2008.02.26 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
February 26, 2008
6:45 p.m. - Interview Planning Board Candidate
(Note: The interview is open to the public.)
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-1423
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 19, 2008.
C. AM-1424
Approval of claim checks #102396 through #102524 in the amount of $363,450.68 issued February 21, 2008,
and approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #46231 through #46274 for the period of February 1 -
February 15, 2008 in the amount of $788,892.17.
D. AM-1417
Ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds City Code 4.72.030; eliminating the fifteen day requirement
for a decision on a business license application; and establishing general criteria for denial of a business license.
E. AM-1425
Confirmation of newly appointed Historic Preservation Commission members.
3.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)
4. AM-1421
(15 Min)
Discussion and potential action regarding a proposed Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Edmonds, Washington, providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City at the May 20,
2008 Special Election of a proposition authorizing an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Levy Lid Lift
to restore the regular property tax by approximately $.18 ($1.7 million) to the originally authorized level
of $.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation; and supplying a ballot title limiting the use of the levy to EMS
purposes.
5. AM-1422
(30 Min)
Discussion and potential action regarding a proposed Resolution in support of the proposition
authorizing an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Levy Lid Lift.* The proposition ballot title reads as
follows:
Shall the City of Edmonds restore its current Emergency Medical Services tax levy rate to the originally
voter-authorized total tax levy of $.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation restoring approximately $.18
($1.7 million) and increase the levy each year thereafter as allowed by Chapter 84.55 RCW? This
proposition is not an excess levy and is subject to otherwise applicable statutory limits.
Should this proposition be approved? Yes or No
*Public comment will be received both pro and con regarding this proposed resolution of support.
6. AM-1419
(15 Min)
Ordinance establishing the salary ranges for non-represented and exempt personnel for Budget Year
2008.
7. AM-1416
(20 Min)
Verizon Franchise - Consortium.
8. AM-1420
Packet Page 1 of 176
8. AM-1420
(60 Min)
Work session on the upcoming Code rewrite.
9. (15 Min)Council reports on outside committee and board meetings.
10. (5 Min)Mayor's Comments
11. (15 Min)Council Comments
12.Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 176
AM-1423 2.B.
Approve 02/19/08 City Council Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/26/2008
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 19, 2008.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 02-19-08 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/21/2008 08:43 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/21/2008 08:47 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/21/2008 01:22 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 02/21/2008 08:41
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/21/2008
Packet Page 3 of 176
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
February 19, 2008
Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to interview two candidates for the Historic Preservation
Commission, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in
the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Hilary Scheibert, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Dawson requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1 AND 2, 2008.
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, 2008.
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #102062 THROUGH #102237 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$840,129.02 ISSUED FEBRUARY 7, 2008, AND #102238 THROUGH #102395 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $639,815.79 ISSUED FEBRUARY 14, 2008. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #46179 THROUGH #46230 FOR THE PERIOD OF
JANUARY 16 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2008 IN THE AMOUNT OF $772,538.76.
Packet Page 4 of 176
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 2
E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM MAUREEN OTTO
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), ISAAC A. SEIDMAN ($7,000.00), AND HUDA OLSEN
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
G. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE CLOSED RECORD APPEAL
HELD ON FEBRUARY 5, 2008 OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DENIAL OF TWO
STREET SETBACK VARIANCES AT 24110 84TH AVE. W. APPELLANT AND
APPLICANT: SHAUN LEISER (FILES V-2007-81 AND AP-2008-1)
H. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PERTEET, INC. FOR THE SHELL
VALLEY EMERGENCY ACCESS AND PRELIMINARY SHORT SUBDIVISION
PROJECT.
I. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH JONES & STOKES FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE.
J. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. FOR
EMERGENCY ROADWAY REPAIR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT
SERVICES AT OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND 76TH AVENUE WEST AS A RESULT OF
THE DECEMBER 2 AND 3, 2007 RAINSTORM.
ITEM F: NORTH SOUND 2-1-1 CALL CENTER FUNDING REQUEST
Councilmember Dawson recalled the Council had a presentation regarding 2-1-1 at a previous meeting.
She explained the public could call 2-1-1 to get a referral for social services. She emphasized 2-1-1 was
not for public safety emergencies, the public should continue to call 9-1-1 for public safety emergencies.
She explained all the cities in Snohomish County were considering funding of 2-1-1. The goal was to
avoid providing numerous social service brochures and to encourage the public to call 2-1-1 for a referral.
She noted the 2-1-1 call center also provided opportunities to collect data regarding social services needs
in a community. She noted the cost to Edmonds was approximately $6,000 or $0.15 per capita.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM F.
Councilmember Bernheim spoke against the motion, commenting although it was a limited appropriation,
he did not find that the current social services were not providing adequate interface to the community.
He viewed 2-1-1 as adding a layer to the process rather than allowing a person to call directly to the
service they needed. He did not see a need for a telephone number for people to ask for a referral. He
was also concerned there was no long term funding plan, recalling when the presentation was made to the
Council, it was noted the service was not being advertised because they did not have funds to support an
increased call volume. He anticipated the cost of the service would increase and the City’s current
financial condition did not allow for additional expenditures such as 2-1-1.
Councilmember Dawson responded often people did not know who to contact when they were in crisis
and it was vitally important to have one place for people to call. She pointed out the services people were
referred to were not just governmental services, they were largely non-profit agencies within the
community. The North Sound 2-1-1 call center was largely funded by United Way and operated by
Volunteers of America. She pointed out people who found help early in their crisis were less likely to
need additional help in the future; for example providing someone with assistance with their electric bill
may prevent them from becoming homeless. She summarized 2-1-1 was a mechanism to connect people
to the services they needed as well as a way to gather data. She offered to provide Councilmember
Packet Page 5 of 176
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 3
Bernheim further information and urged the Council to support the North Sound 2-1-1 Call Center
funding request.
Councilmember Wambolt commented according to the data provided, there had been 1,332 calls from the
Edmonds area during the past year. He pointed out 2-1-1 was not a mandated additional layer, it was
service that was available to those who needed assistance with a referral.
Councilmember Olson recalled when 9/11 happened, Connecticut had 2-1-1 available; New York had 400
different 800 numbers people called to find information. She pointed out 2-1-1 would be invaluable in
the event of a large scale emergency.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM OPPOSED.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON CONSIDERATION OF AN
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) LEVY LID LIFT.
Fire Chief Tom Tomberg provided a history of past EMS levies in 1986, 1991, 1992, 1997, 2002, and
2008, pointing out the 1991 levy failed and was re-run and passed in 1992. He provided a history
regarding City revenues:
• In 2000 the passage of I-695 resulted in a revenue reduction of $1 million in MVET. Although
subsequently declared unconstitutional, it was implemented by the Legislature.
• An EMS levy in 2002 restored the rate to $.50 per $1,000 of assessed value via a vote of the
people.
• In 2002, I-747 passed which established a 1% limit on property tax increases. Although
subsequently declared unconstitutional, the 1% limit was implemented by the legislature.
• The 2008 EMS levy rate has eroded to $0.32162534.
He reviewed the need for the levy lid lift, explaining the total Fire Department budget was up 29% over
the past five years, and 2008 labor costs represent 87% of the Fire Department budget. He described
EMS operations and apparatus and equipment costs including $30,800 for stretcher and stair chair
replacement in 2008, general increase in cost of doing business, replacement of two aid units, on in 2009,
and another in 2010 and re-chassis of one aid unit in 2009. He pointed out the replacements/re-chassis
were both delayed one year. Other reasons for the levy lid lift include aid unit peak-hour staffing
(addition of a transport unit during peak hours) due to extended out-of-service times, staffing levels and
training, new records management system, and new Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD).
Chief Tomberg reviewed how each 2008 tax dollar was used:
• $0.037 EMS
• $0.149 City
• $0.092 Snohomish County
• $0.072 Port, Sno-Isle and Stevens Hospital
• $0.65 Edmonds School District
Chief Tomberg explained the 2008 fire program budget is $7,256,018; however, the actual 2008 Fire
overall budget is $8,030,156 due to items that are not included in the program budget such as Fire Station
20, ESCA, vehicle replacement, the Fire Department’s portion of the public safety bonds, 800 MHz
system, LEOFF 1 fire pensions, etc. In 2007 EMS responses represented 71% of all 2007 Fire
Department responses. He provided the following breakdown of 2008 Fire Department EMS Costs:
Total Fire budget: $8,030,156
Fire Prevention costs: (257,619)
Total: $7,772,537
Packet Page 6 of 176
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 4
EMS costs (71% of $7,772,537) $5,518,501
He provided the following facts:
• The 2008 EMS levy at .3216 cents generates $2.452 million
• The required 2008 General Fund subsidy is $3.066 million
• The 2009 EMS levy lid lift (increasing the levy by approximately $0.18 back to $0.50) generates
$1.5 million more to $3.952 million
• The 2009 General Fund subsidy is reduced to $1.569 million (estimate) to cover EMS costs
Chief Tomberg reviewed the benefits of the EMS levy lid lift:
• Restores the EMS levy rate to original approved $0.50 (+ approximately $0.18)
• Provides more coverage of EMS costs
• Frees up General Fund monies to sustain full-service City programs and maintain current service
levels
• Helps cover future costs of new and replacement apparatus and equipment
He reviewed the impact on a $500,000 home (average 2008 Edmonds home value $461,500):
Currently: $160 a year
With lid lift (+ $0.18): $250 a year
$ 90 increase or $7.50 per month
He relayed staff’s recommendation to allow the voters to decide. Action for the Council tonight includes
holding a public hearing to hear supporting and opposing testimony, considering a resolution to place an
EMS levy lid lift election on a ballot, establishing a ballot title that increases the levy rate by
approximately $0.18 per $1,000 AV and restores the levy rate to the originally authorized $0.50 per
$1,000 AV, choosing an election date, and considering a back-up filing date.
Chief Tomberg reviewed options for an election date:
Election Date File Date Ballot Mail Date Other Measures
April 22 Feb 29 April 2
May 20 March 28 April 30 Edmonds School
District
August 19 May 27 July 30
November 4 August 12 October 15
He advised City employees were not allowed to take an advocacy position but it was important to ensure
the voters were adequately informed. He commented on sources of public information including Council
resolution, informational mailings, and information posted on City and Fire Department websites.
Council President Plunkett asked Chief Tomberg to comment on the percentage of the Fire Department’s
work that was EMS. Chief Tomberg answered EMS represented the majority of their calls; 71% of the
calls in 2007 were associated with EMS.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about the current levy rate. Assistant Administrative Services Director
Kathleen Junglov explained the regular levy was $1.19 per $1,000 AV, the EMS levy was $0.32, voted
debt for the Public Safety bonds was $0.11 for a total of approximately $1.65 per $1000 AV.
Councilmember Wambolt asked how the EMS levy decreased from $0.50 to $0.32. Ms. Junglov
explained when the rate was initially voted in at $0.50 per $1000 AV, it was based on a certain assessed
valuation. Because of the 101% limitation, as the assessed value increased, the levy rate decreased.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the Edmonds School District levy includes a fixed dollar amount
Packet Page 7 of 176
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 5
and the rate only changed to maintain that amount. He asked whether the City could do the same with the
EMS levy, noting the levy rate would go down again in the future. Ms. Junglov acknowledged the rate
would decrease as assessed valuation increased. City Attorney Scott Snyder noted the goal of the ballot
title was to provide voters as much information within the limited number of words allowed for the title.
He noted Lynnwood’s EMS levy lid lift last year used language regarding restoring the rate. He noted the
amount of dollars to be levied could be included in the ballot title but questioned whether that informed
voters that the rate was being restored to the level they originally approved ($0.50). Councilmember
Wambolt reiterated the Edmonds School District included the dollar amount and the projected rate in their
ballot title. Mr. Snyder answered there were approximately 15 optional words in the ballot title; the
estimated levy dollar amount could be included. He noted the language that the levy was being restored
to $0.50 made for a more concise ballot title.
Councilmember Dawson noted $0.50 was the maximum EMS levy; whatever that rate equated to during
the preparation of the budget was the amount that would be collected. Mr. Snyder noted if the amount
was included in the ballot title, it would be an estimate based on the current assessed valuation and the
amount could increase/decrease depending on assessed valuations. He noted Edmonds voters approved a
permanent EMS levy of $0.50; if the voters approved the levy lid lift, the Council could levy up to $0.50
during the budget process. He clarified this was not an excess levy; the voters were not being asked to
approve an additional levy but restore what had eroded.
Councilmember Wambolt commented an EMS levy lid lift may need to be run again in the future when
the rate eroded. Councilmember Dawson agreed, noting that would always occur as property values
increased. Mr. Snyder noted the Council could provide in an election for the establishment of a levy for
each of the next six years; however, it made for an exceedingly complicated ballot title. Councilmember
Dawson noted most jurisdictions had periodic EMS levy lid lifts asking the voters to reaffirm the level.
Mr. Snyder noted since Edmonds voters approved a permanent levy, there was no risk of the EMS levy, if
not approved, reverting to zero.
For Councilmember Wambolt, Mr. Snyder explained $0.50 was the maximum authorized by State statute;
to exceed that would require the voters to approve an excess levy.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the Council could increase the levy rate without a vote of the
people. Mr. Snyder answered this was a function of I-747; voter approval was required to exceed the
101% cap. He noted the proposed EMS levy lid lift required only a majority vote versus a super majority
that a new levy would require.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Dave Page, Edmonds, commented on the excellent response time of EMS personnel when he has had to
call for emergency service in the past. He summarized the immediate response of EMS and the terrific
service they provided to an aging population was priceless.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, concurred with Mr. Page that the fire and aid personnel were excellent and
expressed his support for the proposed EMS levy lid lift. He referred to the transport fee that was
discussed at the retreat, noting he would only support a transport fee for transportation to a hospital other
than the closest hospital. He expressed concern with the number of aid vehicles that respond to some aid
calls, noting many could be handled by one vehicle or additional personnel requested if necessary. He
was uncertain whether fire and EMS should be funded entirely by the EMS levy without a General Fund
subsidy. He commented on the difficulty separating the cost of fire and EMS.
Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Packet Page 8 of 176
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 6
Chief Tomberg explained the Fire Department cross-staffed all units and took whatever vehicle was
necessary to get the job done. He noted each station had an engine and aid unit assigned to it and
minimum staffing was three people, thus both units responded and were ready to respond to other calls
from the scene. He noted the engines, ladder trucks, aid units, and paramedic units were large traveling
toolboxes; there is little time for a vehicle on scene to call for additional help. He noted the value system
of the Edmonds Fire Department as captured in their standard operating procedures was to err on the side
of caution, send too much, not too little, and always give the victim/patient the benefit of the doubt. He
noted that was best accomplished via cross-staffing and bringing the necessary tools to the scene. He
disagreed with the suggestion to reach a scene and then determine what was needed, explaining SnoCom
asked a series of questions of callers and their responses determined what vehicles were dispatched. If it
was determined a vehicle was not needed when it reached the scene, it was placed back in service. He
noted the tiered response system was used nationwide.
Mayor Haakenson relayed the staff’s and his recommendation was to place before the voters a ballot
proposition lifting the EMS levy lid approximately $0.18 per $1000 of assessed valuation on a date the
Council selected.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether staff recommended an election date. Chief Tomberg advised
April 22 and May 20 were special elections, August 19 was the primary election and November 4 was the
general election. There was no voter pamphlet prepared for the special elections; there was a voters
pamphlet for the primary and general election that would include an explanatory statement, local focus
statement and pro and con statements prepared by pro and con committees. Due to the importance of an
informed electorate, Fire Department administration recommended the May 20 election. The Edmonds
School District planned to have a technology and maintenance levy on that ballot. There were no other
ballot measures for that election or the other election dates as of today.
Councilmember Dawson recalled a question at the Public Safety Committee meeting whether there was a
required voter turnout to pass the levy lid lift. Mr. Snyder answered because this was a levy lid lift, there
was no minimum number of voters, only a simple majority was required. Councilmember Dawson
inquired about Mayor Haakenson’s recommended election date. Mayor Haakenson expressed his support
for the May 20 election date, noting that although he did not want the EMS levy competing with the
Edmonds School District levy, the April 22 election date was too soon to allow for adequate public
education.
Council President Plunkett commented if the options were April 22 which seemed too soon or May 20
which required sharing the ballot with Edmonds School District, why not schedule the EMS levy on the
August 19 ballot. Chief Tomberg answered it was desirable to get the EMS levy lid lift passed and move
on to other issues. He did not view the Edmonds School District levy necessarily as competition as both
were worthy causes and he anticipated the primary election would be a full ballot. He was also concerned
with the all-mail ballot including recent indications that ballots declared invalid because voters did not
declare a party. He summarized the May 20 ballot was the cleanest and many school district supporters
would be voting in that election. He wanted a huge turnout for the EMS levy lid lift, recalling there was a
huge turnout in 2002, over 9,700 votes and the EMS levy passed with 84% of the vote.
Mayor Haakenson inquired whether there was a cost benefit to the EMS levy lid lift sharing the ballot
with the Edmonds School District levy. City Clerk Sandy Chase answered the City and the School
District would share the cost. She noted for a special election, the cost was $3-5 per voter depending on
what other issues were on the ballot and how the costs were shared. Costs are less for the primary or
general election.
Packet Page 9 of 176
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 7
Councilmember Dawson asked whether there was any further information available about a Stevens
Hospital measure possibly on the August 19 ballot. Mayor Haakenson advised he had not heard anything
regarding a Stevens Hospital bond measure. He agreed it was likely the primary and general elections
would include other ballot items.
Councilmember Wambolt recalled the Council selected the April 22 election date at the retreat.
