2009.05.05 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
MAY 5, 2009
6:30 p.m. - Executive session regarding labor negotiation. The executive session will be held in the Jury Meeting Room and is
scheduled for approximately 30 minutes. No action is anticipated to take place at the conclusion of the executive session.
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-2258 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2009.
C. AM-2260 Approval of claim checks #111328 through #111458 for April 30, 2009 in the amount of
$271,087.18.
D. AM-2256 Confirmation of newly appointed Architectural Design Board Member and Historic
Preservation Commissioner.
E. AM-2250 Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Josh Bauman ($228.96).
F. AM-2236 Amendment to Interlocal Agreement for Consortium for Negotiation of Cable Television
Franchising.
G. AM-2253 Report on bids opened April 21, 2009 for the 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway
and 162nd Street SW Park project and award of contract to Precision Earthworks, Inc.
($1,634,667.54).
H. AM-2255 Authorization for Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with BHC Consultants,
LLC for performing a study of the City's sewer system infiltration and inflow (I/I).
3. AM-2262
(5 Minutes)
Recognition of retiring Port of Edmonds Executive Director Chris Keuss, and
introduction of new Executive Director Robert McChesney.
4. AM-2252
(5 Minutes)
Proclamation in honor of The Big Read Month, May 2009.
5. AM-2257
(5 Minutes)
Proclamation in honor of Arts Education Month, May 2009.
6. AM-2259
(15 Minutes)
Edmonds Arts Commission 2008 Annual Review and presentation of 2009 scholarship
recipients.
7. AM-2248
Packet Page 1 of 248
7. AM-2248
(30 Minutes)
Public comment on draft levy proposal and draft Resolution regarding 2009 property
tax levy.
8. AM-2254
(30 Minutes)
Public hearing on Ordinance amending Edmonds Community Development Code
Chapter 20 relating to establishing permit types, process requirements, notice
requirements, consistency with SEPA, open record hearing procedures, closed record
appeals, and development agreements.
9.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed record Review or as Public Hearings.
10. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
11. (15 Minutes)Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 248
AM-2258 2.B.
Approve 04-28-09 Draft City Council Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/05/2009
Submitted By:Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2009.
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: 04-28-09 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 11:47 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/30/2009 01:56 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 03:38 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 04/30/2009 09:48
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/30/2009
Packet Page 3 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
April 28, 2009
At 6:45 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would meet in the Jury Meeting Room
located in the Public Safety Complex to interview candidates for the Architectural Design Board and
Historic Preservation Commission. He stated that the interview was open to the public and was scheduled
to last approximately 15 minutes. Elected officials present at the interview were Mayor Haakenson and
Councilmembers Orvis, Wambolt, Olson, Peterson and Bernheim. The candidates interviewed were
William Summers and Eric Norenberg. The interview concluded at 6:55 p.m. No action was taken.
The regular 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
Ron Wambolt, Council President Pro Tem
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember (arrived 7:15 p.m.)
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
D. J. Wilson, Council President
STAFF PRESENT
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Ann Bullis, Building Official
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Plunkett was not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt requested Item G be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Plunkett was not present for the vote.) The agenda
items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 2009.
Packet Page 4 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 2
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #111215 THROUGH #111327 FOR $650,479.28
DATED APRIL 23, 2009. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND
CHECKS #47999 THROUGH #48038 FOR THE PAY PERIOD APRIL 1, THROUGH
APRIL 15, 2009 FOR $825,852.28.
D. APPROVAL OF THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD MARCH
2009 LIST OF BUSINESSES REQUESTING RENEWAL OF THEIR LIQUOR
LICENSES.
E. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY REPORT
– APRIL, 2009.
F. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE ELECTRICAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
H. APPLICATION FOR EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT
(JAG) PROGRAM.
I. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF BUILDING SAFETY WEEK, MAY 3 - 9, 2009.
ITEM G. APPROVAL OF PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,111.41 TO LANDAU
ASSOCIATES RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE OLD
MILLTOWN COURTYARD SITE.
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt explained he pulled this item as the funding was from the Council
Contingency Fund which in his understanding was eliminated via the recent budget cuts made by Mayor
Haakenson. Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman explained only approximately $5,000 of
the original $25,000 in the fund had been cut.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM G. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councilmember Plunkett was not present for the vote.)
3. EDMONDS BUSINESS STORY: GARDEN GEAR.
Don Hall with Garden Gear, located at 102 5th Avenue North, stated the business opened April 6, 1996.
His wife Lili and he wanted to open a retail store related to garden items for several years and after
visiting a garden store in Victoria BC in 1995 combined that store’s ideas with their own to form Garden
Gear. The original idea was a garden store that specialized in English tools and garden items. As English
tools were no longer manufactured in England, they have evolved to the store of today that features
garden tools, basic garden items, birding products, chimes and gongs, bird baths, garden statuary, glass
art, annual and perennial plants, indoor plants, and garden art as well as metal woven jewelry created by
Lili. Lili also plants and maintains many planters in front of downtown Edmonds retail stores and designs
and plants numerous deck and patio gardens around the downtown area.
Mr. Hall commented Edmonds was a great place to do business and needed economic development to
generate additional foot traffic, both local and visitors. He urged residents to shop local, commenting
there were many stores in Edmonds dedicated to serving the retail needs of Edmonds.
Councilmember Peterson offered his thanks to Lili who planted and maintained the pot in front of his
shop. He asked how many Edmonds in Bloom awards Lili and Don had won over the years. Mr. Hall
advised Lili won a couple times and their yard has won from the inception of the award until now except
for the first year.
Packet Page 5 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 3
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt suggested Garden Gear and other downtown businesses remain
open on the 4th of July. Mr. Hall responded they did remain open one year and the only customers were
people with small children looking for a restroom.
4. PRESENTATION ON EDMONDS BACKYARD WILDLIFE HABITAT PROJECT.
Laura Spehar, Edmonds, provided the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat (EBWH) Project’s slogan,
“fostering a community that lives in harmony with nature.” She identified several members of the EBWH
in the audience wearing the EBWH T-shirt with the logo designed by local artist Sue Coccia and provided
a T-shirt to Mayor Haakenson.
Ms. Spehar explained the EBWH goals and mission for National/State Community Habitat Certification
were based on the City’s population. With the City’s population of over 40,500, they need 450 points
through educational activities, outreach and community projects as well as to certify 150 homes, 5
schools and 5 common places as backyard wildlife habitats. The intent of these requirements was to
increase the community’s awareness of local wildlife and empower them to preserve, restore and create
low maintenance, wildlife friendly habitat at home, school, work, parks and other public places. She
explained they have 205 points to date: 135 homes have been certified, 4 schoolyards (Westgate
Elementary, Woodway Elementary, Madrona School and Holy Rosary School) and 5 common places
(Edmonds Unitarian Universalist Church, Edmonds United Methodist Church, Yost Park, and Willow
Creek Hatchery). To achieve these points, they also provide workshops, citywide restoration work
projects, and education outreach.
She displayed several photographs of EBWH activities. She identified numerous EBWH Partners and
described current efforts that include creating a habitat/native plant demonstration garden at the Willow
Creek Hatchery, Adopt-A-Stream/Perrinville Creek Project, hosting Snohomish/King County Habitat
Stewards training, National Wildlife Federation Regional Leadership Meeting and Association of Zoos &
Aquarium’s Fogwatch USA training. She noted income from these events provides income for the Parks
& Recreation Department and the South County Senior Center.
Other activities included partnering with the Puget Sound Birdfest and the City’s Watershed Fun Fair &
Waterfront Festival; “Going Native” Garden Fair, a fundraiser for Stevens Hospital in partnership with
the Washington Native Plant Society on May 7; “Friends of the Marsh” partner; working with the dog
park regarding pet waste disposal; and helping Edmonds become a Tree City USA.
Ms. Spehar identified several other cities that have Tree City USA certification including Lake Forest
Park, Lynnwood, Shoreline, Port Townsend, Everett, Bothell, Seattle, Redmond and Bellevue. She
described benefits of becoming a Tree City USA including public image, citizen pride and financial
assistance. She listed standards established by the Arbor Day Foundation and the National Association of
State Foresters for becoming a Tree City USA
1. A Tree Board or Department.
2. A Tree Care Ordinance.
3. An Arbor Day observation or proclamation.
4. A Community Forestry Program.
Ms. Spehar provided their website address: www.edmondsbackyardwildlifehabitat.org and email address
edmondsbwh@gmail.com.
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt commended the EBWH for the work they do, commenting he had
seen the piles of blackberry vines they have removed from the Hatchery.
Packet Page 6 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 4
5. SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAMS AND STRATEGIES AT EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE.
Alison Pugh, Sustainability Researcher, Edmonds Community College (ECC), described efforts in
support of sustainability at ECC such as incorporating sustainability into the philosophical statement of
the college, beginning the Sustainability Initiative in 2006, and President Jack Oharah signing the
American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment in April 2008 which provides a
framework for becoming a more sustainable institution. There are 627 signatories to date.
Ms. Pugh described the sustainability structure at ECC since their change in philosophy.
• September 2006 a group of faculty, staff and students formed the Sustainability Council to guide
the efforts of the initiative.
• Center for Service Learning was created in June 2007.
• Arts Culture and Civic Engagement supports the initiative with funding.
• Equity and Diversity Center promotes diversity awareness and social justice issues, an important
aspect of a sustainable society.
• Students formed the Save the Earth Club.
• Hired a Sustainability Researcher in November 2008.
Amy Johnson, Service Learning Coordinator, ECC, explained the Center for Service Learning
engages students, faculty and staff in partnerships with community organizations to help make lives more
sustainable. She provided several statistics with regard to the Center for Service Learning.
Ms. Pugh explained the mission of the Sustainability Council, who guides the Sustainability Initiative at
ECC, was to strive to infuse sustainable practice throughout all aspects of the college’s operation and
facilitate preparation of students and community for sustainable careers, citizenship and quality of life.
She enumerated activities they had worked on over the past year including developing a Climate Action
Plan, bringing the “Awakening the Dream” symposium to the Building Community Day on May 8,
numerous events on Earth Sustainability Month, and receipt of a Curriculum for the Bioregion Seed
Grant. She advised the Sustainability Council meets twice a month; their first workshop, regarding food
systems, will be held June 3 at ECC.
Ms. Pugh explained the primary goal of the Sustainability Council was to develop and maintain a
comprehensive plan to achieve climate neutrality. ECC has contracted for an audit that will determine the
College’s carbon footprint as well as a comprehensive sustainability assessment that will provide
measurable data regarding resource use on the campus. From that information, they will create a Climate
Action Plan. Once ECC's carbon footprint is determined, they will set target dates, goals and actions to
reduce their impact and carbon emissions.
Ms. Pugh reviewed green degrees offered at ECC including a Restoration Horticulture ATA, an
Occupational Safety & Health AAS-T and an Energy Management ATA. She identified other classes and
certifications under development, noting sustainability practices and principles were also being embedded
into existing classes and programs
Ms. Johnson described the Learn and Service Environmental Anthropology Field (LEAF) School and
identified several students in the audience. LEAF was a series of three courses in anthropology and
human ecology whereby students do community service projects. She displayed several photographs of
projects students are involved in. She provided a student’s observation as well as a comment from the
Communications Director of Washington Campus Compact regarding the LEAF program. Further
information regarding ECC's sustainability effort is available at www.edcc.edu/afterwords.
Packet Page 7 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 5
6. PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING PROPOSAL TO BAN SINGLE USE PLASTIC CHECKOUT
BAGS IN EDMONDS.
Mayor Haakenson explained the Council was taking public comment on the proposal tonight and again on
May 19, holding a public hearing on June 2 and possibly taking action on June 16.
Councilmember Peterson commented the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat and Edmonds Community
College illustrate why the Council was interested in a ban on single use plastic bags. He assured it was
not just about eliminating something with an environmental impact but creating and taking advantage of
efforts related to a green economy. To those who may question the advisability of a plastic bag ban in
this economy, he supported Edmonds being a leader in the region to ensure jobs were being created and
that businesses and people who value this movement were attracted to Edmonds. He acknowledged there
was differing opinions regarding a bag ban and he welcomed all viewpoints. The key was to help change
people’s habits and do the right thing.
Willie Russell, Edmonds, jokingly announced his candidacy for plastic bag enforcement administrator,
stating via stiff fines and long jail sentences he would eradicate plastic bag criminals and then go after
Starbucks customers who litter their cups. He explained plastic bags represented a society that was
willing to reuse what they had. There are numerous uses for plastic bags from storing wet paint brushes
to covering a person’s hands after applying salve. Although he applauded the Council’s willingness to
open communication on biodegradable products, he questioned what items might be next; leather shoes
that take 20-40 years to decompose, plastic containers that take 50-80 years, tin cans that take 100 years,
disposable diapers that take 75 years, aluminum cans that take 200-500 years, or Styrofoam which never
decomposes. He recalled the use of plastic bags was encouraged in the past because it took five times
more energy to produce a paper bag. He relayed being told by a Councilmember that plastic bags would
still be available at other grocery stores and questioned whether the Council was encouraging residents to
shop outside Edmonds. He questioned whether the ban would prohibit clothing bags, medical IVs and
other plastic items. He urged the Council to dedicate their time to solving the City’s fiscal needs,
employment, food for the hungry, and healthcare for those unable to afford it.
Matt Englesby, NW Buyer, Trex Company, advised Trex was not for or against a plastic bag ban. Trex
is the largest domestic recycler of polyethylene film in grocery bags; this material is used in their
manufacturing process to produce sustainable building materials such as desks, fencing, and railings.
Trex promotes recycling of all types and provides storefront recycling at several local grocery stores. He
advised 7 of every 10 drug and grocery store bags in the United States end up at a Trex plant or
approximately 1.5 billion bags per year. He summarized there were other alternatives to a ban such as
recycling and educating the public regarding recycling.
Jack Bevan, Edmonds, commented it was easy to be seduced by the green movement particularly during
an election year. He noted the City’s anti-littering law should address the basic problem of single use
checkout bags. He did not support further government intrusion into citizens’ lives particularly over petty
issues such as single use plastic bags. He urged the Council not to concern themselves with being first
and to wait patiently for the outcome of Seattle’s election. He displayed a plastic bag the City provides to
pick up litter.
Clyde Dimmick, Edmonds, commented the City had apparently determined there was a litter program
even though there was a litter ordinance. He referred to the Council’s goal to encourage the use of
reusable shopping bags. He disagreed with the term single use checkout bags. He described five
approximately 1½ hour walks he took along the Edmonds waterfront from the King County line to the
Port and along the public beaches to Casper Street where he found two potato chip bags and a
Packet Page 8 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 6
heavyweight plastic bag on one walk and one potato chip bag and two beer cans on another walk. He
displayed the plastic litter bag the City provides which states the fine for littering is $5,000 and jail time.
He referred to the estimate that Edmonds residents used 8 million plastic bags, pointing out his research
indicated only a few of those bags ended up in the marine habitat.
Holly Chesia, Olympia, Northwest Grocery Association, representing Safeway, Albertson’s, QFC,
Fred Meyer and Hagen, offered to work with the City on an ordinance. She explained they have
considered this issue on a local and statewide level and there were tradeoffs to banning plastic bags: a
paper bag is approximately 4 cents more expensive than a plastic bag and the carbon footprint of a paper
bag is approximately 4 times that of a plastic bag. She pointed out recycled plastic bags are used for
many purposes including carpet, Patagonia fleece, and recyclable totes available in grocery stores. She
appreciated the City’s proposal was an all-retail ban on plastic bags and not limited to grocery stores. She
summarized their goal was to reduce the use of paper and plastic bags and get the public to embrace the
use of reusable totes.
Josh McDonald, Olympia, Washington Restaurant Association, representing approximately 5,000
restaurants throughout Washington State, explained their industry was working hard on sustainable
practices. If the City approved the ban, he requested an exemption for prepared food due to the food
safety risk. Restaurants need to be sure what food is placed into is safe, secure and clean. He explained
Seattle’s as well as the State’s efforts have included an exemption for prepared food.
Robin Brower, Edmonds, a Surfrider Foundation volunteer, a non-profit environmental organization
that works to protect oceans and beach communities, explained their membership of over 50,000 is
currently engaged in a “Rise Above Plastics” campaign. She expressed Surfrider’s support for Edmonds’
efforts to ban single use plastic bags as it supported their mission to ensure water quality for the benefit of
public health and the marine environment. She emphasized plastic bags were more than a litter issue;
because plastic bags are light, they float easily in the air and water and travel long distances. Over 1
million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals die each year from the ingestion of or entanglement in
plastics and local divers often encounter plastic bags at the Underwater Dive Park. She summarized the
Surfrider Foundation was actively engaged in educating the public on living an environmentally friendly
lifestyle. The proposed ban on plastic bags in Edmonds would help further their strategic goals and
protect places like Edmonds and its waterfront. She acknowledged the biggest challenge was customers
remembering to bring their reusable bags into the grocery store.
John Pierce, Woodway, commented he traveled the world and the United States financing and building
many of the largest renewable energy projects. He felt the proposed plastic bag ban was a feel good
measure, comparing it to Initiative 937 that required each utility to purchase renewable energy but
disqualified hydroelectric as renewable. He commented Edmonds’ effort to ban plastic bags was useless
because they could be obtained at stores in nearby cities and the only effective way to ban plastic bags
was at the federal or state level. With regard to information provided in support of the ban such as China
banning plastic bags, he found when visiting China a few weeks ago plastic bags had not been banned.
He suggested the City focus its efforts on promoting waste-to-energy products.
Bob Rinehart, Edmonds, provided numerous signatures in support of the plastic bag ban. He thanked
Councilmember Peterson and the Council for pursuing something he found meaningful. Having worked
on sustainability issues in Edmonds and at the university level during the past eight years, he pointed out
the need to accept and address the challenge and take responsibility. One of the biggest problems in
working on sustainability was closing the loop; it was easy to say a little thing did not have an impact
because it was hard to see. He referred to the Gertrude Stein saying regarding downtown Oakland,
California, “there is no there, there.” He commented the public think they can get rid of things because
Packet Page 9 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 7
they go there, but the fact is there is actually here. He referred to the Algalita Marine Research
Foundation presentation whose research found a large percentage of fish have plastic inside their bodies
thereby entering the food chain. He expressed his support for the plastic bag ban.
Don Hall, Edmonds, agreed this was an important issue, pointing out landfills were not the biggest
problem, the primary issue was the ocean. He pointed out the oceans and marine mammals could not wait
50 years to educate the public. He did not support nor did he believe the Council supported banning all
plastic bag, only bags that were not totally necessary. He assured consumers could still buy packaged
plastic bags and wraps and plastics would continue to be available in the medical field. With regard to
being first, he supported Edmonds being first, noting the City would only be the first in the State to ban
plastic bags; other cities, states and counties had adopted bans. He assured a small step could make a
huge different in the long term.
Alyson Bonner, Edmonds, a Surfrider Foundation volunteer, was excited to see the steps taken by the
Council to keep marine debris out of oceans. She assured the proposed ban would have an impact and
would be motivation for surrounding cities. She summarized anything citizens could do to reduce plastic
bags would be a win for the environment and economy.
Ruth Arista, Edmonds, referred to the Algalita Marine Research Foundation’s presentation, expressing
her amazement with the information and statistics they provided including photographs with marine life
bound by or that had consumed plastics in the ocean. As a consumer considering the impact a plastic bag
ban would have, she has made an effort recently to shop without the use of plastic bags. She pointed out
wet paint brushes could be stored in wax paper bags which were more recyclable than plastic bags. As an
independent retailer in Edmonds, she must decide if the cost of a plastic versus a paper bag was
something her small business could handle. They continue to use only paper bags with handles that can
carry 4 bottles of wine or 14-18 lbs. She cited Harvard Business Review articles that state cities
undertaking similar initiatives had more people coming to spend their consumer dollars which she pointed
out would be beneficial to businesses as well as the City. She summarized if an organization such as
Whole Foods could eliminate plastic bags from their organization, most consumers could. She supported
a ban on all single use plastic bags in all businesses and encouraged consumers to bring their own
recycled paper or cloth bags.
Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, commented Councilmember Peterson’s recent article in the Edmonds
Beacon provided an excellent overview on the plastic bags ban, stating the ban would only prohibit
plastic checkout bags. She voiced her support for the proposed ban, commenting plastic bags enter the
environment as litter, in waterways after being washed down storm drains or thrown away in landfills.
She pointed out bags were not biodegradable and only break down into smaller toxic bits that contaminate
the soil and waterways and enter the food chain when consumed by fish and animals. She noted the
plastics industry has aggressively opposed municipalities’ efforts to ban plastic bags, complaining that
paper bags require more energy to produce and take up more space in landfills. She anticipated the
plastic bag industry would threaten lawsuits and encouraged the City to study past case law to avoid legal
pitfalls. She also recommended the legislation promote environmentally sound alternatives to plastic bags
such as cloth bags and suggested commissioning local artisans to design attractive cloth bags. She
suggested citizens also purchase and donate reusable plastic bags filled with food to the food bank.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented although many plastic bags were donated to the Edmonds Food
Bank, they also purchased approximately 4,000 bags at a cost of $222/month. He anticipated paper bags
would be significantly more expensive. He encouraged the public to donate to local food drives. He
suggested the Council survey the public to determine their thoughts regarding the plastic bag ban.
Packet Page 10 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 8
Carol Hahn, Edmonds, explained when she walks, she uses two canes and can carry items in plastic
bags looped over her arm. If plastic bags were banned, she emphasized it must be replaced with
something as usable such as paper bags with sturdier handles.
Roger Oliver, Edmonds, echoed his wife’s comments. He recalled visiting Orcas Island in the late
1960s where the shore in Eastsound as well as the trees across the road were littered with plastic. That no
longer occurs because the public has been educated. He urged the Council not to take away the tools
many people needed to transport goods.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, wondered what the people involved with the Citizens Levy Review
Committee would say about the Council’s emphasis on plastic bags when their interest was the City’s
financial situation. He preferred to educate the public regarding the use of plastic bags rather than forcing
consumers to comply with a plastic bags ban. He anticipated people would recycle if they were educated
about the importance of recycling and given the opportunity. In his experience most plastic bags ended
up in a landfill and he anticipated most of the plastic in waterways was Styrofoam, plastic rings, bottle
caps, etc. He feared the local economy could be affected by a ban on plastic bags although he
acknowledged it could also be used to draw visitors by advertising a choice between paper and plastic.
Chris Fleck, Edmonds, advised he had been using the same long handled canvas bags for the past 20
years. He doubted anyone would shop outside the City simply to obtain plastic bags, noting Petosa’s
stopped using plastic bags years ago and their store is always busy. He relayed seeing a person at a
drugstore purchasing a tube of toothpaste that was placed in a plastic bag, pointing out many purchases
did not even require a bag. He recalled during a trip to Southern Africa, 60-100 miles from the nearest
town, where there were plastic bags blowing around the bush. With regard to the Trex Company, he
applauded their use of recycled plastic bags, pointing out their concern was the loss of a free raw material
for their product if the City banned plastic bags. Although he preferred not to legislate the use of plastic
bags, it may be great publicity for the City to be the first in the State to ban plastic bags. He circulated a
USA Today article about plastic bags makers trying to stem legislation banning plastic bags.
Michael Young, Edmonds, reported he had 7 separate containers behind his restaurant that prevented
approximately 85% of his waste from entering landfills, pointing out his efforts were worthwhile even if
his neighbors did not do the same. He questioned the truth of the information regarding plastic bags
provided by the American Chemistry Council who produced plastic bags. He noted the Council’s
proposal to ban plastic bags was directed at the health, safety and welfare of citizens, the same basis for
many laws such as the prohibition on DDT, Freon for air conditioners, pouring paint down the drain, or
throwing refrigerators and televisions into a dumpster. He summarized this is the wave of the future; the
City could be in front of it or behind it. He implored the Council to take public comment and then do the
right thing and move on.
Mayor Haakenson reiterated the Council would take public comment again on May 19, hold a public
hearing on June 2 and possibly take action on June 16.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT LEVY PROPOSAL AND DRAFT RESOLUTION REGARDING
2009 PROPERTY TAX LEVY.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out although the Council was seeking public input on the draft levy proposal
and a draft resolution regarding the 2009 property tax levy, nothing had been approved by the Council
yet.
Packet Page 11 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 9
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to a letter he provided the City from Senator Rosemary McAuliffe,
District 1 that states her opposition to increased taxes. He relayed Representative Al O’Brien was also
opposed to increasing taxes. Neither Senator McAuliffe nor Representative O’Brien believed a ballot
measure anywhere in the State to increase taxes would pass and both believed the State’s financial
situation would worsen. He pointed out March 2009 was the first time Social Security paid out more than
they collected. He reported seniors would receive a $250 stimulus payment and questioned the
percentage of Edmonds’ population that was over 62 years of age.
David Thorpe, Edmonds, a member of the Citizen Levy Review Committee, expressed opposition to the
concept of a parks, public safety and families levy (Option 2) as it represented special interest. He
questioned why the City would want to tie its hands with Option 2 when the problems or solutions were
not yet fully understood and it was uncertain whether Option 2 met the criteria of being good for the
citywide agenda. He concluded a special interest levy may garner some extra votes but it did not show
leadership in correcting the current financial course nor did it show the public that hard work was
necessary. He urged the Council to avoid business as usual and brush away problems with a solution
such as Option 2.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed Option 2 was too specific about the use of the funds. He commented
anyone with a basic understanding of the City’s accounting system knew there was no way to ensure
money from a levy would be placed in a specific fund because there was the ability to do interfund
transfers. He asserted an interfund transfer allowed staff to move money out of a fund and place it in
another fund including the General Fund and approval by the City Council was not required. To ensure
funds remained in a specific fund would require changing the City’s current system to prohibit staff-
generated interfund transfers unless authorized by the Council.
George Murray, Edmonds, commented there was a bill being developed in Congress to divert Social
Security funds to pay for programs President Obama was developing. He urged the Council to consider
the situation facing seniors as well as the impacts the stock market has had on their retirement savings.
He anticipated Edmonds’ population was 16% seniors. He relayed a comment from a person who
operated a UPS store regarding the volume of unemployment checks. He remarked there were two
bicycles in the parking lot tonight.
Ruth Arista, Edmonds, commented other commitments did not allow her to be involved in the Citizen
Levy Review Committee although she appreciated the opportunity to hear the reports they provided at the
last Council meeting that nearly unanimously supported a levy of some amount. She supported listing
specific items that would be cut if the levy did not pass and expressed concern that Option 1 listed the
total levy amount of $3.75 million but did not list any specifics. She recommended the City identify
items that would be cut if the levy failed.
Mayor Haakenson reiterated the draft resolution was written by Council President Wilson and neither
Council nor staff had an opportunity to weigh in on the options.
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt explained the proposed levy amount of $3.75 million was the
average of the levy amounts recommended by the Citizen Levy Review Committee (CLRC) groups. He
recalled all the groups recognized this was not an optimum time to seek additional property taxes from
citizens. He also recalled during their presentations the CLRC groups asked what would be cut if a levy
did not pass. In proposing the parks, public safety and families option, Council President Wilson simply
grouped items that were likely to be cut in the broad classifications of parks. Further, he disagreed with
Mr. Hertrich’s comments, advising interfund transfers must be approved by the Finance Committee and
then the Council; there was not a single staff member making that decision.
Packet Page 12 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 10
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt summarized anyone with better answers should speak up; the
options were to either raise property taxes or cut services, the type of services that most residents did not
want cut. He assured the Council was doing their best and the residents who participated in the CLRC
agreed the City’s problem was not an expense problem but rather a revenue problem and unfortunately
the only method for generating revenue in a short timeframe was property taxes.
Mayor Haakenson advised public comment on the draft levy proposal and a draft resolution was also
scheduled on next week’s agenda and the Council would discuss it on May 19.
8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Harold Huston, Edmonds, commented he and several friends were embarrassed by the Council’s
behavior at last week’s Council meeting, comparing it to a three ring circus. He expressed concern with
Councilmembers attacking each other, Councilmembers attacking the Mayor and the public attacking
Councilmembers, pointing out this set a poor example for the Student Representative and the next
generation. He encouraged the Council and the public to think before speaking. He suggested
Councilmembers study Robert’s Rules of Order in an effort to have meetings run more smoothly.
