2010.02.23 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
6:45 p.m. - Interview candidate for appointment to the Sister City Commission.
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-2835 Approval of City Council Retreat Minutes of February 5 and 6, 2010.
C. AM-2836 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2010.
D. AM-2832 Approval of claim checks #117180 through #117327 dated February 18, 2010 for
$287,463.61, and approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #49097 through #49128 for
the pay period February 1 through February 15, 2010 for $621,015.81.
E. AM-2833 Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment of Stohn Nishino to Position #8 of the Edmonds
Sister City Commission.
F. AM-2820 Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #6 to the Professional Services
Agreement for design of the Edmonds Interurban Trail.
G. AM-2827 Authorization to call for bids for the 226th Street SW Walkway Project.
3. AM-2837
(10 Minutes)
Presentation by the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club on the renovation of the garden at
Old Mill Town.
4.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
5. AM-2830
(15 Minutes)
Funding proposal for the Building Maintenance Fund 116.
6. AM-2821
(15 Minutes)
Report on the Edmonds Planning Board's naming recommendations for the new park in
North Edmonds at 162nd Street SW and 75th Place W.
7. AM-2826
(60 Minutes)
Presentation from citizens Ken Reidy and Eric Thuesen.
8. (15 Minutes)Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
Packet Page 1 of 337
9. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Minutes)Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 337
AM-2835 2.B.
Approve February 5 and 6, 2010 City Council Retreat Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/23/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Retreat Minutes of February 5 and 6, 2010.
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: February 5-6, 2010 Draft Council Retreat Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 12:53 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/18/2010 02:06 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 02:14 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 02/18/2010 12:51
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2010
Packet Page 3 of 337
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
DRAFT MINUTES
February 5-6, 2010
The Edmonds City Council retreat was called to order at 9:31 a.m. on Friday, February 5, 2010 in the View
Room, South County Senior Center, 220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, Washington. The meeting was opened
with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Friday, February 5
Steve Bernheim, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Friday, February 5
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Saturday February 6
Steve Bernheim, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember (arrived 9:06 a.m.)
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember (arrived 9:02 a.m.)
PUBLIC PRESENT
Friday, February 5
Stanley Piha
Darrol Haug, EDC
Bruce Witenberg
Rich Senderoff
Bea O’Rourke, EDC
Ron Wambolt
Frank Yamamoto, EDC
Kerry St. Clair-Ayes, EDC
Don Hall, EDC
Evan Pierce, EDC
Roger Hertrich
Bruce Faires, Port of Edmonds
Betty Larman, EDC
PUBLIC PRESENT
Saturday, February 6
Harold Huston
Darrol Haug, EDC
Roger Hertrich
Betty Larman, EDC
Al Rutledge
Val Stewart, Planning Board
Todd Cloutier, Planning Board
John Reed
Rose Cantwell
STAFF PRESENT
Friday February 5
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Steve Fisher, Recycling Coordinator
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Saturday February 6
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Packet Page 4 of 337
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 2
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2010 – CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Public Comments
Stan Piha, Hwy. 99 Task Force member and a Hwy. 99 property owner, expressed his support for the
Economic Development Commission’s (EDC) recommendations regarding transit oriented development
opportunities on Hwy. 99, advising the infrastructure on Hwy. 99 such as Bus Rapid Transit will support
increased development within the corridor; the missing component in the Comprehensive Plan is transitional
zoning. The cities of Mukilteo, Everett, Lynnwood and Shoreline are working with Snohomish County to
develop processes for the entire corridor and he recommended Edmonds actively participate. He recommended
the Council implement the EDC’s recommendation s as soon as possible.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, explained last year when the Council discussed sustainability, he suggested
developing an incentive programs for green businesses. Since then Jeanie Blair, Rebecca Wolfe and he have
been working on a City of Edmonds Green Partners Program modeled after a program in Santa Monica. The
program would allow businesses that meet certain criteria to apply to be recognized as a green partner, get a
window sticker, etc. They have developed a checklist and are in the process of developing a business plan to
obtain grant funds. They presented the program to the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee and have met
with the Chamber and Sustainable Edmonds. He clarified the intent was to operate the program under
Sustainable Edmonds’ non-profit status; it would not require City staff or funding other than possibly the City
endorsing the program. He offered to make a presentation at a City Council meeting.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, expressed concern that no public input was taken prior to the Mayor’s March 13,
2009 press release that explained the City’s financial situation and proposed to cut funding to the Senior Center,
eliminate the Flower Program, close Yost Pool, and eliminate the DARE Program. On March 13, 2009 he asked
“where is the money,” specifically where is the $1.9 million rainy day reserve fund that was set aside for two
purposes, for use in an economic downturn and in the event of a natural disaster. The City’s response was those
funds were to be used only in the event of a disaster. He commented on the citizen effort that raised $56,000 to
keep Yost Pool open, only to discover 6 months later that the Council had $90,000 available in a Contingency
Fund and his research that found Fire District 1 has been collecting over $1 million in taxes from properties in
the Esperance area. He urged the Council to base its decisions on correct information.
Keely O’Connell, Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, thanked the Planning Board for identifying Friends of the
Edmonds Marsh as one of the community groups they planned to work with. The Friends’ mission is to expand
and restore the functional habitat within the marsh, to protect the remaining wildlife habitat and do so by
engaging the community to preserve, steward and enjoy this natural resource. She relayed research by Puget
Sound Near Shore Restoration Project and Puget Sound Partnership that there are less than 20% remaining
marshes similar to the Edmonds Marsh in the Puget Sound basin and nearly 100% loss of habitat like the
Edmonds Marsh. Their goals include public outreach as well as scoping, identifying funding for and contracting
for a feasible study for the enhancement of the marsh that would include daylighting of Willow Creek and build
on existing research. She commented on the importance of the Edmonds Marsh in the Council’s discussion of
the waterfront and, economic development, and emphasized the need to balance accessibility and preservation.
Rose Cantwell, Senior Center Board, welcomed the Council to the South County Senior Center and thanked
the Council for choosing the Senior Center for their retreat.
Packet Page 5 of 337
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 3
Darrol Haug, Edmonds, referred to Mr. Tupper’s comments, pointing out on October 19, 2009 the Council
revised the ordinance to identify how the reserve fund should be used, for catastrophic events, and not an
economic downturn.
A brief discussion followed regarding the status of the Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, marketing the Green
Partnership Program to businesses, where interest on the reserve fund is reflected in the budget, and the ability
for a Council majority to determine use of the reserve funds.
COUNCIL RETREAT SESSION 1
Topic 1: Reports from City Departments, Boards, Commissions
A. Public Works: Report on Waste Prevention, Recycling and Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Recycling Coordinator Steve Fisher described funding for his position through a 2-year, 75% match grant from
Snohomish County via the Department of Ecology (DOE) for waste prevention efforts. He is also the Recycling
Coordinator for Lynnwood via an Interlocal Agreement and the same grant program. He acts as the liaison for
solid waste haulers in the City (Sound Disposal and Allied Waste) who are regulated by the Washington
Utilities and Trade Commission, as well as chairs the Snohomish County Solid Waste Advisory Committee
comprised of elected officials and representatives from waste hauling community. The Committee is currently
reviewing Snohomish County’s Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan. He invited Councilmembers to attend their
monthly meetings.
He described waste prevention, recycling and greenhouse gas reduction efforts and new services such as
enhancement of organics waste collection. He commented on the Cedar Grove facility that uses the materials to
create compost, outreach efforts with food establishments, the E-cycle program that requires electronics
manufacturers to fund infrastructure for recycling computers, monitors, TV and laptops and other product
stewardship initiatives the legislature is considering. He urged the Council to encourage Representatives to
support HB 2914 regarding recycling of mercury-containing lights.
He requested continued funding for the City’s recycling program, increasing the visibility of the program’s
elements on the City’s website, and updating the recycling ordinance. He commented on the importance of
greenhouse gas reduction and contributions from transportation, energy, building and waste. Council President
Bernheim suggested scheduling a future Council agenda item to discuss greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Fisher
advised the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee crafted a Climate Action Plan that addresses the reduction
of emissions. The Plan will be reviewed by the Planning Board and forwarded to the City Council. The goal is
for the Council to pass a resolution adopting the Climate Action Plan.
B. Police Department Report - The Year Ahead
Police Chief Al Compaan distributed the 2009 Police Department Annual Report. He described budget cuts
made during 2009 including the elimination of one of three animal control/parking enforcement officers,
discontinuing the agreement with Mountlake Terrace for animal control, eliminating the Crime Prevention
Program and two part-time assistants, eliminating Edmonds Night Out, mothballing the Blockwatch program,
not filling one Police Officer position, and eliminating the DARE program and reassigning the officer. The
Police Department ended 2009 with $125,000 unexpended in a $9 million budget. He provided several statistics
including the Department handled 30,700 calls for service in 2009, Serious Part 1 Crimes decreased by 1,016,
27.6% of Part 1 Crimes were cleared by arrest or identifying suspect, reportable traffic collisions were up
slightly from 2008 by 655, 2 traffic fatalities, 115 DUI arrests and 5,500 traffic citations.
Highlights in 2009 include approval of the New World CAD, RMS, jail management and automated field
reporting software to replace the outdated software used by SnoCom and SnoPac. That system is expected to go
Packet Page 6 of 337
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 4
live July 2011. The Department received two significant grants in 2009; $39,000 from the U.S. Department of
Justice used to purchase equipment and technology to assist automated reporting, and a $30,000 grant from the
Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority to purchase an automated vehicle license plate reader. The Street
Crimes Unit became operational in 2009 and focuses on burglaries, vehicle prowls, theft, prostitution, graffiti
and drug offenses. The Department received re-accreditation in November 2009. As part of that process, the
Department was provided a template for a Best Practices Policy and Procedure manual. That manual will be
available on the website when it is complete along with the Annual Report. The Edmonds Municipal Court in
cooperation with the Police Department purchased video arraignment hardware that allows the Judge to conduct
arraignments in non-trial proceedings remotely with the defendant at the Snohomish County Jail, eliminating the
need to transport defendants, reducing overtime and enhancing overall public safety.
Contract negotiations are coming up in 2010 for 2 bargaining units, commissioned staff and support staff.
Medical insurance will be an issue. He urged the Council to continue to maintain a competitive salary and
benefit package to allow Edmonds to continue to attract the best. He advised the Department and the Police
Foundation plan to request a $2,000 contribution from the Council for the Edmonds Night Out Program. He
described efforts to seek out training for officers, sergeants and management and his plans to hire a Police
Services position and three replacement Police Officers positions this year due to turnover. He asked for the
Council’s continued support for operations.
C. Economic Development Commission View
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton distributed the 2009 Annual Report from
the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and Planning Board. EDC Chair Frank Yamamoto reviewed
the action items in the EDC’s presentation (act now, fund a full-time Economic Development Director position
and budget, create a Strategic Plan that focuses on economic development, initiate neighborhood business center
plans, evaluate Harbor Square plan and support process for redevelopment, and move forward with fiber optics).
He noted the Council had taken action on one item, appointing two Councilmembers to the EDC. He urged the
Council to provide direction to the EDC at their February 17 meeting.
Council President Bernheim suggested Councilmembers send the EDC a letter with their comments regarding
the report. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested updating the Economic Development Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Topic 2: Annual-Biannual Budget Structure and Outlook
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained Washington currently levies a 1.28% tax on all real estate sales; local
entities (cities and counties) can levy an additional tax. Edmonds has imposed an additional 0.50% divided
equally between REET 1 (Fund 126) and REET 2 (Fund 125). He read the definition of REET 1 and REET 2,
highlighting the differences in the definition with regard to parks. He reviewed REET rates in other cities, and
the schedule of REET 2 and REET 1 revenues and expenses for 2008–2010.
Discussion followed regarding land purchased with REET funds in 2009, which REET could be used for
purchase of the Skipper’s property, progress of the REET flexibility bill being considered by the Legislature,
and use of Fund 132 to isolate expenditures from the REET funds.
Comparison of Last Quarter Top 25 Monthly Voucher List 2008 to 2009
Mr. Hines reviewed the top 25 payables for October, November, December 2008 and 2009, highlighting
contributions to retirement for staff, AWC benefits, and construction projects, summarizing most of the larger
payments were related to payroll and Public Works.
Packet Page 7 of 337
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 5
Annual Budget Schedule
Mr. Hines reviewed a tentative schedule for the 2011/2012 budget; in August staff will present reclassification
requests, the L5 study, and the non-represented employee ordinance to the Finance Committee. During October
the property tax ordinance will be presented to the Finance Committee, the Mayor will present the preliminary
budget to the Council, a draft budget ordinance will be developed and a Council budget workshop will be held.
In November two public hearings will be held, one regarding revenue sources and the other regarding the
2011/2012 budget. He anticipated the 2011/2012 budget would be adopted prior to Thanksgiving. The final
property tax resolution and ordinance will be presented to the Council in November and the final 2010
amending ordinance will be presented to the Finance Committee and the Council in December.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Hines advised the interest income on the Emergency Reserve Fund is not
reflected in the fund; the fund balance is a static $1.9 million. All interest earnings are reflected in Fund 001.
Councilmember Plunkett requested Mr. Hines identify the amount of interest generated by the emergency
reserve fund.
Topic 3: Annual Comprehensive Plan Structure and Schedule
Planning Manager Rob Chave noted only two Councilmembers have participated in a substantial
Comprehensive Plan update. The City’s first Comprehensive Plan under GMA was adopted in 1995. The State
requires cities and counties to update their Comprehensive Plans on a 7-year cycle; the last update was in 2004
(approved March 2005); the next scheduled update is 2011. A bill in the legislature could extend that deadline
but staff is operating under the assumption the update will be required by 2011. The update requires review of
the entire Comprehensive Plan to ensure compliance with GMA. He clarified this update was different than the
update to incorporate population projections and ensuring the Plan reflects adequate capacity which is done on a
10 year cycle; that update is due in 2015. However, even if the Legislature delays the update due in 2011, Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC) has requested jurisdictions revise their Comprehensive Plans to align with their
regional vision.
Mr. Chave distributed a Potential 2010 Planning Board Work Plan, highlighting 2010 Comprehensive Plan
amendments. He suggested the Council identify funds to hire a consultant to prepare and implement
neighborhood plans, particularly the public outreach for Five Corners and Westgate. He emphasized the
importance of developing plans for those areas as there has been some interest in redevelopment.
Discussion followed regarding the need for zoning to reflect the Comprehensive Plan designation in Five
Corners, differences between Firdale Village (one property owner – rezone developer driven) and Five Corners
and Westgate (multiple property owners), estimated cost of a consultant, possibly utilizing a UW design studio
to do some of the work, applying a form based approach at Five Corners and Westgate, seeking input from the
neighborhood, seeking a commitment from the property owners regarding redevelopment and asking them to
contribute to the cost. Mr. Chave suggested the Council consider reconfirming the vision in the 1995
Comprehensive Plan that population allocations would be accommodated via infill and redevelopment in
activity centers rather than development in neighborhoods.
Council President Bernheim recessed the retreat to lunch at 11:41 a.m.
Working Lunch: Location: Arnie’s Restaurant, 300 Admiral Way, Suite 211, Edmonds
The lunch portion of the retreat convened at 12:07 p.m. Councilmembers identified what they wanted to
accomplish in the coming year:
Land use decisions
Financial picture for the future
Debt at all levels.
Packet Page 8 of 337
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 6
Address increasing labor costs.
Importance of transparency.
Improve citizens’ understanding of the budget and access to information.
Council needs to ask citizens about issues such as buying the waterfront property, put proposals together
for citizens to choose from.
Increase the ratio of police officers to population.
Neighborhood buffers.
Solve public health funding issues, cities will need to provide funding.
Take action on zoning to avoid empty back-and-forth regarding what is hampering economic
development.
Parks, Edmonds Marsh, etc. should attract visitors, tenants and residents to Edmonds.
Investigate low/no cost improvements such as a pathway along Admiral Way or closing a lane on
Sunset for a pedestrian seating area
Get citizen input first, suggest each Councilmember take responsibility for holding a meeting in an area
of the City to gather input from residents regarding what they want.
Make information readily available to citizens to reduce public records requests.
Goals should incorporate economic development, environmental stewardship and sustainability.
Some developers may see Edmonds Marsh as a hindrance; attract developers who see the Marsh as an
asset.
Other cities are attracting economic development; why isn’t Edmonds? It may be because Edmonds is
perceived as not development friendly.
Take advantage of slower development period to amend/update zoning code.
Key to sustainable development is urban density in downtown, neighborhood centers and Hwy. 99.
Do our part to keep Puget Sound clean.
Economic development and environmental stewardship go together.
Lay the groundwork now for the future.
The outer areas of the city need to be represented, get neighborhoods involved, look at areas outside the
Bowl.
Businesses outside the Bowl are experiencing the same economic downturn as businesses downtown.
The Council should not to represent only the loudest group, look at issues citywide, get people involved,
find out issues and solve them.
Get a grip on the policies and procedures and expenditures.
Working together is the key.
Move forward with ideas, stand united.
Address zoning right away.
Council lead by example.
Address issues between staff and Council; let staff know the Council wants to help/support them.
Improve transparency.
Other cities’ websites are more citizen based.
Establish an inter-city transportation method.
The lunch portion of the retreat recessed at 12:46 p.m.
RETURN TO SENIOR CENTER – COUNCIL RETREAT SESSION 2
The retreat reconvened at 1:33 p.m.
Topic 1: Council Meetings/Procedures
A. Duration
Packet Page 9 of 337
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 7
The Council discussed meeting starting time, duration of meetings, and too many items on agenda not providing
enough time to address important issues. Suggestions included prioritizing agendas more carefully, selecting a
time such as 11:00 p.m. to stop the meeting, continuing lengthy meetings to the next evening, asking questions
of staff prior to meetings, using the committee process to research items, having discussion on items one
meeting and a decision at the next meeting, and providing materials regarding major topics to Council a week
ahead of the meeting.
B. Conduct
Suggestions included more productive interactions between Councilmembers and with the public at meetings,
monitoring responses to public comments and between Councilmembers and taking a break if verbal altercations
arise between Councilmembers.
C. Adoption and Use of Rules of Order
Information provided as resource.
D. Outside Council Committees
Council President Bernheim advised appointment to the SeaShore Transportation Forum was still open.
Following a brief discussion, Council President Bernheim invited Councilmembers to submit suggestions for
committees that could be discontinued.
E. Questions/Research Requests to Staff
Council President Bernheim relayed that Mayor Haakenson did not mind Councilmembers making requests
directly to staff as long as they copied him on their request. Council President Bernheim urged discretion in the
number of requests Councilmembers made of staff. It was suggested Councilmembers email questions to staff
prior to meetings to provide adequate time to research and respond to a question at the Council meeting.
F. Public Service Announcements
Councilmember Plunkett recalled an agenda item that allowed non-profit entities to make a public service
announcement was previously initiated and later discontinued. It was the consensus of the Council to add this to
the agenda, limit announcements to 5 minutes each and a total of 15 minutes per meeting with the Council
President having discretion to schedule announcements based on length of agendas, organizations submit their
request to Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman and to publicize the opportunity on Channel 21.
Topic 2: City Operations
A. Review Legal Counsel Contract/Labor Negotiations
Council President Bernheim explained the packet contained information regarding the labor contract schedule as
well as a list of firms that provide labor negotiation services.
Human Resources Director Debi Humann described how labor negotiations are conducted with bargaining units
and who has participated in the past. She commented on the reasons the City has utilized City Attorney Scott
Snyder in labor negotiations in the past is he also defends contracts against grievances and is familiar with past
practices and the City’s history with unions.
Discussion followed regarding benefits of using a consultant to assist with negotiations, possible financial
savings via good contract negotiations, and a suggestion for a hybrid whereby the Mayor, Ms. Humann and the
Packet Page 10 of 337
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 8
Department Head participate in negotiations followed by an independent peer review by labor negotiator or a
labor specialist.
Council President Bernheim summarized this may be scheduled as a Council agenda item in future.
B. Implementation of Ordinances after Passage by Council
Council President Bernheim explained the amount of time between passage of an ordinance and the effective
date may vary. He encouraged Councilmembers to inquire if they had any questions about the implementation
date of a time-sensitive ordinance.
C. State Legislative Agenda: Misdemeanor Law Reform, Municipal Court/Police Savings
Council President Bernheim explained municipal courts have been the subject of nationwide study because
many are crowded and underfunded and the constitutional rights of criminal defendants may not be adequately
protected. He was satisfied with the operations of the Edmonds Municipal Court but did not want it to become
so clogged with minor crimes that did not promote public safety that defendants’ rights were not protected. He
summarized it was necessary to fund the court adequately and/or control case volume.
D. Warrant Review
Councilmember Orvis recalled the City did not have an instant bail policy. The Judge reviews warrants within
24 hours to ensure bail was offered.
E. Fire District 1 Contract Review
Council President Bernheim suggested the Council consider, 1) his proposal to segregate the proceeds from of
sale of equipment to Fire District 1 into a separate fund, and 2) whether to establish a periodic review of Fire
District 1 savings and service. Discussion followed regarding the final net proceed of the sale of equipment,
uses for the funds, the purpose of establishing a special fund, and whether the City can purchase commercial
property as an investment.
Council President Bernheim suggested staff provide pros/cons of placing the proceeds in a separate fund and the
final net amount. He requested Ms. Spellman send his proposal in the packet (that the proceeds from the sale of
Fire Department equipment to Fire District 1 be placed in a designated, segregated, interest-bearing account
with interest accruing in the account and reserved for such future purposes as the Council shall direct) to Mayor
Haakenson for comment.
F. Budget Format Options
Councilmember Orvis referred to the Snohomish County Health Department’s 2010 proforma program budget
that contains a list of programs, program and discretionary revenue, and expenses. He explained this identified
items/programs that were dependent on discretionary revenue that can be cut. He suggested staff develop a
similar report to illustrate each department’s dependence on discretionary revenue. The report also helps
identify ways to increase department’s revenue.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to a white paper regarding government accounting versus financial
reporting, and examples of monthly and quarterly reports from other cities.
Council President Bernheim declared a brief recess.
Packet Page 11 of 337
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 9
Topic 3: Economic Development
A. Empty Office/Retail Space and Recruiting New Business
Councilmember Peterson introduced this item, explaining economic development is the answer to increasing
revenue unless the City wants to rely on property tax increases.
Community Services/Acting Economic Development/part-time Development Services Director Stephen Clifton
explained he had a limited amount of time to devote to economic development. With regard to empty
office/retail space and recruiting of new business, he provided examples of businesses that staff and he have
attempted to recruit. He summarized a neighborhood business rezone effort would be a win-win for the City
and for property owners. The slow economy provided an opportunity for the City to initiate a rezone to attract
development and do it more quickly, thereby laying the foundation so that recruiting was easier when the
economy rebounded.
B. Regional Partners to Maintain Jobs in the Area – Mukilteo, Everett, etc.
Mr. Clifton reviewed regional efforts to maintain jobs in the area including the City’s support for the
Washington Aerospace Partnership’s efforts to grow aerospace industry jobs in Washington, meeting with
representatives of the Snohomish County Economic Development Council and the State Department of
Community Trade and Economic Development (renamed to Department of Commerce), working with real
estate, finance, development property owners and other partners to facilitate economic vitality for the City,
participating in joint marketing to raise Edmonds’ profile within the business community and the EDC invited
speakers from various entities to better understand what they are doing related to economic development.
C. Recommendations from Economic Development Commission
Mr. Clifton referred to the recommendations submitted by the EDC and their request for input from the Council
regarding support for their recommendations.
D. Green Marketing in the City
Mr. Clifton reviewed efforts to address the issue of sustainability including the Mayor’s Climate Protection
Committee, the City Council’s sustainability agenda, preparation of Comprehensive Plan Community
Sustainability Element, as well as the efforts of Sustainable Edmonds.
He remarked how and what to market was an appropriate topic for the EDC to discuss. He highlighted ads the
City has run, feature stories in magazines, and plans in 2010 for co-op advertising with Washington State
Department of Commerce that focus on visits to Edmonds by train. He summarized recent marketing efforts
focus on activities and emphasize art, beaches, boutiques, bird watching, cafes, charming downtown, festivals,
underwater dive park, galleries, etc. rather than the scenery. Staff is also revising the City’s rack card to make it
more eye-catching. The City has secured a website domain, VisitEdmonds.com, that is listed at the bottom of
all ads.
E. Hire Grants Writer/Economic Development Consultant
Mr. Clifton commented the City has been remarkably successful in obtaining grants in the past; the lack of
matching funds is what prevents Edmonds from applying for many grants.
F. Olympics Tourism: Too Late?
Mr. Clifton explained many cities do not anticipate an increase in tourism primarily due to time of year.
Edmonds is participating in co-op ads with Snohomish County and other cities in “West World,” a travel
Packet Page 12 of 337
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 10
magazine that is distributed to over 529,000 homes in the British Columbia Area. The magazine will also be
included in collateral material distributed in BC to international visitors.
G. Outdoor Dining: Milltown Sidewalk/Restaurant Sidewalk/Parking Spaces
Mr. Clifton explained at their February 9 meeting, the Community Services/Development Services Committee
will address the use of the right-of-way for bistro and outdoor dining. Council suggestions included using
parking spaces in front of Old Mill Town to expand the pedestrian park area and promoting Parking Day,
September 17, where groups make parking spaces into mini parks.
H. Highway 99 Studies: Burke, Makers, Edmonds Green Plans, Piha Materials
Mr. Clifton explained the Burke and Makers studies were included in the Comprehensive Plan. The plans for
Edmonds Green (aka Behar development on the Funtasia site) are on hold due to the economy. Mr. Piha, who
owns a site near Safeway and a Swift station, spoke earlier today regarding his hopes for developing transit
oriented housing on that site.
With regarding to broadband, at a recent Community Technology Advisory Committee meeting, they looked at
what had been done and the recommendations that have been presented to the Council. Finance Director
Lorenzo Hines wants to ensure the recommendations make business sense before moving forward.
Discussion followed regarding remaining construction issues on the Old Mill Town (OMT) building, JSH
Properties’ plans to move forward with renovation of the portion of OMT on Dayton, efforts to recruit a
restaurant to a location in OMT, OMT’s agreement with the bank for evening parking, limited parking near
OMT, other cities that offer employees of large employers move-in specials as an incentive, business education
classes conducted by the Chamber, need for a theme/brand for the City, the differences between
VisitEdmonds.com (City) versus EverythingEdmonds.com (Chamber), closing the block where the fountain is
for a car free day, and Jersey City, NJ where a festival is held every weekend in Liberty Park.
Mr. Clifton expressed his appreciation to the EDC, remarking by the time the Commission sunsets in December
2010, they will have provided up to 2000 volunteer hours.
Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin described a Preserve America grant opportunity available via the
National Parks Service. The City received $50,000 from Preserve America in 2007 that was used for 4th Avenue
Corridor planning. If received, the 2010 grant would be used to create a hard copy and web-based walking tour
map as well as provide interpretive signage. A minimum match of $15,000 is required; she proposed using
$5,000 from the Lodging Tax fund, $5,000 from the Economic Development Department’s Marketing budget,
$3,000 from the Arts Commission fund to include art elements, and $2,000 from REET for wayfinding
elements.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ALLOW $15,000 FROM THE IDENTIFIED SOURCES AS THE GRANT MATCH.
Ms. Chapin clarified a motion was not necessary; she only wanted to verify the Council’s support for pursuing
the grant. The Council expressed their support for staff pursuing the grant with matching funds as Ms. Chapin
proposed.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
Discussion followed regarding transitional zoning on Hwy. 99 between the CG1 zone to less intensive uses in
the surrounding area, providing the EDC direction with regard to their recommendations, whether a part-time
Packet Page 13 of 337
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 11
Economic Development Director could be supplemented by volunteers, differences between a Strategic Plan and
the Comprehensive Plan, updating a Strategic Plan annually as part of the budget process, including a method
for tracking progress in a Strategic Plan, need for more information regarding fiber optics such as service
agreements, etc. before moving forward, seeking input from the EDC regarding cuts that could be made to the
budget to finance a full-time Economic Development Director, each Councilmember hosting a meeting in a
neighborhood of the City to gather public input, and Councilmembers Buckshnis and Fraley-Monillas’ plans to
hold a community meeting the last Friday of each month.
Topic 4: General Funding and Levy
Councilmember Peterson explained at some point in the not too distant future the City will need to ask voters for
a levy lid lift; the questions are when and what will it fund.
The Council discussed the need for transparency regarding the City’s finances in order for the public to support
a levy, the upcoming school levy as an indication of voters’ support for levies, providing information regarding
the City’s finances on the City’s website to illustrate the need for a levy, educating citizens about the need for a
levy, recent tax increases that have been approved by voters, a proforma budget concept that illustrates how
taxes are being used and to explain why some areas are identified for cuts first, need to demonstrate fiscal
responsibility, timeline for placing a levy on the ballot, preparing clear numbers before proposing a levy, airing
an educational budget presentation on Channel 21, and educating citizens about the budget process and the
City’s financial policies.
Infrastructure Funding and Bonds
Council President Bernheim referred to excerpts from an AWC handbook in the Council packet. He explained
bonds are used to finance specific projects such as purchasing the Skippers property, constructing an aquatic
center, police, parks, sidewalks/parks, updating the City’s technology, fiber optics, overlays, etc. The Council
agreed to have the Finance Committee (Councilmembers Plunkett and Buckshnis) develop draft fiscal policies
with input of Finance Director Hines and present them to the full Council.
The first day of the retreat concluded at 4:27 p.m.
SATURDAY FEBRUARY 6, 2010 – CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
The second day of the retreat was called to order at 9:00 a.m.
COUNCIL RETREAT SESSION 3
Council President Bernheim amended the agenda to include a public comment period at the beginning.
Public Comment
Harold Huston, Edmonds, explained he met with Board President Rose Cantwell this week to review several
suggestions. He has been involved with the Senior Center for the past 20 years and sees the problems as, 1)
staff turnover and 2) not getting 50-60 year old seniors involved. He recommended merging the Senior Center
with the City’s Parks and Recreation so that qualified City employees could apply for grants. He also
recommended the City change from a Mayor form of government to a City Manager form of government at the
end of Mayor Haakenson’s term, explaining this would take the Mayor’s position out of politics and made it an
honorary position.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, disagreed there was a problem with staff turnover at the Senior Center,
commenting the new Director was very well qualified. He recommended the Council make a pedestrian
Packet Page 14 of 337
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 12
overhead walkway over the railroad tracks a priority. The walkway would provide a way to reach the ferry and
trains as well as provide a scenic viewpoint.
Topic 1: Waterfront
A. Differences between Current BC Zoning and the BD1 and BD2 Zones
Councilmember Orvis posed the question of what to do with the property east of the railroad tracks (Antique
Mall and Skippers properties); whether to, 1) buy it all for a park funded via a public vote, 2) change regulations
to encourage development in return for open space, view corridors, etc., or 3) a mix of both. He did not feel it
would be necessary to increase the height limit if the regulations were changed to encourage development and
reviewed a chart comparing maximum height, commercial parking requirements, first floor, residential parking
and open space in the BC, BD1 and BD2 zones.
He provided several aerial photographs, envisioning James Street could be changed to one-way traffic with
parking on one side, open space within the development could be used to provide wider sidewalks, building with
2-story mixed use or 3-story residential, corridors with businesses oriented to transit with residential behind. He
summarized allowing increased residential density could be realized via ground floor residential, reducing the
parking requirements and making use of the right-of-way for parking in return for open space and increased
commercial within a 30 foot height limit.
Council President Bernheim reviewed several photographs of buildings in Fairhaven. Discussion followed
regarding cities that look similar to Fairhaven that are flourishing, importance of urban density to sustainable
development, balancing urban density and the philosophy of a green/forward city with 30-foot building heights,
inviting a LEED certified designer to provide the Council a tutorial regarding design, potential for transit
oriented housing on the site, asking staff/consultant/UW students to develop a proforma regarding what type of
development would pencil out under the existing codes for various types of development such as owner
occupied, future legislation that will mandate density around transit centers and the need to zone the area
appropriately so that development of that site that is consistent with the community’s vision occurs prior to that
mandate, updating Makers’ analysis of development that would pencil out under the existing codes, concern
with the Council’s focus on development downtown and the waterfront, whether transit oriented development-
type density could be realized within existing heights, changes in commercial real estate due to the economy and
reduced demand for retail space, and importance of the site as a gateway to the City.
B. Vision Suggestions: Waterfront and Citywide
Council President Bernheim introduced this item, referring to material in the packet including an email from
Natalie Shippen urging the Council to get an appraisal of the Safeway/Skippers properties and an excerpt from
the Oakland Waterfront public participation process which illustrated one possible approach. He favored
soliciting input from the public on their vision first so that an initial concept would reflect their input rather than
seeking input after a concept has been developed. He reiterated his suggestion for Councilmembers to hold
meetings in neighborhoods.
Next, Council President Bernheim referred to his ten year plan for the City that included several conceptual
drawings for development of the waterfront properties. He also provided photographs of strip mall type
development that would be code compliant and several photographs of overhead walkways in other areas.
Discussion followed regarding the EDC’s support for businesses that generate tax revenue, economic changes
that no longer support development of strip malls, encouraging businesses to locate in Edmonds, need for
residential density to support businesses, the need to embark on a process that will lead to an outcome and
getting Council buy-in so the outcome is supported by a majority of Council, the EDC’s avoidance of the issue
of the Skippers/Antique Mall site due to controversy over heights, need for the Council to make a decision with
Packet Page 15 of 337
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 13
regard to acquiring the Skippers property, need for the Council to provide direction to the EDC regarding their
recommendations, and tasks the EDC could undertake.
Topic 2: Outer Neighborhoods
A. Discussion on Development in the Outer Neighborhoods
Councilmember Orvis distributed and reviewed photographs and drawings to illustrate the sightline 20 feet from
the back of his house of 25-foot and 50-foot buildings and a 50-foot building with stepbacks. He summarized
stepbacks greatly reduced the impact of larger developments on residential neighborhoods. He assured
developers could afford to provide stepbacks due to the greater density allowed via multi family zoning versus
density allowed in the BN zone.
Councilmembers discussed setbacks required in some portions of the Firdale Village site, aesthetics provided by
stepbacks, neighborhood centers providing commercial uses that residents can walk to as well as transit hubs,
challenges associated with redevelopment of Five Corners and Westgate due to multiple property owners, and
opportunities for redevelopment on larger Westgate sites.
Council President Bernheim declared a brief recess.
Council President Bernheim requested the agenda be amended to move up the Yost Pool presentation.
Topic 5: Yost Pool Future Planning
Dick Van Hollebeke distributed and reviewed information regarding Yost Pool planning. He reviewed the
history of support for aquatics including last year’s citizen effort that raised approximately $50,000 in 3 weeks
to keep Yost Pool open, and programming and operational changes that were made to reduce the City’s subsidy
of Yost Pool. He reviewed aquatic trends, upcoming Yost Pool expenses due to the age of the facility, and the
recommended concept that includes outdoor and indoor pools at the current Yost Pool site.
He reviewed the project budget ($16.7 million), estimated annual tax impact to an average home ($72.61/year or
$6.05/month at 4% interest on a 20 year construction bond which requires 60% approval), annual operation
subsidy ($150,000 - $250,000), estimated annual tax impact of an M&O bond to an average home ($9-$15/year
or $0.75-$1.25/month), and annual economic benefits ($600,000-$1,000,000).
Mr. Van Hollebeke reviewed findings from a statistically accurate survey that indicated 71% support for a year-
round pool. He displayed an architectural rendering of the aquatics facility, describing plans to seek LEED
certification, and options for green methods of heating water, pervious parking lot, etc. He summarized now
was the time to move forward; the reasons include completion of the feasibility study, citizens’ survey that
confirms support, permanent economic benefit, low bond rates, favorable construction climate and Yost Pool
nearing end of life expectancy. He requested the Council authorize a ballot measure for November 2010. He
and his wife offered to co-chair the campaign.
A brief discussion followed regarding when construction would begin if a bond measure were approved by the
voters, and the school levies providing an indication of citizens’ comfort level with increasing taxes.
Topic 3: Sustainability – Next Steps
A. Stormwater Runoff and System Upgrades; Reduce Pesticide Use, Community Outreach,
Rain Garden Demo
Councilmember Peterson commented on mandated stormwater upgrades that are currently unfunded. The
legislature is considering a bill to expand the tax on oil/pesticides. He encouraged the Council and the public to
Packet Page 16 of 337
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 14
contact their representatives and recommend they support the bill. A brief discussion followed regarding other
ways to fund stormwater improvements such as a stormwater surcharge on utility bills and the creation of zones
with increased stormwater mitigation and the ability to reduce the mitigation via green methods such as pervious
surfaces, rain gardens, etc.
B. Implement Sustainable Purchasing Practices (i.e., best value vs. best price contract
language); Green Power Purchase by City
Councilmember Peterson explained sustainable purchasing practice means buying local to reduce transit costs
and supporting local businesses and businesses that are environmentally friendly. He expressed support for
formalizing this practice in the City. Mr. Clifton offered to determine whether the City had a sustainable
purchasing practice.
Council President Bernheim referred to information in the packet regarding Bellingham’s green power
challenge, a government initiated program that encourages the use of less power. Sustainable Edmonds is
pursuing that program. He planned to introduce a proposal for the City to dedicate a token amount to green
power purchase. A brief discussion ensued regarding the Climate Action Plan prepared by the Mayor’s Climate
Protection Committee that will be reviewed by the Planning Board and forwarded to the Council.
C. Green Buildings – Implement LEED Standards for New Construction, Incentivize Green
Remodels, Other code Rewrites
Councilmember Peterson suggested during the current slower building period, the City devote time to revising
its building codes to address this effort.
Council President Bernheim referred to draft LEED standards provided in the packet. Council comments
included the perception that LEED standards and green practices imposed costs on new construction, intangible
benefits of LEED and green buildings, and opportunity for the City to attract developers.
D. Education and Communication; Website, Edmonds Green Logo, Speakers’ Series,
Local/Regional Partners
Councilmember Peterson recommended the City utilize its website and Sustainable Edmonds to educate the
public that green buildings are not prohibitively expensive. He advised the Plastic Bag Subcommittee of the
Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee is working on an Edmonds Green Logo.
E. Car Free Day, Parking Space Decommissioning, Electric Car Rally, Unlicense Day
Council President Bernheim remarked parking spaces were more economically valuable as pedestrian spaces
versus parking spaces. He provided examples of assigning individual or multiple parking spaces downtown to
different groups for a day/weekend and allowing them to transform the spaces into pedestrian amenities.
Councilmembers commented on Parking Day on Friday, September 17, lack of bike racks downtown, and
working with the Cascade Bicycle Club and/or Edmonds Bike Club to site an artistic bike rack downtown.
F. Styrofoam Ban
Councilmember Peterson advised Seattle passed a Styrofoam ban last year. He suggested Edmonds institute a
similar ban with enforcement similar to the plastic bag ban. He suggested this be adopted as one of five action
items. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised Seattle restaurants found the cost of biodegradable containers
was similar and they worked well. Councilmember Peterson commented restaurants also now have the ability to
compost food waste.
Packet Page 17 of 337
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 15
G. Lighting Code/Dark Skies
Council President Bernheim commented on wasted light in the City at night, pointing out the intent was
situation appropriate lighting and avoiding lighting that is more than necessary. He suggested requiring new
development to utilize low level sidewalks lights. Councilmember Peterson pointed out the 4th Avenue Arts
Corridor includes low level lighting.
H. Tree Ordinance, Tree City, Public Tree/Private Tree Preservation, Pedestrian Safety,
Keep Healthy Trees, Address Real Dangers, Promote Green Reputation; Review Tree
Plan
In an effort to preserve/expand the City’s urban forest Councilmember Peterson suggested the City consider
what it can do to plant and encourage residents to plant the right tree in the right place. One of the Mayor’s
Climate Protection Committee’s priorities will be consideration of a tree protection ordinance.
Discussion followed regarding whether eliminating Styrofoam use should be done via an incentive or ban,
providing restaurants a time period to eliminate use of Styrofoam, utilizing Seattle’s Styrofoam ban ordinance as
a model, having the City make a modest green power purchase such as $1000/year or 1% of City’s electric bill,
organizing a car free day, organizing an annual park clean up day, considering the use of pervious surfaces for
street overlays versus asphalt, installing fiber optics in new development downtown, installing fiber optic
conduit at the time overlays are done, organizing an electric car rally, and plans to reanalyze opportunities for
fiber optics.
Councilmember Peterson offered to obtain Seattle’s ordinance banning Styrofoam for review by Mr. Snyder.
Council President Bernheim suggested scheduling an agenda item for the Council to identify action items.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas left the retreat at 11:45 a.m.
Discussion continued regarding a Styrofoam ban, a community park clean up date, renting parking spaces as a
fundraiser on Parking Day, reviewing the tree ordinance, public concern with Council and staff time and costs
associated with these issues, watershed issues related to urban streams, timing of a general levy, and financing a
design for Yost Pool before a bond measure is proposed.
Councilmember Wilson left the retreat at 12:00 p.m.
Topic 4: Planning Issues
A. Title 20: Possible Revisions
Council President Bernheim advised this had been addressed at a previous Council meeting.
B. Civic Playfield Negotiations
Councilmember Plunkett suggested the Long Range Taskforce identify potential expenditures in the next 10-15
years to help Council understand long range issues. For example, the lease on the civil playfields expires in 10
years; there may be opportunity to purchase the property.
C. Roof Design Zoning Ordinance Revisions
Council President Bernheim commented the ordinance is unsatisfactory as buildings continue to be constructed
that violate the language. He planned to work with Mr. Chave on revised code language and to consult the
development community regarding any proposed revisions.
Packet Page 18 of 337
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 16
D. Long Range Task Force Future
Council President Bernheim encouraged the Long Range Task Force to meet and discuss items suggested in B
above.
Councilmember Peterson referred to information he distributed regarding Climate Solutions new energy cities.
Climate Solutions is similar in structure to Cascade Land Conservancy, with a certain number of consulting
hours for a fee. Their goal is to create climate solution cities, help cities create environmental plans as well as
help cities identify funds. He planned to meet with Climate Solutions next week and offered to provide more
information to the Council.
Topic 6: Revitalization of Senior Center/Future Planning
Rose Cantwell, President, South County Senior Center Board, explained over the past year 170+ volunteers
donated 32,054 hours. If they were paid $9/hour, the cost would be $288,576. The amount of volunteer time
has been consistent over the past 5 years – a total of $1.4 million over five years. She considered the volunteer
hours a gift to the City and the taxpayers and hoped to partner with the City on plans for the site’s future.
Kathy McNulty, South County Senior Center VP Board of Directors and Chair of the Strategic Planning
Committee, described two new members who chose to retire in Edmonds after learning about the programs
offered by the South County Senior Center. She referred to the City’s interest in promoting tourism and
attracting visitors, pointing out the Senior Center could be one of the attractions. She described programs that
could be offered that would attract younger members and commented on the need to revitalize the public’s
image of Senior Center, the location of the Center at the hub of many transportation modes, opportunity for the
Center to be a partner in the development of downtown/waterfront, services offered by the Center in addition to
recreation programs, and the Center’s access to funding sources not available to the City.
She expressed the Center’s desire to develop a partnership with the City, community groups and the business
community; to increase the number of people they serve; to institute innovative programs; and to be financially
sound. However, the condition of the building and the Center’s future on this site impedes those efforts. In
order to partner with the City on capital grants and to run a capital campaign, the Center needs a commitment
from the City that it supports the Center’s continued use of the site. She requested the Council reaffirm the
resolution passed in 1977 regarding the Center’s use of the site. She clarified the Senior Center wants to retain
use of the site; the resolution specifies the current address of the Center.
Council suggestions included seeking input from administration and staff regarding the resolution, scheduling
consideration of the resolution on a future agenda, and partnering with the Center to develop a vision for the
site.
Closing Remarks
Councilmembers thanked staff and Council President Bernheim.
Council President Bernheim thanked the South County Senior Center for hosting the Council retreat.
The retreat was adjourned at 12:27 p.m.
Packet Page 19 of 337
AM-2836 2.C.
Approve 02-16-10 City Council Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/23/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2010.
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: 02-16-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 12:55 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/18/2010 02:06 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 02:14 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 02/18/2010 12:54
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2010
Packet Page 20 of 337
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 16, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
February 16, 2010
At 6:45 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would meet in executive session
regarding negotiations for the potential purchase of real estate. He stated that the executive session was
scheduled to last approximately 15 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the
Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session.
Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Haakenson, Councilmembers Orvis,
Plunkett, Fraley-Monillas, Bernheim, Buckshnis, Peterson and Wilson. Others present were City
Attorney Scott Snyder, Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton and City
Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 7:00 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:03 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
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Graham Marmion, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager
Gina Coccia, Planner
Rob English, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 2, 2010
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #116866 THROUGH #117013 DATED FEBRUARY 4,
2010 FOR $543,160.45, AND #117014 THROUGH #117179 DATED FEBRUARY 11, 2010
FOR $444,455.31. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #49059
THROUGH #49096 FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 16 THROUGH JANUARY 31,
2010 FOR $636,174.68.
Packet Page 21 of 337
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 16, 2010
Page 2
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM ALICE OATES
($177.30), NANSI KARLSTEN (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND SARA TWIGG
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
E. ACCEPTANCE OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR
LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD,
JANUARY 2010.
F. CITIZEN REQUEST TO AMEND THE SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES.
G. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE SECONDARY CLARIFIER
REHABILITATION PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
H. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE CLAY FEEDER PROJECT
AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
I. ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT FOR FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS AT NE CORNER
OF DAYTON STREET AND THIRD AVENUE SOUTH.
J. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF
PRINTING.
K. FIRDALE VILLAGE: REZONE, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND NGPE.
3. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
BOARD.
Council President Bernheim explained this appointment was to fill the professional architect position on
the Architectural Design Board.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR’S APPOINTMENT OF LOIS BROADWAY TO THE
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ray Martin, Edmonds, commented the social gathering of four Councilmembers and their supporters at
Engel’s Pub was completely legal and innocent and assertions to the contrary were off track. City
business was not discussed and the event was strictly celebratory. He objected to Mayor Haakenson
lecturing the Council regarding the Appearance of Fairness, recalling an allegation when Mayor
Haakenson was a Councilmember about four Councilmembers participating in a rolling quorum. He
urged Mayor Haakenson to improve his relationship with the Council. He commented on Mayor
Haakenson’s involvement in the Reidy matter, and suggested further information was available on Finis
Tupper’s blog.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, announced the Senate hearing regarding the ethics code scheduled for Thursday,
February 18 has been rescheduled for March 10; he planned to attend that meeting and testify regarding
recommended changes. Further information was available via the Joint Senate Committee. at 1-800-562-
6000. With regard to the presentation regarding Yost Pool at the Council retreat, he pointed out a similar
proposal was made to the Council in March 1999. He spoke in favor of a parks levy and suggested rather
than the proposed annual cost to taxpayers of $7.50/$1000 AV, other items be added for a park levy of
$15-16/$1000 AV.
Packet Page 22 of 337
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 16, 2010
Page 3
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the minutes of the Community Services/Development Services
Committee regarding PRDs, noting staff suggested the issue of PRD setbacks may be moot if PRDs are
dropped from the code. He expressed concern that PRDs would be eliminated from the code when there
had not been any discussion by the Council. Next, he referred to discussion at the Finance Committee
meeting regarding a request from Public Works for $300,000 from the funds the City received via the sale
of equipment to Fire District 1. He recalled the Council had previously discussed placing those funds in a
special account, noting the amount was less than originally projected.
Councilmember Peterson requested the following addition to the agenda:
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADD AS AGENDA ITEM 6A, CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION IN
SUPPORT OF HB 3181 AND SB 6851, REGARDING THE CLEAN WATER ACT OF 2010 AND
FUNDING CLEANUP FOR WATER POLLUTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. CITY OF EDMONDS WEBSITE - CITY COUNCIL AND COUNCIL MEMBER WEB PAGES.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton referred to the November 2, 2009
staff report related to information that could be posted on City Council and City Councilmember web
pages. Three potential scenarios were discussed at the November 9 meeting, 1) limiting information to
names, dates, places and basic factual biographical information, 2) items in option 1 plus e-newsletters,
and 3) a limited forum approach. At that meeting, the Council requested staff return with policies for an
option 2+ that allowed for as wide a distribution of information as possible without any campaign or
personal material or links.
He proposed the following content be allowed on City Council web page (items in italics are in addition
to content recommended during the November 2 presentation):
• Information sponsored or co-sponsored by the City Council or directly linked to city policy
objectives.
• Information that accurately reflects City Council policy positions.
• Broad based items of significance, e.g., Council Hot Topics and/or News
• Links to factual information prepared by the city or other public organizations.
Examples include: Snohomish County or Washington State Voters’ Pamphlets, Municipal
League, and League of Women Voters as public information.
• Links to newspaper or magazine articles about Edmonds (see exceptions regarding political
advocacy).
• Governmental and public educational institutions located within the State of Washington.
• Links to local organizations having a recognized relationship with the City of Edmonds or with
which the City of Edmonds partners in order to provide services, including but not limited to the
Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, Port of Edmonds, and Stevens Hospital.
• Links to local cultural, artistic, civic or non-profit recreational organizations having either a
recognized relationship with the City of Edmonds or specific and direct relevance to City
residents.
Mr. Clifton noted the last three bullets had been the policy since the Council’s 2002 retreat. He proposed
the following not be allowed on the City Council web page:
• Political advocacy.
• Links to sites that are associated with, sponsored by, or serve a candidate for elected office, any
political party or organization supporting or seeking to defeat any candidate for elective office (to
avoid the appearance of endorsing political content).
• Links to sites advocating positions on ballot propositions
RCW 41.06.250; RCW 42.130; RCW 41.17.190
• Links to personal homepages
Packet Page 23 of 337
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 16, 2010
Page 4
He proposed the following content be allowed on City Councilmember web pages (items in italics are in
addition to content recommended during the November 2 presentation):
• City Council name and position number.
• Contact information.
• Year elected to the City Council and number of terms served.
• Current Council committees and appointments.
• Former Council committees and assignments.
• Regional representation.
• Links to E-Newsletters (see content not allowed).
• Links to news related to City Council member activities (see content not allowed).
• Links to newspaper articles, op-ed pieces, editorials, or opinions written by a City Council
member (see content not allowed).
• Community service, employment, education (optional).
• Personal factual biographical information, e.g., birthplace, marital status, length of residency,
children, etc. (optional).
Mr. Clifton proposed the following not be allowed on the City Councilmember web pages:
• Political advocacy.
• Comments that endorse or oppose political candidates or ballot propositions.
• Links to sites that endorse or oppose ballot propositions.
• Links to sites that are associated with, sponsored by, or serve a candidate for elected office, any
political party or organization supporting or seeking to defeat any candidate for elective office,
including a Council member’s campaign site.
NOTE: Maintains the appearance of not endorsing political content (RCW 41.06.250; RCW
42.17.130; RCW 42.17.190).
• Promotion or advertising of commercial services, entities, or products.
• Links to personal homepages.
Mr. Clifton provided social media policies being considered by the City of Seattle:
• Council member’s social media site(s) should contain links directing users back to the Council’s
official website for:
o in-depth information
o forms
o documents or online services necessary to conduct official City business
• Social media tools are not to be used as:
o mechanisms for conducting official city business other than to informally communicate
with the public
o Examples of business that may not be conducted through social media include:
- making policy decisions
- official public noticing
- discussing items of legal or fiscal significance that have not previously been released
to the public by the City
Mr. Clifton suggested Councilmembers also consider using a consistent City email addresses
(lastname@ci.edmonds) rather than a personal email which would assist with public records requests, etc.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained Council email exchanges regarding official City business were
public record regardless of whether they were in the City’s possession. The City has an obligation under
State law to have in place security procedures that ensure those email communications are not altered or
deleted. It was easiest if Councilmembers used their City email address for city business. If
Packet Page 24 of 337
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 16, 2010
Page 5
Councilmembers used other email addresses, the staff would need to develop security procedures to
ensure those records are provided to the City and preserved.
Councilmember Wilson noted the policies were what he envisioned as a result of the Council November 2
discussion. He commented op-ed pieces written by Councilmembers often take a policy position and
asked if the policy should clarify on what issues a Councilmember could take a position. Mr. Snyder
explained the intent was to avoid taking a policy position on a ballot measure; the Council is prohibited
from using public resources to promote or oppose anything that goes to the voters - a ballot measure,
initiative, bond issue or candidate. Issues before the legislature and the City Council are policy matters
but the Council is allowed to use public resources to take a position on them. The exception is a quasi
judicial matter; a Councilmember should make no statement regarding a quasi judicial matter outside the
hearing. He offered to revise the language to clarify what is a policy issue if the Council wished.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented editorials and opinions often provide a great deal of information
regarding a Councilmember’s political beliefs. She asked how the content in the links would be
monitored. Mr. Clifton responded after reading numerous articles contained in links on other City
Council web pages, he found many were quite lengthy which would make it time consuming for a city
staff member to read all the information a Councilmember included on their web page. He suggested it
be self-policed.
Councilmember Orvis recalled the vote regarding Council web pages on November 2 was not unanimous.
Mr. Clifton advised the vote was 5-2; 2 Councilmembers favored keeping the content more restrictive
such as names and dates, the other 5 wanted to include the additional links and content proposed tonight.
Councilmember Peterson suggested a bullet that clarified the difference between taking a position on a
matter before the Council versus a ballot measure. With regard to self-policing, he commented every
elected official did a great deal of self-policing and he did not anticipate it being a problem. As the
information will be readily available to the public, he was certain any inappropriate information would be
promptly reported. He did not support having staff monitor the content and suggested the rules be
reviewed with the Council annually at the retreat.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the proposed policies addressed the issues the Council
raised previously. With regard to who would police the content, she assumed when content was added,
the staff person would review them for inappropriate material. Mr. Clifton responded that was possible
but could be quite time consuming depending on the length. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
summarized citizens would ultimately police the content. Mr. Clifton suggested as Councilmembers
wrote e-newsletters, opinions, etc. they ask themselves whether they were endorsing a candidate, taking a
position on a ballot measure, etc. Mr. Snyder commented it was not a problem except during election
years. He acknowledged there was an advantage to being an incumbent and this was one of those tools.
He cautioned against having staff review web page content during an election year to determine whether
it was campaign related as that had the potential to bring staff into that process in an inappropriate
manner. Mr. Clifton explained this issue arose last year as a result of citizens questioning material on two
Councilmembers websites.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if there was any civic enforcement mechanism for including inappropriate
materials. Mr. Snyder responded a complaint would be made to the Public Disclosure Commission
(PDC) as well as a complaint could be filed with the City for inappropriate use of resources or against the
person using the resource.
Councilmember Plunkett commented Councilmembers editorialize on a regular basis from the dais and
most understood the difference between advocating for a ballot measure versus a policy matter. The
mechanism for addressing inclusion of inappropriate material would be a complaint.
Packet Page 25 of 337
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 16, 2010
Page 6
Council President Bernheim commented the reason he voted against the motion on November 2 to have
the policy returned to the Council for future review was not to keep the “bare-bones” websites but
because he favored each Councilmember being responsible for their own web content. If a
Councilmember wanted to post campaign materials, they would suffer the consequences if it violated
State law. He did not support setting restrictions on Councilmembers’ own web pages and preferred to
allow each Councilmember to police their own web page rather than establishing a policy.
Councilmember Wilson suggested adding language to the policy that complaints should be directed to the
Council President. He anticipated if a Councilmember did not respond to complaints regarding
inappropriate content on their web page, the Council President could bring the implications of their
actions to their attention. The policy should also state citizens can file a complaint with the PDC. To
Council President Bernheim, he agreed it was up to a Councilmember to include whatever information
they wanted on their web page and the PDC would inform them and impose a fine if the material was
determined to be inappropriate.
