2008.06.03 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
June 3, 2008
7:00 p.m.
Call to Order and Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A. Roll Call
B. AM-1602 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2008.
C. AM-1599 Approval of claim checks #104566 through #104677 for May 29, 2008 in the amount of
$633,670.54.
D. AM-1593 Edmonds Center for the Arts Revised Contingent Loan Agreement. This item was approved for the
Consent Agenda by the Finance Committee on 05-27-08.
E. AM-1586 Authorization to call for bids for the Old Woodway Elementary Park Project which includes
the regional stormwater infiltration system for the Southwest Edmonds Basin. This consent
agenda item was not reviewed by a Council Committee.
F. AM-1600 Resolution of the Edmonds City Council commending Hilary Scheibert for her services as a
Student Representative on the Edmonds City Council. This consent agenda item was not reviewed by
a Council Committee.
G. AM-1596 Report of bids opened on May 20, 2008 for the 2008 Street Overlay Program and award of
contract to Northshore Paving, Inc. ($385,218.34)
3. AM-1595
(10 Minutes)
Presentation by Alpha Omicron Pi Sorority to honor Police Chief David Stern.
4. AM-1575
(25 Minutes)
Swearing In of Assistant Chief of Police Jim Lawless. Note: A 15-minute reception will
follow the swearing-in ceremony.
5. AM-1598
(5 Minutes)
Presentation of Resolution commending Hilary Scheibert for her service as Student
Representative on the Edmonds City Council.
6. AM-1588
(10 Minutes)
Presentation of certificate to the City Council and Mayor from the Edmonds Backyard
Wildlife Habitat Project.
7. AM-1587
(10 Minutes)
Update on the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
8. AM-1589 Sound Transit Update by Joni Earl, Chief Executive Officer. Public comment will be
Packet Page 1 of 201
8. AM-1589
(30 Minutes)
Sound Transit Update by Joni Earl, Chief Executive Officer. Public comment will be
accepted.
9. AM-1590
(45 Minutes)
Public Hearing on proposed amendments to ECDC Chapter 17.40 regarding
non-conforming regulations.
10. AM-1591
(30 Minutes)
Public Hearing on proposed amendments to ECC Title 6 regarding property nuisances.
11.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings
12. AM-1601
(10 Minutes)
Authorization to Contract for Environmental Services with Landau & Associates.
13. AM-1597
(5 Minutes)
Selection of Voting Delegates for the Association of Washington Cities Conference.
14. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
15. (15 Minutes)Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 201
AM-1602 2.B.
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2008
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:06/03/2008
Submitted By:Linda Hynd Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2008.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the Draft Minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the Draft Minutes.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Draft Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 04:12 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/29/2008 04:15 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 05/30/2008 09:11 AM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Hynd
Started On: 05/29/2008 04:10
PM
Final Approval Date: 05/30/2008
Packet Page 3 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
May 27, 2008
Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. to setting negotiation parameters for real estate acquisition, 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
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Wambolt requested Item J be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember
Bernheim requested Item H be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2008
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #104402 THROUGH #104565 FOR MAY 22, 2008 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $706,197.67. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND
CHECKS #46539 THROUGH #46592 FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 1 THROUGH MAY
15, 2008 IN THE AMOUNT OF $792,476.96
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MICHAEL PALMER
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED)
E. POLICE DEPARTMENT MULTIYEAR PLAN 2008-2012
Packet Page 4 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 2
F. APPROVAL OF POLICE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT -
COMMISSIONED MEMBERS
G. APPROVAL OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF
EDMONDS AND THE PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE-CLERICAL
EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS LOCAL UNION #763 (TEAMSTERS
I. APPROVAL OF 2008 TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR LOW FARE AIRPORT
AND LOCAL FOR HIRE VEHICLE
ITEM H: APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO.
3622 TO INCREASE THE SALARY OF THE MAYOR, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2008 AND
JULY 1, 2009
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED TO TABLE THIS ITEM. MOTION DIED FOR
LACK OF A SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON,
THAT THE SALARY INCREASE FOR THE MAYOR TAKE EFFECT JULY 1, 2012 AND JULY
1, 2013.
Councilmember Bernheim commented this would result in $25,000 in savings by not increasing the salary
of the current Mayor who was elected knowing what the salary was and who did not ask for this increase.
Councilmember Wambolt explained the Salary Commission considered a great deal of relevant data and
correctly concluded the Mayor’s salary was in the 39th percentile; the City’s policy has been to pay at the
50th percentile. The Salary Commission’s recommendation was to increase the Mayor’s salary by 3.5%
on July 1, 2008 and 3.5% on July 1, 2009; at that rate the salary would never reach the 50th percentile.
For that reason, five Councilmembers approved the proposed salary increase last week. He summarized
accepting the Salary Commission’s recommendation was a rubberstamp and not doing what the Council
was elected to do -assess issues and make their own judgment.
Council President Plunkett expressed support for the motion, cautioning against personalizing the salary
increase by stating this Mayor knew what the salary would be. He explained the discussion had nothing
to do with Mayor Haakenson but with the position of Mayor and that position should be paid comparable
to Mayors in comparable cities.
Councilmember Dawson agreed the discussion was the appropriate salary for the office of the Mayor and
not specifically the current Mayor. She noted the proposed ordinance would result in Edmonds’ Mayor
being paid higher than any other elected Mayor for a City of Edmonds’ size in the region and place the
Mayor’s salary closer to cities such as Everett or Seattle. She noted the Salary Commission’s
recommendation, a 3.5% COLA and $400 per month in deferred compensation, would put the Mayor’s
salary in the 50the percentile for elected Mayors and City Managers. She noted the salary proposed by
Councilmember Wambolt and contained in the ordinance would pay the Mayor similar to a City Manager.
Although she acknowledged there were similarities between Mayors and City Managers, the increase
contained in the ordinance would place the Mayor’s salary so far ahead of other Mayors in the region as
to be “out of whack.”
She agreed elected officials did not get paid what they should for the work they do, however, that was the
nature of being an elected official; their salaries were not comparable to the private sector. As compared
to the fulltime Mayors of Lynnwood or Marysville, the proposed salary would be vastly higher. She
suggested if the Council was inclined not to accept the Salary Commission’s recommendation, the issue
Packet Page 5 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 3
be referred to the Finance Committee for further consideration of what other Mayors in the region are
paid. She noted this increase, if approved, would make Edmonds Mayor the fourth highest paid Mayor in
the State. She indicated she would not support the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember Bernheim explained the plan was to increase the Mayor’s salary by $12,000 in July 1,
2008 and another $12,000 the following year and the Mayor would not be assuming any additional
responsibilities as a condition of this gratuitous increase. He noted one of the few arguments offered by
the supporters of this increase was it would attract qualified people to run for Mayor during the next
election. He emphasized an additional $25,000 was not needed to attract people to the position because
people ran for the office of Mayor not for the health benefits or the salary, but because they wanted to be
Mayor. He commented he considered running but decided not to and plenty of other competent people
did run and it was unnecessary to offer a salary of $150,000 per year.
He explained this was a step for responsible government; to hold salaries of elected officials in times of
economic belt-tightening. He disagreed the Council was rubberstamping the Salary Commission’s
recommendation; the Council rejected the Salary Commission’s recommendation and offered a gratuitous
wage increase that was not requested and not conceived of by anyone else other than Councilmember
Wambolt prior to the meeting. He pointed out the intent of the L5 policy, paying salaries at parity, was to
keep employees happy; there was no need to keep the Mayor happy as his salary was what he expected to
receive when he ran for election. He preferred to spend the additional money on developing a native
plant garden at the Arts Center. He agreed the discussion was not personal and did not see a need for a
salary increase in this instance. He noted the Salary Commission would meet again in two years and
could change their recommendation at that time. He concluded the salaries paid by comparable cities was
not a consideration in times of economic belt-tightening.
Councilmember Wambolt commented this did not need to be returned to the Finance Committee; the
Council received all the materials reviewed by the Salary Commission and had ample time to study them.
He reviewed the materials and based on his experienced reached the conclusion that led to his motion. He
relayed that people have asked him if he planned to run for Mayor in four years and was that why he
proposed the salary increase. Councilmember Wambolt assured he would never run for Mayor. He noted
Councilmember Bernheim had no experience in the industry. Even when times were tough, organizations
set their pay scales at an appropriate level to ensure fairness. He learned early in his career that it was not
the amount of money people were paid that motivated them; it was the level of fairness to other
employees. Twelve of the Mayor’s staff have higher salaries that the Mayor. He agreed this discussion
was not regarding Mayor Haakenson but the position of Mayor.
To Councilmember Dawson, he pointed out when comparing the salaries of Mayors and City Manager in
comparable cities, Edmonds’ Mayor’s salary was in the 39th percentile and 3.5% or approximately $3,500
and an additional $400 in deferred compensation would not bring that salary near the 50th percentile.
Councilmember Dawson emphasized government was different than the private sector; there were many
staff members whose salaries were higher than the County Executive, the Governor, etc. That was the
nature of the position because those officials must live within their jurisdictions versus City Managers or
Directors who could be recruited on the open market. She anticipated the salary of every Director in
Snohomish County was higher than the County Executive’s salary. The proposed salary increase would
put Edmonds’ Mayor’s salary out of whack with other elected officials in the region and would pay the
Edmonds Mayor more than the Lieutenant Governor, more than virtually all elected officials in
Snohomish County. She did not object to a reasonable salary but did object to establishing the Mayor’s
salary at a level far above any other elected official. She noted that information, what other elected
officials were paid, may not have been before the Council when they made their decision last week.
Packet Page 6 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 4
Councilmember Dawson explained the L5 policy did not average salaries; it compared salaries and
establish a rate that was in the middle. The Salary Commission’s recommendation would place the
Mayor’s salary at the median of the other cities. She urged the Council to reconsider the increase for the
office of the Mayor.
Councilmember Bernheim assured his challenge of the 25% increase in the Mayor’s salary was not an
attack on Mayor Haakenson and assured he felt Mayor Haakenson was a great Mayor. With regard to
fairness, he questioned the argument that it was fair to increase the Mayor’s salary because a majority of
the Council felt he deserved it. He summarized the proposed increase was an unrequested, gratuitous
donation of public taxes in an era of belt-tightening and urged the Council to support his amendment.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to Councilmember Bernheim’s comment that the salary increase was
not appropriate due to the City’s tight financial situation, commenting that philosophy had not been
applied to any other employee’s salary.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM AND DAWSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
WILSON, OLSON, ORVIS AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM H. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, WAMBOLT, WILSON, AND
ORVIS IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON AND BERNHEIM OPPOSED. The
item approved is as follows:
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 3622 TO
INCREASE THE SALARY OF THE MAYOR, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2008 AND JULY 1, 2009
ITEM J: ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 3410 TO
PROVIDE FOR THE COMPENSATION OF COUNCIL MEMBERS ELECTED AND
TAKING OFFICE ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2010
Councilmember Wambolt pulled this item to vote against it.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM J. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED ((4-3),
COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, ORVIS, DAWSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, WILSON AND OLSON
OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows:
J. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 3410 TO
PROVIDE FOR THE COMPENSATION OF COUNCIL MEMBERS ELECTED AND
TAKING OFFICE ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2010
3. PRESENTATION ON THE DALE TURNER FAMILY YMCA
Vern Chase, YMCA Executive Board Member, introduced incoming YMCA Board Chair Michael
Schultz, Executive Director Courtney Whitaker, Development Director Stacy Segal and Daybreaker
Rotarian Marisa Gallier.
Mr. Chase explained the $19.5 million family YMCA located on Hwy. 99 south of the Snohomish County
line was scheduled to open this fall. He participated on the Search Committee for a new YMCA for over
seven years to find the right site for a family YMCA that would meet the needs of their service area -
north Seattle to Lynnwood to Edmonds to Lake Forest Park. To ensure they were meeting the needs of
Packet Page 7 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 5
the community, gaining the financial support of the leaders in the area and were a true partner with the
public and private groups in the area, the site needed to visible and in a convenient location. He provided
a brief fly-through video that highlighted the key programmatic spaces in the new YMCA that include an
aquatic center, family center, and total health center.
Incoming YMCA Board Chair Michael Schultz commented on the positive impact of YMCA
programs on youth in the Edmonds community. He recognized that no one organization or City program
could support the diversity of community needs. He described YMCA school-based programs that serve
more than 200 elementary and 50 middle school students each day. In addition, over 40 teens participate
in leadership clubs each month. The new facility will allow further development of these programs and
provide opportunities for children, teens and adults to gather in one location. He summarized they were
proud of the impacts the YMCA was having in the area and hoped Edmonds residents would find a place
for themselves in the new YMCA’s wellness, family and aquatic programs. He looked forward to
working with Edmonds staff and elected leadership to determine if there were collaborations and joint
ventures to better serve the residents of Edmonds.
Executive Director Courtney Whitaker displayed a rendering of the outside of the building located on
Hwy. 99 south of the County line between Sky Nursery and Costco. They broke ground July 2007 and
expect to be open by fall 2008. She displayed floorplans, identifying the aquatics center that includes
recreation and place space, fitness space, a therapeutic hot tub, and is handicap accessible. She identified
the youth development center, open and free to teen members of the community that offered leadership,
computer technology, health, etc. as well as designated teen/youth exercise space. The facility includes a
21-foot climbing pinnacle, a family center offering a variety of activities for all ages and a total health
center. She concluded although the building was nearly complete, they had not yet finalized
programming. She looked forward to discussions with Edmonds Park and Recreation staff to identify
needs they could partner on to ensure a broad base of programming was available to the community.
Mr. Chase commented they had raised a great deal of money and were well positioned to meet the unique
needs of the community. As a member of the Chamber of Commerce’s Economic Development
Committee, he recognized the new YMCA would enhance Edmonds’ quality of life and add to Edmonds’
attractiveness as a great place to work and live. He looked forward to collaborating with the City of
Edmonds.
Councilmember Olson expressed her pleasure that the facility was named after Reverend Dale Turner,
one of the most amazing people she has every known. Ms. Whitaker commented they were excited to be
able to honor the memory of the late Reverend Dale Turner, a Minister at the University Congregational
Church, religion columnist for the Seattle Times for 19 years, resident of the service and a lifetime board
member of the YMCA of greater Seattle.
Councilmember Wambolt asked the size of the pool. Ms. Whitaker answered it was 25 yards.
Councilmember Wilson commented the facility was very impressive and he wished it could have been
constructed within Edmonds. Ms. Whitaker assured they tried to site the facility in Edmonds.
Mayor Haakenson echoed Councilmember Olson’s comments regarding Reverend Whitaker.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Lora Petso, Edmonds, referred to Councilmember Wilson’s comment last week regarding whether the
revised Park Plan was less ambitious than the previous Plan and provided the following as evidence it
clearly was less ambitious.
Packet Page 8 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 6
Item 2001 Plan 2008 Plan
Pool Develop a pool, fixed
location
Strong interest, maybe
Neighborhood Park acres/1,000 pop. .95 .71
Neighborhood Park size 5 acres 1-5 acres
Planned Acquisition 7 sites, average size 3 acres 6 sites, average size 2 acres
Community Park acquisition 3 sites, 2-mile service area 1 site, 5-mile service area
Community Park service area 2 miles 5 miles
Community Park acres/1,000 pop. 2.61 2.03
Regional Park acres/1,000 pop. 1.08 1.96
Special Use Area/1,000 pop. .98 .71
Open Space/1,000 pop. 6.1 5.86
Virginia Redfield, Edmonds, commended the Council for listening to the input from the community
regarding the redevelopment of the waterfront property and submitting the idea for a bond issue to
purchase the property. She expressed her support for that effort.
Jim Lockhart, Edmonds, expressed interest in the modernization of the waterfront property. He pointed
out the City had a unique opportunity to create an attractive, enduring, signature development as a
gateway to the City that would also serve as a neighborhood destination for citizens. He expressed his
support for the Council’s effort to submit a bond proposal to finance the purchase of the waterfront
property.
Jim Hills, Edmonds, President, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, representing the 430 members,
expressed the Chamber’s support for a process guided by reasoned standards that represent the best
interest of the City, residents and businesses and ensured the best and most sustainable uses. They urged
the Council to develop specific criteria to address the long term fiscal feasibility of any project, noting the
economic realities of any proposal must be careful considered in light of the City’s current financial
standing and potential impacts on residents, businesses and taxpayers. For example, should the City
pursue purchasing the site for any eventual use, it was important to consider both short and long term
costs including the initial purchase price, demolition of existing structures, construction costs and future
annual maintenance. Further, if the City purchased the property, there must be assurance that future
needed/desired infrastructure improvements could be funded. He pointed out revenue should also be a
factor in the Council’s discussion should any future use preclude or reduce the tax revenue from the site.
He summarized the Chamber’s position was not opposition to any proposal, rather they supported
establishing and applying reasonable guidelines for each proposal considered by the Council.
David Arista, Edmonds, Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, expressed the Association’s
support for the Chamber’s statement. In response to comments that the merchants did not support a
mixed use/commercial/retail space on the Harbor Square/Antique Mall properties, he assured the
merchants felt such a development would not be competition but help draw visitors to Edmonds.
Roger Oliver, Edmonds, expressed concern with dangerous sidewalks, lack of curb cuts, and dangerous
curb cuts, citing the area from 3rd & Howell, north to Walnut, east to 5th, south to Howell Way and to the
Port was an example. He noted many of the hazards would not be obvious to an able-bodied person but
presented a danger to him while traveling in his motorized chair. He invited two Councilmembers to
accompany him to view the hazards. Mayor Haakenson suggested Public Works Director Noel Miller
accompany Mr. Oliver.
Fred Bell, Edmonds, President, Edmonds Historic Society, described efforts to save the 107-year old
building at the corner of 6th & Main including articles/editorials in the Edmonds Beacon and a display ad
Packet Page 9 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 7
asking for help/suggestions for moving and a location for the building. He explained the City did not
have sufficient funds to relocate or maintain the building. He suggested siting the building on the Civic
Stadium property, leased by the City until 2021, noting the Edmonds School Board has expressed
willingness to discuss that location. He suggested a Museum fund drive to move the building and place it
on a foundation and work out with the City and other entities how to maintain it.
Cliff Sanderlin, Edmonds, thanked the City Council and Mayor for allowing more citizen input in the
process than in the past. He assured the people of Edmonds were willing to help in any way possible. He
offered to assist with fundraising via private sources to purchase all or part of the waterfront properties.
He noted private fundraising from individuals, foundations and businesses could be very helpful in
providing seed money, early studies, etc. as well as funding elements of the project.
John Reed, Edmonds, Alliance for the Citizens of Edmonds (ACE) referred to a memo they provided to
the Council with facts and ideas developed via several ACE meetings and encouraged the Council to
review the presentations Dick Van Hollenbeke and he made to the Council on April 1. He relayed ACE’s
recommendation that the City acquire the Skipper’s and Antique Mall parcels, commenting acquisition
was the best option as it would led to the development of a combination of public amenities and revenue-
producing attractions that would draw residents, visitors and additional revenue. Leadership by the
Council, Mayor, staff and the Port would be necessary throughout the development process as well as
community involvement. He referred to the list of needs that would be presented by staff, noting they
should be viewed was an opportunity not a warning. He referred to staff’s projection that bonding for the
$12 million cost to acquire the property would cost the owner of a home valued at $500,000
approximately $63 per year. He suggested consideration be given to larger bond issue to fund public
amenities at the Waterfront Activity Center as well as develop playfields, sidewalks and fund other needs.
He anticipated an additional $10-$20 million could be raised for a total cost of approximately $190/year
for the owner of a home valued at $500,000. He summarized the members of ACE were ready, willing
and able to assist the City in whatever way possible.
In light of the recent decision by the owners of the Antique Mall property to withdraw the prize money
for the design contest and not reward the Edmonds-Woodway High School students who worked many
hours on their design and presentation, Mr. Reed invited the community to contribute to a fundraising
campaign established by ACE to replace the prize money. Donation could be sent to ACE - EWHS
Design Fund, POB 1793, Edmonds, Washington, 98020.
Karen Wiggins, Edmonds, expressed her support for the City’s purchase of the old Safeway/Antique
Mall property and Skipper’s property, noting it was her understanding there were many types of grants
available. She supported placing a bond measure on the November 2008 ballot. She agreed with Mr.
Oliver’s comments regarding curb cuts and sidewalks, noting there were many inadequate curb cuts
including one at 3rd & James as well as near the cemetery.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, expressed support for public ownership of the property between Main and
Dayton, the railroad tracks and Sunset Avenue. She preferred the land be used for public purposes rather
than commercial uses. She asked whether public land could be used for commercial purposes, and urged
the City to obtain the answer to this question before moving forward. It was her understanding a
municipality could not serve as a landlord.
George Murray, Edmonds, recognized the Garden Club for their efforts, noting they have an
arrangement to maintain the park across from Tully’s. Next, he expressed support for a bond issue for a
park. With regard to the Mayor’s salary increase, he was disappointed the City Council authorized this
salary increase due to the message it sent to staff. He envisioned it would now be difficult for the Mayor
withhold increases and/or cut staff if necessary. He pointed out there were other methods of providing the
Packet Page 10 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 8
Mayor an increase such as an annual bonus for excellent service. He relayed that the Mayor of San Diego
vetoed an increase approved by the Council and asked they reconsider the matter, finding it put him in an
untenable position with his staff.
Betty Larman, Edmonds, commented the Council was able to make a momentous decision by voting on
the future of the waterfront. She expressed her support for purchasing the property for everyone to enjoy.
She inquired about the purchase of the Old Milltown courtyard. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council
and Mr. Gregg were still in negotiation.
Brian Larman, Edmonds, commented in the past five years there had been an erosion of Edmonds’
character and unique ambiance. The City’s codes and Comprehensive Plan seemed to be interpreted in a
manner that did not meet the intent of the policy makers. He supported purchasing the waterfront
property and developing something that was a designation for the community rather than just residential.
He questioned the legacy Councilmembers wanted to leave - a legacy of Edmonds as a jewel of the
northwest or just condominiums on the waterfront.
Robert Deigert, Edmonds, supported the City’s purchase of the waterfront properties. He pointed out
the importance of not allowing a few builders to control various political entities. He urged the Council,
after purchasing the property, to allow the people to determine the uses. He urged the City to be careful
with development downtown to avoid another Kirkland that had only condominiums and 5-story
buildings. He suggested converting Harbor Square to a personalized work area that would create income
for the City as well as bring people into Edmonds. He summarized the decisions the Council made with
regard to the waterfront property would affect the City for the next 100 years.
Larry Pauls, Edmonds, echoed the previous comments regarding purchasing the waterfront property,
commenting it was unfortunate the most aggressive building approach was on the Skipper’s site which
was immediately adjacent to the waterfront park. He suggested researching a way to allow the developers
to build in an area that was not as critical as the area between Main & Dayton.
Linda Bontecou, Edmonds, expressed support for purchasing the Antique Mall and Skipper’s properties.
She recalled the saying - location, location, location - noting everyone knew this was the perfect location
in Edmonds. She pointed out the Edmonds-Woodway High School students’ presentations eliminated
negativity and made people think about possibilities - a jewel for all. She encouraged the Council not to
miss this opportunity and to have the vision to make this a wonderful place for Edmonds.
Joan Bloom, Edmonds, relayed 10 members of ACE met to discuss a vision for the Waterfront Activity
Center; a summary of this vision was emailed to the Council. Their review of the two scale models
created by the Edmonds-Woodway High School students and the committee’s discussion led to many
commonalities including a low level design within current height limits; an innovative and progressive
design throughout the properties; environmentally sensitive and attentive to the properties’ constraints
such as regular flooding and proximity to the railroad tracks; easy to reach by foot, bicycle, or shuttle;
easy to reach downtown and the Arts Corridor and connected to the neighborhood by shuttle, walkways,
bike paths; a lot of indoor/outdoor areas; services and activities that appeal to all age groups and interests;
welcoming and accessible; draw visitors from throughout the region and country; and provide so much to
do, see and purchase that it would generate a great deal of revenue, and a place everyone wanted to come
because it was so much fun. She noted many of the ideas they developed were in the notes of the WG33;
it was the designs by LMN Architects that the community objected to, not the ideas they were based on.
She encouraged the Council to embark on a visioning process to create a world class Waterfront Activity
Center and assured it could be done.
Packet Page 11 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 9
Richard Senderoff, Edmonds, supported development of the waterfront area for public use, comparing
the possibilities and financial benefits to the recreational uses available on the Jersey-Delaware shore. He
envisioned development could occur in three ways, 1) a developer driven Master Plan, 2) a City-driven
Master Plan, and 3) the City purchase all or part of the properties. He found it unreasonable to allow a
developer to purchase property and only develop it if the zoning were changed to meet their needs which
held the City and community hostage. Although he found a City-driven Master Plan more acceptable
than a developer-driven Master Plan, he was concerned it would put the Council and Mayor between the
community’s interests and the developer’s interests and lead to a costly and extended debate. The only
reasonable solution was for the Council to find a way to purchase the property and develop it using citizen
input in a manner that attracted visitors and generated revenue.
Bill Angle, Edmonds, commented this decision was critical as it would impact the physical space and
sense of community for 50-10 years. He observed there was no ongoing support for the plans that arose
from the earlier planning process. In earlier comments he raised the question whether the City should
purchase all or a portion of the properties and had concluded along with many others that acquiring the
property was the best option to ensure the properties were developed for the long term benefit of the
citizens of Edmonds. He noted the first step was an appraisal; he was not overly concerned about the
property being too expensive in view of the height limits, setbacks, parking requirements, etc.; physical
constraints such as the high water table, adjacent railroad tracks and Puget Sound; ferry lines on SR104,
etc., as well as the political constraints with regard to increase building heights and greater density. Due
to these constraints, he anticipated the appraisal would find they were significantly less valuable than the
owners believed them to be. He concluded the City had the elements necessary to create a great future for
the City and community; acquiring these properties was critical for community building. He looked for
the Council and its strong leadership in making this public/private approach a reality.
David Page, Edmonds, commented things either grew or they died; the idea of a waterfront development
was growing daily. He recognized there were problems on Lake Ballinger, Meadowdale, Hwy. 99 and
suggested creating a bond issue large enough to fix many of the problems in Edmonds. He recalled the
uproar over the $9.5 million bond to construct the Public Safety Complex and $4 million to purchase the
City Hall building. He noted today, 13 years later, those buildings were worth approximately $50
million. He recalled the Public Safety group had to raise $9,000 to put the bond issue on the ballot and
expressed his willingness to donate to this effort. He pledged $500 toward replacing the prize for the
waterfront design competition.
Jack Jacobson, Edmonds, commented when the property owners purchased the waterfront property,
they knew there were restrictions; when their efforts to change the building heights were unsuccessful,
they offered the property for sale. He expressed dismay with the property owners’ withdrawal of the
prize from the design competition.
John Hall, Edmonds, expressed his faith in the Council and urged them not to give the developers the
ammunition to shoot the golden goose.
Brian Pettoletti, Edmonds, a business owner in Edmonds, commented change was enviable and people
either watched it or were part of it. Now was the time for change and he urged the Council not to let the
process get in the way of progress.
5. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN
AREA - WATERFRONT ANTIQUE MALL, HARBOR SQUARE AND SKIPPERS PROPERTIES
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton described the series of events that
led to tonight, specifically the continued effort by the Council to explore options for redeveloping the
Packet Page 12 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 10
Downtown Master Plan Area as identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the area also known as the
Port of Edmonds Harbor Square, Antique Mall and Skipper properties and the WSF parking lot.
Following discussion at the 2008 City Council retreat, the Council conducted two public meetings on
March 25 and April 1, 2008. During the March 25 meeting City staff presented information on the
existing redevelopment framework as established by the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code.
Following presentations by City staff, Mark Hinshaw, LMN Architects, presented information on the
national and regional phenomenon of people choosing to move into and near downtowns. He also spoke
about the redevelopment opportunities and/or constraints of subject area. The next group of presentations
were given by the owners of Harbor Square, the Antique Mall and Skipper’s properties.
On April 1, 2008, the public was invited to share comments or ideas on the potential redevelopment of the
subject area. The City Council then discussed possible next steps following the public comment period
and at the conclusion of the meeting, the Council asked the Council President to work with staff to bring
the issue of Downtown Master Plan redevelopment back to the City Council.
After meeting with the Mayor and City Staff, the City Council President requested City staff present the
following information at the May 27, 2008 City Council meeting:
1. The necessary steps if the Council wanted to control all or a portion of subject properties with a
city driven master plan
2. Council control over all or a part of subject properties with an applicant driven master plan
3. The necessary steps if the Council wanted to control the property by buying some or all
Additional information requested included City Staff’s recommendations should City Council decide to
purchase all, or a portion of the subject properties (Antique Mall, WSF parking lot and Skipper’s
properties), as well as information on unfunded high priority projects.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Area was a much larger area
in the Comprehensive Plan, from Pine Street to 9th to Caspers, primarily the bowl area and the hill. The
“Downtown Master Plan” area was part of the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Area and defined as three
properties - Harbor Square, the old Safeway/Edmonds Shopping Center and the Skipper’s property. The
current Comprehensive Plan differentiates the downtown district and emphasizes the importance of
master plane-based redevelopment. The current Comprehensive Plan direction includes, 1) linked open
space/public areas along waterfront “esplanade,” 2) view corridors and downtown/waterfront pedestrian
connections east-west and north-south, 3) master-plan based redevelopment of key areas, and 4) support
compatible design of regional facilities (transit, parks and walkways, port).
Development Services Director Duane Bowman reviewed Comprehensive Plan implementation choices
under the existing Plan versus a changed Plan. Utilizing the existing plan, one of the available process
options was zoning unchanged; implementation would be a either a Master Plan or Contract Rezone
utilizing the existing zoning that was publicly or privately driven or developing under the existing zoning.
The second available process option utilizing the existing plan was a zoning amendment; implementation
could be via a new zone, creating an overlay zone, or a minor zoning amendment.
Under a change to the existing Comprehensive Plan, there were three options, planned action, subarea
plan or modify/clarify existing policies. He explained implementation of a planned action would require
a Master Plan and SEPA. He explained the planned action was the most expensive and most detailed of
the options. It involved developing a master plan for the subject property that considered all the
environmental issues, traffic, stormwater drainage, building design, etc. as well as SEPA. Once that
process was complete, someone could propose a development and would not be required to complete the
detailed review process as it would already have been done. Implementation of the subarea plan for the
Packet Page 13 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 11
property was a zoning change and/or design overlay. Modifying/clarifying existing policies would
require a Zoning Code amendment/design standards to implement the changes.
He reviewed options for implementation of the existing Comprehensive Plan:
• Develop subject properties under existing zoning
• If there is a desire to provide flexible development standards, other than what current exists, a
new zoning district could be established which includes new development standards
• An applicant could initiate development of master plan and proposes related zoning code
provisions, followed by a request for a contract rezone to implement the proposed plan.
He noted master plans must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and polices for the area.
Opportunities under the no change to the Comprehensive Plan:
• Focus on implementation
• May be easier to accomplish redevelopment within a shorter timeframe
• Minimal out of pocket costs to City/public
• Flexibility of master plan option allows for creativity
• Individual entities may proceed at their own pace as they are willing/ready
• Voluntary partnership are possible, but optional.
Weaknesses of a no change to the Comprehensive Plan approach:
• Only as good as existing regulatory framework
• General plan language provides for many options but less certainty of acceptance/approval
• Current zoning and ownership pattern may nota result in what the public or City ultimately wants
Opportunities with a Comprehensive Plan amendment:
• Very public process; implementation predictability
• City can serve as “glue” holding interests together and provide link between Comprehensive Plan
and implementation
• Opportunity to involve major public interests who own property in the area: Sound Transit,
WSF, Port
• Provides potential to look at options not current on the table: land swaps; transfer of development
rights; property mix of private and public development options
• Opportunity to develop key environmental information and public/private funding options needed
for an overall master plan implementation program
Weaknesses with a Comprehensive Plan amendment:
• Must have willing participants
• Takes time
Administrative Services Director Dan Clements commented one of the problems was the property
acquisition costs were unknown but a voter-approved bond issue would be required to acquire the
properties. He displayed an aerial photograph and provided the Snohomish County assessed value of
each property:
Skipper’s property (owned by Bob Gregg): $ 1,181,000
WSF parking lot: $ 1,180.400
Antique Mall/old Safeway (owned by Al Dykes): $ 9,738,900
Total assessed value: $12,100,300
He described property tax impacts of a 20 year bond @ 5% annual interest, explaining for a principal of
$12,100,000, the annual payment would be $970,959 and the impact on a $500,000 home approximately
$64/year. He clarified these were not the costs that would included in a bond issue as they did not include
demolition, environmental or maintenance/operational costs. He reviewed potential project caveats:
Packet Page 14 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 12
• How does this rank with other projects?
• Is this the most important issue to take to voters? Election costs of $80,000 - $125,000. Purchase
and Sale agreement would be based on voter approved bond amount to fund the purchase
• Use not yet determined: affects type of bonds, interest rates, and budget. Difficult to determine
the type without a determined use
• Owners have not agreed to sell for assessed value
• Significant issues with condemnation; condemnation requires a public purpose
Mr. Clements reviewed the path to purchase:
1. Determine use which determines type of bonds and ballot title
2. Determine what parcels to buy
• Triggers appraisal and environmental assessment
• Determine property owner expectations
3. Determine funding: voter approved
a. Bond Issue: 60% approval required
b. Levy lid lift: 50% approval plus one
4. Purchase and Sale/First Right Offer
• Contingent on voter approved funding clause
5. Place before voters
Mr. Clifton reviewed City staff’s recommendation should the City Council decide to purchase all or a
portion of the subject properties:
1. Determine how purchase of property fits within the City’s high priority needs. He
highlighted examples of unfunded high priority projects, estimated costs and possible funding
sources including ongoing building maintenance projects ($200,000/year), ongoing
transportation improvements ($500,000 - $1 million/year), aquatic center ($10-$40 million),
parks and facilities maintenance building ($3-3.5 million), Senior Center building ($4-$10
million), civic playfield acquisition (cost unknown), former Woodway High School
playfields ($12 million), Fire Station 16 (cost unknown), 4th Avenue Cultural Center ($10
million), Boys & Girls Club Building ($5 million), Wade James Theater ($5 million), etc. He
summarized if a bond issue to purchase the waterfront properties were placed before the
voters, a decision would need to be made whether to have it be a standalone item or with
other unfunded, high priority needs.
2. Include within 2009-2011 budget process
3. Conduct due diligence activities
• Clearly define public purpose basis for purchase at the earlier possible point
• Vet use with bond counsel prior to election
• Perform environmental review
• Conduct appraisal
• Prepare “planned action” (outlined in May 22 memo from City Attorney Scott Snyder)
Councilmember Dawson referred to public comment and staff’s question regarding combining this
purchase with other high priority unfunded needs including an aquatics center. She asked whether the old
Woodway High School or the waterfront properties could be sites for an aquatic center. Mr. Clifton
answered they could be potential sites; however, a preferred site had not yet been identified.
Councilmember Dawson commented improvements to the Senior Center would be an appropriate item to
combine with a bond for the purchase of the waterfront property as it was adjacent to these parcels. She
noted several of the options required a willing property owner and asked whether the property owners had
been approached regarding selling their property or partnering with the City. Mayor Haakenson advised
he emailed Mr. Gregg and Mr. Dykes 10-14 days ago asking if they were interested in selling their
property and neither had responded.
Packet Page 15 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 13
Councilmember Dawson commented transfer development rights or land swap may make the property
owners more willing to sell their property or partner with the City. She asked whether that topic had been
broached with the property owners. Mr. Clifton answered it had not. Councilmember Dawson asked
whether development with the Port via land swap of Harbor Square had been broached with the Port. Mr.
Clifton answered in concept that was a possibility and conversations had been held with the Port but no
decision had been made with regard to pursuing that option.
If it was decided the existing Comprehensive Plan met the community’s needs, Councilmember Dawson
asked whether there was a way to pursue a master plan/SEPA process under the existing Comprehensive
Plan or would it be better to change the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowman answered it was likely that a
change to the Comprehensive Plan would be required. The current Comprehensive Plan policies were
quite broad and gave a wide range of opportunities for development. If the Council had an idea regarding
what they wanted to see on the site, it would be preferable to modify/strengthen the policies to reflect that
direction.
Councilmember Dawson commented the next steps could not be determined until the City ascertained
whether there were willing property owners as all the processes depended on that or the developer
submitting a proposal under the current regulations. Mr. Bowman advised if the existing private property
owners wanted to develop under the existing code, there was little the City could do as long as they
followed the existing code.
City Attorney Scott Snyder commented via a partnership, public money could be used for public purposes
and the City could partner with a private developer to accomplish a mixed use project. If the City utilizes
its condemnation powers, it can only be for a public purpose and private uses could only be incidental.
The City would be required to show very refined plans to illustrate it was purchasing exactly what it
needed and if there was some land left over, the courts were somewhat forgiving if there was a strong
plan. Before contacting the property owners, he noted it was essential to determine the use and purpose.
Councilmember Dawson commented the City could purchase the property and then partner with a willing
developer or pursue a joint purchase with a private developer other than the current property owner.
Whether the Council intended to pursue condemnation or a bond, Mr. Snyder emphasized that staff
needed to know the use of the property. Councilmember Dawson suggested contacting the existing
property owners to determine their interest in selling the property and then determine what uses the public
wanted on the properties. If the Council was interested in pursuing condemnation, the property could not
be used for restaurants and/or retail because those uses were not defined as a public purpose. Mr. Snyder
agreed, noting some incidental use was allowed.
Councilmember Dawson emphasized if the public’s interest was in revenue-generating uses,
condemnation was not an option. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting the uses would also determine the type of
bond financing. Councilmember Dawson commented with a willing seller, commercial uses would be
possible, depending on the type of bond used to finance the project. Mr. Snyder agreed that was true for a
portion of the cost; to estimate the other costs such as environmental, infrastructure, transportation, etc., a
use must be determined. Councilmember Dawson summarized depending on how the property was
acquired, the uses may be more limited. Mr. Snyder explained condemnation was a complicated and
involved process and did not result in any deals as the City paid costs; a negotiated sale was almost
always preferable. He acknowledged condemnation was the City’s “hammer” for acquiring property for
purposes the Council deemed appropriate. He noted there were defined public purposes and the
Washington State Constitution was more restrictive than the federal Constitution with regard to public
purpose.
Packet Page 16 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 14
Mr. Snyder preferred to have as much of the work done in term of environmental assessment,
infrastructure assessment and purpose before the bond issue because significant delays in the form of
environmental appeals could result in construction cost escalation and could kill a voter-approved project
because there would be insufficient funds available. Therefore it was important to get as much of the
process completed via planned action and review. He reiterated the recommendation in his memo that the
City review its Critical Areas Ordinance and SEP provisions.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether review of critical areas on private property required a partnership
with the property owner. Mr. Snyder answered many Puget Sound communities were using scientific
data to review critical area maps. He noted there had been four flooding events at the intersection of
Dayton &SR 104 in the past ten years; if the global warming reports are even moderately correct, greater
frequency of flooding could be assumed. Councilmember Dawson asked whether flooding would impact
the price of the property. Mr. Snyder agreed it could, noting it could also affect some of the uses
currently allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Snyder explained his focus was on public
infrastructure costs so that it was clear this process was not intended to deflate the value of the property
but to adequately assess what the City’s cost would be.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about a city on the east coast that condemned property for private
development. Mr. Snyder advised the U.S. Constitution permits condemnation for a broad public purpose
that can include redevelopment; purchasing blighted areas with resale to a private developer for
redevelopment because without the use of condemnation powers, it was difficult to acquire large blocks
of parcels that may be necessary for private development. That is not possible in Washington State. For
example, when Seattle was purchasing Westlake, their initial plan was to buy 100 acres and resell it to
private developers. The Supreme Court struck down that project, stating while there could be some
incidental, private use of property acquired via condemnation, but it must be incidental.
In a later case, Washington State Trade Center, the Center had a very specific public purpose but ended
up with 20% of the property resold to private developers. The Washington Trade Center was designed to
have a large, unimpeded display space which allowed them to show the court they did not acquire
anything more than they had to acquire and what was left over was available because of the topography
and how the ownership was divided among private property owners. He summarized if the intent was to
use condemnation, the City should not enter into the project assuming they would sell a portion. He in
condemnation, the public use must be carefully defined. The first step was passage of a condemnation
ordinance; the second step was a public use and assessment hearing. At both stages, it was important to
have the public purpose clearly identified. The public purpose would also determine the type of bond.
Councilmember Dawson asked about renting. Mr. Snyder answered concession agreements were a
common part of many park projects and could be considered an incidental use in support of a park.
Councilmember Dawson recognized a use could be incidental to a park but condemnation could not be
used if the primary purpose was shops and restaurants. Mr. Snyder agreed that would be very difficult to
justify. Councilmember Dawson referred to the River Park Square Development in Spokane which
although it did great things for Spokane, was found not to be a public purpose.
Mr. Snyder advised there was a list of public purposes in the statutes that controlled local government
condemnation powers. He referred to a recent case in Cowlitz County where the County attempted to
condemn a culvert for salmon recovery. Although required by federal law, counties do not have the
ability to condemn for salmon habitat. Councilmember Dawson pointed out the uses on the site would
not be limited with a willing seller.
Council President Plunkett commented the steps appeared to be, 1) determining the public purpose and 2)
appraisal, environmental and construction costs. With regard to the public purpose, Council President
Packet Page 17 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 15
Plunkett read the following from the Comprehensive Plan, 1) in Edmonds the economic benefit of the
parks systems element include attracting tourism, highlight cultural elements of the downtown shopping
core, accessibility, pedestrian friendly, design of waterfront parks, public art, development of cultural
facilities, 2) the community has expressed an interest in enhancement of new multiple purpose arts facility
for visual arts, support also expressed for public gathering spaces that may be used for visual art forms,
and 3) identified as a cultural designation. He asked whether the existing Comprehensive Plan would
meet the first step of determining the public purpose. Mr. Snyder responded the sections Council
President Plunkett cited were true and valid public purposes but were general public purposes; the
question was what would be located on the site. In order to determine the cost, the City must have some
idea of what would be on the site and in what priority, otherwise the numbers would be very soft. He
envisioned a public process to define the public uses while the preliminary environmental assessments,
etc. were being conducted. He summarized a lot more detail would be necessary before a bond issue was
prepared, before the bond council drafted an ordinance, and before a condemnation ordinance could be
drafted. Council President Plunkett asked whether a cultural center would be a valid public purpose. Mr.
Snyder answered it was; further detail would be required before a bond amount could be determined.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out of the property taxes residents paid, the City received only
approximately 20%. There were other entities with demands on taxes including the Hospital District who
would soon be seeking a great deal of money to upgrade their facility either via partnership with another
hospital or voted taxpayer debt. He noted that was likely to be more costly than any other item on the list
of unfunded high priority projects.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the funds from a levy lid lift could be allocated specifically to this
project. Mr. Clements answered the City would be required to do so; the levy must be lifted for a specific
purpose. Councilmember Orvis clarified a future Council would be bound to maintain those funds for
that purpose. Mr. Clement agreed. Councilmember Orvis asked whether a levy lid lift would allow the
City to raise funds for maintenance. Mr. Clements answered a maintenance levy would be required.
With regard to determining uses, Councilmember Orvis asked whether at this stage it would be
appropriate to identify major uses and staff could provide details regarding the elements. Mr. Snyder
answered precision was not necessary at this level; he assumed a list of uses would be refined via a public
process in conjunction with unfunded projects to determine a bond amount. Mr. Bowman advised a
public master plan could be developed that defined the public uses for the site. Another option if there
were willing sellers was a master plan/planned action that would identify the amenities the public wanted
as well as recognize the desires/needs of the private property owners. The advantage of a planned action
was once it was completed, a developer could submit a development proposal and proceed through the
process without SEPA, etc. and the property could be developed in accordance with the planned action.
Councilmember Bernheim agreed the Council needed a general idea of the what they wanted to
accomplish before conducting any preliminary negotiations with the property owners. He found the
Washington Trade Center example interesting as a it approximated in many relevant ways one of the
plans developed by the students, covering the property entirely with a park on top and office and
commercial space beneath that could be used for parking, municipal offices, farmer’s market or indoor
park space all of which were permissible purposes under the terms of the condemnation statute. His
review of the Washington Trade Center case led him to believe it would be easy to justify the space under
a park for use by the City or leased to restaurants, etc. Mr. Snyder agreed that may be possible with
careful planning.
Councilmember Bernheim asked the cost of the EMS levy election. Mr. Clements estimated the cost was
$80,000 - $125,000; the City shared the cost with Edmonds School District.
Packet Page 18 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 16
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the appraised value of the Antique Mall property could be
lower than the assessed value in light of the commercial impact of the railway, traffic circulation and the
flood proneness of the area. Mr. Clements answered it was possible but unlikely. Councilmember
Bernheim asked whether there had ever been any objections by the property owner to the $9 million
appraisal. Mr. Clements recalled the property owner indicated last year they would sell the property for
$16 million. He noted a great deal of study would need to done before a lower appraisal was a possibility.
Further, the railway could be considered a transportation advantage to residents in a development. In
Kent, the proximity to the railway has raised property values. He acknowledged the flooding may impact
the property’s values. Councilmember Bernheim recalled in discussion with the Port regarding structured
parking, they indicated pumps would be required to remove water from the lower floors. Mr. Clements
commented even if the appraised value were lower, the net would be nearly the same due to the amount of
environmental study that would be required.