Edmonds had one of the most open forms of government of any city he had lived in; department heads,
Councilmembers and the Mayor were available to talk to the public. He recommended the Council adopt
a code of public politeness toward each other and for public speakers. He concluded the quickest way for
the levy to fail was friction between Councilmembers.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented he had been attending Council meetings since 1989 and was not
bothered by the Council’s behavior, recalling it had happened several times before. He also attends
meetings in Lynnwood and Bothell. He provided the 1997 Mayor’s Roundtable Budget for Mayor
Haakenson’s review.
Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, explained although she did not believe her yard was an ideal habitat for
birds and other creatures, Rich Senderoff encouraged her to apply for certification in Edmonds Backyard
Wildlife Habitat (EBWH) Program. She was surprised to find her yard had all the necessary elements to
be certified. Because her lot does not have tall conifers, her south-facing yard was bathed in sunlight.
She identified the numerous birds that flock to her feeders. Dr. Senderoff convinced her it was not
necessary to turn her yard into a typical northwest habitat and she planned to slowly convert her sod to
meadow and populate it with native grasses, plants and prairie flowers. She noted the south Puget Sound
used to include prairies and oak woodlands, however, only 3% of the native prairies remain today. She
encouraged Edmonds residents to consider joining the other 132 homeowners whose yards have been
certified so that the City could reach the required 150 certified backyards.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, commented tall trees along Maplewood Avenue between Main and 200th
form a bird and wildlife corridor between Yost Park and Maplewood Park. This corridor has been
significantly compromised by the removal of at least 120 tall fir trees and several large maples during the
past 7 years including 56 trees since January 2008. The canopies of these trees cannot be replaced for
many decades and trees are the oldest new thing in stormwater treatment. He observed there were no
significant efforts underway to replace these lost trees or effort to preserve inter-park wildlife corridors,
the motivation for seeking Tree City USA recognition. He relayed a comment by John Rosenthal,
President of the Arbor Day Foundation, that trees that are planted and cared for today will cool and
beautify communities, increase property values, help clean the air and water and conserve energy for
years to come. An effective community forestry program is an ongoing process of renewal and
improvement and one key element of a tree forestry program is a tree preservation ordinance that
Packet Page 13 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 11
addresses these issues while supporting individual property rights. He pointed out Issaquah recently
revised their tree code, specifying the number of trees that could be removed from single family,
multifamily and commercial property; defining significant, landmark and protected trees; and limiting the
number of trees that can be removed from a single family lot based on lot size. He concluded Issaquah
had maintained Tree USA recognition for 15 years and it was time for Edmonds to demonstrate the same
regard for its tree canopy.
Roger Oliver, Edmonds, expressed his appreciation to Councilmember Peterson for his efforts to have a
curb cut installed on Maple near the ACE Hardware Store at Old Mill Town. Next, as a user of a
motorized scooter, he pointed out the City’s sidewalks were in horrible condition. He compared the
impact of the 8-inch wheel on his scooter encountering a 1-inch crack in the sidewalk to a 14-inch car tire
encountering a 5-inch crack in the road, a situation that was likely to generate lawsuits and recall
elections.
Carol Hahn, Edmonds, commented another problem with the sidewalks in the City was businesses that
place their signs in the middle of the sidewalk which does not allow adequate space for a scooter to pass.
She suggested businesses place their signs against the wall rather than in the middle of the sidewalk. She
concluded it was becoming more difficult to shop in Edmonds.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 9 and expressed his agreement with the proposed
revision to change the square footage from 120 square feet to 200 square feet. He recommended allowing
tents/canopies of 120 square feet with sides with no regulation and if the 120 square feet limit were
exceeded, a canopy only with no sides be allowed up to 200 square feet.
George Murray, Edmonds, relayed Forbes Magazine recently published a list of the most business-
friendly countries in the world; at the top of the list were Denmark, Norway and Sweden, highly
socialized counties with strong, powerful unions. These Nordic counties operate on three key conditions:
cooperation, conflict avoidance and consensus. He urged the Council to work toward consensus,
comparing a 4-3 vote to an F, a 5-2 vote to a C, a 6-1 vote to a B and a 7-0 vote to an A. He pointed out
the Council had two 7-0 votes tonight.
9. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON TEMPORARY BUILDINGS/USES ORDINANCE.
Planning Manager Rob Chave relayed the City Council held a public hearing on March 3, 2009. The
Council did not approve the ordinance and on March 17 referred it to the Community
Services/Development Services Committee. The focus of the Committee’s discussion at their April 14
meeting was on the 120 square foot threshold versus 200 square feet. He noted the change from 120
square feet to 200 square feet was allowable under the building code but would require an amendment to
the residential building code, Chapter 19.05.
Mr. Chave provided several industry examples of temporary buildings, identifying the dimensions and
whether a building permit would be required. He also provided several photographs of temporary
buildings throughout the city.
Mr. Chave emphasized the issue was not just building codes; zoning regulations also apply. For example
if a temporary building was permanently attached to the ground, it must comply with setback and lot
coverage regulations. If the Council increased the threshold there was the potential that residents would
think as long as the canopy was under 200 square feet it could be placed anywhere on the lot. He noted
most code enforcement efforts with regard to canopies were related to location and/or appearance. He
Packet Page 14 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 12
anticipated this issue would be discussed again with regard to setbacks and lot coverage during the code
revision process.
Building Official Ann Bullis explained the proposed building code amendment increased the size of
accessory structures exempt from a building permit from 120 square feet to 200 square feet; the uses stay
the same, tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar structures. Staff added a reference to ECDC
17.70.035 for canopies used for covered storage and carports. The proposed Building Code amendment is
only for structures accessory to a single family dwelling, not commercial, multi-family, or industrial
buildings. She noted there are other jurisdictions in the area that adopted the same 200 square foot
exemption and this amendment is also contained the 2009 International Building Code which she
anticipated the City would adopt later this year.
Ms. Bullis pointed out work exempt from obtaining a building permit must still meet the building codes.
However, since no permit was issued by the City and no inspections were done, it was the property
owner’s responsibility to meet the building codes. In general, larger exemptions may result in larger,
more complicated code violations for staff to resolve. Since no building permit was required there was
potential for owners without construction knowledge to build an even larger structure, possibly creating a
hazardous condition. And since no building permit was required, citizens may incorrectly presume that
zoning setbacks, height and lot coverage were also exempt which leads to greater expense in altering the
structure to meet these requirements if construction has begun.
Ms. Bullis pointed out in the Building Code, use of a structure is very important; the accessory structure
exemption is specifically for tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses. She provided the
following examples of accessory structure uses where a building permit was required regardless of size,
commenting there was a greater potential for these uses in a larger structure:
• Habitable spaces such as a recreation room, art studio, office, workshop, guest house, pool house,
etc.
• Where plumbing fixtures are installed, such as a sink, shower, water closet, etc.
• Vehicle storage such as a garage or carport
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt recalled Code Enforcement Officer Mike Thies saying the reason
staff was not considering a structure greater than 120 square feet was because it could not obtain a
building permit because it could not meet snow load requirements. He asked how was the inability to
meet snow loads was addressed if a canopy did not need a building permit. Ms. Bullis agreed it was not
necessarily resolved; there were certain structures that would not meet the City’s snow load, wind load or
structural load requirements. However, because a permit was not required, the City did not regulate them.
Councilmember Orvis commented if a resident wanted to build a 200 square foot addition to their home,
they would be required to obtain a permit. Ms. Bullis agreed any habitable addition to a home would
require a permit. A detached tool shed less than 200 square feet would not require a permit under the
proposed ordinance.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether vehicle storage of any size must be permitted. Ms. Bullis
answered except for the canopy structure in the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Peterson noted the
majority of the photographs taken in Edmonds and the majority of the complaints were in regard to
canopies used to store vehicles. He asked whether a 10x10 structure with sides where someone parked
their car on a regular basis would require a permit today. Ms. Bullis answered a structure greater than
120 square feet would require a building permit today. Mr. Chave pointed out even if a building permit
were not required, a canopy permanently attached to the ground must comply with other regulations such
Packet Page 15 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 13
as setbacks and lot coverage issues. Ms. Bullis clarified at the present time, a building permit would be
required for any structure used for vehicle storage.
Councilmember Orvis asked if a 120 square foot canopy was allowed to have walls. Ms. Bullis answered
the definition in the proposed temporary use ordinance required it be at least 75% open.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, FOR APPROVAL OF EXHIBIT 1, THE OPTION THAT ALLOWS 120 SQUARE
FEET.
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt reviewed the history of this ordinance. It was first reviewed by the
Planning Board on October 8 and again at their November 12 meeting. The Community
Services/Development Services Committee considered it on January 3, the Council held a public hearing
on March 3 where there was a 5-2 vote to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance for
the next Consent Agenda. The ordinance was removed from the March 17 Consent Agenda to allow staff
to address several questions posed by Councilmembers and the Council voted unanimously to refer it to
the Community Services/Development Services Committee for further review. The Committee reviewed
the second option that would allow 200 square feet at their April 14 meeting and did not provide a
recommendation to the Council.
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt was opposed to 200 square feet for safety reasons as well as reasons
provided by staff that it was likely canopies of that size would encroach into the setbacks. He anticipated
this would result in additional workload for the City’s Code Enforcement Officer.
Councilmember Orvis pointed out in 2009 the 200 square foot exemption would be added to the City’s
building code via adoption of the International Building Code. Ms. Bullis explained in the 2009
International Residential Code work exempt section, jurisdictions were allowed to change 200 square feet
to 120 square feet. Councilmember Orvis encouraged the Council to allow 200 square feet, anticipating
there would be fewer things for the Code Enforcement Officer to enforce.
Councilmember Bernheim agreed with Councilmember Orvis and thanked him for his research to clarify
these issues. He was unaware of any injuries from larger canopies such as 200 square feet and did not see
a need to restrict a property owners’ use of their property. He clarified he voted in favor of the 120 square
feet previously due to his understanding the law prohibited structures over 120 square feet.
MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT AND
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT,
ORVIS, OLSON AND BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
ADOPT EXHIBIT 2.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out staff recommended the Council either approve Exhibit 1 or advertise
for a new public hearing based on the revisions considered by the Community Services/Development
Services Committee. He asked whether the new public hearing was a requirement or recommendation.
Mr. Chave relayed City Attorney Scott Snyder recommended holding a new public hearing due to the
change in Title 17 from 120 square feet to 200 square feet.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 16 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 14
10. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS.
Councilmember Peterson reported he attended the SeaShore Transportation Committee meeting, a group
of cities that discuss transportation options. This was his first meeting and it was primarily a learning
experience.
Councilmember Orvis reported the Health District activated its Incident Command in response to the
Swine Flu and are in surveillance mode at this time because there are no cases in Washington State. The
Health District is taking steps to ensure the appropriate medications and other tools are available. He also
reported the Health Board expected to make more budget cuts in July.
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt reported he did not attend the April 13 Port meeting due to a
conflict with the Citizen Levy Review Committee. At their April 27 meeting, a presentation by a
gentleman who follows the economy of the marine industry cited unemployment in the marine industry at
50% compared to the State unemployment rate of 8-9%, and that wait lists for marina spaces were
disappearing. There was also a presentation by a potential developer for the portion of Port property that
was previously proposed to be developed by Jacobson Marine. The presentation proposed a 20,000
square foot office building with 10,000 square feet on two floors. Council President Pro Tem Wambolt
did not anticipate that development would move forward because there was no anchor tenant and it was
questionable whether financing could be obtained.
Also at their April 27 meeting, the Port Commission reviewed their quarterly operational reports. The
wait list at the Port dropped from 206 to 152; there are some small, less than 30 foot spaces available.
Occupancy at dry storage is the lowest in several years, down to 86.4% compared to 90%. Overall the
Port’s operations are not too bad in this economy; gross profit was down 5% from budget but up slightly
from the first quarter 2008.
Councilmember Plunkett reported the Downtown Parking Committee has received favorable feedback
regarding the flags installed at several intersections, including some people who carry the flags around for
use at all intersections. A non-profit company who suggested they should not be required to pay for
permits due to their non-profit status was invited to make a presentation to the Committee. Parking
enforcement is down due to personnel and budget issues.
Councilmember Plunkett distributed a report to the Council regarding the Outreach Committee. He
reported Comcast will be conducting a needs assessment survey; citizens can access the survey on
Comcast’s website and indicate the type of programming they want. The Committee discussed upgrades
to the City’s website; however, they are dependent on staff time. The Committee also discussed
streaming Council meetings which would cost $10,000 - $15,000, funds that are not available in the
immediate future. Edmonds Community College’s efforts to create a Broadcast Center have been delayed
due to the economy. The City’s newsletter is now available online.
Councilmember Plunkett relayed the City has a one-year subscription with “SurveyMonkey,” an online
survey, through Comcast. The Outreach Committee plans to research whether a community survey could
be conducted via SurveyMonkey.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson reported he has asked the Parks Department to provide weekly reports on the usage of
Yost Pool once it opens to determine whether the increased fees have resulted in any decline in
attendance. If there is a decline in attendance, the pool will be closed when funds collected are exhausted.
Packet Page 17 of 248
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 28, 2009
Page 15
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt spoke in favor of streaming Council meetings if funds were
available in the future. He pointed out Shoreline streamed their Council meetings and past meetings are
available via archives on their website, a helpful tool in resolving disputes.
Councilmember Peterson reported the Climate Change Conversation on Earth Day was a great event and
very well attended. A report will be provided to the Council in the near future.
Councilmember Bernheim referred to the remarks made by Officer Harbison at last week’s meeting,
specifically his recommendation that the City stop spending money like a drunken sailor and the two
examples he provided as evidence of that behavior, 1) the unanimous decision by the Council to spend
$250,000 for the park in front of Old Mill Town and 2) the $20,000 - $50,000 cost of the electric car plug
in the City parking lot. Councilmember Bernheim clarified the funds used to buy the property in front of
Old Mill Town were from a dedicated parks purchase fund. He also clarified the cost of the electric car
plug was less than $5,000.
Councilmember Bernheim corrected a statement he made a few weeks ago that 61% of the criminal non-
traffic caseload in the Municipal Court was related to paraphernalia and marijuana cases, advising the
correct figure was 22%.
With regard to the public’s plea for unanimity on the Council, Councilmember Bernheim explained the
Council could not act with unanimity because there was a diversity of views although he agreed everyone
should be civil. His research of the Council’s decisions in 2008 revealed the vast majority were
unanimous. The only 4-3 or 4-2 decisions were in regard to the 555 Main Street historic building,
whether to pursue acquisition and appraisal of the Antique Mall, salary and cost of living increases, the
Mayor’s salary increase, BD1 zone changes and technical Hearing Examiner appeals. Unanimous
Council decisions included the Police, Fire and Service Employees unions contracts as well as all the tax
increases. He summarized there was a great deal of unanimity on the Council even when there was a
great deal of debate and insult.
Councilmember Plunkett reported in 2008 less than 5% of the legislative decisions were 4-3; 95% of the
Council’s decisions were 5 or more votes.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Packet Page 18 of 248
AM-2260 2.C.
Approval of Claim Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/05/2009
Submitted By:Debbie Karber, Administrative Services
Submitted For:Kathleen Junglov Time:Consent
Department:Administrative Services Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #111328 through #111458 for April 30, 2009 in the amount of
$271,087.18.
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:2009
Revenue:
Expenditure:$271,087.18
Fiscal Impact:
Claim cks: $271,087.18
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 4-30-09
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 04/30/2009 11:50 AM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 01:00 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/30/2009 01:56 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 03:38 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Started On: 04/30/2009 10:46
AM
Packet Page 19 of 248
Final Approval Date: 04/30/2009
Packet Page 20 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111328 4/30/2009 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 040209 INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 1,575.13
INTERPRETER FEES042009
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 1,950.50
Total :3,525.63
111329 4/30/2009 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 267961 1-13992
PEST CONTROL
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 63.25
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 6.01
Total :69.26
111330 4/30/2009 062614 ABPA A7292 L McMurphy Nat Dues thru 6/30/10
L McMurphy Nat Dues thru 6/30/10
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 60.00
L McMurphy Local Dues
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 20.00
Total :80.00
111331 4/30/2009 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 09-172 JANITORIAL SERVICE
JANITORIAL SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00
FLOORING MAINTENANCE09-173
FLOORING MAINTENANCE
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 273.33
Total :607.33
111332 4/30/2009 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC TM-98546 8 1/2" Square Black Marker Pads
1Page:
Packet Page 21 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111332 4/30/2009 (Continued)063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC
8 1/2" Square Black Marker Pads
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 112.50
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 11.86
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 11.81
Total :136.17
111333 4/30/2009 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 040706090331PMB APA Membership Chave 4/2/09 to 3/31/10
APA Membership Chave 4/2/09 to 3/31/10
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 150.00
Total :150.00
111334 4/30/2009 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 138087-081207 APA Membership Clugston
APA Membership Clugston
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 40.00
Total :40.00
111335 4/30/2009 069895 AMERICAN POWER SYSTEMS LLC 0026428-IN 12 VOLT BATTERY
12 VOLT BATTERY
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 719.76
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 90.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 76.93
Total :886.69
111336 4/30/2009 069829 AMIDO, BENJAMIM AMIDO10335 UKULELE CLASSES
UKULELE CLASS #10335
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 280.00
Total :280.00
111337 4/30/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4239679 21580001
2Page:
Packet Page 22 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111337 4/30/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 92.71
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.81
Total :101.52
111338 4/30/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4227294 Fac Maint Uniform Svc
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.84
3Page:
Packet Page 23 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111338 4/30/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
PW Mats655-4231786
PW Mats
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.75
PW Mats
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 6.65
PW Mats
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 6.65
PW Mats
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 6.65
PW Mats
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 6.65
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.17
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.63
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.63
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.63
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.63
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.64
PW Mats
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 6.65
Street & Storm uniform svc655-4231787
Street & Storm uniform svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.51
Street & Storm uniform svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.51
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.34
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.33
4Page:
Packet Page 24 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111338 4/30/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
Fleet Uniform Svc655-4231788
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.43
Fac Maint uniform svc655-4239677
Fac Maint uniform svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.84
Total :151.01
111339 4/30/2009 071120 ASHLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICALS 92407700 441142
POLYMER
411.000.656.538.800.310.51 3,875.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.51 368.13
Total :4,243.13
111340 4/30/2009 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 588203 75179
DIESEL FUEL
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 1,694.90
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 161.02
Total :1,855.92
111341 4/30/2009 069451 ASTRA INDUSTRIAL SERVICES 00103903 WATER QUALITY - BACKFLOW TEST EQUIP
WATER QUALITY - BACKFLOW TEST EQUIP
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 80.77
Total :80.77
111342 4/30/2009 064343 AT&T 730386050200 PUBLIC WORKS
5Page:
Packet Page 25 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111342 4/30/2009 (Continued)064343 AT&T
Public Works Fax Line
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 1.84
Public Works Fax Line
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 7.00
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 7.00
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 7.00
Public Works Fax Line
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 7.00
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 6.98
Total :36.82
111343 4/30/2009 064343 AT&T 425-771-0152 STATION #16 FAX
STATION #16 FAX
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 35.62
Total :35.62
111344 4/30/2009 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 50043 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
6Page:
Packet Page 26 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111344 4/30/2009 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 90.87
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 90.87
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 91.13
UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 282.74
UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 282.73
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.18
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.18
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.20
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS50120
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 124.33
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 124.33
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 124.69
UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 387.51
UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 387.51
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 11.09
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 11.09
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 11.42
Total :2,044.87
7Page:
Packet Page 27 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111345 4/30/2009 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 010958042 COPIER RENTAL
COPIER RENTAL
001.000.230.512.501.450.00 153.55
Total :153.55
111346 4/30/2009 071348 BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS INC 15146 Classico Det. Vault Peer Review
Classico Det. Vault Peer Review
001.000.000.245.900.620.00 1,117.81
Total :1,117.81
111347 4/30/2009 071633 BLACK ROCK CABLE INC 11974 Fiber Lease 7100 210th St SW, Edmonds -
Fiber Lease 7100 210th St SW, Edmonds -
001.000.310.518.870.450.00 470.00
5% Franchise Fee
001.000.310.518.870.450.00 23.50
Total :493.50
111348 4/30/2009 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14100618 Services/Breske Appeal
Services/Breske Appeal
001.000.620.532.200.410.00 4,679.75
E4FE.Services thru 03/26/09
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 13,495.00
E4FE.Services thru 02/19/091498801
E4FE.Services thru 02/19/09
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 3,194.30
Total :21,369.05
111349 4/30/2009 069295 BROWN, CANDY BROWN10453 GARDENS FOR BIRDS
GARDENS FOR BIRDS #10453
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 123.20
Total :123.20
111350 4/30/2009 067947 BROWNELLS INC 05325757.00 INV#05325757.00 EDMONDS PD
8Page:
Packet Page 28 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111350 4/30/2009 (Continued)067947 BROWNELLS INC
GUN/PARTS CLEANING BRUSH
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 9.95
BREAK FREE 4OZ BOTTLES
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 11.78
3 NEEDLE OILERS, 1/2 FL OZ
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 5.46
COTTON APPLICATORS
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 19.94
GUN BOX
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 12.80
BLACK STRAP, SMALL
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 3.09
LOCKING BLOCK COIL PIN
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 5.10
Freight
001.000.410.521.310.310.00 10.50
Total :78.62
111351 4/30/2009 071434 BRUNETTE, SISSEL BRUNETTE10492 PRENATAL FITNESS
PRENATAL FITNES #10492
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 100.10
Total :100.10
111352 4/30/2009 071510 BUCK, ALICIA BUCK10274 ART FOR KIDZ
ART FOR KIDZ #10274
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 828.80
Total :828.80
111353 4/30/2009 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1012393 E6DB.Project Posting for Bid
E6DB.Project Posting for Bid
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 106.75
Total :106.75
111354 4/30/2009 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 288487 Crushed Rock
9Page:
Packet Page 29 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111354 4/30/2009 (Continued)003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL
Crushed Rock
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 678.72
Crushed Rock
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 678.72
Crushed Rock
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 1,357.44
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 60.41
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 60.41
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 120.80
Total :2,956.50
111355 4/30/2009 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA CARLSON10276 ART FOR KIDZ
ART FOR KIDZ #10276
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 318.50
Total :318.50
111356 4/30/2009 064592 CASCADE COLUMBIA DIST CO 446025 3432
CALCIUM NITRATE
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 1,200.80
Deposit
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 200.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 25.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 116.45
Total :1,542.25
111357 4/30/2009 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC NVQ2377 Fiber Cable
Fiber Cable
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 120.00
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 11.40
10Page:
Packet Page 30 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111357 4/30/2009 (Continued)069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
Fiber Cable & HP 160GB memoryNVX6870
Fiber Cable & HP 160GB memory
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 135.00
Freight
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 29.00
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 15.58
Total :310.98
111358 4/30/2009 068484 CEMEX / RINKER MATERIALS 9416909298 Asphalt
Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 521.56
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 46.94
Asphalt Cold Mix9416922536
Asphalt Cold Mix
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 510.85
Asphalt Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 32.76
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 43.93
Asphalt Dump Fees9416935214
Asphalt Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 88.24
Mud Dump Fees9416974785
Mud Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 194.24
Total :1,438.52
111359 4/30/2009 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT10457 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #10457
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 53.20
Total :53.20
111360 4/30/2009 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 450801-903 E8FG.Services for March
11Page:
Packet Page 31 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111360 4/30/2009 (Continued)065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC
E8FG.Services for March
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,665.62
Total :1,665.62
111361 4/30/2009 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460409083 UNIFORMS
Volunteers
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 20.12
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 1.91
OPS UNIFORMS460409084
Stn. 16
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 81.31
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 7.72
UNIFORMS460410128
OPS - Stn. 17
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 131.85
ALS - Stn. 17
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 131.85
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 12.53
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 12.52
OPS UNIFORMS460410150
Stn. 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 127.49
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 12.11
Total :539.41
111362 4/30/2009 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I09000715 WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB ANALYSIS
WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB ANALYSIS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 631.80
Total :631.80
12Page:
Packet Page 32 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111363 4/30/2009 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 6929 INV#6929 CUST #47 EDMONDS PD - R&B 3/09
PRISONER R&B FOR 03/09
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 2,771.25
Total :2,771.25
111364 4/30/2009 065715 CITY OF SHORELINE Refund OverPmt E7FC.Refund Overpayment of Costs for
E7FC.Refund Overpayment of Costs for
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 518.28
Total :518.28
111365 4/30/2009 066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS 0409 2989771 INV#0409 2989771 5374044 EDMONDS PD
HOT/COLD COOLER RENTAL
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.00
5 GALLON DRINKING H20 BOTTLES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 68.31
ENERGY SURCHARGE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.74
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.89
Total :80.94
111366 4/30/2009 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3216444 E6DA.Bid Invitation
E6DA.Bid Invitation
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 334.80
Total :334.80
111367 4/30/2009 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2009030128 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for March, 2009
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 289.16
Total :289.16
111368 4/30/2009 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 09-2975 MINUTE TAKING
03/24 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 354.00
MINUTE TAKING09-2981
4/21 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 348.00
13Page:
Packet Page 33 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :702.001113684/30/2009 064531 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
111369 4/30/2009 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 09-1527.1 E5MC.Services thru 04/19/09
E5MC.Services thru 04/19/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 1,000.00
Total :1,000.00
111370 4/30/2009 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL 09-04721 WATER QUALITY - WATER SAMPLE TESTING
WATER QUALITY - WATER SAMPLE TESTING
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 972.00
Total :972.00
111371 4/30/2009 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 CITY PARK
CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 55.35
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 345.14
SPRINKLER1-00875
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER1-02125
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
SPRINKLER1-03900
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
SPRINKLER1-05125
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
GAZEBO IRRIGATION1-05285
GAZEBO IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
CORNER PARK1-05340
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
14Page:
Packet Page 34 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111371 4/30/2009 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05650
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP1-05675
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 419.06
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05700
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
CORNER PARK1-09650
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
SW CORNER SPRINKLER1-09800
SW CORNER SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
PLANTER1-10780
PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH1-16130
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
CITY HALL TRIANGLE1-16450
CITY HALL TRIANGLE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 26.34
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX1-16630
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER1-17475
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD1-19950
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 44.83
15Page:
Packet Page 35 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111371 4/30/2009 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
WATER1-36255
1141 9TH AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)2-25150
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)2-25175
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
SPRINKLER2-28275
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 22.06
MINI PARK2-37180
MINI PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.79
WATER7-05276
820 15TH ST SW~
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 96.19
Total :1,414.78
111372 4/30/2009 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 46.79
LIFT STATION #144-34080
LIFT STATION #14
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 22.06
Total :68.85
111373 4/30/2009 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 044139 COPIER MAINT
COPIER MAINT
001.000.230.512.500.480.00 54.85
Total :54.85
111374 4/30/2009 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0051388-IN INV#0051388-IN ACCT#0011847 EDMONDS PD
16Page:
Packet Page 36 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111374 4/30/2009 (Continued)008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO
OFFICER/EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 156.50
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 33.91
Total :190.41
111375 4/30/2009 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0205044 Water - Supplies - Valves, couplings,
Water - Supplies - Valves, couplings,
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,098.93
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 97.80
Water supplies - (3)Curb ShutOff Rods0205044-1
Water supplies - (3)Curb ShutOff Rods
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 136.20
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 12.12
Water supplies - Brass Meter Idlers0205044-2
Water supplies - Brass Meter Idlers
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 121.63
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 10.83
18" CMP Band & Gasket0207617
