2008.07.01 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
July 1, 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-1648 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 24, 2008.
C. AM-1650 Approval of claim checks #105131 through #105273 for May 26, 2008 in the amount of
$1,027,118.02.
D. AM-1641 Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Carol A. Scott (amount undetermined).
E. AM-1644 Authorization for Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with all jurisdictions within the
Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek watershed areas. This consent agenda item was not reviewed by a
Council Committee.
3. AM-1642
(5 Minutes)
Proclamation in honor of Recreation and Parks Month.
4. AM-1643
(20 Minutes)
Public Hearing - Application to amend the Official Street Map (OSM) requesting the
proposed right-of-way on 203rd Street SW be reduced from 30 feet in width to 15 feet
in width. Applicant: Don and Claudia Etzler / 20323 81st Avenue West / File No.
ENG-2008-76.
5. AM-1647
(45 Minutes)
Public Hearing on the Planning Board recommendation to deny the request by
Zammit/HBA Architects to amend the Comprehensive Plan from "Single Family -
Resource" to "Multiple Family - High Density." The site is located at 1030 Grandview.
(File No. AMD-07-19)
6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regardig matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
7. AM-1649
(45 Minutes)
Presentation and discussion on Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) – concepts and
programs – by the Cascade Land Conservancy.
8. AM-1646
(5 Minutes)
Rejection of all bids for the Caspers/Ninth Avenue North/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway
Project and authorization to rebid the project.
9. AM-1645 Appointment of City representatives to the Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek
Packet Page 1 of 232
9. AM-1645
(5 Minutes)
Appointment of City representatives to the Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek
Watershed Forum.
10. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
11. (15 Minutes)Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 232
AM-1648 2.B.
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of 06-24-08
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:07/01/2008
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 24, 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: 06-24-08 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/26/2008 09:40 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/26/2008 09:50 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/26/2008 10:00 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 06/26/2008 09:39
AM
Final Approval Date: 06/26/2008
Packet Page 3 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
June 24, 2008
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
Deanna Dawson, Council President Pro Tem
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Michael Plunkett, Council President
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager
Jeannine Graf, Building Official
Bio Park, 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 Wilson requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember
Wambolt requested Item G be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #104978 THROUGH #105130 FOR JUNE 19, 2008 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $436,553.84. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS
#46669 THROUGH #46732 FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 1 THROUGH JUNE 15, 2008 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1,023,326.57.
D. ACCEPTANCE OF STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED FROM PHYLLIS L. LAWSON IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE 76TH AVENUE WEST/ 75TH PLACE WEST WALKWAY
PROJECT.
E. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED ON JUNE 10, 2008 FOR THE PURCHASE OF TREATMENT
PLANT CHEMICALS AND AWARD TO JONES CHEMICAL, INC FOR SUPPLYING
SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE.
Packet Page 4 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 2
F. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED ON JUNE 10, 2008 FOR THE PURCHASE OF TREATMENT
PLANT CHEMICALS AND AWARD TO NORTHSTAR CHEMICALS, INC. FOR
SUPPLYING SODIUM HYDROXIDE AND SODIUM BISULFITE.
ITEM B: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 2008.
Councilmember Wilson requested the minutes be amended as follows:
• Page 6, third paragraph, revise the last sentence to reflect that he was restating that it was Stevens
Hospital’s conclusion that the deficiency was in the public engagement, not in the behavior, action,
engagement of the hospital.
• Page 6, fifth paragraph, Councilmember Wilson requested staff verify via the audio tape the
accuracy of the second sentence.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
APPROVE ITEM B AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ITEM G: APPROVAL OF LANDAU ASSOCIATES PHASE II INVESTIGATION/ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT OF THE OLD MILLTOWN PARCEL ($11,100).
Councilmember Wambolt recalled the Council approved $6500 for the consultant and noted the amount was
now $11,100. City Attorney Bio Park explained Landau Associates determined more extensive work was
required which was itemized In the exhibits. He noted there was an opportunity for a $1500 savings via a
summarized analytical report rather than a full report. The additional work such as drilling, sample costs, the
professional conducting the drilling, minimum charge for the drilling equipment, etc., were not included in
the original $6500 estimate. Mayor Haakenson commented Mr. Snyder was extremely upset with this
increase as he felt as though he put the Council on the hook with the $6500 estimate which was the amount
he was given and had contacted Landau Associates and the other contractor to express his disappointment
with the increase. Mayor Haakenson advised he had the ability to approve the higher amount but wanted the
Council to be aware of the increase. He summarized staff felt Landau simply failed to include a $3000 item
in the original bid.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO
APPROVE ITEM G.
Councilmember Bernheim did not support a $1500 savings due to the property’s central location and the
importance of the environmental review of this potential park, commenting a full understanding of the facts
was essential.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. )
Mayor Haakenson commented because there was already a big hole in the ground to install a grease
interceptor, Mr. Gregg has signed off to allow Landau to begin the work.
3. PRESENTATION BY THE GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REGARDING
THE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE.
Linda Aufrecht, Membership and Communications Manager, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce,
introduced Chris Keuss, Board Representative to the Membership Committee. Mr. Keuss commented
the Chamber currently had the most members in its history, 432 businesses. He provided the Membership
Committee’s purpose statement, “To develop and implement strategies for the recruitment of new members
and the retention of existing members.” He described promotion available to members that includes ribbon
cutting ceremonies for new businesses, website listing on the Chamber’s website as well as a new website
EverythingEdmonds.com, preferred business directory, and office referrals.
Packet Page 5 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 3
Mr. Keuss described networking opportunities that include after hours events held at member businesses,
monthly Chamber luncheons with guest speakers, and weekly breakfasts at Brighton Court. He noted the
Chamber Ambassadors would be making a presentation to the Council in a few weeks to describe their
program. He described the health benefit program available to members in partnership with Associated
Affiliates of America that provides members access to healthcare benefits as well as hotel discounts, car
rentals, shipping, credit card processing, human resource and payroll services, internet and telephone
communications and a prescription drug program.
4. DISCUSSION REGARDING MAKING A DONATION TO THE GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE FOR THE 4TH OF JULY EVENT.
Jim Hills, Board President, Chamber of Commerce, explained the Chamber began paying for City
services in 2002; the cost of those services increased from $5,710 in 2003 to $8,700 in 2008. He explained
the Chamber budgeted $40,000 annually for the 4th of July activities which include the children’s parade,
main parade and fireworks display. To date they have collected $28,000 in donations/sponsorships for the
event, with $12,000 left to collect. He requested a $3,000 donation from the City or whatever amount the
Council felt was appropriate.
Council President Pro Tem Dawson recalled since the decision was made to have the Chamber pay for City
services, the City had contributed to the 4th of July celebration on one other occasion. Mr. Hill recalled the
City contributed $2,000 in 2005 toward 4th of July expenses. Council President Pro Tem Dawson suggested
the Council consider the $3,000 donation which was ¼ of the remaining $12,000 and suggested the funds
come from the Council Contingency Fund which has a balance of $25,000.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
WAMBOLT, TO AUTHORIZE $3,000 TOWARD THE 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the 4th of July celebration was wonderful but expressed
disappointment that downtown businesses were closed in the afternoon. He asked whether there was any
movement toward those businesses remaining open, observing the businesses were missing a great
opportunity with numerous people downtown for the parade. Mr. Hill responded the Downtown Edmonds
Merchants Association, a Chamber committee, has been working with those businesses encouraging them to
extend their hours to take advantage of crowds during the car show, following the parade, etc. As they were
private businesses, it was ultimately their choice whether to remain open. He agreed it was a wonderful
opportunity to showcase Edmonds to the crowds attending those events.
Council President Pro Tem Dawson commented in the past the City contributed financially to the Chamber
in other ways such as via partnerships with the Port and Chamber which have since been discontinued. She
suggested the Council reconsider such a partnership during the 2009-2010 budget process by including an
amount in the budget rather than ad hoc contributions such as this. Mr. Hill noted that later this week the
Chamber planned to meet with representatives of the Port and City to discuss how that partnership could be
restored.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the 4th of July celebration was also successful due to traffic closures.
He suggested merchants consider traffic closures for other events as a method of attracting large crowds,
pointing out in Europe there were many successful villages where areas with shops and restaurants were
closed to traffic. He hoped all the owners and employees of the stores in Edmonds took full advantage of
Independence Day and did not work if they chose.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
City Attorney Bio Park recommended calling this a contribution rather than a donation and to draft a short
agreement stating the consideration the City received for the $3,000 contribution. Council President Pro
Packet Page 6 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 4
Tem Dawson commented it was in the public interest to bring visitors to the City and to present this event to
the public.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Councilmember Orvis clarified anyone wishing to speak regarding the Bettinger/Kretzler Historic Home
should do so during Audience Comments.
Tim Roddy, Chief Medical Officer, Stevens Hospital, commented after witnessing the exchange between
the Council and the Stevens Hospital administration, he felt it was his responsibility to make a brief
appearance on behalf of the medical staff. He read a letter sent to the 5 Stevens Hospital Commissioners by
the 16 members of the Medical Executive Committee of Stevens Hospital. The letter commended Stevens
Hospital CEO Michael Carter and the current administration for their intense efforts to stabilize and improve
the financial environment of the hospital given the desperate financial situation they inherited, stating the
medical staff was in the unique position to assess the strengths, weaknesses and needs of the institution. The
current facility is rapidly aging and approaching obsolescence; financial constraints have prevented the
necessary updates and their understanding was that without a large, rapid infusion of capital from some
source, those needs would not be able to be addressed in a reasonable timeframe. The letter cited recent
improvements in other hospitals such as a new cancer center at Providence Hospital and plans to open a new
hospital tower and Evergreen Hospital’s recent completion of an extensive addition and plans to apply for a
Certificate of Need for 80 additional beds. With adjacent, competing hospitals updating and expanding
aggressively, the Medical Executive Committee felt the window of opportunity for a decision about Stevens
Hospital’s future was open only temporarily and delay could only further erode their market position and
limit options to negotiate a strong partnership or obtain community support for a levy or bond. They
understood the choices include asking the voters of the district to dramatically increase their financial support
for the hospital via a combination of levy and bond issues or finding an outside capital source and
organization to work with the hospital as a partner. Although they did not favor one option over the other at
the present time, they felt a sense of urgency that a decision about the hospital’s future course be made
without delay, preferably this summer. They urged Commissioners to promptly and completely review
options available as soon as feasible and to immediately embark on a course to achieve these long term goals
so the hospital could continue to provide high quality, up-to-date medical services the community deserved.
Dr. Roddy recalled Stevens Hospital’s slogan, “medicine is changing, so is Stevens,” commenting Stevens
did not have the money to make the changes that the world of medicine was calling for. A better slogan
would have been “medicine never stops,” acknowledging there would always be diseases and illnesses that
bring people to a hospital. He observed the trust of Stevens’ medical team had been called into question,
assuring that he trusted his family members to the physicians and medical team at Stevens Hospital, was
proud to support the hospital and believed Mr. Carter and his team would be responsible stewards of the
hospital’s future direction.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, stated during an upcoming agenda item staff would tell the Council that building
maintenance was the City’s top unfunded priority; she assured it was not her top priority, none of the
Councilmembers campaigned for office under support for a strong building maintenance program and few
citizens would identify that as a top priority. Many of the building maintenance projects sounded like make-
work and provided a sample project description she found on the City’s website, to replace the carpet in the
Council Chamber area at a cost of $20,000. She did not view this a top priority and questioned the cost. She
cited other top priority items including $25,000 for the Library Plaza Room suggesting rental rates be
increased to cover improvements rather than raising utility taxes; $3,000 for cemetery gutters suggesting this
be funded from the cemetery account; $3,000 for lights in the log cabin, suggesting this be funded from the
Lodging Tax Fund; and $100,000 for work on the grandstands at the Civic Center fields, suggesting this be
funded from REET taxes. She suggested delaying any improvements to the grandstands until the City owned
the property. She preferred the Council utilize funds from existing accounts rather than raising utility taxes.
Packet Page 7 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 5
She summarized building maintenance was not a top priority; General Fund monies should be treasured and
not tossed away on maintenance projects that could be funded via other sources.
Rob Johnson, Policy Director, Transportation Choices Coalition, referred to Agenda Item 10, the City’s
letter to Sound Transit regarding Phase 2, expressing support for Sound Transit placing Phase 2 on the ballot
this year and urging the City to support that effort. Although he was dismayed that the environmental
community was unable to reach a unified position on Prop 1 last year, they were united in their strong
support for a Sound Transit ballot measure this year. He cited increasing gas prices, global warming,
increasing transit ridership and tremendous growth occurring in the region as support for continued Sound
Transit investments. He explained Transportation Choices Coalition was working with Sound Transit to
bring light rail to Snohomish County and were optimistic Sound Transit 2 would be on the ballot this fall.
Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, Sierra Club, commented on her recent conversation with Governor Gregoire, a
leader in the Western Climate Initiative who supports the Cool State Initiative. She noted mass transit,
increased express bus service, light rail and increasing ridership were high priorities due to the need to
reduce global warming and move people more efficiently in the region. She recognized the need for a
regional approach, pointing out although the Edmonds area was the City’s top priority, there were no
boundaries for pollution and global warming. The Sierra Club, Transportation Choices and Futurewise
support increasing the concentration of transit and growth in urban areas in an effort to reduce sprawl. She
urged Council to support the Sound Transit 2 package, commenting there were discussions of beginning light
rail in Everett toward Northgate and extending light rail from Northgate toward Everett to eventually link.
She also commented on the need to coordinate with Community Transit to make connections more efficient
and to provide ways for riders to the east to reach transit centers.
Dave Page, Edmonds, reported Edmonds Automotive and Performance Auto in Lynnwood received top
ratings in a Puget Sound Consumers Checkbook in the Seattle Times that listed the top 27 auto repair shops
in King County and 2 in Snohomish County based on the best price, quality and service. Next, he referred to
his comments last week regarding the spotted owls’ defeat of the logging industry from British Columbia to
Eureka, California. He described how in 1971 the discovery of a small fish, the Snail Darter, halted
construction of a dam in the Tennessee Valley that had been in progress for ten years at a cost of $200
million and the impact that declaring the Snail Darter an endangered species had on humans.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, urged Council to consider replacing City vehicles with electric vehicles from
Phoenix Motor Company. He explained the sport utility vehicles have a 130 mile range, accelerate from 0 to
60 in less than 10 seconds, and can be fully recharged via an onboard charger in less than 10 minutes. He
referred to presidential candidate John McCain’s offer of $300 million to develop new battery technology,
noting this technology was already available. Phoenix Motor Company was selling fleet vehicles and taking
reservations for private vehicles. He noted this would be an excellent choice for City vehicles that did not
travel long distances. He offered to send the Council the company’s website for further investigation;
Council President Pro Tem Dawson requested he provide the Council the website.
Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, encouraged Council to consider hiring a consultant to conduct a top down
analysis of the Development Services Department. He recalled hearings conducted in Snohomish County
and Lynnwood by the consultant he recommended last week where she queried developers regarding what
needed to be changed. Both Snohomish County and the City of Lynnwood experienced dramatic
improvement as a result and were operating in a more streamlined manner. He referred to his comments last
week regarding Edmonds’ requirement for wet stamping, noting it was indicative of the “busy work
mentality” that prevails within the department, requiring applicants to perform steps that had no impact on
the life safety issues of a project. He explained wet stamping entailed the signing of the original that was
submitted and held on file at the City. He pointed out the federal government and federal courts
acknowledge fax copies of contracts with signatures attached and did not require original signatures.
However, Edmonds’ Building Official insists that applicants submit wet stamped drawings. He disagreed
Packet Page 8 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 6
with the department’s assertion that this was a State requirement, pointing out this required a great deal of
time and energy in a time when files and drawings were sent electronically. He had other issues with the
management of the department such as unwritten policies that applicants cannot see or refer to while
preparing documents for submission but were imposed upon the applicant once their submission was made.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commended Mr. Shapiro for his comments and remarked on the efforts to
combine the audio with the video of last week’s meeting. He expressed concern that the minutes of the June
17 meeting did not include his comments that Mayor Haakenson was in charge, that it was his responsibility
and he did not deserve a raise if he could not solve these problems. Next, Mr. Hertrich referred to the July 15
public hearing on the nuisance ordinance, expressing concern that the City was attempting to expand its
police powers over private property rights. Temporary tents/canopies for boats, trailers or campers or tarped
firewood, equipment or spare vehicles would be illegal if the Council passed the ordinance proposed by
Mayor Haakenson, Development Services Director Duane Bowman and Code Enforcement Officer Mike
Thies. He questioned what was the City’s business versus residents’ business and whether residents’ front
yard, side yard and back yard should be under the City’s control. He concluded unless citizens told the City
Council what they thought regarding who should control what was in their yard, residents would not be
allowed to store anything in their yard. He urged residents to attend the July 15 hearing due to the
importance of protecting their private property rights.
Fred Bell, President, Edmonds Historical Society, spoke in response to Council President Pro Tem
Dawson’s question last week regarding whether the Bettinger/Kretzler historic home could be moved a
second time. He advised the answer was yes. The person they were contemplating using to move the house
said the house could be moved any number of times as long as they were gentle with the house. He was
confident with this assessment, recalling the log cabin was moved from its original location to the present
site and was lifted a few years ago to place logs at the base of the cabin.
Rob Michel, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 7, Staff Response to Developers’ Concerns, noting only
one developer spoke, the others were citizens and property owners. He referred to two letters from
individuals that contained similar comments. He referred to a meeting held on July 26, 2007 and minutes of
a presentation by Mr. Bowman to the Council on August 20, 2007 outlining a similar list of complaints
regarding the department. The Council directed the Community Services/Development Services Committee
to conduct a final review. He referred to the September 18, 2007 City Council meeting minutes that outlined
the outcome of these meetings, “staff outlined several recommendations in response to the July 26 special
meeting, 1) establishing a process to share code revision language to allow citizen feedback on the code
rewrite, 2) do a code change to eliminate the 28 day planning application completeness process, and 3) open
the department to match City Hall hours Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday with no permit
applications accepted after 4:00 p.m. and on Wednesdays, the counter would be closed all day and phone
calls taken and directed to voicemail and the day devoted to plan review with emphasis on overdue reviews.
With regard to “subject to field inspection,” staff anticipated that would have limited application but had not
yet polled other cities.” He noted neither recommendation 1 or 2 had been accomplished. He expressed
frustration that was all that had happened after the meetings in 2007, recalling several meetings were held
with Mr. Bowman in 2002 with similar concerns. He urged the City to hire a consultant to assist in
addressing these issues.
Marsha Lord, Coordinator, ASSE, explained they plan to bring 20 high school exchange students, 16-18
years of age, from Germany, France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain to the Edmonds area from July 24 through
August 24. Classes will be held in classrooms at Westgate Chapel and the students will assist with setting up
and taking down the Taste of Edmonds. She invited the public to host a student, explaining this program
offered a host family an opposite exchange for an American student. She provided her contact phone
number 425-582-2727.
Packet Page 9 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 7
Councilmember Wilson recognized Stevens Hospital Commissioner Chuck Day in the audience and thanked
the Stevens Hospital representatives for their presentation to the Council last week. He expressed his
appreciation for last week’s frank discussion and the message provided by Dr. Roddy tonight and hoped their
efforts would move forward.
6. DISCUSSION REGARDING MOVING THE HOUSE AT 555 MAIN STREET TO CIVIC CENTER
PLAYFIELD AND A PROPOSED RESOLUTION EXPRESSING INTENT TO PRESERVE THE
BETTINGER/KRETZLER HISTORIC HOME.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman referred to the memo in the packet from Parks & Recreation
Director Brian McIntosh. He explained the Civic Center Playfield property was zoned Public Use and was
intended as a site for public facilities with minimal impacts on nearby property owners. He referred to
ECDC Section 16.80 that establishes the zoning requirements for the zone (Exhibit 2), assuming some type
of public use would be the result of placing the structure on the site.
Mr. Bowman commented key issues include the height of the building as it appears the building may be over
25 feet in height although this could be addressed via a Conditional Use Permit. Another issue was parking
that would be required for the intended use. The biggest issue was the setbacks; he displayed an aerial map
explaining the requirements for, 1) a 25-foot setback from the alley to the south and 6th Avenue to the west,
and 2) a 25-foot setback from the athletic field/track. The only potential location on the site was the
southwest corner; however, placing the house, excluding the garage, on the aerial photograph revealed the
site was too constrained by the required setbacks.
Mr. Bowman explained the building could be temporarily moved and stored on the site for 30 days but then
must have a foundation placed beneath it and requires a foundation permit be issued at the time the moving
permit was issued. There were also issues associated with utility hookups. If the building were designated
historic, some relief was available from full compliance with updating it to meet all current code
requirements but that was heavily dependent on the intended use of the building. He concluded it appeared
the City’s zoning code requirements regarding the required setbacks eliminated the possibility of siting of the
building on the southwest corner of the Civic Center Playfield property. The only way it could be located
there would be to obtain variances. However, the City’s variance criteria are very strict and he anticipated it
would be very difficult to justify a variance at that location.
Councilmember Wambolt remarked it was obvious this was not a suitable permanent location, recalling there
was discussion about it being a temporary location as time was of the essence because the property owners
want to proceed with development of a new building. He asked whether the house could be stored on the
property for up to six months. Mr. Bowman responded the code required a foundation be constructed within
30 days. He agreed with Mr. McIntosh’s concern that if the house were relocated temporarily, the urgency to
identify and move it to a permanent location diminished.
Councilmember Orvis asked if the Council was making a decision whether or not to move the building to the
Civic Center playfield site. Mr. Bowman stated he was asked to provide the Council information regarding
the code requirements for that site. It was the Council’s decision whether this was an appropriate site.
Council President Pro Tem Dawson asked staff to explain why obtaining a variance was not a viable option.
Mr. Bowman recommended the Council not discuss a variance in detail as they could be required to make a
decision in the future on appeal. With regard to the variance criteria, he questioned what special
circumstance of the lot required the house be located there; the circumstance was moving the house to that
location to preserve it but that was not a unique circumstance of the property. He summarized if he were to
prepare a staff report, it would be difficult to comply with the variance criteria such as grant of special
circumstance, grant of special privilege, not detrimental and intent of the zoning code.
Packet Page 10 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 8
Councilmember Bernheim asked if other locations on the property had been considered. Mr. Bowman
answered other uses on the Civic Center playfields - sports fields, softball field, skate park, tennis courts,
open area used for recreation, and children’s play area - made this the only potential location.
Councilmember Bernheim suggested the area north of the skate park. Mr. Bowman responded that was an
area used for various pick-up sports, placing a house in that location would affect those uses as well as raise
issues regarding access to the house.
Councilmember Orvis assured this was a starting point, not an ending point. The resolution stated the
Council was negotiating in good faith toward a solution. The Historic Society is willing to raise the funds to
move the house; the goal was to save the house and this was not the only location. The goal of the resolution
was to state the Council’s intent to save the house and find a location on public property.
Council President Pro Tem Dawson pointed out the fifth Whereas clause states the southwest corner of the
Civic Field was a suitable site; she recommended striking that paragraph from the resolution as the
information presented tonight indicates that was not a suitable site. She noted even with the removal of the
fifth Whereas clause, efforts to find a suitable location could continue.
Councilmember Wambolt questioned the value of the resolution to the property owner particularly if the fifth
Whereas clause was removed. Mark Trumper, property owner, 555 Main Street, explained they were
doing everything possible to save the house. They were seeking assurance from the Council/City that they
wanted to save the house and a commitment that the house would stay in Edmonds, otherwise they needed to
pursue other options to move the house outside Edmonds. He envisioned the house had a future as a public
house for weddings, meetings, etc.; the problem was property in Edmonds was very expensive and it was
difficult to find a lot to place the house on. As a property owner, they wanted a decision at some point and a
commitment that the City was working in good faith to find a location and move the house.
Councilmember Wambolt questioned how the Council could commit to that as the Council was unable to
guarantee that a suitable site in Edmonds could be identified.
Councilmember Wilson asked if the resolution provided that level of commitment. Mr. Trumper responded
they thought the Civic Center playfield would work but based on staff’s presentation it appeared this was not
an ideal site even temporarily. His question to the Council was what could be done to save the house.
Councilmember Orvis hoped the house could be saved due to its importance to the City’s history. He was
willing to take a chance on applying for a variance. He stressed the importance of preserving the City’s
history and if it was necessary to place the house in a park, that was what needed to be done. He noted the
Civic fields were not the only park land in Edmonds; it may be possible to identify another piece of park land
to site the house.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1176 WITHOUT THE FIFTH WHEREAS CLAUSE (WHEREAS, A
NEW SITE, THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CIVIC FIELD IS OWNED BY THE EDMONDS
SCHOOL DISTRICT AND UNDER LONG-TERM LEASE WITH THE CITY OF EDMONDS HAS
BEEN REVIEWED BY THE EDMONDS MUSEUM AND FOUND SUITABLE, AND).
Council President Pro Tem Dawson thanked Councilmember Orvis for removing the fifth Whereas clause,
noting it would be inappropriate for the Council to make a determination that the Civic field was an
appropriate site in the event a variance was pursued in the future.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed his support for the resolution which recognized the historic importance
of the house and did not require public funding.
Councilmember Olson commented there was no guarantee but the Council wanted to try to save this house.
Packet Page 11 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 9
Councilmember Wilson anticipated the Council would pass the resolution because it did not obligate the
Council to anything. To those working to save this house, he emphasized the Council did not have a solution
or a location in light of staff’s comments that the Civic field was not an appropriate location. He suggested it
may be more prudent to delay approval of the resolution pending further work on a suitable site.
Councilmember Orvis pointed out the need to inform the owner of the Council’s intent and passing this
resolution made that statement. Councilmember Wilson questioned whether the resolution provided the
property owner a strong enough statement. Council President Pro Tem Dawson pointed out the resolution
was what the Council could do today and the parties should continue to work on it. Councilmember Wilson
agreed, but questioned whether it would be more prudent to pass one resolution that solved the problem
rather than passing numerous resolutions as new information was developed.
Mr. Kent, property owner, 555 Main Street, acknowledged a resolution that identified a location where
the house would be moved would be preferable, recognizing this resolution may be the best the Council
could do now. He questioned the requirement for a 25-foot setback from the track and whether that was
open to interpretation. City Attorney Bio Park cited ECDC 16.80.30(a), Minimum Setbacks, that states 25
feet maintained from adjacent residentially zoned property for all structures, play areas and structured
athletic fields. Mr. Bowman interpreted the track to be a structured athletic field. Mr. Kent asked how the
grandstands adhered to that code.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out the resolution states what the City was already doing, working with Mr. Bell,
property owners, and others to find a place for the house and passing this resolution would not change that.
Council President Pro Tem Dawson concluded passing the resolution was symbolic.
Councilmember Bernheim agreed with Mr. Kent, commenting he was not convinced that the 25-foot setback
from the track was required, particularly in light of the grandstands being immediately adjacent to the track.
He also wanted the potential for a variance to be explored further.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. STAFF RESPONSE TO DEVELOPERS' CONCERNS
Development Services Director Duane Bowman advised this item was a response to comments made during
Audience Comments last week orchestrated by Tony Shapiro in regard to the Development Services
Department. He assured the Development Services Department was not dysfunctional, explaining the men
and women in the Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions along with Public Works and the Fire
Department were dedicated employees who try to do their best to provide the best service possible enforcing
adopted City, State and Federal regulations that govern development within the City. He recognized several
employees in the audience, stating he was proud to serve with them. He advised he had listened to the audio
of the meeting to identify all the issues raised.
Issues Raised by Tony Shapiro
• The Department is impacting the economic vitality of the city.
• The Department is creating a financial drain on applicants.
• Dysfunctional Department, staff is not professional and is discourteous.
• The Department requires things that are of no value, example wet stamping of drawings.
• Too much time/effort/energy is expended with no ultimate value to the product.
• Hire a Consultant
With regard to the comment that the department was dysfunctional, Mr. Bowman relayed that in 2007, the
building permit activity had a valuation of $66,953,307; 1,253 building permits were processed; and
$1,277,675 in building permit fees was received. In 2007, 3,787 building inspections took place for an
Packet Page 12 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 10
average of 15 per day. In 2006, the building permit activity had a valuation of $66,254,907; processed 1,187
building permits; and brought in $1,222,700 in permit fees. In 2006, 4,632 building inspections took place
for an average of about 18.5 per day. In his opinion, this type of work production was not the sign of a
dysfunctional department.
With regard to wet stamping, Mr. Bowman explained this was a requirement of the State that applies to
architects and engineers. This was an issue raised solely by Mr. Shapiro that consumed hours of his time and
that of the Building Official responding to phone calls and e-mails from him. He provided an email sent to
Jeannine Graf from David Butler, Washington State Board of Architects, that states electronic seals are okay
but the signature must be original and references WAC 308-12-081. He provided an email written by
Building Official Jeannine Graf to Mr. Shapiro, that referenced her October 25, 2007 email that states the
City acknowledges that in the electronic world the stamp is commonly reproduced on the plans. For
submittal, the City requires only one set to be wet signed (this set remains the City copy). This applies to all
registered engineers and architects who submit plans to the City.
Mr. Bowman disagreed with Mr. Shapiro’s assertion that the Development Services Department staff was
discourteous. With regard to the example Mr. Shapiro provided that the staff treated a permit applicant who
came in to look at plans rudely, he assured all plans were public documents and open to review by anyone.
He acknowledged the plan reviewers may have the active plans in their possession and access may be
delayed. He provided several examples of unsolicited comment cards the City received regarding the
excellent service provided by staff. He read a card received today from residents thanking the Planning,
Building and Engineer Divisions for the timely, thorough and professional way they assisted with the
building permit process. The card was accompanied by a bouquet of flowers.
In response to Mr. Shapiro’s comment that too much time/effort/energy was expended with no ultimate value
to the product, Mr. Bowman assured staff did what the code required; they did not have the ability to pick
and choose which code provisions to enforce or ignore. The Department is working on a substantial code
rewrite that will improve some of these code issues; others will require city policy decisions, deciding what
is important to regulate, and what is not. Others are beyond the Department’s control such as State or
Federal requirements.