Mr. Snyder explained staff’s intent was to use current scientific data to reevaluate critical areas provisions
and the SEPA map and those regulatory efforts would provide a generalized framework, the critical area
ordinance, and a specific tool, the SEPA process, to evaluate specific projects. Those would provide a
better framework for discussion with an appraiser than flood history.
Councilmember Bernheim asked about how the condemnation process and voter approval of a bond
would coincide. Mr. Snyder answered there were some steps that could be conducted parallel. He
suggested getting the work done and if the bond issue passed, proceeding with condemnation. The first
steps in condemnation were, 1) passage of condemnation ordinance by the Council and 2) a use and
necessity hearing before the court. If a valid public purpose was determined, in most cases the court gave
possession of the property to the City with the value to be determine in the court proceeding. The first
steps, physical acquisition of the property, come quickly; the determination of value may take longer.
Thus the importance of ensuring the amount of the bond measure was the amount necessary.
Councilmember Bernheim referred to the estimated cost of the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor on the unfunded
high priority projects list. Mr. Clifton answered that amount was an estimate; that streetscape project
included subgrade and infrastructure work.
Councilmember Dawson asked what would happen if the bond measure passed and a use and necessity
hearing failed. Mr. Snyder answered he hoped that would not happen; however, the Council could pass
another condemnation ordinance and redefine the purpose. Overall he did not see anything in the
Comprehensive Plan that was not doable as long as it was properly planned; the only controversial items
were the potential resale or public/private partnerships. The basic purposes in the Comprehensive Plan as
cited by Council President Plunkett had counterpart public uses in the condemnation statute.
Councilmember Dawson agreed a public use could be determined for the site; however, the difficulty may
be proving the necessity of that public use on these particular parcels. Mr. Snyder replied the court gave a
great deal of deference to the Council’s selection of a site for a park. For example public open space
should be included as a use in any condemnation ordinance for that area because the City may find they
did not have sufficient funds for development and it may require a phased development plan.
Councilmember Dawson emphasized part of the issue was that this location was key to the City. She
questioned whether the City needed to acquire the property or if transfer development rights could
accomplish the same goal without the City acquiring the site.
Councilmember Dawson agreed with Mr. Snyder’s recommendation that the Council review its Critical
Areas Ordinance, SEPA provisions, flood maps and other City planned policies based on global climate
change and inquired about the cost for that review. Mr. Snyder estimated $200,000 to $400,000 over a
two year planning horizon. Councilmember Dawson noted that was the first step before pursuing any of
Packet Page 19 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 17
the paths and asked if the Council should budget for that in the next budget cycle. Mr. Snyder answered
many Puget Sound cities have begun this review and due to Edmonds’ topography and location, the City
needed to conduct this review. If the Council was moving ahead with a purchase plan for an area that
may be affected, the City could get double duty from the investigation by building it into the process.
Councilmember Dawson summarized the City needed to conduct this review regardless but it was an
important first step in this process as well.
Councilmember Dawson also agreed with Mr. Snyder’s recommendation that the Council adopt the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provisions for planned action review. Mr. Snyder noted the
SEPA provisions were included by reference; the Council could have the Planning Board hold a public
hearing and forward a recommendation to the Council or they could be adopted via an interim zoning
ordinance.
Councilmember Dawson commented a planned action with a wiling participant may negate the need for
the city to purchase the property. Mr. Bowman agreed, noting the private property owners and other
public entities such as WSF, Sound Transit or Port could work with the City on transfer of development
rights as part of a master plan. Councilmember Dawson commented there were a number of possibilities
via transfer development rights whereby the City would have more input on the development of the
waterfront property due to its importance and the developer could develop another site whose features
were not as key to the City. Mr. Snyder pointed out Parcel 2 was a state owned parcel and would require
negotiation as it could not be condemned. Councilmember Dawson agreed the City would not acquire
that parcel but there was the possibility of a joint development.
Councilmember Dawson agreed the appropriate first steps were to review the Critical Areas Ordinance
and SEPA provisions, noting many of the issues could be double-tracked. If the primary goals was to
have private development in conjunction with open space, perhaps a planned action was more appropriate
due to the difficulty with condemnation if part of the primary purpose was revenue-generating. Mr.
Bowman agreed, noting at the conclusion of a master plan and a planned action process, the private
property owners knew what could be done on the property and they could submit a proposal in
accordance with that process. Councilmember Dawson noted another option was the property owner
could develop elsewhere via a land swap or transfer development rights.
Councilmember Dawson expressed interest in determining whether the property owners were willing
participants because if they were not, that limited the paths the City could pursue. Mr. Bowman agreed it
would be intriguing to determine whether they were interested in any of the options discussed tonight. He
explained a master plan process was a very public process as was a public/private partnership.
Councilmember Dawson posed a scenario where the property owners were interested and the process
proceeded and did not work out. She asked whether the Council could still pursue acquisition via a
willing seller or condemnation. Mr. Bowman agreed they could.
Mayor Haakenson commended staff for the information provided in their presentations.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Dawson expressed interest in staff returning with a proposal for the ordinance updates as
recommended by Mr. Snyder as well as determining whether there was any funding available this year
rather than waiting until the budget process to identify funding. She also requested Mr. Snyder bring the
WAC provisions to the Council for adoption. She asked staff to enter into a dialogue with the property
owners and report to the Council regarding their interest in partnering with the City because without that
information, the Council was constrained in their next steps. Mayor Haakenson advised Mr. Gregg
Packet Page 20 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 18
indicated he would provide a response but assumed he was waiting until after tonight’s meeting; Mr.
Dykes did not respond.
Councilmember Dawson was intrigued by the idea of transfer development rights or land swap which had
the potential for a win-win situation where the City did not have to invest millions in a project and could
still achieve what the public wanted. She acknowledged it may not be possible but it was a route worth
exploring as well as determining the private property owners’ interest in selling the property. That
information would help determine uses on the properties. She observed most of the public supported a
development with some retail component and not just a park, a use that would be very challenging via
condemnation or low interest bonds. She preferred a partnership with the private owners which would
provide more of what the public wanted than could be achieved via condemnation. She was not a fan of
condemnation unless it was strictly necessary.
Councilmember Bernheim agreed it was important to get the owners’ cooperation and it was appropriate
to have staff explore that with them. He suggested a Councilmember accompany staff. Mayor
Haakenson suggested two Councilmembers meet with the property owners. Councilmember Bernheim
found it premature for the Council to make any decision tonight regarding how to proceed as there was a
great deal of information to digest. Mayor Haakenson asked Mr. Gregg and his attorney to respond to
him at their earliest convenience.
Councilmember Wilson commented the transfer of development rights was a tricky issue. He suggested
inviting Cascade Land Conservancy to discuss that option with the Council. He noted there had been a
great deal of public engagement on this topic and he was at a loss what to do with all the great feedback.
He questioned when the Council would make a decision and preferred to take some action soon. He
suggested asking for an appraisal and/or conducting a commissioned survey to determine what amenities
the public wanted on the site. He supported including funds for a number of projects in any future bond
issue. He estimated the cost of a bond to purchase the three waterfront parcels ($12 million),
development costs ($20 million), maintenance and operation levy ($1.7 million), and additional capital
projects ($16 million) would cost taxpayers approximately $29.50 per household per month. He asked
whether the Council felt that was a reasonable number that the citizens would support. If the citizens did
not support that additional amount, the Council could skip the acquisition process and pursue a master
plan process.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the numbers staff provided were based on the average cost of a
home in Edmonds, $461,000; the amount would be significantly higher for homes with higher values. He
preferred to determine the private property owners’ intentions before proceeding further. He noted Mayor
Haakenson, Mr. Clifton and he were meeting with the property owners this Thursday.
Council President Plunkett agreed with Councilmember Wilson’s interest in making a decision. He
pointed out the Comprehensive Plan addressed what the citizens wanted and had been developed with
years of effort and public input. He did not need a survey because he knew what the people of Edmonds
wanted and felt the people of Edmonds would support something akin to what was described in the
Comprehensive Plan. He concluded a gathering place that drew people from downtown would be a good
economic engine and would create the synergy that the City needed. He envisioned that could be
accomplished by acquiring the property and supported giving the people of Edmonds an opportunity to
vote on a bond to acquire the property.
Councilmember Orvis was encouraged by the numbers staff provided which opened the possibility of
considering an aquatics center. He agreed it was in the City’s best interest to work with the property
owner to reach an agreement on the price and what portions of the property would be used for private and
public purposes. He agreed with staff that the Council needed to identify the uses before the bonding
Packet Page 21 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 19
phase. He favored an aquatics center, open space, and commercial on the site and urged the Council to
reach a decision with regard to the uses to allow the process to move forward.
Councilmember Wilson expressed interest in an aquatics center, a family recreational center, commercial
and open space on the site.
Councilmember Olson emphasized the need to develop specifics before presenting a bond measure to the
public.
Councilmember Orvis agreed elections were expensive but elections were a post-Eyman reality. If a large
bond issue was proposed and failed, he would be in favor of scaling back the project and presenting it to
the public again.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about the timing for the aquatics center feasibility study. Park and
Recreation Director Brian McIntosh anticipated a consultant would be hired by the end of August and
depending on the scope of the study, it could be completed in late fall. Councilmember Dawson
commented there was interest in an aquatics center but the results of the feasibility study were needed
before a bond measure was proposed to the voters. Mr. McIntosh noted the size of an aquatics facility
was also a factor.
It was agreed staff would provide further information at the June 24 meeting as three of the seven
Councilmembers would be absent from the June 17 meeting. Councilmember Dawson suggested staff
provide Councilmembers updates in the meantime.
Councilmember Wilson suggested the Council pass a resolution indicating the Council was serious abut
considering the purchase of these properties. Mayor Haakenson commented it was pointless to pursue the
matter further until the property owners’ intentions were known.
Council President Plunkett advised he was prepared to pass a resolution stating that intent, due to his
belief that the people of Edmonds wanted the Council to purchase this property. He expressed his thanks
to staff for the information they provided.
Councilmember Dawson observed a majority of Council had given fairly clear direction to staff regarding
their interest in doing something that would result in master planning of the properties and either a purely
public development or a public/private partnership. She noted the lack of knowledge regarding next steps
had the potential to drive a wedge between Councilmembers, a dangerous possibility at this stage.
Councilmember Wambolt commented he was not convinced the people of Edmonds wanted the Council
to purchase the property. Clearly the people who have provided public comment want the Council to
purchase the property but he questioned what percentage of the City’s total population those people
represented. He recalled at the recent community meeting held by Mayor Haakenson at Edmonds
Elementary, attended by approximately 24 people, none of them had any interest in purchasing these
properties. He concluded it was premature to assume that a super majority of City residents (60%)
wanted to purchase these properties.
Mayor Haakenson suggested if there was interest in pursuing an aquatics center, open space and
commercial on any of the properties, the Council also include a new Senior Center or at least $4 million
for renovations.
6. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Packet Page 22 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 20
Council President Plunkett reported the Outreach Committee had several new members. One of the
Committee’s ideas was to have a Question of the Month on the City’s website.
Councilmember Wambolt reported the Port had a presentation from the Edmonds-Woodway High School
students regarding their designs for development of the waterfront property. He noted although their
designs were excellent, there was no economic analysis. The Port also discussed the high vacancy rate at
Harbor Square and ways to attract tenants. The Port reviewed their first quarter operations of the marina
that indicated the financial results were very good given the state of the economy. At tonight’s meeting,
the Port was considering a resolution similar to what the Council adopted regarding Stevens hospital not
relocating. The Port also reported their May 23 retreat was the best one ever.
Councilmember Wilson reported a Snohomish County Cities and Town’s meeting that Councilmember
Olson, Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman and he attended included a presentation
regarding affordable housing and tools cities could use to support that type of development. Today’s
meeting of the Lake Ballinger Work Group was well attended and there was broad agreement on an
Interlocal Agreement that would allow the group to access the funds provided by the State. He noted
there was also the potential of some funding from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The Group’s next
meeting will be held on July 15. He advised the Interlocal Agreement would be presented to the Council
soon.
Councilmember Olson reported SeaShore was provided an update from Sound Transit.
Councilmember Dawson advised she attended Sound Transit’s open house last week on behalf of the
Sound Transit Board. She relayed that recent polling indicates citizens want something done faster which
was the reason for the 12 year plan. However, via the 12 year plan, light rail only reaches Northgate.
People at the open house learned insufficient revenue was raised in Snohomish County to pay for light
rail to Snohomish County in that 12 year period because state law limits Sound Transit’s taxing authority.
It was also explained at the public hearing that light rail was phased over 12-20 years. In response to her
question at the public hearing regarding how many would support a ballot measure that would bring light
rail to Snohomish County, all but one person raised their hand. When asked how many would support a
measure that bring light rail only to Northgate, only three people raised their hands. She noted people
wanted a light rail package that brought light rail to Snohomish County and did not want to mix increased
bus service. She noted 95% of the cost of the 20-year proposal that brings light rail to Ash Way was light
rail, the remainder for Snohomish County was Sounder stations in Edmonds and Mukilteo.
She advised a presentation on the proposals would be made to the Sound Transit Board on June 3 and the
Board would accept public comment at that meeting. She encouraged the residents of Edmonds to attend
the meeting and provide input. The Sound Transit Board would be provided all the feedback from the
public meetings at their June 27 meeting; staff did not anticipate the Board would be voting on whether to
have a 2008 ballot measure until the end of July.
With regard to the Cities and Town’s presentation on affordable housing, Councilmember Dawson
advised Snohomish County was doing a great deal of work on affordable housing measures to support the
work of the Housing Consortium. The Affordable Housing Action Plan will be unveiled at the Housing
Consortium’s June 5 meeting and she encouraged Councilmembers and the public to attend. She noted
the Plan relied on cities taking part in the production of affordable housing.
Councilmember Orvis displayed a graph of deaths per 1,000 from infectious diseases in the United States,
noting the Public Health Board has played a major role in the downward trend of deaths from infectious
diseases. For example the Public Health Board enforces the regulations that force a property owner to
clean up their property; the Public Health Board inspects septic systems to ensure they were not spreading
Packet Page 23 of 201
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 21
disease; and the Health Board tracks infectious diseases such as tuberculosis to ensure people with the
disease were taking their medication and to ensure anyone exposed was treated. He referred to a spike in
deaths from infectious diseases on the graph from pandemic influenza, noting it was important for Public
Health Boards to be prepared for those events. He advised the Health Board was anticipating a $4.4
million shortfall next year.
Councilmember Orvis reported WRIA8 had funded conservation projects via the King County
Conservation District.
Councilmember Bernheim reported the Economic Development Committee meeting would be
considering programs/projects to increase economic development of the downtown area and
neighborhood centers.
7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson reported he attended last week’s Senior Center Board meeting, noting many citizens
had already reported their interpretation of the meeting to Councilmembers. He summarized there
appeared to be consensus on the Board that they needed to change their bylaws. An Edmonds attorney
rewrote the bylaws and presented them for the Board’s consideration. The Board has a retreat scheduled
where they plan to take care of some of the issues. He provide the Council a copy of his notes from the
meeting.
8. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Plunkett advised he would be absent from next week’s meeting; Councilmembers could
contact Councilmember Dawson regarding the agenda during his absence.
Councilmember Wambolt reported Mayor Haakenson, Councilmember Olson, Fire Chief Tomberg and
he had a very productive meeting with the CEO and CFO of Stevens Hospital last Friday and they agreed
to come to a Council meeting in June.
Councilmember Bernheim encouraged Mayor Haakenson to consider exercising the veto power with
regard to the Mayor’s salary increase. He invited the public to contribute to the fundraising campaign
hosted by ACE to replace the prize money for the design competition by mailing donations of any amount
to POB 1793, Edmonds, Washington 98020. He committed to donating $100 to the fund. He recognized
the students’ hard work, noting in many ways they were single handedly responsible for what had been
accomplished so far.
9. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:47 p.m.
Packet Page 24 of 201
AM-1599 2.C.
Approval of claim checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:06/03/2008
Submitted By:Debbie Karber Time:Consent
Department:Administrative Services Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #104566 through #104677 for May 29, 2008 in the amount of
$633,670.54.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council.
Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends
either approval or non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2008
Revenue:
Expenditure:$633,670.54
Fiscal Impact:
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 5-29-08
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Admin Services Dan Clements 05/29/2008 10:52 AM APRV
2 City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 11:51 AM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/29/2008 12:12 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 12:18 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Started On: 05/29/2008 10:49
AM
Final Approval Date: 05/29/2008
Packet Page 25 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104566 5/29/2008 041695 3M XAM3522 TP00468 STREET - 1 ROLL WHITE DG CUBED
STREET - 1 ROLL WHITE DG CUBED
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 489.38
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 43.56
Total :532.94
104567 5/29/2008 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 508321 YOST POOL SHIRTS
YOST POOL TANKS AND T-SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.510.310.00 572.55
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.510.310.00 50.96
Total :623.51
104568 5/29/2008 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND June 2008 KENNELING SERVICES JUNE 2008/EDMONDS
JUNE 2008 KENNELING SERVICES
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 1,921.23
Total :1,921.23
104569 5/29/2008 064615 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE 30579 80709
COOLANT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 320.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 28.48
Total :348.48
104570 5/29/2008 000917 ALL WORLD SCIENTIFIC IN035082 INV#IN035082 - EDMONDS POLICE
MALEIC ACID/EVIDENCE ROOM
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 24.70
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 6.54
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 2.66
Total :33.90
1Page:
Packet Page 26 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104571 5/29/2008 001634 AQUA QUIP 321416-1 50609
DISINFECTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 299.97
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 26.70
Total :326.67
104572 5/29/2008 069751 ARAMARK 655-3710799 18386001
UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 93.41
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.31
Total :101.72
104573 5/29/2008 064343 AT&T 730386050200 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works Lines
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 1.84
Public Works Lines
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 6.99
Public Works Lines
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 6.99
Public Works Lines
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 6.99
Public Works Lines
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 6.99
Public Works Lines
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 6.99
Total :36.79
104574 5/29/2008 064343 AT&T 425-771-0152 STATION #16 FAX
STATION #16 FAX
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 35.09
Total :35.09
104575 5/29/2008 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 45380 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
2Page:
Packet Page 27 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104575 5/29/2008 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
UB Outsourcing area #500 printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 36.99
UB Outsourcing area #500 printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 36.99
UB Outsourcing area #500 printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 37.09
UB Outsourcing area #500 postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 111.10
UB Outsourcing area #500 postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 111.09
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 3.33
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 3.33
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 3.34
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS45474
UB Outsourcing area #600 printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 31.68
UB Outsourcing area #600 printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 31.68
UB Outsourcing area #600 printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 31.76
UB Outsourcing area #600 postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 103.04
UB Outsourcing area #600 postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 103.04
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 2.85
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 2.85
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 2.86
Total :653.02
3Page:
Packet Page 28 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104576 5/29/2008 069218 BISHOP, PAUL 33 MAY 08 WEB SITE MAINTENANCE
May 08 Web Site Maintenance
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 300.00
Creation & Revisions to Climate
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 160.00
Revisions to Stormwater pages & menu
001.000.620.532.200.410.00 85.00
Total :545.00
104577 5/29/2008 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 651163-03 INV#651163-03 - CLERK SHOES/EDMONDS PD
SHOES/COLLINS & JOHNSON
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 225.90
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 20.11
INV#658514-01 - EQUIPMENT/EDMONDS658514-01
2/RHOD 1/2" LTRS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 67.80
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 6.03
INV#661775 - MEDALS - EDMONDS PD661775
MEDAL OF VALORS (3)
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 225.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 20.25
INV#662401 - JOHNSON/EDMONDS POLICE662401
SHIRTS/A.JOHNSON
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 125.85
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 11.20
SWEATER VEST CREDIT/M.GREENE671060
CREDIT FOR SWEATER VEST/GREENE
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 -20.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 -1.80
4Page:
Packet Page 29 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104577 5/29/2008 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
INV#671213 - GREENMUN/CPL. CHEVRONS671213
CPL. CHEVRONS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.50
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 0.68
INV#672786 - LIM - EDMONDS PD672786
TACTICAL FBI PANTS/LIM
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 39.99
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 3.60
INV#672787 - LAVELY/EDMONDS PD672787
TACTICAL FBI PANTS/LAVELY
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 39.99
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 3.60
Total :775.70
104578 5/29/2008 070009 BOLA ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING 8 MUSEUM MASONRY RESTORATION PROF SVC
MUSEUM MASONRY RESTORATION PROF SVC
116.000.651.519.920.410.00 291.53
Total :291.53
104579 5/29/2008 071909 BUREAU VERITAS 994500 Prof Serv/Temp Bld Inspector
Prof Serv/Temp Bld Inspector
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 872.22
Total :872.22
104580 5/29/2008 071942 CAMPBELL, JULANN CAMPBELL9663 OIL PAINTING CLASSES
OIL PAINTING #9663
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 369.60
OIL PAINTING #9662
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 800.80
Total :1,170.40
104581 5/29/2008 069458 CASCADE CONTROLS CORP 0145217-05 242560
5Page:
Packet Page 30 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104581 5/29/2008 (Continued)069458 CASCADE CONTROLS CORP
TEST SOCKET
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 0.17
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 0.01
24256-00019422
PLC CARD C-286
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 4,464.00
Freight
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 13.58
Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.650.00 401.76
Total :4,879.52
104582 5/29/2008 068484 CEMEX / RINKER MATERIALS 9415261032 STREET - ASPHALT
STREET - ASPHALT
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 576.04
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 51.84
STREET - ASPHALT9415269780
STREET - ASPHALT
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 384.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 34.56
STORM DUMP FEES9415269781
STORM DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 228.77
STREET - ASPHALT9415277364
STREET - ASPHALT
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 320.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 28.80
STORM - DUMP FEES9415277365
STORM - DUMP FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 39.66
6Page:
Packet Page 31 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104582 5/29/2008 (Continued)068484 CEMEX / RINKER MATERIALS
STREET - ASPHALT9415287666
STREET - ASPHALT
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 288.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 25.92
Total :1,977.59
104583 5/29/2008 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT9456 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #9456
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 77.00
Total :77.00
104584 5/29/2008 065774 CHAVOND-BARRY ENGINEERING CORP 1560-051308 INCINERATOR CONSULTING
INCINERATOR CONSULTING
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 2,571.72
Total :2,571.72
104585 5/29/2008 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460156991 OPS UNIFORMS
Stn. 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 136.04
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 12.11
UNIFORMS460162220
Stn. 17 - ALS
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 120.69
Stn 17 - OPS
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 120.69
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 10.75
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.74
Total :411.02
104586 5/29/2008 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 6115 INV#6115 - NARC SGT REIMBURSEMENT/EDM
7Page:
Packet Page 32 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104586 5/29/2008 (Continued)019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
JAN - MARCH 2008/NARC SGT.
104.000.410.521.210.510.00 11,364.26
DEC. 2007 OVERTIME/NARC SGT.
104.000.410.521.210.510.00 215.21
INV#6123 - NARC SGT REIMBURSEMENT/EDM6123
4/15/07 THRU 6/29/07/NARC SGT
104.000.410.521.210.510.00 3,249.27
6/30/07 THRU 09/21/07/NARC SGT
104.000.410.521.210.510.00 6,528.38
09/22/07 THRU 12/31/07/NARC SGT
104.000.410.521.210.510.00 6,528.38
Total :27,885.50
104587 5/29/2008 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1929309 SUPPLIES
LINERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 980.35
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 88.23
Total :1,068.58
104588 5/29/2008 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1929013 FAC MAINT - BLEACH, TT, BIGFOLDS,
FAC MAINT - BLEACH, TT, BIGFOLDS,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1,039.41
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.75
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 93.79
Total :1,135.95
104589 5/29/2008 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1924751-1 26119-1
CLEANER
411.000.656.538.800.310.59 22.76
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.59 2.05
8Page:
Packet Page 33 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :24.811045895/29/2008 004095 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES
104590 5/29/2008 068077 CODES KNOWLEDGE COMPANY 510 Prof Serv - Bld Div
Prof Serv - Bld Div
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 3,410.00
Total :3,410.00
104591 5/29/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 2276 ACCT#2276 - GANNON/EDMONDS
COOKIES/POLICE FOUNDATION MTG.~
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 8.98
LEXUS KEY MADE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 76.23
LATE PAYMENT FEE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.85
ACCT#3263 - O'BRIEN/EDMONDS3263
GIFT CARD FOR DARE DESIGN
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 112.84
COSTCO - DYMO LABELS, BUSINESS CART,
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 272.39
FERRY FEES/SUBPOENA SERVICE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 21.15
LATE PAYMENT FEE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.65
9Page:
Packet Page 34 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104591 5/29/2008 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
ACCT #8298 - BARD8298
AIR FARE/R.T.SMITH~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 365.00
DATA PROJECTOR/GRANT
001.000.410.521.400.350.00 970.09
DVD PLAYER
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 45.67
REGISTRATION/E.FALK~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 174.95
REGISTRATION/S.HARBINSON~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 174.95
AIR FARE/S.KAMKA~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 335.00
LODGING/S.KAMKA~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 101.00
STORAGE BOX, MASTER COMB LOCKS,
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 132.77
RANGE TARGETS
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 256.00
REGISTRATION/HESLOP~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 161.00
REGISTRATION/A.GREENMUN~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 299.00
FLASHDRIVES
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 92.93
1 GB SECURE FLASH CARDS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 58.27
LAPTOP BATTERY
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 167.56
AIR FARE/S.KAMKA~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 389.00
LATE PAYMENT FEE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.09
10Page:
Packet Page 35 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104591 5/29/2008 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
ACCT#9821 - EDMONDS9821
MEAL/HESLOP -CPTED TRAINING~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 13.83
MEAL/HESLOP - CPTED TRAINING~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 17.56
MEAL/HESLOP - CPTED TRAINING
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 112.70
LODGING/HESLOP - CPTED TRAINING~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 303.40
FUEL/OFFICER LAVELY~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 41.90
MEAL/LAVELY~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 60.74
LODGING/A.GREENMUN~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 285.78
MEAL/GREENMUN~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 33.19
LODGING/LAVELY~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 190.52
LATE PAYMENT FEE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.00
Total :5,290.99
104592 5/29/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 7403 COUNCIL TOUR WWTP
COUNCIL TOUR WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.310.00 69.42
WEFTEC/ZUVELA
411.000.656.538.800.490.71 1,255.00
WEFTEC/KOHO
411.000.656.538.800.490.71 905.00
LATE FEE
411.000.656.538.800.490.00 6.55
Total :2,235.97
104593 5/29/2008 068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT 9614 CITY PARK WADING POOL ELECTRICAL
11Page:
Packet Page 36 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104593 5/29/2008 (Continued)068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT
CITY PARK WADING POOL ELECTRICAL
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 3,723.00
Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 335.07
CITY PARK WADING POOL PUMP9615
CITY PARK WADING POOL PUMP
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 3,458.00
Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 311.22
CITY PARK WADING POOL TANK9616
CITY PARK WADING POOL TANK
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 2,440.00
Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 219.60
Total :10,486.89
104594 5/29/2008 066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS 0508 2989771 5374044 INV#0508 2989771 5374044 - EDMONDS PD
BOTTLE WATER & COOLER RENTAL
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 69.00
Total :69.00
104595 5/29/2008 072278 CUETER, THAYER CUETER9680 FUN WITH FROGS
FUN WITH FROGS #9680
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 110.50
Total :110.50
104596 5/29/2008 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 139541 UNIT 718 - RADIO REPAIR
UNIT 718 - RADIO REPAIR
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 291.20
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 25.92
12Page:
Packet Page 37 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104596 5/29/2008 (Continued)061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16
UNIT EQ03PO - 6 ON GLASS ANTENNAS139657
UNIT EQ03PO - 6 ON GLASS ANTENNAS
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 197.88
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 17.61
Total :532.61
104597 5/29/2008 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 08-2874 MINUTE TAKING
Council Mtg 5/6 & 5/20
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 585.00
Total :585.00
104598 5/29/2008 007253 DUNN LUMBER 09247822 LUMBER
LUMBER FOR PICNIC TABLE REPAIRS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 118.35
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.53
Total :128.88
104599 5/29/2008 007550 ECONOMY FENCE CENTER 0014043-IN CITY PARK WADING POOL FENCE
CITY PARK WADING POOL FENCE
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 2,369.00
Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 210.84
Total :2,579.84
104600 5/29/2008 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 94785 SUPPLIES
SOCKET SET, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 31.98
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.85
Total :34.83
104601 5/29/2008 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP SHAHID0515 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPS
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPS:~
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 220.00
13Page:
Packet Page 38 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :220.001046015/29/2008 069523 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP
104602 5/29/2008 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-38565 WATER
18410 92ND AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 10.10
CITY MARINA BEACH PARK6-00025
CITY MARINA BEACH PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 105.19
CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOM6-00200
CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 249.93
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH6-00410
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 156.35
MINI PARK6-00475
MINI PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 373.40
CITY PARK BALLFIELD6-01250
CITY PARK BALLFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 127.70
CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 681.56
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD6-02125
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 117.17
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (SPRINKLER)6-02900
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (SPRINKLER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 282.32
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER6-03000
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 144.53
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK6-03275
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 62.17
14Page:
Packet Page 39 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104602 5/29/2008 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK6-03575
CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 58.37
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 348.31
WATER6-04425
8100 185TH PL SW
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 261.13
SIERRA PARK6-04450
SIERRA PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 152.64
BALLINGER PARK6-07775
BALLINGER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 119.31
YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 482.18
YOST PARK POOL6-08525
YOST PARK POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 233.68
Total :3,966.04
104603 5/29/2008 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0041162-IN INV#0041162-IN - EDMONDS POLICE
OFFICER/EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR~
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 156.50
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.56
INV#0041507-IN - EDMONDS POLICE0041507-IN
REFURBISH OFFICER BADGE
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 35.00
HANDLING CHARGE
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 4.50
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 10.56
15Page:
Packet Page 40 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :217.121046035/29/2008 008975 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO
104604 5/29/2008 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 197894 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT
June 08 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent
001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00
Total :300.00
104605 5/29/2008 069469 FLINT TRADING INC 95429 STREET - SIGNS - PREMARK QUOTES -
STREET - SIGNS - PREMARK QUOTES -
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 1,232.49
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 109.74
Total :1,342.23
104606 5/29/2008 010665 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 888802 March 08 Legal Fees Fiber Optic Proj
March 08 Legal Fees Fiber Optic Proj
001.000.390.528.800.420.00 70.00
Total :70.00
104607 5/29/2008 068450 HARBORVIEW MEDICAL CENTER CS. #08-1597 H2589657 T 78340623 E - EDMONDS PD
CERTIFICATION & COPY FEES~
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 8.03
Freight
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 1.07
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 0.71
Total :9.81
104608 5/29/2008 012900 HARRIS FORD INC FOCS238155 UNIT 484 - REPAIRS
UNIT 484 - REPAIRS
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 596.98
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 53.13
16Page:
Packet Page 41 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104608 5/29/2008 (Continued)012900 HARRIS FORD INC
UNIT 485 - REPAIRSFOCS238471
UNIT 485 - REPAIRS
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 1,038.05
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 92.39
Total :1,780.55
104609 5/29/2008 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 5651-15 INV#5651-15 - LAVELY/EDMONDS PD
RESPIRATORY QUESTIONNAIRE~
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 32.00
Total :32.00
104610 5/29/2008 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 31018 0205
PVC ELS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.20
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.82
02056072635
PIPES, ELS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.03
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.44
02056072638
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.97
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.79
02057573755
SPRAY GUN
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 59.97
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.39
17Page:
Packet Page 42 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104610 5/29/2008 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
02058032885
GASSER, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 52.97
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.76
02059044498
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 23.94
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.15
02059574718
BUSHINGS, ADAPTERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 23.80
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.14
Total :224.37
104611 5/29/2008 067171 HUSKY TRUCK CENTER 169037T UNIT 31 - SHOCK ABSORBERS
UNIT 31 - SHOCK ABSORBERS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 242.80
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.85
Total :264.65
104612 5/29/2008 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 76476592 COPIER LEASE
PARKS & RECREATION COPIER LEASE~
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 806.59
Total :806.59
104613 5/29/2008 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 1012206689 INV#1012206689 - EDMONDS POLICE
DOCUMENTUM RENEWAL MAINT.~
001.000.410.521.110.350.00 4,991.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.350.00 444.20
18Page:
Packet Page 43 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :5,435.201046135/29/2008 006841 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
104614 5/29/2008 072274 JOHNSON, GIGI GJOHNSON0521 TENNIS COACH
LITTLE TIKES TENNIS COACH~
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 60.00
Total :60.00
104615 5/29/2008 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS E2DB.27 E2DB.Services thru 02/29/08
E2DB.Services thru 02/29/08
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 2,832.28
E2DB.Services thru 03/31/08E2DB.28
E2DB.Services thru 03/31/08
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 5,372.94
Total :8,205.22
104616 5/29/2008 016600 KROESENS INC 87252 OPS UNIFORMS
Boots
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 102.95
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.27
Total :112.22
104617 5/29/2008 060132 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 1011552141 OPS UNIFORMS
gloves
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 51.00
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 14.60
Total :65.60
104618 5/29/2008 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 0022996 810 WALNUT ST - ENVIRONMENTAL PROF SVC
810 WALNUT ST - ENVIRONMENTAL PROF SVC
411.000.652.542.400.410.00 510.00
Total :510.00
104619 5/29/2008 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 3008-363 SUPPLIES
19Page:
Packet Page 44 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104619 5/29/2008 (Continued)068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY
HANDLE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 79.99
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.12
Total :87.11
104620 5/29/2008 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 86830344 123106800
HOSE COUPLINGS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 162.89
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.89
12310680086983018
HOSES/BRASS/LUG/FITTINGS
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 1,132.28
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 80.86
12310680087086123
HOSE COUPLING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 80.28
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 11.24
12310680087100746
POLY SHEETING/PIPE FITTING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 81.20
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 25.39
Total :1,582.03
104621 5/29/2008 072273 MECHANICAL SOLUTIONS INC BusLic Ref REFUND OVERPMT OF BUS LIC
Refund overpmt of Business License
001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00
Total :40.00
104622 5/29/2008 071441 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA09-028283 101690-01
20Page:
Packet Page 45 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104622 5/29/2008 (Continued)071441 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC
BUSHING/SHEAVES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 171.62
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 13.22
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 16.64
Total :201.48
104623 5/29/2008 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0291898 FLEET BATTERY INVENTORY - 3
FLEET BATTERY INVENTORY - 3
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 605.37
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 52.00
FLEET DELO OIL INVENTORY - 18 CASES0370992-IN
FLEET DELO OIL INVENTORY - 18 CASES
511.000.657.548.680.340.21 192.63
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.21 16.33
Total :866.33
104624 5/29/2008 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S2140888.002 2091
INHIBITING BLOCK
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 11.17
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 0.96
2091S2140888.003
INHIBITING STRIP/BLACK
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 80.06
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 6.89
2091S2140888.004
INHIBITING BLOCK
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 11.17
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 0.96
21Page:
Packet Page 46 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104624 5/29/2008 (Continued)024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY
2091S2140888.005
FILTER
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 63.96
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 5.50
Total :180.67
104625 5/29/2008 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0731125 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 92.20
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0731126
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02
Total :190.22
104626 5/29/2008 072116 NORTHWESTERN CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT #4 FRANCES ANDERSON SEISMIC STRUCTURE
FRANCES ANDERSON SEISMIC STRUCTURE
116.000.651.594.190.650.00 369,869.46
Total :369,869.46
104627 5/29/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 869800 OFFICE SUPPLIES
FILE POCKETS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 20.79
King County Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.87
OFFICE SUPPLIES961469
DIVIDERS, PENCILS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 12.00
King County Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.08
Total :35.74
104628 5/29/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 816576 INV#816576 - EDMONDS POLICE
22Page:
Packet Page 47 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104628 5/29/2008 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
COPY PAPER & CERTIFICATE COVERS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 360.18
LASER BUSINESS CARDS/NARC
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 9.03
LABELS
001.000.410.521.300.310.00 49.59
LABELS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 33.06
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 35.39
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 0.81
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.300.310.00 4.47
Total :492.53
104629 5/29/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 754004 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 109.62
King County Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 9.87
OFFICE SUPPLIES884734
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 89.41
King County Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 8.05
OFFICE SUPPLIES934518
Desk Pad not delivered
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 -36.59
King County Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 -3.30
Total :177.06
104630 5/29/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 826544 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES - FOLDERS, SHARPIS,
23Page:
Packet Page 48 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104630 5/29/2008 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
PW OFFICE SUPPLIES - FOLDERS, SHARPIS,
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 103.77
STREET - CLIP BOARDS
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 7.70
WATER - CARTRIDGES, PENS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 88.43
King County Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 9.34
King County Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 0.69
King County Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.96
PW OFFICE SUPPLIES - LABEL TAPES879665
PW OFFICE SUPPLIES - LABEL TAPES
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 32.08
WATER - INKCART'S
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 85.30
King County Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 2.89
King County Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.67
Total :345.83
104631 5/29/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 921125 ADMIN SUPPLIES
Admin office supplies
001.000.510.522.100.310.00 514.33
King County Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.100.310.00 45.53
ADMIN SUPPLIES931838
breakroom supplies
001.000.510.522.100.310.00 6.52
King County Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.100.310.00 0.59
Total :566.97
24Page:
Packet Page 49 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104632 5/29/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 678936 520437
ERASABLE CALENDAR
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 31.77
King County Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 2.87
Total :34.64
104633 5/29/2008 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 666843 Legislative Legal Fees for April 2008
Legislative Legal Fees for April 2008
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 4,622.50
Total :4,622.50
104634 5/29/2008 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 010373477 ADMIN LEASE
Admin copier lease
001.000.510.522.100.450.00 137.06
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.100.450.00 12.20
Total :149.26
104635 5/29/2008 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 04371 UNIT F1 B1 FUEL
Fire Boat - Fuel AND LATE FEES
511.000.657.548.680.320.00 484.70
Total :484.70
104636 5/29/2008 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 664.75
Total :664.75
104637 5/29/2008 072254 RIVER OAKS COMMUNICATIONS CORP 5/8-5/27/08 N PUGET SOUND CONSORTIUM-VERIZON PROJ
N Puget Sound Consortium-Edmonds portion
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 2,494.20
Total :2,494.20
104638 5/29/2008 071945 ROSE, SUE GILL ROSE9664 WATERCOLOR CLASSES
BEGINNING/INTERMEDIATE WATERCOLOR #9664
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 431.20
25Page:
Packet Page 50 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :431.201046385/29/2008 071945 071945 ROSE, SUE GILL
104639 5/29/2008 069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 00446-580608 UNIT 236 - WINDSHIELD REPLACEMENT
UNIT 236 - WINDSHIELD REPLACEMENT
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 142.64
UNIT 718 - WINDSHIELD REPAIR01804-238617
UNIT 718 - WINDSHIELD REPAIR
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 29.95
UNIT 11 - WINDSHIELD REPAIR01804-238618
UNIT 11 - WINDSHIELD REPAIR
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 29.95
Total :202.54
104640 5/29/2008 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 583618 INV#583618 - EDMONDS POLICE
30/SIMULATED HANDGUN GLOCK
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 1,081.50
Freight
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 47.37
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 100.47
INV#583858 - EDMONDS POLICE583858
FED - 12GA BUCK, 9-PLT, TACTICAL
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 260.00
FED 223 55GR SOFT POINT
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 1,331.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 141.60
Total :2,961.94
104641 5/29/2008 061482 SEA-WESTERN INC 124955 OPS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
facepieces w/microphone
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 1,884.00
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 9.12
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 170.38
26Page:
Packet Page 51 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :2,063.501046415/29/2008 061482 061482 SEA-WESTERN INC
104642 5/29/2008 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 03-921033 UNIT 16 - PUMP KIT
UNIT 16 - PUMP KIT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.99
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.40
UNIT 815 - BRAKE SHOE KIT, ROTOR03-922218
UNIT 815 - BRAKE SHOE KIT, ROTOR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 144.53
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.86
UNIT 815 - BRAKE SHOE KIT03-922251
UNIT 815 - BRAKE SHOE KIT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 43.88
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.91
UNIT 815 - RETURNED BRAKE SHOE KIT, OIL05-265165
UNIT 815 - RETURNED BRAKE SHOE KIT, OIL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -52.77
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -4.70
Total :177.10
104643 5/29/2008 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0078160-IN UNIT EQ45PO - HACP
UNIT EQ45PO - HACP
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 159.25
UNITS EQ36,37,38PO - MOUNT KITS FOR0079130-IN
UNITS EQ36,37,38PO - MOUNT KITS FOR
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1,195.80
UNIT 424 - SUPER LED RED LIGHT0079271-IN
UNIT 424 - SUPER LED RED LIGHT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 92.40
27Page:
Packet Page 52 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104643 5/29/2008 (Continued)068489 SIRENNET.COM
UNIT EQ03PO - HALOGEN HIDEAWAY0079832-IN
UNIT EQ03PO - HALOGEN HIDEAWAY
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 76.50
EQ45PO - FLATLIGHTER LED R/B
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 202.12
UNIT EQ44PO - HIDEAWAY STROBE BLUE0079838-IN
UNIT EQ44PO - HIDEAWAY STROBE BLUE
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 160.50
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 15.95
UNIT EQ45PO - HALOGEN HIDE A WAY KIT0079926-IN
UNIT EQ45PO - HALOGEN HIDE A WAY KIT
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 67.20
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 18.50
UNIT EQ04,05,07PO - 4 OUTLET POWER0080053-IN
UNIT EQ04,05,07PO - 4 OUTLET POWER
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 926.28
FLEET - VEHICLE BASE RETURNED MINUS71697A-CM
FLEET - VEHICLE BASE RETURNED MINUS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -42.77
Total :2,871.73
104644 5/29/2008 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-185088 UNIT 67 - GRAB HOOKS
UNIT 67 - GRAB HOOKS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 27.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.32
UNIT 128 - 4 POLE PLUGS, CONNECTORS, 61-631469
UNIT 128 - 4 POLE PLUGS, CONNECTORS, 6
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 144.44
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.42
28Page:
Packet Page 53 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104644 5/29/2008 (Continued)036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC
UNIT 17 - BRAKE KIT, BRAKE DRUM, SHOES19-021714
UNIT 17 - BRAKE KIT, BRAKE DRUM, SHOES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 606.80
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 52.18
Total :845.16
104645 5/29/2008 036955 SKY NURSERY 270861 CEMETERY SUPPLIES
MULCH FOR CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 44.15
Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 3.97
Total :48.12
104646 5/29/2008 060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL, ABA 02100021 C/A 103172323V/14196689 SHOP - PIN PUNCH, 6 PC PICK SET, MIRROR
SHOP - PIN PUNCH, 6 PC PICK SET, MIRROR
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 83.22
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 9.95
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 8.30
Total :101.47
104647 5/29/2008 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 4160017333 SPRINKLER SYSTEM
SPRINKLER SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 108.42
Total :108.42
104648 5/29/2008 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 716016235 C/A 958001000 8
WWTP POWER
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 29,557.41
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 1,773.44
29Page:
Packet Page 54 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104648 5/29/2008 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
C/A 206001485 5896010338
24400 HIGHWAY 99 RICHMOND PARK
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 28.52
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.71
C/A 463001671 7922007701
8421 244TH ST RICHMOND PARK
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 28.52
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.71
Total :31,391.31
104649 5/29/2008 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 38841 Stamps for Bld/DSD - Spellman
Stamps for Bld/DSD - Spellman
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 50.36
Total :50.36
104650 5/29/2008 064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 2008054 INV#2008054 - EDMONDS POLICE
48.67 BOOKINGS
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 4,415.34
849.78 HOUSING DAYS
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 50,791.35
Total :55,206.69
104651 5/29/2008 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT CP WADING POOL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION FOR
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 139.00
Total :139.00
104652 5/29/2008 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2305852-01 WATER - WORK JEANS - V SMITH
WATER - WORK JEANS - V SMITH
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 79.40
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 6.83
30Page:
Packet Page 55 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104652 5/29/2008 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
WATER - ANNUAL BOOTS - J DANIELS4133404-01
WATER - ANNUAL BOOTS - J DANIELS
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 129.95
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 11.57
Total :227.75
104653 5/29/2008 070677 SPRINT 0620014133-1 ACCT#0620014133-1 - CELL PHONE/EDMONDS
CELL PHONE SERVICE
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 172.07
Total :172.07
104654 5/29/2008 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L70979 APRIL 08 AUDIT FEES
April 08 Audit Fees
001.000.390.519.900.510.00 14,503.63
April 08 Audit Fees
411.000.652.542.900.510.00 604.32
April 08 Audit Fees
411.000.654.534.800.510.00 2,417.27
April 08 Audit Fees
411.000.655.535.800.510.00 2,417.27
April 08 Audit Fees
411.000.656.538.800.510.00 2,417.27
April 08 Audit Fees
111.000.653.543.300.510.00 604.32
April 08 Audit Fees
511.000.657.548.680.510.00 1,208.64
Total :24,172.72
104655 5/29/2008 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3000021329 INV#3000021329 - EDMONDS POLICE DEPT.