18" CMP Band & Gasket
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 61.67
Freight
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 11.58
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 6.52
Water supplies - Rubber Meter Gaskets0207669
Water supplies - Rubber Meter Gaskets
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 147.50
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 13.13
17Page:
Packet Page 37 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111375 4/30/2009 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
24 Bury F/Proof Yd HYD0209910
24 Bury F/Proof Yd HYD
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 48.82
24 Bury F/Proof Yd HYD
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 48.81
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.76
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.76
Total :1,823.06
111376 4/30/2009 071562 FORMA 4342 WAYFINDING & GATEWAY SIGN PROGRAM
LOCATION PLAN & FINAL
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 4,775.00
Total :4,775.00
111377 4/30/2009 071945 GILL-ROSE, SUE ROSE10266 DRAWING CLASSES
DRAWING #10266
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 292.60
WATERCOLOR #10270
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 308.00
Total :600.60
111378 4/30/2009 018495 GLACIER NORTHWEST 90691174 Concrete
Concrete
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 477.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 42.93
Concrete90702066
Concrete
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 371.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 33.39
18Page:
Packet Page 38 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111378 4/30/2009 (Continued)018495 GLACIER NORTHWEST
Concrete90712331
Concrete
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 276.25
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 26.25
Concrete90712332
Concrete
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 379.83
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 36.09
Total :1,642.74
111379 4/30/2009 012199 GRAINGER 9880022273 837944131
VAC/BLOWER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 179.10
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 17.01
Total :196.11
111380 4/30/2009 012199 GRAINGER 9869957945 Water supplies - Brass Gauges
Water supplies - Brass Gauges
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 81.69
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.27
Water supplies9872254389
Water supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 52.23
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.95
Sr Center - V Belts9875122336
Sr Center - V Belts
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.68
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.42
19Page:
Packet Page 39 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :151.241113804/30/2009 012199 012199 GRAINGER
111381 4/30/2009 071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC 06713.00-24 E6DA.Services thru 04/04/09
E6DA.Services thru 04/04/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 4,727.41
Total :4,727.41
111382 4/30/2009 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD 8764897 8 TJ CL52 DI Pipe C/L
8 TJ CL52 DI Pipe C/L
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 947.70
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 72.03
Water supplies - 36' DI Pipe8767258
Water supplies - 36' DI Pipe
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 601.20
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 45.69
Total :1,666.62
111383 4/30/2009 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 97132-H E7AC.Services thru 03/28/09
E7AC.Services thru 03/28/09
112.200.630.595.440.410.00 17,476.72
Total :17,476.72
111384 4/30/2009 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 20067 E9FB.Services thru 03/27/09
E9FB.Services thru 03/27/09
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 5,610.99
E8FD.Services thru 03/27/0920090
E8FD.Services thru 03/27/09
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 11,333.95
Total :16,944.94
111385 4/30/2009 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 38 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 109.69
20Page:
Packet Page 40 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111385 4/30/2009 (Continued)013500 HINGSON, ROBERT
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement39
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 18.00
Total :127.69
111386 4/30/2009 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 4038770 0205
SQUEEGEE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.98
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.66
02055038584
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.88
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.79
02056044807
PAINT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 63.24
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.01
02056109883
FLANGES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 29.64
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.82
02057030593
BROOMS, DUSTPANS, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 78.52
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.46
02057030603
BATTERIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.46
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.85
21Page:
Packet Page 41 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111386 4/30/2009 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
02059037487
GASSER, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 40.88
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.68
LATE CHARGEFCH-003225476
LATE FEE
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 20.00
Total :290.87
111387 4/30/2009 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 6095038 0205
BOLTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 21.88
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.96
02058035175
GATE SET, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 68.78
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.19
Total :98.81
111388 4/30/2009 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 19987 E4GA.Services thru 03/28/09
E4GA.Services thru 03/28/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 2,340.50
Total :2,340.50
111389 4/30/2009 070864 IDEARC MEDIA CORP 360002699031 C/A 360000764828
04/2009 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
Total :34.95
111390 4/30/2009 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 79266433 INV#79266433 ACCT#467070-COMBINED EDMOND
22Page:
Packet Page 42 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111390 4/30/2009 (Continued)070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES
COPIER RENTAL 04/13-05/12/09
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 821.73
ADDITIONAL COPIES
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 240.42
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 100.92
Total :1,163.07
111391 4/30/2009 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 486796 Units EQ40WR, EQ42WR, EQ43WQ - ~
Units EQ40WR, EQ42WR, EQ43WQ - ~
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 310.08
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 27.60
Total :337.68
111392 4/30/2009 070019 JUDICIAL CONF REGISTRAR 20709 D Fair - Judges Conf Jun 7-10, 2009
D Fair - Judges Conf Jun 7-10, 2009
001.000.230.512.500.490.00 165.00
Total :165.00
111393 4/30/2009 070019 JUDICIAL CONF REGISTRAR 052609 D FAIR FACULTY DEVLPMNT PRGM FOR JUDGES
D Fair Faculty Devlpmnt Program for
001.000.230.512.500.490.00 35.00
Total :35.00
111394 4/30/2009 066804 KING CO FIRE TRG OFFICERS ASSN 4468 TRAINING MISC
CK,LF spring academy
001.000.510.522.400.490.00 560.00
Total :560.00
111395 4/30/2009 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS E2DB.35 E2DB.Services thru February 2009
E2DB.Services thru February 2009
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 3,441.15
Total :3,441.15
111396 4/30/2009 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 348970-001 34" x 50 yd roll heavy weight trans
23Page:
Packet Page 43 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111396 4/30/2009 (Continued)016850 KUKER RANKEN INC
34" x 50 yd roll heavy weight trans
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 25.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 2.38
Total :27.38
111397 4/30/2009 072059 LEE, NICOLE 566 INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.25
Total :88.25
111398 4/30/2009 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 100857 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 20.99
Total :20.99
111399 4/30/2009 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 100816 Water Quality - 5000 Letterhead
Water Quality - 5000 Letterhead
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 320.00
5000 LH Envelopes
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 319.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 60.70
Water Quality - Office Chair100941
Water Quality - Office Chair
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 360.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 34.20
Total :1,093.90
111400 4/30/2009 066191 MACLEOD RECKORD 5346 E5MC.Services thru March, 2009
E5MC.Services thru March, 2009
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 9,788.82
Total :9,788.82
111401 4/30/2009 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 500 INTERPRETER FEES
24Page:
Packet Page 44 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111401 4/30/2009 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.25
INTERPRETER FEES502
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.25
INTERPRETER FEES503
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.25
INTERPRETER FEES504
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.25
INTERPRETER FEES505
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 108.25
INTERPRETER FEES506
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 108.25
INTERPRETER FEES507
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.25
INTERPRETER FEES509
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.25
INTERPRETER FEES511
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.25
INTERPRETER FEES512
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 108.25
Total :942.50
111402 4/30/2009 065829 MARTINSON, LINDA MARTINSON10355 BELLY DANCE CLASSES
25Page:
Packet Page 45 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111402 4/30/2009 (Continued)065829 MARTINSON, LINDA
BELLY DANCE #10355
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 238.70
BELLY DANCE #10353
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 184.80
Total :423.50
111403 4/30/2009 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 37 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 512.00
Total :512.00
111404 4/30/2009 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA23-232291 101690-01
SHEAVE/BALL BEARINGS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 160.72
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.55
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 16.08
Total :185.35
111405 4/30/2009 067891 MYSTIC SEA CHARTERS MYSTICSEA10490 GRAY WHALE CRUISE
MYSTIC SEA CHARTERS~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 98.00
Total :98.00
111406 4/30/2009 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB10361 FUN FACTORY CLASSES
MINI ME FUN FACTORY~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 816.00
FUN FACTORY #10358
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,083.00
Total :1,899.00
111407 4/30/2009 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 1073 260
26Page:
Packet Page 46 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111407 4/30/2009 (Continued)066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 908.50
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 86.31
Total :994.81
111408 4/30/2009 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 627 HPC Minutetaker 4/9/2009
HPC Minutetaker 4/9/2009
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 128.00
Total :128.00
111409 4/30/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 264266 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 291.00
SUPPLIES333657
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 369.76
Total :660.76
111410 4/30/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 505232 OFFICE SUPPLIES
LEGAL PAPER
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 18.30
Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 1.73
OFFICE SUPPLIES538991
TAPE AND PENS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 20.80
PAPER FOR YOST POOL PASSES
001.000.640.575.510.310.00 37.77
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.98
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.510.310.00 3.59
Total :84.17
27Page:
Packet Page 47 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111411 4/30/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 501452 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 83.20
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 7.91
Total :91.11
111412 4/30/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 519188 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Stations' supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 212.68
Admin supplies
001.000.510.522.100.310.00 49.98
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 20.20
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.100.310.00 4.75
ADMIN SUPPLIES519292
file folders
001.000.510.522.100.310.00 20.37
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.100.310.00 1.93
ADMIN SUPPLIES519323
soap
001.000.510.522.100.310.00 7.72
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.100.310.00 0.73
Total :318.36
111413 4/30/2009 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 674159 MAR-09 RETAINER FEES
Mar-09 Retainer fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 27,898.22
Mar-09 Itemized Legal Fees674162
Mar-09 Itemized Legal Fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 24,035.22
ECDC Rewrite 2006-2007
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 1,670.00
28Page:
Packet Page 48 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :53,603.441114134/30/2009 025889 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE
111414 4/30/2009 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 674162 Prof Legal Legis Serv March 2009
Prof Legal Legis Serv March 2009
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 2,193.00
Total :2,193.00
111415 4/30/2009 007800 PETTY CASH petty cash sccfoa meeting-Hynd
29Page:
Packet Page 49 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111415 4/30/2009 (Continued)007800 PETTY CASH
sccfoa meeting-Hynd
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 12.00
planning board retreat supplies
001.000.620.558.600.310.00 115.76
mileage reimb & picture copy
001.000.510.522.100.430.00 6.96
mileage reimb & picture copy
001.000.510.522.100.310.00 2.18
microwave-DS
001.000.620.558.800.350.00 118.26
cake for Bowmans retirement
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 33.98
parking-Lawler
001.000.620.524.100.430.00 6.00
parking-Bjorback
001.000.620.524.100.430.00 18.00
Mileage reimb-Harrison
001.000.620.524.100.430.00 34.60
parking-Bullis
001.000.620.524.100.430.00 12.00
training class-Steinke
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 75.00
mileage reimb-Machuga
001.000.620.558.600.430.00 16.50
parking-Cruz
001.000.610.519.700.430.00 10.00
ITE meeting-Hauss & parking
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 10.00
ITE meeting-Hauss & parking
001.000.620.532.200.430.00 9.00
coffee-2nd floor
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 17.99
reg fee for Hawkins & hauss
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 20.00
30Page:
Packet Page 50 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :518.231114154/30/2009 007800 007800 PETTY CASH
111416 4/30/2009 072693 PHH LLC PLN20080069 REFUND FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
REFUND FOR DESIGN REVIEW. APPLICATION
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 200.00
Total :200.00
111417 4/30/2009 028400 PITNEY BOWES 776558 Service Agreement - Letter Opener
Service Agreement - Letter Opener
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 255.00
Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 22.70
Total :277.70
111418 4/30/2009 069447 POINTS SHARP STEEL INC 09-856 1 1/4"Asphalt Cutters
1 1/4"Asphalt Cutters
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 550.40
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 52.29
Total :602.69
111419 4/30/2009 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 0003870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER
Stormwater Rent & Leasehold tax~
411.000.652.542.900.450.00 1,665.96
Total :1,665.96
111420 4/30/2009 064088 PROTECTION ONE 291104 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS~
24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS~
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 47.17
24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS~
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 47.17
Fire Monitoring F/S 16~
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 94.50
Total :188.84
111421 4/30/2009 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ10334 FELDENKRAIS WORKSHOP
31Page:
Packet Page 51 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111421 4/30/2009 (Continued)071911 PROTZ, MARGARET
FELDENKRAIS WORKSHOP~
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 58.80
Total :58.80
111422 4/30/2009 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 153.27
Total :153.27
111423 4/30/2009 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 084-904-700-6 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
PUGET SOUND ENERGY
411.000.656.538.800.472.63 47.61
Total :47.61
111424 4/30/2009 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 09-167 COURT SECURITY
COURT SECURITY
001.000.230.512.500.410.00 2,443.75
Total :2,443.75
111425 4/30/2009 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 55035 INV #55035 EDMONDS PD - CASE 09-1539
TOW TOYOTA CORROLLA
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 150.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 14.25
Total :164.25
111426 4/30/2009 063452 RADIO SHACK CORPORATION 017080 C/A 00004605060005 PO# 6028
Casio EX-Z9 Camera
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 99.99
Sandisk 2GB Memory Card
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 25.98
Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 11.97
32Page:
Packet Page 52 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111426 4/30/2009 (Continued)063452 RADIO SHACK CORPORATION
C/A 00004605060005 PO# 6028017286
Sony DSCS 780 Camera
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 139.97
AAAA Batteries
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 4.99
Sandisk 2GB SD 2-Pack Memory Card
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 19.99
Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 13.30
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 2.37
C/A 00004605060005 PO# 6028017562
Sandisk MS Pro Duo 2GB Memory Card
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 14.99
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 1.42
Total :334.97
111427 4/30/2009 068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC 49620 E3JC.Servivces thru 03/29/09
E3JC.Servivces thru 03/29/09
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 6,066.27
Total :6,066.27
111428 4/30/2009 072254 RIVER OAKS COMMUNICATIONS CORP 04242009 COMCAST FRANCHISE CONSORTIUM
Comcast franchise negotiations for
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 395.65
Total :395.65
111429 4/30/2009 060368 ROBERTS, JAMES E4GA/E5MC-2 Roberts Mileage thru 04/03/09
33Page:
Packet Page 53 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111429 4/30/2009 (Continued)060368 ROBERTS, JAMES
Roberts Mileage thru 04/03/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 26.57
Roberts Mileage thru 04/03/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 26.56
Roberts Mileage thru 04/11/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 28.33
Roberts Mileage thru 04/11/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 28.32
Roberts Mileage thru 04/17/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 30.75
Roberts Mileage thru 04/17/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 30.74
Roberts Mileage thru 04/24/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 40.37
Roberts Mileage thru 04/24/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 40.37
Total :252.01
111430 4/30/2009 032505 ROBIN HOOD LANES ROBINHOOD10550 BUMPER BOWLING
BUMPER BOWLING #10550
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 231.00
Total :231.00
111431 4/30/2009 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2231295 Cold Patch Asphalt Mix, Fastrak
Cold Patch Asphalt Mix, Fastrak
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 1,799.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 170.91
Total :1,969.91
111432 4/30/2009 072521 SAVAGE, JENNIFER SAVAGE10537 CARDIO KICKBOXING CLASSES
CARDIO KICKBOXING
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 196.00
Total :196.00
34Page:
Packet Page 54 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111433 4/30/2009 071725 SKAGIT GARDENS INC 52147767 HANGING BASKETS/MAIN STREET
PLANTS FOR HANGING BASKETS AND MAIN
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 1,042.34
Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 99.02
CITY WIDE BEAUTIFICATION52147769
PLANTS FOR CITY WIDE BEAUTIFICATION
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 1,483.34
Sales Tax
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 140.92
CREDIT FOR SALVIACR 011287
CREDIT FOR SALVIA
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 -49.90
Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 -4.74
CREDIT FOR PETUNIASCR 011288
CREDIT FOR PETUNIAS
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 -158.16
Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 -15.03
Total :2,537.79
111434 4/30/2009 036955 SKY NURSERY 276969 Three way Soil
Three way Soil
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 229.70
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 21.82
Total :251.52
111435 4/30/2009 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2710014701 MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK
MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.96
BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION5680012803
BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.48
35Page:
Packet Page 55 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :59.441114354/30/2009 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
111436 4/30/2009 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 377001220 463-001-705-3
23219 74TH AVE W/BALLINGER
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 26.91
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.61
958-001-000-8959015115
WWTP PUD
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 27,638.66
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 1,658.32
Total :29,325.50
111437 4/30/2009 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2060014392 SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 28.45
LIFT STATION #32960019335
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 135.13
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT3380016422
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.90
LIBRARY3720012057
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,007.12
TRAFFIC SIGNAL4680011956
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 93.41
36Page:
Packet Page 56 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111437 4/30/2009 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Public Works4840011953
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 80.86
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 307.28
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 307.28
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 307.28
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 307.28
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 307.27
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX5390028164
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,223.99
CITY HALL5410010689
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,592.73
SIGNAL LIGHT5450011118
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 100.69
Fire station #167060000275
Fire station #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 28.73
Total :10,857.40
111438 4/30/2009 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4149023-01 Water - 5 Work Jeans - J Kobylk
Water - 5 Work Jeans - J Kobylk
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 170.85
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 16.23
37Page:
Packet Page 57 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111438 4/30/2009 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
Coveralls - R Wichers4149036-01
Coveralls - R Wichers
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 112.00
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 10.64
Total :309.72
111439 4/30/2009 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC 94254 E4GA.Roberts thru 04/04/09
E4GA.Roberts thru 04/04/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 1,105.00
E5MC.Roberts thru 04/04/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 1,170.00
E3JC.Roberts thru 04/04/09
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 97.50
E4GA.Roberts thru 04/11/0994381
E4GA.Roberts thru 04/11/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 682.50
E5MC.Roberts thru 04/11/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 1,170.00
Total :4,225.00
111440 4/30/2009 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 2803016 Paint wand Wheeler, Upside down paint
Paint wand Wheeler, Upside down paint
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 116.81
Paint wand Wheeler, Upside down paint
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 116.81
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 11.10
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 11.09
Total :255.81
111441 4/30/2009 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 10219 Telemetry Trouble shooting and field svc
Telemetry Trouble shooting and field svc
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 253.13
38Page:
Packet Page 58 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :253.131114414/30/2009 065578 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC
111442 4/30/2009 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10805425 Upside Down Green Paint
Upside Down Green Paint
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 501.84
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 47.67
Total :549.51
111443 4/30/2009 068201 THE ACTIVE NETWORK INC 1000014945 Tech Support-Class system
Tech Support-Class system
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 880.00
Total :880.00
111444 4/30/2009 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1643498 E6DA.Invitation to Bid
E6DA.Invitation to Bid
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 164.88
Total :164.88
111445 4/30/2009 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8136487 3/4" Meters ~
3/4" Meters ~
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 9,098.88
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 809.80
Rubber Mtr Gaskets8159375
Rubber Mtr Gaskets
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 220.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 20.90
Total :10,149.58
111446 4/30/2009 072718 UNIVERSITY ENTERPRISES INC 553045 REGISTRATION J MOORS FOR CERTIFICATION
Registration J Moors O&M WW Collection
411.000.656.538.800.490.71 99.00
Total :99.00
111447 4/30/2009 062693 US BANK 3363 Superior Signals -Unit eq39wr -
39Page:
Packet Page 59 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111447 4/30/2009 (Continued)062693 US BANK
Superior Signals -Unit eq39wr -
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1,059.30
Town & Country - Unit 121 - Clkspring
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 125.57
Cables to Go - Unit eq55po - Modem Cable
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 35.60
DOL - Unit M-16 - Lic fees
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.25
TCP Global - Unit 424 - Aquapel glass
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 202.40
Guardian Security - Old PW~3405
Guardian Security - Old PW~
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 55.00
NEEC - BOC Cert Renewal D Startzmant
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 55.00
NEEC - BOC Cert Renewal L Lafave
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 55.00
Diamond Parking Svc3439
Diamond Parking Svc
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 50.00
40Page:
Packet Page 60 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111447 4/30/2009 (Continued)062693 US BANK
USPS - Cues return postage3546
USPS - Cues return postage
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 4.80
USPS - Akron Brass return postage
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 15.83
USPS - Astra Ind return postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.60
USPS - RGA postage
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 21.14
USPS - Whelen return postage
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 4.80
AWWA - Membership - Kris K
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 78.00
USPS - Cues return postage
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.00
BuyOnLine - Desktop file cabinets
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 127.56
Emergency Prep Svc - Safety vests for
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 115.61
USPS - NW Dist return postage
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 12.66
Total :2,083.12
111448 4/30/2009 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA0264711-WA Storm DOT
Storm DOT
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 65.00
Total :65.00
111449 4/30/2009 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 786868 PSI Gauges
PSI Gauges
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 158.97
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 13.70
41Page:
Packet Page 61 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111449 4/30/2009 (Continued)064423 USA BLUE BOOK
Locks795526
Locks
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 58.50
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 12.67
Total :243.84
111450 4/30/2009 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
111451 4/30/2009 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0754630071 Bld Air Card
Bld Air Card
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 60.01
Total :60.01
111452 4/30/2009 071721 WASHINGTON STATE UNDERCOVER WSCJTC 0228 FROLAND WSCJTC 0228-2 FROLAND EDMONDS PD
SURVEILLANCE TECHNIQUES 5/4-5/7
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 500.00
WSCJTC 0228-2 FRAUSTO EDMONDS PDWSCJTC 0228-2
SURVEILLANCE TECHNIQUES 5/4-7/09
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 500.00
Total :1,000.00
111453 4/30/2009 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-7376 Grind Stumps (4) at 196th East of 81st
Grind Stumps (4) at 196th East of 81st
111.000.653.542.710.410.00 340.00
Total :340.00
111454 4/30/2009 045912 WASPC 30164 ELECTRONIC MONITORING
ELECTRONIC MONITORING
001.000.230.523.200.510.00 1,316.75
Total :1,316.75
111455 4/30/2009 064800 WEHOP 447927 BEAUTIFICATION IMPROVEMENT
42Page:
Packet Page 62 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
111455 4/30/2009 (Continued)064800 WEHOP
GERANIUMS, ETC.
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 659.12
Freight
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 87.21
Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 66.42
BEAUTIFICATION IMPROVEMENT447929
PLANTS FOR BEAUTIFICATION
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 54.25
Freight
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.69
Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.69
Total :882.38
111456 4/30/2009 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS i0003500 Pushbutton housing H frame w/fs box
Pushbutton housing H frame w/fs box
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 461.28
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 7.89
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 41.75
Total :510.92
111457 4/30/2009 065980 WONDERWARE PACWEST 313464 Sales Tax owed for Invoice already paid
Sales Tax owed for Invoice already paid
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 100.13
Sales Tax owed for Invoice already paid
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 100.12
Total :200.25
111458 4/30/2009 063008 WSDOT 01545CN-Class Registration.Hawkins/Hauss-Contract
Registration.Hawkins/Hauss-Contract
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 150.00
43Page:
Packet Page 63 of 248
04/30/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
10:44:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :150.001114584/30/2009 063008 063008 WSDOT
Bank total :271,087.18131 Vouchers for bank code :front
271,087.18Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report131
44Page:
Packet Page 64 of 248
AM-2256 2.D.
Board Confirmations
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/05/2009
Submitted By:Linda Carl, Mayor's Office
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Confirmation of newly appointed Architectural Design Board Member and Historic Preservation
Commissioner.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Both William Summers and Eric Norenberg were interviewed by the City Council on April 28,
2009.
Narrative
William Summers was interviewed by the Mayor and appointed to fill the "architect" position (#1)
on the ADB. Terms are for four years with a two-term limit.
Eric Norenberg was interviewed by the HPC to fill the unexpired term of position #2
["professional"]. The Mayor also interviewed Eric and appointed him to the Commission. Eric will
fill the unexpired term through the end of this year, at which point he will be eligible for
reappointment to a full three-year term (there are no term limits for HPC members).
Appointments to both the ADB and the HPC require Council confirmation.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Application-Summers
Link: Application-Norenberg
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 08:48 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/30/2009 08:51 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 09:42 AM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 04/29/2009 04:45
PM
Packet Page 65 of 248
Final Approval Date: 04/30/2009
Packet Page 66 of 248
Packet Page 67 of 248
Packet Page 68 of 248
Packet Page 69 of 248
Packet Page 70 of 248
AM-2250 2.E.
Claim for Damages
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/05/2009
Submitted By:Linda Hynd, City Clerk's Office
Submitted For:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Josh Bauman ($228.96).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute
entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
A Claim for Damages has been received from the following:
Josh Bauman
236 3rd Avenue S.
#K
Edmonds, WA 98020
($228.96)
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Bauman Claim for Damages
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/29/2009 02:02 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/29/2009 03:03 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2009 04:37 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Hynd
Started On: 04/28/2009 11:32
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/29/2009
Packet Page 71 of 248
Packet Page 72 of 248
Packet Page 73 of 248
Packet Page 74 of 248
Packet Page 75 of 248
Packet Page 76 of 248
AM-2236 2.F.
Amendment to Interlocal Agreement / Cable Television Franchising
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/05/2009
Submitted By:Stephen Clifton, Community Services Time:Consent
Department:Community Services Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Amendment to Interlocal Agreement for Consortium for Negotiation of Cable Television
Franchising.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve Amendment to Interlocal Agreement for Consortium for Negotiation of Cable Television
Franchising for the purposes of renewing the incumbent Franchise Agreement related to Comcast
(Attachment 1).
Previous Council Action
On October 7, 2008, the Edmonds City Council voted to authorize the following:
1. Approve Interlocal Agreement for Consortium for Negotiations of Cable Television
Franchising (Attachment 2) for the purposes of renewing the incumbent Franchise Agreement
related to Comcast.
2. Authorize Mayor Haakenson to sign on behalf of the City, a Joint Representation Agreement.
The agreement will allow Ogden Murphy Wallace to jointly represent the Cities of Edmonds,
Woodinville, Carnation, and Town
of Woodway in addition to drafting Comcast franchise agreements for each entity.
3. Authorize expenditures in the amount not to exceed $35,000; this amount is based on one year
of projected costs. Requested funds will pay for the services of River Oaks Communication
Corporation, Ogden Murphy Wallace, Snohomish County Lead Negotiator, and a Needs
Assessment. Depending on how much progress is made during the Comcast / Consortium
negotiations, this timeframe may be exceeded, and therefore the expenditures may increase. Any
additional funds that might be needed above this threshold will be submitted to the Edmonds City
Council for approval.
Narrative
On October 14, 2008, Snohomish County, the Cities of Bothell, Carnation, Edmonds, Kenmore,
Lake Forest Park, Mercer Island, Shoreline, Woodinville, and the Town of Woodway (collectively
the “Parties”), entered into an Agreement (Attachment 2) to establish a Cable Franchise
Consortium (the “Consortium”) to coordinate efforts to a) ensure that the public receives the
maximum rights and benefits from their respective franchise agreements; b) better coordinate their
Packet Page 77 of 248
negotiations with Comcast; (c) share the costs of negotiations including hiring a national
consultant and attorneys to assure the citizens of each jurisdiction that their franchise is
competitive, both locally and nationally; and (d) create a common template and negotiation
strategy through the assistance of a national consultant and attorneys to maximize leverage during
the negotiations.
The agreement defines the purpose of the Consortium, duration of the agreement, organizational
structure, terms for individually contracting with River Oaks, monetary cap on consulting, Ogden
Murphy Wallace, and Lead Negotiator services, designated representatives, dispute resolution, and
general provisions. Exhibit A of the agreement contains a table listing the estimated total cost of
creating a template that can be used by all jurisdictions prior to further individual negotiations
between Comcast and each entity at $195,000. The estimated pro-rata share for each jurisdiction is
based on population; the estimated amount, at that time, for the City of Edmonds was $18,707.24.
This is based on all referenced jurisdictions participating in the Consortium. What’s not included
in the table is the cost of performing a needs assessment and the legal/administrative cost
associated with tailoring franchise agreements to meet each jurisdiction’s needs following the
creation of a template agreement. As such, the City Council authorized expenditures in the
amount not to exceed $35,000 (includes $18,707.24) to pay for all services necessary to negotiate
a franchise agreement.
The purpose of this agenda item is to inform the Edmonds City Council that the City of
Sammamish, Washington has requested to join the Consortium. During a recent conference call,
consisting of North Puget Sound Consortium representatives, participants expressed their desire to
accept the City of Sammamish, Washington as a member of the Consortium. By joining the
Consortium, members will benefit by having one additional legal representative as well as seeing a
minor reduction in the pro-rata share paid to the Consortium. Although the monetary caps will
increase for consulting and Ogden Murphy Wallace services due to having an additional
participant, there is a savings for the City of Edmonds which is estimated at $491.38 (see Exhibit
A-1 of Attachment 1). There are no significant changes to the underlying terms of the Interlocal
Agreement Consortium For Negotiations of Cable Television Franchising.