Linda Paralez, DeMarche Consulting Comments
• Website information is out of date
• City should join eGov Alliance
• Standardize practices
• Provide on-line permitting and permit status
Mr. Bowman responded belonging to eGov Alliance was very expensive, particularly their online permit
process. The City already provides significant on-line permit information, more than was provided by eGov
Alliance. Via PermitTracks, applicants or the public could find permit status for any permit. He agreed with
Ms. Paralez’ comment that the Annual Report on Land Use Permitting Timelines was out of date, pointing
out there was current information regarding the comprehensive plan, zoning, current issues and agenda
information available on the website. The City is testing on-line permit applications for minor building,
plumbing and mechanical permits. He agreed the City’s website needed a complete overhaul to make it
more user friendly and intuitive.
Mr. Bowman recalled the City joined the Snohomish County Economic Development Council in 2002 to
look at a model permit system for Snohomish County but that work was not finalized. When land use
permits were analyzed during that process, Edmonds was well below other jurisdictions and their review of
planning discretionary land use permits always beat the 120 days deadline. He noted the online permit
tracking system provided the ability for permit applicants to access that information 24/7.
Packet Page 13 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 11
Brian Goodnight Issues
• Lack of ability to ask simple questions.
• Last project had $30,000 dollars into it before setbacks were found to be wrong.
• Didn’t know that the City has a pre-application process.
• Lack of information over the counter, specifically water line specifications.
• People at counter don’t know information.
• Closed on Wednesdays
Mr. Bowman explained staff responds to questions all the time. In fact, Bruce Goodnight was in last Friday
morning to meet with Assistant Building Official Ann Bullis to go over some building questions. With
regard to the comment regarding lack of information over the counter, Mr. Bowman explained codes,
handouts and standard details were all available on line and at the Development Services Department. With
regard to Mr. Goodnight’s last comment, Mr. Bowman explained the counter was closed on Wednesdays to
allow staff to focus on plan reviews. Mr. Bowman was uncertain about Mr. Goodnight’s comment that he
was not aware of the pre-application process and displayed materials from a pre-application meeting held in
2002 with his brother, Brian Goodnight.
Bill Wilson Comments
• The City required expensive and lengthy process in order to do improvements for a tenant space for
Community Solutions before they could get a business license when it was the same use (warehouse
and office).
Mr. Bowman responded by law the City was required to keep commercial and multi family building permits
for the life of the building plus 10 years. In this case, improvements were made to the building that were not
consistent with the approved permit; the biggest issue was a breach of the 2-hour firewall to an unrated door.
He displayed a detailed chronology of events that began when Community Solutions applied for a permit on
July 12, 2005 and the Building Division notified them on July 19, 2005 that a change of use permit was
required. After several exchanges between the City and the Wilsons, City Fire Marshal met with Mr. Wilson
on site on September 5, 2006 to discuss the matter and recommended Mr. Wilson retain an architect to assist
him. On September 6, 2006, Mr. Wilson followed up with a letter that he had retained Tony Shapiro as his
architect and requested an extension of time to October 15, 2006 to submit plans. The request was granted
and plans were submitted on November 21, 2006. On December 7, 2006 Building and Fire approved plans
for issuance, inspections took place on March 21, 2007 (framing), July 10, 2007 (sheetrock) and July 18,
2007 (final occupancy) and a business license was issued to Community Solutions on July 19, 2007.
Donna Breske Comments
• Supports hiring outside consultant.
• The City has no staff that are experienced in utilizing the 1992 Department of Ecology Manual.
• Cited an example of a building on 76th Avenue where staff wanted the cumulative impervious
surface considered and did not consider the project as redevelopment which would not trigger the
requirement for detention.
Mr. Bowman responded while it was true that staff did not currently have a stormwater engineer on staff, the
City did retain Don Fiene, P.E., as its stormwater consulting engineer, who was familiar with the 1992 DOE
Storm Water Manual. The issue Ms. Breske raises fails to address the City’s adopted stormwater policy and
she attempted to say it did not apply to projects with cumulative impervious surfaces over 5,000 square feet.
He displayed instructions from the stormwater handout that systems designed to accommodate over 5,000
square feet of impervious surface must be designed and stamped by a professional engineer.
Mark Loewen Comments
• He cited issues of miscommunication and misinformation.
• That he had to hire Donna Breske to write a letter to the City that he did not need her engineering.
Packet Page 14 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 12
• Due to the length of the building permit process he was now unable to obtain a construction loan.
• He stated that a person could go into the building department on five occasions, ask the same
question and get five different answers.
• Staff could not figure out where the north arrow was on the plans.
Mr. Bowman responded he was in awe that Mr. Loewen was unaware he would need a building permit for
improvements valued at $237,000. He also questioned why anyone would ask the same question of the
Building Department five times, noting it was unlikely he would speak to five different people because of
Edmonds’ small staff.
Regarding hiring Ms. Breske to respond to the City, Mr. Bowman explained Mr. Loewen’s geo-tech engineer
raised the issue of drainage due to slopes on the property. The City’s engineering reviewer noted that and
asked that the issue be addressed. Ms. Breske responded and the City signed off the engineering review.
He reviewed a detailed chronology of events regarding Mr. Loewen’s permit:
• City sent letter to Mr. Loewen on 5/14/07 stating the City had become aware that he had started a
remodel without a building permit. Requested a response by 6/15/07. No response was received.
• Building Official initiated code enforcement action on 6/20/07; permit application must be submitted
by 7/6/07.
• On 6/4/07 Mr. Loewen filed a Critical Areas Checklist with the Planning Division. The Critical
Areas assessment of the Loewen property was performed on 6/8/07 and determined that a Critical
Areas Study was required due to the presence of erosion and landslide hazard areas as well as
mapped fish and wildlife habitat conservation area along the eastern bounds of the parcel.
• On 6/21/07, Mr. Loewen filed a building permit application. He described the work as ‘remodeling a
day light rambler with garage addition with living space above. Permit for deck built without permit.
The application documents were missing minimum submittal information.
• On 7/25/07 Mr. Loewen supplemented the application with missing information and a plan review
was initiated by the Building, Engineering and Planning Divisions.
• Building, Engineering and Planning plan review comments were mailed to Mr. Loewen on 9/17/07,
9/6/07 and 9/17/07 respectively.
• The Building plan reviewer made the following notation regarding the north arrow, ‘Please add the
following information to the site plan. Label North arrow.’ There were a total of twelve building
plan review comments. North arrows are required to be labeled.
• Mr. Loewen resubmitted plans on 3/13/08 (almost five months from the 9/17/07 plan review
comments).
• Building, Engineering and Planning approved the permit for issuance on 3/21/08, 4/2/08 and 4/1/08
respectively. Mr. Loewen was contacted on 4/2/08 that the permit was ready to be issued.
• Because this project was started prior to permit issuance the Building Official issued an additional
Order to Correct Violation Notice on 5/8/08 requiring the permit be issued no later than 5/23/08. On
5/14/08, Mr. Loewen contacted the City and informed Building staff of financing difficulties
preventing him from obtaining the building permit. The permit application was due to expire on
6/21/08 and Mr. Loewen was informed by the Development Services Technician that the permit
must be issued by this date.
• On 6/16/08 the permit (reference BLD20070652) was issued to Mr. Loewen. The job description
was changed by the plan reviewer to read, ‘demo existing carport, lower floor add 303 sf storage,
main floor add 921 sf 3 car garage, remodel master bath, remodel kitchen, add 360 sf nook and
laundry, add 184 sf porch, rebuilt existing 521 sf deck, upper floor add 1,128 sf 3 bedrooms, loft and
bath, the project value is $237,877.00. Mr. Loewen was assessed a violation fee of $1,691.00.
Roger Hertrich Comments
• Architects and builders are afraid to complain because they fear retaliation on their next project.
• Cost associated with continually extending projects due to inexperienced and ineffective staff.
Packet Page 15 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 13
• Staff are inexperienced and inspectors have no proper credentials.
• Edmonds is the worst.
• Edmonds fails because of Development Services.
With regard to Mr. Hertrich’s comment regarding retaliation, Mr. Bowman responded it simply takes too
much effort to retaliate and it was likely illegal. He has heard this charge for over 30 years but has yet to
have anyone prove such a charge. Regarding inexperienced and ineffective staff, he acknowledged the
Engineering Division had the most new staff members and did not always know answers off the top of their
heads. In order to provide accurate answers to the public some research and/or questioning of more
experienced staff members may be required. Codes, handouts and standard details are all available on line
and at the Development Services Department. The new Senior Building Inspector has 12 ICC certifications;
the previous inspector had 9. He pointed out delays during the plan review process were often a direct result
of the applicant not responding to plan review comments in their entirety. Requests for waiver or deviation
from the ECDC also lengthen the plan review process.
Steve Shelton Comments
• Replaced a chain link fence with a wood fence on the corner of 4th Avenue North and Bell Street.
City posted a Stop Work Order.
• City required a critical areas analysis in order to replace the fence.
• Last year the garage doors were being replaced, the contractor was told they did not need a permit.
When contractor replaced rotted 2 x 4s, the project was red tagged and fined for not obtaining a
permit.
Mr. Bowman responded Code Chapter 17.30 regulates permit requirements for fences. A fence permit is
required for fences greater than 3 feet in height which is also within 10 feet of any street right-of-way or
access easement or within 30 feet of a corner. Mr. Shelton has a corner lot, the proposed fence was 3 feet to
6 feet in height on the south property line along Bell Street, 3 feet in height along the west property line at
4th Avenue North with a 7’6” arbor at the sidewalk entrance to the property and a 6 foot fence at the
northeast corner of the property adjacent to the alley.
The City issued 27 fence permits in 2005, Town & Country was the contractor of record for two fence
permits including Mr. Shelton’s permit. He provided a detailed chronology of events:
• Stop Work Order issued on 4/27/05 for installation of a fence without first obtaining a fence permit.
• Mr. Shelton came to the permit counter on 4/28/05 and filed the permit application
• Code Chapter 23.40.060 requires a critical areas assessment on all lots prior to issuance of building
permits that disturb the soil. Mr. Shelton submitted a Critical Areas Checklist form to the City
Planning Division on 4/28/05. On 5/3/05 the City Planner performed a site inspection and rendered a
decision of ‘waiver’ meaning no critical areas were identified on site.
• On 5/6/05 the City Engineering Division performed a review of the fence proposal checking for
pedestrian and traffic sight distance hazards. A portion of the fence at the alley was required to be
altered to meet the proper site distance.
• Fence permit (reference 2005-0370) was issued on 5/6/05.
• The owner was assessed a violation fee of $205.00.
With regard to the garage, Mr. Bowman agreed a permit was not required to replace garage doors and
provided the following chronology of events:
• Stop Work Order was issued on 10/25/07 because structural members were being replaced
(specifically the garage door header, posts supporting the header, and wall framing on the south side
of the garage).
• The contractor came to the permit counter on 10/26/07 and filed the permit application.
• The permit BLD20071079 was issued the same day, 10/26/07.
Packet Page 16 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 14
• The contractor called for inspection on 10/30/07 and exterior sheathing and framing were approved
by the City Inspector.
• The owner was assessed a violation fee of $205.00 but the project was not delayed as the permit was
issued over the counter to the contractor.
Mr. Bowman concluded the Department was not overstaffed, in fact was currently short one Building Plans
Reviewer. A new experienced Planner and a new City Engineer have been hired and an offer has been made
to a Stormwater Manager. Edmonds staff is asked to do more here than in other cities. He was proud of the
volume of work that staff produced each day with very minimal errors. He assured staff was very helpful
and courteous and strive to give citizens the correct answer to their questions, as they understand time is
money and that issuance of building permits has an effect on the City’s economic vitality.
Mr. Bowman commented he, like the Mayor, had an open door policy. His door was typically open so he
can listen to what goes on at the permit counter. As an example, over the past six months he has met with
several people to discuss their concerns to resolve violations, permit issues, code questions or interpretations
or just plain old disagreements. Sometimes he helps by investigating the permit process, but often times “the
code is what the code is” and it must be enforced. He also monitors permit reviews and will step in when he
believes direction is needed.
He assured staff was constantly searching for ways to do things better. Significant improvements were made
when he first joined the City including remodeling the second floor to expand the permit counter, replacing a
non-functional permit system with a system that worked, and developing handouts of standard uniform
construction practices. He agreed the code rewrite needed to be finished, the City’s website needed to be
updated and minor permits need to be available online and hoped to achieve these objectives by next year.
Councilmember Wambolt recognized the amount of work it took to respond to the comments that were
made, commenting it did not resolve the impasse between the Development Services Department and the
developers. Although he was not a proponent of hiring consultants, he commented it may be worthwhile in
this instance to do so to address the impasse. Mr. Bowman responded he did not believe there was an
impasse. He assured he was not opposed to the Council hiring a consultant to analyze the department.
Councilmember Wambolt answered a consultant would likely be beneficial, and he believed there was an
impasse between the Development Services Department and the developers and a referee was needed. Mr.
Bowman explained the City had limited resources and made a decision to staff lean. He suggested the
Council discuss a consultant during the 2009-2010 budget process.
Councilmember Bernheim commented although he was not at the June 17 meeting, his review of the minutes
and his discussions with the developers revealed they offered to finance the review by a consultant. Another
important aspect was management; it was the Mayor’s responsibility to administer the Building Department
so that the developers were happy. Mayor Haakenson responded it was not his responsibility to ensure
developers were happy. Mr. Bowman responded he was hired to oversee the Department; if the Council was
unhappy with his performance, the Mayor had the authority to fire him. Councilmember Bernheim clarified
management of the relationship between the City’s customers and employees was the Mayor’s responsibility;
it was not the Council’s responsibility to ensure the Development Services Department was functioning
properly. If complaints were being raised to the point it had reached an impasse, he was amenable to
committing to a participatory exercise to determine if there was room for improvement. He invited
developers to rebut Mr. Bowman’s comments.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Mr. Bowman’s suggestion to consider a consultant in the 2009-2010
budget process and did not want developers funding such a study. He recalled the developers offered to pay
to hire staff to expedite the process, not fund the consultant study. Mr. Bowman offered to develop a
decision package.
Packet Page 17 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 15
Councilmember Wilson commented he was very impressed with Mr. Bowman’s rebuttal, noting he has heard
complaints about the Development Services Department for years but was unsure of their validity. Mr.
Bowman’s rebuttal was so succinct that it significantly undermined Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Goodnight’s and
others’ credibility in the future if they brought sincere, well intentioned complaints to the council. He noted
if the State required a wet stamp, developers must abide by that requirement. Mr. Goodnight’s brother
utilized the City’s pre-application process in 2002; Mr. Goodnight should have been aware of that when he
addressed the Council. Mr. Bowman explained his intent was to respond to each comment because if they
remained unanswered, they became the truth. Councilmember Wilson commented it was the Council’s job
as well to ensure departments were functioning properly. He commented Mr. Bowman was as top notch an
employee as any he had worked with at any level of government, was proud to have him as an employee of
the City and he provided great service to Edmonds citizens. Mr. Bowman echoed that sentiment to his staff
who work hard and have the City’s best interest at heart.
Mayor Haakenson acknowledged Councilmember Bernheim was not at last week’s meeting to hear what was
said and it was difficult to hear on the video. He agreed it was his job to manage staff and Wednesday
morning he called a meeting with the entire second floor staff along with Mr. Bowman during their lunch
hour where they listened to all the comments that were made. He asked Mr. Bowman to investigate every
comment and report to the Council. He disagreed with Councilmember Wambolt that there was an impasse,
most of the issues were cut and dried. He agreed the 2009-2010 budget process would be an appropriate
time to consider hiring a consultant.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
8. ESTABLISH A $5,000 APPROPRIATION FOR POTENTIAL PAINE FIELD LEGAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained in 2007 the Private
Enterprise Coalition announced they would raise and spend funds in an attempt to push commercial air
service at Paine Field. In response, the Mukilteo City Council approved the creation of a Paine Field
Emergency Reserve Fund in the amount of $250,000 to create a pool of resources for any legal or other costs
that were necessary to oppose commercial expansion of Paine Field. Recently representatives from Mukilteo
met with Mayor Haakenson and Council President Plunkett to ask the City Council to establish an
appropriation of funds, thus increasing the pool of financial resources. The proposed resolution was prepared
at the request of Council President Plunkett and identifies an amount of $5,000. He advised the funds would
come from the Council Contingency Fund.
Council President Pro Tem Dawson commented the $5,000 figure was arrived at in consultation with
Mukilteo who indicated $5,000 would be sufficient to share in the costs and allow sharing of information
between jurisdictions. Mayor Haakenson clarified Mr. Clifton and he selected that amount, Mukilteo did not
ask for a specific amount, it was primarily symbolic. Council President Pro Tem Dawson commented the
City’s contribution was not only to increase the pool of funds but by contributing, the City could share in
information Mukilteo gathered via their more significant contribution.
Councilmember Wilson expressed concern with the proposed amount, recalling the Council passed a similar
resolution six months ago with no funding and envisioned a $5,000 contribution would have been more
appropriate at that time for the reasons Council President Pro Tem Dawson cited. He questioned whether
$5,000 was a strong enough symbolic gesture in light of the fact that there was now an application for
commercial air service at Paine Field. He suggested the Council may want to consider a larger contribution
such as $50,000, not monies placed in a separate fund but as a placeholder. Council President Pro Tem
Dawson pointed out there was not $50,000 in the Council Contingency Fund; there was only $22,000 after
the earlier contribution to the Chamber. She suggested the Council indicate that if this became a legal battle,
the City was not ruling out further allocations in the future if necessary. This appropriation would allow
Packet Page 18 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 16
Mukilteo to share information with the City and establish that the City was committed to this effort. Mr.
Clifton commented the Council could consider a larger allocation during the 2009-2010 budget process.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1177. MOTION CARRIED (5-1),
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM OPPOSED. The resolution approved reads as follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, OPPOSING
COMMERCIAL AIR PASSENGER AND OTHER INCOMPATIBLE AIR SERVICE AT PAIN FIELD
LOCATED WITHIN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, AND ESTABLISHING A $5,000 APPROPRIATION
FOR POTENTIAL LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES
9. CITY OF EDMONDS UNFUNDED PRIORITY PROJECTS
Mr. Clifton recalled on May 27, 2008, at the request of Edmonds City Council, City staff presented
information on City of Edmonds and private party master planning options for the Downtown Master Plan
area which includes the Port of Edmonds Harbor Square, Antique Mall and Skipper properties. Additional
information included potential steps that would need to be taken should the City Council decide to purchase
all, or a portion of the Antique Mall or Skippers properties.
As part of the overall May 27, 2008 presentation, City staff requested the City Council consider how the
purchase of property might relate to funding other future priority needs within the City. Included in the May
27 City Council packet was a table containing a list of unfunded priority projects. He displayed a table of
unfunded projects, explaining that ongoing building maintenance and ongoing transportation improvements
were high priorities. In response to a citizen’s reference to carpeting for the Council Chambers, he explained
that was not the type of ongoing building maintenance referred to by staff. The list contains large building
maintenance projects such as seismic upgrades to the Frances Anderson Center, electrical upgrades, Senior
Center Improvements, etc. Other than the first two items, the projects in the table have not been prioritized
by City administration. City staff asks that City Council work with City administration to prioritize these
items/projects in order to help structure an overall multi-year financing plan. Several projects need
additional review and input from the community and City consultants to determine more accurate cost
estimates. The primary purpose of providing this information was to give the City Council an overview of
the unfunded needs rather than precise cost estimates for each project. A couple of the projects do not have
projects descriptions as they were tied to non-city entities with specific plans yet to be defined. He noted the
Council packet also included brief narratives describing the projects and Department Directors were present
to answer any questions about the projects.
Councilmember Wambolt commented these were only building related capital projects, there were many
other unfunded projects. He recalled the recent transportation forum identified numerous projects including
sidewalks, traffic control and appropriately marked crosswalks. Mr. Clifton agreed, noting many of these
projects were in addition to projects identified in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Councilmember
Wambolt asked what project Ms. Petso was referring to. Public Works Director Noel Miller responded Ms.
Petso was referring to the Six Year CIP. He noted carpet was included in Fund 116 Building Maintenance
fund, noting that was part of keeping a building serviceable for the user and protecting the capital asset.
Mr. Clifton reviewed the unfunded priority projects:
Project Department Estimated Cost Possible Funding Sources
Current Dollars
Priority
Ongoing Building
Maintenance Projects
Public Works $200,000/per year Utility Tax Increase High
Ongoing Transportation
Improvements
Public Works $.5 to 1.0 Million per
year
Transportation Benefit
District
Public Vote?
High
Packet Page 19 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 17
4th Avenue Cultural
Corridor
Parks / Public
Works
$10 million Various City funds and grants
Aquatic Center
Parks &
Recreation
$10 to $30 million Public Vote
Art Center / Art Museum Parks &
Recreation
$5 million Community partnerships
Boys & Girls Club
Building (School District
property)
Not a City Bldg $5 million Capital campaign
Civic Playfield
Acquisition (lease expires
2021)
Parks &
Recreation
Unknown (current
assessed value of $5.5
million)
Public Vote/ REET 1 / Grants
Downtown Street
Lighting Improvements
Public Works $250,000 Utility Tax Increase
Edmonds Library Public Works and
Parks &
Recreation
Unknown Public Vote
Fire Administration,
Training Classroom,
Non-Burning Training
Facility
Fire Department $1.1 million
+/- 10%
Esperance Service Contract
Woodway Service Contract
2015 Station 20 Debt Payoff
EMS Transport Fees
Various City Funds
Former Woodway H.S.
(School Dist. Property)
Playfields
Parks &
Recreation
$12 million Regional Facility/Capital
Campaign Partnerships/REET
2
Parks / Facilities
Maintenance Building
Parks & Public
Works
$3 to 3.5 Million
Not funded after 3
years
No Identified Funding Source
Public Vote
Senior Center Building Public Works $4 to 10 Million Public/Private Partnership?
G.O. Bond Levy
Van Meer Property Fire Department Subject to Negotiation Esperance Service Contract
Woodway Service Contract
2015 Station 20 Debt Payoff
EMS Transport Fees
Various City Funds
Councilmember Wilson observed staff determined ongoing building maintenance projects and ongoing
transportation improvements were high priorities and asked how the other projects were prioritized. Mayor
Haakenson advised staff determined the first two were extremely high priorities and left prioritization of the
other items to the Council. Mr. Clifton invited the Council to request additional information on any of the
projects and offered to work with the Council on prioritizing the projects.
In light of the length of the list, the high priority of many of the projects and a public vote as a possible
funding source, Councilmember Wilson invited staff to describe how they might group projects and structure
a public vote. Mr. Clifton advised staff had prepared a preliminary list of projects that could be funded via a
Transportation Benefit District. Councilmember Wilson commented on the adage if the voters were asked
for $5 twenty times, they were less likely to approve those requests than they were to approve a single $100
request. He preferred to combine projects into one public vote. Mr. Clifton advised all potential funding
sources were included on the list due to the Council’s previous discussion regarding combining projects on a
ballot.
Council President Pro Tem Dawson found the list very helpful particularly as the Council considered the
Harbor Square, Antique Mall and Skippers properties, commenting it would also be helpful to provide the
Council a sense of the other county and state priorities such as Sound Transit 2. For example, the Snohomish
Packet Page 20 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 18
County Council was considering a proposal by the Superior Court, Sheriff and Prosecuting Attorney to put a
measure on the ballot to fund a justice center in Snohomish County at a cost of more than $150 million. She
noted full agendas made it difficult for the Council to give these items the attention they deserved and
suggested scheduling a Saturday workshop to review the projects and their priority. She invited
Councilmembers to inform her of their vacation and weekend schedules and any preferences regarding a date
and she would schedule a workshop to discuss prioritization, financing options and how monies might be
leveraged. Councilmember Wambolt commented another option would be the fifth Tuesday in July.
10. CITY OF EDMONDS LETTER TO SOUND TRANSIT REGARDING PHASE 2
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton advised as a follow-up to a Sound
Transit Phase 2 public outreach effort, the Sound Transit (ST) Executive Board will be reviewing investment
options for ST2 later this month and early July. The Board’s tentative schedule for review and possible
consideration is as follows:
• June 26 the Board will discuss feedback on public outreach efforts coupled with discussion of ST2
plan and possible board member amendments.
• July 10 the Board will act on proposed amendments and provide direction to ST staff to prepare ST2
plan, ballot resolutions and supporting document.
• July 24 the Board may adopt a plan and potential ballot resolutions.
In April of 2008, Mayor Haakenson sent a letter to Sound Transit Executive Board members Reardon,
Roberts and Dawson expressing concerns about Sound Transit’s proposed draft Phase 2 System-wide Service
Development Plan. The purpose of the letter was to reiterate these concerns in addition to expressing the
City’s positions on various issues prior to the Sound Transit Board taking action at any of the above
meetings. Specific concerns highlighted, or positions expressed within the letter include support for
extending light rail into Snohomish County, locating a Sound Transit light rail station near Mountlake
Terrace along Interstate 5, and including funding for Sound Transit Edmonds Commuter Rail Station as part
of Sound Transit Phase 2. The letter also contains statements expressing a lack of support for operating Bus
Rapid Transit in lieu of light rail along the Interstate 5 corridor.
Sound Transit will be rendering decisions soon on a Phase 2 package of investments and related options, in
addition to setting a timeframe regarding when a Phase 2 package should be placed on a ballot. As such, it is
important for all effected communities to state their position prior to the Sound Transit Executive Board
finalizing a Phase 2 package. He noted the Council packet also included a June 16, 2008 letter from the City
of Mountlake Terrace expressing positions similar to the City of Edmonds.
Council President Pro Tem Dawson explained these concerns were shared by the three Snohomish County
Sound Transit Board members. She recently received a summary of the comments gathered via the public
comment process, noting the public comments provided at the Lynnwood and Everett open houses and via
the internet mirrored the concerns raised in the letter Mayor Haakenson drafted to the Sound Transit Board,
emphasizing the desire for light rail to Snohomish County in the next phase. She explained there three plans
out for public comment, the 20 year plan that was part of Prop 1 last year, and two smaller 12-year packages.
The Board has not made a determination whether to pursue a vote in 2008 or what package they would select
if they were to go out for a vote in 2008. She noted the possible ballot measure would not be limited to these
three packages; the Board’s decision was to take public comment on these three packages and craft
something in between. She noted the SeaShore Transportation Forum submitted a letter yesterday that was
similar to the proposed letter, expressing a desire for light rail reaching Snohomish County.
Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the balance between the regional need for a concentrated system of
some kind versus a program that would reach all users including Snohomish County. He was uncertain
whether it was better to work toward a smaller program that would be built sooner that would relieve
greenhouse gas emissions and get cars off the road that may not necessarily serve Snohomish County
Packet Page 21 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 19
residents rather than a larger project that would impact Snohomish County but may be too expensive to be
approved. Council President Pro Tem Dawson commented the Board has focused on the 5/10th package at a
12 year level; there was little difference in the amount of dollars raised on an annual basis or taxes collected,
the difference was the length of time it would take. She noted a 20-year plan did not take longer to build, it
was built over a longer period of time. She clarified a 20-year package did not mean nothing happened for
20 years, 20 years was when everything in the package would be completed. The same programs could be
contained in a 12-year package, but it would conclude in 12 years rather than continuing with additional
projects. She noted the first step was to determine what the voters had a tolerance for and what
improvements they wanted. She noted early comments from Snohomish County indicated they did not see
the benefit of the programs in the 12-year package to Snohomish County. The focus of the 12-year plans is
on Bus Rapid Transit along I-5 which she noted as lanes became more congested, may/may not provide a
transportation solution for Snohomish County. She acknowledged it was uncertain what the HOV lanes
would look like in the future and without assurance that traffic would move fluidly in HOV lanes, it was
difficult to provide reliable transit service along the I-5 corridor. She noted a slightly longer plan may be
able to provide light rail to Snohomish County. She concluded the goal was to achieve a balance between
real transportation solutions for all the subareas, not just for three of the four subareas.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for light rail at Northgate and asked what the 20-year plan
would provide. Council President Pro Tem Dawson commented in the 20-year plan proposed last year, light
rail reached Ash Way. She noted the most expensive portion of light rail on I-5 was the portion that reached
Northgate; it was significantly less expensive further north due to the change in topography. The Board was
being asked to consider an option that would extend light rail into Snohomish County so that Snohomish
County, like the other subareas, had some reasonable choices beyond buses on I-5. She noted Pierce County
had a more realistic situation with the Sounder option because more trips were possible; the north line was
maxed out this fall at four trips per day. Therefore without light rail, Snohomish County was limited to buses
on I-5, the most congested and most highly traveled corridor in the region and as well as the area with the
greatest demand for light rail and the least likelihood of overcoming transportation challenges without light
rail. She summarized the letter stated for Snohomish County residents, particularly south Snohomish
County, there was something better than a 12-year plan that did not include a light rail component for
Snohomish County.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO SIGN THE ATTACHED JUNE
24, 2008 LETTER TO THE SOUND TRANSIT EXECUTIVE BOARD. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO INITIATE THE VACATION OF THE UNOPENED ALLEY RIGHT-
OF-WAY LOCATED BETWEEN 8TH AVENUE NORTH AND 9TH AVENUE NORTH, NORTH OF
DALEY STREET.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained this was an unopened alley 7.5 feet in width that
was dedicated as part of the original plat of the City. He noted alleys were typically 16 feet in width; he
assumed it was anticipated the unplatted area to the north would dedicate the other half of the alley which did
not occur. The City has no improvements in the alley. The residents asked to have the alley right-of-way
vacated and requested the City initiate that action. The proposed resolution sets July 22 as the date for the
required public hearing.
Councilmember Wambolt commented he looked at the property, finding it useless and very steep.
Packet Page 22 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 20
Councilmember Bernheim asked which residents requested the vacation, noting there were 12 adjacent
properties. Mr. Bowman answered nearly all the property owners to the south as the property came from
their properties as part of the original plat of Edmonds and the vacated right-of-way would be returned to
those parcels. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council was scheduling the public hearing to hear from the
property owners. Several property owners met with Councilmembers Wambolt and Olson and requested the
City initiate the vacation. Mr. Bowman explained there were two ways to initiate a vacation, either by
petition or the Council passes a resolution initiating the vacation.