CHEMICAL DISPOSAL
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 10.36
Total :10.36
104656 5/29/2008 065373 STI-CO INDUSTRIES INC 0000098342 UNIT EQ44PO - COVERT ANT SYS
31Page:
Packet Page 56 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104656 5/29/2008 (Continued)065373 STI-CO INDUSTRIES INC
UNIT EQ44PO - COVERT ANT SYS
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 56.70
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 12.22
Total :68.92
104657 5/29/2008 072277 STOVER & ASSOCIATES INC 8914 LAB SOFTWARE
LAB SOFTWARE
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 295.00
Total :295.00
104658 5/29/2008 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10681286 SUPPLIES
TAPPING SCREWS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 188.80
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.82
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.32
Total :211.94
104659 5/29/2008 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10671098 SHOP - FLANGE LOCK NUTS, DRILL BITS
SHOP - FLANGE LOCK NUTS, DRILL BITS
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 12.82
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 1.14
Total :13.96
104660 5/29/2008 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1589634 NEWSPAPER AD
Hearing Amendment ECD code~
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 34.04
NEWSPAPER AD1589635
Hrng. Amendment to code Title 6
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 38.48
Total :72.52
104661 5/29/2008 044300 US POSTAL SERVICE 250-00202 POSTAGE FOR CITY METER
32Page:
Packet Page 57 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104661 5/29/2008 (Continued)044300 US POSTAL SERVICE
Postage for City Meter250-00202
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 8,000.00
Total :8,000.00
104662 5/29/2008 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 593679 WATER - SWIVEL ADAPTER, HEX NIPPLES,
WATER - SWIVEL ADAPTER, HEX NIPPLES,
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 350.94
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 18.21
Total :369.15
104663 5/29/2008 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-AB8-2844 POLICE T1 LINE
Police T1 Line 5/10-6/10/08
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 380.81
Total :380.81
104664 5/29/2008 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-7147 LIBRARY SCAN ALARM
LIBRARY SCAN ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.93
MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM425-206-8379
MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.93
TELEMETRY STATIONS425-712-0417
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 29.00
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 28.99
33Page:
Packet Page 58 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104664 5/29/2008 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES425-712-8251
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 14.24
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 71.18
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 58.37
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 58.37
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 82.55
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS425-775-1534
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 161.14
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 299.25
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 49.51
Radio Line between Public Works & UB425-775-7865
Radio Line between Public Works & UB
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 52.43
34Page:
Packet Page 59 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104664 5/29/2008 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
PUBLIC WORKS CPNNECTION TO 911425-RT0-9133
Public Works Connection to 911
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48
Public Works Connection to 911
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78
Total :1,044.39
104665 5/29/2008 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-774-0944 FS #20-FAX LINE
FS #20-FAX LINE
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 49.75
FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOCOM425-NW4-3726
FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOCOM
001.000.510.528.600.420.00 247.00
Total :296.75
104666 5/29/2008 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425 712-0423 AFTER HOURS PHONE
AFTER HOURS PHONE
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 55.90
Total :55.90
104667 5/29/2008 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 206-660-2168 FAC MAINT CELL - G EVANS
FAC MAINT CELL - G EVANS
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 41.54
425-238-8846470091643-00001
cell phone-Tod Moles
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 39.82
35Page:
Packet Page 60 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104667 5/29/2008 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
425-238-5456470103273-00001
cell phone-Mike Johnson
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 36.22
425-327-5379670091643-00001
cell phone-unit #77
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 39.84
425-231-2668769986915-01
cell phone-water lead
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 56.32
Total :213.74
104668 5/29/2008 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 34443996 1066294
GLOVES
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 449.22
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 15.93
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 41.41
Total :506.56
104669 5/29/2008 047200 WA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC 08-356 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS:~
001.000.640.574.200.490.00 234.00
Total :234.00
104670 5/29/2008 062320 WA ST ARTS ALLIANCE FDN EAC0523 MEMBERSHIP DUES
2008-2009 MEMBERSHIP:~
117.100.640.573.100.490.00 100.00
Total :100.00
104671 5/29/2008 065828 WA STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE 2009-0831 2008 JOB FAIR - INV#2009-0831/EDMONDS PD
DEPT. JOB FAIR PARTICIPATION
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 150.00
Total :150.00
104672 5/29/2008 072115 WASHINGTON TRUST BANK RETAINAGE #4 RETAINAGE PMT #4
36Page:
Packet Page 61 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104672 5/29/2008 (Continued)072115 WASHINGTON TRUST BANK
RETAINAGE PMT #4
116.000.651.594.190.650.00 17,799.30
Total :17,799.30
104673 5/29/2008 072279 WAYSIDE GARDENS 7483121 PLANTS
PLANTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.95
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.70
PLANTS7491815
ASSORTED PLANTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 196.35
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 29.15
Total :256.15
104674 5/29/2008 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 6038 UNIT EQ03,04,28PO - HANDS FEE PHONE
UNIT EQ03,04,28PO - HANDS FEE PHONE
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 279.00
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 7.96
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 25.54
Total :312.50
104675 5/29/2008 049208 WESTERN EQUIP DIST INC 551560 UNIT 118 - KNUCKLE ASSEMBLY, OIL SEALS,
UNIT 118 - KNUCKLE ASSEMBLY, OIL SEALS,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 86.10
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.83
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.45
Total :102.38
104676 5/29/2008 072195 WESTERN GRAPHICS INC 7753 UNIT EQ03,06,28PO - POLICE CAR GRAPHICS
37Page:
Packet Page 62 of 201
05/29/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
10:44:11AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
104676 5/29/2008 (Continued)072195 WESTERN GRAPHICS INC
UNIT EQ03,06,28PO - POLICE CAR GRAPHICS
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1,272.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 111.94
Total :1,383.94
104677 5/29/2008 051280 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY 63944898 SHOP - ZEP ID RED, GLASS CLEANER
SHOP - ZEP ID RED, GLASS CLEANER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 114.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.47
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.24
Total :149.71
Bank total :633,670.54112 Vouchers for bank code :front
633,670.54Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report112
38Page:
Packet Page 63 of 201
AM-1593 2.D.
Edmonds Center for the Arts Revised Contingent Loan Agreement
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:06/03/2008
Submitted By:Dan Clements Time:Consent
Department:Administrative Services Type:Action
Review Committee:Finance
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Edmonds Center for the Arts Revised Contingent Loan Agreement. This item was approved for the
Consent Agenda by the Finance Committee on 05-27-08.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve ordinance and revised contingent loan agreement.
Previous Council Action
October 26, 2005 Council approves $7.0 million contingent loan agreement
January 15, 2008 Council approves $3.5 million contingent loan agreement
May 27, 2008 Finance Committee approves up to $4.0 million contingent loan agreement.
Narrative
The Edmonds Center for the Arts is preparing to issue bonds the week of June 9 to convert its
bridge construction loan to permanent financing. As part of this effort bond counsel has
recommended that the contingent loan agreement approved by Council in January of this year be
modified to conform with the bond issue.
Specific changes include increasing the amount of the agreement from $3.5 to a not to exceed $4.0
million level in order to cover bond issuance costs and additional roof repair work. Additionally,
reporting and notification provisions have been clarified.
This topic was reviewed by the Finance Committee on May 27.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Loan Agreement
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/28/2008 12:09 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/28/2008 01:46 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 05/28/2008 04:18 PM APRV
Form Started By: Dan
Clements
Started On: 05/28/2008 11:09
AM
Packet Page 64 of 201
Final Approval Date: 05/28/2008
Packet Page 65 of 201
Execution Version
50916259.2
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, authorizing the
execution and delivery of a final form of contingent loan agreement to the
Edmonds Public Facilities District previously approved in draft form by the City
Council; and fixing a time when the same shall be effective.
Adopted June ___, 2008
This document prepared by:
Foster Pepper PLLC
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 447-4400
Packet Page 66 of 201
1
50916259.2
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Ordinance No. ____
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, authorizing the
execution and delivery of a final form of contingent loan agreement to the
Edmonds Public Facilities District previously approved in draft form by the City
Council; and fixing a time when the same shall be effective.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals.Pursuant to RCW 67.28.130 and Ordinance 3676, adopted by the City
Council on January 15, 2008 (the “Authorizing Ordinance”), the City of Edmonds, Washington
(the “City”) previously authorized the form of a Contingent Loan Agreement (the “Contingent
Loan Agreement”) with the Edmonds Public Facilities District (the “District”) to provide credit
support for approximately $3.5 million of sales tax and general revenue bonds to be issued by the
District to carry out a refunding of its Not to Exceed $7,000,000 General and Revenue
Obligation Line of Credit Note, 2005, which was originally issued to provide funds to complete
the construction of the Edmonds Center for the Arts and related costs.
1.2 After review of its plans and funding needs, the District has determined to issue
its Sales Tax Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 2008 (the “Bonds”) in the approximate par
amount of $4,000,000, for the purpose of: (a) prepaying and redeeming in a current refunding all
outstanding amounts drawn under the District’s Not to Exceed $7,000,000 General and Revenue
Obligation Line of Credit Note, 2005 (the “Refunding”); (b) making certain improvements to the
Regional Center, including roof repair and replacement, renovation or reconstruction of interior
spaces, and other related improvements (collectively, the “Improvements”); and (c) paying
certain fees and the costs of issuance and sale of the Bonds.
1.3 The City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to
approve the expansion of the purposes of the bond issue and the change to the par amount of the
bonds, and therefore wishes to approve the final form the Contingent Loan Agreement reflecting
these changes.
Section 2. Approval of Contingent Loan Agreement. The form of the Contingent Loan
Agreement attached as Exhibit A, and incorporated by this reference, is approved, and the Mayor
is authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Contingent Loan Agreement on the City’s
behalf with only such changes as may be consistent with its purpose and necessary, in his judgment,
to fill in blanks and conform to the details of the bonds when issued. The form of Contingent Loan
Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A supersedes and replaces all prior versions approved or
executed by the City. All other provisions of the Authorizing Ordinance remain in full force and
effect.
Packet Page 67 of 201
2
50916259.2
Section 3. Additional Authorization and Ratification. The Administrative Services
Director, Mayor and other appropriate officers of the City are authorized and directed to take any
actions and to execute such documents as in their judgment may be necessary or desirable to
carry out the terms of, and complete the transactions contemplated in connection with this
ordinance, the Authorizing Ordinance and the Contingent Loan Agreement, including but not
limited to executing any document required to release the City and the District from the Prior
Guarantee (as defined in the Contingent Loan Agreement). The Administrative Services Director
is further authorized to give the City’s approval where required under the Contingent Loan
Agreement or the resolution of the District authorizing issuance of the bonds (the “Bond
Resolution”) if, in his sole judgment, such consent is in the best interest of the City and all
conditions in the Contingent Loan Agreement and Bond Resolution related to such consent are
met. All actions previously taken in furtherance of and not inconsistent with the provisions of
this ordinance are hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and
after its passage and five days following its publication as required by law. This ordinance is the
exercise of a power delegated to the City Council and is not subject to referendum.
PASSED by the City Council at a regular open public meeting thereof this ___ day of June,
2008.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Packet Page 68 of 201
50916259.2
EXHIBIT A
Form of Contingent Loan Agreement
[This space intentionally left blank.]
Packet Page 69 of 201
50916259.2
CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Edmonds, Washington (the “City”), hereby
certify as follows:
1. The foregoing Ordinance No. _____ (the “Ordinance“) is a full, true and correct
copy of the Ordinance duly passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held at the
regular meeting place thereof on June __, 2008, as that Ordinance appears on the minute book of
the City; and the Ordinance will be in full force and effect five days after the publication of its
summary in the City’s official newspaper; and
2. A quorum was present throughout the meeting and a sufficient number of
members of the City Council voted in the proper manner for the passage of the Ordinance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ day of June, 2008.
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
City Clerk
( S E A L )
Packet Page 70 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50858661.9
CONTINGENT LOAN AGREEMENT
by and between
THE CITY OF EDMONDS
and
THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT
relating to the
EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT
[NOT TO EXCEED $4,000,000]
SALES TAX OBLIGATION
AND REFUNDING BONDS, 2008
Dated as of June __, 2008
This document prepared by:
Foster Pepper PLLC
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 447-4400
Packet Page 71 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50858661.9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARTICLE 1. Recitals..................................................................................................................................................1
ARTICLE 2. Definitions.............................................................................................................................................3
ARTICLE 3. Loans to the District; Repayment Terms...........................................................................................3
Section 3.1 Loans to the District .........................................................................................................................3
Section 3.2 Procedures Under Guarantee; Time and Amount of Loans..............................................................3
Section 3.3 Covenants Regarding Debt Limit and Additional Debt....................................................................4
Section 3.4 Repayment Terms.............................................................................................................................5
Section 3.5 Nature of District’s Obligation.........................................................................................................6
Section 3.6 Nature of City’s Obligation..............................................................................................................6
Section 3.7 City Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................6
ARTICLE 4. Rights of City Upon Making Loans....................................................................................................7
Section 4.1 Rights of the City..............................................................................................................................7
ARTICLE 5. Additional Obligations and Covenants...............................................................................................7
Section 5.1 Agreement to Issue Bonds................................................................................................................7
Section 5.2 Third Party Beneficiary....................................................................................................................7
Section 5.3 Representations and Warranties of the District. ...............................................................................7
Section 5.4 Additional Covenants and of the District. ........................................................................................8
ARTICLE 6. Remedies Upon Default .......................................................................................................................9
Section 6.1 Remedies of City on Default............................................................................................................9
Section 6.2 Remedies of District on Default.......................................................................................................9
Section 6.3 No Remedy Exclusive......................................................................................................................9
Section 6.4 No Implied Waiver...........................................................................................................................9
Section 6.5 Agreement to Pay Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses ............................................................................9
Section 6.6 Dispute Resolution .........................................................................................................................10
ARTICLE 7. Hold Harmless....................................................................................................................................10
ARTICLE 8. Miscellaneous......................................................................................................................................10
Section 8.1 Continuing Disclosure Undertaking of the City .............................................................................10
Section 8.2 Governing Law; Venue ..................................................................................................................11
Section 8.3 Notices............................................................................................................................................11
Section 8.4 Binding Effect ................................................................................................................................12
Section 8.5 Severability.....................................................................................................................................12
Section 8.6 Amendments...................................................................................................................................12
Section 8.7 Additional Debt..............................................................................................................................12
Section 8.8 Waiver of Breach............................................................................................................................13
Section 8.9 No Rights Created in Third Parties.................................................................................................13
Section 8.10 Time of Essence .............................................................................................................................13
Section 8.11 Effective Date of and Termination of Agreement ..........................................................................13
Packet Page 72 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50858661.9 –1–
CONTINGENT LOAN AGREEMENT
RELATING TO THE
EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT’S
[NOT TO EXCEED $4,000,000]
SALES TAX OBLIGATION
AND REFUNDING BONDS, 2008
This CONTINGENT LOAN AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is dated as of June __,
2008, by and between THE CITY OF EDMONDS (the “City”), a code city organized under the
laws of the State of Washington, the EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT (the
“District”), a municipal corporation established by the City of Edmonds and duly organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Washington (together, the “Parties”).
The City and the District enter into this Agreement solely for the purpose of providing
credit support for the District’s Sales Tax Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 2008 (the
“Bonds”), issued in the principal amount of [NOT TO EXCEED $4,000,000] pursuant to
Resolution No. ___ of the District adopted on June __, 2008 (the “Bond Resolution”).
The Parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1.
Recitals
The following facts and circumstances form the background of this Agreement:
1. The District is a duly organized and legally existing municipal corporation of the
State of Washington. The District and the City are authorized by applicable provisions of state
law, including chapters 35.57 and 35.59 RCW, and RCW 82.14.390, to acquire, construct, own,
remodel, maintain, equip, repair and operate a regional center (including multipurpose
community centers and special events centers) and related parking facilities.
2. The City and the District have the authority to enter into interlocal agreements
under chapters 35.57, 35.59 and 67.28 RCW for joint and cooperative action, including
provisions to finance joint or cooperative undertakings, multipurpose community centers,
regional centers and tourism-related facilities, and to provide for services to be provided by one
government to another.
3. The District’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) has previously found and
determined that the residents of the District and the region will benefit from the District’s
acquisition, construction, operation and maintenance of a performing arts center, known as the
Edmonds Center for the Arts (the “Regional Center”), which will provide for meetings,
conferences, community events, trade shows, and artistic, musical, theatrical or other cultural
exhibitions, presentations or performances.
Packet Page 73 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50858661.9 –2–
4. As authorized by RCW 35.57.040(1)(d) and RCW 82.14.390, the District has
since 2001 imposed and collected a 0.033% sales and use tax to assist in financing the design,
development, acquisition, construction, operation and management of the Regional Center,
which taxing authority will expire when the bonds issued for the construction of the Regional
Center and related parking facilities are retired, but not later than 2026, which is twenty-five
years after the tax was first collected.
5. The District has entered into the County PFD Agreement (the “County PFD
Agreement”) with the City, the Snohomish County Public Facilities District (the “County
PFD”) and Snohomish County (the “County”), dated November 4, 2002, regarding the joint
development and operation of the Regional Center and pursuant to which the City, the County
PFD and the County agreed to make payments to the District to support such joint development
and operation, and pursuant to which the District has agreed to make certain payments to the
City in support of the City’s Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2002 (the “City Bonds”)
issued to pay a portion of the costs of acquisition and development of the Regional Center.
6. In Section C.1.(b) of the County PFD Agreement, the parties “reserve[d] the
right to make or to agree to make, additional payments or transfers among themselves with
respect to the Edmonds Center For the Arts, so long as such agreements and/or payments are
consistent with the terms of this Agreement.”
7. Pursuant to RCW 35.57.030, the Board desires to issue [NOT TO EXCEED
$4,000,000] of its Sales Tax Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 2008 (the “Bonds”), payable
from Sales Tax Revenue and General Revenue (as described herein) for the purpose of (i)
prepaying and redeeming all outstanding amounts drawn under the District’s not to exceed
$7,000,000 General and Revenue Obligation Line of Credit Note, 2005 issued to provide funds
needed to complete construction of the Regional Center and other related costs and to provide
interim financing upon completion (the “Prior Note”); (ii) making certain improvements to the
Regional Center, including roof repair and replacement, renovation or reconstruction of interior
spaces, and other related improvements (collectively, the “Improvements”); and (iii) paying
certain fees and the costs of issuance and sale of the Bonds.
8. In connection with the Prior Note, the City, the District and Bank of America,
N.A. entered into a Guarantee Agreement, dated as of October 26, 2005 (the “Prior
Guarantee”), which will be released upon the refunding of the Prior Note.
9. The District has requested that the City provide, for the benefit of the holders of
the Bonds, credit support to the District to permit the District to obtain the financing described
herein at the lowest interest rates available.
10. The City is willing to provide credit support for the District’s Bonds and has
authorized the execution of a contingent loan agreement pursuant to its Ordinance No. 3676,
adopted on January 15, 2008, as amended by Ordinance No. ___, adopted on June __, 2008
(the “City Authorizing Ordinance”).
Packet Page 74 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50858661.9 –3–
ARTICLE 2.
Definitions
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, capitalized terms used in this Agreement
have the meanings given such terms in the Bond Resolution.
ARTICLE 3.
Loans to the District; Repayment Terms
Section 3.1 Loans to the District. The City shall lend money to the District at the
times and in the amounts set forth in Section 3.2. The District shall borrow the amounts
described above from the City pursuant to this Agreement for the purpose of paying debt
service on the Bonds. The City irrevocably agrees to disburse all loans made hereunder
directly to the District, and the District irrevocably agrees to immediately apply all such
amounts received by it for the purpose of meeting its obligations under the Bonds. The
aggregate principal amount of outstanding loans to be made by the City pursuant to this
Agreement shall not exceed the outstanding principal amount of the Bonds, plus all interest
accrued on the Bonds.
Section 3.2 Procedures Under Guarantee; Time and Amount of Loans.
(1) Notice of Insufficiency. On the 1st day of the month preceding each Debt Service
Payment Date (or if the 1st is not a Business Day, then on the next Business Day), the District
shall review the amount on deposit in the Debt Service Fund to determine whether there will be
sufficient money available in the Debt Service Fund to make the required payment due on the
upcoming Debt Service Payment Date. If, upon such review, it appears that the money
available in the Debt Service Fund will be insufficient to make that payment, the District shall
provide the City a notice in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (a “Notice of
Insufficiency”) within five days after the date on which the review was required. Failure of the
District to give a Notice of Insufficiency to the City shall not relieve the City of its obligation to
make loans upon demand by the District under subsection (4) of this section.
(2) Budgeting for Loans. Upon receipt of a Notice of Insufficiency from the District,
the City shall, to the extent necessary, include in its budget the amounts required to make the
loans described in subsection (4) of this section. If the need to budget for such loans was not
reasonably foreseeable at the time the City prepared its biennial budget, the City shall budget
for such loans under Title 35A RCW and the Edmonds Municipal Code in sufficient time to
provide for the loans described in subsection (4).
(3) Cancellation Notices. If, at any time before 10 a.m. (Pacific time) on the 24th day of
the month preceding an upcoming Debt Service Payment Date for which the District has given
a Notice of Insufficiency (or, if the 24th is not a Business Day, the Business Day preceding the
24th), the District determines that there will be sufficient money available in the Debt Service
Fund to make the required payment due on the upcoming Debt Service Payment Date, the
District shall provide, prior to 5 p.m. on the same day, a notice to the City in substantially the
form attached hereto as Exhibit B (a “Cancellation Notice”). Delivery of a Cancellation Notice
Packet Page 75 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50858661.9 –4–
by the District to the City shall not relieve the City of its obligations to make loans upon
demand by the District under subsection (4) of this section.
(4) Loans. For as long as any Bonds remain outstanding, the City shall, no later than 10
a.m. on the business day preceding that Debt Service Payment Date, lend to the District an
amount that, when added to the money available in the Debt Service Fund, is sufficient to make
all make all payments of principal of and interest on the Bonds due on the upcoming Debt
Service Payment Date. The City shall, upon demand by the District in accordance with Section
3.1, cause the amount of each loan hereunder to be transferred to the District in United States
Dollars and immediately available funds.
(5) Method of Notice. Notices of Insufficiency and Cancellation Notices shall be sent
by the District to the City Administrative Services Director by hand delivery or facsimile
(which facsimile shall be promptly confirmed by telephone communication to the City
Administrative Services Director). The original of each such notice also shall be mailed to the
City pursuant to Section 8.3. Any failure by the District to send such notices shall not nullify
the City’s obligation to make loans to the District hereunder, but may result in a delay by the
City in transferring loan amounts to the District.
(6) Assumed Payment Under County PFD Agreement. Solely for the purpose of
determining whether sufficient money will be available in the Debt Service Fund on any Debt
Service Payment Date, the parties may assume that the City will make payments to the District
at the times, and in the amounts, required by the County PFD Agreement, except to the extent
expressly modified by this Agreement.
Section 3.3 Covenants Regarding Debt Limit and Additional Bonds.
(1) The District does not intend to submit this Agreement or any indebtedness created
hereunder to qualified electors of the District for approval. Under RCW 35.57.030 and existing
laws, the District may incur non-voted indebtedness in an aggregate amount equal to one-half
of one percent of the value of the taxable property within the District. In light of the foregoing,
and to comply with RCW 67.28.130, the District agrees not to incur additional indebtedness
after the Bonds are issued unless prior written approval is obtained in accordance with Section
8.7 of this Agreement and Section 19 of the Bond Resolution.
(2) In the event the District lacks sufficient non-voted debt capacity to incur
indebtedness resulting from a loan from the City in the amount determined under Section 3.2,
the District shall incur indebtedness for an amount equal to the District’s remaining non-voted
debt capacity, if any, and any loan amount greater than the District’s then-remaining non-voted
debt capacity shall be deemed an equity payment by the City to the District in exchange for an
interest in the Regional Center, which need not be repaid pursuant to Section 3.4. Within 60
days after any such equity payment by the City, the District shall deliver to the City a quitclaim
deed conveying to the City a tenancy-in-common interest in the Regional Center. Such interest
shall be a percentage ownership interest in the Regional Center, the numerator of which shall
be the sum such equity payment and the costs of transferring title and recording such quitclaim
deed, and the denominator of which shall be the aggregate original principal amounts of: (a) the
Bonds, (b) all bonds issued by the City to finance the Regional Center, and (c) any other bonds
Packet Page 76 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50858661.9 –5–
issued by the District to finance the Regional Center (excluding the Prior Note and any bonds,
or any portion thereof, issued to refinance bonds issued by the City or the District to finance the
Regional Center).
(3) The City will reconvey to the District, by means of a quitclaim deed, all of the
City’s interest in the Regional Center acquired pursuant to subsection (2) of this Section if the
District pays to the City an amount equal to the sum of:
(a) all payments made by the City to the District in exchange for an
interest being reconveyed to the District; plus
(b) all costs incurred by the City relating to the transfer of title and
recording of deed(s); plus
(c) interest on the sum of the amounts described by clauses (a) and (b),
calculated from the date(s) of the City’s payment thereof; plus
(d) the costs of transferring title to the District and recording such
quitclaim deed.
The rate of interest to be used for purposes of this calculation shall be the rate described in
Section 3.4(2).
(4) The transfers of interest authorized by this Section are intended to reflect the joint
and cooperative nature of the financing of the Regional Center pursuant to chapters 35.57,
35.59 and 67.28 RCW.
Section 3.4 Repayment Terms.
(1) Repayment Terms . The principal amount of each loan to the District hereunder,
together with interest thereon calculated as set forth in subsection (2) of this section, shall be
repaid by the District from available Sales Tax Revenue and General Revenue during each
calendar year after (a) the Debt Service Fund has been fully funded for such calendar year and
(b) reasonable provision has been made for the operating expenses of the Regional Center.
Such payments will be applied first to costs owed to the City, second, to interest owed to the
City on account of outstanding loans made under this Agreement and third to the principal of
all outstanding loans made under this Agreement in the order in which such loans were made.
(2) Interest Rate. Each loan made under the terms of this Agreement will bear interest
from the date of the loan until the date such loan is repaid. Interest on the loans will be
calculated on the basis of a 365/366-day year, for the actual number of days elapsed. The rate
of interest borne by each loan hereunder shall be a variable rate equal to the monthly average
rate of return on the State of Washington Local Government Investment Pool (or its successor),
as determined as of the last day of each month in which a loan is outstanding, and shall change
monthly as of the first day of each month in which a loan is outstanding. The City may in its
discretion charge a lower rate of interest. Absent manifest error, all calculations of the City
Administrative Services Director shall be binding upon the District.
Packet Page 77 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50858661.9 –6–
(3) Maturity. Unless paid earlier pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, all loans
hereunder shall mature on December 31 of the year of expiration of the District’s authority to
impose the Sales Tax under RCW 82.14.390, as it may be amended from time to time, but not
earlier than 2026, which is the year that is twenty-five years after the tax was first collected. If
any loan has not been repaid under this Agreement on the loan maturity date described in this
Section 3.4(3), the City shall acquire an ownership interest in the Regional Center equal to the
unpaid principal and interest due to the City on that loan maturity date, and the District shall
execute and deliver a quitclaim deed and such other documents as may be necessary to convey
this interest to the City as described in Section 3.3, and the District’s obligation to repay the
loan under this Agreement shall be discharged.
Section 3.5 Nature of District’s Obligation. The District’s obligation to make the
loan repayments to the City from the sources identified herein and to perform and observe the
other obligations on its part contained herein shall be absolute and unconditional, and shall not
be subject to diminution by setoff, counterclaim, abatement or otherwise. The full faith, credit
and resources of the District are hereby pledged for the payment of all amounts owed to the
City under this Agreement. The District’s obligations under this Agreement shall continue in
effect and shall survive the satisfaction of the District’s obligations under the Bonds and the
Bond Resolution until such time as principal and interest due to the City pursuant to any loan or
loans made hereunder have been repaid, together with any costs owed to the City pursuant to
Section 6.5 and Article 7. To further its ability to make such payments to the City, the District
hereby irrevocably covenants and agrees to continue imposing the Sales Tax as permitted under
RCW 82.14.390 for so long as the Bonds remains outstanding or any District obligation to pay
any amount to the City under this Agreement remains outstanding.
Section 3.6 Nature of City’s Obligation. The City’s obligation to advance funds to
the District in the amounts, at the times, under the conditions and in the manner described
herein shall be absolute and unconditional, and shall not be subject to diminution by setoff,
counterclaim, abatement or otherwise. The full faith, credit and resources of the City are
pledged irrevocably to make the loans, in the amounts, at the times, in the manner and subject
to the limitations described herein, regardless of whether the Regional Center is operating at
any particular time. The obligations of the City hereunder shall terminate upon payment in full
of the principal of and interest on the Bonds. For each fiscal year during the term of this
Agreement, the City agrees that it will include in its budget and appropriate an amount that the
City reasonably expects to be necessary to fulfill its obligation to make loans to the District
under the terms of this Agreement. Failure to so budget shall not be a default under this
Agreement if the City fulfills its obligation to make loans to the District as required under this
Article III.
Section 3.7 City Acknowledgments. The City acknowledges and agrees that the
District will pledge to the payment of the Bonds: (a) the loan proceeds it receives under this
Agreement; (b) the Sales Tax Revenues, junior to the lien granted in connection with the City’s
Limited Tax General and Revenue Obligation Bonds, 2002; and (c) the District’s General
Revenue.
Packet Page 78 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50858661.9 –7–
ARTICLE 4.
Rights of City Upon Making Loans
Section 4.1 Rights of the City . If the City has made any loans to the District under
this Agreement and such loans have not been repaid in full (whether or not the loan is in
default), the City may take any one or more of the following steps:
(1) The City may have access to and inspect, examine and make copies of the books
and records and any and all accounts and data of the District; and
(2) With the consent of the parties to the County PFD Agreement, the City may, but
shall not be required to, appoint a manager (which may be the City) or a receiver for the
Regional Center. Any manager or receiver appointed pursuant to this subsection (2) shall have,
in addition to all the rights and powers customarily given to and exercised by receivers, all
rights of the District to manage, operate and maintain the Regional Center and shall have all
other rights of the District to exercise its rights and powers in the same manner and to the same
extent that the District could do, including without limitation the execution, enforcement and
termination of contracts providing for management or maintenance of the Regional Center, all
on such terms as are deemed best by the City to protect its interests under this Agreement. The
City, or the manager or receiver appointed by the City, shall be entitled to receive a reasonable
fee for managing the Regional Center. The City shall not enter into an agreement with a
manager unless it receives written confirmation from nationally recognized bond counsel that
the agreement will not adversely affect the tax-exempt nature of interest on the Bonds for
federal income tax purposes.
ARTICLE 5.
Additional Obligations and Covenants
Section 5.1 Agreement to Issue Bonds. The District shall issue the Bonds in
accordance with the Bond Resolution and this Agreement in the principal amount of [NOT TO
EXCEED $4,000,000], which amount does not to exceed the amount necessary to finance or
refinance the Regional Center and the Improvements in accordance with the Project Budget.
Section 5.2 Third Party Beneficiary. Each covenant and commitment of the District
in the Bond Resolution is incorporated herein for the further benefit of the City, and the City
shall be a third party beneficiary of the contract of the District set forth in the Bond Resolution.
Section 5.3 Representations and Warranties of the District.
(1) Commencement of Construction Prior to January 1, 2004. The District represents
that it commenced construction (within the meaning of RCW 82.14.390) of the Regional
Center before January 1, 2004.
(2) Regarding the Regional Center. The District has, and will have, as long as any
Bonds or Additional Bonds remain outstanding, good right and lawful authority to proceed with
the development of the Regional Center and to provide for the maintenance, operation,
improvement and construction of the Regional Center. The District shall not release or modify
the obligations of any user of the Regional Center that would in any way limit any such user’s
obligation to make payment of such rents, rates, fees or other charges imposed by the District
Packet Page 79 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50858661.9 –8–
for such use of the Regional Center. The foregoing shall not prohibit the District from
establishing reduced rates and charges, or eliminating rates and charges, for the use of the
Regional Center for certain classes of users of the Regional Center if and as appropriate, as
long as charges are applied on a fair and nondiscriminatory basis.
Section 5.4 Additional Covenants and of the District.
(1) Operation of Regional Center. The District agrees that it shall cause the Regional
Center to be operated and maintained in a business-like fashion (including the maintenance of
proper and customary property and liability insurance with respect to the Regional Center) as
both a “tourism-related facility” (within the meaning of RCW 67.28.080(7)) and a “regional
center” (within the meaning of RCW 35.57.020) and shall cause all books and records to be
maintained with respect thereto.
(2) Reporting. The District shall provide the City (at the notice address set forth in
Section 8.3) with a quarterly report summarizing actual financial activity and financial
expectations for the following four quarters.
(3) No Liens. Neither the City nor the District shall grant or permit any lien (other than
consensual liens such as contractors’ liens) against the Regional Center or its interest therein
which, if unpaid, might become a lien or charge upon the Sales Tax Revenue, or any part
thereof, prior to or superior to the lien of the Bonds and any Additional Bonds, or which might
impair the security of the Bonds and any Additional Bonds.
(4) Enforcement of Obligations. The District shall take all reasonable measures
permitted by law to enforce payment to it of all Sales Tax Revenue, including without
limitation any payments due to it under the County PFD Agreement, and shall at all times, to
the extent permitted by law, defend, preserve and protect the rights, benefits and privileges of
the District and of the Registered Owners under or with respect to the Bond Resolution.
(5) Ownership, Sale, Transfer or Disposition of the Regional Center. The District shall
be the owner of the Regional Center except to the extent the City acquires any interest therein
pursuant to Section 3.3 of this Agreement. Except pursuant to Section 3.3, the District will not
sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of any facilities or property (real or personal) comprising a
part of the Regional Center, except upon approval by resolution of the Board and only
consistent with one or more of the following:
(a) The District in its discretion may sell, transfer or dispose (each, as
used in this subparagraph, a “transfer”) of facilities or property that is not
material to the operation of the Regional Center, or which has become
unserviceable, inadequate, obsolete or unfit to be used in the operation of the
Regional Center or is no longer necessary, material or useful to the operation of
the Regional Center; or
(b) The District in its discretion may transfer facilities or property if the
District receives from the transferee in a bona fide, arm’s length transaction an
amount equal to the fair market value of the facilities or property so transferred.
As used herein, “fair market value” means the most probable price that a
property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions
Packet Page 80 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50858661.9 –9–
requisite to a fair sale, the willing buyer and willing seller each acting prudently
and knowledgeably. The proceeds of any transfer under this subparagraph (ii)
shall be used (1) to promptly redeem, or irrevocably set aside for the redemption
of, the District’s outstanding Bonds or Additional Bonds, and/or (2) to provide
for all or part of the cost of capital improvements and/or additions to or
expansions of the Regional Center.
Nothing in the foregoing is intended to restrict the transfer of the facilities or property to the
City pursuant to the County PFD Agreement or to permit transfers not permitted under the
County PFD Agreement.
ARTICLE 6.
Remedies Upon Default
Section 6.1 Remedies of City on Default. Upon the occurrence of a default by the
District in its obligations hereunder, the City may proceed to protect and enforce its rights in
equity or at law, either in mandamus or for the specific performance of any covenant or
agreement contained herein, or for the enforcement of any other appropriate legal or equitable
remedy, as the City may deem most effectual to protect and enforce any of its rights or interests
hereunder; provided that the City may not enforce repayment of the loans until repayment in
full of the principal of and interest on the Bonds.
Section 6.2 Remedies of District on Default. Upon the occurrence of a default by the
City in its obligations to make loans to the District hereunder, the District may proceed to
protect and enforce its rights in equity or at law, either in mandamus or for the specific
performance of any covenant or agreement contained herein, or for the enforcement of any
other appropriate legal or equitable remedy, as the District may deem most effectual to protect
and enforce any of its rights or interests hereunder.
Section 6.3 No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy conferred upon or reserved to either
party by this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies,
but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other
remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by
statute, and either party hereto shall be free to pursue, at the same time, each and every remedy,
at law or in equity, which it may have under this Agreement, or otherwise.
Section 6.4 No Implied Waiver. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power
accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a
waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often
as may be deemed expedient. For the exercise of any remedy, it shall not be necessary to give
any notice, other than such notice as may be expressly required herein.
Section 6.5 Agreement to Pay Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. If a default arises
under any of the provisions of this Agreement and either party hereto should employ attorneys
or incur other expenses for the collection of amounts due under this Agreement or the
enforcement of performance or observance of any obligation or agreement on the part of the
other party contained in this Agreement, on demand therefor, the nonprevailing party shall pay
Packet Page 81 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50858661.9 –10–
or reimburse the prevailing party for the reasonable fees of such attorneys and such other
expenses so incurred.
Section 6.6 Dispute Resolution. The parties may mediate any dispute over the
interpretation of any terms or conditions under this Agreement. Mediation will be made
available upon request of either party. The costs associated with any such mediation shall be
shared equally by the parties.
ARTICLE 7.
Hold Harmless
As between the City and the District, the District shall assume the risk of, be liable for,
and pay all damage, loss, cost and expense of any party, including its employees, arising out of
the performance of this Agreement, except that caused by negligence and/or willful misconduct
solely of the City and its employees acting within the scope of their employment. The District
shall hold harmless the City and its officers, elected officials, agents, and employees against all
claims, losses, suits, actions, costs, counsel fees, litigation costs, expenses, damages, judgments
or decrees by reason of damage to any property or business and/or any death, injury or
disability to or of any person or party, including any employee, arising out of or suffered,
directly or indirectly, by reason of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement or
any act, error or omission of the District or the District’s employees, agents, or subcontractors,
whether by negligence or otherwise, but only after repayment in full of the principal of and
interest on the Bonds.
The District’s obligation shall include, but not be limited to, investigating, adjusting and
defending all claims against the City alleging loss from action, error or omission or breach of
any common law, statutory or other delegated duty by the District, the District’s employees,
agents or subcontractors.
ARTICLE 8.
Miscellaneous
Section 8.1 Continuing Disclosure Undertaking of the City. To meet the conditions
of paragraph (d)(2) of United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 15c2
12 (the “Rule”), as applicable to a participating underwriter for the Bonds, the City undertakes
for the benefit of holders of the Bonds to provide to each NRMSIR and the SID (as those terms
are defined in the Rule), the following annual financial information: (i) annual financial
statements for the City prepared (except as noted in the financial statements) in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles applicable to Washington governmental units
such as the City, as such principles may be changed from time to time, which statements need
not be audited, except, however, that if and when audited financial statements are otherwise
prepared and available to the City they will be provided; (ii) statements of authorized, issued
and outstanding general obligation debt of the City; (iii) statements of assessed valuation of
property within the City subject to ad valorem taxation for the fiscal year; and (iv) the ad
valorem regular property tax levy rate and regular property tax levy rate limit for the fiscal
year.
Packet Page 82 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50858661.9 –11–
Such annual financial information shall be provided not later than the last day of the
ninth month after the end of each fiscal year of the City (currently, a fiscal year ending
December 31), as such fiscal year may be changed as required or permitted by State law,
commencing with the City’s fiscal year ending December 31, 2007. It may be provided in a
single or multiple documents, and may be incorporated by reference to other documents that
have been filed with each NRMSIR and the SID, or, if the document incorporated by reference
is a “final official statement” with respect to obligations of the City, that has been filed with the
MSRB.
The City’s obligations under this undertaking shall terminate upon the legal defeasance
of all of the Bonds. In addition, the City’s obligations under this undertaking shall terminate if
those provisions of the Rule which require the City to comply with this undertaking become
legally inapplicable in respect of the Bonds for any reason, as confirmed by an opinion of
nationally recognized bond counsel or other counsel familiar with federal securities laws
delivered to the City and the District, and the District provides timely notice of such
termination to each NRMSIR or the MSRB and the SID. To the extent authorized by the SEC,
the City may satisfy this undertaking by transmitting the required filings using
http://www.disclosureusa.org (or such other centralized dissemination agent as may be
approved by the SEC).
Section 8.2 Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement is governed by and shall be
construed in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Washington and shall be
liberally construed so as to carry out the purposes hereof. Except as otherwise required by
applicable law, any action under this Agreement shall be brought in the Superior Court of the
State of Washington in and for Snohomish County.
Section 8.3 Notices. Except as otherwise provided herein, all notices, consents or
other communications required hereunder shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given if
addressed and hand delivered or mailed by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid and
return receipt requested, as follows:
To the City: City of Edmonds
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attention: Finance/Administrative Services Director
Fax: (425) 771-0265
Telephone: (425) 771-0240
To the District: Edmonds Public Facilities District
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attention: PFD Treasurer
Fax: (425) 771-0265
Telephone: (425) 771-0240
Packet Page 83 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50858661.9 –12–
The City or the District may designate any further or different addresses to which subsequent
notices, certificates, requests or other communications shall be sent by giving notice of such
change to the other party. Notices shall be deemed served upon deposit of such notices in the
United States mail in the manner provided above.
Section 8.4 Binding Effect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of the City, the
District and the holders of the Bonds and shall be binding upon the City and the District and
their successors. This Agreement may not be assigned.
Section 8.5 Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held
invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not
invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof.
Section 8.6 Amendments. This Agreement may be amended, changed, modified or
altered by an instrument in writing duly executed by the City and the District (or the successors
in title of each) if, in the opinion of bond counsel, such amendment will not adversely affect the
security for the Bonds or tax exemption of interest on the Bonds. This Agreement may not be
terminated until the Bonds are no longer outstanding, unless the City has assumed all liability
for payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due and has pledged its full
faith and credit to such payment.
Section 8.7 Additional Debt. So long as the Bonds remain outstanding and the
Contingent Loan Agreement remains in effect, the District shall not incur any additional
indebtedness, other than in the ordinary course of business, without the prior written consent of
the City. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld if the following conditions are met
at the time:
(a) The District is not in default under this Agreement or under the Bond
Resolution;
(b) The proceeds of the additional debt will be used to fund capital
expenditures relating to the Regional Center;
(c) The additional indebtedness will not cause the District to exceed its
non-voted debt capacity under RCW 35.57.030(1); and
(d) No ownership interest in the Regional Center has been transferred to
the City under Section 3.3(2) that has not been transferred back to the District
under Section 3.3(3).
Unless specified in a separate agreement or an amendment hereto, the City shall be under no
obligation to make loans hereunder to pay debt service on any additional debt.
Packet Page 84 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50858661.9 –13–
Section 8.8 Waiver of Breach. No waiver of any breach of any covenant or
agreement contained herein shall operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same
covenant or agreement or as a waiver of any breach of any other covenant or agreement, and in
case of a breach by either party of any covenant, agreement or undertaking, the nondefaulting
party may nevertheless accept from the other any payment or payments or performance
hereunder without in any way waiving its right to exercise any of its rights and remedies
provided for herein or otherwise with respect to any such default or defaults that were in
existence at the time such payment or payments or performance were accepted by it.
Section 8.9 No Rights Created in Third Parties. The terms of this Agreement are not
intended to establish or to create any rights in any persons or entities other than the City, the
District, the respective successors and assigns of each.
Section 8.10 Time of Essence. Time and all terms and conditions shall be of the
essence of this Agreement.
Section 8.11 Effective Date of and Termination of Agreement. This Agreement shall
take effect and shall supersede the Prior Guarantee Agreement as of the date first written above.
Except as provided in Section 3.5, this Agreement shall terminate upon payment in full of all
principal of and interest on the Bonds. Section 3.3 and Article 7 shall survive the termination
of this Agreement.
ORAL AGREEMENTS OR ORAL COMMITMENTS TO LEND MONEY, EXTEND
CREDIT, OR FORBEAR FROM ENFORCING REPAYMENT OF A DEBT ARE NOT
ENFORCEABLE UNDER WASHINGTON LAW.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the District have caused this Agreement to be
executed in their respective names by their duly authorized officers, and have caused this
Agreement to be dated as of the date set forth on the first page hereof.
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
___________________________________
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk
EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES
DISTRICT
__________________________________
President, Board of Directors
Attest:
__________________________________
Secretary, Board of Directors
Packet Page 85 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50560950.07
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
ss.
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ____________ and
_____________ are the persons who appeared before me, and said persons acknowledged that
said persons signed this instrument, on oath stated that said persons were authorized to execute
the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the CITY OF
EDMONDS, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, to be the free and voluntary
act of such municipal corporation for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated this ______ day of December, 2008.
(Signature of Notary)
(Legibly Print or Stamp Name of Notary)
Notary public in and for the State of Washington, residing at
My appointment expires
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
ss.
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ____________ and
_____________ are the persons who appeared before me, and said persons acknowledged that
said persons signed this instrument, on oath stated that said persons were authorized to execute
the instrument and acknowledged it as the President and Secretary, respectively, of Board of
Directors of the EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT, a municipal corporation of the
State of Washington, to be the free and voluntary act of such municipal corporation for the uses
and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated this ______ day of December, 2008.
(Signature of Notary)
(Legibly Print or Stamp Name of Notary)
Notary public in and for the State of Washington, residing at
My appointment expires
Packet Page 86 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50560950.07
Exhibit A
Form Notice of Insufficiency
City of Edmonds
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attention: Finance/Administrative Services Director
VIA FACSIMILE
(with telephone confirmation)
Re: NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY
Edmonds Public Facilities District
General and Revenue Obligation Bonds, 2008
The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Edmonds Public Facilities District (the “District”),
hereby certifies to the City of Edmonds, Washington (the “City”), with reference to the Contingent Loan
Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of January [__], 2008, by and between the City and the District,
and the above-captioned bonds (the “Bonds”), that:
1. Next Debt Service Payment Date: __________, 20__
2. Debt service due: Principal $________________
Interest $________________
Total $________________
3. There will be insufficient money available in the Debt Service Fund on the date described in
clause (1) to make the debt service payments described in clause (2):
Amount expected to be on deposit in the District’s Debt Service Fund: $________________
Plus the payment the City is required to make on __________, 20__,
pursuant to the County PFD Agreement: $________________
Total available for debt service $________________
4. Amount of the loan requested is calculated as follows:
Debt service total listed in clause (2): $________________
Less the amount available for debt service, as listed in clause (3): $________________
Loan Amount $________________
Pursuant to Section 3.2 of the Agreement, the City is requested to make a loan to the District no later
than ___________, 20__, in the amount listed in clause (4). The City shall cause such amount to be
transferred to the District’s Debt Service Fund, in United States Dollars and immediately available
funds.