NOTE: Attachment 2 does not include all signatures. Pursuant to Section 13.11 of the
Agreement, the document can be executed in parts, each of which is deemed an original, and all
counterparts together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Attachment 1 - Amendment to Interlocal Agreement
Link: Attachment 2 - Interlocal Agreement
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/29/2009 03:23 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/29/2009 03:49 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2009 04:37 PM APRV
Form Started By: Stephen Started On: 04/21/2009 01:09
Packet Page 78 of 248
Form Started By: Stephen
Clifton
Started On: 04/21/2009 01:09
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/29/2009
Packet Page 79 of 248
{ERZ725388.DOC;1/13053.080001/}
AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
FOR
CONSORTIUM FOR NEGOTIATION OF CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISING
This Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for a Consortium for Negotiatio n o f Cable
Television Franchising (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between the
undersigned Part ies pursuant to the provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1967, RCW
Chapter 39.34.
WHEREAS, Snoho mish County and so me cit ies of South Snoho mish and King Count y
(collect ively the “Parties”) are in the process of negotiat ing co mpet it ive cable franchises wit h
Comcast of California/Co lo rado/Texas/Washington, Inc. and its affiliates (all hereinafter
collect ively “Co mcast”); and
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into the Agreement as of October 14, 2008 to establish a
Cable Franchise Consortium (the “Consortium”) to coordinate efforts to a) to ensure that the
public receives the maximum rights and benefits from t heir respect ive fr anchise agreements; b)
to better coordinate their negotiations with Comcast; (c) to share the costs of negotiat io ns
including hiring a nat io nal consultant and attorneys to assure the citizens of each jurisdict io n t hat
their franchise is co mpet it ive, both locally and nationally; and (d) to create a common t emp late
and negotiat io n strategy through the assistance of a nat io nal consultant and attorneys to
maximize leverage during the negotiatio ns; and
WHEREAS, the City of Sammamish has requested to join the Consortium in pursuit of
it s co llect ive goals; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to include the City o f Sammamish in t he Consortium.
NOW, THEREFORE, in considerat io n of the mutual benefit s derived:
The Agreement is amended to provide as follo ws:
1.Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended and replaced with the follo wing:
Organization. The Consortium may consist of Snoho mish Count y a nd the cit ies
of Bothell, Carnat io n, Edmonds, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, Mercer Island,
Sammamish, Shoreline, Woodinville and the Town of Woodway, upon their
authorizat io n. The Cit y o f Wo odinville shall serve as the contracting entity with the
Consultant. In addit io n, other ent it ies authorized to participate in interlocal agreements
by statute may jo in during the term of this Agreement, pursuant to Section 3.3.
2.Section 3.1.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended and replaced wit h t he following:
Packet Page 80 of 248
{ERZ725388.DOC;1/13053.080001/}
3.1.1 The populat io n o f a ll Parties is based on the April 2008 Washington State Office
of Financial Management Annual Populatio n Estimate and is described in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
3.Section 3.3 of the Agreement is hereby amended and replaced with the follo wing:
3.3 Addit io nal cit ies may jo in the Consortium upon sat is fact io n of the fo llowing
requirements:
3.3.1 Approval o f e nt ry of the city applying (“Applicant City”) by consensus o f
the current Parties to the Consortium;
3.3.2 Request to join t he Consortium is received no later than August 1, 2009;
3.3.3 The Applicant Cit y may jo in by paying a fee equal to the amount of its
pro–rata share o f t he total cost incurred and billed through it s date of entry. The pro–rata
share of the Applicant Cit y s hall be determined in accordance wit h Sect io n 3.1.
Addit io nally, the Applicant City shall reimburse the consultant and OMW an amount not
to exceed $500 for the consultant and $500 for OMW fo r costs expended in evaluat ing
the Applicant Cit y’s suitabilit y in t he Consortium; and
3.3.4 Fo llo wing admittance into the Consortium, the Applicant Cit y w ill pay it s
pro–rata share o f costs incurred and billed after its date of entry consistent with all other
Parties to this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.1.
4.Section 6 of the Agreement is hereby amended and replaced with the follo wing:
Monetary Cap on Consulting Services. The cost of the jo int Consult ing
services under this Agreement shall not exceed a total of $165,000 (this amount does not
include any mo nies paid to OMW or Snohomish County). This monetary cap on fees
associated with Consulting services includes all Consult ing fees and related expenses.
This mo netary cap on fees associated with Consulting services does not include
additional Consult ing services requested by an individual Part y as described in Sect io n 4.
5.Section 7 of the Agreement is hereby amended and replaced with the follo wing:
Monetary Cap on OMW Services.OMW will facilitate,organize, report and
communicate with the Consortium, Consultant, Comcast, and any other interested party
on behalf o f t he Consortium. Addit io nally, OMW will provide the services of an
assistant negotiator on behalf of t he Consortium. The assistant negotiator will attend all
meet ings. Services to the Consortium will be provided by Elana Zana at a billing rate of
$180 per hour. The cost of OMW services attributed to the Consortium under this
Agreement shall not exceed a total of $33,000. This mo netary cap on fees associated
with OMW services includes all legal and administrative services and costs.
6.Exhibit A o f t he Agreement is hereby replaced with Exhibit A-1 attached to this
Amendment.
Packet Page 81 of 248
{ERZ725388.DOC;1/13053.080001/}
7.This Amendment is a waiver of a ny conflicts of interest between t he Parties and the City
of Sammamish and const it utes informed consent to the representation of the Cit y o f
Sammamish by Ogden Murphy Wallace required pursuant to the Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule 1.7.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties hereto has executed this Agreement by
having its authorized representative affix his/her name in the appropriate space below:
SNOHOMISH COUNTY:
Date:
By:
Its
CITY OF BOTHELL:
Date:
By:
Its
CITY OF CARNATION:
Date:
By:
Its
CITY OF EDMONDS:
Date:
By:
Its
CITY OF KENMORE:
Date:
By:
Its
Packet Page 82 of 248
{ERZ725388.DOC;1/13053.080001/}
CITY OF LAKE FOREST PARK:
Date:
By:
Its
CITY OF MERCER ISLAND:
Date:
By:
Its
CITY OF SAMMAMISH:
Date:
By:
Its
CITY OF SHORELINE:
Date:
By:
Its
CITY OF WOODINVILLE:
Date:
By:
Its
TOWN OF WOODWAY:
Date:
By:
Its
Packet Page 83 of 248
{ERZ725388.DOC;1/13053.080001/}
EXHIBIT A-1
APRIL 2008 POPULATION ESTIMATES &
BREAK DOWN OF THE ESTIMATED PRO RATA SHARE
Populat io n informat io n fro m t he Washington State Office of Financial Management and Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC) census tract populat io n est imates.
The data provided below is for informat io nal purposes only.
County/City Population
(2008) OFM
Percentage of
Total
Consortium
Population
Consultant Costs
$165,000
OMW Costs
$33,000
Snohomish
County Lead
Negotiator
$10,000
Total
Snohomish County 228,488 49.09%81,002.70$ 16,200.54$ 4,909.25$ 102,112.50$
City of Shoreline 53,440 11.48%18,945.35$ 3,789.07$ 1,148.20$ 23,882.62$
City of Edmonds 40,760 8.76%14,450.08$ 2,890.02$ 875.76$ 18,215.86$
City of Sammamish 40,550 8.71%14,375.63$ 2,875.13$ 871.25$ 18,122.01$
City of Bothell 32,860 7.06%11,649.40$ 2,329.88$ 706.02$ 14,685.31$
City of Mercer Island 22,650 4.87%8,029.79$ 1,605.96$ 486.65$ 10,122.40$
City of Kenmore 20,220 4.34%7,168.32$ 1,433.66$ 434.44$ 9,036.42$
City of Lake Forest Park 12,810 2.75%4,541.35$ 908.27$ 275.23$ 5,724.86$
City of W oodinville 10,560 2.27%3,743.69$ 748.74$ 226.89$ 4,719.32$
City of Carnation 1,905 0.41%675.35$ 135.07$ 40.93$ 851.35$
Town of W oodway 1,180 0.25%418.33$ 83.67$ 25.35$ 527.35$
Total 465,423 100.00%165,000.00$ 33,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 208,000.00$
Snohomish County population is based on the projected number of Comcast customers located in unincorporated Snohomish County.
Packet Page 84 of 248
Packet Page 85 of 248
Packet Page 86 of 248
Packet Page 87 of 248
Packet Page 88 of 248
Packet Page 89 of 248
Packet Page 90 of 248
Packet Page 91 of 248
Packet Page 92 of 248
Packet Page 93 of 248
Packet Page 94 of 248
Packet Page 95 of 248
Packet Page 96 of 248
Packet Page 97 of 248
Packet Page 98 of 248
AM-2253 2.G.
75th Ave W/75th Pl W Walkway & 162nd St Park Project Contract Award
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/05/2009
Submitted By:Conni Curtis, Engineering
Submitted For:Robert English Time:Consent
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Report on bids opened April 21, 2009 for the 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway and
162nd Street SW Park project and award of contract to Precision Earthworks, Inc. ($1,634,667.54).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council award a contract to Precision Earthworks, Inc. in the amount of $1,634,667.54 for the 76th
Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway and 162nd Street SW Park project.
Previous Council Action
On May 23, 2006, Council authorized Staff to advertise for statements of qualifications for the
design of the 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway and 162nd Street SW Park project.
On September 26, 2006, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a professional services agreement
with Gray & Osborne, Inc. for design of the 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway and
162nd Street SW Park project.
On May 6, 2008, Council authorized Staff to call for bids for the 76th Avenue West/75th Place
West Walkway and 162nd Street SW Park project.
On July 15, 2008, Council rejected all bids received on June 24, 2008 because the low bid was
higher than the Engineer's Estimate and budget for the project.
On February 17, 2009, the City received thirteen bids for the re-bid of the 76th Avenue West/75th
Place West Walkway and 162nd Street SW Park project. The Council rejected all bids on March
17, 2009 because of a bid protest and a conflict between the City's bid documents and RCW
39.20.060.
Narrative
On April 21, 2009, the City received nine bids for the second re-bid of the 76th Avenue West/75th
Place West Walkway and 162nd Street SW Park project. The bids ranged from a low of
$1,634,667.54 to a high of $3,107,322.06. The Engineer's estimate was $2,003,431.80. The low
bid was received from Precision Earthworks, Inc. and a review of their bid documents and records
was satisfactory. The bid tabulation is provided as Attachment 1. Below is a summary of the
estimated construction budget for the project.
Packet Page 99 of 248
Construction Budget:
Contract Award $1,634,668
Inspection/Construction Management $75,000
Material Testing $46,000
1% Public Art $16,347
Contingency (10%)$163,460
Total $1,935,475
Precision Earthworks bid was nearly $75,000 lower than the February, 2009 bid, and $376,000
lower than the June, 2008 bid of $2,011,628.15. The 2009 adopted Capital Budget contains
$2,000,000 in Fund 125 for the 162nd Street Park and 76th Avenue/75th Place West Walkway
project.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Bid Tabulation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 04/30/2009 11:44 AM APRV
2 Public Works Noel Miller 04/30/2009 12:00 PM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 01:00 PM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/30/2009 01:56 PM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 03:38 PM APRV
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Started On: 04/29/2009 12:10
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/30/2009
Packet Page 100 of 248
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
B
i
d
T
a
b
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
7
5
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
/
7
5
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
W
e
s
t
1
6
2
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
P
a
r
k
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E6
D
A
/
c
2
4
5
Ap
r
i
l
2
1
,
2
0
0
9
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
A
-
1
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
a
n
d
Pu
l
l
o
u
t
T
O
T
A
L
Pr
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
E
a
r
t
h
w
o
r
k
s
,
I
n
c
.
$
1
,
0
9
5
,
0
3
4
.
8
5
$
7
4
,
0
7
8
.
3
0
$
1
4
6
,
1
2
9
.
5
5
$
3
1
9
,
4
2
4
.
8
4
$
1
,
6
3
4
,
6
6
7
.
5
4
B
&
R
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
1
,
1
7
4
,
5
7
6
.
0
0
$
5
8
,
3
6
3
.
0
0
$
1
7
3
,
1
4
7
.
0
0
$
3
9
4
,
3
6
2
.
8
4
$
1
,
8
0
0
,
4
4
8
.
8
4
Ma
r
S
h
b
a
n
k
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
I
n
c
.
$
1
,
1
7
0
,
4
3
6
.
1
0
$
7
3
,
7
9
0
.
5
0
$
1
6
2
,
0
1
2
.
5
0
$
3
9
7
,
4
2
3
.
3
6
$
1
,
8
0
3
,
6
6
2
.
4
6
BD
Z
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
1
,
3
5
5
,
5
3
8
.
0
0
$
7
5
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
1
,
3
6
0
.
0
0
$
3
5
5
,
3
3
1
.
9
9
$
1
,
8
8
7
,
8
2
9
.
9
9
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
$
1
,
2
9
2
,
2
3
8
.
7
4
$
9
4
,
6
6
6
.
5
5
$
1
2
9
,
1
4
5
.
4
8
$
4
4
1
,
1
5
5
.
7
0
$
1
,
9
5
7
,
2
0
6
.
4
7
In
t
e
r
w
e
s
t
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
I
n
c
.
$
1
,
3
5
6
,
1
6
3
.
0
4
$
7
0
,
4
1
1
.
2
5
$
1
2
6
,
1
7
6
.
2
5
$
4
2
4
,
8
9
1
.
4
8
$
1
,
9
7
7
,
6
4
2
.
0
2
Tr
i
-
S
t
a
t
e
C
o
n
s
t
u
r
c
t
i
o
n
,
I
n
c
.
$
1
,
4
1
0
,
9
4
7
.
5
0
$
5
2
,
2
9
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
4
,
4
1
0
.
5
0
$
4
6
8
,
2
9
9
.
4
0
$
2
,
0
3
5
,
9
4
7
.
4
0
Ad
v
a
n
c
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
I
n
c
.
$
1
,
4
3
2
,
2
8
5
.
0
0
$
1
2
8
,
6
5
5
.
0
0
$
1
9
4
,
4
6
5
.
0
0
$
4
4
1
,
2
9
5
.
4
7
$
2
,
1
9
6
,
7
0
0
.
4
7
A-
1
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
&
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
1
,
7
6
0
,
5
6
4
.
0
0
$
1
0
9
,
1
5
1
.
0
0
$
1
4
4
,
8
0
1
.
0
0
$
1
,
0
9
2
,
8
0
6
.
0
6
$
3
,
1
0
7
,
3
2
2
.
0
6
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
M
d
w
d
l
e
Bc
h
R
d
t
o
N
o
r
t
h
E
n
d
o
f
Pa
r
k
Re
p
l
a
c
e
T
i
m
b
e
r
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
B
c
h
D
r
Pa
r
k
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
A
-
2
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
A
-
3
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
B
]
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
10
1
of
24
8
AM-2255 2.H.
Sewer System Infiltration and Inflow Study Consultant
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/05/2009
Submitted By:Conni Curtis, Engineering
Submitted For:Robert English Time:Consent
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with BHC Consultants, LLC for
performing a study of the City's sewer system infiltration and inflow (I/I).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize Mayor to sign professional services agreement with BHC Consultants, LLC for
performing a study of the City's sewer system infiltration and inflow (I/I).
Previous Council Action
On October 7, 2008, Council authorized Staff to advertise a request for qualifications to prepare an
infiltration and inflow study on the City's sewer system.
Narrative
In recent years, the Public Works Department has observed increased flow rates during heavy
rainfall events to the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant. This study will evaluate the infiltration
and inflow (I/I) into the City's sewer system and identify the feasible means to control I/I. The key
elements of the study are to define the current level of I/I within the system, determine and
prioritize projects to control I/I, prepare guidelines, procedures and policies for I/I control, and
develop a long-term plan to control I/I.
Statements of qualifications (SOQs) were received from three firms by the City Engineer in
response to the RFQ. Based on a review of the SOQs and comparison to the selection criteria, two
firms were selected for interviews. Following the interviews, BHC Consultants, LLC was
selected as the preferred consultant based on their qualifications and experience.
Staff and consultant have agreed upon a scope of services and budget for the project. The
negotiated fee for the professional services agreement has been set at a not-to-exceed amount of
$198,421. A copy of the professional services agreement is attached.
The 2009-2010 Capital Budget includes $250,000 in the 412 Utility Fund for the Infiltration and
Inflow Study and Projects.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Packet Page 102 of 248
Attachments
Link: BHC Professional Services Agreement
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 04/30/2009 12:10 PM APRV
2 Public Works Noel Miller 04/30/2009 12:25 PM APRV
3 Public Works Noel Miller 04/30/2009 01:01 PM APRV
4 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 01:07 PM APRV
5 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/30/2009 01:56 PM APRV
6 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 03:38 PM APRV
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Started On: 04/29/2009 04:41
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/30/2009
Packet Page 103 of 248
Packet Page 104 of 248
Packet Page 105 of 248
Packet Page 106 of 248
Packet Page 107 of 248
Packet Page 108 of 248
Packet Page 109 of 248
Packet Page 110 of 248
Packet Page 111 of 248
Packet Page 112 of 248
Packet Page 113 of 248
Packet Page 114 of 248
Packet Page 115 of 248
Packet Page 116 of 248
Packet Page 117 of 248
Packet Page 118 of 248
Packet Page 119 of 248
Packet Page 120 of 248
AM-2262 3.
Chris Keuss Recognition
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/05/2009
Submitted By:Linda Carl, Mayor's Office
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:5 Minutes
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Recognition of retiring Port of Edmonds Executive Director Chris Keuss, and introduction
of new Executive Director Robert McChesney.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Tonight the Mayor will read a proclamation in honor of Chris Keuss Day, May 15, 2009. Chris
served as Executive Director since 2002, and Deputy Director from 1997 to 2001. Under Chris'
leadership, the Port received "Marina of the Year" by the industry's leading national magazine,
Marina Dock Age, and he was influential in the Weather Center, Destination Port of Edmonds,
and the new public plaza. In 2007 he was named Edmonds' Citizen of the Year.
Chris will be succeeded by Robert McChesney, most recently serving as the Executive Director of
the Port of Port Angeles.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 01:00 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/30/2009 01:56 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 03:38 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 04/30/2009 11:56
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/30/2009
Packet Page 121 of 248
Packet Page 122 of 248
AM-2252 4.
The Big Read
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/05/2009
Submitted By:Linda Carl, Mayor's Office
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:5 Minutes
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation in honor of The Big Read Month, May 2009.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
There are many opportunities to celebrate The Big Read, including two events at the Edmonds
Library:
1) Wednesday, May 13 at 7 p.m., Melinda Van Wingen will lead a discussion on “Dashiell
Hammett in the Northwest”
2) Wednesday, May 20 at 7 p.m., readers of “The Maltese Falcon” can join in a book discussion.
For more information about these and other events around Snohomish County, go to
www.neabigread.org.
Tonight, Lesly Kaplan, Managing Librarian at the Edmonds Library, will be present to accept the
proclamation.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/29/2009 02:02 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/29/2009 03:03 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2009 04:37 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 04/29/2009 12:08
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/29/2009
Packet Page 123 of 248
Packet Page 124 of 248
AM-2257 5.
Arts Education Proclamation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/05/2009
Submitted By:Linda Carl, Mayor's Office
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:5 Minutes
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation in honor of Arts Education Month, May 2009.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Learning through the arts often results in greater academic achievement and higher test scores as
well as personal growth outside the classroom. It enables students to develop critical thinking and
problem-solving skills, creativity, discipline, communication skills, and cross-cultural
understanding. The arts can bring every subject to life and turn abstractions into concrete reality.
By engaging in the arts at school (including dance, music, theatre, visual, and the literary arts)
students enjoy a well-rounded education while gaining rich opportunities to actively participate in
creative work.
Arts education for our youth is also important for future employment. "Ready to Innovate," a new
study published by the Conference Board (serving the Fortune 1000 U.S. companies) provides the
first research-based evidence that connects the arts to creativity and innovation. U.S. employers
rate creativity/innovation among the top five skills that will increase in importance over the next
five years, and rank it among the top challenges facing CEOs. The report concludes that “it is clear
that the arts—music, creative writing, drawing, dance—provide skills sought by employers of the
third millennium.”
Tonight, Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin and former arts educator and current
Edmonds Arts Commissioner Pam Harold will accept the Mayor’s proclamation.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 09:42 AM APRV
Packet Page 125 of 248
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/30/2009 09:44 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 09:50 AM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 04/30/2009 09:23
AM
Final Approval Date: 04/30/2009
Packet Page 126 of 248
Packet Page 127 of 248
AM-2259 6.
Edmonds Arts Commission Annual Review and Presentation of Scholarship
Recipients
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/05/2009
Submitted By:Frances Chapin, Parks and Recreation Time:15 Minutes
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Edmonds Arts Commission 2008 Annual Review and presentation of 2009 scholarship
recipients.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Frances Chapin will introduce Edmonds Arts Commission chair Greg Banasek to present the 2008
annual report for the Commission. Highlights of 2008 include the update of the Community
Cultural Plan, full capacity attendance and record revenue for the Write on the Sound writers'
conference, and successful partnerships ranging from the Everybody Reads Photo Contest, to
presentation of nationally known visual artists, to the Japanese Cultural Fair at Edmonds Center
for the Arts.
The Commission supports arts education in Edmonds schools through artist in residence programs
and utilizes private donations and proceeds from the writers' conference to provide scholarships to
Edmonds students seeking a career in the performing or literary arts. Scholarship Committee
Chair, Todd Timmcke, will present the 2009 scholarship recipients: Andrew Leonard, Eric
Jellison, Elizabeth Melnikas, and Ingrid Porter.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: EAC Annual Report 2008
Link: Scholarship application
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 01:00 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/30/2009 01:56 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 03:38 PM APRV
Form Started By: Frances
Chapin
Started On: 04/30/2009 10:04
AM
Packet Page 128 of 248
Final Approval Date: 04/30/2009
Packet Page 129 of 248
33 YEARS OF DEDICATION TO THE ARTS
EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION
2008 Annual Review
PROGRAMS
LITERARY ARTS
Presented the 23nd annual Write on the Sound Writer’s Conference (2) featuring
Poet Laureate Samuel Green (3), keynote speaker; artist/film maker Sarah Jane
Lapp (4); pre-conference writing workshops in partnership with Edmonds Commu-
nity College; Writing Contest awards sponsored by Patricia Thorpe/Wachovia Se-
curities; reception sponsored by Windermere Real Estate-Edmonds. Youth Writing
Contest held for Edmonds School District high school and middle school students.
PERFORMING ARTS
Presented eight free Summer Concerts in City Park (5), featuring diverse perfor-
mances sponsored by Acura of Lynnwood, Lynnwood Honda, and John L. Scott/
Cascadia Lending.
VISUAL ARTS
Four exhibit spaces featured work by 25 regional artists plus 2 group shows, art-
work by local high school students, and group exhibits of art from Edmonds’ sister
city, Hekinan Japan, and the Edmonds Arts Festival Museum (EAFF) Collection.
A “Focus on Public Art” exhibit featured work by the late Everett DuPen. Joint ex-
hibits and receptions with EAFF included Marita Dingus, Wendy Thon, Sarah Jane
Lapp and Yoshiyasu Fujii (1).
Over 130 third grade artists participated in the 8th annual Best Book I Ever Read
Poster Contest for National Children’s Book Week. Reception with author/illustra-
tor Richard Jesse Watson (6) included awards sponsored by the Friends of the
Edmonds Library.
ARTS ASSISTANCE
Partnered with Washington State Arts Alliance to develop Peer Coaching pilot pro-
gram in Snohomish County.
Awarded $8,550 for tourism promotion from Lodging Tax Funds to Cascade Sym-
phony Orchestra, Choir of the Sound, Driftwood Players, Jazz Connection/Rotary
Foundation, KSER Foundation, Friends of Frank DeMiero, EAFF/Art Studio Tour
and Olympic Ballet Theatre.
Published the quarterly EAC Arts Bulletin Newsletter. Launched an email newslet-
ter sent to over 300 individuals.
Awarded Youth Scholarship to Simon Wood, Anna Barton, Jennica Bisbee, and
Elizabeth Nestlerode to pursue careers in literary and performing arts.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT &
PARTNERSHIPS
Partnered to support and promote the arts, arts education, and cultural tourism with
Edmonds Arts Festival, Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, Edmonds Center for the
Arts (Dance Theater of OR, Zing Go the Strings), Edmonds Chamber of Commerce,
Edmonds Community College, Edmonds Historical Museum, Edmonds School Dis-
trict, Edmonds Sister City Commission (Japanese Cultural Fair (7) & 20th Anni-
versary Celebration), Friends of the Edmonds Library, pARTners, Sno-Isle Library
(Everybody Reads Photo Contest & Opera Preview Lectures), Edmonds Historic
Preservation Commission, Lynnwood Arts Commission, and local businesses.
PUBLIC ART
EAC acquires and maintains art for the City Collection through the Percent for Art
program and privately funded public art. New additions include the EAFF spon-
sored purchase award photograph from the Everybody Reads Photo Contest held in
conjunction with Sno-Isle Library Edmonds Reads (1st Place Tiffany Meyers) (8)
and National Humanities Month, and a painting by Edmonds’ artist Win Bainbridge.
Ongoing projects include Dayton Street Plaza renovations, 4th Avenue Cultural
Corridor planning, Bus Rapid Transit platforms, and Highway 99 enhancements.
PLANNING
The Community Cultural Plan Update process was completed and the Plan ap-
proved by City Council. Received Preserve America Grant for development of
an implementation and funding plan for the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor (9).
Selected consultants, SvR Design, and completed the public portion of the 4th Ave
Cultural Corridor Planning process.
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
4
Packet Page 130 of 248
MISSION
The City of Edmonds Arts Commission exists to ensure that the arts are integral to our
community’s quality of life, economic vitality, and central identity.
The Edmonds Arts Commission works to support the Community Cultural Plan, a component
of the City Comprehensive Plan, with goals to:
Build Edmonds’ identity as a cultural destination
Encourage effective partnerships to support cultural opportunities
Develop cultural facilities
Increase the visibility and accessibility of cultural events
Broaden community involvement and participation
Edmonds Arts Commission Programs
REVENUE EXPENSES
40 % - Earned Income 55 % - Events & Art Ed
9 % - Contributed 5 % - Supplies
23 % - Lodging Tax Fund 15 % - Marketing the Arts
22 % - General Fund 18 % - Promotion Awards
6 % - Public Art 7 % - Public Art
NOTE: The amount of revenue/expenses for Public Art varies from year to year depending
on City construction projects.
2008 COMMISSIONERS
Rick Bader, Greg Banasek, Joyeanna Chaudiere, Pam Harold, Mary Monfort, Joanne Otness and
Todd Timmcke, Chair
STAFF
Frances White Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Kris Gillespie, Cultural Services Assistant
The Commission meets to advise and recommend on arts issues and arts programs to the Mayor and City
Council. For more information call 425-771-0228.
EAC meets the first Monday of the month at 6 p.m. in the Edmonds Plaza Room. The public is welcome.
Edmonds Arts Commission
Department of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
700 Main Street, Edmonds WA 98020
425-771-0228, chapin@ci.edmonds.wa.us
www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/ArtsCommission
Photos: Staff, Greg Banasek, Todd Timmcke
“Recycled Salmon” by Buster Simpson (10), “Beach Launch”, by Robert Cooke (11), “Standing Wave”
by Gerard Tsutakawa (12)
•
•
•
•
•
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
A
r
t
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
2
O
O
8
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
V
I
E
W
10
11
12
Packet Page 131 of 248
Packet Page 132 of 248
Packet Page 133 of 248
Packet Page 134 of 248
Packet Page 135 of 248
AM-2248 7.
Draft Levy Proposal and Draft Resolution Regarding 2009 Property Tax Levy
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/05/2009
Submitted By:Jana Spellman, City Council
Submitted For:Council President Wilson Time:30 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public comment on draft levy proposal and draft Resolution regarding 2009 property tax
levy.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
The Council formed the Revenue Work Group in October of 2008 by a unanimous vote. They
approved the general levy scope. In February 2009, the 2009 Levy Timeline was affirmed
unanimously. The Citizen Levy Review Committee was formed, completed its work, and made a
series of recommendations. One recommendation was to move forward with the levy ranging from
$2 to $4.3 million. Other comments included making the levy more specific than it currently is.