Councilmember Dawson agreed the Council discussed the election date at the retreat, recalling the
Council requested the Public Safety Committee discuss the matter further at their next meeting. She did
not recall whether the Council agreed on the April 22 date or simply to proceed quickly as though that
were the date selected. She acknowledged there was no right answer with regard to the election date
other than an election date prior to the budget process. Mayor Haakenson recalled the Council discussed
the date and referred it to the Public Safety Committee for further discussion. He noted more time to
educate the public would be advantageous.
Council President Plunkett referred to Councilmember Wambolt’s suggestion to include a dollar amount
in the ballot title, noting the dollar amount was simply a figure that provided no frame of reference
whereas the language that the rate would be restored to $0.50 provided more information.
Councilmember Dawson agreed, noting when voters saw a huge number on the ballot, it resulted in
sticker-shock and was not necessarily informative as they were already paying a portion of that amount
and they had already approved a permanent EMS levy lid lift of $0.50. She concluded that including a
dollar amount resulted in a more complicated ballot title that simply stating the levy lid lift would restore
the $0.50 rate. She noted the education process would describe the amounts and how they would be used.
Councilmember Wambolt reiterated the Edmonds School District used both a dollar amount and a levy
rate.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO PLACE BEFORE THE VOTERS A BALLOT PROPOSITION LIFTING THE EMS LEVY LID
BY APPROXIMATELY $0.18 TO RESTORE THE LEVY TO $0.50 PER 1,000 OF ASSESSED
VALUE ON THE MAY 20, 2008 BALLOT.
Councilmember Orvis commented $0.18 represented approximately 4-5 years of inflation. With the 1%
statutory limit, the City could no longer capture inflationary increases to maintain City services. Thus the
City was required to ask the voters every 4-5 years to increase the EMS levy lid. He noted the EMS levy
was appropriate as it earmarked property tax dollars for public safety.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Snyder offered to provide ballot language for Council consideration at their next meeting that
included a dollar amount.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
*THIS PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED AND WILL BE HELD ON MARCH 4, 2008
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Dave Page, Edmonds, referred to Mayor Haakenson’s recent article regarding redevelopment of the
Harbor Square/Antique Mall site. He commented on the work of WG-33, noting the concept of urban
living was becoming more popular. He suggested a compromise of 3-4 stories.
Packet Page 10 of 176
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 8
Carl Zapora, President and CEO, United Way of Snohomish County, thanked the Council for their
support of 2-1-1. He explained 2-1-1 was operated by Volunteers of America (VOA) in partnership with
United Way of Snohomish County. the support Edmonds provided represented $0.15 per citizen, the
same level of support United Way provided in Snohomish County, donating $100,000 to VOA to operate
the North Sound Call Center. He explained statistics reveal that someone looking for help made 12 calls
before reaching the right solution; 2-1-1 was helpful for the person seeking assistance as well as the non-
profit organizations who did not answer the misdirected calls. Recent disasters have shown 2-1-1 assists
with making connections so that calls to 911 do not skyrocket. He explained 2-1-1 also provides a
resource for people interested in volunteering. He encouraged the City and the public to ensure their
workplace switchboard recognized 2-1-1.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, advised a general Senior Center membership meeting was scheduled on
February 20, and a meet-the-candidates meeting on March 5 at 1:00 p.m. Senior Center members would
have an opportunity to vote on boardmembers on March 15. He advised the public had until February 22
to join the Center in order to participate in the election; anyone could belong to the Senior Center and
there was no age limit. Next, with regard to 2-1-1, he recalled an instance where he observed something
suspicious on the water and was unable to determine the appropriate agency to call. (It was clarified later
in the meeting that the public should call 911 for any public safety or homeland security emergency.)
6. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 12, 2008.
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Olson reported the Committee reviewed the City’s Street Tree Plan. They discussed the
policy for removing trees on public property, landmark tree designations and concern with removing the
trees at 5th & Main. Staff was asked to develop a plan that could include trees beyond the 5th & Main
intersection that also addressed steps needed to preserve the trees at 5th & Main. Next, staff presented the
2008-2014 Capital Improvement Program which the Committee supported forwarding to the Planning
Board and City Council. The final item was an update on the code rewrite; staff advised they plan to
select a consultant to help with the remainder of the code rewrite due to the time constraints on staff and
the City Attorney. Code sections that will be presented to the Council in the near future include nuisance
regulations, nonconforming regulations and permit process and procedural amendments. She noted one
potential change was possibly having the City Council no longer hear quasi-judicial appeals or require all
argument be in writing with no oral presentations. Staff plans to hold a work session with the City
Council on February 26 and the Planning Board will conduct a public hearing on February 27.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Wambolt reported the Committee was provided a presentation on the North Sound 2-1-1
Call Center funding request in the amount of $6,084 which was approved this evening. Next the
Committee was provided an overview of the 2008 hourly wage schedule. It was agreed to forward the
schedule to the full Council as a consent item. The Committee also discussed the 2008 Non-Represented
Employee Pay Schedule and COLA which the Committee agreed to forward to the full Council as an
action item.
Public Safety Committee
Councilmember Dawson reported Fire staff reviewed the 2007-2008 Fire Department Work Plan update
#2 which will be scheduled on a future Council Consent Agenda. Next, Assistant Chief Correira
reviewed the Stay-In Step, Guide to Maintaining Your Quality of Life, a grant that will be used to develop
a falls prevention program for the elderly. The Committee then discussed fire apparatus covenants for air
condo subdivisions, developments with small, private streets that encounter difficulties with emergency
vehicle access due to vehicles parking in fire lanes. The Committee recommended further work on the
Packet Page 11 of 176
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 19, 2008
Page 9
solution to ensure fire lanes remained clear. The final item was a discussion on the EMS levy lid lift that
the Council approved earlier on tonight’s agenda.
7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson advised the deadline for applying for the Planning Board vacancy was February 15; the
nine applications that were received have been emailed to Councilmembers. He advised Councilmembers
would be notified when the interviews were scheduled.
8. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Dawson clarified 2-1-1 was not a number for the public to call for a public safety
emergency; anyone having a public safety emergency should call 9-1-1. She explained 2-1-1 was a
referral service and was not a number to be called in an emergency. Mayor Haakenson clarified anyone
with a homeland security issue should also call 9-1-1.
Councilmember Bernheim reminded the Mayor’s Climate meeting would be held at 9:00 a.m. on
February 21 and an organizational meeting for Sustainable Edmonds was scheduled for February 21 at
8:00 a.m. at his office at 512 Bell Street. He invited the public to learn more about Sustainable Edmonds
at SustainableEdmonds.org.
9. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Packet Page 12 of 176
AM-1424 2.C.
Approval of Claim Checks and Payroll Direct Deposits and Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/26/2008
Submitted By:Debbie Karber
Submitted For:Dan Clements Time:Consent
Department:Administrative Services Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #102396 through #102524 in the amount of $363,450.68 issued February
21, 2008, and approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #46231 through #46274 for the period
of February 1 - February 15, 2008 in the amount of $788,892.17.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposits 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: 2008
Revenue:
Expenditure: $1,152,342.86
Fiscal Impact:
Claims: $363,450.68
Payroll: $788,892.18
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 2-21-08
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 02/21/2008 01:48 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/21/2008 03:07 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/21/2008 03:50 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/21/2008 05:13 PM APRV
Packet Page 13 of 176
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Started On: 02/21/2008 11:50
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/21/2008
Packet Page 14 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102396 2/21/2008 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 251114 RODENT CONTROL
RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 92.56
Total :92.56
102397 2/21/2008 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND MARCH 2008 KENNELING SERVICES/MARCH 2008 - EDMONDS
MARCH 2008 KENNELING SERVICES
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 1,921.23
Total :1,921.23
102398 2/21/2008 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 8469 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES FOR JAN
MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES FOR JAN
411.000.654.534.800.340.00 94,962.65
Total :94,962.65
102399 2/21/2008 014940 ALL BATTERY SALES & SERVICE 493280 SHOP SUPPLIES - BATTERY
SHOP SUPPLIES - BATTERY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 50.95
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.53
UNIT 424 - BATTERY493906
UNIT 424 - BATTERY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 142.15
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.65
Total :210.28
102400 2/21/2008 065568 ALLWATER INC 020708043 COEWASTE
DRINKING WATER
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 21.85
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 0.62
Total :22.47
102401 2/21/2008 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 138087-080106 MEMBERSHIP FOR MIKE CLUGSTON FROM
1Page:
Packet Page 15 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102401 2/21/2008 (Continued)001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
MEMBERSHIP FOR MIKE CLUGSTON FROM
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 99.00
Total :99.00
102402 2/21/2008 069751 ARAMARK 655-3572636 18386001
UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 98.83
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.80
Total :107.63
102403 2/21/2008 069751 ARAMARK 655-3570814 FLEET UNIFORM SVC
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 22.91
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 2.04
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-3570816
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-3580712
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 22.98
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 2.05
2Page:
Packet Page 16 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102403 2/21/2008 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
PW MATS655-3580713
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.12
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.47
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.47
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.47
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.47
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.46
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24
Total :87.10
102404 2/21/2008 071120 ASHLAND SPECIALTY CHEMICALS 2500052860 113009/0702
POLYMER
411.000.656.538.800.310.51 1,937.50
Total :1,937.50
102405 2/21/2008 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 569655 75179
3Page:
Packet Page 17 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102405 2/21/2008 (Continued)071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
DIESEL FUEL
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 6,902.50
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 552.20
Total :7,454.70
102406 2/21/2008 069120 AST TRUST COMPANY 232008 MEBT check fees - 3rd qtr. 2007
MEBT check fees - 3rd qtr. 2007
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 210.00
Total :210.00
102407 2/21/2008 064341 AT&T MOBILITY X02062008 C/A 828698926
425.418.8755 Service 12/27/07-1/26/08
001.000.310.514.100.420.00 526.89
Total :526.89
102408 2/21/2008 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 010123912 COPIER RENTAL FEE
COPIER RENTAL FEE
001.000.230.512.501.450.00 153.55
Total :153.55
102409 2/21/2008 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 647545 INV#647545 - HATS/EDMONDS PD
BB CAPS W/EMBROIDERY
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 119.70
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 10.65
INV#649069 - PAULSON/EDMONDS PD649069
TWO STRIPS/PAULSON
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 10.40
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 0.93
4Page:
Packet Page 18 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102409 2/21/2008 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
INV#650195 - SPEER/EDMONDS PD650195
T-SHIRTS, SWEATSHIRTS/SPEER~
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 56.82
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.06
INV#652182 - EQUIPMENT/EDMONDS PD652182
CLIP ON TIE AND ELBOW GUARD
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 72.90
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 6.49
INV#652696 - TRANZPORT HOODS/EDMONDS PD652696
TRANZPORT HOODS 25
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 154.75
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 13.77
Total :451.47
102410 2/21/2008 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN9279 YOGA CLASSES
YOGA #9279
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 954.80
YOGA #9281
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 636.55
Total :1,591.35
102411 2/21/2008 003255 CANINE COLLEGE CANINE8994 DOG OBEDIENCE CLASSES
DOG OBEDIENCE #8994
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 200.00
Total :200.00
102412 2/21/2008 072126 CASCADE HEALTHCARE 2511 ALS MISC
Schleicher PALS training
001.000.510.526.100.490.00 245.00
Total :245.00
102413 2/21/2008 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 116653 SUPPLIES
5Page:
Packet Page 19 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102413 2/21/2008 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
WRENCHES, OXYGEN
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 41.84
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.73
Total :45.57
102414 2/21/2008 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 116559 2954000
GLOVES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 47.60
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.23
Total :51.83
102415 2/21/2008 003710 CHEVRON USA 789-830-518-5 ACCT#789-830-518-5 - EDMONDS
JANUARY 2008/FUEL
104.000.410.521.210.320.00 328.13
Total :328.13
102416 2/21/2008 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460831918 UNIFORMS
Volunteers
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 23.16
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 2.06
OPS UNIFORMS460831919
Stn. 16
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 122.24
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.88
6Page:
Packet Page 20 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102416 2/21/2008 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
UNIFORMS460833000
Stn. 17 - ALS
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 103.00
Stn. 17 - OPS
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 103.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 9.17
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.16
OPS UNIFORMS460833024
Stn. 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 140.43
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 12.50
Total :535.60
102417 2/21/2008 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5958 INV#5958 - EDMONDS PD
JANUARY 2008 R&B SERVICES
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 6,955.83
Total :6,955.83
102418 2/21/2008 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD MEDICAL SUPPLIES MEDIC SEVEN MEDICAL SUPPLIES/ EDMONDS PD
MEDICAL SUPPLIES~
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 286.77
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 25.52
Total :312.29
102419 2/21/2008 065519 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 1ST PAYMENT 2008 REIMBURSEMENT OF NARCOTIC DRUG FUND/EDM
1ST PAYMENT 2008~
104.000.410.521.210.490.00 5,000.00
Total :5,000.00
102420 2/21/2008 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1892319 OPS SUPPLIES
7Page:
Packet Page 21 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102420 2/21/2008 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES
Stns' supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 114.80
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 2.75
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 10.46
Total :128.01
102421 2/21/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 8691 SIGN FOR OFFICE
SIGN FOR OFFICE
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 12.56
Total :12.56
102422 2/21/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 3718 Craigslist advertising - Gymnastics
Craigslist advertising - Gymnastics
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 100.00
Bldg. or Senior Combo. Bldg. Inspector,
001.000.620.524.100.440.00 229.99
SCC/AWC dinner 1/30/08 (rooms and5271
SCC/AWC dinner 1/30/08 (rooms and
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 1,566.92
Total :1,896.91
102423 2/21/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 1033 Shoplet Supplies unavailable at Office
Shoplet Supplies unavailable at Office
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 42.00
Total :42.00
102424 2/21/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 5817 WABO ANNUAL INST. FOR
8Page:
Packet Page 22 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102424 2/21/2008 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
WABO ANNUAL INST. FOR
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 750.00
APA CONF. REGISTRATION FOR CHAVE.
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 695.00
REGISTRATION APA CONF. FOR BOWMAN.
001.000.620.558.800.490.00 695.00
ICC CERT. RENEWAL FOR GRAF.
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 50.00
ICCI Refund - Employee no longer at COE5817
ICCI Refund - Employee no longer at COE
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 -60.00
Total :2,130.00
102425 2/21/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4783 Postal Stamps for Plunkett
AWC/Red Lion Accommo 3 councilmembers
001.000.110.511.100.430.00 361.96
Ferry fare/2008 Council Retreat -
001.000.110.511.100.430.00 36.50
DVD's for videotaping Council mtgs.
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 35.90
Postal Stamps for Plunkett
001.000.110.511.100.420.00 41.00
Total :475.36
102426 2/21/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 1232 WHITE
Operations Supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 270.32
Training Misc (CO wrkbks)
001.000.510.522.400.490.00 417.03
Training Travel- Natn'l Academy
001.000.510.522.400.430.00 459.00
WESTFALL8112
Fire Finding subscrptn
001.000.510.522.300.490.00 224.00
9Page:
Packet Page 23 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102426 2/21/2008 (Continued)069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
CORREIRA9858
Gait belts (ALS supplies)
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 56.92
Ferry to retreat (admin travel)
001.000.510.522.100.430.00 11.55
Total :1,438.82
102427 2/21/2008 004867 COOPER, JACK F 29 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 1,122.00
Total :1,122.00
102428 2/21/2008 068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT 9268 SEWER - STATOR/LINER ASSEMBLY
SEWER - STATOR/LINER ASSEMBLY
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 130.00
FORGED CUTTER WHEEL
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 180.00
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.58
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 28.00
Total :342.58
102429 2/21/2008 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING JANUARY JANUARY 2008 INVOICES - EDMONDS PD
JANUARY DRY CLEANING/LAUNDRY
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 816.27
Total :816.27
102430 2/21/2008 005850 CRETIN, LAWRENCE CRETIN0216 MONITOR FEES
MONITOR FOR PLAZA ROOM AND ANDERSON
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 105.00
Total :105.00
102431 2/21/2008 071552 CUBBAGE, NANCY CUBBAGE9068 MOSAIC MIRROR
MOSAIC: ECLECTIC MIRROR
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 105.00
10Page:
Packet Page 24 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :105.001024312/21/2008 071552 071552 CUBBAGE, NANCY
102432 2/21/2008 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY COCCIA/MACHUGA REGISTRATION FOR COCCIA & MACHUGA TO
REGISTRATION FOR COCCIA & MACHUGA TO
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 120.00
Total :120.00
102433 2/21/2008 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 08-2840 2008 Council Retreat Minutetaker
2008 Council Retreat Minutetaker
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 591.00
Ferry Fare 2008 Retreat
001.000.110.511.100.430.00 23.10
Total :614.10
102434 2/21/2008 006844 DMCJA 022908 JUDGES MEMBERSHIP
JUDGES MEMBERSHIP
001.000.230.512.500.490.00 375.00
Total :375.00
102435 2/21/2008 064640 DMCMA 22908 COURT TRAINING FOR ESPINOZA AND IVANJACK
COURT TRAINING FOR ESPINOZA AND IVANJACK
001.000.230.512.500.490.00 200.00
Total :200.00
102436 2/21/2008 071836 DMI DRILLING CONSTRUCTION Pmt 4.E7FH/E7FJ E7FH.76th Ave Emergency Storm
11Page:
Packet Page 25 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102436 2/21/2008 (Continued)071836 DMI DRILLING CONSTRUCTION
E7FH.76th Ave Emergency Storm
112.200.630.542.000.480.00 25,626.83
E7FH.76th Ave Emergency Storm
412.200.630.594.320.480.00 25,626.82
E7FJ.OVD Emergency Repairs
112.200.630.542.000.480.00 26,260.91
E7FJ.OVD Emergency Repairs
412.200.630.594.320.480.00 26,260.90
E7FH.Retainage 4
112.200.000.223.400.000.00 -1,281.35
E7FH.Retainage 4
412.200.000.223.400.000.00 -1,281.34
E7FJ.Retainage 4
112.200.000.223.400.000.00 -1,313.05
E7FJ.Retainage 4
412.200.000.223.400.000.00 -1,313.04
Total :98,586.68
102437 2/21/2008 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER 212831 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 64.22
INTERPRETER FEE212832
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 78.76
Total :142.98
102438 2/21/2008 069605 EAGLE EYE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2008008 TRIKE STOP REVIEW-FIRE DEPT.
