HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008.08.05 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
August 5, 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-1703 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 29, 2008.
C. AM-1706 Approval of claim checks #105843 through #106039 for July 31, 2008 in the amount of
$237,455.63.
D. AM-1694 Report on final construction costs for the Natural Gas Line Replacement Project and Council
acceptance of project.
E. AM-1702 Authorization for Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with Sanders and
Associates Inc. (SAI) for the outfall sediment sampling and analysis project. This consent agenda
item was not reviewed by a Council Committee.
F. AM-1696 Authorization to Advertise for Statements of Qualifications from consulting firms or
consultant teams to perform an Aquatics Center Feasibility Study.
G. AM-1700 Authorization to solicit quotes in excess of $50,000 for new South County Senior
Center kitchen equipment.
H. AM-1704 Proposed Resolution establishing criteria for use of the "Community Service Announcement"
portion of the City Council Agenda.
3. AM-1699
(30 Minutes)
Continued City Council deliberation on the Closed Record Review: Appeal of the
Hearing Examiner decision to deny the request by Steve Smith Development LLC,
represented by Jean Morgan of Morgan Design Group, to subdivide Arbor Court, a 1.27
acre parcel developed with 35 townhomes, into 35 fee-simple townhouse parcels. The site
is zoned Multiple Family Residential (RM-1.5) and is located at 23800 – 23824 Edmonds
Way. (File Nos. P-08-16 and APL-08-4)
4. AM-1697
(45 Minutes)
Public Hearing on the Planning Board's recommendation to amend Chapter 16.43
ECDC to incorporate design standards for the BD1 zone.
5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
Packet Page 1 of 247
6. AM-1673
(60 Minutes)
Continued discussion and potential action regarding the Downtown Master Plan Area -
Waterfront Antique Mall, Harbor Square and Skippers properties.
7. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
8. (15 Minutes)Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 247
AM-1703 2.B.
Approval of Draft 07-29-08 City Council Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:08/05/2008
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 July 29, 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: 07-29-08 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 11:53 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/31/2008 01:03 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 01:26 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 07/31/2008 11:52
AM
Final Approval Date: 07/31/2008
Packet Page 3 of 247
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
July 29, 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
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember (arrived 7:05 p.m.)
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Mike Clugston, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Haakenson advised Item 3, Swearing In Ceremony for Corporal Damian Smith, would be rescheduled
next month. He requested replacing that item on tonight’s agenda with a report on PCC Market.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember
Orvis was not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councilmember Orvis was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2008.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #105682 THROUGH #105842 FOR JULY 24, 2008 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,031,103.25.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM WILLIAM DAVID
BARNUM & CHERYL BARNUM (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED.
E. APPROVAL OF 2008 TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR YELLOW CAB OF
WASHINGTON.
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 4 WITH
CH2M HILL FOR OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE WATER MAIN AND SEWER LATERALS
PROJECT.
G. ORDINANCE NO. 3692 - AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 OF ORDINANCE
NO. 3691 IN ORDER TO INSERT A HEARING DATE.
Packet Page 4 of 247
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 2
With regard to Public Service Announcements, Council President Plunkett advised an ordinance providing the
necessary structure for public service announcements as part of the Council’s agenda would be scheduled on a
future Council agenda.
3. REPORT ON PCC MARKET
Mayor Haakenson recalled Councilmember Wambolt requested staff provide a report on the progress of PCC.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained PCC Market would be occupying the space of the
former Albertson’s store at Westgate. He reported that an interior demolition permit was issued in December
2007. An application for administrative architectural design review was approved in January 2008 that included
the building exterior remodel such as the new required trash enclosure, and bio-retention areas. Signage is
under review via a separate permit for signage. A shell core permit including structural alteration was issued in
February 2008; a tenant improvement permit was issued in April 2008; secondary permits such as plumbing,
mechanical, fire sprinkler, fire alarm, sign, grease interceptor, side sewer have also been issued. The permit
applications have been submitted for the fire suppression system for the commercial cooking hoods and are
currently under review.
The Architectural Design Board (ADB) approved a package for project signage on April 18, 2008; the approval
included the proposed sign package for building and site signage and artwork. A permit application for
alteration of the parking lot for bio-retention area, rain gardens, is currently under review. A permit application
for the rainwater harvesting system that includes the cistern tank is also currently under review. The permit
application was received on June 19, 2008; on July 11, 2008, a complaint was filed regarding the installation of
the cistern without first obtaining permits. The City’s Building Inspector verified the tank had been installed
and a stop work order was issued on July 11, 2008 for the tank. A fine for doing work without an approved
permit will be assessed when the permit is issued.
On June 30, 2008 a complaint was received regarding cutting of trees on the north corner of the sidewalk on
100th Avenue. Upon investigation, staff determined a total of three trees were cut, trees that were part of the
approved landscape plan for the former Albertson’s store, which was in violation of the City’s code. A letter
was sent to PCC on July 1, 2008 notifying of the violation and a $500 per tree fine was levied for a total of
$1500. The fine was subsequently paid by PCC and an ADB application for an updated landscape plan was
submitted with double application fees assessed due to the violation.
PCC’s updated landscape plan shows the removal of a total of 13 trees throughout the site including the 3 trees
already removed and 27 new trees planted. On July 22, 2008 a complaint was received regarding the trash
enclosure in the setback on the west side of the building. The trash enclosure was shown on the approved plans
for the project and reviewed under the earlier ADB design review. The trash enclosure walls are considered a
fence and are permitted within the setback area consistent with City code requirements. An application for ADB
review of the landscape plan for the site was reviewed and approved on July 23, 2008. The review included
integration of the rainwater collection system and trash enclosure into the landscaping, the removal of a total of
13 trees from the site and replanting of 27 new trees.
4. SECOND READING: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON GRANTING A
NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO VERIZON NORTHWEST, INC. TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN,
OPERATE AND REPAIR A CABLE SYSTEM TO PROVIDE CABLE SERVICES IN, ACROSS, OVER,
ALONG, UNDER, UPON, THROUGH AND BELOW THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF THE CITY
OF EDMONDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3693. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 5 of 247
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 3
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE PROPOSED FRANCHISE AGREEMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW: APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO DENY THE
REQUEST BY STEVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT LLC, REPRESENTED BY JEAN MORGAN OF
MORGAN DESIGN GROUP, TO SUBDIVIDE ARBOR COURT, A 1.27 ACRE PARCEL DEVELOPED
WITH 35 TOWNHOMES, INTO 35 FEE-SIMPLE TOWNHOUSE PARCELS. THE SITE IS ZONED
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-1.5) AND IS LOCATED AT 23800 – 23824 EDMONDS WAY.
(FILE NOS. P-08-16 AND APL-08-4).
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised because the Council had not been provided a copy of the verbatim
transcript, it would be necessary for the Council to have an opportunity to review the transcript before rendering
a final decision. The Council could hear from the parties tonight and continue the closed record review to a later
date following the Council’s review of the transcript or postpone the matter entirely.
Council President Plunkett preferred to hear the matter tonight and continue Council deliberation to a later date.
Councilmember Dawson anticipated the parties would need to return for Council deliberation to answer any
questions and asked whether the parties preferred to have the hearing in two parts or have the hearing at one
time.
Jean Morgan, representing Steve Smith Development LLC, asked the date of the continued hearing. Mayor
Haakenson answered it would be next Tuesday, August 5. Ms. Morgan advised they would be available.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether the parties would prefer to have the entire hearing at one time or have
testimony tonight and return for questions based on Council’s review of the record. Ms. Morgan advised they
would prefer to proceed tonight and return next week if needed.
For Councilmember Bernheim, Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would take testimony this evening and
delay deliberation until next Tuesday. No further public comment from parties of records would be taken next
week and following the Council’s review of the verbatim transcript, the Council would ask questions and
deliberate next week. Mr. Snyder clarified because this a closed record review, there was no testimony, only
oral argument based on the existing record. He suggested the Council have an opportunity to review the record
before asking questions to avoid going outside the record. He recommended proceeding with oral argument and
comments from parties of record and continuing the hearing to a date certain. He noted the Council may find
their questions were answered via the transcript and he did not want to invite matters outside the record via
Council questions.
Councilmember Wambolt inquired whether he could ask questions of staff. Mr. Snyder advised staff was
limited to referencing relevant areas in the record. Mayor Haakenson commented it appeared it would be
preferable to hold all questions until next week. Mr. Snyder answered it would be neater but it was up to the
Council. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether staff could respond to questions via email. Mr. Snyder
responded staff could not respond via email as Council deliberations needed to occur within the context of the
Council Chambers. Mr. Snyder commented he was more comfortable with the Council asking questions of staff
because staff understood they were limited to what was in the record. He suggested it would be more orderly
for the Council to review the record to determine if their questions were addressed in the record and ask
questions at one time. Council President Plunkett agreed it would be more orderly to take testimony tonight and
take questions next week.
Observing this was a quasi judicial matter, Mayor Haakenson asked whether under the Appearance of Fairness
Doctrine any Councilmember had any conflicts or ex parte communication to disclose regarding the hearing.
He read the list of parties of record: Northwest Townhomes, Steve Smith Development LLC, Jean Morgan, Al
Rutledge and Roger Hertrich.
Packet Page 6 of 247
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 4
Councilmember Dawson disclosed that one of the parties of record supported her campaign in the past and one
was her opponent in the last campaign but that would not affect her decision.
Councilmember Orvis disclosed his father lived near the site but that would not affect his decision.
Councilmember Wambolt disclosed Mr. Hertrich contributed to his campaign but that would not affect his views
in this matter.
Council President Plunkett disclosed Mr. Hertrich called him to ask a procedural question; before proceeding
with the conversation, both acknowledged they could not talk about substantive matters. He relayed Mr.
Hertrich’s question, why was the Hearing Examiner not present.
Councilmember Orvis advised Mr. Hertrich contributed to his campaign but it would not affect his decision.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether the four Councilmembers who made disclosures felt they were capable of
making a decision without any bias. Councilmembers Dawson, Orvis, and Wambolt and Council President
Plunkett advised they could. Mayor Haakenson asked whether any of the parties of record had any objection to
the participation of any of the four Councilmembers. There were no objections voiced.
Mayor Haakenson established time limits for staff and applicant presentations, 10 minutes for staff and 20
minutes for the applicant.
Planner Mike Clugston explained the applicant applied for design review of the project in February 2007. After
a public hearing, the 35-unit project received ADB approval in June 2007. In November 2007 the applicant
applied for building permits to redevelop the site. At this time the building permits are under review. In March
2008 the applicant applied for a formal plat subdivision to create fee-simple lots associated with each of the
residential units. The formal plat review process was based on the concept of a townhouse subdivision for
multi-family developments. The townhouse review process is based on a formal staff interpretation from 2003
which was not appealed and has been in effect since that date. Since the Interpretation was issued, the process
has been used several times and those formal plat subdivisions were approved by former Hearing Examiners as
well as the current Hearing Examiner.
For this project, staff prepared a report recommending the Hearing Examiner approve the townhouse
subdivision with conditions. A public hearing on the proposed subdivision was held on May 15, 2008. The
Hearing Examiner subsequently denied preliminary plat approval. Three Requests for Reconsideration were
filed in a timely manner. The Hearing Examiner reviewed the requests and upheld the denial.
In their appeal, the applicant requests the Council reverse the Hearing Examiner’s denial of the proposed 35-lot
formal plat. They maintain that the plat as originally proposed and as further clarified in their Reconsideration
meets the criteria for approval of a townhouse subdivision.
In their reconsideration request, staff also raised concerns noting that a number of similar projects have
previously been approved using the townhouse model. Staff raised these concerns and others in the City’s
Reconsideration Request and while the Hearing Examiner did not reverse entirely, she agreed that her
understanding regarding the minimum lot area requirements for multi-family developments had been in error.
That concern, minimum lot size, is no longer at issue.
Mr. Clugston pointed out the townhouse subdivision process exists only to create fee-simple lots in multi-family
developments. The buildings the applicant has proposed were approved by the ADB and can receive building
permits as long as they meet the required building and zoning codes. The proposed structures are currently
being reviewed for building permits. If approved, and without the subdivision, the applicant could build the
Packet Page 7 of 247
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 5
proposed multi-family structures and either rent them or create condominiums. The other option, as intended by
the townhouse subdivision process, is to create what are in essence single-family ownership opportunities in the
development rather than having a rental or condominium situation. Staff recommends the Council consider the
appeal and following next week’s deliberation either, 1) affirm, modify or reverse the Hearing Examiner’s
decision to deny the subdivision, or 2) remand the application back to the Hearing Examiner for additional
consideration or clarification, with the Council specifying the items or issues to be considered.
City Clerk Sandy Chase distributed copies of the verbatim minutes of the Hearing Examiner public hearing to
the Council. Council President Plunkett clarified the verbatim minutes were being distributed for the Council’s
future review.
Jay Young, owner, Steve Smith Development LLC, explained over the past five years they have successfully
built townhouse projects similar to Arbor Court and the type described in the Edmonds townhouse ordinance in
Seattle, Shoreline, Juanita and Bellevue. He described their intent to build a well designed, infill housing
product, affordable to workforce buyers. He explained there was no difference between a condominium project
and a townhouse project; they preferred to build townhouses because a fee-simple townhouse was a more
desirable product and it was less expensive to build as it did not require a homeowners association or expensive
condominium liability insurance and were more attractive to first time homebuyers because they are less
expensive, easier to finance and do not have homeowners’ dues.
This site was advertised for sale as a development site; in 2006 they negotiated a purchase and sale agreement
that included a feasibility period that would provide enough time for due diligence. During the feasibility
period, they held a pre-application meeting with the City, meeting with a City planner and officials from the
Building, Fire, Engineering and Water Departments. They had the property surveyed, met with the Department
of Transportation, did an environmental review and conducted soil sampling. Based on the results of their pre-
application meeting with the City and favorable findings from all the experts they hired, they proceeded with
purchase of the property and the application process to obtain a building permit and subdivision. Now two years
later after working diligently with the Planning and Building Departments, spending tens of thousands on
professional fees to design and engineer this project to meet the code and current townhouse ordinance, and
obtaining approval of the ADB and the City Planning Department, the Hearing Examiner denied their
subdivision application. And after developing a comprehensive point-by-point appeal, the Hearing Examiner
again denies their appeal.
He summarized they had done everything according to the City’s code, hired the most competent experts, and
adhered to the process as presented. He emphasized they were not requesting any variances, rezones, departures
or special favors; their project mirrors the other townhouse projects recently approved and constructed. He
expressed frustration that it did not matter what the Planning Department said with regard to a townhouse
subdivision, its fate relied solely on the interpretation of an independent Hearing Examiner who in their opinion,
did not accurately apply the Edmonds townhouse ordinance.
Jean Morgan, architect, President, Morgan Design Group, commented in the 20 years she has been
designing single family and multi family homes in King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties, she had never
encountered a situation where a Hearing Examiner overturned a formal code interpretation. She noted architects
rely on City municipal and land use codes and clarification from City Planners in order to prepare site layouts.
They conducted their due diligence including meeting with City Planners, Engineers, the Fire Marshal, and
WSDOT multiple times. At no time was it ever indicated that this type of project could not be built as proposed
on this site. In September they were provided a copy of Michel Construction’s recently approved townhouse
plat to use as a guideline; they designed their project using the same setbacks. She identified the four internal
driveways in the project with no setback from the road, and 24-foot access road with no internal setback. She
concluded that without consistency in how codes and regulations were applied project to project and reliance on
code interpretations by Planners, it was impossible for architects, developers or landowners to know how or
what they are able to build in Edmonds.
Packet Page 8 of 247
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 6
Megan Nelson, attorney, GordonDerr, Seattle, explained in this instance, the Hearing Examiner had
overturned a well considered, formal code interpretation five years after the fact. The Hearing Examiner
second-guessed the subdivision recommendation of City staff, ignored the bad policy outcomes as a result of her
decision and contradicted legal doctrines supported by Washington case law. Ms. Nelson requested the Council
reverse the Hearing Examiner’s decision and approve the Arbor Court townhouse plat. She provided the facts,
public policy and law that should lead the Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner’s decision in this matter.
She explained in 2003 the City’s Planning Division issued its formal code interpretation, known as the
townhouse subdivision policy. This formal code interpretation found that interior building and street setback
requirements were not applicable to townhouse subdivisions. This interpretation was not appealed and therefore
became the City’s final authorized code interpretation. Over the past five years the City has approved several
townhouse developments based on this formal code interpretation and last year this same Hearing Examiner
affirmed the townhouse subdivision policy in her approval of the Michel Construction plat. In relying on this
policy, past approvals and the assurance of the City Planning Division, the applicant submitted their application
for the Arbor Court plat.
As outlined in the staff report, approval of the plat was recommended; staff found the applicant’s proposal
complied with the subdivision ordinance, the City’s code and flood plain management provisions. Despite this
recommendation, the Hearing Examiner denied the applicant’s plat. Both the Planning Division and the
applicant filed motions for reconsideration based on the formal code interpretation which allows plats such as
the applicant proposed. On reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner for a second time disregarded the Planning
Division’s request and rejected the townhouse subdivision policy.
If the Council affirmed the Hearing Examiner’s decision, Ms. Nelson asserted it would set a bad precedent and
would set a poor public policy for the City. First, the Hearing Examiner’s decision paralyzes the Planning
Division; the Edmonds Municipal Code grants the Planning Division the authority to issue formal code
interpretations. Such interpretations are appealable to the Hearing Examiner; this interpretation was not
appealed. The Examiner’s decision places into question the authority of the Planning Division to issue such
interpretations. She questioned the incentive for the Planning Division to issue future interpretations if such
decisions could not be relied upon by property owners, pointing out the Department could not move forward
with any townhouse subdivisions until the application of interior setback requirements to townhouses was
clarified. Second, the Examiner’s decision jeopardizes development within the City; by removing certainty
within the planning process, property owners can no longer rely on formal code interpretations even decisions
issued five years ago and relied upon in other projects. The City will suffer if property owners are unable to
develop their land without reasonable certainty.
Third, the Hearing Examiner’s decision is contrary to previously approved townhouse projects. The Hearing
Examiner approved the very similar Michel Construction plat that relies on this policy. She noted there are no
discernable, factual differences between the two plats; the internal access road is actually wider in the
applicant’s plat as compared to the Michel Construction plat. Fourth, the Examiner’s decision violates the
City’s infill related goals; the staff indicates the applicant’s project exemplifies designed infill as stated as a
policy goal in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The site is to be redeveloped from 12 units to 35 units, a more
efficient use of a previously zoned multi family parcel. The Examiner’s decision undermines the City’s
Comprehensive Plan goal of providing infill development consistent with neighborhood character based on
streamlined permitting, flexible standards, and improved design guidelines by impeding infill development.
Fifth, the Examiner’s decision is fundamentally unfair to the applicant. Developers must be able to determine
the rules that govern their development. In this case the applicant relied on a five year old townhouse
subdivision policy, several prior townhouse subdivision approvals, the Michel Construction plat and the
assurances of the City’s Planning Division. But the rules were changed and the reasonable expectations of Steve
Smith Development have been violated. The Hearing Examiner’s decisions are contrary to the outcome
Packet Page 9 of 247
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 7
recommended by City staff. The staff report recommended approval of the plat. The Planning Division’s
motion for reconsideration stated its strong disagreement with the Examiner’s denial of the plat and requested
she revisit her decision regarding the townhouse subdivision policy. The Examiner ignored the Planning
Division’s requests and denied the applicant’s plat.
Ms. Nelson commented the Examiner’s rejection of the City’s townhouse subdivision policy and resulting
denial of the applicant’s plat are without legal basis. She referred to legal arguments in their motion for
reconsideration, identifying the applicable legal doctrines, the doctrine of collateral estoppel and legislative
acquiesce. She explained collateral estoppel prohibits the re-litigation of a previously adjudicated legal issue; in
this case the legal issue of permitted exception from interior setback for townhouse subdivision has already been
decided and the Examiner cites no legal authority to reexamine the validity of the townhouse subdivision policy.
The doctrine of legislative acquiesce recognizes after an extended period of time, in this case five years, a rule
adopted by a governmental agency is deemed acquiesced to by the legislative branch. Again, the Examiner cites
no authority allowing departure from this doctrine.
Ms. Nelson summarized the Hearing Examiner’s decisions resulted in bad public policy, are contrary to the
City’s Planning Division recommendations and are unsupported by law. For those reasons, she requested the
Council reverse the Hearing Examiner’s decision and approve the applicant’s subdivision. She noted the City’s
Request for Reconsideration stated a condition could be placed upon the subdivision approval which would
allow certain technical issues to be revisited during review of building permits. The applicant is amenable to
including such a condition on any future subdivision approval.
Mayor Haakenson invited parties of record to provide comment.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to Hearing Examiner finding #28 regarding his comments about the site not
being included in the City’s stormwater plan.
There were no other parities of record who wished to speak and Mayor Haakenson closed the opportunity for
participation by parties of record.
Ms. Nelson did not offer any rebuttal to Mr. Rutledge’s comments.
Councilmember Wambolt asked why the Hearing Examiner was not represented at the meeting. Mr. Snyder
explained the Hearing Examiner was a decision-maker, not a party to the matter. Her opinion as written speaks
for itself and typically a judge was not questioned at a later proceeding.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, TO
CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO AUGUST 5.
Councilmember Bernheim asked if Councilmembers could submit questions in writing prior to the meeting. Mr.
Snyder answered yes as long as they were placed in the record and there was no response outside the meeting.
He reminded staff was only able to cite the record or indicate the information was not contained in the record.
Mr. Snyder clarified a Councilmember could provide written questions to allow the applicant and/or staff to
respond, however, no response should occur outside the record and any written comments would be entered into
the record at the next proceeding. He noted staff could prepare a written response that could be included in the
Council packet; however, no discussion may occur outside the record or proceeding.
Councilmember Orvis requested the verbatim minutes be included in the packet for next week’s meeting.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 10 of 247
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 8
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING BOARD TO DENY A
PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM “DOWNTOWN MIXED
COMMERCIAL” TO EITHER (1) “DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL OFFICE” OR (2) “MULTI FAMILY
– HIGH DENSITY” AT 110 SUNSET AVE. N. (FILE NO. AMD-07-16).
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan map at 110 Sunset
Avenue was referred to the Planning Board by the Council. The Planning Board held a public hearing and
recommended the Council not approve the change in the zoning. The Planning Board agreed with staff’s
analysis that possibly in the future some transition would be appropriate for the area but changing the
designation of this particular area was not appropriate as it would be an intrusion into the consistent commercial
corridor along Main Street. The Planning Board also felt it was not appropriate to extend further north as those
properties are currently zoned single family and there has not been any interest expressed by property owners
for any change. The Planning Board was also concerned it could create a situation that compromised the
existing transition. The Planning Board felt the OR zone was specifically tailored to a topographical situation
on the west side of Sunset as identified in the Comprehensive Plan and it was not appropriate for these
properties.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing, noting the Council received
documents from Alan Young related to the public hearing. Mr. Chave advised the documents provided by Mr.
Young were circulated to the Planning Board and were not returned to staff for inclusion into the record.
Harold Huston, Edmonds, commented he has no problem with the property owner. The house on 110 Sunset
was built in 1948 and had been a residential house for over 60 years, prior to the inception of the City’s first
zoning map in 1956. He relayed before he made his proposal, he discussed it with Councilmembers and did not
feel there was any opposition. Two senior planners concurred with his proposal and one suggested a
moratorium on development of the lot until the Planning Board completed their review. He expressed concern
with a Planning Board Member’s question at the July 29 public hearing regarding the Council’s authority to
refer this proposal to the Planning Board, pointing out the Planning Board served at the pleasure of the Council
and the Council was elected by the citizens. He recalled Mr. Chave’s suggestion at the September 21 Planning
Board that he consider proposing a multi-family zoning designation for the subject parcel to provide appropriate
transition. He expressed opposition to another mega building in Edmonds, noting the street was one of the
busiest in Edmonds.
Alan Young, Edmonds, owner of the subject property, requested the Council uphold the Planning Board’s
recommendation to deny the rezone. He noted there had been no communication with him in 20 months since
this began in October 2006 until June 27, 2008. He expressed concern that the Comprehensive Plan amendment
was proposed by Mr. Huston who was not involved until he purchased his condominium. Mr. Huston signed the
purchase and sale agreement knowing he (Mr. Young) owned the property in front. Mr. Young recalled on
October 1, 2006, 17 days before the Planning Board meeting, Mr. Huston took possession of the property. Then
at the October 18, 2006 Planning Board hearing, there was only three sentences regarding the proposed
amendment and 20 months later he learned of the proposed amendment for his property. He urged the Council
to deny the proposed amendment, noting he purchased the property to preserve his view.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented the Planning Board meetings and items to be discussed were posted on the
City’s website and the community was aware of the meetings.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Wambolt asked if there was a loophole in the City’s procedures that the property owner was not
notified when someone else proposed a rezone of their property. Mr. Chave answered this was a very unusual
situation regarding an individual property. In the past there have been proposals for groups of properties;
however, it was extremely unusual to target one property. He explained notifications were typically
Packet Page 11 of 247
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 9
accomplished for the public hearing and there was not a process for informing property owners of informal
discussions without a formal proposal. He suggested discussing with City Attorney Scott Snyder who could
propose an amendment. Historically the codes have not required an ownership interest; Comprehensive Plan
amendments were a legislative decision and did not require an ownership interest. He noted this had not
occurred since he had been employed by the City.
Councilmember Wambolt commented it was not reasonable to expect a property owner to review the City’s
meeting agendas to determine if their property was being discussed. Mr. Chave commented Mr. Young
received notification and attended both Planning Board hearings. He acknowledged Mr. Young’s frustration
that a property owner should be informed if their property was the subject of discussion.
On behalf of the Council, Councilmember Wilson offered Mr. Young an apology that this had progressed this
far without his being notified. Councilmember Wilson asked staff to identify what could be constructed under
the existing BD2 zoning versus the new zone. Mr. Chave advised the existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning
would allow a broad range of downtown commercial uses up to a height of 25 or 30 feet. The OR
Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning has a cap of 25 feet and additional setback requirements not found
in the BD2 zone. The multi family zones allow 25 plus 5 feet with specific pitched roof requirements to achieve
a height above 25 feet. The multi family zones also allow multi family uses versus commercial which was one
of the Planning Board’s major concerns.
Councilmember Wilson asked if this was a spot rezone. Mr. Chave answered it was technically not a spot
rezone as there were adjacent similar uses. The difficulty was that it negates/impinges on the pattern of use on
Main Street. He noted the maps illustrate a consistent line that demarks the border between commercial and
other uses. While technically not a spot rezone, it was a change in the pattern that was not warranted. Mr.
Snyder referred to it as “ad hoc zoning creep,” noting zoning creep referred to changes that did not follow a
logical boundary.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
UPHOLD THE PLANNING BOARD DECISION TO DENY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the agenda memo did not refer to the Planning Board’s reasons for
denying the proposed amendment and suggested in the future there be specific findings and conclusions.
Councilmember Wilson appreciated Mr. Huston’s concern with regard to traffic and maintaining his view,
noting one option may be to approach Mr. Young with a proposal to purchase the development rights on the
property above a certain height.
Councilmember Wambolt acknowledged Mr. Huston would be disappointed but agreed with the Planning
Board’s unanimous decision. He relayed the Planning Board’s suggestion that if there was to be a transition
zone, it should be further north. He concurred with the Planning Board’s reasoning.
Councilmember Orvis noted Mr. Young purchased the property to protect his views, suggesting the common
goals of the two parties could be achieved without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He encouraged Mr.
Young to consider the difference in the zoning, noting although BC appears to have more development
potential, it has stringent commercial standards that may be counter to the property’s value. He did not agree
with the Planning Board’s concern regarding the depth of the commercial, noting the lots would need to be
combined before that would be an issue as the current depth of the commercial would be measured from Sunset.
Council President Plunkett found this a difficult decision in view of Mr. Huston’s long history of community
involvement and his 40 year friendship. However, based on the facts and in the community’s interest, he would
support the motion.
Packet Page 12 of 247
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 10
Councilmember Dawson did not support the motion, commenting the zoning creep was the result of this parcel’s
commercial zoning. She found it more appropriate to zone the property residential or business/office and found
it peculiar that it was zoned in the current manner.
UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND
COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, WAMBOLT, AND WILSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
BERNHEIM, ORVIS AND DAWSON OPPOSED.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Dave Page, Edmonds, commented most other counties believe the United States has a democratic form of
government by majority rule. He referred to his earlier comments regarding the protection of several species
over humans, noting the Porcupine Caribou was recently protected to prevent drilling in the artic. He noted the
Porcupine Caribou population that live under the Prudhoe Bay pipeline have increased 900% due to the warmth
from the pipeline. He commented to other counties it may appear the people of the United States would rather
protect fish, birds and animals than Homo sapiens, spend billions on foreign oil rather than use their own
resources and fight wars on foreign soil rather than use their own resources.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, recommended keeping the potential property purchase in front of the public. Next, he
commented on the continuation of the case regarding the former Woodway Elementary School property. He
encouraged the public to attend the Taste of Edmonds on August 8-10.
Don Hall, Edmonds, referred to the Council’s upcoming discussion regarding the property at 190 Sunset and
the former Skipper’s property, suggesting the Council may be premature in making a decision regarding which
path to follow. The owners have not made a specific proposal or design plan although there has been a great
deal of speculation. He suggested delaying any action such as obtaining an appraisal until the property owners’
proposals were made public and a determination could be made regarding how it would benefit or hurt the City.
If the Council chose the path of the City developing the properties, he urged full funding from start to finish,
recalling past plans that did were not funded such as the downtown street lighting, Arts Corridor, and many
other projects. He reiterated his request to discontinue the use of plastic bags.
Harold Huston, Edmonds, commended the City’s employees and the Mayor who also acts as the City
Manager. He expressed frustration with the amount of time staff must spend with citizens he called
“nitpickers.” He spoke favorably regarding the Planning Division, pointing out even if a person did not like an
individual, they should respect the position. He respected staff who were doing a job for the City and he was
proud to live in Edmonds.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson reported on the activities at Edmonds Night Out, expressing his appreciation to the Edmonds
Police Foundation who sponsored the event. He next announced the City’s annual document shredding event
will be held on August 23 at TOP Foods from 9:00 a.m. to Noon.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Plunkett referred to Item 6 where a single property owner was the subject of a Comprehensive
Plan amendment and there did not appear to be any rules that he receive special notice. He inquired whether the
Community Services/Development Services Committee wanted to take up this issue or have staff provide a
recommendation. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised revisions to the City’s procedures had been drafted to
simplify and provide great guidance to the public but not yet been presented to the Planning Board due to their
workload. He suggested adding notification of a Comprehensive Plan amendment that was instituted by
Packet Page 13 of 247
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 11
someone other than the property owner to those revisions. Council President Plunkett requested staff investigate
when the Planning Board could consider the revisions.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to Dr. Senderoff’s comments regarding his editorial in the Edmonds Beacon.