This Resolution directs staff to further refine and develop options for Council consideration and
additional public review during the summer of 2009.
During the April 21, 2009 Council Meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare two levy options
for presentation to and consideration by the Council on June 2, 2009.
Council President Wilson placed this item on the 4-28-2009 Council agenda to allow for public
comment on the draft levy proposal and draft Resolution regarding 2009 property tax levy. The
Council will be voting on this draft resolution during the May 19, 2009 Council Meeting.
The Council took public comment on the draft Resolution regarding the 2009 property tax levy
during the April 28, 2009 Council Meeting.
Attachment 1: Draft Resolution Regarding 2009 Property Tax Levy
Narrative
Continued public comment on the draft levy proposal and draft Resolution regarding 2009
property tax levy will be taken at this evening's Council Meeting.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Draft 2009 Levy Resolution
Packet Page 136 of 248
Link: Draft 2009 Levy Resolution
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 09:42 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/30/2009 09:44 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 09:50 AM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 04/23/2009 02:18
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/30/2009
Packet Page 137 of 248
DRAFT
-1-
Resolution No.___
A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE 2009 PROPERTY TAX LEVY
(To be voted on May 19, 2009)
Whereas, the City Council adopted the 2009 Levy Timeline in February to provide a roadmap for action and decision
leading up to the November 2009 levy, and
Whereas, the Citizens’ Levy Review Committee was formed to vet the proposed levy and examine the general fiscal
situation faced by the City, and has now completed that effort, and
Whereas, the comments and recommendations made by this committee were supportive of a levy between $2m and
$4.3m, and called for specific, tangible items that could be supported by the citizens of Edmonds, like public
safety and parks, and
Whereas, the current draft proposed levy is a function of 6 months of work on the part of Council and staff, and represents
a strategy for a broad and general operations levy, and
Whereas, the two programmatic priorities of the community of Edmonds continue to be public safety and parks, and which
alternatively could be a dominant component of a second levy option, and
Whereas, it is the sense of the Council that items listed on the 2009 levy should be previous cuts or proposed cuts, should
the levy not pass, so that there is a clear trade-off and understanding about that for which citizens are voting this
November,
Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council directs staff to prepare two levy options for presentation to and
consideration by Council on June 2nd, and which meet the following criteria:
“General Operations Levy” Option: a refined general operations levy in the amount of $3.75m which would be
reflective of the work done to date by the Citizens’ Levy Review Committee and the internal city Levy Work
Group.
“Parks, Public Safety & Families Levy” Option 2: a more specific levy in the amount of $3.75m which would have
at least 75% of the funds directed to services which support parks, public safety and families in the City of
Edmonds, to include but not be limited to:
- Funds for programs that support Edmonds families such as Yost Pool, the Senior Center, Discovery
Programs, Domestic Violence prevention programs, etc, (approx. $500,000)
- Funds for parks maintenance funds to keep open our 31 neighborhood parks threatened for closure
(approx. $800,000)
- Funds to fully staff and fully compensate our public safety employees in the police and fire
departments, as well as other departments (approx. $300,000 to public safety, with $300,000 to other
departments)
- Funds to adequately staff Edmonds Crime Prevention services (approx. $200,000)
And be it further resolved that following the presentation of these two options, the Edmonds City Council, in conjunction
with city staff be prepared to conduct 3 Open Houses for the public during the latter half of June and/or the first
half of July.
RESOLVED this _____ day of ________, 2009.
APPROVED:
________________________________
MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON
Attachment 1
2 pages
Packet Page 138 of 248
DRAFT
-2-
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
_____________________________________
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
Packet Page 139 of 248
AM-2254 8.
Public Hearing on Ordinance Amending ECDC Chapter 20
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:05/05/2009
Submitted By:Rob Chave, Planning Time:30 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on Ordinance amending Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter
20 relating to establishing permit types, process requirements, notice requirements,
consistency with SEPA, open record hearing procedures, closed record appeals, and
development agreements.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Hold the public hearing and continue deliberations to the May 19, 2009, meeting, as already
scheduled.
Previous Council Action
The City Council held a work session on the Planning Board recommendation on February 24,
2009. A public hearing was held on March 17, 2009, and Council directed the City Attorney to
prepare an ordinance to implement the Planning Board's recommendation. Subsequently, an
additional public hearing was scheduled by Council for this evening.
Narrative
A key section of the code rewrite deals with the process and procedure regulations found in Title
20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Attached as Exhibit 1 is the
ordinance drafted by the City Attorney's office following the hearing and initial approval by the
City Council on March 17th. This ordinance implements the Planning Board recommended
changes to Title 20. The purpose for these revisions is to clearly define the process and procedures
for handling permit processing. The draft regulations also address the issues raised by the Hearing
Examiner that needed clarifying.
Key changes include:
* Establishing permit types
* Tables identifying the different permit types and the decision making process
* Submission requirements and procedures
* Public notice requirements establishing the responsibility for the permit applicant to provide the
notice
* Establishing SEPA consistency regulations
* Establishing open and closed record hearing procedures
* Creating a new section dealing with Development Agreements
Packet Page 140 of 248
In addition to the draft ordinance and various meeting minutes, Exhibit 5 of the attachments is a
summary of the various pros and cons that staff has heard surrounding the issue of whether or not
the City Council should be involved in quasi-judicial land use decisions (particularly as an appeal
body). This may be helpful in framing the hearing and subsequent discussion.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance
Link: Exhibit 2: City Council minutes 2009
Link: Exhibit 3: City Council minutes 2008
Link: Exhibit 4: Planning Board minutes
Link: Exhibit 5: Quasi-judicial Pros and Cons
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 11:46 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 04/30/2009 01:56 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/30/2009 03:38 PM APRV
Form Started By: Rob
Chave
Started On: 04/29/2009 02:31
PM
Final Approval Date: 04/30/2009
Packet Page 141 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING NEW CHAPTERS AND
REPEALING CERTAIN CHAPTERS IN TITLE 20 ECDC
RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING LAND USE
DEVELOPMENT PERMITS; AMENDING VARIOUS ECDC
SECTIONS THAT REFERENCE SECTIONS IN REPEALED
CHAPTERS IN TITLE 20 ECDC; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds’ current process and procedures for approving
land use development permits require revision and modernization to conform more clearly and
accurately with procedures set forth in state statutes; and
WHEREAS, revision and modernization of the City’s process and procedures for
approving land use development permits is also an ideal opportunity to draft the applicable codes
to be more user friendly; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Planning Board, after public meetings and hearings to
consider improvements to the aforementioned process and procedure, forwarded to the City
Council its recommended amendments to Title 20 ECDC; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after holding a public hearing on the same,
approved the amendments to Title 20 ECDC recommended by the Planning Board; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Repealed. The following Chapters in Title 20 ECDC are hereby
repealed:
Packet Page 142 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
2
Chapter 20.90 ECDC Application Process.
Chapter 20.91 ECDC Public Hearings and Notice.
Chapter 20.95 ECDC Application and Staff Review.
Chapter 20.105 ECDC Appeals and Court Review.
Section 2. Repealed. Sections 21.100.000 (Scope), 21.100.010 (Hearing
examiner review), 21.100.020 (Planning advisory board review), and 21.100.030 (City council
action on recommendations) of Chapter 20.100 ECDC are hereby repealed.
Section 3. Retitled. Chapter 20.100 ECDC, Hearing Examiner, Planning
Advisory Board And City Council Review, is hereby retitled as Chapter 20.100 ECDC,
Miscellaneous Review.
Section 4. Adopted. New Chapters in Title 20 ECDC are hereby adopted to read
as hereto attached as Exhibit A.
Section 5. Amended. Subsection 4.85.090(D) of the Edmonds City Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
D. Notice of off street or on street areas designated in accordance with
subsection C above shall be clearly posted to provide reasonable notice.
Approval or denial of an off or on street area shall be appealable in the
same manner as if it were a Type II decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC).
Section 6. Amended. Subsection 7.10.065(C) of the Edmonds City Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
C. In the event the owner fails to connect to the sewer line within the 10-
day period or to provide the adequate assurances required by subparagraph
(B)(2) above, water service to such residential or commercial structures
and to the property on which they are located shall be discontinued.
Service shall not again be instituted until such time as the owner has
connected to the sewer system, paid the actual costs of the city including,
but not limited to, disconnecting, reconnecting, notifying the owner and
otherwise taking action with respect to the requirements of this section.
The actual cost thereof may vary, but the city council hereby establishes
such reconnection fee to be $250.00; provided, however, that in the event
the actual costs are greater, they may be imposed by written order of the
community services director or his designee and the reconnection shall not
Packet Page 143 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
3
be completed until such time such assessed costs are paid. In the event that
the owner or owners believe that the reconnection charges are in excess of
the amount actually incurred or which reasonably may be incurred the
city, the owner or owners may appeal the set fee or additionally designated
fee to the Hearing Examiner in the same manner as if it were a Type II
decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC).
Section 7. Amended. Subsection 7.80.110(B) of the Edmonds City Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
B. All existing multifamily residences will also be required to make
provisions for the collection of recyclables. It is recognized that in some
instances this may require changes to approved site plans including but not
limited to common areas of the building site and parking areas. It is also
recognized that the provision of recyclable collection facilities in existing
multifamily residences may also create violations of certain parts of the
zoning chapter. The staff will review proposed facilities for collection of
recyclables and/or yard waste, and will make a staff decision on whether a
more formal review by the architectural design board is necessary. Such
staff decisions shall be staff decisions rendered and appealable in the same
manner as if they were Type II decisions (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC). In
the event that a required parking space needs to be utilized for a collection
facility, it shall still be counted toward meeting the parking requirements
in the Edmonds Community Development Code.
Section 8. Amended. Subsection 16.20.050(E)(1) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
1. The following applications for the following approvals shall be
processed as a Type II development project permit application (see
Chapter 20.01 ECDC):
Section 9. Amended. Subsection 16.20.050(F)(2) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
2. The request for waiver shall be reviewed by the hearing examiner as a
Type III-A decision and may be granted upon a finding that one of the
following sets of criteria have been met.
Section 10. Amended. Subsection 16.43.030(F)(1) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Packet Page 144 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
4
1. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds historic
preservation commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for
the proposed project, the staff may modify or waive any of the
requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the expansion,
remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of staff shall be
processed as a Type II development project permit application (see
Chapter 20.01 ECDC).
Section 11. Amended. The first paragraph of Section 16.60.030, Site
development standards – Design standards., of the Edmonds Community Development Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
16.60.030 Site development standards – Design standards.
Design review by the architectural design board is required for any project
that includes buildings exceeding 60 feet in height in the CG zone or 75
feet in height in the CG2 zone. Projects not exceeding these height limits
may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision. Regardless of what review
process is required, all projects proposed in the CG or CG2 zone must
meet the design standards contained in this section.
Section 12. Amended. Subsection 16.75.020(D)(5) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
5. A master plan may be approved as a comprehensive plan amendment,
a planned residential development (PRD), or as a contract rezone. The
planning advisory board and city council shall review and act upon a
proposed master plan as a Type V development project permit application
(see Chapter 20.01 ECDC), except in the case of a PRD, which shall be
reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.35 ECDC.
Section 13. Amended. Subsection 17.40.020(F) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
F. Restoration. If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is
damaged in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost
at the time of destruction, said building shall not be reconstructed except
in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community
Development Code. Determination of replacement costs and the level of
destruction shall be made by the building official and shall be appealable
as a Type II staff decision under the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
Damage of less than 75 percent of replacement costs may be repaired, and
Packet Page 145 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
5
the building returned to its former size, shape and lot location as existed
before the damage occurred, if, but only if, such repair is initiated by the
filing of an application for a building permit which vests as provided in
ECDC 19.00.015, et seq., within one year of the date such damage
occurred. This right of restoration shall not apply if:
Section 14. Amended. Subsection 17.40.020(G)(4) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
4. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt
within the defined building envelope if it is rebuilt with materials and
design which are substantially similar to the original style and structure
after complying with current codes. “Substantial compliance” shall be
determined by the city as a Type II staff decision, except that any appeal
of the staff decision shall be to the ADB rather than to the hearing
examiner. The decision of the ADB shall be final and appealable only as
provided in ECDC 20.07.006.
Section 15. Amended. Subsection 17.50.070(C) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Exceptions to the required parking standards in the downtown area.
When requested by the developer, the staff, using information provided by
the applicant, may decrease the required parking for a building listed on
the Edmonds register of historic places in order to retain historic elements
of the building during its expansion, remodeling or restoration. Any
building construction or remodeling activities serving as the justification
for the parking exception shall be consistent with the criteria and
procedures governing historic buildings contained in Chapter 20.45
ECDC. The decision on the parking exception shall be processed as a
Type II decision.
Section 16. Amended. Subsection 17.50.090(A)(3) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3. Applications for a conditional use permit, or an appeal of a staff
decision approving or denying a one-year extension thereof shall be
reviewed by the hearing examiner under the same terms and conditions as
any conditional use permit utilizing the criteria contained in Chapter 20.05
ECDC and under the procedural requirements contained in Chapter 20.06
ECDC. An application for a two-year extension shall be processed in the
same manner as an initial application for a conditional use permit for a
temporary parking lot and new or changed conditions may be imposed in
Packet Page 146 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
6
the course of that process.
Section 17. Amended. Subsection 17.70.005(C) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. The granting of a permit for a sales office or sales model shall be
processed as a Type I decision.
Section 18. Amended. Section 17.70.010, Other temporary buildings., of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.70.010 Other temporary buildings.
Except as provided below in ECDC 17.70.030, a conditional use permit
shall be required to construct a temporary building in any zone. The
permit shall be valid for a period of one year; provided however, that said
permit may be extended by the community services director for a single
one-year extension upon submittal of a written application prior to the
expiration of the original permit. All the requirements of the zoning
district shall be met. Said application for a conditional use permit or an
appeal of the staff decision granting or denying the extension of such a
permit shall be reviewed by the hearing examiner in accordance with the
requirements for any other conditional use permit under Chapter 20.06
ECDC.
Section 19. Amended. Section 17.75.020, Primary uses requiring a conditional
use permit., of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
17.75.020 Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit.
Outdoor dining shall be a primary use requiring a conditional use permit in
the BN – neighborhood business zone, BC – community business zone,
BD – downtown business zone, CW – commercial waterfront zone, and
CG – general commercial zone, for outdoor seating which exceeds 10
percent of the existing interior seating in the establishment or more than
eight seats, whichever is greater. This use shall be established and
maintained only in accordance with the terms of a conditional use permit
approved by the hearing examiner as a Type III-A decision under the
procedural requirements contained in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. At a
minimum, the conditions considered for imposition by the hearing
examiner may include a restriction on operating hours, location of the
Packet Page 147 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
7
outdoor seating, and/or buffering of the noise and visual impacts related to
the outdoor dining seating. All seating permitted pursuant to the
conditional use permit shall be located outside of public rights-of-way. If
outdoor seating is approved under these provisions, no additional parking
stalls shall be required for the outdoor dining.
Section 20. Amended. Section 17.90.020, Approval., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.90.020 Approval.
The city staff will take general standards to the architectural design board
for approval. Once the architectural design board establishes general
standards, recycling boxes which meet general standards and comply with
the provisions of this chapter may be approved by the staff without further
review. Any decision made by the staff is appealable as if it were a Type II
decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC). Boxes which do not meet general
standards shall be reviewed individually by the architectural design board
in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.10 ECDC upon payment
of the fee for such review.
Section 21. Amended. Section 17.90.050, Appeal., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.90.050 Appeal.
Any person cited with a notice of violation shall have 10 calendar days
from the date of mailing thereof to appeal from the findings of the notice.
Such appeal shall be to the city's hearing examiner as a Type II appeal of a
staff decision in accordance with Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Failure to appeal
shall create a presumption of violation in accordance with the provisions
of the notice of violation.
Section 22. Amended. Subsection 17.95.040(C) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Appeals of Final Decision. Major employers may file a written appeal
of the city's final decision regarding the following actions:
1. Rejection of an employer's proposed program;
2. Denial of an employer's requests for a waiver or modification of any of
the requirements of this chapter or a modification of the employer's
Packet Page 148 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
8
program;
Such appeals must be filed with the city within 10 calendar days after the
employer receives notice of a final decision. Timely appeals shall be heard
by the city's hearing examiner as if it were a Type II appeal of a staff
decision in accordance with Chapter 20.06 ECDC. The hearing examiner's
decision shall be final. Determinations on appeal shall be based on
whether the decision being appealed was consistent with this chapter or
applicable law.
Section 23. Amended. Subsection 17.100.030(B) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. Decisions to approve, condition, or deny a CUP; to review a CUP; or
decline to renew a CUP shall be a Type III-A decision.
Section 24. Amended. Subsection 18.00.020(C) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Decision. The public works director shall decide whether to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny the application, based on the staff analysis
and comments from other city departments. The decision shall be in
writing and shall be appealable to the hearing examiner pursuant to
Chapter 20.06 ECDC as if it were a Type II decision. No application may
be approved that conflicts with any portion of the community development
code, unless that portion is specifically subject to waiver or variance.
Section 25. Amended. Section 18.05.040, Variances., of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.05.040 Variances.
Applications for variances from the underground requirements of this
chapter shall be reviewed by the community services director as a Type II
development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC). For
the purposes of this chapter, the special circumstances necessary to justify
a variance from the undergrounding provisions of this chapter shall be
limited to technological impracticability of any required underground
installation or to a finding that the cost of the underground installation is
excessive in light of the benefits derived and outweighs the benefits to be
gained by the public.
Packet Page 149 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
9
Section 26. Amended. Subsection 18.45.045(B) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. Upon receipt of the application for a clearing permit, the staff shall
inspect the site and contiguous properties. If the staff determines that the
plan is in compliance with the provisions of this section and will result in
the removal of no more trees or vegetation than is necessary to achieve the
proposed development or improvement, the permit shall be approved as a
Type II decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC).
Section 27. Amended. Section 18.45.055, Notice., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.45.055 Notice.
Notice to surrounding property owners shall be provided pursuant to
ECDC 20.02.004, informing them of the application for a clearing permit.
Section 28. Amended. Section 18.45.060, Appeals., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.45.060 Appeals.
Any person aggrieved by the decision of the staff regarding a clearing
permit may appeal such decision to the hearing examiner within 10
working days of the date of the decision. The appeal shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
Section 29. Amended. Subsection 18.50.020(C)(2) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
2. In the event that any applicant believes that the dedication requirement
is in excess of that required to mitigate the applicant's actual development
impacts, the applicant may appeal the staff decision to the hearing
examiner as if it were a Type II decision in accordance with Chapter 20.06
ECDC. On appeal a dedication shall be required only if:
Section 30. Amended. Subsection 18.80.010(Notes)(4) of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
4 If the fire chief and public works director can demonstrate that the fire
Packet Page 150 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
10
fighting or rescue operations may be impaired by limited roadway width,
the right-of-way width and paving requirements for a street or access
easement may be increased and/or additional paved or graveled shoulders
required. Both such decisions shall be staff decisions rendered and
appealable as if they were Type II decisions in accordance with Chapter
20.06 ECDC.
Section 31. Amended. Subsection 18.80.060(B)(5)(c) of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
c. In such cases, the city engineer may then consider use of an existing
common driveway or other alternative. Only when no other reasonable
alternative exists for access to a property will a curb cut be approved
which results in the loss of existing on-street parking. No more than one
access point per lot will be permitted in the downtown business area. The
city engineer's decision to approve alternative access shall be processed as
a Type II project permit application and decision (see Chapter 20.01
ECDC).
Section 32. Amended. Subsection 18.80.060(C)(1) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
1. Except as otherwise provided, the width of any residential driveway
shall not exceed 20 feet exclusive of the radii of the turns, with such
measurement being made parallel with the center line of the street.
Driveway approaches shall extend from the edge of the existing street a
distance of 20 feet or to the edge of the property line, whichever is greater.
Approaches shall be constructed of asphalt concrete pavement or an
equivalent approved by the city engineer. The standard width for
commercial and other nonresidential streets shall be 30 feet. At the
application of the applicant or the city engineer, additional width in excess
of the established standard may be approved as a staff decision to a
maximum width of 40 feet. Such decision shall be made only after notice
as a Type II project permit application and decision (see Chapter 20.01
ECDC). Such application shall be approved only if: (a) it conforms to the
provisions of the comprehensive plan; (b) is found to be in the public
interest when the needs of the applicant are reviewed and balanced in light
of the benefits to the general public and the impacts, if any, on the
immediate neighborhood; and (c) is consistent with or enhances public
safety and will not create a hazard to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle
traffic. The public works director may authorize additional residential
driveway width for three-car garages and for access driveways necessary
for off-street parking or recreational vehicles.
Packet Page 151 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
11
Section 33. Amended. Subsection 18.82.070(E) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
E. The decision of the director may be appealed to the hearing examiner
as a Type II decision in accordance with Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
Section 34. Amended. Subsection 19.00.005(A)(6)(e) of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
e. The maximum amount of time any building permit may be extended
shall be a total of three (3) years. At the end of any three (3) year period
starting from the original date of permit issuance, the permit shall become
null and void and a new building permit shall be required, with full permit
fees, in order for the applicant to complete work. The voiding of the prior
permit shall negate all previous vesting of zoning or building codes.
Whenever an appeal is filed and a necessary development approval is
stayed in accordance with ECDC 20.07.004, the time limit periods
imposed under this section shall also be stayed until final decision.
Section 35. Amended. Subsection 19.00.025(B)(5) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
5. Any decision of the city staff regarding the application stated in this
section and its interpretation shall be considered a Type I decision
appealable only to the superior court of Snohomish County by Land Use
Petition Act.
Section 36. Amended. Subsection 19.10.040(A) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Notices of permit submittal application with the city shall be posted by
the applicant pursuant to ECDC 20.02.004 and ECDC 20.03.002(A). Such
notices shall be conspicuously posted and maintained at each street
frontage at the applicant's expense pursuant to ECDC 20.03.001(A).
Notice of permit issuance or denial shall be conspicuously posted as
required above. Upon each posting a 10-day appeal period shall
commence. Appeals shall be to the Snohomish County superior court in
accordance with the Land Use Petition Act, and no other appeal shall be
permitted.
Packet Page 152 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
12
Section 37. Amended. Section 20.05.020, General requirements., of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.05.020 General requirements.
A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review and decide on conditional
use permit applications as Type III-A decisions as set forth in ECDC
20.01.003.
B. Appeals. Appeals shall be to the Snohomish County superior court in
accordance with the Land Use Petition Act.
C. Time Limit. Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no
building permit is required, substantially commences the use allowed
within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall
expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an
extension of the time before the expiration date.
D. Review of Extension Application. An application for any extension of
time shall be reviewed by the community development director as a Type
II decision.
E. Location. A conditional use permit applies only to the property for
which it has been approved and may not be transferred to any other
property.
F. Denial. A conditional use permit application may be denied if the
proposal cannot be conditioned so that the required findings can be made.
Section 38. Amended. Section 20.10.040, Optional pre-application., of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.10.040 Optional pre-application.
The applicant may submit plans required under ECDC 20.02.002 as part
of the complete application in preliminary or sketch form, so that the
comments and advice of the architectural design board may be
incorporated into the final plans submitted for application.
Section 39. Amended. Section 20.11.010, Review procedure - General design
review., of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.11.010 Review procedure – General design review.
Packet Page 153 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
13
A. Review. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all
proposed developments that require a threshold determination under the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). All other developments may be
approved by staff as a Type I decision. When design review is required by
the ADB, proposed development shall be processed as a Type III-B
decision. The role of the ADB shall be dependent upon the nature of the
application as follows:
1. The ADB shall conduct a public hearing for the following types of
applications:
a. Applications that are not consolidated as set forth in ECDC
20.01.002(B).
b. Applications that are consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B)
but in which the ADB serves as the sole decision-making authority.
c. Applications that are consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B)
but in which all decision-making authority is exercised both by staff,
pursuant to this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, and by the ADB. The
ADB shall act in the place of the staff for these types of applications.
2. The ADB shall review proposed developments at public meetings
without a public hearing and make recommendations to the hearing
examiner to approve, conditionally approve, or deny proposals for
developments that, although consolidated as set forth in ECDC
20.01.002(B), are not subject to a public hearing by the ADB under
subsection (A)(1) of this section. The hearing examiner shall subsequently
hold a public hearing on the proposal.
3. The ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing
examiner under subsection (A)(2) of this section shall approve,
conditionally approve, or deny the proposal. The ADB or hearing
examiner may continue its public hearing on the proposal to allow changes
to the proposal, or to obtain information needed to properly review the
proposal. See ECC 3.13.090 regarding exemptions from review required
by this chapter.
4. Notwithstanding any contrary requirement, for a development in
which the city is the applicant, the action of the ADB under subsection
(A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of
this section shall be a recommendation to the city council.
B. Notice. Public notice by mail, posting or newspaper publication shall
only be required for applications that are subject to environmental review
Packet Page 154 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
14
under Chapter 43.21C RCW, in which case notice of the hearing shall be
provided in accordance with Chapter 20.03 ECDC.
Section 40. Amended. Section 20.11.040, Appeals., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.11.040 Appeals.
All design review decisions of the hearing examiner or the ADB are
appealable to the city council as provided in Chapter 20.07 ECDC.
Section 41. Amended. Subsection 20.11.050(B)(3) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension
shall be reviewed by the planning official as a Type I decision (Staff
decision – No notice required).
Section 42. Amended. Section 20.12.010, Applicability., of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.12.010 Applicability.
The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed
developments that require a threshold determination under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC
20.12.020, below. All other developments may be approved by staff as a
Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030, below.
When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the
application shall be processed as a Type III-B decision.
Section 43. Amended. Subsection 20.12.020(A) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Public hearing – Phase 1. Phase 1 of the public hearing shall be
scheduled with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) as a public
meeting. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the
requirements of ECDC 20.03.004. This notice may be combined with the
formal Notice of Application required under ECDC 20.03.002, as
appropriate.
Packet Page 155 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
15
Section 44. Amended. Subsection 20.12.020(B)(3) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3. Phase 2 of the public hearing shall be conducted by the ADB as a
continuation the Phase 1 public hearing. Notice of the meeting shall be
provided according to the requirements of Chapter 20.03 ECDC. During
Phase 2 of the public hearing, the ADB shall review the application and
identify any conditions that the proposal must meet prior to the issuance of
any permit or approval by the city. When conducting this review, the ADB
shall enter the following findings prior to issuing its decision on the
proposal:
Section 45. Amended. Section 20.12.080, Appeals., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.12.080 Appeals.
A. Design review decisions by the ADB pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020.B
are appealable to the city council as provided in Chapter 20.07 ECDC.
These are the only decisions by the ADB that are appealable.
B. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable to
the city council as provided in Chapter 20.07 ECDC.
C. Design review decisions by staff under the provisions of ECDC
20.12.030 are only appealable to the extent that the applicable building
permit or development approval is an appealable decision under the
provisions of the ECDC. Design review by staff is not in itself an
appealable decision.
Section 46. Amended. Subsection 20.12.090(B)(3) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension
shall be reviewed by the planning official as a Type I decision (Staff
Decision – No Notice Required).
Section 47. Amended. Subsection 20.15A.240(D) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
D. Appeals shall be governed by the procedures specified in Chapter
20.06 ECDC.
Packet Page 156 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
16
Section 48. Amended. Section 20.16.110, Reconsideration and appeal., of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.16.110 Reconsideration and appeal.
Reconsideration of the hearing examiner's ruling shall be governed by
ECDC 20.06.010. Appeal of the hearing examiner's ruling shall be
governed by Chapter 20.07 ECDC.
Section 49. Amended. Subsection 20.16.130(C) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Building permits for an EPF which fail to comply with the conditions
of approval shall be suspended and a report made to the director. The
director shall institute a proceeding before the hearing examiner to permit
the EPF's sponsor a hearing at which to show cause why its conditional
use permit should not be revoked or further conditioned. Such hearing
shall be conducted as if it were a Type III-A decision in accordance with
Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
Section 50. Amended. Section 20.19.010, Conditional use permit required., of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.19.010 Conditional use permit required.