Councilmember Bernheim asked how many people asked to have the property vacated. Mr. Bowman stated
five property owners on the south side requested the vacation. He noted these property owners were aware
there were issues to be resolved with regard to access, etc. particularly at the east end of the alley.
Councilmember Bernheim asked the disadvantage of the City not vacating the property. Mr. Bowman
answered the City would continue to have an unopened 7.5 foot wide right-of-way that was of no use to the
City due to the steep grade in the center. Councilmember Olson commented the City took property in the
1890s with the intent of installing an alley which never happened. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out
Daley did not go through from 8th to 9th. City Attorney Bio Park commented vacating the property would
return it to the tax rolls and would eliminate any liability associated with injury on the property due to the
City’s negligence.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE RESOLUTION NO. 1178. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The resolution
approved reads as follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
INITIATING REVIEW OF VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN UNOPENED PUBLIC ALLEY
LYING BETWEEN 8TH AVENUE NORTH AND 9TH AVENUE NORTH, PARALLEL TO AND
NORTH OF DALEY STREET, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JULY 22, 2008.
12. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ON 2008 PLANNING INITIATIVES ADDRESSING (1)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT AND (2) FORM-BASED ZONING
Comprehensive Plan Sustainability Element
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained staff had been working with the Mayor's Climate Committee on the
development of a new Comprehensive Plan element and wanted to ensure they were on the right track. Due
to the work being done by the Climate Committee and recent press regarding climate change, it was
appropriate to include a "Community Sustainability Element" in the City's Comprehensive Plan that would
capture many of the issues such as long term viability, economics, character of the City, GMA, etc. He
viewed the Sustainability Element as the glue that tied many aspects of the Comprehensive Plan together.
He explained the current Comprehensive Plan included elements regarding Land Use, Community Culture &
Urban Design, Utility, Capital Facilities, Housing, Transportation and Parks, Recreation & Open Space. He
noted most were mandatory elements, others such as the Community Culture & Urban Design element were
included due to the importance of that issue to the City. He noted there was a great deal of discussion
regarding climate change by the legislature and they were on the verge of mandating a new element. Thus
the new Sustainability Element could be viewed as getting out in front before it was mandated by the State
and it also made sense because the City has joined several significant climate change initiatives. He
anticipated the Sustainability Element would contain subsections regarding Climate Change, Environmental
Quality and Community Health. The Climate Change subsection would identify ways to reduce emissions
and the impact on the environment and determine the City’s future risk with regard to climate change such as
how City operations would be impacted and what natural hazards were likely to occur. This would also
include monitoring programs to track change. The Environmental Quality subsection would consolidate
Packet Page 23 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 21
environmental policies throughout the Comprehensive Plan as well as gather the critical area and shoreline
policies in one place.
The Community Health subsection would promote bikeway and walkways, getting people active in the
community, economic opportunity, housing, etc. He clarified the intent would not be to repeat housing
polices contained in the Housing Element but show how housing was related to economy, the health of the
community, etc. Other concepts could be locally based food sources such as Farmer’s Markets and the tie to
economics and home-grown arts, character of the community/lack of authenticity in large businesses, etc.
Council President Pro Tem Dawson asked how the Council could be involved in this process and what was
the plan to bring the element back to the Council for input. Mr. Chave answered staff was working with the
Climate Committee on this project and suggested the Council may want to schedule a work session with the
members of the Climate Committee. Council President Pro Tem Dawson pointed out Councilmember Orvis,
who serves on the Snohomish County Health District Board, may have some insight into the Community
Health subsection. She spoke in favor of involving the Council early in the process, suggesting the Council
schedule a meeting with the Climate Committee on a fifth Tuesday.
Councilmember Wilson echoed Council President Pro Tem Dawson’s comments and wanted to ensure the
Council was involved, offering the Community Services/Development Services Committee as a possible
venue. He noted the Council had already approved environmental principles and values such as regarding
carbon neutrality. He advised the Cascade Land Conservation would be making a report to the Council next
week; he had encouraged them to develop a suite of services they could provide to the City. With regard to
land use, he recalled the Community Services/Development Services Committee has discussed creating
zones where builders were provided incentives for environmentally sensitive development. He pointed out
Lake Forest Park had an Environmental Quality Committee and envisioned the City could form a similar
committee or reformulate the Climate Committee. With regard to the Community Health subsection, he
pointed out the importance of addressing sidewalks as well as childhood obesity and integrating development
with healthcare providers.
Form Based Zoning
Mr. Chave explained form-based zoning was a planning buzz word that surfaced in recent years as a result of
the new urbanism movement. He displayed a comparison of traditional versus form-based zoning,
explaining form-based zoning was a reaction to traditional zoning which described what a jurisdiction did not
want and provided a list of allowed uses, uses that were not allowed, and restrictions on properties. The
intent of the form-based approach was to be more illustrative, provide a guide/direction rather than a list of
restrictions and attempt to provide a picture of the result. The difficulty with the traditionally Euclidian
approach was the result was very unpredictable. In recent years, staff had begun to integrate form-based
ideas into the code in a hybrid approach.
He pointed out there was no impetus to change the code if the development that occurred was what the City
wanted; however, in areas where the result was not what the City wanted or areas where change was
expected to occur, form-based zoning could be very beneficial by providing more specific direction with
regard to what was hoped could be achieved in that area. An example would be the downtown zones and on
Hwy. 99 where there were design standards. He displayed examples of graphics, illustrations and tables that
were included in form-based codes. He explained one approach for the Title 16 rewrite was to include as
many tables and graphics as possible. The intent was not to change the rules and regulations for the zones
but make the code easier to understand. He noted areas where additional design standards were desired
would require a special process. He commented the code rewrite would also identify zones where the form-
based approach would be important such as Westgate where the new PCC may provide an opportunity to
promote a green zone as well as promote Westgate as a key neighborhood center.
Packet Page 24 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 22
Mr. Chave explained the benefits of a hybrid approach were it focused on regulating what was important and
presented information in a simple and understandable way via graphics and illustrations, provided
consistency across zoning classifications, did not discard what worked but focused on areas where change
was desired or where change was an issue such as downtown and Hwy. 99.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether form-based zoning limited architectural creativity. Mr. Chave
answered it was only done to the extent the City knew what it wanted; if what they wanted was unknown, it
should not be prescribed. For example, downtown items such as door shapes, the number of windows, etc.
was not prescribed, only very general parameters were prescribed. He clarified form-based zoning could be
specific or general, the goal was to identify what was important and if it was important and the City knew
what it wanted, it should be included in the code.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether there were reasons not to use form-based zoning. Mr. Chave
answered if the Council was happy with the existing code and development that was occurring, there was no
need to do anything different. He commented downtown was a symptom that this could be done better.
Areas where change was happening the most were the areas to look first and may include meetings with the
neighborhood to determine whether they were interested in participating in a form-based code for that area.
He concluded form-based zoning could be very specific to a neighborhood. He anticipated even with form-
based zoning, most of the development in neighborhoods would be the same, however, in an area such as
Hwy. 99 where transition would occur, form may be more important than the exact mix of uses.
13. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Council President Pro Tem Dawson reported the E911 Manager for Snohomish County has tendered her
resignation, the SnoPac Director plans to resign and the SnoCom Director has indicated he plans to resign
soon. Therefore a group within emergency dispatch in Snohomish County are meeting to discuss the public
safety needs of Snohomish County as it was “easier to reshuffle the deck if the players were not necessarily
in place.”
Councilmember Wambolt reported at their June 9 meeting, the Port Commissioners were provided a
presentation on the new Yacht Club, a 12,000 square foot building located in the parking area north of the
current Port offices, half of which will be leased to a local company for office space. There will not be a
restaurant in the building. They intend to begin construction by the end of 2008 and occupy the building in
2009. The Port also approved a new service, Pump Me Out, for pumping out marine holding tanks. And
despite the weather, the Waterfront Festival was a big success.
Councilmember Orvis reported the Snohomish County Board of Health encouraged anyone injured by a bat
to capture the bat to allow it to be tested for rabies. He reported on a presentation given to the Board
regarding septic systems and how they work. The Health Board is responsible for inspecting all the septic
systems in the County and made the data available online via a system with the acronym DAVE. He
encouraged anyone purchasing property in Snohomish County to access the system to determine whether
there was a septic system on their property.
Councilmember Wilson reported the Interlocal Agreement with Lake Ballinger would be coming to the
Council soon. There were six signatories to the Interlocal Agreement; Lynnwood and Lake Forest Park
passed the Interlocal Agreement, Mountlake Terrace planned to pass it next week, and Shoreline and
Snohomish County were in the process of passing the Interlocal Agreement.
14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
Packet Page 25 of 232
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 24, 2008
Page 23
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Pro Tem Dawson reported she met with the Snohomish County Council Chair and Vice
Chair who asked her to relay that the County Council was moving forward with the Interlocal Agreement;
they learned they cannot enact a resolution but must pass an ordinance which requires a public hearing.
Councilmember Wambolt relayed citizens’ questions concerning why the Farmer’s Market was smaller this
year. Mayor Haakenson advised the large Farmers Market will begin in July and continue through
September; a smaller market, the Garden Market, operates in the spring.
Councilmember Wilson reported Lake Ballinger flooded 3 weeks ago when it rained 4 inches in 24 hours.
Next, he inquired about a proposed land use sign posted on the Skippers site. Mr. Chave advised the
property owner plans to demolish the building and convert the site into a parking lot. Councilmember
Wilson asked what implications if any that had on the master plan process or future contract rezone. Mr.
Chave answered the property owner was interested in a temporary parking lot, the reason a Conditional Use
Permit was required, which allowed a 1-2 year duration. He assumed after that time period they would
pursue something else. Councilmember Wilson assumed Mr. Gregg was not putting up a building this month
or this year. Mr. Chave answered it would depend entirely on the private lease agreement which the City
was not privy to.
16. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:54 p.m.
Packet Page 26 of 232
AM-1650 2.C.
Approval of Claim Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:07/01/2008
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 #105131 through #105273 for May 26, 2008 in the amount of
$1,027,118.02.
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:$1,027,118.02
Fiscal Impact:
Claims: $1,027,118.02
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 6-26-08
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 06/26/2008 01:40 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/26/2008 02:34 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/26/2008 02:41 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/26/2008 02:47 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Started On: 06/26/2008 11:04
AM
Final Approval Date: 06/26/2008
Packet Page 27 of 232
Packet Page 28 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105131 6/26/2008 041695 3M XAM3522 TP06301 STREET - GREEN ELECTRONIC CUTTABLE FILM
STREET - GREEN ELECTRONIC CUTTABLE FILM
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 333.75
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 29.71
Total :363.46
105132 6/26/2008 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 255474 RODENT CONTROL
RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 92.56
Total :92.56
105133 6/26/2008 062614 ABPA A7292 L MCMURPHY NATL DUES THRU 6/30/09
L MCMURPHY NATL DUES THRU 6/30/09
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 50.00
L MCMURPHY LOCAL DUES
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 20.00
Total :70.00
105134 6/26/2008 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 608356 DISCOVERY PROGRAM SHIRTS
SHIRTS FOR DISCOVERY PROGRAM
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 69.96
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 6.23
SOFTBALL & VOLLEYBALL T-SHIRTS608370
SOFTBALL & VOLLEYBALL SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 1,489.34
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 132.55
Total :1,698.08
105135 6/26/2008 069634 ACCURINT - ACCT 1201641 1201641-20080531 INV#1201641-20080531 - EDMONDS PD
MAY REPORTS/SEARCHES
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 72.25
Total :72.25
1Page:
Packet Page 29 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105136 6/26/2008 069751 ARAMARK 655-3747103 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 34.04
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.03
Total :37.07
105137 6/26/2008 069751 ARAMARK 655-3709047 FLEET UNIFORM SVC
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 22.69
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 2.02
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-3709049
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.97
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.97
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.27
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.26
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-3718157
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 22.98
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 2.05
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-371859
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 19.45
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 19.45
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 1.73
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 1.73
2Page:
Packet Page 30 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105137 6/26/2008 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-3726371
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 19.50
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.74
PW MATS655-3726372
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.75
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 6.65
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 6.65
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 6.65
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 6.65
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 6.65
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.16
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.59
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.59
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.59
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.59
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.60
3Page:
Packet Page 31 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105137 6/26/2008 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-3726373
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.70
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.70
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.24
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.24
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-3728646
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 53.44
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 4.76
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-3736282
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 22.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.99
4Page:
Packet Page 32 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105137 6/26/2008 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
PW MATS655-3736283
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.75
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 6.65
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 6.65
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 6.65
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 6.65
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 6.65
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.16
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.59
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.59
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.59
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.59
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.60
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-3736284
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.70
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.24
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.24
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.70
5Page:
Packet Page 33 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105137 6/26/2008 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-3740036
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.60
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-3745355
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 22.69
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 2.02
6Page:
Packet Page 34 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105137 6/26/2008 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
PW MATS655-3745356
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 6.65
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 6.65
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 6.65
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 6.65
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 6.65
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.16
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.59
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.59
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.59
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.60
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.75
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.59
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-3745357
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 7.74
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 7.74
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.69
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.69
7Page:
Packet Page 35 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105137 6/26/2008 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-3747104
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.60
Total :458.17
105138 6/26/2008 071653 ARNOLD, MEREDITH ARNOLD9672 CLAY CLASS
PRECIOUS METAL CLAY #9672
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 137.20
Total :137.20
105139 6/26/2008 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 574461 FLEET DIESEL - 2800 GAL
FLEET DIESEL - 2800 GAL
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 11,340.28
ST EXCISE TAX DIESEL, WA OIL SPILL
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 1,098.16
BIODIESEL - 700 GAL
511.000.657.548.680.340.13 3,416.28
ST EXCISE TAX DIESEL, WA OIL SPILL
511.000.657.548.680.340.13 278.04
REGULAR - 3500 GAL
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 12,666.50
ST EXCISE TAX GAS, WA OIL SPILL
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 1,362.20
PREMIUM - 2300 GAL
511.000.657.548.680.340.12 8,539.67
ST EXCISE TAX GAS, WA OIL SPILL
511.000.657.548.680.340.12 895.16
WA STATE SERVICE FEE
511.000.657.548.680.340.12 40.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.12 3.20
Total :39,639.49
8Page:
Packet Page 36 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105140 6/26/2008 064343 AT&T 7303860502001 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
105141 6/26/2008 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 45835 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #100 PRINTING
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 90.97
UB Outsourcing area #100 PRINTING
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 90.97
UB Outsourcing area #100 PRINTING
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 91.24
UB Outsourcing area #100 POSTAGE
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 283.27
UB Outsourcing area #100 POSTAGE
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 283.27
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.19
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.19
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.21
Total :864.31
105142 6/26/2008 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST July 2008 JULY 2008 AWC PREMIUMS
9Page:
Packet Page 37 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105142 6/26/2008 (Continued)001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST
07/08 Fire Pension AWC Premiums
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 4,372.20
07/08 Retirees AWC Premiums
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 25,172.60
07/08 Gaydos AWC Premiums
001.000.510.526.100.230.00 1,107.13
07/08 AWC Premiums
811.000.000.231.510.000.00 286,981.74
Total :317,633.67
105143 6/26/2008 072319 BEACH CAMP LLC BEACHCAMP9826 BEACH CAMP AT SUNSET BAY
BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,200.00
Total :1,200.00
105144 6/26/2008 072311 BRIAN K TAKAGI MD 48406 ACCT#48406 - EDMONDS POLICE DEPT.
FITNESS FOR DUTY #1542
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 213.00
Total :213.00
105145 6/26/2008 002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC IL15495 UNIT 91 - SHAFT
UNIT 91 - SHAFT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 475.67
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.50
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 41.85
UNIT 91 - FLAIL HAMMERS, LOCK NUTS,IL15819
UNIT 91 - FLAIL HAMMERS, LOCK NUTS,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 768.08
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 64.52
10Page:
Packet Page 38 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105145 6/26/2008 (Continued)002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC
UNIT 91 - JOYSTICKIL16275
UNIT 91 - JOYSTICK
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 340.13
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.95
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.32
Total :1,751.02
105146 6/26/2008 069295 BROWN, CANDY BROWN9679 BIRD CLASS
BIRDS ARE AWESOME!~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 35.00
Total :35.00
105147 6/26/2008 072317 BUDGET TANK REMOVAL &2439 FS 20 - TANK REMOVAL
FS 20 - TANK REMOVAL
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 4,469.30
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 402.24
Total :4,871.54
105148 6/26/2008 071766 CAMPBELL, CONNIE CAMPBELL9694 KAYAKING
INTRODUCTORY KAYAKING TOUR AT MARINA
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 282.87
Total :282.87
105149 6/26/2008 068484 CEMEX / RINKER MATERIALS 9415403854 STREET - ASPHALT
STREET - ASPHALT
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 448.04
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 40.32
11Page:
Packet Page 39 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105149 6/26/2008 (Continued)068484 CEMEX / RINKER MATERIALS
STREET - ASPHALT9415412980
STREET - ASPHALT
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 448.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 40.32
Total :976.68
105150 6/26/2008 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 132611 SUPPLIES
GLOVES, LIGHTNING BUG STRIKERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 38.77
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.45
Total :42.22
105151 6/26/2008 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 132609 SHOP SUPPLIES - SHIELD CUP, GAS
SHOP SUPPLIES - SHIELD CUP, GAS
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 242.70
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 21.59
Total :264.29
105152 6/26/2008 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460177135 UNIFORMS
Volunteers
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 20.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 1.78
OPERATIONS UNIFORMS460177136
Stn. 16
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 105.58
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.39
12Page:
Packet Page 40 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105152 6/26/2008 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
UNIFORMS460178254
Stn 17 - ALS
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 115.14
Stn 17 - OPS
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 115.14
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 10.25
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.24
OPS UNIFORMS460178281
Stn 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 137.69
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 12.25
UNIFORMS460182421
Volunteers
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 20.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 1.78
OPS UNIFORMS460182422
Stn. 16
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 105.58
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.39
UNIFORMS460183550
Stn. 17 - ALs
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 115.86
Stn. 17 - OPS
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 115.86
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 10.31
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.31
13Page:
Packet Page 41 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105152 6/26/2008 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
OPS UNIFORMS460183571
Stn. 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 136.64
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 12.16
Total :1,075.35
105153 6/26/2008 071985 CLEAR CREEK SOLUTIONS INC 476 E7FC.Services thru 06/19/08
E7FC.Services thru 06/19/08
412.200.630.594.320.650.00 5,240.00
Total :5,240.00
105154 6/26/2008 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1926956 FAC - REPAIR SCRUBBER
FAC - REPAIR SCRUBBER
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 348.76
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 31.39
FAC MAINT - TT, TOWELS, SOAP, SCOURINGW1938499
FAC MAINT - TT, TOWELS, SOAP, SCOURING
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 413.85
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 37.25
Total :831.25
105155 6/26/2008 071308 COLELLA, TERESA COLELLA0608 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT
SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT # MEADOWDALE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 432.00
Total :432.00
105156 6/26/2008 062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC 10049 UNIT 718 - REPAIRS
UNIT 718 - REPAIRS
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 4,872.46
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 433.65
Total :5,306.11
14Page:
Packet Page 42 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105157 6/26/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 1287 Domain Name - Registration
15Page:
Packet Page 43 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105157 6/26/2008 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
Domain Name - Registration
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 12.50
SystemTools - Upgrade Admin License
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 404.00
NewEgg - Flash Drive
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 69.48
NewEgg - Car Adaptor & Headset for
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 139.31
UnlockedForces - Internet Tablet for
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 399.98
STSI - Dual Cable Splitter for New PCs
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 414.58
CablesforLess - Dual Link Cable for New
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 276.54
NewEgg - Bluetooth handsfree Headset
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 143.59
PayPal - Bluetooth Visor Antenna
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 237.70
MyWorldPhone - Bluetooth Loudspeaker
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 202.49
HandHeldItems - OtterBox for
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 144.55
NewEgg - Flash cards for Blackberries
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 261.68
NewEgg - Cash for Blackberry
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 44.29
Aliph - Jawbone for Blackberry
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 141.56
IceWeb - Change of service of Ice Mail
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 64.85
Aaxeon - Media Converter
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 196.83
NewEgg - Computer Memory/Flash Drives/
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 183.14
16Page:
Packet Page 44 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105157 6/26/2008 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
NewEgg - Computer Memory/Flash Drives/
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 13.89
NewEgg - Computer Memory/Flash Drives/
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 166.47
NewEgg - RAM
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 210.93
ShareIt - 1 yr Maintenance
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 48.00
USB Gear~Quality Cable - USB Adapter
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 23.84
IceWeb - Ice Portal Maintenance
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 29.95
Freight on returned items
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 26.72
Total :3,856.87
105158 6/26/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 3263 ACCT#3263 - O'BRIEN
17Page:
Packet Page 45 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105158 6/26/2008 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
BRIDGE TOLL~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 3.00
FUEL/OFFICER MCCLURE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 62.39
MEAL/OFFICER MCCLURE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 41.78
FUEL/OFFICER MCCLURE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 45.25
MEAL/OFFICER MCCLURE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 18.87
FUEL/OFFICER MCCLURE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 42.54
CHAIR, OFFICE SUPPLIES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 935.50
FUEL/OFFICER MCCLURE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 21.32
MEAL/OFFICER MCCLURE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 14.48
LODGING/OFFICER MCCLURE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 259.98
AWARD DARE LUNCHEON
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 66.81
ACCT#4685 - COMPAAN4685
MEAL/COMPAAN~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 17.05
LODGING/COMPAAN~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 238.02
FUEL/COMPAAN~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 20.00
AWARD DARE LUNCHEON
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 63.41
18Page:
Packet Page 46 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105158 6/26/2008 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
ACCT#8272 - EDMONDS8272
MEAL/D.MILLER~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 14.14
MEAL/D. MILLER~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 21.22
MEAL/S.HAWLEY~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 6.83
FUEL/S.HAWLEY~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 36.41
MEAL/S.HAWLEY~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 6.75
FUEL/S.HAWLEY~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 53.88
MEAL/S.HAWLEY & J.MCCLURE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 64.06
MEAL/S.HAWLEY~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 18.70
FUEL/S.HAWLEY~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 54.23
MEAL/S.HAWLEY~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 16.05
LODGING/S.HAWLEY~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 259.98
SHUTTLE FROM AIRPORT/D.MILLER~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 44.00
OLYMPUS DIGITAL VOICE RECORDER~
001.000.410.521.210.350.00 499.38
LATE FEE
001.000.410.521.100.490.00 14.40
19Page:
Packet Page 47 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105158 6/26/2008 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
ACCT#8298 - BARD8298
AWARD DARE LUNCHEON
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 41.87
AWARD DARE LUNCHEON
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 20.45
REGISTRATION/BARD~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 46.00
REGISTRATION/HESLOP~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 199.00
ACCT#8298/CREDIT FOR LODGING/KAMKA8298
TRAINING CANCELLED/S.KAMKA~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 -76.00
20Page:
Packet Page 48 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105158 6/26/2008 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
ACCT#9821 - EDMONDS9821
MEAL/D.LAVELY~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 38.85
FUEL/D.LAVELY~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 39.97
LODGING/D.LAVELY~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 326.70
MEAL/L.P.MILLER~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 12.95
FUEL/L.P.MILLER~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 50.91
MEAL/LP.MILLER~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 12.50
MEAL/L.P.MILLER~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 28.22
LODGING/L.P.MILLER~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 343.20
FUEL/L.P. MILLER~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 44.02
MEAL/L.P.MILLER~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 13.95
ORAL BOARD LUNCHES~
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 66.34
VOICE RECORDERS/NARC UNIT
104.000.410.521.210.350.00 343.00
RECORDERS/NARC UNIT
104.000.410.521.210.350.00 338.79
VOICE RECORDERS/NARC UNIT
104.000.410.521.210.350.00 228.04
LODGING/L.MACK~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 357.21
LODGING/J.JONES~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 357.21
MEAL/E.MCKEE~
21Page:
Packet Page 49 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105158 6/26/2008 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 1.39
LODGING & MEALS/E.MCKEE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 413.36
MEAL/E.MCKEE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 18.12
MEAL/MCKEE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 3.64
FUEL/E.MCKEE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 59.77
Total :6,289.89
105159 6/26/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 3527 MI CONTROLS INC - CITY HALL - THERMOSTAT
MI CONTROLS INC - CITY HALL - THERMOSTAT
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 332.28
FS 16 - PUMP W/STARTER, FILTER
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 149.10
SVC FEE
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.25
UPS - FAC MAINT - SHIPPING FEES TO5988
UPS - FAC MAINT - SHIPPING FEES TO
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 11.44
UPS - PW - SHIPPING FEES TO NATIONAL
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 7.79
LAS MARACAS - SEWER SEMINAR MEALS - T
411.000.655.535.800.430.00 51.74
QUINAULT BEACH RESTAURANT - SEWER
411.000.655.535.800.430.00 56.50
NESQUALLY GRILL - SEWER SEMINAR MEALS -
411.000.655.535.800.430.00 29.67
GUARDIAN SECURITY - OLD PW
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 55.00
SVC FEE
001.000.650.519.910.430.00 3.79
22Page:
Packet Page 50 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105159 6/26/2008 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
LIND ELECT - UNITS EQ36,37,38 PO -7577
LIND ELECT - UNITS EQ36,37,38 PO -
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 277.85
RADIOSHACK - UNIT 379 - PUSHBUTTONS,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 33.00
AUTO TRIM #2 - UNIT 379 -TINT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 293.98
LOWE'S - UNIT EQ35PO - SUPPLIES
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 7.67
FISHERIES SUPPLIES - BOAT - TEARDROP
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 68.76
MAGIC TOYOTA - UNIT TOYOTA PD - GRILLE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 180.29
BAYSIDE OUTBOARDS - BOAT - OIL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 88.57
GALLS - UNIT 492 - SEAT ORGANIZER7577
GALLS - UNIT 492 - SEAT ORGANIZER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.81
WESCO - UNIT EQ04PO - 50' DR EDGE BLK
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 30.93
WA VESSEL LIC - LIC RENEWAL THROUGH
511.000.657.548.680.490.00 20.25
JC WHITNEY - UNIT EQ44PO - GRAY LOCKING
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 96.98
ROADWAY EXPRESS - FLEET - REFUND~7577
ROADWAY EXPRESS - FLEET - REFUND~
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -579.71
SHILO INN - SEWER SEMINAR LODGING - T9054
SHILO INN - SEWER SEMINAR LODGING - T
411.000.655.535.800.430.00 794.70
SVC FEE
411.000.655.535.800.430.00 26.60
Total :2,074.24
105160 6/26/2008 065891 CONLEY, LISA CONLEY9486 DINOSAUR HUNTER
23Page:
Packet Page 51 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105160 6/26/2008 (Continued)065891 CONLEY, LISA
DINOSAUR HUNTER CLASS #9486
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 157.50
Total :157.50
105161 6/26/2008 064630 CONTERRA SYSTEMS 33504 ALS SUPPLIES
Pelican medication insert
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 69.00
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 7.50
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 5.80
Total :82.30
105162 6/26/2008 069848 CRAM, KATHERINE CRAM9401 IRISH DANCE CLASSES
IRISH DANCE 13+ #9401
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 120.40
IRISH DANCE 13+ #9405
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 105.00
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #9409
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 210.70
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #9411
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 350.00
Total :786.10
105163 6/26/2008 005850 CRETIN, LAWRENCE E7AD.Open House E7AD.Door Monitor for Transportation
E7AD.Door Monitor for Transportation
112.200.630.595.440.410.00 36.00
Total :36.00
105164 6/26/2008 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3205311 E6DA.Invitation to Bid 76th/75th
E6DA.Invitation to Bid 76th/75th
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 227.50
Total :227.50
105165 6/26/2008 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 08-2888 6/17/08 Council Minutes
24Page:
Packet Page 52 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105165 6/26/2008 (Continued)064531 DINES, JEANNIE
6/17/08 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 285.00
Total :285.00
105166 6/26/2008 007175 DRIVELINES NW INC 345078 UNIT 55 - U JOINT KIT
UNIT 55 - U JOINT KIT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 113.64
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.77
Total :123.41
105167 6/26/2008 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 95551 SUPPLIES
OIL FILTERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.95
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.78
SUPPLIES95789
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.49
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.76
Total :30.98
105168 6/26/2008 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 93583 SHOP - WASHER PARTS
SHOP - WASHER PARTS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.76
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.58
UNIT 38 - STARTER93595
UNIT 38 - STARTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 154.94
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.79
25Page:
Packet Page 53 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105168 6/26/2008 (Continued)007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
UNIT P3 - TESTER ADAPTER93648
UNIT P3 - TESTER ADAPTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 121.25
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.24
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.61
UNIT G2 - MARINE TEX (WHITE, GRAY)93940
UNIT G2 - MARINE TEX (WHITE, GRAY)
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.98
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.22
REFUND TESTER, FREIGHT AND CORE FEE94188
REFUND TESTER, FREIGHT AND CORE FEE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -165.49