With regard to Dr. Senderoff’s concern with the use of subjective language, Councilmember Wambolt suggested
he be similarly concerned about being factual, noting he made several errors last week. First, the owners of the
old Safeway and Skippers did not purchase the properties with the intention of waiting until taller buildings
were allowed; they would like taller buildings but are proceeding with code-compliant projects. The Skipper’s
property was acquired December 2007. Second, Dr. Senderoff alleged he campaigned for election saying he
would not change the building code. Councilmember Wambolt stated this was untrue, the central plank in his
platform was his opposition to taller buildings downtown. That objective was accomplished with the
establishment of the BD zones in 2006; he was the fourth vote on the Council that made that possible. Third,
Dr. Senderoff said he had chosen to side with developers and not citizens, who Dr. Senderoff believed the
majority favored the City purchasing the property. Councilmember Wambolt noted there were an abundance of
citizens on both sides of the issue and the Enterprise newspaper stated its opposition to the purchase in an
editorial last week. Fourth, in response to Dr. Senderoff’s statement that it was speculation that the property
purchase would be combined on the ballot with other items, Councilmember Wambolt assured that would be
decided by the City Council and he was in a better position to assess Council views than Dr. Senderoff.
Councilmember Wambolt summarized the Council welcomed citizen comments but urged them to be factual.
Councilmember Dawson concurred tonight’s Edmonds Night Out celebration was great, expressing her
appreciation for the community’s support of the event, particularly in the poor weather. She pointed out
Edmonds has its Night Out Celebration on a different night than other cities/counties; the other Night Out
celebrations are next Tuesday including one hosted by the Snohomish County Executive’s office at McCollum
Park.
Councilmember Wilson reported Stevens Hospital has put on hold any plans to sell the hospital and is
considering a ballot measure. It was conveyed to him by Commissioners, employees and union members that
one of the actions with the most impact in the past few months was the Edmonds City Council’s resolution and
they expressed their appreciation for the Council’s leadership and attention to the matter.
10. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Packet Page 14 of 247
AM-1706 2.C.
Approval of Claim Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:08/05/2008
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 #105843 through #106039 for July 31, 2008 in the amount of
$237,455.63.
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:$237,455.63
Fiscal Impact:
Claims: $237,455.63
Attachments
Link: Claim Cks 7-31-08
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 07/31/2008 02:09 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 02:10 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/31/2008 02:27 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 02:28 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Started On: 07/31/2008 01:14
PM
Final Approval Date: 07/31/2008
Packet Page 15 of 247
Packet Page 16 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105843 7/31/2008 041695 3M XAM3522 TP12194 STREET - PROTECTIVE OVERLAY FILM 30" X
STREET - PROTECTIVE OVERLAY FILM 30" X
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 461.25
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 41.06
STREET - 1 ROLL WHT DIAMOND GRADETP12195
STREET - 1 ROLL WHT DIAMOND GRADE
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 326.25
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 29.05
Total :857.61
105844 7/31/2008 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 256697 RODENT CONTROL
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE~
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 81.68
RODENT CONTROL256738
RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 92.55
Total :174.23
105845 7/31/2008 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND AUGUST 2008 KENNELING SERVICES/AUGUST 2008 - EDMONDS
AUGUST 2008/KENNELING SVCS.
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 1,921.23
Total :1,921.23
105846 7/31/2008 062423 ADPRO LITHO INC 71606 City Newsletter - July 2008
City Newsletter - July 2008
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 3,260.00
Sales Tax
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 290.14
Total :3,550.14
105847 7/31/2008 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 08-354 JANITORIAL
JANITORIAL
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00
1Page:
Packet Page 17 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :334.00105847 7/31/2008 071177 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES
105848 7/31/2008 065568 ALLWATER INC 072408041 COEWASTE
DRINKING WATER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 22.90
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 0.98
Total :23.88
105849 7/31/2008 065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE 2033 TREE REMOVAL
REMOVAL OF TREES & BRANCHES AT PINE
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 700.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 52.80
Total :752.80
105850 7/31/2008 069751 ARAMARK 655-3792413 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
105851 7/31/2008 069751 ARAMARK 655-3792416 18386001
UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 97.51
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.68
Total :106.19
105852 7/31/2008 069751 ARAMARK 655-3754544 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
2Page:
Packet Page 18 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105852 7/31/2008 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29
FLEET UNIFORM SVC / WITH $56.63 IN655-3763660
FLEET UNIFORM SVC / WITH $56.63 IN
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 24.27
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 2.16
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-3763662
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-3774472
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.60
3Page:
Packet Page 19 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105852 7/31/2008 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
PW ADMIN MATS655-3776414
PW ADMIN MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.75
PW ADMIN MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 6.65
PW ADMIN MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 6.65
PW ADMIN MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 6.65
PW ADMIN MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 6.65
PW ADMIN 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
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-3783389
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.60
4Page:
Packet Page 20 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105852 7/31/2008 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
PW ADMIN MATS655-3785368
PW ADMIN MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.75
PW ADMIN MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 6.65
PW ADMIN MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 6.65
PW ADMIN MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 6.65
PW ADMIN MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 6.65
PW ADMIN 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
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-3792414
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.60
5Page:
Packet Page 21 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105852 7/31/2008 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
PW ADMIN MATS655-3794276
PW ADMIN MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.75
PW ADMIN MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 6.65
PW ADMIN MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 6.65
PW ADMIN MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 6.65
PW ADMIN MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 6.65
PW ADMIN 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
Total :287.03
105853 7/31/2008 072322 ARBOR VILLA LLC Bld 07-43,44,45,46 Refund for Bld 2007-0043,0044,0045,0046
Refund for Bld 2007-0043,0044,0045,0046
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 800.00
Total :800.00
105854 7/31/2008 064343 AT&T 425-771-4741 CEMETERY
CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.200.420.00 34.82
6Page:
Packet Page 22 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :34.82105854 7/31/2008 064343 064343 AT&T
105855 7/31/2008 064343 AT&T 730386050200 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works LINES - LONG DIST FEES
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 1.84
Public Works LINES - LONG DIST FEES
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 7.00
Public Works LINES - LONG DIST FEES
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 7.00
Public Works LINES - LONG DIST FEES
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 7.00
Public Works LINES - LONG DIST FEES
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 7.00
Public Works LINES - LONG DIST FEES
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 6.98
Total :36.82
105856 7/31/2008 064343 AT&T 425-771-0152 STATION #16 FAX
STATION #16 FAX
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 36.89
Total :36.89
105857 7/31/2008 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 871860970X07062008 Cell Phone Charges Chave
Cell Phone Charges Chave
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 53.36
Total :53.36
105858 7/31/2008 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 46002 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
7Page:
Packet Page 23 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105858 7/31/2008 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
UB Outsourcing area #700 PRINTING
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 23.04
UB Outsourcing area #700 PRINTING
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 23.04
UB Outsourcing area #700 PRINTING
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 23.12
UB Outsourcing area #700 POSTAGE
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 91.98
UB Outsourcing area #700 POSTAGE
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 91.98
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 2.07
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 2.07
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 2.09
Total :259.39
105859 7/31/2008 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 70114 SOFTBALL PLAQUES
SOFTBALL TROPHY PLAQUES
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 159.25
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 14.18
Total :173.43
105860 7/31/2008 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2008-567 INV#2008-567 - EDMONDS PD
PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 175.00
Total :175.00
105861 7/31/2008 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 010489927 5870 Copier lease - 9/1 - 9/30/08
8Page:
Packet Page 24 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105861 7/31/2008 (Continued)070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING
5870 Copier lease - 9/1 - 9/30/08
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 101.35
5870 Copier lease - 9/1 - 9/30/08
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 101.32
5870 Copier lease - 9/1 - 9/30/08
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 101.33
Supply charge
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 25.01
Supply charge
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 25.00
Supply charge
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 24.99
Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 11.25
Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 11.25
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 11.25
Total :412.75
105862 7/31/2008 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 1753 E5GA.Services thru 06/20/08
E5GA.Services thru 06/20/08
412.300.630.594.320.650.00 11,422.32
Total :11,422.32
105863 7/31/2008 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 685092-01 INV#685092-01 - GREENMUN/EDMONDS PD
TURTLENECK/GREENMUN
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 45.90
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 4.13
INV#685092-02 - GREENMUN/EDMONDS PD685092-02
WORDING ON UNIFORM
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 18.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1.62
9Page:
Packet Page 25 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105863 7/31/2008 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
INV#685267 - D.SMITH/EDMONDS685267
UNIFORM SHIRTS W/EMBLEMS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 136.32
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 12.27
Total :218.24
105864 7/31/2008 072373 BRETT ENGHOLM TRUCKING INC 700 STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
EDMONDS HATCHERY STREAM RESTORATION
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 400.00
Total :400.00
105865 7/31/2008 070483 BREWER, MARTY BREWER0724 SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 175.00
Total :175.00
105866 7/31/2008 072355 BREZNEN, ALYSSA BREZNEN0728 OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT
OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT~
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 216.00
Total :216.00
105867 7/31/2008 002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC IL17275 UNIT 91 - FLAIL HAMMER, BOLTS, LOCKNUTS
UNIT 91 - FLAIL HAMMER, BOLTS, LOCKNUTS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 994.50
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.50
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 86.44
Total :1,115.44
105868 7/31/2008 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN9560 YOGA & PILATES CLASSES
10Page:
Packet Page 26 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105868 7/31/2008 (Continued)072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY
PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT~
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 700.00
YOGA #9521
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 392.70
YOGA #9519
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 939.40
YOGA #9517
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 401.80
YOGA #9518
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 768.60
Total :3,202.50
105869 7/31/2008 070482 BROTTEN, BILL BROTTEN0724 SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 25.00
Total :25.00
105870 7/31/2008 002987 BUILDERS HARDWARE & SUPPLY CO S2851504.001 YOST PARK - 2-SPRING HINGE
YOST PARK - 2-SPRING HINGE
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 32.08
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.89
Total :34.97
105871 7/31/2008 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 134214 WELDING SUPPLIES
WELDING SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 81.82
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.29
Total :89.11
105872 7/31/2008 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY134070 ALS SUPPLIES
11Page:
Packet Page 27 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105872 7/31/2008 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 22.43
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 16.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 3.42
ADMIN SUPPLIESLY134071
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 66.08
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 16.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 7.30
ALS SUPPLIESLY134072
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 11.21
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 16.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 2.41
Total :160.85
105873 7/31/2008 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT9469 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #9469
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 50.40
Total :50.40
105874 7/31/2008 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 7898305185 ACCT#7898305185 - EDMONDS
FUEL/NARC UNIT
104.000.410.521.210.320.00 396.81
CAR WASH/NARC UNIT
104.000.410.521.210.410.00 7.61
Total :404.42
105875 7/31/2008 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460203664 UNIFORMS
12Page:
Packet Page 28 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105875 7/31/2008 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
Volunteers
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 20.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 1.78
OPS UNIFORMS460203665
Stn. 16
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 105.58
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.39
UNIFORMS460204784
Stn 17 - ALS
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 113.24
Stn 17 - OPS
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 113.25
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 10.08
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.07
OPS UNIFORMS460204805
Stn. 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 134.69
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.98
Total :530.06
105876 7/31/2008 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I08001596 WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB ANALYSIS
WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB ANALYSIS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 410.40
Total :410.40
105877 7/31/2008 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 6334 ALS SUPPLIES & PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
medical supplies
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 5,980.69
admin service fee
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 239.23
13Page:
Packet Page 29 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :6,219.92105877 7/31/2008 019215 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
105878 7/31/2008 065519 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 2nd PAYMENT REIMBURSEMENT OF NARC FUND/EDMONDS
2nd PAYMENT 2008
104.000.410.521.210.490.00 5,000.00
Total :5,000.00
105879 7/31/2008 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1951310-1 SUPPLIES
PAPER TOWELS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 70.92
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.31
Total :77.23
105880 7/31/2008 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1954361 005302
SOAP/TISSUE/LINERS/TOWELS
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 475.07
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 42.28
Total :517.35
105881 7/31/2008 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1951486 FAC MAINT - TT, BIGFOLD, NATURAL ROLL
FAC MAINT - TT, BIGFOLD, NATURAL ROLL
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 428.19
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 38.11
Total :466.30
105882 7/31/2008 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 30971 ECDC Code Books for Kernen Lien
ECDC Code Books for Kernen Lien
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 76.23
Total :76.23
105883 7/31/2008 062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC 10472 UNIT 492 - PAINT, MATERIALS & LABOR
14Page:
Packet Page 30 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105883 7/31/2008 (Continued)062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC
UNIT 492 - PAINT, MATERIALS & LABOR
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 118.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 7.68
Total :126.08
105884 7/31/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 2425 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.510.310.00 44.10
DAY CAMP SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 621.20
DAYCAMP SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 523.47
DAYCAMP MEDICAL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 145.07
ELECTRIC WALL CLOCK
001.000.640.575.540.310.00 21.76
WALL CLOCK
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 21.77
CAMP GOODTIME SUPPLIES
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 168.36
DAYCAMP SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 110.41
BOOK
117.100.640.573.100.490.00 50.00
BLACK INK
001.000.640.575.510.310.00 29.39
DAYCAMP SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 68.06
DAYCAMP CREDIT2425
DAYCAMP CREDIT
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 -39.20
15Page:
Packet Page 31 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105884 7/31/2008 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS2994
CEMETERY BOARD BADGES
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 88.09
MARINER TICKETS/SISTER CITY
623.200.210.557.210.490.00 495.00
Total :2,347.48
105885 7/31/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 9237 ACCT#9237 - LAWLESS
DINNER/ROTH,HARBINSON,FALK~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 71.12
LUNCH,ROTH,HARBINSON,FALK~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 22.57
BREAKFAST/ROTH,HARBINSON,FALK~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 23.88
LUNCH/ROTH,HARBINSON,FALK
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 31.88
DINNER/ROTH,HARBINSON,FALK~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 85.52
LODGING/ROTH~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 396.00
BREAKFAST/ROTH,HARBINSON
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 15.50
Total :646.47
105886 7/31/2008 004595 CONKLIN APPLIANCE P086820 MCH - CONTROL PANEL, ROCKER SWITCH
MCH - CONTROL PANEL, ROCKER SWITCH
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 84.50
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.52
PS - ICE MAKER KITP087731
PS - ICE MAKER KIT
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 90.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.01
16Page:
Packet Page 32 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :190.03105886 7/31/2008 004595 004595 CONKLIN APPLIANCE
105887 7/31/2008 066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS 0708 2989771 5374044 INV#0708 2989771 5374044 - EDMONDS PD
COOLER RENTAL/DRINKING WATER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 76.27
Total :76.27
105888 7/31/2008 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING Monthly STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL
State Share of Concealed Pistol
001.000.000.237.190.000.00 405.00
Total :405.00
105889 7/31/2008 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2008060142 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for June, 2008
001.000.390.528.800.420.00 303.03
BILL # I1475752008060142
Adobe Premiere Media
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 19.05
Freight
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 4.56
Total :326.64
105890 7/31/2008 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2008060142 BILL # I147806
Adobe Software to lay soundtrack on
001.000.110.511.100.490.00 323.87
Adobe Software to lay soundtrack on
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 323.87
Total :647.74
105891 7/31/2008 006635 DEPT OF LICENSING 072908 08 205 1574
BAL ON STORAGE TANK LICENSE FEE
411.000.656.538.800.510.00 23.33
Total :23.33
105892 7/31/2008 070324 DESTINY SOFTWARE 2857 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE
17Page:
Packet Page 33 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105892 7/31/2008 (Continued)070324 DESTINY SOFTWARE
Agenda Quick Software Maint.
001.000.250.514.300.480.00 2,722.50
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.480.00 193.38
Total :2,915.88
105893 7/31/2008 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 08-2900 MINUTE TAKING
7/22 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 417.00
Total :417.00
105894 7/31/2008 014430 DMH INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC INC 41068 BLOWER MOTOR PRTECTOR
BLOWER MOTOR PRTECTOR
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 170.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 20.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 16.34
Total :206.34
105895 7/31/2008 007175 DRIVELINES NW INC C345073 FLEET STOCK - U JOINT KITS
FLEET STOCK - U JOINT KITS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 101.07
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.69
FLEET STOCK - EXCHANGED U JOINT KITSC345078
FLEET STOCK - EXCHANGED U JOINT KITS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 113.64
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.77
Total :233.17
105896 7/31/2008 007625 EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL EAF0723 REFUND
REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 31.56
18Page:
Packet Page 34 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :31.56105896 7/31/2008 007625 007625 EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL
105897 7/31/2008 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 93452 UNIT EQ03,04,06PO - FLOOR MATS
UNIT EQ03,04,06PO - FLOOR MATS
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 31.75
UNIT EQ03,04,06PO - FLOOR MATS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 63.50
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 2.83
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.65
FLEET SUPPLIES - CLEAN STAR95878
FLEET SUPPLIES - CLEAN STAR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.90
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.79
SEWER - GRINDER PUMP - BEARINGS96424
SEWER - GRINDER PUMP - BEARINGS
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 29.16
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.60
Total :145.18
105898 7/31/2008 065065 EDMONDS ROTARY DAYBREAKERS DAYBREAKERS0729 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT
TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT
123.000.640.573.100.410.00 1,100.00
Total :1,100.00
105899 7/31/2008 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11
LIFT STATION #11
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 26.72
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE3-03575
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 180.59
19Page:
Packet Page 35 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105899 7/31/2008 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
LIFT STATION #123-07525
LIFT STATION #12
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 56.03
LIFT STATION #153-07709
LIFT STATION #15
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 21.25
LIFT STATION #43-09350
LIFT STATION #4
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 63.32
LIFT STATION #103-09800
LIFT STATION #10
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 28.55
LIFT STATION #93-29875
LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 30.37
Total :406.83
105900 7/31/2008 069924 EIMCO WATER TECHNOLOGIES 8448805 1851855104
WIPER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 36.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 14.58
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3.37
18518551048448831
PUMP
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 276.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.94
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 25.86
Total :376.75
105901 7/31/2008 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 036358 MK0653
20Page:
Packet Page 36 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105901 7/31/2008 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
COPIER CONTRACT
411.000.656.538.800.480.11 164.28
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.480.11 14.62
Total :178.90
105902 7/31/2008 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 036310 ADMIN MAINT
admin copier maint
001.000.510.522.100.480.00 79.50
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.100.480.00 7.08
Total :86.58
105903 7/31/2008 047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT ES# 945133-10 7 UBI # 312 000 093 000
Q2, 2008 Unemployment Insurance
001.000.390.517.780.230.00 6,572.14
Total :6,572.14
105904 7/31/2008 008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES ENGLAND9365 SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE CLASSES
SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE #9365
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 360.00
SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE #9366
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 180.00
SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE #9367
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 390.00
SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE #9368
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 210.00
Total :1,140.00
105905 7/31/2008 009410 EVERETT STEEL COMPANIES 396990 SR. CENTER BIRD BLOCK MATERIAL
SENIOR CENTER BIRD BLOCK MATERIAL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 253.80
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 22.59
Total :276.39
21Page:
Packet Page 37 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105906 7/31/2008 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C 6805 CITY HALL - TROUBLESHOOT HVAC, INSPECT
CITY HALL - TROUBLESHOOT HVAC, INSPECT
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 311.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 27.68
Total :338.68
105907 7/31/2008 070137 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE C3788141A Title Report - Breske Property
Title Report - Breske Property
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 350.00
Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 31.50
Total :381.50
105908 7/31/2008 070137 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE C3788141D Courier Service-Breske Title Report
Courier Service-Breske Title Report
001.000.620.532.200.410.00 21.51
Total :21.51
105909 7/31/2008 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 205985 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT
08/08 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent
001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00
Total :300.00
105910 7/31/2008 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 7/9/08 Section 125 Forfeiture - 2007 - for
Section 125 Forfeiture - 2007 - for
811.000.000.231.590.000.00 167.53
Total :167.53
105911 7/31/2008 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 7/9/08 2007 Section 125 Forfeiture - Curt
2007 Section 125 Forfeiture - Curt
811.000.000.231.590.000.00 5.87
Total :5.87
105912 7/31/2008 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 1418 2007 Balance due from Section 125
2007 Balance due from Section 125
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 0.05
22Page:
Packet Page 38 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :0.05105912 7/31/2008 070855 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC
105913 7/31/2008 010600 FOG TITE INC 241260 WATER METER INVENTORY - ~
WATER METER INVENTORY - ~
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 2,842.20
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 255.80
Total :3,098.00
105914 7/31/2008 011800 GENERAL BINDING CORPORATION 15964596 Repair of Binding Machine for DSD
Repair of Binding Machine for DSD
001.000.620.558.800.480.00 334.47
Total :334.47
105915 7/31/2008 018495 GLACIER NORTHWEST 90492405 STREET - CONCRETE
STREET - CONCRETE
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 386.75
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 34.81
STREET - CONCRETE90497622
STREET - CONCRETE
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 386.75
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 34.83
Total :843.14
105916 7/31/2008 012199 GRAINGER 9694306680 SUPPLIES
SAFETY CAN
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 233.55
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.78
Total :254.33
105917 7/31/2008 012199 GRAINGER 9684233779 SR CENTER - 4-V BELTS
23Page:
Packet Page 39 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105917 7/31/2008 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER
SR CENTER - 4-V BELTS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.36
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.75
Total :9.11
105918 7/31/2008 071446 GREAT FLOORS COMMERCIAL SALES 33338-202 FAC RM 126,302 - FLOOR REPLACEMENT~
FAC RM 126,302 - FLOOR REPLACEMENT~
116.000.651.519.920.480.00 4,389.66
Sales Tax
116.000.651.519.920.480.00 390.68
Total :4,780.34
105919 7/31/2008 068415 H & W EMERGENCY VEHICLES 44681 UNIT 484 - DOOR HOLDS
UNIT 484 - DOOR HOLDS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 67.92
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.80
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.74
Total :82.46
105920 7/31/2008 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 87828 UNIT 650 - WHEEL ASSEMBLY
UNIT 650 - WHEEL ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 128.02
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.39
Total :139.41
105921 7/31/2008 012900 HARRIS FORD INC FOCS240421 UNIT 119 - STEERING REPAIR
UNIT 119 - STEERING REPAIR
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 123.20
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 10.96
Total :134.16
24Page:
Packet Page 40 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105922 7/31/2008 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I2365694 WATER INVENTORY - W-VALVCHB-36-010
WATER INVENTORY - W-VALVCHB-36-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 366.70
WATER INVENTORY - W-VALVECHB-18-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 280.00
W-VALVCHBL-00-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 216.00
W-VALVCI-02-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 505.86
WATER SUPPLIES - 1 1/2" BRONZE METER
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 247.30
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 21.17
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.83
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 125.08
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 22.60
Total :1,788.54
105923 7/31/2008 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 61 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 409.60
Total :409.60
105924 7/31/2008 070489 HETZEL, BOB HETZEL0724 SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 75.00
Total :75.00
105925 7/31/2008 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 60 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 275.00
Total :275.00
25Page:
Packet Page 41 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105926 7/31/2008 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1033770 FAC MAINT SHOP & UNIT 5 - PLUGS,
FAC MAINT SHOP & UNIT 5 - PLUGS,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 76.75
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.91
FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES1081958
FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 20.87
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.87
FAC - SUPPLIES2584672
FAC - SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 35.01
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.15
SEWER - LS 6 - SUPPLIES3030282
SEWER - LS 6 - SUPPLIES
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 9.44
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.85
WATER - SUPPLIES - BAGS, PVC PLUGS, PVC3072212
WATER - SUPPLIES - BAGS, PVC PLUGS, PVC
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 17.48
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1.57
SR CENTER- KIT FAUCET, WATER CONN,3090944
SR CENTER- KIT FAUCET, WATER CONN,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 79.54
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.15
MCH - REPAIR CLAMPS3580059
MCH - REPAIR CLAMPS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 16.92
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.51
26Page:
Packet Page 42 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105926 7/31/2008 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES3585864
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.89
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.71
MCH PLUMBING SUPPLIES - COPPER TUBES4040462
MCH PLUMBING SUPPLIES - COPPER TUBES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 29.48
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.65
FAC MAINT SHOP - 3V LITHIUM BATTERY4043410
FAC MAINT SHOP - 3V LITHIUM BATTERY
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.97
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.36
FAC MAINT UNIT 5 - CAULK, BAR, TABLE,42085
FAC MAINT UNIT 5 - CAULK, BAR, TABLE,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 79.06
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.12
CITY HALL - ELBOW CONNECTION, PIPE4572545
CITY HALL - ELBOW CONNECTION, PIPE
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.56
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.41
MCH - DOOR STOP, SUPPLIES4575137
MCH - DOOR STOP, SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 24.42
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.19
MCH - PLUMBING REPAIR SUPPLIES5040293
MCH - PLUMBING REPAIR SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 197.89
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.81
27Page:
Packet Page 43 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105926 7/31/2008 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
FAC - MTNG STRIP, MDF BASE5043217
FAC - MTNG STRIP, MDF BASE
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 49.30
FAC MAINT SHOP - HUKSY PLIERS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.96
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.33
FAC - PLUMBING SUPPLIES5572413
FAC - PLUMBING SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 23.34
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.10
STREET - GRASS SEED, BOLTS, CLEANING573092
STREET - GRASS SEED, BOLTS, CLEANING
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 121.42
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 10.93
PS - CORD573107
PS - CORD
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.97
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.80
STORM - STORAGE BIN FOR 64591248
STORM - STORAGE BIN FOR 64
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 4.99
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 0.44
SEWER - WEDGE ANCHORS6035402
SEWER - WEDGE ANCHORS
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 14.47
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.30
28Page:
Packet Page 44 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105926 7/31/2008 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
FAC - CLAMPS, TEES, SUPPLIES6094627
FAC - CLAMPS, TEES, SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 22.14
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.99
LOG CABIN - LIGHTS63932
LOG CABIN - LIGHTS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 42.93
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.86
FAC - KNOB, HINGE, WOOD6574854
FAC - KNOB, HINGE, WOOD
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 23.06
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.07
WATER - PLASTIC BAGS, U BOLTS, HEX7042877
WATER - PLASTIC BAGS, U BOLTS, HEX
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 33.09
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.98
FAC - SUPPLIES7071232
FAC - SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 61.86
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.56
SEWER - SUPPLIES7091837
SEWER - SUPPLIES
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.34
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.66
FAC MAINT UNIT 5 - SUPPLIES9044409
FAC MAINT UNIT 5 - SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 87.55
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.87
29Page:
Packet Page 45 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105926 7/31/2008 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
STREET - SUPPLIES FOR UNIT 649573213
STREET - SUPPLIES FOR UNIT 64
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 29.95
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 2.70
PLAZA RM - BROOM9574471
PLAZA RM - BROOM
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.99
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.98
Total :1,258.47
105927 7/31/2008 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 76973319 COPIER LEASE
PARKS & RECREATION COPIER LEASE~
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 857.35
Total :857.35
105928 7/31/2008 014940 INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER 110429889 FLEET - BATTERY INVENTORY
FLEET - BATTERY INVENTORY
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 265.75
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 23.65
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES - WIRE, CABLE TIES,730842
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES - WIRE, CABLE TIES,
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 190.06
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 16.92
Total :496.38
105929 7/31/2008 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PART WAREHOUSE 467296 FLEET - DRILL EXTENTIONS
FLEET - DRILL EXTENTIONS
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 32.37
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 2.88
30Page:
Packet Page 46 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105929 7/31/2008 (Continued)069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PART WAREHOUSE
FLEET SHOP RETURN IPA468926
FLEET SHOP RETURN IPA
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -74.95
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -6.67
FLEET SHOP - 6' WOOD HANDLES469262
FLEET SHOP - 6' WOOD HANDLES
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 23.98
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 2.13
FLEET SHOP - 22" WIPER BLADES470024
FLEET SHOP - 22" WIPER BLADES
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 68.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 8.15
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 6.78
FLEET SHOP SUPPLY - MAKE A CLAMP 50'471122
FLEET SHOP SUPPLY - MAKE A CLAMP 50'
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 45.30
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 8.15
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 4.76
Total :120.88
105930 7/31/2008 072367 ITA AMDR081021 98011021
MEMBERSHIP DUES INSTRUMENTATION
411.000.656.538.800.410.22 255.00
Total :255.00
105931 7/31/2008 015233 JOBS AVAILABLE 816016 Senior Utilities Engineer ad, #08-41
Senior Utilities Engineer ad, #08-41
001.000.620.532.200.440.00 175.00
31Page:
Packet Page 47 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :175.00105931 7/31/2008 015233 015233 JOBS AVAILABLE
105932 7/31/2008 015490 K & K CONCRETE PRODUCTS 31183 STORM - 4" X 8" X 16" SOLID
STORM - 4" X 8" X 16" SOLID
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 144.00
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 12.82
Total :156.82
105933 7/31/2008 071814 KING, JIM KING0724 SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 175.00
Total :175.00
105934 7/31/2008 069343 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES INC 0968249-14718 FAC - CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
FAC - CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
116.000.651.519.920.410.00 270.00
Total :270.00
105935 7/31/2008 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 061108-03 CITY VEHICLE CAR WASH
CITY VEHICLE CAR WASH
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 37.57
Total :37.57
105936 7/31/2008 064730 LAMB HANSON LAMB APPRAISAL S008-068 APPRAISAL SERVICES
COMMERCIAL LAND APPRAISAL~
126.000.390.519.900.410.00 2,000.00
Total :2,000.00
105937 7/31/2008 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 0022966 Old Milltown Environmental Review thru
Old Milltown Environmental Review thru
126.000.390.519.900.410.00 3,892.37
Old Milltown Environmental Review thru0023449
Old Milltown Environmental Review thru
126.000.390.519.900.410.00 606.83
Total :4,499.20
32Page:
Packet Page 48 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105938 7/31/2008 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 0023377 810 WALNUT PROF SVC - THROUGH 6/28/08
810 WALNUT PROF SVC - THROUGH 6/28/08
411.000.652.542.400.410.00 563.25
Total :563.25
105939 7/31/2008 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 0023416 Prof Serv Geo Tech Review Johnson
Prof Serv Geo Tech Review Johnson
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 500.00
Total :500.00
105940 7/31/2008 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 148039 UNIT 91 - FLAT REPAIR
UNIT 91 - FLAT REPAIR
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 41.25
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 3.67
UNIT 91 - CHANGE FLUID IN TIRES148047
UNIT 91 - CHANGE FLUID IN TIRES
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 56.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 4.98
Total :105.90
105941 7/31/2008 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 098760 OFFICE SUPPLIES
PARKS & RECREATION LETTERHEAD
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 159.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 14.15
Total :173.15
105942 7/31/2008 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 098773 BUSINESS CARDS FOR DEV. SER & PD
33Page:
Packet Page 49 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105942 7/31/2008 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
Business Cards:~250-00206
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 16.87
Jerry Shuster P.E.250-00206
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 16.87
Officer Sackville #2593250-00206
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.87
D.J. Smith #2230250-00206
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.87
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 3.01
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 3.00
Total :73.49
105943 7/31/2008 018900 LYNNWOOD AUTO ELECTRIC 73019 UNIT 31 - STARTER
UNIT 31 - STARTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 213.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.96
Total :231.96
105944 7/31/2008 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 552155 UNIT 16 - FILTERS
UNIT 16 - FILTERS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.10
UNIT 20 - TANK HEATER, OIL FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 63.46
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.72
UNIT 16 GEN - FUEL FILTER552203
UNIT 16 GEN - FUEL FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.16
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.64
34Page:
Packet Page 50 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105944 7/31/2008 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
UNIT 20 - FILTERS552526
UNIT 20 - FILTERS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 63.37
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.64
UNIT 31 - FUEL FILTERS552553
UNIT 31 - FUEL FILTERS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.33
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.72
FLEET - RETURN FILTER552565
FLEET - RETURN FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -7.54
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -0.67
UNIT 20 - FUEL FILTERS552573
UNIT 20 - FUEL FILTERS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.39
UNIT 31 - SEAL552703
UNIT 31 - SEAL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.88
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.68
UNIT 31 - V BELT552732
UNIT 31 - V BELT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.33
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.19
35Page:
Packet Page 51 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105944 7/31/2008 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
UNIT 31 - VALVE COVER SET552755
UNIT 31 - VALVE COVER SET
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.99
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.85
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.05
FLEET SHOP - SCREWS552839
FLEET SHOP - SCREWS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.55
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.14
FLEET SHOP - BOLT KIT552840
FLEET SHOP - BOLT KIT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.76
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.60
UNIT 17 - FITTINGS553105
UNIT 17 - FITTINGS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.49
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.22
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES - LOOM553126
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES - LOOM
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.07
UNIT 29 - SINGLE SPRING BR553198
UNIT 29 - SINGLE SPRING BR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 32.94
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.29
36Page:
Packet Page 52 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105944 7/31/2008 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
UNIT 51 - TAIL LGT553252
UNIT 51 - TAIL LGT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.42
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.71
UNIT 55 - EXH CAP553367
UNIT 55 - EXH CAP
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.52
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.29
FLEET SHOP - WHITE LITH553565
FLEET SHOP - WHITE LITH
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 4.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 0.36
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES - PTEX THRD SEAL553692
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES - PTEX THRD SEAL
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 7.79
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 0.69
UNIT 127 - A/TRANS FILTER553703
UNIT 127 - A/TRANS FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.50
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.74
UNIT 127 - FUEL FILTER553709
UNIT 127 - FUEL FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.15
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.17
FLEET SHOP - SMART STRAW LUBR, WD-40553711
FLEET SHOP - SMART STRAW LUBR, WD-40
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 16.67
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 1.48
37Page:
Packet Page 53 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105944 7/31/2008 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
UNIT 127 - FILTER EXCHANGE553740
UNIT 127 - FILTER EXCHANGE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.28
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.02
UNIT 125 - AIR FILTER553819
UNIT 125 - AIR FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.04
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.72
UNIT M-16 - FUEL LINE HOSE553921
UNIT M-16 - FUEL LINE HOSE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.25
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.54
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES - ACETONE554099
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES - ACETONE
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 21.32
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 1.90
UNIT 90 - PINION SEAL554115
UNIT 90 - PINION SEAL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.50
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.09
UNIT 90 - MOTOR TUNE-UP 16554345
UNIT 90 - MOTOR TUNE-UP 16
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.05
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.63
UNIT 115 - TK DRM, WHL SEAL554455
UNIT 115 - TK DRM, WHL SEAL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 56.96
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.07
38Page:
Packet Page 54 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105944 7/31/2008 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
FLEET - SEAL RETURN554464
FLEET - SEAL RETURN
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -28.07
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -2.50
Total :521.04
105945 7/31/2008 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 611244 UNIT M16 - OIL FILTER
UNIT M16 - OIL FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.56
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.47
UNIT 304 - OIL SEALS612799
UNIT 304 - OIL SEALS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.18
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.35
UNIT 304 - OIL FILTER, SPARK PLUGS613692
UNIT 304 - OIL FILTER, SPARK PLUGS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.85
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.59
Total :54.00
105946 7/31/2008 071140 MAD SCIENCE OF KING COUNTY MADSCIENCE9443 MAD SCIENCE CAMP
MAD SCIENCE CAMP #9443
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,740.00
Total :1,740.00
105947 7/31/2008 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 93039368 123106800
FLANGE/BUSHING/NOZZLE/RUBBER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 752.53
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 103.91
39Page:
Packet Page 55 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105947 7/31/2008 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
12310680093570813
BLACK DELRIN SHEET
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 279.50
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 14.72
Total :1,150.66
105948 7/31/2008 063773 MICROFLEX 00017955 June, 2008 Tax Audit Program
June, 2008 Tax Audit Program
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 58.38
Total :58.38
105949 7/31/2008 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 72035 WATER/SEWER- 1 1/4" ASPHALT CUTTER
WATER/SEWER- 1 1/4" ASPHALT CUTTER
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 254.97
WATER/SEWER- 1 1/4" ASPHALT CUTTER
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 254.97
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 22.69
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 22.69
STREET - STIHL LINE, POLY-CUT BLADES72478
STREET - STIHL LINE, POLY-CUT BLADES
111.000.653.542.710.310.00 62.70
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.310.00 5.58
STREET - 2-TRIMMER HEADS FOR WEED EATER72574
STREET - 2-TRIMMER HEADS FOR WEED EATER
111.000.653.542.710.310.00 47.90
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.310.00 4.26
40Page:
Packet Page 56 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105949 7/31/2008 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
SEWER - WEED EATER PARTS73064
SEWER - WEED EATER PARTS
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 26.44
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.35
Total :704.55
105950 7/31/2008 072372 MONROE, ALLISON MONROE0722 REFUND
REFUNDING CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 121.00
Total :121.00
105951 7/31/2008 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC 110111424 FLEET RETURN - KNOB, HANDLE
FLEET RETURN - KNOB, HANDLE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -30.79
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -2.65
UNIT22 - FW SEPR110137742
UNIT22 - FW SEPR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.35
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.75
UNIT 11 - TROUBLESHOOT AND REPAIR ABS110147549
UNIT 11 - TROUBLESHOOT AND REPAIR ABS
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 127.20
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 10.94
Total :126.80
105952 7/31/2008 066395 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY 82305380 UNIT 650 - TPMS MO
41Page:
Packet Page 57 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105952 7/31/2008 (Continued)066395 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY
UNIT 650 - TPMS MO
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 80.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.63
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.53
Total :92.16
105953 7/31/2008 067891 MYSTIC SEA CHARTERS MYSTICSEA9352 WHALE WATCH CRUISE
WHALE WATCHING CRUISE #9352
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 490.00
Total :490.00
105954 7/31/2008 024001 NC MACHINERY CO SECR0054992 UNIT 63 - CORE RETURN FEE
UNIT 63 - CORE RETURN FEE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -309.25
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -27.52
UNIT 9 - END EDGE, CUTTING EDGE, BOLTS,SECS0472690
UNIT 9 - END EDGE, CUTTING EDGE, BOLTS,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 618.56
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 55.67
Total :337.46
105955 7/31/2008 024300 NEBAR HOSE & FITTINGS LLC 201820-001 HOSE
WATER HOSE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 190.52
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.83
Total :211.35
105956 7/31/2008 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0375141-IN FLEET - FILTER INVENTORY
42Page:
Packet Page 58 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105956 7/31/2008 (Continued)024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
FLEET - FILTER INVENTORY
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 17.31
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 1.49
FLEET - FILTER INVENTORY0376129-IN
FLEET - FILTER INVENTORY
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 25.35
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 2.26
FLEET - FILTER INVENTORY0376130-IN
FLEET - FILTER INVENTORY
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 22.73
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 2.03
Total :71.17
105957 7/31/2008 064348 NEWARK 16114869 SEWER - LS 14 - HOUR METERS
SEWER - LS 14 - HOUR METERS
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 381.78
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 16.49
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 35.44
Total :433.71
105958 7/31/2008 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0773935 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02
Total :98.02
105959 7/31/2008 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 566 Planning Board Minutetaker 7/9/08
Planning Board Minutetaker 7/9/08
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 464.00
43Page:
Packet Page 59 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105959 7/31/2008 (Continued)025690 NOYES, KARIN
Verbatim Transcripts P-08-16000 00 568
Verbatim Transcripts P-08-16
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 240.00
Total :704.00
105960 7/31/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 773721 Printer toner -HR
Printer toner -HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 90.26
Copy paper
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 13.26
Copy paper
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 13.26
Copy paper
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 13.26
Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 9.21
Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 1.18
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 1.18
Total :141.61
105961 7/31/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 481543 OFFICE SUPPLIES
PRINTHEAD, BADGES, ETC.