Any capitalized term used herein and not defined shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the
Agreement or, if not therein defined, as defined in the Bond Resolution. The individual signing below
hereby represents that he or she is an officer of the undersigned and is duly authorized to execute and
deliver this document.
Dated: __________, 20__.
EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT
[Executive Director or designee]
Packet Page 87 of 201
EXHIBIT A – Form of Agreement For City Council Approval
50560950.07
Exhibit B
Form Cancellation Notice
City of Edmonds
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attention: Finance/Administrative Services Director
VIA FACSIMILE
(with telephone confirmation)
Re: CANCELLATION NOTICE
Edmonds Public Facilities District
General and Revenue Obligation Bonds, 2008
The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Edmonds Public Facilities District (the “District”),
hereby certifies to the City of Edmonds, Washington (the “City”), with reference to the Contingent Loan
Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated January __, 2008, by and between the City and the District, and the
above-captioned bonds (the “Bonds”), that:
1. Next Debt Service Payment Date: __________, 20__
2. Debt service due: Principal $________________
Interest $________________
Total $________________
3. There will be sufficient money available in the Debt Service Fund on the date described in
clause (1) to make the debt service payments described in clause (2):
Amount expected to be on deposit in the District’s Debt Service Fund: $________________
Plus the payment the City is required to make on __________, 20__,
pursuant to the County PFD Agreement: $________________
Total available for debt service $________________
4. The District’s Notice of Insufficiency and loan request delivered on __________, 20__ is
hereby cancelled.
Pursuant to Section 3.2 of the Agreement, the City is requested NOT to make a loan to the District with
respect to the debt service payments described in clause (2).
Any capitalized term used herein and not defined shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the
Agreement or, if not therein defined, as defined in the Bond Resolution. The individual signing below
hereby represents that he or she is an officer of the undersigned and is duly authorized to execute and
deliver this document.
Dated: __________, 20__.
EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT
[Executive Director or designee]
Packet Page 88 of 201
AM-1586 2.E.
Authorization to call for bids on Old Woodway Elementary School
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:06/03/2008
Submitted By:Brian McIntosh Time:Consent
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to call for bids for the Old Woodway Elementary Park Project which includes
the regional stormwater infiltration system for the Southwest Edmonds Basin. This consent agenda
item was not reviewed by a Council Committee.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize Staff to advertise for bids for the Old Woodway Elementary Park and
infiltration system projects.
Previous Council Action
On November 14 , 2006 Council authorized Staff to advertise for Statements of Qualification
(SOQ) for landscape consultants or consultant teams and the firm MacLeod Reckord Landscape
Architects was selected for design of the Old Woodway Elementary Park Project.
On September 12, 2007 and October 16, 2007 public hearings were held at City Council.
At the November 5, 2007 meeting Council unanimously approved the current park design plan.
Narrative
Design and specifications are now complete for both projects and ready to call for bids for
construction. The 2008 - 2014 Capital Improvement Program contains $1,200,000 for park
development and $385,000 for the infiltration system. Descriptions of these projects are included
as Attachment 1 and 3. Attachment 2 is a site plan for the park (west trail loop not showing)
including the location of the infiltration system.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Old Woodway Elem Development
Link: Old Woodway Elem Site Plan
Link: Southwest Basin
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Public Works Noel Miller 05/30/2008 10:44 AM APRV
2 Development Services Duane Bowman 05/30/2008 10:45 AM APRV
Packet Page 89 of 201
3 City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/30/2008 10:47 AM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/30/2008 10:49 AM APRV
5 Final Approval Linda Hynd 05/30/2008 10:56 AM APRV
Form Started By: Brian McIntosh Started On: 05/27/2008 10:32
AM
Final Approval Date: 05/30/2008
Packet Page 90 of 201
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
0009_1586_2008-125.OldWoodwayElemDevelopment.doc
PROJECT NAME: Old Woodway Elementary
School Park Development
ESTIMATED COST: $1,260,000
1 0 0 th
A v e W
Elem. School
Old Woodway
Site
237th 238th
1 0 4 th
S
R
-
1
0
4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Plan and develop park at old school site.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Meet the need for parkland identified in Comprehensive Plan
with supporting park amenities to serve the community.
SCHEDULE: 2008-2014
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $1,188,000 $9,900 $9,900 $9,900 $9,900 $9,900 $9,900
1% for Art $12,000 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100
TOTAL $1,200,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Packet Page 91 of 201
Packet Page 92 of 201
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2007-412-200.SouthwestBasin.doc
PROJECT NAME: Southwest Edmonds Basin
Study Projects
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $535,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct projects identified in Southwest Edmonds Basin Study
which was adopted in 2003.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Projects identified in the study address water quantity
and quality problems. Projects are prioritized based on 1) magnitude of the problem 2)
frequency of occurrence and 3) potential damage exposure.
Existing drainage facilities in the area consist mostly of numerous catch basins and infiltration
sumps. These facilities were installed incrementally without an overall plan as the area
developed over a period of many years. There are no major drainage pipelines running
through the project area. Since annexation, the City has constructed infiltration facilities at
several locations to reduce ponding on streets and private property in the area.
SCHEDULE: 2008
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $385,000 $150,000
SOUTHWESTEDMONDS
CITY OF EDMONDSBASIN STUDY
Packet Page 93 of 201
AM-1600 2.F.
Resolution of the Edmonds City Council commending Hilary Scheibert
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:06/03/2008
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Pro Tem Deanna Dawson Time:Consent
Department:City Council Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Resolution of the Edmonds City Council commending Hilary Scheibert for her services as a
Student Representative on the Edmonds City Council. This consent agenda item was not reviewed by a
Council Committee.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Resolution of the Edmonds City Council commending Hilary Scheibert for her services as a
Student Representative on the Edmonds City Council from September 4, 2007 to June 3, 2008.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Scheibert Resolution
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 11:51 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/29/2008 12:12 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 12:18 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 05/29/2008 10:54
AM
Final Approval Date: 05/29/2008
Packet Page 94 of 201
Resolution
No:
A Resolution of the Edmonds City Council Commending
Hilary Scheibert
for Her Service as a Student Representative on the Edmonds City Council
Whereas, Hilary Scheibert, a student at Edmonds-Woodway High School, was selected to serve as a Student
Representative of the Edmonds City Council; and
Whereas, Hilary Scheibert, served as a student member of the City Council from September 4, 2007 through June
10, 2008; and
Whereas, during her tenure as Student Representative, Hilary Scheibert demonstrated exceptional interest in the
work of the body while at the same time participating in a host of activities as a student of Edmonds-
Woodway High School including ASB, Play Production, Teen Council, Steering Committee (student
representative) and Environmental Club. She was also involved in the Junior Statesmen Symposium on
Leadership and Politics, Invisible Children, Resolve Uganda, International Rescue Committee, as a breakfast
cook for ROOTS Young Adult Shelter, and a section leader for the Seattle Children’s Chorus. This
remarkable young lady was the first to volunteer to serve on the Council through two terms and is to be
commended for regular attendance, being well-versed on the agenda, and lending a youthful perspective
during the comment period.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that Hilary Scheibert be congratulated for her exemplary participation in city
government in Edmonds during her term as Student Representative while participating in an
extensive variety of school and other activities, and
Be It Further Resolved that the City Council and the Mayor hereby extend their best wishes to Hilary in her future
endeavors and express the hope that she will continue to contribute her vast talents to the
democratic process of government in the City of Edmonds and elsewhere.
Now, Therefore, Be It Passed, Approved, and Adopted the 3rd day of June, 2008.
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Deanna Dawson, Council President Pro Tem
Michael Plunkett, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Attest: City Clerk
Packet Page 95 of 201
AM-1596 2.G.
2008 Street Overlay Program Award of Contract
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:06/03/2008
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:Consent
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Report of bids opened on May 20, 2008 for the 2008 Street Overlay Program and award of
contract to Northshore Paving, Inc. ($385,218.34)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council award a contract to Northshore Paving, Inc. in the amount of $385,218.34 for the 2008
Street Overlay Program (Schedules A-1 through A-7, A-14, and A-16 through A20).
Previous Council Action
On April 15, 2008, Council authorized Staff to advertise for bids on the 2008 Street Overlay
Program.
Narrative
On May 20, 2008, the City received six bids for the Street Overlay Program contract. The bid
tabulation summary is provided as Attachment 1. The bids ranged from a low of $550,588.28 to
$783,177.52 for all bid schedules. The engineer's estimate was $558,276.71 for all bid schedules.
The low bid was submitted by Northshore Paving, Inc. A review of the low bidder's record was
satisfactory.
The invitation to bid included a total of 20 bid schedules for various different streets and project
requirements within the City. In addition to street overlays, the invitation for bids included some
walkway/crosswalk and ADA curb ramp improvements, and parks paving improvements (asphalt
trail overlay for Sierra Park). The 2008 adopted capital budget includes the following amounts for
these projects:
Project Fund 112 Fund 125
(Trans)
Fund 125
(Parks)
Overlays – Utility Streets $215,000
Overlays - Citywide $100,000 $100,000
ADA Curb Ramp Improvements $20,000
Walkways and Bikeways Citywide $15,000
Street Improvements Citywide $15,000
School Zone Improvements $10,000
Packet Page 96 of 201
Citywide Parks, Misc Small Projects $100,000
Total Budget $355,000 $120,000 $100,000
The total budget required for construction of the 2008 Citywide Overlay Program is $437,868.34,
as shown in Attachment 2, along with the awarded schedules and their funding source.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Bid Results
Link: Award Schedules & Budget
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Public Works Noel Miller 05/29/2008 02:35 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 02:47 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/29/2008 03:09 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 04:12 PM APRV
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Started On: 05/29/2008 09:47
AM
Final Approval Date: 05/29/2008
Packet Page 97 of 201
Bi
d
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
2
0
0
8
S
t
r
e
e
t
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
E8
C
A
/
c
2
7
9
SC
H
E
D
U
L
E
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
N
o
r
t
h
s
h
o
r
e
Pa
v
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
As
p
h
a
l
t
W
i
l
d
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
C
e
m
e
x
Quilceda Paving Lakeside Indutries
A-
1
A
l
l
e
y
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
P
i
n
e
a
n
d
F
i
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
20
,
7
3
4
.
3
5
$
21
,
3
4
7
.
2
2
$
19
,
1
4
4
.
5
0
$
22
,
2
1
2
.
2
5
$
35
,
6
1
9
.
7
5
$
36,088.00 $ 31,286.00 $
A-
2
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
,
s
o
u
t
h
o
f
2
0
0
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
17
,
8
7
2
.
0
5
$
18
,
8
3
5
.
5
5
$
17
,
8
8
3
.
7
5
$
19
,
5
8
8
.
5
0
$
23
,
7
8
3
.
2
5
$
24,012.50 $ 24,143.50 $
A-
3
20
1
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
,
w
e
s
t
o
f
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
$
4
7
,
0
6
7
.
3
0
$
5
2
,
5
9
3
.
5
5
47
,
5
8
4
.
0
0
$
58
,
0
7
9
.
5
0
$
57
,
2
8
5
.
2
5
$
53,202.50 $ 71,779.25 $
A-
4
2
0
2
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
,
w
e
s
t
o
f
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
15
,
9
8
8
.
3
5
$
20
,
1
3
9
.
4
0
$
18
,
7
1
6
.
0
0
$
23
,
1
6
2
.
7
0
$
28
,
5
4
9
.
2
5
$
26,212.50 $ 37,109.00 $
A-
5
2
0
2
n
d
P
l
a
c
e
S
W
,
w
e
s
t
o
f
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
52
,
9
2
1
.
0
5
$
61
,
0
5
5
.
3
4
$
52
,
6
7
3
.
0
0
$
65
,
1
5
3
.
8
5
$
65
,
9
4
5
.
1
0
$
66,045.00 $ 79,753.25 $
A-
6
2
0
3
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
,
w
e
s
t
o
f
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
55
,
4
6
2
.
0
5
$
61
,
2
6
5
.
0
0
$
56
,
3
4
5
.
0
0
$
63
,
6
1
1
.
0
0
$
68
,
9
3
2
.
5
0
$
67,175.00 $ 81,324.25 $
A-
7
7
9
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
,
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
2
0
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
33
,
1
7
4
.
7
5
$
30
,
8
0
7
.
8
0
$
32
,
8
2
5
.
0
0
$
33
,
5
8
4
.
5
0
$
39
,
7
1
3
.
0
0
$
40,738.00 $ 44,243.00 $
A-
8
19
6
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
S
W
,
e
a
s
t
o
f
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
16
,
9
6
8
.
0
0
$
17
,
3
1
5
.
8
5
$
17
,
5
9
5
.
0
0
$
18
,
4
8
6
.
0
0
$
20
,
0
1
3
.
7
5
$
23,533.50 $ 25,687.75 $
A-
9
19
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
,
e
a
s
t
o
f
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
25
,
6
7
8
.
8
0
$
27
,
4
9
7
.
7
2
$
25
,
2
1
0
.
0
0
$
29
,
2
9
8
.
7
5
$
28
,
4
8
9
.
2
5
$
34,812.50 $ 35,203.20 $
A-
1
0
20
6
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
S
W
,
e
a
s
t
o
f
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
19
,
7
2
2
.
1
5
$
14
,
2
4
1
.
8
0
$
18
,
8
9
3
.
0
0
$
13
,
3
5
8
.
1
0
$
17
,
3
0
8
.
5
0
$
20,800.00 $ 22,824.75 $
A-
1
1
20
7
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
S
W
,
e
a
s
t
o
f
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
19
,
6
9
5
.
9
0
$
13
,
4
9
1
.
8
0
$
18
,
8
1
8
.
0
0
$
13
,
3
6
1
.
1
0
$
17
,
1
4
0
.
0
0
$
20,600.00 $ 22,799.75 $
A-
1
2
2
0
9
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
,
e
a
s
t
o
f
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
19
,
8
6
9
.
1
5
$
13
,
6
4
1
.
8
0
$
18
,
8
1
8
.
0
0
$
13
,
7
7
5
.
1
0
$
17
,
3
8
0
.
0
0
$
21,150.00 $ 22,999.75 $
A-
1
3
21
1
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
S
W
,
e
a
s
t
o
f
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
25
,
1
5
6
.
9
5
$
17
,
5
6
9
.
9
5
$
23
,
0
0
4
.
0
0
$
17
,
4
8
6
.
3
5
$
28
,
7
4
4
.
0
0
$
26,548.80 $ 30,386.75 $
A-
1
4
Sc
h
o
o
l
Z
o
n
e
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
of
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
a
n
d
2
0
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
3,
5
1
2
.
2
5
$
6,
5
5
3
.
1
0
$
5,
6
2
0
.
0
0
$
5,
8
0
2
.
0
0
$
14
,
4
9
8
.
0
0
$
11,710.00 $ 14,116.25 $
A-
1
5
82
n
d
P
l
a
c
e
W
e
s
t
,
w
e
s
t
o
f
1
9
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
66
,
4
0
2
.
0
0
$
61
,
6
1
1
.
0
2
$
63
,
7
2
0
.
8
0
$
63
,
9
3
9
.
9
0
$
66
,
8
9
8
.
6
5
$
71,491.70 $ 74,575.95 $
A-
1
6
1
9
8
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
S
W
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
8
2
n
d
a
n
d
8
3
r
d
P
l
a
c
e
W
e
s
t
1
7
,
6
2
6
.
3
5
$
17
,
0
4
9
.
2
1
$
17
,
6
1
2
.
0
0
$
20
,
7
7
7
.
5
0
$
23
,
4
7
1
.
0
0
$
24,379.60 $ 25,561.15 $
A-
1
7
1
9
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
,
e
a
s
t
o
f
M
a
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
L
a
n
e
29
,
3
6
7
.
4
5
$
26
,
7
7
7
.
6
0
$
27
,
5
1
9
.
7
5
$
28
,
3
2
5
.
7
5
$
31
,
9
5
2
.
2
5
$
35,494.10 $ 35,858.95 $
A-
1
8
83
r
d
P
l
a
c
e
W
e
s
t
,
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
2
0
0
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
46
,
0
7
1
.
9
0
$
45
,
5
5
4
.
4
0
$
43
,
7
1
8
.
0
0
$
47
,
1
1
2
.
0
5
$
48
,
4
1
1
.
2
5
$
53,281.30 $ 55,995.95 $
A-
1
9
19
7
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
,
e
a
s
t
o
f
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
10
,
4
0
2
.
3
5
$
9,
9
5
8
.
6
2
$
9,
8
4
4
.
2
0
$
10
,
3
9
7
.
7
5
$
15
,
6
9
3
.
0
0
$
13,753.00 $ 17,841.30 $
A-
2
0
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
T
r
a
i
l
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
,
S
i
e
r
r
a
P
a
r
k
14
,
5
8
3
.
5
6
$
13
,
2
8
1
.
5
5
$
15
,
4
3
6
.
5
8
$
12
,
5
0
9
.
7
2
$
18
,
4
2
1
.
3
6
$
40,135.10 $ 29,687.77 $
GR
A
N
D
T
O
T
A
L
A
L
L
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
S
55
8
,
2
7
6
.
7
1
$
55
0
,
5
8
8
.
2
8
$
55
0
,
9
8
0
.
5
8
$
58
0
,
0
2
2
.
3
7
$
66
8
,
2
4
9
.
1
1
$
711,163.10 $ 783,177.52 $
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
98
of
20
1
2008 Street Overlays - Recommended Award Schedules vs. Budget Date: May 29, 2008
Recommended Contact Award Charge to Fund
Schedule Amount 112 125 (Trans) 125(Parks)
A-1 Alley between Pine and Fir Streets $21,347.22 $21,347.22
A-2 80th Ave W, south of 200th St SW $18,835.55 $18,835.55
A-3 201st St SW, west of 76th Ave W $52,593.55 $52,593.55
A-4 202nd St SW, west of 76th Ave W $20,139.40 $20,139.40
A-5 202nd Pl SW, west of 76th Ave W $61,055.34 $61,055.34
A-6 203rd Pl SW, wet of 76th Ave W $61,265.00 $61,265.00
A-7 79th Ave W, north of 206th St SW $30,807.80 $30,807.80
A-14 School Zone Ped Imprvts-76th/206th $6,553.10 $6,553.10
A-16 198th Pl SW, west of 196th St SW $17,049.21 $17,049.21
A-17 198th St SW, east of Maplewood Ln $26,777.60 $26,777.60
A-18 83rd Pl W, north of 200th St SW $45,554.40 $45,554.40
A-19 197th St SW, east of 84th Ave W $9,958.62 $9,958.62
A-20 Asphalt Trail Overlay, Sierra Park $13,281.55 $13,281.55 $13,281.55
Contract Award Amount Total $385,218.34 $293,145.54 $92,072.80 $13,281.55
Plus: Other Costs
Contract Admin $30,000.00 $30,000.00
Contingency $19,300.00 $14,000.00 $4,600.00 $700.00
Testing Lab Services $3,000.00 $3,000.00
Advertising $350.00 $350.00
1% Art $0.00
Total Other Costs $52,650.00 $44,350.00 $7,600.00 $700.00
Grand Total, Contract Award Plus Other Costs $437,868.34 $337,495.54 $99,672.80 $13,981.55
Budget: $355,000.00 $120,000.00 $100,000.00
Packet Page 99 of 201
AM-1595 3.
Presentation by Alpha Omicron Pi Sorority to honor Police Chief David Stern
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:06/03/2008
Submitted By:Gerry Gannon
Submitted For:Al Compaan Time:10 Minutes
Department:Police Department Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Recommend Review by Full Council
Information
Subject Title
Presentation by Alpha Omicron Pi Sorority to honor Police Chief David Stern.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The Alpha Omicron Pi Sorority have spent their resources of both time and funding to provide an
honor to Chief David Stern. The members of the sorority have been collecting Panda bears for
many months (perhaps a year) and they would like to make a presentation to the Department in
front of the City Council. The department uses the bears to comfort children that have gone
through a stressful situations. The representatives from the Alpha Omicron Pi Sorority are Ann
Beardsley, Lori Gannon, and Michele Simmons.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 10:13 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/29/2008 11:11 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 11:52 AM APRV
Form Started By: Gerry
Gannon
Started On: 05/28/2008 03:45
PM
Final Approval Date: 05/29/2008
Packet Page 100 of 201
AM-1575 4.
Swearing In of Assistant Chief of Police Jim Lawless
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:06/03/2008
Submitted By:Al Compaan Time:25 Minutes
Department:Police Department Type:
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Swearing In of Assistant Chief of Police Jim Lawless. Note: A 15-minute reception will
follow the swearing-in ceremony.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Assistant Chief Jim Lawless was promoted on May 16, 2008 from the rank of Sergeant to
Assistant Chief of Police after placing first on the Civil Service eligibility list. He will be officially
sworn in on June 3rd, 2008 at the City Council meeting.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/28/2008 10:18 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/28/2008 10:26 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 05/28/2008 12:20 PM APRV
Form Started By: Al
Compaan
Started On: 05/19/2008 10:54
AM
Final Approval Date: 05/28/2008
Packet Page 101 of 201
AM-1598 5.
Presentation of Resolution commending Hilary Scheibert
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:06/03/2008
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Pro Tem Deanna Dawson Time:5 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of Resolution commending Hilary Scheibert for her service as Student
Representative on the Edmonds City Council.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Presentation of the Resolution to Hilary Scheibert for her outstanding service as the Student
Representative on the Edmonds City Council from September 4, 2007 to June 10, 2008.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Scheibert Resolution
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 11:51 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/29/2008 12:12 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 12:18 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 05/29/2008 10:43
AM
Final Approval Date: 05/29/2008
Packet Page 102 of 201
Resolution
No:
A Resolution of the Edmonds City Council Commending
Hilary Scheibert
for Her Service as a Student Representative on the Edmonds City Council
Whereas, Hilary Scheibert, a student at Edmonds-Woodway High School, was selected to serve as a Student
Representative of the Edmonds City Council; and
Whereas, Hilary Scheibert, served as a student member of the City Council from September 4, 2007 through June
10, 2008; and
Whereas, during her tenure as Student Representative, Hilary Scheibert demonstrated exceptional interest in the
work of the body while at the same time participating in a host of activities as a student of Edmonds-
Woodway High School including ASB, Play Production, Teen Council, Steering Committee (student
representative) and Environmental Club. She was also involved in the Junior Statesmen Symposium on
Leadership and Politics, Invisible Children, Resolve Uganda, International Rescue Committee, as a breakfast
cook for ROOTS Young Adult Shelter, and a section leader for the Seattle Children’s Chorus. This
remarkable young lady was the first to volunteer to serve on the Council through two terms and is to be
commended for regular attendance, being well-versed on the agenda, and lending a youthful perspective
during the comment period.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that Hilary Scheibert be congratulated for her exemplary participation in city
government in Edmonds during her term as Student Representative while participating in an
extensive variety of school and other activities, and
Be It Further Resolved that the City Council and the Mayor hereby extend their best wishes to Hilary in her future
endeavors and express the hope that she will continue to contribute her vast talents to the
democratic process of government in the City of Edmonds and elsewhere.
Now, Therefore, Be It Passed, Approved, and Adopted the 3rd day of June, 2008.
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Deanna Dawson, Council President Pro Tem
Michael Plunkett, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Attest: City Clerk
Packet Page 103 of 201
AM-1588 6.
Presentation by Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat Project
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:06/03/2008
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Submitted For:Sandy Chase Time:10 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of certificate to the City Council and Mayor from the Edmonds Backyard
Wildlife Habitat Project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A.
Previous Council Action
N/A.
Narrative
The Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat Project wishes to present to the City Council and the
Mayor certificates of achievement.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/28/2008 12:20 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/28/2008 01:46 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 05/28/2008 04:18 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Hynd
Started On: 05/28/2008 10:19
AM
Final Approval Date: 05/28/2008
Packet Page 104 of 201
AM-1587 7.
Update on Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:06/03/2008
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:10 Minutes
Department:Engineering Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Update on the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A - Information Only
Previous Council Action
On February 19, 2008, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a professional services agreement
with Jones & Stokes for the update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds is currently in the process of updating the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), the City is required to perform
a major update to the Plan every six to ten years. Our last major update was prepared in 2002.
The Plan lists existing transportation conditions for all users (drivers, pedestrians, bikers and
transit users) as well as possible improvements to these conditions. The main objective of the
Comprehensive Plan is to identify improvements necessary to provide a system for all modes of
transportation that will function safely and efficiently through the year 2028.
Since finalizing the agreement with the consultant, City staff and Jones & Stokes have been
working together on the Update. This evening they will be presenting the different elements
covered under this new Plan, along with the project schedule (see attachment 1) and items to be
discussed at the up-coming Open House to be held Thursday, June 19 at 7 p.m. in the Brackett
Room of City Hall.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Project Schedule
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Public Works Noel Miller 05/28/2008 05:23 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 10:13 AM APRV
Packet Page 105 of 201
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/29/2008 11:11 AM APRV
4 Final Approval Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 11:52 AM APRV
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Started On: 05/28/2008 08:13
AM
Final Approval Date: 05/29/2008
Packet Page 106 of 201
Packet Page 107 of 201
AM-1589 8.
Sound Transit Update by Joni Earl, Chief Executive Officer
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:06/03/2008
Submitted By:Stephen Clifton
Submitted For:Stephen Clifton Time:30 Minutes
Department:Community Services Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Sound Transit Update by Joni Earl, Chief Executive Officer. Public comment will be
accepted.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Joni Earl, Sound Transit Chief Executive Officer will present an update on Sound Transit acitivies
with a focus on Sound Transit 2.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 04:12 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/29/2008 04:15 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 05/30/2008 09:11 AM APRV
Form Started By: Stephen
Clifton
Started On: 05/28/2008 10:23
AM
Final Approval Date: 05/30/2008
Packet Page 108 of 201
AM-1590 9.
Public Hearing on proposed amendments to ECDC Chapter 17.40 regarding
non-conforming regulations.
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:06/03/2008
Submitted By:Duane Bowman Time:45 Minutes
Department:Development Services Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing on proposed amendments to ECDC Chapter 17.40 regarding
non-conforming regulations.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
After taking public testimony, direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for approval that
includes any changes directed by the City Council.
Previous Council Action
On February 26, 2008, the City council held a work session on the code rewrite update. A
briefing regarding the nonconforming regulations occurred at the meeting. A copy of the minutes
from that meeting is attached as Exhibit 4.
Narrative
As part of the ongoing code rewrite process the Planning board has forwarded to the City Council
a recommendation on revisions to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter
17.40 regarding nonconforming regulations.
Some key issues included in the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1) are:
* Change the damage percentage from 50% to 75% - under current regulations, if a building is
damaged more than 50%, it must be brought into compliance.
* Exceptions to the 75% rule – if a building or structure is damaged or destroyed due to the
unlawful act of the owner or owner’s agent or the building is damaged or destroyed do to the
ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the owner’s agent.
* Historic Buildings/Structures – addition of clarifying language and reference to the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places
* New Section regarding residential buildings in commercial zones – existing non-conforming
buildings in commercial zones in use solely for residential purposes or structures attendant to such
residential use may be remodeled or reconstructed without regard to the limitations of ECDC
17.40.2020(B), (E) and (F) but only if several conditions listed in the ordinance are met.
Packet Page 109 of 201
Two issues have come to light since the Planning Board review. One deals with nonconforming
lots. There is a table found in ECDC 17.40.030 (D) which identifies the percentage of lot area
needed to be considered a legal lot. Unfortunately it does not include the new RS-10 zone that
was created to comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA). Staff proposes the following
addition (bold and underlined) to that table:
Lot Area Table
Zone % Needed for Lot Size Needed Legal Lot for Legal Lot
(1) RS-20 60% 12,000
(2) RS-12 70% 8,400
(3) RS-10 75% 7,500
(4) RS-8 80% 6,400
(5) RS-6 90% 5,400
The second issue deals with minor architectural improvements to a nonconforming
building. Current code allows eaves and chimneys to project into a required setback up to 30
inches. Sometimes the additional of architectural features can improve the appearance of a
nonconforming building. As an example, the city issued a building permit to allow
a nonconforming multiple family apartment building to change the exterior siding. The permit
applicant decided to add bay windows on one side of the building to improve the look of the
building and help break up the flat wall appearance. Unfortunately, the windows were not
included in the permit approval and project into the nonconforming setback. The windows do
however add visual improvement to the building.
If the City council is so inclined to allow such architectural improvements, the following wording
could be added to ECDC 17.40.020:
D. Maintenance and Alterations.
1. Ordinary maintenance and repair of a nonconforming building or structure shall be permitted.
2. Alterations which otherwise conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site
development and bulk standards, and which do not expand any nonconforming aspect of the
building, shall be permitted. Minor architectural improvements which, in an effort to allow
for more creative design and a better overall appearance such as bay windows, eaves, and
chimneys may encroach into a nonconforming setback not more than 30 inches.
Packet Page 110 of 201
3. Alterations required by law or the order of a public agency in order to meet health and safety
regulations shall be permitted.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance
Link: Exhibit 2 - City Attorney memo
Link: Exhibit 3 - Planning board minutes Extract
Link: Exhibit 4 - CC Minutes 2-26-08
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 10:13 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/29/2008 11:11 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 11:52 AM APRV
Form Started By: Duane
Bowman
Started On: 05/28/2008 10:29
AM
Final Approval Date: 05/29/2008
Packet Page 111 of 201
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 -
5/30/2008
0006.900000
WSS/gjz
8/9/06
R:9/12/06gjz
R:6/5/07gjz
R;6/22/07gjz
R:7/30/07gjz
R:11/1/07rwc
D R A F T
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE BY THE REPEAL AND
REENACTMENT OF CHAPTER 17.40 NONCONFORMING
USES, BUILDINGS, SIGNS AND LOTS, AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, existing Chapter 17.40 Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, Signs and
Lots was enacted in 1980 with the goal of achieving strict compliance with the City’s zoning
code; and
WHEREAS, significant changes have occurred including but not limited to the
enactment of Historic Preservation provisions, changes in the state regulatory structure and the
City’s Comprehensive Plan designed to encourage mixed use development, preserve affordable
housing and permit reuse and reconstruction of buildings within the City; and
WHEREAS, in order to encourage annexations to the City, the City wishes to
provide for greater flexibility in the preservation of existing legally non-conforming uses,
buildings and structures; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the business environment and economic
development can be stimulated by allowing greater flexibility regarding the reuse of
nonconforming signs, NOW, THEREFORE,
Packet Page 112 of 201
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 -
5/30/2008
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Chapter 17.40
NONCONFORMING USES, BUILDINGS,
SIGNS AND LOTS
Sections:
17.40.000 Purpose.
17.40.010 Nonconforming uses.
17.40.020 Nonconforming buildings.
17.40.030 Nonconforming accessory dwelling units.
17.40.040 Nonconforming lots.
17.40.050 Nonconforming signs.
17.40.060 Nonconforming community facilities
17.40.000 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to allow certain nonconforming uses,
buildings, signs and lots to continue while limiting the
continuation of certain aspects of nonconformity. Other
nonconforming uses, buildings, signs and lots, which are declared
to be nuisances, are required to be eliminated.
17.40.010 Nonconforming uses.
A. Definition. A nonconforming use is one which was once
allowed by applicable land use regulations, but is no longer
allowed, due to the passage or later change of this or a prior
ordinance.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming use may continue, unless
required to be abated by subsection C of this section, but it may not
be expanded in any way, including additional lot area, floor area,
height, number of employees, equipment, or hours of operation
except as otherwise provided in ECDC 17.40.060.
C. Lapse of Time.
1. If a nonconforming use ceases for a period of six
continuous months, any later use of the property occupied by the
former nonconforming use shall conform to this zoning ordinance.
Packet Page 113 of 201
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 -
5/30/2008
Uses such as agricultural uses, which vary seasonally, shall be
deemed abandoned if the seasonal use is not utilized during one
full season consistent with the traditional use.
2. If a nonconforming residential use ceases because
its building is damaged in excess of seventy-five (75) percent of its
replacement cost, the use may be reestablished if, but only if, an
application for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC
19,00.015, et seq, is filed within 18 months of the date such
damage occurred. After the application has been filed, only one
180-day extention may be granted.
3. The right of reestablishment of use described in
ECDC 17.040.10.C.2, above, shall not apply if:
(a) The building or structure was damaged or destroyed
due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner’s agent;
or
(b) The building is damaged or destroyed due to the
ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the
owner’s agent.
In the event that 17.40.010.C.3(a) or (b) apply, the nonconforming
use shall be abated if damage exceeds twenty-five (25) percent of
replacement cost. “Replacement cost” shall be determined as
provided in ECDC 17.40.020(F).
D. Conditional Uses. A legal use does not become
nonconforming because the zone in which it is located is changed
to a zone district which requires a conditional use permit for the
use. However, the use may not be expanded, as provided for in
subsection B of this section, without obtaining a conditional use
permit.
17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure.
A. Definition. A nonconforming building or a nonconforming
structure is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site
development standards applicable at the date of its permitted
construction, but which no longer conforms to such standards due
to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the city
of Edmonds or the application of such ordinance in the case of a
building or structure annexed to the city.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming building or structure may
be maintained and continued, unless required to be abated
elsewhere in this chapter or section, but it may not be changed or
Formatted: Indent: First line: 36 pt
Deleted: twenty
Deleted: 25
Deleted: only if construction of a new
or repaired building is begun by the filing
of a fully completed building permit
application with all fees paid within one
year of the date the damage occurred by
the filing of a building permit which vests
in accordance with ECDC 19.00.015, et
seq, within the one-year period. This
provision shall not apply if the damage
was caused by the unlawful act, gross
negligence or ongoing neglect of the
owner or the owner's agent.
Deleted: that event
Deleted: ¶
Packet Page 114 of 201
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 4 -
5/30/2008
altered in any manner which increases the degree of nonconformity
of the building except as expressly provided in subsection C
through F.
C. Historic Buildings and Structures. Nothing in this section
shall prevent the full restoration by reconstruction of a building or
structure which is either listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, the Washington State Register of Historic Places, the
Washington State Cultural Resource Inventory, the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places, or is listed in a city-approved historical
survey meeting the standards of the State Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation. “Restoration” means
reconstruction of the historic building or structure with as nearly
the same visual design appearance and materials as is consistent
with full compliance with the State Building Code and consistent
with the requirements of Chapter 20.45 ECDC Edmonds Register
of Historic Places. The reconstruction of all such historic
buildings and structures shall comply with the life safety
provisions of the State Building Code.
D. Maintenance and Alterations.
1. Ordinary maintenance and repair of a
nonconforming building or structure shall be permitted.
2. Alterations which otherwise conform to the
provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site development and bulk
standards, and which do not expand any nonconforming aspect of
the building, shall be permitted.
3. Alterations required by law or the order of a public
agency in order to meet health and safety regulations shall be
permitted.
E. Relocation. Should a nonconforming building or structure
be moved horizontally for any reason for any distance, it shall
thereafter come into conformance with the setback and lot
coverage requirements for the zone in which it is located.
Provided, however, that a building or structure may be moved on
the same site without full compliance if the movement reduces the
degree of nonconformity of the building or structure. Movement
alone of a nonconforming building or structure to lessen an aspect
of its nonconformity shall not require the owner thereof to bring
the building or structure into compliance with other bulk or site
development standard of the city applicable to the building or
structure.
Deleted: or
Deleted: By way of illustration and not
limitation, t
Packet Page 115 of 201
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 5 -
5/30/2008
F. Restoration. If a nonconforming building or structure is
destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to seventy-five (75)
percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction,
said building shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance
with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development
Code. Determination of replacement costs and the level of
destruction shall be made by the building official and shall be
appealable as a staff decision under the provisions of ECDC
20.105.030. Damage of less than 75 percent of replacement costs
may be repaired, and the building returned to its former size, shape
and lot location as existed before the damage occurred, if, but only
if, such repair is initiated by the filing of an application for a
building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19,00.015, et
seq, within one year of the date such damage occurred. This right
of restoration shall not apply if:
1. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed
due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner’s agent; or
2. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the
ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the owner’s
agents.
G. Residential buildings in commercial zones. Existing
nonconforming buildings in commercial zones in use solely for
residential purposes – or structures attendant to such residential use
– may be remodeled or reconstructed without regard to the
limitations of ECDC 17.40.020(B), (E) and (F), if, but only if the
following conditions are met:
1. The remodel or reconstruction takes place within
the footprint of the original building or structure. “Footprint” shall
mean an area equal to the smallest rectangular area in a plane
parallel to the ground in which the existing building could be
placed, exclusive of uncovered decks, steps, porches, and similar
features and provided that the new footprint of the building or
structure shall not be expanded by more than ten (10) percent and
is found by the City Staff to be substantially similar to the original
style and construction after complying with current codes.
2. All provisions of the state building and electrical
code can be complied with entirely on the site. No nonconforming
residential building may be remodeled or reconstructed if, by so
doing, the full use under state law or city ordinance of a
conforming neighboring lot or building would be limited by such
remodel or reconstruction.
Packet Page 116 of 201
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 6 -
5/30/2008
3. These provisions shall apply only to the primary
residential use on site and shall not apply to nonconforming
accessory buildings or structures.
4. A nonconforming residential single-family building
may be rebuilt within the defined building envelope if it is rebuilt
with materials and design which are substantially similar to the
original style and structure after complying with current codes.
“Substantial compliance” shall be determined by the City Staff as a
Staff Decision – Notice Required under the provisions of ECDC
20.95.050, except that any appeal of the Staff Decision shall be to
the ADB rather than to the Hearing Examiner. The decision of the
ADB shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC
20.105.070.
17.40.025 Vested nonconforming or illegal accessory
dwelling units.
A. Illegal or nonconforming accessory dwelling units which
registered with the City during the registration period which ended
October 16, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. are hereby declared to be legal
nonconforming detached and attached accessory dwelling units
(ADU). Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is defined in Chapter
20.21 ECDC.
B. Once registered, a formerly illegal or nonconforming ADU
shall enjoy all the protections and privileges afforded to a
nonconforming building under the provisions of ECDC 17.40.020;
provided, however, that such ADU shall be subject to the permit
review requirement of ECDC 20.100.040 to the end that the city
council reserves the right to impose additional conditions on the
continued use and occupancy of the formerly illegal ADU if it is
found to constitute a nuisance or present a hazardous condition, or
to revoke such registration and permit if a nuisance or hazardous
condition relating to the ADU is not abated.
C. Legal nonconforming units which received a permit
certificate confirming such status and listing the physical
dimensions and other characteristics of the structure may be
continued in accordance with such permit certificate; provided,
however, that the registration and permit of a formerly illegal ADU
may be revoked and/or conditioned in accordance with the
provisions of ECDC 20.100.040.
D. Failure to register a structure within the time period
established by the provisions of this section shall be considered to
be presumptive proof that such a unit is an illegal unit and subject
Deleted: 1.The remodel or
reconstruction takes place within the
footprint of the original building or
structure. “Footprint” shall mean an area
equal to the smallest rectangular area in a
plane parallel to the ground in which the
existing building could be placed,
exclusive of uncovered decks, steps,
porches, and similar features and
provided that the new footprint of the
building or structure shall not be
expanded by more than ten (10) percent
and is found by the ADB to be
substantially similar to the original style
and construction after complying with
current codes. Nothing herein shall
prohibit reconstruction in conformance
with current setback requirements. ¶
2.All provisions of Chapter 19.05
ECDC can be complied with entirely on
the site. No nonconforming residential
building may be remodeled or
reconstructed if, by so doing, the full use
under state law or city ordinance of a
conforming neighboring lot or building
would be limited by such remodel or
reconstruction. ¶
3.These provisions shall apply only to
the primary residential use on site and
shall not apply to nonconforming
accessory buildings or structures. ¶
4.Nonconforming residential single-
family buildings may be rebuilt within
the defined building envelope if: ¶
(a) it is rebuilt with materials and
design which are substantially similar to
the original style and structure after
complying with current codes.
Compliance with the “substantially
similar” requirement shall be determined
by the Architectural Design Board and
appealable to the hearing examiner in a
closed record appeal, and ¶
(b) The provisions of subsection 4 and
its subparagraphs shall be appealable in
the following zones:
___________________
_________________________________
____________________. ¶
G.The determination of the ADB shall
be based upon an open record hearing
held under the notice procedures of
ECDC 20.91.010(B). A closed record
appeal may be taken to the Hearing
Examiner under the procedures
applicable to a staff decision. ECDC
20.105.020. The decision of the Hearing
Examiner shall be final and appealable
only as provided in ECDC 20.105.070.
[Alternative: ADB with appeal to City
Council.] ¶
Packet Page 117 of 201
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 7 -
5/30/2008
to abatement. The owner of such structure may overcome such a
presumption only by presentation of substantial and competent
evidence which establishes the legal nonconforming nature of such
building by clear and convincing evidence that the structure was
permitted by Snohomish County or the city of Edmonds, was
permitted by such agency and was in complete compliance with
the applicable provisions of state law and county or city ordinance,
at the date such construction was initiated and was completed.
17.40.030 Nonconforming lots.
A. Definition. A nonconforming lot is one which met
applicable zoning ordinance standards as to size, width, depth and
other dimensional regulations at the date on which it was created
but which, due to the passage of a zoning ordinance, the
amendment thereof or the annexation of property to the city, no
longer conforms to the current provisions of the zoning ordinance.
A lot which was not legally created in accordance with the laws of
the local governmental entity in which it was located at the date of
the creation is an illegal lot and will not be recognized for
development.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming lot may be developed for
any use allowed by the zoning district in which it is located, even
though such lot does not meet the size, width, depth and other
dimensional requirements of the district, so as long as all other
applicable site use and development standards are met or a
variance from such site use or development standards has been
obtained. In order to be developed a nonconforming lot must meet
minimum lot size standards established by the provisions of this
code, subject to the provisions of subsection D of this section.
C. Combination. If, since the date on which it became
nonconforming due to its failure to meet minimum lot size or
width criteria, an undeveloped nonconforming lot has been in the
same ownership as a contiguous lot or lots, the nonconforming lot
is and shall be deemed to have been combined with such
contiguous lot or lots to the extent necessary to create a
conforming lot and thereafter may only be used in accordance with
the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code,
except as specifically provided in subsection D of this section.
D. Exception for Single-Family Dwelling Units. An applicant
may build one single-family residence consisting of no more than
one dwelling unit on a lot or parcel regardless of the size of the lot
or parcel if, but only if, one of the following exceptions applies:
Packet Page 118 of 201
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 8 -
5/30/2008
1. In an RS zone, such nonconforming lot may be sold
or otherwise developed as any other nonconforming lot pursuant to
the following conditions and standards:
a. The lot area of the nonconforming lot is not
less than the minimum lot area specified in the table below for the
zoning district in which the subject property is located, and
b. Community facilities, public utilities and
roads required to serve the nonconforming lot are available
concurrently with the proposed development, and
c. Existing housing stock will not be destroyed
in order to create a new buildable lot.
Lot Area Table
Zone
% Needed for
Legal Lot
Lot Size Needed
for legal Lot
(1) RS-20 60% 12,000
(2) RS-12 70% 8,400
(3) RS-8 80% 6,400
(4) RS-6 90% 5,400
2. An applicant applies for necessary permits to
construct the unit within five years to the date the lot or parcel is
annexed into the city and the lot or parcel was lawfully created
under provisions of Snohomish County subdivision and zoning
laws as well as the laws of the state of Washington; or
3. An applicant may remodel or rebuild one residence
on a nonconforming lot without regard to the seventy-five (75)
percent destruction requirement of ECDC 17.40.020(F) if a fully
completed building permit application is submitted within one year
of the destruction of the residence and all other development
requirements of this code are complied with; or
4. The lot lines defining the lot or parcel were
recorded in the Snohomish County recorder’s office prior to
December 31, 1972, and the lot or parcel has not at any time been
simultaneously owned by the owner of a contiguous lot or parcel
which fronts on the same access right-of-way subsequent to
December 31, 1972, and the lot or parcel has access to an access
right-of-way which meets the minimum requirements established
by this code; or
Packet Page 119 of 201
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 9 -
5/30/2008
5. The owner of a lot which was lawfully created
under the Snohomish County subdivision and zoning laws and
which was annexed to the city of Edmonds on or after December
16, 1958, may file a fully completed building permit application
for a development lot in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter and develop the lot if a fully completed building
application to develop said lot was filed with the city on or before
the date established by Ordinance No. 3024. This paragraph (D)(5)
shall sunset and be removed from the code two years after the
effective date of the passage of Ordinance No. 3024 and is
intended to provide a window of opportunity for those persons who
comply with the provisions of subsection D of this section but who
are barred due to the passage of time an equal opportunity to
develop a lot in accordance with the provisions of the code.