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -14.73
UNIT 651 - TIRE GAUGE, TIRE DEPTH GAUGE94281
UNIT 651 - TIRE GAUGE, TIRE DEPTH GAUGE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 96.47
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.59
UNIT 651 - TIRE GAUGE94282
UNIT 651 - TIRE GAUGE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 177.30
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.10
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.95
SHOP - WIRE STRIPPER94753
SHOP - WIRE STRIPPER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.95
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.13
26Page:
Packet Page 54 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :515.641051686/26/2008 007675 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
105169 6/26/2008 072306 EDMONDS ORAL SURGERY EOS0530 REFUND
REFUND OF ALLOWABLE DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 50.00
Total :50.00
105170 6/26/2008 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP ELDER0624 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP:~
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 150.00
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPWINSTON0623
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPS:~
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 300.00
Total :450.00
105171 6/26/2008 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 CITY PARK
CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 64.28
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 448.73
SPRINKLER1-00875
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 21.25
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER1-02125
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 26.72
SPRINKLER1-03900
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.08
SPRINKLER1-05125
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 21.25
GAZEBO IRRIGATION1-05285
GAZEBO IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 21.25
27Page:
Packet Page 55 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105171 6/26/2008 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
CORNER PARK1-05340
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.08
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05650
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 21.25
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP1-05675
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 451.34
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05700
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.08
CORNER PARK1-09650
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 28.55
SW CORNER SPRINKLER1-09800
SW CORNER SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.08
PLANTER1-10780
PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 37.66
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH1-16130
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 37.66
CITY HALL TRIANGLE1-16450
CITY HALL TRIANGLE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 61.84
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX1-16630
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 28.55
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER1-17475
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 28.55
28Page:
Packet Page 56 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105171 6/26/2008 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD1-19950
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 43.19
WATER1-36255
1141 9TH AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 21.25
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)2-25150
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 21.25
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)2-25175
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 21.25
SPRINKLER2-28275
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 21.25
MINI PARK2-37180
MINI PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.67
Total :1,549.06
105172 6/26/2008 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 4-34080 LIFT STATION #14
LIFT STATION #14
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.08
Total :23.08
105173 6/26/2008 072178 ELITE K-9 INC 7092 REF#7092 - EDMONDS POLICE
K9 JUTE BITE SLEEVE~
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 99.95
Freight
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 14.95
Total :114.90
105174 6/26/2008 064723 FAIR, DOUGLAS 060108 JUDGES CONFERENCE
JUDGES CONFERENCE
001.000.230.512.500.430.00 435.89
29Page:
Packet Page 57 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :435.891051746/26/2008 064723 064723 FAIR, DOUGLAS
105175 6/26/2008 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU13287 SEWER - SUPPLIES
SEWER - SUPPLIES
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 10.91
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.97
Total :11.88
105176 6/26/2008 063181 FITTINGS INC 00031763 UNIT 17 - UNIONS
UNIT 17 - UNIONS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 41.21
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.71
Total :44.92
105177 6/26/2008 072307 FUHRMAN, NORMAN FUHRMAN0529 REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 10.20
Total :10.20
105178 6/26/2008 072318 GONCALVES, JOY GONCALVES REFUND
REFUND FOR CLASS
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 49.00
Total :49.00
105179 6/26/2008 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 083607 FLEET TIRE INVENTORY - 4 TIRES
FLEET TIRE INVENTORY - 4 TIRES
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 389.20
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 34.64
Total :423.84
105180 6/26/2008 012199 GRAINGER 9630501352 UNIT 31 - PIPE
30Page:
Packet Page 58 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105180 6/26/2008 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER
UNIT 31 - PIPE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.86
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.80
Total :9.66
105181 6/26/2008 068450 HARBORVIEW MEDICAL CENTER 11885043 ALS MISC
Hoover reg fee
001.000.510.526.100.490.00 320.00
Total :320.00
105182 6/26/2008 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 84873 UNIT 486 - BRAKE SHOE KIT AND SEAL
UNIT 486 - BRAKE SHOE KIT AND SEAL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 117.34
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.44
UNIT 720 - RIVET85016
UNIT 720 - RIVET
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.21
UNIT K93 - RIVET85017
UNIT K93 - RIVET
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 28.80
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.56
UNIT 489 - RETAINER MAT85256
UNIT 489 - RETAINER MAT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.16
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.64
31Page:
Packet Page 59 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105182 6/26/2008 (Continued)012900 HARRIS FORD INC
UNIT 236 - MOTOR ASSEMBLY85260
UNIT 236 - MOTOR ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 55.91
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.98
UNIT 2 - TRANS FLUID85584
UNIT 2 - TRANS FLUID
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 41.28
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.67
UNIT 2 - SCREEN ASSEMBLY85597
UNIT 2 - SCREEN ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.05
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.67
UNIT 2 - TRANS FLUID85611
UNIT 2 - TRANS FLUID
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.32
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.92
UNIT 133 - SPLG WIRE KIT, WATER PUMP85623
UNIT 133 - SPLG WIRE KIT, WATER PUMP
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 273.96
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.38
UNIT 128 - SWITCH ASSEMBLY85665
UNIT 128 - SWITCH ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 78.37
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.97
UNIT 237 - WATER PUMP ASSEMBLY,85957
UNIT 237 - WATER PUMP ASSEMBLY,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 129.32
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.51
32Page:
Packet Page 60 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105182 6/26/2008 (Continued)012900 HARRIS FORD INC
UNIT 486 - STARTER MOTOR AND CORE FEE86017
UNIT 486 - STARTER MOTOR AND CORE FEE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 350.28
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.17
UNIT 484 - BRAKE ASSEMBLY86715
UNIT 484 - BRAKE ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 280.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.92
UNIT 484 - PARKING WORM, GASKETS86727
UNIT 484 - PARKING WORM, GASKETS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 110.36
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.82
UNIT 484 - BRAKE ASSEMBLY86760
UNIT 484 - BRAKE ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 989.32
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 88.05
UNIT 379 - PATS KEY87014
UNIT 379 - PATS KEY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 95.88
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.53
UNIT 128 - PADS, SEALS87027
UNIT 128 - PADS, SEALS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 67.62
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.02
UNIT 239 - SENDER AND PUMP87418
UNIT 239 - SENDER AND PUMP
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 229.98
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.47
33Page:
Packet Page 61 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105182 6/26/2008 (Continued)012900 HARRIS FORD INC
UNIT 491 - CLIPS87440
UNIT 491 - CLIPS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.16
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.99
UNIT 485 - PAD87529
UNIT 485 - PAD
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 50.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.49
UNIT 119 - HOSE ASSEMBLY87566
UNIT 119 - HOSE ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 94.78
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.44
RETURNED SYNCHONIZERCM68727
RETURNED SYNCHONIZER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -149.76
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -13.33
RETURNED MIRRORCM82153
RETURNED MIRROR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -102.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -9.11
RETURNED PUMP ASSEMBLY AND CORE FEECM83389
RETURNED PUMP ASSEMBLY AND CORE FEE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -222.49
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -19.80
CORE FEE REFUNDCM86017
CORE FEE REFUND
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -75.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -6.68
34Page:
Packet Page 62 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :2,727.971051826/26/2008 012900 012900 HARRIS FORD INC
105183 6/26/2008 012900 HARRIS FORD INC FOCS239185 UNIT 424 - RADIO REPAIR
UNIT 424 - RADIO REPAIR
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 570.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 50.73
UNIT 119 - WHEEL ALIGNMENTFOCS240352
UNIT 119 - WHEEL ALIGNMENT
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 89.95
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 8.01
Total :718.69
105184 6/26/2008 066575 HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL 23524518-001 UNIT EQ15SO - WACKER ASPHALT ROLLER -
UNIT EQ15SO - WACKER ASPHALT ROLLER -
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 11,850.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1,066.50
Total :12,916.50
105185 6/26/2008 069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 44371065 PER QUOTE 1878257
Item # EN488AA#ABA HP Docking Station310-00095
001.000.410.521.100.350.00 280.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.350.00 24.92
Total :304.92
105186 6/26/2008 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2030624 0903
BATTERIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 89.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.01
Total :97.01
105187 6/26/2008 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 403837-1 FLEET - TOOLS - REAMER/DRILL SET,
35Page:
Packet Page 63 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105187 6/26/2008 (Continued)072041 IBS INCORPORATED
FLEET - TOOLS - REAMER/DRILL SET,
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 182.58
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 7.51
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 17.11
Total :207.20
105188 6/26/2008 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 010494746 C/A 010494746
PR1-1 City Phone Service 5/10-6/10/08
001.000.390.528.800.420.00 823.34
Total :823.34
105189 6/26/2008 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 13023828-00 PW - MOTOR
PW - MOTOR
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 66.81
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.01
Total :72.82
105190 6/26/2008 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS E2DB.29 E2DB.Services thru 04/30/08
E2DB.Services thru 04/30/08
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 4,180.85
Total :4,180.85
105191 6/26/2008 016600 KROESENS INC 87466 OPS UNIFORMS
Dowling - Class A pants
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 84.50
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 7.61
OPS UNIFORMS87854
Boyle - replace zipper
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 21.50
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 1.94
36Page:
Packet Page 64 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :115.551051916/26/2008 016600 016600 KROESENS INC
105192 6/26/2008 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH APRIL/MAY 2008 CAR WASH FOR APRIL/MAY 2008 - EDMONDS PD
CAR WASH/APRIL & MAY 2008
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 255.94
Total :255.94
105193 6/26/2008 006048 L N CURTIS & SONS 2057692-00 OPS SUPPLIES
Flshlt w/alk batt
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 51.00
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 10.63
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 5.54
Total :67.17
105194 6/26/2008 072313 LANGENBURG, GREG L.P.MILLER REGISTRATION/L.P.MILLER - EDMONDS PD
REGISTRATION/L.P.MILLER~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 550.00
Total :550.00
105195 6/26/2008 072059 LEE, NICOLE 116 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 108.33
Total :108.33
105196 6/26/2008 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 098410 BUSINESS CARD MASTERS
Business Card Masters250-00203
001.000.000.141.100.000.00 702.00
Sales Tax
001.000.000.141.100.000.00 62.48
Total :764.48
105197 6/26/2008 072320 MACK, LINDA MACK TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT/L.MACK
MEALS/L.MACK~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 47.46
37Page:
Packet Page 65 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :47.461051976/26/2008 072320 072320 MACK, LINDA
105198 6/26/2008 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 118 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 50.00
INTERPRETER FEE129
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 225.00
Total :275.00
105199 6/26/2008 065829 MARTINSON, LINDA MARTINSON9459 BELLY DANCE CLASSES
THE ART OF BELLYDANCE #9459
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 123.20
THE ART OF BELLYDANCE #9460
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 123.20
THE ART OF BELLYDANCE #9461
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 53.90
THE ART OF BELLYDANCE #9464
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 189.00
Total :489.30
105200 6/26/2008 072314 MCGINNIS, STEPHEN & MELISSA 2-30125 RE: #22021 UTILITY REFUND
RE: #22021 Utility Refund 2-30125
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 70.90
Total :70.90
105201 6/26/2008 072308 MORGAN, DACIA MORGAN0529 REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 7.16
Total :7.16
105202 6/26/2008 072309 MOUSER, ZAYELEN MOUSER0529 REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 10.00
Total :10.00
105203 6/26/2008 066395 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY 82304598 SHOP - GLOVES
38Page:
Packet Page 66 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105203 6/26/2008 (Continued)066395 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY
SHOP - GLOVES
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 81.55
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 8.04
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 7.97
Total :97.56
105204 6/26/2008 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0373635-IN FLEET FILTER INVENTORY
FLEET FILTER INVENTORY
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 61.91
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 5.32
ATF0373711-IN
ATF
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 49.18
BULK 15/40
511.000.657.548.680.340.21 886.79
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.17
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.21 75.13
FLEET - GAS PUMP FILTERS0374113-IN
FLEET - GAS PUMP FILTERS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.04
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.61
Total :1,090.15
105205 6/26/2008 064348 NEWARK 16019265 UNIT 31 - MULTICONDUCTOR CONTROL CABLE
39Page:
Packet Page 67 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105205 6/26/2008 (Continued)064348 NEWARK
UNIT 31 - MULTICONDUCTOR CONTROL CABLE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 293.48
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.10
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 28.18
Total :344.76
105206 6/26/2008 068500 NORTHWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS 101283 INV#101283 - EDMONDS PD
REPAIR FAX MACHINE (CLERKS AREA)
001.000.410.521.110.480.00 205.50
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.480.00 17.67
Total :223.17
105207 6/26/2008 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0748871 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0750190
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 92.20
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0750191
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02
Total :288.24
105208 6/26/2008 072116 NORTHWESTERN CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT NO. 5 Pmt #5 FAC Seismic Structure Retrofit
Pmt #5 FAC Seismic Structure Retrofit
116.000.651.594.190.650.00 298,731.78
Total :298,731.78
105209 6/26/2008 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 562 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COM. MINUTES ON
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COM. MINUTES ON
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 176.00
40Page:
Packet Page 68 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105209 6/26/2008 (Continued)025690 NOYES, KARIN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES ON 6/18/08.000 00 564
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES ON 6/18/08.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 464.00
Total :640.00
105210 6/26/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 309534 Office Supplies
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 178.86
King County Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 16.09
Total :194.95
105211 6/26/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 265957 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 106.47
SUPPLIES311268
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 272.63
Total :379.10
105212 6/26/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 242709 PW ADMIN - EXPANDING FILES
PW ADMIN - EXPANDING FILES
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 53.54
King County Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 4.81
WATER QUALITY - DIVIDERS276904
WATER QUALITY - DIVIDERS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.95
SEWER - DIVIDERS, VHS TAPES
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 53.82
King County Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 0.63
King County Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.84
41Page:
Packet Page 69 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :124.591052126/26/2008 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
105213 6/26/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 282729 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES INCLUDING HEAVY
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES INCLUDING HEAVY
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 470.08
King County Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 42.31
Total :512.39
105214 6/26/2008 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00049626 UNIT 55 - WLDT ADAPTOR
UNIT 55 - WLDT ADAPTOR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 277.84
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.58
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.86
Total :325.28
105215 6/26/2008 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.721466 PAINT SUPPLIES
PAINT SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 86.62
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.72
Total :94.34
105216 6/26/2008 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.722478 PS - PAINT SUPPLIES
PS - PAINT SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 51.55
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.59
Total :56.14
105217 6/26/2008 070931 PATTON BOGGS LLP 052008 DC LOBBYIST FOR MAY 2008
DC Lobbyist for May 1008
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 4,000.00
Total :4,000.00
42Page:
Packet Page 70 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105218 6/26/2008 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 90447 INV#90447 - EDMONDS POLICE
TOWING/SILVER LEXUS~
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 204.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 18.16
Total :222.16
105219 6/26/2008 072064 PCC NATURAL MARKET PCC0624 REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 200.00
Total :200.00
105220 6/26/2008 071813 PEACOCK, WILLIAM R 2008T008 WWCPA CERTIFCATION TRAINING -~
WWCPA CERTIFCATION TRAINING -~
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 387.73
WWCPA CERTIFCATION TRAINING -~
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 387.73
Total :775.46
105221 6/26/2008 071307 PENN ARMS INC PA8566 INV#PA8566 - EDMONDS POLICE DEPT.
REPAIR/SL6-37MM LAUNCHER~
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 180.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 60.00
Total :240.00
105222 6/26/2008 072303 PERFORMANCE LEADERSHIP 42 INV#42 - M.BARD - EDMONDS PD
REGISTRATION/M.BARD~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 350.00
Total :350.00
105223 6/26/2008 008400 PETTY CASH - EPD JUNE 2008 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
43Page:
Packet Page 71 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105223 6/26/2008 (Continued)008400 PETTY CASH - EPD
COOKIES/ACOP RECEPTION 6/3/08
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 32.45
COOKIES/POLICE FOUNDATION 5/27/08 AND
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 17.16
PARKING/L.MANDEVILLE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 10.00
MEAL/CPL. GREENMUN~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 29.58
RECEIVER FOR SHOOT ROBOT
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 54.44
FERRY COSTS/R.HESLOP~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 28.90
PARKING/SGT. DRINKWINE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 40.00
RF CONNECTOR
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 5.98
COOKIES/HOSTING STREET CRIMES~
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 47.92
PARKING/R.HESLOP - SEATTLE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 10.00
PARKING/SGT. ANDERSON~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 9.12
DOT LABELS FOR SUPPLY ROOM
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.30
PARKING/M.GREENE~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 5.00
PARKING/A.JOHNSON~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 5.00
PARKING/AACOP SMITH~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 5.00
CAB FARE/R.HESLOP~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 46.80
FUEL/SGT.ANDERSON - CJTC~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 5.00
44Page:
Packet Page 72 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105223 6/26/2008 (Continued)008400 PETTY CASH - EPD
COOKIES/HOSTING DV TASK FORCE~
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 18.00
Total :377.65
105224 6/26/2008 064552 PITNEY BOWES 3833100-JN08 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE
Lease from 5/30 to 6/30
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 866.00
Total :866.00
105225 6/26/2008 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 168239 WATER/SEWER - DEPT OF L&I RETURN POSTAGE
WATER/SEWER - DEPT OF L&I RETURN POSTAGE
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 5.78
WATER/SEWER - DEPT OF L&I RETURN POSTAGE
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 5.78
Total :11.56
105226 6/26/2008 070257 POSTINI INC 470710 INTERNET ANTI-VIRUS & SPAM MAINT FEE
Jun-08 Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 565.20
Total :565.20
105227 6/26/2008 069685 PRO-VAC 080529-010 STORM - TV STORM DRAINS
STORM - TV STORM DRAINS
411.000.652.542.400.410.00 2,605.07
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.410.00 231.85
Total :2,836.92
105228 6/26/2008 072316 PROACTIVE REMEDIATION 4 STORM - OIL BUSTER, BIO BOOM, SUPPLIES
STORM - OIL BUSTER, BIO BOOM, SUPPLIES
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 625.00
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 55.63
Total :680.63
105229 6/26/2008 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948 FAC
45Page:
Packet Page 73 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105229 6/26/2008 (Continued)064088 PROTECTION ONE
FIRE & alarm monitoring for FAC~
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 186.00
alarm monitoring for Library~2422756
alarm monitoring for Library~
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 177.00
PW ALARM MONITORING730531
24 hour alarm monitoring PW~
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 21.00
24 hour alarm monitoring PW~
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 21.00
24 hour alarm monitoring PW~
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 18.38
24 hour alarm monitoring PW~
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 23.63
24 hour alarm monitoring PW~
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 10.50
24 hour alarm monitoring PW~
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 10.49
Total :468.00
105230 6/26/2008 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7024686185 STORM - DAMAGE CLAIM AT 10603 ROBINHOOD
STORM - DAMAGE CLAIM AT 10603 ROBINHOOD
411.000.652.542.400.480.00 2,050.46
Total :2,050.46
105231 6/26/2008 071702 RAILROAD MGMT CO III LLC 238284 MEADOWDALE STORM DRAIN CROSSING~
MEADOWDALE STORM DRAIN CROSSING~
411.000.652.542.400.450.00 82.50
Total :82.50
105232 6/26/2008 071696 RANKINS, KATE RANKINS0620 MONITORING
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR~
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 55.00
Total :55.00
46Page:
Packet Page 74 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
47
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105233 6/26/2008 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 000376 STORM - STREET SWEEPING DUMPING FEES
STORM - STREET SWEEPING DUMPING FEES
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 1,273.25
Total :1,273.25
105234 6/26/2008 072315 REINBOLD, KIRSTEN 3-53400 RE:# 108047-SB UTILITY REFUND
RE: #108047-SB Utility Refund 3-53400
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 27.63
Total :27.63
105235 6/26/2008 068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC 47627 E3JC.Services thru 05/25/08
E3JC.Services thru 05/25/08
412.100.630.594.320.650.00 1,820.69
Total :1,820.69
105236 6/26/2008 066111 SAFETY TRAINING ASSOCIATES 1050 FLAGGING CLASS - SEWER - B NILSON
FLAGGING CLASS - SEWER - B NILSON
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 50.00
FLAGGING CLASS -ENGINEERING - ~
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 250.00
FLAGGING CLASS - PARKS - ~
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 100.00
FLAGGING CLASS - STREET - K HARRIS
111.000.653.542.900.490.00 50.00
Total :450.00
105237 6/26/2008 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET 244461 UNIT 413 - FLUID
UNIT 413 - FLUID
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 38.01
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.38
Total :41.39
105238 6/26/2008 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 190858 & 190859 INV#190858 & 190589 - EDMONDS POLICE
47Page:
Packet Page 75 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
48
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105238 6/26/2008 (Continued)036070 SHANNON TOWING INC
#190858 TOWING FORD EXPLORER (WHITE)~
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 204.00
#190859 TOWING SATURN (BLUE)~
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 204.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 36.32
Total :444.32
105239 6/26/2008 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0080801-IN UNITS EQ45PO- 49" R/R/B/B, 2 LED R/R, 2
UNITS EQ45PO- 49" R/R/B/B, 2 LED R/R, 2
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 2,374.55
EQ05,07PO - LEDS
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1,019.60
UNIT EQ05,07PO~0080803-IN
UNIT EQ05,07PO~
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 4,575.80
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 75.00
UNIT 31 - 8AMBER TIR6 T/A WITH TACTRLD10081574-IN
UNIT 31 - 8AMBER TIR6 T/A WITH TACTRLD1
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 751.20
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.50
Total :8,809.65
105240 6/26/2008 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 19-021959 UNIT 11 - RED RUBBER PLUG, WINDOW KIT
UNIT 11 - RED RUBBER PLUG, WINDOW KIT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.28
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.26
Total :28.54
105241 6/26/2008 036955 SKY NURSERY 271931 GARDEN SUPPLIES
48Page:
Packet Page 76 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
49
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105241 6/26/2008 (Continued)036955 SKY NURSERY
STAKES, ETC.
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 52.76
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 4.75
Total :57.51
105242 6/26/2008 069734 SMITH, JOEL JSMITH0530 EQUIPMENT MOVING
MOVING GYMNASTICS EQUIPMENT & RUNNING
001.000.640.575.550.410.00 174.00
Total :174.00
105243 6/26/2008 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2710014701 MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK
MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.74
BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION5680012803
BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.23
Total :59.97
105244 6/26/2008 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2060014392 SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.72
fire station # 162540794324
fire station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,787.93
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT3380016422
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.74
FIVE CORNERS WATER TANK3460019262
FIVE CORNERS WATER TANK
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 281.58
LIBRARY3720012057
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,915.69
49Page:
Packet Page 77 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
50
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105244 6/26/2008 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL4680011956
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 83.69
Public Works4840011953
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 77.52
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 294.58
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 294.58
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 294.58
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 294.58
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 294.59
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX5390028164
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,307.26
CITY HALL5410010689
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,206.67
Fire station #167060000275
Fire station #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 30.23
Total :12,223.94
105245 6/26/2008 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 39141 STAMPS FOR ENGINEERING DEPT.
STAMPS FOR ENGINEERING DEPT.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 74.38
BACKORDER STAMP FOR ENG. DEPT.39181
BACKORDER STAMP FOR ENG. DEPT.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 16.86
Total :91.24
50Page:
Packet Page 78 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
51
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105246 6/26/2008 065910 SNOCOM 911 COMMUNICATIONS 487 Q3-08 SERVICES
QUARTERLY SERVICES
001.000.410.528.600.510.00 134,977.68
QUARTERLY SERVICES
001.000.510.528.600.510.00 48,206.31
QUARTERLY SERVICES
411.000.654.534.800.510.00 4,820.63
QUARTERLY SERVICES
411.000.655.535.800.510.00 4,820.63
Total :192,825.25
105247 6/26/2008 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I000196473 C/A SOW 5005 REPLACES LOST CK 102991
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 311.77
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 11.23
Total :323.00
105248 6/26/2008 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC 86241 E8CA.Roberts thru June 13, 2008
E8CA.Roberts thru June 13, 2008
112.200.630.595.440.410.00 325.00
E5GA.Roberts thru June 13, 2008
412.300.630.594.320.650.00 162.50
E4GA.Roberts thru June 13, 2008
412.300.630.594.320.650.00 292.50
E3JB/E3GB.Roberts thru June 13, 2008
412.100.630.532.200.410.00 357.50
E3JB/E3GB.Roberts thru June 13, 2008
412.300.630.594.320.650.00 357.50
E5MC.Roberts thru June 13, 2008
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 130.00
E6DA.Roberts thru June 13, 2008
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 130.00
E6DB.Roberts thru June 13, 2008
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 195.00
51Page:
Packet Page 79 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
52
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,950.001052486/26/2008 069997 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC
105249 6/26/2008 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO July 2008 JULY 2008 STANDARD INSURANCE
07/08 Standard Insurance
811.000.000.231.550.000.00 19,001.69
Total :19,001.69
105250 6/26/2008 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L71408 MAY-08 AUDIT FEES
May-08 Audit Fees
001.000.390.519.900.510.00 12,078.24
May-08 Audit Fees
411.000.652.542.900.510.00 503.26
May-08 Audit Fees
411.000.654.534.800.510.00 2,013.04
May-08 Audit Fees
411.000.655.535.800.510.00 2,013.04
May-08 Audit Fees
411.000.656.538.800.510.00 2,013.04
May-08 Audit Fees
111.000.653.543.300.510.00 503.26
May-08 Audit Fees
511.000.657.548.680.510.00 1,006.52
Total :20,130.40
105251 6/26/2008 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1497923 LIBRARY - ELECT SUPPLIES
LIBRARY - ELECT SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 109.08
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.71
PS - ELECT SUPPLIES1502898
PS - ELECT SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 444.29
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 39.54
Total :602.62
52Page:
Packet Page 80 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
53
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105252 6/26/2008 072310 STROH, HEATHER STROH0529 REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 7.16
Total :7.16
105253 6/26/2008 065133 SUDDEN PRINTING 17855 OPS PROF SERVICES
Stay in Step! printing
001.000.510.522.200.410.00 195.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.410.00 17.36
Total :212.36
105254 6/26/2008 067835 T-MOBILE 135840772 CELL PHONE USEAGE
PARK MAINTENANCE CELL PHONES
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 87.77
Total :87.77
105255 6/26/2008 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10692516 SUPPLIES
LOCK PINS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 36.26
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.23
Total :39.49
105256 6/26/2008 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1593780 E6DA.Invitation to Bid 76th/75th
E6DA.Invitation to Bid 76th/75th
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 173.16
Total :173.16
105257 6/26/2008 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1541048 Council Agenda for 10/2/07
Council Agenda for 10/2/07
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 274.48
Total :274.48
105258 6/26/2008 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1593709 GILLETT/AMD-07-17 LEGAL NOTICES.
GILLETT/AMD-07-17 LEGAL NOTICES.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 39.78
53Page:
Packet Page 81 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
54
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105258 6/26/2008 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
REIMER/S-08-37 LEGAL NOTICES.1594248
REIMER/S-08-37 LEGAL NOTICES.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 16.28
JJBF/S-08-38 LEGAL NOTICES.1594915
JJBF/S-08-38 LEGAL NOTICES.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 23.40
ISAACSON/CU-08-36 LEGAL NOTICES1594937
ISAACSON/CU-08-36 LEGAL NOTICES
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 14.80
JONGIJITRAT/CU-08-27 LEGAL NOTICES.1595219
JONGIJITRAT/CU-08-27 LEGAL NOTICES.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 17.02
Total :111.28
105259 6/26/2008 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 38222 YOST PARK FENCING
FENCING @ YOST PARK
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 1,449.50
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 129.01
Total :1,578.51
105260 6/26/2008 042260 TRAFFIC SAFETY SUPPLY CO 903095 WATER - QWIK STIX ADHESIVE, PAVEMENT
WATER - QWIK STIX ADHESIVE, PAVEMENT
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 172.30
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 14.85
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 16.65
Total :203.80
105261 6/26/2008 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 14600 UNIT 379 - KEYS
UNIT 379 - KEYS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.16
54Page:
Packet Page 82 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
55
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :14.161052616/26/2008 042800 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY
105262 6/26/2008 072146 TRUAX, BREANNE TRUAX0621 MONITORING
PLAZA ROOM AND DANCE MONITORING~
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 105.00
Total :105.00
105263 6/26/2008 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 7898783 REPAIR OF SIDEKICK REMOTE
LABOR - VENDOR REPAIR & RETURN~
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 156.25
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 13.91
Total :170.16
105264 6/26/2008 072098 UNIVERSAL FIELD SERVICES LLC 32134 E6DA.ROW acquisition 76th/75th Walkway
E6DA.ROW acquisition 76th/75th Walkway
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 484.05
Total :484.05
105265 6/26/2008 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 612131 STORM - XTENDACLAW RETRIEVING TOOL
STORM - XTENDACLAW RETRIEVING TOOL
411.000.652.542.400.350.00 309.95
Freight
411.000.652.542.400.350.00 57.11
Total :367.06
105266 6/26/2008 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-774-0944 FS #20-FAX LINE
FS #20-FAX LINE
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 50.26
Total :50.26
105267 6/26/2008 072312 VERSATILE MOBILE SYSTEMS INC 0000036639 INV#0000036639 - EDMONDS PD
55Page:
Packet Page 83 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
56
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105267 6/26/2008 (Continued)072312 VERSATILE MOBILE SYSTEMS INC
2/LASER SCANNERS
001.000.410.521.220.350.00 478.00
COVER FOR SCANNER
001.000.410.521.220.350.00 18.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.350.00 5.77
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.350.00 44.67
Total :546.44
105268 6/26/2008 072115 WASHINGTON TRUST BANK PAYMENT NO. 5 Retainage Pmt #5 NW Construction/FAC
Retainage Pmt #5 NW Construction/FAC
116.000.651.594.190.650.00 14,375.93
Total :14,375.93
105269 6/26/2008 072000 WCI 081522155 C/A 073042155
Jun-08 Fiber Optic Internet Connection
001.000.390.528.800.420.00 2,800.00
Total :2,800.00
105270 6/26/2008 070796 WEED GRAAFSTRA & BENSON INC PS 4 ACC # 4181-01M
WOODWAY 2008 AGREEMENT -INTERLOCAL
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 555.00
Total :555.00
105271 6/26/2008 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 6046 FLEET - HANDS FEE PHONE CRADLES
FLEET - HANDS FEE PHONE CRADLES
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 465.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 8.67
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 42.16
56Page:
Packet Page 84 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
57
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105271 6/26/2008 (Continued)068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS
UNIT 7 -CUP/PLATE FOR MOTOROLA6120
UNIT 7 -CUP/PLATE FOR MOTOROLA
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.81
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.39
Total :545.03
105272 6/26/2008 049208 WESTERN EQUIP DIST INC 555305 UNIT 118 - ENG FAN
UNIT 118 - ENG FAN
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 64.40
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.02
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.52
UNIT 118 - FAN BELT556171
UNIT 118 - FAN BELT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 27.26
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.78
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.15
UNIT 118 - V-BELTS, CASTER FORK ASM,556791
UNIT 118 - V-BELTS, CASTER FORK ASM,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 221.09
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.78
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.05
57Page:
Packet Page 85 of 232
06/26/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
58
10:57:56AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105272 6/26/2008 (Continued)049208 WESTERN EQUIP DIST INC
UNIT 109 - WASHER-THRUST, RING-SNAP,558535
UNIT 109 - WASHER-THRUST, RING-SNAP,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 180.13
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.86
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.19
Total :580.23
105273 6/26/2008 064234 WILDWATER RIVER TOURS INC AMUNDSON9361 WHITEWATER RAFTING
WENATCHEE WHITEWATER RAFTING~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 224.78
Total :224.78
Bank total : 1,027,118.02143 Vouchers for bank code :front
1,027,118.02Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report143
58Page:
Packet Page 86 of 232
AM-1641 2.D.