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 34.98
King County Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.14
POOL OFFICE SUPPLIES504433
CARTRIDGES FOR YOST POOL PRINTER
001.000.640.575.510.310.00 51.12
King County Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.510.310.00 4.59
44Page:
Packet Page 60 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105961 7/31/2008 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
OFFICE SUPPLIES613212
COLORED COPY PAPER, PUSH PINS, ETC.
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 157.69
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 14.03
OFFICE SUPPLIES673721
INKJET CARTRIDGES, PENS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 61.10
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 5.44
Total :332.09
105962 7/31/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 678635 Spiral Notebooks; A-Z Index; Tape
Spiral Notebooks; A-Z Index; Tape
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 54.84
Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 4.88
Total :59.72
105963 7/31/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 736275 520437
MARKERS/COPIER PAPER/ENVELOPES
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 86.09
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 7.66
520437736381
PRINT RIBBON
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 20.68
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 1.84
Total :116.27
105964 7/31/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 769447 OFFICE SUPPLIES
45Page:
Packet Page 61 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105964 7/31/2008 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 74.40
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 6.62
Total :81.02
105965 7/31/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 630331 Credit for Office Supplies DSD
Credit for Office Supplies DSD
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 -56.36
Office supplies DSD795022
Office supplies DSD
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 403.00
Total :346.64
105966 7/31/2008 068746 ONYX VALVE CO.019728 EDM002
TEST/REPAIR OF SCHWING PUMP
411.000.656.538.800.410.21 250.00
Total :250.00
105967 7/31/2008 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 034892 YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL CHEMICALS & SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 690.70
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 61.47
Total :752.17
105968 7/31/2008 064951 OTIS ELEVATOR CO SS06279G808 PW OPERATION MAINT CONTRACT ~
PW OPERATION MAINT CONTRACT ~
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 1,931.64
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 171.92
Total :2,103.56
105969 7/31/2008 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00048252 FLEET - RETURNS
46Page:
Packet Page 62 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
47
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105969 7/31/2008 (Continued)002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
FLEET - RETURNS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -478.14
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -42.56
UNIT 55 - CURTAIN PRESS SL00048666
UNIT 55 - CURTAIN PRESS SL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 382.18
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.19
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 35.63
UNIT 55 - BEARINGS00049113
UNIT 55 - BEARINGS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.50
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.17
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.13
UNIT 55 - BEARINGS00049138
UNIT 55 - BEARINGS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.24
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.54
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.96
UNIT 55 - REAR LIGHT, BRKT PANEL,00049897
UNIT 55 - REAR LIGHT, BRKT PANEL,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 929.90
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 58.75
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 87.99
Total :1,041.48
105970 7/31/2008 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 315166 STREET - 3-WAY TOPSOIL
47Page:
Packet Page 63 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
48
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105970 7/31/2008 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
STREET - 3-WAY TOPSOIL
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 183.50
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 16.32
STREET - DUMP FEES70295
STREET - DUMP FEES
111.000.653.542.310.490.00 214.55
STREET - 3 WAY SPECIAL TOPSOIL71321
STREET - 3 WAY SPECIAL TOPSOIL
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 106.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 8.05
Total :528.42
105971 7/31/2008 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 010489924 COPIER CONTRACT
COPIER CONTRACT
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 145.22
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 12.60
Total :157.82
105972 7/31/2008 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 010489923 ADMIN LEASE
Admin copier lease
001.000.510.522.100.450.00 137.06
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.100.450.00 12.20
Total :149.26
105973 7/31/2008 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.733690 PLAZA ROOM - PAINT SUPPLIES
PLAZA ROOM - PAINT SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.19
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.53
Total :18.72
48Page:
Packet Page 64 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
49
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105974 7/31/2008 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP CAMPCASH0729 DAYCAMP PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
DAYCAMP SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.530.430.00 89.20
DAYCAMP SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 174.27
Total :263.47
105975 7/31/2008 070931 PATTON BOGGS LLP 062008 DC LOBBYIST FOR JUNE 2008
DC Lobbyist Charge for June 2008
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 4,000.00
Total :4,000.00
105976 7/31/2008 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 27096.000-7 E7CB.Services thru 05/25/08
E7CB.Services thru 05/25/08
112.200.630.595.440.410.00 13,629.38
E7CB.Services thru 06/29/0827096.000-8
E7CB.Services thru 06/29/08
112.200.630.595.440.410.00 12,788.12
Total :26,417.50
105977 7/31/2008 007800 PETTY CASH tc petty cash mileage reimb-Mayor
49Page:
Packet Page 65 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
50
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105977 7/31/2008 (Continued)007800 PETTY CASH
mileage reimb-Mayor
001.000.210.513.100.430.00 89.94
ladder and cable lock for inspection
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 53.38
coffee for 2nd floor
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 49.08
sno co clerks meeting-Chase
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 12.00
cookies for mayors neighborhood meeting
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 8.98
sno co tourism bureau meeting
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 30.00
sno co clerks meeting- Hynd
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 12.00
food for mayors meeting
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 87.12
beverages for mayors meeting
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 95.86
coffee for 2nd floor
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 35.98
mielage for training-Startzman
001.000.510.522.100.430.00 27.14
reimb for meal for conference-Espinoza
001.000.230.512.500.430.00 18.59
dish soap-2nd floor
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 4.24
sccfoa meeting-Hynd
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 24.03
Total :548.34
105978 7/31/2008 069065 PIONEER RESEARCH CORP 205463 GRAFFITI WIPES
GRAFFITI WIPES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 698.00
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 29.72
50Page:
Packet Page 66 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
51
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :727.72105978 7/31/2008 069065 069065 PIONEER RESEARCH CORP
105979 7/31/2008 064167 POLLARDWATER.COM-EAST I228211-IN WATER- HYDRANT METER - 2.5" X 5'
WATER- HYDRANT METER - 2.5" X 5'
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 432.00
HYDRANT WRENCH & SPANNER
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 85.96
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 21.61
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 48.56
Total :588.13
105980 7/31/2008 065105 PORT SUPPLY 2741 UNIT M16 - CABLETIE CRADLE MOUNT
UNIT M16 - CABLETIE CRADLE MOUNT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.39
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.48
UNIT EQ35PO - FUSE BLOCK, DOME LITE6013
UNIT EQ35PO - FUSE BLOCK, DOME LITE
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 53.98
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 4.80
UNIT M16 - LUBE, COLLAR6787
UNIT M16 - LUBE, COLLAR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 33.46
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.97
UNIT M16 - INLET7719
UNIT M16 - INLET
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.79
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.03
51Page:
Packet Page 67 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
52
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105980 7/31/2008 (Continued)065105 PORT SUPPLY
UNIT M-16 - FUEL CARTRIDGE7720
UNIT M-16 - FUEL CARTRIDGE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 83.97
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.47
UNIT 304 - SUPPLIES7795
UNIT 304 - SUPPLIES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 28.05
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.50
Total :247.89
105981 7/31/2008 065021 PRINTING PLUS 64595 WOTS BROCHURE WORK
WRITE ON THE SOUND BROCHURE WORK
123.000.640.573.100.490.00 2,095.46
Sales Tax
123.000.640.573.100.490.00 186.50
WOTS BROCHURE WORK64687
WRITE ON THE SOUND BROCHURE WORK
123.000.640.573.100.490.00 176.31
Sales Tax
123.000.640.573.100.490.00 15.69
Total :2,473.96
105982 7/31/2008 071184 PROCOM 2008-1258 PROF SERV FIBER OPTIC PROJ
Prof Serv Fiber Optic Proj for June-08
001.000.390.528.200.410.00 1,906.25
Total :1,906.25
105983 7/31/2008 068940 PROTECTION & COMMUNICATION INC BLD20080201 Refund Bldg Permit #20080201
Refund Bldg Permit #20080201
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 140.00
Total :140.00
105984 7/31/2008 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL
52Page:
Packet Page 68 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
53
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105984 7/31/2008 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
YOST POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 4,400.46
Total :4,400.46
105985 7/31/2008 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 93.50
LIFT STATION #71916766007
LIFT STATION #7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 60.53
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCIL2753166004
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCEL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 289.42
Public Works2776365005
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 5.93
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 22.53
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 22.53
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 22.53
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 22.53
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 22.55
LIFT STATION #132986629000
LIFT STATION #13
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 82.67
FLEET5903085008
Fleet 7110 210th St SW
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 72.12
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION6439566008
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 146.46
53Page:
Packet Page 69 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
54
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
105985 7/31/2008 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
ANDERSON CENTER6490327001
ANDERSON CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 701.94
LIFT STATION #88851908007
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.94
FIRE STATION #209919661109
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 56.35
Total :1,676.53
105986 7/31/2008 063452 RADIO SHACK CORPORATION 372087 00004605060005
CABLE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 18.99
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1.71
Total :20.70
105987 7/31/2008 072370 RAILROAD CONTROLS LTD 1017820 RAILROAD QUIET ZONE EVALUATION
Railroad quiet zone evaluation & report
001.000.390.519.900.410.00 1,998.39
Total :1,998.39
105988 7/31/2008 071696 RANKINS, KATE RANKINS0726 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR~
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 240.00
Total :240.00
105989 7/31/2008 070494 RICH, SCOTT RICH0724 SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 275.00
Total :275.00
105990 7/31/2008 070480 RINALDI, MATT RINALDI0724 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 125.00
54Page:
Packet Page 70 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
55
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :125.00105990 7/31/2008 070480 070480 RINALDI, MATT
105991 7/31/2008 072254 RIVER OAKS COMMUNICATIONS CORP 7/7-7/23/08 N PUGET SND CONSORTIUM VERIZON PROJ
N Puget Snd Verizon Franchise Project -
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 2,422.32
Total :2,422.32
105992 7/31/2008 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO SALES TAX/583441 PAYMENT OF SALES TAX INV#583441
SALES TAX PAYMENT/INV#583441
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 38.82
Total :38.82
105993 7/31/2008 071610 SCHLEICHER, BRIAN 7/08 Tuition reimbursement - Spring 2008
Tuition reimbursement - Spring 2008
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 794.40
Total :794.40
105994 7/31/2008 071610 SCHLEICHER, BRIAN 510-2313 ALS TRAVEL
training travel
001.000.510.526.100.430.00 105.30
Total :105.30
105995 7/31/2008 069665 SEATTLE MACK SALES & SERVICE RO38579 UNIT 55 - REPAIR LIGHT
UNIT 55 - REPAIR LIGHT
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 290.69
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 26.16
Total :316.85
105996 7/31/2008 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 08-1514 UNIT 31 - HOSE, FLOATS, SEALS
UNIT 31 - HOSE, FLOATS, SEALS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1,360.51
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 40.29
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 126.07
55Page:
Packet Page 71 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
56
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,526.87105996 7/31/2008 067076 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO
105997 7/31/2008 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET 81875 UNIT 115 - HANDLE
UNIT 115 - HANDLE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 42.90
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.82
Total :46.72
105998 7/31/2008 070488 SELMANN, DAN SELMANN0724 SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 175.00
Total :175.00
105999 7/31/2008 062299 SERPENTIX CONVEYOR CORP 12715 89372-1
BELT PAN/WASHER/NUT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 930.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 33.32
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 85.74
Total :1,049.06
106000 7/31/2008 072371 SHIBATA, KEN SHIBATA0722 REFUND
RETURNING CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 309.00
Total :309.00
106001 7/31/2008 067644 SIGNON 5392 INTERPRETING SERVICES
SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETING SERVICES @
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 620.00
SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETING
001.000.640.574.200.430.00 81.92
Total :701.92
106002 7/31/2008 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0080612-IN UNIT 379 - LEG
56Page:
Packet Page 72 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
57
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
106002 7/31/2008 (Continued)068489 SIRENNET.COM
UNIT 379 - LEG
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 48.30
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.75
UNIT 651 - ARM0082823-IN
UNIT 651 - ARM
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 188.10
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.95
UNIT 31 - SNAP-INS80580A-CM
UNIT 31 - SNAP-INSG
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -69.00
Total :197.10
106003 7/31/2008 036955 SKY NURSERY 271575 PLANTS
REPLACEMENT PLANTS FOR BASKETS AT THE
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 67.56
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 6.08
Total :73.64
106004 7/31/2008 036955 SKY NURSERY 273237 WATER - THREE WAY SOIL
WATER - THREE WAY SOIL
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 45.94
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.13
Total :50.07
106005 7/31/2008 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY 238820319 MULTI SPORT & SOCCER CAMPS
MULTI SPORT #9369~
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 1,410.00
SOCCER, MULTI SPORT238820610
SOCCER #9379~
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 4,446.00
57Page:
Packet Page 73 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
58
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
106005 7/31/2008 (Continued)065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY
FLAG FOOTBALL/BASEBALL238820727
FLAG FOOTBALL #9375~
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 1,882.00
Total :7,738.00
106006 7/31/2008 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 3850013073 IRRIGATION CONTROL
IRRIGATION CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.74
UTILITY BILLING3890014081
750 15TH ST SW~
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 90.81
UTILITY BILLING4120014156
750 15TH ST SW~
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 16.43
UTILITY BILLING4160017333
415 5TH AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 111.57
UTILITY BILLING5040011628
750 15TH ST SW~
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 346.26
Total :594.81
106007 7/31/2008 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2440024129 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 66.64
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER2670022181
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,758.13
SIGNAL LIGHT3710011507
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 49.00
LIFT STATION #123850011440
LIFT STATION #12
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 249.82
58Page:
Packet Page 74 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
59
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
106007 7/31/2008 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
LIFT STATION #154070022027
LIFT STATION #15
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 28.28
LIFT STATION #114130026596
LIFT STATION #11
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 30.02
STREET LIGHT4320012174
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 321.43
SIGNAL LIGHT5360023807
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 16.43
LOG CABIN5500019350
LOG CABIN
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 115.49
Total :3,635.24
106008 7/31/2008 037723 SNO CO VISITOR INFO CENTER 08Edm-1 SNO CO VIS CENT JAN - JUNE 2008 CONTRIBU
Sno Co Visitors Center Jan-June 2008
120.000.310.575.420.490.00 3,000.00
Total :3,000.00
106009 7/31/2008 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I000204105 INV. 51441/SOLID WASTE CHARGES
SOLID WASTE DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 777.01
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.99
Total :805.00
106010 7/31/2008 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 7/29/08 July 24 Dinner - Sno. County Cities
July 24 Dinner - Sno. County Cities
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 37.50
Total :37.50
106011 7/31/2008 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT AR139265 Collins - HEP A & B Injections
59Page:
Packet Page 75 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
60
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
106011 7/31/2008 (Continued)037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT
Collins - HEP A & B Injections
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 81.00
Total :81.00
106012 7/31/2008 060852 SPEER TAPS INC 15992 WATER - 8" DI QUIK VALVE INSTALLATION
WATER - 8" DI QUIK VALVE INSTALLATION
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 5,075.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 451.68
WATER - 12" DI INSERTA VALVE16079
WATER - 12" DI INSERTA VALVE
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 12,000.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 1,068.00
Total :18,594.68
106013 7/31/2008 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC 87105 E8CA.Roberts thru 07/12/08
E8CA.Roberts thru 07/12/08
112.200.630.595.330.650.00 1,657.50
E3JB/E3GB.Roberts thru 07/12/08
412.100.630.594.320.650.00 146.25
E3JB/E3GB.Roberts thru 07/12/08
412.200.630.594.320.650.00 146.25
E5GA.Roberts thru 07/12/08
412.300.630.594.320.650.00 130.00
60Page:
Packet Page 76 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
61
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
106013 7/31/2008 (Continued)069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC
E8CA.Roberts thru 07/19/0887312
E8CA.Roberts thru 07/19/08
112.200.630.595.330.650.00 780.00
E3JB/E3GB.Roberts thru 07/19/08
412.100.630.594.320.650.00 747.50
E3JB/E3GB.Roberts thru 07/19/08
412.200.630.594.320.650.00 747.50
E5GA.Roberts thru 07/19/08
412.300.630.594.320.650.00 910.00
EM00.Roberts thru 07/19/08
001.000.620.532.200.410.00 292.50
Total :5,557.50
106014 7/31/2008 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L71961 Audit Fees June, 2008
Audit Fees June, 2008
001.000.390.519.900.510.00 1,641.92
Audit Fees June, 2008
411.000.652.542.900.510.00 68.41
Audit Fees June, 2008
411.000.654.534.800.510.00 273.65
Audit Fees June, 2008
411.000.655.535.800.510.00 273.65
Audit Fees June, 2008
411.000.656.538.800.510.00 273.65
Audit Fees June, 2008
111.000.653.543.300.510.00 68.41
Audit Fees June, 2008
511.000.657.548.680.510.00 136.85
Total :2,736.54
106015 7/31/2008 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 2713595 WATER/SEWER SUPPLIES - GLOVES, SAFETY
61Page:
Packet Page 77 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
62
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
106015 7/31/2008 (Continued)009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC
WATER/SEWER SUPPLIES - GLOVES, SAFETY
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 116.36
WATER/SEWER SUPPLIES - GLOVES, SAFETY
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 116.35
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 10.36
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 10.35
Total :253.42
106016 7/31/2008 040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING 168961 SUPPLIES
FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 374.75
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 31.85
Total :406.60
106017 7/31/2008 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1546555 LIBRARY - ELECT SUPPLIES
LIBRARY - ELECT SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 107.20
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.54
PS - ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES1548299
PS - ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 474.66
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 42.24
PS - ELECT SUPPLIES1548300
PS - ELECT SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 147.86
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.16
Total :794.66
106018 7/31/2008 067835 T-MOBILE 135840772 CELL PHONE USEAGE
62Page:
Packet Page 78 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
63
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
106018 7/31/2008 (Continued)067835 T-MOBILE
CANCELLATION FEE
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 200.00
PARK MAINTENANCE CELL PHONES
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 53.01
Total :253.01
106019 7/31/2008 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10679444 UNIT EQ35PO - PLUG
UNIT EQ35PO - PLUG
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 9.75
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 4.53
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1.27
UNIT EQ35PO - SUPPLIES10680651
UNIT EQ35PO - SUPPLIES
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 38.96
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 4.53
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 3.87
STREET - SOCKET SETS, LONG ARM HEX KEYS10699518
STREET - SOCKET SETS, LONG ARM HEX KEYS
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 59.13
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 4.81
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 5.69
Total :132.54
106020 7/31/2008 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 44841 UNIFORMS
63Page:
Packet Page 79 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
64
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
106020 7/31/2008 (Continued)040916 TC SPAN AMERICA
ALS sweatshirts
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 567.00
Operations sweatshirts
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 567.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 50.47
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 50.46
Total :1,234.93
106021 7/31/2008 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1599245 NEWSPAPER AD
7/22 Public Hearing
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 63.18
NEWSPAPER ADS1599304
7/22 Public Hearing
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 67.86
NEWSPAPER AD1600507
7/29 Closed Record Appeal
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 53.28
NEWSPAPER AD1600510
7/29 Public Hearing
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 38.48
Total :222.80
106022 7/31/2008 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1598207 Legal Notice SM 08-31 Meadowdale Marina
Legal Notice SM 08-31 Meadowdale Marina
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 45.88
Legal Notice - AP-08-2 Breske1598757
Legal Notice - AP-08-2 Breske
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 23.68
Legal Notice-S-2008-41 Steichen1598850
Legal Notice-S-2008-41 Steichen
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 14.80
Total :84.36
64Page:
Packet Page 80 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
65
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
106023 7/31/2008 072369 THE MOODSWINGS MOODSWINGS0803 PARK CONCERT
PARK CONCERT PERFORMERS~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 400.00
Total :400.00
106024 7/31/2008 071852 TIGER PUBLISHING CO 2008-102 Newsletter services - July 2008
Newsletter services - July 2008
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 480.31
Sales Tax
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 42.75
Total :523.06
106025 7/31/2008 064963 TOP FOODS 400605 OPS SUPPLIES
stations' cleaning supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 39.21
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 3.49
Total :42.70
106026 7/31/2008 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 14704 UNIT 304 - CAM LOCKS
UNIT 304 - CAM LOCKS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 71.60
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.37
Total :77.97
106027 7/31/2008 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 7936461 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
COUPLINGS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 168.72
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.02
65Page:
Packet Page 81 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
66
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
106027 7/31/2008 (Continued)061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES7936590
HEAD COVER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 80.50
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.50
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.83
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES7936623
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 60.60
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.39
Total :345.56
106028 7/31/2008 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 7911620 WATER QUALITY - QUICK CONNECT FOR
WATER QUALITY - QUICK CONNECT FOR
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,500.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 133.50
WATER - SUPPLIES - 3/4" CTS INSERTS7929741
WATER - SUPPLIES - 3/4" CTS INSERTS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 23.40
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.08
Total :1,658.98
106029 7/31/2008 044300 US POSTAL SERVICE 7252008 POSTAGE FOR METER
Postage for City Meter250-00207
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 8,000.00
Total :8,000.00
106030 7/31/2008 044300 US POSTAL SERVICE 1036 BULK MAILING
Permit 1036 Bulk Mail Trust250-00208
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 1,000.00
Total :1,000.00
66Page:
Packet Page 82 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
67
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
106031 7/31/2008 069592 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS R0298897G INV#R0298897G - EDMONDS PD
CELL PHONE SERVICE
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 84.03
Total :84.03
106032 7/31/2008 070486 VASCONCELLOS, JOE VASCONCELLOS0724 SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 525.00
Total :525.00
106033 7/31/2008 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-NW4-3726 FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOCOM
FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOCOM
001.000.510.528.600.420.00 247.00
Total :247.00
106034 7/31/2008 068227 WCFA EDWARDS0730 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FOR WCFA FALL
130.000.640.536.500.490.00 285.00
Total :285.00
106035 7/31/2008 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 6222 OPS COMMUNICATIONS
Motorola charger/conditioner
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 379.00
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 9.83
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 34.60
Total :423.43
106036 7/31/2008 070481 WHITE, DAN WHITE0724 SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 50.00
Total :50.00
106037 7/31/2008 049905 WHITNEY EQUIPMENT CO INC 0029703-IN EDMO CI
67Page:
Packet Page 83 of 247
07/31/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
68
1:09:10PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
106037 7/31/2008 (Continued)049905 WHITNEY EQUIPMENT CO INC
DO CARTRIDGE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1,370.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 10.68
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 122.88
Total :1,503.56
106038 7/31/2008 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 800 APRIL - JULY 2008 RETAINER
April-July 08 Retainer $6,000 per month
001.000.360.515.230.410.00 24,000.00
Total :24,000.00
106039 7/31/2008 070485 ZYLSTRA, RON ZYLSTRA0724 SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SR. SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 175.00
Total :175.00
Bank total : 237,455.63197 Vouchers for bank code :front
237,455.63Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report197
68Page:
Packet Page 84 of 247
AM-1694 2.D.
