it doesn’t create a
canyon down there. In fact, it’s more harmonious than it is out of place simply because the façade has been maintained and
the setbacks have been planned in, and there’s going to be gardens on the roof, which I though was pretty nice. I’m totally in
favor of it. I think it’s a great project. Thank you.
Chair Schaefer: Thank you.
Ms. Hynd: Al Rutledge.
Mr. Rutledge: Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way. I’ve been a resident since 1986, and all areas of the City have
changed, to make it real short. So far, everyone has given a good report this evening, but I need more details, information,
other questions that were asked, and you’ve got people coming up and asking more. And after everybody is completed, then
I’d like to have a response from the applicant, would be helpful. You mentioned you’re not going to take comments, but it
would be helpful that this department and this department, he could response back and let the people know tonight before
they go home of the questions that they’ve asked. I know they’re writing them down, and they’ll write them down and after
we’re all down, just have a response back, that would be fine, thank you.
Ms. Hynd: Don Drew.
Mr. Drew: Good evening, my name is Don Drew. I live at 111 Sunset Avenue. I’ve been a resident of Edmonds since
1966. I’ve had a chance to look over the drawings that I think you’re looking over tonight, and I’ve been quite impressed by
several things. One of which is that probably eventually a third floor will be put on this building, put on by a developer.
They’ll be developing it to its full extent. You’ll have lot-line-to-lot-line building up there. The project that the Lee’s have
proposed will lock it in with a much more open, beautiful structure than anything that anyone else would probably build up
there. One of the things that’s impressed me most is the fact that the railings are going to have window boxes, flower boxes
along the edges of the railings. These will have shrubs and flowers that cascade onto the streets. I think from the streets
below, it’s going to present a very beautiful building. It’s going to greatly enhance the looks of the structure, and it’s going
to give it more of a European ambiance, which I think some of that will look good here in Edmonds. So I’m in support of
this project and look forward to the next phase. Thank you very much.
Chair Schaefer: I appreciate your comments.
Ms. Hynd: Jean Richards.
Ms. Richards: No comment.
Ms. Hynd: Steve Bernheim. Susan Bauer. Fennis Tupper.
Mr. Tupper: No comment at this time.
Ms. Hynd: Robin Koette
Mr. Koette: Good evening, my name is Robin Koette, 21505 – 8th Avenue West here in Edmonds. I just want to speak in
favor of the project. As a resident of Edmonds, I get excited when I see plans for buildings like this. It’s the kind of
development that I feel the City needs to be seeing. Again, echoing some of the comments of some of the other people who
have supported the project, I immediately saw the setbacks, the way that it’s not just a standard big, three-story box. This
looks like an opportunity to get a design onto this building, get a development onto this building, that I feel will add more
character to it. If not taken advantage of, we could miss this opportunity and end up with something worse. That pretty
much covers my comments, but I think, you know, trying to respect the history of the town and maintaining the historical feel
of the building is very important, and I think, you know, you’ll still be able to recognize this as Old Mill Town. However,
Packet Page 226 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 9
adding this element to it, again, as somebody coming into town, you can see this building and be excited about the look of the
building and think that it adds value to the City. Thank you very much.
Chair Schaefer: Thank you.;
Ms. Hynd: That’s it.
Chair Schaefer: Okay, that’s all for the list. If anybody has something else they’d like to contribute to the record, I’d like to
hear from them.
Mr. Hertrich: Good evening. My name is Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive. The first thing is in my hand here; I’d like to
just open it up so that you can see. I think you’ve seen it before. That’s Old Mill Town Phase 2. Pretty simple two-story
design, all original, brought back to its original form, complimented by a lot of people, decided by the City Council that they
favored the old design, that design, and they approved it through a lot of controversy.
Mr. Hertrich: I’m reading from 20.12 about review. The ADB shall make factual findings regarding the particular
characteristics of the property and shall prioritize the design guideline checklist based on design or redesign. Now, when we
consider this presentation that was part of the packet, that shows the drawings of Old Mill Town, and all of this 11,000 plus
square feet of condos on top, my question I wrote up here originally was, where did Old Mill Town go? You keep in mind,
you’re looking at two completely different styles of architecture. My basic comment is they don’t relate.
Mr. Hertrich: The pergola or as what most people look at it and say, oh, the umbrella on the corner, is not part of the
building design, as would be a steeple or a tower. Keep that in mind. I’ve passed out. . . Oh, and also, I have in my hand for
history sake, August 31, 2006, and application to refurbish the existing Old Mill Town. February 7, 2007, to refurbish Old
Mill Town, and finally, here we are in July of this year, pardon me in August of this year, an addition to Old Mill Town. If
you go through all of these packets of the old applications, all you saw were a presentation and no discussion of any extra
floors. You saw two floors all the way, good or bad or accepted or contracted with the City, agreed upon, it’s all two floors.
Everyone in this City, this Board, the City Council, the citizens in this City, all saw an application for a remodel or whatever
you want to call it, but it was to preserve the look of Old Mill Town. That was so key. We were told that over and over;
we’re doing this to save the old look. No matter how much we remove, we were still doing it to preserve the look of Old Mill
Town, and that’s important. That was a two-story building.
Mr. Hertrich: I’ve written something here, and I’d like to read it fairly quickly, but I’d like to emphasize a few things.
Additions or alterations to significant architectural buildings should conform to the style and period of the initial
construction, as much as possible. This comes out of the Community Culture and Urban Design Element, Page 72, B.5. You
can read through this with me. I may skip a little bit. These need to be encouraged to be sympathetic to the listed historic
sites by acknowledging and including forms and materials and architectural design. This is well written. It comes from
people who work in architecture, and you understand architecture, you understand that language.
Mr. Hertrich: Main and Dayton Street, off of Downtown Plan Policy Page 34, Main and Dayton. Development in this area
should draw on historical design elements found in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an architectural tie throughout
the downtown, architectural tie. Number 3, this comes from the Down Plan Policy E.4.14, Page 34. Historic structures are a
key component of the small town character and it’s economic viability. What attracts people to Edmonds? What brings those
tourists in? And it’s more than just the small flowers on the corners and the corner parks. There’s a lot of elements, and
existing Mill Town is an element.
Mr. Hertrich: It says that, Number 4, the area immediately surrounding the fountain at 5th and Main and extending along
Main Street and 5th Avenue is considered to be the historic center of Edmonds and building heights shall be pedestrian in
scale and compatible with the historic character of the area, from the Downtown Waterfront District Retail Core, Page 35. I
might add that the Planning Board, over and over and over, is talking about pedestrian scale. What do you see if you stand
across the street and look up? I would suggest that if the setbacks that were put into other BD zones, where you had 15-foot
setbacks, then you would get a staircase effect, and you probably would not see from the street anything on the second floor.
This design, even though it has setbacks, does not provide that relief.
Packet Page 227 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 10
Mr. Hertrich: I would suggest if the developer were to go back and give you a continuous setback on all edges, you might
find something to be compatible. Whatever the architecture on top, you may not see it, but you will see this. Commentary,
first and second floor facades, I’m going to leave that out because this isn’t under consideration now. Third floor, A, no
historical context to the existing building or the surrounding buildings that have created the desirable historic context of
downtown core. This is just kind of a fact that we’re dealing with history, ties to history, ties to history. The new design
elements that have been emphasized here, which were the exterior heavy timbers, they’re wonderful pieces of material to use
for construction. But this is not part of the original look of Mill Town. None of those timbers were exposed to the outside.
So much was made of the concrete, exposed concrete, all the things that you would see. It was totally minimized, everything
else was taken off. All of a sudden, we’re adding heavy timbers, which obviously, somebody’s going to see, and they’re not
historic as far as the look of Mill Town.
Mr. Hertrich: B. The third floor umbrella is not an element that is contiguous to the building (i.e. turrets and clock towers,
etc.) as contemplated by the design guidelines. There was a reason that they added those in there as a building extension. C.
The third floor composition. The element part that we’re really considering now, has no historical context and overpowers,
and I underlined that word, overpowers, because in architecture you’ll see old buildings added to new buildings, and what do
they do, they minimize the colors compared to the original building, they stay with the arch forms, or whatever basically. If
the brick is a little different color, it’s a little lighter so that the original look of the building is not overpowering. Any
attempts at the inclusion of historic elements on the first and second floors, it overpowers that. The existing historic building
will be completely subordinate with the addition of the third floor. So important element that you hear all the time in
architectural descriptions and what do you do if you’re going to save something historic. You don’t make the historic part
subordinate to the new construction.
Mr. Hertrich: Conclusion. This design does not contribute to the sustainability, the architecture, the cultural and historic
heritage of Edmonds. We’re talking about the new design, third floor. Its design composition is lacking in fundamental
respect to/for the existing building fabric. That’s a term, that sounds like an architect talking again, but that’s what we’re
dealing with, the existing building fabric, concrete. The resulting plan will extinguish a notable historic structure and cultural
values of the built environment that the Comprehensive Plan requires. You, as a Board, have a duty to find factual findings
to the characteristics of this property. I’m going to submit, also, that as part of the application, we’re supposed to get some
relationship to the surrounding character in this historic Edmonds, no matter whether it’s old or new buildings. It’s
whatever’s around, and I have not seen that. An airplane view of this doesn’t do it. It doesn’t provide the pictures and the
relationships that we needed to deal with in prior discussions on this building. So, I’m going to suggest that we’re early. I’m
going to suggest that the plan submitted, as conceptual as it is, doesn’t meet the requirements and the intent of this district.
This district is so important to save so people can point to Edmonds and say, that’s old Edmonds, and it really hasn’t
changed. Maybe there’s something built back on the building, but not up where you can see it. Thank you very much.
Chair Schaefer: Thank you sir. Anybody else care to speak please. Well, hearing no one else, seeing no one else, we’ll
close for now. This will. . . Actually, we’ll continue this public hearing at the Phase 2 on this, and so please, if anything else
comes to mind, we’d like to hear from you then.
Board Member Bullock: Mr. Chair Schaefer. I think we should give the applicant an opportunity to respond to some of the
questions that were made tonight, too.
Chair Schaefer: Yeah, I was hoping to do that. Do you care to do so, sir?
Mr. Gregg: We’d be happy to respond to a number of the comments, and I think as we’re all going through this two-phase
ADB, we kind of have to learn our way through the process. But we’re more than happy to respond to each and every one of
the comments. Mr. McFarlane felt that the setbacks were insufficient. We’d just like to kind of readdress that again, that’s
exactly the kind of comment I think we’re looking for in this kind of a meeting because we cannot move them forward. We
can move them back, move them right, I mean we still have the time, I think that’s the whole point. With regard to that, I’d
just like to reiterate, I know all of you are seeing if not for the first time at least, they haven’t had nearly the time to deal with
it that, of course, we have. But to remind you that the setbacks along 5th Avenue range from 10 to 30 feet, so I’d kind of like
to think clearly if that really isn’t sufficient.
Packet Page 228 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 11
Mr. Gregg: I think he asked a question whether the massing is based on the whole building or on the individual
components. I’ve seen that question a couple of times, and the way the questions are worded, they’re preference would be
that it is on the whole, and in fact, it is. So if they’re concerned about whether it’s piece-by-piece or segment-by-segment,
it’s not. It’s the whole, it’s the whole structure.
Mr. Gregg: With regard to names, I’d like to suggest McFarlane Plaza. But at the moment, there’s no, we have no intention
of changing the name of Old Mill Town. The Lee’s have a contractual right to veto or approve any change, so we have kind
of at least a two-part committee if we were to change the name. I don’t think it came up specifically, but Mr. McFarlane has
raised the issue of having the courtyard, which is on the piece of property adjacent to the south be dedicated as open, it really
is City Park, and the City Council has gone so far as to have the property appraised and direct the Mayor to, in fact, negotiate
with us to acquire that. So Mr. McFarlane, you’re idea has moved a long ways, and we are very interested in trying to
cooperate with the City to have that happen.
Mr. Gregg: Mr. Reed. Just to clarify, the vesting question, the date April 17th was not based on the date of our application.
Rather, it was the date that the new BD-1 code zoning went into effect. And the reason for picking that date was only that at
that point in time, we had very ill defined ideas of where Phase 2. . . We were floundering around the multiple iterations of
Phase 1 at that point. The Lees hadn’t made their decision of what they wanted to do, and we didn’t know what they could
do. As an opportunity to get rid of some . . . To settle the appeal, we simply asked if now passed, the new zoning after three
years of effort, all’s we asked is that we be allowed to be vested in that for the few months it will take to get our act together.
So we’re not getting from the past; we’re not getting anything from the future. The way things have conspired, we’re getting
today’s exact code, which is all we actually were hoping to get in the first place, so it’s under current BD-1 zone, with no
variances, no exemptions, nothing. The Mayor said he felt pretty good about that because he was giving away nothing in
exchange for something. So that was the reason for the date.
Mr. Gregg: A gentleman was concerned about are there things missing in the application. Not that we’re aware of, and after
28 days of diligent review, not that the City is aware of, because they took their full 28 days to give us a notice of
completeness for the application, so we trust that those days were spent wisely. If there is anything missing, of course, we’ll
submit it, but neither we nor the City are aware of anything missing.
Mr. Gregg: Elevations. I’ve looked at this so many times, are elevations in these drawings?
Mr. Allen: The heights are not indicated . . .
Mr. Gregg: Let me kind of put everybody’s fear to bed. The elevations, when submitted, will be within the BD-1 height
guidelines that exist. We won’t be asking for any variances. We won’t be asking for any exceptions. I don’t think we’ll be
able to ask for it to go any taller than it already is because that’s probably right up against the limit, but it won’t be above the
limit.
Mr. Gregg: The co applicant question that Mr. Reed asked, simply because, technically, I still own the property until it’s
completed and the title can change hands to the Lees, your code requires me to be the applicant. Anybody can be a co
applicant, and they’ll take title upon completion, so it’s appropriate for, it’s their project really, appropriate for them to be a
co applicant. We kind of also wanted to identify the fact that this is not a speculative development that Bob Gregg or Gregg
Production Association is doing to go out and market to the highest bidder. This is a project the Lees are building for their
own personal residence. It will be a live/work arrangement, since they’ve also acquired the entire second floor to continue to
locate their long-standing business in Edmonds of the Hotel Group, to keep it in Edmonds. They’re going to live there. It
was a secondary consideration, one they hoped would be possible, and we now believe that it is.
Mr. Gregg: I don’t believe at this point in time we have proposed any changes to Phase 1. As you might recall, the
currently approved and officially titled Phase 1 is the one that did not touch the upper Dayton Street. The preliminary plan
before that was going to pull it out to the Dayton curb property line. In the Phase 1 that finally got approved, we left it alone
completely. So in this application they are dealing with upper Dayton Street, but in a manner very sensitive and respectful to
the stated public wishes that that public gathering space, Michael Plunkett named it such, be left the way it is. So it will be
left recessed the way it is.
Packet Page 229 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 12
Mr. Gregg: Parking is a zoning issue, not an ADB issue, but I can show you that the parking is actually identified on some
of these plans that are submitted. But it will exceed zoning requirement. There will be a lot more parking than zoning
requires so as long as we’re not in the . . . In the City of Seattle, we’re not allowed to build more than is allowed, but we’re
actually providing more than the minimum required.
Mr. Gregg: Let’s see. John made a lot of comments. Does it fit in with everything in the surrounding area? Hopefully not,
which is a deliberate slab on some of the things in the immediate area. But on a more serious note, the code also very
specifically states in the rewrite that you also need to look to the current code to see what is intended for the future as
opposed to only looking to the existing buildings, which may represent a past that’s no longer appropriate. So I think we’re
striking a nice balance, a very nice balance of using 100-year old timbers, and without restating his whole case, it’s very
sensitive to those things in the surrounding area that are of the right era and of good quality.
Mr. Gregg: Will the third floor will fit in with the first and second floor? I think that was a rhetorical question, but of
course, our specific answer is that, as I’ve been reminded by staff in the past, let’s have a strong base, and then a very
differentiation between residential and commercial, and I don’t think this, you know, could address that any more
specifically.
Mr. Gregg: Mr. Snyder. Does the third floor equal a change to the original? This may be more of a technical, legal
question, but that answer is, no. The original application is a stand alone application. This is a different, separate
application, or maybe this question was more did we make changes to the original plan? We’ve already answered that. No,
we haven’t, not yet. We may, depending on some of your feedback, incorporate some changes if you suggest them or request
them, but we’ve not at this point.
Mr. Gregg: Benefit to the community. It’s not actually a requirement of the code, but I would think this is a tremendous
benefit to the community, not of the least of which one other person indicated that, left to my own devices as a speculative
developer, yeah, guilty as charged. I would add a full third floor to that building. If the Lee’s hadn’t decided to go ahead
with their plan, we would at some point in time looked to build a full third floor, which the code allows. We meet the height
requirement on the ground floor to build 30 feet, property line to property line. I don’t want to prejudice future project
applications of my own, but I think what the Lees are doing is just a very delightful departure from highest and best use. I
think it is . . . I think the benefits to the City of having a long-term resident building their own private residence in this
location is just going to be tremendous for the community.
Mr. Gregg: I won’t address the concrete corridor issue because I don’t really think it applies to our building. Our building’s
been there for 100 years, and we’re not adding anything to the concrete corridor. So if it’s bad, it’s historically bad. If it’s
good, it is what it is, we’re not changing it.
Mr. Gregg: Mary’s house, it’s obviously the first house to the east, in fact, 522 Dayton, she indicated. I just don’t want to
ignore her comment. I mean her property was voluntarily rezoned by the owners of the property to BC several decades ago,
and has been enjoying BC status ever since, and she indicated they are running a business there. But I guess I’d like to say
that we’re keeping the height within code, and we will not be taking the upper Dayton property line out. That’s six or seven
or eight feet, so her view corridor, at least down Dayton, will be what it has been for the last 100 years.
Mr. Gregg: I don’t know. . . I missed the next gentleman’s name. I just don’t know how to respond to positive comments.
Thank you. Al Rutledge wants us to respond to the public comments. I’m doing the best I can to do that. Don Drew, again,
thank you. And yes, guilty as charged, a developer would add a full third story. I would do it without apologies, but I hope
to not have the opportunity. Robin, thank you.
Mr. Gregg: I don’t know how to respond to the next one appropriately. I really just summarize Roger’s comments by Roger
seems to suffer from superlativitis. I do appreciate his comments, but I think that statements like it’s going to extinguish Old
Mill Town and the third floor would be very visible from the street. It’s going to subordinate the first and second stories,
which are, you know, massive concrete walls, as they have been for 100 years. That it would overpower. Timber is not
exposed to the outside. I find that an interesting comment. The timbers may not have been as exposed to the outside as they
now will be, but they certainly were exposed to the public for over 100 years. That was an open public building for most of
our lifetimes, and one of the complaints we got when we had to shut down the Old Milltown Antique Mall to renovate the
Packet Page 230 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 13
building is that it’s been a tremendous public place, and they get to go in and they see the rafters, they see the big beams, and
they see the big metal bolts holding it all together. Well, instead of bulldozing that and throwing it all away, it’s going to be
exposed to the public again. But it’s going to be exposed to the public without having to go inside the building. So I don’t
think it’s fair to say that they weren’t exposed, and therefore, they shouldn’t be getting credit for being reused. I can tell you,
as a developer, I would not have done that. I’ve seen the bill to remove and save those instead of demolish it and I’ve seen
the bill to rebuild them. I just think it’s going to be gorgeous and the public is, the little bit of it they will be able to see will
give a nice hint of 100-year-old construction techniques.
Mr. Gregg: I hope I’ve addressed everybody’s comments.
Mr. Lee: Okay, thank you. My name is Ed Lee, and we’re the co applicant on this, and I think Bob addressed most of the
questions. The one that I don’t think, Mrs. Stovel, the neighbor to the east, and one thing that he didn’t say is that on the
northeast corner, we’ve deliberately angled that off instead of taking that to the street there with specific reference to your
view. It helps a little. It helps from you porch. Now in terms of how high it would go, there’s we call it the sawtooth roof
that’s there now and goes up quite a ways. I believe, don’t hold me to these numbers, but it will go about five feet or maybe
more than that, but it’s certainly not going to block anything from your upper floor where your guests stay. I will personally
get to you the exact number of footage that would go, that states how above that roof line this would go. And I’ll get that to
you personally in the next couple of days.
Mr. Lee: I have respect for everything that’s been said here about the history of Edmonds. It would be good for me to just
put it into context of what we’re trying to accomplish here. I think that’s an important part of this. About, almost 18 months
ago, after our failed attempt for us to build a live/work situation, we were ready to move our company to Lynnwood of all
places. Who would want to live/work in Lynnwood, but that was the best place we could find some office space. And
literally, like two days before we signed on that lease, I heard that Bob Gregg was negotiating on the Old Mill Town Project,
and so we immediately got in touch with him to see what could be done there. One of the things that I think to his credit, is
that during our discussions he was very agreeable to keeping the façade that’s there now, at no small expense, by the way.
It’s far easier and more tempting for a developer to just scrape that, scrape it, and you not only have that lot, but you’d have
the courtyard area, you’d have the parking garage, and you could go 30 feet in the air on the average on that whole thing, and
then you would have a the single wall. But he was very agreeable to keeping that façade there. So one of the context I think
everyone should put this into is that what’s happening here is the preservation of that building that could be scraped. It’s not
registered as a historic landmark. It could be scraped, and all you’d need is a demolition permit to do it. So you have to see it
in that context and compare it things with that.
Mr. Lee: Next, as part our discussions with Bob, we bought the entire second floor of that building for our offices. We’re
not just renting it. We have a contract to purchase that. So now we are part of this community; this is where we would work.
Not just until the lease runs out, but permanently. And then as a part of that, since we’re going to work here and since we’re
maintaining the façade as it is out of respect for the history of Edmonds, the next question is what else can be done there. It
was important for us to maintain the contractual rights to what could be built on that, you know, taking it up to the maximum
limit. We did not want, as part of the community here, to have that thing go straight up from the street. It would probably go
up about 10 or 12 feet above where the roofline is right now. So, we didn’t want that. So we obtained the contractual rights
to do something different, something that we feel is more respectful to the downtown core. This will be pleasant to look at,
and I would argue with anyone that doesn’t like the particular architecture there. There’s no way we’re going to please
everyone, but what we tried to do was to preserve something and to introduce these rooftop gardens into the downtown
Edmonds core, and I think it will be beautiful when all is said and done. So that’s the context that we’re working under here.
I hope you don’t view it any other way.
Mr. Lee: This man here has a great reputation for building these things, and he was very, very agreeable to keeping this
property, the façade of this property. It will continue to serve Old Mill Town. It will have the historic plaque on it,
describing what it is and what it’s history is. And by the way, I’ll just make one other last comment in terms of preserving.
It takes money to preserve things, and in this building during the demolition, it was determined that there’s no rebar in those
walls. There’s no rebar in it. You can’t even use it. All it is is a façade, but it’s a recognition to the history. It’s worth
maintaining that façade, at least. There are no footings in a good portion of it. No footings. That place was unsafe. I talked
with the construction manager, and he said there have been 12 major changes to this project over the years. It’s a
hodgepodge, and this corrects that, it preserves it for centuries at no small expense.
Packet Page 231 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 14
Mr. Lee: And lastly, he said that the building in downtown Edmonds that was the greatest concern to the fire marshal was
the Old Mill Town Building. It’s a tinderbox, and it really wasn’t safe. So I hope people are glad that someone came along
who bought it and preserved it. It costs more to keep that wall up. Just go down there and look at it. It costs a lot more to
keep it there than to scrape. I’ll tell you, those timbers, by the time you pull the nails and resurface them, it costs a lot more
to do that than it does to just go out and buy new lumber. So we’re trying to be respectful of the history of Edmonds and hope
people see it in that context. I appreciate all the views that have been presented, and I respect them, and hope that in the end,
you know, that we’ll have some support for this project and that it would be approved. Thank you.
Chair Schaefer: So does that conclude your responses?
Mr. Gregg: Yes, thank you.
Chair Schaefer: Thank you. Okay. Well, then the deliberative portion of this is where we discuss the design guidelines
checklist and identify what seem to be priorities, higher, lower priority or not applicable to this project, and this is to provide
some direction to the applicant and the staff as the project moves towards Phase 2. So being the second time we’ve been
through this, last time we kind of went down it item by item. Does anybody have a preference for another approach or shall
we . . .