TRIKE STOP REVIEW-FIRE DEPT.
001.000.510.522.300.410.00 340.00
REVIEW SERVICES D.S. DEPT.
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 7,797.07
Total :8,137.07
102439 2/21/2008 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 90674 SEWER UNIT 116 - GREASE GUN
12Page:
Packet Page 26 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102439 2/21/2008 (Continued)007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
SEWER UNIT 116 - GREASE GUN
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 6.99
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.62
Total :7.61
102440 2/21/2008 007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC E398663 Testing services
Testing services
001.000.220.516.210.410.00 462.00
Total :462.00
102441 2/21/2008 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 13274 UPS/AM TEST
UPS/AM TEST
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 7.31
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 0.65
UPS/ONYX VALVE13291
UPS/ONYX VALVE
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 61.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 5.43
Total :74.39
102442 2/21/2008 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 CITY PARK
CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 64.28
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 380.10
SPRINKLER1-03900
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 28.55
SPRINKLER1-05125
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 24.90
13Page:
Packet Page 27 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102442 2/21/2008 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
GAZEBO IRRIGATION1-05285
GAZEBO IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.08
CORNER PARK1-05340
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 26.72
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05650
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.08
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP1-05675
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 446.06
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05700
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.19
CORNER PARK1-09650
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 24.90
SW CORNER SPRINKLER1-09800
SW CORNER SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 24.90
PLANTER1-10780
PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 28.55
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH1-16130
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 37.66
CITY HALL TRIANGLE1-16450
CITY HALL TRIANGLE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 47.25
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX1-16630
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.08
14Page:
Packet Page 28 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102442 2/21/2008 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER1-17475
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.08
WATER1-36255
1141 9TH AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 24.90
WATER8-40000
23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 3,240.01
Total :4,523.29
102443 2/21/2008 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 031528 5870 Canon Copier Maint. (1/7 - 2/7/08)
5870 Canon Copier Maint. (1/7 - 2/7/08)
001.000.610.519.700.480.00 28.17
5870 Canon Copier Maint. (1/7 - 2/7/08)
001.000.220.516.100.480.00 28.16
5870 Canon Copier Maint. (1/7 - 2/7/08)
001.000.210.513.100.480.00 28.16
Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.480.00 2.51
Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.480.00 2.51
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.480.00 2.50
Total :92.01
102444 2/21/2008 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU11924 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.39
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.82
Total :22.21
102445 2/21/2008 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0141024 WATER INVENTORY - W-PIPEPL-02-010
15Page:
Packet Page 29 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102445 2/21/2008 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
WATER INVENTORY - W-PIPEPL-02-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 200.22
6 ROLLS -W-PIPCO-0.75-011
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 1,702.87
W-FITPAC-02-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 689.21
W-INSRT-02-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 144.83
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 243.61
WATER - 7TH & EDMONDS MAIN/LEAK SUPPLIES0142679
WATER - 7TH & EDMONDS MAIN/LEAK SUPPLIES
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2,035.47
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 154.69
Total :5,170.90
102446 2/21/2008 063181 FITTINGS INC 00022493 UNIT 3 - HOSE ENDS, FITTINGS
UNIT 3 - HOSE ENDS, FITTINGS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 513.61
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.20
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 45.71
UNIT 3 - FITTINGS00022634
UNIT 3 - FITTINGS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 37.52
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.58
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.34
Total :638.96
102447 2/21/2008 061589 GALLS INC 5926311800016 INV#5926311800016 - EDMONDS PD
16Page:
Packet Page 30 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102447 2/21/2008 (Continued)061589 GALLS INC
6 INCH EMERGENCY BANDAGES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 223.68
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 16.99
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 21.42
Total :262.09
102448 2/21/2008 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 082302 FLEET INVENTORY - TIRES
FLEET INVENTORY - TIRES
511.000.657.548.680.340.30 659.94
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.30 58.73
FLEET INVENTORY - TIRE EXCHANGE082362
FLEET INVENTORY - TIRE EXCHANGE
511.000.657.548.680.340.30 44.28
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.30 3.94
FLEET INVENTORY - TIRES082765
FLEET INVENTORY - TIRES
511.000.657.548.680.340.30 458.28
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.30 40.79
UNIT 36 - TIRE DISPOSAL FEES082909
UNIT 36 - TIRE DISPOSAL FEES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 42.00
UNIT 30 - TIRES082937
UNIT 30 - TIRES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 368.84
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 32.83
Total :1,709.63
102449 2/21/2008 012199 GRAINGER 9563854679 PAINT SUPPLIES
17Page:
Packet Page 31 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102449 2/21/2008 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER
PAINT BRUSHES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 71.82
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.17
Total :77.99
102450 2/21/2008 012555 H & L SPORTING GOODS 54259 SOFTBALLS
SOFTBALLS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 1,852.50
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 159.31
Total :2,011.81
102451 2/21/2008 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 331838 WATER INVENTORY - W-SETTERBYP-02-020
WATER INVENTORY - W-SETTERBYP-02-020
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 1,549.58
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 117.77
Total :1,667.35
102452 2/21/2008 012845 HARBOR SQUARE ATHLETIC CLUB 2008 MEMBERSHIP 2008 MEMBERSHIP FEES - EDMONDS PD
2008 GROUP MEMBERSHIP~
001.000.410.521.400.410.00 6,272.64
Total :6,272.64
102453 2/21/2008 065764 HASNER, THOMAS W 26 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,577.99
Total :1,577.99
102454 2/21/2008 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I2267746 WATER INVENTORY - W-FITCOMBR-01-020
18Page:
Packet Page 32 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102454 2/21/2008 (Continued)010900 HD FOWLER CO INC
WATER INVENTORY - W-FITCOMBR-01-020
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 252.00
W-UNIONBR-01-030
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 296.25
W-UNIONBR-0.75-030
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 259.00
W-VALVBR-0.75-005
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 387.54
W-CLMPCI-08-060
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 657.40
W-FLNGCI-02-020
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 293.60
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 190.98
WATER INVENTORY - W-MTRBOXPL-0.75-010I2267747
WATER INVENTORY - W-MTRBOXPL-0.75-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 795.84
W-MTRLIDDI-0.75-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 822.96
W-CAPMJ-04-020
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 101.08
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 153.07
Total :4,209.72
102455 2/21/2008 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1033036 CITY HALL - IT DOOR REPAIR - 2X4'S
CITY HALL - IT DOOR REPAIR - 2X4'S
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 16.58
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 1.48
CITY HALL - IT DOOR REPAIR - DRY WALL,1040577
CITY HALL - IT DOOR REPAIR - DRY WALL,
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 26.01
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 2.31
19Page:
Packet Page 33 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102455 2/21/2008 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
FAC MAINT - TORCH BLADES, WORK LITE2098130
FAC MAINT - TORCH BLADES, WORK LITE
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 47.91
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.26
WATER QUALITY SUPPLIES - WASHERS,2584198
WATER QUALITY SUPPLIES - WASHERS,
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 82.97
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.38
MCH - LADDER, SIMPLE GREEN3035116
MCH - LADDER, SIMPLE GREEN
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 88.97
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.92
CITY HALL - IT DOOR REPAIR- BRACKETS,3041255
CITY HALL - IT DOOR REPAIR- BRACKETS,
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 51.00
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 4.54
CITY HALL - IT DOOR REPAIR - SUPPLIES3041294
CITY HALL - IT DOOR REPAIR - SUPPLIES
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 10.75
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 0.96
LIBRARY - SEALANT3042354
LIBRARY - SEALANT
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.86
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.70
CITY HALL - IT DOOR REPAIR - RETURNS3253832
CITY HALL - IT DOOR REPAIR - RETURNS
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 -39.94
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 -3.56
20Page:
Packet Page 34 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102455 2/21/2008 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
CARPENTERS SHOP - SANDPAPER, PULL,4042249
CARPENTERS SHOP - SANDPAPER, PULL,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 64.34
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.73
FAC MAINT STOCK - DOOR STOP, TWIST LOCKS4060086
FAC MAINT STOCK - DOOR STOP, TWIST LOCKS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.96
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.42
FAC - PLUMBING SUPPLIES4080677
FAC - PLUMBING SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 47.36
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.22
LIBRARY - MIRRO SUPPLIES5042082
LIBRARY - MIRRO SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 43.28
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.85
FAC - FLAREPLUG5042121
FAC - FLAREPLUG
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.36
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.21
CITY HALL - PUSH BUTTONS5070921
CITY HALL - PUSH BUTTONS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.98
PW - 15' HOSE
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.97
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.97
21Page:
Packet Page 35 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102455 2/21/2008 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
LIBRARY - CASTERS, PAPER FILTERS, RADAR7033398
LIBRARY - CASTERS, PAPER FILTERS, RADAR
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 72.28
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.43
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES7041081
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.43
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.28
WATER DEPT - SHELVING7042958
WATER DEPT - SHELVING
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 270.71
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 24.09
SEWER - FSHTP/CS200'7043010
SEWER - FSHTP/CS200'
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 59.99
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.34
WATER - RECIP BLADES7060394
WATER - RECIP BLADES
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 60.88
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.42
LIBRARY - PLUMBING SUPPLIES9040844
LIBRARY - PLUMBING SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 44.42
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.95
PS - 1" TUFF-R9042707
PS - 1" TUFF-R
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.93
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.33
22Page:
Packet Page 36 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102455 2/21/2008 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
CITY PARK BLDG SUPPLIES - WINDEX, AJAX,9042724
CITY PARK BLDG SUPPLIES - WINDEX, AJAX,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.92
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.70
FAC - 20' VINYL9042769
FAC - 20' VINYL
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.69
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.33
Total :1,116.87
102456 2/21/2008 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 381324 HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION
HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,063.69
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 269.60
Total :3,333.29
102457 2/21/2008 016600 KROESENS INC 85412 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
Hammersmark boots
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 245.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 21.81
Total :266.81
102458 2/21/2008 060132 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 1010952592 INV#1010952592 ACCT #5560008 - EDMONDS
MAGNUM BL FRAME LENS & EARPLUGS
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 105.80
Freight
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 10.53
Total :116.33
102459 2/21/2008 072127 LANDIS, MARILEE LANDIS0212 REFUND
23Page:
Packet Page 37 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102459 2/21/2008 (Continued)072127 LANDIS, MARILEE
REFUND DUE TO MEDICAL REASONS
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 80.00
Total :80.00
102460 2/21/2008 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 097265 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 343.04
Total :343.04
102461 2/21/2008 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 097264 ENVELOPES FOR PLANNING & DEV. SERVICES.
ENVELOPES FOR PLANNING & DEV. SERVICES.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 334.00
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 29.73
D.S. MAILING LABELS.097282
D.S. MAILING LABELS.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 194.00
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 17.27
Total :575.00
102462 2/21/2008 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 097266 LOGO ENVELOPES CITY CLERK
Logo Envelopes #10~250-00192
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 315.00
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 28.04
Total :343.04
102463 2/21/2008 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 597750 SUPPLIES
BLADES, CABLE, HANDLE GRIP, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 144.68
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.88
Total :157.56
102464 2/21/2008 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 3448 INTERPRETER FEE FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER
24Page:
Packet Page 38 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102464 2/21/2008 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
INTERPRETER FEE FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 45.00
INTERPRETER FEE3462
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 75.00
INTERPRETER FEE3463
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 180.00
INTERPRETER FEE3474
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 45.00
INTERPRETER FEE FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER3476
INTERPRETER FEE FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 45.00
INTERPRETER FEE FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER3483
INTERPRETER FEE FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 45.00
INTERPRETER FEE3488
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 90.00
INTERPRETER FEE3489
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 135.00
Total :660.00
102465 2/21/2008 068309 MERCURY FITNESS REPAIR INC P8010154 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE FOR ANDERSON
001.000.640.575.540.480.00 155.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.540.480.00 13.80
Total :168.80
102466 2/21/2008 071123 MOORS, JAMES 2467 JAMES MOORS
BOOTS/MOORS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 169.50
25Page:
Packet Page 39 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :169.501024662/21/2008 071123 071123 MOORS, JAMES
102467 2/21/2008 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0214060-IN WATER/SEWER- OVERALLS
WATER/SEWER- OVERALLS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 38.85
WATER/SEWER- OVERALLS
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 38.85
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.18
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.17
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.92
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.91
WATER/SEWER- OVERALLS0214187-IN
WATER/SEWER- OVERALLS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 38.85
WATER/SEWER- OVERALLS
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 38.85
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.33
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.32
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.93
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.92
26Page:
Packet Page 40 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102467 2/21/2008 (Continued)064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
WATER/SEWER- OVERALLS0215483-IN
WATER/SEWER- OVERALLS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 19.43
WATER/SEWER- OVERALLS
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 19.42
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 0.51
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.51
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1.78
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.78
WATER/SEWER - BIB OVERALLS0216509-IN
WATER/SEWER - BIB OVERALLS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 58.28
WATER/SEWER - BIB OVERALLS
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 58.27
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.19
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.19
WATER/SEWER - BIB OVERALLS0216958-IN
WATER/SEWER - BIB OVERALLS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 58.28
WATER/SEWER - BIB OVERALLS
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 58.27
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.19
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.19
Total :489.37
102468 2/21/2008 024001 NC MACHINERY CO SCES0461050 UNIT 9 - REPAIR SUPPLIES
27Page:
Packet Page 41 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102468 2/21/2008 (Continued)024001 NC MACHINERY CO
UNIT 9 - REPAIR SUPPLIES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 619.24
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 55.11
Total :674.35
102469 2/21/2008 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0361692-IN UNIT 474 - FILTERS
UNIT 474 - FILTERS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 177.23
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.24
FLEET FILTER INVENTORY0361693-IN
FLEET FILTER INVENTORY
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 153.89
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 13.23
Total :359.59
102470 2/21/2008 072128 NELSON, BRUCE NELSON0214 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO MEDICAL REASONS
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 63.00
Total :63.00
102471 2/21/2008 072125 NELSON, DAVID PLN20080008 Variance Application withdrawn
Variance Application withdrawn
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 1,305.00
Total :1,305.00
102472 2/21/2008 070045 NORTHUP GROUP 1653 INV#1653 - EDMONDS PD
PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAM
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 300.00
Total :300.00
102473 2/21/2008 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0674232 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 233.84
28Page:
Packet Page 42 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102473 2/21/2008 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0674235
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 98.02
Total :331.86
102474 2/21/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 169360 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 193.43
SUPPLIES196601
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 94.01
Total :287.44
102475 2/21/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 272207 Copy paper
Copy paper
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 5.75
Copy paper
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 5.75
Copy paper
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 5.75
HR supplies
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 35.95
Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 3.71
Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 0.51
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 0.51
Office Supplies - Mayor' s office301441
Office Supplies - Mayor' s office
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 183.51
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 16.33
29Page:
Packet Page 43 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102475 2/21/2008 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
Office Supplies - HR384976
Office Supplies - HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 134.91
Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 12.01
Office Supplies - CS397048
Office Supplies - CS
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 9.55
Office Supplies - HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 15.82
Office Supplies - Mayor's office
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 7.55
Office Supplies - copy paper
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 6.52
Office Supplies - copy paper
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 6.52
Office Supplies - copy paper
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 6.52
Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 1.43
Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 1.99
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 1.25
Total :461.84
102476 2/21/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 344218 OFFICE SUPPLIES
CARTRIDGE INK, ETC.
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 82.20
COPIER PAPER
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 33.45
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 7.31
Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 2.98
30Page:
Packet Page 44 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :125.941024762/21/2008 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
102477 2/21/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 256667 INV#256667 - EDMONDS PD
Q6511X TONERS (SGTS. OFFICE)
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 377.58
COLOR TONERS - (DET. OFFICE)
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 1,076.40
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 33.61
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 95.80
INV#275275 - EDMONDS PD275275
STAPLES, CUPS, LABELS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 173.43
LABELS (PROPERTY ROOM)
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 83.58
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 15.44
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 7.44
Total :1,863.28
102478 2/21/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 282827 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 53.49
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 4.76
Total :58.25
102479 2/21/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 237492 PW ADMIN- PEN SUPPLIES
31Page:
Packet Page 45 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102479 2/21/2008 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
PW ADMIN- PEN SUPPLIES
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 79.94
SEWER- INK FOR PRINTERS
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 87.41
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 7.12
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.78
Total :182.25
102480 2/21/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 233982 3 STOOLS FOR D.S. COUNTER.