Council Acceptance of Capital Project (Natural Gas Line Replacement)
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:08/05/2008
Submitted By:Steve Koho Time:Consent
Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Report on final construction costs for the Natural Gas Line Replacement Project and Council
acceptance of project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council accept the Natural Gas Line Replacement Project.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
On March 25, 2008, a small works contract was signed with Adept Mechanical to replace the
corroded natural gas line buried in the parking lot of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The work
was substantially complete on May 7, 2008.
Project Budget $18,311.43
Contractor (Adept Mechanical) $18,311.43
Total Project Costs $18,311.43
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/28/2008 11:00 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/28/2008 11:03 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/28/2008 04:43 PM APRV
Form Started By: Steve
Koho
Started On: 07/28/2008 10:20
AM
Final Approval Date: 07/28/2008
Packet Page 85 of 247
AM-1702 2.E.
Professional Services Contract (Sanders & Associates, Inc.)
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:08/05/2008
Submitted By:Steve Koho Time:Consent
Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with Sanders and Associates
Inc. (SAI) for the outfall sediment sampling and analysis project. This consent agenda item was not
reviewed by a Council Committee.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorization for Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with SAI for the outfall
sediment sampling and analysis project.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) has required the City to perform sediment
sampling and analysis in the area of the two outfall pipes that discharge treated water into Puget
Sound. The work includes scuba divers obtaining soil samples and performing video inspection of
the outfall pipes, soil analysis by outside laboratories, and reporting to the City and DOE.
Staff reviewed the consultant roster and selected SAI as the most qualified firm to perform this
work.
The cost to the City for this work will not exceed $59,808.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: SAI agreement
Link: SAI scope of work
Link: SAI detailed scope of work
Link: SAI fee detail
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 10:42 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/31/2008 10:44 AM APRV
Packet Page 86 of 247
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 11:54 AM APRV
Form Started By: Steve
Koho
Started On: 07/31/2008 10:15
AM
Final Approval Date: 07/31/2008
Packet Page 87 of 247
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds,
hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Sanders & Associates, Inc., hereinafter referred
to as the "Consultant".
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance
of a consulting firm to provide services with respect to performing sediment sampling
in accordance with the Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan and Addenda, as well
as inspecting and videotaping the outfall lines and diffusers.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed
by and between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material
necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with Exhibit A, as
the same is supplemented and clarified by Attachment 1, both of which are attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys,
preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the
Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant under this
Agreement shall be and are the property of the Consultant and shall not be considered
public records, provided, however, that:
A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the
Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and
acceptance by the City and shall at that date become public records.
B. The City shall have the right, upon 10 days notice to Consultant, to
inspect, review and, subject to the consent of the Consultant, which consent shall
not be unreasonably withheld, copy any work product.
C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in
the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein
provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work
done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and
tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment
under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional
cost.
Packet Page 88 of 247
2
3. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for
services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full
compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies,
equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work.
A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be
as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit B, provided, in no event shall the
payment for all work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of Fifty-nine
thousand eight hundred and eight dollars and twenty-two cents ($59,808.22) for
direct labor costs and direct expenses.
B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for
each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City
monthly during the progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project.
Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing
shall be considered for payment that has not been submitted to the Plant Manager three
(3) days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such vouchers will be checked by the City
and payment will be made in the amount thereof.
C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept
available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three (3) years after
final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request.
4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by
this Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals.
5. Hold harmless agreement. In performing the work under this contract,
Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify and save the City harmless from and against any and all
injury or damage to the City or its property, and also from and against all claims, demands, and
cause of action of every kind and character arising directly or indirectly, or in any way incident
to, in connection with, or arising out of work performed under the terms hereof, caused by the
fault of the Consultant, its agent, employees, representatives or subcontractors. Consultant
specifically promises to indemnify the City against claims or suits brought under Title 51 RCW
by its employees or subcontractors and waives any immunity that the Consultant may have under
that title with respect to, but only to, the City. Consultant further agrees to fully indemnify City
from and against any and all costs of defending any such claim or demand to the end that the
City is held harmless therefrom. This paragraph shall not apply to damages or claims resulting
from the negligence of the City.
6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall secure and
maintain in full force and effect during performance of all work pursuant to this contract a policy
of comprehensive general liability insurance providing coverage of at least $1,000,000 per
occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury; $1,000,000 per occurrence and
aggregate for property damage; and professional liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000.
Such policies, except the professional liability insurance policy, shall name the City as a named
insured and shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy, except upon thirty
(30) days written notice to the City. Certificates of coverage shall be delivered to the City within
fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement.
Packet Page 89 of 247
3
7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin
or physical handicap.
8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an
independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or
representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of
the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents,
employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this contract.
9. City approval. Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent
contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must meet the approval of the
City.
10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party
may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such
termination no fewer than ten (10) days in advance of the effective date of said termination.
11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document,
the Scope of Work attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit
B. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except
by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written
Agreement and any provision of any Exhibit hereto, this Agreement shall control.
12. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time
limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision.
13. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be
assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City.
14. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not
employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely
for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any
company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or
resulting from the award of making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the
City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from
the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
Packet Page 90 of 247
4
15. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address:
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH
EDMONDS, WA 98020
Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address:
Carol Sanders
Sanders & Associates, Inc.
13256 Northup Way, Suite 15
Bellevue, Washington 98005
Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three (3) days after deposit of written notice in
the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed.
DATED THIS DAY OF , 20
CITY OF EDMONDS CONSULTANT:
By By
Signature Signature
Its Its
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Packet Page 91 of 247
5
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 20____, before me,
the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned
and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the
of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said
corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she
was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of
said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above
written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
Packet Page 92 of 247
1
Sanders and Associates, Inc.
13256 Northup Way, Suite 15
Bellevue, WA, 98005
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Work
Sanders & Associates, Inc (SAI) scope of work shall include all services and
material necessary to accomplish sediment sampling in accordance the
Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan (Sanders & Associates, Inc.
November, 2005) and Addenda (Sanders & Associates, Inc, May 2008). The
Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) was prepared using the
guidance provided in: Sediment Source Control Standards User Manual,
Appendix B: Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Appendix (Ecology 2003).
The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) has approved the SAP.
The City of Edmonds’ NPDES permit No. WA-002405-8 also requires an
outfall inspection using a diver (NPDES section S12. Outfall Evaluation). By
having a diver collect samples and video tape both outfalls at the same time
SAI will save the City substantial costs. Presently, the SAP describes basic
means and methods of sampling and analysis, and does not indicate diver
inspection. SAI’s goal is to efficiently collect samples and conduct inspection
simultaneously while meeting the requirements of both the permit and the
Toxic Cleanup Program and Aquatic Lands Cleanup Unit with the Department
of Ecology.
Sediment Testing and Evaluation
The NPDES permit requires a comprehensive and site-specific sediment
sampling and analysis plan (SAP). The DOE allows for a tiered approach to
testing. This means that the City can perform the sediment chemistry tests
and determine if biological testing will be required. This tiered approach is
recommended with the following limitations:
1) Adequate samples should be collected for conducting both the
sediment chemistry and biological tests in one sampling event.
2) Holding times for biological test will require rapid turn-around and
response time.
SAI is planning to use the services of certified laboratories from the area,
such as Analytical Resources, Inc (sediment chemistry) and Nautilus
Environmental (biological testing) to perform the chemistry and biological
tests for our sampling.
Outfall Evaluation- Video Taping and Diving:
The NPDES permit also requires that an outfall inspection occur and be
submitted with the application for permit renewal. Combining the inspection
Packet Page 93 of 247
2
with the sampling is a cost savings. A diver will collect samples as outlined
in the SAP and provide an underwater video (DVD) of the two outfall lines
and diffusers. The DVD will be narrated and stationed so that the
information can be replicated if necessary.
Project Setup
SAI and subcontractors (divers and field technicians) will meet with the City
to determine moorage, public relations and communication protocol. Given
that the sampling will occur in the summer and at a public fishing location, it
is important to have key contacts defined prior to sampling. It is anticipated
that the sampling and inspection will occur over a two day period. The City
and SAI staff and subcontractors will meet prior to mobilization so that all
City staff and public are informed.
Field Inspection
Samples will be collected from eight locations identified in the SAP.
Chemical analysis will be conducted on these eight samples. ARI will be the
laboratory conducting analysis. Exhibit B identifies the approximate costs
for sediment chemistry. ARI is the only regional laboratory certified for
testing coprostanol, an additional requirement added by Addenda to the
SAP. Analysis will be performed in five days to meet holding times for
bioassay testing.
If a sample fails Sediment Quality Standards (173-204 WAC) then samples
will under go biological testing. Biological testing (described in Attachment
1) is deemed necessary when sediments are determined to have potential
biological “effects”. Prior sampling conducted by SAI indicated some sample
locations exceeded Sediment Quality Standards. However, given the site
conditions, sufficient volume was not available for biological testing. Using
diver cores, SAI will have sufficient volume and more precise locations on
potential sediment impact areas. Biological testing will be conducted by
Nautilus Environmental Inc.
Initial Evaluation
SAI will prepare a draft document for the City’s review and edits. If
constituents of concern (sediment chemistry) require determination of
adverse effects (biological testing), the City will be notified prior to
determining the next course of action. Sediment chemistry results will
predicate the need for biological testing. The City is required to proceed
with biological testing given these results. Given the cost of such testing
(Exhibit B) it is imperative that the City approves this testing required in the
SAP and per the holding times required in the SAP.
Packet Page 94 of 247
3
The draft report will be an internal document for the City and SAI’s use. SAI
will meet with the City to discuss the results and the course of action
required.
Reporting
SAI will prepare a final document, wherein all activities performed and
sampling event results will be explained and commented upon. Our report
will include a survey footage video and AutoCAD drawings, necessary for the
approval of the Department of Ecology. The report will be approximately
thirty pages excluding laboratory data. Three DVDs will be provided of the
dive inspection. SAI will meet with the City post inspection and review the
report and data collected prior to editing.
Packet Page 95 of 247
Sanders & Associates, Inc.
13256 Northup Way, Suite 15
Bellevue, WA, 98005
ATTACHMENT 1
Task 1: Sampling Equipment
SAI will pursue all equipment needed for sampling in accordance to the SAP.
Some of the instrumentation SAI will use for this task is:
• Boat
• Scuba Diver Equipment (for 2
Divers)
• Diver and Cores
• Boat Mileage On Site
• Boat Mobilization
• Trimble DGPS
• Underwater Video System
• Other Instrumentation
(moorage, materials)
Task 2: Sediment Sampling and Outfall inspection (Labor):
SAI will collect 8 samples from the selected sampling locations outlined in the
analysis plan, which has been previously submitted and approved by the
Department of Ecology. Below is a list of the labor that may be used for this task.
• Mobilization/Demobilization
• Diver
• QA/QC
• Project Manager
• Project Engineer
SAI will also coordinate with Research Support Services, our subcontractor, the
inspection of the two (2) outfalls, part of the City of Edmonds Treatment Plant.
We will provide the City with underwater video survey footage.
Task 3: Laboratory Testing
SAI will coordinate services to obtain eight (8) lab test results for chemical and if
needed, biological parameters that the Dept. of Ecology requires. Sediments will
be analyzed for the 47 chemical and chemical groups listed in the Sediment
Management Standards, along with additional constituents. If any of the
Sediment Quality Standards are exceeded, then biological tests will be
performed.
Analytical Resources Inc. will be called upon to provide the chemical testing for
the 8 samples, which includes:
• Grain Size
• Total Solids, Total Volatile Solids, Total Organic Carbon, Total Sulfides
and Ammonia
• Metal (including Hg)
• Semi-volatiles, PCBs, Pesticides, and Volatile Compounds
• Coprostanol
Packet Page 96 of 247
Sanders & Associates, Inc.
13256 Northup Way, Suite 15
Bellevue, WA, 98005
Nautilus Environmental will be the chosen firm to perform the biological testing
for the 8 samples if needed. Testing would include:
• 2 Acute Chronic Test—Microtox Assay
• 1 Acute Larval Development
• Microtox 100% Sediment, Porewater Assay
Task 4: Reports and Meetings
Before, during and after the sampling event, SAI team and subcontractors will
meet with the City for general coordination.
SAI will prepare a final document, wherein all activities performed and sampling
event results will be explained and commented upon. Our report will include a
survey footage video and AutoCAD drawings, necessary for approval by the
Department of Ecology.
Exhibit B outlines the aforementioned tasks that need to be completed and their
associated costs.
Packet Page 97 of 247
Sanders & Associates, Inc.
13256 Northup Way, Suite 15
Bellevue, WA, 98005
Packet Page 98 of 247
Sanders & Associates, Inc.
13256 Northup Way, Suite 15
Bellevue, WA, 98005
EXHIBIT B
Cost per Task for Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
Task 1. Sampling Equipment $4000.00
Task 2. Sediment Sampling and
Outfall Evaluation
$6820.00
Task 3. Laboratories (8 samples) Chemical $10,359.00
Biological $18,900.00
Task 4. Reports, Meeting and Video $14,290.00
TOTAL $54,371.11
10% Contingency $ 5,437.11
TOTAL $59,808.22
Sanders & Associates, Inc.- Billing Rates
Personnel Rate (per hr)
Project Manager - Carol Sanders 138.00
Project Coordinator – Madrigal Hernandez 85.00
Cad Drafter 85.00
Project Administrator 60.00
Field Technician – Candice Au-Yeung 60.00
Key Subcontractors:
Littoral Ecological & Environmental Services
Nautilus Environmental
Analytical Resources, Inc.
Research Resources Services
Packet Page 99 of 247
AM-1696 2.F.
RFQ for Aquatic Center Feasibility Study
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:08/05/2008
Submitted By:Brian McIntosh Time:Consent
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:
Review Committee:
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to Advertise for Statements of Qualifications from consulting firms or consultant
teams to perform an Aquatics Center Feasibility Study.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize staff to advertise for statements of qualification from consulting firms or
consultant teams to perform an Aquatics Center Feasibility Study.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
During the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan Update Council review process
the need for this study was discussed to provide up to date information regarding a wide range of
aquatic related questions within the City of Edmonds. Among topics addressed in the study will
be: industry trends, cost estimates of various conceptual designs, location analysis, M & O,
program and revenue, funding options, community and economic impacts, and assessment of
complimentary and competing facilities. Consultant selection would be completed by mid
September with a project completion date of mid December.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Aquatic Feasibility Study RFQ
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/28/2008 04:42 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/28/2008 04:43 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/30/2008 10:10 AM APRV
Form Started By: Brian
McIntosh
Started On: 07/28/2008 01:00
PM
Final Approval Date: 07/30/2008
Packet Page 100 of 247
City of Edmonds, Washington
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ)
Aquatic Center Feasibility Study
Purpose of Request
The City of Edmonds (“City”) is soliciting Statements of Qualifications from
consultant firms or consultant teams in connection with performing services for the
City. The City’s needs are outlined below.
The City of Edmonds is accepting statements of qualifications from a qualified consultant
or consultant team to perform an Aquatic Center Feasibility Study.
The study will explore and discuss conceptual options for the development of a viable
aquatic center in the City of Edmonds.
In addition, the study will address current conditions at the existing pool and evaluate
possible options for that site.
The study is intended to consider both the aquatic needs of the City of Edmonds and
those of a potential regional scope. The City expects that the following concerns will be
addressed as part of the study:
• changes within the industry
• estimated preliminary costs of various conceptual designs
• location analysis
• maintenance and operations costs
• program use and potential revenues
• funding and development options
• community social and economic impacts
• assessment of complementary and competing facilities
Background / Project Overview
The City of Edmonds is located 14 miles north of Seattle on Puget Sound and is home to
40,760 people. The City is 8.9 square miles with five miles of shoreline including five
waterfront parks and the Port of Edmonds. The City owns and manages approximately
260 acres of parks and open space. There is an additional 229 acres of County-owned
parks and open space within the City.
The City of Edmonds single public swimming pool is an outdoor facility open annually
from Memorial Day to Labor Day. It was constructed in 1972 and has been well
maintained since that time. Two major renovations have taken place with an expanded
deck and spa addition and covered viewing areas. Costly maintenance issues, including
Deleted: Edmond’s
Packet Page 101 of 247
the inability to secure replacement parts for antiquated mechanical systems and the age of
the facility, are major concerns.
The goal is to provide citizens, City Council and staff with a variety of potential options
to address the need for a year-round, covered aquatic facility as identified in the Parks,
Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan. This study will provide conceptual ideas
and illustrations to guide the decision making process in regard to the City of Edmonds
aquatics future.
Meaningful citizen engagement through workshops, focus groups, and other means is an
important element of the work program. Assistance will be provided by City staff to
facilitate these workshops and programs. Several studies and efforts to cover or replace
the existing pool have been conducted in the past, including a concerted effort from 1995
– 2000. The consultant will present updates and findings to the Edmonds Planning Board
and Edmonds City Council.
The proposed total amount budgeted for the consultant work under this project is $60,000,
allocated from the Parks Improvement 125 Fund.
Project Manager
Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director
425-771-0256
mcintosh@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Consultant Selection Criteria
Experience in aquatic planning and conceptual design
Experience with and approach to public involvement
Understanding of project
Project approach
Cost effective solutions
Quality assurance
Personnel resources/capacity to perform
Past performance
Selection Panel
A selection panel will be comprised of 5-6 persons made up of citizens, City Staff, and
City Park/Planning Board.
Submittal Requirements
The Statement of Qualifications will be the basis from which the best qualified firms will
be selected for interview.
The respondent shall list, on the cover sheet of the response, the following information
about the prime consultant:
Firm name, address, phone number, fax number, and a contact person with email.
Deleted:
Packet Page 102 of 247
The title of the Submittal shall be: Statement of Qualifications for Aquatic Center
Feasibiliy Study.
Submit five copies of SOQ to the City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services, attn: Brian McIntosh, Director, 700 Main St, Edmonds WA 98020.
Submittals will be accepted until 4:30 PM on Thursday, August 28, 2008.
Submittals shall be limited to no more than 20 pages.
Further correspondence or contact with City Staff should be directed via email to Brian
McIntosh (mcintosh@ci.edmonds.wa.us). Any questions must be submitted in writing;
all interested consultants may obtain a copy of the questions and responses by submitting
a written request (email is preferred).
We ask that your SOQ be organized in the following format:
(a) Project Understanding
(b) Project Approach
(c) Project Delivery
(d) Proposed Schedule
(e) Experience
(f) Proposed Team Organization (including resources and capacity to perform)
(g) Team Member Resumes
(h) References
Other information and creative ideas your firm wishes to present are welcome. At your
discretion, you may insert additional information into the SOQ where you deem
appropriate.
Project Schedule:
• RFQ Submittal Deadline August 28, 2008
• Interviews September 9, 2008
• Official project start date By September 23, 2008
• Project completion date By December 16, 2008
Packet Page 103 of 247
AM-1700 2.G.
SCSC Kitchen Equipment
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:08/05/2008
Submitted By:Jim Stevens Time:Consent
Department:Public Works Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to solicit quotes in excess of $50,000 for new South County Senior Center kitchen
equipment.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Provide authorization to staff to solicit quotes for replacement kitchen equipment for the South
County Senior Center.
Previous Council Action
City Council Resolution #1049, resolved October 28, 2003, authorized the Mayor to make formal
application for 2004 Community Development Block Grant funding, with a remodel of the Senior
Center kitchen identified as the highest priority project proposed in this application.
Narrative
The existing kitchen equipment at the Senior Center is no longer serviceable and needs to be
replaced. Operational safety is also an ongoing concern. Staff secured funding, earmarked in the
2004 Community Development Block Grants (formerly known as HUD grants), for the remodel of
the Senior Center kitchen as its top priority. A construction project will be a separate piece of this
remodel.
The quotes proposed to be requested here are for fixed equipment estimated to be worth between
$60,000 and $80,000 for use in the remodeled kitchen. All equipment purchases are intended to
be reimbursed to the City through grants.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 09:52 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/31/2008 09:53 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 10:43 AM APRV
Form Started By: Jim
Stevens
Started On: 07/31/2008 09:49
AM
Packet Page 104 of 247
Final Approval Date: 07/31/2008
Packet Page 105 of 247
AM-1704 2.H.
Community Service Announcement
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:08/05/2008
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Submitted For:Council President Plunkett Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Proposed Resolution establishing criteria for use of the "Community Service Announcement"
portion of the City Council Agenda.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council President Plunkett requested that the resolution be placed on the Consent Agenda for the
City Council's review and approval.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The following documents are attached:
1. Memorandum from Council President Plunkett dated July 11, 2008.
2. Proposed Resolution
3. Exhibit A to the Resolution (rules established for access to the City's web site).
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Memo from Council President Plunkett
Link: Proposed Resolution
Link: Exhibit A to Resolution
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 01:24 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/31/2008 01:36 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 01:51 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 07/31/2008 11:56
AM
Final Approval Date: 07/31/2008
Packet Page 106 of 247
City of Edmonds
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 11, 2008
To: Councilmembers
From: Michael Plunkett, Council President
Subject: Chamber of Commerce Public Service Announcements
An issue and an idea continue to come up. Several great local organizations ask for
time at Council meetings to make public service announcements. Most recently the
Chamber has asked to be put first on agendas for about ten announcements over the
rest of the year. Complying with this request would be a violation of existing council
policy for order on agenda and, in general, would not be fair to other organizations. I
was elected Council President to uphold Council policy and to administer it fairly and
openly. I may have a solution for your consideration.
This kind of issue comes up all the time. I have spend time speaking to some folks
about this before. So here is what I’m going to do. I will put on each agenda a five
minute Public Service Announcement item at the start of each meeting. This way the
opportunity to make a PSA will be equitable for all and avoids just setting aside time for
one organization when there many worthy organizations.
Hence, to make this an equitable situation for all those who meet the criteria (see Mr.
Clifton’s policy for existing criteria for PSA); I am going to allow a five-minute segment at
the beginning of the agenda for public service announcements.
In the beginning, I would like to do this on a trial basis; and if it presents too many
difficulties or the Council is not on board with this, we can rethink it. But I would like to
give all the worthy organizations an opportunity. Now I know there maybe some details
to work out but why not give it a try and see how it works.
Thanks for your consideration.
C: Mayor Haakenson
Stephen Clifton, Director CS/ED
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
COUNCIL OFFICE
L:\Productiondb\AGENDA\CCOUNCIL\0016_1704_Public Service Announcements 7-11-08.doc
Packet Page 107 of 247
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
7/28/08
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR
USE OF THE “COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT”
PORTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to provide an
opportunity at City Council meetings for community organizations to make public service
announcements, and,
WHEREAS, City Council meetings are a limited public forum in which an
opportunity for general public comment is provided later in the agenda, and
WHEREAS, the City currently permits use of government channel 21 and the
City’s web site through links for certain limited community organizations, and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to make those same policies applicable to its
public comment period, now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A fifteen-minute opportunity for public service announcements is
hereby established at a time to be designated by the Council President on the Council’s regular
meeting dates. City Council meetings are a limited public forum and their primary purpose is to
conduct public business as set forth in the City Council’s agenda. An opportunity for public
comment is provided at a later time in the agenda. The Community Service Announcement
period shall be administered under the same rules as have been established for access to the
{WSS701761.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 -
Packet Page 108 of 247
City’s web site and the establishment of links thereon. A copy of that policy is attached hereto
as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
Section 2. Community organizations, as defined in the attached Exhibit A, may
request an opportunity to make a public service announcement by contacting the City Council
President or Council resource person. Application to make a public service announcement
should be made by noon on Thursday of the week preceding the agenda on which the
announcement is sought to be made. The Council resource person or Council President shall be
provided with a brief written description of the announcement to be made. The Council
President or resource person may request the information set froth on the attached regarding the
organization’s mission or purpose, including an explanation of its relevance to the Edmonds
community, a contact person and the name, business address and telephone number of the
organization. This information need not be provided each time a community organization makes
a request, but may be required for first-time requesters. Information regarding qualifying
community organizations may be maintained on file by the Council resource person.
Section 3. In the event that more than one organization makes application, the
Council President may divide the fifteen-minute time between them, establish other time limits
or request additional time from the Council. In the event of conflict between two requests, the
Council President may assign time on a first-come/first-served basis.
Section 4. Nothing herein should be interpreted as expanding the limited public
forum or limiting the right of the City Council as necessary to cancel the public comment period
for any given meeting. The City Council’s agenda time is limited and other City Council
business may take priority. The time at which the public announcements are made may vary
from meeting to meeting depending on the urgency of other public business.
{WSS701761.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 -
Packet Page 109 of 247
RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2008.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
{WSS701761.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 -
Packet Page 110 of 247
CITY of EDMONDS
WEB SITE ACCESS AND LINKAGE POLICY
The City of Edmonds web site was developed for the limited purpose of providing information
regarding the Edmonds community, local government services, local civic events, local news
events, local regulations, and other designated materials directly and uniquely relevant to the
City of Edmonds and its residents. Nothing in this policy or in the City’s web site itself shall be
deemed to create or constitute a public forum.
The City of Edmonds does not provide web site hosting for the general public, but does provide
Internet links to the web sites of designated government, non-profit, civic and local organizations
that have a recognized relationship with the City of Edmonds. Any organization or group
hosting a web site to which the City of Edmonds web page provides a link shall be solely and
exclusively responsible for the content thereof. [Please see the City of Edmonds Web Page
Disclaimer LINK]
Organizations or groups desiring to place a link on the City of Edmonds web site must apply in
writing to the City of Edmonds Community Services Department. The application must contain
the following information:
The name, business address, and telephone number of the organization
The URL or Internet address of the organization’s web site
The content of the organization’s web site
The organization’s mission or purpose
An explanation of the organization’s specific relevance to the Edmonds community
The organization’s designated contact person for purposes of communicating with the City of
Edmonds
The organization’s registered agent for purposes of receiving legal service of process
The identity of other web sites that provide an Internet link to the organization’s web site
The City of Edmonds Community Services Department will determine whether or not to approve
each organization’s application and will notify the applicant of the decision within ten days of
receiving an application. In rendering its decision, the Community Services Department shall
consider the guidelines enumerated below in light of the stated purpose of the City of Edmonds
web site.
Generally, Internet links to the following types of web sites may be permissible:
Governmental and public educational institutions located within the State of Washington
Local organizations having a recognized relationship with the City of Edmonds or with
which the City of Edmonds partners in order to provide services, including but not limited to
the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, Port of Edmonds, and Stevens Hospital
Local cultural, artistic, civic or non-profit recreational organizations having either a
recognized relationship with the City of Edmonds or specific and direct relevance to City
residents
Tourist information
{JZL507167.DOC;3/00006.900020/}
Packet Page 111 of 247
Information regarding Edmonds community events, such as festivals, art displays and
neighborhood fairs
Generally, Internet links to the following types of web sites are not permitted:
Political candidate sites or sites advocating a position on political issues, including but not
limited to ballot propositions
For-profit business or commercial sites
Individual personal home pages
Sites containing religious proselytizing or spiritual instruction to the extent consistent with
Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001) or other controlling case or
statute
Sites containing illegal, obscene or pornographic content
Nothing herein shall be deemed to abridge or otherwise limit the City’s unrestricted and sole
discretion to restrict, limit, alter or remove any material or link posted on the City’s official web
site at any time and without notice for any reason, including but not limited to administrative
convenience, space availability or appearance of impropriety. The fact that the City has
previously authorized the posting of material on its official web site by any organization or group
shall in no way be construed to establish any future right by such organization or group to post
additional materials or links, or to limit the City’s ability to restrict, limit, alter or remove any
such material or link once posted.
Any organization whose application for web site linkage has been denied by the City may file a
letter of appeal with the Mayor within 30 days of receiving a written denial from the Community
Services Department.
{JZL507167.DOC;3/00006.900020/}
Packet Page 112 of 247
AM-1699 3.
Closed Record Appeal: Subdivide Arbor Court Townhomes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:08/05/2008
Submitted By:Michael Clugston Time:30 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Recommend Review by Full Council
Information
Subject Title
Continued City Council deliberation on the Closed Record Review: Appeal of the Hearing
Examiner decision to deny the request by Steve Smith Development LLC, represented by
Jean Morgan of Morgan Design Group, to subdivide Arbor Court, a 1.27 acre parcel
developed with 35 townhomes, into 35 fee-simple townhouse parcels. The site is zoned
Multiple Family Residential (RM-1.5) and is located at 23800 – 23824 Edmonds Way. (File
Nos. P-08-16 and APL-08-4)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council to consider the appeal and either:
1. Affirm, modify or reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny the subdivision; or,
2. Remand the application back to the Hearing Examiner for additional consideration or
clarification, with the Council specifiying the items or issues to be considered.
Previous Council Action
At the July 29, 2008, Council meeting, staff and the applicant presented oral arguments regarding
the appeal. Deliberation and action were continued until the August 5 meeting to allow Council
time to review the transcripts from the Hearing Examiner's May 15th meeting which
were mistakenly left out of the July 29 Council packet.