Board Member Mestres: I recommend that you read the characteristics or the elements and then we comment on them on at
a time.
Chair Schaefer: Very good. Okay, the first category is site planning. There are ten elements. The first one, reinforce
existing site characteristics.
Board Member Mestres: I guess I would regarding it as a higher priority being that it’s utilizing the same fascias.
Chair Schaefer: Reinforce existing street scape characteristics. I remember this was an issue in Phase 1 and it’s part of
what drove the project, though, to 1b, so I would say that is also a high priority. Entry clearly identifiable from the street.
Board Member Smith: Because it’s a private residence, it’s not so applicable that it’s a lower priority.
Board Member Bullock: That was my initial response, too. But then I remembered that, what do they call it, the east
Dayton or upper Dayton portion is something that’s new to this project. And there’s going to be three new storefronts, and
they all might be the same tenant space, I’m not sure, but there’s going to be some storefront that fronts directly on Dayton
that’s part of this project, as well as the residential. And so I kind of was thinking the medium one.
Chair Schaefer: Lower priority.
Board Member Bullock: Lower priority.
Board Member Smith: Which priority do you feel?
Board Member Bullock: The middle one, just because it’s not a huge portion of the site, but it still has some significant . . .
Chair Schaefer: I’d go along with that. Uh, encourage human activity on the street. That’s part of this zone.
Board Member Bullock: Well, I kind of felt middle for the exact same reason as last time.
Chair Schaefer: Well, except that part of the human activity are the street spaces. Again, that was a big issue in Phase 1.
Board Member Bullock: But aren’t most of those street spaces are already being done as part of the previous approval?
Packet Page 232 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 15
Chair Schaefer: Well, except up in this new area on upper Dayton, you know, what is being shown so far seems to be in
line with that, but I’d like to reinforce that.
Board Member Smith: I see that as a high priority because that’s what we’re trying to encourage.
Board Member O’Neill: Yet, we don’t have anyway to separate that from the residential part of it. We throw that all into
one lump. We’ve got to make the residential part be of human scale.
Board Member Mestres: It would seem to me that with the Dayton addition recessed as it is, the zero landscape plan there,
right up to the property line, it’s important, it’s a higher priority. But then again, unless there’s some, between now and
Phase 2, some great deviation from their existing plan here, I think that although it’s important, I think at this time they seem
to be complying with that, I mean as they can.
Chair Schaefer: As far as whether that A.4 gets connected with the residential because it’s not on the street, I don’t see a
confusion there.
Board Member Bullock: I don’t have a problem having it listed as a higher priority.
Chair Schaefer: I’m just reflecting what we heard earlier in the year. Item A.5, minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent
sites.
Board Member Bullock: I said lower priority.
Chair Schaefer: Yeah, it does need some attention because of the proximity of the property immediately east. So I’d go
along with that. A.6, Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, privacy and interaction. This is for the
residential projects. While this is residential, it’s on the third floor. I don’t know how applicable this is.
Board Member Bullock: I think this was supposed to be dealing with the BD-4 or 5 zone that allowed residential on the
ground floor, and this is not.
Board Member Smith: I don’t think it’s applicable.
Chair Schaefer: A.7, maximize open space opportunity on site. Again, this applies to residential projects. Do we see an
application in this on the third floor? I mean, the purpose for open space opportunities in a residential area are for . . .
Board Member Bullock: Yards, decks, patios. . .
Chair Schaefer: Yeah, it’s places to interact outside and that sort of thing. At this point, they are providing that here.
Board Member Mestres: It’s a higher priority, but the applicant seems to be, in their plan, again, unless there’s some great
change from Phase 1 to 2, it seems like you’re already pretty much satisfying that priority.
Board Member Smith: It pretty much takes care of itself.
Board Member Mestres: With the plant boxes and the setbacks. . .
Board Member Bullock: I kind of viewed it as a lower priority, but I had the same feeling that they were more than
addressing it.
Board Member Mestres: It’s a lower priority because it seems to be conforming with your design.
Chair Schaefer: and I would not tie this. I think there are other places in the checklist to deal with the question that we’ve
been hearing about, what’s an appropriate setback. I would not tie this criterion to that.
Packet Page 233 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 16
Board Member Mestres: No.
Chair Schaefer: Okay, so we’re saying lower priority. That’s what I’m hearing. Okay. A.8, minimize parking and auto
impacts on pedestrians and adjoining property.
Board Member Bullock: I said lower.
Chair Schaefer: The accesses are already established to the site, so it would be a lower priority. Anybody inclined
otherwise.
Board Members: No.
Chair Schaefer: A.9, discourage parking in the street front. Because of design, yes it is a high priority.
Board Member Smith: Uh huh.
Chair Schaefer: That’s the one that I wasn’t quite grasping when we did the other project.
Board Member Bullock: This is one of those ones where talked about, too, we wrestled with does it apply to this project
because we have a building that goes lot line to lot line. So is it a priority. Where if they were on a blank site and going to be
building something brand new, then it might be a higher priority because they might try to do something there.
Board Member Mestres: I’ve got it as a lower priority because there are certain codes there going to have to satisfy with
regards to parking. It’s a street that has two to three hour parking, and that’s pretty much the extent of it.
Chair Schaefer: And they have parking in the back. Okay, we’ll make it a lower priority. A.10, orient building to corner
and parking away from corner on public street fronts for corner lots. Clearly that’s . . . This is not related to Phase 1 and
what’s being proposed here really isn’t going to encroach into any of that, so we say it’s not applicable?
Board Member Smith: It’s not applicable.
Board Member Bullock: Well, that was my first. . .
Chair Schaefer: You’re always way ahead of us. We’re always going your first route, and you’re always way ahead of us.
Board Member Bullock: But now I’m starting to waiver a little bit. This kind of goes back to what we just said, too. For a
site like this where they have a building that they’re keeping that’s already got an orientation to the corner, doesn’t have any
surface parking, I kind of go, that criteria doesn’t even apply. But then I start looking at what they’re doing, too. And
they’re planning on doing a new third floor, and new uses on the third floor.
Chair Schaefer: At the corner.
Board Member Bullock: And there’s going to be some at the corner. So I still think it has some kind of importance. Now
as I think about it again, I’m starting to be a little uncomfortable just saying not applicable. I don’t think it’s the highest
priority because I think a lot of that has already been addressed with Phase 1 with the approval that we already have for the
main two floors of the building. But I still want them to address that as they deal with what they’re doing on the third floor,
as well.
Chair Schaefer: Okay, I’m on board with that.
Board Member Smith: Okay.
Board Member Bullock: So was going to say lower priority.
Packet Page 234 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 17
Chair Schaefer: In the middle there? Okay. Group B has one item, and Group B is bulk and scale. B.1 is provide sensitive
transitions to nearby less intensive zones. We certainly have those interfaces here, and so I’d say this is something we
definitely need to include as a priority. The question is which. There’s some specific elements of that have been voiced
tonight. One of those is view, is the one I keep hearing.
Board Member Bullock: Well, I believe it’s the lower priority. I also believe that if the code allows them to go to a certain
height, then as long as they do that in a manner that meets our design guidelines, they should be allowed to go to that height.
And so, I’m going to be little bit, not as. . . And the property that’s probably most impacted by it is the same zone next door.
It’s not in a different zone. The property that is adjacent to it that is a less intense zone, the multi-family to the southwest of
it, or southeast, excuse me, is actually higher up, too. So I think it should be a lower priority.
Chair Schaefer: Yeah, I think the focus is on the transitions. And there was tonight some sensitivity to that expressed by
the applicant, and we don’t want them to think we’ve forgotten about that.
Board Member Mestres: I was going to say, I think we should classify it as a higher priority owing to the fact that the
applicant has already expressed a desire to be sensitive to the transition.
Chair Schaefer: The next category is C, architectural elements and materials. Five items there. Item C.1, compliment
positive existing character and/or respond to nearby historic structures. We’ve heard a lot of concern over that tonight. It’s
an and/or. There’s a couple of different ways to respond to that, but I think it needs to be seriously considered by the
applicant and staff in coming back to Phase 2.
Board Member Bullock: I agree.
Board Member Smith: I would list it as a high priority.
Chair Schaefer: C.2, a unified architectural concept. We’ve heard a couple of different theories on this tonight, so I think
that this is something that’s going to have to be thought through carefully and considered carefully. Is there some guidance
that we need to provide here tonight for our . . .
Board Member O’Neill: I think that the wording of unified architectural concept, if it’s a high priority, you could interpret
that that it should be the same as the rest of the building, and it clearly has something that they’ve tried to tie together well,
but it’s certainly different than the building. I’m not sure we want to put it as a high priority and lock them into a box of
conforming to that historic building and not being able to deviate like they have.
Chair Schaefer: Especially, I think the applicant responded that they had received the guidance before about having a
differentiation between commercial and residential spaces in buildings. I don’t know where that’s from, but it’s something
that they’ve been hearing. I do worry about the term “unified” being construed as one type of design, but I do think the
discussion is a high priority.
Board Member Bullock: Yup, I agree. I think it should be called a highest or higher priority, and before we leave tonight,
we should talk a little bit about what we think that is.
Chair Schaefer: Okay.
Board Member Mestres: And a unified architectural concept, someone might construe the third floor of the apartments as
being a slight departure from the 100-year-old icon. However, it’s using a lot of the materials that were in the building. And
I am cognizant of your observation of the gazebo and the reference that is reiterated in the third floor, there. So there’s
definitely arguments to support that, I think.
Board Member Bullock: Let’s come back and talk more about that when we’re done going through the checklist.
Chair Schaefer: Okay. Architectural element and material, Item C.3, use human scale and human activity. I need an
architect to tell me what that means.
Packet Page 235 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 18
Board Member Bullock: I put lower priority because I think a majority of that was already dealt with with the initial
approval of the first two floors. I think it’s still critical because of what’s happening with the upper Dayton portion, and I
think that even the way they’re dealing with the third floor also plays into this, and they’ve done some things with the third
floor to try to build on that. You know, they haven’t brought it out to the building edge, which might make the buildings feel
overpowering. They’ve held it back, and that’s all addressing scale.
Chair Schaefer: And the height limits sort of dictate it anyway.
Board Member Bullock: Oh, absolutely. But my initial thought was to put it on the lower priority.
Chair Schaefer: Lower priority, yeah, okay. Item C.4, use durable, attractive, and well-detailed finish materials.
Board Member Mestres: Unless you’ve decided to change your materials, I think in our last meeting you pretty much
brought some of the actual tiles and everything that will be used.
Board Member Smith: So you don’t have anything that you’re planning on doing, a change in any of the materials that
you’ve demonstrated here.
Chair Schaefer: From Phase 1.
Board Member Smith: From Phase 1.
Mr. Allen: Not at this time.
Mr. Gregg: We might though, because that’s kind of one of the points of tonight’s meeting is to find out what everybody’s
comments are and come back to the next one. There maybe, depending on what we hear tonight, some changes.
Chair Schaefer: That might be a way of trying to tie the Phase 2 into Phase 1. Okay.
Board Member Mestres: It might be advantageous next time to bring those materials with you, just to be able to pass
around so people have an idea of what’s going to be up there.
Chair Schaeffer: It’s kind of a . . . (I missed just a few words here.) You would always expect to use quality, durable and
attractive materials, and so why are we.
Board Member Mestres: What was the, I remember what they look like, but what was the nature of the tiles that you
brought last time and intend on putting into the . . .
Mr. Allen: Into the insets?
Board Member Mestres: Uh huh.
Mr. Allen: Sandstone tile.
Board Member Mestres: Yeah, okay.
Mr. Gregg: Just so you don’t get totally shocked or surprised, we could discuss that internally in terms of before we were
trying to simply compliment an all concrete building. Now we’re looking at how this transition, you know, we’re not going
to build a concrete pillbox on top, which you could argue that’s possible, but we don’t want to. But now we’re going to have
a quality wood structure up there, and we’re looking at some ideas and looking for feedback tonight, quite frankly, so I’m
glad you asked that question, how to maybe soften the transition of the face, instead of sandstone completely complimented
the concrete, maybe find a material that unifies the predominantly wood upper structure with the predominantly concrete
Packet Page 236 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 19
lower structure. Nothing yet, we’ve decided to go ADB or planning to ask about the ??. But I just think we’re looking for a
little bit of feedback.
Chair Schaefer: So where are we at on checking a box, team?
Board Member Bullock: I think it should be high.
Board Member O’Neill: A high priority, but what it turns out to be, that’s your call.
Chair Schaefer: Okay, and Item C.5, minimize garage entrances.
Board Member Schaefer: Well, there is a garage entrance, but it’s on site. I have it as a lower priority.
Board Member Smith: Low priority.
Chair Schaefer: Okay, Category D, pedestrian environment. Seven items there. Item D.1, provide convenient, attractive
and protected entry.
Board Member Smith: That’s a high priority.
Board Member Bullock: Yup.
Chair Schaefer: I think considering the zone, that is a high priority. It has been through Phase 1 and through other projects
in the area.
Board Member Mestres: With the flow plan of the first floor, it indicates there’s projected two restaurants in the lower
area, and I see one entrance. What will the entrance for the other. . .
Board Member Bullock: It’s right here.
Board Member Mestres: Down at the end?
Mr. Allen: There’s one on 5th and Dayton, which is a primary entrance, and then one . . .
Board Member Mestres: So it would be almost the same entrance as exists right now? Approximation?
Mr. Allen: And then the other one is further down, adjacent to the open courtyard area. There are two primary entrances on
5th, both of which will lead into the restaurant spaces.
Mr. Gregg: My understanding is this D.1, though, would be relative primarily to the upper Dayton.
Board Member Mestres: Yeah, okay.
Board Member Bullock: Unless you were making some changes.
Chair Schaefer: Well, and upper Dayton, that’s just my. . . I didn’t look at the plans again. . . Is there one entrance, or are
there three? It looks like three.
Board Member Bullock: There’s three, but I think they’ll all go into the same space, or they going to be separate spaces.
Mr. Gregg: Well, it depends on who we get for a tenant.
Board Member Bullock: Right.
Packet Page 237 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 20
Mr. Gregg: (Mr. Gregg said a short sentence here, but because all of his comments were away from the microphone, I
couldn’t tell what he was saying).
Chair Schaefer: Again, for pedestrian environment, Item D.2, avoid blank walls. Certainly we want to avoid blank walls.
Board Member Smith: I think that’s a high priority.
Board Member Mestres: And maybe a little specific, but on the Dayton side, right past the sandstone, or at least the insets,
it could be subject to the plainness of the 3-d drawing, but along Dayton, it looks a little monotonous past the inset.
Mr. Allen: You mean the middle part?
Board Member Mestres: The middle part.
Board Member Smith: The middle.
Board Member Mestres: I, probably an inaccurate use of terms, but it looks a little plain.
Mr. Gregg: East or west of the ramp?
Board Member Bullock: West of the ramp. It’s the old concrete portion of the building.
Mr. Allen: Yeah, and that’s basically in terms of the first two stories, which is addressed in an earlier submittal. It’s a flush,
plain concrete building, which we are preserving. There’s some variations in the opening along the retail and the street, and
it recesses to an historical entry. And then the next opening on the grade is actually a rough opening through the concrete,
because we need to get back there. So there’s actually some pretty good textural, light and shadow things going on in that
building. And honestly, even though, I mean the cast-in-place concrete is just beautiful, and that’s why we’re going to the
effort to save it, and frankly, proportions on that part of the building are about as classic as you can get in terms of relative
size of the openings, down low and up high. It’s just . . .
Board Member Mestres: And again, maybe, you know, they’re great renderings, but perhaps doesn’t do justice, you know,
to a solid. . .
Board Member Smith: About how long is that wall, roughly?
Mr. Allen: Roughly 48 feet.
Board Member Smith: Pardon. 38 feet. No, 48 feet.
Mr. Allen: I believe it’s three bays, which are about . . .
Mr. Gregg: So it’s approximately half the distance on Dayton as the primary building before it gets to the ramp. Again,
unless we make changes to that, that’s under the old permit, and I would have to go with Ralph on that. It’s one of the areas
that it kind of is what it is, and it is different than what’s west of it. As was mentioned, I didn’t realize we were up to 12, was
sort of tracking and keeping a history of how many different remodeling or reconstructions there have been. Many times it
has had a pitched roof and then it has been raised up to a flat roof and changed and changed. That was added as a whole
separate building in about 1920 and it used a slightly different architectural style. I wouldn’t want to actually want to make it
look that.
Board Member Mestres: Right, it is the historic exterior, the historic station that, I mean, to change it, I guess would be
flying in the face of a. . .
Mr. Allen: Those big retail windows, I understand, used to be automobile, that’s where they parked the cars they were
selling. They were automobile displays.
Packet Page 238 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 21
Mr. Gregg: With regard to upper Dayton, I agree 100 percent with making that a high priority.
Board Member Schaefer: Okay. D.3, minimize height of retaining walls.
Board Member Bullock: I had all the next five not applicable.
Chair Schaefer: Not applicable. Yeah. D.4, minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas.
D.5, minimize visual impact of parking. D.6, screen dumpsters, utility and service areas, which was dealt with in Phase 1,
and D.7, consider personal safety. That would be for, I think as we were looking at it, that was lighting and things like that.
Board Member Bullock: I didn’t remember.
Chair Schaefer: Yeah, so I would agree that none of these items are very applicable. The next category is landscaping.
There’s three items there. E.1, reinforce existing landscape character of the neighborhood.
Board Member Mestres: We’re replanting the trees in that block, right. Weren’t we . . .
Mr. Gregg: We’ll be changing them. That’s a requirement of our first building permit.
Board Member O’Neill: So all the sweet gum trees are coming down.
Mr. Gregg: The big overgrown ones are coming down, and by city mandate, be replaced with the new code, which is
something that turns red in the fall and stays foliated all during the year, and doesn’t grow so tall. That’s not our choice.
Board Member Smith: That’s not applicable.
Chair Schaefer: Good.
Ms. Hynd: I’m sorry, I didn’t get what that was.
Chair Schaefer: We haven’t stated whether it’s a high or lower priority.
Board Member Mestres: Lower priority because it’s really out of our purview.
Chair Schaefer: It’s pretty much regulated.
Board Member Smith: Yeah, it’s regulated so it should be a low priority.
Chair Schaefer: Landscaping E.2, landscape to enhance the building or site. We’ve heard some very positive comments
tonight about the proposal for the planters and getting some green area up high. I think that’s something we’re looking at.
We heard about a European feel to things, and so that’s something that I would continue to stress. I’d say that’s a high
priority.
Board Member Smith: High priority.
Chair Schaefer: And E.3, landscape to take advantage of special site conditions. I think they’re working within a fairly
hard scape, so I don’t know if that’s particularly applicable.
Board Member Bullock: I agree.
Board Member Smith: I just have one question, on the metal railings up on the third floor. Is that where you’re talking
planter boxes to drape over?
Packet Page 239 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 22
Mr. Allen: Yes, and when we bring our next submittal in, we’ll show you some more detail there, but we basically are
devising a railing system that where we come the areas of the kind of corner masses of the building at both ends, is we’re
going to insert in most of that railing system, a planter box increment.
Board Member Smith: Right.
Mr. Allen: And it’s going to be quite nice addition to the street, but also for the residents up above. It will create a nice
border there.
Board Member Smith: And that fits with the flower arrangements downtown and hanging baskets and things. That would
tie right in. I like that. Thank you.
Mr. Allen: Good.
Chair Schaefer: Okay, that goes through the checklist, and we can review the items just to double check things, but there
was an item we wanted to discuss a little further, and I believe that was Element C.2, unified architectural concept. Why
don’t we elaborate a little bit because I think that’s an important element here based upon what we were hearing tonight from
the community and there’s also just a need to clarify these terms. So who wants to lead off?
Board Member Bullock: I’ll jump in with some stuff. My comments. . . I put a bunch of notes on my set of plans, just
thoughts that were running through my head as I was reviewing and thinking about things. They’re not going to be just about
the unified architectural comment; they’re kind of just scattered thoughts that I think float into multiple things related to these
criteria. But that’s probably. . . C.1 and 2 are probably the two that I spent the most time on and thought the most about, as
well.
Board Member Bullock: First of all, I just want to make it real clear that, for myself, doing an addition to this building that
adds a third floor, a third floor of residential, is something that I don’t have any problem at all with. Besides the fact that the
code allows it; the code has provisions that say you can go this high, you can do this and that. As long as it fits in that box, so
to speak, I’m not going to have a problem with it. And the code also allows the multi-family component of it in this zone,
and I don’t have any problem with. So I welcome review on this project, and think it’s a decent thing to add to our
downtown.
Board Member Bullock: A lot of the things that you have proposed with the project are things that I also am just excited
about and really supportive of. I love the idea of trying to reuse as much of the old historic timber that’s part of the building.
I think that’s great, and it goes right along with some of your concepts for reusing the original concrete structure, and I think
you have a great opportunity to come out with some really fantastic stuff related to that. Some of the design details, I think
are really neat, as well.
Board Member Bullock: I like the handrails that you’re doing up there on the upper floor, and I kind of see them as a
different cornice detail. You know, you’ve got a cornice detail on some portions of it, and my recollection was that you were
going to do a more subtle, subdued cornice on the other portions, and I’m not seeing those on this drawing. But the handrail
kind of takes the place of it and starts just being another way of doing that. And I like seeing things that are similar that are
slightly different that just creates more interest and more. . . It builds on the vocabulary that you’re making for the building,
for the language that you’re making for the building.
Board Member Bullock: And that being said, I think that care needs to be taken that similar shapes, forms and design is put
together so they’re not disparate. You had mentioned in your presentation that you’re trying to do that some with the timber
knee braces and how those are used up on the third floor, and then harkening that back to what you’re doing on the first floor
where the awnings are. When you said that, I went, wow, that’s a great idea. I love that idea. But then when I was looking
at the drawings, I didn’t have the same response. I think that’s a really good idea, and I like the fact that the knee braces
down low are made out of steel and the knee braces up above are made out of timber. But to me, when I look at what you’re
showing in the drawings right now, and part of it just may be the level of detail we’re at with our drawings right now, they
don’t look like reflections of each other to me at this point. The lower ones are almost half circle, you know almost half a
Packet Page 240 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 23
circle. And up above, they’re barely a quarter, in fact, they kind of look like they’re more of an arc than even a quarter of a
circle. And I would just like to see them be more similar so that they are reflections of each other, but made out of different
material, which distinguishes the fact that one’s a commercial portion of the building and another part is a residential portion
of the building. I really like that.
Board Member Bullock: Talking about the gazebo or whatever you want to call it at the corner of the building, it’s kind of
a similar type thing. I see a great opportunity for you to use some of that timber to make a structure there that looks like an
extension of the concrete building. Not that it’s the same as a concrete building, but something that is more reflective of the
design of the building. And this kind of gets back to what is a unified design. And we’re going to have to ultimately throw
that back to you and say, you know, you guys do your magic, think about things, brainstorm some things. I guess it all kinds
back to as much as I like some of the elements that you’ve done with the third floor, and I like the fact of having a third floor
residential, and I love the fact that you are providing a lot of open space and setback up there. I’m not totally convinced that
the third floor of this current submittal is as unified with the rest of the building as I had hoped it would be.
Board Member Bullock: Some other things that I really liked about it. I liked the bay that punches out over the Star
Feathers portion of it. I know that the height limit is part of what’s driving the roof form. I hesitate to call it a shed because
it’s what, a half an inch over 12 feet. I mean, to me, it’s relatively a flat roof, and that’s okay. A shed form, just to me,
would be a little bit more vaulted than this is. So I don’t know, I just consider it a flat roof. And again, I’m okay with that.
When I first saw the floor plan, I was somewhat confused. Oh, and this is the next thing I wanted to say, I guess, you know
when I was looking at the floor plans, I was completely lost. What’s going on with this building? I hadn’t got to the back
sheets yet. And I just wanted to say thank you very much for the three-dimension drawings. I think they helped staff, the
Board and anybody from the public that saw this have a better understanding of what’s being proposed.
Board Member Bullock: Also for staff and for future applications, although you submitted an aerial photograph that kind of
shows the context, I would really like to have at least wire frame volumes on these things that show what the adjacent
structures are or some kind of sections that show the relationship of this building to adjacent buildings. It’s not as critical
when they’re across the street, although still an outline would be helpful. But especially when they’re right next door, to see
how that matches up is just helpful for us getting a better understanding of the context of the whole thing. I think that’s my
comments for now, and those kind of all. . . They’re kind of scattered throughout these criteria. And you guys can make
whatever pitch you want. You know what the criteria are and you’re going to say how you feel that you meet those criteria
or not, and ultimately, we’ve got to say if we agree or not. That’s just where I’m at right now.