3 STOOLS FOR D.S. COUNTER.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 412.05
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 36.67
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES INCLUDING STORAGE345085
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES INCLUDING STORAGE
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 310.91
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 27.67
Total :787.30
102481 2/21/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 366685 Office Supplies for Council Office
Office Supplies for Council Office
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 110.90
Total :110.90
102482 2/21/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 360922 OPS SUPPLIES
Paper
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 425.93
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 37.91
Total :463.84
102483 2/21/2008 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 664239 Legislative attny fees Jan. 2008
32Page:
Packet Page 46 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102483 2/21/2008 (Continued)025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE
Legislative attny fees Jan. 2008
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 5,261.10
Total :5,261.10
102484 2/21/2008 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00047608 UNIT 55 - RETURNED SERPENTINE BELT
UNIT 55 - RETURNED SERPENTINE BELT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -101.07
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -8.99
UNIT 31 - PIPE ASSMEBLY, NOZZLE ASSEMBLY00048252
UNIT 31 - PIPE ASSMEBLY, NOZZLE ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 562.51
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 51.46
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 54.65
Total :558.56
102485 2/21/2008 060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES 11199797 WATER - LITHIUM 2PK
WATER - LITHIUM 2PK
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 92.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.91
Total :99.91
102486 2/21/2008 072131 PACKETFRONT SERVICES INC 2 Business Plan for Fiber Optic Program
Business Plan for Fiber Optic Program
001.000.390.528.200.410.00 41,000.00
Total :41,000.00
102487 2/21/2008 027280 PATRICKS PRINTING 36485 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 242.72
Total :242.72
102488 2/21/2008 069690 PERFORMANCE RADIATOR 1651046 UNIT 21 - RADIATOR
33Page:
Packet Page 47 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102488 2/21/2008 (Continued)069690 PERFORMANCE RADIATOR
UNIT 21 - RADIATOR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 374.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 33.29
UNIT 19- RADIATOR600216
UNIT 19- RADIATOR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 95.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.46
Total :510.75
102489 2/21/2008 072129 PETERSON INDUSTRIAL PROD INC 338110-001 E0194
BLOWER EXPANSION JOINTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2,954.40
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 145.90
Total :3,100.30
102490 2/21/2008 064552 PITNEY BOWES 3833100-FB08 DM1000 MAILING SYSTEM LEASE
DM1000 Mailing System and~250-00193
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 866.00
Total :866.00
102491 2/21/2008 064167 POLLARDWATER.COM-EAST I215530-IN WATER - 3) 5' FIRE HOSE, 3) ADAPTERS
WATER - 3) 5' FIRE HOSE, 3) ADAPTERS
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 299.70
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 15.37
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 28.04
Total :343.11
102492 2/21/2008 072130 RYU, CINDY AND CODY 6-07500 OVERPMT ON ACCT
Refund-Overpmt on acct 6-07500
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 3,956.30
34Page:
Packet Page 48 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :3,956.301024922/21/2008 072130 072130 RYU, CINDY AND CODY
102493 2/21/2008 033300 SAFETY & SUPPLY CO 114226-1 WATER - EAR PLUGS
WATER - EAR PLUGS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 34.16
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 10.54
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.98
Total :48.68
102494 2/21/2008 061482 SEA-WESTERN INC 122256 OPS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
Helmet w/face shield
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 302.00
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 9.12
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 27.69
Total :338.81
102495 2/21/2008 072109 SEELY, ELIZABETH SEELY0212 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL ASSISTANT
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL ASSISTANT~
001.000.640.575.560.410.00 320.00
Total :320.00
102496 2/21/2008 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC 1081017 REF #1081017 - CUSTOMER #6590 - EDMONDS
ANNUAL DOG LICENSE APPS
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 350.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 5.15
King County Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 31.61
Total :386.76
102497 2/21/2008 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-180642 FLEET CHAIN SUPPLY
35Page:
Packet Page 49 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102497 2/21/2008 (Continued)036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC
FLEET CHAIN SUPPLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 850.24
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 73.12
FLEET - RETURNED CHAINS14-180878
FLEET - RETURNED CHAINSG
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -320.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -27.55
Total :575.41
102498 2/21/2008 036850 SMITH, SHERLUND D 27 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 2,326.19
Total :2,326.19
102499 2/21/2008 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 5320018384 SIERRA PARK BALLFIELD
SIERRA PARK BALLFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.72
Total :30.72
102500 2/21/2008 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2540794324 fire station # 16
fire station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,174.47
LIFT STATION #92790012476
LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 263.61
SIGNAL LIGHT2880012519
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 38.90
SIGNAL LIGHT4320010194
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 36.84
36Page:
Packet Page 50 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102500 2/21/2008 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
TRAFFIC LIGHT5510015661
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.23
Total :2,544.05
102501 2/21/2008 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1 080208A INSTALLATION OF SHIELD ON STREET LIGHT
INSTALLATION OF SHIELD ON STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.480.00 50.00
Total :50.00
102502 2/21/2008 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 37674 INV#37674 - EDMONDS POLICE
IDEAL INK 2 OZ (BLUE)
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 6.18
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 0.55
Total :6.73
102503 2/21/2008 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 37723 STAMP FOR ENGINEERING DEPT.
STAMP FOR ENGINEERING DEPT.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 86.98
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 7.74
Total :94.72
102504 2/21/2008 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2295403-01 BOOTS/SEBERS
BOOTS/SEBERS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 93.15
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.01
Total :101.16
102505 2/21/2008 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 2652183 WATER - PROTO HANDLE SLIDING T
WATER - PROTO HANDLE SLIDING T
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 67.50
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 5.81
37Page:
Packet Page 51 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :73.311025052/21/2008 009400 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC
102506 2/21/2008 071585 STERICYCLE INC 0004313309 INV#0004313309 - MONTHLY FEE - EDMONDS
MONTHLY SERVICE FEE
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 10.36
Total :10.36
102507 2/21/2008 068360 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 36521 Legal Services (investigation)
Legal Services (investigation)
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 2,820.73
Total :2,820.73
102508 2/21/2008 068619 SWENSON, LINDA 1167 SUMMER CRAZE COVER
CRAZE COVER PHOTO~
001.000.640.574.200.490.00 150.00
Total :150.00
102509 2/21/2008 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18825597 WATER - COMMERCIAL GRADE GARDEN HOSE
WATER - COMMERCIAL GRADE GARDEN HOSE
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 41.40
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 3.68
Total :45.08
102510 2/21/2008 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 42598 WATER/SEWER - WORK T SHIRTS
WATER/SEWER - WORK T SHIRTS
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 317.78
WATER/SEWER - WORK T SHIRTS
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 317.77
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 28.29
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 28.28
38Page:
Packet Page 52 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102510 2/21/2008 (Continued)040916 TC SPAN AMERICA
SEWER DENIM SHIRTS - S LONG42757
SEWER DENIM SHIRTS - S LONG
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 147.00
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 13.09
Total :852.21
102511 2/21/2008 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1568905 NEWSPAPER AD
Public Hearing Notice 2/19
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 35.52
Total :35.52
102512 2/21/2008 070224 TRAINING SOLUTIONS 08-102 ALS MISC
PM review:TF, MC, JS
001.000.510.526.100.490.00 1,275.00
Total :1,275.00
102513 2/21/2008 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 7750096 WATER - GASKETS
WATER - GASKETS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 35.80
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.58
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.69
WATER METER INVENTORY - M-METER-02-0157750100
WATER METER INVENTORY - M-METER-02-015
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 4,496.60
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 82.29
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 389.21
39Page:
Packet Page 53 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102513 2/21/2008 (Continued)061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
WATER - METER GASKETS7755966
WATER - METER GASKETS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 251.94
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 21.42
WATER INVENTORY - W-VALVCI-02-0107759221
WATER INVENTORY - W-VALVCI-02-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 386.42
W-SADLCI-08-040
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 296.64
W-SADLCI-06-040
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 239.36
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 78.41
WATER - POLY QUICKJOINTS, POLY SS7760889
WATER - POLY QUICKJOINTS, POLY SS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,155.34
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 98.21
WATER - SENSUS TOUCHREADERS7760947
WATER - SENSUS TOUCHREADERS
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 776.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 7.82
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 65.06
40Page:
Packet Page 54 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102513 2/21/2008 (Continued)061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
SEWER - SCREW PLUGS7764345
SEWER - SCREW PLUGS
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.20
SEWER INV - S-BENDPVC-06-010
411.000.655.535.800.340.00 26.85
S-CPLGCONC-06-030
411.000.655.535.800.340.00 75.28
S-CPLGCONC-08-010
411.000.655.535.800.340.00 113.04
S-DONUTS-06-010
411.000.655.535.800.340.00 9.84
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.36
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.340.00 19.12
Total :8,640.48
102514 2/21/2008 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 523126 WATER - 10' FIRE HOSE
WATER - 10' FIRE HOSE
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 332.67
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.350.00 30.92
Total :363.59
102515 2/21/2008 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 45.45
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1691
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 44.80
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER425-775-1344
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 52.84
41Page:
Packet Page 55 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102515 2/21/2008 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
YOST POOL425-775-2645
YOST POOL
001.000.640.575.510.420.00 62.05
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM425-776-5316
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 107.16
Total :312.30
102516 2/21/2008 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-7147 LIBRARY SCAN ALARM
LIBRARY SCAN ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 19.93
FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE425-672-7132
FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 78.84
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS425-775-1534
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 161.04
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 299.08
Radio Line between Public Works & UB425-775-7865
Radio Line between Public Works & UB
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 52.21
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE425-776-1281
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 50.45
42Page:
Packet Page 56 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102516 2/21/2008 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
PUBLIC WORKS CPNNECTION TO 911425-RT0-9133
Public Works Connection to 911
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48
Public Works Connection to 911
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78
Total :771.05
102517 2/21/2008 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-774-0944 FS #20-FAX LINE
FS #20-FAX LINE
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 49.62
Total :49.62
102518 2/21/2008 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0627908259 Mayor Haakenson cell ph. service 2/7 -
Mayor Haakenson cell ph. service 2/7 -
001.000.210.513.100.420.00 123.50
Gary Haakeson cell ph. service 2/7 -
001.000.210.513.100.420.00 13.62
Total :137.12
102519 2/21/2008 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 206-706-3334 C/A 370106564-00002
Cell Phone Jim Stevens
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 49.91
206-999-9374464229910-1
sewer lead cell phone
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 67.70
43Page:
Packet Page 57 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
102519 2/21/2008 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
SIGN SHOP CELL - T HANSEN471082983-00001
SIGN SHOP/#64 CELL -T HANSEN
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 39.75
CELL PHONE-STREET LEAD570091643-00001
CELL PHONE-STREET LEAD
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 47.32
206-947-3220964212899-00001
cell phone water quality
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 39.29
Total :243.97
102520 2/21/2008 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 628194446 OPS COMMUNICATIONS
Air card
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 60.06
Total :60.06
102521 2/21/2008 045515 WABO 15656 Bldg. or Senior Combo. Bldg. Inspector,
Bldg. or Senior Combo. Bldg. Inspector,
001.000.620.524.100.440.00 50.00
Total :50.00
102522 2/21/2008 066088 WACE 3-2008 WASH. ASSOC. OF CODE ENFORCEMENT
WASH. ASSOC. OF CODE ENFORCEMENT
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 40.00
Total :40.00
102523 2/21/2008 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I08032306 INV#I08032306 - EDMONDS PD
JANUARY BACKGROUND CHECKS
001.000.000.237.100.000.00 77.00
Total :77.00
102524 2/21/2008 047960 WEAN, GREG 28 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 413.29
Total :413.29
44Page:
Packet Page 58 of 176
02/21/2008
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
11:42:26AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
Bank total :363,450.68129 Vouchers for bank code :front
363,450.68Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report129
45Page:
Packet Page 59 of 176
AM-1417 2.D.
Update City Code Chapter 4.72.030, Business License Procedure
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/26/2008
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds City Code 4.72.030; eliminating the fifteen day
requirement for a decision on a business license application; and establishing general criteria for
denial of a business license.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the ordinance.
Previous Council Action
This section of the City Code was last updated by Ordinance 1139 in 1965.
Narrative
The proposed ordinance has been recommended by the City Attorney's Office and is a
housekeeping matter, bringing the City Code up to date with current practices. The City Code
currently stipulates that the city has only fifteen days to act on a business license application by
granting or refusing to grant a license. The determination to grant or refuse to grant a license
depends on recommendations by city officials from several departments. Complete and thorough
investigation of a business license application may take city officials from several departments
more than fifteen days to conduct.
Generally, 90% of business license applications are issued within two weeks. However, there are
instances where other issues related to complying with the City Code may arise. Permits may be
required prior to issuing a license (such as Change in Use, Tenant Improvement, etc.), which may
cause the approval process to extend beyond 15 days. Because it is not possible to always meet the
15 day requirement, the City Attorney's Office recommended removing that clause.
The attached ordinance eliminates the 15 day requirement, allowing for thorough investigation
when needed.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Ordinance
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
Packet Page 60 of 176
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/19/2008 11:22 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/19/2008 12:09 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/19/2008 01:27 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 02/19/2008 11:17
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/19/2008
Packet Page 61 of 176
{BFP624857.DOC;1/00006.900030/} - 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC
4.72.030; ELIMINATING THE FIFTEEN DAY REQUIREMENT
FOR A DECISION ON A BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION;
ESTABLISHING GENERAL CRITERIA FOR DENIAL OF A
BUSINESS LICENSE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to ECC 4.72.030 the mayor has only fifteen days to act on a
business license application by granting or refusing to grant a license; and
WHEREAS, the mayor’s determination to grant or refuse to grant a business
license depends on recommendations by city officials from several departments; and
WHEREAS, city officials from several departments must investigate the business
license application before making recommendations to the mayor on whether the license should
be granted; and
WHEREAS, complete and thorough investigation of a business license
application may take city officials from several departments more than fifteen days to conduct,
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Paragraph C of ECC 4.72.030 Procedure. is hereby amended to read
as follows:
4.72.030 Procedure.
C. The city clerk shall present each business license
application to the mayor. The mayor shall direct the proper city
officials to investigate timely whether the application complies
with all the city regulations that the officials have the duty to
enforce. Upon completion of the investigation by the proper city
Packet Page 62 of 176
{BFP624857.DOC;1/00006.900030/} - 2 -
officials, the mayor shall grant or refuse to grant the business
license. A license shall not be granted for an application where:
1. the application is deemed incomplete;
2. the investigation of the application finds violation of
state or city building, fire, safety, zoning, health or any other law,
code or regulation that affects or relates to the issuance of the
business license; or
3. the application misrepresents or omits a material fact
related to any of the obligations set forth in this chapter.
Section 2. Paragraph D is hereby added to ECC 4.72.030 Procedure. to read as
follows:
4.72.030 Procedure.
D. When the applicant is denied a business license, the reason
for denial shall be noted on the application. No license fee shall be
refunded.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
Packet Page 63 of 176
{BFP624857.DOC;1/00006.900030/} - 3 -
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 64 of 176
{BFP624857.DOC;1/00006.900030/} - 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2007, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC
4.72.030; ELIMINATING THE FIFTEEN DAY REQUIREMENT
FOR A DECISION ON A BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION;
ESTABLISHING GENERAL CRITERIA FOR DENIAL OF
BUSINESS LICENSE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2007.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 65 of 176
AM-1425 2.E.
Historic Preservation Candidates Confirmation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/26/2008
Submitted By:Linda Carl
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Confirmation of newly appointed Historic Preservation Commission members.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Last week the City Council interviewed Susan Bauer and Larry Vogel as the Mayor's appointees to
the Historic Preservation Commission. Council confirmation is required for HPC candidates. As
per Council directive, boards and commissions candidates will now be interviewed one week and
then confirmed the following week (or when the full Council meets again).
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/21/2008 03:07 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/21/2008 03:50 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/21/2008 05:13 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 02/21/2008 01:47
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/21/2008
Packet Page 66 of 176
AM-1421 4.
Resolution Setting Election Date and Ballot Title for EMS Levy Lid Lift
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/26/2008
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Plunkett Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Discussion and potential action regarding a proposed Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Edmonds, Washington, providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the
City at the May 20, 2008 Special Election of a proposition authorizing an Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) Levy Lid Lift to restore the regular property tax by approximately $.18 ($1.7
million) to the originally authorized level of $.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation; and
supplying a ballot title limiting the use of the levy to EMS purposes.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council approve the resolution.
Previous Council Action
During the February 19, 2008 Council meeting, the Council voted to have the City Attorney
prepare a resolution providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City at the May
20, 2008 special election of a proposition authorizing an EMS Levy Lid Lift.
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the resolution prepared by the City Attorney.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: EMS Levy Lid Lift Resolution
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/22/2008 08:58 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/22/2008 10:13 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/22/2008 10:14 AM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 02/20/2008 02:55
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/22/2008
Packet Page 67 of 176
{WSS687692.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 -
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
2/22/08
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE
SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE
CITY AT THE MAY 20, 2008 SPECIAL ELECTION OF A
PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES (EMS) LEVY LID LIFT TO RESTORE THE
REGULAR PROPERTY TAX BY APPROXIMATELY $.18
($1.7 MILLION) TO THE ORIGINALLY AUTHORIZED
LEVEL OF $.50 PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUATION;
AND SUPPLYING A BALLOT TITLE LIMITING THE USE OF
THE LEVY TO EMS PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, the citizens of Edmonds previously approved a permanent
Emergency Medical Services levy of up to $.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation for Emergency
Medical services; and
WHEREAS, in the interest of fiscal responsibility, the Edmonds City Council
chose to levy $.50 of the $.50 approved levy in fiscal year 2004; and
WHEREAS, by so doing, future increases in the tax limit were limited to 101% of
the level established by the City’s initial levy; and
WHEREAS, RCW 84.55.050 authorizes the voters by majority vote to authorize a
lift of the levy lid; and
WHEREAS, the provision of Emergency Medical Services through the City’s
Fire Department is essential to the health and well being of the citizens; and
WHEREAS, the citizens have already authorized a permanent maximum levy in
excess of the amounts levied by the City Council in the past; and
Packet Page 68 of 176
{WSS687692.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 -
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to request
authorization by the voters to utilize the additional levy amount originally authorized by the
voters; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
In accordance with the authorization of RCW 84.55.050, the City Council
proposes to submit to the voters an increase in the amount of property tax which the City is
authorized to levy. The proposed increase of approximately $.18 ($1.7 million) if approved,
would restore the City’s maximum approved tax levy to the $.50 per $1,000 of true assessed
valuation originally approved by the voters. The vote would represent an authorization to utilize
taxing authority previously authorized by the voters in the form of a permanent EMS levy at the
maximum of $.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. This amount is at the statutorily authorized
maximum and is not an excess levy. Upon authorization, the current limitation on the City’s
maximum tax levy would be increased with the levy in 2008, and with collections to begin in
2009.