Narrative
Addtional information is being appended to the Council packet from the July 29th meeting. The
verbatim transcripts from the May 15, 2008 public hearing with the Hearing Examiner are
attached as Exhibit 9. Questions from Councilmen Wambolt (Exhibit 10), Bernheim (Exhibit 11),
and Orvis (Exhibit 12) are also included.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 9 - Verbatim Transcript Hearing Examiner, May 15, 2008
Link: Exhibit 10 - Question from Councilman Wambolt
Link: Exhibit 11 - Questions from Councilman Bernheim
Packet Page 113 of 247
Link: Exhibit 12 - Questions from Councilman Orvis
Link: City Attorney Memo Dated 07-31-08
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 01:36 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/31/2008 01:46 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 01:51 PM APRV
Form Started By: Michael
Clugston
Started On: 07/31/2008 09:12
AM
Final Approval Date: 07/31/2008
Packet Page 114 of 247
Packet Page 115 of 247
Packet Page 116 of 247
Packet Page 117 of 247
Packet Page 118 of 247
Packet Page 119 of 247
Packet Page 120 of 247
Packet Page 121 of 247
Packet Page 122 of 247
Packet Page 123 of 247
Packet Page 124 of 247
Packet Page 125 of 247
Packet Page 126 of 247
Packet Page 127 of 247
Packet Page 128 of 247
Packet Page 129 of 247
Packet Page 130 of 247
Packet Page 131 of 247
A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • 206.447.7000 • Fax: 206.447.0215
Web: www.omwlaw.com
{WSS702059.DOC;2/00006.900000/}
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 31, 2008
TO: Edmonds City Council
FROM: Office of the City Attorney, W. Scott Snyder
RE: Burden of Proof and Application of Criteria in the Harbor House Appeal
(File Nos. P-08-16 and APL-08-4)
INTRODUCTION
Because this matter comes to the Council on the appeal of the Applicant without significant
public opposition, there has been no opportunity to develop an "opposing viewpoint." Our office
has previously provided legal advice to the City Council regarding Washington law. Our advice
to the City Council is provided as a neutral assessment by your legal counsel of the position of
staff, the Appellant and the Hearing Examiner. The purpose of this memorandum is to outline
the burdens of proof and potential decisions in light of the Hearing Examiner's Decision and to
assist the Council in your deliberations.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW ON APPEAL
On appeal, findings that the Council may make regarding the law or mixed questions of fact and
law are subject to de novo review. This standard of review by Superior Court means that the
Council's decision receives only limited deference from the courts, which may reverse the
Council’s decision if it is found to be “clearly erroneous”. A decision is considered “clearly
erroneous” when the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made. For that reason we recommend that the Council adhere to established Washington case
law.
Packet Page 132 of 247
Edmonds City Council
July 31, 2008
Page 2
{WSS702059.DOC;2/00006.900000/}
With respect to Findings of Fact, the courts are supposed to give substantial deference to your
Findings of Fact. In this case, there are few facts in dispute. Therefore, in the event of an appeal
from your decision, a court will review this case on a de novo basis. Except as referenced in this
memorandum, little deference will be given to the City's decision-making process.
HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION
The Hearing Examiner's Decision (beginning on page 52 of the Transcript) as modified by the
Decision on Reconsideration (beginning at T. 195) contains two primary groups of conclusions.
The first set finds that the record does not contain evidence demonstrating consistency with
ECDC 20.75.080 and .085. As modified (see page 204), the Hearing Examiner found that the
record did not demonstrate compliance with the subdivision ordinance nor were modifications
granted to cure that inconsistency, as well as the conclusions that the Latin Street layout
requirements have not been met nor were public works and fire code requirements complied
with. The second set of conclusions find that there is insufficient evidence to enter findings of
consistency with public health, safety, and general welfare (T. 65).
REVIEW OF POTENTIAL COUNCIL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Application of the Subdivision Ordinance to Townhouse Development.
a. Collateral Estoppel. As our previous memorandum notes, it is our opinion that
collateral estoppel does not prevent the Council from making a contrary decision. This is the
ground cited in the applicant's appeal (1209). If the code has been misinterpreted, the Council is
free within limits to correct that misinterpretation.
b. Code Interpretation. The Applicant makes a stronger argument regarding how the
code should be interpreted. As the Hearing Examiner notes, administrative stare decisis or the
pattern of prior decision-making code interpretation as well as the application of the doctrine that
the interpretation of the zoning official should be given substantial weight is applicable only if
the City Council finds that the code version is ambiguous. This portion of the Hearing
Examiner's reasoning begins at T. 61 and revolves around the interpretation of Footnote No. 4 of
ECDC 16.30.030(a). If the Council agrees that the provision is unambiguous, i.e., no authority is
provided for townhouse development, you should uphold the Hearing Examiner. The issues of
stare decisis (pattern of administrative decision-making) and the deference to be given to
interpretation of the zoning officials are not applicable if the code is not ambiguous.
c. Ambiguity. In order to find that Footnote No. 4 applies to townhouse
development by subdivision, you must find that the provision is ambiguous. In that event, the
pattern of prior administrative decision-making and the long-standing interpretation of the
zoning official becomes relevant. In that event, it would be well within the Council's discretion
to overturn the Hearing Examiner's Decision and affirm past staff interpretation.
2. Burden of Proof.
Packet Page 133 of 247
Edmonds City Council
July 31, 2008
Page 3
{WSS702059.DOC;2/00006.900000/}
a. An important issue raised in the Hearing Examiner's Decision is whether the
Applicant met its burden of proof prior to the date the record was closed (T. 199-200). As the
Hearing Examiner notes at page 200 of the transcript: "No party would be unduly prejudiced if
the record were reopened to admit the newly offered, material evidence." If the City Council
feels that any issue has not been adequately addressed, the City Council may remand to the
Hearing Examiner to reopen the record. ECDC 20.105.040(E). As the Hearing Examiner notes
(T. 200), the newly offered evidence "would not result in plat approval if the Examiner's
conclusion regarding the interpretation of the townhouse definition remain unchanged . . . ."
3. Potential decision alternatives:
a. If the City Council finds that the code is unambiguous and does not authorize the
same variation for a townhouse development as it does for a condominium development, then a
motion to "uphold the decision of the Hearing Examiner and adopt her Findings of Fact and
Conclusions" would be in order.
b. If you find that the provisions of ECDC 16.30.030(a), Footnote No. 4, are
ambiguous, then you should to determine what interpretation of this provision should be given.
In that case, the pattern of administrative decision-making and the deference which should be
given to the staff's interpretation are relevant to your decision.
Having made that interpretation, you should scrutinize the record to make sure all criteria of the
code have been met. Based on that review, four motions would be available to the Council:
1. A motion to "modify the determination of the Hearing Examiner to find that the code was
ambiguous, but should be interpreted to require compliance with the full provisions of the
ordinance and therefore deny the application."
2. If you find that the code provision is ambiguous, but given the deference to be given to
staff interpretations and the prior decisions of the Hearing Examiner, the staff interpretation
should be adopted, a motion to "reverse the Hearing Examiner's Decision, approve the
application, and prepare Findings in accordance with the position of the staff and the Applicant"
would be in order.
3. Record Not Complete; Two Options.
a. If you find that the staff's interpretation should be maintained and adopted, but
feel that the record is insufficient to show compliance with subdivision code requirements, you
may make a motion to "reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision, adopt the staff's interpretation
and remand the matter to the Hearing Examiner to reopen the record and consider . . . .[list those
items which you feel have not been adequately addressed in the record]."
b. In the alternative, the City Council could make a motion to "modify the Hearing
Examiner's decision to adopt the staff's determination but find that the Applicant has failed to
Packet Page 134 of 247
Edmonds City Council
July 31, 2008
Page 4
{WSS702059.DOC;2/00006.900000/}
meet its burden of proof by presenting substantial and competent evidence regarding . . . [list
those subdivision criteria which have not been met]."
I would be happy to discuss these matters with you on the record of the proceeding. If
Councilmembers have other variations on these findings, I would also be happy to discuss them
with you on the record of the proceeding.
WSS:nkr
ENCLOSURE
Packet Page 135 of 247
AM-1697 4.
Public Hearing: Chapter 16.43 ECDC / Design Standards for the BD1 Zone
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:08/05/2008
Submitted By:Rob Chave Time:45 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing on the Planning Board's recommendation to amend Chapter 16.43 ECDC to
incorporate design standards for the BD1 zone.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to amend the Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) to implement the Planning Board's recommendation.
Previous Council Action
As part of its action adopting the new downtown business (BD) zones, the City Council asked the
Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission (EHPC) to investigate how new development could
be held to tighter standards in the downtown core area. After a report from the EHPC, on May 22,
2007, the Council forwarded the EHPC's recommendations to the Planning Board for review. The
Council held a work session on the Planning Board's recommendations on May 20, 2008.
Narrative
This is a public hearing on a recommendation from the Planning Board on proposed amendments
to the BD1 zone. The initial proposals were developed by the Edmonds Historic Preservation
Commission at the request of the City Council, and then forwarded to the Planning Board by the
City Council in May, 2007. The Architectural Design Board completed its review of the proposals
in December, 2007, and provided the Planning Board with comments in January, 2008. The
Planning Board consulted with both the EHPC and the Architectural Design Board while
developing its recommendation.
As the Planning Board's memo indicates, the Board is intending to continue working with the
EHPC on some of its other recommendations that are not recommended for adoption at this time.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Planning Board Recommendation Memo
Link: PB Attach1: Recommended Design Standards
Link: PB Attach2: Planning Board Minutes
Link: PB Attach3: ADB minutes
Link:
Packet Page 136 of 247
Link: PB Attach4: Hearing Draft
Link: PB Attach5: Council agenda item
Link: PB Attach6: City Council Minutes
Link: PB Attach7: City Attorney Memo
Link: PB Attach8: ACE Comment Letter
Link: Exhibit 2: City Council Minutes 5/20/2008
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 09:50 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/31/2008 09:52 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 10:43 AM APRV
Form Started By: Rob
Chave
Started On: 07/30/2008 03:42
PM
Final Approval Date: 07/31/2008
Packet Page 137 of 247
City of Edmonds Planning Board
Date: March 27, 2008
To: The Edmonds City Council
From: Cary Guenther, Planning Board Chair
Subject: Planning Board Recommendation on Amendments to the BD1 Zone
I. Introduction
After receiving recommendations from the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission
(EHPC), the City Council forwarded a set of proposals to the Planning Board regarding
design review and design standards in the Downtown Retail Core (BD1 zone). Attached
is information from the City Council’s discussions with the Historic Preservation
Commission, including the actual proposals made by the Commission.
During its review, the Planning Board worked with both the EHPC and the Architectural
Design Board (ADB) on these proposals, and held a public hearing on February 13,
2008. Minutes of the Planning Board’s meetings are attached, along with relevant
minutes from the ADB and other materials reviewed by the Board.
II. Recommendations
1. ADOPT THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
The Planning Board recommends that the “Design Standards for Building Design” in
Attachment 1 be adopted as zoning standards in the BD1 zone. These are consistent
with the City’s goals and policies to create retail-friendly design in the BD1 zone,
which corresponds to the retail core of downtown Edmonds. Because this area sets
the tone and character for the larger downtown area, it is critical that new and
remodeled buildings in the BD1 zone provide a minimum standard of design and
street character. The design standards recommended at this time should be seen as a
first step in achieving this goal; they should be evaluated periodically to assess
whether they are achieving the desired goals and whether improvements in the
standards can be made.
MEMORANDUM
Packet Page 138 of 247
2. CONSIDER ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM TO
EFFECTIVELY DEAL WITH THE HISTORIC ISSUES.
The other items in the original proposal (e.g. renaming the BD1 zone to include a
“historic” reference, providing for a deferred demolition schedule, and changing the
design review process so that nearly all exterior building changes would go to the
ADB for review) may have some merit, and the Planning Board would like to
continue to work with the Historic Preservation Commission to explore whether and
how these proposals could be included in the City’s codes.
3. PURSUE FURTHER WORK ON INCENTIVES.
In addition to the above recommendations, we believe there is merit to exploring
further whether there are meaningful incentives that would serve to encourage good
retail-friendly design that will protect the character and quality of downtown
Edmonds – not just within the BD1 zone, but within the larger downtown area. The
City has a number of initiatives that will enhance downtown in the future – projects
such as the Edmonds Center for the Arts and the Fourth Avenue Arts Corridor. We
also know that there are a number of historic buildings in our midst, and that these
provide valuable contributions to the character of downtown Edmonds. The
challenge is to leverage these initiatives with incentives to encourage private
development to “do the right thing,” both in retaining historic structures and in
developing new projects that are compatible with the overall character of downtown.
Incentives could be tied to permitting and fees, flexibility in allowed uses for
retained buildings, parking, or other parameters.
Attachments
1. Recommended BD1 Design Standards
2. Planning Board Minutes
3. ADB Minutes
4. Public Hearing Notice and Public Hearing Draft of Proposals
5. City Council agenda item, including Historic Commission recommendations.
6. City Council minutes.
7. Memo from City Attorney (dated 5/22/2007).
8. Letter from “ACE Subcommittee on Downtown Core preservation.”
Packet Page 139 of 247
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 1
Design Standards
for Building Design
[Note: These standards are to be incorporated into
the code requirements for the BD1 zone.]
Packet Page 140 of 247
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 2
Massing and Articulation
Intent:
To reduce the massiveness and bulk
of large box-like buildings, and
articulate the building form to a
pedestrian scale.
Standards:
1. Buildings shall convey a visually
distinct ‘base’ and ‘top’. A ‘base’ can
be emphasized by a different masonry
pattern, more architectural detail,
visible ‘plinth’ above which the wall
rises, storefront, canopies, or a
combination. The top edge is
highlighted by a prominent cornice,
projecting parapet or other
architectural element that creates a
shadow line.
Buildings should convey a distinct base
and top.
The base can be emphasized by a
different material.
Packet Page 141 of 247
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 3
Orientation to Street
Intent:
To reinforce pedestrian activity and
orientation and enhance the liveliness
of the street through building design.
Standards:
1. Buildings shall be oriented to the
adjacent street, rather than to a
parking lot.
2. Entrances to buildings shall be visible
from the street and accessible from
the adjacent sidewalk.
3. Entrances shall be given a visually
distinct architectural expression by
one or more of the following
elements:
a. Higher bay(s)
b. Recessed entry (recessed at least 3
feet)
c. Forecourt and entrance plaza.
Buildings shall be oriented to the street.
Entrances shall be given visually
distinct expression.
Packet Page 142 of 247
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 4
Ground Level Details
Intent:
To reinforce the character of the
streetscape by encouraging the
greatest amount of visual interest
along the ground level of buildings
facing pedestrian streets.
Standards:
1. Ground-floor, street-facing façades of
commercial and mixed-use buildings
shall incorporate at least five of the
following elements.
a. Lighting or hanging baskets
supported by ornamental brackets
b. Medallions
c. Belt courses
d. Plinths for columns
e. Bulkhead for storefront window
f. Projecting sills
g. Tilework
h. Transom or clerestory windows
i. Planter box
j. An element not listed here, as
approved, that meets the intent.
2. Ground floor commercial space is
intended to be at grade with the
sidewalk, as provided for in ECDC
16.43.030.B.
Ground floor details encourage visual
interest along the ground level of buildings
facing pedestrian streets.
Packet Page 143 of 247
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 5
Awnings/Canopies and Signage
Intent:
To integrate signage and weather
protection with building design to
enhance business visibility and the
public streetscape.
To provide clear signage to identify
each business or property, and to
improve way-finding for visitors.
To protect the streetscape from
becoming cluttered, and to minimize
distraction from overuse of
advertisement elements.
Standards:
1. Structural canopies are encouraged
along pedestrian street fronts. If a
canopy is not provided, then an
awning shall be provided which is
attached to the building using a metal
or other framework.
2. Awnings and canopies shall be open-
sided to enhance visibility of business
signage. Front valances are permitted.
Signage is allowed on valances, but
not on valance returns.
3. Marquee, box, or convex awning or
canopy shapes are not permitted.
4. Retractable awnings are encouraged.
5. Awnings or canopies shall be located
within the building elements that
frame storefronts, and should not
conceal important architectural
details. Awnings or canopies should
be hung just below a clerestory or
“transom” window, if it exists.
6. Awnings or canopies on a multiple-
storefront building should be
consistent in character, scale and
position, but need not be identical.
Open-sided non-structural awning
with front valance.
Open-sided structural canopy.
Packet Page 144 of 247
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 6
Awnings and Signage
(continued)
7. Non-structural awnings should be
constructed using canvas or fire-
resistant acrylic materials. Shiny, high-
gloss materials are not appropriate;
therefore, vinyl or plastic awning
materials are not permitted.
8. Signage should be designed to
integrate with the building and street
front. Combinations of sign types are
encouraged which result in a
coordinated design while minimizing
the size of individual signs.
9. Blade or projecting signs which
include decorative frames, brackets or
other design elements are
encouraged. This type of detail can be
used to satisfy one of the required
elements under the section ‘Ground
Level Details.’
10. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the
need to have large expanses of
lettering.
11. Instead of broadly lighting the face of
the sign, signage should be indirectly
lit, or backlit to only display lettering
and symbols or graphic design.
12. Signage should be given special
consideration when it is consistent
with or contributes to the historic
character of sites on the National
Register, the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places, or on a City-approved
historic survey.
13. Signage shall include decorative
frames, brackets or other design
elements. An historic sign may be
used to meet this standard.
Awning or
Canopy
Shapes:
Standard
Convex
Box
Marquee
Retractable and open-sided
awnings allow signage to be
visible.
Examples of projecting
signs using decorative
frames and design
elements.
Packet Page 145 of 247
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 7
Transparency at Street Level
Intent:
To provide visual connection between
activities inside and outside the
building.
Standards:
1. The ground level façades of
buildings that are oriented to
streets shall have transparent
windows with a minimum of 75%
transparency between an average
of 2 feet and 10 feet above grade.
2. To qualify as transparent, windows
shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted
glass, or prohibit visibility between the
street and interior.
3. Where transparency is not provided,
the façade shall comply with the
standards under the section ‘Treating
Blank Walls’.
Ground level facades of buildings
should have transparent windows
between 2 to 10 feet above grade.
Windows shall provide a visual
connection between activities
inside and outside the building,
and therefore should not be
mirrored or use darkly tinted
glass.
Packet Page 146 of 247
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 8
Treating Blank Walls
Intent:
To ensure that buildings do not display
blank, unattractive walls to the
abutting street.
Standards:
1. Walls or portions of walls on abutting
streets or visible from residential
areas where windows are not provided
shall have architectural treatment
(see standards under section
‘Transparency’). At least four of the
following elements shall be
incorporated into any ground floor,
street-facing façade:
a. Masonry (except for flat, non-
decorative concrete block)
b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the
base of the wall
c. Belt courses of a different texture
and color
d. Projecting cornice
e. Decorative tilework
f. Medallions
g. Opaque or translucent glass
h. Artwork or wall graphics
i. Lighting fixtures
j. An architectural element not listed
above, as approved, that meets
the intent.
Buildings shall not display blank,
unattractive walls to the abutting
street.
Packet Page 147 of 247
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 9
Building HVAC Equipment
Intent:
To ensure that HVAC equipment,
elevators, and other building utility
features are designed to be a part of
the overall building design and do not
detract from the streetscape.
Standards:
1. Rooftop HVAC equipment, elevators
and other rooftop features shall be
designed to fit in with the materials
and colors of the overall building
design. These features shall be
located away from the building edges
to avoid their being seen from the
street below. If these features can be
seen from the adjoining street,
building design shall use screening,
decoration, plantings (e.g. rooftop
gardens), or other techniques to
integrate these features with the
design of the building.
2. When HVAC equipment is placed at
ground level, it shall be integrated into
building design and/or use screening
techniques to avoid both visual and
noise impacts on adjoining properties.
Rooftop equipment should be
screened from view.
Packet Page 148 of 247
Packet Page 149 of 247
Packet Page 150 of 247
Packet Page 151 of 247
Packet Page 152 of 247
Packet Page 153 of 247
Packet Page 154 of 247
Packet Page 155 of 247
Packet Page 156 of 247
Packet Page 157 of 247
Packet Page 158 of 247
Packet Page 159 of 247
Packet Page 160 of 247
Packet Page 161 of 247
Packet Page 162 of 247
Packet Page 163 of 247
Packet Page 164 of 247
Packet Page 165 of 247
Packet Page 166 of 247
Packet Page 167 of 247
Packet Page 168 of 247
Packet Page 169 of 247
Packet Page 170 of 247
Packet Page 171 of 247
Packet Page 172 of 247
Packet Page 173 of 247
Packet Page 174 of 247
Packet Page 175 of 247
Packet Page 176 of 247
Packet Page 177 of 247
Packet Page 178 of 247
Packet Page 179 of 247
Packet Page 180 of 247
Packet Page 181 of 247
Packet Page 182 of 247
Packet Page 183 of 247
Packet Page 184 of 247
Packet Page 185 of 247
Packet Page 186 of 247
Packet Page 187 of 247
Packet Page 188 of 247
EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Hearing Date/Time: Wednesday, February 13, 2008, beginning at 7pm
Hearing Location: City Council Chamber,
250 5th Ave N in Downtown Edmonds
Properties Affected: Properties zoned BD1 in Downtown Edmonds, located
along Main ST between 3rd and 6th Avenues, and
along 5th Avenue from Maple ST to the alley north of
Main ST.
Summary of the Proposal: Public hearing on proposed design standards and a
refined design review process that would apply to
properties in the Downtown Retail Core (properties
zoned BD1). Details of the proposal can be found on
the City Website at:
http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/pb_issues.htm
On January 16, 2007, the Edmonds City Council adopted new "BD - Downtown
Business" zones as a new Chapter 16.43 in the Edmonds Community Development
Code. The Council also approved a new zoning map for downtown properties. These
actions were a follow-up to an update of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan which was
completed in March, 2005.
Currently, the City is evaluating potential updates to one of the downtown zones - the
BD1 zone - to consider providing additional detail to the design standards and design
review process for this important part of the city's downtown retail core. The current
proposal is set for a public hearing before the Edmonds Planning Board on Wednesday,
February 13, 2008 at the City Council Chamber, 250 5th Ave N, in Downtown Edmonds.
The proposal does not change the uses permitted in the zone, nor is there any change in
zoning for any of the properties involved. What the proposal would do is add some
design standards for new construction within the established BD1 zone and potentially
mean that more design changes would have to be reviewed by the city’s Architectural
Design Board (ADB). The details of the proposal can be found online at the City of
Edmonds website under issues being studied by the Planning Board, located at
http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/pb_issues.htm.
Packet Page 189 of 247
PROPOSALS BEING CONSIDERED
BY THE EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
ON DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE DOWNTOWN BD1 ZONE
(THE “HERITAGE CENTER OF EDMONDS”)
PURPOSE
The purpose of establishing the Heritage Center of Edmonds (the area currently
zoned BD1) is to preserve and continue the historic architectural character of this
area. Establishing Historic Design Standards for new and renovated structures
in this area will help promote and support a vibrant retail environment in the
center of the downtown core. Approved Historic Design Standards will provide a
foundation for all future development in the Heritage Center of Edmonds (BD1)
and a mechanism to involve members of the Historic Preservation Commission in
the design review process. The Heritage Center of Edmonds will promote
economic vitality by increasing property values and encouraging heritage
tourism.
In support of this purpose, the Commission requests that the City Council forward these
recommendations to the Planning Board, and that the Commission be allowed to work
with the Planning Board to develop a final set of code amendments for City Council
consideration.
The Commission’s RECOMMENDATIONS are summarized below, by subject.
RENAME THE BD1 ZONE
The BD1 zone should be renamed to something more descriptive, to reflect its historic
roots. Names such as “Historic Downtown Center” or “Historic Center of Edmonds” or
“Heritage Center of Edmonds” have been suggested. For the time being, this area shall
be referred to as the “Heritage Center of Edmonds” for reference.
DEVELOP DESIGN STANDARDS
Adopt the attached “Design Standards for Building Design” for use as design standards
in the Heritage Center of Edmonds.
THRESHOLD FOR DESIGN REVIEW
Because of the importance of the public streetscape in the Heritage Center of Edmonds,
SEPA shall not be the sole standard triggering the ADB’s hearing process. Instead, any
project which has the potential to have a significant impact on the pedestrian streetscape
shall undergo full ADB review. The threshold for design review should be exterior
changes that deviate from exterior design and are visible from adjacent streets or
avenues. Changes that modify the existing exterior character would require design
review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Repair and maintenance projects that
EHPC Recommendation/2007.05.10 Page 1
Packet Page 190 of 247
replace “like for like” would not require design review by the ADB. Also, interior
changes that do not affect the exterior appearance of the building shall be exempt.
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
The Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission should review and prepare a
recommendation on projects proposed within the BD1 zone, and have a
representative(s) of the EHPC present the recommendations to the ADB during the ADB
review meeting.
APPLICATIONS FOR ADB REVIEW
For projects requiring ADB review within the Heritage Center of Edmonds, applicants
will need to provide all of the materials typically required for ADB review, including :
• A brief description of the project and the surrounding streetscape (neighboring
buildings, setbacks, heights and rooflines).
• Blueprints to include plan, elevation and section drawings. Include window design,
signs and exterior lighting.
• Detailed drawings or 3-dimensional model of new/altered architectural features and
trim are required.
• A description and samples of building materials including types of windows,
roofing and siding. (Applicant must include an actual color chart or color samples.)
• Photographs of nearby building facades, rooflines and streetscape will be required. If
a historic rehabilitation or alteration, photos from the Edmonds Historic
Preservation Commission would be helpful.
DEMOLITION
Demolition permits may not be issued for up to sixty days while the Edmonds Historic
Preservation Commission works with the applicant to explore alternatives to
demolition.
INCENTIVES
Create incentives to preserve existing structures. These might include: the waiving or
reducing of permit fees, the expediting of permit approvals, and a relaxing of building
standards to allow the ability to go outside the existing building’s envelope to promote
preservation of buildings which are on the Edmonds Register Of Historical Places.
As alternative to ADB design review, buildings on an historic register or city-approved
historic survey (e.g. the recently completed BOLA survey of the downtown area) could
opt to deviate from any of the BD1 design standards if it received a “certificate of
appropriateness” from the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission (EHPC). In
other words, “historic” buildings would have an alternate design approval process
available to them through the EHPC.
EHPC Recommendation/2007.05.10 Page 2
Packet Page 191 of 247
Design Standards
for Building Design
[Note: These standards would be incorporated into
the code requirements for the BD1 zone.]
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 3
Packet Page 192 of 247
Massing and Articulation
Buildings should convey a distinct base
and top.
Intent:
To reduce the massiveness and bulk
of large box-like buildings, and
articulate the building form to a
pedestrian scale.
Standards:
1. Buildings shall convey a visually
distinct ‘base’ and ‘top’. A ‘base’ can
be emphasized by a different masonry
pattern, more architectural detail,
visible ‘plinth’ above which the wall
rises, storefront, canopies, or a
combination. The top edge is
highlighted by a prominent cornice,
projecting parapet or other
architectural element that creates a
shadow line.
The base can be emphasized by a
different material.
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 4
Packet Page 193 of 247
Buildings shall be oriented to the street.
Orientation to Street
Intent:
To reinforce pedestrian activity and
orientation and enhance the liveliness
of the street through building design.
Standards:
1. Buildings shall be oriented to the
adjacent street, rather than to a
parking lot.
2. Entrances to buildings shall be visible
from the street and accessible from
the adjacent sidewalk.
3. Entrances shall be given a visually
distinct architectural expression by
two or more of the following
elements:
Entrances shall be given visually
distinct expression.
a. Higher bay(s)
b. Recessed entry (recessed at least 3
feet)
c. Forecourt and entrance plaza.
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 5
Packet Page 194 of 247
Ground Level Details
Intent:
To reinforce the character of the
streetscape by encouraging the
greatest amount of visual interest
along the ground level of buildings
facing pedestrian streets.
Standards:
1. Ground-floor, street-facing façades of
commercial and mixed-use buildings
shall incorporate at least five of the
following elements.
a. Lighting or hanging baskets
supported by ornamental brackets
b. Medallions
c. Belt courses
d. Plinths for columns
e. Bulkhead for storefront window
Ground floor details encourage visual
interest along the ground level of buildings
facing pedestrian streets.
f. Projecting sills
g. Tilework
h. Transom or clerestory windows
i. Planter box
j. An element not listed here, as
approved, that meets the intent.
2. Ground floor commercial space shall
be at grade with the sidewalk. Sunken
entrances are prohibited.
3. Ground floor residential units shall be
separated from the sidewalk either by
setbacks or by elevation (e.g. raised
above street grade) in order to afford
privacy to residents.
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 6
Packet Page 195 of 247
Awnings/Canopies and Signage
Intent:
To integrate signage and weather
protection with building design to
enhance business visibility and the
public streetscape.
Open-sided non-structural awning
with front valance.
To provide clear signage to identify
each business or property, and to
improve way-finding for visitors.
To protect the streetscape from
becoming cluttered, and to minimize
distraction from overuse of
advertisement elements.
Standards:
1. Structural canopies are encouraged
along pedestrian street fronts. If a
canopy is not provided, then an
awning shall be provided which is
attached to the building using a metal
or other framework.
Open-sided structural canopy.
2. Awnings and canopies shall be open-
sided to enhance visibility of business
signage. Front valances are permitted.
Signage is allowed on valances, but
not on valance returns.
3. Marquee, box, or convex awning or
canopy shapes are not permitted.
4. Retractable awnings are encouraged.
5. Awnings or canopies shall be located
within the building elements that
frame storefronts, and should not
conceal important architectural
details. Awnings or canopies should
be hung just below a clerestory or
“transom” window, if it exists.
6. Awnings or canopies on a multiple-
storefront building should be
consistent in character, scale and
position, but need not be identical.
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 7
Packet Page 196 of 247
Retractable and open-sided
awnings allow signage to be
visible.
Awnings and Signage
(continued)
7. Non-structural awnings should be
constructed using canvas or fire-
resistant acrylic materials. Shiny, high-
gloss materials are not appropriate;
therefore, vinyl or plastic awning
materials are not permitted.
8. Signage should be designed to
integrate with the building and street
front. Combinations of sign types are
encouraged which result in a
coordinated design while minimizing
the size of individual signs.
Awning or
Canopy
Shapes:
Standard
Convex
Box
Marquee
9. Blade or projecting signs which
include decorative frames, brackets or
other design elements are
encouraged. This type of detail can be
used to satisfy one of the required
elements under the section ‘Ground
Level Details.’
10. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the
need to have large expanses of
lettering.
Examples of projecting
signs using decorative
frames and design
elements.
11. Signage in the “Arts Center Corridor”
defined in the Comprehensive Plan is
required to include decorative sign
frames or brackets in its design.
12. Instead of broadly lighting the face of
the sign, signage should be indirectly
lit, or backlit to only display lettering
and symbols or graphic design.
13. Signage should be given special
consideration when it is consistent
with or contributes to the historic
character of sites on the National
Register or the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places
14. Signage shall include decorative
frames, brackets or other design
elements. An historic sign may be
used to meet this standard.
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 8
Packet Page 197 of 247
Transparency at Street Level
Intent:
To provide visual connection between
activities inside and outside the
building.
Ground level facades of buildings
should have transparent windows
between
2 to 10 feet above grade.
Standards:
1. The ground level façades of
buildings that are oriented to
streets shall have transparent
windows with a minimum of 75%
transparency between an average
of 2 feet and 10 feet above grade.
2. To qualify as transparent, windows
shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted
glass, or prohibit visibility between the
street and interior.
3. Where transparency is not provided,
the façade shall comply with the
standards under the section ‘Treating
Blank Walls’.
Windows shall provide a visual
connection between activities
inside and outside the building,
and therefore should not be
4. All-residential buildings do not have a
specific transparency requirement.
However, all-residential buildings shall
be treated as if they have blank walls
facing the street and must comply
with the standards under the section
‘Treating Blank Walls’.
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 9
Packet Page 198 of 247
Treating Blank Walls
Intent:
To ensure that buildings do not display
blank, unattractive walls to the
abutting street.