When a conditional use permit is required by the provisions of Title 16
ECDC relating to the zoning districts, conditional use permit applications
for operation of a mini day-care shall be processed as a Type II decision
(Staff Decision – Notice Required) utilizing the criteria set forth in this
chapter. In addition to the specific criteria set forth herein, the staff and
hearing examiner on appeal shall also review the application under the
criteria and required findings set forth in Chapter 20.05 ECDC relating to
conditional use permits in order to establish that the proposed facility is
not deleterious to the immediately surrounding neighborhood nor
constitutes a public nuisance. The director of community services or
designee, or the hearing examiner on appeal, may impose reasonable
conditions on the approval of the conditional use permit for mini day-care
facilities in order to ensure that the criteria of ECDC 20.19.020 are met
and that the facility is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood.
The hearing examiner’s decision on appeal shall be final.
Packet Page 157 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
17
Section 51. Amended. Section 20.19.050, Conditional use permit required., of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.19.050 Appeal.
Appeals may be taken from staff decision to the hearing examiner under
the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. An appellant may challenge the
imposition of conditions or may elect to challenge a later determination as
to whether those conditions have been met. The hearing examiner’s
decision on appeal shall be final.
Section 52. Amended. Subsection 20.20.010(B) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. A home occupation which does not meet one or more of the
requirements of subsection A of this section may be approved as a
conditional use permit (Type III-A decision) pursuant to Chapter 20.05
ECDC and the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC, if the home
occupation:
Section 53. Amended. Subsection 20.21.030(A) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Permit Required. Any person who occupies or permits another person
to occupy an attached accessory dwelling unit as a place of residence shall
first obtain a permit. The permit shall be reviewed and processed as a
Type II decision (Staff decision – Notice required).
Section 54. Amended. Section 20.30.010, Application., of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.30.010 Application.
In addition to the information required by ECDC 20.02.002, the applicant
shall provide the written consent of all owners of the affected land.
Section 55. Amended. Section 20.30.020, Review., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.30.020 Review.
Packet Page 158 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
18
The community development director shall review applications for joint
use of parking as a Type II decision (Staff decision – Notice required)
using the criteria of this chapter as a basis for review.
Section 56. Amended. Section 20.40.030, Notice., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.40.030 Notice.
Notice of rezone hearings (and text change) before the planning board
shall be the same as set forth for proposed amendments to the
comprehensive plan in ECDC 20.00.020 for newspaper publication, and
pursuant to ECDC 20.03.004.
Section 57. Amended. Section 23.40.200, Appeals., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.40.200 Appeals.
Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or
other activity based on the requirements of this title may be appealed
according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for the permit or
approval involved.
Section 58. Amended. Subsection 23.40.210(C) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Hearing Examiner Review. The city hearing examiner shall review
variance applications as Type III-A decisions and conduct a public hearing
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. The hearing examiner
shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny variance applications
based on a proposal's ability to comply with general and specific variance
criteria provided in subsections (A) and (B) of this section.
Section 59. Amended. Subsection 23.40.210(E) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
E. Time Limit. The director shall prescribe a time limit within which the
action for which the variance is required shall be begun, completed, or
both. Failure to begin or complete such action within the established time
limit shall void the variance, unless the applicant files an application for
an extension of time before the expiration. An application for an extension
Packet Page 159 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
19
of time shall be reviewed by the director as a Type II decision (Staff
decision – Notice required).
Section 60. Amended. Section 20.55.010, Application requirements., of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.55.010 Application requirements.
In addition to the material required in ECDC 20.02.002, the application
shall contain all material required by WAC 173-14-110, or as the same
may be amended.
Section 61. Amended. Section 20.55.020, Notice., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.55.020 Notice.
A. Publication. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 20.03 ECDC,
notice shall be given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation
in Edmonds at least once a week on the same day of the week for two
consecutive weeks. Except as provided hereafter in ECDC 20.55.025, the
last day of publication shall be at least 30 days before the first public
hearing on the permit.
B. Contents. Except as provided hereafter in ECDC 20.55.025, and in
addition to the requirements of Chapter 20.03 ECDC, the notice of the
hearing examiner shall state that before the first pubic hearing, any person
may request a copy of the final action on the permit. The notice shall also
contain all information required by WAC 173-14-070, or as the same may
be amended.
Section 62. Amended. Section 20.55.030, Review., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.55.030 Review.
The hearing examiner shall review and issue decisions on shoreline
permits as a Type III-A decision, using the criteria contained in the city
shoreline master program, Chapter 15.35 ECDC, the policies of the
Shoreline Act and of Chapter 173-14 WAC, or master program shall be
reviewed using the additional criteria contained in the shoreline master
program, ECDC 15.39.030, and the criteria of WAC 173-14-150, or as the
same may be amended.
Packet Page 160 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
20
Section 63. Amended. Subsection 20.60.015(A) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Staff Approval. Except as referred to the architectural design board
pursuant to subsections (A)(1) of this section, and except as provided in
subsection B of this section, the planning manager, or designee, shall
review all applications for design review under this chapter, and shall
approve, conditionally approve or deny the application in accordance with
the policies of ECDC 20.10.000, the criteria set forth in ECDC 20.10.070,
and the standards and requirements of this chapter. The decision of the
planning manager on any sign permit application may be appealed to the
hearing examiner pursuant to the procedure established in Chapter 20.06
ECDC for appeal of Type II staff decisions.
Section 64. Amended. Section 20.65.010, Review., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.65.010 Review.
The Planning Board shall review proposed changes to the official street
map as a Type V decision, using as the basis for its review and
recommendation the purposes of the comprehensive plan as stated in
Chapter 15.05 ECDC, and the purposes of the Comprehensive Street Plan,
as stated in Chapter 15.40 ECDC, and the purposes of the official street
map, as stated in Chapter 18.50 ECDC.
Section 65. Amended. Section 20.75.040, Application., of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.75.040 Application.
Applications for subdivisions shall be made to the community
development director on forms provided by the community development
department. A subdivision application will be processed concurrently with
any applications for rezones, variances, planned unit developments, site
plan approvals and other similar approvals, that relate to the proposed
subdivision, unless the applicant expressly requests sequential processing.
The application shall contain the following items in addition to those
specified in ECDC 20.02.002:
A. A reproducible copy of the preliminary plat and the number of prints
required by the community development department;
Packet Page 161 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
21
B. Title report;
C. A survey map, if required by the community development director, of
the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and
bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in
the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary
ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option;
D. The application fee as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC;
E. A proposal for dedication of park land rather than payment of “in-lieu”
fees, if desired by the applicant;
F. Source of water supply and name of supplier;
G. Method of sewage disposal, and name of municipal system if
applicable. Percolation rates and other information required by the public
works department shall be submitted if septic tanks are to be used;
H. Other information that may be required by the community
development director in order to properly review the proposed
subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental
impact of the proposal.
Section 66. Amended. Subsection 20.75.050(G) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
G. Review. A certified determination of the planning manager or his/her
designee may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision as
set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
Section 67. Amended. Subsection 20.75.055(D) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
D. The director's decision shall be issued in writing and shall be mailed to
all properties within 300 feet of the site. Appeal may be taken from the
director's decision within 10 working days of mailing of the decision and
posting thereof in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
Section 68. Amended. Section 20.75.065, Preliminary review., of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Packet Page 162 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
22
20.75.065 Preliminary review.
A. Responsibility for Review. The community development director, or a
designated planning staff member, is in charge of administering the
preliminary review of all subdivisions. The public works director and the
fire department, and other departments if needed, shall participate in
preliminary review by appropriate recommendations on subjects within
their respective areas of expertise.
B. Notice of Hearing.
1. When the director of community services has accepted a subdivision
for filing, he shall set a date of hearing, and give notice of the hearing as
provided in ECDC 20.03.004, and by the following for a formal
subdivision:
a. One publication in a newspaper of general circulation within
Snohomish County pursuant to Chapter 1.03 ECC and posting notice in
three conspicuous places within 300 feet of any portion of the boundary of
the proposed formal subdivision not less than 10 days prior to the hearing.
b. Mailing to a city if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent or within
one mile of the city's boundary, or the proposed subdivision would use the
utilities of the city.
c. Mailing to the county if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to
the city-county boundary.
d. Mailing to the State Department of Highways if a proposed formal
subdivision is adjacent to a state highway right-of-way.
e. The notice must include a legal description and either a vicinity
location sketch or a location description in nonlegal language.
C. Time Limits for Staff Review. Staff review shall be completed within
20 working days from the date of filing.
D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall review a
formal subdivision as a Type III-A decision in accordance with provisions
of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
E. Short Subdivisions – Staff Review. The director of community
services shall review a short subdivision as a Type II decision (Staff
Decision – Notice Required).
F. Appeal of Staff Decision. Any person may appeal to the hearing
Packet Page 163 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
23
examiner a Type II decision of the community development director on a
short subdivision under the procedure set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
Section 69. Amended. Subsection 20.75.110(A) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Preliminary Plats. The community development director may approve
as a Type II decision (Staff Decision – Notice Required), minor changes to
an approved preliminary plat, or its conditions of approval. If the proposal
involves additional lots, rearrangements of lots or roads, additional
impacts to surrounding property, or other major changes, the proposal
shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original application.
Application fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
Section 70. Amended. Subsection 20.75.155(C) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Staff Review. The director of public works and the community
development director shall review the final plat of a formal subdivision.
They shall then forward the final plat to the city council for a Type IV-A
decision after having signed the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140
or attaching their recommendation for disapproval.
Section 71. Amended. Section 20.75.158, Short plat - Staff review., of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.75.158 Short plat – Staff review.
The community services director, through his/her designees, the director
of public works and the community development director shall conduct an
administrative review of a proposed short subdivision and either sign the
statements required by ECDC 20.75.140, if all requirements of this
chapter have been met, or disapprove such action, stating their reasons in
writing. Such administrative action shall be final subject only to right of
appeal to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision under Chapter 20.06
ECDC. Dedication of any interest in property contained in an approval of
the short subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for formal
acceptance on its consent agent; provided, however, that such acceptance
shall not stay any approval, time period for appeal or the effective date of
the short subdivision.
Packet Page 164 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
24
Section 72. Amended. Section 20.80.020, Zoning and planning changes., of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.80.020 Zoning and planning changes.
A. Review. Amendments to the following text materials (and where
applicable maps, and other incorporated codes or codifications within
them) before amendment by the city council shall first be reviewed by the
planning advisory board as a Type V decision using the purposes and
criteria set forth in the applicable chapters as the basis for its review and
recommendations:
1. Title 15 ECDC, Comprehensive Plan, except application and permit
fees.
2. Title 16 ECDC, Zoning Districts.
3. Title 17 ECDC, General Zoning, Regulations.
4. Title 20 ECDC, Review Criteria and Procedure, excluding:
a. Chapter 20.15A ECDC, Environmental Review (SEPA);
b. Chapter 20.70 ECDC, Street Vacations.
5. Chapter 18.50 ECDC, Official Street Map.
B. Notice. See ECDC 20.03.004.
C. When the city council, in its discretion, deems it appropriate to adopt
pre-annexation zoning comparable to that in effect in Snohomish County
for a proposed annexation area, the procedural and notice requirements of
RCW 35A.14.340 shall control over the provisions of this chapter,
Chapter 20.03 ECDC and ECDC 20.02.004. In the event that the city
council determines it appropriate to zone property proposed for annexation
to the city in a category which is not comparable to zoning in effect in
Snohomish County, the provisions of this chapter, Chapter 20.03 ECDC
and ECDC 20.02.004 shall apply. Any change to pre-annexation zoning
proposed after annexation to the city shall also comply with the provisions
of this chapter, Chapter 20.03 ECDC and ECDC 20.02.004.
Section 73. Amended. Section 20.85.020, General requirements., of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Packet Page 165 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
25
20.85.020 General requirements.
A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review variances as Type III-A
decisions in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
B. Appeals. Appeals of hearing examiner decisions on variance shall be to
the Snohomish County Superior Court as provided in ECDC 20.07.006.
C. Time Limit. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner
within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and
be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of
time before the expiration and the city approves the application.
D. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension of
time shall be reviewed by the community development director as a Type
II decision (Staff Decision – Notice Required).
E. Location. A variance applies only to the property for which it has been
approved and may not be transferred to any other property.
Section 74. Amended. Section 23.40.200, Appeals., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23.40.200 Appeals.
Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or
other activity based on the requirements of this title may be appealed
according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for the permit or
approval involved.
Section 75. Amended. Subsection 23.40.210(C) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Hearing Examiner Review. The city hearing examiner shall, as a Type
III-A decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC), review variance applications
and conduct a public hearing. The hearing examiner shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny variance applications based on a
proposal's ability to comply with general and specific variance criteria
provided in subsections (A) and (B) of this section.
Section 76. Amended. Subsection 23.40.210(E) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
E. Time Limit. The director shall prescribe a time limit within which the
Packet Page 166 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/}
26
action for which the variance is required shall be begun, completed, or
both. Failure to begin or complete such action within the established time
limit shall void the variance, unless the applicant files an application for
an extension of time before the expiration. An application for an extension
of time shall be reviewed by the director as a Type II decision (see
Chapter 20.01 ECDC).
Section 77. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 78. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 167 of 248
{BFP724406.DOC;2/00006.900150/} 27
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, the City Council of the City of
Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said
ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING
NEW CHAPTERS AND REPEALING CERTAIN CHAPTERS IN TITLE 20 ECDC
RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING LAND USE DEVELOPMENT
PERMITS; AMENDING VARIOUS ECDC SECTIONS THAT REFERENCE
SECTIONS IN REPEALED CHAPTERS IN TITLE 20 ECDC; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2009.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 168 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
1
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 20.01
TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Sections:
20.01.001 Procedures for processing development project permits.
20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type.
20.01.003 Development project permit application framework.
20.01.004 Joint public hearings.
20.01.005 Decisions.
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted.
20.01.007 Exemptions from development project permit application processing.
20.01.001 Procedures for processing development project permits.
A. For the purpose of development project permit processing, all development
project permit applications shall be classified as one of the following as addressed and
referenced in Chapter 20.02 ECDCECDC 20.01.003: Type I, Type II, Type III or Type
IV. Legislative decisions are Type V actions, and are addressed in ECDC 20.01.005.
Exclusions from the requirements of development project permit application processing
are contained in ECDC 20.01.003(B).
B. Unless otherwise specified, all references to days shall be calendar days.
Whenever the last day of a deadline shall falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday
designated by RCW 1.16.050, the deadline shall run until the next day that is not a
Saturday, Sunday or holiday.
20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type.
A. Determination by Director. The Development Services Director or his/her
designee (hereinafter the “director”) shall determine the proper procedure for all
development project applications. Questions concerning the appropriate procedure shall
be resolved in favor of the higher numbered procedure.
B. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves two or
more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered procedure
required for any part of the application or may be processed individually under each of
the application procedures identified in ECDC 20.01.003. The applicant may determine
whether the application will be processed collectively or individually. If the applications
are processed individually, the highest numbered type procedure shall be undertaken first,
followed by the other procedures in sequence from the highest numbered to the lowest.
C. Decisionmaker(s). Applications processed in accordance with subsection B of this
section which have the same procedure number, but are assigned to different hearing
bodies, shall be heard collectively by the highest decisionmaker; the city council being
Packet Page 169 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
2
the highest body, followed by the hearing examiner or Planning Board, as applicable, and
then the director. Joint public hearings with other agencies shall be processed according
to ECDC 20.01.004. Concurrent public hearings held with the design review board and
any other decisionmaker shall proceed with both decisionmakers present.
20.01.003 Development project permit application framework.
A. Decisions.
TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III-A TYPE III-B TYPE IV-A Type IV-B TYPE V
Statement of
zoning
restriction
Modification
to landscape
plans
Plat vacations
and
alterations
Essential
Public
Facilities
Final plats Site specific /
contract
rezone
Development
agreements
Boundary
line
adjustments,
lot line
adjustment,
lot
combination
Formal
interpretation
of the text of
the ECDC by
the Director or
designated
staff
Shoreline
substantial
development,
shoreline
variance
Architectural
Design
review
Final
Planned
Residential
Development
Zoning text
amendments;
area-wide
zoning map
amendments
Permitted
uses not
requiring site
plan review
Home
occupation
permit
Preliminary
Planned
Residential
Development
Comprehensive
plan
amendments
Special use
permits
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Conditional
use
Annexations
Minor
amendments
to Planned
Residential
Development
Draft
environmental
impact
statement /
SEPA
determinations
General
variances,
and sign
permit
variances,
Development
regulations
Minor
Preliminary
Plat
amendment
Revisions to
shoreline
management
permits
Site
plan/major
amendments
to site plans
Master Plan
Minor design
review
Administrative
variances
Preliminary
plats
Sign permits Short plat
Land clearing/
grading
B. The following permits or approvals are specifically excluded from the procedures
set forth in this Title: Landmark landmark designations, building permits, street
Packet Page 170 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
3
vacations, street use permits, encroachment permits, and other public works permits
issued under Title 18.
C. Action Type.
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT
APPLICATIONS
(TYPE I – IV) LEGISLATIVE
TYPE
I
TYPE
II
TYPE
III-A
TYPE
III-B
TYPE
IV-A
TYPE
IV-B
TYPE
V
Recommendation
by:
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planning Board Planning Board
Final decision
by:
Director Director Hearing
examiner
Hearing
examiner
/ ADB
City
council
City
council
City
council
Notice of
application:
No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Open record
public hearing or
open record
appeal of a final
decision:
No Only if
appealed,
open
record
hearing
before
hearing
examiner
Yes,
before
hearing
examiner
to render
final
decision
Yes,
before
hearing
examiner
or board
to render
final
decision
No Yes, before
Planning Board
which makes
recommendation
to council
Yes, before
Planning Board
which makes
recommendation
to council
Closed record
review:
No No No Yes,
before
the
council
No Yes,
before
the
council
Yes, or council
could hold its
own hearing
Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
20.01.004 Joint public hearings.
A. Administrator’s Decision to Hold Joint Hearing. The director may combine any
public hearing on a development project permit application with any hearing that may be
held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, on the proposed action, as
long as: (1) the hearing is held within the city limits; and (2) the requirements of
subsection C of this section are met.
B. Applicant’s Request for a Joint Hearing. The applicant may request that the public
hearing on a permit application be combined as long as the joint hearing can be held
within the time periods set forth in this title. In the alternative, the applicant may agree to
a particular schedule if that additional time is needed in order to complete the hearings.
Packet Page 171 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
4
C. Prerequisites to Joint Public Hearing. A joint public hearing may be held with
another local, state, regional, federal or other agency and the city, when:
1. The other agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so;
2. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencies’
adopted notice requirements as set forth in statutes, ordinances, or rules;
3. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed
project from the applicant in enough time to hold its hearing at the same time as the city
hearing; or
4. The hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the city.
20.01.005 Decisions.
A. Administrative Decisions. Type I and II decisions are administrative.
Administrative decisions are made by the Director. Unless otherwise provided, appeals
of Type II decisions shall be initiated as set forth in ECDC 20.07.004.
B. Quasi-judicial Decisions. Type III, Type IV and appeal of Type II decisions are
quasi-judicial. Quasi-judicial decisions are made by the Hearing Examiner and/or the
city council.
C. Legislative Decision. Type V decisions are legislative. Legislative decisions are
made by the city council.
1. Planning Board. The Planning Board shall hold a public hearing and make
recommendations to the city council on Type V actions, except that the city council may
hold a public hearing itself on area-wide rezones to implement city policies, and zoning
code text, development regulations and zoning map amendments. The public hearing
shall be held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC, RCW
36.70A.035 and all other applicable law.
2. City Council. The city council may consider the Planning Board’s
recommendation in a public hearing held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter
20.06 ECDC and RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law. If the city council
desires to hold a public hearing on area-wide rezones to implement city policies, and
zoning code text, development regulations and zoning map amendments, it may do so
without forwarding the proposed decision to the Planning Board for a hearing.
3. Public Notice. Notice of the public hearing or public meeting shall be
provided to the public as set forth in ECDC 20.03.004.
4. Implementation. City council decision shall be by ordinance or resolution
and shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance or resolution.
Packet Page 172 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
5
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted.
Nothing in this chapter or the permit processing procedures shall limit the authority of the
city council to make changes to the city’s comprehensive plan, or the city’s development
regulations as part of the annual revision process.
20.01.007 Exemptions from development project permit application processing.
A Whenever a permit or approval in the Edmonds Community Development Code
has been designated as a Type I, II, III or IV permit, the procedures in this title shall be
followed in development project permit processing, except as provided in ECDC
20.01.003(B).
B. Pursuant RCW 36.70B.140(2), lot line or boundary adjustments, building and or
other construction permits, or similar administrative approvals categorically exempt from
environmental review under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW and the city’s
SEPA/environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC), or permits/approvals for
which environmental review has been completed in connection with other development
project permits, are excluded from the following procedures:
1. Notice of application (ECDC 20.02.004) unless an open record hearing is
allowed on the development project permit decision;
2. Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.140, optional consolidated
development project permit review processing (ECDC 20.01.002(B));
3. Joint public hearings (ECDC 20.01.004);
4. Single report stating all of the decisions and recommendations made as of
the date of the report that do not require an open public record hearing (ECDC
20.06.002(C)); and
5. Notice of decision (ECDC 20.06.008009).
Packet Page 173 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
6
Chapter 20.02
TYPE I – IV DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Sections:
20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference.
20.02.002 Development project permit application.
20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application.
20.02.004 Notice of application.
20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications.
20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference.
A. Prior to filing applications for development project permit Type III actions
requiring a preliminary plat or site plan review and Type IV actions, the applicant may
request a preapplication conference. The purpose of the preapplication conference is to
merely acquaint the applicant with the requirements of the Edmonds Community
Development Code. Applicant shall be responsible for verifying the accuracy of
information provided by the city at the conference.
B. The conference shall be held within 28 days of the request, upon payment of
applicable fee(s) as set forth in the city’s adopted fee resolution.
C. The director shall provide the applicant with the following during the conference:
1 A form which lists the requirements for a completed application;
2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the
application;
3. The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards
which may apply to approval of the application; and
4. The city’s design guidelines.
D. Neither the discussions at the conference nor the information on the form
provided by the director to the applicant under ECDC 20.02.001(C) shall bind the city in
any manner or prevent the city’s future application or enforcement of all applicable
codes, ordinances and regulations.
E. Requests for preapplication conferences for all other types of applications will be
considered on a time-available basis by the director.
20.02.002 Development project permit application.
Packet Page 174 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
7
Applications for development project permits shall be submitted on forms provided by
the director. An application shall consist of all materials required by the applicable
development regulations, and shall include the following general information as
applicable:
A. A completed development project permit application form;
B. A verified statement by the applicant that the property affected by the application
is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant, or that the applicant has submitted the
application with the consent of all owners of the affected property;
C. A property and/or legal description of the site for all applications, as required by
the applicable development regulations;
D. The applicable fee; and
E. Statement addressing all applicable standards, requirements and criteria in the
development regulations.
20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application.
A. Determination of Completeness. Within 28 days after receiving a development
project permit application, the city shall mail or personally deliver to the applicant a
determination which states either:
1. That the application is complete; or
2. That the application is incomplete and what is necessary to make the
application complete.
B. Identification of Other Agencies with Jurisdiction. To the extent known by the
city, other agencies with jurisdiction over the project shall be identified in the
determination of completeness.
C. Additional Information. A development project permit application is complete for
the purposes of this section when it meets the submission requirements of ECDC
20.02.002 and the submission requirements of the applicable development regulations.
The determination of completeness shall be made when the application is sufficiently
complete for review, even though additional information may be required or project
modifications may be undertaken subsequently. The director’s determination of
completeness shall not preclude the director’s ability to request additional information or
studies whenever new information is required, or substantial changes are made to the
proposed project.
D. Incomplete Applications.
Packet Page 175 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
8
1. Whenever the applicant receives a determination from the city pursuant to
ECDC 20.02.003(A)(2) that the development project permit application is incomplete,
the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary information. Within 14 days
after an applicant has submitted the requested additional information, the director shall
make a determination of completeness and notify the applicant in the manner provided in
subsection A of this section.
2. Whenever the applicant receives a notice that the contents of the
application, which had been previously determined under ECDC 20.02.003(A)(1) to be
complete, is insufficient, ambiguous, undecipherable, or otherwise unresponsive of the
information being sought, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary
information.
3. If the applicant does not submit the additional information requested
within the 90-day period, for the development project permit, the director shall make
findings and issue a decision, according to the Type I procedure, that the application has
lapsed for lack of information necessary to complete the review. The decision shall state
that no further action will be taken on the applications, and that if the applicant does not
make arrangements to pick up the application materials from the planning and/or public
works/engineering departments within 30 days from the date of the decision, the
application materials will be destroyed.
4. When the director determines that an application has lapsed because the
applicant has failed to submit required information within the necessary time period, the
applicant may request a refund of the application fee remaining after the city’s
determination of completeness.
E. Director’s Failure to Provide Determination of Completeness. A development
project permit application shall be deemed complete under this section if the director
does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is
incomplete as provided in subsection A of this section.
F Date of Acceptance of Application. Development project permit applications shall
not be officially accepted until complete. When an application is found complete, the
director shall note the date of acceptance for continued processing.
G. After acceptance, the city shall begin processing the applications. Under no
circumstances shall the city place any applications on “hold” to be processed at some
later date, even if the request for the “hold” is made by the applicant, and regardless of
the requested length of the “holding” period. This subsection does not apply to
applications placed on “hold” upon determination by the city that the application requires
additional information for a decision.
20.02.004 Notice of application.
Packet Page 176 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
9
A. Generally. A notice of application shall be provided to the public, all city
departments and agencies with jurisdiction of all Type II, III and IV development project
permit applications in accordance with Chapter 20.03 ECDC.
B. Issuance of Notice of Application.
1. Within 14 days after the city has made a determination of completeness
pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003, a notice of application shall be issued.
2. If any open record predecision hearing is required for the requested
development project permit(s), the notice of application shall be provided at least 15 days
prior to the open record hearing.
C. Contents. The notice of application shall include:
1. The date of submission of the initial application, the date of the notice of
completion and acceptance of the application, and the date of the notice of application;
2. A description of the proposed project and a list of the development project
permits requested in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested
under Chapter 36.70B RCW;
3. A description of other required permits not included in the application, to
the extent known by the city at that time;
4. A description of existing environmental documents that evaluate the
proposed project, and, if not otherwise stated on the document providing notice of
application, the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed;
5. A statement setting forth: (a) the time for the public comment period,
which shall be not less than 14 nor more than 30 days following the date of notice of
application; (b) the right of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of
and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application; and
(c) any appeal rights;
6. The date, time, place and type of hearing, if a hearing has been scheduled
when the date of notice of application is issued;
7. Any other information determined appropriate by the director such as the
director’s threshold determination, if complete at the time of issuance of the notice of
application.
D. Public Comment on the Notice of Application. All public comments in response
to the notice of application must be received by the city’s development services
department by 4:00 PM on the last day of the comment period. Comments in response to
the notice of application received after the comment period has expired will not be
Packet Page 177 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
10
accepted no matter when they were mailed or postmarked. Comments shall be mailed or
personally delivered. Comments should be as specific as possible.
E. SEPA Exempt Projects. A notice of application shall not be required for
development project permits that are categorically exempt under SEPA, unless a public
comment period or an open record predecision hearing is required.
20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications.
Within 10 days of accepting a complete application, the director shall transmit a copy of
the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to each affected government
agency and city department for review and comment, including those responsible for
determining compliance with state and federal requirements. The affected agencies and
city departments shall have 15 days to comment on the application. The agency or city
department is presumed to have no comments if comments are not received within the
15-day period. The director shall grant an extension of time only if the application
involves unusual circumstances. Extensions shall be for a maximum of five working
days.
Packet Page 178 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
11
Chapter 20.03
PUBLIC NOTICE
Sections:
20.03.001 Responsibility for providing public notice.
20.03.002 Public notice of application.
20.03.003 Optional public notice.
20.03.004 Notice of public hearing.
20.03.001 Responsibility for providing public notice.
A. Except where an action is initiated by the city, the applicant for a development
project permit application shall be responsible for all posting, publishing, mailing and
other notification required by the director.