Claim for Damages
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:07/01/2008
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Submitted For:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Carol A. Scott (amount undetermined).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute
entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
A Claim for Damages has been received from the following individual:
Carol A. Scott
6203 148th Place S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
(Amount undetermined)
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Scott Claim for Damages
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/24/2008 01:38 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/24/2008 01:41 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/25/2008 03:30 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Hynd
Started On: 06/24/2008 09:19
AM
Final Approval Date: 06/25/2008
Packet Page 87 of 232
Packet Page 88 of 232
Packet Page 89 of 232
AM-1644 2.E.
Interlocal Agreement Regarding Lake Ballinger & McAleer Creek Watershed Area
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:07/01/2008
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with all jurisdictions within the Lake
Ballinger and McAleer Creek watershed areas. This consent agenda item was not reviewed by a Council
Committee.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with all jurisdictions within the Lake
Ballinger and McAleer Creek watershed areas.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Due to the ongoing flooding and water quality issues with Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek, the
cities of Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Shoreline and Lake Forest Park, along with
Snohomish County, believe it is in the public's best interest to create an area-wide forum to
develop a strategic action plan to address these water resource issues. The Interlocal Agreement
(Attachment 1) creates the formal goverance structure for the cities and the county to proceed with
this important work.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Interlocal Agreement
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/25/2008 04:40 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/25/2008 04:41 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/25/2008 05:10 PM APRV
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Started On: 06/25/2008 02:56
PM
Final Approval Date: 06/25/2008
Packet Page 90 of 232
Packet Page 91 of 232
Packet Page 92 of 232
Packet Page 93 of 232
Packet Page 94 of 232
Packet Page 95 of 232
Packet Page 96 of 232
Packet Page 97 of 232
Packet Page 98 of 232
Packet Page 99 of 232
Packet Page 100 of 232
AM-1642 3.
Recreation and Parks Month Proclamation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:07/01/2008
Submitted By:Renee McRae Time:5 Minutes
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Recommend Review by Full Council
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation in honor of Recreation and Parks Month.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The National Recreation and Park Association has designated July as Recreation and Parks
Month; therefore, in honor of the many recreational programs and outdoor opportunities available
in the City of Edmonds, Mayor Haakenson has proclaimed July 2008 as Recreation and Parks
Month in Edmonds.
We invite the community to get outdoors this month and explore our parks and waterfront,
participate in a recreation program and attend one of many special events in Edmonds.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/25/2008 03:22 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/25/2008 03:25 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/25/2008 03:30 PM APRV
Form Started By: Renee
McRae
Started On: 06/25/2008 02:10
PM
Final Approval Date: 06/25/2008
Packet Page 101 of 232
Packet Page 102 of 232
AM-1643 4.
Public Hearing on Application to Amend Official Street Map
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:07/01/2008
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:20 Minutes
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing - Application to amend the Official Street Map (OSM) requesting the
proposed right-of-way on 203rd Street SW be reduced from 30 feet in width to 15 feet in
width. Applicant: Don and Claudia Etzler / 20323 81st Avenue West / File No. ENG-2008-76.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Uphold the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to approve the requested Official Street Map
amendment to reduce the required street dedication from 30 feet to 15 feet for the segment of
203rd Street SW adjacent to the single-family residential property located at 20323-81st Avenue
West.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
This is a public hearing on the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner to amend the Official
Street Map (OSM) to reduce the required street dedication from 30 feet to 15 feet for the segment
of 203rd Street SW adjacent to the single-family residential property located at 20323-81st
Avenue West. The Hearing Examiner Decision is shown in Attachment 1.
The OSM for the City of Edmonds shows a planned 50-foot right-of-way for 203rd St SW from
81st Ave W toward the east to a point at which the existing asphalt roadway currently terminates.
Continuing east, the 203rd St SW right-of-way shifts to the south and ties into 76th Ave W.
The OSM amendment would reduce the overall planned right-of-way from 50 feet to 35 feet
adjacent to 20323 81st Ave W. Per the OSM, future development of properties to the east of the
subject property would be required to dedicate 30 feet of right-of-way which would allow for
alignment of 203rd St SW between 81st Ave W and 76th Ave W. Reduction of the required street
dedication adjacent to the subject property would not affect the potential to develop 203rd St SW
to current standards as a through street between 81st Ave W and 76th Ave W in the future. The
City also has utilities located within this section of the right-of-way, some of which fall within an
existing easement, and all of which would fall within a 35-foot right-of-way. A full 50-foot street
right-of-way would be in excess of what is needed to fully develop 203rd Street SW as a through
street.
Packet Page 103 of 232
The Hearing Examiner held a public meeting on April 3, 2008 where City staff made a
recommendation to approve the Official Street Map Amendment. Based upon the findings and
conclusions, the Hearing Examiner also made a recommendation to approve the OSM amendment
to reduce the width of 203rd St SW adjacent to the single-family residential property located at
20323 81st Ave W from 30 feet to 15 feet.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Link: Etzler Staff Report
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/26/2008 03:58 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/26/2008 03:59 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/26/2008 04:00 PM APRV
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Started On: 06/25/2008 02:56
PM
Final Approval Date: 06/26/2008
Packet Page 104 of 232
Packet Page 105 of 232
Packet Page 106 of 232
Packet Page 107 of 232
Packet Page 108 of 232
Packet Page 109 of 232
Packet Page 110 of 232
Packet Page 111 of 232
Packet Page 112 of 232
Packet Page 113 of 232
Packet Page 114 of 232
Packet Page 115 of 232
Packet Page 116 of 232
Packet Page 117 of 232
Packet Page 118 of 232
Packet Page 119 of 232
Packet Page 120 of 232
Packet Page 121 of 232
Packet Page 122 of 232
Packet Page 123 of 232
Packet Page 124 of 232
Packet Page 125 of 232
Packet Page 126 of 232
Packet Page 127 of 232
Packet Page 128 of 232
Packet Page 129 of 232
Packet Page 130 of 232
Packet Page 131 of 232
Packet Page 132 of 232
Packet Page 133 of 232
Packet Page 134 of 232
AM-1647 5.
Zammit Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:07/01/2008
Submitted By:Michael Clugston Time:45 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Recommend Review by Full Council
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing on the Planning Board recommendation to deny the request by
Zammit/HBA Architects to amend the Comprehensive Plan from "Single Family -
Resource" to "Multiple Family - High Density." The site is located at 1030 Grandview. (File
No. AMD-07-19)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Based on the statements of fact, analysis and conclusions in the staff report and the testimony
provided at the June 11 Planning Board public hearing, both the staff and Planning Board
recommend denial of the proposed amendment. The applicant has not demonstrated that the
proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan nor in the public
interest.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
The applicant is requesting to redesignate a single parcel of land at 1030 Grandview Street from
Single-Family Resource to Multi-Family High Density. The request is being made for two
reasons: 1) to create a buffer between the single family residences on Grandview St. and the more
intense uses at the intersection of Puget and Olympic View Drives; and 2) to allow for the
eventual development of elderly housing on the parcel.
In order to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment, four criteria must be met. These are:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is in the public
interest.
2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or
welfare of the city.
3. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city.
4. The subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and the
anticipated land use development(s), including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities,
Packet Page 135 of 232
compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical contraints.
The staff report (Exhibit 1) reviewed the existing information regarding the area of the proposed
amendment as well as the Comprehensive Plan in light of the applicant's request. It was found
that none of the four criteria were met with this application. The Comprehensive Plan does not
indicate the desire to create 'buffer' parcels between adjacent disparate land uses in this particular
area. Upzoning to create additional density for affordable housing is
identified for specific "designated corridor areas" such as Edmonds Way and Highway 99,
primarily because these areas have good existing access to transportation and other facilities, but
not for the Puget Drive/OVD area.
Further, the request is not in the public interest because the best available science report prepared
prior to the 2004/2005 Comp Plan update indicated that large-lot single family residential
development is the most appropriate land use pattern in the northern part of the City in order to
protect the environmentally sensitive areas. The area is also inappropriate for increased
density since it is only served by minor arterial streets (Puget
Drive/OVD) and navigating Grandview Street itself is challenging.
The Planning Board held a public hearing on June 11, 2008, and after considering public
testimony, unanimously recommended that the application be denied by the City Council. Please
refer to the Planning Board minutes in Exhibit 2 for the record of the hearing and the Planning
Board's recommendation.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Staff Report and Attachments
Link: June 11, 2008 Planning Board minutes (draft)
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/26/2008 02:34 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/26/2008 02:41 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/26/2008 02:47 PM APRV
Form Started By: Michael
Clugston
Started On: 06/25/2008 04:41
PM
Final Approval Date: 06/26/2008
Packet Page 136 of 232
City of Edmonds Planning Board
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
From:
Mike Clugston, AICP
Planner
Date: June 5, 2008
File: AMD-07-19
Application by Michael & Lisa Zammit (represented by John Bissell, HBA Design Group)
for a comprehensive plan change from “Single Family – Resource” to “Multi Family – High
Density” at 1030 Grandview Street
Hearing Date, Time, and Place: June 11, 2008, at 7:00 PM,
Edmonds City Council Chambers
Public Safety Complex
250 - 5th Avenue North
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................2
A. APPLICATION ..........................................................................................................................................2
B. RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................................................2
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................2
A. SETTING..................................................................................................................................................2
B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA).......................................................................................3
C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE .........................................................................................................................3
D. PUBLIC COMMENTS ................................................................................................................................4
E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE ......................................................................4
III. ATTACHMENTS..........................................................................................................................................6
IV. PARTIES OF RECORD...............................................................................................................................6
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Packet Page 137 of 232
Zammit Comprehensive Plan Amendment
AMD-07-19
Page 2 of 6
2
I. INTRODUCTION
A. APPLICATION
1. Applicant: Michael and Lisa Zammit, rep. John Bissell of HBA Design Group.
2. Site Location: 1030 Grandview Street. (Attachments 1 – 3)
3. Request: Application for a comprehensive plan amendment from “Single Family –
Resource” to “Multiple Family – High Density” with intent of establishing transition
between existing commercial and residential zones and eventually developing housing for the
elderly on the subject site. (Attachment 4)
4. Review Process:
a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Planning Board conducts public hearing and issues
recommendation to the City Council for final decision.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.00
(CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.100.010
(HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL
REVIEW).
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on Statements of Fact, Analysis, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, staff
recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to DENY
the request to change the Comprehensive Plan Designation from “Single Family – Resource”
to “Multiple Family – High Density” at 1030 Grandview Street.
The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed amendment is consistent with the
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan nor in the public interest.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. SETTING
1. Proposed Designation and Development of the Site
a. The proposal would change the existing “Single Family – Resource” comprehensive plan
designation at 1030 Grandview Street to “Multi Family – High Density”. The
amendment would result in a density change for the parcel from less than 4 units per acre
to a density ranging from 18-30 units per acre. Given the size of the subject parcel, 7 to
11 dwelling units would be possible when employing the compatible zoning
classifications of RM-1.5 and RM-2.4. The applicant has speculated that 10 units would
be considered for future development.
2. Current Designation and Development of the Site
a. The site is approximately 17,400 square feet, rectangular in shape, and is on Grandview
Street just north of the intersection of Puget Drive (SR 524) and Olympic View Drive.
There is an existing one-story single family residence on the parcel which was built in
Packet Page 138 of 232
Zammit Comprehensive Plan Amendment
AMD-07-19
Page 3 of 6
3
1951, according to the County Assessor’s Office. The site is currently zoned Single-
Family Residential, RS-12, which is compatible with its comprehensive plan designation.
3. Designation and Development in the Vicinity
a. Nearly all of the surrounding parcels are designated Single Family – Resource, zoned
RS-12, and developed with single family residences with the exception of a small strip of
parcels along the north side of Puget Drive that are designated Neighborhood
Commercial. The parcels are zoned Neighborhood Business (BN) and are developed
accordingly with small neighborhood retail and service uses. Several multi-family
dwellings are also present along Puget Drive which are existing non-conforming uses
within the BN zone. The Edmonds Elementary School complex is across Puget Drive to
the south.
The area surrounding the intersection of Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive was
annexed to the City between 1957 and 1961 (Attachment 5). The 1963 Generalized
Land Use Plan Map shows the majority of the area designated as low-density residential
with the Neighborhood Business designation at the intersection (Attachment 6). The
1963 Zoning Map (Attachment 7) shows the parcels in the vicinity to be zoned in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan – dominantly single family residential with a
cluster of restricted commercial at the intersection of Puget and Olympic View Drives.
4. Previous Proposals in the Vicinity
a. R-6-63. Jerald Hall proposed to rezone a portion of his parcel at 1047 Puget Drive from
S-12 (Single Family with a 12,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to R-C (Restricted
Commercial). Despite the fact that the access portion of his parcel adjacent to Puget
Drive was already zoned R-C, the proposal was denied.
b. R-6-87. Dave and Patricia Page proposed to rezone a 1,285 sq. ft. portion of their
property at 1233 Olympic View Drive from RS-12 to BN. This proposal was also
denied.
B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the proposed comprehensive plan
amendment (Attachment 8). The appeal period expires on June 5, 2008. An environmental
impact statement (EIS) was not required for the proposal because the impacts likely to occur due
to the specific request were not determined to be so significant and adverse that they could not be
adequately mitigated by the application of existing development regulations. The City
commonly reviews 10-unit multifamily buildings in other areas of Edmonds and mitigates
impacts of those developments using existing zoning, stormwater and traffic regulations and the
like. Although environmental impacts from the request may be adequately mitigated, this does
not imply that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan (see
discussion in Section E). It should also be noted that the DNS issued for this proposal is a “non-
project” determination, meaning that additional SEPA review will be required if the plan
amendment were to be approved and a specific project proposed.
C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division as well as the Fire, Public
Works, and Parks and Recreation Departments. The Fire Department commented that potential
elderly housing at the site may require an additional fire hydrant and protection system. The
other divisions commented that the proposed change would not affect their organization at this
Packet Page 139 of 232
Zammit Comprehensive Plan Amendment
AMD-07-19
Page 4 of 6
4
time but any future development proposals and building permits would be reviewed and must
meet all applicable code requirements.
D. PUBLIC COMMENTS
A number of comments were received regarding the proposed redesignation (Attachments 9 –
14). Each was opposed to the application and voiced similar concerns regarding how the
proposal fits with respect to the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code, including: increasing density on a
street and in an area that is dominantly single family residential, access and traffic, stormwater,
and the necessity for an EIS. With the exception of the need for an EIS which was discussed
above in Section II.B, the following discussion describes the proposal’s compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance.
E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE
The following discussion reviews pertinent Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to the
proposed amendment in the context of the requirements of the zoning code (ECDC 20.00 –
Changes to the Comprehensive Plan). The full text of the Residential and Neighborhood
Commercial sections of the Plan as well as the Housing Element are included in Attachments 15
– 17.
1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public
interest?
The proposed amendment is potentially consistent with portions of the Housing Element.
This section of the Plan does describe the need to create additional affordable housing
opportunities, particularly for the low-income elderly (p. 108) and cites upzoning – that is,
increasing the intensity of use on a parcel(s) – as an option to provide such housing in
Edmonds. However, the Comprehensive Plan states that such changes must occur in
“designated corridor areas” (p. 105). The Puget and Olympic View Drive area has not been
identified as a designated corridor where such parcel redesignation is anticipated. Since the
Plan is silent on the idea of redesignating an existing single family parcel to multi family –
high density in a non-designated area, we can conclude it is not desired. As a result, the
process would effectively be spot redesignation (akin to spot zoning) which is not in the
public interest.
Further, the Plan does not indicate an intent to change parcel designations near
Neighborhood Commercial areas to create transitions between existing disparate
designations such as commercial and residential. For example, while the Five Corners and
Firdale Village areas have specific goals and policies particular to their locations, providing
transitional areas or buffers between existing commercial and residential areas is not
discussed (p. 57). The Plan does describe using design review along the Westgate Corridor
and Edmonds Way Corridor to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent
residential neighborhoods but does not suggest redesignating parcels to provide that
transition (p. 58). A number of residents on Grandview Street described how the existing
commercial parcels act as a buffer to Puget Drive and how the existing development and
trees on the subject parcel provide additional buffering.
Packet Page 140 of 232
Zammit Comprehensive Plan Amendment
AMD-07-19
Page 5 of 6
5
2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare
of the city?
The proposed plan change would be counter to the 2004/2005 Comprehensive Plan update,
which specifically reviewed the large-lot single family residential areas in this northern part
of the city and concluded that large-lot single family development was the most appropriate
land use pattern (p. 51). Incremental changes to this established pattern are not in the public
interest because, if continued and expanded, these would result in a land use pattern which
would undermine the plan policies intended to preserve and protect sensitive environmental
features and avoid impacts on the limited public facilities serving the area. The analysis
performed as part of the 2004/2005 plan update confirmed this approach, and supported the
city’s policy of using large-lot single family development patterns to help protect critical
areas and natural features from incremental development that would ultimately have a
negative impact on the public.
In terms of public facilities and services, there is only one minor arterial (Puget Drive)
serving this entire area. This is indicative of a significant problem with encouraging more
intensive development in this area – there is no network of interconnected streets and high-
capacity roadways similar to other areas of the city where areas of higher intensity
development are planned (e.g. downtown or along Highway 99 or SR-104). This is one of
the reasons that multi-family development has not been envisioned in this area.
3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within
the city?
The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the
city. Changing the designation of one parcel from single family to multi-family does not
significantly affect the overall balance of land use in the City.
However, although this site-specific proposal does not in and of itself materially change the
overall balance of land uses, if it is considered to set a precedent for additional multi-family
uses in the area surrounding the small neighborhood commercial center, approving the
proposal could significantly change the character of the area – and begin to affect the overall
land use pattern.
4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and
the anticipated land use development(s), including, but not limited to, access, provision
of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints?
The subject parcel itself is physically suitable for the requested land use designation and
potential development. As discussed previously, the parcel itself is essentially flat. There
are no identified water features on the site but North Stream does run east-west
approximately 200’ north of the parcel. All development on the site would have to meet the
applicable zoning criteria for setbacks, coverage, and parking as well as stormwater
treatment, etc. The parcel takes access from Grandview Street. In addition to the comments
received from neighbors on the street who find the current traffic on the street challenging,
the Comprehensive Plan states that multi-family development should take direct access from
arterial and collector streets (p. 54) rather than a minor street like Grandview.
As discussed previously, the proposal is not compatible with adjoining land uses. While
there is a strip of more intense development near the intersection of Puget and Olympic View
Drives, several of the parcels are developed with multi-family residential uses. These uses
can continue on the BN-zoned parcels, however, the multi-family buildings are non-
conforming with respect to use and have not been designated in the Comprehensive Plan for
Packet Page 141 of 232
Zammit Comprehensive Plan Amendment
AMD-07-19
Page 6 of 6
6
future high-intensity development. Including an additional multi-family structure in an
overwhelmingly single-family residential area near a small and underdeveloped
neighborhood commercial area does not make sense at this time.
III. ATTACHMENTS
1. Comprehensive Plan Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Aerial Photo of Vicinity
4. Applicant’s Narrative describing Comprehensive Plan Amendment
5. 1963 Comprehensive Plan Annexation Map
6. 1963 Generalized Land Use Plan Map
7. 1963 Zoning Map
8. Determination of Nonsignificance, dated May 8, 2008
9. Letters from Michael and Donna Herb
10. Letter from Dorothy Gouge
11. Letters from Scott Urquhart
12. Letter from William and Gloria Hood
13. Letter from Harold Hodel
14. Letter from Kurt and Ana Stark
15. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan – Residential Development, pages 50 – 55
16. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan – Commercial Land Use, pages 56 – 59
17. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan – Housing Element, pages 99 – 110
IV. PARTIES OF RECORD
John Bissell, AICP
Director of Planning, Principal
HBA Design Group
1721 Hewitt Avenue
Everett, WA 98201
Michael & Lisa Zammit
12307th Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Fire Department
Public Works Department
Michael & Donna Herb
940 Grandview Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dorothy Gouge
1414 9th Avenue N, # 301
Edmonds, WA 98020
Scott Urquhart
1016 Grandview Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
William & Gloria Hood
1031 Grandview Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Harold Hodel
20902 67th Ave. NE #332
Arlington, WA 98223
Kurt & Ana Stark
5725 86th Place SW
Mukilteo, WA 98275
Packet Page 142 of 232
9
T H
A
V E
N
PUGET DRIVE
O L Y M P I C V I E W D R
H
I
N
D
LEY LANE
1 0 TH
P L N
VIEWLAND WAY
1 1 T H P L N
E
U
C
LI
D
A
V
E
ANE
WAY
G
R
A
N
D
VIE
W
S
T
WOOD LN
EXCELSIOR PL
FOREST DELL DR
O L Y M P I C V I E W D R
PUGET WAY
VIEWLAND WAY
Zammit Comprehensive Plan Amendment
File Number: AMD-07-19
1030 Grandview Street i
Site
Single Family
Resource
Comprehensive Plan Map
1 inch equals 250 feet
Edmonds
Elementary
Neighborhood
Commercial
Packet Page 143 of 232
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!! ! !!
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
9 T H
A
V E
N
PUGET DRIVE
O L Y M P I C V I E W D R
H
I
N
D
LEY LANE
1 0 T H P L N
VIEWLAND WAY
1 1 T H P L N
E
U
C
L
I
D
A
V
E
NE
BROOKMERE DR
AY
G
R
A
N
D
VIE
W
S
T
OOD LN
EXCELSIOR PL
FOREST DELL DR
O
L Y M P I C V I E
PUGET WAY
VIEWLAND WAY
Zammit Comprehensive Plan Amendment
File Number: AMD-07-19
1030 Grandview Street i
Site
Edmonds
Elementary
Zoning & Vicinity Map
BN
RS-12
1 inch equals 250 feet
Packet Page 144 of 232
9 T H
A V
E
N
PUGET DRIVE
O L Y M P I C V I E W D R
H
I
N
D
LEY LANE
1 0 TH
P L N
VIEWLAND WAY
1 1 T H P L N
E
U
C
L
I
D
A
V
E
G
R
A
N
D
VIE
W
S
T LN
EXCELSIOR PL
FOREST DELL DR
O L Y M P I C V I E W D
PUGET WAY
VIEWLAND WAY
Zammit Comprehensive Plan Amendment
File Number: AMD-07-19
1030 Grandview Street i
Site
1 inch equals 250 feet
Packet Page 145 of 232
Packet Page 146 of 232
Packet Page 147 of 232
Packet Page 148 of 232
Packet Page 149 of 232
Packet Page 150 of 232
Packet Page 151 of 232
Packet Page 152 of 232
Packet Page 153 of 232
Packet Page 154 of 232
Packet Page 155 of 232
Packet Page 156 of 232
Packet Page 157 of 232
Packet Page 158 of 232
Packet Page 159 of 232
Packet Page 160 of 232
Packet Page 161 of 232
Packet Page 162 of 232
Packet Page 163 of 232
Packet Page 164 of 232
Packet Page 165 of 232
Packet Page 166 of 232
Packet Page 167 of 232
Packet Page 168 of 232
Packet Page 169 of 232
Packet Page 170 of 232
Packet Page 171 of 232
Packet Page 172 of 232
Packet Page 173 of 232
Packet Page 174 of 232
Packet Page 175 of 232
Packet Page 176 of 232
Packet Page 177 of 232
Packet Page 178 of 232
Packet Page 179 of 232
Packet Page 180 of 232
Packet Page 181 of 232
Packet Page 182 of 232
Packet Page 183 of 232
Packet Page 184 of 232
Packet Page 185 of 232
Packet Page 186 of 232
Packet Page 187 of 232
Packet Page 188 of 232
Packet Page 189 of 232
Packet Page 190 of 232
Packet Page 191 of 232
Packet Page 192 of 232
Packet Page 193 of 232
Packet Page 194 of 232
Packet Page 195 of 232
Packet Page 196 of 232
DRAFT
Subject to June 18th Approval
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 11, 2008
Chair Guenther called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Cary Guenther, Chair
Michael Bowman, Vice Chair
John Dewhirst
Don Henderson
John Reed
Judith Works
Jim Young
Philip Lovell
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Gina Coccia, Associate Planner
Mike Clugston, Associate Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER WORKS MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 BE APPROVED AS
CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER YOUNG SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY, WITH CHAIR GUENTHER AND BOARD MEMBER DEWHIRST ABSTAINING.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Chair Guenther announced that Michael and Candace Dedonker withdrew their application to change the Comprehensive Plan
designation from Single family – Urban 1 to Multi family – High Density on property located at 615 – 6th Avenue North (File
Number AMD-07-18). Therefore, the public hearing regarding the file was removed from the agenda. The remainder of the
agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, announced that at a recent meeting, the City Council considered draft language for Chapter 6 of
the Municipal Code related to nuisances. He recalled that the Board spent a great deal of time discussing various nuisance
issues as part of their review of Chapter 17 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Upon the advice of the City
Attorney and the Development Services Director, the Board agreed to move these items to Chapter 6 of the Municipal Code,
which moved the items directly to the City Council for review and approval. He pointed out that after the language was
reviewed by the Board, staff made significant changes to include a number of new items. He noted that because the proposed
language would be incorporated into the Municipal Code, the City Council would not even be required to hold a public
hearing before adopting the proposal. He suggested the Board review a copy of the minutes from the City Council’s
discussion to see how much the language has been changed. He advised that the City Council would discuss the proposed
language again on July 15th, and the first of two public hearings would be conducted at that time. He encouraged the Board
Members to share their opinions about the grandiose list of nuisances the staff is trying to impose on the City residents.
Packet Page 197 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION BY JAMES UNDERHILL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES ALONG A PORTION OF 215TH STREET SOUTHWEST AND EAST OF 76TH
AVENUE WEST FROM “MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL” TO “SINGLE FAMILY – URBAN 1.” (FILE NUMBER
AMD-07-14)
Gina Coccia, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She explained that the proposed application is to amend the
Comprehensive Plan designation for properties along a portion of 215th Street Southwest and east of 76th Avenue West from
“Mixed-Use Commercial” to “Single family Urban 1.” She advised that prior to the hearing, packets of information related to
the proposal were given to members of the Planning Board, the applicant, and parties of record. She reviewed the
attachments to the staff report as follows:
• Attachment 1 is the land use application that was submitted by the applicant.
• Attachment 2 is the applicant’s narrative and contains his arguments for submitting the request.
• Attachment 3 is the SEPA Determination of Non-Significance. No appeals were received regarding this document.
• Attachment 4 is the public hearing notice describing the proposal to the neighborhood.
• Attachment 5 is the Comprehensive Plan Map, which identifies the site as “Mixed-Use Commercial.” It is located in the
middle of the “Highway 99 Activity Center” and not near other “Single Family Urban 1” areas.
• Attachment 6 is the zoning map, which shows that the neighborhood is zoned for multiple residential uses, which includes
single family. The multi-family residential zones also allow for commercial uses with an approved conditional use permit.
It was noted that the site is not near any single-family zoned property.
• Attachment 7 is the Aerial Photo Map, which shows the property’s proximity to the hospital to the south and more intense
development to the east near Highway 99.
• Attachment 8 is the Topography Map, which shows the site as being relatively flat, sloping down from 76th Avenue West
to the east.
• Attachment 9 is a simple neighborhood address map that was created by staff to keep track of the properties involved
because the land use application simply lists addresses. It was noted that the applicant’s narrative (Attachment 2) was
composed in 2004 and includes a page with the signatures of some neighbors. Since 2004, a few of the people have
moved.
• Attachment 10 is the 1963 Dwelling Unit Distribution Map, which makes it clear the City was aware that the block was
developed with single-family residential homes at the time.
• Attachment 11 is the 1963 Land Use Map, which points out that even though the City was aware that the block was
developed with single-family residential homes, the intended land use was identified as multi family.
• Attachment 12 is the 1963 Zoning Map, which shows how the site has always been zoned for multi-family use.
• Attachments 13 through 16 are excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan to aid the Board in their review.
• Attachment 17 includes all the public comment letters received regarding the application.
Ms. Coccia referred to Attachments 5 through 12, which were provided by staff as evidence that the request before them is not
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. She displayed the neighborhood address map (Attachment 9) and pointed out
that the area under review is along 215th Street Southwest. It is comprised of 19 parcels, and is approximately 4.6 acres in
total size. She noted that the owners of the two most western properties that border 76th Avenue West have requested to be
removed from the proposal (See Attachment 17).
Ms. Coccia reminded the Commission that pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.00.020,
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may only be adopted if they meet four specific findings. She reviewed the staff
findings for each one as follows:
1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? Ms. Coccia
referred to the Comprehensive Plan Map (Attachment 5) and said staff argues that the proposal is neither consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan nor in the public interest. She explained that the Comprehensive Plan does not indicate the
intent to change this neighborhood, and the neighborhood has remained essentially the same since 1963. Further, she
Packet Page 198 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 3
suggested that a more intense use of the area, as planned since 1963, would expand the economic tax base of the City,
which would be in the general public interest. A Comprehensive Plan Goal states: “expand the economic tax base of the
City of Edmonds by providing incentives for business and commercial redevelopment in a planned activity center.” She
summarized that the request would create future conflicts with the surrounding more intense designations as they
ultimately redevelop. This would create an underutilized island in the middle of a more intense neighborhood.