Standards:
1. Walls or portions of walls on abutting
streets or visible from residential
areas where windows are not provided
shall have architectural treatment
(see standards under section
‘Transparency’). At least four of the
following elements shall be
incorporated into any ground floor,
street-facing façade:
a. Masonry (except for flat concrete
block)
Buildings shall not display blank,
unattractive walls to the abutting
street.
b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the
base of the wall
c. Belt courses of a different texture
and color
d. Projecting cornice
e. Decorative tilework
f. Medallions
g. Opaque or translucent glass
h. Artwork or wall graphics
i. Lighting fixtures
j. An architectural element not listed
above, as approved, that meets
the intent.
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 10
Packet Page 199 of 247
Treating Blank Walls
(continued)
2. For buildings having residential units
on the ground floor, landscaping —
including hanging baskets or planter
boxes — and other street-level façade
enhancements shall be required to
integrate the building with the
streetscape. This requirement is
considered to satisfy one of the four
elements required in (1) above.
Building Rooftop Equipment
Intent:
To ensure that HVAC equipment,
elevators, and other rooftop features
are designed to be a part of the
overall building design and do not
detract from the streetscape.
Rooftop equipment should be
screened from view.
Standards:
1. Rooftop HVAC equipment, elevators
and other rooftop features shall be
designed to fit in with the materials
and colors of the overall building
design. These features shall be
located away from the building edges
to avoid their being seen from the
street below. Building design shall use
screening, decoration, plantings (e.g.
rooftop gardens), or other techniques
to integrate these features with the
design of the building.
Draft Downtown Design Standards/2006.12.28 Page 11
Packet Page 200 of 247
AM-994
Report and recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission on
downtown design standards.
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/22/2007
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Submitted For:Rob Chave Time:45 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Report and recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission on downtown design
standards.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Provide direction to the Planning Board and Historic Preservation Commission.
Previous Council Action
The Historic Preservation Commission reported to the City Council on February 27, 2007.
Narrative
This discussion is a follow-up to the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission's report to the
City Council on February 27, 2007. Since that meeting, the EHPC has worked to develop a set of
recommendations and design guidelines that could be implemented in the downtown BD1 zone
(recommended to be named the "Heritage Center of Edmonds"). The Commission is asking the
Council to forward its recommendations to the Planning Board, and allow the EHPC to work with
the Planning Board in developing a final set of code amendments for Council consideration
and adoption; this would require public hearings at both the Planning Board and City Council
levels.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: EHPC Recommendation
Link: Exhibit 2: City Council minutes
Form Routing/Status
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 05/15/2007 02:57
PM
Packet Page 201 of 247
RECOMMENDATIONS BY
THE EDMONDS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ON DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE DOWNTOWN BD1 ZONE
(THE “HERITAGE CENTER OF EDMONDS”)
PURPOSE
The purpose of establishing the Heritage Center of Edmonds (the area currently
zoned BD1) is to preserve and continue the historic architectural character of this
area. Establishing Historic Design Standards for new and renovated structures
in this area will help promote and support a vibrant retail environment in the
center of the downtown core. Approved Historic Design Standards will provide a
foundation for all future development in the Heritage Center of Edmonds (BD1)
and a mechanism to involve members of the Historic Preservation Commission in
the design review process. The Heritage Center of Edmonds will promote
economic vitality by increasing property values and encouraging heritage
tourism.
In support of this purpose, the Commission requests that the City Council forward these
recommendations to the Planning Board, and that the Commission be allowed to work
with the Planning Board to develop a final set of code amendments for City Council
consideration.
The Commission’s RECOMMENDATIONS are summarized below, by subject.
RENAME THE BD1 ZONE
The BD1 zone be renamed the “Heritage Center of Edmonds.”
DEVELOP DESIGN STANDARDS
City Council to direct the EHPC and the Planning Board to work together in an iterative
process to further develop design standards for the Heritage Center of Edmonds. As a
starting point, the attached “Design Guidelines for Building Design” should be
considered for use as design standards in the Heritage Center of Edmonds.
THRESHOLD FOR DESIGN REVIEW
Because of the importance of the public streetscape in the Heritage Center of Edmonds,
SEPA shall not be the sole standard triggering the ADB’s hearing process. Instead, any
project which has the potential to have a significant impact on the pedestrian streetscape
shall undergo full ADB review. Threshold details should be worked out by the Planning
Board in consultation with the EHPC.
EHPC Recommendation/2007.05.10 Page 1
Packet Page 202 of 247
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
The Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission shall have two of its members serve as
voting members of the ADB for applications within the Heritage Center of Edmonds
(BD1).
APPLICATIONS FOR ADB REVIEW
For projects requiring ADB review within the Heritage Center of Edmonds:
• The applicant shall provide a brief description of the project and the surrounding
streetscape (neighboring buildings, setbacks, heights and rooflines).
• The applicant shall provide blueprints to include plan, elevation and section
drawings. Include window design, signs and exterior lighting.
• Detailed drawings or 3-dimensional model of new/altered architectural features and
trim are required.
• Applicant shall provide a description and samples of building materials including
types of windows, roofing and siding. (Applicant must include an actual color chart
or color samples.)
• Photographs of nearby building facades, rooflines and streetscape will be required. If
a historic rehabilitation or alteration, photos from Historic Preservation Commission
would be helpful.
DEMOLITION
Demolition permits may not be issued for up to sixty days while the Edmonds Historic
Preservation Commission works with the applicant to explore alternatives to
demolition.
INCENTIVES
Create incentives to preserve existing structures. These might include: the waiving or
reducing of permit fees, the expediting of permit approvals, and a relaxing of building
standards to allow the ability to go outside the existing building’s envelope to promote
preservation of buildings which are on the Edmonds Register Of Historical Places.
EHPC PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS
Historic Preservation Commission requests the City Council to direct the Planning
Board to incorporate the Historic Preservation Commission in the process of developing
these concepts with Planning Board.
EHPC Recommendation/2007.05.10 Page 2
Packet Page 203 of 247
Design Guidelines
for Building Design
Packet Page 204 of 247
Massing and Articulation
Buildings should convey a distinct base and top.
Intent:
To reduce the massiveness and
bulk of large box-like buildings,
and articulate the building form to
a pedestrian scale.
Guidelines:
1. Buildings shall convey a visually
distinct ‘base’ and ‘top’. A ‘base’
can be emphasized by a different
masonry pattern, more
architectural detail, visible ‘plinth’
above which the wall rises,
storefront, canopies, or a
combination. The top edge is
highlighted by a prominent
cornice, projecting parapet or
other architectural element that
creates a shadow line.
The base can be emphasized by a different
material.
Draft Downtown Design Guidelines/2006.12.28 Page 2
Packet Page 205 of 247
Orientation to Street
Buildings shall be oriented to the street.
Intent:
To reinforce pedestrian activity
and orientation and enhance the
liveliness of the street through
building design.
Guidelines:
1. Buildings shall be oriented to the
adjacent street, rather than to a
parking lot.
2. Entrances to buildings shall be
visible from the street and
accessible from the adjacent
sidewalk.
3. Entrances shall be given a visually
distinct architectural expression by
two or more of the following
elements:
Entrances shall be given visually
distinct expression.
a. Higher bay(s)
b. Recessed entry (recessed at
least 3 feet)
c. Forecourt
Draft Downtown Design Guidelines/2006.12.28 Page 3
Packet Page 206 of 247
Ground Level Details
Intent:
To reinforce the character of the
streetscape by encouraging the
greatest amount of visual interest
along the ground level of buildings
facing pedestrian streets.
Guidelines:
1. Ground-floor, street-facing façades
of commercial and mixed-use
buildings shall incorporate at least
five of the following elements.
a. Lighting or hanging baskets
supported by ornamental
brackets
b. Medallions
c. Belt courses
d. Plinths for columns
Ground floor details encourage visual interest along
the ground level of buildings facing pedestrian
streets.
e. Kickplate for storefront window
f. Projecting sills
g. Tilework
h. Transom or clerestory windows
i. Planter box
j. An element not listed here, as
approved, that meets the
intent.
k. Blade or projecting signs which
include decorative frames,
brackets or other design
elements (see section on
‘awnings and signage’).
2. Ground floor commercial space
shall be at grade with the
sidewalk. Sunken entrances are
prohibited.
3. Ground floor residential units
should be separated from the
sidewalk either by setbacks or by
elevation (e.g. raised above street
grade) in order to afford privacy to
residents.
Draft Downtown Design Guidelines/2006.12.28 Page 4
Packet Page 207 of 247
Awnings and Signage
Intent:
To integrate signage and weather
protection with building design to
enhance business visibility and the
public streetscape.
Open-sided non-structural awning
with front valance.
To provide clear signage to identify
each business or property, and to
improve way-finding for visitors.
To protect the streetscape from
becoming cluttered, and to
minimize distraction from overuse
of advertisement elements.
Guidelines:
1. Awnings are encouraged along
pedestrian street fronts. Awnings
may be structural (permanently
attached to and part of the
building) or non-structural
(attached to the building using a
metal or other framework).
Open-sided structural awning.
2. Awnings shall be open-sided to
enhance visibility of business
signage. Front valances are
permitted. Signage is allowed on
valances, but not on valance
returns.
3. Marquee, box, or convex awning
shapes are not permitted.
4. Retractable awnings are
encouraged.
5. Awnings shall be located within
the building elements that frame
storefronts, and should not
conceal important architectural
details. Awnings should be hung
just below a clerestory or
“transom” window, if it exists.
6. Awnings on a multiple-storefront
building should be consistent in
character, scale and position, but
need not be identical.
Draft Downtown Design Guidelines/2006.12.28 Page 5
Packet Page 208 of 247
Awnings and Signage
(continued)
Retractable and open-sided awnings
allow signage to be visible.
7. Non-structural awnings should be
constructed using canvas or fire-
resistant acrylic materials. Shiny,
high-gloss materials are not
appropriate; therefore, vinyl or
plastic awning materials are not
permitted.
8. Signage should be designed to
integrate with the building and
street front. Combinations of sign
types are encouraged which result
in a coordinated design while
minimizing the size of individual
signs.
Awning
Shapes:
Standard
Convex
Box
Marquee
9. Blade or projecting signs which
include decorative frames,
brackets or other design elements
are encouraged. This type of detail
can be used to satisfy one of the
required elements under the
section ‘Ground Level Details.’
Examples of projecting signs
using decorative frames and
design elements.
10. Use graphics or symbols to reduce
the need to have large expanses of
lettering.
11. Signage in the “Arts Center
Corridor” defined in the
Comprehensive Plan is required to
include decorative sign frames or
brackets in its design.
12. Instead of broadly lighting the face
of the sign, signage should be
indirectly lit, or backlit to only
display lettering and symbols or
graphic design.
13. Signage should be given special
consideration when it is consistent
with or contributes to the historic
character of sites on the National
Register or the Edmonds Register
of Historic Places
Draft Downtown Design Guidelines/2006.12.28 Page 6
Packet Page 209 of 247
Transparency at Street Level
Intent:
To provide visual connection
between activities inside and
outside the building.
Ground level facades of buildings should
have transparent windows between
2 to 10 feet above grade.
Guidelines:
1. The ground level façades of
buildings that are oriented to
streets shall have transparent
windows between an average of 2
feet and 10 feet above grade,
according to the following:
a. Retail Core: minimum of 75%
transparency
b. Other Areas: minimum of 30%
transparency
2. To qualify as transparent, windows
shall not be mirrored or darkly
tinted glass, or prohibit visibility
between the street and interior.
Windows shall provide a visual
connection between activities inside and
outside the building, and therefore
should not be mirrored or use darkly
tinted glass.
3. Where transparency is not
provided, the façade shall comply
with the guidelines under the
section ‘Treating Blank Walls’.
4. All-residential buildings do not
have a specific transparency
requirement. However, all-
residential buildings shall be
treated as if they have blank walls
facing the street and must comply
with the guidelines under the
section ‘Treating Blank Walls’.
Draft Downtown Design Guidelines/2006.12.28 Page 7
Packet Page 210 of 247
Treating Blank Walls
Intent:
To ensure that buildings do not
display blank, unattractive walls to
the abutting street.
Guidelines:
1. Walls or portions of walls on
abutting streets or visible from
residential areas where windows
are not provided shall have
architectural treatment (see
guidelines under section
‘Transparency’). At least four of the
following elements shall be
incorporated into any ground floor,
street-facing façade:
a. Masonry (except for flat
concrete block)
Buildings shall not display blank,
unattractive walls to the abutting street.
b. Concrete or masonry plinth at
the base of the wall
c. Belt courses of a different
texture and color
d. Projecting cornice
e. Projecting metal canopy
f. Decorative tilework
g. Trellis containing planting
h. Medallions
i. Opaque or translucent glass
j. Artwork or wall graphics
k. Vertical articulation
l. Lighting fixtures
m. An architectural element not
listed above, as approved, that
meets the intent.
Draft Downtown Design Guidelines/2006.12.28 Page 8
Packet Page 211 of 247
Treating Blank Walls
(continued)
2. For buildings having residential
units on the ground floor,
landscaping — including hanging
baskets or planter boxes — and
other street-level façade
enhancements shall be required to
integrate the building with the
streetscape. This requirement is
considered to satisfy one of the
four elements required in (1)
above.
Building Rooftop Equipment
Intent:
To ensure that HVAC equipment,
elevators, and other rooftop
features are designed to be a part
of the overall building design and
do not detract from the
streetscape.
Rooftop equipment should be
screened from view.
Guidelines:
1. Rooftop HVAC equipment,
elevators and other rooftop
features should be designed to fit
in with the materials and colors of
the overall building design. These
features should be located away
from the building edges to avoid
their being seen from the street
below. Building design should use
screening, decoration, plantings
(e.g. rooftop gardens), or other
techniques to integrate these
features with the design of the
building.
Draft Downtown Design Guidelines/2006.12.28 Page 9
Packet Page 212 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 22, 2007
Page 4
4. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ON DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS.
(Councilmember Plunkett joined the Council via telephone for this item.)
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) met with the
Council in February 2007 where additions to the downtown design were discussed, particularly for the
BD1 zone, the retail corridor. After further work, the HPC has presented an outline of their ideas to the
Council. Many of the concepts are not yet detailed but the HPC is attempting to indicate their intent. He
contrasted this with the design guidelines the HPC developed based on Mark Hinshaw’s work with the
Council in 2005. The HPC’s intent is to work with the Planning Board to develop potential amendments
to development standards, codes, etc. that would be presented to the Council. He noted the amendments
would require public hearings at the Planning Board and City Council. Tonight’s presentation was
intended to inform the Council of the direction in which they were proceeding. He referred to City
Attorney Scott Snyder’s memo that indicated the Architectural Design Board (ADB) should be included
in the discussion. He anticipated the ADB would be involved in developing the amendments.
Mr. Chave reviewed the HPC’s report:
• Purpose section - add a purpose section to describe the intent.
• Rename the BD1 zone - Heritage Center of Edmonds. He explained the interim name captured
three concepts, 1) Edmonds, 2) the area as the center and identity of Edmonds, and 3) the heritage
of the BD1.
• Develop Design Standards - words and pictures describing characteristics in detail. He noted
these were labeled guidelines but the HPC wants them adopted as standards that every
building/project in the BD1 would be required to meet.
• Threshold for Design Review - The HPC feels the traditional standard that requires an ADB
hearing, exceeding the SEPA threshold, was too high as there could be significant impacts on
historical buildings via renovations that did not meet SEPA. He noted the standard must be
specific and could not be vague or unpredictable. Another concern is not capturing too many
projects due to time delays caused by ADB review. He noted the goal was to balance the process
to ensure the designs were what the City wanted to achieve without unduly burdening the process.
• Design Review Process - The HPC recommends having two HPC members on the ADB when
projects specifically located in the Heritage District/BD1 are reviewed. The HPC feels their
expertise in historic buildings would be helpful to the ADB.
• Applications for ADB Review - This section contains the features the HPC feels are important
and should be considered in the review. He noted most of these items were consistent with the
changes in the design review process with the exception of color. He stated review of color was
usually done via historic districts as color was often identified with a particular point in time.
Historic districts typically adopt a pallet of colors used during a particular historic period. The
challenge for downtown Edmonds would be to determine that historic pallet because multiple
pallets for multiple points in time would make regulation difficult.
• Demolition - The HPC recommends a waiting period before a building could be demolished. He
noted there would be no power to prevent the demolition but the intent was to provide time for
the HPC to work with the owner or prospective purchaser regarding adaptive reuse opportunities,
identifying a different buyer, etc. He noted this technique had been used in historical districts in
other communities and was often successful. He clarified the HPC was not advocating a waiting
period for all demolition, only significant demolition.
Historic
Preservation
Commission /
Downtown
Design
Standards
Packet Page 213 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 22, 2007
Page 5
• Incentives - The HPC was interested in developing incentives for preserving structures and
providing a break for property owners trying to do the right thing via more flexible building
codes, reduced permit fees, streamlined processing, etc.
• EHPC Participation in the Process - The HPC wants to work with the Planning Board and ADB
in an effort to develop language that could be adopted as code amendments.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the incentives section and the language that buildings on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places be allowed to go outside the existing building’s envelope. He anticipated the
only way this could occur would be to increase the building’s height. He asked whether this would be
addressed by the non-conforming regulations that the Planning Board was currently reviewing. Mr.
Chave answered that was largely true but the HPC was concerned with providing enough flexibility for
unusual circumstances that would maintain the character of a building and enhance its viability.
Mr. Snyder advised the Planning Board would be discussing the non-conforming use provisions in the
context of adaptive reuse at their next meeting. He provided examples such as limitations on the amount
of glass due to the new energy codes. The intent was to review building code requirements that were not
health safety related that could be altered in order to make the retention of an existing building more
economically attractive/viable - to provide incentives to retain a building rather than demolish it.
Councilmember Wambolt did not want this to be a way to increase heights. Mr. Chave assured that was
not the intent and that would not be expected from the HPC. Mr. Snyder commented assuming the public
liked Edmonds the way it was, the intent was to encourage property owners to retain those buildings.
Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of forwarding the HPC’s recommendations to the Planning Board.
He noted although there were a number of interesting old buildings downtown that should be retained,
there were no grand, architecturally significant buildings as compared to Fairhaven or Port Townsend for
example. He recalled discussions in the past few years that highlighted the importance of maintaining a
vital downtown retail core and was satisfied the HPC’s proposal met that intent. He was not opposed to
the name “Heritage Center” but did not want the concept of maintaining a vital downtown retail core to be
overlooked. He referred to old buildings that had been architecturally enhanced and improved,
commenting he viewed the design guidelines as a method of improving the downtown core.
Councilmember Dawson referred to Mr. Snyder’s memo, pointing out there were few truly historic
buildings downtown but there were many buildings that added a feeling, character and charm to
downtown that because it had been developed over time, could not be recreated artificially. She spoke in
favor of developing incentives that encouraged the retention and restoration of existing buildings,
remarking without incentives, it may not be economically feasible to retain an existing building, making it
more attractive for a developer to demolish it. She suggested expanding the definition of what the HPC
was trying to preserve. She found heritage rather than historic appropriate for the downtown core.
Councilmember Dawson was intrigued by having an HPC member serve temporarily on the ADB when
reviewing buildings in the downtown area and asked whether that was done in other areas. Mr. Chave
answered he was not aware of any other cities that had a difference in membership on the ADB depending
on the location of the project. It was more common to have a separate board for each district. Mr. Snyder
pointed out the definition of the ADB membership included architects, landscape engineers, etc.;
therefore, it was consistent to have members with different expertise. Mr. Chave commented an
alternative may be to change the requirement for the ADB to include a member with historic expertise.
Councilmember Orvis proposed a scenario of a 35-foot tall historic building that had no elevator; the
property owner wanted to restore it and add an elevator which would require the addition of a penthouse.
Packet Page 214 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 22, 2007
Page 6
Under the non-conforming provisions that would not be allowed because the building would not be
allowed to go higher than five feet for an elevator. Mr. Chave noted the intent was to make retaining the
building viable. Mr. Snyder clarified life and safety requirements could not be waived nor accessibility
requirements.
Council President Olson asked whether the ADB would be involved before the proposal was presented to
the Planning Board. Mr. Chave envisioned an initial presentation/discussion with the Planning Board and
then a meeting with representatives from both groups. He noted the entire Board members did not
necessarily need to be present; they could designate a few members from each to meet.
Council President Olson asked whether the Planning Board would hold a public hearing. Mr. Chave
answered yes as amendments to the development code required a public hearing. The Council would also
hold a public hearing.
Councilmember Marin remarked Councilmember Orvis’ scenario regarding the addition of an elevator
was a remote possibility. He supported Councilmember Dawson’s comments regarding providing
incentives to preserve buildings. He recommended establishing sufficient flexibility so that a property
owner would feel they had a chance when asking for a deviation while making sure they were carefully
worded so that the result was not an increase in building heights downtown.
Mayor Haakenson advised Councilmember Plunkett was having difficulty hearing the Council via
telephone and was satisfied with the HPC’s outline proceeding to the Planning Board. It was the
consensus of the Council for the HPC to proceed to the Planning Board.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, advised the court’s consideration of the Old Woodway Elementary School
demolition, case #07-2-03222-1 was continued to May 25 at 9:00 a.m. The judge has indicated he plans
to make a final decision at that time. Next, Mr. Rutledge urged Council to discuss term limits for the
Mayor prior to January 1, noting the legislature planned to consider term limits during the next session.
Mr. Rutledge then commented on past population increases, pointing out the population in 1963 was
19,273, it was 29,720 in 1989 and was forecast to be 37,000 by 2010 and 40,000 by 2015. He concluded
growth had been greater than expected due in part to annexations.
Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, displayed a bag of incandescent light bulbs that as a result of Mayor
Haakenson’s proclamation he replaced with compact florescent bulbs that use one fourth the electricity.
He noted florescent bulbs paid for themselves within 9-18 months and the bulbs last ten years. He
displayed a chart of his household energy use that he tracked using his energy bills that illustrated during
the last year the daily kilowatt use. He summarized his household’s daily energy use was 12 kilowatt
hours per day or ½ kilowatt per hour which was the equivalent of leaving five 100 watt light bulbs on 24
hours per day which he noted was very low. He urged the public to look at their electric meters and try to
make them stop.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Council discussion regarding Wi-Fi and his conversation with
Administrative Services Director Dan Clements regarding Edmonds’ ability to capture that system. He
asked what the City would do with the system once it was in place, suggesting the City move forward
cautiously. He urged Council to read and discuss the article in today’s Everett Herald. Next, he
expressed concern with Bob Gregg’s offer to settle his lawsuit in exchange for something he wanted from
the City. He recalled when Mr. Gregg was seeking approval for the Old Milltown project the second
time, he stated he would cancel the lawsuit if he got what he wanted, which he apparently had not done.
He acknowledged there likely had been discussion in Executive Session about the lawsuit and now there
Old Woodway
Elementary
Term Limits
Population
Increases
Incandescent
Light Bulbs
Wi-Fi
Old Milltown/
Gregg Lawsuit
Packet Page 215 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 27, 2007
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
February 27, 2007
Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to interview an Arts Commission candidate, the Edmonds City
Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th
Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Don Sims, Traffic Engineer
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2007.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #94366 THROUGH #94503 FOR FEBRUARY 22, 2007
IN THE AMOUNT OF $517,224.00. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS
AND CHECKS #44519 THROUGH #44565 FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 1
THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $766,144.76.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DARROL HAUG
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
3. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF GREG BANASEK TO THE ARTS
COMMISSION.
Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin introduced Greg Banasek and described his background.
Approve
2/20/07
Minutes
Approve
Claim Checks
Claim for
Damages
Arts
Commission
Appointment
Packet Page 216 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 27, 2007
Page 2
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF GREG BANASEK TO THE ARTS COMMISSION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Banasek thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve on the Arts Commission. Mayor
Haakenson thanked him for volunteering to serve.
4. 2007 LIMITED OBLIGATION BOND SALE.
Administrative Services Director Dan Clements introduced the City’s Financial Advisor Allen Dashen, A.
Dashen & Associates. Mr. Dashen displayed a graph of interest rate trends for the past year and since
1987, commenting interest rates had not been this low since the pre-President Nixon days. He reviewed a
list of purposes for the $5,230,000 bond sale, noting only a small amount was General Fund moneys with
most paid by utilities and other sources.
Mr. Dashen explained the City applied for a rating on the City’s bonds from Moody’s Investors Service
who confirmed the City’s A1 rating on Limited Tax Bonds and confirmed the AA3 rating for voted
bonds. He noted this placed the City’s rate in the top tier of cities in Washington State. He relayed
comments made by Moody’s including strong tax base appreciation in affluent community just north of
Seattle; City’s financial operations are well managed, benefiting from a combination of spending
practices and healthy revenue growth; and favorable comments about fund balances.
Mr. Dashen explained the bonds were structured to be “bank qualified” which results in a lower interest
rate to the City, approximately 4% lower. The bonds mature over 20 years and were sold through a
competitive bid process with firms nationwide bidding on the City’s bonds. The City received 11 bids;
PNC Capital Markets was the winning bidder. He displayed a list of bidders, noting 2-3 were within
.01% of each other. He reviewed the source and uses of the funds, advising the net from the sale was
$5,205,734. He recommended approval of the sale resolution.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1142. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The resolution
reads as follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ACCEPTING THE BID OF
PNC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC FOR $5,230,000 PAR VALUE LIMITED TAX GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS, 2007, OF THE CITY; FIXING THE INTEREST RATES AND
MATURITY SCHEDULE ON THOSE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS
PROPERLY RELATING THERETO.
5. ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
Historic Preservation Commissioners Steven Waite, Rob Van Tassell, Norma Bruns, Christine Deiner-
Karr, and Barbara Kindness introduced themselves. (Commissioners Brian Hall and Deborah Binder were
absent.)
Commissioner Kindness advised the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meets the second Tuesday
of each month in the Fourtner Room of City Hall. She advised the meetings were open to the public and
they encourage attendance and participation from interested citizens. Councilmember Plunkett is the
Council liaison on the Commission and staff assistance is provided by Rob Chave and Diane
Cunningham.
Commissioner Kindness invited the Chair of each of the Commission’s four subcommittees to report on
their activities. Commissioner Van Tassell reported the Planning Committee’s recent efforts focused on
2007 Limited
Obligation
Bond Sale
Historic
Preservation
Commission
Packet Page 217 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 27, 2007
Page 3
the downtown core, which they called the heritage neighborhood area, and providing guidance for design
with regard to historic preservation. Their efforts resulted in a draft document that had been circulated to
the Council’s Community Services/Development Services committee and the public. The next step
would be to share the draft with the Planning Board and the City Attorney before presenting it to the
Council for codification. The Planning Committee also developed the Commission’s Strategic Plan.
Commissioner Kindness advised Commissioner Waite, Chair of the Incentives Committee, also
developed the walking tour. Commissioner Waite explained one of the challenges for the Incentives
Committee was convincing building owners to retain their structures as they had the right to demolish
their structure. He noted buildings on the Historic Register were community assets and part of a
collection of structures and sites that created Edmonds’ image. Incentives for structures on the Historic
Register could include an expedited permit process or a reduction in permit fees. The Committee has also
been reviewing the International Existing Building Code which has been adopted in other cities.
Commissioner Waite described the walking tour attended by Councilmembers, ADB and Planning Board
Members, staff and the public to look at existing buildings in the City and point out architectural
characteristics that define the City. He offered to conduct another tour in the spring. He advised there
were buildings in the community that represent each decade from 1890.
Commissioner Deiner-Karr, Chair of the Registration Committee, referred to a list of applications for
registration that have been submitted. She explained five private property applications were submitted in
2006; one of the properties, the August Johnson House, which has been reviewed and approved by the
HPC and the Planning Board, would be presented to the Council for approval in the near future. In
addition, ten properties that are already on the State Historical Register have submitted applications as
part of the expedited process for registering properties on the State and National Registers. The
Commission hopes to have these properties through the registration process by the end of the first quarter
in 2007. Once these properties were approved, she advised plaques would be installed on the properties.
Commissioner Kindness advised 83 properties in the downtown core met the criteria for historic
preservation. Once these initial properties were approved, the Commission planned to encourage other
property owners to apply for designation.
Commissioner Bruns reported the primary purpose of the Community Outreach and Education
Committee was to educate the public about the existence of the HPC as well as its mission and purpose.
Deborah Binder, a member of the committee, raised over $4,000 to produce the walking tour brochure
that highlights 27 historic and architectural sites in the downtown core. The brochure has been well
received and is available at local Snohomish County tourist information offices. Work has begun on a
companion brochure that will help Edmonds residents understand why and how to register their
properties. This brochure is funded by a grant from the Washington State Historic Preservation Office.
Commissioner Bruns advised the committee organized a day at the Edmonds Summer Market where they
connected with residents and distributed brochures. They plan to do this again in 2007. The committee
also wrote several articles in the local newspaper about the HPC’s work. Commissioner Bruns advised
she is the representative from the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historic Society. She suggested a
joint meeting to address the difference between the museum’s activities and the HPC’s activities.
Councilmember Moore asked the difference between the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historic
Society and the HPC. Commissioner Bruns explained the Historic Society operates the museum and may
put up plaques. She summarized the Historic Society’s focus was sites versus individual residences. She
relayed the Historic Society planned to fund a plaque for Holmes Corner. Commissioner Waite
commented the Historic Society was a repository of information, items and photographs versus the HPC
Packet Page 218 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 27, 2007
Page 4
which was a City Commission charged with placing buildings and sites on the Edmonds Historic
Register. He assured a property added to the Edmonds Historic Register could be easily removed from
the register; however, being on the register could provide certain benefits via local government.
For Councilmember Moore, Commissioner Waite described benefits of being on the Edmonds Historic
Register which include freezing the value of any improvements for ten years. There are also tax credits
available from being on the National Register. He explained being on the Edmonds Historic Register was
an honorarium that illustrated the property owners’ interest in historic preservation and may increase the
structure’s value.
Councilmember Moore asked whether the 83 structures that met the Commission’s criteria were all in the
downtown core. Commissioner Kindness advised they were. Commissioner Waite noted these included
commercial buildings as well. Commissioner Kindness advised the advisory board identified over 1000
properties that were over 50 years old. The survey only detailed the downtown area and identified 83
properties. Commissioner Deiner-Karr advised the 83 properties also included structures less than 50
years old that were architecturally unique. She noted there were also properties for which an application
had been submitted that were not on the list but research found they had historically unique character.
Councilmember Moore asked whether the owners of the 83 properties had been notified their property
was identified on the survey. Commissioner Deiner-Karr advised some had been contacted; a notification
strategy was being considered.