Mr. Gregg: Can I just respond or ask a question?
Chair Schaefer: Yeah, as long as it’s for clarification.
Mr. Gregg: Yeah, what we’re looking for here tonight is not to go away and just come up with arguments about why we’re
right and you’re wrong. I mean the whole point of this preliminary thing is to get feedback. And you have to go an awful
long way down the track still to kind of. . . We’re finding this two-step process is tricky because you still have to go a long
ways into the design before you can get the proper kind of feedback. But what you’ve said tonight is something that, you
know, I mean, it’s a very constructive criticism to say that knee braces, as described, just make them as you described them.
You know, make them more like what you described, and that will be a big improvement. So I’m sure we can go back and
look and see how to make the upper braces and the lower braces, albeit wood and steel, still as you say, be more like what
you described them than how you drew them. That’s the kind of constructive criticism we’re looking for to go back and
make changes. It’s not our intention to just come back and say, well here it is again, and we’re right.
Board Member O’Neill: I have a little bit different perspective on that. I can see that you can have diversity in those, as an
example, with the knee braces, and that they don’t have to look the same. I’m a little, as an architect, I’m always a little
apprehensive when somebody tells me they want it unified and they want everything to look homogenous and the same. I
think that there’s some assets to making that different from this down here. Even though they are different materials, I don’t
think they have to look the same.
Board Member Smith: Actually, I like that, the fact that one is wood and one is metal. I like the diversity of that, and I’m
excited about having the way you have done the residential on the top. I’m real happy about the setback, and I like you’re
Packet Page 241 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 24
gazebo and I really like your wood structure there. I think that really enhances the residential, especially your idea of
bringing plants and foliage into that. I like the idea of having residential and commercial in a downtown core. I think that
we’re kind of striving for some of that, and I think you’ve done a really nice job with it. I’m still worried about that 48-foot
wall, but I really am pleased what you did with the residential of the third floor. I’m happy with the awning and the planter
boxes around the pedestrian part of the store.
Board Member Mestres: I think. . . It looks like. . . The more elaborate cornices are very compelling. I like that. I think
that as far as the flat roofs, it’s just, a lot of our projects that we are reviewing generally have, you know, building heights are
what they are. They been resolved and that’s it, and we’re done. So developers and architects are compelled to work within
those boundaries. So you know, this is a flat building. Sometimes you get kind of truncated pitches and they have to go with
what they’ve got. And they are, generally, the applicants are submitting in spite of that, very attractive buildings, and they’re
working within the boundaries of what building heights are. I think that my one question has to do with the fireplace and
gazebo in the front there. Do you have any other. . . I like the use of the timbers, and Mr. Lee I’m really glad that you’re
keeping your business in Edmonds. As a community, you know, we like to keep our neighbors and businesses. We don’t
want to lose them.
Mr. Gregg: The restaurants downstairs are happy, too.
Board Member Mestres: Yeah. Right. That’s good. As far as the gazebo and fireplace. . . My one critique is does the
stone fireplace, do you have any other designs that were considered? I like the gazebo, and again, it’s probably something
that I can’t say absolutely if I like it or I don’t, but I’m curious about it. It kind of is a little discordant to me with the rest of
the design. But then again, I can be overruled by my cohorts here, and I probably could be convinced otherwise. But I’m
going to express my question with you, if you have other notions of how that could be.
Mr. Allen: We looked at a number of ways to, first of all, express that formally because it’s an important corner. We’re
talking about the fireplace and the gazebo, because they work together as kind of a composition. We also looked at a number
of ways to clad it, and I believe we’ll still bring this in next time because I think it’s actually quite responsive, but it doesn’t
show here yet. But the stone that we’re looking at for the major fireplace element in the residences is going to be, we’re
looking at a carefully shaped, almost flagging-type stone, so it has an irregularity to it that counter poses the regularity in the
shingles. So it is a nice balance and a nice dialogue. Some of the studies that we’ve done here just in the last week or two
brought that material into the fireplace element as it expresses itself above the coping, and then into the circular (I lost his
comments here because someone was rattling papers.) I think I’d like to show that to you next time.
Board Member Mestres: That would be good.
Mr. Allen: It’s really starting to get a richness to it in terms of . . .
Board Member Smith: Can you bring the material, a piece of the material with you next time?
Board Member Mestres: I do agree with Steve and the others that tying the residences at the third floor is a good thing, and
I think that, again, every meeting we’ve had or encounter with other bodies, the Historical Commission, they always
emphasize that there’s not one set historical reference. That it’s an eclectic bunch of buildings down there, and you know,
the main thing that I think is really actually true is that you’re keeping the fascia, and every time there’s a stiff wind, I always
wonder, you know, I feel those supports. . . If you don’t get something going with that pretty soon, it’s . . . One vehicle, one
bulldozer or something making a wrong turn, and it’s gone.
Chair Schaefer: Owen ?? on the 5th of July.
Mr. Gregg: This may be off track, but a two-minute explanation, I think would bring a lot of illumination to that. The
braces on the inside of the building are not at all what the structural engineers recommended. They wanted those brace from
the sidewalk up, or from the street up, and we were in a bit of a dispute with the engineering department, and basically one
person overruled the ability for us to put those out on the street. So we had to go back and redesign those from the inside. It
is not the ideal way of supporting that. And furthermore, if they were to fall, it would fall out now instead of in. So we think
when this is all done, we’d like to have a post-mortem sit down with the Planning Board, the ADB, the Historical Group and
Packet Page 242 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 25
really talk about, if you want to have renovation in this town, you have to do it in a way that is compatible not with the
owners and developers, it’s compatible with the City’s engineering, fire and the building departments because they won’t
allow us to do some of the things that we’d like to do and that you and other various groups would like us to do.
Mr. Gregg: Having said that, when all is said and done, we had originally thought that we would be preserving those walls
and reattaching our second floor and our roof to those walls. Because we found out that, lessons learned that I’ll never buy a
building again without gamaraying the walls. There was no rebar in the walls. They’re just three-foot lifts of cold conrete,
and they will break at those levels. So what we’ve done, if you notice the boards on the inside, that was an unexpected
emergency to hold the walls together. What they’ve done now is come along and put high injection, high pressure epoxy in
all of the cracks throughout all of the buildings. Our big fear is that the high lifts that they used to do that would knock one
of those beams and that will pull them all down. They’re being very careful. And then after they get it all expoxied together,
we also found there’s no footings underneath the walls. The walls go straight down to dirt.
Mr. Allen: About 1½ to two feet below.
Mr. Gregg: So what we’re doing is we’re putting a very large footing parallel to the existing wall base. They’re doing
1,800 holes and approximately 1,800 pieces of rebar to tie the base of the wall to the new footings, which acts like a foot
holding it up this way instead of this way. And then we’re mounting a steel beam infrastructure inside the concrete walls and
all the weight of the floorings and the roof and the structural will on this new steel frame. Then we’re going to tie the
concrete to the new structure, so there’s nothing the concrete is doing to hold up the new building. It’s everything the new
building’s doing to give some structure to hold the old walls up. Having said all that, we’re going as quickly as we can
before something happens.
Board Member Smith: How did it make it through the last earthquake?
Mr. Gregg: If you look at the building in the various stages of demolition you will see that it didn’t survive the last
earthquakes. The deflection. . . At some point in time, the walls, which didn’t have any footings, also had the posts in
between the walls removed, and they hung the weight of the second floor from the ceiling rafters. There was nothing
supporting it from the ground, and they were holding it from the. . . And the deflection of the floors was five or six inches
across a 40-foot medium. The floors went like this. And there’s been so many remodels on the side that everything
structural was covered up, and the more we peeled away the layers looking for the structure, there was no structure. So the
outside wall was more than six inches out of plumb, hanging out over the street, and so with those braces in there, we have
the ability to pull them, so we’ve pulled them back and then epoxied them into place. So the building hadn’t really survived.
It was in various stages of moving around and letting gravity do what gravity does. We’re kind of luck we did what we did.
If the building had ever been very carefully inspected, other than by the fire department who hated it, by a structural engineer,
they would have condemned the building. But we are where are now.
Board Member Mestres: That’s commendable and also the environmental clean up is inarguably a boon the City.
Chair Schaefer: I have just a couple of things, and it’s not very declarative. It’s more a matter of just pointing to the
balance one can achieve or has to seek in these things. I like what you’ve done here with the upper Dayton building, and that
you’ve preserved some things that make it look distinct from the rest of it. If we made this a unified concept, we’d be back
having massive issues again, okay. I like that the cornices are treated differently. It does continue to make that building
stand out differently, even though you’re tying it together across the top with a certain type of design unilaterally. Although
again, I don’t know where the direction from staff has come in terms of sort of a delineation between residential and
commercial. I like that. It doesn’t hide the fact that we have mixed uses. I think we should be celebrating mixed uses. So I
think that’s fine.
Chair Schaefer: The other balance is this gazebo in the corner. Now it is a downtown intersection, and corners are
supposed to be prominent. We heard that earlier in the year, as well. And I guess I have my reservations, as well, with the
gazebo and its place there. There might be other ways to design the canopy, maybe something more in line with the
residences, I don’t know. It looks quite distinct as you’ve got it rendered at this point.
Packet Page 243 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 26
Chair Schaefer: We heard concerns about the visibility from the street. You could go everything from being prominent to
being invisible, which would mean you’d be set way back there, to being hinted at in between. I like to be able to see that
there is, like you said, a mixed use up there. I think it’s something to be celebrated. Although there was some comments
made tonight which you didn’t quite know how to respond to, there was one phrase, and I’m not going to quote it exactly, but
it should not overpower or subsume the historic structure that is there, which you are doing, you’ve talked about what you’ve
been doing to make sure you bring that out and preserve that. Let’s not lose that. So, I would honor that part of the
discussion in particular. Like I said, nothing declarative, it’s the balance. . . As an engineer, I’m always faced with these
kinds of balance and compromise issues as architects are, as well. Anything else we could share that would be of help for
staff and the applicant going forward to Phase 2?
Board Member Bullock: You know, it’s already been said. I would love to see a materials board that shows the materials.
I’d like to see it be in conjunction with an elevation so I can kind of line up what materials are getting used where on the
building, colors.
Board Member Mestres: With regard to Steve’s request for area 3-d renderings that kind of include more. . . That’s
something we have an ongoing need for, and I think we need to mention this to the Planning Board so they can alter some of
the code. This isn’t something that probably wouldn’t hurt to have in all future projects. It’s not something that you’re
require to have.
Board Member Bullock: It doesn’t need to be a 3-dimensional model, either. On line, there’s a website, and I don’t think it
has every place covered, but I think it has downtown Edmonds.
??: Google earth?
Board Member Bullock: No, it’s different than that. It might be Google Maps, but it’s got a birds eye view, and it’s low
elevation photographs. No, it’s low altitude flights that have taken four different shots of your site, so you can look at it from
the east, from the west, from the north, from the south. That would shows actual photographs of what is going on adjacent to
your property, you know buildings. . . Because it’s birdseye because it’s coming in from an oblique angle, you can see the
heights and shapes of buildings and all that kind of stuff. As far as I’m concerned, that would be more than adequate to give
us a good context of what’s going on.
Chair Schaefer: I have to say that our first multi-phase is a project that asked for a continuance tonight. We did Phase 1 for
them, what a month and a half ago, two months ago. And they had a nice rendering of . . .
Board Member Bullock: Volumetric.
Chair Schaefer: Yeah, it was very, very helpful. We were very elated with that. You might take a look at that to see. It
didn’t look like it was an incredible amount of effort to do, and it will help get context, particularly when context, as you can
see, is a big issue here.
(There was conversation between Mr. Gregg and the Board to clarify the Board’s request, but because there were numerous
people talking at the same time, it is difficult to hear what is being said.)
Board Member Bullock: Using the example that you just referred to as kind of an oblique view of 5th Avenue, just taken
from one aerial position that just kind of showed the site and all the buildings around it, and you just had to fill in the blanks.
Board Member Smith: I like the subtlety of the colors fitting in with the concept of the area around it. It’s very European.
I like that.
Chair Schaefer: If there are no other comments, we do need to schedule a set date for the continuance on this, and so when
would you be ready to come back for Phase 2 do you feel.
Mr. Gregg: Well, we originally were going to ask for two weeks. Having heard what you’ve said, we need four weeks to
prepare and bring back the materials for you to respond to.
Packet Page 244 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 27
Chair Schaefer: Okay, so the first Wednesday in November, then. And that would be what date. I don’t have my palm pilot
on me.
Ms. Hynd: November 7th.
Chair Schaefer: Does the schedule permit?
Mr. Clugston: That agenda is open right now, yes.
Chair Schaefer: Bingo, we have a winner. There you go. We look forward to seeing you more on the 7th of November, and
with that, we’ll close or, what’s the word I’m think, recess this public hearing. It will be continued on November 7th.
Question, do we put out notices to everybody who signed up? How do we give notice about the continuance date?
Mr. Clugston: Certainly, yes for those folks. I don’t know if we repost at the site, as well. I’ll have to check that.
Certainly, the folks who signed up will be given notice. I don’t know if we’re going to do another entire mailing.
Mr. Gregg: I’m not objecting to anything you want to do, but I do believe the code looked into that. We have to be really
careful not to create the two-hearing process. I do believe that notice is not required for the second part, but these people
need to pay attention to when it’s being scheduled.
Chair Schaefer: Okay, why don’t you check into the protocols on that. Thank you very much. See you in five weeks.
Packet Page 245 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Number ADB-2007-67
October 3, 2007 Page 28
I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS.
__________________________________________________________ ____________________________________
Karin Noyes, Transcriber Date
Packet Page 246 of 357
CITY OF EDMONDS
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF ARCHITCTURAL DESIGN BOARD
HEARING
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007
Chair Kendall: Our next item is going to be major projects. We’re getting the sign up sheet. Major projects are in front of
minor projects tonight, and I believe that’s because the minor project is affected by the vote on the major project. I just
wanted to point that out because that’s in reverse to how we usually have the order. So at this time, I would like to introduce
major project File Number ADB-2007-67, an application by Ralph Allen of Grace Architects, representation Bob Gregg and
Edward and Barbara Lee, for Phase 2 of the of the Old Mill Town development at 201 – 5th Avenue South consisting of the
addition of a partial third floor containing three condominium residences. The site is zoned Downtown Mixed Commercial
(BD-1) and is subject to district-based design review. This is considered “Phase 2” of the public hearing. I just want to add
that this is Phase 2 of Old Mill Town, and this is Phase 2 of the public hearing. With all the Phase 2’s is a little confusing.
At this time, I’m going to ask for the staff report.
Mr. Clugston: Sure, my name is Mike Clugston, Planner with the City of Edmonds. First of all, I would like to apologize
and state right off the bat. I’ve had a cold the last few days, so if I start to cut out, it’s probably the electronics, it’s just me.
So I’ll try to keep my comments fairly short. We’re dealing with Phase 2 of the public hearing for Old Mill Town. Phase 1
commenced on October 3rd. The hearing was continued to this date at that meeting. The applicant got in their information
and we processed the staff report in time for this meeting so we did pretty good there.
Mr. Clugston: From staff’s perspective, I’m going to go over primarily how this project is in relation to Edmonds
Community Development Code. As far as how it looks with the Comprehensive Plan, that would be up to the ADB. So first,
also have technology on our side today, thankfully.
Chair Kendall: Could you bring the overhead down a touch?
Mr. Clugston: Sure, we could try.
Chair Kendall: That helps, thank you.
Mr. Clugston: Is that too far? Okay. So in Chapter 20.12 of the zoning code, there’s a number of criteria in the downtown
business zones that need to be analyzed as far as zoning, and that chapter’s in 16.43 of the code. The first standard we look at
is site development standards. Again, we’re in BD-1, downtown retail core, and the minimum height of the ground floor in
BD-1 is called to be 15 feet. As you can see in the elevation, the floor at the lower level is 58.875 feet, and the second floor
elevation is at 74 feet. This calculates to be 15.125 feet, which would appear to meet the 15-foot criteria. This would also be
verified with building permit review.
Mr. Clugston: Ground floor is another section to review. The ground floor of the main structure at 5th and Dayton was
previously approved for redevelopment under the BC zoning requirements. The BD-1 ground floor requirements do apply to
the shops on upper Dayton. The code says first floor uses must be commercial and entry must be directed from the sidewalk.
The elevation of the ground floor and associated entries shall be within 7 inches of grade to the adjoining sidewalk. It
appears that the applicant has met this criteria, however, this will also be verified with the building permit. You can see that
a little bit better in this section here.
Packet Page 247 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 2
Mr. Clugston: The next criteria we looked at was building height. In the BD-1 zone, the maximum height of the building
can be 30 feet, provided you have the 15-foot ground floor. Building height is calculated against the average level, and that’s
defined in the code. According to the elevations submitted, they’ve identified the maximum height as 97.74 feet. There’s
also exceedances for chimneys that they can exceed up to three feet in height above the 30-foot level, as long as they’re not
more than nine square feet horizontal section. It appears that the applicant has taken this into consideration, as well. This
will also, again, be verified with the building permit.
Mr. Clugston: The next issue is off-street parking and access. No new parking spaces are required for redevelopment of the
commercial shops on upper Dayton. However, the three residential dwellings proposed for the third floor do require
additional parking per code. The code indicates that only one stall per dwelling unit needs to be provided. The applicant is
proposing six enclosed parking stalls, one of which is handicapped. So they appear to have met that requirement, as well.
Mr. Clugston: Open space requirements are also listed in 16.43. In this case, the open space requirements only kick in if
the building footprint is increased by more than 10 percent. In this case, the building footprint is not increasing so the
requirement is not applicable.
Mr. Clugston: The next requirement is historic buildings. The Old Milltown Building is not listed on the Edmonds Historic
Register, and therefore, this section is not applicable.
Mr. Clugston: Density is the next criteria. Three dwelling units are proposed. There’s no maximum density per dwelling
units. The next criteria is screening. Setbacks for a BD-1 parcel are zero, however, setbacks are required next to residentially
zoned parcels. However, in this case, there are no residentially zoned parcels directly adjacent to the subject parcel, and this
project, therefore, does not require further screening as required in this section.
Mr. Clugston: The next criteria is signs. No signs were submitted. Any signs that are submitted in the future will be
reviewed according to code, which is Section 20.60, and the code for signs in BD-1 zones are the same as the BC1 zone for
signs. Satellite television antennas as another criteria and none were proposed for this project.
Mr. Clugston: Finally, the applicant submitted the required materials for both phases of the public hearing process and they
have been deemed to meet the requirements of 20.12 for those submittals. That’s in a nutshell, the review of the zoning
compliance. It seems like they have met the requirements. I would leave it to the Architectural Design Board to look at the
requirements of compliance relative to the Comprehensive Plan and I would suspect that the applicant could also address
questions that you would have regarding those design requirements.
Chair Kendall: Does that conclude your staff report?
Mr. Clugston: It does.
Chair Kendall: At this time I ask, does the Architectural Design Review Board Members have questions for staff?
Board Member Bullock: You had a chance to review the letter submitted by Mr. Hertrich?
Mr. Clugston: Yes.
Mr. Board Member Bullock: And do you agree with any of the things that he says in here.
Mr. Clugston: I forgot to mention, I apologize for that. There were several letter of comment with the staff report.
Subsequently, we received two more; one from Mr. Hertrich and another from the Hotel Group that was initially sent to Mr.
Rutledge. But that was also to be included in the staff report. I provided copies of those to you. As far as the comments
from Mr. Hertrich regarding the 15-foot requirement, specifically, I would say that the project does meet the 15-foot
requirement, and I wasn’t entirely sure, I guess, what he was trying to explain. I expect that he’ll be able to tell us a little bit
more what he’s concerned with. I’m sure the applicant could actually go through it, as well. But 58.875 is the base elevation
of the lower floor, and 15-foot seems to be 74 feet. I think that works. Again, the entries were permitted under the BC
Packet Page 248 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 3
zoning, so the BD-1 requirement doesn’t exactly fit in under that category. The entries are the entries, but now the BD-1
does apply to the storefronts up Dayton Street, but no specifically, I don’t think, to the corner of 5th and Dayton.
Ms. Kendall: At this time, we’re ready to hear the applicant’s presentation.
Mr. Lee: First of all, before our architect, Ralph Allen, begins I thought it might be helpful or at least appropriate to say
something about this process from the applicant’s point of view because this is only the second time, I think, that you’ve been
through it. So we took it up almost a month ago and got some public input. I’m really glad that we got the public input prior
to submitting what we want to be our final. That ability wasn’t there before. Before you’d give it your best shot and then
people would show up and I guess you just make your decision and people would either go away unsatisfied or at least there
wasn’t much of an opportunity to be heard. Here, it was very helpful to us and so one of the things that my wife, Barbara,
and I did after that and it’s an opportunity we wouldn’t have had with the old scenario, was we contacted every single person
who expressed concerns and we offered to meet with them and hear more about the concerns that they had. And I think there
were seven or eight people that expressed concerns. Five of them were willing to meet with us, and it was a really nice
experience. Out of that came, I think, a greater understanding at least on our part, hopefully on their part too, about what
their concerns are. Some of the things resulted in what I think are significant changes. For example, it seems like almost
everyone was concerned about the round gazebo. I kind of liked it, frankly. One of the very outspoken and very capable
people that spoke offered to sketch something out that she thought would look better, and she did, and we liked it. We
presented it to our architect and he thought it would work very well, too. So we’re coming back here with a focal point piece
of this project that was changed completely as a result of this. That might not have happened before. So this has been a very
good experience.
Chair Kendall: I actually didn’t like that particularly. . . I was out of the country for that meeting, but when I reviewed the
packet that we had when I wasn’t there, I’m glad somebody brought it to your attention, because I actually didn’t like that
design.
Mr. Lee: Well, I did, but I like this one better. So anyway, it was helpful. I just think this is a good time to say publicly to
the people that responded to the offer to meet with them that we really appreciate it. We also appreciate those who took time
to write letter you referred to tonight. I have a great respect for what it said. At first I didn’t understand it. Now I do
understand it, and it’s a zoning issue that has to do with entrance. I checked with Mr. Gregg and Mr. Allen and said, you
know, this letter, if this is a valid concern, can we deal with that and make this first floor be in compliance? And they said,
absolutely, we can. So if that is an issue, before we submit the building permit, that will be taken care of. And so, again, we
wouldn’t have had the ability to address that if Mr. Hertrich hadn’t taken the time to write that letter. Thanks, we really
appreciate that. So anyway, I just wanted to give you that feedback and . . .
Ms. Kendall: Thank you. We appreciate the feedback.
Mr. Allen started his presentation when there was a lot of background noise. He was asked to change his location, and that
improved the situation a little bit. He started his presentation again at this point.
Mr. Allen: We wanted to run you through kind of a few facets of the project and use a couple of different media for that.
First, we’ve got our auto cad three dimensional model that Pam, my associated here, is going to kind of walk us around a bit
so you can see 4th and Dayton exposures in somewhat real time. This isn’t a full animation, and you’ll see it’s a little stop in
the . . . But it gives you a really good sense for the building overall. Did you check your sharp conference series, I think
we’re . . . There, thank you.
Mr. Allen: Before we start walking around, let me just talk about where we are now. As we walk around this, I want to kind
of make a full building design presentation that as of this evening are being addressed as two separate matters. But I want
you to understand the full building context that has led to some of the changes that we’ll formalize later tonight, which I think
fit the overall program very appropriately and kind of get a vision of that as we walk around the building. Much of this is
familiar from the last time, and you can see the condominium development up on the road level. It is held back substantially
from the 5th Avenue edge. You can also see, why don’t you walk us around just a bit, and down, there, no let’s keep going.
You can also see the change in the gazebo. It’s gone from circular form to a much more massive square form, with a real
solid chimney and fireplace on this corner. In your report, we actually paired an image of this corner against the previous
Packet Page 249 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 4
corner of the building, and you can see a strong similarity in massing, kind of logic if you will, a different use and a different
presentation, but still a strong corner emphasis. And we also appreciate the input, so the spaceship has taken off even though
I built that and I liked it. But we do like this better. We think it’s much more solid, more grounded, and frankly, a bit more
traditional, which is more fitting for the building. So we have agreed with the input, as well.