Section 1. There shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City for their
ratification or rejection, an election to be held on May 20, 2008 in conjunction with the May 20,
2008 special election to be held on the same date, the question of whether or not the maximum
permanent EMS property tax levy of the City should be increased to $.50 or less per $1,000 of
true assessed valuation, subject to otherwise applicable statutory limitations. The City Council
therefore directs and requests the Auditor of Snohomish County and its Supervisor of Elections
to submit the following proposition at such election, in the form of a valid title to read
substantially as follows:
Packet Page 69 of 176
{WSS687692.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 -
CITY OF EDMONDS
PROPOSITION # ______
Shall the City of Edmonds restore its current Emergency Medical
Services tax levy rate to the originally voter-authorized total tax
levy of $.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation restoring
approximately $.18 ($1.7 million) and increase the levy each year
thereafter as allowed by Chapter 84.55 RCW? This proposition is
not an excess levy and is subject to otherwise applicable statutory
limits.
Should this proposition be approved?
Yes
No
Section 2. Changes. The Mayor and City Attorney are authorized to make such
minor adjustments to the wording of such proposition as may be recommended by the
Snohomish County Auditor and its Supervisor of Elections, as long as the intent of the
proposition remains clear and as approved by the City Council.
RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2008.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
Packet Page 70 of 176
AM-1422 5.
Resolution in Support of the Proposition Authorizing an EMS Levy Lid Lift
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/26/2008
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Plunkett Time:30 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Discussion and potential action regarding a proposed Resolution in support of the proposition
authorizing an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Levy Lid Lift.* The proposition ballot
title reads as follows:
Shall the City of Edmonds restore its current Emergency Medical Services tax levy rate to
the originally voter-authorized total tax levy of $.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation restoring
approximately $.18 ($1.7 million) and increase the levy each year thereafter as allowed by
Chapter 84.55 RCW? This proposition is not an excess levy and is subject to otherwise
applicable statutory limits.
Should this proposition be approved? Yes or No
*Public comment will be received both pro and con regarding this proposed resolution of
support.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council receive public comment and approve the resolution.
Previous Council Action
During the February 19, 2008 City Council Meeting the Council voted to have the City Attorney
prepare a resolution in support of the proposition authorizing an EMS Levy Lid Lift.
Narrative
Attached as Exhibit 1 is a proposed Resolution prepared in support of the proposition authorizing
an EMS Levy Lid Lift.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Resolution in Support of EMS Levy Lid Lift
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
Packet Page 71 of 176
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/22/2008 08:58 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/22/2008 10:13 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/22/2008 10:14 AM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 02/20/2008 02:57
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/22/2008
Packet Page 72 of 176
{WSS687692.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 -
WSS/ssc
2/22/08
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REQUESTING THE VOTERS
SUPPORT A PROPOSITION TO RESTORE THE CITY’S
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES LEVY TO $.50 PER
$1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUATION
WHEREAS, the Edmonds’ voters in 2002 approved an Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) levy of $.50 per $1,000 in assessed valuation; and
WHEREAS, limitations on annual levies have eroded the amount the City may
levy by approximately $.18 ($1.7 million), thereby reducing the voter authorized $.50 to about
$32.13; and
WHEREAS, EMS services comprise about 71% of the call volume for the
Edmonds Fire Department; and
WHEREAS, the total budget of the Edmonds Fire Department for 2008 is
$8,034,353; adjusted by the deduction of Fire Prevention costs, the 2008 budget is $7,776,734;
and
WHEREAS, 71% of the adjusted total costs or $5,521,481 represents an accurate
estimate of the cost of Emergency Medical Services; and
WHEREAS, at the current eroded level of $32.13, the EMS levy will generate
$2,452,000 requiring a subsidy of $3.069 million from the City’s general fund; and
WHEREAS, restoration of the authorized levy to its original $.50 level would
generate an additional $1.7 million reducing the required subsidy to about $1,369,000 for 2009;
and
Packet Page 73 of 176
{WSS687692.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 -
WHEREAS, the City’s ability to provide essential services is seriously impaired
by the need to subsidize Emergency Medical Services. NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, calls
for the support of the Edmonds voters for a levy lid lift to restore the EMS levy to the $.50 per
$1,000 of assessed valuation. This levy lid lift restores the authority originally approved by the
voters in 2002 and frees much needed general fund revenues for their original purposes.
Restoring the EMS levy to the rate previously approved by voters generates far less revenue than
the amount required to provide Emergency Medical Services to Edmonds citizens.
The City Council urges Edmonds citizens to vote and to vote yes on the levy lid
lift for Emergency Medical Services on May 20, 2008. Emergency Medical Service is essential
to maintaining a safe and livable city. Reducing the general fund subsidy enables the City to
remain a full service city, providing the services its citizens expect and demand.
RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2008.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
Packet Page 74 of 176
AM-1419 6.
Non-Represented and Exempt Salary Ordinance
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/26/2008
Submitted By:Debi Humann Time:15 Minutes
Department:Human Resources Type:Action
Review Committee:Finance
Action:Recommend Review by Full Council
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance establishing the salary ranges for non-represented and exempt personnel for
Budget Year 2008.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Mayor and Staff recommend City Council approval of this ordinance.
Previous Council Action
The subject matter of this ordinance including the "2008 Hourly Employee Wage Schedule," the
accompanying "2008 Hourly Positions By Pay Grade and Title," as well as the "2008
Non-Represented Employee Pay Schedule" were all reviewed by Finance Committee on February
12. The Finance Committee requested that the ordinance move forward to full Council for review
and possible approval.
Narrative
Each year, the 2008 Hourly Employee Wage Schedule is reviewed and adjustments are made based
on the Washington State minimum wage law. This year, H1, Step 1 was raised from $7.93 per
hour to $8.07 and all other steps were increased in kind at approximately 1.76% (see Exhibit A).
The listing of 2008 Hourly Positions by Pay Grade and Title for hourly job titles was also reviewed
and updated to reflect current hourly positions (see Exhibit A). Judge Pro Tems were also added at
grade H21 in compliance with the State Auditor (see Exhibit A).
Each year, the non-represented employee pay schedule is also updated through a survey process
(please see the attached "Non-Represented Policy" or NRC). This year, per the policy approved
last year by City Council, the HR Department surveyed the positions of Police Chief and HR
Assistant using the L-5 comparable cities. When salary and benefits were analyzed, it was
determined that the City of Edmonds was in the L-7 position for both positions opposed to the
median (L-5) (see attached survey sheets). As a result, and per the NRC policy, the position of
Police Chief and HR Assistant were both moved to the L-5 position. Exhibit B reflects the newly
revised bands, based on the two surveys, along with a 3.5% COLA.
The ordinance also authorizes the Mayor's ability to approve merit increases for the
non-represented employees shown on Exhibit B in accordance with the NRC. In addition, the
ordinance authorizes the Mayor's ability to provides additional compensation in temporary
situations in which one non-represented employee is assigned to cover another vacated position for
a period that exceeds 30 days.
Packet Page 75 of 176
a period that exceeds 30 days.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 2008 Hourly Title List
Link: 2008 Hourly Wage Schedule
Link: 2008 Non-Rep Pay Schedule
Link: NRC Policy
Link: 2008 Salary Ordinance
Link: Salary Survey - Police Chief
Link: Salary Survey - HR Assistant
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/20/2008 02:04 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/20/2008 02:42 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/21/2008 01:22 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debi
Humann
Started On: 02/20/2008 01:13
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/21/2008
Packet Page 76 of 176
Exhibit A
2008 HOURLY POSITIONS BY PAY GRADE AND TITLE
GRADE TITLE DEPARTMENT
H01 Summer Preschool Assistant Recreation
Gymnastics Assistant Recreation
Day Camp Assistant Leader Recreation
H02 Preschool Assistant Recreation
H03 Clerical Assistant General
Clerk Typist General
Lifeguard Recreation
H04 Mechanics Helper PW
File Clerk Court
Day Camp Leader Recreation
Recreation Aide Recreation
H05 Front Desk Receptionist Recreation
Swim Instructor Recreation
Gymnastics Instructor Recreation
H06 Seasonal Laborer Parks
Beautification Program Worker Parks
H07 Clerk Fire
Ranger/Naturalist Recreation
Crime Prevention Officer Assistant Police
Crime Prevention Volunteer Coordinator Police
H08 Cheer Leading Coach Recreation
Gymnastics Instructor II Recreation
Junior Counselor Advisor Recreation
H09 Intern Engineering
Intern Planning
Aquatic Lead Recreation
Dive Coach Recreation
Swim Team Coach Recreation
H10 Summer Preschool Supervisor Recreation
H11 Secretary Police/Fire
Bailiff Court
Water/Sewer Laborer PW
Temporary Seasonal Laborer Recreation
Pool Manager Recreation
Street/Stormwater Seasonal Laborer PW
WWTP Laborer PW
H12 Tennis Instructor Recreation
Day Camp Supervisor Recreation
H13 Gymnastics Supervisor Recreation
H14 Special Commission/Security Police
HPO Police Reserve ($12.00) Police
H21 Pro Tem Judges Municipal Court
Updated 2.20.08
title and wage table.2008 hourly positions by pay grade and title
Packet Page 77 of 176
Exhibit A
1st YEAR 2nd YEAR 3rd YEAR 4th YEAR 5th YEAR
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5
H1 $8.07 $8.47 $8.90 $9.34 $9.81
H2 $8.66 $9.09 $9.55 $10.03 $10.53
H3 $9.09 $9.54 $10.02 $10.52 $11.05
H4 $9.77 $10.26 $10.77 $11.31 $11.87
H5 $10.43 $10.95 $11.50 $12.08 $12.68
H6 $11.10 $11.66 $12.24 $12.85 $13.50
H7 $11.79 $12.38 $13.00 $13.65 $14.34
H8 $12.23 $12.84 $13.49 $14.16 $14.87
H9 $13.14 $13.79 $14.48 $15.21 $15.97
H10 $13.82 $14.51 $15.24 $16.00 $16.80
H11 $14.62 $15.36 $16.12 $16.93 $17.78
H12 $16.89 $17.74 $18.63 $19.56 $20.53
H13 $19.43 $20.40 $21.42 $22.49 $23.61
H14 $21.37 $22.44 $23.56 $24.74 $25.98
H15 $23.51 $24.68 $25.92 $27.21 $28.57
H16 $25.86 $27.15 $28.51 $29.93 $31.43
H17 $28.44 $29.87 $31.36 $32.93 $34.57
H18 $31.29 $32.85 $34.50 $36.22 $38.03
H19 $34.42 $36.14 $37.94 $39.84 $41.83
H20 $37.86 $39.75 $41.74 $43.83 $46.02
H21 $65.00
the employee occupied the previous year based on performance. Advancement
cannot go beyond step 5 of the pay grade.
STEP ADVANCEMENT: Hourly employees are eligible for step advancement
following each completed year of service or return to the same seasonal position
2008 HOURLY EMPLOYEE WAGE SCHEDULE
5% Step Increases - Minimum Wage Increase
GRADE
L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0015_1419_2008 Hourly Employee Wage Schedue.xls 2008 Hrly Emp Wage Sched
h20 2/22/2008 2:15 PM
Packet Page 78 of 176
Exhibit A
ALTERNATE PAY GRADES:
H12 Step 6 - Scott Highland
H15 Step 6 - Conrad Baker
L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0015_1419_2008 Hourly Employee Wage Schedue.xls 2008 Hrly Emp Wage Sched
h20 2/22/2008 2:15 PM
Packet Page 79 of 176
Exhibit B
2008
NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE PAY SCHEDULE (NRC)
Effective January 1, 2008
(includes 3.5% COLA)
BAND TITLES PAY RANGE
A Police Chief $96,210 – 144,315
Fire Chief
Administrative Services Director
PW Director
Community Services Director
Parks and Recreation Director
Development Services Director
BAND TITLES PAY RANGE
B Assistant Police Chief $87,821 – 131,731
Assistant Fire Chief
Human Resources Manager
City Engineer
Economic Development Director
BAND TITLES PAY RANGE
C Planning Manager $79,431 – 119,147
Assistant Administrative Services Director
Building Official
Assistant City Engineer
Fire Marshal
City Clerk
WWTP Manager
BAND TITLES PAY RANGE
D Chief Information Officer $71,042 – 106,563
Transportation Engineer
Court Administrator
Water/Sewer Manager
Street/Storm Water Manager
WWTP Supervisor
BAND TITLES PAY RANGE
E Facilities Manager $62,652 – 93,978
Parks Manager
Storm Water Engineer
Cultural Services Manager
Recreation Services Manager
Fleet Manager
Assistant Building Official
Engineering Program Manager 2 and 3
Senior Planner
NRC/2008 NRC Employee Pay Schedule.doc
Packet Page 80 of 176
Exhibit B
BAND TITLES PAY RANGE
F Executive Assistant to the Mayor $54,263 – 81,394
Planner
Capital Project Manager
Engineering Program Manager 1
Associate Planner
BAND TITLES PAY RANGE
G Assistant Planner $45,873 – 68,810
Recycling Coordinator
Executive Assistant - Confidential
BAND TITLES PAY RANGE
H Human Resources Assistant $37,484 – 56,225
NRC/2008 NRC Employee Pay Schedule.doc
Packet Page 81 of 176
POLICY AND PROCEDURE
City of Edmonds
PERSONNEL POLICIES
SUBJECT: NON-REPRESENTED COMPENSATION POLICY
The City’s non-represented compensation policy strives to maintain equity in pay for all
employees, offers competitive salaries to attract high level applicants, offers internal equity to
foster long term retention of valuable employees, and rewards meritorious job performance for
deserving individuals.
BANDING (Internal Equity Component) -
The City’s non-represented compensation policy covers all non-represented positions in eight
different bands as follows:
Band A:
Police Chief, Fire Chief, Administrative Services Director, Public Works Director, Community
Services Director, Parks and Recreation Director, and Development Services Director
Band B:
Assistant Police Chief, Assistant Fire Chief, Human Resources Manager, City Engineer,
Economic Development Director
Band C:
Planning Manager, Assistant Administrative Services Director, Building Official, Assistant City
Engineer, Fire Marshal, City Clerk, WWTP Manager
Band D:
Chief Information Officer, Transportation Engineer, Court Administrator, Water/Sewer Manager,
Street/Storm Water Manager, WWTP Supervisor
Band E:
Facilities Manager, Parks Manager, Storm Water Engineer, Cultural Services Manager,
Recreation Services Manager, Fleet Manager, Assistant Building Official, Engineering Program
Manager, Senior Planner
Band F:
Executive Assistant to the Mayor, Planner, Engineering Specialist
Band G:
2/22/2008dlh
Packet Page 82 of 176
Page 2
Assistant Planner, Recycling Coordinator, Executive Assistant Confidential
Band H:
Human Resources Assistant
The salary for each position shall remain within the boundaries of the specific corresponding
band. The bands are consistently held at a 50% width.
METHOD/APPLICATION (External Component) –
Annually, to be completed no later than September 1 of each year, the non-represented bands will
be realigned based on a market survey of two positions; the highest paid non-represented position
and the lowest paid non-represented position. This process will involve the following:
1. Determining the highest paid non-represented position (Band A) and the lowest paid non-
represented position (Band H).
2. Complete a market based survey of the two positions using the comparable cities from
King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties as determined by the HR Committee in 2000
(Attachment 1). The survey will include successfully comparing our positions with four
cities directly above Edmonds by population and with four cities directly below Edmonds
by population. The level 5 position (or median) will be determined with the median
salary becoming the new maximum for the band.
3. The remaining bands (B through G) will be consistently spaced between Bands A and H.
ANNUAL INCREASES –
Non-represented staff are eligible for two increases a year as follows:
Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA):
As part of the annual budget process, each band is eligible for a COLA on an annual basis when
approved by City Council. COLA shall be awarded following the annual market based survey
and any necessary adjustments of non-represented bands.
Annual Merit Increase:
Merit increases may be awarded to non-represented employees based on performance as follows:
• 1% - Meets Standards –
Performance consistently meets job requirements and goals are achieved as stated in the
annual evaluation or work plan.
• 2% - Commendable –
Performance is consistently above adequate skill levels. Goals are achieved often beyond
expectation.
• 3% - Distinguished –
dlh2/22/2008
Packet Page 83 of 176
Page 3
Performance is consistently and significantly beyond established standards. Goals are
achieved at an outstanding level and exceptional skill levels are consistently
demonstrated.
For exceptional meritorious performance, over and above distinguished, the Mayor has the
authority to award a merit increase up to a maximum of 5% with appropriate justification from
the Department Director. At no point shall employees be allowed to exceed the band maximum.
RECRUITMENT -
For external recruitment purposes, the band range will consist of the established band minimum
up to 50% of the band width as the maximum (the mid-point of the band). New employees shall
be hired at no more than 5% above their current salary not to exceed 50% of their specific band.
In rare situations in which the position can not be filled, or when internal salary compression is a
component, the Mayor has the authority to negotiate a starting salary that may exceed the mid-
point within the band width.