2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety and welfare of the City? Ms. Coccia
argued that the request is not in the public interest because, if changed to a less intense designation, it would undermine
the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies to provide future opportunity for more intensive uses.
3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City? Ms. Coccia argued
that approving the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would, in effect, create a single-family island in the middle
of the intensive “Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center,” which would throw off the balance within the activity center.
4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use
development(s), including, but not limited to, access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses
and absence of physical constraints? Ms. Coccia argued that the proposed amendment is not compatible
geographically with adjacent land uses. She pointed out that memorializing a single-family neighborhood within the
intense “Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center” through the proposed request would not be physically appropriate and
would not result in an appropriate boundary.
Based on staff’s analysis of the above mentioned criteria, Ms. Coccia recommended the Planning Board forward a
recommendation to the City Council to deny the request to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from “Mixed-Use
Commercial to “Single Family Urban 1” for properties along a portion of 215th Street Southwest and east of 76th Avenue
West. She expressed her belief that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan or in the public’s interest.
Jim Underhill, Applicant, provided a brief history of the neighborhood by noting that the Luschen family developed the
neighborhood in 1958 when it was part of the county, and their vision was for single-family residential homes. All the homes
were built with this in mind, and their character and use has remained unchanged for a half century of time. Characteristics of
the street include families, school children, stability, infrequent turnover, and an active neighborhood that has always
contributed to the economic well being of Edmonds. In no way does it detract from City goals of any kind. The homes were
built at the same time as the high school and six years before the hospital. When they were built, there was marginal
development along Highway 99 and throughout this part of Edmonds, and the neighborhood has been an active participant in
the subsequent growth and mixed-use development of the area.
Mr. Underhill expressed his belief that the neighborhood has worked hard to make their street and the surrounding community
safer for all, and they have received strong support from City departments including engineering and police. He advised that
the neighborhood petitioned the City and met with the City’s Traffic Engineer to get a speed bump to slow traffic and protect
children walking to school and residents moving about. The neighborhood also coordinated with City Police and Edmonds
Woodway High School leadership to stop out of control behavior by students parking along 215th Street Southwest. The City
put up signs, students were educated, and the police patrolled the area. As a result most of the problem has been removed.
He noted that, most recently, the neighborhood identified the need for a new street light for improved safety at the intersection
of 215th Street Southwest and 76th Avenue West, and the City provided the light.
Mr. Underhill pointed out that while the neighborhood is older, a number of homes have been improved in the last 10 years.
Now there are 13 homes that have had various measures of improvement and 3 more are under way at this time. He
emphasized that the neighborhood is well cared for, and the neighbors assist each other in this effort. This adds value to those
living in and coming through the neighborhood. He noted that the neighborhood is located within an activity center that
includes two master plans to the south and west of 215th Street Southwest.
In order to conduct due diligence, Mr. Underhill said he contacted the Edmonds School District and Stevens Hospital to
solicit feedback about whether or not the proposed Comprehensive Plan change would cause them problems. He reported that
Packet Page 199 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 4
Marla Miller from the Edmonds School District indicated the District had no problem with the proposed amendment. He
never received a response from the hospital’s public affairs person, and this suggests there would be no problem for them,
either. He pointed out that Page 6 of the hospital’s 1994 draft master plan shows 215th Street Southwest as a residential street
in relation to the hospital, itself.
Mr. Underhill reported that numerous neighborhood meetings have been conducted regarding the proposal, and they have
been open to everyone. In addition, he has met with the Planning Board on two occasions to discuss the plan in open forum.
He pointed out that the effort would have died at any time without the agreement of a clear majority of residents. He
suggested that the proposed application sends a strong message from 17 of the 19 owners. The neighborhood’s desire for
change is further underscored by the fact that 10 property owners contributed $260 each to pay for the cost of the amendment
application. Mr. Underhill briefly reviewed the wide variety of residents who live in the subject neighborhood, as well as the
various neighborhood characteristics that exist.
Mr. Underhill pointed out that the report prepared by City staff includes no data or analysis to support their conclusions. The
report makes statements and reaches conclusions that are neither embedded in the Comprehensive Plan itself nor by reference
to any other City documents that supports its recommendation. Staff uses important words that are not even found in the
Comprehensive Plan and if so, in different contexts. He suggested that in pursuing the City’s goal of commercial and mixed-
use development on 215th Street Southwest, the Planning Staff has only one goal in mind—devaluing and then uprooting the
residential neighborhood and pushing out its residents. This is clear in the report and has been stated in public meetings. The
City has allowed two individuals to be on the record as opposed to the amendment. However, it is important to note that these
parties are truly the minority, and their financial concerns have not been proven and are baseless when compared to real estate
data. Mr. Underhill concluded that the City’s findings recycle unproven concepts and conclusions. Even when staff notes the
applicant’s compliance with Findings 3 and 4, they still try to overturn their own conclusions.
Mr. Underhill referred to the staff’s contention that the proposed amendment would inhibit dense mixed-use development in
the area. He noted that the City has targeted the demise of the neighborhood for 45 years by intentionally encouraging the
introduction of businesses and apartment/condo development. However, they have not been able to accomplish this goal
during the last half century. During this time, successful mixed-use development has occurred all around the neighborhood,
bringing housing options, successful commerce, and many public transportation options to this part of Edmonds. Increasing
amounts of property tax revenues have come from the neighborhood properties. He emphasized that the staff report does not
identify a single tangible measure to show that the subject neighborhood has stunted economic development, a mature public
transportation system, education, health care, a good mix of housing options and more. The City staff has failed to prove that
the neighborhood is a deterrent to the any goal set by the State, County or City officials, especially that of access to affordable
housing in safe neighborhoods. If they are a deterrent, then why are there four national companies (Burger King, Dairy
Queen, 7-11, and Grease Monkey) located just a block away from the neighborhood? In addition, Top Foods is located three
blocks away and Stevens Hospital has expanded, as well.
Mr. Underhill referred to the City’s goal to increase dense development in the subject neighborhood and reminded the
Commission about its recent unanimous rejection of the City’s BR/BR2 plan that would have done so. This was an effort to
greatly increase dense development in and around Holmes Corner. The staff presented the plan, the residents of the
community voiced opposition, and the Board recommended denial. He pointed out that, at this time, there are no other
similar plans on the table. He pointed out that the City of Edmonds has had 45 years to achieve their goal of removing the
residential development from 215th Street Southwest, and it has failed. This suggests that the open market of opportunity to
respond to the City’s current zoning for the street has failed. Mr. Underhill summarized his belief that the City staff has failed
to provide data, analysis and proof to demonstrate that the neighborhood has and would hinder the City’s goals of economic
development and success. Therefore, he asked that this argument be rejected.
Mr. Underhill provided a map of the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. He also provided a copy of the Comprehensive
Plan to illustrate the location of the subject property, as well as other single-family properties within the activity center. He
said the staff report identifies a concern that the neighborhood would become an island of single-family development if the
amendment were approved. He noted that the word “island” has been an oft mentioned comment from staff in public
meetings. He suggested the word is first mentioned in the third paragraph of Page 3 of the staff report as a distraction from
dealing with facts and the aforementioned policy failure. He suggested that staff wants the Board to believe the
Packet Page 200 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 5
neighborhood is a problem, and they have assigned a ‘tag’ to the neighborhood to underscore their point. However, he said it
is important to understand that the neighborhood is not an isolated, physical space. Instead, the street is and has always been
part of a vibrant neighborhood that is locally known as Holmes Corner. The neighborhood is a single-family residential
component of the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, similar in character and use to the other six single-family residential
neighborhoods scattered around the activity center. He expressed his belief that the character and use of 215th Street
Southwest is comparable with the other neighborhoods, and what is good zoning for one should be good for all.
Mr. Underhill emphasized that 215th Street Southwest is not the only single-family street or island in the activity center, yet
the other streets have gone unmentioned. He suggested that because the City lacks a precise definition for the term “island,”
the staff has not provided the Board and public a workable context for this novel idea. He noted, in fact, that the word
“island” is not even found in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He summarized that this type of wordsmithing does not exist as
a policy or requirement in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Because staff failed to show the definition behind the word as it
fits this discussion, their argument is without meaning and arbitrary in its application.
Mr. Underhill referred to the first paragraph on Page 4 of the staff report, where staff again goes through a great effort to find
a reason to deny the amendment request. While the staff report recognizes there are other residential nodes in the activity
center, it points out that 215th Street Southwest is in the middle of the activity center, while others are on the outskirts or
periphery. He suggested that staff would have the Board believe that something bad is happening due to the neighborhood’s
placement in the activity center. However, it is important for the Board to understand that whenever a boundary is drawn
around anything, it creates a center and an edge but does not assign value. While the words “middle” and “periphery” are
woven into the staff’s argument, he said it is important to note that “middle” is only used one time in the Comprehensive Plan
but in an entirely different context. “Periphery” is not even found in the Comprehensive Plan document. Therefore, he
questioned how these terms could be used as criteria to bolster the City’s discussion, findings and recommendation. He
summarized that since this point in the report is based on an arbitrary use of words and concepts not founded in the
Comprehensive Plan, the idea is applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Therefore he asked that the Board reject the
argument.
Mr. Underhill referred to the staff’s argument related to exemptions and fair market value. He noted that only two individuals
who live on the street have asked to be excluded from the request. He said it is important to understand that this is a minority
opinion since 17 other residents support the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and eventual zoning change request.
Mr. Underhill reported that he reviewed a number of reliable real estate databases to gauge a possible profit on the two
properties, and there is agreement among the data that both parties would achieve a good profit in today’s market, especially
if the mortgage is paid up. He further reported that data for homes in the area zoned Single Family Urban 1 shows there is
little if no difference in estimated value among comparable homes.
Mr. Underhill pointed out that Mr. Peppel’s property has the character of a single-family residence, and it fits well in the
neighborhood. Again, he noted that real estate data makes it clear that in today’s market, Mr. Peppel would achieve a good
profit. While Mr. Peppel frames his case about possible “harm” as an investor/landlord, it is important to note that there are
two other properties on the street that are rentals and neither of these parties are claiming harm. He suggested that Mr. Peppel
is in the minority as is Ms. Martinez. He advised that Ms. Martinez has repeatedly told him that she would sell her property
to someone who would build apartments or condos to make as much money as she can. He summarized that this viewpoint is
the tipping point that threatens their neighborhood. He emphasized that neither Mr. Peppel nor Ms. Martinez have provided
data, analysis or proof to support their claim of possible harm, as well as their statement that the street is different from others.
He concluded, therefore, that their request for an exemption is a misplaced and unsubstantiated concern that should be denied.
Mr. Underhill reviewed the four criteria that must be considered by the Board when reviewing a Comprehensive Plan
amendment as follows:
1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? Mr. Underhill
suggested the Board pay particular attention to the phrase “public interest.” Since the term is not found in the
Comprehensive Plan, it is not clear what definition is used that must be satisfied. However, in order to be consistent with
his presentation, Mr. Underhill said he would offer facts that satisfy the finding. He noted that 215th Street Southwest is a
residential, single-family street that is affordable, safe, next to health care/shopping/public transportation, and within
Packet Page 201 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 6
walking distance of public schools. In addition, it is being improved and provides a proper blend of residential
development within a well-established mixed-use activity center. It allows biking and walking throughout the area and
more. He suggested that the neighbors have the public’s best interest in mind as they make the neighborhood safe,
accessible, and affordable and bring added value to the City. He emphasized that these facts are embedded in the
Comprehensive Plan as goals for the City and the activity center.
2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety and welfare of the City? Mr.
Underhill pointed out that the staff selected only “public interest” as their focus. However, he countered that the
proposed amendment would satisfy more than one factor. As he noted earlier, they have improved the safety along this
street which has high value for many. If the City’s plan to inject intense development onto 215th Street Southwest
succeeds, students who must walk this street to reach the high school or middle school would face increased risks as
traffic volumes are increased. Even if sidewalks are in place, students often walk from 73rd Place West and beyond
where no sidewalks exist. Having more traffic on 215th Street Southwest and these other streets would place both young
people and drivers at risk. This concern includes those driving into and out from the high school on 76th Avenue West.
On the other hand, the current, less-intense development dramatically lowers this risk for all, and this is both a safety and
general welfare issue for the neighborhood.
As stated earlier, Mr. Underhill pointed out that residents of 215th Street Southwest have not deterred development for 50
years; and they do not do so now. Single Family Urban 1 zoning is present throughout the activity center today with no
negative impact, and the City has not proven that it would have an impact. In addition to this reason, Mr. Underhill
suggested it is definitely in the public’s interest to have an inventory of quality affordable housing in this part of
Edmonds. The subject neighborhood provides affordable housing; and at a time of skyrocketing land and construction
prices, such a neighborhood adds much value to the City.
3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City? Mr. Underhill
emphasized that the staff report makes it clear that the proposed amendment would not significantly alter the balance of
land uses in Edmonds. However, it suggests the application does not meet this criteria by using the faulty “island
theory,” which was shown to be baseless and not associated with the Comprehensive Plan, itself. He concluded that this
additional point does not trump the City’s own statement that the proposal would satisfy the requirement.
4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use
development(s), including, but not limited to, access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses
and absence of physical constraints? Mr. Underhill recalled that the staff report suggests that the application would
meet this criterion. However, they reverse this position by hauling out the tired “island theory” topped with some
mention of a “boundary” which is also neither explained nor embedded in the Comprehensive Plan or by reference to any
other City document.
In conclusion, Mr. Underhill expressed his belief that the proposed amendment request meets all required findings. Further,
he said that reading and responding to the staff report was both an eye-opener and a frustration. Their Findings of Fact and
Conclusions are littered with statements, words, concepts and conclusions that are not found in the Comprehensive Plan.
These items were not placed in context, were applied arbitrarily, and were not supported by data, analysis and/or other proof.
He noted that this faulty approach is especially important in Section II.E. of the staff report where findings must be satisfied.
He summarized that the City staff failed repeatedly to marshal any measure of an accurate and reasoned argument supporting
their recommendation. He asked that the Board deny the staff’s recommendation and allow the amendment to go forward
with a recommendation of approval.
Board Member Henderson invited Mr. Underhill to provide more information about the covenant he discussed in his
presentation. Mr. Underhill advised that a neighbor found an original covenant that was created by the Lucien Family when
the single-family neighborhood was developed. It was filed with the Snohomish County Auditor in 1958, but it has not been
active in any way. The covenant is important to the issue because it illustrates the original builder/owner’s vision, why
single-family homes were constructed, and why they have remained as such. The neighborhood’s character and use was
established by the covenant. The covenant restricted development to single-family homes only. He offered to provide the
Packet Page 202 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 7
Board with a copy of the covenant at a later date. He noted that nothing has changed in the neighborhood over the past half
century.
Board Member Henderson asked if a covenant established in the 1960’s would bind future property owners on 215th Street
Southwest. Mr. Underhill pointed out that there is no neighborhood association to manage the covenant. Mr. Chave said the
purpose of referencing the covenant was to acknowledge the developer’s original intent. He noted the City does not have a
copy of the covenant to make a determination about whether it is a legal document or not. However, he reminded the Board
that the City does not enforce covenants, and covenants do not override the City’s land use policies and goals. Therefore, the
covenant would have no bearing on the present application. Board Member Henderson inquired if the neighborhood would
have the ability to enforce the covenants and limit redevelopment in the neighborhood to single-family residential, only. Mr.
Chave again stated that without having a copy of the covenant, he has no idea whether it would have any standing today. Mr.
Chave suggested that there may have been more properties than just the 19 that were owned by the developer and part of the
original development. If that is true, it is important to note that many of these properties have already redeveloped into uses
other than single family.
Board Member Dewhirst inquired if 73rd Place West was developed at the same time as 215th Street Southwest. Mr.
Underwood said that 73rd Place West was developed in the same time frame as 215th Street Southwest. However, he doesn’t
know if it was developed by the same land owner.
Norman Knaack, Edmonds, indicated that he agreed with and supported Mr. Underhill’s comments.
Susana Martinez, Edmonds, voiced opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. She indicted that her
house is located at the corner of 76th Avenue West and 215th Street Southwest. She said that her home, and the home across
the street from her are in a location than is different that the other homes on 215th Street Southwest. She said she purchased
her current home in 1986 because it was close to the schools her children would attend and close to the hospital and other
medical services. When she purchased her home, she knew that the neighborhood would change, and she supported the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations that were in place at that time. She said she is an architect and urbanist. She
suggested that if a person wants to live in a quiet neighborhood without interference of public buildings, they need to find a
cul-de-sac or another quiet place. Again, she said she knew when she purchased her home in 1986 that the area would
change, and it has. If she doesn’t like the way change occurs in the future, she would sell her home and move away.
Alden Peppel, Edmonds, said he purchased his home at the corner of 76th Avenue West and 215th Street Southwest in 1972.
At that time, he had a clear understanding of what the zoning was, and he felt it was appropriate for his property. He agreed
with Ms. Martinez, and he would like the Board to recommend denial of the application. He summarized he sees no public
advantage associated with the application.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, noted that the City of Edmonds has determined that buildings over 40 years old are considered
historic. He urged the Board to approve the amendment in order to protect this isolated residential historic neighborhood. He
reminded the Commission that the City has taken steps in recent years to protect the existing historic structures and not force
them out, specifically in the downtown BC zones. Provisions are being considered that would allow an owner of non-
conforming property to rebuild if a structure is destroyed. He suggested that one way to protect this neighborhood is to
consider it historic. Even though the Comprehensive Plan indicates that change should occur in the neighborhood, he urged
the Board to take steps to protect this isolated area of historic development. He noted that Lake Ballinger is another area that
is always under pressure to allow commercial and multi-family development to encroach into the single-family residential
areas. There are similar enclaves throughout the City where existing development represents the history of the City. These
areas should be preserved. The neighborhood people have worked hard to maintain their identity and the Board and City
Council should respect and support their efforts. He summarized that it is not appropriate to wipe out these historic
neighborhoods for the sake of progress. He suggested it adds character to have irregular areas throughout the City. When an
area is ready to change, the City will know it; but this neighborhood is not ready for change now. He encouraged the Board to
recommend approval of the application.
Mark Schrock, Edmonds, said he moved to the subject neighborhood 14 years ago. He was looking for a place to raise a
family where the neighborhood would be preserved. When he purchased his property, he reviewed a covenant that protected
Packet Page 203 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 8
the single-family neighborhood from other types of development. It was his understanding that the covenant would remain
intact in perpetuity. He noted that there are numerous covenants on file with the State and County, and he would like to see
the wishes of the majority of the neighbors and their existing covenant enforced. They would like the neighborhood to remain
as single-family residential. He expressed concern that if the neighborhood is allowed to redevelop like other properties in
the area have done, the end result could eventually become “ghetto” type development.
Mr. Chave complimented Mr. Underhill on his presentation and said he stated his case very clearly. However, he clarified
that words such as “island” and “periphery” are terms used in planning documents to help describe a situation. He explained
that there is a fundamental difference between this single-family residential area that is completely surrounded by other more
intense uses and other single-family residential areas that are located around the periphery of the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center. These other neighborhoods extend out from the activity center and into surrounding residential zones. He
emphasized that the proposed amendment would change the land use designation that has been in place since at least 1963,
which calls for more intense development.
Mr. Chave suggested that perhaps the neighbors have a misunderstanding of what the current Comprehensive Plan designation
and zoning allow. Single-family residential homes are permitted uses within the existing zone, and these would continue to be
allowed. There is nothing in the City’s Comprehensive Plan or zoning code that would require the existing residential homes
to be replaced with other more intense development. However, the current Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning does
make it clear that it would not make sense to maintain the single-family residential uses for the long-term planning of the area.
He reminded the Board of comments provided by Ms. Martinez and Mr. Peppel related to the significant changes that have
already occurred elsewhere in the area. What has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan since the 1960’s is essentially
the goal for the area, but that doesn’t mean the residential uses in this neighborhood would have to change in the near future.
However, at some point in the future, the Comprehensive Plan anticipates this change would occur.
Mr. Chave emphasized that staff is not opposed to allowing the existing residential homes to remain, but changing the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning to limit future uses to single-family residential would not be appropriate. It would result in
an island surrounded by other more intense uses. He referred to the goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan for the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and said the City has long felt that the activity center is an economic driver for future
development, which means more intensive uses would occur in the area in the long term. He said one of the main points in
the Comprehensive Plan is to channel future growth in areas where it is appropriate so that the growth doesn’t intrude into
other parts of the City where single-family residential uses should continue to be the predominant use.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, AND THE ITEM WAS REMANDED TO THE BOARD
FOR DELIBERATION.
Board Member Young said he plans to support the proposed application. As he reviewed the extensive staff report, he came
to a different conclusion than staff regarding the application. He suggested that, contrary to the spirit and intent of the
existing Comprehensive Plan designation, the proposed amendment is supportive of what the City is trying to do along
Highway 99 and the community in general. He noted that this neighborhood is one of the last islands of affordable housing in
the entire City, and he agrees with Comprehensive Plan policies that support affordable housing that is not in town houses or
condos. He emphasized that the subject properties represent an established residential neighborhood that can provide
affordable housing that is close to the hospital and other medical facilities, public transit, and other commercial development
that may occur on Highway 99. He expressed his belief that the proposal is very supportive of overall development within the
City limits and meets the four criteria for approving a Comprehensive Plan. He summarized that the City needs to have more
single-family neighborhoods that are accessible to business centers.
Board Member Dewhirst said he has difficulty understanding why the applicant is proposing the amendment. The current
zoning has worked well for numerous years. He agreed that this neighborhood is an important part of the activity center and
supplies affordable housing to the City, but this could continue without changing the current land use designation and zoning.
He pointed out that the area has changed and would continue to change, and he doesn’t see that 215th Street Southwest would
change one way or another, irrespective of the zoning, until the current residents want it to change. He said he does not
believe a case has been made to justify the request. He agreed with the findings and conclusions provided in the staff report.
He particularly agreed that this island or pocket of land is different than other single-family residential developments that are
Packet Page 204 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 9
part of the activity center. He recalled that when the Board deliberated on the establishment of the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center, they talked about this neighborhood at length and how it was different from other residential areas. When the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center was updated a few years later, the Board reviewed this neighborhood again and
determined that no changes should be made. He said he does not believe the circumstances have changed to justify the
amendment. Therefore, he would recommend denial of the application.
Vice Chair Bowman agreed with Board Member Dewhirst. As he reviewed the staff report, he said he couldn’t understand
why the neighborhood is so adamant about change. The existing land use designation and zoning has been in place for a
number of years. He said he reviewed the application carefully to identify the impacts. The existing neighbors have a strong
sense of community. As long as this strong sense of community is maintained, no change would occur in the neighborhood.
He said he does not want to support a Comprehensive Plan amendment that would create an island of different zoning. He
pointed out that a lot of thought went into the creation of the existing land use designation and zoning, and he would be
opposed to the proposed change at this time.
Chair Guenther said he would not recommend approval of the proposed amendment, either. He said he agrees with the
findings and conclusions in the staff report. While a wonderful sense of neighborhood exists and would likely continue for
some time, he anticipates that change would occur in the long term. He said he would like to maintain the current provisions
that allow this change to take place. He also noted that just because the homes are more than 40 years old doesn’t mean they
are historic, and there are a lot of older neighborhoods in the City at this time. He reminded the Board that the City has a
process for ensuring historic structures are preserved, and none of these property owners have submitted an application to
have their home listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Properties.
Board Member Henderson said he sees merit to the arguments provided by both sides. He doesn’t like the idea of creating an
island of isolated zoning in the Comprehensive Plan; but at the same time, there is a strong neighborhood commitment to
preserve the stricter designation.
Commissioner Works agreed with the staff’s analysis of the proposal. The neighborhood is a small area of isolated single-
family residential development, and the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation have been in place for more than
40 years. Apparently, it has worked for a long time, and the houses have remained with a strong sense of community. She
recalled that two of the property owners want to retain the existing land use designation and zoning that was in place at the
time they purchased their properties. While she can understand why the majority of the neighborhood wants their properties
to stay the same, the existing designation and zoning would not require that the houses be removed. She said she would vote
against the proposal, as well.
Commissioner Reid said he would recommend denial of the proposal, too. While he heard good comments from those
present about the history of the neighborhood and the need to preserve its residential aspect, it is important to keep in mind
that this neighborhood is located in the middle of an area that the Comprehensive Plan defines as an intense use area of the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. The property has maintained the current land use designation and zoning for a number
of years, and he is surprised that it has retained its residential character for this long. Upon reviewing the Comprehensive
Plan, he said he doesn’t not see any other single-family residential neighborhoods located in the center of the activity center.
The proposed change would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not be in the public interest. The
proposal would also be inconsistent with adjoining properties.
BOARD MEMBER DEWHIRST MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE
APPLICATION BY JAMES UNDERHILL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION FOR
PROPERTIES ALONG A PORTION OF 215TH STREET SOUTHWEST AND EAST OF 76TH AVENUE WEST
FROM “MIXED USE COMMERCIAL” TO “SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1” (FILE NUMBER AMD-2007-14).
VICE CHAIR BOWMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Dewhirst clarified his motion by reviewing the Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria as follows:
1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? Board Member
Dewhirst said he believes the application is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and inconsistent with the goals and
Packet Page 205 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 10
objectives of the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. The application would not be in the best interest of the public,
either. The current Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning have been in place for a number of years, and they seem
to work well. The single-family residential nature of the neighborhood along 215th Street Southwest has remained in tact
and has not changed for a long time.
2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety and welfare of the City? Board
Member Dewhirst concluded that the proposed amendment is counter to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and not in
the best interest of the public.
3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City? Board Member
Dewhirst said he did not feel the balance of land uses would be impacted either way. However, the Comprehensive
Plan’s intent is clear that the area should be mixed use, and this neighborhood would add to that goal. The applicant’s
argument that the neighborhood is close to shopping, medical, education opportunities and public transit is good, but
these amenities really support a more intense use of the properties.
4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use
development(s), including, but not limited to, access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses
and absence of physical constraints? Board Member Dewhirst expressed his belief that the applicant did not make an
adequate case that the subject parcel would be physically suitable for the requested land use designation.
THE MOTION CARRIED 5-2-1, WITH CHAIR GUENTHER, VICE CHAIR BOWMAN, BOARD MEMBER
DEWHIRST, BOARD MEMBER WORKS, AND BOARD MEMBER REED VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD
MEMBER YOUNG AND BOARD MEMBER HENDERSON VOTING IN OPPOSITION. BOARD MEMBER
LOVELL DID NOT VOTE.
THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK AT 8:17 P.M. THE MEETING RESUMED AT 8:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION BY ZAMMIT/HDA DESIGN GROUP TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1030 GRANDVIEW FROM “SINGLE FAMILY –
RESOURCE” TO “MULTI FAMILY – HIGH DENSITY.” (FILE NUMBER AMD-07-19)
Mike Clugston, Associated Planner, presented the staff report. He referred the Commission to the list of attachments that
were provided as part of the staff report. He also reported that the following letters were received after the staff report was
completed:
• Attachment 18 is a letter from Garrett Goldsmith expressing opposition to the proposed amendment.
• Attachment 19 is a letter from Darin and Leslie Wall expressing opposition to the proposed amendment.
• Attachment 20 is a letter from Anny Spivey expressing opposition to the proposed amendment.
• Attachment 21 is a letter from Ellen Sherlock expressing opposition to the proposed amendment.
Mr. Clugston advised that the proposal is an application by Michael and Lisa Zammit (represented by John Bissell, HBA
Design Group) for a Comprehensive Plan change from “Single Family – Resource” to “Multi Family – High Density” at 1030
Grandview Street. The applicant’s intent is to develop elderly housing on the subject site.
Mr. Clugston displayed the current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and noted that the property is currently designated as
“Single Family – Resource,” and the proposed amendment would result in a density change for the parcel from less than 4
units per acre to a density ranging from 18 to 30 units per acre. Given the size of the subject parcel, 7 to 11 units would be
possible when employing the compatible zoning classifications of RM-1.5 and RM-2.4. The applicant has speculated that 10
units would be considered for the future development. He explained that the site is located just north of the intersection of
Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive, and there is a one-story single-family residence currently located on the site. The site
is currently zoned single-family residential (RS-12), which is compatible with its current Comprehensive Plan designation.
There is a row of trees along the eastern property line, and sparse trees along the southwest property line.
Packet Page 206 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 11
Mr. Clugston displayed an aerial map of the area and pointed out that nearly all of the surrounding parcels are designated as
“Single Family – Resource.” Most are zoned RS-12 and are developed with single-family residences. There is a small strip
of parcels along the north side of Puget Drive that are designated “Neighborhood Commercial,” and these are currently zoned
“Neighborhood Business” (BN). They have been developed accordingly, with small neighborhood retail and service uses.
He noted that several multi-family dwellings are also present along Puget Drive, which are existing non-conforming uses
within the BN zone. The Edmonds Elementary School complex is located across Puget Drive to the south. Mr. Clugston
further explained that the area surrounding the intersection at Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive was annexed into the City
between 1957 and 1961, and the 1963 Generalized Land Use Plan Map shows the majority of the area designated as “Low-
Density Residential” with the “Neighborhood Business” designation at the intersection. The 1963 Zoning Map shows the
parcels in the vicinity to be zoned in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, predominately single-family residential with a
cluster of restricted commercial uses at the intersection of Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive.
Mr. Clugston said two previous proposals have been submitted to the City for properties in close proximity to the subject site.
In 1963 the City considered a proposal to rezone property at 1047 Puget Drive from Single Family Residential – 12,000 to
Restricted Commercial. Despite the fact that the access portion of the parcel adjacent to Puget Drive was already zoned
Restricted Commercial, the proposal was denied. An application was submitted in 1987 to rezone a portion of the property at
1233 Olympic View Drive from Single Family Residential – 12,000 to Neighborhood Business. This proposal was also
denied. Mr. Clugston reviewed the Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria and provided the following analysis:
1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? Mr. Clugston
pointed out that the proposed amendment is potentially consistent with portions of the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, which describe the need to create additional affordable housing opportunities, particularly for the
low-income elderly. This section cites upzoning as an option to provide such housing in Edmonds. However, the
Comprehensive Plan states that such changes must occur in “designated corridor areas.” He explained that the Puget
Drive and Olympic View Drive area has not been identified as a designated corridor where such parcel re-designation is
anticipated. Since the plan is silent on the idea of re-designating an existing single-family parcel to “Multi-Family – High
Density” in a non-designated area, it can be concluded that it is not desired. As a result, the process would effectively be
spot re-designation (akin to spot zoning), which is not in the public interest.