Mr. Clifton advised the City of Everett’s was one of the few cities where the information was consistent
between Councilmember web pages. On many city and county web pages, the content on each web page
varied dramatically.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented her opponent included political information on his website and
although she did not complain, some of her supporters did and it took up a great deal of staff time. She
supported not allowing external links, editorials, e-newsletters, and keeping the content to basic
information. She anticipated during an election year, there would be a barrage of complaints.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she filed a complaint last year with regard to content and the
information was removed by the City immediately. It was a Councilmember’s choice whether to
maintain a personal website that could contain whatever they wished. However, a City website should
not be used for a Councilmember’s own gain. She favored the City’s website be only about Council
business, committees served on, etc.
Councilmember Orvis questioned why it was necessary to expend City staff time and resources to
maintain Council websites when Councilmembers could create and maintain their own websites free of
charge on a private server. He favored restricting City websites to basic information such as name and
contact information. During campaigns, the City could add pictures and contact information for Council
challengers.
Student Representative Marmion commented Councilmembers having private websites made it difficult
for citizens to find their websites. He recalled when searching for information on U.S. Senators for a
school paper, it was difficult to locate their individual websites. Having Councilmember web pages on
the City’s website made it easier for citizens to locate the information.
Councilmember Peterson agreed with Student Representative Marmion’s comments. He noted the
Council often talked about transparency and the need to provide citizens information particularly via the
City’s website. He did not understand the reluctance to provide information regarding the
Councilmember web pages, noting the more information citizens had, the better. He supported providing
citizens the Council’s opinions regarding issues important to citizens and making it easy to find. With
regard to the complaint made by Councilmember Buckshnis’ supporters, he noted the complaint was
made to the PDC who investigated and found no impropriety. The staff time devoted to that complaint
was due to the very loose existing policy. Under the proposed policy, complaints would be directed to the
PDC and they would decide whether information was inappropriate. He favored a policy that allowed
Packet Page 26 of 337
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 16, 2010
Page 7
Councilmembers to provide information to citizens. He reiterated the importance of transparency, noting
the more citizens knew about a Councilmember’s position, the more transparent the process was.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED COUNCIL WEB PAGE AND CITY
COUNCILMEMBER WEB PAGE POLICIES.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the complaints cited by Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and
Buckshnis, noting in both cases the process worked. If the intent was to engage citizens, there was no
better way than to allow a full conversation on Councilmembers web pages within these parameters. He
suggested Councilmembers look at providing information from the citizens’ perspective.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented as a citizen, she was opposed to using the City’s resources
for political gain. She reiterated Councilmembers could have their own websites; the Council web page
belonged to the City and citizens and should be strictly regarding City Council related matters. She
agreed with the proposed content that not be allowed such as political advocacy, comments that oppose or
endorse political candidates, links to sites that endorse or oppose ballots, links on sites associated with,
sponsored by or serve candidates for elected office, promotion or advertising of commercial businesses,
entities or products, and links to personal homepages.
Councilmember Orvis explained transparency was not putting a Councilmembers’ own public policy
statements on a public asset and limiting challenge or response; that was one-sided campaign-style
advocacy. He suggested Student Representative Marmion’s point could be addressed by giving all
Council candidates a link on the city’s web page. In that manner, all staff maintained was the link, not the
content. He concluded Councilmembers who did not compare their views with someone who may
disagree during a campaign was not transparency, it was just campaigning. He was opposed to using a
City resource to advocate a Councilmembers’ policy decisions without allowing the resource to be used
for an opposing view. He summarized the City’s web page was a public asset that could be used as a
public forum such as providing each candidate a link. This would level the playing field for incumbents
and challengers, bring campaign discussions to light and minimize the need for the campaign
contributions. He preferred to find a way to use the web page as a proper forum rather than for one side
to post their policy views. He did not support the motion.
Councilmember Plunkett commented it was likely that Councilmembers could write an editorial that
avoided campaign rhetoric and did everything but say vote for them. He found the inclusion of editorials
and links problematic. He was also concerned with the enforcement mechanism; once a complaint was
filed with the PDC, it may take weeks for them to investigate and an appeal may further delay a decision.
Councilmember Peterson agreed a Councilmember could abuse their web page just as a Councilmember
could abuse their Council seat. For example, nothing stopped him from wearing a campaign button or
hat; he could be told not to but it was unlikely to be physically removed. He acknowledged such actions
would be chastised by the public, the Mayor and Councilmembers but he could still take that action.
Similarly, if inappropriate information was included on a Councilmember’s web page, they would be
chastised by the public. He supported allowing Councilmembers to self-police the content, noting
citizens continually self-policed themselves.
With regard to placing links on the City’s web page to candidate websites, Councilmember Peterson
noted it was easy to run for office – a check and a voter registration. There was potential for links on the
City’s website to websites that may be inappropriate. He suggested consideration be given to eliminating
external links. He agreed Councilmembers having a web page was an advantage during an election;
being an incumbent was a campaign advantage. Edmonds had an educated citizenry and they want
information regarding their elected officials.
Packet Page 27 of 337
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 16, 2010
Page 8
Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated the City’s web page should be kept clear of political rhetoric. With
regard to self-policing, she noted it was a matter of judgment. Finding a Councilmembers’ website only
required googling their name. She feared it could get ugly during campaign years and waste a great deal
of staff time.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the content Mr. Clifton proposed and asked for clarification
whether newspaper articles, op-ed pieces, editorials and opinions written by a Councilmember could be
on a Councilmember’s web page as long as they were not political. Mr. Clifton agreed. She summarized
what would not be allowed was political information.
Councilmember Plunkett reiterated it was possible to write a political editorial without using political
words. He pointed out because Council meetings are televised, whatever is said is available to the public.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
AMEND THE POLICY TO INCLUDE A PROVISION RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT THAT
THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT WOULD BE THE PRIMARY RECIPIENT OF COMPLAINTS AND
INCLUDE CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS FOR CITIZENS TO FILE COMPLAINTS WITH THE
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION.
Councilmember Peterson commented including this enforcement mechanism improved the use of web
pages as a tool for the public to learn about Councilmembers.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO AMEND THE POLICY TO REMOVE LINKS TO E-NEWSLETTERS, LINKS RELATED TO
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS’ ACTIVITIES AND LINKS TO NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, OP-ED
PIECES, EDITORIALS OR OPINIONS.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not support allowing external links, noting her personal website was fairly
lengthy but did not discuss anything political.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed support for the amendment, pointing out even with this amendment,
the policy was a good step forward and better than what currently exists.
Council President Bernheim did not agree with the effort to limit the ability of Councilmembers to
communicate their ideas to the public. He preferred to err on allowing Councilmembers to communicate
whatever they wanted to and suffer the consequences if inappropriate material were included versus
limiting their ability to include a link to an article a Councilmember wrote regarding a City issue.
Councilmember Wilson commented the current lack of policy was essentially Council President
Bernheim’s preferred alternative; Councilmembers could post whatever they wanted and would be
notified if a complaint were filed by a citizen. Mr. Clifton advised policies were discussed at the
Council’s 2002 retreat, and included the following (the last three bullets on the list of allowed content for
City Council web pages):
• Governmental and public educational institutions located within the State of Washington.
• Links to local organizations having a recognized relationship with the City of Edmonds or with
which the City of Edmonds partners in order to provide services, including but not limited to the
Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, Port of Edmonds, and Stevens Hospital.
• Links to local cultural, artistic, civic or non-profit recreational organizations having either a
recognized relationship with the City of Edmonds or specific and direct relevance to City
residents.
Packet Page 28 of 337
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 16, 2010
Page 9
The Council’s motion November 2 stated “options for a policy 2+ that allows for as wide a distribution of
information as possible...” Councilmember Wilson pointed out Councilmembers currently had
biographical information on the website that exceeded those three bullets. Mr. Snyder commented as
Councilmembers, everything they said was political. It would be difficult for staff to differentiate a
Councilmember’s communication on policy matters with the public from politics; they were inherently
intertwined.
Councilmember Wilson disagreed this was a step forward. Eliminating any ability to communicate
Council positions via reference simply would be the existing policy.
Councilmember Plunkett reiterated even eliminating editorials and links was a step forward in
communications with citizens.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2),
COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, PETERSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS AND
ORVIS IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND WILSON OPPOSED.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether the Council could agree to include links on the City Council web
page to articles written by Councilmembers. Mr. Clifton agreed that could be done via a majority
decision of the Council as it would then be a Council-supported article. Councilmember Peterson advised
that would provide an opportunity to include links to published articles on the City Council web page.
Mr. Clifton agreed, for example, the King County Council web page has articles related to the future of
cable television, preparing for floods, etc.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out the policy regarding allowed content for Councilmember web pages
did not allow commentary regarding their position on an issue. Mr. Clifton explained what remained was
Council name and position number, contact information, year elected and terms served, current and
former Council committees and appointments/assignments, regional representation, community service,
employment, education, and personal factual biographical information. Councilmember Wilson asked
whether for example a Council could state they have worked on the CTAC Committee for 12 years
because they felt it was a great idea and wanted fiber optics in the community. Mr. Clifton advised a
Councilmember could list current and former Council committees and appointments and a reason could
be stated. Councilmember Wilson pointed out the reason a Councilmember served on a committee was
not listed as allowed content. Mr. Clifton advised the policies were now similar to the policies proposed
on November 2, a more restrictive web page similar to the City of Everett’s Councilmember web pages.
Councilmember Wilson commented he would be disappointed in terms of public education if the Council
did all this work and were limited to including only name, rank and serial number.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the amended policies were more restrictive than the proposed
policies but an enhancement to the existing policies. He did not mind restricting Councilmembers from
including “I” statements on the City’s web page.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out Councilmembers have the ability to create and maintain
their own websites that can include whatever information they want.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE POLICY SO THAT AN ITEM ALLOWED ON INDIVIDUAL
COUNCIL WEB PAGES WOULD BE COMMENT REGARDING THE BROAD BASED ITEMS
OF SIGNIFICANCE, E.G. COUNCIL HOT TOPICS AND/OR NEWS.
Packet Page 29 of 337
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 16, 2010
Page 10
Councilmember Peterson explained if the Council decided there was a hot topic, it would be appropriate
for each Councilmember to address the topic on their individual web page if they chose.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how the term hot topic would be defined. Councilmember Peterson
suggested along with deciding what links could be included on the City Council web page, hot topics
could be decided by a majority of the Council or perhaps the Council President could make that
determination. Councilmember Plunkett suggested a mechanism for determining what was a hot topic
would need to be developed. Councilmember Peterson suggested it be up to the Council President to
decide on items of significance/hot topics unless a majority of the Council disagreed. He requested that
be added to the amendment.
Councilmember Wilson did not support allowing the Council President to determine what was a hot topic.
If Councilmembers were allowed the latitude to discuss items of importance to the community, it should
not be up to the Council President to determine what was a hot topic.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for the amendment, suggesting the Council try
allowing the Council President to determine hot topics.
Councilmember Plunkett was not comfortable with allowing topics to be determined solely at the Council
President’s discretion. He preferred the amendment without the addition, noting the Council could agree
to include a Council editorial on the web page which could be a hot topic.
Councilmember Peterson asked who would determine hot topics. Mr. Clifton suggested it would be a
majority of the Council.
Mr. Snyder explained the Council voting by a majority to include an item on the web page meant only
topics or positions that a majority of the Council supported would be included on the website. If the
intent was to allow for a minority position or communicate the Council’s position to the public, selecting
a topic and allowing Councilmembers to state their position may disseminate minority views more
effectively to citizens.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON WITHDREW HIS AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT
OF THE SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO ALLOW CONTENT FOR CITY COUNCILMEMBERS TO
INCLUDE COMMENTARY RELATED TO CITY BUSINESS.
Councilmember Wilson commented this would allow Councilmembers to discuss topics they felt were
important regardless of whether it was support/opposed by a majority.
Councilmember Plunkett commented City business could be defined as anything, including whatever a
Councilmember wanted to editorialize about.
Councilmember Wilson responded with the elimination of links to editorials, there was no other way for
Councilmembers to provide information to citizens regarding their vision for the community or their
goals while in office.
Councilmember Peterson explained he agreed to remove links as they have the potential for
misinformation, political articles, opinions, etc. Having a Councilmembers’ commentary on the web page
would make it easier to police.
Packet Page 30 of 337
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 16, 2010
Page 11
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the amendment would lead to editorials and editorials lead to
political content without the political words.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how City business was defined. Councilmember Wilson
responded it was a generally accepted term and would include topics the Council had discussed and future
Council topics.
Councilmember Plunkett commented there was no clear definition of City business; City business was not
restricted to what the Council did, it could be anything related to the City.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3),
COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS, WILSON AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT BERNHEIM IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, PLUNKETT
AND ORVIS OPPOSED.
VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED: UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS,
WILSON AND PETERSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM,
COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, BUCKSHNIS, AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
6A. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF HB 3181 AND SB 6851, REGARDING
THE CLEAN WATER ACT OF 2010 AND FUNDING CLEANUP FOR WATER POLLUTION.
Councilmember Peterson explained approval of the bills would assist cities with paying for municipal
stormwater discharge updates. He read the proposed resolution.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1222 IN SUPPORT OF HB 3181/SB 6851
CONCERNING THE CLEAN WATER ACT OF 2010 AND FUNDING CLEANUP FOR WATER
POLLUTION.
Councilmember Peterson explained the bill will increase the tax on contaminants that chemical
corporations and oil and gas corporations bring into the State.
Councilmember Wilson expressed support for the bill, commenting it was supported by a wide range of
environmental groups.
For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Peterson advised the hearing on the bill was
tomorrow afternoon.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6B. QUASI JUDICIAL TRAINING BY CITY ATTORNEY.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Council recently voted to reassume a variety of hearing duties.
The Council would be wearing a very different hat during those hearings. When Councilmembers sit as
judges in a quasi judicial capacity, they are not legislators but neutral decision makers. Their decision-
making process is restricted to the record and the criteria in the code. The Council did not have the ability
to do what they thought was fair or to change the rules during the process.
He referred to The Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 42.30 RCW that was included in the packet. He
emphasized that as the Council sat as judges, they could consider only the record before them; they could
not communicate with constituents before, during or until the decision is final regarding the subject matter
Packet Page 31 of 337
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 16, 2010
Page 12
of the appeal and they cannot consider any information outside the hearing process. The public comment
the Council can consider is only what was taken by the Hearing Examiner during the preceding process.
He explained when the Council passed an ordinance creating a new law, the Council was sitting as
legislators. They could talk to anyone, consider their personal experiences, poll people, consider
petitions, etc. When the Council sat in a quasi judicial capacity, what the majority of people want/think
was irrelevant to the process. The Council must balance the position of the applicant and
appellant/applicant and put aside what the majority thinks. If the person before the Council is correct, the
fact that the neighborhood is in opposition is irrelevant to the Council’s decision.
Site specific rezones and development applications are fairly straight forward. A Comprehensive Plan
amendment followed by a site specific rezone is more complex as the Comprehensive Plan amendment is
legislative and the Council has more latitude in its decision-making. Once the Comprehensive Plan
amendment is approved, the site specific rezone becomes quasi judicial which is why these are usually
presented to the Council in a two-step process.
He commented the majority of problems arise via the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. The courts have
interpreted it as, “would a disinterested person apprised of the totality of a member’s personal interest or
involvement be reasonably justified in thinking that the involvement might affect the member’s
judgment.” The fact that a Councilmember may think they are able to make a fair decision is irrelevant;
the test was what an objective observer thinks. He explained the Mayor typically opens quasi judicial
hearings by asking Councilmembers for any disclosures. This is a Councilmember’s opportunity to
reveal any information they inadvertenly acquired via an ex parte contact (outside the process) or any
interest they may have in the project. He pointed out as codified, the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine
states that anything that was said as a candidate or prior to becoming a candidate for public office and
money received and reported to the PDC is not disqualifying.
Mr. Snyder explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine looked at who, what, where and why.
Relationships were particularly important, for example two members of a Planning Commission who
were married was determined to be a disqualifying influence. During the pendency of a quasi judicial
process, Councilmembers are prohibited from discussing the application with constituents or hearing
public comment on the application. He noted the Council will need to change its rules for public
comment to ensure the audience comment agenda item was not used to provide ex parte communications.
He urged Councilmembers not to open letters/emails and to avoid conversations regarding pending quasi
judicial matters. If a Council read a letter or heard something, they would need to disclose that
information at the appropriate time.
Another important consideration is who has the burden or proof. If an item is not in the record, it cannot
be considered. He cautioned the Council against soliciting information outside the record from either the
applicant or the appellant. The Legislature via Regulatory Reform adopted a one record hearing
requirement; therefore, on appeals to the Council the record will be closed and what will be provided to
the Council is argument not testimony.
Exceptions to Appearance of Fairness Doctrine include the following:
Full disclosure – used in the event of inadvertent exposure
Regular business – actions taken during the normal conduct of Council office
Doctrine of Necessity – if a challenge would prevent a quorum
Waiver – once information is disclosed, a party must challenge or waiver
Campaign statements/contributions – not disqualifying
Packet Page 32 of 337
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 16, 2010
Page 13
Mr. Snyder explained if a party challenged a Councilmember’s participation, neither the Council’s rules
or State statute had any provision for removing a Councilmember. His advice was if in doubt a
Councilmember should recuse themselves; however, it was a Councilmember’s personal decision.
Applications of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine include:
Prejudgmental bias – Councilmembers should avoid making absolute statements regarding a
pending application
Business relationships
Social/marital status
Memberships and organizations – Councilmembers may attend community organization
meetings before an appeal is filed. If a Councilmember is a member of an organization that
regularly takes positions on pending applications, he/she should consider resignation.
Personal benefit/detriment
Ex parte contact/evidence outside the record
He urged the Council to avoid statements such as, “The people of Edmonds are against this application”
or “I visited the site this morning.” A site visit was not allowed unless the parties agreed to a waiver and
the entire Council conducts a site visit that was noticed as a public meeting. Information from a
Councilmember’s personal knowledge also cannot be considered in the deliberation.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether a Councilmember could use their experience to make a judgment
regarding a blatant error/misstatement of fact in the record. Mr. Snyder answered that information could
be balanced. If the criteria requires that the fact be proven, the question would be who has the burden of
proof. Because the Council is limited to one hearing, the matter cannot be remanded for further evidence.
He acknowledged there may be disputed facts in the record. A developer has a distinct advantage in the
process; they often hire experts who provide expert testimony and reports. Citizens can question the
testimony but the facts are established by expert testimony.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about friendships, whether Councilmembers should recuse
themselves if a friend is associated with an applicant. Mr. Snyder responded it was always safest to
disclose a friendship and the parties could raise a challenge if they felt it was inappropriate.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the site was part of the record, noting the Hearing Examiner often
visited the site. Mr. Snyder explained the Hearing Examiner tried the facts and in establishing the record
will provide information regarding the site. If the Council felt a site visit was critical, they could ask the
parties for a waiver to allow the Council to conduct a site visit. If the Council did visit the site, they
would need to go together, it would need to be noticed as a special meeting, and the applicant and
appellant would need to be in attendance. If a Councilmember had personal knowledge of a site, that
knowledge cannot be used in deliberation.
Councilmember Orvis observed the Council would be limited to what the Hearing Examiner provides
with regard to their site visit. Mr. Snyder agreed Council would be limited to the information in the
record.
Council President Bernheim pointed out on a site specific rezone, the Planning Board conducted the
hearing, not the Hearing Examiner. He expressed concern that depending on the manner in which the
hearing was conducted, information/materials may/may not be entered into the record. Mr. Snyder
pointed out Regulatory Reform rules regarding one hearing and 120 days applied only to development
applications; site specific rezones could be remanded for further proceedings if the Council determined
the record was inadequate.
Packet Page 33 of 337
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 16, 2010
Page 14
Mr. Snyder continued his presentation, explaining the conflict of interest provision in State statute
prohibits a municipal officer from using their position to secure special privileges or exemptions for
themselves or others. If a Councilmember or member of their family had even a remote financial interest
in a project or applications, he recommended Councilmembers recuse themselves. The consequences of
violating the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine include voiding of the Council’s action by the judge and a
damages claim.
If a Councilmember is challenged and it is a close/reasonable challenge, he recommended the
Councilmember step down, leave the room or the proceeding be started over without the member.
Hearings must be fair in fact, appear fair, and follow procedures. He cautioned the Council to avoid
asking questions like Perry Mason, reiterating the Council was limited to information in the record. He
suggested during questioning, Councilmembers ask where in the record information could be found.
During its deliberations, he urged the Council to refer to the criteria as the written decision must include
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Opal v. Adams County the Commissioner who received 63 long
distance phone calls, and the Commissioner’s indication that he was involved in a few phone calls but it
was not a violation because they talked about other subjects. Mr. Snyder explained that was in regard to
the totality of circumstances; in that instance the Commissioner revealed he had phone calls but the
appellant was unable to prove the subject of the phone calls. In addition, no challenge was made at the
time of the hearing on the basis of the phone calls. Mr. Snyder concluded the important message was any
contacts needed to be revealed early in the process.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out these standards and procedures had been followed by the Council in
the past, they were not new. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting it had become more difficult with Regulatory
Reform and application of case law.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the previous application for the waterfront property. Mr. Snyder
explained there would be a new process on any future application and it could become quasi judicial.
Any parties of record in the previous application would need to reinstate themselves as parties of record
in a future application. He cautioned Councilmembers to avoid any statements that could be considered
prejudgmental bias.
Councilmember Orvis pointed out although the record would be closed, Councilmembers have the ability
to review City codes and RCWs. He asked whether Councilmembers could review applicable court
cases. Mr. Snyder answered Councilmembers can take notice of City ordinances and Comprehensive
Plan provisions. In the case of site specific rezones, the rezone must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan has many balancing provisions; it may be beneficial for
the Council to take the time to review the Comprehensive Plan or request the City Attorney’s office to
brief points for them. The Council also has the ability to continue their deliberation and decision to a
future meeting. He invited Councilmembers to ask questions or ask for a briefing on specific issues.
7. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 9, 2010.
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Peterson reported the Committee reviewed the following topics:
A. Continued discussion on regulations concerning bikini barista stands – the Committee learned the
City’s code is better able to address this issue than Everett’s code. Committee recommended
forwarding two options to the full Council for consideration.
B. Discussion regarding changes to City Code 5.05.060, Dogs on Public Grounds – staff
recommends amending the code to permit on-leash dogs in 1) Sunset Overlook Park, 2) Hickman
Packet Page 34 of 337
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 16, 2010
Page 15
Park, and 3) the new park at 162nd Street SW. A public hearing will be scheduled at an
upcoming Council meeting.
C. What can be made available to Council on appeal – staff is revising the code to eliminate the
PRD system and include it in the subdivision regulations.
D. Request from Historic Preservation Commission for waiver of certain fees related to historic
structures – staff replayed a proposal to exempt properties on the historic register from paying a
fee for a pre-application meeting. A resolution will be presented to the full Council for approval.
E. Proposed Title 18 Code amendments to allow use of City right-of-way for bistro and outdoor
dining and placement of art in City right-of-way – staff reviewed proposed amendments that will
be presented to the full Council at a public hearing.
F. Proposed policies for Stormwater Comprehensive Plan update – staff provided information.
Councilmember Peterson will work with Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry
Shuster, Public Works Director Noel Miller and citizen groups on the update.
G. Continued discussion regarding the removal of colored street markings used for locating utilities
– based on the difficulty to effectively remove paint markings and the additional staff time
required to monitor for compliance, the committee recommended consideration of the proposal
to require removal of paint markings be discontinued.
H. Discussion on PRD setbacks – this issue may become moot if PRDs are eliminated from the code
and included in the subdivision code.
I. Discussion on Conditional Use Permits for home occupations – future Council work sessions
will be scheduled on this topic.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee reviewed the following topics:
A. Alderwood Water Supply contract final review – staff briefed the committee on the contract.
Staff will prepare the contract and forward for review by the full Council.
B. Wireless internet rollout in Council Chambers – this will include physical infrastructure
improvements to the Council chamber, on-going citywide information network improvement,
installation of the wireless hub, and procedural and legal training for Council members
interested in using internet and email during Council meetings.
C. Funding proposal for the Building Maintenance Fund 116 – Public Works Director Noel Miller
requested $300,000 of the net cash received from the Fire District 1 contract be used to address
various capital projects. The Committee recommended forwarding this to Council for review.
D. Discussion and review of long-term difference between presentation in relation to the Fire
District 1 contract in November of 2009 and finance update of January 25, 2010 – Lorenzo
Hines, Director of Finance and Information Services, provided the committee with an overview
of the differences between the October 16, 2009 (Option 4) budget forecast and the January 25,
2010 budget forecast. Director Hines indicated that the differences between the two reports lie
in the fact that the revenue trends for the latest report have been reduced due to the current
economic climate. Director Hines further explained that these forecasts, like all other forecasts,
are a point in time estimate based on available data. Councilman Plunkett expressed
disappointment that the October 16, 2009 forecast was not more current. Director Hines
indicated that the figures were the best information available at that time. For information only,
no further action required.
Councilmember Plunkett advised the Finance Committee meeting was recorded and he has requested a
copy of the recording.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
Packet Page 35 of 337
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 16, 2010
Page 16
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis was also disappointed with the information provided at the Finance
Committee. The current administration relied on the past administration’s numbers, the past
administrator is now working for Fire District 1. She recalled many citizens including herself raised issue
with the numbers but they were ignored. She has also requested a copy of the recording.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported town hall meetings will be held the last Friday of each month from
6:00 – 8:00 p.m. The first meeting is February 26 in the gym therapy room of Prestige Care and
Rehabilitation Center at 21008 76th Avenue West. The first town meeting will be a meet and greet and
listening to people opinions. She encouraged the public to attend.
With regard to PRDs, Councilmember Orvis explained staff was proposing a code revision that would
eliminate the PRD process. He recommended the Council review the proposal and determine whether
any action needed to be taken in the interim. He suggested scheduling this as a 15 minute agenda item at
a future Council meeting.
Councilmember Wilson explained the original intent of the PRD code established by the State was to
allow preservation of environmental features and allow averaging to create the lots which reduced the lot
sizes. The current Edmonds PFD code does not reflect that intent. He suggested the intent of the original
the PRD code be retained and if the PRD code were eliminated, the code include tools to preserve
environmental features. Councilmember Orvis explained staff’s intent was to include that in the
subdivision code.
Councilmember Wilson was disappointed to learn the Finance Committee was presented a fourth set of
numbers regarding the Fire District 1 contract. If the City needed a fourth set of numbers, perhaps the
Fire District 1 contract should not have proceeded as rapidly as it did. With regard to using the previous
administration’s numbers, he pointed out the current Finance Director was hired in August and the
numbers were provided in October.
10. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Packet Page 36 of 337
AM-2832 2.D.
Approval of Claim Checks and Payroll Direct Deposit and Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/23/2010
Submitted By:Debbie Karber Time:Consent
Department:Finance Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #117180 through #117327 dated February 18, 2010 for $287,463.61,
and approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #49097 through #49128 for the pay period
February 1 through February 15, 2010 for $621,015.81.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit and checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council.
Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends
either approval or non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010
Revenue:
Expenditure:$908,479.42
Fiscal Impact:
Claims: $287,463.61
Payroll: $621,015.81
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 2-18-10
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 12:16 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/18/2010 02:06 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 02:14 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Started On: 02/18/2010 10:05
AM
Packet Page 37 of 337
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2010
Packet Page 38 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117180 2/18/2010 069798 A.M. LEONARD INC C110007916 BAMBOO STAKE
BAMBOO STAKE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 54.49
Total : 54.49
117181 2/18/2010 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 278339 1-13992
PEST CONTROL
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 63.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 6.01
Total : 69.26
117182 2/18/2010 068964 ACTION COMMUNICATIONS INC 1002099 EOC PW - Install Antenna
EOC PW - Install Antenna
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 1,354.70
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 128.70
Total : 1,483.40
117183 2/18/2010 068201 ACTIVE NETWORK INC 11009693 2-ply receipt paper for Class machine
2-ply receipt paper for Class machine
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 60.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 5.70
Total : 65.70
117184 2/18/2010 001055 ALLISON, STEVE Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117185 2/18/2010 065568 ALLWATER INC 021010070 COEWASTE
DRINKING WATER
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 21.85
9.5% Sales Tax
1Page:
Packet Page 39 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117185 2/18/2010 (Continued)065568 ALLWATER INC
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 0.67
Total : 22.52
117186 2/18/2010 073095 ANDERSON, TODD Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117187 2/18/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4752105 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 30.37
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.89
Total : 33.26
117188 2/18/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4739980 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 63.22
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.01
Total : 69.23
117189 2/18/2010 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0039120-IN Fleet Fuel - Reg 6000 Gal
Fleet Fuel - Reg 6000 Gal
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 12,427.20
St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 2,422.50
Diesel 3800 Gal
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 7,544.14
St Excise Tax , WA Oil Spill Recovery
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 1,530.34
Bio-Diesel - 200 Gal
511.000.657.548.680.340.13 635.38
St Excise Tax , WA Oil Spill Recovery
511.000.657.548.680.340.13 85.80
2Page:
Packet Page 40 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117189 2/18/2010 (Continued)071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
WA State Svc Fees
511.000.657.548.680.340.13 40.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.13 3.80
Fleet Fuel - Reg Gas 1600 Gal0040715-IN
Fleet Fuel - Reg Gas 1600 Gal
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 3,266.56
St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 645.44
Premium 7100 Gal
511.000.657.548.680.340.12 15,171.28
St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.657.548.680.340.12 2,872.23
Diesel - 500 Gal
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 983.70
St Excise Tax , WA Oil Spill Recovery
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 201.26
WA St Svc Fee
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 40.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 3.80
Total : 47,873.43
117190 2/18/2010 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 76798 Unit EQ61SO - 2 City Logos with
Unit EQ61SO - 2 City Logos with
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 207.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 19.67
Total : 226.67
117191 2/18/2010 073096 BAILEY, JAMES Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
3Page:
Packet Page 41 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117192 2/18/2010 071854 BEARD, MELISSA Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117193 2/18/2010 070525 BEARDSLEY, DOUG Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117194 2/18/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 794344 INV#794344 EDMONDS PD - FRAUSTO
BLACKHAWK TACTICAL PANT
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 39.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 3.80
INV#795023 EDMONDS PD - DIEHL795023
BELT
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 15.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 1.52
INV#795925 EDMONDS PD - ROBINSON795925
BELT KEEPER
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 13.35
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1.27
Total : 75.88
117195 2/18/2010 061481 BOYLE, W DEAN Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117196 2/18/2010 065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY 128223 Unit 86 - Rebuild Seat
Unit 86 - Rebuild Seat
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 261.50
8.6% Sales Tax
4Page:
Packet Page 42 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117196 2/18/2010 (Continued)065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 22.22
Unit 129 - Rebuild Bench Seat128228
Unit 129 - Rebuild Bench Seat
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 325.00
8.2% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 26.65
Total : 635.37
117197 2/18/2010 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN11827 YOGA
YOGA #11827
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 117.60
YOGA #12446
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 100.80
YOGA #12444
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 134.40
Total : 352.80
117198 2/18/2010 069295 BROWN, CANDY BROWN12045 BIRDS ARE AWESOME!
BIRDS ARE AWESOME! HOMESCHOOL CLASS
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 33.60
Total : 33.60
117199 2/18/2010 072988 BUNTTING INC C198 Pmt 4 Sr Ctr Entry Repair Pmt 4 Through
Sr Ctr Entry Repair Pmt 4 Through
116.000.651.519.920.480.00 36,796.29
Retainage Sr Ctr Entry Repair
116.000.000.223.400.000.00 -1,680.20
Total : 35,116.09
117200 2/18/2010 071457 CAMPBELL, TOM Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117201 2/18/2010 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 9705017 INV#9705017 CUST# 572105 EDMONDS PD
rental - 4 copiers thru 3/1/10
5Page:
Packet Page 43 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117201 2/18/2010 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 581.60
copies 11/30/09-1/31/2010
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 305.54
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 84.29
Total : 971.43
117202 2/18/2010 065171 CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC R-06230 5-Flexlicense Renewals thru 3/10/2011
5-Flexlicense Renewals thru 3/10/2011
111.000.653.542.900.490.00 1,952.50
5-Flexlicense Renewals thru 3/10/2011
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 1,952.50
5-Flexlicense Renewals thru 3/10/2011
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 1,952.50
5-Flexlicense Renewals thru 3/10/2011
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 1,952.50
Total : 7,810.00
117203 2/18/2010 072974 CASTELLON, MOISES Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117204 2/18/2010 072532 CHAO, ROBERT Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117205 2/18/2010 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT11987 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #11987
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 92.40
Total : 92.40
117206 2/18/2010 069947 CITRIX ONLINE I 200002452 CUSTOMER # 6000605063
22 GoToMyPC Support
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 4,002.24
6Page:
Packet Page 44 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 4,002.24 117206 2/18/2010 069947 069947 CITRIX ONLINE
117207 2/18/2010 005810 CRAIN, DOUGLAS 26 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,490.72
Total : 1,490.72
117208 2/18/2010 061539 DAHL, DOUG Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117209 2/18/2010 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING Monthly STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL
State Share of Concealed Pistol
001.000.000.237.190.000.00 534.00
Total : 534.00
117210 2/18/2010 070283 DICKINSON, JASON Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117211 2/18/2010 073097 DOWLING, JOHN Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117212 2/18/2010 007253 DUNN LUMBER 09274569 MORTAR
MORTAR FOR YOST POOL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.79
Total : 20.66
117213 2/18/2010 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 18039 UPS/ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
UPS/ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 67.39
7Page:
Packet Page 45 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117213 2/18/2010 (Continued)070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 6.40
Total : 73.79
117214 2/18/2010 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO R22512 Fleet Shop Supplies - 1000 "Unit Repair
Fleet Shop Supplies - 1000 "Unit Repair
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 266.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 25.27
Total : 291.27
117215 2/18/2010 062018 ERICKSON, DAVID Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117216 2/18/2010 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU19139 GLOVES
NITRILE GLOVES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 196.32
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.65
SUPPLIESWAMOU19147
ATTACK PACKS, SPILL KITS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 508.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 48.30
Total : 771.65
117217 2/18/2010 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 120589 Labor & Materials for IT work area move
Labor & Materials for IT work area move
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 906.44
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 86.11
Total : 992.55
117218 2/18/2010 010225 FISCHER, MIKE Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
8Page:
Packet Page 46 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117218 2/18/2010 (Continued)010225 FISCHER, MIKE
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117219 2/18/2010 061480 FLETT, THOMAS Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117220 2/18/2010 070011 FORD, JAY Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117221 2/18/2010 072001 GOOD EYE DESIGN 0209104 DESIGN UPDATE OF AD FOR SNO CO VGUIDE
Design update of ad for 2010 Snohomish
120.000.310.575.420.410.00 45.00
Total : 45.00
117222 2/18/2010 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 093886 Unit 129 - 2 Tires
Unit 129 - 2 Tires
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 467.58
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 44.42
Unit 28 - 2 Tires093891
Unit 28 - 2 Tires
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 236.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.47
Total : 770.97
117223 2/18/2010 072515 GOOGLE INC 1063769 C/A 101423
02/10 Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 554.77
Total : 554.77
9Page:
Packet Page 47 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117224 2/18/2010 073048 GUIDRY, CABOT Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117225 2/18/2010 073098 HAAS, DEVIN Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117226 2/18/2010 073099 HAMMERSMARK, KRISTEN Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117227 2/18/2010 013007 HASNER, EZRA J 23 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,470.36
Total : 1,470.36
117228 2/18/2010 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 1030-142 Drug testing services
Drug testing services
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 85.00
Total : 85.00
117229 2/18/2010 013100 HEPLER, PAT Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117230 2/18/2010 069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 47133632 HP NIC Adapter Kit
HP NIC Adapter Kit
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 1,530.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 145.35
HP NIC Adapter Kit47140173
HP NIC Adapter Kit
10Page:
Packet Page 48 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117230 2/18/2010 (Continued)069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 510.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 48.45
Total : 2,233.80
117231 2/18/2010 013315 HIATT, CHUCK 2010 Boot Allowance Street - 2010 Boot Allowance
Street - 2010 Boot Allowance
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 183.00
Total : 183.00
117232 2/18/2010 013425 HILLS, RANDY Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117233 2/18/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2080442 6035322500959949
SUPPLY LINE/POLY SHEET
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 113.46
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.78
60353225009599495034390
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.76
STUDS/LUMBER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 50.07
60353225009599499041586
LUMBER/NAILS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 66.40
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.31
Total : 251.78
117234 2/18/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1041956 FAC - Roof Supplies
FAC - Roof Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 94.74
11Page:
Packet Page 49 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117234 2/18/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.00
Cemetery - Repair Supplies1048813
Cemetery - Repair Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 50.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.82
Water - DC CO Alarms (2)1100559
Water - DC CO Alarms (2)
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 37.74
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.59
Sr Center - Plumbing Supplies2033107
Sr Center - Plumbing Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 25.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.45
Street - Tree Saw3011237
Street - Tree Saw
111.000.653.542.710.310.00 14.97
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.310.00 1.42
PW Faucet3031193
PW Faucet
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 26.39
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.51
Yost Pool - Screws3032784
Yost Pool - Screws
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.86
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.94
FAC - Shop Supplies3036481
FAC - Shop Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 37.41
12Page:
Packet Page 50 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117234 2/18/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.55
City Hall - Mayors Office Work Room -4036340
City Hall - Mayors Office Work Room -
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 32.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.06
Water - Supplies4094473
Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 86.36
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.20
Street - Sign Shop Supplies4099681
Street - Sign Shop Supplies
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 31.68
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 3.01
City Hall - Door Stop5032418
City Hall - Door Stop
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.52
FAC - Window Repair Supplies5040688
FAC - Window Repair Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 316.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.11
PS - Supplies5042104
PS - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.65
PW - Faucet5049403
PW - Faucet
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 39.16
13Page:
Packet Page 51 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117234 2/18/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.72
Sewer - Paint Supplies5099263
Sewer - Paint Supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 39.07
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.71
City Hall -Mayors Office - Shelving6034162
City Hall -Mayors Office - Shelving
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 277.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 26.40
Unit 5 & Fac Maint Shop Supplies7033994
Unit 5 & Fac Maint Shop Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 24.41
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.32
City Hall - Finance Repair Supplies89039
City Hall - Finance Repair Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 27.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.65
MCH - Stair Repair Supplies9035398
MCH - Stair Repair Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.88
Fac Maint Unit 95 - Supplies9082776
Fac Maint Unit 95 - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.78
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.21
Fac Maint Shop - Supplies9089530
Fac Maint Shop - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 23.70
14Page:
Packet Page 52 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117234 2/18/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
MCH - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.86
City Hall /Fac Maint - Supplies9090759
City Hall /Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 83.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.96
Return Shelving Unit from Mayors Office9250871
Return Shelving Unit from Mayors Office
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 -66.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 -6.36
FAC - Exterior Window Flashing9284417
FAC - Exterior Window Flashing
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 665.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 63.27
Water - Supplies9599899
Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 51.94
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.93
Total : 2,171.23
117235 2/18/2010 069890 HOOVER, TIM Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117236 2/18/2010 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 8941 PW Office Supplies
PW Office Supplies
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 24.12
PW Office Supplies
15Page:
Packet Page 53 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117236 2/18/2010 (Continued)070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 24.12
PW Office Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 24.12
PW Office Supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 24.12
PW Office Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.10
Fac Maint Paper Towels and Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 300.41
PW - Office Supplies, Batteries
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 36.62
PW - Office Supplies, Batteries
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 36.62
PW - Office Supplies, Batteries
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 36.62
PW - Office Supplies, Batteries
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 36.62
PW - Office Supplies, Batteries
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 36.62
Total : 604.09
117237 2/18/2010 071781 HUNTER, DAVID Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117238 2/18/2010 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 449685-1 Shop Supplies - Grind Disc, Drill Bits
Shop Supplies - Grind Disc, Drill Bits
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 39.12
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 7.58
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 4.44
Total : 51.14
16Page:
Packet Page 54 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117239 2/18/2010 070105 IFFERT, PAUL Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117240 2/18/2010 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 81321046 Rent on reception copier.
Rent on reception copier.
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 30.66
Rent on Engineering color copier.81366682
Rent on Engineering color copier.
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 443.48
Rent on large copier.81366685
Rent on large copier.
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 827.00
Total : 1,301.14
117241 2/18/2010 072599 JOHNSTON, LEIF Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117242 2/18/2010 073100 KARG, CHRISTOPHER Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117243 2/18/2010 072728 KAVADAS, JANET KAVADAS11850 PERSONAL TRAINING
PERSONAL TRAINING #11850
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 56.00
Total : 56.00
117244 2/18/2010 072976 KOMPAN INC INV66851 HICKMAN PARK SUPPLIES
SAFETY BAR FOR HICKMAN PARK
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 38.00
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
17Page:
Packet Page 55 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117244 2/18/2010 (Continued)072976 KOMPAN INC
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.51
Total : 63.51
117245 2/18/2010 064953 KRUGMIRE, DAVID Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117246 2/18/2010 063385 KUHN, BRETT W Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117247 2/18/2010 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 26280 C-311
C-311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 493.00
Total : 493.00
117248 2/18/2010 072697 LAWLER, PATRICK Lawler1/10 CBO Tests - paid to Pearson UE/ICC.
CBO Tests - paid to Pearson UE/ICC.
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 220.00
Total : 220.00
117249 2/18/2010 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 183089 Unit 18 - Tire Repair
Unit 18 - Tire Repair
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 307.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 29.17
Total : 336.17
117250 2/18/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 103533 Stools for IT Work Area
Stools for IT Work Area
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 796.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 75.62
18Page:
Packet Page 56 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 871.62 117250 2/18/2010 018760 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
117251 2/18/2010 073101 MAPLES, BEAU Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117252 2/18/2010 073102 MARTIN, JAMES Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117253 2/18/2010 073103 MAYFIELD, KYLE Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117254 2/18/2010 065310 MCALLISTER, BRIAN Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117255 2/18/2010 066719 MCKENZIE & ADAMS INC 0073813 JACKET, OVERALLS
OVERALLS & JACKET
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 44.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.20
Total : 48.40
117256 2/18/2010 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 46717774 123106800
QUARTZ DISC
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 100.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.54
Total : 105.54
117257 2/18/2010 068309 MERCURY FITNESS REPAIR INC 10011087 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
19Page:
Packet Page 57 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117257 2/18/2010 (Continued)068309 MERCURY FITNESS REPAIR INC
PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PER SERVICE
001.000.640.575.540.480.00 177.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.540.480.00 16.82
Total : 193.82
117258 2/18/2010 024001 NC MACHINERY CO SECS0502624 Unit 9 - Keys
Unit 9 - Keys
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 33.30
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.08
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.60
Total : 52.98
117259 2/18/2010 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0421134-IN Fleet Filter Inventory
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 32.01
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 3.04
Fleet Filter Inventory0421135-IN
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 6.06
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 0.57
Fleet Unit 18 Oilf Filter Return0421140-IN
Fleet Unit 18 Oilf Filter Return
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -82.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -7.54
Fleet Filter Inventory0421836-IN
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 13.94
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 1.33
20Page:
Packet Page 58 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117259 2/18/2010 (Continued)024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
Fleet Filter Inventory0422189-IN
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 0.24
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 2.51
Unit 337 - Trans Fluid0422191-IN
Unit 337 - Trans Fluid
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 107.26
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.19
Total : 87.61
117260 2/18/2010 063207 NESS, STEVEN Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117261 2/18/2010 063131 NICHOLS, ROBERT Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117262 2/18/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-079229 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:PINE STREET PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-079230
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:SIERRA PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-081470
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 101.20
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-081629
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:MARINA BEAC H :
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 412.76
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-081632
21Page:
Packet Page 59 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117262 2/18/2010 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL; CIVIC CENTER
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
Total : 1,083.57
117263 2/18/2010 067868 NW TANK & ENVIRONMENTAL 27149 Fleet - Fuel Tanks Maint Testing
Fleet - Fuel Tanks Maint Testing
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 396.25
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 37.65
Total : 433.90
117264 2/18/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 330719 INV#330719 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
WIRELESS MOUSE
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 38.39
STAPLER
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 19.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 3.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 1.85
Total : 63.34
117265 2/18/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 418965 Office Supplies - HR
Office Supplies - HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 88.35
Office supplies - Mayor's Office
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 180.68
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 8.39
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 17.17
Total : 294.59
117266 2/18/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 378302 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
22Page:
Packet Page 60 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117266 2/18/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 108.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 10.28
Total : 118.54
117267 2/18/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 332230 Misc. office supplies including red
Misc. office supplies including red
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 219.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 20.81
Total : 239.93
117268 2/18/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 138763 DVD/CD duplicator to be shared by Clerk
DVD/CD duplicator to be shared by Clerk
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 229.45
DVD/CD duplicator to be shared by Clerk
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 229.44
Total : 458.89
117269 2/18/2010 025888 OFTEDAHL, DENNIS Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117270 2/18/2010 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS PACNWFLOAT11981 STILLAGUAMISH FLOAT TRIP
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER GUIDED BIRDING
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 127.12
Total : 127.12
117271 2/18/2010 063588 PACIFIC POWER PRODUCTS CO 6282251-00 Unit 304 - Roadcall for Repairs
Unit 304 - Roadcall for Repairs
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 666.84
8.6% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 57.34
Total : 724.18
23Page:
Packet Page 61 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117272 2/18/2010 073085 PACSOFT LLC 10-02001 VIRTUAL STORAGE
Virtual Storage Software310-00137
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 17,000.00
Implementation of Virtual Storage310-00137
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 7,000.00
Virtual Storage Software Maintenance310-00137
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 5,000.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 1,615.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 665.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 475.00
Total : 31,755.00
117273 2/18/2010 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.909736 PAINT SUPPLIES
PAINT SUPPLIES FOR YOST POOL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.63
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.10
Total : 12.73
117274 2/18/2010 073107 PARKER, MARILYN PARKER021610 REFUND
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR PLAZA ROOM
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00
Total : 500.00
117275 2/18/2010 073108 PETTIT, KELLY PETTIT020110 REFUND
CLASS REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 52.50
Total : 52.50
117276 2/18/2010 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER
Stormwater Rent & Leasehold tax
411.000.652.542.900.450.00 1,665.96
Total : 1,665.96
24Page:
Packet Page 62 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117277 2/18/2010 071184 PROCOM 2010-1321 PROF SERV FIBER OPTIC PROJ
Prof Serv Fiber Optic Proj for Jan-2010
001.000.310.518.870.410.00 156.25
Total : 156.25
117278 2/18/2010 073056 PROSPECT CONSTRUCTION INC 2 REPLACES CK 116978
Progress Pmt #2 C311 Odor Control
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 70,835.85
Total : 70,835.85
117279 2/18/2010 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PRTOZ11863 FELDENKRAIS
FELDENKRAIS: FINDING FLEXIBILITY#11863
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 263.20
Total : 263.20
117280 2/18/2010 073104 ROBINSON, ANTONIO Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117281 2/18/2010 069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 01804-293006 Unit 720 - Windshield Repair
Unit 720 - Windshield Repair
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 29.95
Total : 29.95
117282 2/18/2010 067681 SAGE CONTROL ORDNANCE INC 10149 INV#10149 - EDMONDS PD
IMPACT BATON-STANDARD ENERGY
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 169.20
IMPACT BATON-LESS ENERGY
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 132.30
Freight
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 35.37
Total : 336.87
117283 2/18/2010 073105 SARCHIN, JEFF Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
25Page:
Packet Page 63 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 37.50 117283 2/18/2010 073105 073105 SARCHIN, JEFF
117284 2/18/2010 065001 SCHIRMAN, RON 24 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,985.90
Total : 1,985.90
117285 2/18/2010 071610 SCHLEICHER, BRIAN Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117286 2/18/2010 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 03-031048 Unit 5 - Cap, Rotor, Spark Plugs, Wire
Unit 5 - Cap, Rotor, Spark Plugs, Wire
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 160.79
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.28
Unit 5 - Battery03-031335
Unit 5 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 68.86
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.54
Unit 90 - Tune Up Supplies03-031567
Unit 90 - Tune Up Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 49.46
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.70
Unit 372 - Drum/Rotor, Pads03-032175
Unit 372 - Drum/Rotor, Pads
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 48.96
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.65
Unit 535 - Brake Supplies03-032651
Unit 535 - Brake Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 164.94
9.5% Sales Tax
26Page:
Packet Page 64 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117286 2/18/2010 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.67
Unit 535 - Battery03-032711
Unit 535 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 65.89
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.26
Unit 121 - Brake Supplies03-033463
Unit 121 - Brake Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 86.52
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.22
Unit 128 - Pads, Filter Assembly,03-034074
Unit 128 - Pads, Filter Assembly,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 68.48
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.51
Unit 128 - Screen Assembly03-034117
Unit 128 - Screen Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.89
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.41
Unit 127 - Gasket, Thermostat03-034817
Unit 127 - Gasket, Thermostat
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.97
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.37
Unit 127 - Cap, Rotor03-035665
Unit 127 - Cap, Rotor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.93
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.32
Unit 127 - Hose03-035666
Unit 127 - Hose
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.75
9.5% Sales Tax
27Page:
Packet Page 65 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117286 2/18/2010 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.36
Unit 127 - Battery03-035772
Unit 127 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 69.89
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.64
Unit 129 - Pads03-035874
Unit 129 - Pads
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 41.39
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.93
Fleet Returns - Pads, Rotor, Belts05-333311
Fleet Returns - Pads, Rotor, Belts
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -185.72
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -17.64
Fleet - Battery Core Fees05-334058
Fleet - Battery Core Fees
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -8.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -0.76
Fleet Returns - Rotor, Brk Liner Kit05-335495
Fleet Returns - Rotor, Brk Liner Kit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -172.74
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -16.41
Fleet Returns - Screen Assembly05-335931
Fleet Returns - Screen Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -15.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -1.52
Unit Escape - Brake Supplies05-630557
Unit Escape - Brake Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 123.76
9.5% Sales Tax
28Page:
Packet Page 66 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117286 2/18/2010 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.76
Total : 706.33
117287 2/18/2010 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 10-19 Unit 31 - Heavy Duty Cuffed Rubber
Unit 31 - Heavy Duty Cuffed Rubber
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 465.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 44.18
Total : 509.18
117288 2/18/2010 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET 260791 Unit 413 - Mats
Unit 413 - Mats
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 58.65
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.57
Unit 413 - Pipe85446
Unit 413 - Pipe
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 227.44
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.61
Returned Pad KitCM84770
Returned Pad Kit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -154.44
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -14.67
Total : 144.16
117289 2/18/2010 065194 SEWER EQUIPMENT CO OF AMERICA 0000103212 Unit 98 - Supplies
Unit 98 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 55.45
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.97
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.30
Total : 72.72
29Page:
Packet Page 67 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117290 2/18/2010 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 194334 INV#194334 EDMONDS PD #10-0454
TOWING 1987 BMW 325 - 487SVD
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
Total : 173.01
117291 2/18/2010 060855 SILVER LAKE TROPHY &17308 Retirement plaques
Retirement plaques
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 131.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 12.52
Total : 144.32
117292 2/18/2010 070270 SMITH, CLAYTON Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117293 2/18/2010 036825 SMITH, MICHAEL J Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117294 2/18/2010 037330 SNO CO PLANNING & DEVLP SERV I000243682 2010 Sno Co Tomorrow Dues
2010 Sno Co Tomorrow Dues
001.000.390.519.900.490.00 6,809.00
Total : 6,809.00
117295 2/18/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 5320018384 SIERRA PARK BALLFIELD
SIERRA PARK BALLFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.53
Total : 30.53
117296 2/18/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 307016520 620-001-500-3
VARIOUS LOCATIONS
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 6.92
30Page:
Packet Page 68 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117296 2/18/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 0.42
206-001-485-5537010413
24400 HIGHWAY 99/RICHMOND PARK
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 28.32
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.70
463-001-671-7782014036
8421 244TH ST SW/RICHMOND PARK
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 28.32
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.70
Total : 67.38
117297 2/18/2010 037723 SNO CO VISITOR INFO CENTER EdmWW CO-OP AD IN WESTWORLD WINTER 2009
City portion of co-op ad in Westworld
120.000.310.575.420.440.00 1,541.00
Total : 1,541.00
117298 2/18/2010 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 2/5/10 Mayor Haakenson & L. Carl - 1/20 dinner
Mayor Haakenson & L. Carl - 1/20 dinner
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 35.00
Strom Peterson - 1/20 dinner
001.000.110.511.100.490.00 35.00
Total : 70.00
117299 2/18/2010 073109 SNYDER ROOFING OF 10-w018-1 M-051
M-051 ROOF REPLACEMENT
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 22,000.00
M051 RETAINAGE ROOF REPLACEMENT
414.000.000.223.400.000.00 -1,100.00
9.5% Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 2,090.00
Total : 22,990.00
31Page:
Packet Page 69 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117300 2/18/2010 062502 SOUCY, JOSEPH Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117301 2/18/2010 064869 STEINBACH, JUSTIN Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117302 2/18/2010 065298 STEVENS HEALTHCARE, ACCT #7350-5351 7350-5351 H1N1 Flu Shots - 32 participants
H1N1 Flu Shots - 32 participants
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 480.00
Total : 480.00
117303 2/18/2010 071093 STEVENS, DAVID Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117304 2/18/2010 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2111374 SEAVIEW ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
SEAVIEW RESTROOM SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.72
SEAVIEW RESTROOM SUPPLIES2111375
SEAVIEW RESTROOM SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.91
Total : 41.80
117305 2/18/2010 040433 STORM, JOHN Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
32Page:
Packet Page 70 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117306 2/18/2010 073106 STRAWN, CORY Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117307 2/18/2010 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10912130 Fleet Shop Supplies
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 24.90
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 2.37
Total : 27.27
117308 2/18/2010 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 50796 Fleet - Uniform TShirts
Fleet - Uniform TShirts
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 208.75
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 19.84
Total : 228.59
117309 2/18/2010 060167 TEREX UTILITIES 020-135786 Unit 101- Repairs
Unit 101- Repairs
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 7,206.91
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 684.66
Total : 7,891.57
117310 2/18/2010 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 16451 Fleet - Keys and Tags
Fleet - Keys and Tags
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.19
Fleet - Code Key, Keys16476
Fleet - Code Key, Keys
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.25
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.54
33Page:
Packet Page 71 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 31.48 117310 2/18/2010 042800 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY
117311 2/18/2010 062693 US BANK 1070 INV#1070 02/08/10 - THOMPSON - EDMONDS P
PROMOTION FRAMES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 394.92
LUNCH/POL.SERVICE PANEL
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 69.86
ADD SHIPPING CHG-PAPER ROLLS
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 42.04
OLYMPUS WS VOICE RECORDER
001.000.410.521.100.350.00 72.00
CONFERENCE MICROPHONE
001.000.410.521.100.350.00 66.95
HEAVY DUTY PAPER BAGS
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 196.90
WHITE CARD STOCK
001.000.410.521.710.310.00 36.56
SOLO BISTRO DRINK CUPS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 93.78
LUNCH FOR ORAL BOARD PANEL
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 83.23
INV#3181 - 02/08/10 - BARD - EDMONDS PD3181
FLASH DRIVES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 29.17
COIN ENVELOPES
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 29.00
MICRO FIBER CLOTH
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 46.83
BATTERY FOR PROLASER
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 132.55
APEX MICRO FIBER CLOTH
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 15.61
REG. EXCEL SEMINAR-RAMSEUR
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 79.00
REG.EXCEL SEMINAR- RAMSEUR
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 49.00
34Page:
Packet Page 72 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117311 2/18/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
REG. REMINGTON 870-DAVIDSON
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 400.00
REG. REMINGTON 870-SMITH,DJ
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 400.00
REG. SKILL PATH-MARSH
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 249.00
CANON POWERSHOT CAMERA
001.000.410.521.220.350.00 423.78
INV#3256 - 02/08/10 - GANNON -EDMONDS PD3256
FBINAA MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
001.000.410.521.100.490.00 82.00
COMMAND COLLEGE-GANNON-FUEL
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 26.06
COMMAND COLLEGE/GANNON-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 39.24
COMMAND COLLEGE-GANNON-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 6.61
COMMAND COLLEGE/GANNON-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 15.48
COMMAND COLLEGE/GANNON-FUEL
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 31.44
COMMAND COLLEGE/GG-JJ-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 64.78
COMMAND COLLEGE/GANNON-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 61.77
COMMAND COLLEGE/GANNON-LODGIN
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 480.50
COMMAND COLLEGE-GANNON-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 16.09
COMMAND COLLEGE/GANNON-FUEL
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 13.22
INV#3314 02/08/10 LAWLESS-EDMONDS PD3314
CHIEF'S WORKING BFAST 1/15/10
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 13.00
35Page:
Packet Page 73 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117311 2/18/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
HAND JACK SETS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 413.98
FERRY CHARGE-HARDWICK TRAINING
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 23.70
INV#3512 - 02/08/10 - TRAINING-EDMONDS P3512
FENDALL EYEWASH SOLUTION
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 41.41
FEDEX CHARGE #09-4343
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 56.65
COMMAND COLLEGE/ROTH-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 190.13
COMMAND COLLEGE/ROTH-LODGING
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 469.40
COMMAND COLLEGE/KR-RB-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 40.52
INV#3520 - 02/08/10 -TRAINING-EDMONDS PD3520
COMMAND COLLEGE/JJ-RB-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 37.94
COMMAND COLLEGE/JJ-RB-FUEL
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 31.53
COMMAND COLLEGE/JJ-RB-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 67.11
COMMAND COLLEGE/RB-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 6.79
COMMAND COLLEGE/JJ-RB-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 33.63
COMMAND COLLEGE/RB-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 39.87
COMMAND COLLEGE/RB-KR-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 53.31
COMMAND COLLEGE-JJ-RB-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 36.57
COMMAND COLLEGE-RB-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 6.79
36Page:
Packet Page 74 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117311 2/18/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
COMMAND COLLEGE/JJ-RB-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 28.94
COMMAND COLLEGE/JJ-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 31.07
COMMAND COLLEGE/JJ-RB-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 23.44
COMMAND COLLEGE/RB-FOOD
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 14.83
COMMAND COLLEGE/LODGING-BARKE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 469.40
COMMAND COLLEGE/LODGING-JONES
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 480.50
COMMAND COLLEGE/JJ-RB-FUEL
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 37.86
POSTAGE FOR EVIDENCE-#09-2692
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 14.73
Total : 6,410.47
117312 2/18/2010 062693 US BANK 3207 Overnight stay for SCC/WCS legislative
Overnight stay for SCC/WCS legislative
001.000.210.513.100.430.00 114.92
Cost of SCC/AWC legislative dinner.