APPEALS –
If a non-represented employee believes they have been incorrectly placed within the band
structure, or has another pay equity issue, they may bring the issue forward to their direct
supervisor and/or Department Director. If the Director finds the issue has validity, he/she will
appeal to the Mayor to determine whether the position has been placed inappropriately, from a
financial and from a responsibilities/job tasks standpoint, within a designated band. If, upon the
conclusion of the review it is determined that an adjustment is warranted, the Mayor has the
authority to correct position placement within the bands as appropriate. No other appeal process
is available.
dlh2/22/2008
Packet Page 84 of 176
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE SALARY RANGES
FOR NON-REPRESENTED AND EXEMPT PERSONNEL FOR
BUDGET YEAR 2008, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.33.050 requires that the salary ranges for the various
positions in the City be made a part of the annual budget document as a part of the adoption of an
annual budget ordinance, and
WHEREAS, after review and discussion, the City Council has determined it
appropriate to adjust salary ranges for certain non-represented employees described in the
attached Exhibit A and Exhibit B in order to permit a salary increase along with approval of a
benefit package, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Annual salary ordinance.
1.1 The salary ranges of all hourly employees are hereby
adjusted upward by approximately 1.76% to reflect the 2008
change to Washington state’s minimum wage law. The salary
ranges adopted are shown on the attached Exhibit A.
1.2 The salaries of all non-represented employees are hereby
adjusted upward by the annual salary survey and three and one-half
percent (3.5%) for COLA. The salary ranges adopted are shown
on the attached Exhibit B.
1.3 In addition, the Mayor is authorized to approve merit
increases for the non-represented employees listed in Exhibit B
effective on the individual employee's anniversary date. Such
merit increases may range between zero percent (0%) up to five
percent (5%) but shall not exceed the employee's pay range.
{WSS688225.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
- 1 -
Packet Page 85 of 176
1.4 When a non-represented employee is assigned to cover
additional duties of another position during a job vacancy, the
Mayor may, but is not required to, approve additional
compensation of five percent (5%) or a salary equal to that
provided for the vacant position, whichever is greater. The
additional compensation shall be payable only if the duties are
covered for a period of thirty (30) days or longer and shall cease
when the vacant position has been filled. Up to one week of
additional compensation may be paid if the designated employee
assists in training the new hire.
Section 2. Insurance, leave and other existing benefits shall remain in full force
and effect.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
{WSS688225.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
- 2 -
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 86 of 176
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3611
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the _____ day of ______________, 2008, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No._____. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE
SALARY RANGES FOR NON-REPRESENTED AND EXEMPT PERSONNEL FOR
BUDGET YEAR 2008, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this ______ day of ______________, 2008.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{WSS688225.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
- 3 -
Packet Page 87 of 176
PO
L
I
C
E
C
H
I
E
F
20
0
8
"
L
5
"
S
a
l
a
r
y
S
u
r
v
e
y
CI
T
Y
PO
P
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
CU
R
R
E
N
T
T
O
P
O
F
RA
N
G
E
2
0
0
8
(M
O
N
T
H
L
Y
)
CU
R
R
E
N
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
B
E
N
E
F
I
T
S
*C
U
R
R
E
N
T
V
A
L
U
E
OF
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
(M
O
N
T
H
L
Y
$
)
MONTHLY TOTALS $ANNUAL TOTALS $
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
W
a
y
87
,
3
9
0
10
,
3
3
4
$5
0
0
/
m
o
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
d
e
f
c
o
m
p
,
c
i
t
y
c
a
r
50
0
10,834 130,008
Ke
n
t
86
,
6
6
0
11
,
5
1
7
80
h
r
v
a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
u
p
o
n
h
i
r
e
,
c
i
t
y
c
a
r
,
$
1
8
4
2
c
a
f
e
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
2,
2
8
5
13,802 165,621
Re
n
t
o
n
60
,
2
9
0
11
,
0
7
3
3%
d
e
f
c
o
m
p
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
33
2
11,405 136,862
La
k
e
w
o
o
d
58
,
9
5
0
10
,
1
5
2
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
0
10,152 121,824
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
53
,
1
9
0
no
m
a
t
c
h
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
no
m
a
t
c
h
no match no match
Re
d
m
o
n
d
50
,
6
8
0
11
,
2
1
1
At
t
o
p
s
t
e
p
,
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
u
p
t
o
1
5
%
m
e
r
i
t
l
u
m
p
s
u
m
16
8
2
12,893 154,712
Au
b
u
r
n
50
,
4
7
0
11
,
2
5
0
1%
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
V
E
B
A
,
c
i
t
y
c
a
r
11
2
.
5
11,363 136,350
Ki
r
k
l
a
n
d
47
,
8
9
0
11
,
3
9
6
$2
2
5
/
m
o
c
a
r
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
o
r
c
i
t
y
c
a
r
,
5
0
h
r
s
m
g
m
t
l
e
a
v
e
49
9
11,895 142,739
ED
M
O
N
D
S
40
,
5
6
0
11
,
2
3
0
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
0
11,230 134,760
Sa
m
m
a
m
i
s
h
40
,
2
6
0
no
m
a
t
c
h
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
no
m
a
t
c
h
no match no match
Pu
y
a
l
l
u
p
36
,
7
9
0
9,
5
1
4
3%
d
e
f
c
o
m
p
,
3
%
B
A
e
d
p
r
e
m
,
6
%
l
o
n
g
@
2
5
y
r
s
,
c
a
r
1,
1
4
2
10,656 127,868
Ma
r
y
s
v
i
l
l
e
36
,
2
1
0
11
,
2
8
4
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
e
d
-
$
5
0
0
/
m
o
c
a
r
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
,
2
%
d
e
f
c
o
m
p
72
6
12,010 144,116
Ly
n
n
w
o
o
d
35
,
4
9
0
10
,
2
6
8
75
h
r
s
O
T
,
6
.
8
5
%
m
a
s
t
e
r
s
,
$
2
7
8
.
1
1
l
o
n
g
@
2
5
y
r
s
1,
3
5
2
11,620 139,436
Bo
t
h
e
l
l
32
,
4
0
0
11
,
0
6
8
80
h
r
s
m
g
m
t
l
e
a
v
e
,
1
%
R
H
S
,
3
%
d
e
f
c
o
m
p
86
8
11,936 143,237
Bu
r
i
e
n
31
,
4
1
0
no
m
a
t
c
h
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
no
m
a
t
c
h
no match no match
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
P
l
a
c
e
31
,
3
0
0
no
m
a
t
c
h
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
P
i
e
r
c
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
no
m
a
t
c
h
no match no match
20
0
8
T
o
p
o
f
S
a
l
a
r
y
R
a
n
g
e
R
a
n
k
i
n
g
Current New
Re
d
m
o
n
d
$1
5
4
,
7
1
2
Edmonds
Ma
r
y
s
v
i
l
l
e
14
4
,
1
1
6
Bo
t
h
e
l
l
14
3
,
2
3
7
Salary Range (No COLA)
Ki
r
k
l
a
n
d
14
2
,
7
3
9
Ly
n
n
w
o
o
d
13
9
,
4
3
6
L-
5
89,840 -92,957
Au
b
u
r
n
13
6
,
3
5
0
134,760 139,436
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
13
4
,
7
6
0
Pu
y
a
l
l
u
p
12
7
,
8
6
8
La
k
e
w
o
o
d
12
1
,
8
2
4
*V
a
l
u
e
o
f
c
i
t
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
L:
\
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
d
b
\
C
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
\
0
0
1
9
_
1
4
1
9
_
2
0
0
8
P
O
L
I
C
E
C
H
I
E
F
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
.
x
l
s
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
88
of
17
6
HR
A
S
S
I
S
T
A
N
T
20
0
8
"
L
5
"
S
a
l
a
r
y
S
u
r
v
e
y
CI
T
Y
PO
P
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
CU
R
R
E
N
T
T
O
P
O
F
RA
N
G
E
2
0
0
8
(M
O
N
T
H
L
Y
)
CU
R
R
E
N
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
B
E
N
E
F
I
T
S
CU
R
R
E
N
T
V
A
L
U
E
OF
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
(M
O
N
T
H
L
Y
$
)
MONTHLY TOTALS $ANNUAL TOTALS $
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
W
a
y
87
,
3
9
0
3,
7
1
5
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
0
3,715 44,580
Ke
n
t
86
,
6
6
0
no
m
a
t
c
h
no
m
a
t
c
h
no match no match
Re
n
t
o
n
60
,
2
9
0
4,
3
1
3
3%
d
e
f
c
o
m
p
,
$
2
7
8
l
o
n
g
@
2
5
y
r
s
40
7
4,720 56,645
La
k
e
w
o
o
d
58
,
9
5
0
no
m
a
t
c
h
no
m
a
t
c
h
no match no match
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
53
,
1
9
0
no
m
a
t
c
h
no
m
a
t
c
h
no match no match
Re
d
m
o
n
d
50
,
6
8
0
5,
0
0
2
At
t
o
p
,
u
p
t
o
5
%
o
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
n
u
a
l
m
e
r
i
t
25
0
5,252 63,025
Au
b
u
r
n
50
,
4
7
0
4,
3
5
6
1%
V
E
B
A
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
44
4,400 52,795
Ki
r
k
l
a
n
d
47
,
8
9
0
5,
3
0
2
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
0
5,302 63,624
ED
M
O
N
D
S
40
,
5
6
0
4,
3
7
2
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
0
4,372 52,464
Sa
m
m
a
m
i
s
h
40
,
2
6
0
45
2
7
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
0
4,527 54,324
Pu
y
a
l
l
u
p
36
,
7
9
0
41
6
6
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
0
4,166 49,992
Ma
r
y
s
v
i
l
l
e
36
,
2
1
0
5,
0
9
1
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
0
5,091 61,092
Ly
n
n
w
o
o
d
35
,
4
9
0
42
8
7
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
0
4,287 51,444
Bo
t
h
e
l
l
32
,
4
0
0
5,
5
3
4
1%
R
H
S
*
,
3
%
d
e
f
c
o
m
p
22
1
5,755 69,064
Bu
r
i
e
n
31
,
4
1
0
no
m
a
t
c
h
no
m
a
t
c
h
no match no match
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
P
l
a
c
e
31
,
3
0
0
no
m
a
t
c
h
no
m
a
t
c
h
no match no match
20
0
8
T
o
p
o
f
S
a
l
a
r
y
R
a
n
g
e
R
a
n
k
i
n
g
Current New
Ki
r
k
l
a
n
d
$6
3
,
6
2
4
Edmonds
Re
d
m
o
n
d
63
,
0
2
5
Ma
r
y
s
v
i
l
l
e
61
,
0
9
2
Salary Range (No COLA)
Re
n
t
o
n
56
,
6
4
5
Sa
m
m
a
m
i
s
h
54
,
3
2
4
L-
5
34,976 -36,216 -
Au
b
u
r
n
52
,
7
9
5
52,464 54,324
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
52
,
4
6
4
Ly
n
n
w
o
o
d
51
,
4
4
4
Pu
y
a
l
l
u
p
49
,
9
9
2
*R
e
t
i
r
e
e
H
e
a
l
t
h
S
a
v
i
n
g
s
P
l
a
n
L:
\
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
d
b
\
C
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
\
0
0
2
0
_
1
4
1
9
_
2
0
0
8
H
R
A
S
S
I
S
T
A
N
T
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
.
x
l
s
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
89
of
17
6
AM-1416 7.
Verizon Franchise -- Consortium
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/26/2008
Submitted By:Stephen Clifton
Submitted For:W. Scott Snyder Time:20 Minutes
Department:Community Services Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Verizon Franchise - Consortium.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
Verizon is in the process of marketing “triple-play” (cable TV, internet and phone service) to its
customers. In order to do so in the City of Edmonds, as in every other city, it must have a cable TV
franchise. Verizon already has a state-wide franchise for phone service as a successor to GTE.
City staff and Verizon representatives met on January 17, 2008 to discuss potential processes for
issuance of a new franchise as it relates to the delivery of cable TV services. The attached
memorandum from Scott Snyder, City Attorney, outlines possible "Next Steps" and City Staff and
Attorney would appreciate Council direction on several issues.
Also Mr. Snyder will discuss the attached Draft Interlocal Agreement - Consortium for Negotiation
Support During Cable Television Franchising.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: City Attorney Memo - Verizon Franchise
Link: Draft Interlocal Agreement
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/19/2008 11:22 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/19/2008 12:09 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/19/2008 01:27 PM APRV
Form Started By: Stephen
Clifton
Started On: 02/15/2008 10:45
AM
Packet Page 90 of 176
Final Approval Date: 02/19/2008
Packet Page 91 of 176
A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • 206.447.7000 • Fax: 206.447.0215 • Web: www.omwlaw.com
{WSS685898.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 14, 2008
TO: Mayor Gary Haakenson
Edmonds City Council
City of Edmonds
FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director, Edmonds
RE: Verizon Franchise -- Consortium
On January 17th, the Mayor, Mr. Clifton, Mr. Bowman, Mr. Gebert and I met with Denise Reidy
a representative of Verizon. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss potential processes for
issuance of a new franchise. Verizon is in the process of marketing “triple-play” (cable TV,
internet and phone service) to its customers. In order to do so in the City of Edmonds, as in
every other city, it must have a cable TV franchise. Verizon already has a state-wide franchise
for phone service as a successor to GTE.
As the Council Members may be aware, the City amended its code to adopt a 90-day process,
compliant with federal law, for a new “competitive” franchise -- that is, overbuild which
competes with an existing franchisee. This simplified procedure is required by federal law and is
intended to place a new franchisee on the same footing as existing franchisees.
One practical problem in the case of the City of Edmonds is that the existing franchise will
expire in about three years. Therefore, the City would be going through a renewal process with
Comcast. That process can either be in the long form pursuant to federal law and include
customer service, system evaluation and community needs assessments, or an informal
negotiated process. When the new 90-day format was discussed with the City Council
originally, staff’s recommendation to “true up” the two franchises was based on the need under
federal law for a level playing field and the realization that the City’s existing franchise is out of
date.
Packet Page 92 of 176
Mayor Gary Haakenson
Edmonds City Council
February 14, 2008
Page 2
{WSS685898.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
At the meeting, it became apparent that a three-year franchise was well beyond the negotiating
brief of the Verizon representative. Verizon is expanding nationally and has hundreds of similar
franchises in negotiation. For corporate consistency reasons, they want long-term franchises
with consistent provisions.
Meanwhile, Congress continues to consider various amendments to the Telecommunications
Act. Versions in past congressional sessions have included a “national franchise” -- applicable
whenever a competitive situation exists in any community. This ongoing federal review raises
the specter that the City could invest time and money in a complicated evaluation process only to
have its regulatory ability pulled out from under it.
We would appreciate Council direction on several issues. In order to assist in the process, Mr.
Clifton and I contacted City attorneys and staff representatives from many cities including
Everett, Kirkland, and Lynnwood as well as Snohomish County to discuss the status of their
contract negotiations with Verizon.
The group met on two occasions, most recently on February 14. As a result, Snohomish
County and approximately 6-9 cities (including Edmonds) are discussing the creation of a
negotiating consortium to establish common negotiating parameters, share consultant costs and
share information. The group is proceeding to gather proposals and draft an interlocal
agreement.
In order to assist in the process, a number of options are open to the Council:
1. Join in a Consortium. Developing a stronger negotiating platform could benefit the
parties. Participation would validate our negotiating position locally and nationally.
2. Engage a Consultant Directly or through a Consortium. The City Council could be
advised in this process by a number of national consulting firms that specialize in cable TV
franchises. This process could provide information to the City regarding issues such as customer
service and community needs, as well as what is practically available through a franchise in
today’s more competitive marketplace. We are exploring cost-sharing through the consortium.
3. Lobbyist. Consider contacting your lobbyist in Washington to get an assessment of the
prospects of legislation to amend the Telecommunications Act. Making a large investment in a
process that will shortly change could be problematic.
4. Consider whether the City should enter into an informal process with Verizon. Doing so
could set the competitive framework for your upcoming Comcast negotiation. That is, due to
level playing field requirements, the City will not be able to require substantially more from
Comcast than you obtain from Verizon. So long as the end result is reasonable in the
marketplace, a savings in time and money could result from initiation of an informal process
now. The City Council needs to gather information to satisfy its citizens that you are getting the
Packet Page 93 of 176
Mayor Gary Haakenson
Edmonds City Council
February 14, 2008
Page 3
{WSS685898.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
best deal that is practically available. This position could be in contrast to spending a good deal
of public money to obtain a result with a short shelf life.
What tools and information would the Council like available to it in the process?
Mr. Clifton and I have begun the process of gathering information from other cities and we
would appreciate the Council’s direction regarding the resources it would like available to
address these issues. We recommend participation in a consortium to develop a template
franchise for negotiation and to share the costs of a consultant.
WSS:gjz
Packet Page 94 of 176
{WSS688189.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
February 21, 2008
Page 1 of 6
ROUGH DISCUSSION D R A F T #1
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
CONSORTIUM FOR NEGOTIATION SUPPORT
DURING CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISING
This Agreement is made and entered into by and between the undersigned Parties
pursuant to the provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1967, Chapter 39.34
RCW.
WHEREAS, Snohomish County and the cities of South Snohomish and North
King County are or will soon be in the process of negotiating competitive cable
franchises with Verizon; and
WHEREAS, while each governmental entity will negotiate on its own behalf, the
Parties to this agreement wish to coordinate their efforts in every lawful manner in order:
a) to ensure that the public receives the maximum rights and benefit from their respective
franchise agreements; b) to better coordinate their negotiation; and (c) to share the costs
of a national consultant to ensure the citizens of each jurisdiction that its franchise is
competitive both locally and nationally; and
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to jointly engage a consultant to draft a template for
the individualized use of each negotiating entity; and
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act provides a mechanism to both jointly
contract with the consultant for common services as well as a mechanism for each Party
to utilize the consultant’s services, as that Party sees fit for additional support in
negotiation as well as the tailoring of the template to the specific needs of each
participating entity; NOW, THEREFORE,
In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, it is
agreed that:
1. Duration This Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect until:
1.1 The consortium, as an information-sharing group, may remain in
effect for an indefinite term for the mutual benefit and cooperation of the Parties for so
long as they individually choose to participate.