17.40.040 Nonconforming signs.
Nonconforming signs are injurious to the health, safety and welfare
and destructive of the aesthetic and environmental living
conditions which this zoning ordinance is intended to preserve and
enhance. Nonconforming signs shall be brought into compliance
with the provisions of Chapter 20.60 ECDC under the following
terms and conditions:
A. No nonconforming sign shall be expanded, extended,
rebuilt, reconstructed or altered in any way, except as provided
below. The following acts are specifically permitted and shall not
in and of themselves require conformance with the provisions of
Chapter 20.60 ECDC:
1. Normal maintenance of the sign;
2. A change in the name of the business designated on
the sign; or
3. Any action necessary to preserve the public safety
in the event of damage to the sign brought about by an accident or
an act of God.
B. Any nonconforming sign shall be brought into immediate
compliance with the code in the event that it is expanded in
violation of subsection A above.
C. None of the foregoing provisions relating to permitted
maintenance, name change or preservation of the sign under
paragraph A of this section shall be construed so as to permit the
continuation or preservation of any nonconforming off-premises
sign.
Packet Page 120 of 201
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 10 -
5/30/2008
17.40.050 Nonconforming local public facilities.
A. Local Public Facilities. Existing legal nonconforming local
public facility uses, buildings, and/or signs, owned and/or operated
by local, state, or federal governmental entities, public service
corporations, or common carriers (including agencies, districts,
governmental corporations, public utilities, or similar entities) may
be expanded, enlarged, altered, or modified, subject to review
under the Essential Public Facilities provisions of this code.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 121 of 201
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
- 11 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2008, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY THE REPEAL AND REENACTMENT OF
CHAPTER 17.40 NONCONFORMING USES, BUILDINGS, SIGNS AND LOTS, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2008.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 122 of 201
A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • 206.447.7000 • Fax: 206.447.0215 • Web: www.omwlaw.com
{WSS633679.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 8, 2006
TO: Edmonds City Council Members
City of Edmonds
CC: Rob Chave, Planning Manager
City of Edmonds
FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney
RE: Nonconforming Uses
As the City Council discusses amendments to the City’s nonconforming use provisions, it might
be helpful to review the basic legal concepts behind nonconforming uses and their status under
the Washington law. As we have discussed, the City’s nonconforming use section is one which
badly needs revision. There have been a wide variety of changes over the years. There are gaps
between the existing categories (nonconforming lots, nonconforming buildings and
nonconforming uses). In some cases, the City has lightened the burden for property owners
regarding nonconforming uses by creating exceptions. The best example is the decision to
permit flexibility regarding construction on nonconforming lots (lots which are below the
minimum lot size in a particular zone.)
At other times, the past City Councils have been extremely restrictive. An example, the City has
abated or phased out nonconforming commercial uses in residential areas acquired through
certain annexations.
NONCONFORMING USES
A nonconforming use is defined by the Washington Supreme Court in this way:
A nonconforming use is a use which lawfully existed prior to the
enactment of a zoning ordinance, and which is maintained after the
effective date of the ordinance, although it does not comply with
the zoning restrictions applicable to the district in which it is
situated.
Packet Page 123 of 201
Edmonds City Council Members
June 8, 2006
Page 2
{WSS633679.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
Rhod-A-Zalea and 35th, Inc. 136 Wn.2d at 6 (citing One Robert M. Anderson, American Law of
Zoning, § 601 (Kenneth H. Young edition, 4th Ed. 1996); University Place v. McGuire, 144
Wn.2d 640, 648, 30 P.3d 453 (2001).
Nonconforming uses are “not favored in law…” Andrew v. King County, 21 Wash. App. 566,
579, 586 P.2d 509 (1978). As the Washington Supreme Court discussed in the Open Door
Baptist Church v. Clark County case:
Nonconforming uses are disfavored under the law. The policy of
zoning legislation is to phase out a nonconforming use. Where a
nonconforming use is in existence at the time that a zoning
ordinance is enacted, and thus allowed to continue, it “cannot be
changed into some other kind of a nonconforming use.”
140 Wn.2d 143, 9995 P.2d 33 (2000) (Citations omitted.)
The policy reasons behind phasing out nonconforming uses were noted with approval in
Anderson v. Island County:
It has been pointed out in several cases that the ultimate purpose of
a zoning ordinance is to confine certain classes of buildings and
uses to certain localities; but since the continued existence of those
which are nonconforming is inconsistent with that object, it is
contemplated the conditions should be reduced to conformity as
completely and speedily as possible with due regard to the special
interests of those concerned, and that where suppression is not
feasible without working a substantial injustice, there shall be
accomplished the greatest possible amelioration of the offending
use which justice permits; and that the generally accepted method
of accomplishing this result is to prevent any increase in the
nonconformity and, when changes in the premises are
contemplated by the owner, to compel, as far as is expedient, a
lessening or complete suppression of the nonconformity.
81 Wn.2d 323.
To summarize the current state of Washington law:
1. Nonconforming uses are those which were legally established prior to regulation
by a zoning code.
2. Although nonconforming uses (buildings, lots, etc.) may be continued, the use,
building or other regulated facet of property may not be expanded in any way. A person who
expands a nonconforming use can lose the right to continue it.
Packet Page 124 of 201
Edmonds City Council Members
June 8, 2006
Page 3
{WSS633679.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
3. Cities have the right to abate uses, that is, to require that they be phased out over a
period of time.
POLICY CHOICES
The original provisions of the City’s nonconforming use section as established in 1980 were
clearly aimed at phasing out nonconforming uses. Over time, the City ordinances have been
amended in a number of respects to provide flexibility for the reconstruction of nonconforming
properties damaged in fires or other similar disasters, to permit the use of undersized building
lots if they are within the range deemed appropriate by the City Council, and to permit
renovation of nonconforming buildings so long as the degree of nonconformity is not expanded.
The latter provision means that a property owner with a home that is too close to the west side
yard property, can renovate the home by expanding in other areas (such as the rear front or east
setback) so long as the nonconforming aspect is not expanded.
That having been said, rewriting the current nonconforming use provisions does not mean that
the City Council is limited in its policy approach. The City Council could:
1. maintain strict nonconforming use provisions;
2. provide for more flexible nonconforming use provisions that would permit some
expansion or reuse of nonconforming properties (see, for example, your current nonconforming
lot provisions); or
3. adopt different nonconforming use standards for different neighborhoods, or
categories of uses.
As we have discussed, the City has certain buildings or housing stock which do not qualify for
historic status. The City Council would find that these buildings, whether commercial or
residential, are worthy of preservation for cultural or other reasons, such as a desire to preserve
affordable housing stock. Therefore, the City Council is not obligated to adopt a one-size-fits-all
category.
Remember however, that if you choose to permit continuation of expansion of nonconforming
uses, those regulations will need to be equally applicable to “good” and “bad” buildings. That is,
subjective determinations that one property with a use category could be expanded or continued
and another in the same category abated would be difficult to justify legally.
One commentator has observed that the basic rationale behind prohibiting the expansion of
nonconforming uses is to preserve the overall integrity of the zoning code. The commentator
analyzed the problem in terms of “spot zoning.” A “spot zone” refers to an illegal zoning
decision by a City Council which inserts one particular use or property in a zone or area where
other properties do not enjoy the same privileges. The commentator analogized allowing
expansion of nonconforming uses to allow individuals to spot zone their properties. He noted
Packet Page 125 of 201
Edmonds City Council Members
June 8, 2006
Page 4
{WSS633679.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
that nonconforming uses can be the basis for variance applications by others under the rationale
that they should enjoy the same privileges as their neighbors. That a nonconforming use, rather
than being disfavored and abated, could become the basis for an expansion of the use throughout
a neighborhood undercuts the entire purpose of the zoning code: it would allow the exception to
gradually swallow the rule.
That having been said, the City Council has a number of policy options. We look forward to
your direction.
WSS:gjz
Packet Page 126 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
November 28, 2007 Page 5
Mr. Hertrich referred to the blue circles on the proposed new park map and noted that the map should be changed to make it
clear that the old Woodway Elementary School should no longer be considered as a possible site for a regional park because
the City Council decided only to retain a large enough area of land to develop a smaller neighborhood park. He considered it
ironic that the updated plan identifies a need for a regional park in the southwest portion of Edmonds because the City
already passed up their opportunity to acquire sufficient space for this purpose.
Mr. Hertrich reported that he attended a good number of the Waterfront Redevelopment Project meetings that were
sponsored by the Port of Edmonds and other private property owners. There has been a lot of public money spent in the
process, and the final preferred alternative was a six-story building with approximately 700 condominiums. However, the
public in attendance at the final meeting questioned why they would want 700 condominiums and the associated traffic on
the waterfront. The public indicated their desire for more open space. He suggested that when the Parks, Recreation and
Open Space Comprehensive Plan is revised, it should take into account the concept put forth by the citizens that this area be
used as an events park. He said there is sufficient literature available to show that once created, this type of park would draw
people to the City and benefit the community more than a 700-unit condominium development. He suggested the Board
review the public comments related to the Waterfront Redevelopment Plan.
Chair Guenther invited the Board to review the draft documents and provide comments to Mr. McIntosh by December 21st.
This would allow staff sufficient time to incorporate the Board’s comments prior to a public hearing in January.
Board Member Reed asked Mr. McIntosh to provide a status report on the Old Mill Town Park. Mr. McIntosh answered that
this park is still under negotiations. His part was to get an appraisal to the City Council, which he completed.
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17 (NUISANCE) (FILE NUMBER AMD-07-6
Mr. Bowman advised that the City Attorney is now recommending that nuisance standards related to the public’s health,
safety and welfare would be better placed in Section 6 of the Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC). Those nuisance standards
that relate to land use and development could remain in Section 17.60 of the Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC). The City Attorney has agreed to review the Planning Board discussions and draft new language for both the ECDC
and EMC. The new language for ECDC Section 17.60 would be presented to the Board for review on December 12th. The
proposed amendments to EMC Section 6 would be forwarded directly to the City Council for review and final approval. He
noted that no public hearing is required for changes to the EMC, and the Planning Board would not be involved in the
process. However, the City Council usually holds public hearings when considering major policy changes.
Vice Chair Dewhirst inquired if the two draft documents would be forwarded to the City Council together. Mr. Bowman
answered that they would be presented to the City Council at the same time, along with minutes of the Planning Board’s
discussion related to the topic.
Mr. Bowman advised that if the nuisance standards are adopted as part of EMC Section 6, the City Council would be able to
quickly address proposed amendments as problems present themselves. If they are adopted as part of the ECDC, the
amendments would be subject to GMA requirements and a public hearing process would be necessary.
Board Member Reed noted that the Board did not take action after the public hearing on October 10th regarding the proposed
changes to ECDC 17.60. He suggested they be prepared to do so on December 12th, when the new draft language is
presented to them for review.
CODE RE-WRITE PROJECT UPDATE AND TOPICAL INFORMATION
Mr. Bowman reported that the City Attorney would provide an updated draft of Title 20 (Procedures) for the Board to
consider on December 12th.
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to ECDC Section 17.40 (nonconforming) and advised that staff worked with the City
Attorney to incorporate the changes recommended by the Board at their last meeting. He invited the Board Members to
review the document and identify any additional changes before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council.
Packet Page 127 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
November 28, 2007 Page 6
Board Member Henderson referred to Sections 17.40.010.C.2 and 17.40.030.D.3 and noted that there are conflicting time
constraints. Mr. Bowman noted that one section applies to nonconforming uses and the other applies to nonconforming
structures. However, he agreed that the two should be consistent and identify an 18-month time period.
Board Member Freeman referred to Sections 17.40.010.C.3.a and 17.40.010.C.3.b and noted that the terms “agent” and
“agents” are both used. Mr. Bowman agreed to make this consistent throughout the document.
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred to Section 17.40.020.C and suggested the first seven words in the last sentence be deleted. The
remainder of the Board concurred.
VICE CHAIR DEWHIRST MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO ECDC SECTION 17.40 (NONCONFORMING) AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER YOUNG
SECONDED THE MOTION.
Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that the Board has spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the document and making
major changes. It is the Board’s consensus that they have crafted language they are all comfortable with.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Guenther reviewed that the December 12th agenda would include an update on the code re-write project and a review
of the proposed amendments to ECDC Sections 17.60 (nuisance) and 20 (procedures). Staff would also provide an update
on the Design Standards for the Downtown Retail Core. The Board would elect their 2008 officers on December 12th, too.
Chair Guenther advised that a public hearing regarding the updated Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan
and Cultural Plan would be scheduled for January 23rd.
Chair Guenther said he has communicated via email with a representative from Stevens Hospital, who indicated her
willingness to present their new master plan to the Planning Board. He suggested this presentation be scheduled for early
2008. The Board agreed to schedule the presentation on the January 9th meeting agenda.
Board Member Freeman suggested that the hospital master plan should go beyond the actual campus boundaries to consider
opportunities for affordable housing so that employees can afford to live within walking distance of the hospital. Mr.
Bowman pointed out that the hospital owns property along Highway 99, which could be developed into a mixed use facility
that could include high rise residential units. In addition, the hospital has expressed the need to improve 216th Street as more
of a boulevard to provide a better entrance to the hospital. Board Member Henderson said the Board should also keep in
mind that the hospital is acquiring various medical clinics in the vicinity so the campus boundaries have changed
significantly over the years.
Mr. Bowman pointed out that bus rapid transit service is expected to be available along Highway 99 in 2009. Board Member
Young suggested it would be helpful for the hospital to provide a transportation plan to indicate how they plan to take
advantage of this new service. He would also like them to provide information about whether or not they plan to take
advantage of opportunities for affordable housing.
Mr. Bowman reminded the Board that the hospital’s master plan must eventually be reviewed by the Planning Board and
approved by the City Council for adoption into the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Packet Page 128 of 201
APPROVED
October 10th
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 26, 2007
Chair Guenther called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Cary Guenther, Chair
Janice Freeman
Jim Young
Don Henderson
Judith Works
Michael Bowman
John Reed
STAFF PRESENT
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
John Dewhirst, Vice Chair
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER YOUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER HENDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Harold Huston, Edmonds, thanked the Board for all the work they do on behalf of the community. He has been a volunteer
for the City for the past 17 years and he has worked in construction his whole life, so he knows the difficult load the Board
carries for the citizens of Edmonds. He provided two maps for the Board to review; both artist renderings of what Edmonds
looked like in 1991. He asked the Board to review the maps and then get them back to him.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC)
CHAPTER 17.40 (NON-CONFORMING) (FILE NUMBER AMD-07-12)
Mr. Bowman reminded the Board that the public hearing on File Number AMD-07-12 was opened on September 12, 2007.
Because of time constraints, the Board continued the hearing to September 26, 2007. He noted that, at the September 12th
meeting, Board Member Works pointed that a subsection was left out of the draft language for Section 17.40.020.G, and the
proposed ordinance has been updated to include this language. The Board also received a copy of the suggested changes
submitted by the Historic Preservation Commission. He reminded the Board of their request to hear from the Historic
Packet Page 129 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2007 Page 2
Preservation Commission regarding the proposed ordinance before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. He
introduced Steve Waite, Historic Preservation Commissioner, who was present to review the comments that were submitted.
Board Member Henderson pointed out that Item G at the bottom of Page 6 should be changed to Item H. Board Member
Works noted that something was missing at the end of the first paragraph on Page 5. Mr. Bowman agreed to correct these
two mistakes.
Commissioner Waite reported that the Historic Preservation Commission formed a subcommittee to review the draft
ordinance. The subcommittee consisted of Commissioner VanTassell, Council Member Plunkett and himself. He briefly
described the purpose of the Historic Preservation Commission. They are neither pro nor anti development, and their goal is
to encourage preservation of the City of Edmonds’ cultural and historic assets. By ordinance, the Commission is charged
with listing historic places on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places and advising the City on matters related to historic
preservation. He reviewed the Commission’s recommendations as follows:
• Section 17.40.010.C.2: Commissioner Waite said the Historic Preservation Commission recommends the words “one
year of the date the damage occurred” be replaced with “18 months of the date of the damage, with further extensions of
180 days each granted, if requested in writing and justifiable cause is demonstrated.” He explained that the Commission
felt that if a catastrophic event were to happen in Edmonds, one year may not be sufficient time for property owners to
sort through all of the issues related to insurance, permitting, etc.
• Section 17.40.020.C: Commissioner Waite explained that this section would exempt historic structures that are listed on
the National, State and Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The Commission also recommended the exemption include
historic places identified on a professionally prepared historic inventory list or surveys done on behalf of the City. He
reported that the Commission worked with City Staff to obtain a historic inventory list from a private consultant (the
BOLA Report), which identifies all structures in the downtown that could contribute significantly to the historic character
of the City. While some buildings might not be on a Register, they are identified on the list as potential candidates the
Commission would like included.
• Section 17.40.020.E: Commissioner Waite said the Commission recommends that a graphic illustration be provided in
this section to explain the rules and requirements associated with the relocation of nonconforming structures.
• Section 17.40.020.F: Commissioner Waite noted that two alternatives were provided for this section, and the
Commission has expressed a preference for Alternative 2, which would take catastrophic disasters into account. This
would give assurance to property owners that historic structures that contribute to the historic value of the City could be
reconstructed.
Board Member Freeman noted that if Alternative 2 were used instead of Alternative 1, property owners would be allowed
to replace all non-conforming buildings, regardless of the amount of damage that occurs. Commissioner Waite said the
Commission believes all nonconforming structures that are damaged or completely destroyed by natural disasters, etc.
should be allowed to rebuild. He pointed out that the City’s current building codes would address fire and life safety issues
as part of any redevelopment project, even those that would be nonconforming. The Commission is interested in retaining
the historic structures and allowing their historic nature to carry forward without restrictions.
• Section 17.40.020.G.4.a: Commissioner Waite pointed out that the proposed language suggests that an age limitation be
identified for historic structures. Rather than 50 years, the Commission is recommending that buildings that are at least 40
years old be considered historic, as well. He pointed out that buildings that are less than 50 years old may qualify as
historic for a variety of reasons. He said it is important to recognize that these buildings would eventually represent the
City’s stock of historic structures and should not be penalized for being a few years short of 50 years.
• Land Consolidation: Commissioner Waite said the Commission also raised concern about the City’s current regulations
related to land consolidation. He recalled that the City Attorney has cautioned about allowing properties to consolidate to
accommodate large structures. While this issue does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Historic Preservation
Packet Page 130 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2007 Page 3
Commission, they believe the current land consolidation regulations are such that it is easy for historic structures to be
removed and replaced with larger homes.
Board Member Reed asked if the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance from the perspective
of just the BD1 zone. Commissioner Waite said they also considered the residential zones since most of the historic
structures are found in the residential areas that surround the downtown. There are also some significant historic structures
in the BD1 zone.
Board Member Reid pointed out that Section 17.40.020.F, Alternative 2, provides a blank space that indicates the provision
would only apply to certain zones in the City. He asked if the Commission discussed which zones the proposed ordinance
should apply to. Commissioner Waite answered that the Commission did not have a strong feeling either way.
Board Member Freeman asked if a map was provided as part of the BOLA Report to identify the location of all of the
properties included on the list. She noted that the historic properties identified on the list are scattered throughout a wide
area, and it would be helpful to know where they all are. Mr. Chave clarified that the BOLA Report identifies historic
properties in the downtown area between Casper Street, 9th Avenue, 2nd Avenue, Pine Street and the Waterfront. This area is
consistent with the area identified in the Comprehensive Plan as the Downtown Activity Center. Commissioner Waite added
that the Commission is anticipating additional funding to expand the survey.
Chair Guenther suggested that the City might have to codify the BOLA Report if it is going to be referenced in the draft
ordinance. Mr. Chave agreed that staff would need direction from the City Attorney about whether these types of surveys
must be formally adopted or approved in order to be recognized in the code. He emphasized that the BOLA Report was
presented to the City Council, but they did not take formal action to adopt it. If the Board wants to include and expand the
list of historic structures, they would have to give formal recognition to the report.
Board Member Works said she can’t picture homes that are 40 years old as being historic. Commissioner Waite said that
while houses that were built in the 1970’s may not be considered appealing to some, they do represent a particular movement
and design style so they do have some historic significance. He suggested that 40-year-old buildings are close enough that
the Commission does not want to eliminate them as potential historic structures in the future.
Board Member Freeman agreed that many structures built in the 1970’s represent a true northwest style of architecture, and
there are some beautiful structures that should be preserved. She commented that every era has something that is worth
preserving, but sooner or later all buildings would become historic and typical of the period in which they were built. She
suggested the purpose of historic preservation is to preserve good examples of the architecture from each era, whether people
like the style or not. She reminded the Commission that historic preservation is a voluntary program in the City of Edmonds,
and people can choose whether or not to list their historic properties on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. However,
property owners were not given an opportunity to exclude their historic property from the BOLA Report. She asked if
including the list in the proposed ordinance would result in negative repercussions for the property owners on the list.
Commissioner Waite answered that no encumbrances would be placed on the property owners. The properties would merely
be identified as contributing to the historic value of the City. No restrictions would be applied by including the list as part of
the ordinance. However, the change would provide the property owners with an opportunity that would not normally be
available to them.
Board Member Young asked how the proposed exemption for properties that are more than 40 years old would impact the
City’s capacity to enforce the nonconformance ordinance. He said he is not against historic preservation and feels it is a
good idea, but he expressed concern that allowing an exemption for all properties that are more than 40 years old could make
the ordinance very difficult to enforce citywide. He agreed with Board Members Works and Freeman that while some of the
structures that are more than 40 years old represent the historic character of Edmonds, others do not and they should not be
exempted from the ordinance. He cautioned against making too many exemptions to address historic preservation if the
changes would weaken the enforceability of the vast majority of the building stock that does not fall under the category of
historic. The changes could end up creating loopholes just to address a small percentage of the properties in the City. He
cautioned that age does not necessarily represent historic significance.
Packet Page 131 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2007 Page 4
Chair Guenther said it is important to note the ordinance only applies to nonconforming structures, which includes a very
low percentage of properties in Edmonds. The Commission is proposing numerous changes to address a very small
percentage of the existing housing stock, and the changes could possibly open loopholes that make it difficult for the staff to
apply the nonconformance requirements citywide.
Board Member Works asked how many buildings that are more than 50 years old are nonconforming. Commissioner Waite
answered that many of the buildings that are 50 or more years old are also nonconforming. Mr. Bowman agreed there are a
substantial number of nonconforming properties in the southern portion of the City that were developed as part of the County
using different setback requirements. These were later annexed into the City. Board Member Young agreed it is important
to address these situations, but he would like some assurance from staff that the nonconformance regulations could still be
enforced. The City’s development standards were set for a reason, and he is concerned that the proposed changes would
allow property owners of structures more than 40 years old to find loopholes that allow them to preserve nonconforming
structures that do not really represent the historic character of Edmonds.
Mr. Chave clarified that Item G on Pages 8 and 9 of the draft ordinance only applies to nonconforming buildings in
commercial zones that are used for residential purposes. It would not apply to residential zones throughout the City. He
concluded that this section would really only apply to a very small class of structures. He shared an example of a property
owner who was not allowed to remodel his home in a commercial zone because the existing structure did not meet the City’s
current setback requirements. However, if the property owner decided to tear the structure down and replace it with a
commercial use, the structure would be allowed up to the sidewalk, with no setback requirements. Because the building was
used for residential purposes, the owner was required to abide by all of the current setback requirements. Mr. Chave
explained that the intent of this section is to allow property owners to remodel nonconforming residential structures that are
located in commercial zones because they represent part of the historic character of the downtown. This section would not
be a citywide residential exception. He summarized that this is a narrowly crafted exception that is intended to give property
owners incentive for retaining the houses that currently exist in the downtown commercial area.
Mr. Chave referred to language in the middle of Page 9 of the draft ordinance, which was crafted to address design issues
and prevent a property owner from tearing down an existing home and replacing it with a large structure that doesn’t comply
with the setback and other zoning requirements. Any replacement structure would have to comply with the style and size of
the existing structure.
Mr. Bowman expressed staff’s belief that extending the time period for replacing nonconforming structures that are damaged
would be appropriate. The Commission’s proposal to change the time period to 18 months (Section 17.40.010.2) would be
reasonable from an enforcement standpoint, particularly in the case of a natural disaster that requires insurance, permits, etc.
Board Member Reed noted that the Board had previously agreed to add language to this section that was not identified in the
Historic Preservation Commission’s draft. Mr. Bowman agreed and suggested that if the Board agrees with the Historic
Preservation Commission’s recommended change for this section, staff would be responsible for incorporating this change
into the draft language that was already agreed to by the Board. He noted that any change the Board makes would likely
require staff to update other sections for consistency.
Mr. Bowman referred to Section 17.40.020.G and suggested that when the formatting changes were made, it appears some
language was left out. He agreed to review the previous drafts and reinsert the missing language.
Chair Guenther referred to the Commission’s proposed change to Section 17.40.010.2 and asked if the number of 180 day
extensions would be limited to one. Mr. Bowman answered that while it would be reasonable for the City to allow for one
180-day extension beyond the 18-month time period, he did not feel additional extensions would be appropriate. Allowing
more than one extension could result in someone getting into a cycle of filing one extension after another. The Board
discussed how staff would determine whether or not an extension request was justifiable, and suggested that this term was
too arbitrary. Mr. Bowman agreed and noted that if only one extension were allowed, there would really be no need for staff
to make a judgment call on whether or not an extension request is justified. He summarized that staff would support a
change to grant property owners up to 18 months, plus an additional 6 months (180 days), to start the reconstruction project.
He felt this would allow ample time for property owners to resolve outstanding issues and start their projects.
Packet Page 132 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2007 Page 5
Commissioner Waite said the Historic Preservation Commission would support the allowance of additional extensions if a
property owner could demonstrate justifiable cause. He noted the current situation in the south that resulted from Hurricane
Katrina. While the event took place two years ago, many people are still trying to get their reconstruction projects going.
The city of New Orleans is having a difficult time replacing their historic structures. Mr. Bowman suggested that perhaps it
would not be necessary for the nonconformance section to address catastrophic situations that might occur in the City. He
said it is important to understand that through its recovery program, the City Council could adopt a completely different
direction for nonconforming structures if a catastrophic event such as an earthquake were to occur in Edmonds. Board
Member Freeman agreed and said she could support a 2-year time frame but would not be in support of allowing additional
extensions.
The Board agreed that this section could be changed to identify a time period of 18 months, with one 180-day extension
only. The majority concurred with Mr. Bowman that this time frame would cover the typical situations and leave
catastrophic events as another issue. They emphasized that it would be impossible for the nonconforming ordinance to
address every type of situation that could arise in the future.
Mr. Bowman referred to the Commission’s recommendation for Section 17.40.020.C, which would add language to
recognize buildings that are on professionally prepared historic inventory lists or surveys done on behalf of the City (i.e.
BOLA Report). He said it would be appropriate to obtain feedback from the City Attorney before incorporating this change
to see if the City must take formal action regarding the BOLA Report before it could be referenced in this section. If the City
Attorney indicates it would be appropriate, he said staff would not be opposed to incorporating the Commission’s proposed
language. The majority of the Board Members concurred. Mr. Chave pointed out that expanding the number of eligible
properties beyond those that are identified on local, state and federal registers to include those that are listed on officially
recognized surveys, could give more credence to a structure being preserved and restored.
Mr. Bowman agreed with the Historic Preservation Commission that a graphic illustration should be provided in Section
17.40.020.E to make the rules for moving nonconforming structures clearer. The Board agreed. Mr. Bowman agreed to
work on a graphic illustration for this section to show examples of what can and cannot be done.
BOARD MEMBER REED LEFT THE MEETING.
Board Member Henderson said the language should also be clearer about what it means to improve the nonconformance.
Mr. Bowman shared an example of an older home in the City that needed a new foundation. The current code states that
moving a structure would require a property owner to bring the structure into compliance with the existing code requirements
and address the nonconformance. The proposed language would allow a property owner to lift a building up to put a new
foundation under it. It would also allow a property owner to move the building in one direction or another, as long as the
move would improve the nonconforming situation. Board Member Henderson expressed concern that the proposed language
does not address situations where a property owner might propose to improve the nonconformance on one side, but make it
worse on the other. Mr. Bowman pointed out that the proposed language was meant to address situations where property
owners would be unable to correct the full nonconformance by the move. Mr. Bowman agreed that the language could be
changed to provide a better explanation of how the degree of nonconformity would be determined. The language should
make it clear that a property owner would not be allowed to make one side of the property more nonconforming in order to
make the other side more conforming. He said he would give the section more thought to address the Board’s concerns.
Board Member Young expressed his belief that the nonconformance ordinance should not carve out exceptions for situations
that could be made conforming. If it is possible for a property owner to correct a nonconforming situation, he/she should be
required to so.
The Board discussed the two alternatives for Section 17.40.020.F. Commissioner Waite said the Commission believes that
because Alternative 1 would only allow replacement of a nonconforming structure if it is damaged no more than 75%,
Alternative 2 would more adequately address catastrophic situations in which structures are completely damaged. While he
agreed the City Council could change the ordinance if a catastrophic event were to occur, he suggested it would be better to
address the issue now by adopting Alternate 2, including the changes proposed by the Commission.
Packet Page 133 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2007 Page 6
Board Member Young expressed his concern that Alternative 2 would allow an owner of nonconforming property to rebuild,
regardless of where the property is located and how much the property is damaged. Mr. Bowman explained that Alternative
2 provides a blank space that would allow the Board to recommend specific zones for which the section would apply. He
pointed out that Item F appears to have been designed to apply to commercial buildings in commercial zones, and Item G
would apply only to residential structures in commercial zones. Alternative 1 would limit the replacement of nonconforming
structures to those that are damaged 75% or less. Alternative 2 would allow any nonconforming structure to be replaced,
regardless of the amount of damage, but the Board could recommend limiting this provision to certain zones in the City.
Board Member Young said that if the City feels there are certain historically viable commercial structures that should be
maintained, they should identify these properties. However, he would be opposed to allowing all nonconforming property
owners in the City to rebuild a structure if it is damaged. He suggested that perhaps the language in this section tries to
address too many different situations.
Mr. Chave suggested it would be appropriate to separate the two paragraphs of Alternative 2. The first paragraph could
describe the intent of the restoration provision, and the second could provide a broader policy statement to address how the
concept would be applied. He said that while the proposed language appears to apply to all nonconforming structures in the
City, it is important to note that historic structures would be exempt from the requirements of the nonconformance ordinance.
Board Member Works questioned why the City would want to allow property owners to totally rebuild nonconforming
structures that are not deemed historic. Board Member Henderson expressed his belief that any property owner should be
allowed to restore a home that has been damaged, as long as the nonconformity is not increased. He suggested that
Alternative 1 would address these situations adequately.
Commissioner Waite pointed out that the Critical Areas Ordinance has resulted in increased setback requirements, and there
are a significant number of properties in the City that have been encumbered by the changes. If these properties are
destroyed, the property owners would not be allowed to reconstruct in their current location and size. Even with buffer
averaging and reductions, there is often not enough building space left on the lot. He said that in the event of a catastrophe,
it would be bad enough that a property owner would lose their home, but in many cases they would be extremely
encumbered as to what they would be allowed to rebuild, too. While this doesn’t have anything to do with historic
preservation, it does provide another example in support of Alternative 2.
Board Member Freeman recalled that the City must allow property owners reasonable use of their properties, but she agreed
that the City could get into a debate about what is considered reasonable. Mr. Chave said there is a provision in the Critical
Areas Ordinance that says that under certain situations, a property owner would be allowed to build in a critical area.
Therefore, he did not think the nonconformance standards would conflict with the Critical Areas Ordinance. He explained
that critical areas provisions are different and have different thresholds. He summarized that there are a variety of ways for
allowing property owners to build within the critical areas, so Commissioner Waite’s concern would be adequately addressed
by the Critical Areas Ordinance.
Board Member Bowman suggested that the issue is really related to City policy. When someone is faced with a catastrophe
and their house suffers significant damage, does the City want to grant them the ability to rebuild the house or force them to
redesign and bring the building into compliance? Board Member Young agreed that this is really a policy decision that must
ultimately be made by the City Council. However, he expressed his belief that if a nonconforming building is totally
destroyed, any replacement structure should be required to comply with current zoning and building code requirements. He
suggested it would be impossible to create language that would cover every possible situation, but it is important to
remember that the ordinance does not need to address critical areas, historic buildings, or natural disasters. Board Member
Henderson agreed with Board Member Young that if a nonconforming structure is damaged more than 75% the City should
require any new structure to meet all of the code requirements of the existing zone.
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to Section 17.40.020.G.4, which states that “substantial compliance” shall be determined by
the Architectural Design Board and appealable to the Hearing Examiner. He suggested that perhaps it would be more
appropriate to allow staff to make decisions regarding “substantial compliance” with an appeal to the ADB or Hearing
Examiner instead of requiring an upfront ADB review. However, he noted that, regardless of who is responsible for making
Packet Page 134 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2007 Page 7
these decisions, the term “substantial compliance” must be clearly defined and review criteria must be established. Board
Member Young pointed out that this section is intended to apply only to nonconforming residential single-family structures
in the commercial zones, not the residential zones. Therefore, he suggested it would be appropriate for staff to make the
initial decision, and any appeals could be directed towards the Historic Preservation Commission.
Board Member Young said he would prefer to remove any reference to building age from Section 17.40.020.G.4, since any
specific number would be arbitrary. He noted that some buildings could be considered historic even though they are not yet
40 years old. He suggested that this section should apply to all nonconforming residential structures in commercial zones,
and not just those that are older than 40 years.
Board Member Freeman recalled that the Historic Preservation Commission has often talked about the town being eclectic,
and they are trying to preserve examples of each era. She noted that structures that are built today could become good
examples of the current era. Therefore, it should be emphasized that not only should the City encourage the preservation of
old structures, they should be interested in preserving good architecture from all of the various time periods. Commissioner
Waite agreed. Mr. Bowman reminded the Board that this section only applies to residential structures or houses in
commercial zones. There is a range of different styles of house from older to newer, and much of the concern raised by the
City Council had to do with preserving some of the residential uses in the downtown commercial area. The City Council is
not likely looking for a specific age of buildings, but more of a mixture of uses and styles in the downtown.
The Board agreed that Alternative 1 would be their preference for Section 17.40.020.F. They further agreed that the
language proposed by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding nonconforming single-family houses in commercial
zones (Section 17.40.020.G) should be incorporated into Alternative 1. However, they concurred that no specific reference
to age of a structure should be provided.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Bowman suggested staff be allowed time to update the draft based on the suggestions made by the Planning Board and
Historic Preservation Commission. He said he would work with Mr. Chave and the City Attorney to discuss the best way to
incorporate each of the changes. An updated draft could be presented to the Board for final review at their November 14th
meeting.
BOARD MEMBER YOUNG MOVED THAT THE BOARD DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN UPDATED
DRAFT OF THE NONCONFORMANCE ORDINANCE THAT INCORPORATES ALL THE CHANGES AND
DISCUSSION THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE THUS FAR AND PRESENT IT TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL
REVIEW ON NOVEMBER 14, 2007. BOARD MEMBER WORKS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK AT 8:50 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 9:02 P.M.
CODE RE-WRITE PROJECT UPDATE AND TOPICAL DISCUSSION
Mr. Chave reported that Mr. Bowman is working with the City Attorney to prepare draft language for Title 20 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code. In addition, the Hearing Examiner provided a report to the City Council, along
with some recommended code changes that have already been integrated into the proposed code language. However, the
Hearing Examiner also recommended some changes to the City’s Planned Residential Development (PRD) Regulations, and
these changes could have an impact on Title 20, as well. Mr. Bowman would continue to work with the City Attorney to
address both the Title 20 changes, as well as the recommended changes to the PRD Ordinance. The draft ordinance should
be ready for Board’s review by the end of October or first of November.
Packet Page 135 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2007 Page 6
Board Member Henderson expressed his belief that the application adequately addresses all of the rezone criteria, and he
plans to support the proposed change. Board Member Works agreed the application meets all of the rezone criteria as
outlined by the applicant and in the Staff Report.
Board Member Reed said he would support the rezone application, but he has some concerns. He recalled that when the
Board forwarded their recommendation on the BC-EW zoning classification to the City Council, he voted against it because
it would create the potential of a 45-foot tall building on the Edmonds Way street front. He felt this height would be too
great. He noted that the subject property has 434 feet of street frontage along Edmonds Way, and it is difficult for him to tell
how the average grade would be calculated and what the impact of the potential height would be. However, he said he is
confident the Architectural Design Board could work this issue out.
Board Member Reed noted the property is adjacent to single-family residential properties. While the residential development
close to Highway 99 would likely be redeveloped in the near future, the developer must be sensitive to the single-family
development located on the top of the hill across from 228th Street.
Vice Chair Dewhirst said he plans to support the proposal. However, he suggested two additional conditions. First he
proposed that the applicant be required to provide a mix of uses, including both residential and commercial. He noted that
the current zoning designation would allow an all commercial development, and this would not be appropriate in this
location. Second, he suggested the applicant be required to provide a minimum 25-foot landscape buffer along 228th Street,
which would be equal to the setback requirements of an RS-8 zone. Mr. Chave explained that the Board does not have the
ability to impose additional conditions on a rezone application unless the applicant offers them as part of a contract rezone.
Board Member Freeman said she would support the proposed rezone because it meets all of the conditions and criteria as
outlined by the applicant and the Staff Report. In addition, she noted that the proposal would also provide a relative gain to
the public health, safety and welfare. She recalled that at the last City Council Meeting, Council Member Marin talked of his
concern about having enough housing for elderly people who can no longer drive. The subject property is located close and
within easy walking distance to many of the services that people who can’t drive need. Chair Guenther said he would
support the proposed rezone application, as well, for the same reasons previously stated and based on the analysis provided
in the Staff Report.
BOARD MEMBER HENDERSON MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD FILE R-2007-35 TO THE CITY
COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE REZONE
CRITERIA PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND BY THE APPLICANT. BOARD MEMBER FREEMAN
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.40
(NONCONFORMANCE STANDARDS)
City Attorney, Scott Snyder, said he originally intended to provide a presentation to the public regarding the proposed
changes to the nonconformance standards (Chapter 17 of the Edmonds Community Development Code). However, because
there was no one in the audience to participate in the hearing, he suggested they dispense with the lengthy presentation since
the Board heard the report previously. The Board agreed to skip the presentation and begin their review and discussion of
the proposed draft language.
Board Member Works referred to Item C (Lapse of Time) on Page 5 of the draft ordinance and suggested the proposed
language is confusing. Mr. Snyder explained that, as proposed, any property that is damage less than 75% could be
reestablished as a matter of right. He referred to Item B (Continuation) on Page 3 of the draft ordinance, which states the
general rule that nonconforming uses may continue unless required to be abated by Item C on Page 5. He suggested, and
the Board concurred, that the word “only” should be inserted between “reestablished” and “if.” This would help
make the section more clear. Board Member Works suggested it would also be helpful to have a clean copy of the proposed
new language, as well as a document that identifies all of the changes that are being proposed.
Packet Page 136 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2007 Page 7
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred to Item C.2 (Lapse of Time) on Page 5 and suggested that one year may not be enough for
property owners to begin reconstruction when a building has been significantly damaged. Mr. Snyder recalled the Board
discussed this issue at their last meeting, and Section F on Page 8 of the draft ordinance was changed to require that the
repair be initiated by filing an application for a building permit within one year of the date such damage occurs. He
suggested the same type of language could be incorporated into Item C.2 on Page 5 and in other sections of the document to
address Vice Chair Dewhirst’s concern. Board Member Young pointed out that this change would give property owners one
year plus the time it takes to process a building permit. The Board agreed that the last sentence of Item C.2 on Page 5
should be changed to read, “The use may be reestablished only if construction of a new or repaired building is begun
within one year of the date damage occurred by the filing of a building permit in accordance with the requirements of
the vesting ordinance (specific reference would be provided).” They further agreed that this language should be
applied uniformly throughout the document.
Mr. Chave suggested that a third item be added to Item F (Restoration) on Page 9 to read, “If the building permit is
allowed to expire, a property owner’s right to restore would be extinguished.” The Board agreed with this change.
Vice Chair Dewhirst noted that this is a common requirement for any building permit.
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred to the underlined words on the last line of Item B (Continuation) on Page 6. Mr. Snyder said
this was meant to refer to the remainder of the section. To make Item B on Page 6 more clear, Mr. Snyder suggested the
last line be changed to read, “except as provided in the remaining subparagraphs in the section.” The remainder of
the Board concurred with the proposed change.
Board Member Henderson referred to the two alternatives for the restoration section on Pages 8 and 9 of the draft document.
He indicated he would prefer Alternative 1. He expressed his belief that Alternative 1 would be the simplest, and Alternative
2 would be more complex and probably unnecessary. Board Member Freeman inquired if Alternative 1 would ensure that a
use such as the movie theater would be allowed to rebuild without having to meet the current parking requirements. Mr.
Snyder cautioned that the two alternatives relate to nonconforming buildings, not nonconforming uses. He noted that while
the City could permit the reconstruction of a nonconforming building, they would not be able to limit its future use. Mr.
Chave reminded the Board that there is no longer a parking requirement for commercial uses in the BD1 zone. However, if
an existing nonconforming building is reconstructed and converted from a commercial to a residential use, a parking
requirement would be imposed.
Board Member Reed explained that Item C (Historic Buildings and Structures) on Page 6 would protect buildings such as the
movie theater and allow them to be restored to their existing form if they are listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic
Places. Mr. Chave said the Historic Preservation Commission is in favor of encouraging the adaptive reuse of historic
properties in their original form. He cautioned that while the Commission might regret the loss of a particular use, they are
more interested in retaining the historic buildings.
Board Member Freeman said Item C on Page 6 refers to properties that are on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Mr.
Snyder emphasized that property owners must voluntarily place their properties on the Register. The Historic Preservation
Commission has suggested that including provisions for the adaptive reuse of nonconforming structures might provide
incentive for more people to list their properties on the Register. Vice Chair Dewhirst explained that the City cannot protect
historic properties that are not on the Register because they do not have a mandatory preservation program. Again, Board
Member Henderson explained that Item C on Page 6 offers rights for property owners to rebuild structures, but there would
be no requirement that the property owner rebuild the building to its original form.
Vice Chair Dewhirst recalled that the Board previously requested feedback from the Historic Preservation Commission
regarding the two alternatives for the restoration section. Board Member Works recalled that the two alternatives were
included in the draft to allow the public to comment on their preferred choice. Mr. Chave said the Board could still ask the
Historic Preservation Commission to comment on the two alternatives. Mr. Snyder explained that Alternative 2 would
require an Architectural Design Board review to make sure the reconstructed building would be similar in design to the
building that was destroyed. Board Member Works said she would not be in favor of requiring people to rebuild to a certain
style. Mr. Chave noted that a property owner would still be allowed to choose between rebuilding based on the
nonconformance standards or rebuilding based on the current zoning standard.
Packet Page 137 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2007 Page 8
Vice Chair Dewhirst expressed his belief that forwarding a recommendation to the City Council without soliciting feedback
from the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the two alternatives could result in the City Council remanding the
issue back to the Board for further review. Mr. Snyder agreed it would be appropriate to solicit feedback from the Historic
Preservation Commission regarding this section, but the Board could still review the remainder of the document.
Board Member Reed referred to Item C (Historic Buildings and Structures) on Page 6 of the draft document and inquired if it
would be possible for the City to require people to place historic properties on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Mr.
Snyder answered that some cities have mandatory historic districts, but applying this concept in Edmonds could be difficult
because there is no standard architectural type or style of buildings. To this point, the City’s preservation program has been
voluntary. Making the program mandatory could run into significant constitutional issues because the majority of the
buildings in the downtown are not historic. Therefore, the property owners would likely be opposed to having limitations
placed on their ability to reuse their properties. Mr. Chave added that the Historic Preservation Commission has discussed
the option of creating a historic district in the downtown, but they agreed that would not be appropriate for Edmonds. He
expressed his belief that Alternative 1 would be the simplest, and Alternative 2 would be more complex and probably
unnecessary. Because the Commission was not confident they could create a mandatory historic district, they decided it
would be more appropriate to create specific design standards for the BD1 zone that could require that building design within
the zone be consistent with the character of the district.
The Board directed Mr. Chave to invite representatives from the Historic Preservation Commission to the Board’s August 8th
meeting to provide input regarding the two alternatives for the restoration section. It was noted that this would require a
continuation of the public hearing to that date, as well. Mr. Chave agreed to provide the standard advertising for the
continued hearing, as well as a display ad in the local newspapers. He also agreed to contact local reporters to encourage
them to write an article about the issues that are currently being considered by the Board.
Mr. Snyder said it is important to understand that the nonconforming use section is intended to be a bridge between historic
preservation and reconstruction, and the goal is to offer owners of nonconforming historic structures a way to continue the
uses that are beneficial to the neighborhood in terms of their ambiance, size, etc. Staff is interested in creating a tool that is
somewhere between the existing nonconformance standards that have a very strict abatement process and a mandatory
historic preservation program.
Board Member Young expressed his belief that the proposed new language would meet this goal as stated above by Mr.
Snyder, and he plans to recommend approval of Alternative 1. He reminded the Board that they are only responsible for
making a recommendation, and the City Council would make the final decision. The Board has talked about historic
preservation and whether or not the City could compel a property owner to place a building on the Register. Allowing a
structure to be rebuilt if it is on the Register would provide a significant incentive to property owners. He said he is ready to
forward a recommendation to the City Council without waiting for additional comments from the Historic Preservation
Commission. Board Member Henderson agreed that the Board should not wait to forward their recommendation to the City
Council.