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 1,898.36
Webinar - Effective Perf. Evaluations -3280
Webinar - Effective Perf. Evaluations -
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 199.00
Building Official Ad, #10-01
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 25.00
Webinar - Prevention and Control of
411.000.656.538.800.490.71 199.00
Sewer MW I ad, #10-03
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 25.00
Total : 2,461.28
117313 2/18/2010 062693 US BANK 3330 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION
37Page:
Packet Page 75 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117313 2/18/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
SISTER CITY: MARINER TICKETS
623.200.210.557.210.490.00 195.00
Total : 195.00
117314 2/18/2010 073068 VALLEY BANK CR: Esc Acct 348 PROSPECT CONSTRUCTION RETAINAGE #2
Retainage #2 Prospect Construction Proj
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 3,389.28
Total : 3,389.28
117315 2/18/2010 065269 VALLEY FREIGHTLINER INC 2200280011 Unit 20 - Rad Hose
Unit 20 - Rad Hose
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 95.62
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.08
Total : 104.70
117316 2/18/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 43.02
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1691
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 42.36
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM425-776-5316
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 109.84
Total : 195.22
117317 2/18/2010 064858 VISITORS GUIDE PUBLICATIONS 10-1061 2010 SNO CO VISITOR'S GUIDE ADVERTISEMEN
2010 advertisement in Sno Co Visitor's
120.000.310.575.420.440.00 2,295.00
Total : 2,295.00
117318 2/18/2010 064858 VISITORS GUIDE PUBLICATIONS 10-1055 VISITOR'S GUIDE LISTING
VISITORS GUIDE LISTING
123.000.640.573.100.440.00 250.00
38Page:
Packet Page 76 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 250.00 117318 2/18/2010 064858 064858 VISITORS GUIDE PUBLICATIONS
117319 2/18/2010 061733 WARREN, DEAN Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117320 2/18/2010 067104 WCPDA 2010WCPDA 2010 WCPDA MEMBERSHIP FOR DIRECTOR
2010 WCPDA Membership for Stephen
001.000.610.519.700.490.00 50.00
Total : 50.00
117321 2/18/2010 048100 WEINZ, JACK D 25 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 150.00
Total : 150.00
117322 2/18/2010 049208 WESTERN EQUIP DIST INC 621176 Unit 109 - Supplies
Unit 109 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 91.41
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.08
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.55
Total : 110.04
117323 2/18/2010 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR E64675 UNIFORM/VAUGHAN
UNIFORM/VAUGHAN
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 134.99
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 12.42
UNIFORM/DANIELSONE64676
UNIFORM/DANIELSON
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 107.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 9.88
UNIFORM/GARCIAE64734
39Page:
Packet Page 77 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117323 2/18/2010 (Continued)072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR
UNIFORM/GARCIA
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 204.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 18.80
UNIFORM/GARCIAE64735
UNIFORM/GARCIA
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 44.99
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 4.14
UNIFORM/LEINE64738
UNIFORM/LEIN
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 319.39
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 30.61
Total : 886.96
117324 2/18/2010 065015 WHITE, DONALD J Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
117325 2/18/2010 049905 WHITNEY EQUIPMENT CO INC 0032187-IN EDMO CI
DO ASSEMBLY
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 543.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 21.57
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 53.64
Total : 618.21
117326 2/18/2010 050030 WOODS, JOEL Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
40Page:
Packet Page 78 of 337
02/18/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
9:45:04AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117327 2/18/2010 065036 YOAKUM, ANDRE Union Refund REFUND 1ST HALF OF JAN WSCFF COLLECTED
Refund 1st half of Jan WSCFF Collected
811.000.000.111.100.000.00 37.50
Total : 37.50
Bank total : 287,463.61 148 Vouchers for bank code :front
287,463.61Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report 148
41Page:
Packet Page 79 of 337
AM-2833 2.E.
Sister City Confirmation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/23/2010
Submitted By:Linda Carl
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment of Stohn Nishino to Position #8 of the Edmonds Sister
City Commission.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Stohn Nishino was interviewed by the Sister City Commission and recommended to the Mayor for
appointment. He will fill Position #8, which is a full three-year term (through 2012).
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Application
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 12:16 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/18/2010 02:06 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 02:14 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 02/18/2010 11:12
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2010
Packet Page 80 of 337
Packet Page 81 of 337
AM-2820 2.F.
Interurban Trail Consultant Supplemental Agreement
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/23/2010
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Robert English Time:Consent
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #6 to the Professional Services
Agreement for design of the Edmonds Interurban Trail.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #6 with KPFF Consulting
Engineers.
Previous Council Action
On April 6, 2004, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a consultant contract with KPFF
Consulting Engineers for design of the Interurban Trail project.
On February 21, 2006, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with
KPFF Consulting Engineers.
On July 7, 2009, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #5 with KPFF
Consulting Engineers.
Narrative
The Interurban Trail Project will complete the missing link of the regional trail thru Edmonds. The
trail will head north on 76th Avenue West from the new section in Shoreline at SR104, continue to
the old rail corridor at McAleer Way and follow the corridor to 228th Street SW, where it will
connect with the new southern terminus of the Mountlake Terrace trail. The trail project includes a
.47 mile 12-foot wide paved path, landscaping, benches, signage, bicycle racks, a shelter and an
information kiosk. Additional shared road portions totaling .90 mile along busy 76th Avenue and
residential 74th Avenue will be reconfigured to add a dedicated bike lane to complete the 1.37
mile section. Traffic calming techniques will be installed at road crossings, along with appropriate
signage.
The consultant, KPFF Consulting Engineers, was hired in 2004 to complete the preliminary
engineering phase of the project. The initial contract amount of $129,841 has been modified with
five supplements. The current contract amount is $450,478. In order to complete the design phase,
an additional appropriation is required from Fund 125 in the amount of $48,282. The additional
scope of work for the supplement is as follows:
Packet Page 82 of 337
- Catch basin frame and grate replacement within the bike lanes along 76th Avenue West and
228th Street SW;
- Supplemental infiltration testing along the PUD-owned parcel on the west side of 76th
Avenue West;
- Perform survey work on properties where a temporary construction easement is necessary,
and locate right-of-way of PUD poles along the east side of 76th Avenue West, from 242nd Street
SW to McAleer Way and centerline on McAleer Way;
- Modular block walls on certain properties;
- Coordination with PUD in regard to the expansion of the stormwater facility on McAleer
Way; and
- Relocation of a sanitary sewer manhole and cleanout along McAleer Way into public
right-of-way. (This item will be funded by Fund 412.300.)
In 2009, the City was successful in securing a grant in the amount of $577,000 from the
Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), along with a federal grant in the amount of $500,000
from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program. These are in addition to the
PSRC grant in the amount of $250,000 awarded in June of 2002, bringing the total grant funding
for the project to $1,327,000.
The current schedule is to complete design this spring and begin construction in the summer.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: KPFF Addendum 6
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 02/18/2010 12:42 PM APRV
2 Public Works Noel Miller 02/18/2010 03:51 PM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 03:53 PM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/19/2010 08:53 AM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/19/2010 10:29 AM APRV
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Started On: 02/17/2010 10:43
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/19/2010
Packet Page 83 of 337
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
4
o
f
3
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
5
o
f
3
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
6
o
f
3
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
7
o
f
3
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
8
o
f
3
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
9
o
f
3
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
0
o
f
3
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
1
o
f
3
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
2
o
f
3
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
3
o
f
3
3
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
4
o
f
3
3
7
AM-2827 2.G.
226th Street SW Walkway Project Bid Authorization
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/23/2010
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Robert English Time:Consent
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to call for bids for the 226th Street SW Walkway Project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize Staff to advertise for bids for the 226th Street SW Walkway Project.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
On February 20, 2009, the City was awarded a federal grant (Highway Safety Improvement
Program) in the amount of $185,000 to fully fund the design and construction phases of the 226th
Street SW Walkway project. The project consists of constructing 300 feet of sidewalk on the south
side of 226th Street SW, between SR104 and 105th Place West. Other improvements include new
ADA curb ramps, storm drain additions, curb and gutter, and minor widening of 226th Street SW.
The project plans and contract documents are nearing completion and staff is requesting
authorization to advertise the project for construction bids.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 02/18/2010 10:54 AM APRV
2 Public Works Noel Miller 02/18/2010 03:51 PM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 03:53 PM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/19/2010 08:53 AM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/19/2010 10:29 AM APRV
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Started On: 02/17/2010 03:34
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/19/2010
Packet Page 95 of 337
Packet Page 96 of 337
AM-2837 3.
Edmonds Floretum Garden Club
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/23/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:10 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Presentation by the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club on the renovation of the garden at Old
Mill Town.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Betty Larmen, representing the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club, will give a presentation on the
Garden Club's plans for the renovation of the garden at Old Mill Town.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 01:00 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/18/2010 02:06 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 02:14 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 02/18/2010 12:59
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2010
Packet Page 97 of 337
AM-2830 5.
Funding Proposal for the Building Maintenance Fund 116
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/23/2010
Submitted By:Kim Karas
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:15 Minutes
Department:Public Works Type:Action
Review Committee:Finance
Committee Action:Recommend Review by Full Council
Information
Subject Title
Funding proposal for the Building Maintenance Fund 116.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize an additional source of funding for Building Maintenance Fund 116 to preserve and
keep City buildings functioning utilizing $300,000 of a portion of the proceeds from the sale of
equipment associated with the City's Fire Stations to Snohomish County Fire District No. 1.
Previous Council Action
This proposal was reviewed by the Finance Committee on February 9, 2010 and has been
forwarded to the full Council for action.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds building facilities are in need of augmented capital funding support to
preserve and maintain their safety and serviceability. There continues to be an increasing backlog
of project work required for their preservation, and the historic level of transfers from the general
fund to capital facilities projects Fund 116 is a quarter of what is truly needed. At this level, there
are entire projects listed in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in excess of this annual
funding that otherwise stand never to be done. Unless we begin to address this shortfall now, we
will see increasing instances of costly emergency repairs brought on by deferring repair and
renovation projects among our facilities. Our buildings are growing older; the newest is Fire
Station #16, and it sees its seventh year of service in 2010. Public Safety, the next youngest,
attains its eleven-year anniversary. None of us would envision purchasing and operating a new car
for these periods of time without foreseeing that there are significant bills coming for adequate
upkeep.
The new 2010-16 CIP which is attached identifies projects that are needed to keep our building
facilities safe and operable. However, the gap between planned funding for capital projects and
what is needed is also readily apparent. In 2009, the City contracted with Fire District #1 to
provide emergency fire and medical services. As part of this contract, the district paid a one-time
sum which netted approximately $600,000 to the City for the purchase of equipment associated
with the three fire stations. In this agreement, the City opted to retain ownership of the stations
because of the revenue from transport fees, but ownership of these stations also requires
maintaining them and eventually replacing them when the time comes. This understanding
Packet Page 98 of 337
supports the reinvestment of this funding into facilities the City must keep in service, and because
it relieves additional pressure from the already-strained revenue underpinning the general fund.
At the start of this calendar year, there is approximately $100,000 carried over in Fund 116,
Facilities Maintenance Capital Projects. The highest priority projects will easily deplete the
available funds and keep the City from making progress into the growing project backlog. The
most needed projects that cannot be fully funded is the renovation work for the Edmonds
Historical Museum. Insufficient funding leaves the City in a position not to take advantage of a
state grant, already conditionally awarded and now held in reserve. This grant will fund 1/3 of the
estimated $150,000 cost to complete a full renewal of the building’s exterior envelope. Without
additional capital support, this unique opportunity to leverage increasingly scarce state funding for
the work on the Museum will be lost. Attached is a letter of support from the Edmonds Historical
Society. Additionally, there is HVAC work and other repair work that needs to be done at the fire
stations. By the conscious choice to keep ownership of the fire stations, the City is now obligated
to address the capital needs of these three buildings operated today by Fire District #1.
For a number of years now, the Capital Improvement Program projected for the City’s facilities
under Fund 116 has documented a need for approximately $200,000 per year more than is
regularly scheduled to be allocated. Due to the current shortage of revenue into the City’s General
Fund, there are no annually stable sources of funding available to increase the transfer to meet this
need. Therefore staff recommends setting aside $300,000 of the $600,000 for the purpose of
investing in the usable life of the City’s facilities. This money would fund the following priority
projects:
2010
Museum Exterior Repairs $100,000 ($48,000 state match added)
Anderson Center Roof Replacement $30,000
FS #16 Painting $5,000
FS #17 Carpet $12,000
Cemetery Bldg. Gutters $5,000
Wade James Gutters $5,000
2011
Anderson Center Radiators $75,000
Wade James Roof Replacement $30,000
2012
Anderson Center Oil Tank $30,000
FS #20 Interior Painting $10,000
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - Building Maintenance CIP
Link: Exhibit 2 - Edmonds Historical Society
Packet Page 99 of 337
Link: Exhibit 2 - Edmonds Historical Society
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 12:16 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/18/2010 02:06 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 02:14 PM APRV
Form Started By: Kim
Karas
Started On: 02/18/2010 08:14
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2010
Packet Page 100 of 337
Packet Page 101 of 337
Packet Page 102 of 337
AM-2821 6.
Naming Recommendations for the New Park at 162nd St. SW & 75th Pl. W
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/23/2010
Submitted By:Brian McIntosh Time:15 Minutes
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Report on the Edmonds Planning Board's naming recommendations for the new park in
North Edmonds at 162nd Street SW and 75th Place W.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Consider the Edmonds Planning Board's recommendations and confirm a name for the new park.
Previous Council Action
Council adopted the Park Naming Policy on March 24, 2009.
Narrative
Through the Park Naming Policy adopted by City Council in 2009 the Planning Board is charged
with recommending park names for new parks developed in Edmonds. A new park will be opened
in north Edmonds this spring at the northwest corner of 162nd St. SW & 75th Pl. W. With the
assistance of Parks & Recreation staff, naming proposals were solicited throughout the City during
a five week period last fall and 63 names were submitted for consideration. A three person
Planning Board sub-committee was established to review all of the proposed names and bring
recommendations to the February 10, 2010 Park Naming public hearing.
During the public portion of the hearing eight citizens spoke and all referenced the important
neighborhood history and contributions of the citizens involved in making that history. One
additional letter was also received and included for the hearing.
Following Planning Board discussion the following recommendation was made:
BOARD MEMBER CLARKE MOVED THE BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE CITY
COUNCIL THAT THE PERMANENT NAME FOR THE NEW PARK AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF 162ND STREET SOUTHWEST AND 75TH PLACE WEST SHOULD BE
HAINES WHARF PARK. HE FURTHER MOVED THAT THE PARK SHOULD ALSO
RECOGNIZE THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF DELMAR CARYL, AS DISCUSSED BY THE
BOARD, AND THAT INTERPRETIVE ARTWORK OR MEDIUM BE ADDED TO THE
PARK THAT EXPLAINS THE HISTORY OF THE AREA AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF
THE INDIVDUALS THAT ARE RECOGNIZED. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED
THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 103 of 337
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: PB DRAFT minutes Feb 10.10
Link: Park Naming Policy
Link: Park Design
Link: Park Naming Entries
Link: Supporting document 34
Link: Supporting document 29
Link: Supporting document 32
Link: Supporting document 46
Link: Park Naming Form
Link: LeWarne letter
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 09:37 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/18/2010 02:07 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 02:14 PM APRV
Form Started By: Brian
McIntosh
Started On: 02/17/2010 11:16
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2010
Packet Page 104 of 337
DRAFT
Subject to February 24th Approval
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
February 10, 2010
Chair Pro Tem Guenther called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers,
Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Cary Guenther (Chair Pro Tem)
Kevin Clarke
John Reed
Valerie Stewart
Todd Cloutier
Kristiana Johnson
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Ranee McRae, Recreational Manager
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Michael Bowman, Chair (excused)
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2010 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. CHAIR PRO TEM GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ON EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD’S PROCESS AND NAMING RECOMMENDATION
FOR THE NEW PARK CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 162ND
STREET SOUTHWEST AND 75TH PLACE WEST IN EDMONDS
Mr. McIntosh recalled that on December 9, 2009, the Planning Board agreed that the Park Naming Committee would
recommend their top choices to the Planning Board in a public hearing at a subsequent Planning Board Meeting. He
explained that through the Park Naming Policy adopted by the City Council on March 24, 2009, the Planning Board is
charged with recommending park names for new parks developed in Edmonds. A new park will be opened in north
Edmonds this spring at the northwest corner of 162nd Street Southwest and 75th Place West. With the assistance of Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Services Staff, naming proposals were solicited throughout the City and 63 recommendations (35
actual different names) were submitted for consideration by the Planning Board. A subcommittee was established to
examine all the submissions and provide the Planning Board with a short list at the February 20th public hearing. The name
recommended will be forwarded to the City Council for final approval.
Packet Page 105 of 337
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
February 10, 2010 Page 2
Chair Pro Tem Guenther opened the hearing for public comment.
John Quast, Edmonds, said that he lives in the Meadowdale area and was present to speak in favor of naming the new park
after Delmar H. Caryl. He explained that Mr. Caryl was involved in local politics and was passionate about the community.
He was a librarian at Edmonds Community College and actually wrote a book, With Angels to the Rear, which is a history of
the Meadowdale area. Mr. Caryl was also an entrepreneur and fisherman in the local area. He was an airplane pilot and
spent a lot of time sharing his insight about the history of the area with his neighbors.
Herb Haines, Seattle, said he was present to speak in support of naming the new park after his grandfather, Herbert Haines,
who owned and operated Haines Wharf from the early 1930’s through 1970. He pointed out that his family has a significant
presence in the area and his father and uncle owned and operated the park for a number of years, as well. He said he grew up
in the Meadowdale school system and many of his teachers worked at the Wharf at one time or another. He said his
grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles and cousins lived within a half mile of the wharf. He summarized that not only was
Haines Wharf an economic asset to the community, it was also a social place.
Bob Burton, Edmonds, said he worked at Haines Wharf in 1950 and 1951 when it was considered the red carpet place to
work and fish during the days when people did not have boat trailers and large motors. They came to Haines Wharf and
other establishments on Puget Sound to rent 16-foot boats for fishing. He recommended the new park be named Haines
Wharf or some variation. He said Haines Wharf was Meadowdale for many years; it offered employment opportunities and
thousands of people came to fish. He recalled a time when cars were lined up at the gate at 3 a.m. all the way to
Meadowdale Road. He said one neighbor shared how people used to steal his newspaper to read while they were waiting in
line.
Charles LeWarne, Edmonds, said he came to Edmonds 50 years ago. He pointed out that people have known the location
of Haines Wharf for decades. You didn’t have to work there or be a fisherman to know about Haines Wharf, and it has been
an Edmonds landmark since 1950. He noted that the proposed new park is located right at the wharf so Haines Wharf Park
would be an appropriate name. He explained that many people in Edmonds have talked about how to instill a sense of
history and heritage in the community. When he served on the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission, they talked
about how to make people aware of the community and what it has been in the past. One of the easiest and least expensive
ways to do this is to name things for historic individuals and places that people know. There can be no better example of this
than Haines Wharf. People 50 to 100 years from now will want to know what Haines Wharf was and the answer will come
that it was an important sport fishing location and a landmark in Edmonds. He asked the Board to recommend naming the
new park Haines Wharf or an appropriate variation.
Janice Haines, Seattle, said it has been her privilege to marry into the Haines family 15 years ago. When she first became
involved with the Haines family she did not realize the magnitude of Haines Wharf and all the history that went along with it.
However, throughout the past years, she has learned more and more fascinating things about the wharf. She said that when
her husband’s father (Herbert Foster Haines) passed away in 2008, many people from the Edmonds area attended the service
and reminisced about Haines Wharf. In addition, her husband is an avid fisherman, and he meets a lot of people who want to
know if he is connected to the Haines Wharf family. She expressed her belief that it is very important, especially in today’s
world where history is going by the way side, to save and preserve the memories and greatness of the area. She asked that
the Board recommend naming the park Haines Wharf in reference to the Haines family. She said it warms the Haines
family’s heart to hear that others in the community feel as strongly as they do about the history of the wharf.
Lori Dressler, Edmonds, agreed that Haines Wharf has been a huge landmark in the Meadowdale area. However, the
history of Meadowdale is much larger than just the wharf. She referred to the history book, With Angels to the Rear, written
by Delmar Caryl, who was a resident of Meadowdale for more than 70 years. In his book he speaks about Haines Wharf, but
he also speaks about so much more that was the Meadowdale area and what it provided for the community and the area
economically, culturally, socially, etc. She summarized that Mr. Caryl was a wonderful neighbor and long-term resident.
There are many people in the community that deserve to have the park named after them, but she feels the best name for the
park is Del Caryl Park.
Packet Page 106 of 337
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
February 10, 2010 Page 3
Fred Holly, Edmonds, said his wife’s parents moved to the store front across the street in 1952, when it was originally the
Meadowdale Post Office and store. He said that in the late 1980’s his family purchased the property, including the park
property with the thought of subdividing and selling it. They were able to subdivide and sell a portion of the property they
purchased. However, because of the 20,000 square foot lot size requirement, the City informed them that they would not be
able to subdivide the remaining property. They were able to reach an agreement with the City to give the north lot to the
City in exchange for the City allowing them to downsize the lot size requirement so they could divide the remaining property
into three, 12,000 square foot lots. He said he supports the proposal to name the new park after Herbert Haines, who was a
fixture in the area for a long time.
Lance Nylander, Edmonds, said he recently purchased a home near the new park that was constructed in 1936. He recalled
that his father brought him to Haines Wharf as a child, and he returned as a teenager, as well. He said he found the history
book that was written by Mr. Caryl to be interesting and well written. However, he recommended the park be named Fontal
Park, the original name given to the area on November 8, 1871. He said he does not anticipate that Haines Wharf will go
anywhere any time soon. The park would sit right behind the wharf and provide a perfect view of the dilapidated structure.
He suggested that perhaps they could put something in the new park to recognize the history of Haines Wharf. However,
naming the new park Fontal Park would pull visitors all the way back to the beginning history of Meadowdale. Hopefully, it
would also inspire young people in the community to learn more about the history of the park. Lastly, Mr. Nylander said he
lives at the bottom of the hill and would like to see additional speed limit signs installed for safety.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Board Member Reed recalled that four or five years ago, there was a proposal before the City Council to renovate and update
Haines Wharf, but the proposal failed because of the environmental restrictions that govern properties over the water. He
asked if there is any possibility that Haines Wharf could be salvaged given the current environmental regulations. Mr. Chave
answered that the wharf could be repaired under the current regulations, but no new structures could be erected.
Board Member Clarke asked Mr. McIntosh to share information about the new park’s design. Mr. McIntosh reviewed that
the new park would include a small grassy area on the plateau that would be enclosed by a small perimeter trailer and new
sidewalks and parking would be provided above the park. An overlook area would be created with funding from the David
Stern Foundation that would include a scope, interpretive map and benches. A large rock pile is being assembled on the
south slope, which will have a path leading to a hillside slide. A landscaped area will be located at the bottom of the slide,
with some children’s play equipment. In the northwest corner of the park, just beyond the perimeter path, would be a set of
swings that will overlook the water and wharf. There is also a small plateau area where stones in the shape of sails would be
installed. He noted that the park is small, but everyone who visits should enjoy it. He said they had not originally intended
to provide parking at the top of the park, but they felt it was important to provide an opportunity for people in cars to park
and enjoy the overlook, as well. He concluded that the park would be ADA accessible from 162nd Street.
Board Member Clarke asked if the benches would be similar to those installed in the downtown and at Hickman Park. Mr.
McIntosh answered affirmatively and added that the benches are available to memorialize at a cost of $2,000 each.
Board Member Clarke recalled that when Hickman Park was named, individuals submitted several requests that the park be
named after Police Chief David Stern. At that time, the Board recommended that the name for the new north park should
reference Chief Stern, instead. However, he did not see this proposal in the staff report. Mr. McIntosh said that no one
actually submitted Chief Stern’s name for the entire park, but the overlook would be designated as David Stern Overlook,
and all the amenities would be paid for by the David Stern Foundation. A plaque would be installed at the overlook to
commemorate his work and his life. Board Member Clarke asked if the name for the overlook has been established as fact.
Mr. McIntosh answered that there has been no City Council resolution or official decision, but it was previously discussed
before the Park Naming Policy was adopted. The overlook’s name can be a mayor recommendation, which has been done in
the past.
Board Member Clarke questioned if it would be appropriate for the Board to recommend the overlook be named after Chief
David Stern as part of their recommendation to the City Council. Mr. McIntosh said he did not think this would be
Packet Page 107 of 337
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
February 10, 2010 Page 4
necessary, but the Board could certainly mention it in their recommendation. He suggested the Board focus their efforts on
the actual park name, and then the overlook would be just a piece of the park.
Board Member Clarke referred to the plateau area that would have some maritime reference with sailboats and asked how far
way this area is located from the overlook area. Mr. McIntosh answered that there is about a 10-foot separation between the
two areas, and people visiting the overlook would be able to look out over the top of the sails. Board Member Clarke asked
if the plateau area would have a bench, and Mr. McIntosh answered affirmatively. Board Member Clarke asked if an
uneducated eye would recognize the areas as being separate, and Mr. McIntosh answered yes.
Board Member Stewart said she likes the park plan. She asked what was done to address stormwater runoff given that the
property has a significant slope. She asked if the plans include pervious pavement or sidewalks, etc. Mr. McIntosh
answered that no pervious sidewalks or pavement would be used. However, drainage was a concern and was adequately
addressed. Board Member Stewart observed that this would have been a wonderful opportunity for the City to use pervious
surfaces. She suggested that this be a consideration with future park projects.
Board Member Clarke said he visited every park in the City and categorized how they were named. He noted that before
Hickman Park was named, the vast majority of parks in the City had been named based on their geographic location and
character. He recalled that the most recent park was named Hickman Park after Dr. Hickman, with the play area being
named after J.P. Patches to recognize both individuals. He expressed his belief that the new park does not have any distinct
physical features that would lend to the name. He did a Google search of the individuals who had the highest recognition for
the area and found references to both Mr. Caryl and Haines Wharf. Haines Wharf was referenced as a type of neighborhood.
He also noted that the City’s submission for capital improvements in the area references the location of the park as adjacent
to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and across the railroad tracks from Haines Wharf. He suggested that Haines
Wharf was used as a reference because everyone recognizes it. He summarized that both individuals come with a number of
recommendations, and perhaps it would be appropriate to name the park, itself, Haines Wharf and the plateau area with the
sailboat feature after Mr. Caryl. This would allow the City to recognize the contributions of both individuals and would
preserve the history of the area.
Chair Pro Tem Guenther said he is a resident of the Meadowdale area and has lived in the neighborhood for a long time.
When talking to people who have lived there even longer, they always recognize the area as Haines Wharf. He agreed the
park should be named Haines Wharf, but perhaps one of the lower terraced areas could be named after Mr. Caryl.
Board Member Johnson said she has visited the park currently under construction and has read the results of the park naming
contest. Of the 63 submissions, she counted 24 nominations that directly or indirectly referenced the Haines Fishing Wharf,
10 nominations to honor local resident Del Caryl and 9 nominations that reference the Puget Sound view. She said that
based on her study, she found that Haines Fishing Wharf best meets the criteria for naming the park for the following
reasons:
A. It is both a geographic and descriptive location of the facility and has been a physical feature of the shoreline
for seven decades.
B. The Haines Fishing Wharf is an outstanding feature of the facility. It has been the subject of local artists Susan
Waite and d’Elaine Johnson.
C. Haines Wharf subdivision is located nearby.
D. It is a commonly recognized and historical reference. More than the other suggestions, people familiar with
Meadowdale are most likely to know the location of the new park by the name alone.
E. The individual who contributed to the acquisition of the park land spoke in favor of Haines Wharf Park.
F. There were outstanding accomplishments of individuals in the Haines Family. Captain Haines and his two
sons, Herbert and Jim, built and operated the fishing pier. Jim Haines was a member of the Edmonds Planning
Board. He was also elected to the Edmonds City Council, Snohomish County Assessor, Snohomish County
Commission, and Snohomish County Council. He also helped bring Stevens Hospital to Edmonds.
Board Member Stewart agreed with Board Member Johnson’s recommendation. She expressed her belief that Haines Wharf
is a very specific location that everyone in the community can relate to. She said that although she has lived in Edmonds for
Packet Page 108 of 337
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
February 10, 2010 Page 5
23 years, she learned a lot of new information about the history of the area as she reviewed the proposed names. She
suggested the park also include an artistic drawing of what the wharf looked like in the early days and name the individuals
that were instrumental in getting it to happen.
Board Member Cloutier agreed with Board Member Johnson’s assessment, as well. He expressed his belief that Haines
Wharf Park meets the intent of the Park Naming Policy. He said he also learned a lot from reading the historical records,
especially those provided by Mr. Caryl. He said he would also like the park to recognize Del Caryl. In addition, he
suggested the original name for the park, Fontal, should be referenced in the history information that is provided at the new
park. He pointed out that naming the park after Haines Wharf would be an opportunity for people who haven’t visited
Edmonds in a long time to come back and reconnect with the history.
Board Member Reed supported Board Member Clarke’s recommendation that the park, itself, be named after Captain
Haines, but that Del Caryl’s contribution to the community be recognized in some way, as well. He said it is important that
park visitors recognize all of the history associated with the site.
BOARD MEMBER CLARKE MOVED THE BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE
PERMANENT NAME FOR THE NEW PARK AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 162ND STREET
SOUTHWEST AND 75TH PLACE WEST SHOULD BE HAINES WHARF PARK. HE FURTHER MOVED THAT
THAT THE PARK SHOULD ALSO RECOGNIZE THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF DELMAR CARYL, AS
DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD, AND THAT INTERPRETIVE ARTWORK OR MEDIUM BE ADDED TO THE
PARK THAT EXPLAINS THE HISTORY OF THE AREA AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUALS
THAT ARE RECOGNIZED. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
DISCUSSION ON CITY OF EDMONDS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee (MCPC) presented the Climate Change
Action Plan to them on December 9, 2009. The Board agreed to postpone action on the item until each of the Board
Members had an opportunity to thoroughly review the plan. Their discussion was continued to a future meeting.
Mr. Chave clarified that the Climate Change Action Plan is not intended to become an element of the Comprehensive Plan or
any item that the City Council is required to formally adopt. It is intended to represent the MCPC’s views and is a living
document that would continue to evolve over time. The MCPC indicated they did not want the plan to be formally adopted
since they intend to make changes as additional ideas and science comes forth. He summarized that the plan is a type of
implementation strategy rather than more fixed goals and policies. The policies related to climate control are contained in
the Community Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Some of the actions identified in the plan can be
addressed more immediately, and others will take longer to implement. However, the plan provides a blue print of the issues
the MCPC would like to address. Again, he said the MCPC is not asking the Planning Board and/or City Council to adopt
the document. However, the plan identifies actions that may be appropriate for the Board to address at some point in the
future. They would like the Board and City Council to offer their support for the plan and recognize what the MCPC is
trying to accomplish. While the Board may not agree with each of the items in the plan, they could offer their support for the
overall approach.
BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THE BOARD ENDORCE THE CONTENTS OF THE EDMONDS
CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN AND THE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS CONTAINED THEREIN.
BOARD MEMBER REED SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Reed referred to Page 5 of the plan, which talks about the goal of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions to 7% below the 1990 levels by 2012. He questioned if this would be an achievable goal
to reduce emissions by 41% in just three years. Board Member Cloutier referred to the italicized
statement at the bottom of Page 5, which points out that the goals may need to be adjusted to account for
Packet Page 109 of 337
City of Edmonds
Park Naming Policy
Purpose
The purpose of the policy is to establish consistent standard procedures and guidelines for
the naming of public parklands owned and/or operated by the City of Edmonds. The
renaming of parks is strongly discouraged.
Policy
The naming of City parks, park areas and park facilities shall be the function of the City
Council with assistance from Edmonds Planning Board and the Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services Department.
Diversity, balance and creativity will be sought during adoption of names. The name
selected for a site will be recommended to the Edmonds City Council for approval or
amendment. City Council has final authority to approve or amend any recommendation.
Objectives
A. Provide name identification for individual parks, park areas or park
facilities.
B. Provide criteria for the process of naming parks, park areas or park
facilities.
C. Provide opportunities for public input including a public hearing at
Planning Board.
D. Ensure that the naming of parks, park areas, or park facilities is controlled
by the Edmonds City Council through recommendations from the
Planning Boarding..
Criteria
The naming of parks, park areas, and park facilities should be approached with caution,
patience, and deliberation.
Names submitted for consideration should provide some form of individual identity in
relation to the following:
A. The geographic location of the facility; this includes descriptive names.
B. An outstanding feature of the facility.
C. An adjoining subdivision, street, school, or natural feature. No park shall
be given the same name as an existing school site or public facility, except
where the sites abut one another.
Packet Page 110 of 337
D. A commonly recognized historical event, group, organization or individual
(living or deceased).
E. An individual or organization that contributed significantly to the
acquisition or development of the facility to be named. This can include
either a deed or substantial monetary contribution, or contribution toward
acquisition and/or development of the park or park facility (typically not
less than 50 percent of the value of the property or improvements).
F. Outstanding accomplishments by an individual for the good of the
community. Quality of the contribution should be considered along with
the length of service by the individual – this to be fully substantiated by
person making recommendation.
G. Any individual who provided an exceptional service in the interest of the
park system as a whole. Typically, while serving in a public office, public
officials should not be considered as a candidate for naming.
Donated Land
Parks and park facilities that are donated to the City can be named by deed
restriction by the donor (i.e. Hutt Park in Edmonds). The naming and acceptance
of land is subject to recommendation by the Planning Board and approval by City
Council. Naming rights are not guaranteed if the donation of parkland is a
dedication as required by the subdivision ordinance (parkland dedication).
Naming Process
Parks Department staff will notify the Planning Board about proposed naming
opportunities. The recommendation of the Planning Board will be subject to final
approval or amendment by City Council action.
1. Temporary Naming
In the case of a new project, a temporary name will be designated by the City staff for
identification during acquisition and/or development of the park area or park facility.
Because temporary designations tend to be retained, the naming process for a new park
should be carried out as quickly as possible after its acquisition or development.
2. Permanent Naming
Citizen involvement in the naming process is encouraged and may be accomplished in a
variety of ways throughout the naming process.
A. Individuals, groups and/or organizations interested in proposing a name
for an existing un-named park area or park facility may do so in writing
Packet Page 111 of 337
using a “Park Naming Form” that outlines the naming criteria. These will
be presented to the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department for
consideration by the Planning Board.
B. A variety of means to encourage public participation to submit a name
(citizen contests, recommendations from previous owners, historical
review of the site, etc.) may be implemented by the Parks, Recreation &
Cultural Services Department at the request of the Planning Board. The
“Park Naming Form” will be available through the City website, copies
available at City Hall and the Anderson Center, and publicity through
Public Service Announcements, Channel 21, and other means.
C. The Planning Board will conduct a public hearing on the proposed names..
D. The Planning Board will make a naming recommendation to the City
Council for final adoption or amendment.
3. Park Renaming
Critical examination will be conducted to ensure that renaming the park will not diminish
the original justification for the name or the prior contributors. Renaming will follow the
same procedures as naming the park.
A. Only parks and facilities named for geographic location, outstanding
feature or subdivision should be considered for renaming. Parks that have
been named by deed restriction shall not be considered for renaming.
B. Parks and facilities named after individuals shall not be changed unless it
is found that because of the individual’s character the continued use of
their name would not be in the best interest of the community.
Packet Page 112 of 337
Packet Page 113 of 337
PA
R
K
N
A
M
I
N
G
C
O
N
T
E
S
T
E
N
T
R
I
E
S
–
1
6
2
nd
S
t
P
a
r
k
1.
10
/
8
/
0
9
Ca
p
t
a
i
n
H
e
r
b
e
r
t
S
.
H
a
i
n
e
s
P
a
r
k
or
C
a
p
t
a
i
n
H
a
i
n
e
s
P
a
r
k
o
r
H
a
i
n
e
s
Pa
r
k
o
r
s
o
m
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
Ha
i
n
e
s
n
a
m
e
I
h
a
v
e
l
i
v
e
d
i
n
m
y
h
o
u
s
e
o
v
e
r
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
D
o
c
k
a
n
d
t
h
e
P
a
r
k
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
c
e
1
9
6
4
.
H
a
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
,
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
C
a
p
t
a
i
n
H
e
r
b
e
r
t
S
.
H
a
i
n
e
s
wa
s
a
f
a
n
t
a
s
t
i
c
b
o
a
t
d
o
c
k
a
n
d
m
a
r
i
n
a
a
t
o
n
e
t
i
m
e
.
I
t
w
a
s
f
u
l
l
o
f
l
i
f
e
,
v
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
,
f
u
n
a
n
d
l
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
a
s
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
a
n
d
f
i
s
h
e
r
m
e
n
e
n
joyed boating,
ea
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
f
i
s
h
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
w
h
a
r
f
a
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
b
e
a
c
h
.
T
h
e
l
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
a
n
d
f
u
n
o
f
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
a
n
d
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
w
i
l
l
o
n
c
e
a
g
a
i
n
f
i
l
l
t
h
e
ai
r
.
N
a
m
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
a
f
t
e
r
C
a
p
t
a
i
n
H
a
i
n
e
s
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
,
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
t
h
e
t
h
e
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
p
a
r
k
a
n
d
h
o
n
o
r
s the
ma
n
,
f
a
m
i
l
y
a
n
d
w
h
a
r
f
w
h
o
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
s
o
m
u
c
h
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
n
d
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
l
a
r
e
a
.
2.
10
/
1
2
/
0
9
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
W
r
e
c
k
e
d
P
i
e
r
P
a
r
k
1)
I
t
g
i
v
e
s
a
g
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
2)
I
t
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
s
t
h
e
s
i
n
g
l
e
m
o
s
t
o
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
:
t
he
v
i
e
w
o
f
t
h
e
o
l
d
b
o
a
t
p
i
e
r
.
(
T
h
e
p
i
e
r
i
s
a
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
a
n
d mark - the park
sh
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
a
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
d
i
s
p
l
a
y
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
i
n
g
i
t
.
)
3)
N
a
m
i
n
g
p
u
b
l
i
c
p
l
a
c
e
s
f
o
r
a
n
y
o
n
e
e
x
c
e
p
t
a
f
a
l
l
e
n
F
i
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
o
r
Po
l
i
c
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
i
s
t
h
e
h
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
a
v
e
r
s
e
,
s
o
p
l
e
a
s
e
d
o
n
o
t
n
a
m
e
if for a
lo
c
a
l
-
u
n
l
e
s
s
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
s
o
m
e
o
n
e
w
h
o
d
i
e
d
f
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
a
f
i
r
e
o
n
t
h
e
p
i
e
r
f
o
r
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
.
Fi
n
a
l
l
y
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
"
w
r
e
c
k
e
d
"
i
n
t
h
e
n
a
m
e
i
s
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
.
I
t
s
h
o
w
s
p
u
b
li
c
m
i
r
t
h
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
s
t
h
e
f
a
c
t
s
.
T
h
e
p
i
e
r
i
s
a
s
mall rival to
th
e
G
a
s
W
o
r
k
s
,
i
n
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
,
b
e
f
o
r
e
i
t
w
a
s
t
u
r
n
e
d
i
n
t
o
a
p
a
r
k
.
If
t
h
e
p
i
e
r
i
s
e
v
e
r
f
i
x
e
d
s
o
t
h
a
t
p
e
o
p
l
e
c
o
u
l
d
g
o
o
u
t
o
n
i
t
a
n
d
t
our, the
"w
r
e
c
k
e
d
"
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
o
r
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
d
r
o
p
p
e
d
a
n
d
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
l
i
k
e
G
a
s
W
o
r
k
s
P
a
r
k
.
Yo
u
c
a
n
'
t
n
a
m
e
i
t
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
P
i
e
r
P
a
r
k
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
i
m
p
l
y
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
P
i
e
r
i
s
o
k
w
h
i
c
h
o
f
c
o
u
r
s
e
i
t
i
s
n
o
t
.
An
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
D
e
r
e
l
i
c
t
P
i
e
r
P
a
r
k
.
I
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
th
a
t
m
i
g
h
t
b
e
l
e
s
s
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
a
s
t
h
e
w
o
r
d
c
o
uld be
in
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
e
d
t
o
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
n
o
t
t
h
e
p
i
e
r
,
b
u
t
r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
i
n
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
a
s
i
n
"
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
P
i
e
r
D
e
r
e
l
i
c
t
P
a
r
k
.
"
Fi
n
a
l
l
y
,
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
l
e
t
t
e
r
s
d
o
n
o
t
s
p
e
l
l
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
i
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
s
u
c
h
a
s
S
L
U
T
.
3.
10
/
1
2
/
0
9
Ha
i
n
e
s
F
i
s
h
i
n
g
W
h
a
r
f
P
a
r
k
Fi
r
s
t
t
o
h
o
n
o
r
a
g
o
o
d
f
a
m
i
l
y
o
f
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
a
n
d
s
e
c
o
n
d
l
y
t
o
h
o
n
o
r
t
h
e
n
o
w
d
e
c
a
y
i
n
g
p
ier which they established in 1939 that is
lo
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
f
r
o
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
w
p
a
r
k
s
i
t
e
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
k
n
o
w
n
a
s
H
a
i
n
e
s
F
i
s
h
i
n
g
W
h
a
r
f
.
Al
s
o
,
n
o
t
t
o
m
e
n
t
i
o
n
t
h
i
s
p
i
e
r
h
o
l
d
s
m
a
n
y
f
o
n
d
m
e
m
o
r
i
e
s
f
o
r
m
e
,
o
f
b
e
i
n
g
a
k
i
d
a
n
d
l
o
v
i
n
g
t
o
f
i
s
h
o
f
f
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
i
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
m
a
n
y
a summer;
I
a
m
s
u
r
e
t
h
i
s
p
i
e
r
h
o
l
d
s
m
a
n
y
f
o
n
d
m
e
m
o
r
i
e
s
f
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
l
o
c
a
l
s
a
s
w
e
l
l
.
4.
10
/
1
3
/
0
9
Bo
a
t
h
o
u
s
e
P
a
r
k
Th
e
b
o
a
t
h
o
u
s
e
w
a
s
k
n
o
w
n
a
s
H
a
i
n
e
s
W
ha
r
f
a
n
d
B
o
a
t
h
o
u
s
e
f
r
o
m
1
9
3
9
u
n
t
i
l
1
9
6
9
a
n
d
d
i
d
a
t
h
r
i
v
i
n
g
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
renting out boats for
sa
l
m
o
n
f
i
s
h
i
n
g
.
I
t
t
h
e
n
u
n
d
e
r
w
e
n
t
s
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
be
c
o
m
i
n
g
L
a
e
b
u
g
t
o
n
’
s
W
h
a
r
f
a
n
d
t
h
e
n
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
M
a
r
i
n
a
.
T
h
e
N
o
r
m
a
Be
a
c
h
B
o
a
t
h
o
u
s
e
s
t
i
l
l
e
x
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
y
o
u
c
a
n
a
l
s
o
s
t
i
l
l
s
e
e
t
h
e
r
e
m
n
a
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
i
l
i
n
g
s
f
r
o
m
a
t
h
i
r
d
b
o
a
t
h
o
u
s
e
s
o
u
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
o
l
d
H
a
i
nes Wharf
Bo
a
t
h
o
u
s
e
w
h
i
c
h
h
a
s
l
o
n
g
s
i
n
c
e
b
e
e
n
d
e
m
o
l
i
s
h
e
d
.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
l
o
n
g
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
b
o
a
t
h
o
u
s
e
s
o
n
B
r
o
w
n
’
s
B
a
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
n
o
n
-
b
o
a
t
-
o
w
n
e
r
s
t
o
g
o
o
u
t
s
a
l
m
o
n
f
i
s
h
i
n
g.
Fo
r
t
h
i
s
r
e
a
s
o
n
,
I
t
h
i
n
k
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
n
a
m
e
d
B
o
a
t
h
o
u
s
e
P
a
r
k
.
5.
10
/
1
4
/
0
9
He
k
i
n
a
n
P
a
r
k
Th
e
p
a
r
k
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
n
a
m
e
d
a
f
t
e
r
o
u
r
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
s
i
s
t
e
r
c
i
t
y
i
n
J
a
p
a
n
.
W
i
t
h
t
h
e
2
5
th
A
n
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
w
o
u
l
d
be
a
w
o
n
d
e
r
f
u
l
g
e
s
t
u
r
e
t
o
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
a
l
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
s
h
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
o
f
o
u
r
s
i
s
t
e
r
c
i
t
y
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
.
6.
10
/
1
4
/
0
9
Ch
i
n
o
o
k
C
o
v
e
P
a
r
k
I
h
a
v
e
f
i
s
h
e
d
a
n
d
c
a
u
g
h
t
m
a
n
y
C
h
i
n
o
o
k
(
B
la
c
k
M
o
u
t
h
)
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
v
e
a
n
d
t
h
i
s
p
a
r
k
i
s
s
o
c
l
o
s
e
t
o
t
h
e
w
a
t
er.
7.
10
/
1
5
/
0
9
He
k
i
n
a
n
P
a
r
k
To
h
o
n
o
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
’
s
i
s
t
e
r
c
i
t
y
i
n
J
a
p
a
n
.
8.
10
/
1
5
/
0
9
Yo
u
c
a
n
l
o
o
k
a
t
t
h
i
s
B
e
a
c
h
,
b
u
t
yo
u
c
a
n
’
t
g
o
d
o
w
n
t
h
e
r
e
o
r
Fi
s
h
e
r
m
a
n
’
s
G
r
a
v
e
y
a
r
d
Th
e
n
a
m
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
s
t
i
c
k
…
E
v
e
r
y
o
n
e
I
’
v
e
t
a
l
k
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
g
r
e
e
s
.
T
h
e
w
o
rk
b
e
i
n
g
d
o
n
e
t
h
e
r
e
(
i
.
e
.
,
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
,
e
t
c
.
)
i
s
a
l
s
o
w
ashing
si
l
t
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
S
o
u
n
d
.
9.
10
/
1
6
/
0
9
We
s
t
V
i
e
w
I
g
o
d
o
w
n
t
o
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
o
f
t
e
n
a
n
d
I
t
h
i
n
k
t
h
at
t
h
e
v
i
e
w
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
g
r
e
a
t
.
N
o
b
e
t
t
e
r
p
l
a
c
e
t
h
a
n
P
u
g
e
t
Sound.
10
10
/
1
6
/
0
9
Bo
a
t
H
o
u
s
e
P
a
r
k
Wh
e
n
I
m
o
v
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
a
n
d
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
w
h
e
r
e
w
e
l
i
v
e
d
p
e
o
p
l
e
w
o
u
l
d
s
a
y
,
“
o
h
y
o
u
’
r
e
b
y
t
h
e
b
o
a
t
h
o
u
s
e
”- the boat house, no matter
ho
w
l
o
n
g
i
t
s
t
a
n
d
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
m
a
i
n
a
m
a
j
o
r
g
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
l
o
c
a
t
o
r
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
.
11
10
/
2
0
/
0
9
Po
s
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
V
i
e
w
P
a
r
k
To
w
n
o
f
P
o
s
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
P
o
s
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
o
i
n
t
o
n
W
h
i
d
b
e
y
I
s
l
a
n
d
a
r
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
12
10
/
2
0
/
0
9
Br
o
w
n
s
B
a
y
P
a
r
k
Pa
r
k
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
n
e
a
r
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
’
s
B
r
o
w
n
s
B
a
y
13
10
/
2
0
/
0
9
Is
l
a
n
d
V
i
e
w
P
a
r
k
Wh
i
d
b
e
y
I
s
la
n
d
i
s
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
p
a
r
k
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
14
10
/
2
0
/
0
9
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
W
h
a
r
f
P
a
r
k
Ha
i
n
e
s
/
L
a
e
b
u
g
t
o
n
W
h
a
r
f
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
p
a
r
k
1 5
10
/
2
0
/
0
9
So
u
n
d
V
i
e
w
P
a
r
k
Pu
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
i
s
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
p
a
r
k
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
16
10
/
2
0
/
0
9
Fi
s
h
e
r
m
a
n
’
s
P
a
r
k
Ha
i
n
e
s
/
L
a
e
b
u
g
t
o
n
f
i
s
h
i
n
g
w
h
a
r
f
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
p
a
r
k
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
11
4
of
33
7
PA
R
K
N
A
M
I
N
G
C
O
N
T
E
S
T
E
N
T
R
I
E
S
–
1
6
2
nd
S
t
P
a
r
k
17
10
/
2
0
/
0
9
De
l
C
a
r
y
l
P
a
r
k
De
l
w
a
s
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
M
e
a
d
o
w
da
l
e
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
l
u
b
.
W
r
o
t
e
a
b
o
o
k
“
A
n
g
e
l
s
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
a
r
”
a
b
o
u
t
M
eadowdale. Raised his
fa
m
i
l
y
i
n
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
a
n
d
w
a
s
a
c
t
i
v
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
B
o
y
S
c
o
u
t
s
.
T
h
is
i
s
h
o
w
I
m
e
t
h
i
m
a
n
d
h
i
s
w
i
f
e
.
W
e
h
a
d
“
c
u
b
s
c
o
u
t
s
”
1
9
5
1
&
o
n
.
18
10
/
2
0
/
0
9
Vi
n
t
a
g
e
P
a
r
k
Fo
r
t
h
e
r
i
c
h
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
in
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
b
r
i
n
g
a
w
o
n
d
e
r
f
u
l
a
n
d
v
i
n
t
a
g
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
ce to the community.
19
10
/
2
0
/
0
9
So
u
n
d
B
l
u
f
f
Op
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
o
n
b
l
u
f
f
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
a
t
S
o
u
n
d
20
10
/
2
0
/
0
9
Ma
r
i
n
e
r
s
V
i
e
w
Cl
e
a
r
v
i
e
w
o
f
s
h
i
p
l
a
n
e
i
n
S
o
u
n
d
21
10
/
2
0
/
0
9
Wh
i
s
t
l
e
S
t
o
p
P
a
r
k
Un
i
q
u
e
p
a
r
k
o
n
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
t
r
a
c
k
s
.
T
h
e
t
r
a
i
n
a
l
w
a
y
s
b
l
o
w
s
t
h
e
i
r
w
h
i
s
t
l
e
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
y
g
o
b
y
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
l
o
c
ation.
22
10
/
2
0
/
0
9
Ar
v
i
l
l
a
O
h
l
d
e
P
a
r
k
Qu
o
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
m
e
r
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
p
e
r
s
o
n
M
a
u
r
i
M
o
o
r
e
,
“
S
h
e
d
i
d
a
n
a
w
f
u
l
l
o
t
f
o
r
p
a
r
k
s
i
n
t
h
i
s
c
i
t
y
.
S
h
e
c
e
r
t
ainly was a highly respected parks
de
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
y
y
e
a
r
s
.
23
10
/
2
0
/
0
9
Sa
m
E
w
i
n
g
P
a
r
k
Sa
m
d
i
e
d
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
t
h
i
s
m
o
n
t
h
.
I
n
t
h
e
H
e
r
a
l
d
o
n
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
8
w
a
s
a
v
e
r
y
n
i
c
e
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
a
b
o
u
t
h
i
m
b
u
t
i
d
d
i
d not mention he had been a
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
o
w
n
e
r
i
n
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
s
i
n
c
e
t
h
e
l
a
t
e
4
0
’
s
–
E
w
i
n
g
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
o
f
fi
c
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
o
n
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
H
e
a
n
d
h
i
s
w
i
f
e
E
v
e
l
y
n
w
e
r
e
a
l
a
rge
pa
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
m
a
n
y
,
m
a
n
y
y
e
a
r
s
.
I
a
m
s
u
r
e
t
h
e
y
m
a
d
e
m
a
n
y
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
a
l
o
t
o
f
f
a
n
f
a
r
e
.
P
l
e
a
s
e
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
h
o
n
o
r
i
n
g
S
a
m
(
a
n
d
E
v
e
l
y
n
Y
o
s
t
E
w
i
ng
)
b
y
n
a
m
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
p
a
r
k
a
f
t
e
r
h
i
m
/
t
h
e
m
.
24
10
/
2
1
/
0
9
Pe
g
g
y
P
r
i
t
c
h
a
r
d
O
l
s
o
n
P
a
r
k
Pe
g
g
y
h
a
s
s
p
e
n
t
m
a
n
y
y
ea
r
s
c
a
r
i
n
g
a
b
o
u
t
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
.
S
h
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
a
l
o
n
g
t
i
m
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
er, active in Washington Tea Party’s
op
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
’
s
s
e
w
a
g
e
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
.
I
n
s
p
i
t
e
o
f
h
e
r
d
e
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
n
g
i
l
l
n
e
s
s
s
h
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
a
c
o
n
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
o
u
s
m
e
m
b
e
r
of
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
.
2 5
10
/
2
2
/
0
9
De
l
C
a
r
y
l
P
a
r
k
De
l
C
a
r
y
l
w
a
s
a
n
e
a
r
l
y
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t,
l
i
b
r
a
r
i
a
n
,
a
u
t
h
o
r
,
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
a
n
,
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
c
t
i
v
i
s
t
a
n
d
l
i
v
e
d
close to the park site.