Mr. Allen: There’s a couple of changes you can start to see. Let’s work around and back down a bit, and pull it out just a
bit. There we go. Can you point out the hanging baskets that we put in there? We talked last time about the awning frames
that have a strong art element at each major column location. They’re about 16 foot on center. And then the awnings rest on
those frames essentially at the 14-foot wide window base. What the restaurateur who is likely to go into the corner really
wants to have sidewalk seating there. Our previously designed planter boxes get in the way of that. So we traded up and
moved the planting materials up into a planting basket, which I think is probably a bit more visible and more appropriate, I
think, for the way the City likes to see things develop. And it allows, and we’ll show you this in one our power point slides
in a moment, how it kind of allows the sidewalk seating. And one of the other changes we’re asking for the building is to an
operating storefront for those restaurant windows so they can actually open the restaurant to the street, as well, which is a
really nice feature. I think probably the first one here, I think, at least that I can think of in Edmonds. But it’s a great feature
for enlivening the sidewalk.
Mr. Allen: You can also see as we go around, and I think the power point slides will show it a little bit more clearly. Can
we get a better shot?
Ms. Kendall: I’m going to interject. We have two projects we’re introducing tonight, and you are almost starting to get into
the minor project. I just want to clarify that as you move forward that your information is spilling over into the second.
Mr. Allen: Yes, and what we’ll do when we get to the second one, we’ll actually formalize and run through the actual
changes. But I want you to understand the full context of the design, including the changes that were made in the first phase.
Thanks for pointing that out. We can start to see here the railing development that we talked about last time. At the corner,
we’ve carried the stone massing over proximal to the gazebo, which is again, is a heavy timber, exposed, detailed orientation.
So we find it attractive from the street. From that over, and we can show the scale for this in a minute, but at the major
building corners, we’ve developed a planter, or a railing with an integral planter that’s going to allow some screening for the
residents above, and some hanging plants coming down. So it should really enliven that edge on those building corners.
Mr. Allen: You can see some light reference to the railing just to the left, if you could move the curser there, where we
referred to kind of an organic form on the railing, and we’re refining that into a very simple, not overly ornate, but clearly a
focal component at that center in the said section of the building. So it kind of highlights the center of the heart of the
building, which is also the nature of the new infill that’s happening, as well.
Mr. Allen: Also, across the top of that rail, there we go, and it doesn’t show it too clearly here in the rendering, but I’ll show
you when we get to our colored materials boards and some of the other picture, is at that one location we’re going to have a
very heavy, large shaped cedar cap, so you get this, you know, beautiful wood, nicely varnished, and Ed and Barbara agree to
maintain it. I didn’t get too many bad looks with that, but it’s really worth it in that setting just to get that beautiful material
out there and enhance the whole idea of a sort of a naturalistic tendency that we’re aiming for at this time.
Mr. Allen: If you could swing around to the Dayton side to show them . . . Here, and again, if you could run your cursor
along that gable, along this stretch. The basic ?? system is that we have a very simple, steel frame armature, and then we’re
going to run, what we’re looking at is a plated rebar horizontal through it, and we have a couple of samples here, we’d like to
show you tonight. It’s actually, it’s a surprisingly simple process to effect, and the materials just seem so appropriate to me,
both from kind of that heavy, kind of early industrial look, and frankly, won’t it be nice to have some rebar in these concrete
walls, even if it is on top of them as opposed to in them. That’s another topic. But I think symbolically, it’s a really good
compliment to these existing concrete walls. I’ll show you the texture that it looks like.
Mr. Allen: Let’s just shoot back and catch a look at the 5th and Dayton Corner. Okay. Just to point out here, again, this is a
change we’ll hit later tonight, but we have proposed a change in the awnings. We’d shown a Kalwall before, which is a very
nice product, but as this building became finished with the full project, we really, frankly, we wanted to simplify this thing.
It ended up being pretty high end in terms of being a level of refinement, and we wanted a simpler, more naturalistic
Packet Page 250 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 5
approach to this, which I think is much more appropriate to our end product and still very strong and very balanced. We’ve
gone to . . . We’ve maintained the same awning armature that you’ve seen for some time, and we’re proposing to stretch
canvas awning in the straight runs. Could you run across where those are? There. We’re still maintaining the standing seam
awning at the two main entry points. So we feel it makes it a little bit friendlier and more approachable, and frankly, a little
nicer façade, (I missed some here because someone is rattling papers in the microphone), and a little more casual.
Mr. Allen: Let’s swing up Dayton. Up here we’ve pretty much kept what we had before. I think our major changes were in
the gazebo and one other refinement, and Steve, this is particularly for you, because you had asked about our arch knees up
above and how they relate to the arch height. I had fully intended to cut out templates from plywood and bring those tonight,
but not only did I have some challenges to deal with on site the last couple of weeks, but we haven’t fully inventories our
timbers yet. So I don’t know what size we’re working with. But what I can tell you, and I think we’ve got some 4 by 14’s or
even 16’s that we’ll find the biggest dimension of timber and cut the maximum arch out of those. So we’ll get as much as we
can out of the kind of material that we have available. So it will be a decent arch. We can’t get into bending timbers, either,
but I just didn’t have time to figure out which material we’re using for that to be able to show you tonight.
Mr. Allen: But on the upper Dayton again, and let’s zoom in on the upper Dayton over here. You’ll notice a few things.
Again, we have the steps, storefront façade running up the sidewalk. We have gone to essentially a single entry and the
middle bay is offset to the west, can you point that out? Thank you. Which is synonymous with where our current entry is, as
well. We’ve got a door also up at the far end there, which is the second exit out for the commercial space. We’re actually
fairly . . . Well we know that we can get the single-level floor in here, which would be frankly more effective for a retail
tenant to be able to make better use out of it. So that’s kind of why we’ve gone to that storefront.
Mr. Allen: We are retaining the existing concrete walls, as we have been since our first proposal. These infill openings are
something that will read as bay windows. They actually have an angle out, but they come out. The primary r?? is flush with
the face of the concrete and then angled in, as you can see there. So you do get some crenellation. Depending on the type of
tenant that we end up with there, there may be some additional development of that open space. It is being retained. There’s
about six or seven feet from the face of the building out to the sidewalk, and we’ve, in our submittal, shown some planter
boxes there. We would certainly be interested in a tenant who could do a bit more development. There’s a landscape
opportunity there, but this is actually one of those suggestions that the tenant. . . .
Mr. Allen: Up above is built similarly. We’re having a bay window that would project out over that, kind of announcing
that entry point. By gabling the living room wall, could you go to there? We’ve made a reasonable attempt to maintain the
view line across that corner of the building. It also helps reinforce our planning philosophy of the hub and spoke idea that we
had talked about last month, and it has an added advantage of relieving the view at the corner from further up the street.
Mr. Allen: So that’s a pretty good tour around. What I’d like to do now is jump to the power point. One of the major
discussions points last time is how does this building fit into the surrounding context. So we’ve taken a number of views.
Let’s start with this one, and we’ve set the building into the Edmonds context. Now this is taken from one of the map sites
that we can find on line. We found that the existing buildings didn’t read strongly enough, so we did some very simple
massing models so you can see the relative scale of the buildings in the immediate area. Obviously, if you could point to the
project, it’s really appropriately scaled and set back for the context that we’re in, in our view. I think it’s backed up by some
of the photos you’ll see. We actually inserted the model into a number of photographic views so that you can get some sense
of how this is going to be in real life.
Mr. Allen: Let’s go to the next one. This is looking down 5th to the corner of 5th and Maple. You’ll see the south mall
courtyard as the foreground, and little store fronts running along there. Then you see the building in the distance. In the
context of buildings running up Maple, you know, it doesn’t feel intrusive at all.
Mr. Allen: The next one. This is a little enhanced perspective because our photograph was stitched together out of three
frames, so you have to bend to it a little bit. But this is looking pretty much across from Tully’s courtyard. You can see the
step backs we have for the building, for the third floor. The ?? is really quite effective at strengthening that second story
parapet line. You can also see this one, the kind of full extent of the planter railing at this corner, and then also here on the
other corner. It really softens it and humanizes that match.
Packet Page 251 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 6
Mr. Allen: Okay. This is a street front shop, I think there might even be some people there. This shows the kind of
sensibility you can have with the restaurant being opened on a nice, summer day, of which we have, of course, many. But
it’s really a worthwhile thing to do. And then the sidewalk. It’s got a really nice feel to it. It enlivens the street and I think
it’s going to help a lot.
Mr. Allen: Let’s go to the next one. This jumps up, a view not too many people have, and gives you some sense of how the
elements work together. Again, a lot of variation on the step backs, and as we get out to the corner, the second unit faces at a
45 degree angle. You can see the gazebo set in there. We’ve gone to some pains to line the structure up with the structure of
building. So we’re trying to get. . . When you try to find the lines like that, it kind of quiets the thing down and makes it feel
like it’s really part of the overall structural idea of the building. It’s something we like to try and do.
Mr. Allen: The other thing. . . This is a minor detail, but it’s important. You see, can you point to the anchor points there
for them? Along here, and actually what I realized as we got into the full design of this thing, the structural engineer has
actually required these around much of the building. So we’re going to have these large tie back anchors to essentially hold
the existing concrete back to the new structure. In our previous design, we’ve gone to some elaboration to get in frankly fake
rosettes and brackets and anchors, which were all quite lovely. But frankly, when we started to look at the reality of what
we’re going to have, it was not only redundant, it was frankly, a bit of a traffic jam visually. So then we cleaned it up. We
felt that coming to a very heavy, and these will be painted wood parapets, I’ll show you the colors we’re talking about in a
moment, offset with this, you know, we’re probably going to look at a square washer turned on a diamond and painted so that
you have a nice riveted pattern for the building, which gives it that kind of industrial feel. It was frankly not only a great
trade, but I think a trade up in terms of simplicity and strength of presentation. Sp that’s how we’re going to do it.
Mr. Allen: Let’s go to the next slide. This gives us a shot from the 5th and Dayton. We’ve introduced into the gazebo the
arched knees again, to capture that language in an appropriate way. It helps scale those openings down so it doesn’t feel like
your get to acid of an opening up there. So it feels more appropriate to the human scale.
Mr. Allen: Next one. This is looking down from up . . . You can see, you know, what did we figure out, Ed, that the new
roof, at it’s highest point, is 1½ to 2 feet above the existing sawtooth trusses that are in there. So it’s from a relative scale
standpoint, it’s really not bad at all compared to what’s there. I think it creates a pleasant corner map for the view and the
view beyond, and it fits the scale of the place. The picture speaks for itself. Oh yeah, as Ed points out, the top of the roof
lines up with the second floor of the house beyond, so at least the views from that floor are uninterrupted.
Mr. Allen: I’m going to shift gears and go the color boards for you to have a look. I’ll try to speak up so people can hear.
These will be available for viewing afterwards if you haven’t already seen them. The hint is . . . Basically, what we’re
looking at is a series of three colors that are kind of painted. We have our major concrete frame, which is in the darker color,
and this is relatively fresh paint. We have or inset concrete colors. This is where we had previously shown sandstone, and
for the both the standpoint of simplifying, and frankly to bring additional weight off this wall, we wanted to go to something
like this. Frankly, I don’t miss it at all. Then here, with the deep kind of eggplant, maybe it’s called limestone, color for the
fascia and so that the access points are amplified. And the awning pipe frames would be this deeper color. And then up
above, we’ve gone to a two-tone shingle color. The shingles would be the predominant side of the view for the
condominiums up there. We’re still looking at a couple of different patterns, either a straight exposure or a varied exposure
or some combination of that to get some scale and interest. And then this would be the main body, and this would be what
the window trim and casings.
Mr. Allen: You can see some of the flaking on the rebar, which came out (the tape changed here). . . . This is our drawings.
We’ll probably use some combination of the two in the railing assembly. The nickel might be in the vertical with some of the
armature. These could be the rails, I’m not sure. But it’s a very deep, rich, interesting texture system. You’ll see this varied
through the basic rail system, and then it will step up and still some of it where the planters are, and then it will get kind of
expanded, simplistically reinforced. And then the stone that we’re looking at for the fireplaces is combination of these two
materials, or something very close. This is our best shot yet, but we’re still refining it. But we wanted to get some of the
deeper tones and some light and sparkle into it.
Mr. Allen: This is the awning pattern. Exactly, on 5th and Dayton. But the corner entries here will still be the standing
seam metal. I’m sorry we don’t have that.
Packet Page 252 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 7
Board Member Smith: How far out are they projecting?
Mr. Allen: 5½ feet.
Board Member Smith: 5½ feet.
Mr. Allen: They’re very substantial awnings and functional. (There is some talking between Mr. Allen and Board Member
Mestres, but I couldn’t understand what was said.)
Mr. Allen: We didn’t go over six. I think we were about 5’7” or 5’8”. (Again, a Board Member is speaking, but I can’t
hear what is said).
Mr. Allen: This is our fascia, the ??, and it’s also the frame that the awning sits on, and then the contact anchors we were
talking about, they’re there, as well. It’s a nice accent brought through the building, and we’re pretty excited about it.
Mr. Allen: This is the cedar, and the cedar that’s going to be . . . We’re going to have one ?? section, and that is the
rebuilding of the timber.
Mr.??: No, no. The timbers are all fir, and fir has got to be ?? and protected and ??. We’re probably going to work them
out of 4” by 10” cedar. It’s like . . .
There’s no way to hear enough of what is going on here because not only was the applicant and Board Member speaking
away from the microphones, there was a lot of paper being rattled in the background.
Mr. Allen: It’s nice to look at from down below and nice really from up above. That’s our presentation. Oh, you’ve seen
these in a power point presentation, but that’s basically, we wanted to have them up here for illustration during discussions. I
think that’s it.
Chair Kendall: Thank you. At this time, we will have questions for the applicant.
Board Member Bullock: I only have one question. I think at the initial approval you were going to be doing some kind of
stone work for the upper corners and fascia. I think I heard you refer to the fact that it’s going to be different now; that it’s
potentially going to be made of wood and just painted. I wondered if you could go into a little bit more detail what that’s
going to be like.
Mr. Allen: Sure. The original coping was going to be up here at this plane, and so we see about we were going to launch it
out a ways, and so you are going to see about an inch and a half or three quarters of it from own below. And that was going
to set on top of that whole ?? as I described earlier. As I started to zero in on how to address the public plantings issue and
also the owner’s desires to do some landscape to the edge, it really became obvious that a trade here, you know, actually
instead of running that whole depth of stone, which frankly nobody in the public could see, and trade it for a very strongly
developed railing system, provide some green and color was really the tradeoff. What we’re going to do is build coping up
here with a three-tiered Corbelled build, if you will. So it’s going to be very substantial, using high quality cedar so it will
hold up. It will provide a very solid cap to the buildings, and it’s a different approach. But we felt that the rail system and
the green being brought to the edge of the building, along with the stone as part of a fireplace side would be a good trade.
Board Member Bullock: What are the dimensions?
Mr. Allen: Of this.
Board Member Bullock: Yes.
Mr. Allen: Between the . . . Across the three pieces, it’s going to be about 22 to 23 inches vertically, so it will be three
heavy pieces of 2x material built out. Right now, this one’s at 22, and I think we’re about 69 in here. So it’s substantial.
Packet Page 253 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 8
Board Member Bullock: So you’re talking about something that’s roughly on the order of six inches deep, too?
Mr. Allen: Yes. Those are only on the corners where we’ll be building it out like that.
Board Member Bullock: So right now, there’s some flashing on the top of it?
Mr. Allen: Of course.
Board Member Bullock: Is that a different color?
Mr. Allen: The same color as this. So it will be a dark metal accent. And you’ll see here probably 2½ or 3 inches.
Board Member Smith: Approximately, what’s the length . . .
Mr. Allen: Of this here. These are 16-foot bays, so that’s about 16 feet there.
Mr. Clugston: If I could ask real quickly, would it be possible for the applicant to just go through what he just explained
and for the public, as well, with that and the materials board, as well. Just real quick.
Mr. Allen: (Someone is banging something around near the microphone, so I can’t hear this part well. While I tried to
capture some of the conversation, it is missing a lot of information) Yeah, I can do that. Can you hold that please? Okay,
what we’re looking at is 2 primary colors for the color for the concrete. The deeper color will be the concrete f??, if you will,
we’ll call it. The lighter color will be inset around the windows and some other accent. Basically, it’s a two-toned approach.
We’ve got enough contrast, we feel, for it to be enlivened without being harsh. This color here is the, and I think it’s actually
called livestock, I don’t know how they name these things. This is the color of the cap of the building, the parapets that I was
just describing. The structural tie backs by the existing concrete ?? The pipe frame awnings, the new awnings, this fabric
back here in the photograph is for the primary awnings and materials. Up above, which is the ?? shingled structure, we’re
going to go a little bit, kind of lighter, warm beige/gray color for the body. And then a deeper, but not too strong a contrast,
but a deeper colored trim and the heavy timber component. But that’s, again, ?? The railings as presented, is going to be, I
think we are going to look at two-toned. There is going to be a ?? rebar, a ?? rebar application. I think it’s a very ?? and I
think it’s really appropriate. You might enjoy the correlation of those two materials, which is sort of an application??
Mr. Allen: And then assume there’s going to be a mix of these two types of stones going up, the warmer colors with deeper
values and then highlighted with this. . . So it’s really going to be a beautiful presentation. The stone that we’ve laid out and
shown in the picture is a kind of a ?? so I feel we’ll really have a strong, naturalistic ?? right here. Then finally, the cedar is I
think a little bit darker in color, but there is a rail pass at the middle portion of the building along here. We’re going to do
some kind of light and fun variations on the rail system across this whole inset stretch. And that’s where we’ be using a very
heavy cedar cap, we’ll probably make it about a 4” by 10” shape so it drains well and that sort of thing, and varnish that with
several coats. It’s going to be the real strong accent and kind of a naturalistic centerpiece that is really, really beautiful.
Mr. Allen: The parapet side that Steve had asked about, we’ve done two parrot affects. You can see them here and here,
and you can come up later to take a closer look at this, but it’s essentially going to ?? by three pieces of 2x material, probably
a 2” by 8”, 2” by 12”, that’s going to get us up to about 22 inches overall depth. And the ?? for a total of about 6 inches. It
gives us a really nice cornice type cap, ?? to natural or mold or trim on top, and it gives us a chance to get some ventilation
into the roof system ?? Then it steps down to a two-step parapet where you have those lower components, so you’ve got two
obviously. That’s about it.
Chair Kendall: Thank you. Any more questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. At this time, the Board does not have
further questions of the applicant, so I would like to. . . This is the opportunity for public comments. I was going to start
with the sign in sheet here and call people up and see if they want to come forward and speak on this project, and then open it
up. So I have Alan McFarlane. Alan if you could restate your name and address again.
Packet Page 254 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 9
Mr. McFarlane: Alan McFarlane, 546 Walnut Street, Edmonds, Washington, I want to talk about what you call the south
mall courtyard. To Bob Gregg and all present. If you essentially keep this little area on the main drag as it is, essentially, a
kind of a keystone, setback with the same footprint as it has now, no forward moving of the eastern wall of that little outside
wall, it will make you, Bob, a hero. And I’m not overemphasizing this thing. You’re going to be a hero. Every time the
people go by there, they’d say, Bob Gregg did that; didn’t he do a nice job? It will be the best public relations anybody could
buy in this State. That’s all I have to say.
Chair Kendall: Thank you, Alan. I believe public comments in this part are for the current file, the condominium, and then
we’re going to have opportunity for further comment on File Number ADB-2007-2 after that presentation. I just wanted to
keep some parameters here of the meeting. It looks like the next person that signed in is, it looks like is it Jean Richards.
Ms. Richards: Not commenting.
Chair Kendall: Okay, you are not caring to comment tonight? Okay. And then Mr., is it Alvin Rutledge? Will you state
your name and address please, Mr. Rutledge?
Mr. Rutledge: Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds. The facts today Lara received from the hotel group
today, which you should have today in your packet. On this packet, I talked to the ?? three times, and we can’t get together
because Mr. Lee is in jury duty. He did not mention that tonight, but he’s apparently in jury duty, and he was going to try
and set a meeting with me. So I have not spoke to him or anybody from their group at all about my questions that I have.
Mr. Rutledge: The second item is, I belong to the Edmonds Senior Kiwanis Club, and Mr. Bob Gregg was the speaker
yesterday. And I did ask him a couple of questions. One was about the three residences on the third floor, and he informs
everybody that there’s a family there. There ain’t no rent, and it’s not for sale. So the three units that are operated by a
family, and I believe this meeting today is supposed to be here for them to revise and submit their plans, and I agree with all
the neighbors that were here last meeting, that was not mentioned, because they understand you’re going to have two
different people come in there and are concerned about younger people and whatever. So I think that’s something that should
be submitted into his plan here tonight, that there’s only going to be one family living there.
Mr. Rutledge: Secondly, I asked him because a lot of people were concerned up the street, was that the very honest deal of
selling out, if they get their money, they’re selling, behind Mill Town. And I asked him that today, and whether he was going
to plan on moving there, and he mentioned that he’s just in the retail business. That he has no idea at all of going any other
place up there, we’re talking about this one location of course, Old Mill Town. He had no intention of going up the street and
purchasing homes and doing retail. That is done by somebody else. So that was a couple of questions I had. But I do have
some other questions, and I’ll try to get back with Mr. Lee for further questioning on the situation. Basically, I think this
should have been submitted with the plans, and I think that would satisfy the neighbors here of what is the chances are of
doing more building in that area. I would just like to raise that right now, that one area. Thanks.
Chair Kendall: Thank you Mr. Rutledge. Next person on the list is Rowena Miller. Would you care to speak?
Ms. Miller: Rowena Miller, 8711 – 182nd Place Southwest, Edmonds. Thank you for letting us speak. Interesting to see all
the materials and to hear you talk. Some of it’s going to be really fancy, and maybe that will alleviate some of the, what you
said sir, the massive, square, solid quality of this building. The eastern property, the property east of this building, has a
beautiful garden, and you said something about this building is the same height as the next door building so that the view
would not be interrupted. Well, I know we have no view ordinance, but I think you’ll find that the view is interrupted, and I
do hope that as you go building to the east, you know that third floor area, you will remember to stay connected with the
beautiful little garden to the east and make this building compatible with that part of the neighborhood.
Ms. Miller: I also have some real concerns about environment. The condos are going to make a lot of traffic in the alley
between Dayton and Maple. It will be increased considerably, and I’d like to know, and I’d like for you tell the public,
what’s being planned for alley access and egress and maintenance of that little alley road. Will the developer pay mitigation
fees for extra traffic? If so, how much? There’s been a lot of digging, which is another environmental concern. A lot of
digging down and away of dirt and soil. This has been polluted and contaminated in the past. Is this dirt being monitored
now for contamination? And what kind of contamination are you monitoring for and by whom will it be watched? How
Packet Page 255 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 10
many loads of dirt have you removed and where is all this dirt been deposited? The public would like to know. And is this
digging and removing process to accommodate a below ground level parking garage? I think it was great to hear that you are
recycling some of the original wood, but I am disappointed that there’s no mention of green construction, no pervious
parking surface mentioned. The parking surface and the ?? upstairs, it would be great if that could be pervious, as well as
green energy efficient kinds of heating, plumbing, appliances. I know it’s not required by code, but it would be great,
especially at this point in Edmonds’ environmental life, if we could keep it green. Thank you for listening.
Chair Kendall: I just have to make a couple of comments after that. First of all, there are rules and regulations regarding
dirt and testing and where it’s taken away. Those things are reviewed and monitored by our building department. It’s not an
ADB, but that’s something you could have staff take care. Secondly, the ADB is interested in green building, and we are
actually having conversations about that and discussions that’s something that we do follow. I sincerely doubt that they’ll be
as it was. It was very energy efficient, and it’s probably going to be better now in saving an old building, if you’re really
looking at resource management, it’s certainly more efficient than demolishing something completely and starting from
scratch.
Ms. Miller: I wasn’t comparing it to the old.
Chair Kendall: Well, you’re looking at energy consumption. That’s a relevant consideration. Ed Nobel.