1. No later than 14 days after the required date of posting, publishing
and/or mailing, the applicant shall provide to the director an affidavit attesting that each
required method of notification was carried out in conformance with the regulations in
this and other applicable chapters. For required mail notice, the applicant shall submit a
U.S. Postal Service Certificate of Mailing containing the names and addresses of all
parties provided public notice.
2. If the affidavit and U.S. Postal Service Certificate of Mailing is not
filed as required, any scheduled hearing or date by which the public may comment on an
application shall be postponed, if necessary, in order to allow compliance with the notice
requirements of this and other applicable chapters.
3. If the applicant fails to file the affidavit and U.S. Postal Service
Certificate of Mailing as herein required within 90 days of required date of posting,
publishing and/or mailing, the director shall make findings and issue a decision,
according to the Type I procedure, that the application has lapsed for lack of information
necessary to complete the review. The decision shall state that no further action will be
taken on the applications, and that if the applicant does not make arrangements to pick up
the application materials from the planning and/or public works/engineering departments
within 30 days from the date of the decision, the application materials will be destroyed.
B. The appellant of a development project permit decision shall be responsible for all
posting, publishing, mailing and other notification required by the director.
1. No later than 14 days after the required date of posting, publishing
and/or mailing, the appellant shall provide to the director an affidavit attesting that each
required method of notification was carried out in conformance with the regulations in
this and other applicable chapters. For required mail notice, the applicant shall submit a
U.S. Postal Service Certificate of Mailing containing the names and addresses of all
parties provided public notice.
Packet Page 179 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
12
2. When the responsibility of providing notice is on the appellant,
failure to timely or properly file affidavit of notice and certificate of mailing may be
grounds for the director to summarily dismiss the appeal.
20.03.002 Public notice of application.
Notice of application for Type II, Type III and Type IV development project permits
shall be provided by posting, publishing and mailing.
A. Posting. Posting of the property for site specific proposals shall consist of one or
more notice boards as follows:
1. A single notice board shall be placed by the applicant:
a. At the midpoint of the street fronting the site or as otherwise
directed by the director for maximum visibility;
b. Five feet inside the street property line, except when the board is
structurally attached to an existing building; provided, that no notice board shall be
placed more than five feet from the street without approval of the director;
c. So that the top of the notice board is between five to six feet above
grade; and
d. Where it is completely visible to pedestrians.
2. Additional notice boards may be required when:
a. The site does not abut a public road;
b. A large site abuts more than one public road; or
c. The director determines that additional notice boards are necessary
to provide adequate public notice.
3. Notice boards shall be:
a. Maintained in good condition by the applicant during the notice
period;
b. In place at least 30 days prior to the date of any hearing, and at
least 15 days prior to the end of any required comment period;
c. Removed within 15 days after the end of the notice period.
Packet Page 180 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
13
4. Removal of the notice board prior to the end of the notice period
shall be cause for discontinuance of the department review until the notice board is
replaced and remains in place for the specified time period.
5. Notice boards shall be constructed and installed in accordance with
specifications promulgated by the director. The format and content of the notice must be
pre-approved by the director, and contain at least the project location, description, type of
permit(s) required, comment period dates, and a location where the complete application
may be reviewed.
B. Published Notice. Notice of application shall be published in the city’s official
newspaper (or if one has not been designated, in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City). The format and content of the notice must be pre-approved by the
director, and contain at least the project location, description, type of permit(s) required,
comment period dates, and a location where the complete application may be reviewed.
C. Mailed Notice. Notice of application shall be mailed to the following: (1) owner
of the property involved if different from applicant; and (2) owners of real property, as
shown by the records of the county assessor, within 300 feet of the boundaries of the
property(ies) involved in the application. The format and content of the notice of
application must be pre-approved by the director, and contain at least the project location,
description, type of permit(s) required, comment period dates, and a location where the
complete application may be reviewed.
D. Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Permits.
1. Methods of Providing SMP Notice. Notice of the application of a
permit under the purview of the city’s shoreline master program (SMP) shall be given by
one or more of the following methods:
a. Mailing of the notice to real property owners as shown by the
records of the county assessor within 300 feet of the boundary of the property upon
which the proposed project is to be built;
b. Posting of the notice in a conspicuous manner, as determined by
the director, on the property upon which the project is to be constructed; or
c. Any other manner deemed appropriate by the director to
accomplish the objectives of reasonable notice to adjacent landowners and the public.
2. Content of SMP Notice. SMP notices shall include:
a. A statement that any person desiring to submit written comments
concerning an application, or desiring to receive notification of the final decision
concerning an application, may submit comments, or requests for the decision, to the
Packet Page 181 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
14
director within 30 days of the last date that notice is published pursuant to this
subsection;
b. A statement that any person may submit oral or written comments
at the hearing;
c. An explanation of the manner in which the public may obtain a
copy of the city’s decision on the application no later than two days after its issuance.
3. Public Comment Period. The public comment period shall be 30
days.
4. The director shall mail or otherwise deliver a copy of the decision
to each person who submits comments or a written request for the decisions.
20.03.003 Optional public notice. The director, in his or her sole discretion, may:
A. Notify the public or private groups with known interest in a proposal or type of
proposal;
B. Notify the news media;
C. Place notices in appropriate regional or neighborhood newspapers or trade
journals;
D. Publish notice in agency newsletters or send notice to agency mailing lists, either
general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas; and
E. Mail notice to additional neighboring property owners.
20.03.004 Notice of public hearing.
A. Applicants of Type III or Type V actions, and appellants of Type II actions shall
provide notice of public hearing by mailing, posting and publishing.
B. Content of Notice of Public Hearing for All Applications. The notice of a public
hearing required by this chapter shall contain:
1. The name and address of the applicant and the applicant’s representative;
2 A description of the subject property reasonably sufficient to inform the
public of its location, including but not limited to a vicinity location or written
description, a map or postal address, and a subdivision lot and block designation
(complete legal description not required);
3. The date, time and place of the hearing;
Packet Page 182 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
15
4. The nature of the proposed use or development;
5. A statement that all interested persons may appear and provide testimony;
6. The sections of the code that are pertinent to the hearing procedure;
7. A statement explaining when information may be examined, and when
and how written comments addressing findings required for a decision by the hearing
body may be admitted;
8. The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone number
where additional information may be obtained;
9. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence
relied upon by the applicant, and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost
and that copies will be provided at the requestor’s cost; and
10. A statement explaining that a copy of the staff report will be available for
inspection at no cost at least seven days prior to the hearing and that copies will be
provided at the requestor’s cost.
C. Mailed Notice. Mailed notice of the public hearing shall be provided as follows:
1. The notice of the public hearing shall be mailed to:
a. The applicant;
b. The owner of the subject property, if different from applicant;
c. All owners of real property, as shown by the records of the county
assessor, within 300 feet of the boundaries of the property(ies) involved in the
application; and
c. Any person who submits a public comments on an application;
2. Type III Preliminary Plat Actions. In addition to the above, requirements
for mailed notice of public hearing for preliminary plats and proposed subdivisions shall
also include the following:
a. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat adjacent to or within one
mile of the municipal boundaries of any city or town, or which contemplates the use of
any city or town utilities shall be given to the appropriate city or town authorities;
b. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision
adjoining the boundaries of Snohomish County shall be given to the appropriate county
officials;
Packet Page 183 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
16
c. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision
located adjacent to the right-of-way of a state highway or within two miles of the
boundary of a state or municipal airport shall be given to the secretary of transportation;
d. If the owner of the real property which is proposed to be
subdivided owns another parcel or parcels of real property which lie adjacent to the real
property proposed to be subdivided, notice under RCW 58.17.909090(1)(b) shall be
given to owners of real property located with 300 feet from any portion of the boundaries
of the adjacent parcels owned by the owner of the real property to be subdivided.
3. For a plat alteration or a plat vacation pursuant to Chapter 16.07 ECDC,
notice shall be as provided in RCW 58.17.080 and 58.17.090.
4. General Procedure for Mailed Notice of Public Hearing.
a. The records of the Snohomish County assessor’s office shall be
used for determining the property owner of record. Addresses for a mailed notice
required by this code shall be obtained from the applicable county’s real property tax
records. As required under ECDC 20.03.001, the applicant shall provide a sworn
certificate of mailing to all persons entitled to notice under this Chapter.
b. All mailed public notices shall be deemed to have been received on
the next business day following the day that the notice is deposited in the mail.
D. Procedure for Posted or Published Notice of Public Hearing.
1. Posted notice of the public hearing shall comply with requirements set
forth in ECDC 20.03.002(A).
2. Notice of public hearing shall be published in the city’s official newspaper
(or if one has not been designated, in a newspaper of general circulation within the City).
The format and content of the notice must be pre-approved by the director.
E. Time and Cost of Notice of Public Hearing.
1. Notice shall be mailed, posted and first published not less than 10 or more
than 30 days prior to the hearing date. Posted notices shall be removed by the applicant
within 15 days following the public hearing.
2. All costs associated with the public notice shall be borne by the applicant
of Type III and Type IV actions, or appellant of Type II actions.
Packet Page 184 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
17
Chapter 20.04
CONSISTENCY WITH
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SEPA
Sections:
20.04.001 Determination of consistency.
20.04.002 Initial SEPA analysis.
20.04.003 Categorically exempt and planned actions.
20.04.001 Determination of consistency.
A. Purpose. Consistency between a proposed development project permit
application, applicable regulations and comprehensive plan shall be determined through
the process described in this section.
B. Consistency. During development project permit application review, the director
shall determine whether the development regulations applicable to the proposed project,
or in the absence of applicable development regulations, the city’s comprehensive plan,
address the following:
1. The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be
allowed if the criteria for their approval have been satisfied;
2. The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential
development in urban growth areas, or other measures of density;
3. Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities identified
in the comprehensive plan; and
4. Whether the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these
facilities as required by Chapter 36.70A RCW.
C. Project Review. Project review by the director and appropriate city staff shall
identify specific project design and conditions relating to the character of development,
such as the details of site plans, curb cuts, drainage swales, the payment of impact fees, or
other measures to mitigate a proposal’s probable significant adverse environmental
impacts. During project review, neither the director nor any other city reviewing body
may re-examine alternatives or hear appeals on decided matters which have already been
found to be consistent with development regulations and/or the comprehensive plan,
except for issues of code interpretation.
20.04.002 Initial SEPA analysis.
A. In addition to the land use consistency review, the director shall review the
development project permit application for consistency with the State Environmental
Packet Page 185 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
18
Policy Act (“SEPA”), Chapter 43.21C RCW, the SEPA Rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC,
and the city environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC, and shall:
1. Determine whether applicable regulations require studies to adequately
analyze all of the proposed project’s specific probable adverse environmental impacts;
2. Determine whether applicable regulations require mitigation measures to
adequately address identified environmental impacts; and
3. Provide prompt and coordinated review by other government agencies and
the public on compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including
mitigation for specific project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the
plan or development regulation level.
B. In its review of a development project permit application, the director shall
determine whether the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and mitigation
measures in the applicable development regulations, comprehensive plan and/or in other
applicable local, state or federal laws provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the
specific adverse environmental impacts of the proposal.
C. If the director bases or conditions his or her approval of the development project
permit application on compliance with the requirements or mitigation measures described
in subsection A of this section, the city shall not impose additional mitigation under
SEPA during project review for the same adverse environmental impacts.
D. A comprehensive plan, development regulation or other applicable local, state or
federal law provides adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, the specific adverse
environmental impacts of a proposal when:
1. The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or
2. The city has designated in the plan, regulation or law that certain levels of
service, land use designations, development standards or other land use conditions
allowed by Chapter 36.70A RCW are acceptable.
E. In deciding whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been addressed
by an existing city plan or development regulation, or by the regulations or laws of
another government agency, the director shall consult orally or in writing with that
agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the director shall
base or condition any project approval on compliance with these other regulations.
F. Nothing in this section limits the authority of the director in reviewing or
mitigating the impacts of a proposed project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental
analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided by Chapter 43.21C RCW.
Packet Page 186 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
19
G. The director shall also review the application under Chapter 20.15A ECDC, the
city environmental policy ordinance; provided, that such review shall be coordinated with
the underlying permit application review.
20.04.003 Categorically exempt and planned actions.
A. Categorically Exempt. Actions categorically exempt under RCW
43.21C.110(1)(a) do not require environmental review or the preparation of an
environmental impact statement. An action that is categorically exempt under the rules
adopted by the Department of Ecology (Chapter 197-11 WAC) may not be conditioned
or denied under SEPA.
B. Planned Actions.
1. A planned action does not require a threshold determination or the
preparation of an environmental impact statement under SEPA, but is subject to
environmental review and mitigation under SEPA.
2. A “planned action” means one or more types of project action that:
a. Are designated planned actions by an ordinance or resolution
adopted by the city;
b. Have had the significant impacts adequately addressed in an
environmental impact statement prepared in conjunction with:
i. A comprehensive plan or subarea plan adopted under Chapter
36.70A RCW, or
ii. A fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master
planned development or a phased project;
c. Are subsequent or implementing projects for the proposals listed in
paragraph (2)(b) of this subsection;
d. Are located within an urban growth area, as defined in RCW
36.70A.030;
e. Are not essential public facilities, as defined in RCW 36.70A.200;
and
f. Are consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan adopted under
Chapter 36.70A RCW.
C. Limitations on Planned Actions. The city shall limit planned actions to certain
types of development or to specific geographical areas that are less extensive than the
Packet Page 187 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
20
jurisdictional boundaries of the city, and may limit a planned action to a time period
identified in the environmental impact statement or this title.
D. During project review, the city shall not re-examine alternatives to or hear appeals
on the items identified in ECDC 20.04.001(B), except for issues of code interpretation.
E. Project review shall be used to identify specific project design and conditions
relating to the character of development, such as the details of site plans, curb cuts,
drainage swales, the payment of impact fees, or other measures to mitigate a proposal’s
probable adverse environmental impacts.
Packet Page 188 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
21
Chapter 20.06
OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Sections:
20.06.001 General.
20.06.002 Responsibility of director for hearing.
20.06.003 Conflict of interest.
20.06.004 Ex parte communications.
20.06.005 Disqualification.
20.06.006 Burden and nature of proof.
20.06.007 Order of proceedings.
20.06.008 Decision.
20.06.009 Notice of final decision - Miscellaneous.
20.06.010 Reconsideration of decision.
20.06.001 General.
A. Open record public hearing, or simply public hearing, means a hearing conducted
by a single hearing body or officer authorized to conduct such hearings, that creates the
city’s record through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under
procedures prescribed in this Chapter. A public hearing may be held prior to the city’s
decision on a development project permit to be known as an "open record predecision
hearing." A public record hearing may be held on an appeal, to be known as an "open
record appeal hearing," if no open record predecision hearing has been held on the
development project permit.
B. Open record predecision hearings on all Type III and IV development project
permit applications and open record appeal hearings on all Type II decision appeals shall
be conducted in accordance with this chapter. Public hearings conducted by the city
hearing examiner shall also be subject to the hearing examiner’s rules.
C. Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated as set
forth in ECDC 20.07.004.
20.06.002 Responsibility of director for hearing.
The director shall:
A. Schedule project applications for review and public hearing;
B. Verify compliance with notice requirements;
C. Prepare the staff report on the application, which shall be a single report which
sets forth all of the decisions made on the proposal as of the date of the report, including
recommendations on development project permits in the consolidated permit process that
do not require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall also describe any
Packet Page 189 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
22
mitigation required or proposed under the city’s development regulations or SEPA
authority. If the threshold determination, other than a determination of significance, has
not been issued previously by the city, the report shall include or append this
determination.
D. Prepare the notice of decision, if required by the hearing body, and mail a copy of
the notice of decision to those entitled by this chapter to receive the decision.
20.06.003 Conflict of interest.
The hearing body shall be subject to the code of ethics, prohibitions on conflict of interest
and appearance of fairness doctrine as set forth in RCW 35A.42.020, Chapter 42.23
RCW, and Chapter 42.36 RCW as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended.
20.06.004 Ex parte communications.
A. No member of the hearing body may communicate, directly or indirectly,
regarding any issue in a proceeding before him or her, other than to participate in
communications regarding procedural aspects necessary for maintaining an orderly
process, unless he or she provides notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.
Nothing herein shall prevent the hearing body from seeking legal advice from its legal
counsel on any issue.
B. If, before serving as the hearing body in a quasi-judicial proceeding, any member
of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication of a type that could not properly
be received while serving, the member of the hearing body, promptly after starting to
serve, shall disclose the communication as described in ECDC 20.06.004(C).
C. If a member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication in violation
of this section, he or she shall place on the record:
1. All written communications received;
2. All written responses to the communications;
3. The substance of all oral communications received, and all responses
made; and
4. The identity of each person from whom the member received any ex parte
communication.
The hearing body shall advise all parties that these matters have been placed on the
record. Upon request made after notice of the ex parte communication, any party desiring
to rebut the communication shall be allowed to place a rebuttal statement on the record.
20.06.005 Disqualification.
Packet Page 190 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
23
A. Any member who is disqualified shall make full disclosure to the audience of the
reason(s) for the disqualification, abstain from voting on the proposal, and physically
leave the hearing.
B. If enough members of the hearing body are disqualified so that a quorum cannot
be achieved, then all members present, after stating their reasons for disqualification,
shall be requalified and deliberations shall proceed.
20.06.006 Burden and nature of proof.
A. Except for Type V actions, appeal of Type II actions and closed record appeals,
the burden of proof is on the proponent. The development project permit application must
be supported by convincing proof that it conforms to the applicable elements of the city’s
development regulations and comprehensive plan (review criteria). The proponent must
also prove that any significant adverse environmental impacts have been adequately
mitigated.
B. In an appeal of Type II actions or closed record appeal, the appellant has the
burden of proof with respect to points raised on appeal.
C. In a closed record appeal of the Architectural Design Board, its decision shall be
given substantial deference regarding decision review within its expertise and contained
in its decisions.
20.06.007 Order of proceedings.
The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the nature of the hearing.
The following shall be supplemented by administrative procedures as appropriate.
A. Before receiving testimony and other evidence on the issue, the following shall be
determined:
1. Any objections on jurisdictional grounds shall be noted on the record and
if there is objection, the hearing body may proceed or terminate the proceeding;
2. Any member disqualifications shall be determined.
B. The presiding officer may take official notice of commonly known and accepted
information, such as:
1. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, officially adopted development standards,
and state law;
2. Public records and facts judicially noticeable by law.
C. Information officially noticed need not be proved by submission of formal
evidence to be considered by the hearing body. Parties requesting official notice of any
Packet Page 191 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
24
information shall do so on the record. The hearing body, however, may take notice of
matters listed in subsection B of this section at any time. Any information given official
notice may be rebutted.
D. The hearing body may view the proposed project site or planning area with or
without notification to the parties, but shall put into the record a statement setting forth
the time, manner and circumstances of the site visit.
E. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and opponents.
The presiding officer may, in his or her discretion, permit persons attending the hearing
to ask questions. Unless the presiding officer specifies otherwise, approved questions will
be asked of persons submitting testimony by the presiding officer.
F. When the presiding officer has closed the public hearing portion of the hearing,
the hearing body may openly discuss the issue and may further question the staff or any
person submitting information. An opportunity to present rebuttal shall be provided if
new information is presented in the questioning. When all evidence has been presented
and all questioning and rebuttal completed, the presiding officer shall officially close the
record and end the hearing.
20.06.008 Decision.
A. Following the hearing procedure described in ECDC 20.06.007, the hearing body
shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. If the hearing is an appeal,
the hearing body shall affirm, reverse or, with the written consent of the applicant, which
shall include a waiver of the statutory prohibition against two open record hearings,
remand the decision for additional information.
B. The hearing body’s written decision shall issue within 10 working days after close
of record of the hearing and within 90 days of the opening of the hearing, unless a longer
period is agreed to by the parties.
C. The city shall provide a notice of decision as provided in ECDC 20.06.009.
D. If the city is unable to issue its final decision on a development project permit
application within the time limits provided for in this section, it shall provide written
notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons
why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of
decision.
20.06.009 Notice of final decision - Miscellaneous.
A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the issuance
of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the
time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall be 90
days, for a final plat 30 days, and a short plat 30 days. The notice shall include the SEPA
threshold determination for the proposal and a description of any available administrative
Packet Page 192 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
25
appeals. For Type II, III and IV development project permits, the notice shall contain the
requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affected property owners
may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any program of
revaluation.
1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the
applicant, to any person who submitted comments on the application or requested a copy
of the decision, and to the Snohomish County assessor.
2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means
deemed reasonable by the director.
B. In calculating the 120-day period for issuance of the notice of final decision, the
following periods shall be excluded:
1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the director
to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. The
period shall be calculated from the date the director notifies the applicant of the need for
additional information until the earlier of the date the director determines that the
additional information provided satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the
date the additional information is provided to the city;
2. If the director determines that the information submitted is insufficient, the
applicant shall be informed of the particular insufficiencies and the procedures set forth
in subsection (B)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion period shall apply;
3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is
being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time
period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by Chapter 20.15A;
4. Any period for consideration and issuance of a decision for administrative
appeals of development project permits, which shall be not more than 90 days for open
record appeals and 60 days for closed record appeals, unless a longer period is agreed to
by the director and the applicant;
5. Any extension of time mutually agreed to by the director and the applicant
in writing.
C. The time limits established in this title do not apply if a development project
permit application:
1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development
regulation;
2. Requires siting approval of an essential public facility as provided in
RCW 36.70A.200; or
Packet Page 193 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
26
3. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period
shall start from the date that a determination of completeness for the revised application
is issued by the director pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003 and RCW 36.70B.070.
20.06.010 Reconsideration of decision.
A. Generally. Any person identified in ECDC 20.07.003 as having standing to file an
administrative appeal may request reconsideration of a decision of the hearing examiner
which issues immediately after the open record public hearing on a development project
permit application described in this chapter. Reconsideration is not a condition precedent
to any appeal. Reconsideration shall be limited to:
1. error(s) of procedure;
2. error(s) of law or fact;
3. error(s) of judgment; and/or
4. the discovery of new evidence that was not known and could not in the
exercise of reasonable diligence, been discovered.
B. Time to File. A request for reconsideration, including reconsideration fee, must be
filed with the city planning director within 10 calendar days of the hearing examiner’s
written decision. Such requests shall be delivered to the director before 5:00 p.m. on the
last business day of the reconsideration period. Requests for reconsideration that are
received by mail after 5:00 p.m. on the last day of this reconsideration period will not be
accepted, no matter when such requests were sent, mailed or postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing a request
for reconsideration, the day the hearing examiner’s decision is issued shall not be
counted. If the last day of the appeal is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday designated by
RCW 1.16.050, or by a city ordinance, then the appeal may be filed on the next business
day.
D. Content of Request for Reconsideration. Requests for reconsideration shall be in
writing, be accompanied by the required reconsideration fee (which shall be the same as
the administrative appeal fee), and contain the following information:
1. The name, address and phone number of the requestor;
2. Identification of the application and final decision which is the subject of
the request for reconsideration;
3. Requestor’s statement of grounds for reconsideration and the facts upon
which the request is based;
4. The specific relief requested;
Packet Page 194 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
27
5. A statement that the requestor believes the contents of the request to be
true, followed by his/her signature.
E. Effect. The timely filing of a request for reconsideration shall stay the hearing
examiner’s decision until such time as the hearing examiner issues a decision on
reconsideration. Once a decision is rendered, the appeal period shall recommence at the
point at which the request for reconsideration was filed.
F. Notice of Request for Reconsideration. The requestor shall provide mailed notice
that a request for reconsideration has been filed to all parties of record as defined in
ECDC 20.07.003.
G. Hearing Examiner’s Action on Request. The hearing examiner shall consider the
request for reconsideration without a hearing, but may solicit written arguments from
parties of record. A decision on the request for reconsideration shall be issued within 10
business days after receipt of the request for reconsideration by the city.
1. The time period for appeal shall recommence and be the same for all
parties of record, regardless of whether a party filed a motion for reconsideration.
2. Only one request for reconsideration may be made by a party of record.
Any ground not stated in the initial motion is waived.
3. A decision on reconsideration or a matter that is remanded to the hearing
examiner by the City Council is not subject to a motion for reconsideration.
H. Limitations on Hearing Examiner’s Reconsideration. The hearing examiner shall
consider the request for reconsideration based on the administrative record compiled on
the application up to and including the date of the hearing examiner’s decision. The
hearing examiner may require or permit corrections of ministerial errors or inadvertent
omissions in the preparation of the record and the hearing examiner’s decision. The
reconsideration decision issued by the hearing examiner may modify, affirm or reverse
the hearing examiner’s decision.
I. Notice of Final Decision on Reconsideration. The director shall issue a notice of
final decision on reconsideration in the manner set forth and to the persons identified in
ECDC 20.06.009.
J. Further Appeals. If no administrative appeal is allowed of the hearing examiner’s
decision, and a request for reconsideration was timely filed, then any judicial appeal must
be filed within 21 days after issuance of the decision on reconsideration, as provided in
Chapter 36.70C RCW.
Packet Page 195 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
28
Chapter 20.07
CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Sections:
20.07.001 Appeals of decisions.
20.07.002 Consolidated appeals.
20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions.
20.07.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal.
20.07.006 Judicial appeals.
20.07.007 Resubmission of application.
20.07.001 Appeals of decisions.
A. "Closed record appeal" means an administrative appeal on the record to the city
council, following an open record public hearing on a development project permit
application when the appeal is on the record with no new evidence or information
allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC 20.07.005(B), and only appeal
argument allowed.
B. The right of appeal for all development project permit applications and Type V
land use decisions shall be as described in the matrix set forth in ECDC 20.01.003.
20.07.002 Consolidated appeals.
All appeals of development project permit application decisions, other than appeals of
determinations of significance (“DS”), and exempt permits and approvals under ECDC
20.01.007, shall be considered together in a consolidated appeal using the appeal
procedure for the highest type permit application.
20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
A. Limited to Parties of Record. Only parties of record may file an administrative
appeal.
B. Definition. The term “parties of record,” for the purposes of this chapter, shall
mean:
1 The applicant;
2. Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the
application;
3. Any person who individually submits written comments concerning the
application at the open record public hearing. Persons who have only signed petitions are
not parties of record; and/or
Packet Page 196 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
29
4. The city of Edmonds.
20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions.
A. Permit Decisions or Recommendations. Appeals of a hearing body’s
recommendation or decision on development project permit application shall be governed
by the following:
1A. Standing. Only parties of record have standing to appeal the hearing body’s
decision.
2B. Time to File. An appeal must be filed within 10 working days of the issuance of
the hearing body’s written decision. Appeals, including fees, must be received by the
city’s development services department by mail or by personal delivery at or before
12:00 PM on the last business day of the appeal period. Appeals received by mail after
12:00 PM on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when such
appeals were mailed or postmarked.
3C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an
appeal, the day the hearing body’s decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day
of the appeal is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city
ordinance, then the appeal may be filed on the next business day.
4D. Content of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by the required
appeal fee as set forth in the city’s adopted fee resolution, and contain the following
information:
a1. Appellant’s name, address and phone number;
b2. A statement describing appellant’s standing to appeal;
c3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal;
d4. Appellant’s statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the
appeal is based with specific references to the facts in the record;
e5. The specific relief sought;
f6. A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the
contents to be true, followed by the appellant’s signature.
5E. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the hearing body’s decision until
such time as the appeal is concluded or withdrawn.
6F. Notice of Appeal. The appellant shall provide mailed notice of the appeal to all
parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003.
Packet Page 197 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
30
20.07.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal.
A. Closed record appeals shall be on the record established at the open record
hearing before the hearing body/officer whose decision is appealed, which shall include
the written decision of the hearing body/officer, copies of any exhibits admitted into the
record, and official transcript, minutes or tape recording of the proceedings.