26
10
/
2
2
/
0
9
Ca
r
y
l
P
a
r
k
De
l
m
a
r
C
a
r
y
l
w
r
o
t
e
Wi
t
h
A
n
g
e
l
s
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
a
r
,
a
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
b
o
o
k
o
f
t
h
e
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
a
r
e
a
.
H
i
s
wi
d
o
w
,
M
a
r
g
a
r
e
t
,
s
t
i
l
l
l
i
v
e
s
u
p
t
h
e
r
o
a
d
.
T
h
e
bo
o
k
g
i
v
e
s
w
o
n
d
e
r
f
u
l
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
a
b
o
u
t
l
i
f
e
i
n
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
w
i
t
h
p
i
c
t
ur
e
a
n
d
g
r
e
a
t
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
.
(
T
h
e
b
o
o
k
s
ar
e
s
t
i
l
l
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
M
r
s
. Caryl for
$1
0
)
.
27
10
/
2
2
/
0
9
Bo
a
t
h
o
u
s
e
P
a
r
k
Be
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
b
o
a
t
h
o
u
s
e
r
i
g
h
t
n
e
x
t
t
o
i
t
.
28
10
/
2
2
/
0
9
Bo
a
t
-
H
o
u
s
e
P
a
r
k
Be
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
b
o
a
t
-
h
o
u
s
e
i
s
r
i
g
h
t
a
c
r
o
ss
t
h
e
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
t
r
a
c
k
s
a
n
d
i
t
i
s
l
i
k
e
a
l
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
t
o
a
l
l
t
h
e
n
e
i
g
hbors.
29
10
/
2
2
/
0
9
Ha
i
n
e
s
P
a
r
k
Ha
i
n
e
s
F
i
s
h
i
n
g
W
h
a
r
f
,
a
w
o
o
d
e
n
b
a
r
n
,
f
l
oa
t
e
d
t
o
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
’
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
a
r
e
a
i
n
1
9
3
9
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
K
i
t
s
a
p
P
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
.
H
a
i
n
e
s
F
i
s
h
i
n
g
W
h
a
r
f
wa
s
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
b
r
o
t
h
e
r
s
,
H
e
r
b
a
n
d
J
i
m
H
a
i
n
e
s
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
i
n
1
9
3
9
.
U
p
o
n
i
t
s
o
p
e
n
i
n
g
i
t
g
r
e
w
i
n
p
o
p
u
l
a
r
i
t
y
a
s
a
h
i
g
h
-
e
n
d
b
o
a
t
r
e
n
tal
sp
o
t
.
I
t
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
s
a
i
d
t
h
a
t
c
a
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
n
e
u
p
a
n
d
d
o
w
n
t
h
e
s
t
re
e
t
a
r
o
u
n
d
3
a
.
m
.
w
i
t
h
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
r
e
n
t
i
n
g
b
o
a
t
s
f
o
r
a
d
a
y
o
f
f
i
s
hing.
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
d
r
i
v
e
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
d
o
c
k
w
h
e
r
e
wh
a
r
f
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
u
n
l
o
a
d
t
h
e
i
r
f
i
s
h
i
n
g
g
e
a
r
i
n
t
o
a
r
e
n
t
e
d
b
o
a
t
.
A
s
t
a
t
e
-
o
f
-
t
h
e
-
a
r
t
elevator
wo
u
l
d
l
o
w
e
r
b
o
a
t
a
n
d
f
i
s
h
e
r
m
a
n
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
.
H
e
r
b
a
n
d
J
i
m
H
a
i
ne
s
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
h
i
s
m
a
r
i
n
a
,
w
h
i
c
h
l
i
k
e
f
u
l
l
-
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
b
o
a
t
i
n
g
,
u
n
t
i
l
a
r
o
u
n
d
19
6
9
.
Th
e
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
w
h
a
r
f
i
s
n
o
w
b
e
c
om
i
n
g
a
p
a
r
k
.
I
f
e
e
l
t
h
e
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
n
a
m
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
H
a
i
n
e
s
P
a
r
k
.
I
a
l
s
o
would
su
g
g
e
s
t
e
r
e
c
t
i
n
g
a
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
o
l
d
w
o
o
d
e
n
w
h
a
r
f
t
o
g
i
v
e
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
m
e
a
n
i
n
g
–
a
n
d
a
b
i
t
o
f
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
Haines
br
o
t
h
e
r
s
.
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
a
b
o
u
t
o
u
r
c
i
t
y
w
i
l
l
a
l
w
a
y
s
be
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
t
o
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
.
O
u
r
w
h
o
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
k
n
e
w
o
f
t
h
e
H
a
i
n
e
s
b
r
o
thers and
th
o
u
g
h
t
v
e
r
y
h
i
g
h
l
y
o
f
t
h
e
m
.
(
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
30
10
/
2
2
/
0
9
Ha
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
P
a
r
k
Fr
o
m
t
h
e
"
n
o
-
no
n
s
e
n
s
e
"
w
a
y
h
e
o
v
e
r
s
a
w
h
i
s
t
e
e
n
a
g
e
s
u
m
m
e
r
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
t
t
h
e
H
a
i
n
e
s
F
i
s
h
i
n
g
W
h
a
r
f
i
n
Edmonds to his carefully
re
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
d
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
o
n
t
h
e
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
,
M
r
.
H
a
i
n
e
s
w
a
s
r
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
e
d
f
o
r
h
i
s
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
f
u
l
a
n
d
h
o
n
e
s
t
m
a
n
n
e
r
.
31
10
/
2
2
/
0
9
Ha
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
P
a
r
k
Fr
o
m
t
h
e
"
n
o
-
no
n
s
e
n
s
e
"
w
a
y
h
e
o
v
e
r
s
a
w
h
i
s
t
e
e
n
a
g
e
s
u
m
m
e
r
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
t
t
h
e
H
a
i
n
e
s
F
i
s
h
i
n
g
W
h
a
r
f
i
n
Edmonds to his carefully
re
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
d
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
o
n
t
h
e
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
,
M
r
.
H
a
i
ne
s
w
a
s
r
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
e
d
f
o
r
h
i
s
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
f
u
l
a
n
d
h
o
n
e
s
t
m
a
n
n
e
r
.
S
o
i
n
t
h
e
fu
t
u
r
e
w
h
e
n
H
a
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
i
s
n
o
l
o
n
g
e
r
t
h
e
r
e
Mr
.
H
a
i
n
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
W
h
a
r
f
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
e
d
.
32
10
/
2
3
/
0
9
Fo
n
t
a
l
P
a
r
k
(m
e
a
n
s
“
f
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
”
a
n
d
a
l
s
o
“
t
h
e
be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
”
)
Th
i
s
w
a
s
t
h
e
a
c
t
u
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
n
a
m
e
g
i
v
e
n
t
o
t
h
is
a
r
e
a
1
1
/
0
8
/
1
8
7
1
.
F
o
n
t
a
l
w
a
s
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
n
d
p
l
a
t
t
e
d
c
i
t
y
i
n
S
n
o
h
o
m
ish
Co
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
t
w
o
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
d
e
p
o
t
s
u
s
e
d
u
p
t
o
1
9
5
5
w
e
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
v
e
r
y
n
e
a
r
a
n
d
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
o
n
t
h
i
s
e
x
a
c
t
s
p
o
t
.
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
b
y
l
o
cal
hi
s
t
o
r
i
a
n
D
e
l
m
a
r
H
.
C
a
r
y
l
:
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
i
n
1
9
6
0
.
(
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
33
10
/
2
3
/
0
9
Ha
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
P
a
r
k
Cl
o
s
e
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
H
a
i
n
e
s
F
i
s
h
i
n
g
Wh
a
r
f
.
T
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
w
a
s
f
l
o
a
t
e
d
o
v
e
r
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
K
i
t
s
a
p
P
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
in 1939. The wharf served as
nu
m
e
r
o
u
s
r
o
l
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
s
h
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
34
10
/
2
3
/
0
9
Ca
r
y
l
P
a
r
k
De
l
m
a
r
C
a
r
y
l
w
a
s
a
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
n
e
i
gh
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
l
e
a
d
e
r
l
o
n
g
b
e
f
o
r
e
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
w
a
s
a
n
n
e
x
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
.
H
e
w
a
s
a
lo
n
g
-
t
i
m
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
w
h
o
w
r
o
t
e
a
n
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
a
n
e
n
t
e
r
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
of
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
.
H
i
s
f
a
m
i
l
y
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
l
i
v
e
i
n
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
the
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
(
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
11
5
of
33
7
PA
R
K
N
A
M
I
N
G
C
O
N
T
E
S
T
E
N
T
R
I
E
S
–
1
6
2
nd
S
t
P
a
r
k
3 5
10
/
2
6
/
0
9
Br
o
w
n
s
B
a
y
P
a
r
k
Th
e
p
a
r
k
i
s
o
v
e
r
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
B
r
o
w
n
s
B
a
y
36
10
/
2
6
/
0
9
We
s
t
V
i
e
w
P
a
r
k
Be
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
v
i
e
w
37
10
/
2
6
/
0
9
Ca
n
n
e
r
y
P
a
r
k
I
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
w
e
c
a
l
l
t
h
e
n
e
w
p
a
r
k
“
C
a
n
n
e
r
y
P
a
r
k
”
in
h
o
n
o
r
o
f
o
u
r
h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
a
s
a
f
i
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
w
n
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
w
e
h
a
ve an abandoned cannery still
si
t
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
s
t
o
n
e
’
s
t
h
r
o
w
–
a
n
d
i
n
p
l
a
i
n
s
i
g
h
t
–
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
w
p
a
r
k
.
T
h
i
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
n
a
m
e
t
h
a
t
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
s
t
h
e
h
istory of
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
a
n
d
i
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
g
i
v
e
n
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
’
s
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
“
f
e
e
l
.
”
38
10
/
2
8
/
0
9
He
k
i
n
a
n
P
a
r
k
He
k
i
n
a
n
C
i
t
y
i
n
J
a
p
a
n
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
o
u
r
s
i
s
t
e
r
c
i
ty
f
o
r
o
v
e
r
2
0
y
e
a
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
n
h
o
n
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
m
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
an
d
e
x
t
e
n
d
o
u
r
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
.
39
10
/
2
8
/
0
9
He
k
i
n
a
n
P
a
r
k
As
a
t
o
k
e
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
s
t
e
r
c
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
H
e
k
i
n
a
n
f
o
r
o
v
e
r
2
0
y
e
a
r
s
.
40
10
/
2
9
/
0
9
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
M
a
r
i
n
a
P
a
r
k
Th
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
i
n
f
r
on
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
s
t
h
e
o
l
d
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
M
a
r
i
n
a
.
I
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
r
em
i
n
d
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
d
a
y
s
w
h
e
n
f
i
s
h
i
n
g
m
a
r
i
n
a
s
do
t
t
e
d
t
h
e
s
h
o
r
e
s
f
r
o
m
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
t
o
M
u
k
i
l
t
e
o
.
41
10
/
2
9
/
0
9
Ha
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
P
a
r
k
Th
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
i
n
f
r
o
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
s
n
o
w
k
n
o
w
n
a
s
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
M
a
r
i
n
a
,
b
u
t
t
h
e
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
n
a
me was Haines Wharf. You will find
th
a
t
m
a
n
y
o
f
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
a
r
e
i
n
H
a
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
s
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
.
42
11
/
2
/
0
9
He
k
i
n
a
n
P
a
r
k
He
k
i
n
a
n
,
J
a
p
a
n
a
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
S
i
s
t
e
r
C
i
t
i
es
f
o
r
o
v
e
r
2
0
y
e
a
r
s
.
N
a
m
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
s
a
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
t
o
t
he bridging of our two
cu
l
t
u
r
e
s
.
43
11
/
3
/
0
9
Pe
e
r
l
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
(
o
r
P
i
e
r
l
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
)
Pa
r
k
o
v
e
r
l
o
o
k
s
fo
r
m
e
r
H
a
i
n
e
s
P
i
e
r
,
a
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
s
q
u
e
b
u
t
c
r
u
m
b
l
i
n
g
e
d
i
f
i
c
e
.
44
11
/
4
/
0
9
Br
o
w
n
s
B
a
y
P
a
r
k
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
ve
,
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
,
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
c
a
l
4 5
11
/
4
/
0
9
Br
o
w
n
s
B
a
y
P
a
r
k
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
.
I
t
’
s
t
h
e
n
a
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
l
c
o
v
e
(
i
n
l
e
t
)
.
L
o
c
a
l
.
H
a
s
a
n
i
c
e
r
i
n
g
t
o
i
t
.
46
11
/
4
/
0
9
Ha
i
n
e
s
P
a
r
k
o
r
H
a
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
Pa
r
k
Th
e
n
e
w
p
a
r
k
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
n
a
m
e
d
a
f
t
e
r
H
a
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
,
t
h
e
n
a
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
w
h
a
r
f
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
i
n
f
r
o
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
w
p
a
r
k
s
i
t
e
.
T
h
e
o
l
d wharf
op
e
n
e
d
i
n
1
9
3
9
a
n
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
l
y
u
n
t
i
l
1
9
6
9
,
w
h
e
n
i
t
w
a
s
s
o
l
d
a
n
d
b
e
c
a
m
e
k
n
o
w
n
a
s
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
M
a
r
i
n
e
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
n
e
w
ow
n
e
r
s
a
d
d
e
d
a
m
e
t
a
l
w
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
t
o
t
h
e
p
i
e
r
.
Th
e
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
w
h
a
r
f
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
w
a
s
b
u
i
l
t
b
y
C
a
p
t
a
i
n
H
e
r
b
e
r
t
H
a
i
n
e
s
,
S
r
.
T
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
I
h
a
v
e
s
a
y
s
t
h
a
t
h
e
f
l
o
a
t
e
d
a
n
o
l
d
b
a
r
n
structure
to
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
f
r
o
m
K
i
t
s
a
p
P
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
.
H
e
a
n
d
h
i
s
s
o
n
s
H
e
r
b
e
r
t
H
a
i
n
e
s
,
J
r
.
a
n
d
J
i
m
H
a
i
n
e
s
o
w
n
e
d
a
n
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
h
e
p
o
p
u
l
a
r
f
i
s
h
i
n
g
p
ier that
re
n
t
e
d
b
o
a
t
s
a
n
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
c
a
f
é
o
n
t
h
e
w
h
a
r
f
.
T
h
e
r
e
n
t
a
l
b
o
a
t
s
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
l
o
w
e
r
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
b
y
a
s
t
a
t
e
-
o
f
-
t
h
e
-
a
r
t
e
l
e
v
a
tor. The
pi
e
r
w
a
s
u
s
e
d
b
y
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
c
a
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
n
e
u
p
e
a
r
l
y
in
t
h
e
m
o
r
n
i
n
g
t
o
f
i
s
h
a
n
d
h
a
v
e
l
u
n
c
h
a
t
t
h
e
c
a
f
é
.
Th
e
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
s
q
u
e
o
l
d
w
h
a
r
f
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
t
h
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
o
f
l
o
c
a
l
a
r
t
i
s
t
s
.
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
a
r
t
i
s
t
d
’
E
l
a
i
n
e
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
p
a
i
n
t
e
d
t
h
e
o
l
d
w
h
a
r
f
i
n
1
9
5
7
and
do
n
a
t
e
d
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
l
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
i
n
2
0
0
5
.
A
n
o
t
h
e
r
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
a
r
t
i
s
t
,
S
u
s
a
n
W
a
i
t
e
,
h
a
d
o
n
e
o
f
h
e
r
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
l
o
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
old
wh
a
r
f
c
h
o
s
e
n
a
s
t
h
e
1
9
9
4
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
A
r
t
s
F
e
s
t
i
v
a
l
P
o
s
t
e
r
.
Th
i
s
i
s
a
n
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
t
h
i
s
p
o
p
u
l
a
r
o
l
d
w
h
a
r
f
f
r
o
m
a
n
e
a
r
li
e
r
t
i
m
e
i
n
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
.
A
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
pl
a
c
a
r
d
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
i
n
g
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
w
o
u
l
d
a
d
d
m
u
c
h
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
b
e
a
l
a
s
t
i
n
g
t
ribute to the
me
n
w
h
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
t
h
e
p
o
p
u
l
a
r
f
i
s
h
i
n
g
p
i
e
r
.
(
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
47
11
/
9
/
0
9
Wh
a
r
f
W
a
y
s
i
d
e
An
o
l
d
w
h
a
r
f
i
s
a
l
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
t
h
e
r
e
an
d
i
t
i
s
a
p
l
a
c
e
w
h
e
r
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
w
a
t
c
h
t
h
e
s
u
n
s
e
t
a
n
d
f
i
s
h
.
48
11
/
9
/
0
9
Ha
i
n
e
s
P
a
r
k
In
1
9
3
9
a
n
e
w
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
l
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
w
a
s
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d,
H
a
i
n
e
s
F
i
s
h
i
n
g
W
h
a
r
f
.
H
a
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
w
a
s
u
n
i
q
u
e
.
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s and visitors could
dr
i
v
e
t
h
e
i
r
c
a
r
s
o
u
t
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
d
o
c
k
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
t
h
e
r
e
.
T
h
e
l
a
rg
e
b
a
r
n
-
l
i
k
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
w
a
s
b
u
i
l
t
a
r
o
u
n
d
1
8
5
0
a
n
d
b
a
r
g
e
d
a
c
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
s
o
und from
Ir
o
n
d
a
l
e
.
C
a
p
t
.
H
a
i
n
e
s
h
a
d
o
v
e
r
o
n
e
h
u
n
d
r
e
d
“
k
i
c
k
e
r
”
b
o
a
t
s
b
u
i
l
t
t
o
hi
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
w
e
r
e
r
o
l
l
e
d
o
n
d
o
l
l
i
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
c
ustomers’
ca
r
s
,
l
o
a
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
f
i
s
h
i
n
g
g
e
a
r
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
n
l
o
w
e
r
e
d
b
y
e
l
e
v
a
t
o
r
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
S
o
u
n
d
.
T
h
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
,
a
n
d
a
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
e
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
e
d
p
eople
fr
o
m
g
r
e
a
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
d
u
r
i
n
g
W
o
r
l
d
W
a
r
I
I
t
h
e
w
ha
r
f
h
o
u
s
e
d
a
U
S
C
o
a
s
t
G
u
a
r
d
p
a
t
r
o
l
b
o
a
t
a
n
d
h
o
s
t
e
d
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
Th
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
H
a
i
n
e
s
F
i
s
h
i
n
g
W
h
a
r
f
c
a
m
e
f
r
o
m
H
e
r
b
e
r
t
F
.
H
a
i
n
e
s
,
w
h
o
w
a
s
b
o
r
n
M
a
y
2
,
1
8
9
4
i
n
U
n
i
o
n
,
W
A
.
H
i
s
f
a
t
h
e
r
w
a
s
a
s
h
r
i
m
p
fi
s
h
e
r
m
a
n
a
n
d
H
e
r
b
e
a
r
n
e
d
h
i
s
c
a
p
t
a
i
n
’
s
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
w
h
i
l
e
s
t
i
l
l
a
t
ee
n
a
g
e
r
.
H
e
m
a
r
r
i
e
d
B
e
u
l
a
h
H
a
n
n
e
m
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
b
o
r
n
o
f
P
u
g
e
t
Sound
in
1
9
1
4
.
T
h
e
y
r
a
i
s
e
d
t
h
e
i
r
f
a
m
i
l
y
o
f
o
n
e
d
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
a
n
d
t
w
o
s
o
n
s
i
n
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
u
n
t
i
l
1
9
4
0
.
T
h
a
t
y
e
a
r
C
a
p
t
.
H
a
i
n
e
s
l
e
f
t
h
i
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n as
pr
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
o
f
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
T
u
g
a
n
d
B
a
r
g
e
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
a
n
d
m
o
v
e
d
t
o
M
ea
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
.
H
i
s
d
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
,
F
r
a
n
c
i
n
e
M
i
l
l
s
,
a
n
d
t
w
o
s
o
n
s
J
i
m
a
n
d
He
r
b
J
r
.
a
l
l
s
e
t
t
l
e
d
c
l
o
s
e
t
o
t
h
e
w
h
a
r
f
a
n
d
r
a
i
s
e
d
t
h
e
i
r
f
a
m
il
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
B
e
u
l
a
h
d
i
e
d
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
3
,
1
9
7
7
a
n
d
H
e
rb Sr.,
Ju
n
e
6
,
1
9
8
2
h
a
v
i
n
g
s
h
a
r
e
d
m
u
c
h
w
i
t
h
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
.
T
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
s
,
t
h
e
a
r
t
s
,
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
M
e
m
o
r
i
a
l
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
,
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
cs,
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
11
6
of
33
7
PA
R
K
N
A
M
I
N
G
C
O
N
T
E
S
T
E
N
T
R
I
E
S
–
1
6
2
nd
S
t
P
a
r
k
cu
l
t
u
r
e
,
a
n
d
c
h
u
r
c
h
e
s
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s
m
a
n
y
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
of
H
e
r
b
H
a
i
n
e
s
,
h
i
s
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
,
g
r
a
n
d
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
a
n
d
g
r
e
a
t
g
r
a
n
d
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n. It
wo
u
l
d
b
e
a
n
h
o
n
o
r
a
n
d
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
t
o
H
e
r
b
a
n
d
B
e
u
l
a
h
H
a
i
n
e
s
t
o
n
a
m
e
a
p
a
r
k
t
h
a
t
o
v
e
r
l
o
o
k
s
t
h
e
w
h
a
r
f
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
o
n
e
s
w
h
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
t
h
e
la
n
d
m
a
r
k
.
49
11
/
9
/
0
9
Su
n
s
e
t
P
l
a
c
e
Be
c
a
u
s
e
i
t
h
a
s
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
b
e
a
u
t
i
f
u
l
v
i
e
w
o
f
S
u
n
s
e
t
.
50
11
/
9
/
0
9
Su
n
s
e
t
P
l
a
c
e
51
11
/
9
/
0
9
Su
n
s
e
t
P
l
a
c
e
Th
i
s
p
a
r
k
h
a
s
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
b
e
a
u
t
i
f
u
l
s
u
n
s
e
t
v
i
e
w
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
y
e
a
r
.
I
t
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
7
5
th
P
l
a
c
e
s
o
S
u
n
s
e
t
a
n
d
P
l
a
c
e
r
e
l
a
t
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
52
11
/
9
/
0
9
Ha
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
P
a
r
k
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
53
11
/
9
/
0
9
Br
o
w
n
s
B
a
y
P
a
r
k
I
b
e
l
i
e
v
e
t
h
i
s
n
a
m
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
b
e
s
t
,
a
s
i
t
t
i
e
s
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
t
o
t
h
e
b
o
d
y
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
i
t
o
v
e
r
l
o
oks.
54
11
/
9
/
0
9
Ca
r
y
l
P
a
r
k
De
l
m
a
r
C
a
r
y
l
w
a
s
a
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
o
f
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
fr
o
m
1
9
4
1
,
a
n
d
w
a
s
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
w
h
e
n
h
e
o
r
ganized a movement to
ge
t
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
1
9
6
2
.
H
i
s
b
o
o
k
"
W
i
t
h
A
n
g
e
l
s
t
o
t
h
e
R
ea
r
"
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
i
n
s
i
g
h
t
t
o
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
t
h
i
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s. He
wa
s
a
c
t
i
v
e
i
n
t
h
e
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
l
u
b
a
n
d
h
e
l
p
e
d
n
e
w
c
o
m
e
r
s
c
on
n
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
.
H
i
s
f
a
m
i
l
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
s
i
n
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
t
o
t
h
i
s
da
y
a
n
d
h
i
s
l
e
g
a
c
y
i
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
n
g
t
o
h
a
v
e
a
n
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
o
u
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
5 5
11
/
1
0
/
0
9
Ha
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
P
a
r
k
Th
e
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
H
a
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
a
n
d
t
he
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
f
t
h
e
H
a
i
n
e
s
f
a
m
i
l
y
o
n
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
a
n
d
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
County. Jim Haines was on
th
e
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
,
C
o
u
n
t
y
A
s
s
e
s
s
o
r
,
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
.
H
e
r
b
a
n
d
B
e
u
l
a
h
H
a
i
n
e
s
w
e
r
e
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
&
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
pi
o
n
e
e
r
s
.
T
h
e
w
h
a
r
f
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
o
f
pe
o
p
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
j
o
y
s
o
f
s
p
o
r
t
s
f
i
s
h
i
n
g
.
56
11
/
1
2
/
0
9
De
l
m
a
r
H
.
C
a
r
y
l
P
a
r
k
De
l
w
a
s
a
l
o
n
g
t
i
m
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
a
n
d
l
i
v
ed
o
n
l
y
b
l
o
c
k
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
(
s
a
m
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
)
.
I
t
h
i
n
k
h
i
s
w
i
d
o
w
s
t
i
l
l
l
i
v
e
s
t
h
e
r
e
.
H
e
w
r
o
t
e
a
b
o
o
k
a
b
o
u
t
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
“
W
i
t
h
A
n
g
e
l
s
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
a
r
A
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
o
r
t
r
a
i
t
o
f
E
a
r
l
y
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
”
.
T
h
e
y
w
o
u
l
d
g
i
v
e
a
c
o
p
y
t
o
n
e
w
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
o
n
th
e
i
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
I
t
h
i
n
k
M
a
r
g
a
r
e
t
s
t
i
l
l
d
o
e
s
.
57
11
/
1
2
/
0
9
Ca
r
y
l
P
a
r
k
I
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
n
e
w
p
a
r
k
b
y
t
h
e
o
l
d
w
h
a
r
f
n
e
a
r
7
5
th
P
l
a
c
e
W
e
s
t
a
n
d
1
6
2
nd
i
n
t
h
e
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
a
r
e
a
b
e
n
a
m
e
d
C
a
r
y
l
P
a
r
k
a
f
t
e
r
m
y
fa
t
h
e
r
D
e
l
m
a
r
C
a
r
y
l
.
M
y
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
,
m
y
s
i
s
t
e
r
a
n
d
I
m
o
v
e
d
to
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
i
n
1
9
4
1
.
W
e
s
e
t
t
l
e
d
i
n
a
n
o
l
d
1
9
0
0
’
s
f
a
r
m
h
o
u
s
e
o
n
7
5
th where I
gr
e
w
u
p
a
n
d
m
y
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
l
i
v
e
d
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
y
b
u
i
l
t
a
n
e
w
h
o
u
s
e
n
e
x
t
t
o
t
h
e
ol
d
o
n
e
i
n
1
9
7
2
.
D
a
d
w
a
s
a
c
t
i
v
e
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
f
r
o
m
1
9
41 until
19
9
8
w
h
e
n
h
i
s
h
e
a
l
t
h
f
a
i
l
e
d
.
D
a
d
p
a
s
s
e
d
a
w
a
y
i
n
1
9
9
9
,
b
u
t
M
o
m
s
t
i
l
l
l
i
v
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
h
o
u
s
e
t
h
e
y
b
u
i
l
t
.
Wh
e
n
I
w
a
s
a
c
h
i
l
d
,
m
y
d
a
d
l
o
v
e
d
t
o
g
o
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
a
n
d
t
a
l
k
t
o
o
l
d
-
t
i
m
e
r
s
i
n
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
.
H
e
w
o
u
l
d
o
f
t
e
n
t
a
k
e
m
e
w
i
t
h
him so
I
g
r
e
w
u
p
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
.
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
a
t
t
h
a
t
ti
m
e
w
a
s
a
c
o
l
o
n
y
o
f
l
i
t
t
l
e
v
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
c
a
b
i
n
s
a
n
d
o
l
d
h
o
u
s
e
s
a
n
d
buildings
le
f
t
o
v
e
r
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
t
u
r
n
o
f
t
h
e
c
e
n
t
u
r
y
.
I
r
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
t
h
e
o
l
d
ba
c
h
e
l
o
r
c
a
b
i
n
s
,
t
h
e
m
u
s
t
y
s
m
e
l
l
o
f
o
l
d
b
o
o
t
s
a
n
d
c
l
o
t
h
e
s
a
n
d
w
h
a
t
e
ver was
si
m
m
e
r
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
p
o
t
a
t
t
h
e
b
a
c
k
o
f
t
h
e
w
o
o
d
s
t
o
v
e
;
t
h
e
f
a
r
m
i
n
L
u
n
d
’
s
G
u
l
c
h
a
n
d
O
l
d
D
a
n
,
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
h
o
r
s
e
w
h
o
l
o
v
e
d
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
e
s
w
e
br
o
u
g
h
t
h
i
m
;
H
a
r
r
y
B
e
l
l
a
n
d
F
r
e
d
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n
,
t
w
o
o
f
t
h
e
o
l
d
s
e
t
t
l
e
r
s
;
a
n
d
t
h
e
W
W
I
I
C
o
a
s
t
G
u
a
r
d
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
i
s
n
o
w
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
P
l
a
yfield.
Da
d
l
o
v
e
d
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
i
t
s
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
;
h
e
l
o
v
e
d
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
it
w
i
t
h
h
i
s
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
,
g
r
a
n
d
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
a
n
d
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
a
n
d
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
.
Da
d
k
e
p
t
n
o
t
e
s
b
u
t
i
t
w
a
s
n
o
t
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
1
9
6
0
’
s
t
h
a
t
h
e
p
u
t
i
t
a
l
l
to
g
e
t
h
e
r
i
n
a
b
o
o
k
.
H
e
k
n
e
w
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
g
o
n
e
i
f they were
no
t
r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d
a
n
d
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
.
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
i
s
b
o
r
i
n
g
i
f
y
o
u
o
n
l
y
l
e
a
r
n
n
a
m
e
s
a
n
d
d
a
t
e
s
;
i
t
i
s
t
h
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
w
h
o
m
a
d
e
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
t
h
a
t
m
a
ke it
co
m
e
a
l
i
v
e
.
H
e
h
a
d
a
w
o
n
d
e
r
f
u
l
s
e
n
s
e
o
f
h
u
m
o
r
a
n
d
s
a
w
t
h
e
c
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
o
f
t
h
o
s
e
t
o
u
g
h
p
e
o
p
l
e
w
h
o
c
a
r
v
e
d
o
u
t
t
h
e
w
o
o
d
s
a
n
d
s
e
t
t
l
e
d
th
e
r
e
.
S
i
n
c
e
t
h
e
b
o
o
k
w
a
s
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
i
n
1
9
6
0
,
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
h
a
s
g
r
o
w
n
f
r
o
m
a
q
u
i
e
t
l
i
t
t
l
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
t
o
a
b
u
s
t
l
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
O
l
d
houses
ar
e
b
e
i
n
g
t
o
r
n
d
o
w
n
a
n
d
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
o
r
r
e
b
u
i
l
t
i
n
t
o
l
a
r
g
e
r
h
o
u
s
e
s
,
b
u
t
th
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
s
t
i
l
l
h
a
s
i
t
s
o
w
n
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
.
S
o
m
e
o
f
t
h
o
s
e
o
ld
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
r
e
n
o
w
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
:
t
h
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
s
t
o
r
e
a
n
d
p
o
s
t
o
f
f
i
c
e
,
t
h
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
,
t
h
e
C
l
e
v
e
l
a
n
d
s
t
o
r
e
.
T
h
e
w
h
a
r
f
w
h
i
c
h
w
a
s
once the
ce
n
t
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
i
s
n
o
w
a
s
a
d
s
i
g
h
t
a
s
i
t
c
o
l
l
a
p
s
e
s
i
n
t
o
a
w
a
t
e
r
y
g
r
a
v
e
.
Fr
o
m
a
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
1
,
1
9
6
0
n
e
w
s
p
a
p
e
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
“
W
i
t
h
A
n
g
e
l
s
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
a
r
,
A
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
l
P
o
r
t
r
a
i
t
o
f
E
a
r
l
y
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
”
:
“I
t
b
e
g
a
n
a
s
a
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
p
a
p
e
r
f
o
r
a
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
c
o
u
r
s
e
h
e
w
a
s
t
a
k
i
n
g
f
r
om
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
a
t
e
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
.
R
e
a
l
i
z
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
h
i
s
r
e
a
d
e
r
s
were less
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
l
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
t
h
a
n
i
n
s
o
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
t
r
i
v
i
a
h
e
ha
d
d
u
g
o
u
t
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
,
h
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
h
i
s
b
o
o
k
i
n
t
o
a
p
o
r
t
r
a
i
t
o
f
the
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
s
i
n
c
e
1
8
5
9
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
w
e
r
e
m
a
d
e
i
n
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
Co
u
n
t
y
.
H
e
t
e
l
l
s
o
f
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
y
l
o
g
g
i
n
g
,
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
,
h
o
r
s
e
a
n
d
b
uggy
me
d
i
c
i
n
e
,
r
u
m
-
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
,
c
h
u
r
c
h
e
s
,
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
s
,
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
s
t
o
r
i
e
d
o
l
d
-
t
i
m
e
r
s
.
”
Wh
e
n
h
e
w
a
s
t
r
y
i
n
g
t
o
f
i
n
d
a
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
t
i
t
l
e
f
o
r
h
i
s
b
o
o
k
,
h
e
s
a
w
a
p
a
r
a
d
e
o
n
T
V
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
a
n
n
o
u
n
c
e
r
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
o
n
e
f
l
o
a
t
a
s
h
a
v
i
ng
“a
n
g
e
l
s
t
o
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
”
.
T
h
a
t
t
i
c
k
l
e
d
h
i
s
s
e
n
s
e
o
f
h
u
m
o
r
w
h
e
n
h
e
r
e
a
l
i
z
e
d
t
h
a
t
p
h
r
a
s
e
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
t
h
e
r
o
u
g
h
a
n
d
t
u
m
b
l
e
p
i
o
n
e
e
r
s
w
h
o
settled
ea
r
l
y
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
.
T
h
e
y
w
e
r
e
n
o
s
a
i
n
t
s
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
11
7
of
33
7
PA
R
K
N
A
M
I
N
G
C
O
N
T
E
S
T
E
N
T
R
I
E
S
–
1
6
2
nd
S
t
P
a
r
k
He
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
h
e
b
o
o
k
t
o
“
t
h
o
s
e
o
l
d
t
i
m
e
r
s
w
h
o
h
e
l
p
e
d
w
r
i
t
e
t
h
i
s
–
b
u
t
c
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
w
a
i
t
f
o
r
i
t
.
”
I
h
o
p
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
w
i
l
l
h
a
v
e
an old-
fa
s
h
i
o
n
e
d
p
a
r
k
b
e
n
c
h
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
p
i
r
i
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
o
l
d
-
t
i
m
e
r
s
to
g
a
t
h
e
r
a
n
d
r
e
m
i
n
i
s
c
e
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
“
g
o
o
d
o
l
d
d
a
y
s
i
n
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
”
.
58
11
/
1
2
/
0
9
De
l
C
a
r
y
l
P
a
r
k
De
l
m
a
r
C
a
r
y
l
w
a
s
b
o
r
n
i
n
1
9
1
3
i
n
B
o
y
c
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
W
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
n
.
H
e
g
r
e
w
u
p
i
n
S
p
o
k
a
n
e
a
n
d
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
b
o
t
h
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
an
d
t
h
e
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
o
f
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
.
H
e
a
n
d
h
i
s
w
i
f
e
M
a
r
g
a
r
e
t
m
o
ve
d
t
o
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
,
n
o
w
t
h
e
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
,
in
1
9
4
1
.
De
l
w
a
s
a
l
i
b
r
a
r
i
a
n
a
t
E
v
e
r
e
t
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
f
o
r
2
7
y
e
a
r
s
.
He
w
a
s
a
p
i
l
o
t
a
n
d
a
i
r
p
l
a
n
e
o
w
n
e
r
w
h
o
w
a
s
g
e
n
e
r
o
u
s
w
i
t
h
r
i
d
e
s
f
or his
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
.
H
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
g
a
r
e
t
c
o
u
l
d
r
e
c
o
u
n
t
m
a
n
y
a
d
v
e
n
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
f
i
n
d
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
n
d
o
f
a
m
e
t
a
l
d
e
t
e
c
t
o
r
.
He
w
a
s
a
n
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
,
f
i
s
h
i
n
g
f
o
r
h
e
r
r
i
n
g
a
t
C
u
l
d
e
s
B
a
y
a
n
d
s
e
l
l
i
n
g
h
i
s
c
a
t
c
h
t
o
t
h
e
f
i
s
h
e
r
m
e
n
a
t
H
a
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
(
n
o
w
t
h
e
M
e
a
d
o
wdale
Ma
r
i
n
a
,
j
u
s
t
a
c
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
t
r
a
c
k
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
n
e
w
p
a
r
k
)
.
H
e
a
l
s
o
d
u
g
a
n
d
s
o
l
d
w
o
r
m
s
f
o
r
b
a
i
t
,
3
0
0
t
o
a
c
a
n
!
De
l
a
n
d
M
a
r
g
a
r
e
t
h
a
d
a
c
i
d
e
r
p
r
e
s
s
a
n
d
m
a
d
e
c
i
d
e
r
e
v
e
r
y
y
e
a
r
.
T
h
e
y
a
l
s
o
h
a
d
a
c
o
t
t
o
n
c
a
n
d
y
m
a
c
h
i
n
e
a
n
d
p
u
t
i
t
t
o
u
s
e
o
n
H
a
l
l
o
w
een
fo
r
l
o
c
a
l
t
r
i
c
k
-
o
r
-
t
r
e
a
t
e
r
s
.
H
e
r
a
i
s
e
d
h
o
n
e
y
b
e
e
s
,
w
a
s
a
n
a
v
i
d
b
i
r
d
-
w
a
t
c
h
e
r
,
a
n
d
e
v
e
n
h
a
d
2
p
e
t
c
r
o
w
s
n
a
m
e
d
J
o
e
a
n
d
M
o
e
.
T
o
t
he
de
l
i
g
h
t
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
,
t
h
e
s
e
c
r
o
w
s
s
a
t
o
n
D
e
l
’
s
s
h
o
u
l
de
r
,
w
h
e
r
e
h
e
w
o
u
l
d
p
e
t
a
n
d
t
a
l
k
t
o
t
h
e
m
.
I
n
h
i
s
s
p
a
r
e
t
i
m
e, Del
pl
a
y
e
d
t
h
e
p
i
a
n
o
.
De
l
C
a
r
y
l
w
a
s
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
i
n
l
o
c
a
l
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
s
,
w
a
s
p
a
s
s
i
o
n
a
t
e
a
b
o
u
t
hi
s
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
,
a
n
d
w
a
s
a
l
e
a
d
e
r
o
f
a
n
a
t
t
e
m
p
t
t
o
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
a
s
a
c
i
t
y
.
I
n
1
9
6
2
h
e
w
a
s
a
c
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e
f
o
r
m
a
y
o
r
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
c
i
t
y
.
H
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
g
a
r
e
t
s
p
e
n
t
m
a
n
y
y
e
a
r
s
t
r
a
v
e
l
i
n
g
t
he
wo
r
l
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
F
r
i
e
n
d
s
h
i
p
F
o
r
c
e
,
w
h
o
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
s
“
T
o
p
r
om
o
t
e
g
l
o
b
a
l
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
a
c
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
t
h
a
t
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
.
”
That
mi
s
s
i
o
n
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
e
e
m
s
v
e
r
y
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
t
o
D
e
l
’
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
l
i
f
e
as
w
e
l
l
.
D
e
l
w
a
s
a
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Club.
De
l
w
a
s
t
h
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
o
f
a
d
e
l
i
g
h
t
f
u
l
l
y
u
n
s
c
h
o
l
a
r
l
y
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
t
i
t
l
e
d
Wi
t
h
A
n
g
e
l
s
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
a
r
. Del found that most readers were
mo
r
e
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
t
a
l
e
s
t
h
a
t
p
a
i
n
t
e
d
a
p
o
r
t
r
a
i
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
un
i
t
y
t
h
a
n
a
d
r
y
,
d
a
t
e
s
-
a
n
d
-
n
a
m
e
s
t
y
p
e
o
f
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
.
I
n
j
u
s
t
2
8
short
ch
a
p
t
e
r
s
,
C
a
r
y
l
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
t
h
e
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
s
t
o
r
y
f
r
o
m
1
8
5
9
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
w
e
r
e
m
a
d
e
i
n
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
m
i
d
-
1
9
6
0
s
.
He
r
e
c
o
u
n
t
e
d
t
a
l
e
s
o
f
e
a
r
l
y
l
o
g
g
i
n
g
,
h
o
r
s
e
-
a
n
d
-
b
u
g
g
y
m
e
d
i
c
i
n
e
,
r
u
m
-
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
,
c
h
u
r
c
h
e
s
,
s
c
h
o
o
l
s, telephones, transportation, and storied
ol
d
-
t
i
m
e
r
s
.
I
n
f
a
c
t
,
h
e
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
h
i
s
b
o
o
k
“
t
o
t
h
o
s
e
o
l
d
-
t
i
me
r
s
w
h
o
h
e
l
p
e
d
w
r
i
t
e
t
h
i
s
–
b
u
t
c
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
w
a
i
t
f
o
r
i
t
.
”
De
l
C
a
r
y
l
l
i
v
e
d
a
n
d
r
a
i
s
e
d
h
i
s
f
a
m
i
l
y
i
n
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
,
a
n
d
h
e
b
o
t
h
e
n
c
h
a
n
t
e
d
a
n
d
e
n
t
e
r
t
a
i
n
e
d
n
e
w
c
o
m
e
r
s
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
w
i
t
h
h
is
ta
l
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
o
l
d
t
i
m
e
s
a
n
d
h
i
s
s
t
r
o
n
g
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
t
o
h
i
s
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
We
b
e
l
i
e
v
e
t
h
a
t
“
D
e
l
C
a
r
y
l
P
a
r
k
”
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
v
e
r
y
a
p
t
n
a
m
e
f
o
r
o
u
r
n
e
w
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
p
a
r
k
.
59
11
/
1
2
/
0
9
De
l
C
a
r
y
l
P
a
r
k
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
s
a
m
e
v
e
r
b
i
a
g
e
a
s
5
8
60
11
/
1
2
/
0
9
De
l
C
a
r
y
l
P
a
r
k
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
s
a
m
e
v
e
r
b
i
a
g
e
a
s
5
8
61
11
/
1
2
/
0
9
Ha
i
n
e
s
P
a
r
k
Th
e
H
a
i
n
e
s
b
o
a
t
h
o
u
s
e
w
a
s
a
f
i
x
t
u
r
e
i
n
t
h
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
f
o
r
d
e
c
a
d
e
s
.
T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
m
a
n
y
m
e
m
o
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
f
i
s
h
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
e
d
b
y
na
m
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
p
a
r
k
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
f
a
m
i
l
y
t
h
a
t
o
w
n
e
d
a
n
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
h
e
b
o
a
t
h
o
u
s
e
j
u
s
t
w
e
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
a
r
e
a
.
62
11
/
1
2
/
0
9
Ha
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
P
a
r
k
As
a
n
y
o
n
e
c
a
n
s
e
e
,
t
h
i
s
i
s
t
h
e
l
o
ca
t
i
o
n
o
f
H
a
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
.
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
o
d
a
y
,
t
h
e
w
h
a
r
f
s
e
e
m
s
t
o
b
e
o
n
l
i
f
e
-
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
i
t
’
s
v
e
r
y
s
a
d
t
o
s
e
e
it
j
u
s
t
s
l
o
w
l
y
c
o
l
l
a
p
s
e
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
s
e
a
.
C
o
n
t
r
a
r
y
t
o
i
t
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
t
h
a
s
n
’
t
a
l
w
a
y
s
b
e
e
n
a
s
y
o
u
s
e
e
i
t
t
o
d
a
y
.
T
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
the glory
ye
a
r
s
w
h
e
n
H
a
i
n
e
s
w
a
s
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
t
i
g
e
b
o
a
t
r
e
n
t
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
A
m
o
n
g
l
o
ca
l
s
a
l
m
o
n
f
i
s
h
e
r
m
e
n
i
t
w
a
s
t
h
e
N
o
r
d
s
t
r
o
m
’
s
o
f
b
o
a
t
r
e
n
t
a
l
s
.
Fi
s
h
e
r
m
e
n
w
h
o
w
a
n
t
e
d
t
o
i
m
p
r
e
s
s
t
h
e
i
r
p
e
e
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
g
a
i
n
a
f
e
w
p
o
i
n
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
p
e
c
k
i
n
g
o
r
d
e
r
b
y
l
e
t
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
k
n
o
w
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
y
o
n
l
y
r
e
nted
th
e
i
r
b
o
a
t
s
a
t
H
a
i
n
e
s
.
Ha
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
b
e
g
a
n
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
i
n
t
h
e
l
a
t
e
1
9
3
0
’
s
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
a
r
o
u
n
d
1
9
3
8
.
“C
a
p
”
H
a
i
n
e
s
w
a
s
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
o
f
t
h
i
s
o
n
e
-
t
i
m
e
r
e
d
c
a
r
p
e
t
f
a
cility
fo
r
s
p
o
r
t
s
f
i
s
h
e
r
m
e
n
w
h
o
c
a
m
e
t
o
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
t
o
r
e
n
t
o
n
e
o
f
t
he
i
r
1
6
f
t
p
l
y
w
o
o
d
b
o
a
t
s
.
A
f
t
e
r
h
i
s
r
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
,
h
i
s
s
o
n
J
i
m
m
a
n
a
g
e
d
the
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
f
o
r
m
a
n
y
y
e
a
r
s
.
T
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
1
0
0
i
d
e
n
t
i
c
a
l
b
o
a
t
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
bl
e
.
T
h
i
s
w
a
s
b
e
f
o
r
e
b
o
a
t
t
r
a
i
l
e
r
s
a
n
d
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
b
o
a
t
s
w
i
t
h
h
i
g
h
powered
en
g
i
n
e
s
.
S
o
,
i
f
y
o
u
w
a
n
t
e
d
t
o
f
i
s
h
,
y
o
u
r
e
n
t
e
d
a
b
o
a
t
.
A
s
a
l
l
o
l
d-
t
i
m
e
r
s
t
o
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
k
n
o
w
,
t
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
n
u
m
e
r
o
u
s
b
o
a
t
r
e
n
t
a
l
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
.
J
u
s
t
t
o
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
w
a
s
N
o
r
m
a
B
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
w
a
s
B
r
o
w
n
s
B
a
y
B
o
a
t
H
o
u
s
e
w
h
i
c
h
wa
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
L
y
n
n
w
o
o
d
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
t
.
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
j
u
s
t
t
h
o
s
e
t
h
r
e
e
s
i
t
e
s
a
l
o
n
e
t
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
w
e
l
l
o
v
e
r
4
0
0
boats
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
t
o
r
e
n
t
o
n
b
u
s
y
s
u
m
m
e
r
w
e
e
k
e
n
d
s
.
T
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
o
t
h
e
r
s
i
t
e
s
at
P
i
c
n
i
c
P
o
i
n
t
a
n
d
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
t
w
o
i
n
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
f
e
r
r
y
d
ock.
An
d
y
’
s
B
o
a
t
h
o
u
s
e
i
s
n
o
w
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
j
u
s
t
s
o
u
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
f
e
r
r
y
d
o
c
k
a
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
f
e
r
r
y
d
o
c
k
w
a
s
a
nother
bo
a
t
r
e
n
t
a
l
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
.
O
n
a
b
u
s
y
w
e
e
k
e
n
d
m
o
r
n
i
n
g
a
l
l
b
o
a
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
o
n
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
b
e
f
o
r
e
6
A
M
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
y
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
i
n
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
l
o
w
l
y
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
11
8
of
33
7
PA
R
K
N
A
M
I
N
G
C
O
N
T
E
S
T
E
N
T
R
I
E
S
–
1
6
2
nd
S
t
P
a
r
k
tr
o
l
l
i
n
g
u
p
a
n
d
d
o
w
n
o
f
f
s
h
o
r
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
P
i
c
n
i
c
P
o
i
n
t
a
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
.
Th
e
g
a
t
e
a
t
H
a
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
n
f
o
r
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
t
3
A
M
a
n
d
t
h
e
fi
s
h
e
r
m
e
n
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
n
e
u
p
t
h
e
n
i
g
h
t
b
e
f
o
r
e
h
o
p
i
n
g
t
o
b
e
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
ones
ou
t
o
n
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
.
O
f
t
e
n
t
h
e
c
a
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
l
i
n
e
d
u
p
o
n
7
6
th
W
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
g
a
t
e
h
a
l
f
w
a
y
b
a
c
k
t
o
P
e
r
r
i
n
v
i
l
l
e
.
Ha
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
w
a
s
t
h
e
“
g
o
u
r
m
e
t
”
f
u
l
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
w
h
i
c
h
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
t
o
d
r
i
v
e
t
h
e
i
r
c
a
r
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
d
o
c
k
.
S
i
n
c
e
the boats
we
r
e
a
l
l
o
n
d
o
l
l
i
e
s
t
h
e
y
w
o
u
l
d
r
o
l
l
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
t
o
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
o
f
t
he
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
’
s
c
a
r
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
y
c
o
u
l
d
e
a
s
i
l
y
l
o
a
d
t
h
e
i
r
m
o
t
o
r
a
n
d
g
e
a
r directly into
th
e
b
o
a
t
.
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
t
h
e
n
r
o
l
l
t
h
e
b
o
a
t
t
o
t
h
e
e
l
e
v
a
t
o
r
t
h
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
t
w
o
b
o
a
t
s
a
t
a
t
i
m
e
,
t
h
e
y
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
l
o
w
e
r
e
d
i
nto the
wa
t
e
r
a
n
d
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
y
w
e
r
e
o
f
f
t
o
c
a
t
c
h
t
h
e
“
b
i
g
o
n
e
s
”
.
U
p
o
n
re
t
u
r
n
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
w
a
s
r
e
v
e
r
s
e
d
.
A
f
t
e
r
e
a
c
h
u
s
e
,
t
h
e
b
o
a
t
s
w
e
re
th
o
r
o
u
g
h
l
y
w
a
s
h
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
h
i
g
h
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
f
i
r
e
h
o
s
e
,
s
w
a
b
b
e
d
b
y
h
a
n
d
,
l
i
f
t
e
d
b
y
a
h
o
i
s
t
t
o
d
u
m
p
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
,
t
h
e
n
r
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
d
o
ck
sp
a
r
k
l
i
n
g
c
l
e
a
n
r
e
a
d
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
r
e
n
t
a
l
.
R
e
n
t
a
l
w
o
u
l
d
c
o
s
t
y
o
u
$
3
.
5
0
.
T
h
e
r
e
w
a
s
a
s
m
a
l
l
l
u
n
c
h
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
f
o
r
c
o
f
f
e
e
a
n
d
b
u
r
g
e
r
s or a
bo
w
l
o
f
c
h
i
l
i
.
T
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
l
a
r
g
e
c
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
t
a
b
l
e
s
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
a
n
g
l
e
r
s
c
o
u
l
d
c
l
e
a
n
t
h
e
i
r
c
a
t
c
h
a
n
d
g
l
o
a
t
w
i
t
h
p
r
i
d
e
t
o
t
he less
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
.
B
a
i
t
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
o
f
f
r
o
z
e
n
h
e
r
r
i
ng
o
r
f
r
e
s
h
c
a
u
g
h
t
c
a
n
d
l
e
f
i
s
h
o
r
e
v
e
n
a
c
a
n
o
f
c
a
r
e
f
u
l
l
y
c
o
u
n
t
ed out
wo
r
m
s
.
G
a
s
o
l
i
n
e
w
a
s
a
l
s
o
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
w
h
i
c
h
w
a
s
s
o
l
d
i
n
o
n
e
g
a
l
l
o
n
g
l
a
s
s
j
u
g
s
.
(
S
u
r
e
c
o
u
l
d
n
’
t
d
o
t
h
a
t
t
o
d
a
y
)
.
Ho
w
d
o
I
k
n
o
w
a
l
l
o
f
t
h
i
s
?
B
e
c
a
u
s
e
I
w
a
s
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
o
s
e
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
w
h
o
w
a
s
h
e
d
,
s
w
a
b
b
e
d
,
r
o
l
l
e
d
,
l
o
w
e
r
e
d
a
n
d
r
a
i
s
e
d
t
h
e
b
o
a
t
s
.
F
o
r
many
ye
a
r
s
,
H
a
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
w
a
s
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
“
r
e
a
l
”
j
o
b
w
o
r
k
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
f
o
r
d
o
z
e
n
s
f
o
r
t
e
e
n
a
g
e
bo
y
s
l
i
v
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
.
“
B
a
g
b
o
y
”
h
a
d
n
’
t
been
in
v
e
n
t
e
d
y
e
t
.
T
h
e
p
a
y
w
a
s
$
1
.
0
0
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
,
w
e
w
o
r
k
e
d
n
i
n
e
h
o
u
r
s
o
n
t
h
e
m
o
r
n
i
n
g
s
h
i
f
t
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
a
f
t
e
r
n
o
o
n
s
h
i
f
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
g
i
n
a
t
n
o
on and
wo
r
k
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
l
a
s
t
b
o
a
t
r
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
a
t
s
u
n
s
e
t
.
W
e
h
a
d
a
3
0
m
i
n
u
t
e
l
u
n
c
h
,
t
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
n
o
c
o
f
f
e
e
b
r
e
a
k
s
a
s
t
h
e
y
h
a
d
n
’
t
b
e
e
n
i
n
v
e
n
t
e
d yet
an
d
b
e
s
i
d
e
s
,
n
o
o
n
e
d
r
a
n
k
c
o
f
f
e
e
a
t
a
g
e
1
6
.
Ha
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
w
a
s
a
b
u
s
t
l
i
n
g
v
i
b
r
a
n
t
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
i
n
“
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
”
M
e
a
d
o
w
da
l
e
.
F
o
r
o
v
e
r
3
0
y
e
a
r
s
i
t
g
a
v
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
t
o
m
a
n
y
d
o
z
e
n
s
o
f
pe
o
p
l
e
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
p
l
e
a
s
u
r
e
f
o
r
h
u
n
d
r
e
d
s
p
e
r
h
a
p
s
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
o
f
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
y
e
a
r
s
.
A
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
i
s
h
c
a
u
g
h
t
,
l
e
t
’
s
h
o
p
e
t
h
e
y
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
f
e
w
f
i
n
e
m
e
a
l
s
.
H
a
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
d
o
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
of
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
1
9
3
0
’
s
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
.
S
o
,
w
h
e
n
f
u
t
u
r
e
p
ark
pa
t
r
o
n
s
s
i
t
a
t
t
h
e
s
h
i
n
y
n
e
w
p
i
c
n
i
c
t
a
b
l
e
s
e
n
j
o
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
u
n
s
e
t
in
t
h
i
s
f
u
t
u
r
e
p
a
r
k
,
r
e
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
o
f
i
t
s
n
e
w
n
a
m
e
,
t
h
e
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
aware that a
li
t
t
l
e
b
i
t
o
f
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
l
o
r
e
i
s
c
r
u
m
b
l
i
n
g
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
s
e
a
…
.
o
n
e
b
o
a
r
d
a
t
a
t
i
m
e
.
Ha
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
P
a
r
k
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
r
r
y
a
s
l
i
c
e
o
f
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
.
63
11
/
1
3
/
0
9
Fo
n
t
a
l
P
a
r
k
Fo
n
t
a
l
m
e
a
n
s
"
f
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
"
a
n
d
a
l
s
o
"
t
h
e
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
"
I
n
“
t
h
e
b
e
g
i
nn
i
n
g
”
a
g
e
n
t
l
e
m
e
n
n
a
m
e
d
J
o
s
e
p
h
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
o
n
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
1
1
0
0
a
c
r
e
s
i
n
18
7
2
w
h
i
c
h
h
a
p
p
e
n
s
t
o
b
e
r
i
g
h
t
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
n
e
w
p
a
r
k
s
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
,
a
s
w
e
ll
a
s
w
h
a
t
i
s
n
o
w
k
n
o
w
n
a
s
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
.