Mr. Nobel: My name’s Ed Nobel and I live at 523 Maple. I have five points to make. One thing, considering the accuracy
of the scale, where you show the building compared to automobiles, the building compared to other buildings, how accurate
the scaling is on those two. I can take you back a ways. In Seattle, when the built the Gray Towers on Elliott Bay. To get the
public to accept it, they scaled it so it looked much smaller than what the building were around, so the people accepted it.
When the built it, of course, it was quite a bit higher. It’s just like one of the photographs that shows coming down Dayton.
The vehicles are up high and good sized, and the buildings in back look smaller. It sells, so I get a little concerned as to the
scaling on the way they presented the building. Is it accurate compared to the other surroundings.
Mr. Nobel: Next thing, I think your gazebo, that northwest corner, I think is wrong piece. As far as meeting code, that’s
fine, but as far as a buyer of that particular condo up on top, I’d be very disappointed because that’s going to impact my view
bit time. That’s looking west and looking north, northwest. It’s going to impact view big time, and it’s going to actually
reduce the value of the property.
Mr. Nobel: The next thing I had, you’ve got a couple of restaurants shown down there. Where do you have the vents for the
kitchen because if you are going to have a couple of restaurants, there’s going to be a lot of fumes, a lot of smells, and I don’t
know what the code requires here for that kind of establishment. That could . . . If I were living up there and I found that the
vent was coming back through there and that all I could smell all day long is teriyaki chicken, I’d get a little upset.
Mr. Nobel: The next thing. There seems to be a difference in the two plans that I’ve looked at on parking. You talk about
six parking spaces. The plan that I have here, coming off of level two, there’s no parking. There’s a wall in there. You look
at the second level plan coming off the alley, you go into a wall. And there’s no entrance in there for parking. If you look on
the other set of plans, it shows the parking. So I don’t know what the plan is at this point, and I don’t think the City knows
either because you’ve got two sets of plans that are not consistent with each other.
Mr. Nobel: The last thing I have. The lot line adjustment that he’s asking for. I don’t know. Is there part of that as City
property, or is that all part of one of these lots owned by Greg? I don’t know because you’re showing the end of the alley.
The alley turns and goes north. It goes east, but then it goes straight back, and I don’t know where the lot line is there. If that
is City property on that triangle back in there or does that lot line curve back around, come back down and go over? I don’t
know and I just saw these this evening for the first time. I think that’s something we need to look at. If that is City property,
I’m sure you’re not going to want to vacate it and I don’t think you should. If he wants to buy it from the City, fine. But not
to vacate it. That’s it.
Chair Kendall: Thank you very much. Are you asking me if the lot line adjustment entails the City vacating any right-of-
way?
Packet Page 256 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 11
Mr. Nobel: Yes, that’s part of the question.
Chair Kendall: Thank you very much for your comments.
Mr. Nobel: And also the parking.
Chair Kendall: I’ve got that one down. I went off the sign in list when I was asking for public comments. It is not my
intention to restrict public comments to people who signed in, so if anybody else would like to pose questions of the applicant
at this time, please feel free. I’m reminding you that this is for the Phase II application. We’re still going to talk about the
second application on the agenda later tonight. So if anyone would like to come up and have additional comments, please
feel free to do so at this time. State your name and address for the record.
Ms. McFarlane: Lynn McFarlane, 546 Walnut. I’m concerned about the money. I know that you’re trying to cut costs, and
it looks it. I really dislike canvas as the choice. I think glass would be much preferable. It would look better, and it wouldn’t
darken the interior of the restaurant and it wouldn’t darken that corner. So I think it might be well worthwhile to revisit that
plan. We have months of gray days, and having dark brown canvas up above you is not going to make you feel much lighter.
Also, could they be sloped? I think that the straight line is very abrupt and how are they going to be drained to avoid a drip
line? If chairs and tables are there, the passerby’s would have no awning to walk under. So they’ll be walking out in the
rain, and where the trees are, the space between the edge of the soil for the tree and the space for the chairs and tables is very
narrow. If a couple of people were walking abreast, I think they’d have to go single file through that area. So I think that
that needs to be revisited a little bit. Where the trees are perhaps no chairs and tables so that would work even better. (She
said a few words as she was leaving the microphone, but I couldn’t hear what she said.)
Chair Kendall: Thank you.
Mr. Waite: Madam Chair, Steve Waite, 111 Elm. My commentary tonight is primarily with the fireplace element on the
corner. The selection of materials seems quite appropriate for the condominium and the theme that’s been developed.
However, what is seen on the streetscape is that there’s essentially an extension of the parapet wall. Part of the attraction, I
suppose, of the building, some may disagree, but it’s the simplicity of concrete forming system that was employed during that
period. The rest of the adornments that have been added seem to be following in the simplistic lines of that. However, that
element on the corner is quite apparent, and there has been a change of materials relating to the condominiums. It’s not
relating to the streetscape. So that’s a bit troublesome. The fireplace is a vernacular element and a heavy element. However,
visually as it sits on the corner, it does not have a visual support. The transparency of the first floor, particularly, doesn’t
appear to support it. So I’m not opposed to it, but I’d just like to point out that as it relates contextually to the street is
entirely different as it relates to the condominiums, which it does quite well. I presume since the condominiums have been
pulled back from the street façade that those are not important elements. There was some reason why those condominiums
were pulled back and have a completely different design theme of the stone work.
Chair Kendall: Does anyone have any questions about his comments? Does everybody follow what he’s saying? I’m
feeling a little confused. If you could walk over and point on the picture exactly what you’re talking about just to make sure I
read you right.
Mr. Waite: Can you see here.
Chair Kendall: Right. Right. I wanted to make sure you were talking about. . . So right there on the very . . .
Mr. Waite: So as I mentioned, it does relate to this design concept. However, as to what is on the street and views, it looks
like it’s just been placed there as an addition, particularly what it’s trying to portray as a fireplace with vernacular ornaments.
It doesn’t have any context with this lower structure.
Chair Kendall: You don’t really object to the pagoda, but to the fireplace?
Mr. Waite: That’s another story. What I’m reading here is this heavy element and its lack of context to the building, itself.
Packet Page 257 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 12
Chair Kendall: Thank you. Do I hear you correctly that you’re concerned about the materials being used?
Mr. Waite: Material and, you know. . .
Chair Kendall: The heaviness?
Mr. Waite: Yeah. And the fireplace, I’m not going to get involved in what goes on in the roof top, that’s another story. I
don’t feel I have a place to comment on that. However, it is missing a human scale with the streetscape here. As you see it
extends above on the same plane.
Board Member ??: What would you pursue in there?
Mr. Waite: I’ll just let my comments speak for themselves, in a little generality of the context of buildings and purpose and
how it reads. Right now, it’s very prominent. I don’t think anyone’s going to miss that. In fact, everybody will probably
focus on that more than the rest of the building. I’m not sure that there’s continuity with what’s been attempted here.
Everybody’s critics, so I apologize for that. But I think that principle is not being followed. (Mr. Waite said something else,
but he was away from the microphone and I couldn’t hear what he said.) But you know, it’s your project, so. . .
Chair Kendall: Thank you.
Mr. Hertrich: Good evening. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive. If we could get a picture up here that we had, a bunch of
views of the building that showed that particular corner, that would be helpful to me. At the same time, I would like to
discuss the letter that I sent and have you refer to A.20, Attachment 4 in the packet. It’s on one of these big sheets. And I’ll
wait a second for you to do that. Thank you. That probably gives us a better picture of what we’ll see from the street.
You’re looking for that drawing for my letter, and I’m dealing with this issue now separately. It was nice to see that they got
rid of the flying saucer on the corner, that round structure. That’s what it looked like the first time I saw it. Now, of course,
we have lines in that fireplace and rooftop that somewhat match the lines of the building. By the way, I’m not an architect, as
you probably know, but I do have a feeling for scale. I appreciate buildings when they look right, and so I have a reaction to
things that I feel don’t look right. And that’s, of course, where I’m coming from.
Mr. Hertrich: If you look at the . . . There’s several pictures that have been changed around on here. But one of the things
that really stands out in my mind, as far as the lines, is that while the buildings are set back a ways, this structure on top is
shoved right out in front. And all the railings and everything else are shoved right out to the edge, which detracts from any
ability to put a strong cornice and identify the historical elements of the first two stories. So in other words, it really
diminishes what I see as the historic part of this building because my focus is on these different looking structures on the
roof. And when I say different, just the fact that we’ve gone to some use of a round pattern, only shows up if you look if you
look at an air view. But the overhangs on the buildings, those big, sharp sections and the round roofline on the other
building, are in direct contrast, in my mind, to the lines to the lines on the original building. Again, they diminish the feeling
I have for the lower because I’m looking at all this different looking things on top. Okay, that’s my reaction.
Mr. Hertrich: Now, getting back to my letter. If you’ll look at that drawing, A.20, Attachment 4, and you look to the
Dayton Street side, and you go up to the entrance that’s listed, it says. . . Well, it’s at the 62, I think my letter gave the
elevations, it was around 62 feet or. . . There we go, 62.5 feet for one of them and then the mechanical location was a little
bit higher. And that’s in contrast to the original elevation of the floor. If you look at the drawing, you’ll see a series of seven
steps, seven or eight steps. That gives you about a 40-inch drop from the entrance from the doorway. The fact that that floor,
which is continuous all the way from the very corner on 5th Avenue, that floor being 40-inches down, that factor does not
comply with the BD1 requirements in order to get an extra five feet on top. In other words, to get the 30 feet, the
requirements for BD1 require 15 feet, and then no more than a 7-inch drop, and I think they give you an ability to go with
some sort of platform, and another 7-inch drop. So there’s a possibility of 14-inches max. And this does not comply with
that.
Mr. Hertrich: Now, if the building were stepped up in a series of steps, you could probably comply with those
requirements, and that’s the reason I wrote the letter earlier, and I tried to get the message out that the important thing is
when you use the BD1 requirements, you have to meet, even though this was built BC at the lower floor, you still have to
Packet Page 258 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 13
meet those requirements in order to get that five feet in the BD1 zone, that extra five feet. I think that presents a problem,
and the developer said he had an answer for it. Well, I hope that he has an answer, and I hope he satisfies the Board because
you have to make the findings that it meets all the elements before this thing can pass muster. So my letter is explained, I
hope. You’re welcome to ask me questions.
Mr. Hertrich: Let’s see if I can find my notes. By the way, that section in the BD1 zone is 16.43, and I think that’s the code
number. But I want to thank Mr. Lee for his effort to contact anybody that had spoke at the other meetings. I thought that
was an excellent thing for him to do, and kind of a different thing. I did not respond other than a couple of questions. I did
not meet with him. I would rather be able to stand here tonight and deal with this objectively. But I do appreciate his
concerns and his reaction to some people’s comments, which are reflected in some of the changes that have been brought
forth tonight.
Mr. Hertrich: Again, my first concern was that this meet code, and I don’t find it does. That’s my opinion. One of these
series of views with the curve of the roofline reminded me of a bleacher, just an odd shape of a round bleacher at Husky
Stadium or something. I find things I compare to that they give me an instant reaction as to what I see. Some of the angles, it
was very starch the difference, especially when they jut out. When the . . . Over the Star Feathers up on Dayton Street, that
large protrusion that sticks out from the building and the living residence that juts out over top, kind of overshadows the
original roofline of the Star Feathers. I think, again, it changes the whole character of that section, even though Star Feathers
was set back and had a real neat element of looking setback. All of a sudden, you have this thing that hangs out over top and,
to me, it changes the total character of that. You wouldn’t recognize it as the old Star Feathers.
Mr. Hertrich: I’d like to draw your attention, also in those drawings, to the air view; the one with all the white sections of
buildings, A.34, Attachment 10. I think it was . . . There we go. Thank you. If you will notice the lines on all the buildings
in this whole picture, I only see one round shape. That certainly is different. But if we deal with the character, the historic
character of the area, they’re all fairly straight lines, and this is definitely different. Now, it’s set back, that’s good, but it
doesn’t all set back. What you see from the street view is what counts. So I would suggest that if these round edges were
straightened out a little bit on those rooflines, and there was a little less projection out towards the edge where it was set back
a little bit more, it would be less obvious from the street.
Mr. Hertrich: My other though is, again, the railings and the landscaping and all that, give you a wonderful edge, I suppose
if you are on the third floor. But if you look up from the street, where’s the original look of the building? You don’t see it.
It’s totally changed. I don’t think that there were any buildings in Edmonds that had . . (The tape changed here.) As a matter
of fact, I have a friend who actually does this sort of work in Seattle. He gave me a number of drawings, and he said there’s a
lot of ways you landscape and create gardens. He said it depends on the roof structure, but he said most of them don’t put
them right on the very edge. But that draws the attention. Your eye sees that, and it doesn’t see the historic building. I think
that’s all.
Chair Kendall: Thank you for your comments.
Mr. Hertrich: I appreciate your patience.
Chair Kendall: Anybody else in the audience care to speak at this time? Please approach the podium and state your name
and address.
Ms. McDuel: My name is Lorna McDuel, and I live at 523 Maple Street. It’s in the condominiums right behind the parking
lot. I just had a question. How much higher will the condos be than the present building, where those peaks are? Are they
going to be two feet higher?
Board Member ?: That’s what I read in the materials.
Chair Kendall: The architects are saying yes.
Ms. McDuel: Okay, that will be the approved condo. It will be two feet above?
Packet Page 259 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 14
Mr. Allen: Yes.
Ms. McDuel: There’s been a lot of discussion about what the building will look like from the Dayton side and the 5th
Avenue side. But nothing has been really said what is it going to look like on the east side and on the south side of the
building?
Chair Kendall: Thank you. I’m sorry, we’re all distracted by the fiasco with the light shining in. Can you please repeat
that question.
Ms. McDuel: There’s been a lot of discussion about what the building will look like from the Dayton side and 5th Avenue
side.
Chair Kendall: Yes.
Ms. McDuel: Nothing has been said about the look of the building to the east or to the south.
Chair Kendall: Actually, do you have it on your. . . Can you put something up? Let’s have a look. We assume that when
somebody asks a question, it’s a question and not a rhetorical statement, so let’s have a look.
Mr. Allen: Let’s drop that view down. Okay. That’s actually from the southeast. Swing it around a little more to south.
There we go. This is the south view, and running from west to east, we’ve got the major building mass at the corner. If you
could follow that with the cursor. With the planter edge right there. You can see the fireplace for one of the condominiums
there, and then the south wall of the condominium running across. We’ve go the entry component into the new offices, has a
trellis railing on top of it, basically here. And then it transitions over to a fireplace for the larger condo, which is above the
garage door component. And that’s . . .
Ms. McDuel: Okay, down to the ground level, what will it be like? Is there going to be plantings?
Mr. Allen: Well, we do have some planting indicated at the entry component here, and selectively at the window
components. But it’s largely a parking lot on that adjacent property, that’s what it will be. And this is also good to talk about
easement. We’ve created a 15-foot easement, part of which was involved in adjusting the property line to essentially a
perimeter setback against that building, essentially for a fire separation. And then, that’s 15-feet into the parking lot. It is
essentially a fire access easement.
Ms. McDuel: That’s the element that goes up the alley between the two streets.
Mr. Allen: Well no, the alley maintains its current integrity. We haven’t adjusted the alley dimension or pathway at all.
And the alley actually aims directly at the, if you could point to the garage opening, the alley aims directly at that. About 10
or 15 feet in front of it, it curves up the hill so you basically enter off of the alley onto the property and then into the parking
garage.
Ms. McDuel: Okay.
Mr. Allen: So we’re now to the east. Let’s drop down a bit, and swing just a bit to the south. This is the eastern elevation,
the existing concrete wall. Can you run across the top of that? That essentially remains as is, and the elevation we’re talking
about relates to the highest point of the new roof structure, which you see in several locations here is the 2 foot above the
sawtooth of the trusses. Just draw your cursor over here to where the sawtooth trusses are. They’re primarily on the south
½ to 2/3 of the building. And then also down here on the south, excuse me, the northeast corner is where we can put the
living room and fireplace element at a 45 degree to kind of keep that open corner there. That’s where it is.
Ms. McDuel: That concrete wall will stay about the same?
Mr. Allen: It does stay the same.
Packet Page 260 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 15
Ms. McDuel: Okay, thank you.
Chair Kendall: Any other . . . Thank you.
Mr. Tupper: Fennis Tupper, 711 Daley Street. I did attend the October 1st meeting. Also, I’ve been following this since
last October when attended that meeting and saw the presentation, and I didn’t speak, but followed it through the appeal
process through November and everything. I want to say from the last meeting that we had here, that I’m really impressed
with Mr. Allen and how he has recognized the citizens’ comments and has attempted to address them with his new design.
Many of the changes that have been incorporate into this new building are really very, very good changes. The fact that they
moved the parking, ingress and egress, off of Dayton and into the alley, marvelous change. I personally like the darker colors
that he’s using. But I would like the Board to focus on one thing because you are a technical board and you do have to make
a decision whether this meets the Comprehensive Plan and whether it meets the zoning.
Mr. Tupper: Please don’t follow a staff report that says we’ll review this and take care of it in the building permit process
because that’s exactly what happened up on 5th and Dayton and that contract rezone wasn’t followed. I don’t want to see that
happen here. Currently in the BD zone, the maximum building height is 25 feet, and you’re allowed to go the five extra feet,
as Roger was saying, with the 15-foot store level. Now this Phase I was approved under BC codes, and that also was 25 feet.
It allowed a 5-foot height increase with pitched roofs. The problem here is that as you follow that up Dayton and you look at
the data points, they’re not following BD1; they’re not following BC. Is he really entitled to that 97.4 or is his maximum
height, if he doesn’t step that second floor to increase that height level on the first floor as it slopes up, is he entitled to that
extra five feet. The code is really clear, the maximum height is 25. He’s only entitled to that extra five feet if his floor to
ceiling is 15 feet at every entrance on the first floor. I want you to pay attention to it rather than after this building is built we
get a determination from the City Attorney and the City Council that, oh, it’s too late. Thank you.
Chair Kendall: Thank you for your comments. Would anybody else in the audience like to make a comment at this time?
The audience members have completed their comment session. The Board will begin deliberation.
Mr. Clugston: Would it be possible for the applicant to make some comments?
Chair Kendall: Absolutely. Now we also have applicant to respond to the audience comments and questions if the
applicant would care to do so.
Mr. Lee: Thank you. I’m only going to respond to part of them, because I’m only qualified to respond a few of those
questions. I appreciate all of the comments that were made. I’ll answer Mr. Rutledge’s question, that’s one I can answer. He
asked something like this, are there going to be any young people living there, or just old people. I’m not sure exactly what
his question was, but it had to do with how many units there are and just one family. There are three units in this. Three
separate families. As it is right now, of course, we don’t will own those 50 years in the future. But as it is right now, it’s
three couples. They’re all about my age, my wife’s age, and you can either consider that young or old, depending on your
perspective. So it’s three units, three couples, and that is hopefully an answer to that question.
Mr. Lee: There was a question asked about traffic into the alley, increasing the traffic. Obviously, six condominiums are
going to have a certain amount of traffic movement, or three condominiums. Two cars at the most each, that’s 6 cars that
would have some traffic. Certainly, taken as a whole, that’s far less than what has been going on there for the last 30 years
with retail space and people coming and going all day long. So I hope that we’ll see, overall, a reduction in traffic as a result
of this. I’ll let Mr. Gregg respond to many of these other issues. The architectural issues, I’ll let Rob respond to. I think
those are the questions that I can adequately address. Rob or Bob do you want to comment now?
Mr. Gregg: Good evening. I guess my overall comment is I’d like to say how refreshing it is, I don’t know what’s causing
it, but the tone of civility that’s raining over the friendly ?? of Washington, it’s really nice, and I hope that we can continue
with this for future projects, a similar sort of open exchange and respect for everybody’s opinions. I’ll go through it fairly
quickly. Mr. McFarlane’s comments aren’t exactly up tonight, but just to answer the question, the City Council has
authorized an appraisal of the courtyard area, and they have directed the Mayor to negotiate with us to acquire the courtyard,
I think for a permanent little inner city park. We’ve met with the City’s attorney a week ago Friday, and the process is in
play. I’m not sure I can withstand the transition from three developers to hero, so I’ll suggest that we call it McFarlane Park.
Packet Page 261 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 16
Mr. Gregg: There was a question about the traffic, and just so that the public knows, there is required as part of this a traffic
mitigation study, the results of which do generate a fee, which has been conducted and has been paid. I don’t remember the
exact details, but I’ve never seen one that says there will be less traffic, so there was marginally greater traffic for which we
paid a mitigation fee. Ed’s right, the offset of the, probably the restaurant traffic up there was the most significant in terms of
coming and going during the lunch hour and the evening hour. This will certainly be quite a bit less traffic. Even if you take
the official study, there’s much more even traffic at the peaks of traffic. Just to make sure, I heard some rumblings, you can
tell ?? (I couldn’t hear what he was saying, but I think it was a joke about the Lee’s age.) There’s three condos up there, not
six. There’s six parking stalls, which is twice the requirement, twice the requirement.
Mr. Gregg: Let’s see. Rowena had a few other questions. She asked questions about the dirt, and I think that’s just maybe
an interesting civic discussion. Believe it or not, I have not imported yet or exported any dirt to speak of. All that huge pile
you see there some days is gone other days and back again other days, has been a function of moving the dirt around to get it
out of our way from where we have to be working on the site. The huge pile there now is because the rebar the architect
referred to, it’s an interesting story, because it turns out there was no rebar in those walls. Those historic walls of Edmonds
had zero rebar in them whatsoever. That’s what’s actually driving the . . . Originally, the idea was that the second floor
would sit on and be supported by these concrete walls, and we evolved in the process, we discovered one deficiency after
another starting with the building. The walls are now being saved as purely cosmetic. In addition to having no rebar, they
had no footings. They were vertically straight down into the dirt and sitting on nothing. So they have just completed the
pour this week of a 3’ by 4’ footing all the way around the building, after drilling 1,800 one-inch holes in the base of the
walls all the way around so they could add rebar, which can tie then to the new footings. So those footings, those walls, will
never stop sinking. They can’t tip in or out anymore because they are secured to the bottom. The rebar, however, will cause
it to eventually break at various levels, so a steel frame is being built inside the walls. To that, the walls are being attached
and tied back to the steel frame. That will keep it from falling into the street in the future.
Mr. Gregg: So at any rate, there was a Phase II study, I think you mentioned this last time, on the contaminated soil. You’re
absolutely right. It’s being monitored by various agencies and the City, and what not. It looks like we’re actually still going
to be short there, and all that dirt that goes back in, when it gets compacted properly, is not going to be enough to actually to
go back around the footings. When you dig out for the footings, you have to dig back far enough so that people can actually
work down there without it collapsing in on them. So they dig back quite a few feet, and that’s what’s driven all the dirt. At
any rate, let’s see. So how much removed? None so far. Where deposited? It hasn’t gone out, and we’re probably going to
have a net shortage. No there’s no underground garage. We’re not going to China, even though it looks that way. I wanted
to leave green construction to Mr. Allen. I hope that answered Rowena’s questions.
Mr. Gregg: Mr. Nobel spoke out of humor. I appreciate your suggestion about messing the accuracy and scale, and we’ll
try to remember that for future projects, but I’ll Mr. Allen address that, but I’m positive those are intended to be as accurate
as actually possible. In his comment, while the developer would appreciate, he didn’t think the buyers would like it. Do
remember the owners are the ones that are part of the design, and they do like it. Kitchen vents, not an ADB issue, but they
did ask where they are. They’re going up the elevator shaft and out there, which is basically in the middle of the building.
Parking we’ve addressed.
Mr. Gregg: The lot line adjustment issue was sort of touched on, but I want to make it clear. The City is not vacating any
portion of the alley. They aren’t giving us any easement on the alley. The alley stays exactly as it is. Access and egress
would come down the alley onto the property and turn to where the garage is. You’d enter the same way you do now, which
is off of Maple.
Mr. Gregg: I missed a couple of things there. Awnings. Sorry I missed that. In the spirit of everybody has different
opinions, the primary tenant of the building agrees with you, and he’s fighting like mad to get you glass awnings there. But
we have to start someplace, and I think what we’ll probably do, well not probably, we’ll ask for the approval as is. We may
be, the tenant may be coming back with his tenant improvement package and request a change there. But historically, it is
much more common with the era, but I just think it’s a preference thing. I think there are people that prefer it both ways.
Mr. Gregg: Steve Waite, I believe, is an architect. Is that correct?