Councilmember Plunkett recognized Historic Preservation Commissioners for their specific efforts and
thanked the Council for providing the funds for the survey of downtown properties and funds for plaques.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission Conceptual Design
Standards for possible Heritage Neighborhood provided by the Historic Preservation Commission,
advising these were design standards, not guidelines as the intent was to codify the standards for the BD1
zone so that new construction or renovation was required to meet historic standards. He noted the design
standards were the result of the work of Mark Hinshaw as well as Rob Chave.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the comment in the Planning report that the next step in the process
was to share the draft with the Planning Board, expressing concern with the possibility of forwarding the
draft to the Planning Board before the Council approved the concept. Commissioner Van Tassell
commented the intent of the presentation to the Community Services/Development Services Committee
was to obtain input from the Council. He urged the Council to provide additional feedback.
Councilmember Plunkett preferred the Council approve the concept before the draft was forwarded to the
Planning Board. Commissioner Waite envisioned workshops with the Planning Board as well as input
from the public.
Councilmember Marin recalled the draft was presented to the Community Services/Development Services
Committee and after further review, he was prepared to provide feedback. He was satisfied with
forwarding the Design Guidelines for Building Design (pages 5-14) to the Planning Board immediately.
Recognizing the need for incentives to encourage property owners to register their properties, he
suggested the next priority for the Commission be to finalize a recommendation on incentives, present it
to the Community Services/Development Services Committee, then to the Council and then to the
Planning Board. He was uncomfortable with the first four pages of the draft code language. Due to the
shift of the ADB review to the beginning of the process, he was not comfortable with having two Historic
Preservation Commissioners be voting members on the ADB but did not object to two Commissioners
serving in an advisory role on the ADB.
Packet Page 219 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 27, 2007
Page 5
With regard to the language requiring HPC review of demolition applications, Councilmember Marin
noted this review was too late in the process. He preferred property owners be encouraged to preserve
their buildings via incentives for registry. He was satisfied with the language regarding dimensions.
Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to speak to design guidelines versus design standards. Planning
Manager Rob Chave recalled the Commission’s feeling was that these items were important enough that
all buildings in the downtown core should respond to them and therefore were more appropriate as
standards in the code. He agreed with the suggestion for Historic Preservation Commissioners to advise
the ADB, noting the logistics would need to be worked out. Mr. Chave advised the demolition standards
required further review by the City Attorney which could be accomplished during the Planning Board’s
review. He noted the draft was primarily a HPC product and had not had a detailed review by staff.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Chave advised the entire document could be forwarded to the Planning
Board for review or forward only pages 5-14 and after further refinement, forward pages 1-4.
Councilmember Wambolt was comfortable with forwarding the design standards developed by Mr.
Hinshaw and refined by Mr. Chave to the Planning Board, suggesting the document prepared by ACE
accompany the design standards.
Council President Olson suggested as ACE was not a City organization, the information prepared by ACE
could be provided to the Planning Board for their deliberations. Councilmember Wambolt agreed as long
as the Planning Board reviewed the information.
Councilmember Plunkett was reluctant for the Council to forward the ACE document as well as the first
four pages of the discussion document to avoid the appearance that the Council was endorsing it in
concept. He noted ACE or any other individual or group could submit information to the Planning Board.
He supported forwarding the Historic Design Standards to the Planning Board. Councilmember Marin
agreed the ACE material should not accompany the design standards and suggested ACE provide the
material to the Planning Board.
Councilmember Moore asked what happened if the Council did not act on the design standards tonight.
Commissioner Van Tassell answered forwarding one without the other would be out of context. He
preferred the documents be forwarded to the Planning Board together as one document.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about the provision to relocate a historic building. Commissioner Van
Tassell answered the August Johnson House was an example of an opportunity for a house to be moved
to an appropriate location and remain on the registry. Councilmember Orvis asked if the building could
be moved outside the Heritage Neighborhood. Commissioner Van Tassell answered yes, which would
allow construction of a new building on the site.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether dimensional waivers would be addressed by grandfathering.
Commissioner Van Tassell answered a house that was out of compliance may be required to be brought
into compliance when improvements were made. Commissioner Waite advised the City Attorney was
drafting verbiage regarding non-compliance. He advised this provision would allow improvements to a
structure without penalty.
Councilmember Orvis agreed there appeared to be issues on the first four pages that needed to be
addressed. He preferred the members representing the HPC on the ADB be voting members. He
recommended withholding the dimensional section to ensure historic issues were mitigated. He preferred
the Council address these issues before forwarding them to the Planning Board but was comfortable
forwarding the design standards section to the Planning Board.
Packet Page 220 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 27, 2007
Page 6
Councilmember Plunkett observed the design standards on pages 5-14 were code and pages 1-4 were
policy. The Planning Board could begin reviewing the design standards while the Council discussed the
policy issues further. He preferred the Council discuss the policy issues further before forwarding them
to the Planning Board.
Councilmember Moore noted the usual process was for the Planning Board to do this preliminary work
and gather public input. She preferred the entire document be forwarded to the Planning Board at once.
Councilmember Wambolt understood from the HPC that the first four pages were a work in progress and
the Commission needed to answer the questions posed in the document before the Council could
deliberate on it. Commissioner Van Tassell commented the intent of tonight’s meeting was not to discuss
the document but rather to present the HPC's work.
For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave explained the design guidelines developed by the ADB were more
general in nature and addressed many areas in the City; the HPC's design standards were tailored to a
specific district. He recalled the intent was as design standards for individual neighborhoods/districts
were developed, the ADB’s review would occur at the beginning of the process. The new design review
process that would be presented to the Council next month included an up-front design review and
identification of which areas it would apply to. The draft identified the Hwy. 99 CG zones as well as
downtown. That could also include these design standards for a portion of downtown.
Councilmember Moore asked if the HPC was comfortable with the entire document. Commissioner Van
Tassell stated there were still many questions to be answered in the draft discussion document.
Councilmember Marin suggested adding “BD1” and “preserve and mimic historic architectural design
elements and provide a mechanism to participate in the review of proposed projects” to the first paragraph
of the Purpose section. He explained the intent was to encourage the preservation of buildings with
historical architectural significance and if the owner was not interested in preserving the building, require
that they mimic the architectural features of a good downtown. Whether that isolated a period of 1890 to
1930 was not as important because the elements identified in design standards that made a good
downtown in 1930 also made a good downtown retail core today and in the future. With the addition, he
supported forwarding the purpose section to the Planning Board to provide context for the design
standards.
Council President Olson asked when the Planning Board could begin reviewing the design standards. Mr.
Chave answered the Planning Board would begin their review when the Council referred it. Council
President Olson was concerned with slowing the process. Mr. Chave asked whether the Council wanted
the HPC to do further refinement and return it to the Council or forward it to the Planning Board.
Councilmember Moore commented the intent was always for the Arts Corridor to be different from the
downtown zones. She suggested consideration be given to how the design standards would apply to the
Arts Corridor, acknowledging it may require coordination with the Arts Commission.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
FORWARD TO THE PLANNING BOARD THE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS WITH THE
PURPOSE PREAMBLE AS AMENDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN.
Councilmember Moore advised she would not support the motion as the HPC requested more time to
work on the document.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the portion the HPC wanted to work on was the discussion
document; the Commission and Mr. Chave were comfortable with forwarding the historic design
standards to the Planning Board.
Packet Page 221 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 27, 2007
Page 7
Commissioners agreed with forwarding the design standards to the Planning Board with revised purpose
statement, noting the remainder of the draft discussion document was still under construction.
Mayor Haakenson was concerned the Planning Board would review the design standards and then later
receive the discussion/policy portion of the document. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Planning
Board could begin their review of the design standards, noting there were still policy issues to be
resolved. He was concerned with forwarding the policy issues to the Planning Board before the Council
had reached a consensus on those concepts.
Councilmember Moore preferred to complete both documents before forwarding them to the Planning
Board. The Planning Board had many other items they were working on. Mayor Haakenson advised the
Planning Board had recently prioritized their schedule for the next five months. Commissioner Kindness
advised the subcommittee could complete the first four pages at their next meeting.
Councilmember Plunkett commented his concern was it had taken three months to get to this point and
was concerned there would be further delay. He was frustrated with the pace and with the number of
unanswered questions on the first four pages. If the policy portion could be returned to the Council
within a month, he was comfortable with forwarding the entire document to the Planning Board at one
time.
Councilmember Orvis observed there were two different documents, design standards and
implementation, and did not think they necessarily needed to be forwarded to the Planning Board at the
same time.
Councilmember Moore and Council President Olson supported allowing the HPC additional time to
complete their work and forward both parts to the Planning Board at one time. Councilmember Marin
was anxious to move forward but was willing to allow the HPC more time.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified his expectation was the HPC’s review would be completed in 30 days
and if not, he wanted the design standards to be forwarded to the Planning Board.
Councilmembers discussed whether to forward the document to the Planning Board or return it to the City
Council to resolve the policy issues and agreed the HPC would return to the full Council with the intent of
reviewing and forwarding the document to the Planning Board that night.
6. PRESENTATION OF HIGHWAY 99 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND SAFETY STUDY
REPORT. THE HIGHWAY 99 TASK FORCE WILL ALSO BRIEF COUNCIL ON POTENTIAL
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS UNDER STUDY.
Councilmember Marin advised the intent of the Hwy. 99 Taskforce’s work was to provide synergy and
momentum to attract projects to the Hwy. 99 corridor that would enhance the neighborhood and the City
in general.
Traffic Engineer Don Sims explained there were 35,000 vehicle trips per day in the Hwy. 99 corridor,
predicted to increase to 50,000 vehicle trips per day in the next 20 years. He advised it was a challenging
corridor for pedestrians and was extensively used by transit.
Mr. Sims introduced Dan Hansen, Perteet Engineering, who reviewed the project development process
which included review of existing conditions, identification of deficiencies, technical workshops,
development of alternatives, evaluation of alternatives and final recommendations. He reviewed project
Hwy 99
Traffic
Circulation
and Safety
Study
Packet Page 222 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 22, 2007
Page 4
4. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ON DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS.
(Councilmember Plunkett joined the Council via telephone for this item.)
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) met with the
Council in February 2007 where additions to the downtown design were discussed, particularly for the
BD1 zone, the retail corridor. After further work, the HPC has presented an outline of their ideas to the
Council. Many of the concepts are not yet detailed but the HPC is attempting to indicate their intent. He
contrasted this with the design guidelines the HPC developed based on Mark Hinshaw’s work with the
Council in 2005. The HPC’s intent is to work with the Planning Board to develop potential amendments
to development standards, codes, etc. that would be presented to the Council. He noted the amendments
would require public hearings at the Planning Board and City Council. Tonight’s presentation was
intended to inform the Council of the direction in which they were proceeding. He referred to City
Attorney Scott Snyder’s memo that indicated the Architectural Design Board (ADB) should be included
in the discussion. He anticipated the ADB would be involved in developing the amendments.
Mr. Chave reviewed the HPC’s report:
• Purpose section - add a purpose section to describe the intent.
• Rename the BD1 zone - Heritage Center of Edmonds. He explained the interim name captured
three concepts, 1) Edmonds, 2) the area as the center and identity of Edmonds, and 3) the heritage
of the BD1.
• Develop Design Standards - words and pictures describing characteristics in detail. He noted
these were labeled guidelines but the HPC wants them adopted as standards that every
building/project in the BD1 would be required to meet.
• Threshold for Design Review - The HPC feels the traditional standard that requires an ADB
hearing, exceeding the SEPA threshold, was too high as there could be significant impacts on
historical buildings via renovations that did not meet SEPA. He noted the standard must be
specific and could not be vague or unpredictable. Another concern is not capturing too many
projects due to time delays caused by ADB review. He noted the goal was to balance the process
to ensure the designs were what the City wanted to achieve without unduly burdening the process.
• Design Review Process - The HPC recommends having two HPC members on the ADB when
projects specifically located in the Heritage District/BD1 are reviewed. The HPC feels their
expertise in historic buildings would be helpful to the ADB.
• Applications for ADB Review - This section contains the features the HPC feels are important
and should be considered in the review. He noted most of these items were consistent with the
changes in the design review process with the exception of color. He stated review of color was
usually done via historic districts as color was often identified with a particular point in time.
Historic districts typically adopt a pallet of colors used during a particular historic period. The
challenge for downtown Edmonds would be to determine that historic pallet because multiple
pallets for multiple points in time would make regulation difficult.
• Demolition - The HPC recommends a waiting period before a building could be demolished. He
noted there would be no power to prevent the demolition but the intent was to provide time for
the HPC to work with the owner or prospective purchaser regarding adaptive reuse opportunities,
identifying a different buyer, etc. He noted this technique had been used in historical districts in
other communities and was often successful. He clarified the HPC was not advocating a waiting
period for all demolition, only significant demolition.
Historic
Preservation
Commission /
Downtown
Design
Standards
Packet Page 223 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 22, 2007
Page 5
• Incentives - The HPC was interested in developing incentives for preserving structures and
providing a break for property owners trying to do the right thing via more flexible building
codes, reduced permit fees, streamlined processing, etc.
• EHPC Participation in the Process - The HPC wants to work with the Planning Board and ADB
in an effort to develop language that could be adopted as code amendments.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the incentives section and the language that buildings on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places be allowed to go outside the existing building’s envelope. He anticipated the
only way this could occur would be to increase the building’s height. He asked whether this would be
addressed by the non-conforming regulations that the Planning Board was currently reviewing. Mr.
Chave answered that was largely true but the HPC was concerned with providing enough flexibility for
unusual circumstances that would maintain the character of a building and enhance its viability.
Mr. Snyder advised the Planning Board would be discussing the non-conforming use provisions in the
context of adaptive reuse at their next meeting. He provided examples such as limitations on the amount
of glass due to the new energy codes. The intent was to review building code requirements that were not
health safety related that could be altered in order to make the retention of an existing building more
economically attractive/viable - to provide incentives to retain a building rather than demolish it.
Councilmember Wambolt did not want this to be a way to increase heights. Mr. Chave assured that was
not the intent and that would not be expected from the HPC. Mr. Snyder commented assuming the public
liked Edmonds the way it was, the intent was to encourage property owners to retain those buildings.
Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of forwarding the HPC’s recommendations to the Planning Board.
He noted although there were a number of interesting old buildings downtown that should be retained,
there were no grand, architecturally significant buildings as compared to Fairhaven or Port Townsend for
example. He recalled discussions in the past few years that highlighted the importance of maintaining a
vital downtown retail core and was satisfied the HPC’s proposal met that intent. He was not opposed to
the name “Heritage Center” but did not want the concept of maintaining a vital downtown retail core to be
overlooked. He referred to old buildings that had been architecturally enhanced and improved,
commenting he viewed the design guidelines as a method of improving the downtown core.
Councilmember Dawson referred to Mr. Snyder’s memo, pointing out there were few truly historic
buildings downtown but there were many buildings that added a feeling, character and charm to
downtown that because it had been developed over time, could not be recreated artificially. She spoke in
favor of developing incentives that encouraged the retention and restoration of existing buildings,
remarking without incentives, it may not be economically feasible to retain an existing building, making it
more attractive for a developer to demolish it. She suggested expanding the definition of what the HPC
was trying to preserve. She found heritage rather than historic appropriate for the downtown core.
Councilmember Dawson was intrigued by having an HPC member serve temporarily on the ADB when
reviewing buildings in the downtown area and asked whether that was done in other areas. Mr. Chave
answered he was not aware of any other cities that had a difference in membership on the ADB depending
on the location of the project. It was more common to have a separate board for each district. Mr. Snyder
pointed out the definition of the ADB membership included architects, landscape engineers, etc.;
therefore, it was consistent to have members with different expertise. Mr. Chave commented an
alternative may be to change the requirement for the ADB to include a member with historic expertise.
Councilmember Orvis proposed a scenario of a 35-foot tall historic building that had no elevator; the
property owner wanted to restore it and add an elevator which would require the addition of a penthouse.
Packet Page 224 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 22, 2007
Page 6
Under the non-conforming provisions that would not be allowed because the building would not be
allowed to go higher than five feet for an elevator. Mr. Chave noted the intent was to make retaining the
building viable. Mr. Snyder clarified life and safety requirements could not be waived nor accessibility
requirements.
Council President Olson asked whether the ADB would be involved before the proposal was presented to
the Planning Board. Mr. Chave envisioned an initial presentation/discussion with the Planning Board and
then a meeting with representatives from both groups. He noted the entire Board members did not
necessarily need to be present; they could designate a few members from each to meet.
Council President Olson asked whether the Planning Board would hold a public hearing. Mr. Chave
answered yes as amendments to the development code required a public hearing. The Council would also
hold a public hearing.
Councilmember Marin remarked Councilmember Orvis’ scenario regarding the addition of an elevator
was a remote possibility. He supported Councilmember Dawson’s comments regarding providing
incentives to preserve buildings. He recommended establishing sufficient flexibility so that a property
owner would feel they had a chance when asking for a deviation while making sure they were carefully
worded so that the result was not an increase in building heights downtown.
Mayor Haakenson advised Councilmember Plunkett was having difficulty hearing the Council via
telephone and was satisfied with the HPC’s outline proceeding to the Planning Board. It was the
consensus of the Council for the HPC to proceed to the Planning Board.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, advised the court’s consideration of the Old Woodway Elementary School
demolition, case #07-2-03222-1 was continued to May 25 at 9:00 a.m. The judge has indicated he plans
to make a final decision at that time. Next, Mr. Rutledge urged Council to discuss term limits for the
Mayor prior to January 1, noting the legislature planned to consider term limits during the next session.
Mr. Rutledge then commented on past population increases, pointing out the population in 1963 was
19,273, it was 29,720 in 1989 and was forecast to be 37,000 by 2010 and 40,000 by 2015. He concluded
growth had been greater than expected due in part to annexations.
Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, displayed a bag of incandescent light bulbs that as a result of Mayor
Haakenson’s proclamation he replaced with compact florescent bulbs that use one fourth the electricity.
He noted florescent bulbs paid for themselves within 9-18 months and the bulbs last ten years. He
displayed a chart of his household energy use that he tracked using his energy bills that illustrated during
the last year the daily kilowatt use. He summarized his household’s daily energy use was 12 kilowatt
hours per day or ½ kilowatt per hour which was the equivalent of leaving five 100 watt light bulbs on 24
hours per day which he noted was very low. He urged the public to look at their electric meters and try to
make them stop.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Council discussion regarding Wi-Fi and his conversation with
Administrative Services Director Dan Clements regarding Edmonds’ ability to capture that system. He
asked what the City would do with the system once it was in place, suggesting the City move forward
cautiously. He urged Council to read and discuss the article in today’s Everett Herald. Next, he
expressed concern with Bob Gregg’s offer to settle his lawsuit in exchange for something he wanted from
the City. He recalled when Mr. Gregg was seeking approval for the Old Milltown project the second
time, he stated he would cancel the lawsuit if he got what he wanted, which he apparently had not done.
He acknowledged there likely had been discussion in Executive Session about the lawsuit and now there
Old Woodway
Elementary
Term Limits
Population
Increases
Incandescent
Light Bulbs
Wi-Fi
Old Milltown/
Gregg Lawsuit
Packet Page 225 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 27, 2007
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
February 27, 2007
Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to interview an Arts Commission candidate, the Edmonds City
Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th
Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Don Sims, Traffic Engineer
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2007.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #94366 THROUGH #94503 FOR FEBRUARY 22, 2007
IN THE AMOUNT OF $517,224.00. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS
AND CHECKS #44519 THROUGH #44565 FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 1
THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $766,144.76.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DARROL HAUG
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
3. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF GREG BANASEK TO THE ARTS
COMMISSION.
Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin introduced Greg Banasek and described his background.
Approve
2/20/07
Minutes
Approve
Claim Checks
Claim for
Damages
Arts
Commission
Appointment
Packet Page 226 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 27, 2007
Page 2
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF GREG BANASEK TO THE ARTS COMMISSION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Banasek thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve on the Arts Commission. Mayor
Haakenson thanked him for volunteering to serve.
4. 2007 LIMITED OBLIGATION BOND SALE.
Administrative Services Director Dan Clements introduced the City’s Financial Advisor Allen Dashen, A.
Dashen & Associates. Mr. Dashen displayed a graph of interest rate trends for the past year and since
1987, commenting interest rates had not been this low since the pre-President Nixon days. He reviewed a
list of purposes for the $5,230,000 bond sale, noting only a small amount was General Fund moneys with
most paid by utilities and other sources.
Mr. Dashen explained the City applied for a rating on the City’s bonds from Moody’s Investors Service
who confirmed the City’s A1 rating on Limited Tax Bonds and confirmed the AA3 rating for voted
bonds. He noted this placed the City’s rate in the top tier of cities in Washington State. He relayed
comments made by Moody’s including strong tax base appreciation in affluent community just north of
Seattle; City’s financial operations are well managed, benefiting from a combination of spending
practices and healthy revenue growth; and favorable comments about fund balances.
Mr. Dashen explained the bonds were structured to be “bank qualified” which results in a lower interest
rate to the City, approximately 4% lower. The bonds mature over 20 years and were sold through a
competitive bid process with firms nationwide bidding on the City’s bonds. The City received 11 bids;
PNC Capital Markets was the winning bidder. He displayed a list of bidders, noting 2-3 were within
.01% of each other. He reviewed the source and uses of the funds, advising the net from the sale was
$5,205,734. He recommended approval of the sale resolution.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1142. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The resolution
reads as follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ACCEPTING THE BID OF
PNC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC FOR $5,230,000 PAR VALUE LIMITED TAX GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS, 2007, OF THE CITY; FIXING THE INTEREST RATES AND
MATURITY SCHEDULE ON THOSE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS
PROPERLY RELATING THERETO.
5. ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
Historic Preservation Commissioners Steven Waite, Rob Van Tassell, Norma Bruns, Christine Deiner-
Karr, and Barbara Kindness introduced themselves. (Commissioners Brian Hall and Deborah Binder were
absent.)
Commissioner Kindness advised the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meets the second Tuesday
of each month in the Fourtner Room of City Hall. She advised the meetings were open to the public and
they encourage attendance and participation from interested citizens. Councilmember Plunkett is the
Council liaison on the Commission and staff assistance is provided by Rob Chave and Diane
Cunningham.
Commissioner Kindness invited the Chair of each of the Commission’s four subcommittees to report on
their activities. Commissioner Van Tassell reported the Planning Committee’s recent efforts focused on
2007 Limited
Obligation
Bond Sale
Historic
Preservation
Commission
Packet Page 227 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 27, 2007
Page 3
the downtown core, which they called the heritage neighborhood area, and providing guidance for design
with regard to historic preservation. Their efforts resulted in a draft document that had been circulated to
the Council’s Community Services/Development Services committee and the public. The next step
would be to share the draft with the Planning Board and the City Attorney before presenting it to the
Council for codification. The Planning Committee also developed the Commission’s Strategic Plan.
Commissioner Kindness advised Commissioner Waite, Chair of the Incentives Committee, also
developed the walking tour. Commissioner Waite explained one of the challenges for the Incentives
Committee was convincing building owners to retain their structures as they had the right to demolish
their structure. He noted buildings on the Historic Register were community assets and part of a
collection of structures and sites that created Edmonds’ image. Incentives for structures on the Historic
Register could include an expedited permit process or a reduction in permit fees. The Committee has also
been reviewing the International Existing Building Code which has been adopted in other cities.
Commissioner Waite described the walking tour attended by Councilmembers, ADB and Planning Board
Members, staff and the public to look at existing buildings in the City and point out architectural
characteristics that define the City. He offered to conduct another tour in the spring. He advised there
were buildings in the community that represent each decade from 1890.
Commissioner Deiner-Karr, Chair of the Registration Committee, referred to a list of applications for
registration that have been submitted. She explained five private property applications were submitted in
2006; one of the properties, the August Johnson House, which has been reviewed and approved by the
HPC and the Planning Board, would be presented to the Council for approval in the near future. In
addition, ten properties that are already on the State Historical Register have submitted applications as
part of the expedited process for registering properties on the State and National Registers. The
Commission hopes to have these properties through the registration process by the end of the first quarter
in 2007. Once these properties were approved, she advised plaques would be installed on the properties.
Commissioner Kindness advised 83 properties in the downtown core met the criteria for historic
preservation. Once these initial properties were approved, the Commission planned to encourage other
property owners to apply for designation.
Commissioner Bruns reported the primary purpose of the Community Outreach and Education
Committee was to educate the public about the existence of the HPC as well as its mission and purpose.
Deborah Binder, a member of the committee, raised over $4,000 to produce the walking tour brochure
that highlights 27 historic and architectural sites in the downtown core. The brochure has been well
received and is available at local Snohomish County tourist information offices. Work has begun on a
companion brochure that will help Edmonds residents understand why and how to register their
properties. This brochure is funded by a grant from the Washington State Historic Preservation Office.
Commissioner Bruns advised the committee organized a day at the Edmonds Summer Market where they
connected with residents and distributed brochures. They plan to do this again in 2007. The committee
also wrote several articles in the local newspaper about the HPC’s work. Commissioner Bruns advised
she is the representative from the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historic Society. She suggested a
joint meeting to address the difference between the museum’s activities and the HPC’s activities.
Councilmember Moore asked the difference between the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historic
Society and the HPC. Commissioner Bruns explained the Historic Society operates the museum and may
put up plaques. She summarized the Historic Society’s focus was sites versus individual residences. She
relayed the Historic Society planned to fund a plaque for Holmes Corner. Commissioner Waite
commented the Historic Society was a repository of information, items and photographs versus the HPC
Packet Page 228 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 27, 2007
Page 4
which was a City Commission charged with placing buildings and sites on the Edmonds Historic
Register. He assured a property added to the Edmonds Historic Register could be easily removed from
the register; however, being on the register could provide certain benefits via local government.
For Councilmember Moore, Commissioner Waite described benefits of being on the Edmonds Historic
Register which include freezing the value of any improvements for ten years. There are also tax credits
available from being on the National Register. He explained being on the Edmonds Historic Register was
an honorarium that illustrated the property owners’ interest in historic preservation and may increase the
structure’s value.
Councilmember Moore asked whether the 83 structures that met the Commission’s criteria were all in the
downtown core. Commissioner Kindness advised they were. Commissioner Waite noted these included
commercial buildings as well. Commissioner Kindness advised the advisory board identified over 1000
properties that were over 50 years old. The survey only detailed the downtown area and identified 83
properties. Commissioner Deiner-Karr advised the 83 properties also included structures less than 50
years old that were architecturally unique. She noted there were also properties for which an application
had been submitted that were not on the list but research found they had historically unique character.
Councilmember Moore asked whether the owners of the 83 properties had been notified their property
was identified on the survey. Commissioner Deiner-Karr advised some had been contacted; a notification
strategy was being considered.
Councilmember Plunkett recognized Historic Preservation Commissioners for their specific efforts and
thanked the Council for providing the funds for the survey of downtown properties and funds for plaques.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission Conceptual Design
Standards for possible Heritage Neighborhood provided by the Historic Preservation Commission,
advising these were design standards, not guidelines as the intent was to codify the standards for the BD1
zone so that new construction or renovation was required to meet historic standards. He noted the design
standards were the result of the work of Mark Hinshaw as well as Rob Chave.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the comment in the Planning report that the next step in the process
was to share the draft with the Planning Board, expressing concern with the possibility of forwarding the
draft to the Planning Board before the Council approved the concept. Commissioner Van Tassell
commented the intent of the presentation to the Community Services/Development Services Committee
was to obtain input from the Council. He urged the Council to provide additional feedback.
Councilmember Plunkett preferred the Council approve the concept before the draft was forwarded to the
Planning Board. Commissioner Waite envisioned workshops with the Planning Board as well as input
from the public.
Councilmember Marin recalled the draft was presented to the Community Services/Development Services
Committee and after further review, he was prepared to provide feedback. He was satisfied with
forwarding the Design Guidelines for Building Design (pages 5-14) to the Planning Board immediately.
Recognizing the need for incentives to encourage property owners to register their properties, he
suggested the next priority for the Commission be to finalize a recommendation on incentives, present it
to the Community Services/Development Services Committee, then to the Council and then to the
Planning Board. He was uncomfortable with the first four pages of the draft code language. Due to the
shift of the ADB review to the beginning of the process, he was not comfortable with having two Historic
Preservation Commissioners be voting members on the ADB but did not object to two Commissioners
serving in an advisory role on the ADB.
Packet Page 229 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 27, 2007
Page 5
With regard to the language requiring HPC review of demolition applications, Councilmember Marin
noted this review was too late in the process. He preferred property owners be encouraged to preserve
their buildings via incentives for registry. He was satisfied with the language regarding dimensions.
Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to speak to design guidelines versus design standards. Planning
Manager Rob Chave recalled the Commission’s feeling was that these items were important enough that
all buildings in the downtown core should respond to them and therefore were more appropriate as
standards in the code. He agreed with the suggestion for Historic Preservation Commissioners to advise
the ADB, noting the logistics would need to be worked out. Mr. Chave advised the demolition standards
required further review by the City Attorney which could be accomplished during the Planning Board’s
review. He noted the draft was primarily a HPC product and had not had a detailed review by staff.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Chave advised the entire document could be forwarded to the Planning
Board for review or forward only pages 5-14 and after further refinement, forward pages 1-4.
Councilmember Wambolt was comfortable with forwarding the design standards developed by Mr.
Hinshaw and refined by Mr. Chave to the Planning Board, suggesting the document prepared by ACE
accompany the design standards.
Council President Olson suggested as ACE was not a City organization, the information prepared by ACE
could be provided to the Planning Board for their deliberations. Councilmember Wambolt agreed as long
as the Planning Board reviewed the information.
Councilmember Plunkett was reluctant for the Council to forward the ACE document as well as the first
four pages of the discussion document to avoid the appearance that the Council was endorsing it in
concept. He noted ACE or any other individual or group could submit information to the Planning Board.
He supported forwarding the Historic Design Standards to the Planning Board. Councilmember Marin
agreed the ACE material should not accompany the design standards and suggested ACE provide the
material to the Planning Board.
Councilmember Moore asked what happened if the Council did not act on the design standards tonight.
Commissioner Van Tassell answered forwarding one without the other would be out of context. He
preferred the documents be forwarded to the Planning Board together as one document.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about the provision to relocate a historic building. Commissioner Van
Tassell answered the August Johnson House was an example of an opportunity for a house to be moved
to an appropriate location and remain on the registry. Councilmember Orvis asked if the building could
be moved outside the Heritage Neighborhood. Commissioner Van Tassell answered yes, which would
allow construction of a new building on the site.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether dimensional waivers would be addressed by grandfathering.
Commissioner Van Tassell answered a house that was out of compliance may be required to be brought
into compliance when improvements were made. Commissioner Waite advised the City Attorney was
drafting verbiage regarding non-compliance. He advised this provision would allow improvements to a
structure without penalty.
Councilmember Orvis agreed there appeared to be issues on the first four pages that needed to be
addressed. He preferred the members representing the HPC on the ADB be voting members. He
recommended withholding the dimensional section to ensure historic issues were mitigated. He preferred
the Council address these issues before forwarding them to the Planning Board but was comfortable
forwarding the design standards section to the Planning Board.