H
e
n
a
m
e
d
t
h
e
ne
w
t
o
w
n
“
F
o
n
t
a
l
”
.
J
o
s
e
p
h
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
o
n
’
s
F
o
n
t
a
l
m
i
s
s
e
d
b
e
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
i
rs
t
P
l
a
t
e
d
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
i
n
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
b
y
o
n
l
y
5
m
o
n
t
h
s
,
f
i
r
s
t
be
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
a
t
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
w
n
c
a
l
l
e
d
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
.
La
t
e
r
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
o
n
e
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
h
e
h
a
d
s
o
m
e
t
r
o
u
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
t
e
n
a
n
t
s
of
F
o
n
t
a
l
a
n
d
t
h
e
y
h
a
d
d
r
i
v
e
n
h
i
m
o
f
f
.
T
h
e
t
e
n
a
n
t
s
p
a
i
d
t
h
e
t
a
x
es on
th
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
c
o
n
v
i
n
c
e
d
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
o
n
t
h
a
t
h
e
n
o
l
o
n
g
e
r
o
w
n
e
d
t
h
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
s
o
h
e
t
o
r
e
t
h
e
d
e
e
d
u
p
.
A
f
e
w
y
e
a
r
s
l
a
t
e
r
,
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
there
wa
s
s
o
m
e
e
x
c
i
t
e
m
e
n
t
o
v
e
r
s
o
m
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
F
o
n
t
a
l
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
t
r
e
s
u
r
r
e
c
t
e
d
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
o
n
’
s
t
i
t
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
n
o
t
i
f
i
ed him
of
h
i
s
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
.
Jo
s
e
p
h
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
o
n
d
i
e
d
o
n
J
u
l
y
3
1
,
1
8
7
5
,
i
f
t
h
i
n
g
s
w
o
u
l
d
h
a
v
e
g
o
ne
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
y
f
o
r
M
r
.
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
o
n
w
h
o
k
n
o
w
s
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
ar
e
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
a
l
l
e
d
t
o
d
a
y
.
S
o
i
n
h
o
n
o
r
o
f
J
o
s
e
p
h
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
o
n
a
n
d
h
i
s
t
o
w
n
n
a
m
e
d
F
o
n
t
a
l
,
I
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
no
m
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
e
n
a
m
e
“
F
O
N
T
A
L
P
A
R
K
”
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
i
t
tr
u
l
y
w
a
s
t
h
e
“
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
”
o
f
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
.
Th
i
s
i
s
j
u
s
t
a
s
h
o
r
t
s
y
n
o
p
s
i
s
o
f
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
a
r
ea
.
F
o
r
m
o
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,
I
g
o
t
t
h
i
s
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
a
b
o
o
k
t
itled “WITH
AN
G
E
L
S
T
O
T
H
E
R
E
A
R
”
A
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
l
P
o
r
t
r
a
i
t
o
f
E
a
r
l
y
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
,
b
y
D
e
l
m
a
r
H
.
C
a
r
y
l
;
C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
1
9
6
0
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
D
e
l
e
m
m
a
Pr
e
s
s
a
t
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
,
t
h
e
b
o
o
k
i
s
v
e
r
y
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
f
u
l
l
o
f
f
a
c
t
s
a
n
d
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
.
Ho
p
e
f
u
l
l
y
“
F
O
N
T
A
L
P
A
R
K
”
w
i
l
l
i
n
s
p
i
r
e
o
u
r
y
o
u
n
g
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
,
V
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
a
n
d
t
h
o
s
e
a
l
i
k
e
t
o
l
e
a
r
n
m
o
r
e
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
M
e
a
d
o
w
dale
ar
e
a
a
n
d
o
u
r
g
r
e
a
t
C
i
t
y
.
Th
a
n
k
y
o
u
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
h
a
v
e
a
n
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
k
i
n
d
o
f
d
a
y
!
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
11
9
of
33
7
Packet Page 120 of 337
Packet Page 121 of 337
Packet Page 122 of 337
Packet Page 123 of 337
Packet Page 124 of 337
Packet Page 125 of 337
Packet Page 126 of 337
Packet Page 127 of 337
Packet Page 128 of 337
Packet Page 129 of 337
Packet Page 130 of 337
Packet Page 131 of 337
Packet Page 132 of 337
PARK NAMING CONTEST
The City of Edmonds is conducting a naming contest for our newest park at the northwest corner of 75th Pl W
and 162nd St SW in north Edmonds overlooking Puget Sound. We encourage Edmonds’ residents to put on
their thinking caps and help name this park!
Names submitted may provide park identity in relation to the following naming guidelines:
• The geographic location of the park; this includes descriptive names.
• An adjoining neighborhood or street, natural feature or an outstanding feature of the park.
• No park shall be given the same name of an existing school site or public facility, except where the sites abut
one another.
• A commonly recognized historical event, group, organization or individual (living or deceased).
• Outstanding accomplishments by an individual for the good of the community. Quality of the contribution should
be considered along with the length of service by the individual – this to be fully substantiated by person making
recommendation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Please submit one name per entry. Entries must be received by 4PM, November 13, 2009.
Name
Address
Edmonds, WA, Zip
Phone
Email
Name
this park!
Suggested name:
Tell us why this name should be chosen:
Submit form to: Or email to: parknamingcontest@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Park Naming Contest
City of Edmonds
700 Main Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
All suggested names will go to the Planning Board for consideration and a hearing. The Planning Board will make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council has final authority to approve or amend any recommendation.
EDMONDS PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
700 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WA 98020 425.771.0230
Packet Page 133 of 337
Packet Page 134 of 337
AM-2826 7.
Presentation from Citizens Ken Reidy and Eric Thuesen
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/23/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:60 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Presentation from citizens Ken Reidy and Eric Thuesen.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
This item has been placed on the agenda by unanimous vote of the Edmonds City Council taken
December 1, 2009. Mr. Reidy and Mr. Thuesen will each have 30 uninterrupted minutes to address
the Council this evening.
Attach 1: 12.1.2009 CM
The following have been submitted by Mr. Reidy and Mr. Thuesen:
Thuesen Document
ReidyPreHearingBrief12810ADraft
Reidy - CrollBrief.pdf
Reidy - Supplemental Memorandum of Additional InformationCC
ReidyExhibits.pdf
Reidy - English February 24 2009 letterUPDATE
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Attach 1: 12-1-2009 Council Mintues
Link: Thuesen Document
Link: ReidyPreHearingBrief12810ADraft
Link: Reidy - CrollBrief.pdf
Link: Reidy - Supplemental Memorandum of Additional InformationCC
Link: ReidyExhibits
Link: Reidy - English February 24 2009 letterUPDATE
Packet Page 135 of 337
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 12:16 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/18/2010 02:06 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/18/2010 02:14 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 02/17/2010 02:22
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/18/2010
Packet Page 136 of 337
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 1, 2009
Page 25
Snyder’s presentation, explaining the regulated wetland at the time Mr. Thuesen vested was 2,500 square
feet not 2,000 square feet and the delineation of the wetland was 2,291 square feet by LSA, the same firm
that did not show the Reidy’s shed on the survey. The omission of the shed on the survey should have
made the application incomplete. The third party who originally assessed the wetland was Pentac; their
original delineation determined it was a Class 2 wetland over 2,500 square feet but less than an acre and
subject to City of Edmonds, State Department of Ecology and Army Corp of Engineer for verification.
Mr. Thuesen had LSA do their own delineation which reduced the size to under 2,500 square feet. The
Hearing Examiner ruled in favor of the citizens surrounding the property who questioned the wetland
delineation and recommended the property owner have the wetland re-delineated which Mr. Thuesen did
not do. The State Department of Ecology has never been allowed on the property even though the
wetland is subject to DOE delineation. She planned to continue to provide further explanation regarding
this issue during public comment, noting the wetland was filled improperly.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented Mr. Snyder’s presentation was an obvious, blatant
misrepresentation. The first misrepresentation was that the August Notice of Violation was the second
Notice of Violation. He urged the Council to read the code, specifically Chapter 20.110, enforcement of
civil violations. He pointed out the only person with the authority to issue a code enforcement violation
was Community Services Director Stephen Clifton, who Mr. Snyder did not identify as one of the staff
members involved in this matter. He asserted Mr. Snyder was in the background ordering staff to issue
five different Orders to Correct. Anyone receiving a Notice of Violation was entitled to an administrative
hearing and did have to pay $350 which Mr. Reidy did for the first Notice of Violation or $750 to appeal
a civil violation. He suggested the Council consider interviewing other law firms because although
Ogden Murphy Wallace is one of the lowest billing law firms in the downtown Seattle area, they cost
their clients a great deal of money.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 12:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Wilson asked for Council direction regarding scheduling this on a future Council
agenda to allow Mr. Reidy and Mr. Thuesen to make a presentation to the Council.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO SCHEDULE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON DECEMBER 15, JANUARY 5 OR JANUARY 19
AND TO INVITE MR. REIDY AND MR. THUESEN TO MAKE A PRESENTATION.
Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Snyder’s opinion regarding Council President Wilson’s motion. Mr.
Snyder responded it was always appropriate for the Council to hear from citizens. He remarked Ms.
Bloom may be correct regarding the square footage of the wetland. He commented the difficulty with
having a presentation by Mr. Reidy and Mr. Thuesen was where the Council expected to go with that
information. The administrative remedy was to provide the information to the Hearing Examiner. Mr.
Reidy can also request a stay from Superior Court. He reiterated the vacation was final although the
Council could initiate a vacation of the temporary construction easement. However, there was still a
pending action with Mr. Thuesen on the vacation ordinance.
Councilmember Plunkett commented what some people may consider a remedy could have serious
downsides to the city. Mr. Snyder referred to the Mission Springs v. City of Spokane case that resulted in
millions in liability when the Council pulled a vested permit. His concern was this looked like a backdoor
way to attack the Thuesen permit which has been to court and regardless of what was missed, the record
was closed. If Council wished to hire a third attorney to review the matter, he encouraged them to do so.
Packet Page 137 of 337
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 1, 2009
Page 26
Councilmember Orvis commented he had no problem with listening to Mr. Reidy or Mr. Thuesen’s side
but he was uncertain what the Council would do with the information.
Councilmember Bernheim suggested Mr. Reidy and/or Mr. Thuesen describe their proposed course of
action. He commented there was a great deal to be learned including continued sensitivity to the concerns
of large numbers of people who believe they have been wronged and if the Council investigated and
determined that mistakes had been made, the City could learn from those mistakes. He was eager to give
Mr. Reidy and Mr. Thuesen a limited amount of time to present their argument, discussion and exhibits.
Mayor Haakenson advised Mr. Thuesen was out of the country for the entire month of December.
Mr. Snyder pointed out there was a claim pending with Mr. Thuesen. If the Council wanted pre-litigation
review from WCIA and wanted it conducted by someone other than Ms. Kroll, he suggested the Council
request that review. Councilmember Bernheim commented he was not interested in another legal opinion.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON RESTATED HIS MOTION AS FOLLOWS:
TO SCHEDULE A PRESENTATION BY MR. REIDY AND MR. THUESEN AT A MEETING IN
JANUARY FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED AN HOUR TOTAL, 30 MINUTES FOR EACH.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. ANNUAL REPORT - CITY ATTORNEY
Due to the late hour, it was the consensus of the Council to reschedule this item.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmembers made no comments.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:53 p.m.
Packet Page 138 of 337
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
13
9
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
14
0
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
14
1
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
14
2
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
14
3
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
14
4
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
14
5
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
14
6
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
14
7
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
14
8
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
14
9
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
15
0
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
15
1
of
33
7
BEFORE THE EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER
In Re the Appeal of:
Kenneth and Vera Reidy
APPEAL NO. APL-09-04
Reidy’s PREHEARING BRIEF
The City references the Temporary Construction Easement reserved under Ordinance No.
3729 (“TCE”) on the Notice of Civil Violation that we are appealing today. We are accused
of committing a civil violation for the Maintenance of a shed structure within the seven
and one half foot wide by 90 foot long TCE. The City of Edmonds admits that it has an
obligation to prove a prima facie case and therefore the burden is on the City to establish
the existence of a violation. As the violation we are accused of directly relates to the
TCE, it is critical that the City establish that the reservation of the TCE was legal under
Federal, State and City laws. Furthermore, an appeal of Ordinance No. 3729 has been
filed by the Thuesens. Until that appeal is resolved, any enforcement related to the
disputed vacation and related TCE is premature and the City is accusing the Reidys of
violating a TCE which will not exist if the Thuesen’s are successful upon appeal.
Proving the TCE is legal and that it won’t be overturned as a result of the Thuesen’s appeal
is critical. If the TCE is illegal or if it will be overturned as a result of the Thuesen’s
appeal, then the City cannot establish the existence of a violation related to the TCE. The
Reidys request that Hearing Examiner require City Attorney Scott Snyder to answer the
following questions while he is under oath:
1. Have any of the Reidy’s Constitutional rights including substantive and procedural
due process rights guaranteed under the Federal and State Constitutions been
violated by the City’s reservation of the TCE and/or the City’s related civil
enforcement effort?
Packet Page 152 of 337
2. Has the City violated the Reidy’s procedural due process rights by failing to notify
the Public and the Reidys that the City Council would vote on the TCE during the
September 16, 2008 City Council meeting?
3. Has the City violated the Reidys’ rights to life, liberty or property by reserving a
TCE specifically for private benefit, allowing a private party to use the Reidys’
private property against the Reidys’ will and without compensating the Reidys for
the taking of the Reidys’ Real Property?
4. Please provide the statutory authority supporting the retention of a TCE during the
street vacation process governed under ECDC 20.70 specifically for a PRIVATE
party’s “use of the PUBLIC right of way under the Right of Way use provisions for
PRIVATE construction activities and the other PRIVATE uses referenced in
Chapter 18.70 of the city code”.
5. Please explain clearly how the TCE and related civil enforcement actions are allowed
under ECDC 20.70 as well as the Washington State Constitution, article I, Section
16 (amendment 9). Specifically, please explain how the Constitution allows the City
of Edmonds to take or damage the Reidys’ slab and lean-to structure, for public or
private use, without just compensation having been first made to the Reidys. Please
explain how the Constitution allows the City of Edmonds to appropriate a TCE to
the use of any corporation other than municipal until full compensation be first
made.
The Reidys have many more questions to ask, but these questions must first be answered
as the question of whether or not the TCE is legal sits at the foundation or the City’s
issuance of the Notice of Civil Violation. If the TCE is illegal or if its status is pending
related to the Thuesen’s appeal, the City has no interest to enforce against.
Packet Page 153 of 337
Prior to the vacation of the UNOPENED 7 ½ foot public alley right of way easement and
reservation of the related TCE under Ordinance No. 3729, the Reidys had every right to
use their land in any manner not inconsistent with the City’s UNOPENED 7 ½ foot wide
public alley right of way easement. Constraining reasonable use by underlying fee owners
of UNOPENED easements restricts the rights of landowners to use their property. Such
exclusions run counter to public policy favoring the efficient use of land. As the City had
failed to obtain an additional 7 ½ feet of property when it annexed the property to the
north of the Reidys, the easement area was inadequate for ingress egress. Furthermore,
it was located in a very steep slope area. The Reidy’s had every right to use their property
for landscaping, trees, stairs, a cement slab, even for the maintenance of a shed permitted
in 1962. The City of Edmonds had no right to take any action that would deny the Reidys’
their right to reasonable use of the UNOPENED 7 ½ foot public alley right of way
easement. Hence, the City never issued the Reidys an Order to Correct Violation or a
Notice of Civil Violation related to the Reidys’ reasonable use of the UNOPENED 7 ½ foot
public alley right of way easement, even after Eric Thuesen submitted a Request for Code
Enforcement action on July 11, 2007.
In Nystrand v. O'Malley, the Washington Supreme Court held an abutting landowner
may use the portion of an UNOPENED street easement to which he or she holds fee
title in any manner not inconsistent with the easement.
In Nystrand v. O’Malley, the Nystrands extended a garage onto the unopened street,
planted trees and hedges, and constructed a bulkhead, all on property that the Nystrands
owned the underlying fee to. The court held that the Nystrand’s use was proper.
Likewise, the Reidys’ use was proper prior to the March 27, 2009 effective date of the
vacation of the UNOPENED 7 ½ foot public alley right of way easement. How can the
Reidy’s use of the UNOPENED 7 ½ foot public alley right of way easement be legal one day
and then be illegal the very next day? The Reidys’ shed and concrete slab were legal on
March 26, 2009 and the City claims that effective March 27, 2009, an indeterminate
Packet Page 154 of 337
portion of The Reidys’ shed and concrete slab were illegal the very next day. The Reidys
made no change to any of their shed or concrete between March 26, 2009 and March 27,
2009! What changed was the passage Ordinance No. 3729. The TCE reserved under
Ordinance No. 3729 cannot be employed by the City to make what was legal one day illegal
the next. The concept is absurd. It violates the Constitution of the United States,
Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 which provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post
facto Law will be passed."
"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are
contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound
legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which
has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that
sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights,
become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to
the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison,
Federalist Number 44, 1788.
By reserving the TCE, the Edmond’s City Council created a new easement which staff used
to single out the Reidys for punishment without a trial, while at the same time granting a
special privilege to the Thuesens that they had no vested right to. The Reidys were
accused of Code violations, denied an express procedure to point out errors to the City
and required to pay a $705 fee to appeal the related Notice of Civil Violation. From the
day the City Council passed the TCE, the Reidys have been greatly harmed. The Reidys’
shed and concrete slab were legal on March 26, 2009. The City alleges that the Reidys’
shed and concrete slab were illegal the very next day as a result of the legislative act of
the City Council reserving a TCE. The TCE was reserved during a simple street vacation
which was required by law to be governed under ECDC 20.70. Instead, the City maliciously
and arbitrarily reserved a TCE, claiming that they could do so under ECDC 18.70. It is
almost too much to comprehend. The sudden change and legislative interference by
Packet Page 155 of 337
Edmonds City Attorney Scott Snyder in recommending the reservation of a TCE for a
private party’s benefit during the September 16, 2008 City Council Meeting has
harmed an innocent family in unimaginable ways.
"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon
to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers,
a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply
- trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965). The City was well aware
that the location of the property line was under dispute and yet to be adjudicated, yet the
City ignored the Reidys’ ownership interest and reserved a TCE interrupting the Reidys’
use and enjoyment of their shed and concrete slab.
"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process
Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at
the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that
singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of
trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it
was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment."
William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
The Reidys’ use of the property they own the underlying fee to has been legal since they
bought their home in 1994. Furthermore, the Reidys and their predecessor owners have
had an ownership interest in a portion of the property to the north of the former
UNOPENED 7 ½ foot public alley right of way easement under the State’s adverse
possession laws and the related use has been legal for a long time. The law is well settled
that the adverse claimant who satisfies the elements of adverse possession acquires legal
title. El Cerrito, Inc. v. Ryndak, 60 Wn.2d 847 (1962). The fact that the title is not a
Packet Page 156 of 337
matter of public record does not affect this result. The City of Edmonds conduct has
been odious and the City has been malicious, arbitrary and capricious by ignoring the
Reidys ownership interest to the north of the former UNOPENED 7 ½ foot public alley
right of way easement.
Under ECDC 17.40.010 (D), a legal use does not become nonconforming because the zone in
which it is located is changed to a zone district which requires a conditional use permit for
the use. Common sense follows that a legal use does not become illegal because the
easement the use is located on is converted from an UNOPENED 7 ½ foot public alley right
of way easement one day to a TCE the next day. As the Reidys did not require an
encroachment permit to use the UNOPENED 7 ½ foot public alley right of way easement
one day, they certainly should not be required to have an encroachment permit the very
next day to use the new TCE. For the above reasons, and more to come, the Reidys
strongly believe the City of Edmonds cannot establish the existence of a violation and the
City fails in its burden to prove a prima facie case.
The City of Edmonds admits that it has an obligation to prove a prima facie case and
therefore the burden is on the City to establish the existence of a violation. In making
its allegations, the City repeatedly has alleged that the Reidy’s tool shed structure,
permitted in 1962, was extended at some indeterminate point of time without permit. The
City has never provided any evidence that this is a true statement. In an email dated
November 2, 2009, Edmonds City Attorney Scott Snyder stated that the “approved shed
design does not show the lean to attachment. Therefore it was not permitted under the
original permit.” The very next day, Mr. Snyder had to correct this representation and
admit there is no approved shed Design. On November 3, 2009, he stated the following
in an email: “The city’s position regarding a lack of vesting for the Reidy lean-to is based
on the wording of the building permit, not a site plan. These two emails are included as
Exhibit A.
Packet Page 157 of 337
Despite Mr. Snyder’s admission on November 3, 2009, the City again accused the Reidys of
“Extension of a permitted structure into the side yard setback without a permit” ten
days later on the Notice of Civil Violation (“NOV”) dated November 13, 2009. In Mr.
Snyder’s Pre-Hearing brief, he again admits that “While the shed appears at some time in
the past to have been extended, the City cannot establish when or if the shed was
altered. No permit, however, exists for the alteration of the shed.” Mr. Snyder states
that the City cannot establish if the shed was altered and then turns right around and
states again that “No permit, however, exists for the alteration of the shed”.
The Reidys request that Mr. Snyder recant the implication that the shed was altered. The
evidence shows that the 1962 permit relates to the entire existing structure and any
attempt to assert otherwise is misleading and improper. As Mr. Snyder has admitted, the
City cannot establish if the shed was altered, plain and simple. As such, the City must
treat the entire existing shed as the tool shed permitted in 1962. In a letter dated
August 6, 2009 (See Exhibit B), Edmonds City Attorney Scott Snyder represented that
“Regardless of any setback issues, Nykreim v. Chelan County binds the City with respect to
the main structure.” Per Mr. Snyder’s own representation, until the City meets its
burden of proving that the entire existing structure is not the main structure which was
permitted in 1962, the City must treat the entire existing structure as the main structure
which according to Mr. Snyder is vested under Nykreim v. Chelan County.
Mr. Snyder states in the same August 6, 2009 letter that “The City has issued a
correction order with respect to the lean-to and slab which appear to have been attached
to the shed structure without a permit.” Hence, Mr. Snyder admits that the City has been
maliciously prosecuting the Reidys for months based on the appearance of an action.
Despite the fact that Mr. Snyder and the City knew that the City of Edmonds had the
burden to establish the existence of a violation before accusing a citizen of a civil
violation, the City ignored this requirement. The Reidys request the Hearing Examiner
immediately rule the NOV invalid as it contains an alleged violation made by the City of
Packet Page 158 of 337
Edmonds based on the appearance of an action, an action the City now admits it cannot
establish when or if the shed was altered.
Furthermore, if the Reidys’ entire existing structure is somehow a nonconforming
structure, it is protected under Chapter 17.40 of the ECDC as the City must treat the
entire existing structure as the structure permitted and built in 1962. The City cannot
establish when or if the shed was altered and the City has no evidence that the entire
structure did not exist on or before January 1, 1981.
As such, until the City can provide conclusive evidence that the permit does not relate to
the entire structure, any and all enforcement attempts against the Reidy’s shed have been
improper. The City has greatly violated the Reidys’ Federal and State Constitutional
rights including their right to privacy. They have had their lives turned upside down by
this improper enforcement action and have been greatly harmed.
In his Pre-Hearing brief for APPEAL NO. APL-09-02 (sic), Mr. Snyder attempts to reverse
his representation made in the letter dated August 6, 2009 (See Exhibit B), that
“Regardless of any setback issues, Nykreim v. Chelan County binds the City with respect to
the main structure.” Now, Mr. Snyder argues that his representation is a misstatement
of the Nykreim doctrine, arguing that Nykreim is not an authorization to violate the law.
Adverse possession is not a violation of the law as it is allowed under Washington State
law. I am not sure how one can adversely possess without violating what was originally
a setback. Once property has been acquired via adverse possession, what legal
authority does a City possess to try and go backwards and enforce setback provisions
decades later? Again, the idea is nonsensical.
In his Pre-Hearing brief, Mr. Snyder discloses that “Nothing in the record of either the
initial preliminary plat approval process or the limited remand raised the issue of Mr.
Reidy's purported interest in Mr. Thuesen's property.” Mr. Snyder neglects to say that
the reason these issues were not in the record of either the initial preliminary plat
Packet Page 159 of 337
approval process or the limited remand is because Mr. Thuesen and his surveyor failed to
disclose the Reidys’ existing structures during the development application process as
required by ECDC 20.75.060. The City of Edmonds’ Subdivision Code, Chapter 20.75,
Article 20.75.060 states that "A preliminary plat shall be prepared by a professional
land surveyor registered in the state of Washington." Article 20.75.060 also states
that much information shall be shown on the preliminary plat, including "The location of all
existing structures within the proposed subdivision and within 25 feet of the proposed
subdivision." Mr. Thuesen’s surveyor, Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. (“LSA”) failed to
disclose the existing stairway and shed structure that partially existed on the property
that Mr. Thuesen desired to subdivide. LSA also failed to disclose existing structures
within 25 feet of the proposed subdivision. As a result, the Reidys and possibly the City
were unaware that issues existed that required resolution related to encroachments, lines
of possession and conflicts of title during Mr. Thuesen’s initial preliminary plat approval
process and the limited remand.
Mr. Snyder continues in his Pre-Hearing brief by stating that “ Later submittals by Mr.
Thuesen, indicated that the shed not only encroached into the public right of way, but also
extended onto Mr. Thuesen's property. While these later submittals raise the issue of
what information Mr. Thuesen possessed regarding the intrusion, it is clear that none
of this information was in the record before the City in the preliminary plat process.”
The Reidys request the Hearing Examiner to require the City to explain why it failed to
follow up on its discovery via Mr. Thuesen’s later submittals that Mr. Thuesen’s
development applications were incomplete as they failed to comply with ECDC 20.75.060.
In an email dated July 13, 2007, Mr. Snyder informed Attorney Stephanie Croll and Mr.
Thuesen’s attorney Duana Kolouskova that Mr. Thuesen’s survey was incomplete. The
three attorneys apparently ignored the discovery despite the fact it was an indication that
issues existed that required resolution related to encroachments, lines of possession and
conflicts of title. Please see Exhibit C.
Packet Page 160 of 337
Hence Mr. Snyder has admitted that he and the City are fully aware that Eric Thuesen
violated the City of Edmonds’ Subdivision Code Article 20.75.060 by filing a misleading,
incomplete application no later than July 13, 2007. Mr. Snyder has exhaustively
represented that Mr. Thuesen’s development rights are vested under Nykreim. As Mr.
Snyder has represented that Nykreim is not an authorization to violate the law, Mr.
Snyder’s representation that Mr. Thuesen’s development rights are protected under
Nykreim appears disingenuous at a minimum. Mr. Snyder accuses the Reidys of failing to
do something they had no legal responsibility to do. At the same time, Mr. Snyder fails to
inform the Hearing Examiner the significance or the fact that Mr. Thuesen and his
surveyor failed to do something required under the law during the preliminary plat process!
The Reidys believe that the City has a responsibility to revoke Mr. Thuesen’s development
rights as he violated ECDC 20.75.060 and according to Mr. Snyder, Nykreim is not an
authorization to violate the law. LUPA and Nykreim should not protect applicants who
violate the law during the development application process. The harm caused the Reidys,
the City and the City’s taxpayers has been great and likely could have been avoided had
Mr. Thuesen and his surveyor merely complied with ECDC 20.75.060.
The City of Edmonds has represented that a survey paid for by the Reidys dated January
15, 2008 clearly establishes that the shed and/or extension to the shed does not observe
a five foot setback. To the contrary, the survey coupled with the Reidys’ open adverse
possession complaint supports the fact the Reidys long ago acquired ownership to property
north of the vacated alley right of way easement under the State’s adverse possession
laws. The law is well settled that the adverse claimant who satisfies the elements of
adverse possession acquires legal title. El Cerrito, Inc. v. Ryndak, 60 Wn.2d 847 (1962).
The fact that the title is not a matter of public record does not affect this result. Until
Snohomish County has ruled as to the location of the Reidys’ northern property line,
it is premature to prosecute the Reidys for violating a side yard setback. The City
knew of the Reidys’ ownership interest and that the Reidys had filed a claim to quiet title
to their property before the City commenced its enforcement efforts. The City ignored
Packet Page 161 of 337
this critical evidence and decided to maliciously prosecute the Reidys related to setback
violations by amending the original Order to Correct Violation (“OTC”) dated March 25,
2009 on April 3, 2009 to include two new allegations of violation, both related to setbacks.
The City of Edmonds admits that it has an obligation to prove a prima facie case and
therefore the burden is on the City to establish the existence of a violation. Until
Snohomish County has ruled as to the location of the Reidys’ northern property line, the
City cannot meet its burden of establishing a setback related violation. The location of
the property line is disputed and is currently indeterminate. Sadly, the City has delayed
the resolution of this matter by maliciously prosecuting the Reidys, diverting the
Reidys attention and resources away from their quiet title action to try and protect
themselves from the City’s improper enforcement efforts.
It is important to note that ECDC 20.110.040(B)(1) states “If the person responsible for
the violation fails to correct or cause the correction of the violation within the time given
by the order to correct the violation, a notice of civil violation will be issued to each
person to whom the order to correct violation directed. Hence, it is clear that a valid
order to correct violation is required before a notice of civil violation will be issued.
The Reidys have never been issued a valid order to correct violation for the following
reasons.
No warranty is made as to the completeness of the following list of reasons. There may be
additional reasons.
A. ECDC 20.110.040(A)(1) states “Whenever the community services director or
his/her designee becomes aware that a violation has occurred or is occurring,
he/she may issue an order to correct violation to the property owner or to any
person causing, allowing or participating in the violation. The Reidys have never
received evidence that Community Service Director Stephen Clifton designated
Noel Miller and/or Robert English as his designees having the authority to issue
an order to correct violation. The Reidys request the Hearing Examiner
Packet Page 162 of 337
obtain documentation of the timely designations by Mr. Clifton and not
assume that Mr. Miller and Mr. English had the authority to act.
B. The City of Edmonds issued the Reidys the Original Order to Correct Violation
posted March 25, 2009. In doing so, the City acted as if Ordinance #3729 was
effective on March 25, 2009. Per Ordinance No. 3729, "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 the approved summary thereof consisting of the title." As the
City published the ordinance Sunday, March 22, 2009 in the Everett Herald, the
earliest the ordinance can take effect is March 27, 2009. Hence, the Original
Order to Correct Violation posted March 25, 2009 is invalid as five (5) days had
not passed when it was posted on March 25, 2009. After Mr. Reidy informed
the City that the Original Order to Correct was invalid on March 27, 2009, the
City proceeded to issue four different amendments of the invalid March 25,
2009 OTC:
1. First Amended Order To Correct Violation posted April 3, 2009.
2. First Version of Second Amended Order To Correct Violation posted
August 7, 2009.
3. Second Version of Second Amended Order To Correct Violation posted
August 14, 2009.
4. Third Version of Second Amended Order To Correct Violation posted
August 24, 2009.
All four amended Order To Correct violations are invalid as they were amendments of the
original invalid Order to Correct posted March 25, 2009. Any reference in this document
to the five different versions of OTC’s refers to the original and its four amendments.
Packet Page 163 of 337
Please note that the City does not disclose the many different versions of OTC’s in its
Report & Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. In section 2.2, the City only mentions
the Third Version of Second Amended Order to Correct Violation posted August 24, 2009.
The Reidys request the Hearing Examiner require the City to disclose all of its
enforcement efforts so that a complete record will be available to the Hearing
Examiner.
C. ECDC 20.110.040(A)(2)(g) states that the community services director or
his/her designee is required to include a "Statement that a monetary penalty in
an amount per day for each violation shall be assessed against the person to
whom the order to correct violation is directed for each and every day or
portion of a day on which the violation continues following the administrative
hearing." Please note that not one of the five different versions of OTC’s
served on the Reidys made mention of the “administrative hearing” as
required by ECDC 20.110.040(A)(2)(g). Hence, they are all invalid as they
failed to mention the “administrative hearing” as required by ECDC
20.110.040(A)(2)(g).
As such, the issuance of a NOV prior to the issuance of a valid order to
correct violation violates the ECDC. Hence, we move that the Hearing
Examiner immediately rule the NOV to be premature and invalid.
It is important to discuss why the City amended the original OTC dated March 25, 2009.
We believe the City did so in response to a letter prepared by Mr. Reidy dated March 27,
2009. The Original Order to Correct Violation posted March 25, 2009 was invalid as five
(5) days had not passed when it was posted on March 25, 2009. Please See Exhibit C. The
City apparently was so eager to prosecute the Reidys for violating the new TCE, that it
jumped the gun and issued the original Order to Correct Violation two days before the
Packet Page 164 of 337
TCE became effective. In addition, the City became aware that the Temporary
Construction Easement area documented in Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 3729 ended
roughly in the middle of a portion of the Reidy’s shed as one travels from west to
east. Hence, the corrective action required was impractical as removing a portion of a
building would put the rest of the building in jeopardy. The result was an amended OTC
with two new allegations of setback violations. It appears the City was motivated to get
the Reidys to remove their shed even if it wasn’t in an easement area, but still to this day
it is unclear what exactly the City wants removed. The Reidys request that the Hearing
Examiner require the City to clarify the progression of its enforcement efforts.
Please require the City to clarify the exact location of the Temporary Construction
Easement and the related location of the Reidys’ permitted shed. Please require the
City to represent truthfully what portion of the Reidys’ shed the City believed would
be removed via the Corrective Action Required under the Order to Correct Violation
posted March 25, 2009. Please require the City to represent truthfully whether or
not it was the City’s intent to only reserve the Temporary Construction Easement
next to a portion of the Reidys’ shed. Please require the City to clarify exactly why
they decided to locate the Temporary Construction Easement next to a portion of the
Reidys’ property and not next to all the Reidys’ property? Please ask the City to
represent how and why they determined where the Temporary Construction Easement
should be located and why the City only located it next to three of the Reidys’ lots.
Please have the City disclose the related vested right Mr. Thuesen allegedly had that
mirrors the temporary construction easement area and why the City didn’t reserve a
temporary construction easement next to Reidys’ lot 35. How could Mr. Thuesen
have rights next to some of Reidys’ property but not next to other parts of Reidys’
property? Please ask the City to explain why the First Amended Order to Correct
Violation posted April 3, 2009 contained two new “setback” related violations that
were not on the original Order to Correct violation. Please have the City disclose why
the Reidys’ stairway structure can remain in the Temporary Construction Easement
Packet Page 165 of 337
area but other improvements have to be removed. Please ask the City to explain why
it refused to provide the Reidys an express procedure so the Reidys could point out
the many errors related to the City’s enforcement efforts. Please ask the City to
explain why they altered, amended and changed their enforcement efforts after the
Reidys pointed out some of the errors the City had made. The City has been malicious
and arbitrary in its prosecution of the Reidys.
The City claims that it responds to Code Enforcement Requests on a complaint basis. The
request for Code Enforcement Action dated July 11, 2007 is provided by the City in
Exhibit 9.24. The request makes no mention of any setback violations. Actually, the
request is very confusing, contains inaccurate and incomplete information and doesn’t
request any action. The Reidys request the City provide a copy of a “Request for Code
Enforcement Action” that relates to the enforcement efforts, including allegations of
setback violations, against the Reidys.
The Original Order to Correct Violation posted March 25, 2009, the four amendments as
well as the Notice of Civil Violation posted November 13, 2009 all state that the Reidys
violated Code Section ECDC 18.70.000 by failing to obtain an encroachment permit on City
easement for shed structure. The fact of the matter is the City of Edmonds commenced
its civil violation enforcement efforts on March 25, 2009, two full days before the related
City easement was established via Ordinance No. 3729. Hence, the Reidys never had an
opportunity to apply for an encroachment permit before the City of Edmonds commenced
their civil violation enforcement efforts.
Had the City conducted an administrative hearing as required under ECDC
20.110.040(A)(2)(g) which clearly states that a person in receipt of an OTC is entitled to
some type of an administrative hearing before any monetary penalty shall be assessed,
assuming the alleged violation was this simple to solve, the alleged violation could have
been resolved long ago. The City’s Code enforcement website states that “the Code
Enforcement Inspector investigates complaints, educates citizens and works to resolve
Packet Page 166 of 337
issues and achieve code compliance. If a violation occurs, the inspector will try to resolve
it first through education, voluntary compliance and/or negotiation. If this proves
unproductive, formal civil enforcement proceedings may begin.” Sadly, the City’s Code
Enforcement Inspector failed to educate the Reidys that one apparent way to resolve
their situation would be to simply apply for an encroachment permit.
Hence, the Reidys believe that if the City can meet its burden of proof that the Reidys
violated ECDC 18.70.000 by failing to obtain an encroachment permit, the corrective
action required should simply be to have the Reidy’s apply for an encroachment
permit. The corrective action the City is attempting to require makes no sense, especially
in light of the fact the Reidys already own the prescriptive area to the north under the
States Adverse Possession laws.
Practically, Chapter 18.70.000 does not appear to authorize the granting of an
encroachment permit or a street use permit to use a PUBLIC temporary construction
easement. This makes sense as why would a city grant a permit to a private party to
encroach upon or use an easement area that the City supposedly needs temporary
access to for the construction of public utilities and services? What would the status
of the encroachment permit or street use permit be at the expiration of the PUBLIC
Temporary Construction Easement? The City of Edmonds “Encroachment Permit Submittal
Requirements” state that to encroach means “to construct, erect or maintain in, over or
under any public place, right-of-way, easement, roadway, parking strip and/or sidewalk,
including the airspace above them any structures permanent in nature, including but not
limited to building extension, marquee, fence, retaining wall or any other building or
structure. The Site Plan related to an encroachment permit has to be recorded at
Snohomish County. How would it be possible to record a private site plan evidencing a
public easement on a different private citizen’s property that the second private citizen is
paying property taxes on and has not granted the first private citizen or the City an
easement to use? How does the City issue an encroachment permit for a permanent
Packet Page 167 of 337
structure on a temporary construction easement? If the City could do this, what would be
the status of the permit once the easement expired? What would have to be recorded at
the County upon expiration of the temporary construction easement? There is a fee
associated with encroachment permits and street use permits. Would the City discount
the permit fees when it related to a temporary construction easement, or would the
applicant have to pay the same fee as those receiving encroachment permits on easements
that aren’t temporary? Obviously, many questions need to be addressed. The bottom line
is, how can the City accuse a citizen of violating the ECDC when Chapter 18.70.000 does
not appear to authorize the granting of an encroachment permit to use a PUBLIC
temporary construction easement? The City must provide the statutory authority
supporting this alleged violation. The City must be scrupulously just in its dealings with
citizens. Arbitrary laws and malicious corrective efforts violate citizens’ constitutional
rights.
The City of Edmonds has represented that a survey paid for by the Reidys dated January
15, 2008 clearly establishes that the shed and/or extension to the shed blocks the 7 l/2
public alley right of way and extends onto the adjacent property owner's property. First
of all, there is no longer a 7 ½ foot public alley right of way, as the public alley right of way
easement has been vacated and the vacation has been recorded at Snohomish County.
Prior to the vacation, there was an UNOPENED 7 ½ foot public alley right of way
easement on land that was dedicated 100% from the Reidys’ predecessor owner. Please
see City Exhibit 9.31 and note that Ordinance No. 3729 clearly related to the vacation of
an UNOPENED alley right of way. The Reidy’s owned the underlying fee to the
UNOPENED 7 ½ foot public alley right of way easement adjacent to their property. See,
e.g., Nystrand v. O'Malley, 60 Wn.2d 792, 795, 375 P.2d 863 (1962)
In Nystrand v. O'Malley, the Washington Supreme Court held an abutting landowner
may use the portion of an UNOPENED street easement to which he or she holds fee
title in any manner not inconsistent with the easement.
Packet Page 168 of 337
In Nystrand v. O’Malley, the Nystrands extended a garage onto the unopened street,
planted trees and hedges, and constructed a bulkhead, all on property that the Nystrands
owned the underlying fee to. The O’Malleys, unhappy that the Nystrands had done so,
bulldozed the Nystrands improvements. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? The court held that
the Nystrand’s use was proper! In the Reidy situation, the City has apparently already
issued Mr. Thuesen one permit that allowed Mr. Thuesen to enter the Reidys prescriptive
area, trespass and lay waste to some of the Reidy’s property including a portion of the
Reidys’ stairway structure. Now the City apparently has issued Mr. Thuesen a right of way
permit to use a vacated easement area that was once an UNOPENED right of way. The
City, through its malicious prosecution efforts is, in essence, trying to make the Reidy’s
bulldoze and lay waste to their own real property for Mr. Thuesen’s benefit. Why is the
City ignoring the State Supreme Courts’ ruling and maliciously prosecuting the Reidys and
ignoring the Reidys’ right to make reasonable use of the unopened easement?
Prior to the vacation, as the owners of the underlying fee title to the UNOPENED 7 ½
foot public alley right of way easement adjacent to their property, the Reidys had every
right to use their land in any manner not inconsistent with the City’s 7 ½ foot wide public
alley right of way easement. As the City had failed to obtain an additional 7 ½ feet of
property when it annexed in the property to the north of the Reidys, the easement area
was inadequate for ingress egress. Furthermore, it was located in a very steep slope area.
The Reidy’s had every right to use their property for landscaping, trees, stairs, a cement
slab, even for the maintenance of a shed permitted in 1962. The City of Edmonds had no
right to take any action that would deny the Reidys’ their right to reasonable use of the
UNOPENED 7 ½ foot public alley right of way easement.
The UNOPENED 7 ½ foot public alley right of way easement has been vacated and the
vacation has been recorded at Snohomish County. The Reidys cannot determine exactly
what the new easement is, but one possibility is the City now considers the easement to be
an OPENED 7 ½ foot public alley right of way. In many ways, the City is acting as if the
Packet Page 169 of 337
90 foot long Temporary Construction Easement reserved next to the Reidys’ lots 36, 37
and 38 via Ordinance No. 3729 is not a Public Temporary Construction Easement, but
rather an OPENED 7 ½ foot public alley right of way. The City has taken no steps to open
the right of way or maintain it in any fashion, yet they have issued a right of way use
permit to a developer to use the Reidy’s property. Please provide us with the statutory
authority that allows a City to issue a right of way use permit on a citizen’s private
property after a right of way easement has been vacated.
The Reidys are very confused by the City’s malicious, arbitrary and capricious behavior.
The City vacated its right of way easement as it was in the public’s interest and nobody’s
rights to access their property were denied because of the vacation. The vacation was
recorded at the County and the Reidys are paying property taxes on the property. Despite
this, the City is acting as if it has the right to issue a right of way use permit to a private
party to use the Reidy’s property. This obviously violates the Reidys’ Federal and State
constitutional rights.
Article I, § 16 (Amendment 9), of the Washington Constitution, which provides:
"Private property shall not be taken for private use, except for private ways of
necessity, and for drains, flumes, or ditches on or across the lands of others for
agricultural, domestic, or sanitary purposes. No private property shall be taken or
damaged for public or private use without just compensation having been first made, or
paid into court for the owner, and no right-of-way shall be appropriated to the use of any
corporation other than municipal until full compensation therefor be first made in money,
or ascertained and paid into court for the owner, irrespective of any benefit from any
improvement proposed by such corporation, which compensation shall be ascertained by a
jury, unless a jury be [[Orig. Op. Page 4]] waived, as in other civil cases in courts of
record, in the manner prescribed by law. Whenever an attempt is made to take private
property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use
be really public shall be a judicial question, and determined as such, without regard
Packet Page 170 of 337
to any legislative assertion that the use is public: Provided, that the taking of private
property by the state for land reclamation and settlement purposes is hereby declared to
be for public use."
The Reidys acknowledge that cities have broad powers over property, but the City of
Edmonds seems to be forgetting that there exists both statutory and constitutional
limitations on the exercise of that power. The City of Edmonds seems to be representing
that it vacated a right of way easement and then turned right around and retained a right
of way easement over 90 feet of the Reidys’ property. The City has called this easement a
Temporary Construction Easement. The City needs to clarify what exactly this
easement is.
Temporary Construction Easements are generally a temporary form of Eminent Domain.
Eminent domain is generally the ability of the government to take private property for
public purposes. It is a power granted by the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, and exists to ensure the public has streets, sewers, electrical lines, and much
of the rest of the public infrastructure that exists today. When the government decides
there is a public necessity to take your property, the government must pay you "just
compensation."
Property used by the government outside an actual PUBLIC construction area is often
referred to as a temporary construction easement, since once construction is complete the
property is returned to the landowner. Try as we might, the Reidys have been unable to
find one example of an eminent domain taking for a private party’s temporary construction
usage in the history of our country.
Per a search of the City of Edmonds website, one other reference to a temporary
construction easement was found. Please refer to Ordinance No. 3299:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF PERMANENT SANITARY SEWER AND TEMPORARY
Packet Page 171 of 337
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INTERESTS IN, UNDER, OVER, ALONG, ACROSS, AND
UPON CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED ON 76TH AVENUE WEST, 181ST PLACE S.W.,
RIDGE WAY, AND HOMEVIEW DRIVE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT SANITARY SEWER
MAINS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE PERRINVILLE AND NORTH PERRINVILLE
SANITARY SEWER LID IMPROVEMENTS, TOGETHER WITH ALL NECESSARY
APPURTENANCES AND RELATED WORK TO MAKE A COMPLETE IMPROVEMENT IN
ACCORD WITH APPLICABLE CITY STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR THE
CONDEMNATION, APPROPRIATION, TAKING, AND DAMAGING OF LAND OR
OTHER PROPERTY NECESSARY THEREFOR; PROVIDING THAT THE ENTIRE COST
THEREOF SHALL BE PAID FROM AVAILABLE FUNDS; AND DIRECTING THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO PROSECUTE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION AND PROCEEDINGS IN
THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW FOR SAID CONDEMNATION, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Obviously, the City and its City Attorney are well aware that Temporary Construction
Easements require condemnation, taking, payment and the prosecution of the appropriate
action. Despite this, the City Attorney recommended to the City Council that they reserve
a temporary construction easement for the installation of a private driveway and private
retaining wall on private property lying north of the alley and east of Eighth Avenue
North. The Council followed the City Attorney’s recommendation and ignored the fact
that Temporary Construction Easements require condemnation, taking, payment and the
prosecution of the appropriate action. Among other things, the City neglected to
prosecute the condemnation at the County and prove that there was a public necessity for
such an easement. Please recall that under Article I, § 16 (Amendment 9), of the
Washington Constitution, whenever an attempt is made to take private property for a
use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be really public
shall be a judicial question, and determined as such, without regard to any legislative
assertion that the use is public. The City Council, a legislative body, and the City
Attorney had no right to merely assert that the use for the temporary construction
Packet Page 172 of 337
easement was public. The law clearly states that the question whether the contemplated
use be really public shall be a judicial question. The City ignored the law and the
Reidys’ constitutional rights have been violated. No private property shall be taken or
damaged for public or private use without just compensation having been first made, or
paid into court for the owner, and no right-of-way shall be appropriated to the use of any
corporation other than municipal until full compensation therefor be first made in money,
or ascertained and paid into court for the owner, irrespective of any benefit from any
improvement proposed by such corporation, which compensation shall be ascertained by a
jury, unless a jury be [[Orig. Op. Page 4]] waived, as in other civil cases in courts of
record, in the manner prescribed by law.
In our strong opinion, the City of Edmonds’ purpose for retaining an easement had nothing
to do with the construction, repair, and maintenance of PUBLIC utilities and services.
The easement reserved via Ordinance 3729 was a Temporary Construction Easement
(“TCE”) for the installation of a driveway and retaining wall on property lying north of
the alley and east of Eighth Avenue North. The Driveway and Retaining Wall are PRIVATE
improvements that are to be built on Mr. Thuesen’s PRIVATE property. Since when are
PUBLIC utilities and services located on a PRIVATE citizen’s property? Since when does
an easement for the construction, repair, and maintenance of PUBLIC utilities and
services expire contemporaneous with the life of a PRIVATE party’s preliminary plat, to
wit, five years from the date of the ordinance or upon installation of a PRIVATE retaining
wall, whichever shall come first?
Ordinance No. 3729 clearly states that “There is no vested right to the continued
use of the City street which may be vacated in accordance with law and ordinance.”
Since that is clearly the case, the right of way has been vacated, and the Reidy’s are
paying property taxes on the property, under what Statutory Authority does the City
issue a permit to a private party to use another private party’s property? The Reidys
demand an answer to this simple question. They would have liked to have asked the
Packet Page 173 of 337
question and many others last March or April, but the City rebuffed the Reidys’ efforts to
obtain a simple administrative hearing. Instead, whenever the Reidys would point out an
error in the City’s enforcement efforts, instead of meeting with the Reidys, the City
modified its enforcement efforts and refuse to meet with the Reidys. The City’s malicious
prosecution of the Reidys has been consistent and great harm has been done.
The law clearly states that the question whether the contemplated use be really public
shall be a judicial question. The City ignored the law and the Reidys’ constitutional rights
have been violated.
So, was this a Temporary Construction Easement illegal taking? Or did the City just call it
a Temporary Construction Easement when in fact it was a retention of a new right-of-way
easement to replace the right-of-way easement next to the Reidys’ property only, singling
the Reidys out and treating them differently than everyone else? It is hard to know and
this represents another example of the City’s malicious, arbitrary and capricious conduct.
The City has issued Mr. Thuesen a right-of-way use permit. That act implies that the City
may consider this to be a new right-of-way easement. Of course, if this is the City’s
position, it violates RCW 35.79.030, Hearing -- Ordinance of vacation, which states:
The ordinance may provide that the city retain an easement or the right to exercise
and grant easements in respect to the vacated land for the construction, repair, and
maintenance of PUBLIC utilities and services.
RCW 35.79.030 clearly states that the only purpose a city can retain an easement for in
respect to a vacation is for the construction, repair, and maintenance of PUBLIC
utilities and services.
RCW 35.79.030 clearly does not state that a city can retain a right of way easement
when it vacates a right of way easement. The concept of course is nonsensical. For
discussion purposes, let’s assume that the City could do this and did do this. What would
result is a 90 foot long UNOPENED 7 ½ foot public alley right of way easement. As stated
Packet Page 174 of 337
earlier, Nystrand v. O'Malley, held that the abutting owners of the underlying fee title
to an UNOPENED public right of way easement may use the portion of an UNOPENED
street easement to which he or she holds fee title in any manner not inconsistent with the
easement. Hence, if the City’s position is that they possess a right of way easement, the
City must have OPENED the right of way easement before issuing any permits to anybody
to use it. Failing to do so violates the Reidy’s rights as owners of the underlying fee to use
the portion of an UNOPENED street easement in any manner not inconsistent with the
easement .
Mr. Snyder and the City argue that the Reidys have failed to appeal “the vacation of the
right of way and reservation of a construction easement” and that the Hearing Examiner
has no authority to address the validity of the City Council’s unappealed actions. Mr.
Snyder accuses the Reidys of trying to shift the burden back to the City and calls the
concept “absurd”. Mr. Snyder dodges the bigger issue that the ECDC and Constitutional
rights have been violated. How can the City and Mr. Snyder believe they are acting
scrupulously just by placing citizens in a position that the only way they can attempt to
have a wrong corrected is to appeal the proper and legal vacation of a right of way? Please
recall that the vacation of the right of way was passed because it so strongly met the
criteria for vacation as documented in ECDC 20.70.020 Criteria for vacation:
The city council may vacate a street, alley, or easement only if it finds that: A. The
vacation is in the public interest; and B. No property will be denied direct access as a
result of the vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1, 1993].
The Reidys would like the Hearing Examiner to have the City explain exactly how an appeal
of a vacation that clearly met the City’s criteria for vacation would be successful. What
merits would there be to an appeal of the vacation that so clearly met the City’s criteria
for vacation? On October 4, 2005, the City Council initiated a Street Vacation process
regarding the UNOPENED right of way of 8th avenue between Alder and Walnut streets.
During that meeting City Attorney Scott Snyder represented to the City Council that this
Packet Page 175 of 337
was a public hearing but it was a legislative and not quasi judicial act of the Council.
“Courts rarely if ever interfere with City Council’s discretion to determine whether
public property was needed.” Mr. Snyder also informed the Council that the only reason
vacations were overturned by the courts was if access were denied.
Placing the burden on the Reidys to appeal the vacation as the only way they can contest
the City Council’s reservation of a Temporary Construction Easement is what is “absurd”.
The vacation of the right of way and reservation of a Temporary Construction Easement
were passed together under Ordinance 3729. Under what merits would the Reidys
contest the vacation? It has already been conclusively proven that no property will be
denied direct access as a result of the vacation. The Court would certainly not overturn
the vacation because nobody’s access has been denied. More of the Reidys’ time money
and resources would be wasted pursuing an appeal of a vacation that they couldn’t possibly
win as the vacation of the UNOPENED right of way easement so clearly met the City’s
criteria for vacation. It reminds the Reidys of the City’s hollow allegation that the Reidys
failed to obtain an encroachment permit when the City’s code has no provision for
obtaining an encroachment permit to use a PUBLIC Temporary Construction Easement.
Hence, one can only conclude that Mr. Snyder’s argument that the Reidys have failed to
appeal the “the vacation of the right of way and reservation of a construction easement” is
the City’s attempt to avoid the responsibility of addressing whether or not the City’s laws
as well as the constitution were violated when the City Council reserved the Temporary
Construction Easement.
Since when did it become the Citizen’s burden to monitor and try and hold the City Council
and the City Attorney accountable for violating the City’s laws and ordinances, as well as
the constitution? The Mayor is supposed to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully
enforced and that law and order is maintained in the city. [Ord. 2349 § 2, 1983]. Under
ECDC 2.05.020, the City Attorney has the duty of advising the city authorities and
officers on all legal matters pertaining to the business of the city. Why is it the Reidys
Packet Page 176 of 337
burden to get the City to rule the Temporary Construction Easement illegal when it so
obviously violates the ECDC and State and Federal constitutional laws?
Since Mr. Snyder mentions in his Pre Hearing Brief that the Thuesens have appealed the
vacation of the underlying easement and included the appeal as City Exhibit 9.17, the
Reidys believe the Hearing Examiner should require Mr. Snyder to disclose to the public
what he is referring to at the end of his August 6, 2009 letter to Thuesen’s Attorney
Duana Kolouskova. Mr. Snyder states that “Unfortunately, the City cannot guarantee
removal of the trees or the lean-to structure by the DEADLINE contained in your email.”
When the Reidys first read this comment, they wondered immediately what
“DEADLINE ” the two attorneys were discussing and why were Mr. Snyder and Ms.
Kolouskova discussing the removal of the Reidys’ trees and lean-to structure without
including the Reidys or their Attorney in the discussion. Early in the letter, Mr. Snyder
had informed Ms. Kolouskova the following:
SHED AND LEAN-TO STRUCTURE: A permit was issued for a tool shed in 1962.
Regardless of any setback issues, Nykreim v. Chelan County binds the City with
respect to the main structure. (As a reminder, it was Mr. Snyder who introduced the
concept of Nykreim protecting the Reidys’ main structure.) The City has issued a
correction order with respect to the lean-to and slab which appear to have been attached
to the shed structure without a permit. A copy of the correction order is attached.
(Please note this Hearing Examiner! Why was Ms. Kolouskova provided a copy of the
correction order before it was posted on the Reidys’ property?) Please note that Mr.
Reidy has a right to appeal the order to the City’s Hearing Examiner. It is therefore
impossible for the City to guarantee the timing of removal of the slab and shed
structure, the City declines to undertake removal of the lean-to structure with City
forces.
Later Mr. Snyder states:
Packet Page 177 of 337
The City is proceeding to enforce its ordinances with respect to what appears to be an
illegal and unpermitted addition to a permitted shed, but must conform to its
administrative procedures.