Packet Page 262 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 17
Mr. Waite: Yes.
Mr. Gregg: I’m not going to get in the middle of two architects on technical issues. So again, just say that I think that’s the
owner’s preference for the redesign on that, and the Lee’s like it the way it is at this point. A slight tongue in cheek, I took
away from Roger’s comments that he wants us to actually bring the third partial third floor all the way out to the property line
to make a vertical concrete wall so that all three floors are identical.
Mr. Gregg: On a serious note, this issue about the, the whole issue about the door and four. What he’s talking about, as he
appropriately pointed out, is not under the Star Feather’s issue and not 5th and Dayton. It’s the one that’s halfway up Dayton
in the main part of the building that’s being remodeled. On one hand, it’s not really a topic for discussion this evening, it’s
not part of this application. But I don’t want to leave on a technicality issue. The second thing, while it isn’t perfect, it’s just
not an ADB issue. Once again, that’s a zoning issue that staff determines, and I don’t want to leave on a technicality. There
is a very specific technical difference between the BC zone that we applied for and were approved on the Phase I and the
BD1 which we applied for on Phase II. There’s no doubt that’s confusing, and I thought the people that wrote that should go
back through and figure out how it was intended to apply under the circumstances. But what the code says is that it is a
zoning issue to be determined by the building department at the time of issuing a building permit. And for purpose of ??, we
assume it to be handled the way it’s supposed to be handled. But after all those technicalities, I will say that at the point of
the building permit, that if the building department has had a chance to review the issue raised by Roger, and they change
their mind and decide that his interpretation could be correct, then what we would need is the floor plat, which it currently is.
The ceiling to ceiling of 14 feet, which is currently is, and the entrance on Dayton would not be allowed, and we would
simply not use that entrance, not even build it in, which wouldn’t have any effect on the ADB because it’s a recessed
entrance that would stay because it accesses the upstairs anyway, and it would just make that bay contiguous with the front
bay. We’ll probably have a large banquet room there for the restaurant. So we will go with the City’s final determination on
how that zone is to be applied and comply with whatever their ruling is since it’s not practical to step an existing building. If
we were building this from brand new, we probably would have thought of that, but you can’t really apply that to an existing
building. So we will comply with the other five ways. If that the entrance is deemed to be inappropriate, it will go away.
Mr. Gregg: Let’s see the height variance or the height of the sawtooth. The last comments were again, zoning and height
issues, which I think we addressed appropriately
Mr. Allen: I’ll just add a couple of things. I think most of it was covered adequately between Bob and Ed. Just quickly on
green comment. We certainly are looking at high levels of insulation and recycling of existing timbers. We haven’t gone so
far as to look at sod roofs, but we may. Ed has the interest, and he has been pushing us to really look at every facet of this
from a green standpoint. So it is part of the program, as requested by the owner, and I’m not prepared to make a green
presentation tonight, but just to let you know that it is a request from Ed that we’re prudent and smart about that. So we are
addressing it.
Mr. Allen: Awnings. I appreciate the comments on that. They are slightly sloped, and actually they’ll be sloped a little bit
more out towards the street because with canvas, you have to get at least some slope on them. It is a free draining edge; we
are capturing the water and trying to drain it back so it is going to drain on the sidewalk, and that’s actually been the way its
been since the Phase I design.
Board Member ??: With regard to awning and restaurants. I’m sure there’s an aesthetic angle and then there’s a functional
angle. Can you discuss the differences?
Mr. Allen: Sure. In my view, they are largely subjective in terms of the experience, and it’s going to vary depending on
weather and conditions. Glass, like Bob said, the restaurateur is pushing pretty hard for us to look at that. I don’t object to it,
but we are presenting the kind of baseline option here, which we think is quite viable. I think you’ll find circumstances,
given days where having being able to sit on a bright sunny day with some shade is actually rather nice. Frankly, those are
the kinds of days most people would be sitting outside anyway. So it really is a tradeoff, and the other thing is this is a
western exposure, and when it comes around and hits that building, it hits it pretty hard. We haven’t done a sun angle
calculation, because as it gets low, I’m sure we’ll have some time where we don’t have any shade regardless of what the
awnings are. But having the sense and idea of being out of the sun, but still sitting out in the fresh air and outside, well, I
Packet Page 263 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 18
don’t know about you, my favorite place on a hot, sunny day is under a shady tree. That’s what feels good about being
outside in the summer for me.
Mr. Allen: At the Starbucks it’s great, but in the summertime in the afternoon it’s excruciating when the sun is high.
Mr. Allen: Historically, at least for the last many years, I don’t know if it’s the full 30 or not, but the awnings that were on
the building were a canvas awning. I didn’t particularly like them, no offense to whoever might have been involved in those
20 or 30 years ago, but it’s a vernacular here that’s not uncommon to this building, and I think it’s very appropriate for a
sidewalk/café/restaurant. The glass side, on the positive side, it gives you a view up to see the rest of the building more
clearly. It’s a cleaning issue, which I know whoever’s running the building will keep it clean, but glass will show dirt and
other things more quickly, so it is a higher level of maintenance. So it’s a tradeoff, and we’re satisfied that the current
proposal is strong and clear and appropriate, but we’re sure open to alternatives (I couldn’t understand that last few words of
this sentence.)
Mr. Allen: A comment on tree placement that she made, I’m going to take a good look at. And I know we’re kind of set
there with the City, but if we have a little bit of latitude about where we bring the trees back, Bob.
Mr. Gregg: Yeah, sorry. It reminded me of something I meant to ask you. Tree grates there, I think this is an appropriate
issue, are currently 3 by 3 feet, and the person that spoke to the width of the sidewalk there until you put two-top tables out.
Actually, it’s a ten-foot sidewalk. There’s seven footers and there’s ten footers in town, and this is ten-foot sidewalk. The
Comprehensive Plan in the City encouraged the two-top tables out there. Many jurisdictions do not, you know, they don’t
allow but here they encourage it. What I would actually like, the engineering department is hung up about 4 by 4 foot brinks,
but we would actually like some direction from the ADB that they should be 3 by 3. My support for that is one, they are
currently 3 by 3 and have been for as long as they’ve had tree grates. On a side, I would like to continue to point out that
City Hall doesn’t have any tree bricks, and they should. As a matter of fact, I’d buy and donate them so they can get their
tree grates in. The rest of the tree grates along 5th Avenue there are 3 by 3’s. The ones in front of ?? Place are 3 by 3’s and
the ones in front of the Gregory, which is several hundred feet along, the engineering department fought for 4 by 4’s. They
laid them out that way and saw how little sidewalk was left. The Mayor came down and looked and said that’s nuts, make
them 3 by 3. The engineering department doesn’t care as long as the drawings say. If they say 4 by 4, they’ve got to be 4 by
4 before we get a permit. If they say 3 by 3, they’re perfectly happy. So we’re not stepping on their toes, they just don’t
want them in the plan as 4 by 4, and then we put them in as 3 by 3’s. So if we could clean that little detail tonight, we’d
appreciate it.
Mr. Gregg: The trees, by the way, is not anything to do with our development. The City has a new tree plan, the parks
department, and the large trees that are kind of overgrown and breaking up the sidewalk. In a 25 to 35-foot zone here, with
these 50-foot trees, they have decided there was a need to replace those trees with a different variety of different size, and
they don’t need huge tree grates there. They stay much more in scale to the size of the buildings and everything that are
down there. But I wanted to think that stops making those unilateral decisions. We didn’t ask for it, we are just following
what we’re required to do. But it is worthy to note that the big trees the City is taking out are being replaced with much
smaller tree trunks. So there’s no adverse affect of a 3 by 3, and it would make the sidewalk much more functional.
Mr. Allen: That’s enough on the trees, but I really appreciated the comment. Just a quick comment on edge treatment, the
stone, and the fireplace. One of the challenges that we want to try and meet when we do a design like this is to, even though
we’ve really pressed the condominiums back in a variety of step backs, we want to bring some sensibility to what’s
happening up there to the edge of the building. We’re still trying to respect the historic character of, you know, the two-story
concrete walls, but one of the methods we used to do that was the actual stone that Steve had a reaction to. It’s just an idea of
bringing that material familiarity, which does work well with the condominiums, and from a color and texture kind of
emphasis, we feel it also works well on the ambiance of the building. We can look at the detail a bit so we maybe have a
little bit more setback, but that was our philosophy. We wanted to bring that, frankly that beautiful, rich material out and sit
out and the City could enjoy it in concert with the rest of the building below it. So two different opinions, but I appreciate
hearing it. So that’s where I’m at.
Mr. Reynolds: Members of the Board, I’m Dennis Reynolds. I’m the land use attorney on this project. The first thing I
learned in law school, we don’t say very much after 9:00. You’re a volunteer board. I think the staff report does a good job
Packet Page 264 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 19
of talking about the Comprehensive Plan policies, with probably a little more emphasis on the zoning and development
regulations. I drafted a letter that discusses in a little bit more detail, the Comprehensive Plan policies, and I’ll lodge it with
the Board and with staff, it may be useful. If the Board in it’s wisdom, wants to approve this project, it could be helpful in
drafting a decision. I just remind the Board there’s more policies here than just the scale of the building and the pedestrian
feel was a strong prime directive for mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed-use development. This project is not
settling out of the ballpark. It’s actually one where not only do you have mixed-use development, including residential, but
the people are going to work where they live and live where they work, and that’s one of the really good policies in the
Growth Management Act. The strong policies favor renovation of buildings when possible. Again, those policies are all met
by this project. So with your permission, I’ll lodge a letter with staff, or I could approach and just hand out copies. That’s all
I have to say.
Chair Kendall: Permission granted.
Mr. Chave: While he’s doing that, you know if I might . . . Rob Chave, with the Planning Division. The BD1 zone is a
relatively new zone, and since I think some of the public comments sort of raised some questions about how some of the
provisions apply to this project, I thought it might be helpful to just go through a couple of those real quick. First of all,
regarding ground floor height. In the BD zones, there’s actually a provision that applies to existing buildings, and it says that
— and this is regarding minimum height of the ground floor — “Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without
adjusting the existing height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height, so long as the addition or remodel
does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along the street by more than 25 percent.” So since, in this case, the
applicant’s dealing with an existing building, the 15-foot ground floor height actually doesn’t need to be adjusted or changed
from what it is now. So in other words, they don’t have to increase it if it didn’t meet 15 feet currently. I think to their credit,
they’re trying to maintain at least 15 in all places.
Mr. Chave: The other question that came up had to do with the relationship of entries and floors to the sidewalk and so
forth. So there’s a section in the code in the BD1 zone, again, talking about ground floor. The critical point actually for this
building is that it’s a corner lot. The code states “for corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of
establishing where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the primary entry shall
be either 5th Avenue or Main Street.” So in this case, they can choose between either 5th Avenue or Main Street to set their
ground floor. What that means, I think from a practical standpoint, once you look at the design, clearly they’re establishing
5th Avenue as the ground floor. So the rules regarding entries, where the ground floor is positioned relative to the entry really
are focused on 5th Avenue. To the extent that they can do that on Main Street, that’s fine, but they’re not required to do so. I
think when you actually walk around the square and so forth, the 5th Avenue side is the most appropriate side for the rules to
be in effect.
Mr. Allen: Actually the 5th Avenue one is the only one that applies at this location at 5th and Dayton.
Mr. Chave: Oh, you’re right. I’m sorry.
Mr. Allen: Yeah, that’s the one I’ve seen. I didn’t catch the one about existing buildings.
Mr. Chave: Yeah, it’s actually a footnote in the site development table.
Mr. Allen: Yeah, okay.
Mr. Chave: 5th Avenue is the absolutely correct orientation for the building.
Chair Kendall: Thank you Rob. So we’ve had all the opportunity for the applicant to respond to public comments. Now
we’re going to enter into Board deliberation.
Board Member Bullock: Madame Chair, can I propose maybe a couple minute break?
Chair Kendall: Yeah, I’d kind of like to have a 5-minute break so everybody can use the restroom, get up and stretch and
get a drink of water. So at this time we’ll adjourn. We’ll resume at 9:26.
Packet Page 265 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 20
Chair Kendall: I’ll reconvene the meeting, if everybody could take a seat. If somebody could close the door please. Thank
you. We will now proceed with Board deliberations on the project before us for proposal. This is ADB-2007-67, major
project. We haven’t gotten to the minor project yet.
Board Member Bullock: Madame Chair, if I might.
Chair Kendall: Were you going to suggest that we do it at another time? I thought we could forge on.
Board Member Bullock: No, I want to forge on.
Chair Kendall: We’re all here.
Board Member Bullock: The one thing I wanted to bring up is that I’m having a little bit of difficulty keeping them
separate.
Chair Kendall: We all are, but we’re trying. So what are you proposing, Steve?
Board Member Bullock: Well.
Chair Kendall: Merging?
Board Member Bullock: Maybe.
Chair Kendall: Right now?
Board Member Bullock: I mean, here’s my point.
Chair Kendall: You want me to think on my feet at 9:30.
Board Member Bullock: Here’s my point is that one of the criteria that we said was high priority criteria is a unified
architectural concept. And to me, they both together are what they’re proposing as a unified architectural concept. And I’m
having a hard time approving one before I say something about the other and then potentially maybe not liking some other
components of the second one.
Chair Kendall: Okay.
Board Member Bullock: I’m just wrestling with this whole deal.
Chair Kendall: We’ll just. . . Go ahead Rick. We’ll discuss this for a moment.
Board Member Schaefer: I understand I think what you’re saying because we had a little back and forth about the whole
architectural concept issue. But I’m not seeing the scale of the changes in the minor project that would push me to have to
look at the whole package again together. There some very. . . We were looking at the distinctions between the residential
and the rest. And yeah, there are some other things we’re seeing change in here in terms of the weight of the cornice and all
that, but I’m not having trouble, myself, keeping them apart. But then again, I’m an engineer.
Board Member Bullock: And to respond to that, I agree that from, and I’m tipping my hat, I’m not going to have a problem
allowing this project to move forward. I am going to have some . . . I have my own opinions about some of the details, and I
guess I could . . . There’s elements of Phase I that are tied together with, excuse me, I keep saying the wrong things. But
there’s elements of Project 67, which is Phase II, right.
Chair Kendall: Yes.
Packet Page 266 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 21
Board Member Bullock: That in my mind influence File 02, and likewise the other way around. And I’m having a hard
time addressing some of those details without talking about them both at the same time.
Chair Kendall: Okay, is it possible we could discuss File 02 before we vote on File 67 so that we can have some discussion
before voting takes place, or is that out of order? Would that help, Steve?
Board Member Mestres: Could we define what the Phase 1 elements that we need to discuss? We could knock those off
and then. . . I know they’re interrelated. . . (The tape changed here)
Board Member Schaefer: (The tape changed here) and then laying out specific conditions for each of the approvals, but
they are two separate different decisions, consistent with our agenda, let’s focus on that, consistent with our agenda, and I
don’t want our process to cause a wrinkle in all of this and open things up to any kind of a challenge.
Board Member Mestres: I agree.
Board Member Schaefer: Rob, you’re nodding your head, we defer to your judgment on this.
Mr. Chave: Yeah, you need to have two separate, very clearly separate decisions. You can suspend your deliberation on the
current application if you want to touch on the other one, but then you need to come back and tie up the lose ends.
Chair Kendall: Do I have a motion to suspend deliberation on File 67 while we review File 2.
Board Member Bullock: So moved.
Chair Kendall: Second?
Board Member Smith: I second it.
Chair Kendall: All in favor? The motion is unanimous.
Chair Kendall: I’m now going to introduce minor project File Number ADB-2007-02. This is an application by Ralph
Allen of Grace Architects, representing Gregg Production Association, Inc., for revisions to the Old Milltown Phase I
approval. The changes being suggested are proposed in conjunction with the current review of Phase II of the Old Milltown
Project. As a result, review of this file will occur, this states after a decision on ADB-2007-67 is rendered. However per the
motion that just passed, we are suspending voting on the 67 file until we have discussed the 02 file. May I have the staff
report please?
Mr. Clugston: Sure. Mike Clugston, Planner, City of Edmonds. It’s pretty short. Three changes were envisioned. I think
the applicant has discussed those already. But maybe the applicant would just like to go through them one more time. That’s
all I have.
Chair Kendall: Does anybody have questions of staff or would you like to proceed to the applicant?
Board Member Bullock: Proceed with the applicant.
Chair Kendall: Proceed with the applicant presentation please.
Mr. Gregg: Bob Gregg, applicant. We had a similar quandary how to handle this issue, and frankly, the three agents will
probably take less time than I take to introduce them. We’re at the level that normally we would have just gone to staff and
looked for a staff decision. But partly in deference to Mr. Clugston not putting him in the middle of a potential hot seat and
in respect to the Board who is looking at this, even though these are very minor and typically a staff decision, we wanted you
to have, since we’re coming back anyway, we wanted you to have the opportunity to review these and have input on them.
Packet Page 267 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 22
Mr. Gregg: Having said that, we decided it was necessary to have a separate application so that they could be kept separate,
and so that’s why this minor action has its own, you know, application. And one other thing I’ll say is I’m sure you’re also
going to have a public hearing on this, so just as a record on this as we have on the other. So with that route . . .
Mr. Allen: They are in summary the change to the awnings of the Kalwall that was originally proposed to the canvas system
and our running awnings, if you will, and retaining the primary entry awnings in the standing seam metal. That’s one. The
other is the swapping out of the, it’s kind of the whole package of the sidewalk seating, swapping out the planter boxes for
the hanging planter baskets and then also creating the operating windows to get, essentially that sidewalk open café
sensibility. And then thirdly, it’s essentially allowing the existing concrete to go painted and unadorned, with the previously
proposed stone veneers and copings. I think we’ve gone through that in some detail in the earlier presentation. In summary,
those are the key points.
Chair Kendall: Does the Board have any questions of the applicant at this time?
Board Member Schaefer: Yeah, I do. So I’m looking at the written material submitted here, and so what you’re really
proposing in terms of the awnings at this point, is the canvas and then if it gets upgraded at the request of the restaurateur, it
would come out of the TI funds?
Mr. Allen: Right.
Board Member Schaefer: The other thing I want to clarify. You’re talking here verbally about having open windows that’s
some adjunct to this business with the hanging baskets and the sidewalk seating. Of course, the window aspect is not
mentioned in the materials, as well, so that is definitely part of the concept? I like the idea and maybe we could put that as a
condition in here so it’s documented.
Mr. Gregg: Yeah, in one iteration, I think they left it out, it was done inadvertently, but the fact is from a style design look
standpoint, you really can’t tell whether it’s a storefront fixed or removal. I went over and looked at a system over in
Millcreek, and the restaurateur took me because he wanted me to see them. I lost an argument or a bet over whether those
were removal or not because they just look like storefront. From a design standpoint, you can’t tell the difference.
Board Member Schaefer: Yeah, when we get to the Comprehensive Plan side of things, it’s about how it functions in terms
of enlivening the street atmosphere and that kind of thing. So that’s where we come with that thing.
Mr. Gregg: The issue here, primarily, is they’re going to see people out there. It is more to the planters need to get out of
the way. Whether the window open or don’t open, they’re still going to go sit out there. Like Starbucks doesn’t have
opening windows, but they do have two tops out there where people can sit.
Board Member Mestres: So that the stone and coping sections, does it still highlight the formal brick areas with its own
tone on tone color, so there’s no more stone tiles. . .
Mr. Gregg: Correct.
Board Member Mestres: So there’s a variety of paints?
Mr. Gregg: Correct.
Chair Kendall: Do we have any further questions of the applicant? Would the Board like to deliberate on this before we
return to vote on the previous application?
Board Member Bullock: Well, we should probably official give the audience an opportunity to comment.
Chair Kendall: Oh yeah. At this time, would any member of the audience care to comment on this application. Thank you.
Packet Page 268 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 23
Mr. Rutledge: Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way. These happen to be two separate items because they are in the field
process. You have to approve one to be able to approve the other one, so that was the right decision to skip over and go back
again to make sure you understand that. You can’t appeal this one if the other one don’t pass. Okay. I come up here with . . .
The first one you had was the hanging baskets. The City has an ordinance, they have a goal. Some of the cities only allow
those to be hanged part of the year, and where your location is, that is operated by the City of Edmonds Park and Recreation,
and they have a time of year you do those, winter and summer. So when the applicant comes back on those, is you put those
dates in for hanging baskets. And also you’re involved with the insurance, everything else you’ve got to have there if you put
those up. Something falls out and somebody walks by and, you know, breaks his leg or something, so you’ve got to be very
careful to make sure you get a copy of that from the City.
Mr. Rutledge: Outdoor seating, retail store location and opening for downtown. I worked with the past owners that,
through the people that used to pay rent down there at the Old Mill Town, and at one time, they wanted to put a festival on
every Saturday night, and they wanted to take those trees out and put benches and everything else. They went to the City and
the City had a problem. You’re going to put benches and seating in there, and I think you’re going to be in the same position
again. You have to present this to the City. That was the problem we had before. Of course, the other owners did not want
to do this, this is a new owner. It’s good to do this because I go to Port meetings over there, and I’ll be quite frank with you,
they’re going to start doing things on Sundays over there. They’re going to start one Sunday, and they’re going to keep going
to bring in more people. So you’re talking about putting benches around your place here more, and more room, so eventually
there will be more events coming down here in downtown Edmonds, too, once they start proving it over there.
Mr. Rutledge: The other thing was your stones and tiles. You should put in here the difference in cost. I think that makes a
big difference because when you go to your . . . You may have two of them coming here, and I think your costs would be
related here and your changes. You’re making changes and your costs should be in here what’s the difference of the total
cost of each one because you might be talking, whatever. I think that is something because you don’t want the public to
come back later and say well, geez, this is supposed to be like this, this don’t look that good anymore. So you want to make
sure it is pretty well about the same.
Chair Kendall: Thank you for your comments.
Mr. Rutledge: Thank you.
Chair Kendall: Any other member of the audience care to comment at this time? That concludes our audience comment
section. Let’s see, would the applicant care to respond to any of the audience comments.
Mr. Gregg: Just to make it clear, the planter boxes are on the sidewalk, so they are encroached already, and that requires the
applicant to have an encroachment permit. Hanging baskets are the same. If you allow us to have them or require us to have
them as a condition of approval, we have to get an encroachment permit. That’s a standard process with the City.
Chair Kendall: Thank you for that comment. Are we ready for Board deliberation.
Board Member Schaefer: I think we should deliberate on this one before we go back.
Chair Kendall: Yeah, we’re going to deliberate on this application before we return to the first application and vote. So at
this time let’s have Board deliberations, Steve.
Board Member Bullock: I’d like to just discuss the whole thing.
Chair Kendall: Go ahead and mix it all up. Go ahead.
Board Member Bullock: And then we can get. . .
Board Member Schaefer: But our actions will be very definitive.
Board Member Bullock: We have to make an action on each one.
Packet Page 269 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 24
Chair Kendall: Go for it.
Board Member Bullock: Do I have to go first?
Board Member Kendall: Yes.
Board Member Bullock: I’m ready to make a motion. Part of me wishes that some of the people were still here from the
hearing part of it because I know we all deal with it, but there was 2½ pieces of testimony that were stuff that I wanted to
hear as an Architectural Design Board Member. 2½ people gave me information about what the project looked like and what
they like and don’t like, and the rest of the stuff continues to be stuff that isn’t our responsibility. I just wish we could
continue to educate the people that come to the meetings. That being said.
Chair Kendall: I just want to comment on this one, Steve. I thought we had a new congenial attitude here, and it seems to
stem from people feeling validated by what they said and I heard I heard my desire to remind them that we had absolutely no
authority on some of their comments. I made a couple of tactical comments about dirt and rebuilding that it didn’t seem to be
helping the flow of the meeting. I understand your frustrations, but . . .
Board Member Bullock: I agree. I’m glad that you ran the meeting like this. I wished that some of them would still be
here so that now after they’ve all vented and said what they want to say, we can give them a little education about what’s
helpful for us in our jobs.
Board Member ??: I would suggest that we keep this meeting focused on the projects.