Mr. Clugston further explained that the plan does not indicate intent to change parcel designations near “Neighborhood
Commercial” areas to create transitions between existing disparate designations such as “Commercial” and “Residential.”
For example, while the Five Corners and Firdale Village areas have specific goals and policies particular to their
locations, providing transitional areas or buffers between existing commercial and residential areas is not discussed. He
noted that the plan does describe using design review along the Westgate Corridor and Edmonds Way Corridor to ensure
that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods, but it does not suggest re-designating
parcels to provide that transition. He said a number of residents on Grandview Street described how the existing
commercial parcels act as a buffer to Puget Drive and how the existing development and trees on the subject parcel
provide additional buffering.
2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety and welfare of the City? Mr. Clugston
expressed his belief that the proposed plan change would be counter to the 2004/2005 Comprehensive Plan update, which
specifically reviewed the large-lot, single-family residential areas in this northern part of the City and concluded that
large-lot, single-family development was the most appropriate land use pattern. Incremental changes to this established
pattern are not in the public interest because, if continued and expanded, they would result in a land use pattern that
would undermine the plan policies intended to preserve and protect sensitive environmental features and avoid impacts
on the limited public facilities serving the area. He said the analysis performed as part of the 2004/2005 plan update
confirmed this approach and supported the City’s policy of using large-lot, single-family development patterns to help
protect critical areas and natural features from incremental development that would ultimately have a negative impact on
the public.
Mr. Clugston further advised that in terms of public facilities and services, there is only one minor arterial (Puget Drive)
serving the entire area. This is indicative of a significant problem with encouraging more intensive development in this
Packet Page 207 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 12
area. There is no network of interconnected streets and high-capacity roadways similar to other areas of the City where
higher intensity development is planned such as downtown or along Highway 99 and SR-104. He concluded that this is
one of the reasons that multi-family development has not been envisioned in the area.
3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City? Mr. Clugston
explained that the proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. Changing
the designation of one parcel from single-family to multi-family does not significantly affect the overall balance of land
use in the City. He said that although the site-specific proposal would not, in and of itself, materially change the overall
balance of land uses, if it is considered to set a precedent for additional multi-family uses in the area surrounding the
small neighborhood commercial center, approving the proposal could significantly change the character of the area and
begin to affect the overall land-use pattern.
4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use
development(s), including, but not limited to, access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses
and absence of physical constraints? Mr. Clugston pointed out that the subject parcel, itself, is physically suitable for
the requested land use designation and potential development. It is essentially flat, and there are no identified water
features on the site. However, North Stream does run east/west approximately 200 feet north of the parcel. He noted that
all development on the site would have to meet the applicable zoning criteria for setbacks, coverage, parking and
stormwater treatment. He advised that the parcel takes access from Grandview Street. He said that in addition to
comments received from neighbors who find the current traffic on the street challenging, the Comprehensive Plan states
that multi-family development should take direct access from arterial and collector streets rather than a minor street such
as Grandview.
As discussed previously, Mr. Clugston expressed his belief that the proposal is incompatible with adjoining land uses.
While there is a strip of more intense development near the intersection of Puget and Olympic View Drives, several of
the parcels are developed with multi-family residential uses. These uses can continue on the BN-zoned parcels, but the
multi-family buildings are non-conforming with respect to use. The parcels have not been designated in the
Comprehensive Plan for future high-intensity development. He concluded that an additional multi-family structure in an
overwhelmingly single-family residential area that is near a small and underdeveloped neighborhood commercial area
does not make sense at this time.
Based on the Statements of Fact, Analysis, Conclusions and Attachments in the Staff Report, Mr. Clugston recommended the
Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to deny the request to change the Comprehensive Plan
designation from “Single Family – Resource” to “Multiple Family – High Density” for property at 1030 Grandview Street.
He concluded that the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan nor in the public interest.
Board Member Reed inquired where “designated corridors” could be found in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clugston
answered that the designated corridor areas are identified on Page 105 of the Comprehensive Plan. They include the Five
Corners and Firdale Village areas, as well as 212th Street, SR-104 and Highway 99. These areas are envisioned for increased
intensity of use, but this subject area has not been examined as a possible designated corridor. Mr. Chave explained that one
distinctive feature of a designated corridor is direct access to high-capacity transportation routes.
John Bissell, HDA Design Group, Everett, indicated he was present to represent the applicants, Lisa and Michael Zammit.
He displayed the current zoning map, which identifies the subject property as Single Family Residential – 12,000 (RS-12).
He agreed with staff that the topography of the site is relatively flat, with no critical areas on site. He further agreed with
staff’s statement that the site is directly adjacent to BN zoning, which is characterized as a minor commercial zone. However,
it is important to keep in mind that the BN zone does allow some higher intensity uses such as restaurants. The adjacent BN
zone is currently developed as a restaurant, and there is no buffer between the BN zone and the subject site. He explained
that it is fairly standard planning practice to have some type of buffer between single-family residential zones and commercial
zones. He said the primary reason the applicant’s are interested in the proposed amendment is that the current BN zoning
decreases their property values, and their property becomes a buffer for the neighborhood. He said he understands why the
Packet Page 208 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 13
neighbors are opposed to the change because the applicants are now paying for the buffer they enjoy between their residential
properties and the commercial property.
Mr. Bissell provided an aerial photograph of the property and pointed out the location of the subject site, as well as the more
intensely developed commercial zone to the southeast. He noted that the commercial development is located fairly close to
the subject property line and is a fairly intense use directly next to the subject property. He referred to the buffer of trees that
was noted by staff, but he pointed out that the trees are located on the applicants’ property and not on the commercially zoned
property. He noted that the City’s landscape code would require a landscape buffer that is substantially greater than the
existing trees between commercial and single-family residential development. He emphasized that the BN zoned property
does not provide an adequate buffer, so the neighborhood relies on the trees that are located on the applicants’ property to
provide the buffer.
Mr. Bissell provided pictures he took from various locations near and on the subject site. While the adjacent neighbors
describe the area as a large lot, tree-lined street without a lot of traffic, in reality there is commercial property located on the
other side of the trees. Although staff characterized Puget Drive as a minor arterial, he suggested that perhaps the City’s
street map is inaccurate because traffic volumes on the street are higher than what is typical for a minor arterial. In reality, he
suggested that Puget Drive functions as a major arterial and is used as a direct connection between Interstate 5 and the ferry
terminal. He noted that the signal at the intersection of Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive was installed recently as a result
of abundant traffic on the street. He concluded that Olympic View Drive also functions as an arterial; it does not fit the
character of a minor collector street. He summarized that the site gains access from two major arterials.
Mr. Bissell said that contrary to staff’s interpretation of what the Comprehensive Plan says about the Five Corners area, it is
very similar to the area surrounding the subject property. The BN zone at Five Corners has been developed to accommodate
a variety of commercial uses, and there is also a non-conforming multi-family residential development. There is no buffer
between the commercial and single-family residential zones. He questioned the City’s decision to treat the subject property
differently than properties at Five Corners. He pointed out that at Five Corners, the residential property owners have to
provide the buffers themselves, which is the same circumstance that exists in the area of the subject site.
Mr. Bissell suggested that the current Comprehensive Plan’s “Single-Family – Resource” land use designation is not
appropriate for the subject parcel. He explained that the designation is allowed by the Growth Management Hearings Board
for applications in areas where it is necessary to protect significant critical areas. However, he emphasized that there are no
Category 1 Streams in the City, and the Category 1 Wetlands located in Pine Ridge Park and the Marsh are no where near the
subject property. While North Stream does run near the subject property, it is important to keep in mind that this stream has
been classified as a lower-quality, non-fish stream that is protected adequately by the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance. It
would not rate as a stream that is protected under the Growth Management Act laws.
Mr. Bissell said there is an area on the east side of Olympic View Drive where steep slopes and seepage into the hillside
exists. This area may not be protected efficiently by the Critical Areas Ordinance and the “Single Family – Resource” land
use designation may be appropriate in this case. However, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the entire area as “Single
Family – Resource” even though there is not another critical area until Perrinville Creek, which is also protected effectively
by the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance. He noted that the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area is another place where the
“Single Family – Resource” zone may be appropriately applied. However, using this designation for the subject site and
surrounding properties would not really be protecting anything. Again, he agreed that the Growth Management Hearings
Board has indicated that the designation may be appropriately applied to areas where there are significant critical areas to
establish a greater amount of protection than would be afforded by the Critical Areas Ordinance.
Mr. Bissell reviewed the four Comprehensive Plan amendment review criteria as follows:
5. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest. Mr. Bissell referred
to staff’s contention that the application is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the
Comprehensive Plan is quite clear about the allowance of four dwelling units per acre or greater. It emphasizes that the
resource zone, which allows less than four units per acre, was intended to be applied only to specific areas where critical
areas are being protected. He clarified that the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan includes a clear statement
Packet Page 209 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 14
about why the “Resource” land use designation would be required in certain cases, and the subject property would not
meet this criteria. He noted that Page 51 of the Comprehensive Plan land use element talks about compatibility. While
staff suggested the proposal is not compatible with the surrounding parcels, he noted that the existing development is not
compatible with the commercial zoning that neighbors the subject site. The proposed action would create something that
is compatible with what exists to the south and east. Because the new zone would be a residential type use, it would be
compatible with the single-family residential neighborhood, too.
6. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety and welfare of the City? Mr. Bissell
suggested that the proposed development would not reduce property values of the existing neighborhood. Rather, the
single-family neighborhood actually reduces the property value of the subject property to the benefit of the rest of the
neighborhood. He concluded that, contrary to the staff’s interpretation, the Comprehensive Plan supports the proposed
amendment.
7. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City? Mr. Bissell referred
to staff’s statement that the proposed amendment would create a “spot zone.” He referred to the case, Citizens versus
Mount Vernon, which concluded that there is no such thing as spot zoning. Cities must plan and zone according to their
Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the proposed amendment could not be considered spot zoning. Instead, it would be
considered as an opportunity to provide a buffer where no appropriate zone is in place today. That makes the proposed
amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the case Citizens versus Mount Vernon.
Mr. Bissell disagreed with staff’s argument that the proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that
it is difficult to apply logic to this criterion. Since the applicants’ are proposing a Comprehensive Plan amendment, it is
obvious that they want to change the existing land use designation. Therefore, it could always be argued that the change
is inconsistent with what already exists in the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested it may be impossible to meet this
criterion, so the Comprehensive Plan could never be changed.
Mr. Bissell pointed out that on Page 5 of the Staff Report, staff argues that approval of the proposed amendment could
set a precedent for additional multi-family uses in the area and could begin to affect the overall land use pattern. He
suggested that this argument is a “smoke screen” staff is using because they are not really sure what to do. He reminded
the Board that the City allows any property owner to submit an application for a Comprehensive Plan land use change. If
the City were to approve something that they later wished they hadn’t, this could be considered setting a precedent
because it may require them to approve the same type of application again. However, the subject application meets the
criteria the Board must consider when reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments. Therefore, the Board should not be
concerned about setting a bad precedent.
Regarding the concern expressed by staff that other property owners would apply for the same type of change, Mr.
Bissell referred to the Five Corners area and noted that no one is applying for more commercial zoning in this area
because they already have the appropriate buffer between commercial and single-family uses. He concluded that
approving the proposed application would not result in a precedent for something bad to occur in the future.
4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use
development(s), including, but not limited to, access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses
and absence of physical constraints? Mr. Bissell recalled the previous public hearing in which the staff planner noted
that geography and land uses are also important issues to consider. He expressed his belief that providing a buffer
directly adjacent to the commercial use would be appropriate. In fact, it is the existing commercial use that makes the
proposed amendment appropriate.
Mr. Bissell said he was not prepared to discuss details about the Westgate area, but he particularly noted the southwest
side of the Westgate area, where there is a substantial topography change. Where the residential neighborhoods are not
buffered from commercial properties by zoning, there is an adjacent cliff that removes any impact created by the
commercial properties. The same is true for residential and commercial zoning in the Perrinville neighborhood. While it
makes sense for these areas to be zoned with commercial abutting single-family residential, it is not appropriate for the
Packet Page 210 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 15
subject property. A multi-family residential zone should be added to provide a buffer between the residential and
commercial zones, and the proposed amendment would accomplish this.
Mr. Bissell recalled staff’s statement that the City should not allow corridor development to occur in this area, and he
assured the Board that is not what the applicants are proposing. He explained that corridor development is typically
proposed in areas where traffic patterns and high traffic volumes warrant the change. In these areas, multi-family
residential zoning is typically used as a buffer between the commercial and single-family uses. However, he emphasized
that the applicants never intended to infer that their property was an example of corridor development.
Mr. Bissell summarized that via his presentation, he has shown that the application meets the Comprehensive Plan amendment
criteria. He explained that when he agreed to represent the applicant, he knew there would be neighborhood hostility. He
pointed out that Mr. Hertrich has attended numerous public hearings in the City to voice his concerns and opinions. Since
Mr. Hertrich lives in the neighborhood, he anticipated that he would organize the neighbors to oppose the application.
However, he cautioned that although a very active citizen in the community happens to live adjacent to the subject site, the
Board should make their recommendation based on its merits and whether or not it is a good idea for the City. Mr. Bissell
suggested it is unfair for the subject property owners to have responsibility for providing a buffer between the commercial and
single-family uses. The current situation provides a significant benefit to the adjacent property owners, and they are opposed
to the application because it would negatively impact them.
Mr. Bissell emphasized that the applicants are not proposing the RM-1.5 zone so they can build apartment units. They are
proposing to construct an elderly care facility, which would tend to be quieter than a residential development. He noted that
multi-family development results in one or two cars per unit, and the average trips per day would be between 5 and 10 per
unit. An elderly care facility would likely generate two trips per day per unit. A single-family residential development would
generate about 10 trips per unit, as well. Therefore, a 10-unit elderly care facility would generate less traffic per day than a
single-family development on the same site. He concluded that the impact to the neighborhood would be less than if the
current land use and zoning were to remain.
Mr. Bissell said that while an RM-1.5 zone sounds horrible to the neighbors, it is important to understand that is not what the
applicants are proposing. He indicated the applicants are willing to have approval of the amendment conditioned so that they
would be limited to the elderly care facility they are proposing. He said he understands the neighborhood’s legitimate
concerns about the zoning change because they have made the assumption that the property would be developed as apartment
units. If the Board feels it is appropriate, the applicants would be willing to condition approval so that appropriate
development could occur with the least amount of impact to the adjacent property owners.
Board Member Works asked Mr. Bissell to explain the type of elderly housing the applicant is proposing. Mr. Bissell
answered that there is a wide variety of elderly housing types. The applicant is not proposing to construct a large elderly
housing facility, but something closer to what would be called “assisted living.” With this type of facility, an elderly resident
would be able to live independently in separate units, but care would be available and meals would be provided. Board
Member Works inquired if staff would be on site to care for the residents. If so, she noted that this would result in additional
traffic. Mr. Bissell agreed there would be some traffic associated with caregivers, and the residents would also have visitors
come to the site. Again, he explained that, based on engineering data, a typical residential development would generate
approximately 9.7 average daily trips, and a typical elderly facility would generate less than two trips per unit. He reminded
the Board that the applicant would be willing to condition approval of the amendment to a specific type of development.
However, he can only speak of the proposed project in general terms at this time.
Darin Wall, Edmonds, said he lives directly across the street from the subject property, and he doesn’t know who Roger
Hertrich is. He said he didn’t hear the applicant mention impacts to Grandview Street in his presentation; only to Puget Drive
and Olympic View Drive. He noted that Grandview Street is already overloaded from the commercial zoning that currently
exists in the area. Already, cars park along the street and sidewalk. He said that, regardless of what engineering data may
suggest, he does not believe that a 10-unit development would result in less traffic than a single-family residence. Mr. Wall
recalled Mr. Bissell’s argument that it is not fair for the subject property owner to have to provide the buffer for the
residential neighborhood. He said it is important to note that applicants purchased the property a year ago, and they knew
Packet Page 211 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 16
exactly what the zoning and adjacent uses were. They tried to flip the property and couldn’t sell it; now they are trying to
make the land more valuable. When considering what is and isn’t fair, the Board should recognize the situation for what it is.
Mike Herb, Edmonds, provided pictures to illustrate the location of the existing trees on the subject site. He noted that the
trees currently provide a buffer between the single-family residential uses and the commercial uses. He suggested the impact
of the proposed amendment would be focused on Grandview Street and not on Olympic View Drive and Puget Drive. He
noted all the trees that currently exist behind the building, which is the beginning of the one block long street known as
Grandview Street.
Mr. Herb pointed out that there has not been any significant change to the neighborhood for generations. It has remained a
quite, one-block street of single-family homes, and the adjacent neighborhoods have remained the same, too. He expressed
his belief that the proposed amendment would be a detriment to all the single-family property owners because of the
mammoth structure that could be constructed on the subject property. A large building in this area would be totally out of
character. He provided pictures to illustrate what a 10-unit complex could look like. Again, he said a building of this size
would be out of character with the neighborhood and the proposed amendment has no merit.
Mr. Herb said it is also alarming to consider the significant impact the proposed amendment could have on traffic, which is
already a problem. Grandview Street is so narrow that it is impossible or very difficult for garbage trucks and emergency
vehicles to get through when cars are parked on either side of the street. He noted that when the pizza parlor is open on
weekends, cars park along both sides of the street.
Mr. Herb suggested the property could be considered critical area because North Stream is a continuous, year-round flowing
stream, which starts on one side of the property and goes through the neighborhood. He suggested that if the City does not
require the applicant to complete an environmental impact statement, the application could be considered in violation of the
Environmental Policy Act and the Growth Management Act.
Mr. Herb referred to the June 5th deadline that was identified in the staff report. He suggested that this deadline could
constitute a denial of due process since the deadline occurred before the public hearing was conducted. He cautioned that the
proposed application is not a minor proposal. If the Comprehensive Plan is changed, the next step would be for the applicant
to request a rezone. The City would have to approve the rezone application because the Comprehensive Plan would support
it. The City would be required to issue a permit for the construction of up to a 10-unit complex because that is what the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning code would allow. He expressed his belief that the proposal is lacking in merit, and there are
no land use arguments that could be made to support putting a large structure on the tiny street. If the application is approved
based on arbitrary and capricious information, the City would open itself up not only to appeal but possible claims for
damages.
Mr. Herb concluded his remarks by pointing out that four new homes have been constructed recently on Grandview Street,
and their market value is between $800,000 and $1 million. These people purchased their homes relying on the residential
character of the street. The proposed application would have a detrimental affect on the homes in the neighborhood. He
asked the Board to deny the application.
William Hood, Edmonds, said he lives directly across the street from the subject property. He purchased his home three
years ago because he liked the residential character of the street, where only nine homes existed. The property met all of his
qualifications for a nice, quiet neighborhood, with the exception of Portofino’s Restaurant at the corner. He pointed out that
during the evening hours, people who visit the restaurant park their cars on the narrow 18-foot wide Grandview Street, since
there is no other place for them to park. If a new 35-foot high development is constructed as proposed, it would block the
neighborhood’s view of the pine trees and evergreens that are 50 to 60 feet tall. These trees would be replaced with a large
building, instead. He suggested this would be like “putting an elephant in your front yard so you couldn’t see the cars going
by.” He expressed his belief that placing a large structure on a small lot that is located on a small street would be ridiculous.
Mr. Hood said he has had a lot to do with seniors in the community; they take a lot of care and they have numerous visitors,
including emergency and other medical assistance. Grandview Street is not wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles
when cars are parked along the side. He noted that Grandview is a dead end street with no outlet. Traffic is already a
Packet Page 212 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 17
problem, and adding ten more units on the subject property would only make the problem worse. He suggested that the
theoretical data provided by the applicant does not represent what would happen to the subject property. He said he supports
the staff’s recommendation to deny the application. The staff report was very comprehensive and objective. He summarized
that it is very disturbing to think that someone could purchase property in a neighborhood, hire an attorney and architect, and
then argue that it is not fair to maintain the existing single-family zoning designation. Placing a large structure on the subject
in incomprehensible to him.
Pat Murphy, Edmonds, concurred with everything that has been said by the neighbors who live on Grandview Street. He
expressed his belief that the photographs provided by Mr. Bissell were very selective and do not clearly depict the existing
character of Grandview, which is a dead end street with expensive homes. He noted the heavy traffic that already exists as a
result of the two schools that are located in the area. Adding additional traffic by approving the proposed amendment would
make the situation even worse.
Tim Raetzloff, Edmonds, referred to the applicant’s comments about the light that was installed at the intersection of
Olympic View and Puget Drives. He emphasized that this light was not provided because of the traffic demand; it was added
when the school was reopened. At this time, the light is only triggered by the traffic turning left onto Olympic View Drive;
traffic turning right doesn’t trigger the light. Regarding earlier statements by the applicant that these two streets are used to
provide access to Interstate 5, Mr. Raetzloff pointed out that people who know the area do not use Olympic View Drive to get
to Interstate 5. He disagreed with the applicant’s assessment that Olympic View Drive is a major arterial street.
Mr. Raetzloff expressed concern about the potentially large building that could be constructed on the subject property if the
application is approved. While he doesn’t believe the building would be as large as the one shown in the picture provided by
Mr. Herb, there is already a drainage problem in the area. The City checks the condition of the drainage system on a regular
basis. He recalled Vice Chair Bowman’s comment that he is against spot zoning, and he suggested the proposed amendment
would result in a type of spot zoning.
Donna Herb, Edmonds, said she lives at the end of Grandview Street. She referred to the pictures that were submitted
earlier by her husband. One shows the lack of space along Grandview Street when cars are parked on each side of the narrow
road. Garbage trucks and emergency vehicles would not be able to access the properties during these times. She noted there
are no sidewalks along the street, except in front of the newer homes. The rest of the street is basically a country lane.
Ms. Herb expressed her concern that drainage is already a real problem in the area. She referred to a picture of the lot next to
her property. There is currently a pond in the hole that remained when the house was removed last year. There are ducks
swimming in this pond on a regular basis, and a bald eagle visits the property, as well. There is no place for the water to drain
except into the yard. Building a large structure and its associated parking on the subject site would result in additional runoff
on the properties further down Grandview Street. She said that, currently, birds, possums, raccoons, and other animals use the
forested area on the subject property for their habitat. She provided a picture of the stream that runs through their yard.
While the applicant had indicated that North Stream runs north of the subject property, he failed to mention that it takes a
curve at the bottom of Grandview. The proposal would basically be upstream from the creek and all the wildlife that exists.
Michael Grove, Edmonds, said he is also concerned about how the proposed change would impact drainage in the
neighborhood. However, he said his biggest concern is that the proposed amendment could significantly change the
demographics of Grandview Street. He said he lives 400 feet to the west of the subject site, and he feels the proposal would
change the entire neighborhood, not just this one street. The proposal would also require a change in the services provided by
the City such as ambulance, fire, police, etc. The people providing care in the new facility would be coming and going at all
hours of the day and night, as would emergency vehicles. While he doesn’t have anything against elderly people, the proposal
represents a substantial change to their neighborhood. He suggested that the applicants’ argument that the proposal would
provide a buffer between the residential and commercial uses is fallacious in that the proposal would actually increase the
traffic and noise. A buffer should decrease these impacts. He concurred with the staff’s recommendation to deny the
application, and he urged the Board to support it.
Kristi Urguhart, Edmonds, said she and her husband built their new home on Grandview Street in 2005. A big attraction
was the large lot size of the single-family neighborhood. She said she supports the comments provided by her neighbors. She
Packet Page 213 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 18
invited the Board Members to visit Grandview Street. It would become obvious to them that approval of the amendment
would be a mistake. She said that even if she were to put on her best business hat and objectively review the proposal, it
would not make sense. The only benefit would be to the landowner’s pocket. She urged the Board to support the staff’s
recommendation to deny the proposal.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he lives 310 feet from the subject property, so he didn’t receive a notice of the hearing. He
said he lives across Puget Drive on the school side, directly across from the deli and gas station developments. He noted that
he has no buffer between his home and the commercial development, except the street. However, as per the code
requirements, a buffer was provided for the property that is directly behind the buildings. He said he would much rather live
adjacent to the back side of a large structure. While the wall would not necessarily be attractive, it provides a much better
buffer than a multi-family development would supply. A multi-family development could include balconies, etc. that would
allow residents to look down onto the adjacent single-family residential properties. There would also be more traffic coming
and going from the subject site. He said the subject property already provides an adequate buffer for the residential
properties. The trees that were planted by the original property owner have provided a buffer, and they would remain if the
property is not rezoned. If the property is rezoned, the trees would be removed and the neighborhood would lose their natural
buffer.
Mr. Hertrich said he is not opposed to multi-family development if it is located in the right place. However, the subject
proposal is not necessarily just about elderly people living in the units. If the rezone is approved as proposed, the property
could be redeveloped into any type of multi-family residential development.
Mr. Hertrich referred to Mr. Bissell’s comments comparing the subject property to Five Corners. He suggested the Board
stick with the real issue of whether or not the proposal fits the neighborhood. He expressed his belief that approving the
application would be a case of spot zoning, which would not be appropriate. When Comprehensive Plan land use changes are
approved, they usually apply to more than just one property. Typically, areas are considered for change, not single properties.
That is not the case in this situation, so the proposal would qualify as spot zoning.
Mr. Hertrich said he does not believe there have been sufficient changes in the neighborhood to allow the Board to consider a
change in the Comprehensive Plan for this one property. In fact, the single-family residential neighborhood has become more
and more stable. The single-family uses are increasing even further out towards Olympic View Drive. He summarized his
belief that staff did a good job of preparing the staff report and addressing all of the issues of concern. He urged the Board to
support the staff’s recommendation.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, said he supports the staff report and their recommendation to deny the application. He expressed
his belief that the staff’s analysis was based on the City’s existing Comprehensive Plan Map, which was approved previously
by the City Council. He suggested the applicant is “standing on a platform and the train has already left the station.” It is too
late to argue that the Comprehensive Plan map is not accurate and appropriate. He said he is in favor of multi-family
residential development, and he has supported numerous multi-family projects on Daley Street where he currently lives. He
suggested the applicant has mischaracterized the Citizens versus Mount Vernon case. This case dealt with the fact that the
City of Mount Vernon approved a proposed grocery story development with multi-family housing after the Comprehensive
Plan map had been adopted. The applicant in this situation is asking the City to change the Comprehensive Plan map so he
can subsequently ask for a rezone of the property. He urged the Board to support the staff’s recommendation of denial.
Lisa Zammit, Applicant, Edmonds, suggested that many of the neighbors’ comments are based on a fear of the unknown.
She explained that she and her husband purchased the subject property for the specific purpose of building an elderly
residential facility. She noted that her father, William R. Wood was a prominent single-family home developer in the 1960’s,
when the Farmers Home Administration stepped in to provide permanent financing for low-income and rural housing. In the
1970’s he was the largest home builder in the country, and that is where she obtained her knowledge about building for people
who need it. She pointed out that even the residents of the neighborhood will have a need for elderly housing at some point in
the future.
Ms. Zammit explained that the development she has in mind is not what Mr. Bissell described. Instead, the units would be
constructed with private money from people who want to help provide places for the elderly to live within walking distance to
Packet Page 214 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 19
businesses, parks, etc. She said she does not anticipate she and her husband would make any money from the project. Their
interest is to give back to the community. They hope to find investors so the rent can be lower for the elderly. She said she
does not anticipate there would be people on site to care for the residents of the development. Instead, the units would be
occupied by people who have limited income but can take care of themselves. She noted there is currently a three-year
waiting list for homes of this type in Edmonds. She suggested the new development would actually become an asset to the
neighborhood, and the elderly residents would become part of the community. She said she was hoping the people of
Edmonds would support the project, and she was very surprised by the neighborhood reaction to the proposal.
Ms. Zammit said her insurance company recently notified her that she would be unable to insure the home on the subject
property because of the dangerous trees that exist on the lot. She emphasized that some of the large trees would be removed
from the property regardless of whether the amendment is approved or not. Ms. Zammit clarified that it was not their
intention to make money by purchasing the property. Their goal was to help the community by providing for the needs of the
elderly. She said she doesn’t want to push the elderly people out of the City. Instead, she wants to provide a nice, lovely
place for them to live in. This would ensure their dignity remains intact.
Darin Wall, Edmonds, said that while Ms. Zammit provided some very heartfelt comments, her explanation was not
consistent with what actually happened. He said he had a conversation with the Zammits when they purchased the property,
and the Zammits indicated their desire to sell. The property was placed on the market, but it did not sell. He said he has a
hard time believing that the Zammits did not intend to rezone their property all along to make it more valuable.
John Bissell, HAD Design Group, said that Ms. Zammit was mystified by the neighborhood comments because she and her
husband have never put the property on the market. While he is not implying that those who testified to the contrary are liars,
he said he doesn’t appreciate that the neighbors have leveled these accusations against his client. He said he does not have
any doubt that the neighbors saw a real estate sign on the property, but perhaps it was posted by the previous owner. He said
he is fairly certain his client was telling the truth.
Mr. Bissell acknowledged that the neighbors have very strong opinions that will not likely change. Several speakers talked
about the trees on the subject site that act as a buffer for the neighborhood. He pointed out that the trees are actually located
on the applicant’s property, and not on the neighbors’ properties. The applicant would not be required to retain the trees
regardless of the zoning. Mr. Bissell referred to Mr. Hertrich’s comment that the trees would be removed if the property were
rezoned. However, that is not a fair statement because Mr. Hertrich doesn’t have any knowledge of what would occur on the
site in the future.