Mr. Snyder referred to Section 17.40.025 (vested nonconforming or illegal accessory dwelling units) on Page 11 of the draft
document. He explained that this section was originally set up to encourage property owners to register nonconforming
accessory dwelling units. The time period set in the ordinance has expired, so this language is no longer necessary.
Next, Mr. Snyder referred to Section 17.40.030 (nonconforming lots) on Page 15 of the draft document. He explained that
the current language works well, but he recommended they delete Item D at the bottom of Page 17. He advised that
requiring a lot to be consistent with the character of the surrounding area could run into legal challenges based on the
Anderson versus Issaquah case. He noted that no substantive changes were proposed for Section 17.40.040 (nonconforming
signs).
Mr. Snyder referenced the memorandum he prepared to provide an update on the constitutional limitations on the application
of land use regulations to religious structures. He said that based on the information he provided in the memorandum, he is
recommending that Item A (local churches) in Section 17.40.050 (nonconforming local public facilities) on Page 21 of the
Packet Page 138 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2007 Page 9
document be deleted. He also recommended that Item B (schools) on Page 22 be deleted. He explained that from a policy
point of view, staff feels the school district is responsible for determining the use of their buildings. In addition, the Essential
Public Facilities Ordinance renders much of the language in Item C (local public facilities) on Page 23 unnecessary. Lastly,
Mr. Snyder advised that Item D (parks) on Page 24 of the document would no longer be necessary. He suggested that this
language was added when parks were treated different in the zoning code. Now the City’s structure for designating parks in
the Comprehensive Plan has been changed so that they cannot be nonconforming.
Mr. Chave expressed his belief that it would be worthwhile to continue the public hearing to August 8th to allow the Historic
Preservation Commission and members of the public to comment further on the proposed ordinance, particularly the two
alternatives discussed earlier for restoration. He suggested they invite the public and Commission to provide specific
wording recommendations rather than general points of discussion. Board Member Dewhirst agreed and noted that this
could become a politically charged issue, and a two-week delay would not be a significant problem. He suggested that staff
send a letter to the Historic Preservation Commission offering them an opportunity to comment at the next meeting before
the draft language is forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Snyder asked the Board to provide additional direction to allow him
to bring back an updated draft ordinance that is close to its final form at the next meeting.
BOARD MEMBER HENDERSON MOVED THAT THE BOARD DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO UPDATE
THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AS PER THE BOARD’S DISCUSSION, USING ALTERNATIVE 1 AS THE
PREFERRED LANGUAGE FOR THE RESTORATION SECTION. BOARD MEMBER WORKS SECONDED
THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD MEMBER HENDERSON MOVED THAT THE HEARING ON ECDC 17.40 BE CONTINUED TO
AUGUST 8, 2007. BOARD MEMBER YOUNG SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK AT 8:50 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 9:02 P.M.
DISCUSSION ON EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TITLE 20 MATERIAL
Mr. Snyder explained that staff’s intent is to rewrite Chapter 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) to
combine all of the procedures into a logical format and to use a grid to make the processes more clear. He referred to Page 2
of the draft document, which provides an example of a uniform provision that is easier for staff to apply and the development
community and citizens to understand. He emphasized that staff is trying to make as few substantive changes as possible as
they rewrite the chapter. He recalled that at the last meeting the Board discussed two of the more substantial changes, which
were related to the role of the City Council in quasi-judicial decisions and shifting the mailing notification burden to the
applicant rather than City staff. He said staff intends to highlight significant policy changes and invite the public and Board
to comment on them at the public hearing.
Mr. Chave advised that there are a number of decisions where a notice of application is sent out prior to a staff decisions.
Staff recommends adding a new column to the tables on Pages 2 and 3 to identify Type II staff decisions that require
notice. The Board agreed that would be appropriate. Mr. Snyder recalled that at their last meeting, the Board asked staff
to collect information from other jurisdictions that place the burden of sending out notices on the applicants. He referred the
Board to information from the City of Bothell, which was provided by staff as part of the Board’s packet.
Board Member Works inquired if the comments provided by the Hearing Examiner regarding the reconsideration section
were incorporated into the draft language. Mr. Snyder explained that the Hearing Examiner recommendations related to
problems in the current code were changed. However, he was hesitant to incorporate the suggestions that would significantly
change the City’s current process for reconsideration. He cautioned against creating public controversy by changing the
rules. Instead, the goal is to make the existing rules more clear.
Board Member Works noted the time limitations for reconsideration were not updated as recommended by the Hearing
Examiner. Mr. Snyder explained that the Hearing Examiner’s proposed change would be appropriate in situations where
Packet Page 139 of 201
CODE RE-RITE PROJECT UPDATE AND TOPICAL DISCUSSION
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to the latest version of Title 17, which was last updated on May 9, 2007. He reported that
he received comments from Board Members Freeman, Dewhirst and Works, and many of them were incorporated into the
new draft document. He said the purpose of this meeting is to review each of the changes that have been made since the
Board’s last meeting.
Mr. Bowman advised that the Historic Preservation Commission has requested an opportunity to meet with the Planning
Board to report on their work on the historic preservation aspects of the code. He suggested that either the entire
Commission or a subcommittee of the Commission could be invited to participate in a workshop discussion with the Board at
their May 23rd meeting regarding the non-conformance standards and the regulations pertaining to adaptive reuse of
properties. He noted that the City Attorney would be invited to participate in the discussion, as well. He suggested that, in
light of this future discussion, it would be appropriate for the Board to focus their attention tonight on the other code
sections.
Mr. Bowman recommended that when the Board reaches the public hearing stage, it would be helpful to split Title 17 into
three separate hearings. One could focus on the nuisance regulations and another on the non-conformance standards. The
third public hearing could focus on all other sections of Title 17. He noted that the non-conformance standards and nuisance
regulations would likely cause the most public concern and comment.
Section 17.50 – Parking Requirements
Mr. Bowman recalled that the Board made several suggestions at their last meeting related to parking. He said he has
completed research to help the Board consider options for revising the parking standards, especially those related to the
Highway 99 Corridor. He reminded the Board of Community Transit’s plans to provide bus rapid transit on Highway 99, as
well as a number of other transportation improvements. Therefore, now is an excellent time for the City to rework their
parking standards and move away from the more prescriptive standards that currently exist.
Section 17.60.010 – Definitions
Mr. Bowman reported that he discussed the Board’s concerns regarding the organization of the definition section. The City
Attorney has recommended all definitions in the code be placed in one section rather than floating the definitions throughout
the document. Staff supports that recommendation.
Section 17.60.010.M -- Junk
Mr. Bowman advised that Board Member Freeman recommended a definition be provided for the term “junk.” She correctly
noted that the definition should include the terms “boxes” and “cartons.” This section was changed to read, “Junk means
discarded, broken or disabled material including but not limited to: “household items; house or lawn furniture; boxes,
cartons, appliances; toys; construction items; hot tubs; trampolines; vehicle parts; or other items that are not in functioning
condition.”
Section 17.60.020.G – Waste Disposal
Mr. Bowman advised that Board Member Freeman suggested the word “rodents” be added to this section. In addition, she
recommended that “compost bins” be excluded from the requirement, since they can be designed to keep rodents out. Board
Member Freeman noted that Snohomish County does not require that compost bins have bottoms to keep out rodents, but
King County does. She suggested the Board consider making rodent-proof compost bins a requirement in the City of
Edmonds, as well. Chair Guenther expressed his belief that rodent-proof compost bins should be recommended, but not a
requirement. Board Member Freeman agreed the City should at least encourage people to use compost bin that are
distributed by the County, since they have a model that is rodent proof.
Section 17.60.020H – Open Storage
At the suggestions of Board Members Freeman and Dewhirst, Mr. Bowman said he revised the language in this section to
clearly indicate that it only applies to commercial properties. He noted that residentially zoned districts are covered in
Section 17.60.030. In addition, Mr. Bowman advised that he replaced “heavy wire fence” with “sight obscuring fence,” and
“hedge” with “vegetation.” He also deleted the words “board fence.” While Vice Chair Dewhirst also recommended the
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2007 Page 2
Packet Page 140 of 201
Board consider prohibiting open storage containers within 20 feet of the property line or the minimum setback, whichever is
greater, Mr. Bowman questioned if this strict requirement would be appropriate for commercial zones.
Section 17.60 – General Organization
Board Member Henderson objected to the way the nuisance section was organized. For example, he noted that a person
would have to look in three separate sections of the code to find out if, where and how trailers could be stored in residential
zones. He suggested that nuisances and permitted uses should be covered in the same section to clearly indicate what is and
is not allowed. Anything that is permitted in certain areas on a property should be addressed as to proper storage in the same
section. Mr. Bowman explained that, from a code enforcement standpoint, staff directs the citizens to the sections of the
code that apply to their particular situation. However, he agreed with Board Member Henderson’s concern and suggested
that the language in Sections 17.60.030.E and 17.60.040.E could be combined into one section.
Public Education
Board Member Works asked how staff plans to educate the public about future amendments to the nuisance section of the
code. Mr. Bowman advised that the City already has a pamphlet describing the nuisance laws, and the document would be
updated to incorporate the approved amendments. Board Member Works suggested that perhaps a notice could be added to
the utility bills to notify the public that a pamphlet is available for their information. Mr. Bowman agreed and added that it
would also be appropriate to publish a code enforcement article in THE EDMONDS UPDATE, that is sent out to all
households in the City. He noted that prior to the public hearings related to Title 17, staff plans to talk with local newspaper
reporters in an effort to get articles published in the newspapers so people can be made aware of the issues that are being
considered and invited to participate.
Board Member Young suggested that the public advertisement emphasize that many of the changes are being considered
because of enforcement problems associated with the existing code. He felt that if the public has a clear understanding of
these problems, they will know why the City is reviewing all of the details of this section of the code. Mr. Bowman said that
while he typically favors simplifying the code, it is important to have clear and concise language in this section so that people
understand what they can and cannot do.
Section 17.60.030.B – Attractive Nuisances Dangerous to Children
Mr. Bowman recalled that at their last meeting the Board discussed the importance of prohibiting the storage of items that
pose a danger to children. At the request of the Board, this section was changed to read, “Attractive nuisances dangerous to
children including but not limited to the following items when located on any developed or vacant lot.”
Board Member Freeman questioned about the safety of portable toilets that are used by construction companies while
working in residential areas. She pointed out that if these facilities are left unlocked, they could be accessed by children and
an accident could occur if a child were to fall in. Mr. Bowman said this has never been a problem for the City, but he agreed
to research the issue further to see if it needs to be addressed in the code.
Section 17.60.040 – Recreational Vehicles
Mr. Bowman said Board Member Freeman raised concern about the size of Recreational Vehicles (RV’s) that are allowed to
be stored on residential properties and whether or not they should be prohibited in side and front yards. In addition, Vice
Chair Dewhirst suggested that storage of vehicles such as personal watercraft, should be prohibited in the front and side
yards. Mr. Bowman said the Board could decide to regulate RV’s based on size, but the standard would have to be clear and
concise.
Board Member Henderson noted that Sections 17.60.040.E.2.l and 17.60.040.E.2.m both address the size of RV’s. Board
Member Reed noted that the language proposed in Section 17.60.040.E.2.1 would allow almost all of the front yard to be
used as a parking space for an RV. Mr. Bowman agreed. He noted that most of the concerns related to RV’s are associated
with the large size and the blue tarp coverings. The City also receives numerous complaints about people living in RV’s in
residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Bowman advised that if the Board decides they want to regulate the storage of RV’s, staff could come up with some
language for them to consider. He noted that regulating the storage of RV’s would likely create a stir amongst the
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2007 Page 3
Packet Page 141 of 201
community both pro and con. He agreed that staff could contact the City of Redmond to find out how they regulate RV’s.
He would forward the document to the Board members, highlighting those sections that are directly related to RV’s. He also
agreed to obtain information from other jurisdictions in the region.
Board Member Freeman recalled the Board’s previous discussion about the need to keep the setback areas clear for
emergency access. She noted that storing large RV’s in the side setback areas could present a safety hazard. She further
noted that permanent structures are not allowed in the setbacks, so perhaps they should prohibit the storage of large RV’s, as
well. Mr. Bowman noted that RV’s can be moved in case of emergency, so they should not be treated the same as permanent
structures within setbacks.
Section 17.60.020 .J – Storage Containers and Tents
Mr. Bowman explained that staff is proposing this new section to address the more than 85 outstanding complaints the code
enforcement officer has on file related to storage containers and tent structures. The current code prohibits temporary
structures of this size if they are larger than 120 square feet. However, this particular code regulation has been suspended
until the City’s code has been updated.
Vice Chair Dewhirst said he doesn’t see the difference between a storage container and a butler building. He questioned
why one should be allowed and not the other. Mr. Bowman said he believes there is a significant difference between metal
storage buildings and surplussed cargo containers, which are typically very large. The majority of the Board agreed they did
not want to allow shipping or cargo containers to be used for storage in residential areas. Mr. Bowman said issues related to
cargo and shipping containers are coming up more often, and he suggested the City consider being ahead of the curve in
regulating this use.
Board Member Freeman asked if staff has ever had difficulty enforcing the nuisance code requirements based on cultural
issues. Mr. Bowman said that as long as the standards are applied uniformly and community wide, there should be no
problems of this type. The City should avoid standards that are directed towards a specific cultural area.
Section 17.60.050 – Habitation Uses Prohibited
Mr. Bowman said the language proposed by staff would allow habitation of RV’s in the case of family or visitors staying
temporarily for a period not to exceed 30 days. Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested that this use be limited to 30 days per year to
prevent a property owner from moving the RV for a period of time and then bringing it back for another 30 days.
Section 17.60.030.N -- Garbage Stored Outside
Board Member Henderson asked if this proposed language would apply to containers that are left at the street for garbage
pick up. Mr. Bowman said this would not be considered storage of garbage containers, but he agreed the language should
clarify the matter. He said the City has received complaints about people who leave their garbage containers out at the street
for days after the garbage has been collected.
Section 17.60. 030.I – Accumulation of Construction Supplies
Vice Chair Dewhirst noted that, originally, a provision was added to this section that required a property owner to begin a
project in five business days. He expressed his belief that this would be irrational since a host of things could keep a
property owner from completing a project. Mr. Bowman pointed out that this language is really targeted at potential code
violators who like to hoard or store buildings materials on their property that they never get around to using. He suggested it
would be appropriate to have some type of time limit.
Board Member Henderson suggested that a 30-day time limit be established for the project to be started. They should also
identify a project completion time limit. He noted that this section only applies to projects that do not require a building
permit. Chair Guenther expressed his concern about requiring someone who is landscaping his/her property to complete the
project in a certain amount of time. While he understands the need to keep the project active, he questioned if a time limit
language would accomplish this goal. Mr. Bowman agreed to talk with the code enforcement officer about whether they
should include a time limit for project completion.
Section 17.60.040.E.2.f – Storage of Vehicles on Vacant Residential Property
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2007 Page 4
Packet Page 142 of 201
Mr. Bowman said Vice Chair Dewhirst raised a concern that this proposed language would prohibit a person who owns
adjoining property from parking a vehicle on a property that does not have a dwelling unit. He said he agrees with this
concern. There are situations in the City where a single property owner owns two lots, and the proposed language would
prohibit the property owner from parking cars on the vacant lot. He explained that the language is intended to prevent
people from parking cars on residential vacant lots, but he agreed to come up with new language for the Board to consider
that would exclude adjacent lots that are under common ownership.
Conclusion
Mr. Bowman summarized that staff would work to obtain sample regulations for RV’s from other jurisdictions in the region
and forward them to the Board as soon as possible. He asked that the Board review the samples and forward their ideas to
him prior to the next meeting. Staff would work to finalize the draft code amendments for the Board’s review prior to the
public hearing. In addition to the updated language for Title 17, Mr. Bowman advised that he would provide draft language
to address the parking standards, particularly as they relate to Highway 99. If the City is going to support the concept of bus
rapid transit, they should do their part to encourage less parking and more transit use.
Board Member Freeman referred the Board and staff to a recent article in THE SEATTLE POST INTELLIGENCER, which
provides information about the average number of cars per dwelling unit in various areas of Seattle. She noted that in some
of the more populated areas of Seattle, there are only .9 parking spaces per unit.
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred the Board to the Victoria Transportation Website, which provides helpful information related
to the issue of parking. He expressed his belief that the site is valid to the issues that are being raised by the City now.
Board Member Freeman questioned how the Board and staff could educate the City Council about the need to change the
City’s parking requirements. Mr. Bowman replied that the Board needs to make it clear in their recommendation to the City
Council why they want to change the parking standards on Highway 99 to encourage rapid transit and higher density
development. He said the Board’s job is to do the necessary research and due diligence and then forward their best
recommendations to the City Council. He noted that the City Council is very supportive of Community Transit’s bus rapid
transit service on Highway 99, which should be operational some time next year.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Bowman announced that two rezone public hearings have been scheduled on the Board’s May 23rd meeting. He
suggested the Board considering starting their meeting earlier to allow time for them to meet with the City Attorney and
Historic Preservation Commission as previously discussed.
Board Member Young suggested that rather than meeting for one hour prior to the next regular meeting, perhaps it would be
appropriate for the Historic Preservation Commission to provide a brief report outlining the issues they want the Board to
consider as they review the non-conformance section of the code. Mr. Bowman expressed his belief that it would be helpful
for the Board to meet with the Historic Preservation Commission and allow them an opportunity to share their thoughts and
recommendations so that the Commission’s work could be blended into the Board’s review of the code. He also reminded
the Board that the City Attorney would be in attendance for this discussion.
The Board agreed to start their joint discussion with the Historic Preservation Commission at 6:30 p.m. The regular meeting
would follow at 7:30 p.m.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Guenther reminded the Board that they have been invited to a Short Course in Public Planning that would be hosted by
the City of Lynnwood later in May.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2007 Page 5
Packet Page 143 of 201
Board Member Freeman suggested that perhaps the Board should provide additional comments to strengthen their reasons
for supporting the proposed rezone application. Vice Chair Dewhirst clarified that his motion would recommend approval of
the application based on the points made on Pages 4 and 5 of the Staff Report.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE BOARD TOOK A 5-MINUTE BREAK AT 8:25 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 8:30 P.M.
DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17 AND 20 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC)
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to the draft documents that were provided related to Chapters 17 and 20 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC). He said the purpose of the discussion is to allow the Board an opportunity to
provide feedback regarding the proposed language before it is prepared for a public hearing. The Board and staff reviewed
and discussed the following sections of Chapter 17:
• Section 17.05.020 – Reasonable Accommodations. Mr. Bowman pointed out that the Development Services Director
makes decisions related to reasonable accommodations. Therefore, the language should be amended to make it clear that
these decisions would not be made by the Community Services Director.
• Section 17.05.050 -- Appeal. Mr. Bowman said this language would be amended to make it easier to read and clearer
about who can appeal a reasonable accommodations request. No substantive changes have been proposed.
Board Member Reed pointed out that once the Development Services Director has made a determination, the only
recourse is to appeal the decision to the court. He questioned whether or not this would be wise. Mr. Bowman pointed
out that this is a building code question, and building code questions can only be appealed to Superior Court.
• Section 17.10.000 – Bond Required. Mr. Bowman said that in the past 30 years, he has never seen the City cash a
performance bond on a building project. However, bonds have been cashed for not completing landscaping or public
improvements. He said that, in his opinion, the City should only require bonds for public improvements that are required
or when someone wants occupancy before everything is done. He noted that the current requirement creates unnecessary
paperwork for the staff and added costs for the developer. However, the City doesn’t really receive a significant value
from the requirement. When an occupancy is requested and required non-life safety improvements such as landscaping
have not been installed, the proposed new language would authorize the Development Services Director to allow a
develop or owner to post a performance bond or similar security to ensure that improvements would be installed within a
specified time period.
• Section 17.30.035 – Trellises and Arbors. Mr. Bowman recalled the Board’s 2004 discussion regarding trellises, arbors
and fences. He expressed his belief that it doesn’t make sense to restrict plantings on a trellis when they are intended to
potentially allow such plantings. Site distance is already regulated. He pointed out that the proposed language would
delete Item 2 because it is not necessary.
• Definitions – Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that the definitions are scattered throughout the document. Mr. Bowman
said all of the definitions would be taken from the back of the code and placed at the front of the code. Staff is attempting
to cross reference terms and find definitions for those that are not yet defined. Then they would all be pulled together into
one section.
• Section 17.35 – Animals. Mr. Bowman suggested it would be appropriate for the Development Services Department to
get out of the business of regulating animals. He noted that there is an animal control arm of the City, so these regulations
really should be moved into Chapter 5 of the Edmonds Municipal Code. He emphasized that he has not discussed this
change with the Animal Control staff, but it seems it would make more sense to put this in the specific section in the
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 8
Packet Page 144 of 201
Municipal Code that talks about animals. He said he would work with the Police Department staff regarding this potential
change.
• Section 17.50 – Off-Street Parking. Mr. Bowman said staff would be working to update the off-street parking
regulations to incorporate the new downtown zone (BD-1). He particularly referred to Item B22 on Page 17-22 and noted
that the regulations do not currently address the issue of what to do with outdoor vehicle sales. He suggested that because
there are a number of car dealerships on Highway 99, the City must have regulations to deal with their parking
requirements. Staff has discussed the concept of treating parking requirements for Highway 99 much like they did for the
downtown zones. They could identify a parking standard for commercial uses and another for residential uses. He noted
that there would likely be more mixed-use developments along Highway 99 in the future, and having a standard parking
requirement for both commercial and residential uses would make it easier for developers to make decisions on what to do
with their properties. Mr. Chave added that, currently, the City must track and recalculate the parking requirements when
uses are changed. This creates a significant problem when tenants change frequently.
If the Board is interested in pursuing this new concept for parking requirements along Highway 99, Mr. Bowman said
staff could research various options further and provide direction to the Board at their next meeting. He noted that another
option would be to establish both a minimum and a maximum parking standard for zones along Highway 99.
Board Member Freeman expressed her belief that the City should try to reduce the parking requirement to discourage
people from using their cars instead of the public transportation that is readily available on Highway 99. Mr. Bowman
said that establishing a maximum parking standard would force developers to look at other options such as encouraging
public transit opportunities. Board Member Freeman also suggested the City establish a maximum standard for the size of
a parking stall so that people are encouraged to use smaller cars. In addition, the City should consider whatever options
are available to reduce greenhouse gases and encourage people to utilize the public transportation system.
Vice Chair Dewhirst agreed it would be appropriate to consider a maximum parking requirement, particularly for
developments that are located close to rapid transit opportunities. He suggested it would be helpful to review the bubble
diagrams created by Makers to identify the districts. The Board and staff could consider the concept of tailoring the
parking requirements to accommodate the types of uses they envision in the various areas.
Board Member Henderson emphasized the importance of maintaining flexibility. For example, a Costco type business
would require someone to drive to the store rather than ride a bus. He noted that Costco parking lots are often maximized,
and the City must allow enough flexibility for these types of businesses to potentially located along Highway 99 and still
meet their customers’ needs. Chair Guenther agreed and suggested that perhaps the parking requirement could be based
on the type of use that is being proposed. Mr. Chave cautioned that it would be more straightforward to come up with an
average that works for the vast majority of commercial uses and then identify some exceptions.
Board Member Young recalled a retreat discussion that rather than having a prescriptive parking requirement, a developer
should be allowed to figure out how many parking spaces would be needed, depending on the nature of the business. Mr.
Bowman noted that the impervious surface limitations would play a significant role in deciding the number of parking
spaces that could be provided and what materials would be used.
Board Member Bowman noted that in some zones, there are no parking requirements for new construction. Board
Member Young pointed out that only the BD-1 zone has no parking requirement. Board Member Bowman suggested the
City allow the market to sort out the number of parking spaces that would be required. Mr. Bowman explained that if
there were no parking standards for Highway 99, adeveloper would have to conduct a market analysis to determine the
amount of parking that would be necessary to support the businesses and then decide how they could comply with the
impervious surface, landscape and stormwater detention requirements. Vice Chair Dewhirst expressed his concern that
allowing the market to decide the parking requirement would favor the large developer over the small developer. In his
experience, this concept could also result in a developer significantly overbuilding the parking area. Therefore, placing a
cap on the maximum number of parking spaces allowed would be important.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 9
Packet Page 145 of 201
Board Member Young said he likes the idea of capping the number of parking spaces a developer could provide, but he
would like to see some ideas about how this concept could be implemented. Perhaps a developer could be allowed
additional parking spaces if low-impact development techniques are incorporated into the design. Board Member Young
said the Board should also discuss whether it is more important to limit the number and size of parking spaces and
encourage low-impact development or encourage economic development. He noted that the City does not have control
over whether people use smaller cars or the public transit system.
Mr. Bowman agreed to come back to the Board with two or three alternatives for them to consider for potential parking
requirements. Mr. Chave pointed out that the ITE Manual is a supply driven model for parking, and there are other
manuals that talk about demand for parking. The demand standards are almost always significantly lower than the supply
driven standards.
• Section 17.50.090 – Temporary Parking Lots. Mr. Bowman questioned why someone would want to pay for a
conditional use permit to construct a temporary parking lot, when it would only be good for one year. He suggested it
would be better to allow a property owner to apply for a conditional use permit for a time period that is consistent with the
regulations.
Vice Chair Dewhirst asked why temporary parking lots permits could not be an administrative decision rather than require
a conditional use permit. Mr. Bowman answered that would be one option the Board could consider. However, a
conditional use permit would require a public process to let people know what is being proposed. Another option would
be to make it an administrative decision with a notice requirement to all property owners within 300 feet. Mr. Chave
added that the notices could be sent out up front so the public would have an opportunity to comment before a decision
has been issued by staff.
• Section 17.50.100 – Commercial Vehicle Regulations. Mr. Bowman explained that staff is proposing an additional
clause in this section that would allow night parking of authorized towing vehicles under contract to provide services to
the City. He explained that sometimes tow truck drivers who live in the City are required to park their vehicle at home
when they are on call, and the current regulations would not allow this to occur.
• Section 17.60 – Property Performance Standards. Mr. Bowman advised that Mr. Thies, the City’s Code Enforcement
Officer has been working to gather information from other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound area to learn how they address
issues that are common to the City of Edmonds. Mr. Thies invited the Board Members to share their ideas on the draft
language that was provided for their review.
Board Member Henderson said he does not like the way the performance standards are divided up. For examples, parking
of trailers on residential property is addressed in two different sections. He suggested it would be helpful to have all
regulations related to a single issue in the same section. Board Member Freeman agreed that it is difficult to go back and
forth from section to section to see what is and is not allowed.
Board Member Freeman noted that the proposed language does not differentiate between a small trailer and a large
recreational vehicle, and she felt there should be distinctly separate regulations for each, depending on the size and bulk of
the vehicle. Property owners should not be encouraged to store large recreational vehicles in residential neighborhoods.
She said the proposed language also fails to differentiate between setbacks and yards and what is allowed in each.
• Section 17.60.020.H.1 – Open Storage. Vice Chair Dewhirst asked if the proposed language includes a definition for the
terms “lumber,” “coal,” and “other combustible materials.” Mr. Thies explained that this language came from the existing
code, and the purpose of the update is to eliminate language that is ambiguous. Mr. Chave further explained that Mr.
Thies collected numerous regulations from various jurisdictions for the Board to consider. At this time, Mr. Thies is
seeking feedback from the Board regarding the concepts the Board wants staff to pursue.
• Section 17.60.030.B – Attractive Nuisances. Board Member Freeman noted that the intent of the proposed language is
to protect children. Therefore, property owners should not be allowed to store any of the listed items on their property
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 10
Packet Page 146 of 201
where children have access. The Board agreed to change the last part of the section to read, “. . . located outside an
enclosed building.”
• Section 17.60.030.J – Unconventional Construction. Vice Chair Dewhirst questioned why the City should prohibit
shipping and cargo containers, but allow storage buildings. Mr. Bowman said the City has received numerous complaints
about shipping and cargo containers on adjacent properties. The Board must decide whether these should be considered
structures and/or buildings and whether or not they should be allowed in residential neighborhoods. He noted that tents,
tarps and canopy structures are a significant issue, as well. The City currently has 85 complaints of this type.
• Section 17.60.030 – Nuisance. Board Member Works asked if any consideration has been giving to forcing people to cut
down their blackberries. Mr. Thies said the City Council discussed this issue and raised the idea that “one person’s
nuisance could be another person’s garden. They indicated they would not be interested in having a vegetation regulation.
• Section 17.60.030.D – Graffiti. Board Member Bowman pointed out this section would require property owners to take
care of graffiti on their property immediately. He pointed out that his building on 5th Avenue has been vandalized
multiple times, and graffiti has occurred more and more around town. The proposed language would require the victims
of graffiti to resolve the problem. Mr. Bowman advised that the City Council recently discussed the issue of graffiti.
While business owners are not really happy about being required to paint their buildings, it has been demonstrated that
leaving the graffiti in place encourages the situation to grow. Taking care of graffiti right away tends to detract future
situations. Unless they catch the person responsible, the only recourse the City has is to require property owners to take
care of the problem.
• Section 17.60.030 – Nuisance. Board Member Reed suggested that if he were to apply the list of nuisances to properties
along his street, he would find numerous violations. He suggested that while there are some issues that must be addressed,
some of the items in this section are common occurrences. While they might not be the most attractive situations, he
questioned whether or not the City should try to regulate them all.
• Section 17.60.040 – Vehicles. Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested there needs to be some leeway for people to use trailers
when guests are visiting. Mr. Thies said the only complaints the City has received on this matter have come from people
who are concerned about grown children being allowed to live in trailers for long, extended periods of time.
• Section 17.95 – Commute Trip Reduction Plan. Mr. Bowman advised that this section must be updated and submitted
to the state by the end of June, 2007. However, the City’s new Traffic Engineer would not be on staff until mid May. It is
likely staff would request an extension from the State, but sometime in the near future staff would provide new language
for this section that would meet the new State laws.
• Outdoor Dining. Board Member Works suggested that staff review the outdoor dining section of the ECDC to make sure
there are as many outdoor dining opportunities as possible in the City, particularly in light of the new arts corridor.
Perhaps the City should expand the outdoor dining use to other zones in the City.
• Section 17.40 – Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, Signs and Lots. Mr. Bowman referred the Board to the written
comments provided by the City Attorney regarding this section. The City Attorney attempted to incorporate all of the
comments provided previously by the Board. At some point, the Board must also have a discussion with the Historic
Preservation Commission about how to integrate historic preservation and nonconformance elements together.
Mr. Bowman explained that the current nonconformance regulations are very restrictive and won’t allow a nonconformity
to expand. He said the Board must hold an in-depth discussion about whether or not it would be appropriate to allow
nonconforming structures to be expanded if the expansion would further encroach into the setback area. Board Member
Young questioned why the City should allow anyone to encroach into a setback. Mr. Chave said staff works with many
situations related to nonconforming structures. In addition, the Historic Preservation Commission has expressed concern
about the small historic buildings that are located in the downtown. Many of these structures protrude into the setback. If
the City wants to encourage historic preservation, they must consider options that would provide some flexibility to
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 11
Packet Page 147 of 201
address nonconforming issues. He concluded that while this may seem like a simple situation, a lot of issues must be
considered.
Mr. Chave pointed out that there is an interaction between the nonconforming provisions and the variance provisions. If
the City’s nonconforming regulations are extremely tight and the rules on variances are strictly enforced, many property
owners would be left with no options for resolving difficult situations.
The Board agreed it would be appropriate to meet with the Historic Preservation Commission as soon as possible. Staff
agreed to find out where the Commission is in their process and arrange a meeting date, possibly May 9th.
Mr. Bowman requested that Board Members forward their additional comments to him as soon as possible. He said he
would compile the comments and prepare a written response for the Board’s review. The Board could continue their review
of the proposed code amendments at their May 9th meeting. He pointed out that staff intends to leave the definitions in this
section. When dealing with chronic code violators, it is easier to show them the rules and regulations when the definitions
are readily available.
Mr. Bowman advised that comments from the Hearing Examiner related to Title 20 should be available soon. Once they are
received, staff would forward a copy to each of the Board Members. In addition, Mr. Bowman said he would meet with the
City Attorney to draft language for the Board’s consideration.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Board Member Freeman recalled that at their retreat, the Board talked about tightening up some odds and ends in the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave suggested the Board could discuss possible Board initiated code amendments at their May
9th meeting.
Mr. Chave announced that another rezone application is scheduled to come before the Board for a public hearing on June
13th.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Guenther announced that a memorial service for Police Chief David Stern has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 1st, at
11 a.m. at the Westgate Chapel.
Chair Guenther reported that he and Vice Chair Dewhirst met with the Mayor, Council President, and Chair of the
Architectural Design Board, where they reviewed the items discussed by the Board at their retreat. He noted that the
Mayor’s Climate Committee meets the first Thursday of every month, and Board Member Freeman has agreed to represent
the Board on this committee.
Vice Chair Dewhirst said the Mayor recommended the Board and City Council meet together on a quarterly basis. Chair
Guenther said the Mayor’s intent was to give the Board an opportunity to talk to the City Council on a more regular basis
about policy issues that are coming before them.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
None of the Board Members provided comments during this portion of the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 12
Packet Page 148 of 201
ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS
BOARD MEMBER WORKS NOMINATED CARY GUENTHER AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR
2007. BOARD MEMBER DEWHIRST SECONDED THE NOMINATION. BOARD MEMBER YOUNG MOVED
THAT NOMINATIONS BE CLOSED. BOARD MEMBER REED SECONDED THE MOTION. THE
NOMINATION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
Board Member Guenther assumed the role of Chair for the remainder of the meeting.
BOARD MEMBER FREEMAN NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER DEWHIRST AS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE
PLANNING BOARD FOR 2007. BOARD MEMBER YOUNG SECONDED THE MOTION. BOARD MEMBER
BOWMAN MOVED THAT NOMINATIONS BE CLOSED. BOARD MEMBER FREEMAN SECONDED THE
MOTION. THE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
OVERVIEW OF CODE REWRITE PROJECT
Mr. Bowman explained the process for accomplishing the code rewrite project. He recalled that the City Council indicated
their desire for the code amendments to be presented to them section by section. He advised that the code rewrite project
would start with the non-conforming regulations found in Chapter 17, and the City Attorney has prepared a draft ordinance
for the Board’s consideration. He said staff’s goal is to obtain feedback from the Board regarding the non-conforming
regulations, and then the entire Chapter 17 would be brought before the Board for review, public hearing and a
recommendation to the City Council on March 14th. After the Board has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council
for Chapter 17, they could begin their review of the process and procedures section, and then the definitions and nuisance
sections.
Mr. Bowman explained that staff intends to bring one code section per month to the Board for review so that a public hearing
could be scheduled the next month. While staff does not anticipate the City Council would adopt the code amendments by
the end of the year, they would like the Board to get through their review by the end of December. The City Council could
adopt all of the amendments sometime in early 2008.
CODE REWRITE PROJECT: REVIEW OF NON-CONFORMING REGULATIONS (ECDC 17.40) (FILE
NUMBER CDC-06-5)
Mr. Snyder advised that, with the exception of the non-conforming regulations, most of the amendments to the code
provisions would be minor changes. He noted there have been significant changes in the law in the community, which
highlight the need to review the City’s current non-conforming use provisions and identify what the City wants to
accomplish and what changes could be made.
Mr. Snyder explained that in 1980 the City enacted its last major re-codification of its zoning ordinances. This involved an
extensive community process and the product reflected the philosophy of the time. The City’s non-conforming use
provisions were extremely narrow and restrictive, and this philosophy has also been reflected in the way the City deals with
variances. In both cases, non-conforming uses were intended to be phased out or abated over time, and specific abatement
provisions were established for annexation areas. A variance provision was created to deal with deviations to the zoning
ordinance. However, if the City’s variance ordinance was strictly applied, there would be no variances issued.
Mr. Snyder advised that changes have occurred since 1980 that warrant amendments to the City’s non-conforming use
regulations. First, the annexation climate has changed entirely. People are not anxious to be annexed into the City of
Edmonds, and those areas within the City’s urban growth area contain pockets of people who are very opposed to being part
of Edmonds. Unlike times in the past when neighborhoods sought to annex into the City, current districts contain people
who have uses they want to continue.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
January 24, 2007 Page 2
Packet Page 149 of 201
Mr. Snyder explained that since the Growth Management Act was enacted, the City has been pressured to accept or make
provisions over time to accommodate more density. The Growth Management Act also emphasizes mixed-use development.
There is also interest within the City to preserve affordable housing in an increasingly difficult market and to preserve
historic and near historic buildings and neighborhoods. To encourage historic reuse or preserve existing neighborhoods, he
suggested the City review their non-conforming use provisions to avoid unintended consequences. He noted that many
citizens feel it would be better to preserve the existing housing stock and charm of the neighborhoods by finding ways to
permit the homes to be reused and rebuilt overtime instead of providing economic incentives that encourage their
replacement with structures that utilized the entire lot coverage permitted.
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred to Mr. Snyder’s memorandum that mentions the provisions of the Federally Religious Land
Uses and Institutionalized Person Act of 2000. He said he had no idea that cities no longer had the ability to enforce health
and safety provisions of the building code on existing church facilities. Mr. Snyder explained that an existing case in the
State of Washington involves a church school that had a preschool in the basement of a building with no viable fire exits.
The City of Renton was prohibited from closing the school down based on this act. However, the act only applies to existing
facilities, and new facilities would have to comply with the State building codes. Vice Chair Dewhirst asked if a city would
be liable if a fire were to occur in such a facility. Mr. Snyder said a City would probably not be held liable assuming they
actively pursues remedies and inspections. A city’s failure to attempt to deal with a violation could lead to liability.
Mr. Snyder cautioned that as the Board considers policies and what they want to encourage and what they want to end, they
should remember that once a policy has been established, the rules would be applicable to all building in Edmonds. He also
cautioned that there is really no way to inject aesthetic sense into the non-conforming use provisions. He suggested the
Board work with the staff to come up with examples of how the provisions would apply to certain structures they want to
preserve or that should be abated to test how it would work.
Mr. Snyder and the Board Members reviewed the following proposed changes:
• Section 17.40.000: Mr. Snyder explained that the intent of the existing code is to prohibit further non-conformity. Rather
than permit non-conformity, this section was changed in order to establish greater flexibility in the preservation of non-
conforming buildings. Limiting the continuation of certain aspects of non-conformity, such as historic reuse or
encouraging existing housing stock, may be appropriate.
• Section 17.40.010.C.1: Mr. Snyder explained that Washington State Law provides for an agricultural exemption for
certain seasonal uses such as Christmas tree lots and pumpkin farms. A provision was added to Subparagraph C to
acknowledge that there are certain uses that fall outside the “six months of continuous use” rule.
• Section 17.40.010.C.2: Mr. Snyder explained that, currently, this non-conforming use provision states that if a residential
use ceases because it is damaged in excess of 50% of the value, the use may be reestablished. The proposed ordinance
would change the threshold for damage from 50% to 75%. Chair Guenther questioned how this change would impact the
thresholds in other City regulations. For example, the Building Code has sections with a 50% threshold. Mr. Snyder
pointed out that there is no grandfathering of life safety provisions under the Building Code. Section 17.40.010.C deals
with issues such as use, setback requirements, etc. Mr. Chave pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan talks about
preservation of residential development, and a 75% threshold would be a little more lenient. He cautioned that this section
would only apply to non-conforming residential uses. Mr. Snyder explained that, with many properties in Edmonds, the
structure has little value in relation to the value of the land.
Board Member Reed noted that Section 17.40.010.F includes a statement that determination of replacement costs and the
level of destruction shall be made by the building official. He asked if this same language should be included in Section
17.40.010.C, as well. Mr. Snyder agreed that is something to consider. He explained that the International Building Code
contains tables of value and a more standard way of applying value to structures.
Vice Chair Dewhirst recalled that he has worked in jurisdictions where a non-conforming building that was destroyed
could be reconstructed using the building code at the time it was constructed rather than the current code. He pointed out
that, particularly with historic structures, there are requirements of a building code, other than life safety concerns, that
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
January 24, 2007 Page 3
Packet Page 150 of 201
could make or break a property owner’s ability to rebuild a structure. Mr. Snyder agreed. He suggested they invite the
Building Official to attend a future meeting to talk about the building codes, but there are certain life safety provisions that
the Board will probably not want to lighten up on. Mr. Chave suggested a representative from the Historic Preservation
Commission be invited to meet with the Board, as well, since they have a keen interest in the non-conforming provisions
relative to the building codes and historic buildings. In addition to provisions in the building codes, Mr. Snyder said the
Board might also want to consider the State Energy Code requirements.
Board Member Works noted that some sections of the proposed language use the term “building and/or structure” and
other sections only use the term “structure.” Mr. Snyder answered that a structure is defined as any combination of
materials attached to the ground, and a building is a structure with a roof. He said he had intended to use the term
“building and/or structure” consistently throughout the document. Chair Guenther pointed out that the International
Building Code defines a structure as anything that is built and attached to the ground, and a building is defined as any
structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy.
• Section 17.40.010.C: Mr. Snyder explained that, currently, the City has no buildings to abate. This section was aimed at
a series of annexations that occurred in the early 1980’s, and all of these structures have been abated. He recommended
that this section of the code be eliminated. A new abatement process would have to be adopted if an annexation occurred
or the Board and/or City Council decided there were uses they wanted abate. Board Member Reed asked if problems
could arise if the City were to annex property in the future without having an abatement process in place. Mr. Snyder
answered negatively. He explained that whether or not the City decides to abate or continue non-conforming uses is going
to be a large part of the sales pitch to the audience in the annexation area. If the annexation area had a use they wanted to
abate, the City could design and enact zoning as a part of the annexation process to address their problem. Rather than
have an out-of-date abatement process, a new abatement process could be crafted as part of pre-annexation zoning.
• Section 17.40.010.D: Mr. Snyder explained that the expansion provisions in this section were tweaked slightly. The goal
was to tie this section back to the continuation provisions so that the terms are better defined.
• Section 17.40.020.C: Mr. Snyder suggested that because the Historic Preservation Commission is becoming more active,
it might be appropriate for the Board to craft a provision in conjunction with their recommendations. He attempted to list
the two issues: compliance with the building code and consistency with the Register of Historic Places. He noted that
while the ordinance, as drafted, would require full compliance and consistency with the Register of Historic Places, the
Board may want to provide greater flexibility.
Board Member Reed asked which section would be modified to deal with near historic buildings and structures, as
discussed earlier by Mr. Snyder. Mr. Snyder answered that this issue would be dealt with in the reuse section starting on
Page 5. The goal would be to provide more flexibility for existing structures.
Board Member Freeman asked if this section would distinguish between buildings that are on the Register and those that
are candidates for the Register. She noted that there are not many buildings on the Register to date, but quite a few have
been designated as candidates. Mr. Snyder advised that placing a property on the Register is a voluntary process, and the
requirements are very specific. Mr. Snyder suggested the Board work with the Historic Preservation Commission to
consider how best to handle historic buildings that are not yet on the Register. Offering non-conforming use rights might
encourage people to add their properties to the Register. Mr. Chave said that if the City were to offer all of the benefits to
historic properties that are not on the Register, there would be no incentive for people to place their properties on the
Register.
• Section 17.40.020.E: Board Member Freeman requested clarification about the proposed provision related to moving a
non-conforming building horizontally any distance. Mr. Snyder explained that, currently, the provision is very onerous
and would prevent someone from jacking up a building to put a new foundation under it. When moving buildings from
one location to another, the building would have to come into compliance with lot coverage and setback requirements.
The proposed language in this section would allow buildings to be jacked up for new foundations. In addition, it would
permit a building to be moved if it would improve the degree of non-conformity.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
January 24, 2007 Page 4
Packet Page 151 of 201
• Section 17.40.020.F: Mr. Snyder noted that two alternatives were proposed for this section. Alternative 1 would
increase the amount of loss that a structure must sustain before coming into full compliance from 50% to 75%.
Alternative 2 would allow full reconstruction if a casualty occurs without the unlawful action of the owner. These options
are intended to encourage reuse of existing housing and commercial stock. Board Member Works asked if the term “75%
replacement costs” in Section 17.40.020.F would be different than the term “75% of its value” in Section 17.40.010.C.2.
Mr. Snyder agreed that these two sections should be made consistent. Board Member Freeman pointed out that if the
theater were destroyed, the owners would be unable to rebuild it if they had to meet the City’s current parking
requirement. She said she would support an alternative that would enable the City to protect historic structures such as the
movie theater. Mr. Snyder said this section was aimed at addressing bulk requirements, but addressing the parking
requirement would also be appropriate. Mr. Chave noted that the new zoning the City Council recently approved for the
downtown does not include any commercial parking requirement. Board Member Freeman agreed, but she noted that the
parking requirements change from time to time. Mr. Bowman summarized that Alternative 2 would allow the theater
building to be reconstructed using the same footprint and square footage, regardless of the parking requirement. Mr.
Snyder pointed out that the non-conforming provisions refer to legal non-conformity, or uses that complied with all codes
in effect at the time it was established.
Mr. Snyder advised that the non-conforming use provisions do not have to be uniform throughout the City. For example,
the Board may want to hear from residents who live along Highway 99. If they like the current look and feel in downtown
Edmonds, they might want to encourage reuse. But that might not be the case for other neighborhoods in the City.