Board Member Bullock: Starting with the main building two stories, I am fine with replacement of the tiles and the
sandstone with the paint colors, with the built up wood cornice, with the decorative tiebacks and steel pieces. I think that’s all
going to be very nice, and I’m completely supportive of it. I remember when I looked at the Phase I drawings, my feeling all
along was that I was concerned with . . . My initial feeling was I was really concerned with just the whole shape of the third
floor, the fact that it was so wildly different from the very traditional approach of the first two floors. And I’ll say that over
time, it’s grown on me. Part of I think why it’s grown on me is there’s a couple of reasons. But one big reason is that it’s
held back so far from the edge. You’re just going to be kind of seeing hints and whispers of it in most cases when you’re on
the street. The things that you do see of it are actual echoes of the ?? of the building where you’re talking about the heavy
timber stuff. And that’s stuff that I really like and in the end, and I think I said this at the last meeting, too. I’m absolutely
supportive of having a third floor, of having residential, office, whatever you want to have on the third floor that the zoning
allows. I’m absolutely okay with that part of it. So from a zoning code perspective, I’m good with it. And now from just the
basic look of it, I’m good with it, too.
Board Member Bullock: From where I’m sitting right now, I know that I am going to be willing to make some kind of
motion on the whole project that allows them to move forward with potentially applying for the building permits, getting
their structural review underway and all that kind of stuff. But some of the things I’m still wrestling with in my mind are
some of the final details that I think I might even like to add some photographic examples of it that show me a little bit more
realistically what that piece is going to look like. I’m having a hard time picturing some of these elements. You know, the
material board helps a ton. But then when I think about the awnings on the first floor and things like that, I’m still not
convinced on that stuff, and I don’t know what would help convince me better. I don’t necessarily think those are things that
need to slow down your applying for a building permit, and I guess I could see some of those things coming back to us for a
final approval before the building permit is issued or something, you know. But I think just kind of on a big scale, that’s
where I’m at.
Board Member Bullock: Now going back to some of the testimony that was given today and some of the things that I have
just been thinking about. Ms. McFarlane talked about the awnings, and I find myself identifying very much with what she
said. I have a big concern with going with fabric awnings. I like the colors that you are proposing, but I am really wrestling
with the fabric awnings. I don’t think they’re necessarily appropriate for the building, for the age and the era, and I just think
that something a little more solid, a little more permanent, would be more appropriate.
Packet Page 270 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 25
Board Member Bullock: And then going to what Mr. Waite talked about, too. First of all, I want to say I’m very glad that
you decided to go with a square or rectangular gazebo. I think for myself, I find that much more appropriate than the round
one. That’s just my own personal opinion. But I’ve always have had some of the same feelings that I think he was trying to
articulate when he talked about the heaviness of the stone wall and the fireplace and I am wondering if maybe it couldn’t be
on the opposite side of the gazebo as opposed to being right on that exterior wall or something like that.
Board Member Bullock: The other thing I wanted to address was some of the comments about tree grates. I think that the
City’s street plan actually calls for 4 by 4 grates for main pedestrian streets. In my dealing with landscape architects and with
these things and with our street tree plan, too, is the size that the trees are required to be installed on our main pedestrian
streets, they’re required to be installed, I think, at maybe even a 3-inch caliper tree so that they have enough height for people
to walk under the canopy of the branches. And the root ball that’s going to be associated with a tree that size is going to be
probably bigger than the 3 by 3 grade going to allow you to drop it in. It would require you shaving the sides of the root ball
and some other things. That being said, the tree grates now are ADA accessible, and in my opinion, they don’t impact the
walkability of the sidewalk or passability of it. It should feel like it’s absolutely part of the sidewalk. I can see some
opportunity to maybe go to different configuration of a tree rate, maybe going with a 3 by 6, if you’re concerned with width
and where the front placement is. But I think that’s the size that’s needed for the size of tree that’s supposed to go in there.
Board Member Bullock: I think that will conclude my comments. Oh, the other comment I wanted to say is that, when we
get around to making a motion, particularly on Item 67, I think we need to be very specific about adopting the findings of
staff in our staff report related to code compliance and adopting the things that we agree with out of Attachment 2 from the
applicant where they went through blow by blow how they believe they comply with the ?? we created at Item 2. Those two
items, to me, are going to be what our decision stands on if it does get appealed. They are easy to track and follow, and I
want to compliment you on what you prepared. It has a lot of work, but it was very well done and while I don’t completely
agree with every single thing you said, I agree with a lot of it and a lot of things I’m just going to say I agree with them the
way they’re written except for maybe Item 10.
Chair Kendall: And when we go back and make our motion on 67, it might be that it needs to be a motion that we can draft
together and then revise. That works on these complex motions if we can just get going with this.
Board Member Mestres: Comment.
Chair Kendall: Yes, we’re still on comments on 2.
Board Member Mestres: With regards to the awnings, you know, it’s my interpretation of our code that as long as it’s high-
quality materials and it conforms to the basic horizontal nature that they want it to be and that it’s functional. To me, in and
around that area, the fact that it comes out executes a function. Because right now when your walking and it’s raining,
there’s nothing there. I think that’s mainly what we need to do in regards to suggesting and advocating about awnings.
Personally, I have my own preference of glass, but you know, I mean, I think that needs to be an issue between you and
whoever is spending the money. If you look around town, there’s all types of awnings so personally I think that I find no
problem with the existing fabric. My own opinion is that I’m kind of with your restaurateur that glass might be a little bit
more elegant and maybe pop a little bit more.
Board Member Mestres: As far as removal of the stone and the copings, I think the introduction of the pull backs for the
wall, I think kind of offset it so that it’s a little more subtle maybe. Maybe not as flashy, but still, you know, I think it works.
There’s unique high-qualities materials. . . I agree with Mr. Gregg’s interpretation of the ?? of the buildings. They kind of
have a natural flow to them, as is. I agree that’s a defensible position. As far as the planters, again, that’s a more of an item
of function, too. I think someone is going to need to use the building, and I agree the planters need to have a greater
functionality for bringing these buildings to life with people.
Board Member Smith: My concern is the grates. I agree with Steve. I have a real concern about 4 by 4 taking out any
pedestrian footage. I think we need all the footage that we have under the awning, especially during inclement weather. If
we have to do something with a bigger root ball, I like the idea of a 4 by 5 or 4 by 6 rather than, excuse me, 3 by 5 or 3 b7 6
rather than going 4 by 4.
Packet Page 271 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 26
Board Member Smith: As for the awnings, it’s definitely a personal taste. I do have a concern when we have the sun out.
They get pretty warm under there. Obviously, it’s an upkeep problem, but that’s up to the owners of the buildings. But I
think I understand the restaurant people wanting a classier awning, but I also have, like I said, the concern about if you’ve
ever sat under one of those, it’s pretty warm under the glass. So while I prefer the awning, that’s a personal matter.
Board Member Smith: The stone. I do not have a problem with the stone. The reason I don’t is that it reminds me of the
types of rock and things that you see along the beach, which ties in with the color scheme. I especially like the use of the real
big nice wood cap on the railing. I think that’s a really nice added touch, different texture, different looks, and I complement
you on that. I did not catch what you said about the colors in the sidewalk. Was there something about the sidewalk or
something?
Mr. Allen: No color in the sidewalk. It’s standard issue.
Board Member Smith: Those are basically my comments.
Chair Kendall: I think I’ll just jump out there in my comments. I like their eggplant canvas awnings a lot. Whenever I’m
out in the summer, I kind of like to be . . . You know, I’m getting older, I like a little protection from the sun. But obviously,
that’s a matter of taste because we’re split on it. In my mind, to me, glass awnings seem more contemporary, but I mean, I
don’t know if that’s just it being late what’s coming out in my mind. So I would stick with ?? I’m just glad to see some
awnings. People have differences of opinion about that.
Chair Kendall: Mr. Waite’s comments were the ones that actually resonated home with me tonight, when he talked about
design of the building and that particular the point on the top. And what really hit me was when he said it somehow seemed
to compete with the first and second story. And I’m paraphrasing what he said a little bit, but that’s what I got out of that, to
some extent over powered it. And I’ve been sitting here trying to picture what it looks like if I’m standing on the street
across the building looking up. Somehow I’m not quite getting that perspective because the railing on the far right top, I
don’t think I’m seeing it on the street. Somehow the perspective doesn’t seem to be street level there.
Mr. Allen: You’re probably about 18 inches above the street.
Chair Kendall: Is that all?
Mr. Allen: That would be my guess.
Chair Kendall: I’m short, so my street height is . . . You know, I’m just saying that . . . Can you respond to that?
Mr. Allen: Sure, and again, it is a subjective judgment. I believe that the whole idea of having an emphasis at the corner of
the buildings, which is a fairly pivotal part of the Comprehensive Code, from what I understand.
Chair Kendall: Yes.
Mr. Allen: Opens the door for us to try to develop some component up there, and I think it’s appropriate. You see in the
packet we handed out there’s that comparison of the previous bay windows. First of all, just from a massing cue standpoint, I
mean this is going to feel very comfortable in terms of what’s been here for so many years because it’s very similarly
massed. And frankly, a little more open air because of the gazebo component. I just, the mass of the chimney, visually in my
opinion, is not going to overwhelm the corner of the building. Now, I can say that, and of course, that is an opinion, but I
think the key here, and look at this color board, is the bringing together of these really rich, beautiful materials in a
composition where you can really enjoy them next to one another. You want to do that in a way that’s not unbalanced, and
that’s probably where Steve and I part ways is I actually liked bring this expression out to the corner. I think it’s one of the
key components that the fireplace toned back on the masses of the building, which kind of rotates around the composition. It
brings that language material out, and interplays with the materials at the corner. We could refine the massing slightly to get
it a little bit lighter and it might feel a little different, but honestly, I think it’s an appropriate placement for it. It’s creative.
Packet Page 272 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 27
Ms. Kendall: No, I want to have this discussion because I’m not looking for it to just be watered down. I think I need to
understand the component better. I think, at some point, when you tamper with design, you make things worse.
Mr. Allen: Yeah, I appreciate that.
Mr. Lee: I take a huge risk in doing this, because I do not speak the language, but two things. I listened very closely to what
they said as we’ve gone through this whole process. We’re facing these kinds of judgments at every turn it seems, and
sometimes it’s very difficult to know other than do I like it or not in the end. But if you look at (someone coughed so I was
unable to catch the reference number). I think that in terms of what we’re used to seeing, that this doesn’t draw any more
attention overtly to what it was before. Before it was a little messier, and this more of the same building material. But
anyway, I’m hoping, I really like that, you know, I think it’s such a very. . . There’s a lot of things I wouldn’t fight for, but I
really, really think that that’s an interesting, beautiful part of the building. And if you put cedar on it or made it cement so it
matches the rest of the building, I don’t know what else you can do, but I don’t know what we could do to look any better.
The last point I would make, it took me a while after listening to his comments to zero in on this. He said it’s too heavy.
Well, if it was sitting on top of a framed building with shakes or wood siding, I would agree with that. It’s sitting on a stone
wall, and I’m sorry, I don’t agree. A concrete wall, what’s heavier than a concrete wall that’s been there since 1904? Those
are my comments.
Chair Kendall: This is not going to overpower the building.
Board Member Schaefer: Keep in mind that what we have in our packet differs from what’s up there on that board because
what’s in our packet for the rendering does not have the trees. That also helps break things up.
Board Member Mestres and Mr. Gregg had a discussion about the proposed fireplace adding to the historical value of the
proposal, but the speakers are not speaking into the microphones and there is too much background noise to understand
what is being said.
Board Member Smith: When I look at the gazebo, I see a replica of the angles of the awning on the angles of the roof. To
me it ties in together. I like that look. It ties it all together, and I like the angles and I like the upper angle with the more
modern, less decorative ??.
Board Member Schaefer: First off, we’re talking about getting sort of prominence on the corner. I like that. We can see it
all the way from down to the Shoreline, Washington Mutual, you see the Bank of Edmonds, what we’re looking for. That
just jumps out at me, and I haven’t heard anybody else talk about that. But again, it’s not going to stick out so much once
you go back into the trees there. The other thing I was hearing about, I heard from one speaker said, well, now you got a big
built up edge, and that takes away from the historical context, now you’ve got this third story, well, I’m sorry, you’ve got to
keep one or the other.
Board Member Schaefer: Okay, and you used the term whispers, which I think whispers is the term we used a month ago
on this thing. Yeah, you’re going to see a strong edge. A strong edge is what’s been talked about since last year, so I’m all
for that. I like the idea of vegetation up there. I like the very distinct look between the different uses. I think the terms I used
would be celebrating that mixture of uses. So I’m on board with it. I was think the same thing about possibly flipping the
chimney onto the inside corner as opposed to the outside corner, but I’m not worried about it. What I see is the reflection of
the old profile, it’s the building itself. Yes, I’m glad to tiki bar is not there. I happen to have a little tiki bar in backyard, and
that’s why I said it.
Board Member Schaefer: My other comment is on the awnings. I guess, personally, I could either way. However, there is
a mention, I think, about durable materials, and I see canvas awnings fading and ripping and I don’t know about their
durability compared to other things. So I think that’s something that we have to think about as far as following the
Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member O’Neill: My other comment about that is I feel like that needs to be detailed very well. From what you
described, it sounds more residential of stacking up three to two bodies, and I would like to see more detail of that corner, so
I think you could really pull it off. The objection seems to be from the community that we have this historic building, and
Packet Page 273 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 28
you’re sort of working with that structure on the top. Because it’s fantastic, you did a fantastic job, and I love the structure.
But I think you could delineate that historic building and really segregate it so that it came off as an entity with this crown on
top of it. The other comment about the awnings, are these going to have a metal structure similar to what’s there on the
drawing?
Mr. Allen: Yes.
Board Member Schaefer: Let’s take a clue from what used to be there, the kind of build up we had there was a bit more
detailed than the 3 two bys. So we looked back at what was there. Although the ?? was not necessarily original to the
building, that was some of that San Francisco Bay Area stuff.
Chair Kendall: Are we ready to start writing a motion for 67.
Board Member Bullock: We better close that one item just as kind of an add on to the last two things I heard, which is kind
of what I was saying when I would like to see some more details. You know, the fact that we would love to see a more
detailed drawing/photograph/expression of what the cornice is going to look like, or Bruce was asking about the frame of the
lower awning and that’s one of the concerns I have too. Is it going to be one of those ones that just has little square tube with
white steel underneath with fabric wrapped around the outside, or is it something more substantial. You could replace canvas
awnings as they wear out, and the frame would still sit there and feel like it was part of the structure as opposed to something
that was just screwed in in a couple of places. To me it’s not as much as option about is it going to be a canvas awning or a
glass awning, it could be a solid steel awning, I don’t know, but it’s just got to be appropriate, and I still kind of feel like it’s
a little too modern with the half circle arch and stuff. Again, that’s just kind of my own. I’d like to see more details what
that things going to look like.
Board Member Schaefer: Short of seeing something, could we offer a description for staff to review it again. Then if staff
doesn’t feel when the time comes that they really can make that call and that it meets our take on this, it can be sent back to
us. In other words, I don’t want to hold things up for seeing something before we take a vote on it.
Board Member Bullock: Right, and I don’t either. I would like to see them move ahead with submitting their building
permit application with all of the structural issues associated with that, maybe come back to deal with some of the
architectural details and they could supplement their building permit with whatever the final deal is.
Board Member Schaefer: That’s fine. Staff can always come back to us for an interpretation of an issue.
Mr. Lee: (Mr. Lee makes some comment from the audience, but he is not at the microphone, so I can make out what he
said.)
Board Member Schaefer: No, we want to make a decision on this item here tonight. And if we get these points with details
in the approval process to staff, if they’re uncomfortable with something and feel that they need more guidance on that
particular item, they can bring that to us at any time.
Board Member Bullock: And something I would liken it to is it’s been very common practice over the years for the design
board to approve a building, but require the landscape plan to come back for final approval. And I guess I don’t see some of
these architectural details as being any different from that.
Chair Kendall: Well, I was nodding at you. So if we were to pass this, we’re discussing the potential of having to come
back for sure with some of these details, or just the staff needs it? You want to see it.
Board Member Bullock: I don’t know how I would describe the lower line in enough detail.
Chair Kendall: Right, okay. I think actually the awning keeps coming up again and again and again, so there’s something
about how this awning relates to the building, that relates to the street, that also relates to the third story structure. There just
seems to be something that we will want to see a little more clarification on.
Packet Page 274 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 29
Mr. Gregg: I want to make sure that we don’t have any procedural glitches and having everybody criticize the Board for
having done something, you know, any different than what’s actually perfect. What we’ve done many times in the past is
you have given us approval subject to certain items being subject to staff review. As Steve said, if staff’s not comfortable,
they can refer it back and I think in this particular case. I’m afraid that if you say we have to come back with something,
somebody could say that wasn’t a full approval, it was a conditional approval. We would like to see the full approval subject
to staff reviewing the items you are concerned about. We’re more than happy to come back, we just want the correct and
right process. I think you could defer to staff and staff could refer it back to you. (The tape changed here.)
Board Member Schaefer: (The tape changed here.) . . . in terms of any other details brought back, like you said, landscape
plans, that kind of thing. I could see these being a procedural problem, are the reasons for wanting to see it again are very
clear. It’s definitely oriented, an issue of making sure the details are what we’re picturing them to be based upon what’s
represented here. It’s important to this community, so we want make sure that we’re getting what we think we’re getting.
Chair Kendall: At this time, I’d like to move on to us bringing a motion on 67.
Board Member Bullock: I can bring a motion pretty quick.
Chair Kendall: Do you want me to write it for you?
Board Member Bullock: No, I can. . .
Chair Kendall: Do you need a pen?
Board Member Bullock: No, I got a pen. I’m trying to find my other staff report. Here it is. Okay, I’ll just say right off
the bat, I find all staff’s findings in the staff report related to both regulations that this project complies with code. On
Attachment 2 of the packet, which is the applicant’s response to how they feel that they comply with the urban design
checklist that we established in Phase I to comply, I agree with all of them, except on Page 4, Item C.1, where it talks about
architectural elements and materials, where we felt there was a higher priority, and there’s some discussion about the
awnings, and because I’m concerned with how those awnings will actually be constructed and what they’ll be constructed of,
I’d like to see details of those come back to us.
Board Member Bullock: And then on Page 11, which is Item C.2, which talks about unified architectural concepts. While
I’m okay, in fact I would encourage the use of steel for that lower awning, my own feeling is that the design of the awnings I
see right now is a little more modern than that portion of the building in my opinion. Again, I would like to see more details
that would convince me otherwise that it is unified with the whole project, and I’m not convinced at this point in time.
Board Member Bullock: Finally, on Page 12, Item C.4, where it talks about ?? , again that raises my concern with canvas.
And all the rest I agree with, and therefore, would recommend approval of the building and allowing the applicant to move
forward with plans for a building permit for the remainder of the building.
Chair Kendall: Did you want to see more detail on that. . . I guess we can talk about that later. The cornice.
Board Member Bullock: And the cornice, that’s right. I’m sorry, and that would the unifying of architectural things.
Right. Thanks.
Board Member Schaefer: Rob, a question. As far as how we raise this, we want to be very clear that we’re making a
decision tonight and that the awning and the cornice are details a separate review, a separate decision on that.
Mr. Chave: As long as your motion specifically approves the project and accepts very specific items that you want them to
come back. We want to be really clear that any further review is only on those items.
Board Member Bullock: I’ve got an idea. The second item, Item 02, has change in awning, change in colors, what was the
third thing?
Packet Page 275 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 30
Board Member Schaefer: Planters.
Board Member Bullock: Planters up on top. And cornices.
Board Member Schaefer: Hanging baskets.
Board Member Bullock: There’s also planters up on top. They’ve moved the planters. . .
Board Member Schaefer: No, no, no, that would be in with those. Just dealing with sidewalk planters . . . Okay, I like
where you’re going on this.
Board Member Bullock: I think what we do is we move to approve 67, but because of the items related identified we’re
requiring them to come back.
(There was a short discussion amongst the Board, but they weren’t talking into the microphone, and they were talking at he
same time, so I couldn’t hear what was said.)
Chair Kendall: Okay, so I’m going to call for a motion on File 67 right now.
Board Member Bullock: Do we need to refer to the fact that we want 02 to come back as part of the 67 one.
Mr. Chave: It’s separate.
Board Member ??: We need to decide on 67 separately and then take up just 02.
Chair Kendall: Yes, let’s do that.
Board Member Bullock: The reason I’m hesitating is that checklist is with 67.
Chair Kendall: I know.
Board Member Bullock: We don’t have it as part of 02.
Chair Kendall: Can we refer to a checklist supporting another project number to support passage of 02.
Board Member Bullock: Shouldn’t that checklist apply to 02 since it is the same building?
Chair Kendall: The checklist seems to be applicable.
Board Member Schaefer: I don’t know about that. I don’t know about that.
Chair Kendall: No, well we don’t want to muddy up our . . .
Board Member Schaefer: 67 is not the core project of Phase I. The checklist was . . .
Mr. Chave: The checklist is only the two phase projects. The design objectives, however, apply to every proposal. So you
can reference those in either application, but you can’t use the checklist.
Chair Kendall: Okay. You can still reference specific things.
Board Member Schaefer: Absolutely.
Chair Kendall: Okay, all right. Got one Steve.
Packet Page 276 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 31
Board Member Bullock: Well, I just need to refine the objections. The objections are not as clear as I would like them.
Board Member Schaefer: So are you sketching something out, Steve, or are you looking for something.
Board Member Bullock: I think I found it.
(There is some discussion amongst the Board Members here about how the craft the motion language, but people are talking
at the same time, and no one is talking into the microphone.)
Board Member Kendall: I’m calling for the motion on Project 67.
Board Member Bullock: Madame chair, I move that the design board approve ADB-2007-67 because with the findings
outlined by staff in their staff report we find that the project complies with the zoning ordinance and with the discussion in
Attachment 2 submitted by the applicant articulating how their project complies with the checklist items that we created with
them in Phase I of our review of this project, that we find the project to comply with all the applicable design guidelines
associated with this project, with the following condition: That the project will continue to be required to meet all applicable
City codes and it’s the responsibility of the applicant to apply for and obtain all necessary permits.
Chair Kendall: All in favor? Motion passes unanimously.
Chair Kendall: Now we’re going to move on to File 2007-02, and let’s discuss and frame a motion for this project.
Board Member Bullock: Attachment 5 is our staff report and has the downtown design objectives and Section 2 entitled
building forms, it has a section called modulation. It talks about decorative elements such as parapets or architectural details.
It also has under the section entitled façade requirements, providing human scale streetscape ?? facades. On building façade
material it talks about dealing with the building from the foundation all the way up to the roof eves or parapet, and there’s a
variety of ??. Under accents, colors and trim it talks about creating a visual interest and variety of the building forms.
Board Member Bullock: So for these reasons, I move that we require the applicant to submit more details related to the
actual construction of the street level awning and details of the actual architectural detailing and construction of the cornice.
Chair Kendall: Is there a second?
Mr. Chave: Are you approving the remainder of the application? In other words, there were several items that were in
question. I just want to clarify for staff whether you only wanted to see those particular items back or if you want to see all.
Board Member Bullock: The only other thing was color, so let’s just deal with it all at one time when it comes back.
Board Member Schaefer: So basically, what we’re suggesting is that it continue as opposed to approval. We’re not talking
about approval if it is going to have to come back.
Board Member Bullock: It’s not approved. I want to require them to come back.
Chair Kendall: For review on those two items?
Board Member Bullock: Yes.
Board Member Schaefer: I’ll second it.
Chair Kendall: All in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously.
Packet Page 277 of 357
Verbatim Architectural Design Board Transcripts
File Numbers ADB-2007-67 and ADB-2007-02
November 7, 2007 Page 32
I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS.
__________________________________________________________ ____________________________________
Karin Noyes, Transcriber Date
Packet Page 278 of 357
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
STAFF REPORT
November 7, 2007 Meeting
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
“PUBLIC HEARING: PHASE II”
TO: The Architectural Design Board
FROM: __________________________________
Mike Clugston, Planner
DATE: October 31, 2007
ADB-2007-67
Application by Ralph Allen of Grace Architects, representing Bob Gregg and
Ed and Barbara Lee, for “Phase II” of Old Milltown located at 201 5th Avenue
South. The project is located in the Downtown Retail Core (BD1) zone. This is
considered “Phase II” of the public hearing.