1.2 Any Party may withdraw from this agreement upon the provision
of thirty (30) days notice subject to the limitations of Sections 3.3 and 3.5.
Packet Page 95 of 176
{WSS688189.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
February 21, 2008
Page 2 of 6
2. Purpose This Agreement shall have the following purposes:
2.1 Provide for a vehicle for the Parties to contract with a nationally
recognized consultant, selected through requests for proposals, for the development of a
template for a cable television franchise for the use of each Party in its individual
negotiations with Verizon.
2.2 This Agreement shall also serve as a vehicle to contract with a
consultant for additional individualized services to be provided to each individual Party.
By so doing, the Parties hope to secure a lower cost for their services through a joint
contracting framework as well as minimize travel costs and other expenses by
coordinating their efforts.
2.2 The consortium shall also serve as a vehicle for the Parties to share
information now and in the future regarding telecommunications issues, including but not
limited to issues such as educational and governmental channel usage, PEG fees and
capital gains, negotiation strategies for franchises, the negotiation of cell tower and other
telecommunication leases, right-of-way use requirements, and other similar issues. This
information sharing is intended to provide for a vehicle for sharing information regarding
issues of common public interest.
3. Organization The consortium may consist of Snohomish County and the
cities of Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Lynnwood, Mukilteo, Kenmore and
Edmonds, upon their authorization. In addition, other entities authorized to participate in
interlocal agreements by statute may join during the term of this Agreement.
3.1 Snohomish County shall serve as the contracting entity with the
consultant. The cost of consulting services incurred in the preparation of a template for a
Verizon franchise shall be shared by the Parties on a pro-rata basis based upon [number
of subscribers OR franchise revenues from cable television services -- Select One]. The
Parties shall attempt to reach a consensus regarding the direction of the consultant and the
preparation of the template. In the event that the Parties cannot reach substantial
agreement, voting shall be on a weighted basis, with each Party have as many votes as its
pro-rate percentage of the costs to be shared.
3.2 The consulting contract shall also provide for each Party to utilize
consultant services under the Agreement at its own cost for:
3.2.1 Individualization and revision of the franchise template for
the use of a Party; and
3.2.2 Negotiation support during each entity’s individualized
negotiations with Verizon.
Packet Page 96 of 176
{WSS688189.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
February 21, 2008
Page 3 of 6
3.3 A withdrawing Party shall be liable for the costs incurred to the
date of its departure. Each Party shall be individually liable for all costs associated with
individual work requested through the joint consulting agreement. Each Party agrees to
indemnify and hold the other harmless from the costs which that Party individually
incurs.
3.4 All costs incurred under Section 3.1 shall be billed to Snohomish
County. The Parties agree to promptly pay all invoices from Snohomish County within
forty-five days of the mailing of an invoice for the Parties’ share of undisputed joint
costs. Late payments (more than forty-five days after mailing) shall bear interest at
twelve percent (12%) per annum with a minimum late payment fee of fifty dollars
($50.00).
3.5 Consultant billings related to services performed at the request of
an individual Party shall be billed by the consultant to the requesting Party. Parties
requesting individual services shall indemnify and hold harmless all other Parties from
any cost, claim or liability associated with such individual service by the consultant.
4. Terms Required by Section 39.34.030 In addition to the provisions
previously stated terms regarding duration, organization and purpose, the following
provisions are included pursuant to the requirements of RCW 39.34.030.
4.1 No joint personal or real property ownership is contemplated under
the terms of the is provision. All rights to the franchise template shall be jointly shared
by the Parties, with each having the right to use it at its sole discretion as it deems
appropriate. Any individualized work done at the direction of a Party, at the Party’s cost,
shall be and remain the property of the Party.
4.2 As referenced in Section 2.1 the Parties intend to participate
cooperatively in the preparation of a template. The development of the template shall be
through a consortium consisting of a designated representative from each body, and at
their discretion, legal counsel as appropriate. Decision-making shall be a consensus,
provided however, that if significant consensus cannot be reached regarding the joint
preparation of a template, voting shall be by weighted vote based upon each Party’s pro-
rate share of the costs.
4.3 This Agreement shall be effective when posted on the Snohomish
County’s web-site. Parties not listed in the original web-site posting may be joined when
the signature page indicating their agreement has been posted on either the Snohomish
County’s web-site or the web-site of the participant, whichever first occurs.
5. Designated Representatives The County Executive, City Manager and
Mayor of each entity shall designate a representative (Designated Representative).
Notice to such representative shall be undertaken through e-mail contacts, provided,
however, that any decision to terminate the participation of any Party shall be given in
writing and shall be effective when provided to Snohomish County, Washington at:
Packet Page 97 of 176
{WSS688189.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
February 21, 2008
Page 4 of 6
Peter Camp
Snohomish County
3000 Rockefeller Avenue
Everett WA 98201
425-388-3123
6. Dispute Resolution.
6.1 Any disputes or questions of interpretation of this Agreement that
may arise between Parties shall be governed under the Dispute Resolution provisions in
this Section. The Parties agree that cooperation and communication are essential to
resolving issues efficiently. The Parties agree to exercise their best efforts to resolve any
disputes that may arise through this dispute resolution process, rather than in the media or
through other external means.
6.2 The Parties agree to use their best efforts to prevent and resolve
potential sources of conflict through discussion among the consortium’s members.
6.3 The Parties agree to use their best efforts to resolve disputes
arising out of or related to this Agreement using good faith negotiations. If unsuccessful,
the Parties may but are not obligated to utilize mediation. The costs of mediation shall be
shared equally between the Parties to the dispute and the remaining members of the
consortium. As an illustration, if two Parties, A & B, dispute a billing procedure and
cost, they shall share the costs of mediation with the remaining members of the
Consortium. Party A, 25%, Party B, 25%, and the consortium, 50% (divided pro-rata
among the other Parties as a cost per Section 3.1).
6.4 Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, in the event the
dispute is not resolved in mediation or the Parties do not agree to mediation, the Parties
are free to file suit. At all times prior to resolution of the dispute, the Parties shall
continue to perform and make any required payments under this Agreement in the same
manner and under the same terms as existed prior to the dispute.
7. No Indemnity. Except as specifically provided in Sections 3.3 and 3.5,
no indemnity is imposed by this Agreement. The Parties agree to bear their respective
liability to the extent and in the percentage determined under the laws of the State of
Washington.
8. General Provisions.
8.1 The Parties shall not unreasonably withhold requests for
information, approvals or consents provided for in this Agreement. The Parties agree to
take further actions and execute further documents, either jointly or within their
respective powers and authority, to implement the intent of this Agreement. The Parties
agree to work cooperatively with each other to achieve the mutually agreeable goals as
set forth in this Agreement.
Packet Page 98 of 176
{WSS688189.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
February 21, 2008
Page 5 of 6
8.2 This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Venue for any action under this
Agreement shall be Snohomish County, Washington.
8.3 This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection
and benefit of the Parties hereto. No other person shall have any right of action based
upon any provision of this Agreement.
8.4 This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel
for all Parties and no presumption or rule that ambiguity shall be construed against the
Party drafting the document shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this
Agreement.
8.5 Each Party shall be responsible for its own costs, including legal
fees, incurred in negotiating or finalizing this Agreement, unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Parties.
8.6 The Parties shall not be deemed in default with provisions of this
Agreement where performance was rendered impossible by war or riots, civil
disturbances, floods or other natural catastrophes beyond its control; the unforeseeable
unavailability of labor or materials; or labor stoppages or slow downs, or power outages
exceeding back-up power supplies. This Agreement shall not be revoked or a Party
penalized for such noncompliance, provided that such Party takes immediate and
diligent steps to bring itself back into compliance and to comply as soon as practicable
under the circumstances without unduly endangering the health, safety, and integrity of
both Parties’ employees or property, or the health, safety, and integrity of the public,
Public Right-of-Way, public property, or private property.
8.7 This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument
executed by each of the Parties hereto. No failure to exercise and no delay in
exercising, on the part of any Party hereto, any rights, power or privilege hereunder
shall operate as a waiver hereof, except as expressly provided herein.
8.8 This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties
with respect to the subject matters hereof, and supersedes any and all prior negotiations
(oral and written), understandings and agreements with respect hereto.
8.9 Section headings are intended as information only, and shall not
be construed with the substance of the section they caption.
8.10 In construction of this Agreement, words used in the singular
shall include the plural and the plural the singular, and “or” is used in the inclusive
sense, in all cases where such meanings would be appropriate.
Packet Page 99 of 176
{WSS688189.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
February 21, 2008
Page 6 of 6
8.11 This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, and all counterparts together shall constitute but one
and the same instrument.
8.12 In case any term of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal
or unenforceable in whole or in part, neither the validity of the remaining part of such
term nor the validity of the remaining terms of this Agreement shall in any way be
affected thereby.
8.13 The provisions of Section 3.1 and 3.3 shall survive termination
of this Agreement or the withdrawal of any Party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties hereto has executed this
Agreement by having its authorized representative affix his/her name in the appropriate
space below:
Packet Page 100 of 176
AM-1420 8.
Work session on the upcoming Code rewrite.
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:02/26/2008
Submitted By:Duane Bowman Time:60 Minutes
Department:Development Services Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Work session on the upcoming Code rewrite.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
After review, direct staff to schedule the appropriate public hearing schedule.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Planning Board has completed review of two code sections and has made recommendations
for changes for consideration by the City Council. The two code sections deal with regulations
covering nonconforming buildings and uses and nuisances. Attached for the Council's information
are the draft ordinances covering these topics. Staff will walk the Council through the draft
ordinances to outline the recommended changes. Dates for public hearings will need to be set for
the proposed code amendments.
In addition, the Planning Board will be holding a public hearing on February 27, 2008 regarding
possible amendments to Chapter 20 of the ECDC. Some key items under consideration include:
Fiscal Impact
establishing new tables identifying categories of Permit types and
processing procedures for each,
creating new posting and mailing procedures requiring permit applicants to
assume the responsibility for providing notice for permit applications,
creating language for development agreements,
removing the City Council from most quasi-judicial land use decisions, and
clarifying procedures for reconsideration requests.
Packet Page 101 of 176
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - Draft Nuisance Regulations
Link: Exhibit 2 - Draft Nonconforming Regulations
Link: Exhibit 3 -City Attorney Memo Nonconforming buildings/uses
Link: Exhibit 4 - Planning Board minute extracts Nonconforming regulations
Link: Exhibit 5 - Planning Board minute extracts Nuisance regulations
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/21/2008 05:10 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/22/2008 10:13 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/22/2008 10:14 AM APRV
Form Started By: Duane
Bowman
Started On: 02/20/2008 02:11
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/22/2008
Packet Page 102 of 176
0006.900000
JZL/
12/05/07
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 6.10 ECC, CHAPTER
6.20 ECC, CHAPTER 6.30 ECC AND CHAPTER 20.110 ECDC;
AMENDING THE CITY’S REGULATIONS GOVERNING
PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City currently addresses public nuisance abatement through
various regulations codified throughout the Edmonds City Code and the Edmonds Community
Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to update, overhaul and streamline its public
nuisance regulations; and
WHEREAS, the amendments effected by this ordinance will serve the public
interest by establishing a clear, uniform and efficient set of standards and procedures for
designating and abating public nuisances; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council hereby adopts the above recitals as
findings in support of the code amendments effected by this ordinance. The Council further
makes the following additional findings:
A. The code amendments contained in this ordinance are consistent with and
will implement applicable policies of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
{JZL680194.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 -
Packet Page 103 of 176
B. The code amendments contained in this ordinance satisfy all applicable
criteria for adoption.
C. The substantive provisions of this ordinance have been processed by the
City in material compliance with all applicable procedures, including but not limited to public
notice and the opportunity for public comment.
D. All applicable SEPA requirements have been satisfied with respect to the
adoption of this ordinance.
E. The code amendments contained in this ordinance will protect, promote
and benefit the public health, safety and welfare.
Section 2. Amendment of ECC 6.10.020. Section 6.10.020 of the Edmonds City
Code is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows:
6.10.020 General duties.
The health officer of the City of Edmonds shall look after
and superintend all matters pertaining to the health of the city.
Section 3. Repealer — ECC 6.10.030. Section 6.10.030 of the Edmonds City
Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 4. Repeal and Reenactment — Chapter 6.20 ECC. Chapter 6.20 of the
Edmonds City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and reenacted as provided in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
Section 5. Amendment of ECC 6.30.040. Section 6.30.040 of the Edmonds City
Code is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows:
6.30.040 Refusal or failure to abate; penalties.
If the owner, lessee, occupant, agent or other person in
charge of property on which noxious weeds, thistles or nettles exist
fails or refuses to destroy the same within the time set forth in the
notice, said person shall be subject to the penalties and remedies
for public nuisances set forth in Chapter 6.20 ECC.
{JZL680194.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 -
Packet Page 104 of 176
Section 6. Repealer — ECC 6.30.050. Section 6.30.050 of the Edmonds City
Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 7. Amendment of ECDC 20.110.010. Section 20.110.010 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as
follows:
20.110.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish an efficient
system of enforcing the Edmonds Community Development Code
and such other city regulations as may adopt the procedures set
forth herein by reference; to provide an opportunity for a prompt
hearing and decision regarding alleged violations; to establish
monetary penalties; and to provide for abatement of uncorrected
violations. This chapter shall coordinate with Chapter 6.20 ECC,
Chapter 8.50 ECC and such other code provisions as may
expressly or by implication utilize the enforcement procedures set
forth herein.
Section 8. Amendment of ECDC 20.110.020. Section 20.110.020 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as
follows:
20.110.020 Definition section.
A. “City” means the city of Edmonds, Washington.
B. “Civil violation” means a violation of a provision of
the Edmonds Community Development Code for which a
monetary penalty may be imposed under this chapter. Each day or
portion of a day during which a violation occurs or exists is a
separate violation.
C. “Person” means any natural person, any
corporation, or any unincorporated association or partnership.
Section 9. Repealer — ECDC 20.110.030. Section 20.110.030 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
{JZL680194.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 -
Packet Page 105 of 176
Section 10. Repealer — ECDC 20.110.050. Section 20.110.050 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 11. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 12. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
CITY ATTORNEY, SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
{JZL680194.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 4 -
Packet Page 106 of 176
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2008, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER
6.10 ECC, CHAPTER 6.20 ECC, CHAPTER 6.30 ECC AND CHAPTER 20.110 ECDC;
AMENDING THE CITY’S REGULATIONS GOVERNING PUBLIC NUISANCE
ABATEMENT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2008.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{JZL680194.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 5 -
Packet Page 107 of 176
Exhibit A
Chapter 6.20
PUBLIC NUISANCES
Sections:
6.20.010 Purpose.
6.20.020 Definitions.
6.20.030 Public nuisances prohibited.
6.20.040 Types of nuisances.
6.20.045 Protective coverings.
6.20.050 Enforcement and abatement.
6.20.060 Separate abatement proceedings for junk vehicles.
6.20.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to protect and serve the public health, safety and welfare by
deterring and preventing conditions which constitute a public nuisances, and providing for the
prompt, efficient and permanent abatement of public nuisances. It is also the purpose of this
chapter to ensure that the persons responsible for creating, maintaining and/or allowing such
nuisances bear the costs of any necessary enforcement and abatement action to fullest extent
legally permissible. The provisions of this chapter shall be reasonably construed in furtherance
of these purposes.
6.20.020 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply for purposes of this chapter:
A. “Antique vehicle” means a vehicle that is at least 40 years old and as qualified
pursuant to WAC 308-96A-073.
B. “Driveway” means an improved surface per City engineering standards designed
and used for accessing a parking area and/or for vehicle parking.
C. “Emergency” means a situation in which the community services director
reasonably determines that immediate abatement or other action is necessary in order to prevent,
reduce or eliminate an immediate threat to health, safety or property.
D. “Front yard” means a space on the same lot as a principal building, extending the
full width of the lot, and situated between the street right-of-way and the front line of the
building projected to the side lines of the lot. In the case of a double frontage lot, both spaces
with street frontage shall be considered front yards.
E. “Junk vehicle” means a vehicle meeting any three of the following criteria:
{JZL680194.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 6 -
Packet Page 108 of 176
1. Is three years old or older;
2. Is extensively damaged, including but not limited to any of the following
conditions: a broken or missing windshield or missing wheels, tires, motor or transmission;
3. Is apparently inoperable;
4. Has an approximate fair market value equal only to the approximate value
of the scrap in it.
F. “Inoperable” with respect to a vehicle means that the vehicle is incapable of being
legally operated on a public roadway due to the condition of the vehicle or the status of the
ownership, registration, or license of the vehicle.
G. “Junk” means discarded, broken or disabled material including but not limited to
household items, house or lawn furniture, appliances, toys, construction items, hot tubs,
trampolines, vehicle parts, or other items that are not neatly stored or in a functioning condition.
H. “Litter” means discarded waste materials, including but not limited to paper,
wrappings, packaging material and discarded or used containers.
I. "Motor vehicle" means a vehicle that is self-propelled but not operated upon rails,
and includes neighborhood electric vehicles as defined in RCW 46.04.357. An electric personal
assistive mobility device is not considered a motor vehicle. A power wheelchair is not
considered a motor vehicle.