Particularly along Highway 99, the City might want to encourage redevelopment. He suggested that they may want to
retain the current 50% threshold for areas where they want to encourage change.
• Section 17.40.020.G: Mr. Snyder explained that this section has to do with residential structures in the downtown area
and allows buildings in commercial zones that are used for residential purposes to be remodeled or reconstructed, ignoring
the requirement that they be brought into conformity. This issue was raised by the City Council, so the Board should
consider on an area-by-area basis whether or not this policy would maximize the use of the City’s limited commercial
areas. Mr. Bowman explained that the City Council was very concerned about the residential uses that were scattered
throughout the downtown BD-1 zone.
• Section 17.40.025: Mr. Snyder explained that this current code provision was designed to establish a registration period
for non-conforming or illegal accessory dwelling units. Given that the period has passed, this section could be greatly
reduced. The draft language recognizes that registered accessory dwelling units, whether detached or attached, may be
continued.
• Section 17.40.030: Mr. Snyder advised that this section was changed about 10 years ago and has been a resounding
success. Rather than having a rigid structure that prevented the reuse of existing lots, this section used a sliding scale that
allowed lots that were non-conforming to be developed rather than combined. It allowed properties to be developed to
look like the rest of the neighborhood. The provisions in this section encouraged infill development, encouraged the
retention of the look and feel of existing neighborhoods, and allowed people to get value out of property they had owned
and held for many years.
Board Member Works noted that in this section the terms “dwelling units” and “residence” are both used. Mr. Snyder
agreed that the terms should be made consistent. Board Member Reed referred to Item 3 on Page 12 and noted that the
term 50% should be changed to 75% to be consistent with changes made earlier in the document.
Mr. Chave referred to Section D.1.c at the bottom of Page 11. He explained that the intent of this provision was to avoid
situations where the character of an existing neighborhood would be altered. However, it could create some interesting
situations. For example, one individual owned two, platted lots, with a house straddling the center lot line. He wanted to
tear the house down and sell the property as two lots, but this particular provision that prohibits existing housing stock
from being destroyed would not allow the change to occur. The Board must consider whether or not this is a policy they
want to retain, and if so, is the language constructed the right way. Mr. Chave said that if the Board is happy with the
sliding scale table, then the provision related to preserving the existing housing stock might become moot. Mr. Snyder
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
January 24, 2007 Page 5
Packet Page 152 of 201
recalled that the current language comes from an era where the City Council was taking a bold initiative by creating the
sliding scale, and they weren’t sure how it would be used.
• Section 17.40.040: Mr. Snyder explained that the proposed changes to this section would allow greater flexibility in the
reuse of existing signs. Mr. Bowman said the existing language is problematic for business owners who want to do tenant
improvements inside the building. Board Member Reed noted that while the last sentence in this section refers to
Subparagraph D, there is actually no Subparagraph D in the existing language. Mr. Snyder agreed to clear up this
typographical error. He noted that the numbering on Page 13 should also be corrected.
Mr. Chave said the proposed new language is intended to allow a property owner to change a non-conforming sign to
reflect new information without changing the sign’s structure. Mr. Snyder agreed but noted that a property owner would
not be allowed to expand a non-conforming sign. Mr. Chave suggested the language in Subparagraph A be changed
because it says a non-conforming sign shall not be altered in any way. Perhaps it would be appropriate to provide a few
examples to indicate what is included in this section. Mr. Snyder agreed.
• Section 17.40.050.A: Because of changes in the law, Mr. Snyder advised that this provision is virtually unenforceable
and should be removed from the code.
• Section 17.40.050.B: The Board may get some public feedback in terms of schools and uses in neighborhoods. While
the City may regulate certain aspects by zoning and the building code, the school district is vested with the right to
determine what programs are offered at their schools. He suggested that this provision would add little to the discussion.
• Section 17.40.050.C: Mr. Snyder explained that the City Council has a lot of discretion over whether to reuse, change or
remodel City facilities. Therefore, rather than have a specific provision relating to the expansion of existing legal non-
conforming public uses, Mr. Snyder suggested the issue be handled under the City’s essential public facilities ordinance.
• Section 17.40.050.D: Mr. Snyder noted that the City Council adopts annual changes to the City’s Comprehensive Park,
Recreation and Open Space Plan, and the facilities that are constructed or maintained must be in compliance. Because the
City Council has the full authority to end, continue or expand any use, this provision is redundant and unnecessary.
Board Member Henderson referred to Alternative 2 on Page 7, which states that if an old, architecturally interesting building
that didn’t have sufficient setbacks for the current zone was destroyed by fire, the owner would be able to reconstruct the
building using the same footprint and the same degree of non-conformity, but it does not say it must be the same style of
building. If the City allows this flexibility to restore with the same footprint, perhaps the new building should be of similar
architecture. Mr. Snyder explained that non-conforming uses typically relate to bulk requirements such as setback, height,
etc., and that is the current focus of this section. He suggested that Board Member Henderson’s point be considered zoning
district by zoning district. Perhaps the Board could work with the Architectural Design Board to create design guidelines to
make sure any new buildings would look the same. Mr. Bowman and Mr. Chave both emphasized the importance of having
clear code language to indicate whether or not a building design could be changed when a non-conforming building is
reconstructed, particularly if the new design would increase the building’s non-conformance.
Mr. Snyder commented that when people come to the City with hard questions, it is often because they want to spend the
least amount of money. He cautioned that the City should not go overboard in order to give people an economic break.
Because of the high value of properties, the hardships are often not as great as they are presented.
Vice Chair Dewhirst said that while working in other jurisdictions, a few situations have come up where fire has destroyed a
home. During this traumatic time, property owners come to the City to find their structure is non-conforming. It has been
his experience that cities try to do everything possible to allow the house to be rebuilt.
Vice Chair Dewhirst inquired how the non-conforming use regulations would apply to animals. Mr. Bowman said that when
the entire chapter is presented to the Board, they will find there is already language to deal with the regulation of animals.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
January 24, 2007 Page 6
Packet Page 153 of 201
Board Member Works requested that staff provide some picture of some of the non-conforming situations that already exist
in the City. Mr. Bowman said he would provide some examples. He agreed this would make it easier for the public to
understand what is being proposed. Mr. Chave pointed out that non-conforming situations exist throughout the City, but
most people do not recognize them as such. Mr. Bowman referred to the properties that were annexed in the southern
portion of the City. He explained that when the properties were annexed, the County’s setback requirement was 5 feet for an
8,400 zone, and the City’s set back requirement is 7½ feet for an RS-8 zone.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board of the interaction between the non-conforming provisions, bulk provisions, and the rules for
variances. The tighter the City makes one, the more pressure it places on the others. For example, if the setback rules and
non-conforming provisions are very tight, it would place a tremendous amount of pressure on the variance rules. He urged
the Board to review all of these provisions in relation to each other to understand how they interact and achieve the overall
goals. Mr. Snyder agreed and emphasized that in discussions with the City Council, he has detected very little interest in
lightening up on the variance rules. This makes sense because the City of Edmonds is an infill community that is nearly built
out. If the City wants to preserve the current look and feel of Edmonds, they should lighten up on the non-conformance
regulations to allow the existing housing stock and uses to be retained. He noted that some areas of the City are
underutilized, such as the Highway 99 area where they might want to encourage change. Mr. Chave agreed that the City
Council is interested in clamping down tough on variances. Therefore, the only opportunity to provide flexibility in the code
would come via the non-conforming provisions, setbacks, etc.
Board Member Young asked if the documents presented to the Board for review represent the City Council’s entire policy
guidance, or would the City Council be open to suggestions. He pointed out that the purpose of revising the non-
conformance regulations is to encourage annexations into the City and to allow greater flexibility regarding the reuse of non-
conforming sites. Mr. Snyder said that, up to this point, the City Council has not participated in drafting the document
currently before the Board for consideration. The document was created by the staff and City Attorney to identify policy
concerns that have come up over the years. However, the Board and the City Council are ultimately responsible for directing
policy.
Mr. Snyder suggested that staff work with the City Attorney to clean up the document based on the comments provided by
the Board. Once a new draft has been created, the Board could meet with the Historic Preservation Commission to discuss
whether the provisions would be better or more applicable to certain areas of the City than others. Board Member Reed
asked if the meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission should take place before the public hearing. Mr. Snyder
answered that would be up to the Board. However, he suggested it is usually better to provide concrete language for the
public to comment on. Hearing policy input from the Planning Board and Historic Preservation Commission would allow
the staff to do a better job of drafting language. Mr. Bowman suggested the draft document be presented to the Historic
Preservation Commission soon so that their comments could be incorporated into a new draft for the public hearing.
Board Member Young said that rather than just asking the Historic Preservation Commission to propose changes to the draft
language, he would be more interested in learning what their specific issues and concerns are. They must identify the
problems before they can come up with appropriate solutions. Mr. Bowman said the draft document was presented to the
Board to illustrate some of the issues staff is struggling with and to solicit feedback from the Board. He suggested the same
document could be presented to the Historical Preservation Commission, and their comments and concerns could be
incorporated into the next draft prior to the public hearing. The Historic Preservation Commission could also send a
representative to the hearing to state their views. Mr. Snyder pointed out that many of the changes the Board has discussed
represent ways to preserve buildings long enough to become historic. He said that when drafting the document, he tried to
focus on areas in the City that have patina. The goal should be to preserve these areas long enough for them to be historic.
Again, Board Member Young said he would like the Historic Preservation Commission to first identify the issues they would
like to resolve by changing the non-conforming regulations. Mr. Snyder explained that, unlike other recent issues that have
come before the Board, the City Council did not provide specific direction regarding the non-conforming. However, because
of the Board’s recent work with the design guidelines, historic reuse, and preservation of the downtown area, staff believes
the Board could play a significant role in the rewrite process.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
January 24, 2007 Page 7
Packet Page 154 of 201
The Board discussed that age is not the only criteria used to identify structures of historic significance. Mr. Snyder explained
that in order to encourage the preservation of truly historic structures, the City must offer incentives to owners who place
their properties on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Rather than just addressing the preservation of historic
structures, most of the staff’s comments have been about the reuse of structures in a way that preserves the existing fabric of
the community, such as the size of homes, the scale, and the way neighborhoods are put together. He advised that the 1980
code changed a variety of zoning and setback standards by using a cookie-cutter approach. It was assumed that through
abatement and very strict non-conforming provisions, things would be get homogenized to look like the conceptual plan.
However, because the City is fully built out, the philosophy must be different. They must now consider opportunities for
preserving the look, texture and feel of the City as opposed to achieving specific setback requirements.
Chair Guenther said they must also consider opportunities to replace existing uses within residential areas with other uses
that are vital to the neighborhood. Mr. Snyder said he lives in the central district of Seattle, where many of the structures
were previously used for commercial purposes. Now the commercial uses are coming back to the neighborhood.
The Board took a break at 9:00 p.m. They reconvened at 9:05 p.m.
REVIEW OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND ECDC CHAPTER 20.60 SIGN CODE (FILE NUMBER
AMD-2007-2)
Mr. McIntosh thanked Chair Guenther for participating on the selection committee for the 6-Year Parks, Recreation and
Open Space Comprehensive Plan. Four consulting firms were interviewed. He advised that staff would provide updates to
the Board periodically as the project progresses.
Mr. McIntosh explained that for several years the community has expressed interest in having a third location to publicize
community events. He noted that the City used to have five locations, but now they have only two as a result of the new
PUD restrictions. Staff has identified a suitable new site for installing poles for pole-mounted community event banners on
the Public Works property on the north side of 212th Street. However, installation has been delayed because the current sign
code does not address special situations where poles are located on City property.
Mr. McIntosh referred the Board to Page 2 of the proposed ordinance. He advised that, as proposed, the first paragraph of
Section 20.60.005 would be added to address community event banners. He explained that the City’s current policy for
street banners is about 25 years old, so updates would likely be necessary to match the proposed amendment.
Board Member Works questioned why “cloth, fabric and canvas” must all be used to describe the types of materials that
could be utilized for the banners. Mr. McIntosh said the intent was to include all of the different types of materials that could
be used. He agreed that cloth, fabric and canvas are synonymous. He noted that most of the current banners are plastic, with
cloth for reinforcement.
Mr. McIntosh noted that the proposed sign code amendment requires a public hearing before the Board and a
recommendation to the City Council. He requested the Board conduct the public hearing on February 14th, and the Board
agreed.
CONTINUED DELIBERATIONS ON CODE UPDATES REQUIRED TO INTEGRATE GUIDELINES AND
REVISED DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS INTO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (FROM PUBLIC HEARING HELD
ON DECEMBER 13, 2006)
Mr. Chave referred the Board to the documentation that was attached to memorandums from staff dated January 10th and
January 24th. He reminded the Board that when they previously held a public hearing and discussed this issue on December
13th, they agreed to have further discussion on the suggestions made by ADB Board Member Utt regarding monotonous
buildings. They also agreed to consider applicant submission requirements that could be incorporated into the code.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
January 24, 2007 Page 8
Packet Page 155 of 201
Packet Page 156 of 201
Packet Page 157 of 201
Packet Page 158 of 201
Packet Page 159 of 201
Packet Page 160 of 201
Packet Page 161 of 201
AM-1591 10.
Public Hearing on proposed amendments to ECC Title 6 regarding property
nuisances.
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:06/03/2008
Submitted By:Duane Bowman Time:30 Minutes
Department:Development Services Type:
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing on proposed amendments to ECC Title 6 regarding property nuisances.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Continue the public hearing to July 15, 2008 to allow the public to review the draft ordinance in
more detail.
Previous Council Action
On February 26, 2008, the City Council held a work session on the code rewrite update. A
briefing regarding the nuisance regulations occurred at that meeting. A copy of the minutes from
that meeting is attached as Exhibit 3.
Narrative
The Planning Board initially began work on the performance standards found in Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 17.60. Staff was proposing to add additional
nuisance regulations when the City Attorney advised that nuisance regulations really did not
belong in the zoning code. Staff and the City attorney reviewed Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC)
Chapter 6 which included the city's nuisance regulations and discovered a number of outdated
code sections. The Planning board concurred that nuisance regulations should not be in the
zoning code.
The proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1) cleans up outdated sections of the code and adds new
nuisance regulations. A key changes is the expanded list of nuisances found in EMC6.20.040.
The purpose for these changes is to allow the code enforcement officer clear regulations to help
resolve the types of complaints that are submitted to the city.
Because these regulations potentially affect private property, staff was requested by the Council
President to allow the public additional time to review the proposed ordinance. Accordingly, the
public hearing should be opened, allow public testimony and then the hearing should be
continued to July 15, 2008.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Packet Page 162 of 201
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - Draft Nuisance Ordinance
Link: Exhibit 2 - Planning Board Minute Extracts
Link: Exhibit 3 - City Council Minute Extract 2-26-08
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 10:13 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/29/2008 11:11 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 11:52 AM APRV
Form Started By: Duane
Bowman
Started On: 05/28/2008 10:30
AM
Final Approval Date: 05/29/2008
Packet Page 163 of 201
0006.900000
JZL/
12/05/07
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 6.10 ECC, CHAPTER
6.20 ECC, CHAPTER 6.30 ECC AND CHAPTER 20.110 ECDC;
AMENDING THE CITY’S REGULATIONS GOVERNING
PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City currently addresses public nuisance abatement through
various regulations codified throughout the Edmonds City Code and the Edmonds Community
Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to update, overhaul and streamline its public
nuisance regulations; and
WHEREAS, the amendments effected by this ordinance will serve the public
interest by establishing a clear, uniform and efficient set of standards and procedures for
designating and abating public nuisances; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council hereby adopts the above recitals as
findings in support of the code amendments effected by this ordinance. The Council further
makes the following additional findings:
A. The code amendments contained in this ordinance are consistent with and
will implement applicable policies of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
Packet Page 164 of 201
B. The code amendments contained in this ordinance satisfy all applicable
criteria for adoption.
C. The substantive provisions of this ordinance have been processed by the
City in material compliance with all applicable procedures, including but not limited to public
notice and the opportunity for public comment.
D. All applicable SEPA requirements have been satisfied with respect to the
adoption of this ordinance.
E. The code amendments contained in this ordinance will protect, promote
and benefit the public health, safety and welfare.
Section 2. Amendment of ECC 6.10.020. Section 6.10.020 of the Edmonds City
Code is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows:
6.10.020 General duties.
The health officer of the City of Edmonds shall look after
and superintend all matters pertaining to the health of the city.
Section 3. Repealer — ECC 6.10.030. Section 6.10.030 of the Edmonds City
Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 4. Repeal and Reenactment — Chapter 6.20 ECC. Chapter 6.20 of the
Edmonds City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and reenacted as provided in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
Section 5. Amendment of ECC 6.30.040. Section 6.30.040 of the Edmonds City
Code is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows:
6.30.040 Refusal or failure to abate; penalties.
If the owner, lessee, occupant, agent or other person in
charge of property on which noxious weeds, thistles or nettles exist
fails or refuses to destroy the same within the time set forth in the
notice, said person shall be subject to the penalties and remedies
for public nuisances set forth in Chapter 6.20 ECC.
Packet Page 165 of 201
Section 6. Repealer — ECC 6.30.050. Section 6.30.050 of the Edmonds City
Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 7. Amendment of ECDC 20.110.010. Section 20.110.010 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as
follows:
20.110.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish an efficient
system of enforcing the Edmonds Community Development Code
and such other city regulations as may adopt the procedures set
forth herein by reference; to provide an opportunity for a prompt
hearing and decision regarding alleged violations; to establish
monetary penalties; and to provide for abatement of uncorrected
violations. This chapter shall coordinate with Chapter 6.20 ECC,
Chapter 8.50 ECC and such other code provisions as may
expressly or by implication utilize the enforcement procedures set
forth herein.
Section 8. Amendment of ECDC 20.110.020. Section 20.110.020 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as
follows:
20.110.020 Definition section.
A. “City” means the city of Edmonds, Washington.
B. “Civil violation” means a violation of a provision of
the Edmonds Community Development Code for which a
monetary penalty may be imposed under this chapter. Each day or
portion of a day during which a violation occurs or exists is a
separate violation.
C. “Person” means any natural person, any
corporation, or any unincorporated association or partnership.
Section 9. Repealer — ECDC 20.110.030. Section 20.110.030 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Packet Page 166 of 201
Section 10. Repealer — ECDC 20.110.050. Section 20.110.050 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 11. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 12. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
CITY ATTORNEY, SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 167 of 201
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2008, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER
6.10 ECC, CHAPTER 6.20 ECC, CHAPTER 6.30 ECC AND CHAPTER 20.110 ECDC;
AMENDING THE CITY’S REGULATIONS GOVERNING PUBLIC NUISANCE
ABATEMENT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2008.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 168 of 201
Exhibit A
Chapter 6.20
PUBLIC NUISANCES
Sections:
6.20.010 Purpose.
6.20.020 Definitions.
6.20.030 Public nuisances prohibited.
6.20.040 Types of nuisances.
6.20.045 Protective coverings.
6.20.050 Enforcement and abatement.
6.20.060 Separate abatement proceedings for junk vehicles.
6.20.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to protect and serve the public health, safety and welfare by
deterring and preventing conditions which constitute a public nuisances, and providing for the
prompt, efficient and permanent abatement of public nuisances. It is also the purpose of this
chapter to ensure that the persons responsible for creating, maintaining and/or allowing such
nuisances bear the costs of any necessary enforcement and abatement action to fullest extent
legally permissible. The provisions of this chapter shall be reasonably construed in furtherance
of these purposes.
6.20.020 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply for purposes of this chapter:
A. “Antique vehicle” means a vehicle that is at least 40 years old and as qualified
pursuant to WAC 308-96A-073.
B. “Driveway” means an improved surface per City engineering standards designed
and used for accessing a parking area and/or for vehicle parking.
C. “Emergency” means a situation in which the community services director
reasonably determines that immediate abatement or other action is necessary in order to prevent,
reduce or eliminate an immediate threat to health, safety or property.
D. “Front yard” means a space on the same lot as a principal building, extending the
full width of the lot, and situated between the street right-of-way and the front line of the
building projected to the side lines of the lot. In the case of a double frontage lot, both spaces
with street frontage shall be considered front yards.
E. “Junk vehicle” means a vehicle meeting any three of the following criteria:
Packet Page 169 of 201
1. Is three years old or older;
2. Is extensively damaged, including but not limited to any of the following
conditions: a broken or missing windshield or missing wheels, tires, motor or transmission;
3. Is apparently inoperable;
4. Has an approximate fair market value equal only to the approximate value
of the scrap in it.
F. “Inoperable” with respect to a vehicle means that the vehicle is incapable of being
legally operated on a public roadway due to the condition of the vehicle or the status of the
ownership, registration, or license of the vehicle.
G. “Junk” means discarded, broken or disabled material including but not limited to
household items, house or lawn furniture, appliances, toys, construction items, hot tubs,
trampolines, vehicle parts, or other items that are not neatly stored or in a functioning condition.
H. “Litter” means discarded waste materials, including but not limited to paper,
wrappings, packaging material and discarded or used containers.
I. "Motor vehicle" means a vehicle that is self-propelled but not operated upon rails,
and includes neighborhood electric vehicles as defined in RCW 46.04.357. An electric personal
assistive mobility device is not considered a motor vehicle. A power wheelchair is not
considered a motor vehicle.
J. “Operable” with respect to a vehicle means that the vehicle is a licensed
motorized or non-motorized vehicle which in its current condition is legally and physically
capable of being operated on a public roadway.
H. “Rear yard” means a space on the same lot with a principal building, extending
the full width of the lot and situated between the rear line of the lot and the rear line of the
building projected to the side lines of the lot.
I. “Salvage” means an item that would otherwise be destroyed, rejected or discarded
but is or may be recycled or put to further use.
J. “Side yard” means a space on the same lot with a principal building, situated
between the building and the side lot line and extending from the rear line of the front yard to the
front line of the rear yard.
K. “Stagnant” means water or liquid that has become foul, stale or impure through
lack of agitation, flow or movement.
L. “Trash” means waste food products and other household garbage.
M. “Vehicle” means any motorized or non-motorized conveyance that includes, but
is not limited to, an automobile, recreational vehicle, truck, any type of trailer, van, motorcycle,
Packet Page 170 of 201
watercraft, farm equipment, construction equipment and antique vehicles (i.e., cars, trucks, vans,
motorcycles, carriages, or motorized buggies).
6.20.030 Public nuisances prohibited.
It is a violation of this chapter for any person to permit, create, maintain, or allow upon
any premises any of the actions or conditions declared in ECC 6.20.040 to be a public nuisance
except to the extent expressly authorized by law.
6.20.040 Types of nuisances.
The actions and conditions enumerated as public nuisances pursuant to Chapter 7.48
RCW are hereby designated as public nuisances for purposes of this chapter. Each of the
following actions and conditions, unless otherwise permitted by law, is additionally declared to
constitute a public nuisance:
A. Any junk, trash, litter, boxes, salvage materials or lumber not neatly stacked in
any front yard, side yard, rear yard or vacant lot.
B. Any attractive nuisances dangerous to children, including but not limited to the
following items when located outside of a fully enclosed building:
1. Abandoned, broken or neglected equipment;
2. Rusted, jagged, sharp or otherwise potentially dangerous machinery;
3. Household or commercial appliances, including but not limited to
refrigerators, freezers, washers, dryers, dishwashers, ovens, hot water tanks or toilets;
4. Unpermitted excavations; and/or
5. Unprotected or open wells or shafts.
C. Any broken, soiled or discarded furniture, household equipment or furnishings.
D. Any graffiti on the exterior of any building, fence or other structure in any front
yard, side yard, rear yard or on any object in a vacant lot.
E. Any vehicle parts or other articles of personal property which are stored,
discarded or left in a state of partial construction or repair in any front yard, side yard, rear yard
or vacant lot.
F. Any hazardous trees, or any other vegetation which is dangerous to the general
public health, safety and welfare, located in any front yard, side yard, rear yard, or vacant lot.
G. Any structure or other constructed object not governed by the International
Building Code that is decayed, damaged, or in disrepair and poses a substantial threat of
collapse, structural failure or falling.
H. Any accumulation, stack or pile of building, landscaping or construction materials
which are exposed to the elements or are in disarray and which are not directly associated with a
project on the premises for which a current building permit has been obtained; or, with respect to
Packet Page 171 of 201
a project which does not require a permit, that is in progress or which is scheduled to begin
within ten (10) business days. Construction materials include but are not limited to metal, wood,
wire, drywall, electrical components, and any supplies, equipment or other items utilized for
painting, landscaping, logging, roofing, masonry or plumbing.
I. Any stacks or accumulations of newspapers, cardboard, or other paper, cloth,
plastic, or rubber left or stored in a manner which poses a substantial risk of combustion, a threat
of fire, or that may harbor, serve as an attraction for or promote the infestation of mold, insects
and/or vermin.
J. Any storage or keeping of any toxic, flammable, or caustic substance or material
except in compliance with applicable requirements of state or federal law.
K. Any accumulations of perishable matter, including but not limited to food stuffs,
that may harbor or attract the infestation of mold, insects and/or vermin.
L. Any stagnant, pooled water in which mosquitoes, flies or other insects may
reproduce.
M. Any garbage stored outdoors that is not kept in a fully contained receptacle with a
tight-fitting lid.
N. Any recyclable materials which are stored outside and which are not regularly
disposed of on a scheduled disposal cycle not to exceed thirty (30) days.
O. Any compost kept in a manner which attracts infestations of insects or which
emits foul odors detectable at or beyond the boundary of the underlying property.
P. Any shopping carts located in any front yard, side yard, rear yard, vacant lot, or
rights-of-way, except where such shopping carts are owned and/or utilized for their designated
purpose upon the underlying premises.
Q. Any uncultivated berry vines and Class B or Class C Noxious weeds (as classified
by the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board) which exceed an average of three feet in
height within five feet of an adjacent property.
R. Any violation of the noxious weed regulations contained in Chapter 6.30 ECC.
S. Any unpermitted obstruction of any street, alley, crossing or sidewalk, and any
unpermitted excavation therein or thereunder.
T. Any garbage receptacle, recycling bin or compost container located within the
front yard setback unless screened from view.
6.20.045 Protective coverings.
Packet Page 172 of 201
Except as otherwise expressly provided by applicable city ordinance or a valid regulatory
permit, any condition enumerated in ECC 6.20.040 shall constitute a public nuisance irrespective
of whether such condition is covered in whole or in part by a tarpaulin, vapor barrier, canvas or
plastic sheeting, or other temporary covering.
6.20.050 Enforcement and abatement.
A. Responsibility for enforcement. The provisions of this chapter shall be enforced
by the community services director or his/her designee.
B. Responsibility for violation. The provisions of this chapter shall be enforceable
against any person who causes, permits, creates, maintains or allows upon any premises, any of
the actions or conditions designated as public nuisances under ECC 6.20.040, including but not
limited to any person or entity owning, leasing, renting, occupying, or possessing the underlying
premises.
C. Penalties. Any person violating this chapter shall be subject to civil enforcement
proceedings pursuant to Chapter 20.110 ECDC and/or criminal misdemeanor prosecution.
D. Abatement. The City may seek a warrant of abatement from Snohomish County
Superior Court authorizing City personnel and/or contractors to enter any premises containing a
public nuisance and abate said nuisance at the violator’s expense. Prior to obtaining such a
warrant, the City shall provide written notice to the responsible party by posting upon the subject
premises, mailing and/or personal delivery. Such notice may be combined with a Notice of Civil
Violation issued pursuant to Chapter 20.110 ECDC, and shall contain: (1) a description of the
public nuisance; (2) a reasonable deadline by which the responsible party must eliminate the
public nuisance; (3) a warning that the City may abate the nuisance at the responsible party’s
expense; and (4) a statement that the notice shall become a final order of the City if not appealed
to the hearing examiner within the time period specified in Chapter 20.110 ECDC. All costs
incurred by the City in abating a public nuisance, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees,
staff time and contractor expenses, shall be recovered from the responsible party. Abatement
may be exercised concurrently with or alternatively to the imposition of civil and/or criminal
penalties pursuant to subsection (C) of this section.
E. Summary Abatement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the
City may, to the fullest extent legally permissible, summarily abate and/or take any action
necessary to eliminate any condition constituting an immediate threat to public health or safety.
6.20.060 Separate abatement proceedings for junk vehicles.
A. Statutes Adopted by Reference.
1. RCW 46.55.010(2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12) only;
2. RCW 46.55.070, Posting requirements – Exception;
3. RCW 46.55.090, Storage, return requirements – Personal belongings –
Combination endorsement for tow truck drivers – Authority to view impounded vehicle;
4. RCW 46.55.100, Impound notice – Abandoned vehicle;
5. RCW 46.55.110, Notice to legal and registered owners;
Packet Page 173 of 201
6. RCW 46.55.120, Redemption of vehicle – Sale of unredeemed vehicles;
7. RCW 46.55.130, Notice requirements public auction accumulation of
storage charges;
8. RCW 46.55.140, Operator's lien, deficiency claim, liability; and
9. RCW 46.55.230, Junk vehicles – Certification, notification, removal, sale.
C. Administrative Hearing Officer. All abatement hearings required under this
section shall be conducted by the hearing examiner. A decision made by the hearing examiner
under this section regarding abatement shall be final as to abatement. Any abatement hearing
under this section shall be considered a separate matter from any hearing regarding the
underlying violation outlined in the previous sections of this chapter. Provided, however, that
the hearing examiner may in his/her discretion combine such hearings if two separate rulings are
issued.
D. Abatement and Removal of Unauthorized Junk Motor Vehicles or Parts Thereof
from Private Property.
1. The storage or retention of an unauthorized junk motor vehicle or parts
thereof, as defined herein, on private property is hereby declared a public nuisance subject to
removal and impoundment. The community services director shall inspect and investigate
complaints relative to unauthorized junk motor vehicles, or parts thereof on private property.
Upon discovery of such nuisance, the community services director shall give notice in writing to
the last registered owner of record if identifiable and the property owner, of the violation of the
nuisance provisions and demand that both abate the nuisance or the vehicle will be removed and
costs will be assessed against them. The notice shall also inform both that a hearing before the
hearing examiner may be requested in writing, directed to the city clerk within 10 days of said
notice, and that if no hearing is requested within 10 days, the vehicle will be removed at their
expense.
2. If a request for a hearing is received, a notice giving the time, location,
and date of the hearing on the question of abatement and removal of the vehicle or parts thereof
as a public nuisance shall be mailed, by certified mail with a five-day return receipt requested, to
the owner of the land as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to the last registered and
legal owner of record unless the vehicle is in such condition that the identification numbers are
not available to determine ownership.
3. The owner of the land on which the vehicle is located may appear in
person at the hearing or present a written statement in time for consideration at the hearing, and
deny responsibility for the presence of the vehicle on the land, with reasons for the denial and
that she/he has not given consent for the vehicle to be located there. If it is determined at the
hearing that the vehicle was placed on the land without the consent of the landowner and that
she/he has not subsequently acquiesced in its presence, then the hearing examiner shall not
assess costs of administration or removal of the vehicle against the owner of the property upon
which the vehicle is located or otherwise order recoupment of such costs from the owner of the
property.
4. Costs of removal of vehicles or parts thereof under this section shall be
assessed against the last registered owner of the vehicle or automobile hulk if the identity of the
owner can be determined, unless the owner in the transfer of ownership of the vehicle or
automobile hulk complied with RCW 46.12.101, or the costs may be assessed against the owner
Packet Page 174 of 201
of the property on which the vehicle is stored, unless the property owner establishes the facts set
forth subsection 3 of this section.
5. This section shall not apply to:
a. A vehicle or part thereof that is completely enclosed within a
building in a lawful manner where it is not visible from the street or other public or private
property; or
b. A vehicle or part thereof that is stored or parked in a lawful
manner on private property in connection with the business of a licensed dismantler or licensed
vehicle dealer and is screened according to RCW 46.80.130.
6. After notice has been given of the city's intent to dispose of the vehicle
and after a hearing, if requested, has been held, the vehicle or parts thereof shall be removed at
the request of the community services director and disposed of to a licensed motor vehicle
wrecker or hulk hauler with written notice being provided to the Washington State Patrol and the
Department of Licensing that the vehicle has been wrecked or otherwise lawfully disposed of.
E. Owner of Record Presumed Liable for Costs when Vehicle Abandoned –
Exceptions.
1. The abandonment of any junk vehicle or hulk shall constitute a prima facia
presumption that the last owner of record is responsible for such junk vehicle and thus liable for
any costs incurred in removing, storing and disposing of said vehicle.
2. A registered owner transferring a vehicle shall be relieved from personal
liability under this chapter if within five days of the transfer she/he transmits to the planning
division a seller's report of sale on a form prescribed by the planning manager to show that the
vehicle had been transferred prior to the date notice was given to him/her of the need to abate.
F. Owner or Agent Required to Pay Charges – Lien.
1. Any costs incurred in the removal and storage of an impounded shall be a
lien upon the vehicle. All towing and storage charges on such vehicle impounded shall be paid
by the owner or his/her agent if the vehicle is redeemed. In the case of abandoned vehicles, all
costs of removal and storage shall be paid by the owner or his/her agent if the vehicle is
redeemed, but if not redeemed, such costs shall be received from the proceeds of sale.
2. Either a registered or legal owner may claim an impounded vehicle by
payment of all charges that have accrued to the time of reclamation. If the vehicle was
impounded at the direction of a law enforcement agency, the person in possession of the vehicle
prior to the time of reclamation shall notify such agency of the fact that the vehicle has been
claimed, and by whom.
G. Written Impound Authorization Form. Whenever the community services director
impounds a vehicle pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, the director shall complete an
authorization form approved by the chief of police which specifies the section of this chapter or
Chapter 46.55 RCW authorizing the impound. In the alternative, a law enforcement notice of
infraction or citation for an offense which authorized the impound may be substituted at the
director’s discretion.
Packet Page 175 of 201
Approved January 9, 2008
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
December 12, 2007
Chair Guenther called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 259 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Cary Guenther, Chair
John Dewhirst, Vice Chair
Janice Freeman
Judith Works
Don Henderson
Michael Bowman
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Jim Young (excused)
John Reed (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER HENDERSON MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28,
2007 AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The Board agreed to switch Item 7a (File Number AMD-07-13) and Item 7b (File Number AMD-07-6). The remainder of
the agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience who expressed a desire to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting.
CODE RE-WRITE PROJECT UPDATE AND TOPICAL DISCUSSION
Mr. Bowman advised that after discussions with the City Attorney, staff determined the best course of action is for him to
finish with the amendments to Chapter 20, and then they will go out for a contract for a consultant to help them complete the
remainder of the updates. He reported that the City Attorney, Scott Snyder, will be having surgery that would require him to
be immobilized for 23 hours a day for the next four to seven weeks. However, he anticipates that after a few weeks, he
should be able to resume his work on the code language. In the meantime, Zach Lell, an attorney from Mr. Snyder’s Office,
would work with the staff.
Packet Page 176 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
December 12, 2007 Page 2
DISCUSSION REGARDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17 (NUISANCE)
(FILE NUMBER AMD-07-6)
Mr. Bowman advised that he and Mike Theis, the City’s Code Enforcement Officer, met with Mr. Lell to review the work
the Planning Board previously completed for amendments to Chapter 17.60. Mr. Lell strongly recommended the nuisance
standards be removed from the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and placed in the Edmonds City Code
(ECC) since they are related more to public safety than to land use issues.
Mr. Bowman explained that many of the nuisance items that were originally proposed for ECDC 17.60 were moved to ECC
6. However, those that are related to land use issues would be moved to ECDC 20 as part of the performance standards. He
referred the Board to the updated language for ECC 6 and noted that the City Council would most likely hold a public
hearing on the proposed amendments since they are substantive. The Planning Board is not required to review the
amendments and provide a recommendation to the City Council.
Board Member Henderson referred to ECC 6:30.040, which would require property owners to eliminate noxious weeds and
thistles. He pointed out that if the language is approved as written, the City’s Parks Department could be required to remove
all the noxious weeds and thistles from park property if someone were to complain. He suggested this could utilize a
significant amount of the park maintenance budget.
Board Member Works referenced ECC 6.10.020 and asked who the City’s health officer is. Mr. Bowman answered that the
City contracts with the Snohomish County Health Department for this service. He explained that this section was modified
to clearly define who the health officer is. It was also cleaned up so the health officer would no longer be responsible for
dealing with nuisances.
Mr. Bowman said the Mr. Lell recommended that standards related to vehicles in residential zones and abatement issues
could be addressed in ECDC 17.60. Another option would be to put this information in the zoning code, which could make
the zoning code a bit messy. Staff recommends the standards be placed in ECDC 17.60.
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred to Section 17.60.010.B and inquired if the language in this section would also address concerns
related to light pollution in the sky. Mr. Bowman noted that the language in this section was taken from the current code,
and it would not address the issue of light pollution in the sky. Vice Chair Dewhirst reminded the Board that many people
have expressed concern about minimizing light pollution. Chair Guenther recalled that he previously provided information
to the Board regarding the topic of dark skies and light pollution. Board Member Freeman suggested this issue should be
addressed by the City as they consider opportunities for requiring green and sustainable development.
Mr. Bowman recommended the Commission place this topic on their work list for the future. However, he encouraged them
to not postpone the currently proposed language while they work through the issue. Board Member Freeman suggested that
even if the City of Edmonds has to lead the way, they should move forward to address the concerns. Chair Guenther agreed
with Mr. Bowman that the Board should wrap up their review of ECDC 17.60 with the changes proposed by staff and then
consider the light issue at a future time. Mr. Bowman agreed to pass the concern on to the Mayor’s Climate Control
Committee as a topic of future discussion.
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred to Section 17.60.010.H.1 and noted that a heavy wire fence would not obscure storage
materials from view. Mr. Bowman pointed out that this language is from the current code. Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested
the language be changed to read, “All storage shall be located more than 20 feet and be screened from the street right-of-way
line and shall be enclosed with a . . .”
Next, Vice Chair Dewhirst requested clarification of Section 17.60.040.C. Mr. Bowman explained that if a property owner
cannot park a recreation vehicle as per the other standards in the section, then it must be parked off site, except when
loading, etc. Vice Chair Dewhirst asked if the term “side or rear yard” actually means within the setbacks or just the side and
rear yard. Mr. Bowman clarified that the purpose of this section is to get recreational vehicles out of the setback areas. Vice
Packet Page 177 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
December 12, 2007 Page 3
Chair Dewhirst suggested the third sentence be changed to read, “If the recreational vehicle cannot be stored as described in
17.60.040.E.1 or in a side or rear yard setback due to site constraints, the recreational vehicle shall be parked off-site during
those extended times when not in use.
Board Member Works referenced Section 17.60.010.A and asked if the City has always allowed noise up to 60 decibels until
11:30 p.m. at night. Mr. Bowman answered that these are adopted standards that are measurable and regulated by the Puget
Sound Clean Air Act. Board Member Works suggested these standards be reviewed again when the Board considers clean
and sustainable options.
Board Member Freeman referred to Section 17.60.010.G, which states that no waste products shall be exposed to view from
eye level from any property line. She suggested this might be difficult to enforce. Mr. Bowman concurred and suggested the
last sentence be eliminated.
Board Member Henderson referred to Section 17.60.010.F and asked if this standard is monitored by the Puget Sound Air
Quality Board, too. Mr. Bowman explained that if a complaint is filed related to smoke, the City calls in the Puget Sound
Air Quality Board to investigate. Board Member Henderson suggested that perhaps the words, “in accordance with
standards from the Puget Sound Air Quality Board.” Should be added. That way, if the standards are made stricter at some
point in the future, the City won’t have to revise their code language. Mr. Bowman agreed to work with Mr. Lell to insert
this language.
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to Section 17.70, which includes a new section related to temporary storage units. He
explained that while temporary storage units can become nuisances to some people, they are valid uses that people need and
the City’s code must provide for them.
Mr. Bowman explained that the City’s current code requires a property owner to obtain a conditional use permit in order to
place a temporary structure on site, and the permits are only good for two years. He expressed his belief that the fees to the
Hearing Examiner exceed the value of what the property owner is typically trying to do. He said staff believes permits for
temporary structures could be handled administratively, and this would allow the costs to be more in scale with what an
applicant is trying to do. Staff is proposing a change to Section 17.70 to allow staff to administratively review and approve
temporary structure permits. If someone wants to appeal the permit, they could do so to the Hearing Examiner of the City
Council. The Board concurred with staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Bowman agreed to bring back an updated draft of Section 17.60, incorporating all the changes identified by the Board,
prior to scheduling a public hearing.
DISCUSSION REGARDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20
(PROCEDURES) (FILE NUMBER AMD-07-13
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to the matrix he and Mr. Chave prepared to outline the City’s current list of project permit
applications and the review, decision making, and appeal process for each. He invited the Board to review the document and
provide feedback and guidance to staff as they prepare to write new code language for ECDC 20.
Mr. Bowman recalled that when the Board discussed ECDC 20 on a previous occasion, the majority appeared to be in favor
of moving towards a process where the Hearing Examiner would handle the majority of quasi-judicial applications, with
closed record reviews and appeals going straight to Superior Court. He pointed out that there are certain permit applications
in which the City Council must make the final decision, but most of the other quasi-judicial permit applications could be
handled by the Hearing Examiner. He advised that final plat applications cannot be handled by the Hearing Examiner
because the City Council has to accept the dedications and easements associated with the final plat approval. While
development agreements could be reviewed by the appropriate body, the final decision must also be made by the City
Council.
Packet Page 178 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
November 28, 2007 Page 5
Mr. Hertrich referred to the blue circles on the proposed new park map and noted that the map should be changed to make it
clear that the old Woodway Elementary School should no longer be considered as a possible site for a regional park because
the City Council decided only to retain a large enough area of land to develop a smaller neighborhood park. He considered it
ironic that the updated plan identifies a need for a regional park in the southwest portion of Edmonds because the City
already passed up their opportunity to acquire sufficient space for this purpose.
Mr. Hertrich reported that he attended a good number of the Waterfront Redevelopment Project meetings that were
sponsored by the Port of Edmonds and other private property owners. There has been a lot of public money spent in the
process, and the final preferred alternative was a six-story building with approximately 700 condominiums. However, the
public in attendance at the final meeting questioned why they would want 700 condominiums and the associated traffic on
the waterfront. The public indicated their desire for more open space. He suggested that when the Parks, Recreation and
Open Space Comprehensive Plan is revised, it should take into account the concept put forth by the citizens that this area be
used as an events park. He said there is sufficient literature available to show that once created, this type of park would draw
people to the City and benefit the community more than a 700-unit condominium development. He suggested the Board
review the public comments related to the Waterfront Redevelopment Plan.
Chair Guenther invited the Board to review the draft documents and provide comments to Mr. McIntosh by December 21st.
This would allow staff sufficient time to incorporate the Board’s comments prior to a public hearing in January.
Board Member Reed asked Mr. McIntosh to provide a status report on the Old Mill Town Park. Mr. McIntosh answered that
this park is still under negotiations. His part was to get an appraisal to the City Council, which he completed.
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17 (NUISANCE) (FILE NUMBER AMD-07-6
Mr. Bowman advised that the City Attorney is now recommending that nuisance standards related to the public’s health,
safety and welfare would be better placed in Section 6 of the Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC). Those nuisance standards
that relate to land use and development could remain in Section 17.60 of the Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC). The City Attorney has agreed to review the Planning Board discussions and draft new language for both the ECDC
and EMC. The new language for ECDC Section 17.60 would be presented to the Board for review on December 12th. The
proposed amendments to EMC Section 6 would be forwarded directly to the City Council for review and final approval. He
noted that no public hearing is required for changes to the EMC, and the Planning Board would not be involved in the
process. However, the City Council usually holds public hearings when considering major policy changes.
Vice Chair Dewhirst inquired if the two draft documents would be forwarded to the City Council together. Mr. Bowman
answered that they would be presented to the City Council at the same time, along with minutes of the Planning Board’s
discussion related to the topic.
Mr. Bowman advised that if the nuisance standards are adopted as part of EMC Section 6, the City Council would be able to
quickly address proposed amendments as problems present themselves. If they are adopted as part of the ECDC, the
amendments would be subject to GMA requirements and a public hearing process would be necessary.
Board Member Reed noted that the Board did not take action after the public hearing on October 10th regarding the proposed
changes to ECDC 17.60. He suggested they be prepared to do so on December 12th, when the new draft language is
presented to them for review.
CODE RE-WRITE PROJECT UPDATE AND TOPICAL INFORMATION
Mr. Bowman reported that the City Attorney would provide an updated draft of Title 20 (Procedures) for the Board to
consider on December 12th.
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to ECDC Section 17.40 (nonconforming) and advised that staff worked with the City
Attorney to incorporate the changes recommended by the Board at their last meeting. He invited the Board Members to
review the document and identify any additional changes before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council.
Packet Page 179 of 201
APPROVED ON OCTOBER 24, 2007
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 10, 2007
Chair Guenther called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Cary Guenther, Chair
John Dewhirst, Vice Chair
Janice Freeman
Jim Young
Don Henderson
Judith Works
John Reed
STAFF PRESENT
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Mike Thies, Code Enforcement Officer
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Michael Bowman (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER YOUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER HENDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY, WITH BOARD MEMBERS DEWHIRST AND REED ABSTAINING.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience who expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) CHAPTER 17
(NUISANCE) (FILE NUMBER AMD-07-6
Mr. Bowman recalled that on April 25, 2007 the Planning Board reviewed a draft of potential changes to Chapter 17.50 of
the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) regarding property performance standards. He noted that the
proposed amendments were driven by the types of complaints the City’s Code Enforcement Officer has receive over the past
several years. He advised that the draft ordinance was updated to reflect the comments provided by the Board on April 25th.