It appeared that Ms. Kolouskova provided Mr. Snyder some type of DEADLINE related to
the removal of the Reidys’ trees, slab and shed structure, perhaps requesting the removal
of such with City forces. Mr. Snyder informed Ms. Kolouskova that “The City has issued a
correction order with respect to the lean-to and slab which appear to have been attached
to the shed structure without a permit.” The implication is the City’s sudden change to its
enforcement efforts evidenced by the first version of the Second Amended OTC, signed
by Noel Miller and posted on the Reidy home on August 7, 2009 relates to this
DEADLINE. Since when does a City have the authority to issue a correction order based
on the appearance of a violation in response to the imposition of a DEADLINE by the
attorney representing the party who filed the request for code enforcement? Once again,
this is an example of the City’s mailicious, arbitrary and capricious treatment of the
Reidys. How did this happen and what led to such behavior?
At the beginning of Mr. Snyder’s letter to Ms. Kolouskova dated August 6, 2009, Mr.
Snyder states that “This letter is written in response to your e-mails of July 17 and July
20, 2009, and supplement conversations which we have had.” In a presentation to the City
Council made by Mr. Snyder on December 1, 2009, Mr. Snyder informed the City Council
that “I was forwarding all response Mr. Thuesen’s attorney sent me to Mr. Reidy’s
Attorney.” The Reidys strongly request the Hearing Examiner require Mr. Snyder to
correct that representation to the tribunal and disclose why he failed to include Mr.
Reidy’s attorney in the discussion of the removal of the Reidys’ trees and lean-to
structure. This malicious and arbitrary change in the City’s enforcement efforts based on
the appearance of a violation in response to the imposition of a DEADLINE has greatly
harmed the Reidys. The Reidys strongly request the Hearing Examiner require Mr. Snyder
Packet Page 178 of 337
to explain his conduct and how such conduct was scrupulously just, even handed and
honest.
Through the public records request act, the Reidys obtained the emails included in Exhibit
D. On July 14, 2009, Mr. Snyder emailed Ms. Kolouskova and asked her about the status
of Mr. Thuesen’s appeal of the vacation, stating “We either need to proceed or he
dismisses his action.” Ms. Kolouskova’s response on July 17, 2009 makes no mention of the
merits of Mr. Thuesen’s appeal of the vacation, but instead evidences that Mr. Thuesen is
willing to drop his appeal if certain conditions are met by the DEADLINE date of August 6,
2009. Please recall that August 6, 2009 is the date of Mr. Snyder’s letter to Ms.
Kolouskova discussed above and found in Exhibit B.
On July 17, 2009, Duana Kouloskova emails Scott Snyder the following:
Based on the foregoing context, I have discussed your (Snyder's) email with Eric and how
we may be able (to) resolve some of these issues at this juncture. Eric has agreed that he
will dismiss the roadway vacation (appeal), including all issues and claims against the City
with respect to the secondary access from 9th Avenue to the Thuesen primary residence,
based on the following precondition:
The shed and the identified trees are removed by either the City or Mr. Reidy not
later than end of business on August 6, 2009.
If said obstructions are removed by that date, we would dismiss the vacation (appeal)
lawsuit the following week.
Ms. Kouloskova continues:
Finally, since the work necessary to remove the shed and trees is relatively minor in terms
of time and effort, we are not aware of any impediment to the City accomplishing the
removal of the obstructions by August 6th.
Packet Page 179 of 337
We understand that the City has been reluctant to take affirmative action to remove the
encroachments into the right-of-way when it existed and now the easement area, due
either to political or practical considerations. However, the City has authority to clear
the shed and trees based on the retained easement authority as well as other code
and inherent police power authority. Mr. Reidy has never asserted any legal or
equitable right to retain the trees or the shed in light of the unchallenged violations
those pose to code regulation and the City's police power and duty to maintain rights-
of-way free and clear of intrusions and obstructions.
I hope this creates a framework for resolution of the foregoing issues. Thanks in
advance for your review of this matter and we welcome your thoughts and questions.
Stunningly, in a “nutshell” Mr. Snyder and Ms. Kolouskova provide evidence that the change
to the City’s Code enforcement efforts in early August, 2009 appears to have been
predicated on a proposed settlement agreement between the City and Mr. Thuesen. The
framework for resolution proposed by Ms. Kolouskova was contractual. Ms. Kolouskova
was saying, if you do “x”, we’ll do “y”. If the shed and the identified trees are removed
by either the City or Mr. Reidy not later than end of business on August 6, 2009,
Mr. Thuesen would dismiss the vacation (appeal) lawsuit the following week. Notice how
Ms. Kolouskova mentioned Mr. Reidy could conduct the acts required to satisfy one of the
conditions. This is significant because neither Mr. Reidy nor his attorney knew anything
about this proposed settlement agreement referred to as a framework for resolution.
The Reidys request the Hearing Examiner appreciate the extent of the damage that could
be caused by this framework for resolution . In a letter dated November 5, 2009
attached as Exhibit E, Ms. Kolouskova makes the following misrepresentation:
The underlying property owner, Mr. Reidy, filed a Work Plan to demolish and remove the
unlawful improvements in April, 2009. The third Order to Correct was issued as a result
Packet Page 180 of 337
of Mr. Reidy’s failure to comply with his self-imposed work plan and upon approval of
construction drawings for the Thuesen preliminary plat.
There are several factual inaccuracies in Ms. Kolouskova’s letter dated November 5, 2009.
For now, just the above two sentences will be addressed. First of all, Mr. Reidy filed his
work plan dated May 1, 2009 under duress, loudly complaining as evidenced by the email
dated April 3, 2009 found in Exhibit F. Mr. Reidy stated requiring a work plan made no
sense. In response, Mr. Snyder sent Mr. Reidy the email dated April 3, 2009 found in
Exhibit G. Mr. Snyder simply told Mr. Reidy to review the administrative remedies and
that “ECDC 20.110.040C outlines the appeals procedure.” ECDC 20.110.040C outlines the
appeals procedure for Notices of Civil Violations, not Order to Correct Violations.
Mr. Reidy was doing everything in his power to obtain an administrative hearing as outlined
in ECDC 20.110.040C(A), but the City refused him an opportunity for an express procedure
to point out the errors the City was making. Sadly, even when the City acknowledged an
error had been made, they either ignored it or instead chose to amend the City’s
enforcement efforts. For example, see the email in Exhibit H which discloses that Mr.
Snyder “discovered” that the shed was not located in the area where the wall would be
located for the two lot plan. Mr. Snyder stated the City sent out the Notice of Violation
(sic) to Reidy on the assumption that the shed encroached in the area where the wall
would be located. Sadly, this is just another example of a City’s assumption harming the
Reidys. Mr. Snyder indicated that he will send out a letter placing the notice of violation
(sic) on hold. Mr. Snyder’s letter dated April 1, 2009 is found in Exhibit I. In a letter
dated April 1, 2009, from City Attorney Snyder to Reidy attorney Matt Cruz, Mr. Snyder
disclosed that after review of the previously approved engineering plans for the two-lot
short subdivision with City Staff, it appears that the retaining wall structure stops well
short of the location of the shed structure. Despite this new knowledge, the City failed to
correct Ordinance 3729 so that the area to be covered by the temporary construction
easement would mirror Mr. Thuesen’s retaining wall and stop well short of the Reidys’
Packet Page 181 of 337
shed, to the west of the shed. Had the City truly desired to allow construction of the
retaining wall without removing the shed, as Scott Snyder represented in the March 17,
2009 City Council Meeting, that goal could have been easily accomplished by correcting
Exhibit B attached to Ordinance 3729. Instead, the City let the Ordinance stand despite
its incorrect information and immediately commenced determined efforts to require the
Reidys to remove the shed despite the fact that Snyder knew the retaining wall structure
stopped well short of the location of the shed structure.
In addition, Mr. Reidy sent the email dated April 30, 2009 found in Exhibit J?, informing
the Mayor that Mr. Reidy strongly opposed the Order to Correct Violation, but didn’t want
to incur the legal fees to fight it. Ms. Kolouskova’s representation that Reidys’ work
plan was self- imposed could not be further from the truth. The Reidys suspect that
Ms. Kolouskova believes it would benefit her client if the City requires the Reidy’s to
remove their shed under the May 1, 2009 work plan. The Reidys’ suspicions relate to the
fact Ms. Kolouskova claims over and over again that the Reidys conceded and agreed to
demolish and remove the shed. Ms. Kolouskova makes this representation again in her
“Memorandum of Interested Party Thuesen” dated February 2, 2010. This is a blatant
false representation as the Reidys were forced to complete the Work plan against their
will. While on the topic of false representations in Ms. Kolouskova ‘s “Memorandum of
Interested Party Thuesen” dated February 2, 2010, a few other misrepresentations must
be addressed. No warranty is made that the following discussion addresses all of the
misrepresentations in Ms. Kolouskova’s Memorandum. Ms. Kolouskova represents that Mr.
Reidy does not dispute that he constructed a structure in what was City Right-of-Way and
that he failed to obtain permits for the structure. This is a blatant misrepresentation as
Mr. Reidy was three years old and lived in Montana when the structure was permitted and
built in 1962. Ms. Kolouskova represents that there is no legal ability to obtain permits for
what she refers to as the unlawful structure. If she is correct, Ms. Kolouskova is
representing that the Reidys stand falsely charged of Failure to obtain an Encroachment
Packet Page 182 of 337
Permit. The Reidy’s cannot be charged of failing to do something that Ms. Kolouskova
claims there is no legal ability to do.
Ms. Kolouskova represents that “Appellant is factually incorrect in stating that either the
City or Thuesen knew of Appellants’ allegations before 2009.” Please see Exhibit K, a
letter from the Reidy’s attorney to Mr. Thuesen dated July 12, 2007. In that letter,
Mr. Cruz clearly documents that Mr. Thuesen acknowledged that the Reidys’
structure and adjacent use extended beyond the alley easement and onto Thuesen’s
property. In an email dated July 19, 2007, Eric Thuesen acknowledges receipt of Mr.
Cruz’s letter dated July 12, 2007. Hence, Mr. Thuesen had full knowledge of the Reidys’
potential ownership interest in the property Thuesen applied to subdivide no later than
July 12, 2007, 12 days before he signed the Settlement Agreement with the City. Next,
please see Exhibit L, a letter from the Reidy’s attorney to David K. Gebert of the City of
Edmonds. In that letter, Mr. Cruz clearly documents that the Reidys may have
prescriptively acquired a portion of Mr. Thuesen’s property in direct conflict with Mr.
Thuesen’s development plans. Mr. Cruz also documents in the letter that he discussed
these items with Duane Bowman on July 18, 2007. Those discussions coupled with the
following email provide evidence that Mr. Thuesen, the City, Mr. Snyder, Ms. Kolouskova
and Ms. Croll all knew no later than July 13, 2007 that the Reidys had a potential
ownership interest in the property Mr. Thuesen was attempting to subdivide and that Mr.
Thuesen’s development applications had failed to disclose the Reidys’ existing structures
as required by the ECDC. The Reidys’ believe all the parties involved should have
appreciated the huge significance of this discovery. The Reidys believe they all chose to
ignore the Reidys’ ownership interest and the Reidys have been continuously harmed ever
since.
July 13, 2007 - On Friday, July 13, 2007 at 3:57 pm, Scott Snyder emailed
the following to Duana Kolouskova and copied it to Stephanie Croll:
Packet Page 183 of 337
Subject: Thuesen
Both Duane Bowman, my normal contact, and Jeannie McConnell the plan checker
are not in. Don Fiene indicates that Jeannie was reviewing the plans and had
resolved one issue regarding the ROW. Don is not sure where the review is and I
won't be able to find out until Monday. He did indicate that there appeared to
be an issue (not, it seems, Mr. Thuesen's to resolve) regarding the
foundation for a neighbor's outbuilding being in the alley ROW and not shown
on the survey Mr. Thuesen provided.
That is all I could find out.
Scott
The above evidence contradicts Ms. Kolouskova’s representation that “Appellant is
factually incorrect in stating that either the City or Thuesen knew of Appellants’
allegations before 2009.”
Next, Ms. Kolouskova states that Appellant’s arguments on this topic do not excuse his
violation of City setback requirements that are currently in violation. Ms. Kolouskova’s
comments are misguided because setbacks cannot be determined until Snohomish County
has ruled as to the exact location of the Reidys’ prescriptive area.
After Mr. Snyder and Ms. Kolouskova began discussing Ms. Kolouskova’s proposed
framework for resolution in mid July, 2009, City employee Jeanie McConnell contacted
the Reidy’s about removing the Reidy’s trees. The City represented to the Reidys that the
trees had to be removed. The Reidys believed the City, not knowing that removing the
trees was part of the framework for resolution proposed by Ms. Kolouskova. Had the
Reidys known the true reason behind the City’s efforts to remove their trees, the Reidy’s
would never have agreed to do so. As such, the trees were removed and their many
wonderful attributes and the value they added to the Reidys property has been lost
Packet Page 184 of 337
forever. How can a City treat innocent citizens this way? How is this scrupulously just?
The City should be honest and even handed in its dealings with its citizens.
Ms. Kolouskova’s framework for resolution not only placed the Reidys’ trees in jeopardy,
but it also put the Reidy’s shed and concrete slab in jeopardy. A little history first:
On February 24, 2009, City of Edmonds (“COE”) City Engineer Robert S. English, P.E. sent
Eric Thuesen a letter discussing Right-of-Way (“ROW”) permits previously issued for
projects located at 509 Ninth Avenue North. The letter was copied to COE employees
Noel Miller, Duane Bowman and Jeannie McConnell. The letter was also copied to the COE
City Attorney and Mr. Thuesen’s Attorney Duana Kolouskova. Significantly, the letter
was not copied to the Reidy family nor their attorney, despite the fact that the
letter dealt with issues very material to the Reidys’ situation and property.
Engineer English informed Mr. Thuesen and the others the following:
1. Permit No. ENG20070355, the ROW permit issued in conjunction with the approved
civil improvements for Mr. Thuesen’s two-lot short plat expired on its own terms on
November 7, 2007.
2. Permit No. ENG20050038, the ROW permit issued in conjunction with Mr.
Thuesen’s single family residence building permits expired on January 29, 2008.
Engineer English informed Mr. Thuesen that “since both of your ROW permits have
expired, a new permit would be required prior to any grading or other work within the alley
ROW area.
In so doing, Engineer English confirmed the following:
1. Upon initiation of discussions related to the vacation of the alley ROW easement,
including Resolution No. 1178 passed on June 24, 2008, through the first public
meeting to discuss the vacation on July 22, 2008, culminating with the second
public meeting to discuss the vacation on September 16, 2008, the COE and its City
Packet Page 185 of 337
Attorney had full knowledge that Mr. Thuesen’s ROW permits had expired. As a
side note, please recall that City Attorney Scott Snyder represented to the City
Council during the July 22, 2008 City Council Meeting that “The only way the
shed could remain would be if the City vacated the right-of-way.”
2. On February 24, 2009, weeks before the City Attorney would have the City Council
vote on Ordinance No. 3729, vacating the alley ROW easement and reserving a
temporary construction easement, Attorney’s Snyder and Kolouskova both had
complete knowledge that both of Mr. Thuesen’s ROW permits had expired long ago
and he had no permits to use the alley ROW easement area in any fashion. Mr.
Thuesen had not even applied for a new right-of-way permit. The vested rights
doctrine is limited to the application process. Any approvals granted by the
preliminary short plat for Mr. Thuesen and the related July 24, 2007 settlement
agreement expired on their own terms. Ordinance No. 3729 confirms this by
stating that “There is no vested right to the continued use of the City street which
may be vacated in accordance with law and ordinance.” Once those permits
expired, any issuance of new permits would have to factor in Reidys’ prescriptive
rights.
This is just another example of the malicious, arbitrary and capricious behavior employed
by the City in its dealings with the Reidys. Sadly, it gets worse. Please refer to the
Letter dated April 1, 2009 in Exhibit I. Mr. Snyder repeatedly refers to Mr. Thuesen’s
two-lot FINAL approval and differentiates between it and the pending three lot
application. Mr. Snyder states the following:
“I have advised the City Staff that the (adverse possession) claim does not impact Mr.
Thuesen’s final approval of a two-lot short subdivision, File No. S-05-09. As Duana is
aware, this final approval is confirmed by order of Snohomish County Superior Court. Any
outstanding ministerial approvals for right of way use or other engineering approvals
associated with construction of a retaining wall are, in my opinion, vested and cannot be
Packet Page 186 of 337
revoked pursuant to Nykreim v. Chelan County, 146 Wn.2d 904 (2002) and the cases which
have followed. The adverse possession claim will not, in my opinion, have any impact on
these final approvals and my recommendation to the City is that it continue to process any
permits necessary to construct improvements shown on the two-lot short subdivision
approvals.”
Stunningly, Mr. Snyder appears to have acted on the belief that Mr. Thuesen’s final
approval of a two-lot short subdivision, which Mr. Snyder represented was confirmed by
order of Snohomish County Superior Court, wasn’t subject to RCW 58.17.165 . Mr. Snyder
appears to have ignored Halverson v. City of Bellevue, 41 Wn. App. 457 (1985) and RCW
58.17.165 which requires a certificate of dedication be signed by all parties having any
ownership interest in the lands subdivided. "Any ownership interest" is broad enough to
include ownership of a portion of the land that is not yet a matter of public record
because it was acquired through adverse possession. Once the city was put on notice of an
adverse possession claim to part of a proposed subdivision, approval of the subdivision plat
was improper. On September 22, 2009, Reidy attorney Matt Cruz emailed Mr. Snyder the
following question:
I understand you view Mr. Thuesen’s 2 lot plat as final pursuant to a combination of Judge
Lucas’ April ’07 Order, the Hearing Examiner's subsequent findings and the Settlement
Agreement reached thereafter. As I understand RCW 58.17.065 and EDC 20.75.160, a
final plat must be recorded to reflect the finality of Mr. Thuesen’s plat, but I can find no
record of such recording.
The City has been proceeding as if Mr. Thuesen’s plat is final. Has Mr. Thuesen or the City
recorded his final 2 lot plat? If not, why not?
Thanks.
Matthew J. Cruz, Esq.
Packet Page 187 of 337
Please See Exhibit M which documents that on September 23, 2009, Mr. Snyder emailed
Jeannie McConnell and Rob Chave asking them to confirm whether the two lot plat has
been filed. Chave responded that “We have no record of it being recorded – nothing on
file.” McConnell agreed, stating according to her records it had not yet been recorded.
McConnell continued “Thuesen originally posted a bond for all improvements associated
with the two-lot (which would have allowed him to record), but he didn’t record and we
have since released performance bond money for on-site improvements with retainage of a
maintenance bond for off-site improvements. At this time, Thuesen would have to
complete all the 2-lot civil improvements (the wall and driveway approach) before the
engineering division could give final short plat approval. He may have held off on recording
of the 2-lot knowing that the 3-lot was coming down the pike”…Jeanie.
In Mr. Snyder’s Pre Hearing Brief he admits that the City cannot give final plat approval to
either the two- or three-lot short subdivision pursuant to Halverson v. Bellevue. Hence,
we see that prior to September 23, 2009, Mr. Snyder appears to have believed that Mr.
Thuesen had filed his final two lot short plat at the County and had vested the rights
associated with final plat approval. IT IS CRITICAL THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER
REQUIRE MR. SNYDER TO DISCLOSE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HIS
MISUNDERSTANDING RELATED TO THE STATUS OF MR. THUESEN’S TWO-LOT
APPROVAL.
Specifically, The Reidys strongly request that the Hearing Examiner require Mr.
Snyder to truthfully answer the following questions and any more the Hearing
Examiner deems appropriate:
1. Did Mr. Snyder make any false representations to the City Council during the
July 22, 2008, September 16, 2008 or March 17, 2009 City Council Meetings
related to the Reservation of the Temporary Construction Easement and Mr.
Thuesen’s vested rights? If so, has he corrected those false representations
to the tribunal?
Packet Page 188 of 337
2. Did Mr. Snyder recommend the TCE under the false impression that Thuesen
had finalized his two lot short plat and recorded it at the Snohomish County?
3. Have the Reidys’ rights been violated because Mr. Snyder and the City
conducted themselves under the false impression that Mr. Thuesen had
finalized his two lot short plat and recorded it at the Snohomish County?
4. In his letter dated April 1, 2009, Mr. Snyder represents that he believed the
Reidys’ adverse possession claim does not impact Mr. Thuesen’s final approval
of a two-lot short subdivision, File No. S-05-09. “Any outstanding ministerial
approvals for right of way use or other engineering approvals associated with
construction of a retaining wall are, in my opinion, vested and cannot be
revoked pursuant to Nykreim v. Chelan County, 146 Wn.2d 904 (2002) and the
cases which have followed. The adverse possession claim will not, in my
opinion, have any impact on these final approvals and my recommendation to
the City is that it continue to process any permits necessary to construct
improvements shown on the two-lot short subdivision approvals.” Now that Mr.
Snyder admits that the City cannot give final plat approval to the two-lot
short plat pursuant to Halverson v. Bellevue, can he please explain how his
“opinion” that Mr. Thuesen’s two- lot short plat was final impacted the Reidys
and if he would have made different decisions and recommendations had he
known that Mr. Thuesen’s two lot short plat had not been finalized and
recorded at Snohomish County.
THE REIDYS MAINTAIN THAT IT IS CRITICAL THAT THE HEARING
EXAMINER REQUIRE MR. SNYDER TO DISCLOSE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HIS
Packet Page 189 of 337
MISUNDERSTANDING RELATED TO THE STATUS OF MR. THUESEN’S TWO-
LOT APPROVAL.
The first amended Order to Correct posted on April 3, 2009, see City Exhibit 9.16,
stated that the corrective action required would be stayed until final approval of
application S-07-76 or final approval of civil construction plans for S-07-76, whichever
comes first. In a letter dated August 6, 2009, Rob English informed Eric Thuesen the
following:
“The City will not be able to grant final approval of the three-lot subdivision, File No.
S-07-76, until the adverse possession claim is resolved, however, review and approval
of the associated civil construction drawings will not be delayed.” Incredibly, despite
its full and complete knowledge of the Reidys’ ownership interest, the City had
decided to ignore the Reidys’ ownership interest and associated rights and grant
final approval of Mr. Thuesen’s civil construction plans on property partially owned
by the Reidys. The City knew that the Reidys had filed to quiet title, but the City
decided to not wait for the County to adjudicate and determine the exact location of
the property line. The City’s approval permitted Eric Thuesen to trespass on, lay waste
and build a retaining wall through property owned by the Reidys under the States
Adverse Possession laws. The City’s approval was also the key factor underlying the
sudden change to the City’s efforts related to Ms. Kolouskova’s framework for
resolution. The City’s action was extremely unjust as it completely ignored State law
and the Reidys’ rights.
Hence, the City continued to take action apparently predicated by Ms. Kolouskova’s
framework for resolution. On August 6, 2009, City Attorney attached a copy of the
correction order to his letter sent to Duana Kolouskova that day. Hence, Ms.
Kolouskova was provided a copy of the correction order a full day before the City
posted it on the Reidy’s property. Perhaps this was an attempt by Mr. Snyder to meet
the DEADLINE date of August 6, 2009 related to Ms. Kolouskova’s framework for
Packet Page 190 of 337
resolution. Please recall that the first amended Order to Correct posted on April 3,
2009 stated that the corrective action required would be stayed until final approval of
application S-07-76 or final approval of civil construction plans for S-07-76, whichever
comes first. As Mr. English had represented “The City will not be able to grant final
approval of the three-lot subdivision, File No. S-07-76, until the adverse possession
claim is resolved, however, review and approval of the associated civil construction
drawings will not be delayed”, the final approval of Civil construction plans would be
necessary to meet the DEADLINE date of August 6, 2009. The City posted the first
version of the second amended Order to Correct on the Reidys’ property on August 7,
2009, at least six full days before final approval of civil construction plans for S-07-
76. Thus, once again, the City acted arbitrary, malicious and capricious by posted an
Order to Correct on the Reidys’ home at least 6 days premature. See Exhibit N which
displays an email from Jeanie McConnell dated August 13, 2009 in which Ms. McConnell
tells Mr. Thuesen that she is almost done with his civils. Why is it that the City so
arbitrarily and maliciously prosecuted the Reidys prematurely on August 7, 2009, at
least 6 days before they issued final approval of civil construction plans for S-07-76?
Why should citizens be subject to this type of treatment in violation of their rights?
The Reidys strongly request the Hearing Examiner require the City to explain its
conduct related to Ms. Kolouskova’s framework for resolution and the DEADLINE
date of August 6, 2009. Why were Mr. Snyder and Ms. Kolouskova discussing the
removal of the Reidys’ trees and lean-to structure without including the Reidys or
their Attorney in the discussion? This behavior seems highly improper and the Reidys
have been greatly harmed by the City’s sudden approval of Mr. Thuesen’s civil
construction plans and sudden change to its enforcement efforts related to Ms.
Kolouskova’s framework for resolution!
Let’s discuss some of the illegal aspects of the Temporary Construction Easement. First,
fundamental procedural due process rights were violated when the Temporary
Construction Easement was voted on and passed without any public notice that such an
Packet Page 191 of 337
action would be considered during the September 16, 2008 City Council Meeting. No
mention of the possibility of a Temporary Construction Easement is made in the following
documents released prior to the September 16, 2008 City Council Meeting:
-Resolution No. 1178 dated June 24, 2008
-The City Council Meeting Agenda for July 22, 2008
-The Recommendation from Mayor and Staff to vacate the unopened alley right-of-way
provided the City Council before the City Council Meeting of July 22, 2008
-The City Council Meeting Agenda for September 16, 2008
-The Recommendation from Mayor and Staff to vacate the unopened alley right-of-way
provided the City Council before the City Council Meeting of September 16, 2008
The Reidys’ fundamental Due process rights were violated when City Attorney interceded
in the September 16, 2008 to recommend the reservation of a Temporary Construction
Easement. Despite the lack of public notice, the Reidy’s strongly opposed the reservation
of a Temporary Construction Easement during the public hearing. Despite the fact the
Reidys owned the underlying fee title to 100% of the Temporary Construction Easement
area, the Reidys’ strong opposition was ignored and the Council reserved a Temporary
Construction Easement. They did this against the Reidys’ will, without public notice,
without proving the public necessity and without compensating the Reidys in any
fashion.
A “Continued Public Hearing on the proposed vacation of the UNOPENED alley right-
of-way located between 8th Avenue North and 9th Avenue North, north of Daley
Street” was on the City Council meeting Agenda for September 16, 2008. The City Council
was simply attempting to determine whether the City needed to retain an Alley Right-of-
Way (ROW) easement for ingress/egress over a 7.5’ strip of land that traveled up a very
steep slope. As the City had made no use of the property in any fashion for 118 years, it
Packet Page 192 of 337
was pretty clear to everyone that there was no public need for the property, including no
need for easements for the construction, repair, and maintenance of public utilities
and services as allowed under RCW 35.79.030. As far as street vacations go, this was
very straightforward. All the City Council needed to do was listen to Duane Bowman
present the Mayor and Staff’s recommended action, allow the public to comment on the
proposal, and consider whether or not the City’s criteria for vacation had been met:
20.70.020 Criteria for vacation.
The City Council may vacate a street, alley, or easement only if it finds that:
A. The vacation is in the public interest; and
B. No property will be denied direct access as a result of the vacation. [Ord. 2933 § 1,
1993].
The September 16, 2008 City Council Meeting Minutes indicate that Mr. Snyder had
admitted that all three of the lots owned by Developer Eric Thuesen met the applicable
State law requirements related to direct access. As the criteria for vacation had
obviously been met, Councilman Steve Bernheim moved to approve the vacation as
proposed. Councilman D.J. Wilson seconded the motion. Before a vote could be conducted,
then City Council President Michael Plunkett stated that “Mr. Snyder and staff had
demonstrated to the Council more than adequately that the vacation was appropriate.”
Then in a startling development, Mr. Plunkett moved to amend Mr. Bernheim’s motion and
reserve a public easement for Mr. Thuesen’s private benefit, stating that he was making
this amendment in an effort to make everyone as whole as possible. Councilman Ron
Wambolt seconded Plunkett’s amendment to Bernheim’s original motion as he probably
thought Mr. Plunkett’s plea seemed well intentioned. As recommending an action based on
“an effort to make everyone as whole as possible” sounds so reasonable, the City Council
unanimously voted to vacate its interest in the Alley ROW, reserving a Temporary
Construction Easement when the public had no past, present or future need to construct
Packet Page 193 of 337
anything on the 7.5’ strip of land being discussed. This meant the City was establishing a
new public interest in what was now the vacated, former UNOPENED Alley ROW
easement. This was being done at the same time the City Council had agreed to vacate the
City’s previous, never used, ingress and egress interest in the property. Vacating the
easement interest was in the public’s best interest as there was no public need for an
Alley Right-of-Way (ROW) easement or any other public need. With hindsight, one can
clearly see that reserving this temporary construction easement was wrong for many
reasons.
As no public notice of this material modification to the alley vacation was ever provided,
the public never had an opportunity to research and prepare written or oral comments
regarding the appropriateness of this easement, as guaranteed by state law and the City’s
Code. Recall, this was a legislative process, not a quasi-judicial hearing. A key component
of proper due process during the legislative process is to provide the public ample notice
of material issues that will be considered, and to allow the public an opportunity to
research, prepare for and comment on the issues. Obviously, the public’s fundamental
due process rights were violated in this situation.
A reading of the September 16, 2008 City Council Meeting Minutes provides evidence that
Mr. Snyder and Mr. Plunkett’s were apparently motivated by something to continuously
recommend reserving a Temporary Construction Easement. After Mr. Bowman’s
presentation to the council that the criteria for vacation had been met, Mr. Snyder
interceded in the City Council Meeting. Mr. Snyder ignored Mr. Bowman’s representation
that Mr. Thuesen did not have a vested right or a need to use the 7.5’ strip of land.
Despite what Mr. Bowman had just told the City Council, Mr. Snyder recommended that
the City Council reserve an easement that would allow Mr. Thuesen to use property he had
no rights to or need for. Making matters worse, Mr. Snyder appears to have misled the
City Council into considering the reservation of this easement, by making the following
statement:
Packet Page 194 of 337
“If Mr. Thuesen’s point was that it would be impossible for him to construct the roadway
on his property at the location shown without a City easement, that could be addressed by
reserving an easement for construction purposes to install the retaining wall and for a
slope easement or easement of lateral and subjacent support to allow him to install the
retaining wall from the vacated easement.”
The public record clearly shows that Mr. Thuesen had never stated that he desired an
easement that would allow him to temporarily use the alley while he built a retaining
wall on his own land.
Mr. Plunkett asked Mr. Bowman if this had been considered. Mr. Bowman answered this
option only arose late this afternoon. He agreed it could be done if the Council found it
necessary; however, he believed Mr. Thuesen could construct the retaining wall without a
construction access.
Several important points need to be highlighted here.
1. The City Attorney appears to have chosen to act outside the scope of his authority,
impugn a city expert’s representations and recommend the City Council take action
that materially differed from the Mayor and Staff’s recommended action. This was
outside the scope of his authority as documented in Section 2.05.020 of the City’s
Municipal Code. The City Attorney was not providing legal advice on this matter. To
the contrary, he was recommending the City Council take an action the Reidys
strongly believe is not allowed under State law or the City’s Municipal Code. RCW
35.79.030 states that the (vacation) ordinance may provide that the City retain an
easement or the right to exercise and grant easements in respect to the vacated
land for the construction, repair, and maintenance of public utilities and services.
Mr. Snyder’s biography on his law firm’s website states:
Packet Page 195 of 337
W. Scott Snyder, a Member in the firm’s municipal department, focuses his practice on
issues relating to employment and land use with an emphasis on disability-related issues
under the Washington Law Against Discrimination. He serves as the City Attorney of
Edmonds, Washington.
Mr. Snyder is a specialist in land use and municipal law. He has been the Edmond’s City
Attorney since 1984. We believe he should have a clear understanding of the State and
City’s Public Notification laws and the Street Vacation laws. For some unknown reason, he
appears to have decided to recommend an action that we’ve been advised violated the very
laws he is supposed to make sure the City follows. Amazingly, in doing so he was apparently
willing to mislead the City Council by implying that Mr. Thuesen desired an easement that
would allow him to temporarily use the alley while he built a retaining wall on his own land.
As stated earlier, the City Council meeting Minutes for September 16, 2008 do not
indicate that Mr. Thuesen ever made this statement. To the contrary, even after Mr.
Snyder introduced the concept of reserving an easement, Mr. Thuesen told the City
Council that “construction would be impossible without the retaining wall and the only place
the retaining wall could be constructed was in the alley.”
2. The City Attorney recommended the City Council reserve a public easement for the
private benefit of a developer. Edmond’s Code section 20.70.030 states that “In
vacating a street, alley, or easement, the City Council may reserve for the city any
easements or the right to exercise and grant any easements for public utilities and
services.” State law and the City’s Municipal Code does not allow the City Council to
reserve an easement for the private benefit of a developer that harms the public and
another citizen during the Street Vacation process. Section 20.70.030 clearly states
Packet Page 196 of 337
that the council can only reserve easements that benefit the public because the
easement is necessary for public utilities and services. The related Ordinance No.
3729, the drafting of which was not entirely completed until after The City Council
voted on and passed it during the March 17, 2009 City Council Meeting, clearly
documents that the easement was reserved for Mr. Thuesen’s private benefit: The
ordinance states:
Based upon Mr. Thuesen’s assertions in the vacation hearing of the practical difficulties
associated with installation of a driveway and retaining wall, which are shown as being
located entirely within the short plat, the City deems it to be appropriate to retain a
temporary construction easement contemporaneous with the life of the preliminary plat, to
wit, five years.
Hence, the ordinance itself documents two critical concepts. First, it documents the
misrepresentation initiated by Mr. Snyder that Mr. Thuesen had asserted “in the vacation
hearing” the “practical difficulties associated with installation of a driveway and retaining
wall, which are shown as being located entirely within the short plat.” We cannot find
evidence of this representation in the City Council meeting Minutes for September 16,
2008. Secondly, the ordinance documents that the easement was reserved specifically for
Mr. Thuesen’s private benefit. Irrefutable proof that the easement was reserved entirely
for Mr. Thuesen’s private benefit is the simple fact that the easement period is tied
directly to the life of Mr. Thuesen’s preliminary plat, “to wit, five years.” If the easement
served a public benefit, why would it have an expiration date tied directly to the life of
Mr. Thuesen’s preliminary plat?
3. As the City Attorney introduced the concept and recommended the City Council
reserve what appears to be an illegal easement, he appears to have established his own
bias and would have a conflict of interest related to this situation from this point
forward. This conflict of interest may have precluded the City Attorney from
fulfilling his obligation to the City to advise the city authorities and officers on all
Packet Page 197 of 337
legal matters, including the lawfulness of this easement and the improper process the
City followed in reserving the easement. Included among the items the City Attorney
apparently failed to advise the city’s authorities and officers of are:
A. There was no public notice of the material modification to the proposed alley
vacation. As such, the public had no opportunity to research the proposed
easement so they could prepare written comments or be prepared to orally
comment on it in the September 16, 2008 City Council Meeting. This violated
Section 20.70.090 of the City’s Street Vacation Code.
B. Due to A. above, the public hearing required by Section 20.70.110 that took place
during the September 16, 2008 was incomplete as nobody had an opportunity to
prepare for and comment on the lawfulness of the proposed easement.
C. Section 20.70.110 states that the City Council may continue the hearing if, for any
reason, it is unable to hear all of the public comments on the vacation, or if the
City Council determines that it needs more information on the vacation. As the
idea to reserve a Temporary Construction Easement was a sudden material
modification to the proposed vacation that caught most by complete surprise, the
City Attorney should have recommended that the City Council continue the hearing
at a future date to ensure the public had an opportunity to provide the City Council
all the information they needed to have before they could make such an important
decision.
D. Section 20.70.140 indicates there are three different final decisions the City
Council can make related to street vacations. They are:
1. Adopt an ordinance granting the vacation; or
2. Adopt a motion denying the vacation; or
Packet Page 198 of 337
3. Adopt a resolution of intent to vacate stating that the city council will, by ordinance,
grant the vacation if the applicant meets specific conditions within 90 days. The city may
require the following as conditions:
a. Either:
i. Monetary compensation to be paid to the city in the amount of up to one-half the fair
market value for the street, alley, or part thereof to be vacated unless acquired at “public
expense”, then full appraised value shall be paid; or
ii. The grant of a substitute public right-of-way which has value as an access way at least
equal to the vacated street, alley, or part thereof; or
iii. Any combination of paragraphs A(3)(a)(i) and A(3)(a)(ii) of this section totaling but not
more than one-half the fair market value of the street, alley, or part thereof to be
vacated.
OR
b. A grant of an easement to the city in exchange for the easement vacated.
If the applicant complies with conditions imposed in the resolution of intent to vacate
within 90 days, the city council shall adopt an ordinance granting the vacation.
One of those options is not to “Adopt an ordinance granting the vacation while at the
same time reserving a Temporary Construction Easement benefiting a private party
and expiring at the end of the private party’s preliminary plat period.” Hence, under
Packet Page 199 of 337
the law, the City Council had no authority to grant any type of easement at the same
moment they adopted an ordinance to grant the vacation. In the event the City had
determined that it was necessary to reserve a public easement for public utilities and
services, then the City Council would have had to adopt a resolution of intent to vacate
stating that the City Council will, by ordinance, grant the vacation if the applicant grants
an easement to the city in exchange for the easement vacated within 90 days. Amazingly,
the City appears to have failed to follow the requirements they would have been subject to
had the City desired to reserve an easement for public utilities and services! Again, the
City Attorney appears to have failed to advise the Mayor and City Council that what they
were doing violated the City’s Municipal Code.
Please refer to City of Edmonds Resolution No. 1096. The following is in the body of the
Ordinance drafted by Mr. Snyder {WSS600555.DOC;1/00006.900000/}:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby states its intent to vacate that portion of
219th Street SW lying east of 76th Avenue West and west of the Top Foods property as shown
on the attached Exhibit A and further described in File No. ST-2004-130, incorporated by this
reference as fully as if herein set forth by ordinance if the following conditions are met within
ninety (90) days.:
1.1 The ordinance of vacation reserves to the City surface and subsurface
utility easements; and
1.2 The sum of $67,731 is paid to the City within ninety (90) days of
the date of approval of this resolution.
The Reidys believe that Mr. Snyder and the City clearly new about the requirement for a
90 day period for conditions to be met as well as the fact that the ECDC states that one
possible condition is a grant of an easement to the city in exchange for the easement
vacated. The Reidys request the Hearing Examiner require the City to provide statutory
authority for its decision to ignore the requirements of ECDC 20.70.140.
Packet Page 200 of 337
The City then made their improper behavior in reserving the Temporary Construction
Easement worse by maliciously prosecuting the Reidys for failing to obtain an
encroachment permit related to the Temporary Construction Easement reserved via
Ordinance No. 3729.
Please note that the Reidys are the owner of the 7.5 foot wide, 90 foot long piece of
property that the City of Edmonds reserved a temporary construction easement over
against the Reidys’ will via Ordinance #3729. The former UNOPENED alley right-of-way
easement over the same 7.5 foot wide, 90 foot long piece of property has been vacated.
The vacation has been recorded at Snohomish County and the Reidys are now responsible
for the payment of property taxes on the 7.5 foot wide, 90 foot long piece of property.
One of the stated reasons for the vacation of the former UNOPENED alley right-of-way
easement was that returning the property to the tax rolls provides a benefit to the City.
The City claims that the temporary construction easement it retained is legal under RCW
35.79.030 which states that the (vacation) ordinance may provide that the City retain
an easement or the right to exercise and grant easements in respect to the vacated
land for the construction, repair, and maintenance of public utilities and services.
The Reidys strongly disagree with the City’s opinion because the temporary construction
easement was reserved specifically for the installation of Mr. Thuesen’s private driveway
and private retaining wall on property located to the north of the former UNOPENED alley
right-of-way easement. City Attorney Scott Snyder has represented that what
justifies the public purpose for the TCE is “the use of the PUBLIC right of way under
the Right of Way use provisions for PRIVATE construction activities and the other
PRIVATE uses referenced in Chapter 18.70 of the city code”. The Reidys fail to see
how reserving a TCE for PRIVATE construction activities and the other PRIVATE uses
referenced in Chapter 18.70 somehow qualifies as a PUBLIC necessity specifically for
the construction, repair, and maintenance of public utilities and services. Mr. Snyder
does not provide any statutory support for his opinion. Street vacations are governed
Packet Page 201 of 337
under ECDC 20.70. Mr. Snyder’s reliance on an entirely different chapter of the ECDC
provision to try and justify the public purpose for the TCE is greatly misguided and
arbitrary. Furthermore, The City new that Eric Thuesen’s ROW use permits had expired
prior to January 29, 2008 as documented in the letter dated Fevruary 24, 2009 in Exhibit
O. Why was Mr. Snyder concerned with Chapter 18.70 when he knew Mr. Thuesen had no
Right of Way Permits?
It is important to remember that while power has been granted to cities to vacate
streets upon petition of the abutting landowners, there exist both statutory and
constitutional limitations on the exercise of that power. Whenever an attempt is made
to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the
contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question, and determined as such,
without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public. In the Reidys ‘
strong opinion, The City of Edmonds and its Attorney had no legal authority to take the
Reidys’ PRIVATE property for a use alleged to be PUBLIC. If the use was truly for
PUBLIC purposes, why has the City issued a PRIVATE ROW Use permit to Mr. Thuesen to
use this PUBLIC TCE? The Reidys request the Hearing Examiner to require the City to
provide the statutory Authority authorizing a citizen to file for a use permit to make
Private Use of a TCE.
The Reidys are the underlying fee owner of the former UNOPENED ROW easement and
always have been. The Reidys fee ownership and rights to make reasonable use of the
UNOPENED right of way was not and cannot be affected by the vacation action or by the
attempted reservation of the temporary construction easement because, at most, the TCE
is an easement interests only. The best way to think of this is that the Reidys, as the fee
owners, are the owner of the land. The Reidys’ ownership is encumbered or “subject to”
the City’s TCE interest. This concept explains the Nystrand decision where the court
decided that the fee owner’s improvements were not encroaching upon a public interest
Packet Page 202 of 337
because the public interest had not been opened. Had the municipality opened its interest,
it would be making beneficial use of its easement and, under those circumstances, the fee
owner cannot lawfully do anything to interfere with the easement. If, however, the
easement interest is not opened, the fee owner as the fee owner is entitled to reasonable
use of the land they own! When the City, by code enforcement action, requires the
Reidys to remove their shed and concrete slab from the Reidys own (fee) property
that has not been opened by the City for any public purpose, the City conducts an
illegal taking of the Reidys’ property rights.
The City has failed to meet its obligation to prove a prima facie case and failed to
meet the burden of establishing the existence of a violation. The Plat of the Original
City of Edmonds, the 1962 building permit and the Reidy’s survey in no fashion prove
that the Reidys have committed any violations. Furthermore, the Reidys stand
accused of failing to obtain an encroachment permit to make use of a Temporary
Construction Easement, something the City’s Code doesn’t allow and something for
which there is no statutory authority for.
Furthermore, the City has publicly disclosed misleading representations about the Reidys’,
including Mr. Snyder’s claim that “The Reidys have repeatedly failed to exhaust their
administrative remedies.” Mr. Snyder repeatedly alleges that the Reidys failed to assert
their adverse possession claim in the original subdivision preliminary plat process. Mr.
Snyder implies by this allegation that the Reidys have done something wrong, that the
Reidys have failed. As stated earlier, the failure was Mr. Thuesen and his surveyor’s
violation of ECDC 20.75.060 during the development application process coupled with the
failure of the City to do anything about the violation of the law after the City Attorney
disclosed in his July 13, 2007 email that he was aware that the survey was incomplete.
The Reidys aren’t the party that failed.
The statutory time frame for adverse possession in Washington is generally 10 years. The
law is clear that title is acquired by adverse possession upon passage of the 10-year
Packet Page 203 of 337
period. EL CERRITO, INC. v. RYNDAK, 60 Wn.2d 847, 855, 376 P.2d 528 (1962); MUENCH
v. OXLEY, 90 Wn.2d 637, 644, 584 P.2d 939 (1978). The City of Edmonds is well aware of
the State Law and that title to the Reidys’ prescriptive area to the north of the former
alley right of way easement was acquired long ago by the Reidys via adverse possession
upon passage of the required 10-year period. A person who acquires title to land by
adverse possession has an "ownership interest" in the land for purposes of RCW
58.17.165. The fact that the title is not a matter of public record does not affect this
result. The quiet title action the Reidys are pursuing will merely confirm that title to the
land passed to the Reidys long ago. Hence, Mr. Snyder misrepresents the law every time
he accuses the Reidys of failing to assert their adverse possession claim in the original
subdivision preliminary plat process. The Reidys had no legal requirement to do so and
they certainly have not failed to do anything. Under Washington State Law, the
Reidy’s have every right to an administrative appeal of Mr. Thuesen’s final plat should
the City grant Mr. Thuesen final plat approval. For the City to grant Mr. Thuesen final
plat approval, Per RCW 58.17.165, every final plat or short plat of a subdivision or short
subdivision filed for record must contain a certificate giving a full and correct description
of the lands divided as they appear on the plat or short plat, including a statement that
the subdivision or short subdivision has been made with the free consent and in
accordance with the desires of the owner or owners. Per RCW 58.17.170 the
legislative body of the City must find that the subdivision proposed for final plat approval
conforms to all terms of the preliminary plat approval, and that said subdivision meets the
requirements of RCW 58.17.170 other applicable state laws, and any local ordinances
adopted under RCW 58.17.170 which were in effect at the time of preliminary plat
approval. If the legislative body of the City finds such to be the case, it shall suitably
inscribe and execute its written approval on the face of the plat. The original of said final
plat shall be filed for record with the county auditor. One reproducible copy shall be
furnished to the city, town or county engineer. One paper copy shall be filed with the
county assessor. Paper copies shall be provided to such other agencies as may be required
Packet Page 204 of 337
by ordinance. Any lots in a final plat filed for record shall be a valid land use
notwithstanding any change in zoning laws for a period of five years from the date of
filing. A subdivision shall be governed by the terms of approval of the final plat, and the
statutes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of approval under RCW
58.17.150 (1) and (3) for a period of five years after final plat approval unless the
legislative body finds that a change in conditions creates a serious threat to the public
health or safety in the subdivision.
In Mr. Snyder’s Pre Hearing Brief, he admits that he understands that under Halverson v.
Bellevue, the City cannot give Mr. Thuesen final plat approval until the title issue is
resolved. For some reason, Mr. Snyder does not mention that a person who acquires title
to land by adverse possession already has an "ownership interest" in the land for purposes
of RCW 58.17.165. Mr. Snyder also admits that he and the City have full knowledge that
a quiet title action was filed by the Reidys on March 20, 2009 in Snohomish County
Superior Court. He does not mention this is true even when the title is not yet a matter of
public record. The quiet title action the Reidys are pursuing will merely confirm that title
to the land passed to the Reidys long ago. Mr. Snyder admits that he understands
jurisdiction to try title to the land lies exclusively with Superior Court and that neither
the City nor its Hearing Examiner has the authority to determine issues relating to
ownership. Yet the City through its enforcement efforts related to the setback
accusations is acting as if the City has the authority and has determined who has
ownership of the related property and where the property line is located. How the
City and Mr. Snyder can maliciously accuse the Reidys of violating a setback violation while
they have full knowledge that the location of the related property line is under dispute in
Superior Court is astonishing. The City’s malicious, arbitrary and capricious behavior has
caused and continues to cause the Reidys great harm.
The Reidys had every legal right not to assert their quiet title action prior to the
expiration of the Statutory period. Furthermore, Mr. Thuesen’s preliminary plat may
Packet Page 205 of 337
expire before resolution of the encroachment issues if Mr. Thuesen continues to refuse to
resolve the issues. The Reidys have been the only party responsible enough to try and
resolve the boundary line title issues as evidenced by the fact they have filed to quiet
title, merely an administrative step confirming that the title to the land passed to the
Reidys long ago. Mr. Thuesen continues to delay his development efforts after
representing over 2 years ago that he was ready to proceed forward and avoid further
delays. See City Exhibit 9.26. The City has hired an independent consultant who has
informed the City that there are a variety of construction techniques that could be
employed by Mr. Thuesen in constructing his retaining wall as evidenced by Mr. Snyder’s
letter dated August 6, 2009. See Exhibit B. The City has told Mr. Thuesen that he should
consider utilizing another construction technique if he doesn’t want further delay to his
project. Mr. Thuesen continues to delay taking the minor steps necessary to finalize his
plats. The Reidys wonder why Mr. Thuesen continues to fail to resolve the very same title
issues he failed to disclose years ago as required by ECDC 20.75.060. The Reidys wonder
why Mr. Thuesen doesn’t complete the simple steps necessary to finalize either of his
plats.
In his Pre Hearing brief, Mr. Snyder and the City have acknowledged that “Now that the
City has notice of Mr. Reidy’s adverse possession claim, it cannot give final approval to
either the two- or three-lot short subdivision pursuant to Halverson v. Bellevue.” Mr.
Snyder is close, but not quite right. The key point is not that the City has notice of Mr.
Reidy’s adverse possession claim. Why Mr. Snyder and the City can’t grasp this concept is
very difficult for the Reidys to understand. To clarify for Mr. Snyder and the City, the
key point is that the Reidys have already acquired title to land by adverse possession!
Upon the satisfaction of each of the elements of adverse possession, the Reidys were
deemed to be the legal owner of a portion of the property Mr. Thuesen is attempting to
subdivide. When the City claims its has no decision making authority with regard to Mr.
Thuesen’s plat because he is fully vested in his rights to construct his “approved”
improvements, the City indicates it is ignoring the State’s laws and that it has lost its
Packet Page 206 of 337
moral compass. The City conducts an ongoing illegal taking of the Reidys’ property by
approving development plans and granting permits that grant Mr. Thuesen development
rights on land that the Reidys acquired title to long ago under the State’s adverse
possession laws. The City has acknowledged that it understands jurisdiction to try title to
the land lies exclusively with Superior Court and that neither the City nor its Hearing
Examiner has the authority to determine issues relating to ownership. Yet the City, by
treating the property owned by the Reidys as if it is owned by Mr. Thuesen,
approving Thuesen’s plans, issuing Thuesen permits and pursuing enforcement efforts
against the Reidys related to setback accusations is acting as if the City has the
authority and has determined who has ownership of the related property and where
the property line is located! The City’s only available defense is that it did not know of
The Reidys’ ownership interest at the time it granted Mr. Thuesen approval. Sadly, the
Reidys can prove that the City either knew or should have known of the Reidys’ ownership
interest before entering into the July 24, 2007 Settlement Agreement, and maybe as
early as 2006, well before Judge Eric Lucas’ April 25, 2007 Order. The Reidys can prove
that the City conclusively knew of the Reidys’ ownership interest before granting
preliminary plat approval for Mr. Thuesen’s three lot short plat. Despite this
knowledge and the knowledge that Mr. Thuesen again violated ECDC 20.75.060 by failing to
disclose the Reidys’ existing structures when he submitted his August 27, 2007 land use
application for his three lot short plat, the City simply failed to respect the Reidys’
ownership interest and allowed ECDC 20.75.060 to be violated.
The City asserts that the Reidys failed to assert their ownership interest during the
LUPA period. However, the City also acknowledges that the Reidys have done so now, as
the law allows. Clearly, by claiming it is duty bound to allow Mr. Thuesen to develop his
property in accordance with his vested land use approval(s), to the extent such approvals
conflict with the Reidys’ ownership interest, the City engages in an unlawful taking of the
Reidys’ property.
Packet Page 207 of 337
The Reidys already have an "ownership interest" in the land for purposes of RCW
58.17.165. RCW 58.17.165 requires a certificate of dedication to be signed by all parties
having any "ownership interest" in the land subdivided. The fact that the title is not a
matter of public record does not affect this result. The law is clear but the City and
Mr. Snyder continue to ignore it, causing the Reidys great harm. If the City would take
the time to research the State’s Adverse Possession laws and Halverson vs. Bellevue, the
City might recognize the following. The City has long had knowledge that the Reidys have
an ownership interest in the property Mr. Thuesen is attempting to subdivide. Mr.
Thuesen failed to disclose the Reidys’ ownership interest when he submitted his
development applications, violating ECDC 20.75.060. The City has effectively played
Superior Court Judge and ruled and acted as if the Reidy’s don’t have an ownership
interest in Thuesen’s property when under State Law the Reidy’s do!!! A plat approved in
violation of the requirements of RCW 58.17 is invalid in its entirety. RCW 58.17.165
requires a certificate of dedication to be signed by all parties having any "ownership
interest" in the land subdivided. The Reidys have no legal responsibility to sign the
certificate of dedication as Mr. Thuesen has applied to subdivide the property without
involving the Reidys in the process. An aggrieved party need not pursue administrative
remedies before seeking judicial review of a plat approval pursuant to RCW 58.17.180. Can
the situation be any clearer? Why are all these private and public resources being wasted
when all Mr. Thuesen needs to do is deed the Reidys their property and reapply to
subdivide property that he owns 100% of? When one considers how little Mr. Thuesen
paid for the property according to the Snohomish County Assessors website and that the
Reidys structures existed when Mr. Thuesen bought the property, the staggering cost to
the public and to the Reidys related to this issue is staggering. Why has the City
contributed to the situation? It is extremely difficult for any reasonable man to
understand.
Mr. Thuesen filed at least two misleading incomplete land use applications that violated
ECDC 20.75.060 and failed to disclose the Reidys’ ownership of a portion of the property
Packet Page 208 of 337
Mr. Thuesen was attempting to subdivide. The City chose to ignore the violation of ECDC
20.75.060 and the result is the mess we have today. Please recall Mr. Snyder’s
representation that Nykreim does not protect violations of the law. The Reidys are the
only party who did not fail to do something required by law. Mr. Thuesen violated ECDC
20.75.060 , and at a minimum, the Mayor violated ECDC 2.01.010 which requires the Mayor
to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced and that law and order is
maintained in the city. [Ord. 2349 § 2, 1983]. This situation could have been resolved
years ago if Mr. Thuesen had simply followed ECDC 20.75.060 and resolved the title issues
before attempting to subdivide property that the Reidys own a portion of. A simple
boundary line adjustment would have resolved the issue and allowed Mr. Thuesen to apply
to subdivide property that he was the 100% owner of. Mr. Thuesen’s failure to follow the
law and subdivide only his own property has had huge costs. It is almost too much to
comprehend. Mr. Thuesen’s claims that his development is being delayed are extremely
frivolous as he is the party who could have avoided this entire situation by simply following
the ECDC when he submitted his land use application. In addition, please refer to City
Exhibit 9.26 which clearly documents Eric Thuesen’s representation that “There is still
an(sic) structural encroachment problem on the R.O.W. that the City will have to solve but
it will no longer affect the development of the short plat.” Why did Mr. Snyder
recommend the Council reserve a Temporary Construction Easement on September 16,
2008 when the City had been notified by the developer over a year earlier that Mr.
Thuesen had moved his utilities and road to the north and that the Reidys’ shed would no
longer affect the development of the short plat?
Why has Mr. Thuesen delayed the development of his short plat and refused to finalize
either of his two plats when he represented on August 8, 2007 that he wanted to “avoid
further delays”? That being said, the obvious question is why has Mr. Thuesen failed to
finalize his plat if he is in such a hurry to develop his property. Why has he refused to
resolve the Reidys’ encroachments and file to finalize either his two lot or three lot plat?