Regarding concerns about the narrow street, Mr. Bissell pointed out that while the existing street is narrow, the right-of-way is
not, at least to the point where it ends opposite of Olympic View Drive. If the proposal were approved, the City would
require the applicant to widen the Grandview Street as per City Code before development could move forward.
Mr. Bissell agreed with Mr. Hertrich that the Board is not charged with reviewing potential development for the site at this
time. However, many of the questions and concerns were related to future development impacts. He recalled that one
speaker testified about the poor drainage that already exists in the area. He agreed and noted that the soil in the area is known
as Decomposed Vashon Till, which doesn’t drain well. That means that holes will fill up with water if a structure is removed
from a site. However, he emphasized that the City has a stormwater management ordinance to address drainage issues
associated with future development. Several older homes in the neighborhood have been demolished and replaced with larger
homes. When these properties were redeveloped, the property owners were required to meet all of the City’s stormwater
requirements. He suggested that stormwater is not really relative to the issue at hand.
Mr. Bissell referred to Mr. Hertrich’s comment that the Board is not really dealing with a development issue, and he generally
agreed. However, the Planning Board has the difficult task of considering the worst case scenario that could take place on the
subject property if the amendment is approved. He emphasized that the worst case scenario is not what the applicant intends
for the property, and the applicant would be willing to consider a contract rezone to condition approval on a specific use.
Mr. Bissell recalled that Mr. Tupper testified that the Comprehensive Plan Map cannot be changed. If that were the case, the
only time the City would be allowed to modify the plan would be when it is updated every ten years. He concluded that is not
Packet Page 215 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 20
a correct statement. Mr. Bissell summarized that the applicant has shown how the proposal complies with all four of the
Comprehensive Plan review criteria. He urged the Board to recommend approval of the application as presented.
Mr. Chave suggested that Mr. Bissell mischaracterized the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance and their large lot, single-family
residential land use and zoning designations. Mr. Chave explained that when the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2004
and 2005, the City conducted a careful analysis of their critical areas, particularly looking at the large lot zoning patterns. The
important point made at that time was not to identify a lot of individual large lot critical areas. Instead, they identified
patterns of critical areas. He explained that because there are large areas of critical areas in the City, the large lot zoning
pattern was justified. This was summarized in the Comprehensive Plan to support the large lot zoning pattern and that is one
reason staff is recommending against the application.
Vice Chair Bowman asked if there was already a commercial building on the Portofino property when it was annexed into the
City. Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively.
Board Member Dewhirst emphasized that the Board must review the application as a request for high-density residential
zoning. All of the talk about a potential senior development means nothing. If the property were sold, the proposed use for
the site could change overnight to anything allowed within the multi-family residential zone. He agreed there is a need for
more senior housing in the City, but that has no bearing on the proposal before the Board. The Board must consider whether
or not multi-family development of any type would be the appropriate density for the site. Any use allowed within this type of
zone must be part of the consideration.
Board Member Young agreed with Board Member Dewhirst. He noted that at no time in his presentation did Mr. Bissell
discuss how multi-family residential would be a better Comprehensive Plan designation for the parcel than its current
designation. The applicant did not present any data to show there was a need for another multi-family residential zone in the
area, regardless of its purpose. He expressed his belief that the application is without merit because it has no basis in fact. He
said he would support the staff’s recommendation.
BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS FOUND IN THE STAFF REPORT, BOARD
MEMBER YOUNG MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE
APPLICATION BY MICHAEL AND LISA ZAMMIT (REPRESENTED BY JOHN BISSELL, HDA DESIGN
GROUP) FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE FOR PROPERTY AT 1030 GRANDVIEW STREET FROM
“SINGLE FAMILY – RESOURCE” TO “MULTI FAMILY – HIGH DENSITY” (FILE NUMBER AMD-2007-19).
BOARD MEMBER DEWHIRST SECONDED THE MOTION
Board Member Works agreed with the staff report. She pointed out that the applicants purchased the property knowing what
the existing zoning was. While she understands that the trees might be removed anyway and that the Comprehensive Plan
Map can be changed if appropriate, she felt the applicant failed to demonstrate that a change was warranted. She said she
does not believe that Puget Drive could accurately be classified as an arterial street. She noted the speed limit on the street is
25 miles per hour, and she doesn’t know anyone who uses the street to access Interstate 5 and Highway 99.
Board Member Dewhirst said it is fairly common practice in land use planning that one of the best places to change land use
is in a block so that the back of proposed use face the back of existing uses. This kind of lot configuration is very typical.
While it is not the best situation, it works most of the time. He summarized that it is better to have uses backing into each
other rather than fronting each other.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH BOARD MEMBER LOVELL ABSTAINING.
THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK AT 10:21 P.M. THEY RESUMED THE MEETING AT 10:25 P.M.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that their next meeting is scheduled for June 18, 2008. The June 25th meeting was cancelled.
Packet Page 216 of 232
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
June 11, 2008 Page 21
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Guenther did not have any additional comments to provide during this portion of the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
None of the Commissioners provided comments during this portion of the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The Commission meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m.
Packet Page 217 of 232
AM-1649 7.
Transfer of Development Rights (Cascade Land Conservancy)
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:07/01/2008
Submitted By:Rob Chave Time:45 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Presentation and discussion on Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) – concepts and
programs – by the Cascade Land Conservancy.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
No action required.
Previous Council Action
Council approved Resolution 1169 joining the Cascade Agenda Cities Program on April 22, 2008.
Narrative
Representatives of the Cascade Land Conservancy will give Council an overview of Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) programs -- both how they work and the different permutations that
have been implemented. Background material is included in the attached exhibits.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Cascade Agenda Cities Program brochure
Link: Exhibit 2: TDR Program Implementation Process summary
Link: Exhibit 3: TDR Glossary of Terms
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/26/2008 11:16 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/26/2008 12:38 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/26/2008 02:34 PM APRV
Form Started By: Rob
Chave
Started On: 06/26/2008 09:54
AM
Final Approval Date: 06/26/2008
Packet Page 218 of 232
The Cascade Agenda is a collective 100-year vision for conserving
Washington’s remarkable landscapes in the face of a growing
population and a changing economic base.
The Puget Sound region has a spectacular
natural environment with mountains,
forests, streams and a strong legacy
of working lands. It is a striking place
to live with a strong job market, great
neighborhoods and community assets,
remarkable parks, libraries and museums.
The region is at a critical moment in its
history. Population is expected to double
in the next 100 years, adding enough
people to populate six cities the size of
Seattle. Globally, climate change threatens
the natural environment, economy and
standard of living. In response to these
mounting pressures, Puget Sound residents
must work together to protect their quality
of life now and create a better future for
those who come after them.
GETTING INVOLVED
If your city is interested in becoming even more livable while conserving the region’s
great places, consider becoming a member of the Cascade Agenda Cities Program.
The first step to become a member is to schedule an informational meeting with our
staff. We are available to meet with city staff and begin the dialogue to help your city
learn more about becoming a member of the Cascade Agenda Cities Program.
CASCADE LAND CONSErVANCy
615 2nd Avenue, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98104
For additional information on how your
city can join the program, including how to
download our model resolution and to learn
more about making your city more complete,
compact and connected, please visit us online:
www.cascadeagenda.com/cities
Please contact Jeff Aken at jeffa@cascadeland.org
or 206.905.6928 for further details.
Careful planning of the region’s cities will
provide more choices for future generations.
By building most new homes in walkable
neighborhoods near transit, this new growth
will not compromise natural areas, working
farms and forests that make this region
special. Locating homes near transportation,
jobs and shopping will also make it easier to
get around, helping to make the cities more
affordable, attractive and safer places to live,
work and raise families.
Packet Page 219 of 232
ComPlete
Urban neighborhoods have a vibrant mix of people,
public gathering spaces, civic and cultural anchors,
and retail establishments.
ComPACt
New development is designed to make
neighborhoods efficient, walkable and affordable.
ConneCted
residents can use transit, walk and bike safely to
daily destinations. Communities have links between
natural and urban areas, allowing residents access to
waterfronts, parks and trails.
CASCADE AGENDA CITIES are Complete, Compact and Connected.
The Cascade Agenda Cities Program accomplishes this by:
• Educating partner cities about what it takes to become a truly livable city.
• Helping these cities—and their residents—make smart choices about future growth.
• Providing a framework for continuous improvement and sharing best practices
that enable cities to make their neighborhoods even better.
enlIStInG tHe ReGIon’S CItIeS
The Cascade Agenda Cities Program enlists the region’s cities to improve the
livability of neighborhoods—making them complete, compact and connected—
and spectacular enough for people to choose to live there, saving the region’s
natural and working lands from poorly planned development.
Photo Credits: ‘Three youths pulling weeds’ - EarthCorps | ‘Tacoma Transit’ - Michael Simek | ‘Two children at Arboretum’ - Todd Parker | All other photos - Bradley Hanson
BeneFItS
By becoming a member of the Cascade Agenda Cities Program, you are demonstrating initiative, taking action
and gaining access to the following services:
• Recognition as a regional leader in creating smart communities
• Technical assistance on growth options
• Access to best practices through a region-wide learning network of peers
• Workshops with other innovative cities and regional experts
• Community outreach on how to create a better future for the region
• Membership in the Cascade Agenda Coalition—directed at influencing state level policy
CItY ReSPonSIBIlItIeS
To facilitate a productive partnership the Cascade Agenda Cities program requests the following of participating cities:
I. Member Cities
• Pass a resolution aligning city policies with the principles of the Cascade Agenda Cities program
• Designate a primary staff contact
II. Leadership Cities
• Apply to the Cascade Agenda Cities Leadership Program
• Pass a resolution aligning city policies with the principles of the Cascade Agenda Cities program
• Designate a staff contact and create an interdepartmental team
• Assist in an evaluation of city policies to advance compact growth
• Use policy review to identify opportunities and develop strategies for improvement
• Implement improvement strategies
• Participate in a learning network with cities across the region
• Agree to an annual membership fee
Packet Page 220 of 232
615 Second Ave, Suite 625 | Seattle, Washington 98104 | (206) 292-5907 | www.cascadeland.org | www.cascadeagenda.com
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
STEPS IN ESTABLISHING A TDR PROGRAM
Adopting TDR legislation is but one small piece of the effort required to put an effective TDR program in place. The success of a
TDR program depends ultimately on the willingness of buyers and sellers to participate in a TDR market; therefore considerable
attention must be given to establishing the economic underpinnings of the program. In addition, TDR is a new concept for most
landowners and developers, so active support and marketing can be crucial in setting up an effective program.
The following steps are described as discreet steps in setting up a TDR program, but in fact these represent a number of moving
pieces which must all work well together for a well-functioning program.
1. Set Goals/Policy Direction
In setting goals and establishing broad policy direction for a TDR program, it is critical to involve elected officials early and get
input from stakeholders early and often. A citizen’s advisory committee – including both technical experts and key stakeholders
– can provide an effective sounding board and insure that the program is well-grounded in reality from the start. Key policy op-
tions, such as whether downzoning will be considered, should be vetted at the outset. Clear goals, such as which resource lands
are targeted for preservation, will provide a strong base for program development.
2. Conduct Market Study
A market study should be undertaken to assess the feasibility of a proposed TDR program and provide information critical to
designing a TDR market. A real estate appraiser or other real estate professional can determine the value of development rights
in sending and receiving areas, providing a basis for determining the appropriate allocation rate in sending areas and exchange
rate for projects in TDR receiving areas (see below for discussion of these terms). Assessing the potential supply and demand of
TDR’s is important both in determining the feasibility of the program but also for determining the appropriate size and location of
sending and receiving sites.
Factors to Consider:
• The value of development rights in potential sending areas will be easiest to assess where there is a history of conservation
easements applied and/or development rights purchased in an area. Otherwise, the appraiser will need to compare land
values in the area and make a determination as to the percentage of land value that is attributable to development potential.
• Similarly, the value of development bonuses in TDR receiving areas can be determined by comparing sales data for
properties in the area with varying development limits. If adequate sales data is not available, an appraiser may need to
analyze hypothetical development prototypes to determine the value of TDR bonuses.
• The market study should include an overall assessment of how many TDR’s could be available for purchase
in sending areas vs. how many TDR’s might be desired in potential receiving areas. The program needs
to achieve a reasonable balance between supply and demand of TDR’s.
Packet Page 221 of 232
615 Second Ave, Suite 625 | Seattle, Washington 98104 | (206) 292-5907 | www.cascadeland.org | www.cascadeagenda.com
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
A critical early step in designing a TDR program is the identification and mapping of sending
areas from which development rights can be sold. Typically these areas include prime agricul-
tural lands, working forests and environmentally sensitive sites that a community wants to preserve.
Sending areas should be consistent with a jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan policies and map.
Factors to consider:
• Size: In determining the amount of land to be included in sending areas, attention should be paid to the number of TDR’s
which are likely to be transferred out of these areas and whether sufficient capacity is available in receiving areas to utilize
these credits.
• Priorities for preservation: Purchasing development rights from landowners in areas subject to the greatest
development pressure will be difficult; these properties will have the highest land values and the most pressure to convert
to development. Conversely, more remote properties with less development potential will be more likely to participate in
TDR programs because they have fewer options for conversion. Incentives, such as allocating additional development
rights in areas of high development pressure, or phasing the availability of sending areas, can be used to “even the playing
field” between various parts of the sending area. Similarly, extra development rights may be allocated to sites the public
considers most valuable for conservation, to encourage participation from these high priority sending sites.
• Partial TDR: Can a landowner sell a portion of the development rights on a sending site, or does the program allow
transactions only when all of the rights are sold from a participating site? This question will have to be resolved based on
the specific policy objectives of the program.
4. Designate Receiving Areas
Designating viable receiving areas to accept TDR’s from sending areas is one of the most important and sometimes vexing
aspects of creating a TDR program. Many programs strive to designate receiving areas which can
accommodate an equal or greater amount of TDR’s than the likely supply from sending areas. This
ensures that the full potential of the TDR program can be realized.
Receiving areas must be:
• Well served by infrastructure and public services.
• Subject to demand for more intensive development.
• Able to accommodate additional development without undo conflict with the neighborhood character of the receiving
area and adjacent neighborhoods.
• Sized to reflect a balance between sending and receiving areas.
3. Designate Sending Areas
Packet Page 222 of 232
615 Second Ave, Suite 625 | Seattle, Washington 98104 | (206) 292-5907 | www.cascadeland.org | www.cascadeagenda.com
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Other factors to consider in designating receiving areas:
• Developers will not be interested in purchasing development rights if they can achieve upzones or development bonuses
without TDR. Some jurisdictions have enacted downzones in receiving areas to create an added incentive to participate in
the TDR program; however this approach would not be politically acceptable everywhere and may generate legal disputes.
At a minimum, jurisdictions should avoid “give-always” where rezoning to allow higher intensity development is approved
without TDR provisions.
• The TDR bonus can be applied “by right” with purchase of the necessary rights, or it can be subject to discretionary review
through the development permit process. A discretionary review process can help protect existing neighborhood
character and insure that adequate infrastructure is in place; however such reviews reduce certainty and add time to the
permit review process and may dampen developer interest in TDR.
5. Update Zoning Regulations
Zoning regulations will need to be modified to incorporate the TDR concept. Receiving area zones must offer two options
for development: a baseline level which can be achieved without participating in TDR; and a bonus level to be achieved only if a
developer purchases the requisite number of TDR’s. Development bonuses can take many forms – they can include added height,
density, or number of dwelling units, or flexibility in the application of other development standards such as parking requirements
or maximum lot coverage. In some cases, jurisdictions allow the developer to choose from a menu of options as to how the bonus
is applied on-site so that it provides the maximum benefit to the project.
Sending areas are often located in unincorporated counties outside designated urban growth areas, but can also include
open space or environmentally sensitive areas within cities. Receiving areas may be located in either unincorporated urban areas
or in cities. The type and location of the receiving area has bearing on the process and mechanics of a TDR program. The primary
receiving site options include:
• Unincorporated county receiving sites/no major rezone required: for these receiving areas, only minor zoning
adjustments are needed to specify the increment of additional density allowed with TDR purchase. For example, a
residential zone allowing 6 units/acre might be allowed 8 units/acre with TDR. These are conceptually the simplest types of
TDR transactions.
• Unincorporated county sites/major projects: in these cases, a major project requiring significant zoning and
comprehensive plan changes is proposed in the unincorporated area. As part of a comprehensive plan change, the county
requires the developer to purchase TDR’s or pay a comparable development fee, established through site-specific
appraisal. In this way the county can capture some of the significant property value increase that such rezones generally
confer. Such projects must be carefully assessed to insure consistency with the county’s growth management plan.
• Incorporated city sites: receiving sites may be designated in incorporated cities, often requiring an inter-local
agreement between the city and county. Such receiving sites offer perhaps the best opportunity to shift development
from rural and resource lands to already urbanized areas. However, cities may be reluctant to take on
additional growth and density in their communities; incentives such as infrastructure or amenity funding
(provided by the county, state or other sources) may be needed to make this option more attractive.
Packet Page 223 of 232
615 Second Ave, Suite 625 | Seattle, Washington 98104 | (206) 292-5907 | www.cascadeland.org | www.cascadeagenda.com
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
6. Determine Allocation Rate for Sending Areas
The allocation rate is the number of TDR’s a landowner can sell per acre from a sending site. The more TDR’s a landowner
can sell, the greater the compensation he can expect to receive. Landowners will participate in a TDR transaction only when the
amount of compensation they receive from selling their development rights is at least as great as the loss of property value result-
ing from the permanent reduction in development potential on the site.
Options for allocating TDR’s:
• Allocation can be based solely on the acreage of a site and allowable zoning. One TDR would be issued for each
dwelling unit that is permitted under existing zoning; i.e., if 2 single family houses could be built on a 5 acre parcel, 2 TDR’s
would be allocated to the site.
• Allocations can be modified to reflect the development constraints and actual development potential of a
particular site. If the zoning allows 1 house per 2.5 acres, but environmental constraints and regulations would prohibit
development on ½ of the site, only 1 TDR would be allocated to the 5-acre site. Note that this approach requires
site-specific analysis of each potential sending site, adding expense and complexity to the process and limiting
participation, especially by smaller landowners.
• Extra TDR’s may be allocated to provide an incentive for landowners to participate in the program.
• If incentives are provided, the extra TDR’s may be allocated across-the-board to all sending areas, or may be tailored to
reflect the relative preservation value of various areas.
7. Determine the “Exchange Rate” for TDR Transactions
Terminology varies, but many programs refer to a “transfer ratio” as the relationship
between the number of TDR’s allocated to a site in the sending area and the amount of
development bonus achieved through the purchase of a TDR in receiving areas. This can
be as simple as 1:1 where one house “credit” in a single family sending area translates into one
additional house in a nearby single family receiving area.
However, the transfer ratio can become much more complicated when the sending and
receiving sites are zoned for different types of development or are subject to very different
market conditions. Often the “transfer” is actually a conversion of single family dwelling unit
credits into commercial floor area or multi-family units. To encompass these conversions as well as simple transfers, the term
“exchange rate” is proposed.
The exchange rate is determined by the allocation rate for TDR’s in sending areas and the amount/type of development bonus
offered per TDR in receiving areas.
Factors to consider:
• The goal of the exchange rate is to generate a TDR price which is attractive to both buyers and sellers. The allocation rate
for sending 19 March 2007sites and the development bonuses offered on receiving sites need to be carefully calibrated to
achieve this goal.
• When receiving areas are diverse (in terms of development type and/or the attractiveness of various
sites for development), establishing exchange rates can be difficult and complex. Transfer
mechanisms that allow for site-specific valuations of development value rather than general formulas
may be more appropriate in these instances.
Packet Page 224 of 232
615 Second Ave, Suite 625 | Seattle, Washington 98104 | (206) 292-5907 | www.cascadeland.org | www.cascadeagenda.com
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
8. Identify Transaction Types
There are several mechanisms available to accomplish TDR. Programs may allow for any or all of these approaches:
• Private transactions: Private transactions are the core of traditional TDR programs. With this mechanism, a willing
seller arranges to sell TDR’s to a willing buyer who proposes to build a project at the “bonus” level. Development approval
is contingent upon the developer completing the purchase of development rights and demonstrating that a conservation
easement has been placed on the sending site. Buyers and sellers must find each other and the sale/purchase occurs
simultaneously.
• TDR bank: A bank run by a local jurisdiction, regional government, or non-profit can be established to buy and sell
development rights. A TDR bank simplifies the transaction process, because buyers and sellers can execute transactions
with the bank instead of having to find each other. The bank can help to even out economic cycles, serving as the buyer “of
last resort” when a seller is ready to sell development rights, and selling TDR’s to a developer in a timely fashion when a
development is ready to proceed. TDR purchases and sales are handled independently; they do not need to occur
simultaneously.
• Conservation Fee: A TDR program can be structured so that developers pay a fee to achieve the higher densities/
heights allowable with a TDR bonus. The funds generated through these transactions go to the local jurisdiction or TDR
bank, which uses the funds to purchase development rights within sending areas. Conservation fees may be calculated
according to a formula which is based on a percentage of property value. Alternatively, for major development sites/
projects, a site-specific appraisal to determine the appropriate development fee is more appropriate.
• Private Investment Corporation: This is a variation of the “private transactions” option above. If the TDR program allows
development rights to be bought and held, rather than requiring immediate use by a TDR project, private investors may
be interested in buying the rights as an investment. A private corporation can be formed to purchase and hold
development rights as a commodity. Investors can acquire shares in the corporation either through an equity investment
or via contribution of their own development rights. The funds raised will be used to purchase additional development
rights, which will be held until they can be sold for a profit.
Packet Page 225 of 232
615 Second Ave, Suite 625 | Seattle, Washington 98104 | (206) 292-5907 | www.cascadeland.org | www.cascadeagenda.com
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
9. Establish TDR Bank (Option)
Many of the most successful TDR programs in the country have established a TDR bank to buy, sell and hold development
credits. In some of these programs, private transactions are still allowed, providing flexibility to buyers and sellers of develop-
ment rights. In other cases, the bank is the only mechanism for buying and selling development rights. In such cases, there is no
need to calculate exchange rates in order to create the proper market relationship between sending and receiving area values.
The bank can establish formulas to determine what it will pay for TDR’s and what it will sell them for under various circumstances.
The bank can focus its purchases of development rights in those areas of highest public priority for preservation. To kick-start the
program, some jurisdictions provide seed money to the bank for purchasing high priority development sites.
Advantages of a TDR Bank:
• Removes the need for buyers and sellers to find each other, and to execute a simultaneous buy/sell transaction.
• Promotes price stability and predictability.
• Allows for leveraging of public funds provided for PDR (purchase of development rights).
• Avoids the need for complex exchange rates. The bank can rely on real estate appraisals or derived formulas to determine
how much to pay for development rights and what is a reasonable sales price.
• In combination with the ability to negotiate direct private transactions, banks provide options to participants in TDR
programs. Those looking for a simple “one-stop” approach can go through the bank, while others willing to put in more
time and effort to get a more competitive price can negotiate private transactions.
10. Enact Legislation
A TDR ordinance needs to address:
• The identification and mapping of sending and receiving areas;
• TDR allocation rate for sending areas;
• Requirements for development restrictions to be recorded in conservation easements;
• Baseline zoning standards and TDR bonus standards;
• The review process for TDR projects in receiving areas; and
• Transaction mechanics: the types of transactions authorized.
11. Identify staff and other resources needed to administer TDR program
TDR staff – based at the local jurisdiction or TDR bank – will be needed to promote the program, educate landowners and
developers, facilitate transactions, ensure proper recording procedures, track TDR’s and provide leadership and advocacy. Proper
support for the TDR program can make the difference between a program that exists only on paper and one that generates many
TDR transactions.
12. Evaluate and Update Program
Changing market conditions can undermine the viability of a TDR program over time. Each program needs a
mechanism for ongoing monitoring and assessment of how well the program is meeting its goals.
Refining and re-calibrating the program may be needed over time.
Packet Page 226 of 232
www.cascadeagenda.com | www.cascadeland.org
Allocation rate:
An allocation rate is the number of development rights allocated to a sending site; i.e., the number of
rights which can potentially be sold from the site. The allocation rate may be greater than, less than or
equal to the amount of development allowed by zoning, depending on the goals of the TDR program
and need for incentives.
Appraisal:
An unbiased and systematic process of estimating the value of a property, whether it be market value,
insurable value, or other defined value of a specific parcel or property
.
Conservation easement:
A conservation easement is a legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust or government
agency that permanently limits uses of the land in order to protect its conservation values. It allows the
landowner to continue to own and use the land and to sell it or pass it on to heirs. Conservation ease-
ments are placed on a sending site at the time development rights are sold from the property. The
conservation easement typically prohibits any further development of the property but allows resource
uses such as farming and forestry to continue.
Development Bonus:
A development bonus is a zoning code provision that allows more intensive development in exchange
for provision of specific public benefit features, such as neighborhood amenities, affordable housing, or
purchase of TDR’s. Development bonuses often allow increased building height or density, but can
also include flexibility in use restrictions or other development standards. Developers have the option
of building to a “base” level of development established in the code, or taking advantage of the devel-
opment bonus by providing the benefit features specified.
Development Rights:
Land is thought of as real property and ownership extends to all aspects of the land, including minerals
below the ground surface, air above and the other resources located on the land. Owners of real prop-
erty also own development rights which allow development of that land in accordance with local land
use regulations. Development rights can be bought, sold, donated or otherwise transferred. Restric-
tions over a property’s development rights are usually recorded in a conservation easement.
Exchange Rate:
The exchange rate is the relationship between the number of development rights allocated to a send-
ing site (typically a specified number of single family dwelling units) and the amount of development
bonus available on a receiving site (which may be extra single family units, multi-family units, commer-
cial square footage, and/or flexibility in development standards). The term encompasses both simple
transfers of dwelling units from one site to another and more complex conversions of development
credits; it is therefore used in place of the term “transfer ratio” (see below).
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS GLOSSARY
Packet Page 227 of 232
www.cascadeagenda.com | www.cascadeland.org
Inter-local agreement:
An inter-local agreement is a legal contract between two or more local jurisdictions (cities and counties)
that specifies the conditions under which development credits may be transferred between jurisdictions
(typically from an unincorporated county into an incorporated city). Inter-local agreements must be en-
dorsed by the legislative bodies of both jurisdictions.
Purchase of Development Rights:
Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) refers to the removal of development potential from the parcel.
The development rights are purchased and then retired and a conservation easement is placed on the
parcel. PDR programs are generally used to protect resource and farmlands.
Receiving Areas:
Receiving areas are those sites eligible for development bonuses through the purchase of TDR’s. The
TDR program designates receiving areas, specifies the type and amount of bonus available on these
sites, and details the process for approval of projects using the TDR bonus.
Sending Areas
Sending areas are designated areas where landowners may sell their development rights in exchange
for placing a conservation easement on the property. Sending areas are typically agricultural lands,
forest areas, or environmentally sensitive sites.
Transfer ratio:
This term is used in many TDR programs to describe the numerical relationship between the amount of
development potential forgone on sending sites, and the amount of additional development allowed on
receiving sites. A 1:1 ratio means that the sending sites forego the same number of houses per acre
as the additional houses per acre allowed on receiving sites. It implies a simple transfer of dwelling
units from one area to another.
TDR Bank:
A TDR bank is an entity operated by a local jurisdiction, regional government, or private non-profit or-
ganization for the purpose of buying, selling and holding development rights. By providing a single
point of contact, a TDR bank can streamline the process for buyers and sellers of development rights.
Transaction types:
A TDR program can offer one or more transaction types, which are the various mechanisms available
for buying and selling development rights. The simplest transaction type is a private transaction be-
tween the owner of a sending site and the developer of a receiving site, executed at the time a TDR
development project is proposed. Other options include buying and selling development rights to/from
a TDR bank or a private investment corporation, or participating in a conservation credit/purchase of
development rights program run by the local city or county.
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS GLOSSARY
Packet Page 228 of 232
AM-1646 8.
Rejection of Bids for the Caspers/Ninth Avenue/North/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway
Project
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:07/01/2008
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:5 Minutes
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Rejection of all bids for the Caspers/Ninth Avenue North/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway
Project and authorization to rebid the project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize Staff to reject all bids for the Caspers/Ninth Avenue North/Puget Drive (SR524)
Walkway Project and authorize the rebid of the project in late fall of this year.
Previous Council Action
On May 6, 2008, Council autorized Staff to advertise for bids for the Caspers/Ninth Avenue
North/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project.
Narrative
On June 10, 2008, the City received two bids for the Caspers/Ninth Avenue North/Puget Drive
(SR524) Walkway Project. The apparent low bid was received from Dennis R. Craig
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $870,621.45, and the second bid was received from Trimaxx
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $903,000. The engineer's estimate for the project was
$660,243. Since the low bid was 30% over the engineer's estimate and there were only two
bidders, Staff believes that it would be prudent to rebid the project later this year when the bidding
climate may be more favorable.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/26/2008 02:34 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/26/2008 02:41 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/26/2008 02:47 PM APRV
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Started On: 06/25/2008 04:16
PM
Final Approval Date: 06/26/2008
Packet Page 229 of 232
Final Approval Date: 06/26/2008
Packet Page 230 of 232
AM-1645 9.
Appointment of Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek Watersheds Forum
Representatives
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:07/01/2008
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:5 Minutes
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Appointment of City representatives to the Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek Watershed
Forum.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council appoint primary and alternate representatives and a technical staff member to the Lake
Ballinger and McAleer Creek Watershed Forum.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the Lake Ballinger and McAleer Watershed Interlocal Agreement, as shown in
Consent Agenda Item E, each member jurisdiction is required to appoint a primary representative
and an alternate representative as members of the Watershed Forum. Under Section 4.1 of the
agreement, the representatives may be elected or appointed officials of the member jurisdiction.
In addition, a technical staff member needs to be appointed to serve on the staff committee. City
Staff recommends that the technical staff member be the City's Stormwater Engineering Program
Manager.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/26/2008 09:36 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 06/26/2008 09:50 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/26/2008 10:00 AM APRV
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Started On: 06/25/2008 03:46
PM
Final Approval Date: 06/26/2008
Packet Page 231 of 232
Packet Page 232 of 232