The following changes were made:
• Section 17.60.030.B was modified to prohibit attractive nuisances dangerous to children from be located outside an
enclosed building or on a vacant lot.
• Section 17.60.030.H was modified to allow up to 10 days to begin a construction project.
Packet Page 180 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2007 Page 2
• In order to consolidate vehicle regulations, provisions related to prohibiting trailers and canopies were moved to a new
Section 17.60.040.E.2.n.
Mr. Bowman emphasized that the proposed changes to Chapter 17.60 are representative of the types of complaints the staff
gets from the community regarding nuisance situations. The Board must review the proposed document and determine
whether or not they are appropriate to move forward to the City Council for final approval. He suggested that when
reviewing the proposed code language, the Board members should ask themselves whether or not the nuisances are
something they would like to have located near their property. He noted that a number of jurisdictions are working to clear
up their nuisance regulations. Mountlake Terrace and Yakima are both actively pursuing more enforceable nuisance codes.
Mr. Thies explained that in the draft document, staff attempted to identify the types of issues they deal with on a regular
basis via citizen complaints. He noted that the definition section was updated to provide a clear definition for what is meant
by the term “vehicle.” He provided pictures to illustrate examples of the following situations that currently exist in the City:
• Vegetation growing around junk vehicles.
• Over abundance of recreational vehicles parked on a single-property.
• Recreational vehicles that are so large they overpower the neighborhood.
• Recreational vehicles that are covered by blue tarps.
• Too many vehicles parked in front yards or on the street in front.
• Containers and plywood and/or plastic buildings.
• Overgrown and unkempt vegetation in yards.
• Canopies and tarps.
• Outdoor storage units
• People living in recreational vehicles on single-family residential properties.
Mr. Thies advised that the City has received 85 complaints about canopies and tarps that are used to cover vehicles. These
situations are usually located in areas where the City would not allow permanent structures, typically within the setback
areas.
Mr. Bowman advised that staff attempted to put together suggested code language for property performance standards that
address the issues that are raised on a regular basis. He referred to the pictures that were shown by Mr. Thies and suggested
the Board consider whether or not they represent situations that are desirable in the City’s residential neighborhoods. The
proposed ordinance should represent the community’s desires and not necessarily what staff wants.
CHAIR GUENTHER NOTED THAT NO ONE WAS PRESENT IN THE AUDIENCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
The Board reviewed draft language and made the following observations and suggestions:
• Section 17.60.030.F: Board Member Henderson questioned if the City has a definition for “hazardous trees.” Mr.
Bowman answered that this term refers to trees that show obvious signs of distress. Board Member Henderson suggested
that including the phrase “any other vegetation” could open up a can of worms. Mr. Thies pointed out that this language
already exists in the code and would not really apply to vegetation on public property. It is more related to vegetation that
extends into the public rights-of-way. Board Member Henderson suggested the language be made clearer.
• Storage Containers: Board Member Henderson said he supports the proposed language related to storage containers.
However, he pointed out that property owners can request that large dumpsters be delivered to their home, and they are
not charged extra to leave them there for extended periods of time. Mr. Thies said staff has only received two complaints
related to this type of situation in the last five years, so he does not see it as a significant problem.
• Sections 17.60.030.M and 17.60.030.N: Board Member Henderson pointed out that the proposed language states that
garbage and recycling containers cannot be stored in front yards. However, it should be noted that everyone puts these
Packet Page 181 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2007 Page 3
containers out in front of their homes on garbage days. He suggested the language be changed to either define the term
“stored” or provide a specific exception for garbage days. Mr. Thies said the City has only received six to ten complaints
of this type over the past five years; and typically, they are related to situations where property owners do not move their
containers after the garbage has been picked up. Mr. Bowman agreed with Board Member Henderson’s concern and said
staff would update the language as per his recommendation.
Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that Section M would prohibit property owners from storing garbage containers in their
front yards. However, in some situations, homes are further back on the property and there is no other place to store the
containers except in the front yard against the house. The Board agreed the language should be changed to allow
containers to be stored in front yards as long as they are screened from the public’s sight and not within the public rights-
of-way.
Board Member Freeman pointed out that some properties have steep slopes that make it difficult to move the garbage
containers from the back of a property to the street front. She suggested the language allow staff to take the actual
configuration and topography of the lot into consideration when regulating these situations. Mr. Bowman agreed to
review the language to consider difficult storage factors
• Overgrown Vegetation: Board Member Works expressed concern about allowing vegetation to become significantly
overgrown in residential neighborhoods. She noted that invasive plants tend to spread onto neighboring properties. Board
Member Reed questioned if there is anything in the proposed language to regulate vegetation on residential properties.
Mr. Bowman said there are no significant provisions in the current draft to deal with overgrown vegetation. Board
Member Freeman suggested the ordinance should address all noxious weeds and invasive vegetation and not single out
certain types. Mr. Thies said overgrown vegetation is a difficult subject to address, but other jurisdictions in the area have
attempted to do so. Mr. Bowman agreed to discuss this concept with the City Attorney to identify the City’s options for
regulating overgrown vegetation and noxious weeds.
Mr. Thies said the City receives numerous complaints related to vegetation and noxious weeds. Vice Chair Dewhirst
questioned if the City’s fire code would address situations that occur within the public rights-of-way and setback areas.
Mr. Thies said the fire code would only address these situations if there are drought conditions. Mr. Bowman said the
City does have some authority to regulate these situations if they present a danger to the public’s health and safety. He
suggested the Board carefully consider what the public wants. He noted that most property owners would be against
allowing these situations to occur in their neighborhood because they often result in decreased property values for
surrounding property owners.
Board Member Young recalled that a few years ago, the Board agreed the City did not have the right or authority to
guarantee a property owner’s view. He suggested there could be repercussions if the City were to regulate noxious weeds,
but not other situations that could have a significant impact on property values. He questioned if the City should be
responsible for these situations if they do not present health or safety hazards to the public.
Board Member Young agreed that the majority of property owners in the City would be in favor of keeping nuisance
situations out of the setback and right-of-way areas. However, instead of creating codes to accomplish this task, the City
could address these situations as public health and safety issues. He suggested it would be more appropriate to encourage
property owners to work together to resolve issues rather than expecting the City to take care of their problems. Mr.
Bowman countered that sometimes a property owner is unwilling to work with neighbors to resolve problems.
Chair Guenther suggested that perhaps vegetation could be regulated by the degree of nuisance. If a situation only
impacts an adjacent property owner, the City could require both parties to work the problem out on their own. However,
if a situation reaches the point that it impacts the character of the entire neighborhood, the City could get involved. He
pointed out that many of the City’s current zoning codes are intended to preserve the character of the neighborhoods.
Board Member Freeman expressed her belief that all property owners have the right to enjoy their properties, and they
have a right to expect the City to protect them from situations that impact their ability to enjoy their properties. Board
Member Works agreed. She noted that while most property owners are reasonable and problems can be worked out
Packet Page 182 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2007 Page 4
through compromise without the City getting involved, some situations involve property owners who are unwilling to
work with their neighbors.
Board Member Young questioned the harm of allowing citizens to do whatever they want on their properties as long as it
does not present harm to the surrounding property owners. Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested that this decision must be
made by the community. He recommended the Board forward the draft language to the City Council. Hopefully, the
public would participate in the hearing before the City Council and indicate whether or not they want the City to regulate
noxious weeds and/or invasive vegetation. He questioned if there is a definition for the term “noxious weeds.” Chair
Guenther answered that the State has a definition for this term.
Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested the City Council would likely find there is public interest in keeping invasive species off
of private property. Board Member Henderson pointed out that many noxious weeds are so prevalent in neighborhoods
that it is very difficult for property owners to get rid of them. He expressed his belief that it would not be practical to
adopt code language that would allow the City to penalize property owners who have these species present on their
properties. Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that the code enforcement officer would only become involved in these
situations if a complaint were filed. Board Member Henderson questioned if it would even be appropriate for the City to
regulate noxious weeds if it is impossible to get rid of them. Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested it would be appropriate for
the City to start addressing the problem of noxious weeds by prohibiting them in the setbacks and rights-of-way.
• Section 17.60.040.C: Board Member Henderson noted that the section reference should actually be 17.50.040.E.
• Sections 17.60.020.G and 17.60.030.K: Board Member Reed noted that both of these sections deal with the storage of
waste which attracts insects or rodents. He said some people might argue that compost piles attract rodents, so the
proposed language should make it clear that composting would not beprohibited. Mr. Bowman pointed out that Section
17.60.030.O talks about composting and requires that it be kept in a manner that does not attract insects and/or animals.
However, he agreed to review the draft language to make sure that composting would not be prohibited.
• Sections 17.60.030.I and 17.60.030.J: Board Member Reed suggested that it might be appropriate to include fire wood
in these two sections that talk about the storage of combustible or flammable materials or substances. Mr. Bowman
agreed to change the language to include firewood.
• Section 17.60.030: Board Member Reed expressed his opinion that the introduction to this section was unclear. He
suggested the words “any of the following” be moved to just after the word “maintained.” In addition, he suggested the
term “maintained” be defined in the code.
• Section 17.60.040.D: Board Member Reed pointed out that the proposed language would prohibit all vehicle oriented
businesses. He questioned if the real intent of the language is to prohibit business that require the actual storage of
vehicles on site. Mr. Thies said this section is intended to apply to property owners who sell or repair cars in residential
neighborhoods as a business. Mr. Bowman added that the intent of the proposed language is to avoid situations where
vehicles are allowed to accumulate. Board Member Reed again stated his opinion that the term “vehicle oriented
businesses” is broader than the intent of this section.
• Section 17.60.040.E.2.d: Board Member Reed said this section places limitations on a property owner’s ability to work
on vehicles outside an enclosed structure. He questioned if this prohibition would prohibit a property owner from
renovating or overhauling a bus or boat if he/she were unable to place the vehicle within an enclosed structure. He
suggested that if the language is not intended to prohibit this type of activity, then the wording should be changed to make
it clearer.
• Section 17.60.040.E.2.f: Vice Chair Dewhirst recalled that the Board previously agreed it would be inappropriate to not
allow a property owner of two adjacent lots to park recreational vehicles on one of the lots. He noted there are several
situations in Edmonds where this type of use occurs, and it should be allowed to continue. The remainder of the Board
agreed this would be appropriate as long as the properties are adjacent to each other. Mr. Bowman agreed to make the
change as recommended by the Board.
Packet Page 183 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2007 Page 5
• Section 17.60.050: Vice Chair Dewhirst recalled the Board’s earlier decision that the language in this section be changed
to allow some leeway for people to use recreational vehicles when guests are visiting. The Board agreed that this change
should be made, and Mr. Bowman agreed to make the change.
• Section 17.60.030.L: Board Member Dewhirst pointed out that, as currently proposed, the language in this section infers
that the City would be allowed to have stagnant water, but no one else would. Mr. Bowman agreed to rework the
language in this section to make its intent clear.
• Section 17.60.040: Board Member Reed pointed out that the formatting must be updated in this section because it
currently skips h, i, j, and k.
Mr. Bowman invited the Board to provide feedback about whether or not they are in favor of updating the code to make it
more aggressive in addressing nuisance situations. Board Member Young agreed that the nuisance ordinance is necessary in
order to protect the general public from things that are nuisances. However, in his opinion, most of the pictures shown by
Mr. Thies represent situations that would not qualify as any other nuisance than visual annoyance.
Board Member Freeman said she moved to Edmonds from a Columbia, Maryland, a community that was well regulated.
When looking for a home, she immediately walked away from a property that was located across the street from property
where numerous junk cars were stored. She suggested that if they want to have community standards, the City must go
beyond regulating just those nuisances that represent public safety and health concerns.
Based on the number of complaints the staff has received, Board Member Works said it is apparent the community would be
in favor strengthening the nuisance section of the code. She agreed with Vice Chair Dewhirst that it would be appropriate to
forward the draft ordinance to the City Council so they can solicit public input regarding the issue. Board Member
Henderson said he would support the draft ordinance, with the exception of the comment he made earlier that the City should
not regulate vegetation.
Board Member Reed noted that most of the pictures provided by staff illustrate situations where nuisances infringe in the
setback areas or onto other properties and public rights-of-way. He suggested that perhaps the ordinance should protect the
setback areas and public rights-of-way and then not worry so much about what people do on the rest of their property. He
expressed his belief that property owners must have the right to use their property however they want. He summarized there
are certain things that should be regulated because they represent a common vision of what citizens of Edmonds want to see,
but the City should not go overboard in this effort. He expressed his belief that the draft language represents a good
compromise for regulating nuisances.
Board Member Freeman suggested they approach the issue from the standpoint of requiring property owners to respect their
neighbors’ rights rather than allowing them the right to do whatever you want on your own property, regardless of its impact
to neighboring property owners. She expressed her belief that government should be utilized to help people live in harmony
with each other. Mr. Bowman suggested that the proposed ordinance would provide a basis for property owners to work
together to resolve conflicts. If a property owner doesn’t want to cooperate with the neighbors, a complaint could be filed
and the City could step in to address the problem. Vice chair Dewhirst noted there are many neighborhood situations that
make it difficult for property owners to work together, and the City must have codes in place to deal with the chronic
offenders who are difficult to work with. He summarized there is a community expectation that the City should help
property owners address significant situations. He expressed his opinion that the language proposed in the draft ordinance
would be appropriate and on the right course for accomplishing this goal.
Board Member Young inquired if the proposed ordinance would be enforceable, as written. Mr. Thies answered
affirmatively. Board Member Young said that if the proposed ordinance would be enforceable, he would be in favor of
moving it forward to the City Council.
CHAIR GUENTHER CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Packet Page 184 of 201
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2007 Page 6
Mr. Bowman advised that he would invite the City Attorney to review the changes and provide feedback, particularly related
to the noxious weed language, and attempt to have a new draft before the Board for consideration at their November 14th
meeting. At that time the Board could decide if they want to add language related to vegetation.
Mr. Bowman emphasized that it is important to find out what the community wants and this would likely become evident
when the draft language is presented to the City Council for review and a public hearing. He explained he would present the
draft ordinance to the City Council’s Community Services Committee first. The Committee would likely schedule the
ordinance as a work session before the entire City Council as a whole prior to the actual public hearing.
CODE RE-WRITE PROJECT UPDATE AND TOPICAL DISCUSSION
Mr. Bowman announced that there has been some recent controversy regarding the Planned Residential Development (PRD)
regulations found in ECDC 20.35 that requires the City to move this section up in the code rewrite process. He advised that
the Hearing Examiner recently issued two decisions regarding PRD’s that were contrary to the way the City has processed
and interpreted the PRD Ordinance in the past. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner raised issues regarding perimeter
buffering requirements. In addition, staff has raised concerns over criteria for tree retention and what is meant by the term.
Staff recommends the Board consider the impact of the critical area and common useable open space requirements. At this
time, there is confusion about whether or not the required critical area space can be credited as open space.
Mr. Bowman reminded the Board that the City Attorney has drafted language (Title 20) that would consolidate the
preliminary subdivision and PRD review process to just the Hearing Examiner, and this language would likely be presented
to the Board on November 28th. However, the City Council has expressed their desire that the Board address issues related
to the PRD ordinance as soon as possible.
Board Member Reed recalled that in addition to their recommendations to the City Council related to the PRD Ordinance, the
Hearing Examiner also raised other concerns related to the development code and offered to help staff rewrite sections of the
code to address the concerns they raised. Mr. Bowman summarized that the Hearing Examiner has offered possible
amendments to clarify certain sections of the code language, particularly the PRD Ordinance.
Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that the initial approach staff gave for the code rewrite project is long gone. Mr. Bowman
agreed that the work is being driven by the importance of issues. Vice Chair Dewhirst asked for a timeline for sequencing
the rewrite of each of the code sections. Mr. Bowman reviewed that the Board has already worked through the
nonconforming and nuisance sections, and staff would bring back the nuisance section for final review before moving it on
to the City Council. Meanwhile, the City Attorney would continue preparing draft language for the procedures section (Title
20). The Board must also deal with the PRD ordinance as soon as possible and then move into the sign and zoning
regulations. They must also review the definitions section. He said staff’s goal is for the Board to get through all of the
sections by early 2008 so the changes could be adopted by the City Council in the spring.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Guenther asked staff to contact Mr. MacIntosh to schedule an update on the Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Programs.
Vice Chair Dewhirst asked when the Waterfront Redevelopment Plan would come before the Board for review. Board
Member Reed reported that a public meeting was conducted on October 5th, where the consultant presented five alternatives,
and an additional public meeting has been scheduled for October 18th for this same purpose. The group intends to announce
the preferred alternative at a public meeting on October 25th. He advised that Chris Keuss, Port of Edmonds Executive
Director, is currently making presentations before several different groups in the City and information regarding the plan is
also available via the Port’s website. Mr. Bowman advised that once a preferred alternative has been selected, the group
would work with the City on the public process for getting a final plan adopted.
Packet Page 185 of 201
CODE RE-RITE PROJECT UPDATE AND TOPICAL DISCUSSION
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to the latest version of Title 17, which was last updated on May 9, 2007. He reported that
he received comments from Board Members Freeman, Dewhirst and Works, and many of them were incorporated into the
new draft document. He said the purpose of this meeting is to review each of the changes that have been made since the
Board’s last meeting.
Mr. Bowman advised that the Historic Preservation Commission has requested an opportunity to meet with the Planning
Board to report on their work on the historic preservation aspects of the code. He suggested that either the entire
Commission or a subcommittee of the Commission could be invited to participate in a workshop discussion with the Board at
their May 23rd meeting regarding the non-conformance standards and the regulations pertaining to adaptive reuse of
properties. He noted that the City Attorney would be invited to participate in the discussion, as well. He suggested that, in
light of this future discussion, it would be appropriate for the Board to focus their attention tonight on the other code
sections.
Mr. Bowman recommended that when the Board reaches the public hearing stage, it would be helpful to split Title 17 into
three separate hearings. One could focus on the nuisance regulations and another on the non-conformance standards. The
third public hearing could focus on all other sections of Title 17. He noted that the non-conformance standards and nuisance
regulations would likely cause the most public concern and comment.
Section 17.50 – Parking Requirements
Mr. Bowman recalled that the Board made several suggestions at their last meeting related to parking. He said he has
completed research to help the Board consider options for revising the parking standards, especially those related to the
Highway 99 Corridor. He reminded the Board of Community Transit’s plans to provide bus rapid transit on Highway 99, as
well as a number of other transportation improvements. Therefore, now is an excellent time for the City to rework their
parking standards and move away from the more prescriptive standards that currently exist.
Section 17.60.010 – Definitions
Mr. Bowman reported that he discussed the Board’s concerns regarding the organization of the definition section. The City
Attorney has recommended all definitions in the code be placed in one section rather than floating the definitions throughout
the document. Staff supports that recommendation.
Section 17.60.010.M -- Junk
Mr. Bowman advised that Board Member Freeman recommended a definition be provided for the term “junk.” She correctly
noted that the definition should include the terms “boxes” and “cartons.” This section was changed to read, “Junk means
discarded, broken or disabled material including but not limited to: “household items; house or lawn furniture; boxes,
cartons, appliances; toys; construction items; hot tubs; trampolines; vehicle parts; or other items that are not in functioning
condition.”
Section 17.60.020.G – Waste Disposal
Mr. Bowman advised that Board Member Freeman suggested the word “rodents” be added to this section. In addition, she
recommended that “compost bins” be excluded from the requirement, since they can be designed to keep rodents out. Board
Member Freeman noted that Snohomish County does not require that compost bins have bottoms to keep out rodents, but
King County does. She suggested the Board consider making rodent-proof compost bins a requirement in the City of
Edmonds, as well. Chair Guenther expressed his belief that rodent-proof compost bins should be recommended, but not a
requirement. Board Member Freeman agreed the City should at least encourage people to use compost bin that are
distributed by the County, since they have a model that is rodent proof.
Section 17.60.020H – Open Storage
At the suggestions of Board Members Freeman and Dewhirst, Mr. Bowman said he revised the language in this section to
clearly indicate that it only applies to commercial properties. He noted that residentially zoned districts are covered in
Section 17.60.030. In addition, Mr. Bowman advised that he replaced “heavy wire fence” with “sight obscuring fence,” and
“hedge” with “vegetation.” He also deleted the words “board fence.” While Vice Chair Dewhirst also recommended the
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2007 Page 2
Packet Page 186 of 201
Board consider prohibiting open storage containers within 20 feet of the property line or the minimum setback, whichever is
greater, Mr. Bowman questioned if this strict requirement would be appropriate for commercial zones.
Section 17.60 – General Organization
Board Member Henderson objected to the way the nuisance section was organized. For example, he noted that a person
would have to look in three separate sections of the code to find out if, where and how trailers could be stored in residential
zones. He suggested that nuisances and permitted uses should be covered in the same section to clearly indicate what is and
is not allowed. Anything that is permitted in certain areas on a property should be addressed as to proper storage in the same
section. Mr. Bowman explained that, from a code enforcement standpoint, staff directs the citizens to the sections of the
code that apply to their particular situation. However, he agreed with Board Member Henderson’s concern and suggested
that the language in Sections 17.60.030.E and 17.60.040.E could be combined into one section.
Public Education
Board Member Works asked how staff plans to educate the public about future amendments to the nuisance section of the
code. Mr. Bowman advised that the City already has a pamphlet describing the nuisance laws, and the document would be
updated to incorporate the approved amendments. Board Member Works suggested that perhaps a notice could be added to
the utility bills to notify the public that a pamphlet is available for their information. Mr. Bowman agreed and added that it
would also be appropriate to publish a code enforcement article in THE EDMONDS UPDATE, that is sent out to all
households in the City. He noted that prior to the public hearings related to Title 17, staff plans to talk with local newspaper
reporters in an effort to get articles published in the newspapers so people can be made aware of the issues that are being
considered and invited to participate.
Board Member Young suggested that the public advertisement emphasize that many of the changes are being considered
because of enforcement problems associated with the existing code. He felt that if the public has a clear understanding of
these problems, they will know why the City is reviewing all of the details of this section of the code. Mr. Bowman said that
while he typically favors simplifying the code, it is important to have clear and concise language in this section so that people
understand what they can and cannot do.
Section 17.60.030.B – Attractive Nuisances Dangerous to Children
Mr. Bowman recalled that at their last meeting the Board discussed the importance of prohibiting the storage of items that
pose a danger to children. At the request of the Board, this section was changed to read, “Attractive nuisances dangerous to
children including but not limited to the following items when located on any developed or vacant lot.”
Board Member Freeman questioned about the safety of portable toilets that are used by construction companies while
working in residential areas. She pointed out that if these facilities are left unlocked, they could be accessed by children and
an accident could occur if a child were to fall in. Mr. Bowman said this has never been a problem for the City, but he agreed
to research the issue further to see if it needs to be addressed in the code.
Section 17.60.040 – Recreational Vehicles
Mr. Bowman said Board Member Freeman raised concern about the size of Recreational Vehicles (RV’s) that are allowed to
be stored on residential properties and whether or not they should be prohibited in side and front yards. In addition, Vice
Chair Dewhirst suggested that storage of vehicles such as personal watercraft, should be prohibited in the front and side
yards. Mr. Bowman said the Board could decide to regulate RV’s based on size, but the standard would have to be clear and
concise.
Board Member Henderson noted that Sections 17.60.040.E.2.l and 17.60.040.E.2.m both address the size of RV’s. Board
Member Reed noted that the language proposed in Section 17.60.040.E.2.1 would allow almost all of the front yard to be
used as a parking space for an RV. Mr. Bowman agreed. He noted that most of the concerns related to RV’s are associated
with the large size and the blue tarp coverings. The City also receives numerous complaints about people living in RV’s in
residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Bowman advised that if the Board decides they want to regulate the storage of RV’s, staff could come up with some
language for them to consider. He noted that regulating the storage of RV’s would likely create a stir amongst the
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2007 Page 3
Packet Page 187 of 201
community both pro and con. He agreed that staff could contact the City of Redmond to find out how they regulate RV’s.
He would forward the document to the Board members, highlighting those sections that are directly related to RV’s. He also
agreed to obtain information from other jurisdictions in the region.
Board Member Freeman recalled the Board’s previous discussion about the need to keep the setback areas clear for
emergency access. She noted that storing large RV’s in the side setback areas could present a safety hazard. She further
noted that permanent structures are not allowed in the setbacks, so perhaps they should prohibit the storage of large RV’s, as
well. Mr. Bowman noted that RV’s can be moved in case of emergency, so they should not be treated the same as permanent
structures within setbacks.
Section 17.60.020 .J – Storage Containers and Tents
Mr. Bowman explained that staff is proposing this new section to address the more than 85 outstanding complaints the code
enforcement officer has on file related to storage containers and tent structures. The current code prohibits temporary
structures of this size if they are larger than 120 square feet. However, this particular code regulation has been suspended
until the City’s code has been updated.
Vice Chair Dewhirst said he doesn’t see the difference between a storage container and a butler building. He questioned
why one should be allowed and not the other. Mr. Bowman said he believes there is a significant difference between metal
storage buildings and surplussed cargo containers, which are typically very large. The majority of the Board agreed they did
not want to allow shipping or cargo containers to be used for storage in residential areas. Mr. Bowman said issues related to
cargo and shipping containers are coming up more often, and he suggested the City consider being ahead of the curve in
regulating this use.
Board Member Freeman asked if staff has ever had difficulty enforcing the nuisance code requirements based on cultural
issues. Mr. Bowman said that as long as the standards are applied uniformly and community wide, there should be no
problems of this type. The City should avoid standards that are directed towards a specific cultural area.
Section 17.60.050 – Habitation Uses Prohibited
Mr. Bowman said the language proposed by staff would allow habitation of RV’s in the case of family or visitors staying
temporarily for a period not to exceed 30 days. Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested that this use be limited to 30 days per year to
prevent a property owner from moving the RV for a period of time and then bringing it back for another 30 days.
Section 17.60.030.N -- Garbage Stored Outside
Board Member Henderson asked if this proposed language would apply to containers that are left at the street for garbage
pick up. Mr. Bowman said this would not be considered storage of garbage containers, but he agreed the language should
clarify the matter. He said the City has received complaints about people who leave their garbage containers out at the street
for days after the garbage has been collected.
Section 17.60. 030.I – Accumulation of Construction Supplies
Vice Chair Dewhirst noted that, originally, a provision was added to this section that required a property owner to begin a
project in five business days. He expressed his belief that this would be irrational since a host of things could keep a
property owner from completing a project. Mr. Bowman pointed out that this language is really targeted at potential code
violators who like to hoard or store buildings materials on their property that they never get around to using. He suggested it
would be appropriate to have some type of time limit.
Board Member Henderson suggested that a 30-day time limit be established for the project to be started. They should also
identify a project completion time limit. He noted that this section only applies to projects that do not require a building
permit. Chair Guenther expressed his concern about requiring someone who is landscaping his/her property to complete the
project in a certain amount of time. While he understands the need to keep the project active, he questioned if a time limit
language would accomplish this goal. Mr. Bowman agreed to talk with the code enforcement officer about whether they
should include a time limit for project completion.
Section 17.60.040.E.2.f – Storage of Vehicles on Vacant Residential Property
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2007 Page 4
Packet Page 188 of 201
Mr. Bowman said Vice Chair Dewhirst raised a concern that this proposed language would prohibit a person who owns
adjoining property from parking a vehicle on a property that does not have a dwelling unit. He said he agrees with this
concern. There are situations in the City where a single property owner owns two lots, and the proposed language would
prohibit the property owner from parking cars on the vacant lot. He explained that the language is intended to prevent
people from parking cars on residential vacant lots, but he agreed to come up with new language for the Board to consider
that would exclude adjacent lots that are under common ownership.
Conclusion
Mr. Bowman summarized that staff would work to obtain sample regulations for RV’s from other jurisdictions in the region
and forward them to the Board as soon as possible. He asked that the Board review the samples and forward their ideas to
him prior to the next meeting. Staff would work to finalize the draft code amendments for the Board’s review prior to the
public hearing. In addition to the updated language for Title 17, Mr. Bowman advised that he would provide draft language
to address the parking standards, particularly as they relate to Highway 99. If the City is going to support the concept of bus
rapid transit, they should do their part to encourage less parking and more transit use.
Board Member Freeman referred the Board and staff to a recent article in THE SEATTLE POST INTELLIGENCER, which
provides information about the average number of cars per dwelling unit in various areas of Seattle. She noted that in some
of the more populated areas of Seattle, there are only .9 parking spaces per unit.
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred the Board to the Victoria Transportation Website, which provides helpful information related
to the issue of parking. He expressed his belief that the site is valid to the issues that are being raised by the City now.
Board Member Freeman questioned how the Board and staff could educate the City Council about the need to change the
City’s parking requirements. Mr. Bowman replied that the Board needs to make it clear in their recommendation to the City
Council why they want to change the parking standards on Highway 99 to encourage rapid transit and higher density
development. He said the Board’s job is to do the necessary research and due diligence and then forward their best
recommendations to the City Council. He noted that the City Council is very supportive of Community Transit’s bus rapid
transit service on Highway 99, which should be operational some time next year.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Bowman announced that two rezone public hearings have been scheduled on the Board’s May 23rd meeting. He
suggested the Board considering starting their meeting earlier to allow time for them to meet with the City Attorney and
Historic Preservation Commission as previously discussed.
Board Member Young suggested that rather than meeting for one hour prior to the next regular meeting, perhaps it would be
appropriate for the Historic Preservation Commission to provide a brief report outlining the issues they want the Board to
consider as they review the non-conformance section of the code. Mr. Bowman expressed his belief that it would be helpful
for the Board to meet with the Historic Preservation Commission and allow them an opportunity to share their thoughts and
recommendations so that the Commission’s work could be blended into the Board’s review of the code. He also reminded
the Board that the City Attorney would be in attendance for this discussion.
The Board agreed to start their joint discussion with the Historic Preservation Commission at 6:30 p.m. The regular meeting
would follow at 7:30 p.m.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Guenther reminded the Board that they have been invited to a Short Course in Public Planning that would be hosted by
the City of Lynnwood later in May.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2007 Page 5
Packet Page 189 of 201
Board Member Freeman suggested that perhaps the Board should provide additional comments to strengthen their reasons
for supporting the proposed rezone application. Vice Chair Dewhirst clarified that his motion would recommend approval of
the application based on the points made on Pages 4 and 5 of the Staff Report.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE BOARD TOOK A 5-MINUTE BREAK AT 8:25 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 8:30 P.M.
DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17 AND 20 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC)
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to the draft documents that were provided related to Chapters 17 and 20 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC). He said the purpose of the discussion is to allow the Board an opportunity to
provide feedback regarding the proposed language before it is prepared for a public hearing. The Board and staff reviewed
and discussed the following sections of Chapter 17:
• Section 17.05.020 – Reasonable Accommodations. Mr. Bowman pointed out that the Development Services Director
makes decisions related to reasonable accommodations. Therefore, the language should be amended to make it clear that
these decisions would not be made by the Community Services Director.
• Section 17.05.050 -- Appeal. Mr. Bowman said this language would be amended to make it easier to read and clearer
about who can appeal a reasonable accommodations request. No substantive changes have been proposed.
Board Member Reed pointed out that once the Development Services Director has made a determination, the only
recourse is to appeal the decision to the court. He questioned whether or not this would be wise. Mr. Bowman pointed
out that this is a building code question, and building code questions can only be appealed to Superior Court.
• Section 17.10.000 – Bond Required. Mr. Bowman said that in the past 30 years, he has never seen the City cash a
performance bond on a building project. However, bonds have been cashed for not completing landscaping or public
improvements. He said that, in his opinion, the City should only require bonds for public improvements that are required
or when someone wants occupancy before everything is done. He noted that the current requirement creates unnecessary
paperwork for the staff and added costs for the developer. However, the City doesn’t really receive a significant value
from the requirement. When an occupancy is requested and required non-life safety improvements such as landscaping
have not been installed, the proposed new language would authorize the Development Services Director to allow a
develop or owner to post a performance bond or similar security to ensure that improvements would be installed within a
specified time period.
• Section 17.30.035 – Trellises and Arbors. Mr. Bowman recalled the Board’s 2004 discussion regarding trellises, arbors
and fences. He expressed his belief that it doesn’t make sense to restrict plantings on a trellis when they are intended to
potentially allow such plantings. Site distance is already regulated. He pointed out that the proposed language would
delete Item 2 because it is not necessary.
• Definitions – Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that the definitions are scattered throughout the document. Mr. Bowman
said all of the definitions would be taken from the back of the code and placed at the front of the code. Staff is attempting
to cross reference terms and find definitions for those that are not yet defined. Then they would all be pulled together into
one section.
• Section 17.35 – Animals. Mr. Bowman suggested it would be appropriate for the Development Services Department to
get out of the business of regulating animals. He noted that there is an animal control arm of the City, so these regulations
really should be moved into Chapter 5 of the Edmonds Municipal Code. He emphasized that he has not discussed this
change with the Animal Control staff, but it seems it would make more sense to put this in the specific section in the
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 8
Packet Page 190 of 201
Municipal Code that talks about animals. He said he would work with the Police Department staff regarding this potential
change.
• Section 17.50 – Off-Street Parking. Mr. Bowman said staff would be working to update the off-street parking
regulations to incorporate the new downtown zone (BD-1). He particularly referred to Item B22 on Page 17-22 and noted
that the regulations do not currently address the issue of what to do with outdoor vehicle sales. He suggested that because
there are a number of car dealerships on Highway 99, the City must have regulations to deal with their parking
requirements. Staff has discussed the concept of treating parking requirements for Highway 99 much like they did for the
downtown zones. They could identify a parking standard for commercial uses and another for residential uses. He noted
that there would likely be more mixed-use developments along Highway 99 in the future, and having a standard parking
requirement for both commercial and residential uses would make it easier for developers to make decisions on what to do
with their properties. Mr. Chave added that, currently, the City must track and recalculate the parking requirements when
uses are changed. This creates a significant problem when tenants change frequently.
If the Board is interested in pursuing this new concept for parking requirements along Highway 99, Mr. Bowman said
staff could research various options further and provide direction to the Board at their next meeting. He noted that another
option would be to establish both a minimum and a maximum parking standard for zones along Highway 99.
Board Member Freeman expressed her belief that the City should try to reduce the parking requirement to discourage
people from using their cars instead of the public transportation that is readily available on Highway 99. Mr. Bowman
said that establishing a maximum parking standard would force developers to look at other options such as encouraging
public transit opportunities. Board Member Freeman also suggested the City establish a maximum standard for the size of
a parking stall so that people are encouraged to use smaller cars. In addition, the City should consider whatever options
are available to reduce greenhouse gases and encourage people to utilize the public transportation system.
Vice Chair Dewhirst agreed it would be appropriate to consider a maximum parking requirement, particularly for
developments that are located close to rapid transit opportunities. He suggested it would be helpful to review the bubble
diagrams created by Makers to identify the districts. The Board and staff could consider the concept of tailoring the
parking requirements to accommodate the types of uses they envision in the various areas.
Board Member Henderson emphasized the importance of maintaining flexibility. For example, a Costco type business
would require someone to drive to the store rather than ride a bus. He noted that Costco parking lots are often maximized,
and the City must allow enough flexibility for these types of businesses to potentially located along Highway 99 and still
meet their customers’ needs. Chair Guenther agreed and suggested that perhaps the parking requirement could be based
on the type of use that is being proposed. Mr. Chave cautioned that it would be more straightforward to come up with an
average that works for the vast majority of commercial uses and then identify some exceptions.
Board Member Young recalled a retreat discussion that rather than having a prescriptive parking requirement, a developer
should be allowed to figure out how many parking spaces would be needed, depending on the nature of the business. Mr.
Bowman noted that the impervious surface limitations would play a significant role in deciding the number of parking
spaces that could be provided and what materials would be used.
Board Member Bowman noted that in some zones, there are no parking requirements for new construction. Board
Member Young pointed out that only the BD-1 zone has no parking requirement. Board Member Bowman suggested the
City allow the market to sort out the number of parking spaces that would be required. Mr. Bowman explained that if
there were no parking standards for Highway 99, adeveloper would have to conduct a market analysis to determine the
amount of parking that would be necessary to support the businesses and then decide how they could comply with the
impervious surface, landscape and stormwater detention requirements. Vice Chair Dewhirst expressed his concern that
allowing the market to decide the parking requirement would favor the large developer over the small developer. In his
experience, this concept could also result in a developer significantly overbuilding the parking area. Therefore, placing a
cap on the maximum number of parking spaces allowed would be important.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 9
Packet Page 191 of 201
Board Member Young said he likes the idea of capping the number of parking spaces a developer could provide, but he
would like to see some ideas about how this concept could be implemented. Perhaps a developer could be allowed
additional parking spaces if low-impact development techniques are incorporated into the design. Board Member Young
said the Board should also discuss whether it is more important to limit the number and size of parking spaces and
encourage low-impact development or encourage economic development. He noted that the City does not have control
over whether people use smaller cars or the public transit system.
Mr. Bowman agreed to come back to the Board with two or three alternatives for them to consider for potential parking
requirements. Mr. Chave pointed out that the ITE Manual is a supply driven model for parking, and there are other
manuals that talk about demand for parking. The demand standards are almost always significantly lower than the supply
driven standards.
• Section 17.50.090 – Temporary Parking Lots. Mr. Bowman questioned why someone would want to pay for a
conditional use permit to construct a temporary parking lot, when it would only be good for one year. He suggested it
would be better to allow a property owner to apply for a conditional use permit for a time period that is consistent with the
regulations.
Vice Chair Dewhirst asked why temporary parking lots permits could not be an administrative decision rather than require
a conditional use permit. Mr. Bowman answered that would be one option the Board could consider. However, a
conditional use permit would require a public process to let people know what is being proposed. Another option would
be to make it an administrative decision with a notice requirement to all property owners within 300 feet. Mr. Chave
added that the notices could be sent out up front so the public would have an opportunity to comment before a decision
has been issued by staff.
• Section 17.50.100 – Commercial Vehicle Regulations. Mr. Bowman explained that staff is proposing an additional
clause in this section that would allow night parking of authorized towing vehicles under contract to provide services to
the City. He explained that sometimes tow truck drivers who live in the City are required to park their vehicle at home
when they are on call, and the current regulations would not allow this to occur.
• Section 17.60 – Property Performance Standards. Mr. Bowman advised that Mr. Thies, the City’s Code Enforcement
Officer has been working to gather information from other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound area to learn how they address
issues that are common to the City of Edmonds. Mr. Thies invited the Board Members to share their ideas on the draft
language that was provided for their review.
Board Member Henderson said he does not like the way the performance standards are divided up. For examples, parking
of trailers on residential property is addressed in two different sections. He suggested it would be helpful to have all
regulations related to a single issue in the same section. Board Member Freeman agreed that it is difficult to go back and
forth from section to section to see what is and is not allowed.
Board Member Freeman noted that the proposed language does not differentiate between a small trailer and a large
recreational vehicle, and she felt there should be distinctly separate regulations for each, depending on the size and bulk of
the vehicle. Property owners should not be encouraged to store large recreational vehicles in residential neighborhoods.
She said the proposed language also fails to differentiate between setbacks and yards and what is allowed in each.
• Section 17.60.020.H.1 – Open Storage. Vice Chair Dewhirst asked if the proposed language includes a definition for the
terms “lumber,” “coal,” and “other combustible materials.” Mr. Thies explained that this language came from the existing
code, and the purpose of the update is to eliminate language that is ambiguous. Mr. Chave further explained that Mr.
Thies collected numerous regulations from various jurisdictions for the Board to consider. At this time, Mr. Thies is
seeking feedback from the Board regarding the concepts the Board wants staff to pursue.
• Section 17.60.030.B – Attractive Nuisances. Board Member Freeman noted that the intent of the proposed language is
to protect children. Therefore, property owners should not be allowed to store any of the listed items on their property
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 10
Packet Page 192 of 201
where children have access. The Board agreed to change the last part of the section to read, “. . . located outside an
enclosed building.”
• Section 17.60.030.J – Unconventional Construction. Vice Chair Dewhirst questioned why the City should prohibit
shipping and cargo containers, but allow storage buildings. Mr. Bowman said the City has received numerous complaints
about shipping and cargo containers on adjacent properties. The Board must decide whether these should be considered
structures and/or buildings and whether or not they should be allowed in residential neighborhoods. He noted that tents,
tarps and canopy structures are a significant issue, as well. The City currently has 85 complaints of this type.
• Section 17.60.030 – Nuisance. Board Member Works asked if any consideration has been giving to forcing people to cut
down their blackberries. Mr. Thies said the City Council discussed this issue and raised the idea that “one person’s
nuisance could be another person’s garden. They indicated they would not be interested in having a vegetation regulation.
• Section 17.60.030.D – Graffiti. Board Member Bowman pointed out this section would require property owners to take
care of graffiti on their property immediately. He pointed out that his building on 5th Avenue has been vandalized
multiple times, and graffiti has occurred more and more around town. The proposed language would require the victims
of graffiti to resolve the problem. Mr. Bowman advised that the City Council recently discussed the issue of graffiti.
While business owners are not really happy about being required to paint their buildings, it has been demonstrated that
leaving the graffiti in place encourages the situation to grow. Taking care of graffiti right away tends to detract future
situations. Unless they catch the person responsible, the only recourse the City has is to require property owners to take
care of the problem.
• Section 17.60.030 – Nuisance. Board Member Reed suggested that if he were to apply the list of nuisances to properties
along his street, he would find numerous violations. He suggested that while there are some issues that must be addressed,
some of the items in this section are common occurrences. While they might not be the most attractive situations, he
questioned whether or not the City should try to regulate them all.
• Section 17.60.040 – Vehicles. Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested there needs to be some leeway for people to use trailers
when guests are visiting. Mr. Thies said the only complaints the City has received on this matter have come from people
who are concerned about grown children being allowed to live in trailers for long, extended periods of time.
• Section 17.95 – Commute Trip Reduction Plan. Mr. Bowman advised that this section must be updated and submitted
to the state by the end of June, 2007. However, the City’s new Traffic Engineer would not be on staff until mid May. It is
likely staff would request an extension from the State, but sometime in the near future staff would provide new language
for this section that would meet the new State laws.
• Outdoor Dining. Board Member Works suggested that staff review the outdoor dining section of the ECDC to make sure
there are as many outdoor dining opportunities as possible in the City, particularly in light of the new arts corridor.
Perhaps the City should expand the outdoor dining use to other zones in the City.
• Section 17.40 – Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, Signs and Lots. Mr. Bowman referred the Board to the written
comments provided by the City Attorney regarding this section. The City Attorney attempted to incorporate all of the
comments provided previously by the Board. At some point, the Board must also have a discussion with the Historic
Preservation Commission about how to integrate historic preservation and nonconformance elements together.
Mr. Bowman explained that the current nonconformance regulations are very restrictive and won’t allow a nonconformity
to expand. He said the Board must hold an in-depth discussion about whether or not it would be appropriate to allow
nonconforming structures to be expanded if the expansion would further encroach into the setback area. Board Member
Young questioned why the City should allow anyone to encroach into a setback. Mr. Chave said staff works with many
situations related to nonconforming structures. In addition, the Historic Preservation Commission has expressed concern
about the small historic buildings that are located in the downtown. Many of these structures protrude into the setback. If
the City wants to encourage historic preservation, they must consider options that would provide some flexibility to
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 11
Packet Page 193 of 201
Packet Page 194 of 201
Packet Page 195 of 201
Packet Page 196 of 201
Packet Page 197 of 201
Packet Page 198 of 201
Packet Page 199 of 201
AM-1601 12.
Authorization to Contract for Environmental Services with Landau & Associates
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:06/03/2008
Submitted By:Duane Bowman
Submitted For:City Attorney Time:10 Minutes
Department:Development Services Type:
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to Contract for Environmental Services with Landau & Associates.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize staff to contract with Landau & Associates to conduct environmental work for
$6,500.
Previous Council Action
The City Council authorized the Mayor to negotiate for the purchase of the plaza area in
front of Old Milltown on the east side of 5th Avenue South.
Narrative
As part of the City's due diligence efforts, it has been determined that additional
environmental investigation should be undertaken prior to purchasing the plaza area in
front of the Old Milltown building on 5th Avenue South. The additional investigation is
based upon the fact that the subject property was once the site of a former gasoline service
station. The additional work includes adding a ground penetrating radar (GPR) test to see
if there are any tanks underground. The cost of additional soil/water sample is $5000 and
the GPR test another $1500. Landau & Associates will conduct the investigation.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 02:47 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/29/2008 03:09 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 04:12 PM APRV
Form Started By: Duane
Bowman
Started On: 05/29/2008 02:32
PM
Final Approval Date: 05/29/2008
Packet Page 200 of 201
AM-1597 13.
Selection of Voting Delegates for the Association of Washington Cities Conference
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:06/03/2008
Submitted By:Linda Hynd Time:5 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Selection of Voting Delegates for the Association of Washington Cities Conference.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 10:18 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 05/29/2008 11:11 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 05/29/2008 11:52 AM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Hynd
Started On: 05/29/2008 10:16
AM
Final Approval Date: 05/29/2008
Packet Page 201 of 201