Packet Page 230 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 27, 2007
Page 6
Councilmember Plunkett observed the design standards on pages 5-14 were code and pages 1-4 were
policy. The Planning Board could begin reviewing the design standards while the Council discussed the
policy issues further. He preferred the Council discuss the policy issues further before forwarding them
to the Planning Board.
Councilmember Moore noted the usual process was for the Planning Board to do this preliminary work
and gather public input. She preferred the entire document be forwarded to the Planning Board at once.
Councilmember Wambolt understood from the HPC that the first four pages were a work in progress and
the Commission needed to answer the questions posed in the document before the Council could
deliberate on it. Commissioner Van Tassell commented the intent of tonight’s meeting was not to discuss
the document but rather to present the HPC's work.
For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave explained the design guidelines developed by the ADB were more
general in nature and addressed many areas in the City; the HPC's design standards were tailored to a
specific district. He recalled the intent was as design standards for individual neighborhoods/districts
were developed, the ADB’s review would occur at the beginning of the process. The new design review
process that would be presented to the Council next month included an up-front design review and
identification of which areas it would apply to. The draft identified the Hwy. 99 CG zones as well as
downtown. That could also include these design standards for a portion of downtown.
Councilmember Moore asked if the HPC was comfortable with the entire document. Commissioner Van
Tassell stated there were still many questions to be answered in the draft discussion document.
Councilmember Marin suggested adding “BD1” and “preserve and mimic historic architectural design
elements and provide a mechanism to participate in the review of proposed projects” to the first paragraph
of the Purpose section. He explained the intent was to encourage the preservation of buildings with
historical architectural significance and if the owner was not interested in preserving the building, require
that they mimic the architectural features of a good downtown. Whether that isolated a period of 1890 to
1930 was not as important because the elements identified in design standards that made a good
downtown in 1930 also made a good downtown retail core today and in the future. With the addition, he
supported forwarding the purpose section to the Planning Board to provide context for the design
standards.
Council President Olson asked when the Planning Board could begin reviewing the design standards. Mr.
Chave answered the Planning Board would begin their review when the Council referred it. Council
President Olson was concerned with slowing the process. Mr. Chave asked whether the Council wanted
the HPC to do further refinement and return it to the Council or forward it to the Planning Board.
Councilmember Moore commented the intent was always for the Arts Corridor to be different from the
downtown zones. She suggested consideration be given to how the design standards would apply to the
Arts Corridor, acknowledging it may require coordination with the Arts Commission.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
FORWARD TO THE PLANNING BOARD THE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS WITH THE
PURPOSE PREAMBLE AS AMENDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN.
Councilmember Moore advised she would not support the motion as the HPC requested more time to
work on the document.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the portion the HPC wanted to work on was the discussion
document; the Commission and Mr. Chave were comfortable with forwarding the historic design
standards to the Planning Board.
Packet Page 231 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 27, 2007
Page 7
Commissioners agreed with forwarding the design standards to the Planning Board with revised purpose
statement, noting the remainder of the draft discussion document was still under construction.
Mayor Haakenson was concerned the Planning Board would review the design standards and then later
receive the discussion/policy portion of the document. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Planning
Board could begin their review of the design standards, noting there were still policy issues to be
resolved. He was concerned with forwarding the policy issues to the Planning Board before the Council
had reached a consensus on those concepts.
Councilmember Moore preferred to complete both documents before forwarding them to the Planning
Board. The Planning Board had many other items they were working on. Mayor Haakenson advised the
Planning Board had recently prioritized their schedule for the next five months. Commissioner Kindness
advised the subcommittee could complete the first four pages at their next meeting.
Councilmember Plunkett commented his concern was it had taken three months to get to this point and
was concerned there would be further delay. He was frustrated with the pace and with the number of
unanswered questions on the first four pages. If the policy portion could be returned to the Council
within a month, he was comfortable with forwarding the entire document to the Planning Board at one
time.
Councilmember Orvis observed there were two different documents, design standards and
implementation, and did not think they necessarily needed to be forwarded to the Planning Board at the
same time.
Councilmember Moore and Council President Olson supported allowing the HPC additional time to
complete their work and forward both parts to the Planning Board at one time. Councilmember Marin
was anxious to move forward but was willing to allow the HPC more time.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified his expectation was the HPC’s review would be completed in 30 days
and if not, he wanted the design standards to be forwarded to the Planning Board.
Councilmembers discussed whether to forward the document to the Planning Board or return it to the City
Council to resolve the policy issues and agreed the HPC would return to the full Council with the intent of
reviewing and forwarding the document to the Planning Board that night.
6. PRESENTATION OF HIGHWAY 99 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND SAFETY STUDY
REPORT. THE HIGHWAY 99 TASK FORCE WILL ALSO BRIEF COUNCIL ON POTENTIAL
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS UNDER STUDY.
Councilmember Marin advised the intent of the Hwy. 99 Taskforce’s work was to provide synergy and
momentum to attract projects to the Hwy. 99 corridor that would enhance the neighborhood and the City
in general.
Traffic Engineer Don Sims explained there were 35,000 vehicle trips per day in the Hwy. 99 corridor,
predicted to increase to 50,000 vehicle trips per day in the next 20 years. He advised it was a challenging
corridor for pedestrians and was extensively used by transit.
Mr. Sims introduced Dan Hansen, Perteet Engineering, who reviewed the project development process
which included review of existing conditions, identification of deficiencies, technical workshops,
development of alternatives, evaluation of alternatives and final recommendations. He reviewed project
Hwy 99
Traffic
Circulation
and Safety
Study
Packet Page 232 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 12
Council President Dawson proposed the step-back rules in the BD1 be consistent with the step back rules
in the other areas so that the building did not have the appearance of additional height. Her concern was
that there was the ability in the BD1 to have buildings that are and appear to be taller than the rest of
downtown, something she found surprising in the fountain square area. She referred to staff’s note in the
packet that as an alternative to a 28-foot height limit in the BD1 zone and to address the concern about the
interaction of slope and building height, the Council could establish a step-back rule for the BD1 zone,
requiring a step-back for any portion of the building that exceeded 30 feet above the street or 30 feet
above average grade. Although she was still uncomfortable with a 30-foot building height, she found this
an acceptable compromise.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
ADD THE BD1 ZONE TO THE STEP-BACK RULES IN 16.43.030.C.3.
Councilmember Marin advised he would support the amendment but did not believe it would ever be
used as that area was fairly level.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out 16.43.030.C.2 had to be changed as the existing wording, the
maximum height may be increased to 30 feet when the ground floor is at least 15 feet in height, was
misleading because the ground floor in the BD1 was required to be 15 feet. Mr. Chave explained the
reason it was worded that way was the base height was 25 feet. Mr. Snyder pointed out that wording was
necessary to prevent an existing building that was remodeled less than 50% of its value from increasing
the building height without increasing the first floor height.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION
TO LIFT THE MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN THE BC
ZONE.
Citing the Council’s recent quasi judicial review of a building that many people had feelings about and
the Council’s inability to overturn the ADB’s recommendation based on historical character because the
City’s standards relied on the term “sensitive” which was a general term and difficult to enforce,
Councilmember Orvis suggested the Council begin a process that involved the Historical Preservation
Commission (HPC) to develop historical standards for buildings in the BD1 zone.
Mayor Haakenson suggested Councilmember Orvis’ concept would need to be separate from the current
moratorium. Councilmember Orvis was concerned with lifting the moratorium on the BD1, expressing
interest in a moratorium on development in the BD1 until a historical review process could be developed
to ensure new buildings in BD1 zone had a historical flavor via either maintaining the existing historical
building or redeveloped to look like a historical building. Mayor Haakenson suggested the proper process
would be to lift the current moratorium and adopt a new moratorium on the BD1 zone for historical
purposes.
Mr. Snyder suggested if the motion passed, another motion could be made directing him to draft another
moratorium on the BD1 zone. He pointed out that would be a broader moratorium; the one proposed to
be lifted was only on development over 25 feet. Mayor Haakenson asked how long the City could
continue to have a moratorium. Mr. Snyder answered it had been a long time, a duration he was not
comfortable with. He suggested lifting the current moratorium and as Councilmember Orvis described,
Packet Page 233 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 13
establish a moratorium on the issuance of all building permits for new construction and demolition
permits in the downtown area.
Council President Dawson asked when the current moratorium ended. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised it
had been extended recently and expired May 17. Mayor Haakenson explained Councilmember Marin’s
motion was to repeal the current moratorium; Councilmember Orvis’ suggestion was for a different
moratorium with a different legislative rationale.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED.
Councilmember Orvis explained his hope was that the Council would direct the HPC to develop
ordinances to hold buildings in the BD1 to tighter historical standards than currently existed; the
moratorium would protect the buildings in the BD1 zone until the ordinances could be adopted. He
hoped this could be done in a timely manner so that the moratorium would be short lived.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON,
THAT THE COUNCIL DIRECT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO
DEVELOP ORDINANCES THAT HOLD BUILDINGS TO TIGHTER HISTORICAL
STANDARDS.
Councilmember Moore commented she did not understand what the tighter historical standards would be
and again, this suggestion needed public input. She pointed out a moratorium was a very serious thing
and she did not believe anyone would file an application for a building in the BD1 because of the
restrictions the Council placed on that zone. She emphasized the term “historic” needed to be defined
before a moratorium was adopted as historic was something more than nostalgic.
Council President Dawson clarified the motion was for the HPC to begin working on historic standards
and did not include a moratorium. She supported the concept of historic preservation downtown to ensure
the buildings the community believed were historic were preserved. She expressed her support for the
motion.
Mayor Haakenson assumed whatever the HPC developed would be forwarded to the Planning Board for
their consideration. Council President Dawson agreed it would have to be reviewed by the Planning
Board.
Councilmember Moore commented she misunderstood the motion to include a moratorium.
Councilmember Orvis commented that would be his next motion.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed specific language needed to be developed so that the community was
satisfied that new construction and remodeled structures met historic standards that reflected the character
and the will of the community. That could be achieved via the HPC developing language for input by the
Council and review and hearings by the Planning Board. He expressed his support for the motion.
Councilmember Marin commented the work of the HPC to date made it optional for the property owner
to have their building declared historic and providing the owner with options. He was hesitant to support
the motion as worded in the fear it would lock owners in and tell them what they could/could not do with
their building.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the intent of the motion was not to establish an historic district such
as Pioneer Square in downtown Seattle. He agreed the only process for historic structures today was
voluntary; the motion addressed specific design guidelines so that new construction or a remodel would
meet the intent of sensitive to historic character.
Packet Page 234 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 14
Councilmember Moore commented the Council still had not passed design guidelines although they had
been a Council priority for some time. She questioned how a process to develop historic design
guidelines would be dovetailed with the design guidelines that were already in process. Councilmember
Plunkett was hopeful they would dovetail, that would be a good objective. The HPC’s objective would be
to move as fast as possible.
For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board was holding a hearing tomorrow
night. Councilmember Moore envisioned those design guidelines would come to the Council before the
HPC could begin their work and if the HPC developed historic design guidelines, the process would need
to begin again.
Councilmember Wambolt indicated he would support the motion due to his belief the issue of historic
buildings needed to be reviewed because most citizens had a different ideas of what it meant – they
believed historic buildings were protected and that the owner could not demolish a building designated as
historic.
Councilmember Orvis agreed it would be preferable if the processes dovetailed. If a conflict arose
between the design guidelines, his preference would be to side with the historic standards due to the
importance of preserving the historic nature of downtown. He pointed out the importance of the City’s
historical character to economic development.
Councilmember Moore agreed with better defining historic standards. She pointed out the downtown had
been developed over decades and only a few buildings could be identified as having a historic look. She
would support the motion so that the HPC could hear from the public what they believed was historic and
why.
Councilmember Olson recommended this effort be fast-tracked and incorporated into the design
guidelines currently being processed.
Mr. Snyder pointed out the motion did not refer to a specific zone. Councilmember Orvis advised his
intent was to limit it to the BD1 zone. Mr. Snyder inquired whether his intent was only architectural
features. Councilmember Orvis clarified his intent was an open-ended process for the HPC to determine
how the history of downtown could be preserved.
Councilmember Marin questioned what date would be frozen as “historic.” He pointed out in Pioneer
Square, there were a sufficient number of buildings constructed in that era that satisfied an architectural
style and it was appropriate to freeze that time. Conversely, Edmonds’ downtown has evolved over a
long period of time. He objected to freezing buildings that were no longer viable. Mayor Haakenson
clarified the motion was for the HPC to study historic buildings and what historic buildings mean and
make a recommendation to the Planning Board.
Mr. Chave commented if the Council charged the HPC with analyzing options for preserving downtown,
there were many different options. He suggested the HPC decide on an approach and present it to the
Council before forwarding it to the Planning Board to develop ordinances.
Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows:
DIRECT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO COME BACK TO THE
COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING HOW THEY WOULD PROCEED
WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE BD1 ZONE.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 235 of 247
A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • 206.447.7000 • Fax: 206.447.0215 • Web: www.omwlaw.com
{WSS662105.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 22, 2007
TO: Rob Chave, Planning Manager
City of Edmonds
FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney
RE: Recommendation of Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission -- BD-1 Zone
This memo suggests items for follow up in the upcoming process.
ADB
The recommendation involves authorizing the Historic Preservation Commission members to
engage in a process with the Planning Board to create design guidelines for the BD-1 or
“Heritage Center” zone. Why isn’t the Architectural Design Board involved? Given that the
ADB has developed the majority of design guidelines throughout the City, their assistance,
particularly to ensure consistency, seems appropriate.
Legislative Findings
The purpose clause in the recommendation refers to the “historic architectural character” of the
area. My understanding is that there are a limited number of truly historic structures in the area.
Given the potential for legal challenge to an ordinance of this type, it would be helpful to me if
the legislative record identified the particular structures or characteristics of the area, as well as
its “street scape.”
Similarly, a careful and detailed description and definition of the “surrounding street scapes” is
necessary. Of particular interest to me in the process will be the identification of which
structures have a historic character or other architectural feature which should be integrated in
the design of new remodeled buildings. One example is the unutilized or underutilized lots on
5th east of Dayton. Is it the intent of the Commission that these underutilized properties be
considered when evaluating the street scape?
Packet Page 236 of 247
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
May 22, 2007
Page 2
{WSS662105.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
The findings also indicate that the Center will “promote an economic vitality by increasing
property values and encouraging heritage for tourism.” If this statement is supported by data, it
should be included in the record. If not, let’s see what can be developed. Developing a
legislative record would be very helpful in defending the ordinance in the event of challenge.
ADB Applications
The ADB application section refers to an “actual color chart.” As you may be aware, the
Architectural Design Board moved away from color charts some time ago. The difficulty, of
course, is determining what colors are appropriate or in developing criteria, to review color.
Either portions of a color chart should be designated as appropriate and others inappropriate, or a
detailed standard developed. What must be avoided is a vague general standard, such as colors
which are “consistent with the surroundings.” Such a standard would be too open-ended for
lawful application.
Incentives
The issue of incentives is currently being brought to the Planning Board through the concept of
adaptive reuse. One of the principles of adaptive reuse is the loosening of building code
requirements to encourage continuation of use of existing structures. I suggest that the two
efforts be coordinated.
WSS:gjz
Packet Page 237 of 247
ACE Subcommittee on Downtown Core preservation:
I. Section 17.40 (Non-conforming Building Regulations),
Edmonds Municipal Code:
ACE endorses the proposed re-write of this section to the extent that it
encourages historic re-use or preserves the look, feel and charm of an
existing neighborhood.
II. Section 10.05 (Architectural Design Board), Edmonds
Municipal Code:
ACE endorses the creation of a new, separate Architectural Design Board
(ADB) consisting of 7 members. This new Downtown ADB (the “DADB”) will
review proposed development in only the “Downtown Core” area comprised
of the BD-1, the BD-5 and the Downtown Master Plan Area (i.e., old Safeway
& Harbor Square areas)1. (NOTE: Below in Part III we are attaching district specific
items we believe should be included in a new district-based Design Guidelines document and
be applied to this “Downtown Core” area.)
ACE proposes that for the new, separate Downtown Core ADB (the “DADB”):
• all members shall be appointed by the City Council except one
member appointed by the Mayor. (ACE feels the current Planning &
Development staff provide adequate representation of the Mayor’s
views in all design review processes.)
ACE further endorses that for all/both/any ADB, the following must be true:
• members shall comprise: one design professional, one builder, one
landscape professional or master gardener, one member of the
Edmonds Historic Preservation Committee, one historic preservation
professional or same-minded citizen and two lay members who have
experience in any of the above categories.
• all members must reside in the city of Edmonds.
• the Council will replace or reaffirm each member every two years, and
any member may be removed from his/her position by the City Council
and following a public hearing.
• the DADB meetings (if not also the ADB meetings) should be televised
to ensure transparency to the community and accountability in the
design review process in this historically and culturally significant part
of our city.
1 This area ultimately may grow to include zones BD2, BD3 and BD4.
Packet Page 238 of 247
III. Proposed items for inclusion together with existing
wording in proposed Design Guidelines document to
create a district-based Design Guidelines which govern
the BD-1 zone, the BD-5 zone and the Downtown Master
Plan Area – the “Downtown Core”:
{include a helpful graphic like this one which points to the correct district-based
Design Guideline manual & process}
WHICH CITY OF EDMONDS DESIGN GUIDELINES AND PROCESSES?
Locate your site on the
area Map …
Is it in the
Downtown Core
(BD1, BD5 or
Downtown Master
Plan Area)?
Is it in the CG or
CG2 Zone?
Is it in another BD Zone or in a
Residential neighborhood?
Go to
Downtown
Core
Design
Guidelines
Go to CG/
CG2 Design
Guidelines
(not
addressed
here)
Go to
General
Design
Guidelines
Packet Page 239 of 247
DOWNTOWN CORE
DESIGN GUIDELINES
OVERVIEW:
The streetscape of these three zones is predominated by a late 19th & early 20th
century central arterial (Main Street) that is lined with businesses which leads
uphill from the waterfront, formerly an industrial area.
These late 1800s – 1930s era buildings typically feature a store on the ground
floor and, if 2 story, steps which lead to professional offices or apartments.
Those early facades were and still are generally in 3-parts and characterized by
a central (or offset) recessed entry flanked by large display windows that rested
on bulkheads.
The compact streetscapes and these welcoming, often recessed store entrances
of Edmonds contribute directly to our downtown’s reputation as a walking
community that invites neighborliness. Pedestrians and shoppers are sheltered
by horizontal simple awnings which are one of our trademarks.
The DADB and city Planning Staff, through the following district-based Downtown
Core Design Guidelines, aim to ensure that the compact streetscapes and the
safe & friendly nature of Edmonds are complemented by the protection of our
historical, cultural and natural resources. These characteristics taken together
comprise the Edmonds downtown “vernacular” architecture.
GUIDELINES (to supplement the proposed Design Guidelines document and to
be then applied to the “Downtown Core” area):
Walk or drive slowly by your building or site on the most commonly used route. Analyze the visual
impact your planned development (or redevelopment) will have on the buildings, the site, landscape,
streetscape and on our city at large.
1. The Downtown Core Architectural Design Board (“DADB”) and Planning
Staff shall offer property owners technical and professional guidance in
adapting and changing both residential and commercial structures to meet
the demands of modern life while simultaneously preserving their
significant original qualities - - pertaining to either the rehabilitation of an
existing building or to an undeveloped site’s original significant qualities.
Packet Page 240 of 247
2. To encourage and guard our lively streets environment and to maintain
pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, all streetscape designs shall bring
together the following elements: cohesiveness in design, compactness,
social interaction and be compatible with the rhythm, flow and pattern of
neighboring building facades, setbacks and orientation.
3. The DADB and Planning Staff will pay particular attention to re-
development plans for a building or site with identifiable historic value or
features.
4. New construction is welcomed and adds to the diversity of the downtown
core and, therefore, to the city at large. Moreover, these downtown core
design guidelines are not meant to encourage period-specific or a “theme”
approach to new construction. However, even within the current diversity
in our downtown area there are patterns, textures and rhythms which
exist, and new construction design must be found by the DADB and
Planning Staff to be compatible with and add value to the immediate
neighborhood.
5. All design proposals that contain large, unbroken horizontal or vertical
facades shall be denied approval by the DADB. Instead, design proposals
shall break up expanses into smaller pieces that relate to the rhythms and
scale of the 1890s-1930s, the “vernacular” architecture of our downtown
core.
6. Any rehabilitation, alteration or new construction must be compatible with
the character-defining features (singly and in combination) that distinguish
the surrounding neighborhood and streetscapes, the “vernacular”
downtown Edmonds architecture.
7. All distinguishing, original qualities or character of an historic building,
structure, site or its environ shall not be destroyed or obscured.
Packet Page 241 of 247
8. Proposed new roofs or changes to existing roofs shall be compatible in
form, scale, materials and orientation with the surrounding rooflines.
9. The DADB and Planning Staff shall strive to present affordable and
achievable methods for the rehabilitation & alteration of existing structures
as well as for new construction in order to preserve the rhythms, texture
and patterns found in the “vernacular” downtown architecture.
10. (The city should offer financial assistance in the form of permit fee
waivers, tax incentives, etc. to encourage property owners to maintain and
reuse current downtown core buildings with historic or significant
features.)
11. Signage is an important design element that affects both the visual
character of the area as well as the viability of its businesses. Signs
should not interrupt or overlap architectural features such as cornices,
columns or trim, and should be oriented to pedestrians in size and shape.
Wood is the preferred material for signs on historic structures. All signage
color and materials shall be compatible with surrounding buildings and
streetscapes.
12. Satellite dishes, fuel tanks, generators, heating & air conditioning units,
electrical boxes and other such devices must be unobtrusively situated so
they will not be visible from the public thoroughfare and shall be screened
where feasible.
13. Parking areas shall be made visually unobtrusive and shall be located to
the rear of buildings if feasible or else visually screened from public
walkways.
Packet Page 242 of 247
DOWNTOWN CORE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
1. Brief description of new project and surrounding streetscape
(neighboring buildings, setbacks, heights & rooflines)
2. Site plan to include location of existing buildings, location of additions or
new buildings, the location of utilities and links to bike paths, the Arts
Corridor, planned pedestrian thoroughfares and the intermodal
connections near the waterfront.
3. Blueprints to include plan, elevation and section drawings. Include
window design, signs and exterior lighting
4. Detailed drawings or 3-dimensional model of new or altered architectural
features and trim
5. Description and samples of building materials including types of
windows, roofing and siding. (You must include an actual color chart or
color samples.)
6. Photographs of nearby building facades, rooflines and streetscape (all 3).
If an historic rehabilitation or alteration, photos from the Historic
Preservation Commission will be very helpful.
DOWNTOWN CORE
DESIGN GUIDELINES CHECKLIST:
(please insert here revised criteria based on above guidelines)
Packet Page 243 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 20, 2008
Page 17
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PLUNKETT, TO ADD A PURPLE STAR ON THE RECOMMENDED PLAN FACILITIES MAP
REPRESENTING A PROPOSED COMMUNITY REGIONAL PARK WITHIN THE VICINITY
OF THE DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT ACTIVITY CENTER.
Councilmember Bernheim clarified his intent was not to purchase the entire Antique Mall property, but to
include in the Park Plan the potential for a community regional park of any size within that area, either a
bench, stage, tourist kiosk, etc. Mr. McIntosh advised the revised Plan Facilities map contained a circle
entitled Possible Public Amenity in Downtown Water Activity Center.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
MAIN MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT AND COUNCILMEMBER
WILSON OPPOSED.
9. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE BD1 ZONE
Mayor Haakenson advised this item was for information only and was scheduled for a public hearing on
July 15.
Planning Manager Rob Chave agreed this was an opportunity for the Council to ask questions prior to the
public hearing. He explained the Planning Board considered the items the Council referred and worked
with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and Architectural Design Board (ADB) who agreed the
design standards should be forwarded to the Council and the Planning Board would continue discussions
with the HPC on other concepts such as a waiting period on demolition, modifications to design review in
the BD1 zone, etc.
Council President Plunkett inquired regarding the SEPA threshold in the BD1, recalling there was
interesting in lowering that threshold. Mr. Chave answered that had not been done; the Planning Board
wanted to have further discussion regarding that issue. The ADB was interested in revising the design
review standards for what was reviewed by the ADB but were unable to determine what the standard
should be.
Council President Plunkett expressed interest in lowering the SEPA threshold and recalled the Council
had discussed the SEPA threshold being too high in the BD1. He noted the HPC considered the BD1 a
special area and wanted it renamed the Heritage Center to ensure developers were aware it was heritage
sensitive. Mr. Chave advised the public hearing would be on the design standards as proposed; Council
should provide further direction regarding any other changes. Mr. Chave did not view the name change
as significant although it may be helpful to advertise that a name change was being considered for the
BD1 zone. He noted it would be very important to advertise any change in design review thresholds as
that was a major change. He clarified the Planning Board wanted to work with the HPC to determine the
standards and suggested waiting for a recommendation from the Planning Board on that specific issue.
He agreed to communicate to the Planning Board that the Council wanted them to pursue lowering the
threshold in the BD1 and renaming the BD1zone the Heritage Center.
Councilmember Orvis commented the proposed design standards contained numbers that would be
included in the code versus guidelines. Mr. Chave agreed this specific language would be incorporated
into the design standards for the BD1 zone.
Packet Page 244 of 247
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 20, 2008
Page 18
Councilmember Orvis asked how the recommendation for 75% transparency was determined. Mr. Chave
answered it was a generally accepted urban design standard for downtown retail and had been cited by
Mr. Hinshaw in his presentations.
Councilmember Wilson asked how form-based zoning related to the proposed design standards. Mr.
Chave answered form-based zoning was a new planning conceptualization that incorporated design
standards and design guidelines in codes. The problem with traditional codes was they identified what
could not be done but did not necessarily identify the desired result. Form-based codes were more
directive and identified what the City wanted developers to achieve with their design. He advised the
City’s code was a hybrid. As staff continued its work on zoning classifications there would be more
form-based codes particularly in areas where the intent was to protect or enhance the current visual
character or areas that were expecting a great deal of change to occur such as on Hwy. 99.
10. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MAY 13, 2008
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Council President Plunkett reported the Committee was provided a report on City Park maintenance
facility pre-design study that considered various alternatives for replacing the park maintenance building
in City Park. The recommended alternative would create a one story building on the existing site with a
total project cost of $2.7-$3.5 million and would require relocation of the park and facilities maintenance
to the old Public Works buildings for one year. Staff also provided the Committee a report on the South
County Senior Center building; the biggest challenges facing the building area seismic and structural
deficiencies that could cost up to $4 million. Staff will continue to work with the Center’s Board of
Directors to develop a long term capital plan for the Center. The Committee discussed the potential
Meadowdale annexation; 48 households have expressed interest in annexing. The next steps are for staff
to look into utility issues and to draft a joint resolution for consider by the Edmonds and Lynnwood City
Councils. The final item was an update on the code rewrite which included discussion of expanding the
use of a technique known as form-based zoning in the Title 16 rewrite. Staff will work with the Planning
Board to refine the concept and make a presentation to the Council in the future.
.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee was provided a report on the Verizon franchise
negotiations contract increase which will be included in the next budget amendment. Next, the
Committee reviewed the first quarter budget report which revealed REET revenues were below
projections and sales tax receipts have held their own through April. Staff provided the Committee a
report on surplus assets which was approved on tonight’s Consent Agenda. The Committee received an
update on the 2009-2010 utility rate study. The final item the Committee discussed was a policy
regarding contracting with former employees and staff was directed to prepare an ordinance for Council
consideration.
Public Safety Committee
Councilmember Dawson reported staff provided the Committee a report on acquisition of property next to
Fire Station 16. A previous Council negotiated a right of first refusal; the property was now available.
The Fire Department administration and union provided information regarding the need for this property
for future use for administration and training facilities. An Executive Session was scheduled on May 27
to establish a purchase price. She noted the property acquisition was not presented to the Council this
week pending the outcome of the EMS levy vote. The Committee also reviewed the Police Department’s
multiyear plan.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Packet Page 245 of 247
AM-1673 6.
Downtown Master Plan Area - Waterfront Antique Mall, Harbor Square & Skippers
Properties
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:08/05/2008
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Plunkett Time:60 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Continued discussion and potential action regarding the Downtown Master Plan Area -
Waterfront Antique Mall, Harbor Square and Skippers properties.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
During the February 1 and 2, 2008 City Council retreat, Council members discussed their
concerns, visions, and interests regarding the Downtown Master Plan area as identified within the
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. This area is also known as the Port of Edmonds Harbor
Square, Antique Mall and Skipper properties (includes all properties immediately between Main
Street and the north edge of Edmonds Marsh, and SR 104 and BNSF rail lines).
The City Council also expressed support for the City holding at least two public meetings to
discuss the potential redevelopment of subject area. During the first public meeting which took
place on March 25, 2008, City staff presented information on the existing redevelopment
framework as established by the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. This information
was/is intended to provide a knowledge base for future discussions.
Following presentations by City staff, Mark Hinshaw, with LMN Architects, presented, in part,
findings from a book he recently authored on the national and regional phenomenon of people
choosing to move into and near downtowns. He also spoke about the redevelopment possibilities
and constraints of subject area.
The next group of presentations were given by property owners of the Antique Mall and Skipper’s
properties and their representatives, in addition to a Port of Edmonds Commissioner. At the
conclusion of the presentations, City Council members asked questions of staff and property
owners.
During the April 1, 2008 Council Meeting, a Public Hearing was held regarding the Waterfront
Antique Mall, Harbor Square, and Skippers Properties. A motion was made by Councilmember
Wilson, seconded by Councilmember Olson to explore by May 6, 2008 the cost and process for a
Packet Page 246 of 247
bond related to acquisition and development of an array of options for purchasing some part of the
three parcels, explore options for a M & O levy, consider any potential lost revenue from public
vs. private facilities and engage stakeholders to ensure they were willing partners.
This motion was tabled subject to the Council President working with staff to bring it back in
concert with other items including discussing at the Community Services/Development Services
Committee and returning it to a future agenda at the Council President's discretion.
Narrative
Council President Plunkett has placed this item on the agenda for Council deliberation and
potential action on the following:
1) City-driven master plan. The Council can direct staff to bring back action items on upcoming
Council agendas to implement a city-driven master plan.
2) Property owners'-driven master plan: no future council action until applications(s) are
submitted.
3) Council proceeds with potential purchase of some or all of the Downtown Waterfront Activities
Center properties. Staff to bring back steps for a plan of action with respect to appraisal, due
diligence, public use plans/consultant, attorney consultants to start the path to purchase. What to
appraise, when to do so in relation to environment due diligence and the hiring of public use
consultants and attorneys to be considered and potential decided upon.
4) Other:
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/30/2008 10:09 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 07/30/2008 10:36 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/31/2008 10:43 AM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 07/14/2008 09:17
AM
Final Approval Date: 07/31/2008
Packet Page 247 of 247