Why has the City maliciously prosecuted the Reidys and violated the Reidys constitutional
Packet Page 209 of 337
rights to life, liberty and property as opposed to simply instructing Mr. Thuesen to resolve
the title issues first and then the City will consider any Requests for Code Enforcement
after the title issues have been resolved? Why does such simple common sense not exist
at the City level? Imagine if the City had simply informed Mr. Thuesen that the
Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that the owner of the underlying fee title had
the right to make reasonable use of UNOPENED right of ways and that any setback
related enforcement action was premature until the location of the property line was
determined by the Superior Court. Simple common sense and knowledge of the law would
have prevented this entire situation and saved enormous private and public resources.
Think of the harm caused by this failure. In addition, property taxes have been evaded by
not filing this final plat when everything was done.
For your information, please again refer to the August 8, 2007 email from Eric Thuesen to
Jeanie McConnell in which Thuesen states the following:
“There is still an structural encroachment problem on the R.O.W. that the City will have to
solve but it will no longer affect the development of the short plat.”
Thuesen admitted well over two years ago that the Reidys’ encroachments would no longer
affect the development of his short plat. Supporting this are his current civil drawings,
approved in August of 2009. The drawings show the portion of his wall next to Reidys’ Lot
35. What happened to the requirement for an OSHA setback? Please advise as to the
inconsistency. Furthermore, why an OSHA setback next to my lots 38-36 when the wall is
never more than 1 foot below original grade? Also, his plans require my stairway landing to
stay, whereas the City’s OTC requires it to be removed. Please advise.
The Reidys strongly request that the Hearing Examiner require Mr. Snyder to remove the
allegation from the record that the Reidys “failed to assert their adverse possession
claim in the original subdivision preliminary plat process.” We request that the Hearing
Examiner require Mr. Snyder to explain in the Hearing what the State Adverse Possession
Packet Page 210 of 337
laws require. The representation that the Reidys failed is a misleading representation
that implies the Reidys did something wrong. Mr. Snyder’s comment appears to be an
attempt to mislead the Hearing Examiner by implying the Reidys did something wrong..
The Reidys ask Mr. Snyder to clarify the situation for the Hearing Examiner. If
Mr. Snyder is going to accuse the Reidys of failures, to be fair we request he inform
the Hearing Examiner of the City’s failures and Mr. Thuesen’s failures also.
Furthermore, the City has unreasonably intruded upon the seclusion and solitude of
the Reidys by failing to simply verify the shed was illegally extended before acting, by
ignoring the Reidy’s right to reasonable use of the UNOPENED right of way, by ignoring
the Reidys’ ownership interest in the property being subdivided and by ignoring the fact
that the location of the Reidys’ northern property line has yet to be adjudicated by
Snohomish County. The damage to the Reidys has been huge and the quality of their lives
has been adversely impacted by the City’s malicious prosecution.
Making matters worse, in addition to the City’s failure to prosecute the condemnation at
the County and prove that there was a public necessity for such an easement, the City has
now admitted that Mr. Thuesen did not even have a private need for the easement area.
Scott Snyder openly admits in an August 6, 2009 letter to Mr. Thuesen’s attorney Duana
T. Kolouskova that the reason Snyder recommended reserving the easement in the first
place was not accurate.
Mr. Snyder states the following:
“It is our understanding, based on the advice of an independent consultant (possibly
Landau and Associates), that there are a variety of construction techniques that could be
utilized by your client in constructing the retaining wall. The method proposed on the civil
plans utilizes a required two-to-one slope. It appears that other techniques, such as
shoring, are available to your client. Neither technique is required if the cut is less than
four feet in height. The Code does not regulate the method of construction, and its
Packet Page 211 of 337
approval is based solely upon compliance of the plans with City development regulations. If
the delay attributable to Mr. Reidy’s pursuit of the administrative appeal available to him
inconveniences your client, he should consider utilizing another construction technique that
does not require a two-to-one slope.”
Hence, Mr. Snyder discloses not only that Mr. Thuesen can build his wall outside the alley;
he discloses that there are other construction techniques available that Mr. Thuesen can
employ that would not require any temporary use of the former alley ROW. Mr. Snyder
also discloses that the City does not regulate the method of construction, yet acts as if
the City is required to make sure a developer can use a certain method of construction
when others are available. A prudent man and a prudent City research these issues before
they take the step of reserving a Temporary Construction Easement for the benefit of a
private party at the expense of the private party which owns the underlying fee to the
property. But just as the City assumed the Reidys’ shed was illegally extended, they
appear to have assumed Mr. Thuesen had some need to use the right-of-way area and
decided to reserve the easement based on that assumption. The City singled out Reidy
only and only reserved the TCE next to the Reidy’s property. The City Attorney also never
bothered to inform the City Council of where the easement would be located before the
council voted. Incredibly, the City Council voted to pass an ordinance reserving an
easement without even knowing where the easement would be located and why.
Please refer to the City’s Exhibit 9.26 which documents that on August 8, 2007, Mr.
Thuesen, via email, confirmed his intent to withdraw the encroachment permit application
for improvements located within the City alley right-of-way, in association with subdivision
file number S-05-09. Mr. Thuesen clearly represents that “There is still an(sp) structural
encroachment problem on the R.O.W. that the City will have to solve but it will no longer
affect the development of the short plat.” Hence, we see that Mr. Thuesen
represented almost 2 ½ years ago that the structural encroachment would “no longer
affect the development of the short plat.” Mr. Thuesen’s admission coupled with the
Packet Page 212 of 337
advice of the independent consultant (possibly Landau and Associates), that there are a
variety of construction techniques that could be utilized by Mr. Thuesen in constructing
the retaining wall, provide strong evidence that Mr. Thuesen could have developed his
property long ago. The Reidys would like to ask the City to explain why it has pursed its
malicious enforcement efforts in light of the above information coupled with the fact that
the right of way was never OPENED. Why did the City fail to respect the fact that the
Washington Supreme Court had held that an abutting landowner may use the portion
of an UNOPENED street easement to which he or she holds fee title in any manner
not inconsistent with the easement? The City’s conduct is extremely difficult to
understand.
The City has long represented that the “design” to which Mr. Thuesen vested originally
utilized the public right of way, and now the reserved construction easement. The Reidys
strongly request that the Hearing Examiner require the City to provide documentation
supporting this representation as we have never seen any. Furthermore, since the
Reidy’s owned 100% of the underlying fee and since the City never opened the right
of way, how exactly could Mr. Thuesen have obtained vested rights to a construction
design that interfered with the Reidy’s legal rights to make reasonable use of the
unopened right of way? During the September 16, 2008 City Council meeting, then City
Development Services Director represented that no "vested rights" accrue to Mr. Thuesen
under these circumstances, particularly where the City has not approved a discretionary
permit needed to complete the development proposal in question. Mr. Bowman represented
that none of Mr. Thuesen's three lots depends upon the alley in any manner for access and
that Mr. Thuesen can clearly develop his property without the use of the alley way as
demonstrated in the preliminary development plan he submitted with his approved
three lot short subdivision.
During the September 16, 2008 City Council meeting, Councilmember Steve Bernheim
asked if there was a need for access to construct the retaining wall as well as to access
Packet Page 213 of 337
the property, noting under the current proposal there was a driveway across the front of
the property, Mr. Snyder explained “there were two issues with access. First, related to
the right of direct access, the preliminary approval which creates the second lot provides
access to that lot via a flag lot configuration. All four lots have direct access from a
public street, therefore, in his legal opinion, every lot had direct access. The courts
have at times applied a test that considers whether a vacation substantially affects
access. That is a measure of damages and a fact intensive inquiry. To reduce the potential
for substantially affecting access, he recommended reserving a construction easement to
ensure Mr. Thuesen had the same ability to construct the improvements shown in his
subdivision as existed before the Council vacated the property.
This is an amazing disclosure. Mr. Snyder makes it perfectly clear again that this
easement is specifically to ensure Mr. Thuesen has the same ability to construct the
improvements shown in his subdivision as existed before the Council vacated the property.
There clearly is not a public need to have the same ability to construct any public
improvements as the City has no plans to construct anything benefitting the public on Mr.
Thuesen’s subdivision.
The Reidy’s believe that Mr. Snyder’s comments provide insight into why he so strongly
recommending the easement. Mr. Snyder states that “the courts have at times applied a
test that considers whether a vacation substantially affects access. That is a measure of
damages and a fact intensive inquiry.” To reduce the potential for substantially affecting
access, Mr. Snyder recommended to the City Council that they reserving a construction
easement to ensure Mr. Thuesen had the same ability to construct the improvements
shown in his subdivision as existed before the Council vacated the property. The Reidys
believe Mr. Snyder recommended the reservation of the Temporary Construction
Easement to reduce the City’s legal exposure to proceedings related to “a measure of
damages and a fact intensive inquiry.” The Reidys believe Mr. Snyder’s recommendation
was malicious, arbitrary and capricious and greatly violated the Reidys’ constitutional
Packet Page 214 of 337
rights. Mr. Snyder has represented that he and the City were unaware of the
location of Mr. Thuesen’s approved wall when the City reserved the Temporary
Construction Easement effective March 27. 2009,as well as when the City commenced
its enforcement efforts two days prematurely on March 25, 2009. Please See Exhibit
I. In the letter dated April 1, 2009, Mr. Snyder disclosed that after review of the
previously approved engineering plans for the two-lot short subdivision with City Staff, it
appears that the retaining wall structure stops well short of the location of the shed
structure. As Mr. Snyder and the City apparently never bothered to ascertain the
location of Mr. Thuesen’s approved wall before taking the actions that have so greatly
harmed us, we think our request is very reasonable. We merely ask the Hearing Examiner
to require the City to provide documentation supporting the representation that Mr.
Thuesen had vested rights to utilize the public right of way under a “design”. This makes
no sense to us and differs strongly from Mr. Bowman’s representation that no "vested
rights" accrue to Mr. Thuesen under these circumstances, particularly where the City has
not approved a discretionary permit needed to complete the development proposal in
question.
The City has argued that holders of easements in favor of the public have a duty to
remove obstructions and encroachments into the public rights of way. The Reidys agree,
assuming the easement has been opened to public use. RCW 7.48.140(4) declares it to be a
public nuisance to obstruct or encroach upon public highway, private ways, streets, alleys,
commons, landing places, and ways to burying places or to unlawfully obstruct or impede
the flow of municipal transit vehicles as defined in RCW 46.04.355 or passenger traffic,
access to municipal transit vehicles or stations as defined in *RCW 9.91.025(2)(a), or
otherwise interfere with the provision or use of public transportation services, or
obstruct or impede a municipal transit driver, operator, or supervisor in the performance
of that individual's duties " The Reidy’s believe that RCW 7.48.140(4) clearly relates to
opened public highway, private ways, streets, alleys, commons, landing places, and ways to
burying places, and the Reidys believe it does not apply to UNOPENED 7 ½ foot public alley
Packet Page 215 of 337
right of way easements. The City has argued that Municipalities have a duty to remove
obstructions in the public ways and liability if they fail to do so as evidenced by Lund v.
City of Seattle and Turner v. City of Tacoma. Both legal cases referenced by the City
related to opened public highway, private ways, streets, alleys, commons, landing places,
and ways to burying places, and do not apply to this situation. In Lund v. Seattle, 99 Wash.
300, 169 Pac. 820, the City of Seattle was required to answer in damages to one who had
stumbled over a wire fence which the city had permitted to be constructed and to remain
in an opened street. While the court remarked that the fence, or netting, had been in
place long enough to constitute a nuisance, the case was decided on the theory that the
city was guilty of negligence in the maintenance of the street. In Turner v. City of Tacoma
72 Wn.2d 1029, a fire escape came down and obstructed an opened sidewalk.
The City’s representation that it had a duty to remove obstructions and encroachments
into the public rights of way is clearly misleading and does not apply to the UNOPENED 7
½ foot public alley right of way easement adjacent to the Reidys’ property. Please recall,
In Nystrand v. O'Malley, the Washington Supreme Court held an abutting landowner
may use the portion of an UNOPENED street easement to which he or she holds fee
title in any manner not inconsistent with the easement. Under State Law, the Reidy’s
had every right to use the UNOPENED right of way and the City has violated the
Reidys’ rights by maliciously attempting to clear the right of way under the guise
that the City has a duty to remove obstructions and encroachments into the public rights
of way. Furthermore, the City has a long established practice of not requiring the removal
of obstructions and encroachments into UNOPENED public rights of way. For example, in
the Reidy’s own neighborhood, there are numerous obstructions and encroachments into
the UNOPENED 7 ½ foot public alley right of way easement along the southern boundary
line of Holy Rosary parish between 7th Avenue No. and 8th Avenue No. The City is well
aware of these encroachments and a survey of the Holy Rosary Property conducted in
1999 clearly discloses the numerous encroachments. (See Exhibit P)This plat of survey
has been recorded at Snohomish County, AFN 9901195001. Despite this knowledge, the
Packet Page 216 of 337
City has never required the removal of the encroachments. To do so would violate the
rights of the owners of the underlying fee title to the UNOPENED 7 ½ foot public alley
right of way easement. Hence, the City has improperly prosecuted the Reidys under RCW
7.48.140(4) while ignoring the Washington Supreme Court which has ruled an abutting
landowner may use the portion of an UNOPENED street easement to which he or she holds
fee title in any manner not inconsistent with the easement. As such, we ask the Hearing
Examiner to immediately rule the Notice of Civil Violation and related prosecution efforts
to be illegal as the City has failed to prove a prima facie case and failed to establish the
existence of a violation.
Per City Attorney Scott Snyder’s memorandum to the City Council dated December 30,
2009:
“On October 15, 2009, the Washington Supreme Court held that the City of Tacoma civil
enforcement procedures violated constitutional due process protections. A number of
the defects cited by the Court in Post v. Tacoma are not applicable to the City’s
enforcement procedures. The City’s procedures do, however, provide for the continuation
of daily fines without specifying an appeal process. The ordinance should be clarified that
such fines may continue to accrue and be addressed only after additional notice of civil
violation and opportunity for appeal.”
Post v. Tacoma. Cities are permitted pursuant to RCW 70.80.010 (I believe Mr. Snyder
means to reference 7.80.010) to either utilize a court of limited jurisdiction for civil
infraction processes or adopt their own system. The Supreme Court summarized the
statute:
Packet Page 217 of 337
… a local jurisdiction may enforce civil infractions ‘pursuant to its
own system established by ordinance’ RCW 7.80.010(5). But, to
the extent cities do not establish a system for hearing and
determining infractions, the judicial track is by default the system
authorized by law.
The City of Tacoma’s ordinance utilized its municipal court system and did not establish
their own procedures. (Please have Mr. Snyder provide documentation supporting this
representation. It is my understanding that Tacoma also utilized a Hearing Examiner) The
City of Edmonds’ process is a separate process utilizing the City’s Hearing Examiner.
Unlike the City of Tacoma process provides notice of repeat violations
[ECDC20.110.040(B)(2)] and an opportunity for appeal to the Hearing Examiner
[ECDC20.110.040(C)]. Because the City of Tacoma’s procedures did to utilize a
separate process, the Land Use Petition Act 21-day appeal period was not applicable
to them. The City’s procedures do establish a separate process and are subject to the
LUPA appeal period. Therefore, the City’s ordinance is not subject to a number of the
challenges raised in Post. (Please have Mr. Snyder provide documentation supporting these
representations)
The City’s procedures provide for continuing fines and do not clearly state the need
for additional notice and opportunity for hearing before those fines can be assessed.
ECDC 20.110.040(F) At the present time, the City has one case on appeal that involves the
Packet Page 218 of 337
assessment of continuing fines (Locke), as well as six pending civil enforcement actions on
which fines accrue. The Reidy appeal has not yet been set for hearing.
Attached for your consideration is an interim zoning ordinance. The Council may either
consider the ordinance at its meeting of January 19 without public hearing or may set a
public hearing for January 19 in order to hear from the public before acting. Regardless,
the City’s ordinance needs to be amended at your earliest opportunity to bring it into
conformance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Post v. Tacoma. The interim ordinance
also addresses pending cases requiring either dismissal or notice and rehearing to assess
additional fines.”
The Reidys strongly disagree with Mr. Snyder’s opinion that “A number of the defects
cited by the Court in Post v. Tacoma are not applicable to the City’s enforcement
procedures.” The Reidys believe that a number of the defects cited by the Court in Post
v. Tacoma are applicable to the City of Edmonds’s enforcement procedures. Prior to Post
v. Tacoma, the City of Tacoma provided no process for hearing
and determining subsequent infractions. City Attorney Scott Snyder has represented
that the City of Edmond’s procedures provide for the continuation of daily fines without
specifying an appeal process. Supreme Court Justice James M. Johnson stated the
following in the Supreme Court’s Majority Decision related to Post v. Tacoma:
“Where the city has no such process, it cannot be said that it has its own system in the
sense intended by the legislature in RCW 7.80.010(5). Such interpretation would allow
Tacoma to impose unlimited punishment on civil defendants, a result that the
legislature did not authorize. Absent ITS OWN COMPLETE SYSTEM, Tacoma is
Packet Page 219 of 337
required by chapter 7.80 RCW to follow the legislature’s default system and
enforce its infractions in courts of limited jurisdiction. LUPA does not apply
when a local jurisdiction is required by law to enforce the ordinance at issue
in a court of limited jurisdiction. Former RCW 36.70C.020(1)(c).”
The Reidys believe that Mr. Snyder’s opinion that the City of Edmonds’ process is a
separate process somehow representative of ITS OWN COMPLETE SYSTEM is
incorrect. The Reidys believe it is clear that because the City of Edmond’s procedures
provide for the continuation of daily fines without specifying an appeal process, the City of
Edmonds does not have ITS OWN COMPLETE SYSTEM.
Absent ITS OWN COMPLETE SYSTEM, the City of Edmonds is required by chapter 7.80
RCW to follow the legislature’s default system and enforce its infractions in
courts of limited jurisdiction.
Supreme Court Justice Justice James M. Johnson continues:
“Though the procedures may vary according to the interest at stake, the
fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.
319, 333, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976). To determine whether existing
procedures are adequate to protect the interest at stake, a court must consider the
following three factors:
First, the private interest that will be affected by the official
action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such
interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if
any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and
Packet Page 220 of 337
finally, the Government’s interest, including the function
involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the
additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.
Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335; Tellevik v. Real Property, 120 Wn.2d 68, 78, 838
P.2d 111 (1992) (adopting and applying the Mathews test).
Under Washington State Court Rules: Infraction Rules for Courts of Limited
Jurisdiction, Rule 2.6 Schedule of Hearings for (a)Contested Hearings:
The court shall send the defendant written notice of the
time, place, and date of the hearing within 21 days of the
receipt of the request for a hearing. The notice of the hearing
shall also include statements advising the defendant of the
defendant's rights at the hearing, how the defendant may request
that witnesses be subpoenaed, and that failure to appear may be a
crime for which the defendant may be arrested, and, in a traffic
infraction case, the defendant's privilege to operate a motor
vehicle may be suspended. If a local rule is adopted implementing
sections (a)(1)(i) and (ii), the court shall advise the defendant
in the notice of the defendant's right to waive the prehearing conference.
Packet Page 221 of 337
As Mr. Snyder stated in his memo dated December 30, 2009, The Reidy appeal has not
yet been set for hearing. Under State Law, written notice of the time, place, and date of
the hearing was due by December 15, 2009, within 21 days of the receipt of the
request for a hearing. The Reidy appeal was submitted and paid for ($705) on November
24, 2009, yet written notice of the time, place, and date of the hearing was not provided
to the Reidy’s until January 26, 2010. As a result, the Reidys’ fundamental due process
rights have been violated as they were not provided the opportunity to be heard at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Of course, this is just one of many
fundamental due process rights the Reidys have been denied during the City’s code
enforcement process.
Making the matter worse, the City has now provided the Hearing Examiner with another
critical piece of information related to why the Reidys were not provided the opportunity
to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Please refer to City Exhibit
9.33. On January 20, 2010, Developer Eric Thuesen sent a letter to City Staff stating “I
have returned from my trip and want to thank you for waiting to schedule the Reidy
appeal of Civil Violation hearing until my return. I am requesting an appeal hearing
date be scheduled in the immediate future to help resolve this matter.” Mr. Thuesen
continues by stating that “I recognize my absence of a few weeks was inconvenient, but I
again appreciated the accommodation of that planned trip, and I hope now that I’ve
returned this matter can move forward on the next available hearing.” When Eric
Thuesen speaks, the City of Edmonds apparently jumps to attention. A mere two days
later, the following Notice of Appeal and Hearing Examiner Hearing was published in the
Everett Herald:
Packet Page 222 of 337
NOTICE OF APPEAL AND HEARING EXAMINER HEARING Name of Appellants: Ken
Reidy Project Number: APL20090004 Project Location: 771 Daley St., Edmonds Project
Description: The applicant/appellant appeals an Order to Correct Violation (SIC) Notice
requiring removal of a portion of a tool shed. City Contact: Leif Bjorback
Bjorback@ci.edmonds.wa.us 425 771-0220 Comments Due By: February 4, 2010 by 3:00 pm
HEARING INFORMATION Date: February 4, 2010 Time: 3:00 p.m. Location: Council
Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds Published: January 22, 2010.
Despite publishing the Notice on January 22, 2010, the City did not provide the Reidys
notice until January 26, 2010.
The Reidys’ fundamental due process rights have been violated as they were not provided
the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Why would
the City violate the Reidys rights in favor of Mr. Thuesen’s vacation request? Why would
the City ignore Washington State Court Rules: Infraction Rules for Courts of Limited
Jurisdiction, Rule 2.6 Schedule of Hearings for Contested Hearings and instead schedule
the Reidys hearing at a time convenient for Eric Thuesen? What is going on here?
This represents yet another example of the City’s malicious, arbitrary and capricious
treatment of the Reidys. The City has repeatedly failed to be scrupulously just in its
dealings with the Reidys.
Where a local jurisdiction assesses civil penalties for noncriminal
violations of law but provides no opportunity for civil defendants to be heard,
the fundamental due process right to an opportunity to be heard at a
Packet Page 223 of 337
meaningful time is violated. It is sufficient to hold that, where local jurisdictions issue
infractions (finding violations and assessing penalties), there must be some express
procedure available by which citizens may bring
errors to the attention of their government and thereby guard
against the erroneous deprivation of their interests.
The City has acted as if Mr. Thuesen’s right to a vacation was much more important than
the Reidys’ fundamental due process right to an opportunity to be heard at a
meaningful time. The Reidys’ rights are required under State law. Why were the Reidys
rights violated once again so Mr. Thuesen could go on a multi-week vacation? The City’s
conduct is extremely unjust.
As time is running out and the appeal is less than a day away, the Reidys must bring this
discussion to an end. The Reidys reserve the right to present additional evidence and
rebut any arguments made by the City or any other interested parties.
Per Mr. Snyder, the City has not ordered removal of the tool shed in its entirety, but only
that portion of the shed which extends into the construction easement and thereby
creates the required five foot side yard setback. The Reidys provide Exhibit ?? which
displays the portion of the shed the Reidys believe the City in now saying it wants
removed. The Reidys respectfully ask what possible practical purpose will removing such
an insignificant portion of the shed serve? Furthermore, the corrective action required is
impractical as removing a portion of a building would put the rest of the building in
jeopardy.
Packet Page 224 of 337
Requested relief:
As a result of the City’s wrongful Civil Enforcement actions, in front of this court of
limited jurisdiction, the Reidys seek the following relief:
“An order directing the City of Edmonds to pay attorneys fees under RCW 7.80.140
and as otherwise be allowed at law and in equity. An order directing the City of
Edmonds to pay all reasonable damages, attorneys fees and costs incurred by the
Reidys herein pursuant to RCW 64.40.020, 42 USC ss. 1983, and as otherwise be
allowed at law and in equity.”
If the Reidys are forced to justify the statutory grounds for damages/fees/costs,
we will argue that:
1. this is an action over the scope of the 1962 permit;
2. that we have always been and remain today the underlying fee
owner of the property on which our improvements lie (meaning their placement is
lawful),
3. the extent of our prescriptive claim on Mr. Thuesen’s property is
yet to be determined, so the City’s code enforcement action is premature; and
4. the City has no authority to adjudicate our prescriptive claim by
code enforcement, so it is acting beyond its authority by pursuing code enforcement.
The City has failed to meet its obligation to prove a prima facie case and failed to meet
the burden of establishing the existence of a violation. The Plat of the Original City of
Edmonds, the 1962 building permit and the Reidy’s survey in no fashion prove that the
Reidys have committed any violations. To the contrary, they provide strong evidence
supporting that the City of Edmonds has wrongfully prosecuted the Reidys. In his Pre
Packet Page 225 of 337
Hearing Brief, the City Attorney concludes by representing that the City has ordered
removal of only that portion of the shed which extends into the construction easement and
thereby creates the required five foot side yard setback. The City has acknowledged
that it understands jurisdiction to try title to the land lies exclusively with Superior Court
and that neither the City nor its Hearing Examiner has the authority to determine issues
relating to ownership. Until Superior Court has ruled as to the exact location of the
Reidys’ northern property line, neither the City nor its Hearing Examiner has the authority
to allege setback violations related to a disputed property line, the title to which has yet
to be ruled on by Superior Court. Hence, The Reidys request the Hearing Examiner
immediately rule the NOV invalid and order the City to immediately halt its malicious,
arbitrary and capricious enforcement efforts against the Reidys.
The law is clear that title is acquired by adverse possession upon passage of the 10-
year period. EL CERRITO, INC. v. RYNDAK, 60 Wn.2d 847, 855, 376 P.2d 528 (1962);
MUENCH v. OXLEY, 90 Wn.2d 637, 644, 584 P.2d 939 (1978). The City of Edmonds is
well aware of the State Law and that title to the Reidys’ prescriptive area to the north of
the former alley right of way easement was acquired long ago by the Reidys via adverse
possession upon passage of the required 10-year period. A person who acquires title to land
by adverse possession has an "ownership interest" in the land for purposes of RCW
58.17.165. The fact that the title is not a matter of public record does not affect this
result. The Reidys request the Hearing Examiner to require the City of Edmonds to
respect the Reidys’ ownership interest and stop prosecuting the Reidys as if they have no
ownership interest.
Furthermore, in his Pre Hearing Brief, the City Attorney represents that “The City is
obligated to process the Thuesen’s’ two-lot subdivision plat in accordance with the vested
preliminary approval. That “obligation” is the basis for the City’s enforcement action.”
The Reidys contend that there was no change to this obligation between the Order to
Correct violation issued on April 3, 2009, found in City Exhibit 9.16 and the Order to
Packet Page 226 of 337
Correct violation issued on August 7, 2009, after it was first provided to Ms. Kolouskova
the day before as documented in Exhibit B. The Reidys suspect that what changed was
the framework for resolution proposed by Ms. Kolouskova, that if the shed and the
identified trees are removed by either the City or Mr. Reidy not later than end of
business on August 6, 2009, Eric Thuesen would drop the vacation (appeal) lawsuit the
following week. See Exhibit D.
The Reidys request the Hearing Examiner work with the appropriate parties to conduct an
investigation to determine if any wrongdoing occurred related to the framework for
resolution with a DEADLINE date of August 6, 2009 proposed by Ms. Kolouskova and
acted on by the City of Edmonds and Mr. Snyder.
Finally, the Reidys request that the Hearing Examiner determine whether fraud occurred
as defined under WAC 192-100-050 when Mr. Snyder represented to the City Council
and Hearing Examiner that “Holders of easements in favor of the public have a duty to
remove obstructions and encroachments into the public rights of way.” Decisions have
been made in reliance on this representation and great harm has been caused the Reidys
related to this representation. Please see Exhibit P.
Thank you for your prompt attention to these issues.
Packet Page 227 of 337
3 Y -- ---
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION I1
NO. 36801-3
FAME DEVELOPERS, LTD., WILLAM HULETT and PENELOPE
HULETT, husband and wife,
Appellants,
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND,
Respondent.
BRIEF OF RESPONDENT
Dawn Reitan, WSBA No. 23 148
Inslee, Best, Doezie & ~yder, PS
777 108th Ave. NE, Ste 190
Bellevue, WA 98009-901 6
Michael C. Walter, WSBA No. 15044
Jeremy W. Culumber, WSBA No 35423
Keating Bucklin & McCormack, Inc. P.S
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4141
Seattle, WA 98 104-3 175
Packet Page 228 of 337
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I . INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
I1 . STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................. 1
A . Factual Background ......................................................................... 1
B . Procedural Background .................................................................... 3
C . Response to Appellants' Factual Background ................................. 7
I11 . STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................. 9
IV . LEGAL ARGUMENT ................................................................... 11
A . APPELLANTS HAVE NO OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN
..................... THE INTERVENING 15-FOOT STRIP OF LAND 11
1 . The 15-Foot Strip is Clearly an Unopened Public Right-
of-way ...................................................................................... 13
a . The Manitou Park Plat Dedicated the 15-foot Strip
To The City ........................................................................ 14
b . Every Other Official Map Clearly Shows the Right-
............................................................................... of-Way 15
c . Everyone Except Appellants' Lawyer Knows the
15-Foot Strip is a Unopened Public Right-of-way ............ 16
i . Conclusions of Appellants' Own Experts .............. 17
. .
11 . Sworn Admissions of Appellants
............................................................ Themselves 19
2 . Appellants' "Evidence" Does Not Contradict the City's
............................................... Ownership of the 15-Foot Strip 21
Packet Page 229 of 337
3 . Even If The City Did Not Own The Strip. Appellants
Still Lose .................................................................................. 24
a . Appellants Admit They Have No Evidence Of Their
................................................................ Own Ownership -25
............................................................................... 4 . Conclusion 30
B . APPELLANTS HAVE NO "SPECIAL OR UNIQUE
DAMAGES" AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW ...................... .. .. 31
1 . Appellants Misstate The Rule on "Special Damages" ............. 32
2 . The Cases Directly Oppose Appellants' Arguments ............... 35
C . APPELLANTS' "ACCESS" HAS NOT BEEN CUT OFF
......................................................................... OR DESTROYED 38
....................................................... 1 . "Convenience" of Access 38
2 . "Type" and "Quality" of Access ............................................. 39
3 . Appellants Cite No Cases That Even Address Non-
....................................................... Abutting Property Owners 42
D . "PHYSICAL TAKING AND "EXHAUSTION OF
REMEDIES" .................................................................................. 43
. V CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 46
Packet Page 230 of 337
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
81 0 Properties v. Jump, 141 Wn.App. 688 (2007) .............................. 29, 30
Brown v. Seattle, 5 Wn. 35, 3 1 P. 313 (1 892) ........................................... 12
Burn v. City of Seattle, 32 Wn.App. 286, 647 P.2d
517 (1982) .................................................................................................. 41
Ca~itol Hill Methodist Church of Seattle, v. Seattle,
52 Wn.2d 359, 324 P.2d 11 13 (1958) .................................................. 35, 42
Citv of Houston v. Fox, 444 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.
1969) ......................................................................................................... .40
City of Louisville v. Louisville Scrap Material Co.,
I=, 932 S.W.2d 352 (Ky. 1996) ............................................................... 40
Citv of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S.
41, 106 S. Ct. 925, 89 L.Ed.2d 29 (1986) ................................................ 23
Clav v. Citv of Los Angeles, 21 Cal.App.3d 557
(1971) ....................................................................................................... .43
................................ Cornelius v. Seattle, 123 Wn. 550, 213 P. 17 (1923) 23
Freeman v. Citv of Centralia, 67 Wn. 142, 145, 120
.............................................................................................. P. 886 (1912) 39
Friends of H Street v. City of Sacramento, 20
Cal.App.4th 152 (1993) ............................................................................. 40
Garneau v. City of Seattle, 147 F.3d 102 (9th Cir.
1998) .......................................................................................................... 45
Goebel v. Elliot, 178 Wn. 444, 35 P.2d 44 (1 934) ..................................... 23
Gruner v. Lane County, 773 P.2d 81 5 (Or. App.
1989) .......................................................................................................... 41
Packet Page 231 of 337
Hardee's Food Svstems. Inc . v . Department of
Transp . ofPennsvlvania, 434 A.2d 1209 (Pa . 198 1) ................................. 41
Hoskins v . Citv of Kirkland. 7 Wn.App. 957. 503
P.2d 11 17 (1972) ........................................................................................ 36
Kezffer v . King Countv. 89 Wn.2d 369. 572 P.2d
408 (1977) ............................................................................................ 12. 43
. ..................................... . . Kemp v Seattle. 149 Wn 197. 270 P 431 (1928) 35
Kunkel v . Fisher. 106 Wn.App. 599 (2001) ............................................... 29
Lenci v . Citv of Seattle. 63 Wn.2d 664. 338 P.2d
926 (1964) .................................................................................................. 42
London v . Ci& of Seattle. 93 Wn.2d 657. P.2d 781
(1980) ......................................................................................................... 36
........................... ......... Mood v . Banchero. 67 Wn.2d 835. 841 (1966) .. 29
Moorlane Co . v . Highwav - Dept.. 384 S.W.2d 415
(Tex . App . 1964) ........................................................................................ 40
Moorlane Co . v . State. 360 S.W.2d 91 8 (Tex . App .
1962) .......................................................................................................... 40
................................. . . . Mottman v Olvmpia. 45 Wn 361. 88 P 579 (1 907) 35
Ponischil v . Hoquiam Sash. Etc . Co., 41 Wn . 303.
83 P . 316 (1906) ......................................................................................... 35
Rivers v . Washington State Conference of Mason
Contractors. 145 Wn.2d 674. 41 P.3d 1175 (2002) ............................... 9. 10
State ex rel. Moline v . Driscoll. 185 Wash . 229. 53
P.2d 662 (1936) .......................................................................................... 43
State v . Calkins. 50 Wn.2d 716. 314 P.2d 449
(1957) ......................................................................................................... 12
Packet Page 232 of 337
State v. Wineberz, 74 Wn.2d 372, 444 P.2d 787
(1968) ......................................................................................................... 36
Tuft v. Washington Mut. Savings Bank, 127 Wn.
409, 221 P. 604 (1923) ............................................................................. 35
Union Elevator & Warehouse Co.. Inc. v. State ex
rel. Dept. of Transp., 96 Wn.App. 288, 980, P.2d
779 (1999) ............................................................................................ 36, 43
United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 61 S.Ct
999, 85 L.Ed. 1435 (1941) ......................................................................... 23
Voss v. City of Middleton, 470 N.W.2d 625 (Wis.
1991) .......................................................................................................... 12
Walker v. State, 48 Wn.2d 587, 295 P.2d 328 (1956) ................................ 12
Yarrow First Associates. v. Clyde Hill, 66 Wn. 2d
371, 403 P.2d 49 (1965) ....................................................................... 36, 37
Statute:
RCW 47.48.010 ......................................................................................... 41
Other Authority:
10A McOuillin. Municipal Corporations, 5 30.56.10
(3d ed. 1990) .............................................................................................. 12
1 1 McOuillin Mun. Corp. 5 30.192 .......................................................... .34
Packet Page 233 of 337
I. INTRODUCTION
In this case, the City of Bainbridge Island ("City") has refused to
endanger the public by re-opening a small section of a road terminus that
has been repeatedly washed out by dozens of landslides and covered in
tons of debris from the hillside above, in a neighborhood where nearly half
the homes have been damaged or destroyed and an entire family has
perished from these landslides. Despite the fact that Appellants' rental
property does not border the street in question - or any other street at all -
they claim that the City's refusal to spend millions of dollars to reopen the
road constitutes a taking of their property. As discussed below,
Appellants' arguments are completely without merit, have no basis either
in law or fact, are supported by no evidence, and have repeatedly been
rejected by the trial court. As a result, the City respectfully requests that
the trial court's dismissal of Appellants' claims be affirmed.
11. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Factual ~ackground'
This case concerns a neighborhood on the eastern shore of
Bainbridge Island known as "Rolling Bay Walk." Rolling Bay Walk
' As this Court is aware, the factual background in this case is highly complex and
stretches back more than a decade. Because the single issue on appeal is the legal merit
of Appellants' takings claim, only a brief factual background is necessary here. The
entire factual history of the landslides at issue and a full discussion of the interactions
between Appellants and the City is available at CP 397-42 1.
Packet Page 234 of 337
consists of approximately 20 homes lined along the beach in a north-south
direction. CP 23. These properties sit at the bottom of a steep bluff that
rises more than 120 feet directly behind them. CP 53. Appellants own
two separate properties in the neighborhood: the first property on the
northern end of the string of houses (House #I), and the property three
doors to the south (House #4). CP 505. Appellants William and Penelope
Hulett are long-time residents of Ohio, and have never lived at either
property.
At the northern end of the neighborhood, Gertie Johnson Road
winds down from the bluff and terminates in a circular turnaround area 15
feet from the property line of Appellants' northern property (House #I).
CP 2. To reach their properties, Appellants claim they - i.e., their tenants
- would traditionally park in the turnaround area, then walk across the 15-
foot strip of intervening land that lies between the northern property
(House #1) and Gertie Johnson ~oad.~ Id.
At issue here is a long series of landslides from the overhanging
bluff - the last of which occurred more than 10 years ago. In particular,
Appellants have continuously claimed their tenants parked in the turnaround area and
walked to the home, but the historic photos Appellants submitted in discovery clearly
show cars parked directly next to House #l. So, it is clear that the tenants would actually
drive off the road, over the intervening land, and clear up to the house.
Packet Page 235 of 337
several slides completely covered the turnaround area at the terminus of
Gertie Johnson Road, making it impossible for vehicles to park there.3
After these landslides, the City of Bainbridge Island conducted
extensive analysis to determine if it was practical, or even possible, to
remove the landslide debris from the roadway and re-open the turnaround
area. However, geotechnical experts studying the area concluded that the
landslide debris covering the turnaround area was supporting the hillside
above, and that removing the debris would simply cause more landslides
that would re-cover the road and likely damage other homes or properties.
CP 230, 374. As a result, the City decided not to remove the debris, and
not to re-open the turnaround area. Id. This decision was especially
practical since the portion of the road that was blocked is at the complete
end of the dead-end street, and does not border on any residential property.
B. Procedural Background
Based on the City's decision not to clear the landslide debris and
re-open the turnaround area, Appellants brought this lawsuit alleging
multiple counts of negligence, multiple permanent and temporary takings,
and deprivation of their equal protection and due process rights. With
respect to their takings claims in particular, Appellants alleged that the
City's decision not to clear the debris from the roadway - which meant
3 As Appellants admit, none of the various landslides at issue have ever physically
impacted either of their two properties.
Packet Page 236 of 337
their tenants could no longer park there - denied them the "right of
access" to their properties, and therefore constituted a taking. CP 4-1 1.
Once discovery had been completed - after several case schedule
extensions - the City brought its motion for summary judgment on July
27, 2007. CP 396 et seq. The City pointed out that the strip of land
between the end of Gertie Johnson Road and Appellants' northern
property ("the 15-foot strip") was important for two reasons. First, the
fact that Appellants' properties did not abut Gertie Johnson Road - or any
other street - meant they had no per se legal right to access their property
from the turnaround area. Id. And second, the 15-foot strip of intervening
land was actually an unopened City right-of-way, which itself was
important because (1) the City Code explicitly prohibits use of unopened
rights of way to access private property, and (2) being government
property, Appellants could not claim any sort of prescriptive easement or
adverse possession rights to the 15-foot strip. Id.
On August 24, 2007, the trial court heard arguments on the City's
summary judgment motion. At that hearing, Appellants presented no
argument, evidence, or analysis regarding the existence or ownership of
the right-of-way. In fact, they admitted that "Appellants were still trying
to determine the legal status of the right-of-way." CP 739. Three days
Packet Page 237 of 337
later, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on all
of Appellants' claims. CP 593-594.
Two days later, on August 29th, Appellants faxed a letter to the
trial court indicating, "We have discovered information that is relevant to
this question and contradicts the City's position that it has the right to
exclude the Huletts from use of the right-of-way in question." CP 739.
Along with the letter, Appellants sent a supplemental memorandum and a
declaration from a former City employee, Jeff Waite. CP 777-790.
Appellants contended that these supplemental materials show that the 15-
foot right-of-way had been automatically vacated under a state statute
more than a hundred years ago, and had never been re-established. Id.
Appellants asked for reconsideration of their takings claim based on these
new materials (CP 595-608), and on September 11, 2007, the trial court
denied that request without asking for responsive briefing from the City.
(CP 638).
Shortly thereafter, Appellants abandoned all but their takings
claim, which they appealed to this Court. In their Opening Brief,
Appellants repeatedly cited to the evidence they submitted after summary
judgment had already been issued. The City objected, arguing that the
"new evidence" had never been considered by the trial court, and therefore
should not be considered on appeal. After several rounds of briefing, the
Packet Page 238 of 337
Court of Appeals remanded the case and ordered the trial court to (1)
assess the evidence regarding ownership of the 15-foot strip, and (2)
determine whether that new evidence merited reconsideration and reversal
of the summary judgment dismissal. CP 798-801. The Court of Appeals
asked the trial court to enter written findings and conclusions to
specifically outline why the new evidence would or would not affect the
outcome of the case.
On remand, the trial court accepted additional evidence from
Appellants, two additional briefs from Appellants, and heard oral
argument on the issues. Id. Appellants argued that the plat through which
their property was initially established did not dedicate the 15-foot strip to
the City as a public right-of-way. Id. They again admitted that they had
no idea who owned the 15-foot strip, but that they might have some
unknown and undiscovered rights in it that would support their takings
claim. CP 681-708, 767-776.
After briefing and oral argument, the trial court issued its Order on
Remand, including findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding
Appellants' claims. CP 798-801. The trial court rejected Appellants'
arguments, finding that the plat of Appellants' property clearly dedicated
the 15-foot strip as a public right-of-way, and that Appellants failed to
Packet Page 239 of 337
present any evidence or argument sufficient to preclude summary
judgment. Id. This appeal followed.
C. Response to Appellants' Factual Background
Prior to analyzing the legal theories at issue here, it is necessary to
briefly address some of Appellants' "factual" statements. For example,
their briefing repeatedly paints the picture that Appellants are simply
unfortunate victims whose "family" properties have been destroyed,
whose "long-standing plans to retire" are now "on indefinite hold," and
whose parents and children now have no place to live. See Appellant's
Brief, pp. 5-6, 16-17, et al. In reality, both of these properties are owned
by a holding corporation formed by Mr. Hulett, Appellants themselves
have never lived in either of the properties in their 30+ years of ownership,
House #1 has never been anything other than a rental, and no family
member has lived in House #4 since their adult son spent six months there
nearly 20 years ago. Id. at p. 5.
Mr. Hulett is the former president of the Stouffer Hotel chain, the
former chairman and CEO of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in
Cleveland, Ohio, and former president and CEO of Bridge Street
Accommodations, an international broker of temporary executive housing
and corporate housing. While the City certainly recognizes that
Appellants' financial and career situation have no bearing on the merits of
Packet Page 240 of 337
their claims here, we object to Appellants' attempt to paint themselves as
hard-luck, downtrodden victims whose entire life savings and retirement
dreams have been flushed away by the heartless bureaucracy of
Bainbridge Island.
Second, Appellants make numerous references throughout their
briefing to the perceived negligence of the City that "caused" the
landslides on Gertie Johnson Road. In reality, nothing could be further
from the truth. Each and every one of the geotechnical experts who have
repeatedly analyzed the area - those hired by the City and by Appellants
themselves - have found that landslides are inevitable on Rolling Bay
Walk because of the natural topography and climate of the area. Nor is
the City's alleged negligence even relevant to this appeal, since
Appellants' did not appeal the dismissal of those baseless claims.
Finally, there are various other facts that Appellants blatantly
misrepresent here. For example, they claim that the closure of the Gertie
Johnson turnaround means that emergency vehicles cannot service their
properties. Id. at p. 10. This same argument was made during the original
summary judgment proceedings. However, the Bainbridge Island Fire
Marshall testified that emergency vehicles "are prevented from accessing
Gertie Johnson Road, regardless of whether the turnaround is clear or not.
In other words, the blockage of the Gertie Johnson turnaround by landslide
Packet Page 241 of 337
is irrelevant to the City's ability to provide fire protection to Appellants'
property." CP 561. As a result, Appellants' continued use of such
arguments is both baseless and disingenuous.
111. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Appellants now argue that this Court should completely ignore
the trial court's findings on remand, and conduct an entirely de novo
review of this case. However, such an argument strains the limits of
credibility given that this Court required the trial court to enter such
findings in the first place.
Appellants claim the trial court findings on remand are irrelevant
because an appellate court conducts a de novo review of summary
judgment proceedings. Appellants' Brief, p. 22-23. However, it is clear
that the remand proceedings were not a simple rehashing of the original
summary judgment, but rather a motion for reconsideration regarding the
new evidence accepted by the Court of Appeals. In other words, the
question on remand was whether Appellants' "new evidence" merited
reconsideration of the original dismissal. When viewing the remand
proceedings as a motion for reconsideration, this Court's request for
findings from the trial court is entirely normal, since appellate review of a
motion for reconsideration uses the "abuse of discretion" standard. Rivers
Packet Page 242 of 337
v. Washington State Conference of Mason Contractors, 145 Wn.2d 674,
684-85,41 P.3d 1175 (2002).
As the Washington Supreme Court has pointed out, in order for the
abuse of discretion standard to be properly applied, "[tlhe trial court's
reasons should, typically, be clearly stated on the record so that
meaningful review can be had on appeal." Id. at 684. In other words,
while findings of fact are irrelevant when deciding a motion for summary
judgment, they are vital when ruling on a motion for reconsideration.
Since findings of fact are irrelevant to a trial court's ruling on
summary judgment, and are vital to a ruling on a motion for
reconsideration, the Court of Appeals' requirement that this Court enter
findings of fact on remand indicates that the remand proceedings are
intended to involve a motion for reconsideration, and not an entirely new
motion for summary judgment. It is simply illogical to conclude that this
Court required written findings by the trial court if this Court were
required to ignore those findings on appeal.
Appellants' arguments regarding the standard of review are
illogical, and are inconsistent with the realities of this case and direction
from this Court. The written findings were specifically mandated by this
Court, and they must be afforded their proper consideration under the
abuse of discretion standard.
Packet Page 243 of 337
IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT
As the trial court has repeatedly held, and clearly explained in its
findings, dismissal of Appellants' claim was appropriate because the right
they claim was taken - the right to access their property via Gertie
Johnson Road - never belonged to them in the first place.
As Appellants readily admit, none of the various landslides in this
neighborhood have ever actually physically impacted either of their two
properties. Rather, Appellants claim the City's decision not to re-open the
turnaround has denied them the "right of access" to their properties. The
disagreement here is whether Appellants ever had a legal right of access to
begin with. As discussed below, Appellants have offered no evidence,
analysis, or argument that comes close to establishing any of the required
elements of a takings claim.
A. APPELLANTS HAVE NO OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN
THE INTERVENING 15-FOOT STRIP OF LAND
First, the law is clear that owners of property abutting an opened
public right-of-way - i.e., an actual usable street, road, avenue, etc. - have
a legal right to access their property via that street. Consequently, any
decision by a local government to vacate or close that right-of-way may be
characterized as a "taking" of that right, and, generally, the owner must be
given just compensation under the State Constitution. "The right of access
Packet Page 244 of 337
of an abutting property owner to a public right-of-way is a property right
which if taken or damaged for a public use requires compensation under
article 1, section 16 of the Washington State Constitution." Kezffer v.
Kina Countv, 89 Wn.2d 369, 572 P.2d 408 (1977); See also State v.
Calkins, 50 Wn.2d 716, 314 P.2d 449 (1957); Walker v. State, 48 Wn.2d
587, 295 P.2d 328 (1956); Brown v. Seattle, 5 Wn. 35, 31 P. 313 (1892).
However, it is important to note that such access rights only apply
to rights of way that have actually been opened for public use. In other
words, unopened public rights of way are treated no differently than
private property with regard to access rights. Property owners abutting an
unopened public right-of-way - a right-of-way that has never made into an
actual street, road, avenue, etc. - do not have any legally-recognized right
to access their property via that right-of-way. See generally 10A
McOuillin. Municipal Corporations, 5 30.56.10 at 371 (3d ed. 1990)
(indicating the general rule that proprietary rights of an abutter do not
begin until street is opened for use as such); See also Voss v. Citv of
Middleton, 470 N.W.2d 625 (Wis. 1991) ("a property owner has no right
of access where a street does not exist but would abut his land if it did
exist").
Here, Appellants' takings claim is premised on the closure of the
Gertie Johnson Road turnaround area. So, one way Appellants can bring a
Packet Page 245 of 337
takings claim based on the closure of Gertie Johnson Road is to show that
they have a property right in land abutting Gertie Johnson Road.
However, since all parties agree that the 15-foot strip separates
Appellants' northernmost property from Gertie Johnson Road, the
characterization and ownership of that 15-foot strip is vital to Appellants'
claim.
In other words, if Appellants can prove some ownership interest in
the 15-foot strip (fee ownership, adverse possession, prescriptive
easement, etc.), then they have a clear right to access their northernmost
lot via Gertie Johnson Road since the 15-foot strip abuts the roadway.4
In this case, the outcome is clear. Appellants have failed to present
any evidence to show even the slightest hint of ownership interest in the
1. The 15-Foot Strip is Clearly an Unopened Public Right-
of-way
The first and most obvious reason why Appellants do not own the
15-foot strip is that the City owns it. Even the most cursory review of the
facts, arguments, and evidence submitted here make this point
unavoidably obvious. Since the 15-foot strip is clearly an unopened right-
of way, Appellants have no "abutter's rights" in Gertie Johnson Road,
4 In no case can Appellants establish an abutting property right in its House #4, since that
property is nowhere near the terminus of Gertie Johnson Road. This lot is separated by
the road end by the 15-foot strip of land and three other lots.
Packet Page 246 of 337
which lies 15-feet away from their House #l. Consequently, the takings
claim was properly dismissed.
a. The Manitou Park Plat Dedicated the 15-foot Strip
To The city5
The Rolling Bay Walk neighborhood was originally platted in
1908. CP 759. That plat - known as "Manitou Park" - has been one of
the central documents in this litigation. The face of the plat itself clearly
indicates a 15-foot strip running along the northern edge of the other
platted properties. Id. The 15-foot strip is in exactly the same place as the
prior right-of-way that had been vacated by statute, it is an exact extension
of Valley Road to the West, and it is indicated in exactly the same way as
every other right-of-way on the plat. There is very little question that the
15-foot strip is one of the rights of way dedicated to the City on the plat.
In light of all those facts, the only argument Appellants can muster
is that the 15-foot strip is not a public right-of-way because it is not
labeled with a street name on the plat map. That argument is simply
nonsense. Whether or not a public right-of-way is labeled with a street
name on a plat map has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is a
legally-recognized right-of-way. The other rights-of-way on the plat are
5 Appellants spend several pages arguing that the 15-foot strip in question was originally
dedicated in 1894, then vacated by statute in 1899. See Appellants' Brief; pp. 25-27.
However, since the City has consistently admitted that fact, it is unclear why Appellants
continue to present extensive argument on that subject.
Packet Page 247 of 337
labeled with street names because they are actual improved streets that had
been constructed, named, and opened for public use.
To claim that the absence of a street name has any legal effect on
the status of an unimproved, unopened right-of-way has no support in law.
As the trial court recognized in its formal findings, "although unlabeled,
the 15-foot strip of land is 'shown' on the Plat in accordance with the
words of dedication." CP 799. The trial court's decision is consistent
with the evidence, and Appellants have submitted no argument, evidence,
or analysis to establish that that decision was an abuse of the trial court's
discretion, or in any way erroneous.
b. Every Other Official Map Clearly Shows the Right-
of-Way
Next, it is important to note that the Plat of Manitou Park is far
from the only indication that the 15-foot strip is a public right-of-way.
The fact is that every other historical map of Bainbridge Island clearly
shows the 15-foot strip as an extension of Valley Road from the top of the
bluff down to the beach.
The 15-foot right-of-way is also clearly indicated on the Kitsap
County Assessor's GIs map and application. Ironically, a copy of this
County GIs map was actually attached to Appellants' claim for damages
in this case, and Appellants have relied on that document to support their
Packet Page 248 of 337
lawsuit against the City. CP 749-750. The GIs map application has been
provided by Kitsap County to the public to ascertain parcel ownership and
tax information, and provides public evidence of the existence of this
public right-of-way.
Finally, the 15-foot right-of-way is clearly identified in the City's
current parcel ownership information system. As with the County's
application, the City uses overhead photos with Kitsap County Assessor's
tax parcel information superimposed on the photos. A copy of the City's
current information - along with text from Randy Witt, the City's Public
Works Director, explaining the various lines and markings - is found at
CP 735.
Again and again, property maps, parcel and tax information, and
official County and City records establish that the 15-foot strip in question
is clearly an unopened right-of-way. None of this information has been
factually contradicted by Appellants' conclusory and unsupported
arguments on the issue.
c. Everyone Except Appellants' Lawyer Knows the
15-Foot Strip is a Unopened Public Right-of-way
Given the evidence and briefing submitted in this case, one fact
becomes abundantly clear: of all the people, parties, experts, and attorneys
who have assessed the issue here, Appellants' lawyer is the only person
Packet Page 249 of 337
who believes that the unopened 15-foot strip is not a City owned right-of-
way.
i. Conclusions of Appellants' Own Experts
When Appellants submitted their original motion for
reconsideration to the trial court, they included a declaration from their
attorney to explain the process by which they obtained the "evidence" they
now rely on to argue that the 15-foot strip was not a public right-of-way.
CP 741-743. That declaration speaks volumes about the legitimacy of
their claims here.
Upon receiving the City's summary judgment materials,
Appellants hired former City employee Jeff Waite to search county
records "in an effort to understand the nature of the right-of-way alleged."
Id. On August 9, 2007, more than two weeks before oral argument, Mr.
Waite reported his findings. Id. at p. 2:14-16. He told Appellants'
lawyers in no uncertain terms that - based on his expertise and review of
the documents - the City did in fact own the right-of-way. Id. Upon
receiving the report, Appellants' lawyer called Mr. Waite and discussed
the matter on the phone. Mr. Waite again confirmed his conclusion that
the City owned the right-of-way. Id. As Appellants' lawyer admits, he
asked Mr. Waite to forward the documents he had obtained, but "I did not
Packet Page 250 of 337
ask him to put a 'rush' on the request because our telephone discussion
had led me to believe that the documents were not helpful." Id. at 2: 17-22
Appellants did not receive any documents from Mr. Waite until
two weeks later, on August 27, 2007, which was three days after summary
judgment oral argument, and the same day the trial court granted summary
judgment to the City. Id. at p. 3. However, despite the fact that Mr. Waite
- the person Appellants hired to research the issue - had concluded the
City owned the right-of-way, Appellants' attorneys came to a different
conclusion. "On review of those documents.. . I immediately found cause
to question Mr. Waite's initial judgment." Id. In other words, when
Appellants' lawyer failed to get the conclusions he wanted from his own
expert, he merely dismissed those conclusions and created his own.6
Despite their present arguments, or their questioning of Mr.
Waite's "judgment," the plain reality is that Mr. Waite's conclusions about
the 15-foot strip are the exact same conclusions made by everyone else
who has looked at the issue.. . everyone, that is, except for Appellants'
lawyers. City Staff knows the City owns the 15-foot strip, the City's
Mr. Waite's agreement with the City's position here is also clear from the Declaration
he eventually signed for Appellants' attorney (submitted with Appellants' Opening Brief
on Remand). The Waite declaration merely indicates why he was hired, and states that
the documents attached are true and correct copies. It is truly rare that an expert
declaration - submitted in Court by the party that hired the expert - includes no expert
opinions or conclusions whatsoever, or even hints at that expert's finding on the issue he
was hired to address. His opinions are not included because he in fact believes the 15-
foot strip is City property.
Packet Page 251 of 337
attorneys know it, Appellants' own experts know it, and the trial court
made findings in support of this fact. Given that reality, Appellants'
strained, unsupported, and irrelevant arguments must be rejected.
. .