1. At his own expense, a party to the appeal may have the official tape
recording of the open record hearing transcribed; however, to be admitted into the record,
the transcription must be performed and certified by a transcriber that is pre-approved by
the City. In addition, the certified transcription must be received by the City directly
from the transcriber at least 16 working days before the date scheduled for the closed
record review. It shall be each party of record’s responsibility to obtain a copy of the
transcription from the City.
2. The director shall maintain a list of pre-approved transcribers that are
court approved; and if needed, shall coordinate with parties to the appeal so that no more
than one official transcription is admitted into the record.
B. No new testimony or other evidence will be accepted by the city council except:
(1) new information required to rebut the substance of any written or oral ex parte
communication provided during an appearance of fairness disclosure; and (2) relevant
information that, in the opinion of the city council, was improperly excluded by the
hearing body/officer.
1. Appellants who believe that information was improperly excluded must
specifically request in writing within 5 working days of the appeal deadline that the
information be made part of the record. The request shall be addressed to the city council
president, describing the information excluded, its relevance to the issues appealed, the
reason(s) that the information was excluded by the hearing body/officer, and the reason
why the hearing body/officer erred in excluding the information.
2. In determining whether the information should be admitted, the city
council president may request other parties of record to submit written arguments
rebutting the above. Non response by the city council president within 7 5 working days
of the initial request that the information be made part of the record shall constitute a
rejection of the same.
C. Parties to the appeal may present written arguments to the city council. Argument
shall describe the particular errors committed by the decision maker below, with specific
references to the administrative record. The appellant shall bear the burden to
demonstrate that the decision below is clearly erroneous given the record.
D. Appellant may submit his or her written arguments 12 working days before the
date scheduled for the closed record review. Parties of record, except for the appellant,
may respond in writing to appellant’s arguments no later than 7 working days before the
Packet Page 198 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
31
closed record review. Appellant may rebut in writing to responses submitted by parties
of record no later than 4 working days before the closed record review. If the applicant is
not the appellant, applicant may submit a final surrebuttal in writing to appellant’s
rebuttal no later than 2 working days before the closed record review.
E. Written arguments, responses, rebuttal and surrebuttals must be received by the
city’s development services department by mail or personal delivery at or before 12:00
PM of the date due. Late submittals shall not be accepted. Submittals received by mail
after 12:00 PM on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when
such submittals were mailed or postmarked. It shall be the responsibility of the parties
involved to obtain for their own use from the city copies of written arguments, responses,
rebuttals and surrebuttals submitted.
F. All written submittals shall be typed on letter size paper (8.5 x 11), with one inch
margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than
12), single sided, double spaced and without exceeding twelve pages in length, including
exhibits, if any. Exhibits that are not already in the record shall not be allowed.
DG. The review shall commence with the resolution of appearance of fairness issues,
if any, followed by a presentation by the director, or the director’s designee, of the
general background of the proposed development and the issues in dispute. After the
director’s presentation, the city council may ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to
parties of record, with an opportunity for the director (or designee), appellant and/or
applicant, respectively, to rebut to the response. The city council shall not request
information outside the administrative record.
EH. The city council shall determine whether the decision below by the hearing
body/officer is clearly erroneous given the evidence in the record. The city council shall
affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the hearing body/officer accordingly. Upon
written agreement by the applicant to waive the requirement for a decision within the
time periods set forth in RCW 36.70B.080, as allowed by RCW 36.70B.080(3), the city
council may remand the decision with instructions to the hearing body for additional
information.
FI. Notice of Final Decision on Closed Record Appeal. The director shall issue a
notice of final decision on closed record appeal in the manner set forth and to the persons
identified in ECDC 20.06.009.
20.07.006 Judicial appeals.
The city’s final decision on an application may be appealed by a party of record with
standing to file a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court. Such petition
must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the decision, as provided in Chapter 36.70C
RCW.
20.07.007 Resubmission of application.
Packet Page 199 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
32
Any permit application or other request for approval submitted pursuant to this chapter
that is denied shall not be resubmitted or accepted by the director for reconsideration for
a period of 12 months from the date of the last action by the city on the application or
request unless, in the opinion of the director, there has been a significant change in the
application or a significant change in conditions related to the impacts of the proposed
project.
Packet Page 200 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
33
Chapter 20.08
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Sections:
20.08.010 Authority and general provisions.
20.08.020 General provisions of development agreements.
20.08.030 Enforceability.
20.08.040 Approval procedure for development agreements.
20.08.050 Form of agreement, council approval, recordation.
20.08.060 Judicial appeal.
20.08.010 Authority and general provisions.
A. The city may consider, and enter into, a development agreement with a person
having ownership or control of real property within the city limits. The city may consider
a development agreement for real property outside of the city limit but within the urban
growth area (UGA) as part of a proposed annexation or a service agreement.
B. A development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable policies and
goals of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan and applicable development
regulations.
20.08.020 General provisions of development agreements.
A. As applicable, the development agreement shall specify the following:
1. Project components which define and detail the permitted uses, residential
densities, nonresidential densities and intensities or building sizes;
2. The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or agreed to in
accordance with any applicable provisions of state law, any reimbursement provisions,
other financial contributions by the property owner, inspection fees, or dedications;
3. Mitigation measures, development conditions and other requirements of
Chapter 43.21C RCW;
4, Design standards such as architectural treatment, maximum heights,
setbacks, landscaping, drainage and water quality requirements and other development
features;
5. Provisions for affordable housing, if applicable;
6. Parks and common open space preservation;
7. Phasing;
Packet Page 201 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
34
8. A build-out or vesting period for applicable standards; and
9. Any other appropriate development requirement or procedure which is
based upon a city policy, rule, regulation or standard.
B. As provided in RCW 36.70B.170, the development agreement shall reserve
authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat
to public health and safety.
20.08.030 Enforceability.
Unless amended or terminated, a development agreement is enforceable during its term
by a party to the agreement. A development agreement and the development standards in
the agreement govern during the term of the agreement, or for all or that part of the build-
out period specified in the agreement. The agreement may not be subject to an
amendment to a zoning ordinance or development standard or a new zoning ordinance or
development standard or regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement. The
permit approval issued by the city after the execution of the agreement must be consistent
with the development agreement.
20.08.040 Approval procedure for development agreements.
A development agreement is a Type V development project permit application and shall
be processed in accordance with the procedures established in this title. A development
agreement shall be approved by the Edmonds city council after a public hearing.
20.08.050 Form of agreement, council approval, recordation.
A. Form. All development agreements shall be in a form provided by the city
attorney’s office. The city attorney shall approve all development agreements for form
prior to consideration by the Planning Board.
B. Term. Development agreements may be approved for a maximum period of five
years.
C. Recordation. A development agreement shall be recorded against the real property
records of the Snohomish County assessor’s office. During the term of the development
agreement, the agreement is binding on the parties and their successors, including any
area that is annexed to the city.
20.08.060 Judicial appeal.
Development agreements that relate to development project permit approvals are
applicable to, but only to, the extent required by RCW 36.70B.200, et seq. Appeals shall
be to Superior Court and shall be brought within 21 days and according to the provisions
of the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.If the development agreement relates
Packet Page 202 of 248
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
35
to a project permit application, the provision of Chapter 36.70C RCW shall apply to the
appeal of the decision on the development agreement.
Packet Page 203 of 248
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 17, 2009
Page 7
Councilmember Bernheim recalled he submitted his application to the Group of 33 eight hours after the
deadline and was not invited to participate. He favored including anyone who was interested on the
Committee.
Councilmember Wambolt commented deadlines should be adhered to unless there were extenuating
reasons. He pointed out the Committee had been advertised for three weeks and there were already 53
members, an adequate representation from the community. He did not support accepting any additional
applications.
Councilmember Plunkett commented additional applicants should be welcomed and was in the spirit of
openness and transparency.
In view of the Council’s support for accepting additional members, Council President Wilson advised he
would support the motion. He noted Councilmember Wambolt and he had been meeting as the revenue
work groups since November and encouraged other Councilmembers to participate in this process.
Councilmember Wambolt asked how long applications would be accepted. Council President Wilson
clarified the motion was to accept any application until 6:00 p.m. on Monday, March 23.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Wilson advised the Committee meetings would be advertised as special meetings in the
event four or more Councilmembers attended.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO ESTABLISHING PERMIT
TYPES, PROCESS REQUIREMENTS, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, CONSISTENCY WITH
SEPA, OPEN RECORD HEARING PROCEDURES, CLOSED RECORD APPEALS, AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled the Council had a work session on these
amendments on February 24 and had been provided additional information prior to tonight at their
request. The objectives of the rewrite are to, 1) provide clear standards for permit processing, 2) reduce
potential liability, and 3) address Hearing Examiner procedural concerns.
He identified the major proposed changes:
• Establishing permit types.
• Creating tables that identify the different permit types and decision-making processes.
• Submission requirements and procedures.
• Change the public notice requirements to establish the responsibility for the permit applicant to
provide the notice.
• Establishing SEPA consistency regulations.
• Establishing open and closed record hearing procedures.
• Creating a new section regarding Development Agreements.
With regard to the format, Title 20 will be reformatted to replace the process and procedures section at the
start of the chapter with a subsection for specific permit review criteria. The process and procedures
section will have the following seven subsections:
• Chapter 20.01 – Types of development project permit types
• Chapter 20.02 – Type I-IV development project permit applications
• Chapter 20.03 – Public notice requirements
• Chapter 20.04 – Consistency with development regulations and SEPA
Packet Page 204 of 248
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 17, 2009
Page 8
• Chapter 20.06 –Open record public hearings
• Chapter 20.07 – Closed record appeals
• Chapter 20.08 – Development Agreements
He reviewed the table in Chapter 20.01 establishing the type for various permits and a second table in
Chapter 20.01 that identified the decision process for all permit applications that addressed
recommendation, final decision, notice of application, open record public hearing or open record appeal
of a final decision, closed record review and judicial appeal.
Mr. Bowman reviewed the public notice requirement in Chapter 20.03, explaining the biggest change in
this section was the requirement for the applicant/appellant to provide all public notice. Staff will prepare
the notice and give it to the permit applicant/appellant to post and mail. Affidavits for posting and
mailing are required prior to any public hearing. Failure to provide proper notice will result in beginning
the process again.
Mr. Bowman explained Chapter 20.04 requires consistency with development regulations and SEPA.
This chapter formalized what staff already does in preparing staff reports and adds planned actions which
are not currently addressed in the code. Chapter 20.06, open record public hearings, establishes clear
procedures for conducting open record hearings, addresses the issues raised by the Hearing Examiner
regarding the processing of reconsideration requests, and establishes the burden of proof.
Chapter 20.07, closed record appeals, establishes procedures for closed record appeals, establishes
consolidated appeals process, and establishes standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Mr. Bowman
explained Chapter 20.08, development agreements, is a new section that addresses development
agreements, establishes the processing procedures, and establishes an appeal process.
Councilmember Plunkett asked for an approximation of how many permit types the proposed changes
would remove the City Council from considering in a quasi judicial hearing. Mr. Bowman estimated 5-6
and offered to identify specifically which ones.
Councilmember Bernheim recalled he requested a transition table. Mr. Bowman answered that was sent
to the Council on March 6. He provided a comparison of the proposed amendment to the existing code:
• Types of project permit applications – proposed Chapter 20.01, compared to staff review in 20.95
and 21.00 under Hearing Examiner, Planning Board and City Council review.
• Development project permit applications – proposed Chapter 20.02, compared to 20.95
Application and Review
• Public Notice – proposed Chapter 20.03, compared to Chapter 20.91 Public hearings and Notice
• Consistency with development regulations and SEPA; new, therefore there is no comparison
• Open record public hearings – proposed Chapter 20.06, compared to 21.00 Hearing Examiner,
Planning Board and City Council review
• Closed record appeals proposed Chapter 20.07, compared to 21.05 Appeals and Court Review
• Development Agreements 20.08, new, therefore no comparison.
Mr. Snyder pointed out this was a complete rewrite/restructure, therefore it was difficult to make
comparisons between the existing code and the new code. He explained the City’s original code
provisions date from 1980. Since then, SEPA, Shoreline Management Act, Growth Management Act,
and other state imposed changes have been added to the code, making it very unwieldy, particularly the
appeal process.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Packet Page 205 of 248
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 17, 2009
Page 9
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, acknowledged this issue was complex. He questioned whether the proposed
changes reduced public oversight and transparency to land use decisions. He viewed the Council as a
check and balance in decisions. He recalled comments by residents during a neighborhood meeting at
Seaview Elementary that most had day jobs and did not have time to invest reviewing development
proposals versus developers for whom that was their day job. This placed residents at a disadvantage and
they relied on the Council to provide the check and balance. He urged the Council to consider how
checks and balances and oversight were provided in the process.
Betty Larman, Edmonds, commented the recommended amendments to Chapter 20, particularly to
Chapter 20.06, made it extremely difficult and onerous for citizens to appeal decisions of the ADB, etc.
by adding many hurdles and costs to the process. She noted the filing process was very cumbersome and
she questioned the deadline for filing appeals, at 12:00 p.m. rather than the end of the business day. She
also preferred appeals be directly to the City Council rather than the Hearing Examiner or a higher court.
She noted elected officials knew the rules and were just as smart as the Hearing Examiner. She
commented decisions by the Hearing Examiner that result in higher court trials were an unnecessary
expense to the City. She urged the Council to reconsider the amendments in Chapter 20.06, finding most
unnecessary, burdensome and expensive.
Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, expressed interest in transparency for the public. She referred to Planning
Board Member Reed’s request for a spreadsheet in January 2008 that identified the City’s current review
process, advising that information was not available to the public. She acknowledged the code had been
rewritten but the public should have access to the same information the Council was provided. She urged
the Council to reject the amendments because the process had not been transparent.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out this was a huge document and required supervision via the
appeal process. Rather than appeals going to Superior Court, he preferred they be to the City Council.
Via the appeal process, the Council had the opportunity to learn about problems with new regulations. He
disagreed with the change in the notice/posting requirement, commenting the City was experienced with
that process whereas it would be new to an applicant and there was potential for error. He suggested the
deadline for submitting appeals be consistent such as 5:00 p.m. He referred to the appeal regarding the
PRD on the former Woodway Elementary site, commenting if the Council had been able to make a
decision on perimeter, the City, the applicant and the appellant could have saved a great deal of money
and a decision could have been made much sooner. He suggested since the document was so voluminous
and contained so many new procedures, the Council hold a second public hearing.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
Mr. Snyder agreed with the suggestion to make the submission deadline consistent. Next, he explained
the GMA and the Regulatory Reform Act put citizens at a disadvantage and developers at an advantage in
establishing a record with regard to land use decisions. The Regulatory Reform Act attempted to shift
what the legislature saw as inappropriate political intrusion into the process by imposing very tight
guidelines regarding what could be heard and when it could be heard. He noted 95% of the document
was boilerplate and reflected either case law or Regulatory Reform. He explained there was no way for
the Council to make a situation right and be a judge; in a quasi judicial decision, the Council must follow
the law and could not make a legislative decision. He emphasized regardless of who held the hearing,
there must be a complete record and basic due process requirements and rules of evidence must be
observed.
With regard to the Burnstead appeal referenced by Mr. Hertrich, Mr. Snyder questioned whether the City
had 16-20 hours to hear an appeal. One of the reasons a Hearing Examiner was used to hold that type of
hearing was to establish a clear record developed by a professional that could now be reviewed on appeal.
Packet Page 206 of 248
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 17, 2009
Page 10
With regard to the public’s comments regarding the unnecessary expense of Superior Court review, Mr.
Snyder pointed out that was a requirement of the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA); land use permit
decisions were appealable to Superior Court.
He explained when staff began this rewrite approximately 18 months ago, the intent was to place the legal
requirements on the City Council and Hearing Examiner in one place in a straightforward manner. If the
Council held a second public hearing, he suggested focusing on the policy decision changes. He offered
to provide a citation from the GMA, LUPA, Regulatory Reform, etc. whenever the City was obligated to
do things in a certain manner. He summarized most of the decision making process was not
discretionary; what the Council hears and whether it goes to the Council or Hearing Examiner is a policy
decision, other issues such as burden of proof are dictated by case law or statute.
Mr. Bowman commented if the Council chose to hold a second public hearing one of the key policy
issues was shifting the responsibility for public notice to the applicant. He noted as staff was reduced, it
was appropriate to shift that responsibility. With regard to where the Council would be removed from
quasi judicial hearings, he confirmed under the proposed amendments that would occur in five
incidences: conditional use permit; variances; preliminary plat and major amendments to a plat; shoreline
substantial development permits and variances; and draft EIS/SEPA. Contrary to Ms. Larman’s
comment, the Council would retain the appeal on ADB decisions on major design appeals.
Mr. Snyder advised the City currently had a provision that violated state law; a wide open permit review
procedure. In accordance with case law, only conditional use permits with a specific condition can be
reviewed; all other permits, once final, cannot be revoked. The City’s current ordinance allows reopening
of an approved permit.
Councilmember Orvis observed the Planning Board recommended the City Council be removed from
quasi judicial hearings and asked whether the Planning Board had considered decisions made by the City
Council versus decisions made by the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Bowman answered no. Councilmember
Orvis asked whether the Planning Board reviewed any case law. Mr. Bowman answered Mr. Park and
Mr. Snyder provided legal advice during discussions. Mr. Snyder advised removing the Council from
quasi judicial decisions was the recommendation of Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA)
because the pressure for Councils to make things right in a political sense was the biggest source of
liability statewide. He reminded of the Hotel Group application which if appealed the City likely would
have lost. Mr. Bowman recalled the Planning Board discussed Nycrum v Chelan County and Mission
Springs v Spokane during their deliberations. Mr. Snyder observed Councilmember Orvis’ point was if
done right, the Council was no more liable than a Hearing Examiner.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the court cases where the Council agreed with the Hearing
Examiner versus disagreed with the Hearing Examiner had been reviewed. He recalled three decisions in
which the City was overturned where the City Council agreed with the Hearing Examiner. He referred to
Lutheran Daycare v Snohomish County, a Hearing Examiner decision to deny a conditional use permit
that the Council agreed with and then received an arbitrary and capricious ruling. He concluded using the
Hearing Examiner to make decisions did not prevent arbitrary and capricious rulings. Mr. Bowman
agreed, pointing out the odds were reduced significantly. He noted the City’s current Hearing Examiners
were all attorneys and very good at what they did.
Mr. Snyder expressed his preference not to discuss the Burnstead case until the order was in.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Council could speak to the judge’s opinion on the Burnstead
case. Mr. Snyder noted there were 43 grounds for appeal, the judge overturned 40 and 3 were upheld but
the order regarding the remedy, whether remanded to the City or cleared up by the order, has not yet been
determined. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether he could speak to the judge’s published opinion in
Packet Page 207 of 248
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 17, 2009
Page 11
the Burnstead case. Mr. Snyder explained the opinion was not final and was appealable. If the Council
wished to discuss it, he preferred to recess to Executive Session.
Councilmember Plunkett observed there were other policy issues in the proposed amendments in addition
to the public notice and quasi judicial public hearing such as the requirement for argument to be in writing
and development agreements. Mr. Bowman viewed the development agreement as a regulation rather
than a policy question. He agreed the requirement for argument to be in writing was a policy decision. If
the Council chose to retain its position as the arbitrator before appealing to court, he highly recommended
argument be in writing. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether a development agreement could be a
policy decision. Mr. Snyder explained the ability for a development agreement is provided for by state
statute. The purpose of including it in the code was to address an issue a citizen raised regarding where
development agreements were addressed in the code.
Mr. Snyder advised these amendments also clarify written appeal requirements which he viewed as a due
process requirement. He agreed the requirement for written submissions rather than oral presentation to
the Council on appeal was a policy decision for the Council. Councilmember Plunkett questioned
whether the City had to allow development agreements. Mr. Snyder advised they were provided for in
State law and an applicant could apply for one; the City had the option of saying no.
In response to Ms. Larman’s comments regarding the Council being as smart as the Hearing Examiner,
Councilmember Wambolt disagreed, pointing out the Hearing Examiners are very competent and more
experienced than he is in land use matters. He preferred the Hearing Examiner remain involved in
decisions. With regard to Mr. Senderoff’s preference for the Council to be involved in decisions, he
acknowledged citizens wanted the Council involved because they were elected. He noted the WCIA
preferred the Hearing Examiner make decisions rather than the City Council. Mr. Snyder relayed the
WCIA recommended the Hearing Examiner be used as much as possible. He recommended hearings be
held by a Hearing Examiner regardless of whether the Council retained the decision-making authority on
appeal, recognizing the difficulty for elected officials to say no to evidence that was not on the record.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Mr. Hertrich regarding the notice requirement, observing it would
be difficult for someone not skilled in that process. He asked whether the recommendation to shift the
responsibility for the notice/posting was in anticipation of a reduction in staff. Mr. Bowman
acknowledged it was likely there would be a reduction in staff and if the responsibility were not shifted, it
would be one more thing for the reduced staff to do. He assured having the applicant do the noticing
worked; he was involved in making that change in Bothell and received only one complaint regarding
notice requirements in six years.
Councilmember Bernheim asked how late the city offices were open. Mr. Bowman answered 4:30 p.m.
Councilmember Bernheim suggested the 5:00 p.m. deadline be changed to 4:30 p.m. He agreed it should
be consistent throughout the document and suggested “close of business hours.”
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there had been any other cases decided by the Hearing
Examiner and appealed to Superior Court that were reversed/modified. Neither Mr. Bowman nor Mr.
Snyder could recall any other than the Burnstead case.
Councilmember Bernheim was in favor of having the applicant post/mail notice, commenting in most
instances the applications would be submitted by experienced developers. Mr. Bowman agreed that
would be the case in the vast majority of instances. Councilmember Bernheim asked what type of case a
citizen would be required to provide notice. Mr. Bowman answered it would most likely be an appeal.
Councilmember Bernheim observed the City could provide notice for citizen appeals.
Packet Page 208 of 248
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 17, 2009
Page 12
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY ORDINANCE TO
IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING PERMIT PROCESSING AND
PROCEDURES.
It was the consensus of the Council to change 5:00 p.m. in the code to 4:30 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO MAKE DECISIONS WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL WAS
EXCLUDED FROM THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS, TO REVERT THOSE DECISIONS SO
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS.
For Councilmember Wambolt, Mr. Bowman explained under Type III-A the Council would not be
reviewing preliminary plats, general variances, sign permit variances, and conditional use, shoreline
substantial development and variances and plat vacations and alterations. With the amendment proposed
by Councilmember Orvis, those would become Type III-B.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, ORVIS AND
PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS
PETERSON, WAMBOLT AND OLSON OPPOSED.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT
WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, PETERSON, AND WAMBOLT IN FAVOR;
COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, BERNHEIM, AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mitchell Stern, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their time and service to the community. He
recognized the closure of Yost Pool was about dollars, noting it was also about part-time jobs for high
school and college students, physical and mental health for adults and children, increased demand due to
the projected closure of the Lynnwood pool for the summer 2010 and possibly 2011, obesity related
health issues, the uniqueness of this facility, and the revenue potential from residents inside and outside
Edmonds. He recommended review and refinement of all aspects of revenues and expenditures
associated with Yost Pool to ensure its operation was self-sustaining. He recommended a Yost Pool
Committee be created to do an in-depth review of the issues and return with a full recommendation
regarding projected operation for the summer 2009 and beyond. He expressed his willingness to
participate on the committee.
Janis Freeman, Edmonds, announced the next meeting of Sustainable Edmonds on Saturday, March 21
at the Port of Edmonds Conference Room from 2:00 – 4:00 p.m. The topic will be “The Edible Garden,
Growing Food in Our Own Yards” and three expert gardeners will share their knowledge. She advised
everyone was welcome and there was no charge although donations were welcome.
Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, commented on her involvement in the dog park community and the art
community. She relayed three friends received a letter on the Mayor’s stationary that appealed for
participation on the Citizens Levy Review Committee, and stating the levy committee would be formed to
discuss the City’s future and determine what services were important to the citizens of Edmonds. It
further stated severe cuts would begin immediately without citizen input on services and named several
such as Yost Pool and the Discovery Program. The letter was followed by the Mayor’s press release on
Friday stating these cuts had already been made. With these cuts already in place, it appeared the citizens
Packet Page 209 of 248
Packet Page 210 of 248
Packet Page 211 of 248
Packet Page 212 of 248
Packet Page 213 of 248
Packet Page 214 of 248
Packet Page 215 of 248
Packet Page 216 of 248
Packet Page 217 of 248
Packet Page 218 of 248
Packet Page 219 of 248
Packet Page 220 of 248
Packet Page 221 of 248
Packet Page 222 of 248
Packet Page 223 of 248
Packet Page 224 of 248
Packet Page 225 of 248
Packet Page 226 of 248
Packet Page 227 of 248
Packet Page 228 of 248
Packet Page 229 of 248
Packet Page 230 of 248
Packet Page 231 of 248
Packet Page 232 of 248
Packet Page 233 of 248
Packet Page 234 of 248
Packet Page 235 of 248
Packet Page 236 of 248
Packet Page 237 of 248
Packet Page 238 of 248
Packet Page 239 of 248
Packet Page 240 of 248
Packet Page 241 of 248
Packet Page 242 of 248
Packet Page 243 of 248
Packet Page 244 of 248
Packet Page 245 of 248
Packet Page 246 of 248
Packet Page 247 of 248
Why have the Council involved in quasi-judicial decision-making
1. The City Council is representative. As elected officials, City Councilmembers are theoretically
representative of their citizens’ views and are best able to carry out their citizens’ wishes.
2. The City Council is elected. If the Council makes poor decisions, the citizens can ultimately have
a direct impact on who their representatives are – or are not.
3. The City Council is the highest local authority. Decisions affecting land use and property should
be made by those with a “stake” in the town – i.e. by someone who lives there. City
Councilmembers all live in Edmonds.
4. The City Council can better monitor and understand how city regulations and policies interact
with specific land use decisions if they are able to see “first hand” what the issues are.
5. For an appeal, going to court is not an adequate substitute for going to the City Council. Going to
court costs more time and money (e.g. hiring an attorney) than going to a City Council meeting,
and this setting is more intimidating and less understandable to the average citizen. This would
make the appeal process less accessible to the average citizen.
Why the Council should not be involved
1. The actual latitude afforded a decision-maker is very limited. Quasi-judicial decisions must be
made according to adopted policies and regulations. Councilmembers can only make decisions
that are supported by the same rules that others would apply.
2. Freedom to discuss issues with citizens. If the Council is taken out of the quasi-judicial decision
process, individual citizens can discuss their concerns over a specific project or development
proposal with Councilmembers. Currently, that can only happen after-the-fact (after all decisions
and appeals have been exhausted), which limits accessibility of citizens to their elected officials.
3. Freedom to get involved in the details of public design projects. Currently, the City Council must
be careful how it gets involved in public projects, since these can end up on a Council agenda as
an appealed quasi-judicial decision (e.g. ADB decisions on the design of public buildings).
4. Quasi-judicial decisions must be decided professionally. Elected officials must be educated in and
understand the limits of their decision-making power and be careful to follow adopted rules and
regulations, not react to citizen wishes. The number of people on one side or the other of the issue
is irrelevant, contrary to the rules that may apply in a political process. It can be difficult to
explain this to a constituent who believes that their elected representative should decide according
to how the “majority” of the neighborhood feels.
5. Liability is a serious concern. The courts have increasingly come down hard on decision-makers
who do not properly make quasi-judicial decisions. City Councilmembers can be held personally
liable for their quasi-judicial decisions. Quasi-judicial decisions are best made by those
professionally trained to make them – according to existing rules.
6. The political process is complex and responds to different influences than are available – or are
relevant – in a quasi-judicial process. Political processes are most appropriate for dealing with
goals, policies, and regulations that can be developed and discussed in an open legislative forum.
7. Taking the City Council out of the appeal process for quasi-judicial decisions removes only one
intermediate step in the appeal process; going to court has always been available to a citizen as an
option. In many instances (especially the most controversial), attorneys are already involved in
the dispute, and having one less appeal hearing to attend could actually reduce attorney time (and
fees). Removing Council from the process does not reduce citizen involvement; public hearings
are still held – only the Council’s limited, non-discretionary, on-the-record review is removed.
Packet Page 248 of 248