A. PPrrooppeerrttyy OOwwnneerr:: AApppplliiccaannttss::
Gregg Production Associates
51 Dayton St.
Suite 304
Edmonds, WA 98020
Bob Gregg
51 Dayton St.
Suite 304
Edmonds, WA 98020
Ed and Barbara Lee
The Hotel Group
110 James St., Suite 102
Edmonds, WA 98020
B. SSiittee LLooccaattiioonn:
201 5th Avenue South (ID: 00434212100100). On the site sits the redeveloped Old Milltown
building on the southeast corner of 5th Avenue South and Dayton Street (Attachment 1).
C. IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn::
This proposal is described as “Phase II” of the Old Milltown project. The project calls for the
addition of a partial third floor for the Old Milltown building at Fifth and Dayton consisting of
three residential units comprising approximately 11,500 square feet as well as landscaping and an
outdoor sitting area. The three existing storefronts to the east of the main building on Dayton
Street will also be renovated. Six parking spaces are proposed.
The first phase of Old Milltown was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Design Board
earlier in 2007 (ADB20070002). Phase I consisted of ground-floor retail space and second floor
office space. That portion of the project has received building permits and construction is
underway.
The subject site is in the Downtown Retail Core (BD1) zone, which requires District Based
Design Review. Because the project triggers the SEPA threshold, it is reviewed as part of a two-
phase public hearing process before the Architectural Design Board. The ADB held Phase I of
the public hearing on October 3, 2007 and continued the public hearing to November 7th to allow
the applicant to revise and resubmit their plans. The ADB will review the design of the project
and at the conclusion of Phase II of the public hearing, make the final decision. If/when approved
by the ADB, the applicant would later submit a building permit application for the project and
development standards (such as height) would again be reviewed by staff at that point.
The following is staff’s analysis of the project.
Packet Page 279 of 357
Staff Report for ADB-2007-67 (Public Hearing – “Phase II”)
Old Milltown Phase II
Page 2 of 7
D. OOvveerrvviieeww::
1. Zoning: This parcel is located in the Downtown Retail Core (BD1) zone and is subject to the
requirements of ECDC 16.43 (Downtown Business). Prior to January 16, 2007, the subject
parcel was zoned Community Business (BC). The first and second floor renovation of Old
Milltown was reviewed and approved using the BC requirements. The proposed 3rd floor
addition and renovation of the Upper Dayton storefronts are reviewed entirely using BD1
criteria.
2. Environmental Review: Review of the project under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) was required. The applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist and staff will
issue a determination at the same time the ADB recommendations are published in synopsis
form.
3. Issues: For this project, the Architectural Design Board reviews the design of the proposal
and makes the final decision on whether the proposal is consistent with the ZONING
ORDINANCE; that the proposal meets the relevant district-specific DESIGN OBJECTIVES
contained in the Comprehensive Plan; and, that the proposal satisfies the specific DESIGN
CRITERIA identified in the Design Guidelines Checklist by the ADB during Phase I of the
public hearing (Attachments 11 & 2).
E. EEddmmoonnddss CCoommmmuunniittyy DDeevveellooppmmeenntt CCooddee CCoommpplliiaannccee:
The following is staff’s analysis on the project’s compliance with the Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC). Development standards are again reviewed and confirmed with the
building permit application.
1. ECDC 16.43 (Downtown Business) Zones
a. Site Development Standards (ECDC 16.43.030.A). The improvements are proposed on
property within the Downtown Retail Core (BD1) zone. The minimum height of the
ground floor in the BD1 zone is 15
feet. “Minimum height of ground
floor” means the vertical distance from
top to top of the successive finished
floor surfaces; and, if the ground floor
is the only floor above street grade,
from the top of the floor finish to the
top of the ceiling joists or, where there
is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof
rafters. “Floor finish” is the exposed
floor surface, including coverings
applied over a finished floor, and
includes, but is not limited to, wood,
vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and
concrete as illustrated in Figure 16.43-
1. It appears that the applicant has
taken this into consideration as the first
floor of Phase I of the Old Milltown
renovation is 15.125 feet (Attachment
9); however, this will be verified with the building permit review.
b. Ground Floor (16.43.030.B). The ground floor of the main structure at 5th and Dayton
was previously approved for redevelopment under the BC zoning requirements.
However, BD1 ground floor requirements do apply to the shops on the Upper Dayton
Figure 16.43-1:
Ground Floor Height
Measurement
Packet Page 280 of 357
Staff Report for ADB-2007-67 (Public Hearing – “Phase II”)
Old Milltown Phase II
Page 3 of 7
portion of the redevelopment. Per ECDC 16.43.030.B.3, first floor uses in the BD1 zone
must be commercial. Entry must be directly from the sidewalk and the elevation of the
ground floor and associated entry shall be within seven inches of the grade level of the
adjoining sidewalk. Ground floor windows must also transparent and allow unobstructed
view of the interior from the sidewalk. It appears that the applicant has taken this into
consideration (Attachments 8-9); however, this will be verified with the building permit
review.
c. Building Height Regulations (16.43.030.C). Section 16.43.030.C.2.b states: “Within the
BD1 zone, building height may be a maximum of 30 feet in order to provide for a
minimum height of 15 for the ground floor. The allowable building height is measured
from the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. Certain architectural features
are allowed to extend above the height limits. For example, according to ECDC
21.40.030.C, chimneys may exceed the height limit so long as they are no more than
three feet above maximum height and not more than nine square feet in horizontal
section. It appears that the applicant has taken these limits into consideration
(Attachment 9); however, these measurements will be verified with the building permit
review.
d. Off-Street Parking and Access Requirements (16.43.030.D). No new parking spaces are
required for the redevelopment of the commercial shops on Upper Dayton. However, the
three residential dwellings proposed for the third floor do require additional parking per
ECDC Chapter 17.50. Section 17.50.020.C.1 indicates that residential uses in a mixed
use building in the Downtown Business Area shall only be required to provide parking at
one stall per dwelling unit. The applicant has proposed six enclosed parking stalls, one of
which is handicapped (Attachment 5). This requirement will be verified with the
building permit review.
e. Open Space Requirements (16.43.030.E). Per ECDC 16.43.030.E.1, open space shall not
be required for additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint
by more than 10 percent. The addition of the third floor to Old Milltown does not
increase the overall footprint of the building so the open space requirement is not
applicable.
f. Historic Buildings (16.43.030.F). The Old Milltown building is not listed on the
Edmonds register of historic buildings, therefore this section is not applicable.
g. Density (16.43.030.G). Three dwelling units are proposed on this site. Per ECDC
16.43.030.G, there is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units.
h. Screening (16.43.030.H). Pursuant to 16.43.030.A, the setbacks for parcels in the BD1
zone are zero. At the same time, the setback for buildings and structures located at or
above grade in BD1 shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially zoned
property. There is a multifamily parcel to the southeast of the subject parcel. However,
the parcels are not adjacent; an alley separates the subject parcel from the multifamily
parcel. As a result, the project meets the setback requirements and does not require
further screening as described in this section.
i. Signs, Parking and Design Review (16.43.030.I). No signs were part of this ADB
application. Any proposed signage must meet the requirements in ECDC 20.60 for the
BC zone.
j. Satellite Television Antennas (16.43.030.J). No satellite television antennas were
proposed with this project.
Packet Page 281 of 357
Staff Report for ADB-2007-67 (Public Hearing – “Phase II”)
Old Milltown Phase II
Page 4 of 7
2. ECDC 20.12 (District Based Design Review):
The applicant has submitted the required materials for review for both phases of the public
hearing process. Staff concludes that the project is consistent with ECDC 20.12.
FF.. CCoommpprreehheennssiivvee PPllaann CCoommpplliiaannccee::
The following is staff’s analysis of the project’s compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
1. Location: The subject parcel is located within the Retail Core of the Downtown/Waterfront
Activity Center. This area is discussed in the Land Use Element (pages 35) and also in the
Downtown Design Objectives section (pages 38-42). It is the Architectural Design Board’s
responsibility for ensuring compliance of the project with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has
reviewed the pertinent sections of the Comprehensive Plan and documented findings below.
Attachments 3 through 10 show the proposed details of the development and are referenced
in the discussion that follows.
2. Goals for the Downtown Retail Core: “The area immediately surrounding the fountain at
5th and Main and extending along Main Street and Firth Avenue is considered the historic
center of Edmonds and building heights shall be pedestrian in scale and compatible with the
historic character of this area. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should
be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial
use and the entry situated at street level. Uses are encouraged to be retail-compatible (i.e.
retail or compatible service – e.g. art galleries, restaurants real estate sale offices and
similar uses that provide storefront window and items for safe to the public that can be
viewed from the street). The street front façades of buildings must provide a high percentage
of transparent window area and pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks.
Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian-scale design features, differentiating the
lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. Buildings situated around the
fountain square must be orientated to the fountain and its associated pedestrian area.” (page
35).
The Upper Dayton storefronts will continue to be first floor retail-compatible with street
accessibility. The street level commercial is differentiated from the upper level residential by
using varied materials and other treatments. The windows proposed would appear to offer
similar ‘window shopping’ opportunities as what currently exists for the storefronts.
3. Design Objectives for Site Design: “The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways
and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building acts with its site and its
surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians,
bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development,
reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive physical
environment” (page 38).
Ten different objectives for site design are discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. Not every
objective necessarily applies to every project at this stage of review. And, some objectives
may be more important than others for a particular project. For example, no signage is
proposed as part of this application. However, if signage is proposed in the future, it will be
reviewed against the applicable design criteria with the building permit application.
a. Vehicular Access and Parking. Six parking spaces in an enclosed parking garage will be
provided for the residents of the three condominiums. Access to the garage will be
gained from the existing alley above the southern portion of the Old Milltown site. No
new curb cuts are proposed (Attachment 5).
b. Pedestrian Access and Connections. Existing street-level access to the Upper Dayton
Packet Page 282 of 357
Staff Report for ADB-2007-67 (Public Hearing – “Phase II”)
Old Milltown Phase II
Page 5 of 7
storefronts will be maintained. Existing sidewalks connect the Old Milltown area to the
rest of downtown. There is an existing bus stop on Dayton Street adjacent to the building
(Attachment 3).
c. Building Entry Location. The existing entry to the storefronts on Dayton will be
renovated and will be maintained at sidewalk grade. The entry to the condominiums is
proposed to be from the south side of the building and is relatively less emphasized due
to its private nature (Attachments 8-9).
d. Building Setbacks. The BD1 zone allows for zero setbacks. However, the applicant has
proposed to maintain the existing setback of the storefronts on Upper Dayton. The 3rd
floor condominiums also indicate varied setbacks (Attachment 6).
e. Building/Site Identity. The proposed design of the 3rd floor and renovated storefronts
appears to avoid repetitive forms and massing while maintaining a pedestrian scale and
referencing existing elements of Downtown (Attachments 8 & 10). Reusing the concrete
columns and reapplying the timbers that were formerly on the interior of the building to
the outside of the structure references the former uses of the building.
f. Weather Protection. Two existing awnings will be removed from above the Upper
Dayton storefronts. These will be replaced by two cornice structures over the windows
and the overhanging bay window of the northeastern condominium residence above the
storefront entrance (Attachments 3-6). As a result, pedestrians entering the building and
‘window shopping’ will still be protected from the elements.
g. Lighting. Existing streetlights will continue to provide the bulk of lighting in the public
spaces around Old Milltown. There are four small light fixtures above the existing
storefront entrance and it is uncertain if they will be removed and, if so, how they will be
replaced (Attachment 8). This information will be reviewed during the building permit
application.
h. Signage. None were proposed with this application.
i. Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical. As approved in Phase I of the Old
Milltown project, the ramp between the buildings in the area located south of the curb cut
on Dayton Street is the site of an enclosed mechanical equipment yard. This area is
currently paved and is to be screened with a gate opening onto Dayton Street
(Attachments 3-4).
j. Art and Public Space. The existing street trees will be maintained in front of the Upper
Dayton storefronts. The applicant is also proposing three new planter boxes in the
streetscape adjacent to the storefronts. Planter boxes will also be used in the residential
portion of the development (Attachments 4 & 8).
4. Design Objectives for Building Form: “Building height and modulation guidelines are
essential to create diversity in building forms, minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon
the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance with policies in the city’s Comprehensive
Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building entries as well as street views to the
mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of Edmonds character and urban form”
(page 40).
Four objectives for building form are discussed in the Comprehensive Plan:
a. Height. The proposed 3rd floor does not appear to impact the generally two-story
pedestrian-scale of the public streetscape, nor disrupt the street views of Puget Sound and
mountain viewscape along Dayton Street (Attachments 8 & 10).
Packet Page 283 of 357
Staff Report for ADB-2007-67 (Public Hearing – “Phase II”)
Old Milltown Phase II
Page 6 of 7
b. Massing. The residences are not massed on the 3rd floor so as to overwhelm the existing
building or the streetscape. The condominiums are setback from the property line
throughout yet are tied to the existing building and Upper Dayton storefronts using a
variety of materials and treatments (Attachments 8 & 10).
c. Roof Modulation. The proposed shed roof is nearly flat on top of the residences.
However, because the condominiums do not cover the entire 3rd floor, there is space
available for the roof top terrace, planters, railings, the sitting area and fireplace. Several
stone chimneys serve to break up the roof line as well (Attachments 7-9).
d. Wall Modulation. The storefronts on Upper Dayton are currently modulated and will
remain so after redevelopment. The 3rd floor proposes no long, unbroken forms and
seems to be designed to allow more light and air into the building (Attachment 8).
5. Design Objectives for Building Façade: “Building Façade objectives ensure that the
exterior of a building – the portion of a building that defines the character and visual
appearance of a place – is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and
integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds” (page 41).
Four objectives for building form are discussed in the Comprehensive Plan:
a. Façade Requirements. The renovated storefronts will be set off from the upper
residential floor by using different materials and treatments. The planters on the
residential level break up the façade but also echo the vegetation on the street. The
proposed trellises also reference those that exist throughout Downtown (Attachments 8-
9).
b. Window Variety and Articulation. The storefront windows will continue to allow
‘window shopping’ opportunities. The windows for the residences are necessarily
designed for privacy but also for passive solar gain (Attachments 8-9).
c. Building Façade Materials. A variety of materials are proposed throughout the project
which will contribute to maintaining pedestrian scale as well as referencing the
Downtown area (Attachment 8).
d. Accents/Colors/Trim. The proposed materials appear to attempt to balance compatibility
with the surrounding environment (planters, railings, exposed wood, trellising) with
providing visual interest and individuality of the project (shed roof, exterior fireplace,
stone chimneys).
GG.. DDeessiiggnn GGuuiiddeelliinnee CChheecckklliisstt CCoommpplliiaannccee::
The ADB reviewed the Design Guidelines Checklist during “Phase I” of the public hearing
(Attachment 11) . The applicant responded to the guidance given by the ADB and resubmitted a
narrative (Attachment 2) describing how they feel the updated design meets the ADB criteria in
addition to new plans (Attachments 3-10). Staff feels that the applicant has attempted to address
the concerns of the ADB by implementing suggestions made during the Phase I review of the
Design Guidelines Checklist.
HH.. TTeecchhnniiccaall RReevviieeww::
The Engineering Division and the Fire, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation Departments
have reviewed this application. No comments were received.
II.. PPaarrttiieess ooff RReeccoorrdd::
Eighteen people attended Phase I of the public hearing on October 3 (Attachment 12) and nine
people provided public testimony at that meeting (Attachment 11). In addition, three people
Packet Page 284 of 357
Staff Report for ADB-2007-67 (Public Hearing – “Phase II”)
Old Milltown Phase II
Page 7 of 7
submitted written comments (Attachments 13-15).
Barbara Chase
1105 Daley Place
Edmonds, WA 98020
Elisabeth Larman
801 Walnut Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Alan J. Doman
959 8th Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
JJ.. RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonn::
Staff recommends that the Architectural Design Board APPROVE the design of file number
ADB-2007-67 with the following conditions:
1. Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes, and it is the
responsibility of the applicant to apply for and obtain all necessary permits.
The board finds that with this condition, the proposal is consistent with the ZONING
ORDINANCE; the proposal meets the relevant district-specific DESIGN OBJECTIVES
contained in the Comprehensive Plan; and, the proposal satisfies the specific DESIGN
CRITERIA identified in the Design Guidelines Checklist by the ADB during Phase I of the
public hearing.
KK.. AAttttaacchhmmeennttss::
1. Vicinity Map
2. Applicant’s Response to ADB Checklist Items
3. Site Plan/Utility Plan
4. 1st Level Floor Plan
5. 2nd Level Floor Plan
6. 3rd Level Floor Plan
7. Roof Level Plan
8. Building Renderings
9. Building Elevations
10. Massing Study
11. ADB “Phase I” Meeting Minutes 10/3/07
12. ADB “Phase I” Meeting sign-in sheet 10/3/07
13. Email Comment from Barbara Chase, 10/3/07
14. Comment Letter from Elizabeth Larman, 10/3/07
15. Comment Letter from Alan Doman, 10/10/07
Packet Page 285 of 357
Packet Page 286 of 357
Packet Page 287 of 357
Packet Page 288 of 357
Packet Page 289 of 357
Packet Page 290 of 357
Packet Page 291 of 357
Packet Page 292 of 357
Packet Page 293 of 357
Packet Page 294 of 357
Packet Page 295 of 357
Packet Page 296 of 357
(((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((
5 T
4 T H A V E S
5 T H A V E S
4 T H A V E S
³
DAYTON ST.
RM - 1.5
BD-2
BD-1
Attachment 2
Site
Vicinity & Zoning Map
Old Mill Town Phase 2 (File: ADB-07-67)
0 80 160 240 32040
Feet
[
MAPLE ST.
ALDER ST.
MAIN ST.
Packet Page 297 of 357
Packet Page 298 of 357
Packet Page 299 of 357
Packet Page 300 of 357
Packet Page 301 of 357
Packet Page 302 of 357
Packet Page 303 of 357
Packet Page 304 of 357
Packet Page 305 of 357
Packet Page 306 of 357
Packet Page 307 of 357
Packet Page 308 of 357
Packet Page 309 of 357
Packet Page 310 of 357
Packet Page 311 of 357
Packet Page 312 of 357
Packet Page 313 of 357
Packet Page 314 of 357
Packet Page 315 of 357
Packet Page 316 of 357
Packet Page 317 of 357
Packet Page 318 of 357
Packet Page 319 of 357
Packet Page 320 of 357
Packet Page 321 of 357
Packet Page 322 of 357
Packet Page 323 of 357
Packet Page 324 of 357
Packet Page 325 of 357
Packet Page 326 of 357
Packet Page 327 of 357
Packet Page 328 of 357
Packet Page 329 of 357
Packet Page 330 of 357
Packet Page 331 of 357
Packet Page 332 of 357
Packet Page 333 of 357
Packet Page 334 of 357
Packet Page 335 of 357
Packet Page 336 of 357
Packet Page 337 of 357
Packet Page 338 of 357
Packet Page 339 of 357
Packet Page 340 of 357
Packet Page 341 of 357
Packet Page 342 of 357
Packet Page 343 of 357
Packet Page 344 of 357
Packet Page 345 of 357
Packet Page 346 of 357
Packet Page 347 of 357
Packet Page 348 of 357
Packet Page 349 of 357
Packet Page 350 of 357
Packet Page 351 of 357
AM-1324 5.
Report on City Council Committee Meetings
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
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:
12-11-07 Community Services/Development Services Committee
12-11-07 Finance Committee
12-11-07 Public Safety Committee
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 12-11-07 CSDS Committee Minutes
Link: 12-11-07 Finance Committee Minutes.pdf
Link: 12-11-07 Public Safety Committee Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/13/2007 02:36 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/13/2007 02:46 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/13/2007 02:49 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 12/13/2007 02:21
PM
Final Approval Date: 12/13/2007
Packet Page 352 of 357
M I N U T E S
Community Service/Development Services Committee Meeting
December 11, 2007
Elected Officials Present: Staff Present:
Mauri Moore, Council member Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Richard Marin, Committee Chair Don Fiene, Asistant city Engineer
Peggy Pritchard-Olson, Council President Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Committee Chair Marin convened the meeting at 6:00 P.M.
A. Briefing on December 3, 2007 Storm Related Damage.
The Committee was briefed by Noel Miller, Public Works Director; Don Gebert, City Engineer; and
Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer, regarding the storm damaged areas throughout the City. Repairs
are under way for the roadway embankment failures on Olympic View Drive and 76th Ave. W. A
contractor and consulting engineer are on site and beginning to construct soldier pile retaining walls.
Staff is issuing a time and material force account construction contract with a not to exceed the
amount of $500,000. Staff is hopeful that a substantial amount will be eligible for a grant through
FHWA emergency funding.
Other incidents that were discussed included flooding at Harbor Square and Lake Ballinger, a land
slide at 190th PL. SW between Olympic View Drive and 94th Ave. W., and a number of small
landslides which occurred throughout the City.
ACTION: No Action.
The Committee meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
Packet Page 353 of 357
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
December 11, 2007
6:00 PM
V:\WORDATA\FINANCE COMM MINUTES\2007 FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES\FINANCE - 071211.DOC
Present: Councilmember Dave Orvis
Councilmember Ron Wambolt
Staff: Mayor Gary Haakenson Kathleen Junglov
Stephen Clifton Dan Clements
Committee Chair Orvis called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
Item A: Edmonds Public Facilities District Contingent Loan Agreement
After reviewing the contingent loan agreement with the Edmonds Center for the Arts it was
the Committee consensus to place the topic before the full Council as a consent agenda
topic.
Item B: Edmonds School District Broadband Agreement
The Finance Committee next discussed the broadband agreement with the Edmonds School
District. It was agreed to forward the agreement to the full Council as a consent item.
Item C: Intergovernmental Services Agreements
In final action, the Committee reviewed intergovernmental service agreements with Mike
Doubleday, Patton Boggs, and Salter Joyce Zyker. It was the Committee’s consensus to
send these three agreements to the full Council as consent items.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 PM.
Packet Page 354 of 357
Minutes
Public Safety Committee Meeting
December 11, 2007
Committee Members Present: Council Member Peggy Pritchard Olson
Council Member Michael Plunkett
Staff Present: Assistant Police Chief Gerry Gannon
Guests:
The meeting was called to order at 1800 hours
A. Cat Licensing
Assistant Chief Gannon discussed the Cat Licensing issue. It was decided that the topic would
need to go before the full Council.
Council Member Olson and Council Member Plunkett recommended the Cat Licensing issue be
placed on the Council agenda in January for review and discussion.
Action: On December 11, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. Council Member Olson and
Council Member Plunkett recommended the Cat Licensing issue be presented to full Council for
review and discussion. Date to be determined in January of 2008.
B. Purchase of a SWAT bus replacement.
Assistant Chief Gannon discussed the replacement of the SWAT bus with the committee and
explained the need for the replacement.
Council Member Olson and Council Member Plunkett recommended this item be placed on the
Consent Agenda.
Action: On December 11, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. Council Member Olson and
Council Member Plunkett recommended the “Purchase of a SWAT bus replacement” be placed
on the Consent Agenda for approval by full council on December 18, 2007.
C. Parking spaces for disabled persons
It was discussed that the Downtown Parking Committee had some concerns over the length of
time people are parking in the ADA parking spots. Discussion was held on having a 4-hour time
limit for the ADA parking.
Council Member Olson and Council Member Plunkett recommended this topic be reviewed and
discussed by full council.
Action: On December 11, 2007 the Public Safety Committee met. Council Member Olson and
Council Member Plunkett recommended the “Parking spaces for disabled persons” be reviewed
and discussed by full council with the date to be determined by the Council President.
Meeting adjourned at 1833 hours
Packet Page 355 of 357
AM-1311 6.
Presentation of Resolution Thanking Mauri Moore
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Peggy Pritchard Olson Time:10 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of Resolution thanking Mauri Moore for her service on the City Council.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Presentation of Resolution thanking Mauri Moore for her service on the City Council.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 12/12/2007 03:38 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/12/2007 04:02 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/12/2007 04:18 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 12/12/2007 10:44
AM
Final Approval Date: 12/12/2007
Packet Page 356 of 357
AM-1312 7.
Presentation of Resolution Thanking Richard Marin
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:12/18/2007
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Peggy Pritchard Olson Time:10 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of Resolution thanking Richard L. Marin for his service on the City Council.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Presentation of Resolution thanking Richard Marin for his service on the City Council.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 12/12/2007 03:40 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/12/2007 04:02 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/12/2007 04:18 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 12/12/2007 10:45
AM
Final Approval Date: 12/12/2007
Packet Page 357 of 357