11. Sworn Admissions of Appellants
Themselves
Perhaps the most significant indication of the weakness
Appellants' claim is the fact that Appellants themselves have submitted
sworn documents supporting the City's ownership of the 15-foot strip of
unopened right-of-way.
As this Court is aware, RCW 4.96.020 requires potential Plaintiffs
to file a signed and verified claim for damages prior to instituting civil tort
proceedings against a local governmental entity. Here, Appellants timely
filed such a claim with Bainbridge Island. CP 766, 749-750. William
Hulett verified and signed the document under oath: "I HAVE READ
THE ABOVE CLAIM, KNOW THE CONTENTS THEREOF, AND
BELIEVE THE SAME TO BE TRUE." CP 766.
Attached to that claim - along with in-depth descriptions of the
facts, allegations, and claimed damages - are two separate parcel maps of
the neighborhood. CP 749-750. On the first map (CP 749), Mr. Hulett
filled in the names of the property owners on each parcel. On the 15-foot
strip - which is clearly delineated on the map - Mr. Hulett wrote "City
Packet Page 252 of 337
Property." Id. On the second map (CP 750)' Mr. Hulett filled in the
names of the property owners and even colored in the area covered by the
landslides. He then drew an arrow to the 15-foot strip and wrote "City
Property" on this map as well. Id. Again, it is important to note that Mr.
Hulett did not simply print out maps that identified the 15-foot strip as
City property; rather, he printed blank maps and took the extra step of
actually hand-writing the words "City Property" on the specific 15-foot
strip that they now vehemently argue is not City property.
Appellants now argue that "Mr. Hulett labeled the 15-foot strip as
'City Property' in reliance on the County's own GIs system; he had no
independent knowledge of the ownership status of the land.. ."
Appellant's Brief, p. 34. That claim is disingenuous, since there is nothing
in the printout or on the GIs system that in any way identifies the 15-foot
strip as City property. If the system itself did so, Appellant would not
have needed to insert the words "City Property" along with the names of
the other parcel owners in his own handwriting.
The fact that Mr. Hulett swore under oath in two separate instances
that the 15-foot strip was "City Property" means that Appellants' should
be estopped from arguing to the contrary now. However, even if this
Court does not hold Appellants' to their prior sworn statements, and does
not apply estoppel against them, these sworn admissions - in Appellants'
Packet Page 253 of 337
own handwriting - are at the very least highly indicative of the strength of
their arguments on the issue of ownership.
2. Appellants' "Evidence" Does Not Contradict the City's
Ownership of the 15-Foot Strip
Not only does the City's evidence clearly establish that the 15-foot
strip is a City-owned, unopened right-of-way, but Appellants' own
evidence does nothing to contradict this fact. In fact, the majority of the
"evidence" on which Appellants base their arguments is incomplete and
incompetent to serve as legitimate evidence.
For example one piece of "evidence" on which Appellants' rely is
Exhibit C to the Declaration of Jeff Waite, which was submitted multiple
times both to the trial Court and the Court of Appeals. CP 786-788. The
first page of that exhibit purports to be a 20-year old letter from a city
resident - a lawyer at Bogle & Gates at the time - arguing that a piece of
property near his house was not a City right-of-way. CP 786. As an
initial matter, it is unclear why this letter has any relevance to our case.
The right-of-way referred to in the letter is merely a few feet of the
intersection of two roadways at the top of the bluff, and is wholly
unrelated to this case. Second, the letter is not authenticated by the author
or anyone with personal knowledge of its creation or submission.
Moreover, even if the letter were relevant to this case, the fact is that it
Packet Page 254 of 337
only includes the first page of that letter, which ends mid-sentence: "As it
stands now, I.. ." Consequently, even if the letter were somehow relevant
to the 15-foot strip at issue here - which it clearly is not - there is no way
to know what the rest of the letter said. Appellants' failure to include any
more than the first page surely prohibits their dependence on that letter as
competent evidence.
The second and third pages of Exhibit C are a Petition for Vacation
(apparently concerning the small triangle of land addressed by the letter)
and a signature sheet with the names of area residents. CP 787-788. It is
unclear whether the Petition and signature sheet were somehow attached
to the letter from 1990, or whether Appellants simply neglected to identify
the petition documents as a separate exhibit. Regardless, even those
documents are incomplete. For example, the petition includes space to
describe the actual right-of-way being vacated - which may have some
relevance to this case if it is the same right-of-way. Unfortunately, the
space for that description simply says "See Exhibit A of Engineer's Report
for Legal Description." Needless to say, neither the engineer's report nor
the legal description is included in Appellant's materials. Nor have they
included "the attached drawing" that the document refers to.
Finally, exhibit D to Mr. Waite's Declaration purports to be a "true
and correct copy" of the minutes from a meeting of the County
Packet Page 255 of 337
Commissioners, also in 1990. CP 790. Again, that meeting apparently
concerned the petition for vacation of the right-of-way referred to in the
Exhibit C letter. And again, aside from having nothing to do with the
unopened right-of-way at issue in this case, the "minutes" identified in
Exhibit D consists of a single page of a multi-page document. The
included page indicates that one of the County Commissioner introduced a
hearing on the vacation issue, then offered his own opinion that "the
property was private property, not public property.. .." The remainder of
that sentence is carried over onto the subsequent page of the document.
Perhaps not surprisingly, that second page is not included.
The opinions of a single legislator (here, a single County
Commissioner) are not relevant to legislative decision-making or the
opinions or position of the government as a whole. United States v.
Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 61 S.Ct 999, 85 L.Ed. 1435 (1941); Goebel v.
Elliot, 178 Wn. 444, 447-448, 35 P.2d 44 (1934). See also Cornelius v.
Seattle, 123 Wn. 550, 213 P. 17 (1923); City of Renton v. Pla-vtime
Theatres. Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 48, 106 S. Ct. 925, 89 L.Ed.2d 29 (1986).
Again, even if the 20-year old opinion of one County Commissioner
regarding an entirely unrelated piece of property has any relevance to this
case, the fact remains that Appellants' evidence is clearly incomplete and
wholly incompetent to support their takings claim.
Packet Page 256 of 337
The trial court recognized these shortcomings with Appellants'
"evidence" and even issued formal findings about those issues:
4. In 1990 a different portion of the same right-of-way was
vacated by the county. This act is not relevant. The county
did not vacate the 15-foot piece of land in question and
made no determination as to its ownership.
5. The County Commissioner's comments that the
different portion of the same right-of-way was "private
property, not public property" are not relevant. Most
significantly, the comment was not in regard to the 15-foot
strip of land in question. The Commissioner's comments
were also made during proceedings which vacated the land.
The comments are inconsistent with the county action of
vacation because the county may only vacate public land.
Furthermore, there is little context provided for the
statement and the single opinion of a county commissioner
would have only limited relevance to the government's
position as a whole.
Based on the irrelevance and incompleteness of Appellants'
"evidence," there is little support for their claim that the trial court
erred in any, let alone abused its discretion in dismissing
Appellants' baseless claims.
3. Even If The City Did Not Own The Strip, Appellants
Still Lose
Next, Appellants have continuously argued - during the summary
judgment, reconsideration, and remand proceedings in the trial court,
during the original proceedings before this Court, and again on this appeal
Packet Page 257 of 337
- that their evidence proves the City does not own the 15-foot strip of land
in question. Unfortunately, Appellants seem to be missing the point. An
essential element in a takings claim is that the claimant actually owns the
property allegedly taken. Put simply, the question here is not whether the
City owns the property, but whether Appellants own the property. The
only reason the City's claimed ownership of the 15-foot strip is important
is that it means Appellants do not own it. To support a takings claim,
Appellants must present actual evidence that they have some discernible
interest in the property allegedly taken. Here, they have failed to carry
that burden, and their case was properly dismissed.
a. Appellants Admit They Have No Evidence Of Their
Own Ownership
First, while Appellants argue vehemently that the City does not
own the 15-foot strip, they have still presented no evidence whatsoever
they either own the strip outright or have any other relevant property
interest sufficient to support a takings claim. In fact, Appellants have
explicitly and repeatedly admitted that (1) their evidence only seeks to
address whether the City owns the 15-foot strip, and (2) while they believe
the City does not own the strip, they have no idea who actually does own
it:
Packet Page 258 of 337
- "Whether the 15-foot strip is now owned by the
Huletts or by others, the one certainty is that the
City does not own it.. ." CP 597.
- "While it is unclear exactly who presently owns the
fifteen-foot strip of land at the end of Gertie
Johnson Road, one thing is clear: the City does not
own it." CP 686.
"Yet the ownership status of that land is anything
but clear, and, in fact, it might belong to the Huletts.
The Huletts submit three pieces of evidence
showing that the City does not own or othemise
control the strip of land." CP 685-686
Again and again, Appellants make it clear that their entire takings
claim is based on the argument that the City does not own the 15-foot
strip. However, the law is clear that a takings claim is premised on the
Appellants' positive ownership interest in the property allegedly taken.
As such, even if the Court finds that the City does not own the 15- foot
strip, Appellants' repeated admission that they have no idea who does own
the property still means their takings fails as a matter of law. Appellants'
failure to present any evidence of their ownership of the 15-foot strip is
not surprising, because no such evidence exists. Even the evidence
Appellants present to deny the City's ownership of the 15-foot strip makes
it clear that they themselves do not own it.
For example, Appellants admit that the 15-foot strip is clearly
indicated on the Plat of Manitou Park. And while they argue that the strip
Packet Page 259 of 337
is not labeled with a street name and is therefore not a public right-of-way,
they ignore the fact that regardless of what it is, the 15-foot strip clearly
not part of their own platted property. There can be no argument that the -
northern edge of the platted parcels all terminate at the southern edge of
the 15-foot strip. CP 759.
In fact, while the 15-foot strip is not labeled with a street name, it
is also not labeled with a parcel number either. So, if Appellants are
correct that the 15-foot strip indicated on the plat is not a public right-of-
way, then the only other option is that it is either (a) a strangely-shaped,
unlabeled, and un-useable parcel of private property, or (b) it is not part of
the plat at all, and is merely included to indicate that the plat begins 15
feet south latitudinal line intersecting the survey marker at the northwest
comer of the plat.
As outlined above, Appellants do not have to prove actual fee
ownership of the 15-foot strip in order to establish a takings claim. If, for
example, they prove their House #1 has an easement across the 15-foot
strip (from Gertie Johnson Road to their own property), then that lot
would have a right to access that easement via Gertie Johnson ~oad.~ As
such, the closure of Gertie Johnson Road would likely deny them that
7 That is assuming that the easement actually touches (i.e., abuts) both the roadway itself
and their own property at House #l. And again, there is no question that Lot #4 has no
access rights here.
Packet Page 260 of 337
right of access and result in a compensable taking. Here, however,
Appellants have offered no evidence at all that they own such an
easement, either by agreement or adverse possession, or any other
property right in the 15-foot strip, let alone a property right sufficient to
support a takings claim based on the closure of Gertie Johnson Road.
The only property right Appellants allude to in their briefing is that
they may have adversely possessed an access easement to their home.
Presumably, this refers only to House #I. They begin by claiming that
"The Huletts, and the owners before them, have walked over that strip of
land to access their homes for almost 100 years."8 Later, Appellants make
the claim that "the Huletts and two other owners of the northern properties
at Rolling Bay Walk would have at least acquired access rights by adverse
possession by their use, over 100 years, of that land to access their
homes." CP 683.
Despite those conclusory statements, however, Appellants fail to
present even a scintilla of evidence to support their apparent claim to an
adversely-possessed access easement. For example, they present no
declarations or testimony from the Huletts themselves, any prior owners of
their properties, or any of the "two other owners of the northern
properties" to support their claim that Gertie Johnson Road has been used
8 Appellants ' Opening BrieA 3: 10- 1 1.
Packet Page 261 of 337
to access their properties for "100 years." In fact, they present no
evidence that Gertie Johnson Road was even in existence 100 years ago,
or that the properties even had houses on them at that time. In fact, given
that the properties were not even platted until 1908, and that the current
configuration is significantly different than when originally platted,
Appellants' claim of "100 years" of consistent use has no merit.
Further, even if Appellants' allegations regarding historic use of
the 15-foot strip were supported with any evidence, they still fail to
present any argument, analysis, or evidence on any of the required
elements for adverse possession. The first requirement for a claim of
adverse possession is to prove that Appellants' use of the 15-foot strip is
"hostile" or "adverse to the true owner." Mood v. Banchero, 67 Wn.2d
835, 841 (1966). That initial step presents two problems for Appellant.
First, Appellants admit they have no idea who the true owner is. Without
even knowing who the true owner is, their conclusory claim to a
prescriptive access easement is clearly baseless.
Second, even if Appellants knew who the true owner is, they have
presented no evidence that use of the strip to access their house would be a
hostile use. The law is clear that "We start with the presumption that the
use of another's property is permissive." 810 Properties v. Jump, 141
Wn.App. 688 (2007) (citing Kunkel v. Fisher, 106 Wn.App. 599, 602
Packet Page 262 of 337
(2001). Appellants have presented no evidence to meet their burden on
this first element of an adverse possession claim.
The same is true of the remaining elements for adverse possession.
Appellants have not even addressed whether their alleged use was "open,
notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted for 10 years," nor tried to prove
"knowledge of such use by the owner at a time when he was able to assert
and enforce his rights." 81 0 Properties, supra. Again, it is impossible for
Appellants to prove knowledge by the true owner when they admittedly
have no idea who the true owner even is.
Appellants claim no actual ownership interest in the 15-foot strip
aside from the single statement that they may have "acquired access rights
by adverse possession." Appellants have not made any attempt to address
the actual legal requirements of such a claim, and their unsupported,
conclusory, and questionable claims about prior owners' "use" of the
property is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact regarding
adverse possession.
4. Conclusion
The entire weight of the evidence in this case makes one thing
clear: the 15-foot strip at issue here is an unopened City right-of-way.
The plat of Manitou Park unquestionably dedicates the 15-foot strip to the
City, and Appellants' strained arguments to the contrary, coupled with
Packet Page 263 of 337
their irrelevant and incomplete "evidence," does nothing to counter that
fact. Moreover, even if we completely ignore the evidence, and assume
the City does not own the strip, the fact remains that Appellants have
offered no evidence that they have any ownership interest in the property.
Consequently, the trial court's dismissal of their takings claim was entirely
proper and should be affirmed.
B. APPELLANTS HAVE NO "SPECIAL OR UNIQUE
DAMAGES" AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW
Appellants next argument is that even if they do not have any
ownership interest in the 15-foot strip, and therefore do not have any
"abutter's rights" to access their property via Gertie Johnson Road, their
takings claim should nevertheless succeed because they have suffered
"special or peculiar damage differing in kind from that of the general
public." Appellants ' BvieJ; p. 35 et seq. However, Appellants have either
misunderstood or misconstrued the cases addressing this issue.
Essentially, Appellants have taken the approach of stating the law, but
failing to correctly apply it to the fact of this case. Even the most cursory
review of the cases discussing "special damages" show that the principle
does not apply to this case.
Packet Page 264 of 337
1. Appellants Misstate The Rule on "Special Damages"
As discussed above, courts have historically held that those who
abut a public street have a special and compensable legal right to access
their property via that street. Consequently, that principle has lead to
argument and speculation as to whether the converse is true - are those
who do not abut on the street being vacated completely foreclosed from
seeking damages? In addressing these issues, courts have generally held
that the strict construction of abutters' rights principle leads to unjust
results in certain circumstances.
The principles involved in this discussion are most easily
understood with a visual reference. See CP 566. In this example, Parcel
A abuts First Street, and therefore has a legal right of access to Parcel A
via First Street. Parcel B abuts Second Street and therefore has a legal
right of access to Parcel B via Second Street. However, since Second
Street is a dead end in both directions, First Street is a necessary access
route to reach Parcel B.
Assume that First Street is vacated and closed by the City. Owner
A clearly has abutter's rights in First Street, and would therefore receive
compensation for the loss of access (assuming the street was vacated to the
East of Parcel A). However, even though Parcel B does not abut First
Street, it is clear that closure of First Street nevertheless denies Owner B
Packet Page 265 of 337
the exact same sort of right as Owner A is denied; the right to access their
property from an abutting public street. The only difference is that
closure of First Street denies Owner A his abutter's rights in First Street,
and denies Owner B his abutter's rights in Second Street.
Since closure of First Street clearly denies both owners the right to
access their property via an abutting public street, a rule limiting recovery
only to those who abut the street that was actually closed would deny
recovery to Owner B, and would clearly be unjust. Consequently, the
courts have held that the question is not simply whether a property abuts
the specific street that is closed, but whether closure of that street creates
"special damage" to a particular property. As indicated above, the only
"special damage" that distinguishes a property owner from the general
public in the case of a road closure is whether that closure denies the
owner their legal right of access (i.e., abutter's rights) in a public street.
The cases and commentaries make this point exceedingly clear,
and Appellants take great pains to skirt the issue. For example, McQuillin
explicitly states that damages for the vacation of a public street are only
available in two instances: "(1) those where one claiming damages owns
property abutting directly on the part of the street vacated and (2) those
where the claimant owns property abutting on the same street but not on
the part of the street vacated or owns non-abutting property on another
Packet Page 266 of 337
street." 1 1 McQuillin Mun. Corp. 8 30.192 (emphasis added). In other
words, to receive damages as a result of a street closure, you do not have
to abut the specific street that was closed, but you do have to abut some
public street.
As an example of this principle, consider Parcel C in the
illustrative drawing. Assume that Owner C traditionally parks at the
southern terminus of Second Street, then walks across the vacant land to
reach his property at Parcel C. Despite the convenience of that access, the
fact remains that Owner C has no special right of access to his property via
Second Street because he does not abut that street. So, while closure of
First Street would require that damages be paid to Owner A and Owner B,
no damages would be paid to Owner C for the closure First or Second
Street because neither closure would deny Owner C a special right of
access. Although such a closure would certainly deny Owner C the
convenience of parking on a public street a short distance from his
property, denial of convenience is not a compensable element of damage.
In our case, the Appellants are in the exact same position as Owner
C. While the Gertie Johnson Road turnaround area certainly provided
Appellants close and convenient access to their property, that convenience
does not amount to a "special right" that Appellants can somehow enforce
against the City.
Packet Page 267 of 337
2. The Cases Directly Oppose Appellants' Arguments
Not only have Appellants failed to accurately describe the "special
damages" principle to this court, but they have failed to discuss even a
single case addressing the issue, let alone apply the law to the present
facts. Even the most basic review of these cases reveals a lack of any
support for Appellants' claims:
Kemp v. Seattle, 149 Wn. 197, 270 P. 43 1 (1928):
The Court found that Plaintiff did not abut the
street in question, and was therefore not damaged
in any way by its closure. The Court affirmed
summary judgment dismissal of Plaintiffs'
claims.
Tuft v. Washington Mut. Savings Bank, 127 Wn.
409, 221 P. 604 (1923): Plaintiffs did not abut on
the alley vacated. The Supreme Court remanded
with instructions to dismiss Plaintiffs' case
because they had no legal right of access that had
been interfered with.
Ponischil v. Hoquiam Sash. Etc. Co., 41 Wn. 303,
83 P. 316 (1906): Plaintiffs abutted the street, but
not the portion vacated. Supreme Court
dismissed Plaintiffs' case because they had
suffered no compensable damage.
Mottman v. Olympia, 45 Wn. 361, 88 P. 579
(1907): Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of
Plaintiffs' action because "appellants' property
does not abut on the street vacated."
Capitol Hill Methodist Church of Seattle, v.
Seattle, 52 Wn.2d 359, 324 P.2d 1113 (1958):
Plaintiffs did not abut on street vacated. Supreme
Packet Page 268 of 337
Court affirmed dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim
because they had suffered no cognizable injury.
• State v. Wineberg, 74 Wn.2d 372, 444 P.2d 787
(1968): Court recognized compensable damages
only when (1) property abuts on portion of street
vacated, or (2) property abuts on the same block
of the vacation and owner suffers peculiar
damage to their access rights. Never discussed or
alluded to damages for non-abutters. Owner's
appeal was dismissed.
• London v. City of Seattle, 93 Wn.2d 657, P.2d
781 (1980): Plaintiffs did abut on the street
vacated, but not the portion that was vacated.
Court nevertheless denied injunctive relief.
a Union Elevator & Warehouse Co., Inc. v. State ex
rel. Dept. of Transe, 96 Wn.App. 288, 980, P.2d
779 (1999): Union sued because closure of a
road would make it more difficult to get to the
street on which it did abut. Court remanded for
trial. No indication whether damages were ever -
awarded at trial.
a Hoskins v. City ofKirkland, 7 Wn.App. 957, 503
P.2d 1117 (1972): Plaintiffs had been given a
special permit to access a street, but did not abut
that street. Court affirmed summary judgment
dismissal of plaintiffs' claims because they had
not "sustained special damages different in kind
and not merely degree, from that sustained by the
general public." Id. at 962 (internal quotations
omitted).
• Yarrow First Associates. v. Clyde Hill, 66 Wn. 2d
371,403 P.2d 49 (1965):
i. First, although the Plaintiffs in Yarrow did
not abut the street being vacated, the
situation in was identical to the situation
Packet Page 269 of 337
for parcel B in the illustrative drawing
discussed above. The Court observed that
the street "afford[ed] the sole access to
[Plaintiffs'] real property." Id. at 372.
Consequently, vacation of the sole outlet
road caused unique access damages to the
Yarrow Plaintiffs, because they could no
longer access the streets on which they did
abut.
. .
11. Second, the mere loss of access was not
the reason the Court found in Plaintiffs'
favor in Yarrow. The attempted street
vacation was judged illegal because the
express purpose for the vacation was to
deny non-City residents access to City
streets. The Court held that "the Clyde
Hill plan to deliberately landlocked the
Yarrow property creates a special damage
that will support this challenge to the
attempted vacation." Id. at 374.
Again, Appellants' failure to cite even a single case in which
damages were awarded to a property owner who did not abut on any street
at all is entirely understandable, since no such case appears to exist in any
jurisdiction anywhere in the country.9 Appellants simply cannot claim a
legal right to access their property from a public street when their property
does not abut on that or any other street. They have failed to prove the
necessary elements of "special or peculiar damages" as clearly developed
in the case law, and their arguments on that issue were properly rejected
by the trial court.
9 In fact only two of the cases discussed above resulted in anything other than outright
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims.
Packet Page 270 of 337
C. APPELLANTS' "ACCESS" HAS NOT BEEN CUT OFF OR
DESTROYED
Next, even if we assume (1) that the 15-foot strip is not a City
right-of-way, (2) that Appellants' property does abut Gertie Johnson Road,
and (3) that Appellants' use of the unopened right of is not per se illegal,
the fact remains that the extent to which Appellants' access to their
property was affected by the covering of the turnaround area does not
create any cognizable injury.
1. "Convenience" of Access
As indicated above, the only physical access Appellants had to
their property via Gertie Johnson Road before the landslide was to park at
the turnaround area, then walk across the 15-foot unopened right-of-way.10
After the landslide, Appellants could no longer park on the turnaround
area itself. However, the landslide that covered the turnaround did not
render the location impassable; it merely made it impossible to park a full-
size vehicle on the turnaround. Nor has the City ever formally vacated the
Gertie Johnson Road right-of-way.
Because the area remains both physically passable and legally
open for travel, Appellants still have the exact same access as they had
10 This "physical access" must be distinguished from "legal access." Since the
Bainbridge Island Code explicitly prohibits the use of unopened rights of way for "access
purposes," Appellants' use of the 15-foot strip for that purpose is per se illegal. BIMC
12.32.020.
Packet Page 271 of 337
before. The only difference is that instead of parking in the turnaround
area, they must simply park further up the road and walk around the
landslide debris field. In fact, the debris field is passable without ever
leaving the Gertie Johnson Road right-of-way. In that respect, Appellants'
allegations that their access has been "cut off' or "closed down" are
simply disingenuous. The access to their property via Gertie Johnson
Road has simply become less convenient than it used to be; i.e.,
Appellants have to walk further than they used to. With respect to
convenience, the law is well settled that "an added inconvenience is not a
damage or taking, within the meaning of these terms as they are used in
our state Constitution." Freeman v. City of Centvalia, 67 Wn. 142, 145,
120 P. 886 (1912). In fact, the State Legislature has expressly codified
that principle:
No person, firm or corporation, private or municipal,
shall have any claim against the state, city or county by
reason of the closing of such streets, roads or highways
as long as access still exists or is provided to such
property abutting upon the closed streets, roads or
highways. Circuity of travel shall not be a
compensable item of damage.
RCW 47.52.041 (emphasis added).
2. "Type" and "Quality" of Access
In addition to barring recovery based on a mere reduction in the
convenience of access, the law is also clear that a change in the "type" or
Packet Page 272 of 337
"quality" of an owner's access to his property is not a compensable
element of damage. In other words, a City has the right to restrict, change,
and control access via public streets, "so long as it does not amount to a
complete taking of the right of access." Moorlane Co. v. Hinhwav Dept.,
384 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. App. 1964):
"[Aln abutting property owner has no right to
have a highway of a particular surface or
pavement." Citv of Louisville v. Louisville Scrap
Material Co., Inc., 932 S.W.2d 352 (Ky. 1996).
"The easement of the adjacent landowner,
however, in the absence of some specific grant, is
not a property right in any particular type or size
of street. It is, in effect, a private right of ingress
and egress." Citv of Houston v. Fox, 444 S.W.2d
591 (Tex. 1969).
"No case has been cited, and we have found none,
which holds that the inability of certain types or
sizes of vehicles to go and return from the
abutting property constitutes a denial of access."
Moorlane Co. v. State, 360 S.W.2d 918 (Tex.
App. 1962).
A property owner cannot demand that the
adjacent street be left in its original condition for
all time to insure his ability to continue to enter
and leave his property in the same manner as that
to which he has become accustomed" Friends of
H Street v. Citv of Sacramento, 20 Cal.App.4th
152 (1 993) (internal quotations omitted).
"Inconvenience, reduction in profits or
depreciation in the value of property that occurs
as a result of a legitimate exercise of the state's
police power is damnum absque injuria and not a
Packet Page 273 of 337
compensable taking." Gruner v. Lane Countv,
773 P.2d 815 (Or. App. 1989).
". . .Commonwealth undoubtedly may prohibit
vehicular access, in appropriate circumstances,
under the general police power." Hardee's Food
Systems, Inc. v. Department of Transp. of
Pennsylvania, 434 A.2d 1209 (Pa. 1981).
"Similarly, other jurisdictions have recognized
the power of cities or towns to pass ordinances or
regulations denying an abutting owner the right of
vehicular access." Id.
In fact, our State Legislature has also given cities such as
Bainbridge Island the specific authority to limit the types of vehicles, or
ban vehicular traffic altogether, from any street when such use becomes
impractical or dangerous. RCW 47.48.010; See also Burg v. City of
Seattle, 32 Wn.App. 286, 647 P.2d 517 (1982) (holding that RCW
47.48.010 prevents a landowner from forcing a municipality to repair a
roadway or otherwise open it to specific types of traffic).
In this case - assuming Appellants' use of the unopened 15-foot
right-of-way is not per se illegal - Appellants maintain the exact same
pedestrian access to their homes via Gertie Johnson Road as they have
always had. The fact that they must now park further up the road, that
their walking path is narrower than it once was, and that they must now
Packet Page 274 of 337
walk over dirt rather than asphalt, does not create any cornpensable injury
for Appellants.
3. Appellants Cite No Cases That Even Address Non-
Abutting Property Owners
Appellants spend pages 36-42 of the Brief arguing that their access
has been impaired enough to warrant a takings claim. Perhaps the best
indication of the weakness of Appellants arguments is that despite the
obvious amount of research and time spent on thls section, they have not
only failed to cite any case actually supporting their claims, but failed to
identify any case that even addresses non-abutting property owners. Each
of the cases they cite to and discuss deal with property owners abutting
directly on a public street who had direct vehicular access to their property
directly from that street.
Capitol Hill Methodist, 52 Wn.2d 359,
324 P.2d 1113 (1958): "owners of
property abutting on a street of alley.. ."
(P. 38)
Lenci v. Citv of Seattle, 63 Wn.2d 664,
338 P.3d 926 (1964): "the owner.. . of
property abutting on a public
" Appellants' claim that they have to "trek[ ] over an around unstable landslide debris"
have any merit Appellants' Brief, p. 37. It is merely another example of Appellants'
unsubstantiated allegations. They have submitted no photos or other evidence to bolster
any such claims. In fact, having lived in the Midwest for at least the last 20 years, it is
unclear when the last time was that Appellants have even been to either of the properties
in person. The path to Appellants' home is neither dangerous nor unstable, and in any
event the entire shoreline remains available for access.
Packet Page 275 of 337
thoroughfare has a right to free and
convenient access thereto.. ." (p. 38)
• Union Elevator & Warehouse Co.. Inc. v.
State ex rel. Dept. of Transp., 96
Wn.App. 288, 980 P.2d 779 (1999):
- -
Union sued because closure of a road
would make it more difficult to get to the
street on which it did abut. Court
remanded for trial. No indication
whether damages were ever awarded at
trial. (p. 37)
Keiffer v. King Countv, 89 Wn.2d 369,
572 P.2d 408 (1977): Plaintiff was an
abutter. "Prior to the curbing, the
owner had access 'at all points along
their frontage."' (p. 37)
Clav v. City of Los Angeles, 21
Cal.App.3d 556 (1971): "persons
purchasing and constructing homes on
lots abutting that street reasonably
expect that the street will continue in a
usable condition." (p. 41)
State ex rel, Moline v. Driscoll, 185
Wash. 229, 53 P.2d 662 (1936): "a
change of an established grade of a street
or highway may constitute a damage to
the property of abutting owners.. ." (p.
40)
Unless and until they can identify a single case where a non-abutter
with admittedly no vehicular access was actually awarded any damages at
all, Appellants' misquotations and misleading-arguments are unconvincing
and should be rejected.
Packet Page 276 of 337
D. "PHYSICAL TAKING" AND "EXHAUSTION OF
REMEDIES"
Finally, Appellants claim that they were not required to exhaust
administrative remedies because (1) they allege a "physical taking" and
(2) such exhaustion would be futile. Appellant's Brief, p. 43 et seq. In
addressing their own failure to exhaust administrative remedies,
Appellants accurately point out that all the cases cited by the City are
cases of regulatory takings, and not physical invasions. They then
accurately point out that physical takings are subject to a different analysis
than regulatory takings, and that exhaustion is not required in cases of
physical invasion. Unfortunately, however, Appellants fail to realize - or
merely fail to point out - that this is clearly not a case involving physical
invasion. As indicated above, Appellants took great pains to point out
throughout their brief - both to the trial court and this Court - that none of
the landslides at issue here have ever invaded, damaged, or in any way
touched their property. Moreover, Appellants have not claimed that the
City has denied them physical possession of anything.
The only "property" Appellants claim to have been denied is the
"right of access" via Gertie Johnson Road. However, even if Appellants
are correct, the City's decision not to re-open the turnaround has no
physical impact on Appellants' property, and does not deny them the
Packet Page 277 of 337
physical right to possession or control of anything. The 9th Circuit, along
with every other court in the country, has clearly held that a physical
taking "involve[s] a government action that results in the occupation or
confiscation of private physical property." Garneau v. City of Seattle, 147
F.3d 102 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). There is simply no merit to
Appellants claim that this is a case of physical taking. Consequently,
Appellants have no defense for failing to exhaust the myriad of
administrative remedies available to them.
Appellants then go on to make the bizarre claim that this is a
"facial challenge" to a City regulation. However, Appellants have
continuously claimed throughout their response that the City's failure to
re-open Gertie Johnson Road has specially damaged them in a way that is
distinct from the general public. Appellants have never argued, nor can
they, that the City's decision not to re-open Gertie Johnson Road is
unconstitutional on its face. On the contrary, they have repeatedly and
vehemently argued that the closure of the Gertie Johnson turnaround &
damages them. Theirs is not a facial challenge, but an as-applied
challenge. As such, exhaustion is required, and failure to exhaust.
administrative remedies necessitates dismissal of their takings claim.
Moreover, the fact that nearly every one of Appellants' neighbors
have re-occupied their homes by complying with City requirements is
Packet Page 278 of 337
evidence that compliance with the City's administrative requirements is
anything but futile.
V. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, it is clear that the trial court did
not abuse its discretion - or commit error of any kind - in dismissing
Appellants' claims. As a result, the City respectfully requests that this
Court affirm the trial court's decision.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 5'* day of March, 2009.
Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder Jeremy. W. Culumber, No. 35423
777 108th Ave. NE, Ste 190 Keating, Bucklin & McCorrnack
Bellevue, WA 98009-901 6 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4144
Seattle, WA 98 104-3 175
Packet Page 279 of 337
r'tpn;! "- Oe~i,,,.,-"~ pi" ?:.y
IN THE COURT OF APP~~Ls~~~, ;y----
OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION I1
NO. 36801-3
FAME DEVELOPERS, LTD., WILLAM HULETT and PENELOPE
HULETT, husband and wife,
Appellants,
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND,
Respondent.
CITY'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Dawn Reitan, WSBA No. 23 148
Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder, PS
777 108th Ave. NE, Ste 190
Bellevue, WA 98009-901 6
Michael C. Walter, WSBA No. 15044
Jeremy W. Culumber, WSBA No 35423
Keating Bucklin & McCorrnack, Inc. P.S.
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4141
Seattle, WA 98 104-3 175
Packet Page 280 of 337
I, Heather Hegeman, hereby declare under penalty of perjury of the
laws of the State of Washington that I am of legal age and not a party to
this action; that on the 5th day of March, 2009, I caused a copy of BRIEF
OF RESPONDENT and this DECLARATION OF SERVICE to be
[ ] faxed; and/or
[ ] mailed via U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid; and/or
[J] sent via ABC Legal Messengers, Inc.
from Seattle, Washington, addressed as follows:
Alan S. Middleton
Dennis D. Reynolds
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle WA 98101-3045
Heather Hegemau
Packet Page 281 of 337
Supplemental Memorandum of Additional Information
On February 15, 2010, I continued my ongoing review of the City’s voluminous
“Building Division & Engineering Division Report & Recommendation to the Hearing
Examiner dated January 27, 2010 as well as emails obtained through the public
record request process. During my review, I comprehended the significance of
additional information that I strongly believe is imperative to a complete and fair
review of the issues before the Hearing Examiner on appeal. By contrast, the City
has had and has been aware of this information for years and has failed to come
forward with this critical evidence which sets out the City’s own legal evaluation of
these very important property rights issues. I believe I would suffer extreme
prejudice if this additional information is not considered in connection with the
current appeal.
In a staff report dated April 11, 2006, related to Eric Thuesen’s 2-lot application,
City employee Steve Bullock stated that “Mr. Thuesen returned to his original
application for a 2-lot short plat proposal. The layout has changed slightly in that
rather than both lots gaining access from 9th Ave. N to the east, lot one continues
to gain access to 9th while lot 2 gains access to 8th Ave. N along the south property
line.” Please note that Mr. Bullock stated along the south property line, and did
not say anything about utilizing the 7 ½ foot UNOPENED Alley Right-of-Way
Easement to assist with access off of 8th Ave. N. In either case, Mr. Bullock
incorrectly states that the City would allow this change to the access point. In
fact, the City, per its own prior legal evaluation could not allow this change as is
evidenced below.
The City could not legally allow this change because Mr. Thuesen’s access point off
of 8th Avenue utilized the 7 ½ foot UNOPENED Alley Right-of-Way Easement that
the Reidys owned 100% of the underlying fee title to. The proposed change also
crossed a 117 ½ foot by 15 foot section of 8th Avenue that had already been
vacated and was also owned by the Reidys. See page 10 of Exhibit L previously
submitted by the Reidys. Parcel F2 is clearly 117 ½ feet wide. Parcel F2 was
vacated to the Reidys’ predecessor owner via City of Edmonds Ordinance No. 2828.
See page 13 of Exhibit L previously submitted by the Reidys, which clearly states
that the parcel being vacated is “synonymous with parcel F2 referenced in
Ordinance No. 2218. As is apparent from the information below, the proposed
access off of 8th Avenue was illegal for two reasons: 1) it crossed Reidys’ private
Packet Page 282 of 337
property; and 2) it assumed Thuesen had a right to use an UNOPENED Alley Right-
of-Way Easement to access his property, something not allowed under State Law.
Unopened Right-of-Way Easements cannot be used to access private property. See
generally 10A McQuillin. Municipal Corporations, 5 30.56.10 at 371 (3d ed. 1990).
To establish ingress egress, the City would first need to obtain a dedication of
another 7 ½ feet from Eric Thuesen, and after that dedication, the City would have
to actually OPEN the previously unopened Right-of-Way. Failing that, Eric Thuesen
would have no right to use Reidy’s private property as a means to gain access his
property. Furthermore, there were other ways to access Thuesen’s property that
did not interfere with the private property rights of others, including via 9th
Avenue as his original application called for.
The law is well-established that owners of property abutting an opened public
right-of-way - i.e., an actual usable street, road, avenue, etc. - have a legal right to
access their property via that street. However, it is important to note that such
access rights only apply to rights of way that have actually been opened for
public use. In other words, unopened public rights of way are treated no
differently than private property with regard to access rights. Property
owners abutting an unopened public right-of-way - a right-of-way that has
never made into an actual street, road, avenue, etc. - do not have any
legally-recognized right to access their property via that right-of-way. See
generally 10A McQuillin. Municipal Corporations, 5 30.56.10 at 371 (3d ed. 1990)
(indicating the general rule that proprietary rights of an abutter do not begin until
street is opened for use as such); See also Voss v. City of Middleton, 470 N.W.2d
625 (Wis. 1991) ("a property owner has no right of access where a street does not
exist but would abut his land if it did exist").1
There is absolutely no basis for the position of the City of Edmonds in this case
that Eric Thuesen had any type of vested rights to use the unopened public right
of way to employ an optional construction technique. There is no such right
available under the law.
The argument promoted by the City of Edmonds appears more disingenuous when
the following facts are considered:
1 This argument is directly quoted from a brief submitted by Keating Bucklin & McCormack, attorney Stephanie
Croll’s law firm, in connection with ” FAME DEVELOPERS, LTD., WILLAM HULETT and PENELOPE
HULETT, husband and wife, Appellants, vs. CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, Respondent ]. A copy of the
appellate brief including the complete argument that contradicts the assertions of the City Attorney in this matter is
attached for the Hearing Examiner’s convenience.
Packet Page 283 of 337
1. Reidy Neighbor Charlie Lanasa specifically asked the Hearing Examiner in his
Request for Reconsideration dated July 12, 2006, “Please confirm that you mean
moving the driveway a small distance due to minor site conditions, rather than a
major change, such as the relocation of a driveway from 9th Avenue to 8th Avenue
North.” The Hearing Examiner clearly responded on July 26, 2006, “Only minor
changes to reflect topographic or other natural constraints were intended.
Complete relocation of driveways, etc. was not approved.” Clearly, Thuesen
never received approval to relocate his driveway from 9th Avenue to 8th Avenue
North from the Hearing Examiner, which differs markedly from Mr. Snyder’s
representations that Mr. Thuesen has some type of vested right to access off of
8th related to the City’s Hearing Examiner decision dated July 6, 2006. Mr.
Snyder states that the record was fixed as of July 6, 2006. Mr. Snyder states
that the City is obligated to process the Thuesens’ two-lot subdivision plat in
accordance with the vested preliminary approval. That obligation is the basis for
the City’s enforcement action. A major problem with this argument is that Mr.
Snyder has never provided any documentation supporting vested preliminary
approval to access off of 8th using Reidys’ property and the Right-of-Way
Easement Right-of-Way Easement UNOPENED Right-of-Way Easement.
Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner clearly stated on July 26, 2006 that
“Complete relocation of driveways, etc. was not approved.” Please see City
Exhibit 9.19, find the 6 page Reconsideration Decision by the Hearing Examiner
dated July 26, 2006 and look at the bottom of page 3 under b. Minor Changes:.
Mr. Lanasa’s July 12, 2006 letter is also included as part of City Exhibit 9.19.
2. The following Email was sent from City Staff member Lyle Chrisman to Eric
Thuesen the day before the Hearing Examiner issued his Reconsideration Decision
on July 26, 2006 that “Complete relocation of driveways, etc. was not
approved.”
From: Lyle Chrisman
To: Eric Thuesen
Date: Tuesday July 25, 2006
Per our earlier conversations on the issue, the City does not want additional
right-of-way in that area, so dedication would not be an alternative. Access
from the alley would be permissible, but you will need to utilize a portion of your
property in order to meet our minimum access width requirements. What we have
yet to work out but should be by next week is maintenance of that 7.5’ strip
Packet Page 284 of 337
of right of way. We are looking at a couple of options, both of which does
not include the City maintaining that strip of land.
I will let you know what the final outcome is next week.
Lyle
Incredibly, City staff discloses that the City does not want additional right-of-
way in that area, so dedication would not be an alternative. Chrisman states that
The City maintaining that 7.5’ strip of land is not an option. This creates a
circumstance under which Thuesen could not possibly have any vested rights of an
abutter. The City refused to open a right-of-way in that area and would not
maintain the 7.5’ strip of right of way. See generally 10A McQuillin. Municipal
Corporations, 5 30.56.10 at 371. It is inconceivable that in 2006 the City would
have attempted to require the Reidys to clear the UNOPENED Alley Right-of-Way
Easement and then maintain it so Eric Thuesen could access his property over the
Reidys’ private property in subsequent years. Simply put, that would be contrary
to long-standing property rights law and cannot be the intended result.
As further evidence that the City did not intend to strip the Reidys’ of their
property rights, on May 9, 2006 Lyle Chrisman had emailed Eric Thuesen the
following:
5/9/06
"I noticed your drawings (surveys) did not show any trees within the right-of-way
nor the adjacent sport court. Based on the proposed location of smh #1, we cannot
allow the line to be installed as shown because the line goes right through where
the trees are located. Even though they are in the City right-of-way, they are
healthy so they will not be removed."
These emails provide further confirmation that the City knew Thuesen’s
surveys were incomplete and misleading and his request was inappropriate no
later than May 9, 2006. Again, given the law and its initial, appropriate
evaluation, it is inconceivable that the City is now willing to continue this crusade
against the private property rights of individual citizens.
Approximately one year later, Thuesen applied for an encroachment permit
Packet Page 285 of 337
application through the same area as was previously addressed in the City emails
set out above. The trees were still there at the time and had already been deemed
healthy. The City had no new basis upon which to even consider allowing Thuesen
to build a retaining wall through healthy trees when a year earlier they had told
him specifically that utilities could not be located in that area. The harmful,
inappropriate actions the City has taken against the Reidys and their private
property rights since that time have no support in law, fact, or the City’s own
initial, correct assessment of the issues.
Unbelievably, following a covert settlement agreement referred to as a Framework
for Resolution between Thuesen, his attorney and the City of Edmonds (and
despite an ongoing quiet title action filed by Reidy in an effort to protect his
property from the combined efforts of the City and Thuesen), the City compelled
and even paid for the removal of Reidys’ healthy trees. This was done in an
apparent effort to meet the Deadline date of August 6, 2009 for a secret
settlement agreement that would allow the City to avoid an appeal of prior City
action that had been threatened by Thuesen.
3. September 25, 1990 – City Engineering Coordinator Gordie Hyde issues the following
memorandum related to the Wolgamott Short Plat Access, File No.: S-15-90:
“The engineering Division does not recommend approval of the access as proposed. The
access to lots 1 and 2 must be 15’ wide as indicated on the proposed plan, but should be
located entirely on private property, as the City has no desire to maintain improvement
on public right-of-way which essentially serves only one lot. The proposal is to utilize
7-1/2 feet of City alley in combination with 7-1/2 feet of private easement. This is
unacceptable.”
This memo by Mr. Hyde demonstrates that the City would not permit the 7-1/2 feet to be
used for ingress egress purposes if the usage only benefits one private party. This memo
stands in stark contrast to City Attorney Snyder’s September 16, 2008 unannounced and
unanticipated recommendation that a TCE be reserved for the benefit of one private
party. The key is that any use of the 7-1/2 feet purely for private purposes is
unacceptable. That the City would promote a private use is even more egregious here
when the City’s actions come at the great expense of the underlying fee owner of the
property. There is no legal basis for the City to now seek to grant a special privilege to a
private party with no need for or vested rights to use the UNOPENED Alley Right-of-Way
Easement.
Packet Page 286 of 337
This information is supplemental to the prior brief submitted by Reidy related to Appeal
No. APL-09-04.
Packet Page 287 of 337
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
28
8
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
28
9
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
29
0
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
29
1
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
29
2
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
29
3
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
29
4
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
29
5
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
29
6
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
29
7
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
29
8
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
29
9
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
0
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
1
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
2
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
3
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
4
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
5
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
6
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
7
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
8
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
9
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
31
0
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
31
1
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
31
2
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
31
3
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
31
4
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
31
5
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
31
6
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
31
7
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
31
8
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
31
9
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
32
0
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
32
1
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
32
2
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
32
3
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
32
4
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
32
5
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
32
6
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
32
7
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
32
8
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
32
9
of
33
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
33
0
of
33
7
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
March 17, 2009
On March 17, 2009, following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an
Executive Session regarding pending litigation and negotiation of purchase of
real estate, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:23
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
D. J. Wilson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Grace Guenther, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Packet Page 331 of 337
On February 2, 2009, City Development Services Director Duane Bowman
had written a letter to Eric Thuesen in which Mr. Bowman informed Mr.
Thuesen the following:
The City obviously cannot simultaneously process, much less approve, two
fundamentally different subdivision proposals for the same property.
Likewise, the City cannot allow construction to proceed under a right-of-way
permit where the plat application upon which it is based has been
abandoned or otherwise superseded by a subsequent proposal.
The Letter was copied to the City Attorney and the City Engineer.
On February 24, 2009, City Engineer Rob English had written a letter to Eric
Thuesen titled:
RE: Right-of-Way Permit No. ENG20070355 – 509 Ninth Avenue North.
The Letter was copied to Noel Miller, Public Works Director, Duane
Bowman, Development Services Director, Jeanie McConnell, City
employee, the City Attorney, and Duana Kolouskova, Mr. Thuesen’s
attorney.
In the body of the letter, Mr. English informed Mr. Thuesen that both of his
right-of-way permits had expired, one on November 4, 2007 and the other
on January 29, 2008. Both permits had expired long before Mr.
Snyder recommended the Council reserve a Temporary Construction
Easement (“TCE”) for Eric Thuesen’s private benefit during the
September 16, 2008 City Council Meeting.
Mr. English informed Mr. Thuesen that a new permit would be required
prior to any grading or other work within the alley right-of-way area.
Mr. English informed Mr. Thuesen that a licensed contractor is required as
part of the issuance of a City right-of-way construction permit. Please note
that the City of Edmonds would end up issuing Eric Thuesen Engineering
Permit #ENG20090158 on May 20, 2009, over two months after the
Council passed Ordinance No. 3729 reserving the TCE that has so greatly
harmed taxpayers and the Reidys. Review of the Washington State
Department of Labor and Industries discloses that the last of Thuesens’
contractor licenses expired on March 23, 2006.
Mr. English informed Mr. Thuesen that the July 20, 2007 Settlement
Agreement does not purport to extend the term of any right-of-way
permits and does not operate to prevent their expiration.
Packet Page 332 of 337
Through the public records request process, Mr. Reidy has obtained notes
from an apparent meeting between City Attorney Scott Snyder and Jeanie
McConnell on March 17, 2009 documenting that Eric Thuesen needs to file
an application – ROW and that Reidy – Order to Correct going out 3/18/09
– remove out of 7.5’ easement – meet setbacks. Street vacation at Council
tonight – a construction easement would be maintained.
Rob English’s February 24, 2009 letter combined with Duane Bowman’s
February 2, 2009 letter and the March 17, 2009 meeting notes provide
strong evidence that the City Attorney and City Staff had full knowledge of
the following preceding the March 17, 2009 City Council Meeting:
1. The Thuesens did not have a right-of-way permit to do any grading or
other work within the alley right-of-way area on March 17, 2009.
2. Even if Mr. Thuesen had possessed a right-of-way permit related to his
2-lot short plat, the City could not allow construction to proceed under
a right-of-way permit for the 2-lot short plat when the plat application
upon which it is based has been abandoned or otherwise superseded
by a subsequent proposal.
3. The City had informed the Thuesens that the City’s own legal
evaluation concluded that the July 20, 2007 Settlement Agreement
does not purport to extend the term of any right-of-way
permits and does not operate to prevent their expiration.
4. That a licensed contractor is required as part of the issuance of a
City right-of-way construction permit.
Legal professionals that specialize in Land Use Law are very aware that the
law is well established that a right-of-way may not be used for any purpose
without first obtaining the required permit, unless for reasonable use of
unopened right-of-ways by the owner of the underlying fee to the property.
The right to use a right-of-way to employ a certain construction technique
does not vest to anybody, especially a party that does not have a permit to
use the right-of-way. Certainly, no rights to use the former unopened
right-of-way were vested in the Thuesens on September 16, 2008, just as
Duane Bowman had tried to tell the City Council that evening. No rights to
use the former unopened right-of-way were vested in the Thuesens on
March 17, 2009 either, as they did not possess a right-of-way use permit to
use the unopened right-of-way. In this situation, the underlying fee
Packet Page 333 of 337
ownership of the unopened right-of-way owned by the Reidys, who were
making reasonable, legal use of the unopened right-of-way.
Despite knowing all of this, City Attorney made the following representations
during the March 17, 2009, City Council Meeting:
1. The City had given approval for construction of a retaining wall
immediately adjacent to the property and if the easement is vacated it
would be very difficult for the wall to be constructed. Mr. Snyder’s
point was misleading and irrelevant as difficulty of construction
technique had nothing to do with vested rights and the Thuesens had
no vested rights to employ a certain construction technique when
other construction techniques were available. See Exhibit B previously
submitted by the Reidys. Mr. Snyder states in that August 6, 2009
letter that “It is our understanding, based on the advice of an
independent consultant, that there are a variety of construction
techniques that could be utilized by your client in constructing the
retaining wall.”
2. Staff had been trying to identify a way to recognize Mr. Thuesen’s right
to develop his property as previously approved…. Mr. Snyder and the
staff present at the meeting had complete knowledge that the
Thuesens had no permit to use the right-of-way, yet they withheld this
information from the City Council. Mr. Snyder represented to the City
Council that the Thuesens had a right to develop their property as
previously approved, suggesting they had a right to use the right-of-
way, which necessitated the need to reserve a TCE. The City Council
passed the TCE without ever being informed that the Thuesens did not
have a right-of-way use permit. See additional critical related
information discussed in the "Supplemental Memorandum of
Additional Information".
3. Mr. Snyder represented to the Council that the City would consider
whether there are any options to removing a portion of Mr. Reidy’s
shed. Earlier that day, Mr. Snyder apparently met with Ms. McConnell
and the meeting notes indicate that they both know that the plan was
for an Order to Correct to go out 3/18/09 – requiring the Reidys to
Packet Page 334 of 337
remove the shed encroachment. The notes also indicate that Mr.
Thuesen needed to file an application to use the ROW. Mr.
Snyder did not disclose this information to the City Council during the
March 17, 2009 City Council Meeting. When the Council voted on
Ordinance No. 3729, they were unaware that the City intended
to commence enforcement efforts against the Reidys the next
day and that the Thuesens did not have a right-of-way use
permit. In addition, the City Council did not know where the TCE
would be located, as this information was not provided the Council
before its vote.
4. Mr. Snyder represented that Reidy has a permitted garage with an
unpermitted shed extension that lies within the right-of-way. Mr.
Snyder has since admitted that the City has no evidence that the shed
was extended without permit. The Reidys are unaware of Mr. Snyder
ever correcting this false representation to the tribunal in an open City
Council meeting.
5. Mr. Snyder represented to the City Council that The City’s goal was to
reach a compromise that would allow construction of the retaining wall
without removing the shed. See Exhibit B previously submitted by the
Reidys. Mr. Snyder states in that April 1, 2009 letter that “After
review of the previously approved engineering plans for the two-lot
short subdivision with City staff, it appears that the retaining wall
structure stops well short of the location of the unpermitted extension
of the shed structure.” In making that statement, Mr. Snyder was
incorrect or inaccurate about at least three things:
A. That there was an unpermitted extension of the Reidys’
shed structure.
B. That the Hearing Examiner had clearly represented on July
26, 2006 that “Complete relocation of driveways, etc.
was not approved.” Hence, Mr. Thuesen never
received approval to relocate his driveway from 9th
Avenue to 8th Avenue North from the Hearing
Examiner.
C. That per Duane Bowman, the City cannot allow
construction to proceed under a right-of-way permit
Packet Page 335 of 337
where the plat application upon which it is based has
been abandoned or otherwise superseded by a
subsequent proposal.
Mr. Snyder was apparently correct, however, that he had seen a set of
plans somewhere that indicated the retaining wall structure stops well
short of the shed. Forgetting that the validity of these plans is
questionable, had it truly been Mr. Snyder’s goal to allow construction
of the retaining wall without removing the shed, he could have
accomplished his goal simply by acknowledging the following. As the
retaining wall structure he had apparently seen somewhere stops well
short of the shed, there was no reason to remove the shed prior to the
County’s adjudication of the Reidys’ quiet title action. Instead, Mr.
Snyder changed the City’s enforcement efforts to include two new
“setback” violations and required the Reidys to prepare a “work plan”
documenting how they would remove the shed encroachment. The
Reidys were required to prepare this “work plan’ against their will
prior to the City meeting its burden of proof that the Reidys had
actually committed a violation.
6. Mr. Snyder represented to the City Council that an intrusion into a
right-of-way was not allowed and the City had the obligation to clear
it. Again, this was a false representation. The City has no duty to
clear unopened right-of-ways and any effort by the City to do so
would violate the property rights of the owners of the underlying fee
title, unless the City was going to open the right-of-way for a true
public purpose. The unopened 7 ½ right of way to the south of Holy
Rosary’s property in downtown Edmonds is a perfect case in point.
Not only does the city not have an obligation to clear it, the City has to
allow the owners of the underlying fee title to make reasonable use of
the 7 ½ foot strip of property. For example, the City has allowed the
owner of the new construction at 761 Daley Street to place two
different fences, landscaping, a pyramidalis hedge and boulders in the
unopened 7 ½ right of way that he owns the underlying fee title to.
The use of the property by the owner of 761 Daley Street is
reasonable and legal as the City has never opened the 7 ½ right of
way. Mr. Snyder’s representations to the City Council that the City
had an obligation to clear the unopened 7 ½ right of way owned by
the Reidys needs to be corrected by Mr. Snyder in front of the Tribunal
he made the representation to, the City Council. The City Council
should reconsider their prior decisions that were made based on false
Packet Page 336 of 337
and incomplete information. Sadly, part of the reason the City Council
had false and incomplete information was because there was no public
notice that a Temporary Construction Easement would be considered
on September 16, 2008. The public never had a chance to prepare
written or oral comments and it based its decisions on Mr. Snyder’s
representations, while at the same time ignoring Mr. Bowman’s
accurate representations and refusing the public an opportunity to
prepare for a true public hearing.
As a result of the above and so much more, the Reidys and all
Edmond’s taxpayers have been greatly harmed. The City needs to
investigate the issue and hold those responsible accountable for their
actions. In my opinion, this investigation must include a review of the
City Attorney’s conduct and credibility.
I urge you to study my situation and take steps to ensure this type of
malicious, arbitrary and capricious conduct toward innocent citizens is
not allowed to take place in our City ever again. The City must be
scrupulously just in its dealings with its citizens. The physical
attributes and benefits of my shed are a very small part of this. The
significance of my shed is what it represents. My shed is
representative of my true, vested Federal and State Constitutional
rights. The City Attorney has recommended a course of action that
tramples on my constitutional rights to grant a special privilege to a
developer who has no need for or vested rights to temporary use of
the property in question.
Packet Page 337 of 337