J. “Operable” with respect to a vehicle means that the vehicle is a licensed
motorized or non-motorized vehicle which in its current condition is legally and physically
capable of being operated on a public roadway.
H. “Rear yard” means a space on the same lot with a principal building, extending
the full width of the lot and situated between the rear line of the lot and the rear line of the
building projected to the side lines of the lot.
I. “Salvage” means an item that would otherwise be destroyed, rejected or discarded
but is or may be recycled or put to further use.
J. “Side yard” means a space on the same lot with a principal building, situated
between the building and the side lot line and extending from the rear line of the front yard to the
front line of the rear yard.
K. “Stagnant” means water or liquid that has become foul, stale or impure through
lack of agitation, flow or movement.
L. “Trash” means waste food products and other household garbage.
M. “Vehicle” means any motorized or non-motorized conveyance that includes, but
is not limited to, an automobile, recreational vehicle, truck, any type of trailer, van, motorcycle,
{JZL680194.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 7 -
Packet Page 109 of 176
watercraft, farm equipment, construction equipment and antique vehicles (i.e., cars, trucks, vans,
motorcycles, carriages, or motorized buggies).
6.20.030 Public nuisances prohibited.
It is a violation of this chapter for any person to permit, create, maintain, or allow upon
any premises any of the actions or conditions declared in ECC 6.20.040 to be a public nuisance
except to the extent expressly authorized by law.
6.20.040 Types of nuisances.
The actions and conditions enumerated as public nuisances pursuant to Chapter 7.48
RCW are hereby designated as public nuisances for purposes of this chapter. Each of the
following actions and conditions, unless otherwise permitted by law, is additionally declared to
constitute a public nuisance:
A. Any junk, trash, litter, boxes, salvage materials or lumber not neatly stacked in
any front yard, side yard, rear yard or vacant lot.
B. Any attractive nuisances dangerous to children, including but not limited to the
following items when located outside of a fully enclosed building:
1. Abandoned, broken or neglected equipment;
2. Rusted, jagged, sharp or otherwise potentially dangerous machinery;
3. Household or commercial appliances, including but not limited to
refrigerators, freezers, washers, dryers, dishwashers, ovens, hot water tanks or toilets;
4. Unpermitted excavations; and/or
5. Unprotected or open wells or shafts.
C. Any broken, soiled or discarded furniture, household equipment or furnishings.
D. Any graffiti on the exterior of any building, fence or other structure in any front
yard, side yard, rear yard or on any object in a vacant lot.
E. Any vehicle parts or other articles of personal property which are stored,
discarded or left in a state of partial construction or repair in any front yard, side yard, rear yard
or vacant lot.
F. Any hazardous trees, or any other vegetation which is dangerous to the general
public health, safety and welfare, located in any front yard, side yard, rear yard, or vacant lot.
G. Any structure or other constructed object not governed by the International
Building Code that is decayed, damaged, or in disrepair and poses a substantial threat of
collapse, structural failure or falling.
H. Any accumulation, stack or pile of building, landscaping or construction materials
which are exposed to the elements or are in disarray and which are not directly associated with a
project on the premises for which a current building permit has been obtained; or, with respect to
{JZL680194.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 8 -
Packet Page 110 of 176
a project which does not require a permit, that is in progress or which is scheduled to begin
within ten (10) business days. Construction materials include but are not limited to metal, wood,
wire, drywall, electrical components, and any supplies, equipment or other items utilized for
painting, landscaping, logging, roofing, masonry or plumbing.
I. Any stacks or accumulations of newspapers, cardboard, or other paper, cloth,
plastic, or rubber left or stored in a manner which poses a substantial risk of combustion, a threat
of fire, or that may harbor, serve as an attraction for or promote the infestation of mold, insects
and/or vermin.
J. Any storage or keeping of any toxic, flammable, or caustic substance or material
except in compliance with applicable requirements of state or federal law.
K. Any accumulations of perishable matter, including but not limited to food stuffs,
that may harbor or attract the infestation of mold, insects and/or vermin.
L. Any stagnant, pooled water in which mosquitoes, flies or other insects may
reproduce.
M. Any garbage stored outdoors that is not kept in a fully contained receptacle with a
tight-fitting lid.
N. Any recyclable materials which are stored outside and which are not regularly
disposed of on a scheduled disposal cycle not to exceed thirty (30) days.
O. Any compost kept in a manner which attracts infestations of insects or which
emits foul odors detectable at or beyond the boundary of the underlying property.
P. Any shopping carts located in any front yard, side yard, rear yard, vacant lot, or
rights-of-way, except where such shopping carts are owned and/or utilized for their designated
purpose upon the underlying premises.
Q. Any uncultivated berry vines and Class B or Class C Noxious weeds (as classified
by the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board) which exceed an average of three feet in
height within five feet of an adjacent property.
R. Any violation of the noxious weed regulations contained in Chapter 6.30 ECC.
S. Any unpermitted obstruction of any street, alley, crossing or sidewalk, and any
unpermitted excavation therein or thereunder.
T. Any garbage receptacle, recycling bin or compost container located within the
front yard setback unless screened from view.
6.20.045 Protective coverings.
{JZL680194.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 9 -
Packet Page 111 of 176
Except as otherwise expressly provided by applicable city ordinance or a valid regulatory
permit, any condition enumerated in ECC 6.20.040 shall constitute a public nuisance irrespective
of whether such condition is covered in whole or in part by a tarpaulin, vapor barrier, canvas or
plastic sheeting, or other temporary covering.
6.20.050 Enforcement and abatement.
A. Responsibility for enforcement. The provisions of this chapter shall be enforced
by the community services director or his/her designee.
B. Responsibility for violation. The provisions of this chapter shall be enforceable
against any person who causes, permits, creates, maintains or allows upon any premises, any of
the actions or conditions designated as public nuisances under ECC 6.20.040, including but not
limited to any person or entity owning, leasing, renting, occupying, or possessing the underlying
premises.
C. Penalties. Any person violating this chapter shall be subject to civil enforcement
proceedings pursuant to Chapter 20.110 ECDC and/or criminal misdemeanor prosecution.
D. Abatement. The City may seek a warrant of abatement from Snohomish County
Superior Court authorizing City personnel and/or contractors to enter any premises containing a
public nuisance and abate said nuisance at the violator’s expense. Prior to obtaining such a
warrant, the City shall provide written notice to the responsible party by posting upon the subject
premises, mailing and/or personal delivery. Such notice may be combined with a Notice of Civil
Violation issued pursuant to Chapter 20.110 ECDC, and shall contain: (1) a description of the
public nuisance; (2) a reasonable deadline by which the responsible party must eliminate the
public nuisance; (3) a warning that the City may abate the nuisance at the responsible party’s
expense; and (4) a statement that the notice shall become a final order of the City if not appealed
to the hearing examiner within the time period specified in Chapter 20.110 ECDC. All costs
incurred by the City in abating a public nuisance, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees,
staff time and contractor expenses, shall be recovered from the responsible party. Abatement
may be exercised concurrently with or alternatively to the imposition of civil and/or criminal
penalties pursuant to subsection (C) of this section.
E. Summary Abatement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the
City may, to the fullest extent legally permissible, summarily abate and/or take any action
necessary to eliminate any condition constituting an immediate threat to public health or safety.
6.20.060 Separate abatement proceedings for junk vehicles.
A. Statutes Adopted by Reference.
1. RCW 46.55.010(2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12) only;
2. RCW 46.55.070, Posting requirements – Exception;
3. RCW 46.55.090, Storage, return requirements – Personal belongings –
Combination endorsement for tow truck drivers – Authority to view impounded vehicle;
4. RCW 46.55.100, Impound notice – Abandoned vehicle;
5. RCW 46.55.110, Notice to legal and registered owners;
{JZL680194.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 10 -
Packet Page 112 of 176
6. RCW 46.55.120, Redemption of vehicle – Sale of unredeemed vehicles;
7. RCW 46.55.130, Notice requirements public auction accumulation of
storage charges;
8. RCW 46.55.140, Operator's lien, deficiency claim, liability; and
9. RCW 46.55.230, Junk vehicles – Certification, notification, removal, sale.
C. Administrative Hearing Officer. All abatement hearings required under this
section shall be conducted by the hearing examiner. A decision made by the hearing examiner
under this section regarding abatement shall be final as to abatement. Any abatement hearing
under this section shall be considered a separate matter from any hearing regarding the
underlying violation outlined in the previous sections of this chapter. Provided, however, that
the hearing examiner may in his/her discretion combine such hearings if two separate rulings are
issued.
D. Abatement and Removal of Unauthorized Junk Motor Vehicles or Parts Thereof
from Private Property.
1. The storage or retention of an unauthorized junk motor vehicle or parts
thereof, as defined herein, on private property is hereby declared a public nuisance subject to
removal and impoundment. The community services director shall inspect and investigate
complaints relative to unauthorized junk motor vehicles, or parts thereof on private property.
Upon discovery of such nuisance, the community services director shall give notice in writing to
the last registered owner of record if identifiable and the property owner, of the violation of the
nuisance provisions and demand that both abate the nuisance or the vehicle will be removed and
costs will be assessed against them. The notice shall also inform both that a hearing before the
hearing examiner may be requested in writing, directed to the city clerk within 10 days of said
notice, and that if no hearing is requested within 10 days, the vehicle will be removed at their
expense.
2. If a request for a hearing is received, a notice giving the time, location,
and date of the hearing on the question of abatement and removal of the vehicle or parts thereof
as a public nuisance shall be mailed, by certified mail with a five-day return receipt requested, to
the owner of the land as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to the last registered and
legal owner of record unless the vehicle is in such condition that the identification numbers are
not available to determine ownership.
3. The owner of the land on which the vehicle is located may appear in
person at the hearing or present a written statement in time for consideration at the hearing, and
deny responsibility for the presence of the vehicle on the land, with reasons for the denial and
that she/he has not given consent for the vehicle to be located there. If it is determined at the
hearing that the vehicle was placed on the land without the consent of the landowner and that
she/he has not subsequently acquiesced in its presence, then the hearing examiner shall not
assess costs of administration or removal of the vehicle against the owner of the property upon
which the vehicle is located or otherwise order recoupment of such costs from the owner of the
property.
4. Costs of removal of vehicles or parts thereof under this section shall be
assessed against the last registered owner of the vehicle or automobile hulk if the identity of the
owner can be determined, unless the owner in the transfer of ownership of the vehicle or
automobile hulk complied with RCW 46.12.101, or the costs may be assessed against the owner
{JZL680194.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 11 -
Packet Page 113 of 176
of the property on which the vehicle is stored, unless the property owner establishes the facts set
forth subsection 3 of this section.
5. This section shall not apply to:
a. A vehicle or part thereof that is completely enclosed within a
building in a lawful manner where it is not visible from the street or other public or private
property; or
b. A vehicle or part thereof that is stored or parked in a lawful
manner on private property in connection with the business of a licensed dismantler or licensed
vehicle dealer and is screened according to RCW 46.80.130.
6. After notice has been given of the city's intent to dispose of the vehicle
and after a hearing, if requested, has been held, the vehicle or parts thereof shall be removed at
the request of the community services director and disposed of to a licensed motor vehicle
wrecker or hulk hauler with written notice being provided to the Washington State Patrol and the
Department of Licensing that the vehicle has been wrecked or otherwise lawfully disposed of.
E. Owner of Record Presumed Liable for Costs when Vehicle Abandoned –
Exceptions.
1. The abandonment of any junk vehicle or hulk shall constitute a prima facia
presumption that the last owner of record is responsible for such junk vehicle and thus liable for
any costs incurred in removing, storing and disposing of said vehicle.
2. A registered owner transferring a vehicle shall be relieved from personal
liability under this chapter if within five days of the transfer she/he transmits to the planning
division a seller's report of sale on a form prescribed by the planning manager to show that the
vehicle had been transferred prior to the date notice was given to him/her of the need to abate.
F. Owner or Agent Required to Pay Charges – Lien.
1. Any costs incurred in the removal and storage of an impounded shall be a
lien upon the vehicle. All towing and storage charges on such vehicle impounded shall be paid
by the owner or his/her agent if the vehicle is redeemed. In the case of abandoned vehicles, all
costs of removal and storage shall be paid by the owner or his/her agent if the vehicle is
redeemed, but if not redeemed, such costs shall be received from the proceeds of sale.
2. Either a registered or legal owner may claim an impounded vehicle by
payment of all charges that have accrued to the time of reclamation. If the vehicle was
impounded at the direction of a law enforcement agency, the person in possession of the vehicle
prior to the time of reclamation shall notify such agency of the fact that the vehicle has been
claimed, and by whom.
G. Written Impound Authorization Form. Whenever the community services director
impounds a vehicle pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, the director shall complete an
authorization form approved by the chief of police which specifies the section of this chapter or
Chapter 46.55 RCW authorizing the impound. In the alternative, a law enforcement notice of
infraction or citation for an offense which authorized the impound may be substituted at the
director’s discretion.
{JZL680194.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 12 -
Packet Page 114 of 176
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 -
2/22/2008
0006.900000
WSS/gjz
8/9/06
R:9/12/06gjz
R:6/5/07gjz
R;6/22/07gjz
R:7/30/07gjz
R:11/1/07rwc
D R A F T
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE BY THE REPEAL AND
REENACTMENT OF CHAPTER 17.40 NONCONFORMING
USES, BUILDINGS, SIGNS AND LOTS, AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, existing Chapter 17.40 Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, Signs and
Lots was enacted in 1980 with the goal of achieving strict compliance with the City’s zoning
code; and
WHEREAS, significant changes have occurred including but not limited to the
enactment of Historic Preservation provisions, changes in the state regulatory structure and the
City’s Comprehensive Plan designed to encourage mixed use development, preserve affordable
housing and permit reuse and reconstruction of buildings within the City; and
WHEREAS, in order to encourage annexations to the City, the City wishes to
provide for greater flexibility in the preservation of existing legally non-conforming uses,
buildings and structures; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the business environment and economic
development can be stimulated by allowing greater flexibility regarding the reuse of
nonconforming signs, NOW, THEREFORE,
Packet Page 115 of 176
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 -
2/22/2008
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Chapter 17.40
NONCONFORMING USES, BUILDINGS,
SIGNS AND LOTS
Sections:
17.40.000 Purpose.
17.40.010 Nonconforming uses.
17.40.020 Nonconforming buildings.
17.40.030 Nonconforming accessory dwelling units.
17.40.040 Nonconforming lots.
17.40.050 Nonconforming signs.
17.40.060 Nonconforming community facilities
17.40.000 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to allow certain nonconforming uses,
buildings, signs and lots to continue while limiting the
continuation of certain aspects of nonconformity. Other
nonconforming uses, buildings, signs and lots, which are declared
to be nuisances, are required to be eliminated.
17.40.010 Nonconforming uses.
A. Definition. A nonconforming use is one which was once
allowed by applicable land use regulations, but is no longer
allowed, due to the passage or later change of this or a prior
ordinance.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming use may continue, unless
required to be abated by subsection C of this section, but it may not
be expanded in any way, including additional lot area, floor area,
height, number of employees, equipment, or hours of operation
except as otherwise provided in ECDC 17.40.060.
C. Lapse of Time.
1. If a nonconforming use ceases for a period of six
continuous months, any later use of the property occupied by the
former nonconforming use shall conform to this zoning ordinance.
Packet Page 116 of 176
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 -
2/22/2008
Uses such as agricultural uses, which vary seasonally, shall be
deemed abandoned if the seasonal use is not utilized during one
full season consistent with the traditional use.
2. If a nonconforming residential use ceases because
its building is damaged in excess of seventy-five (75) percent of its
replacement cost, the use may be reestablished if, but only if, an
application for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC
19,00.015, et seq, is filed within 18 months of the date such
damage occurred. After the application has been filed, only one
180-day extention may be granted.
3. The right of reestablishment of use described in
ECDC 17.040.10.C.2, above, shall not apply if:
(a) The building or structure was damaged or destroyed
due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner’s agent;
or
(b) The building is damaged or destroyed due to the
ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the
owner’s agent.
In the event that 17.40.010.C.3(a) or (b) apply, the nonconforming
use shall be abated if damage exceeds twenty-five (25) percent of
replacement cost. “Replacement cost” shall be determined as
provided in ECDC 17.40.020(F).
D. Conditional Uses. A legal use does not become
nonconforming because the zone in which it is located is changed
to a zone district which requires a conditional use permit for the
use. However, the use may not be expanded, as provided for in
subsection B of this section, without obtaining a conditional use
permit.
17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure.
A. Definition. A nonconforming building or a nonconforming
structure is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site
development standards applicable at the date of its permitted
construction, but which no longer conforms to such standards due
to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the city
of Edmonds or the application of such ordinance in the case of a
building or structure annexed to the city.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming building or structure may
be maintained and continued, unless required to be abated
elsewhere in this chapter or section, but it may not be changed or
Formatted: Indent: First line: 36 pt
Deleted: twenty
Deleted: 25
Deleted: only if construction of a new
or repaired building is begun by the filing
of a fully completed building permit
application with all fees paid within one
year of the date the damage occurred by
the filing of a building permit which vests
in accordance with ECDC 19.00.015, et
seq, within the one-year period. This
provision shall not apply if the damage
was caused by the unlawful act, gross
negligence or ongoing neglect of the
owner or the owner's agent.
Deleted: that event
Deleted: ¶
Packet Page 117 of 176
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 4 -
2/22/2008
altered in any manner which increases the degree of nonconformity
of the building except as expressly provided in subsection C
through F.
C. Historic Buildings and Structures. Nothing in this section
shall prevent the full restoration by reconstruction of a building or
structure which is either listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, the Washington State Register of Historic Places, the
Washington State Cultural Resource Inventory, the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places, or is listed in a city-approved historical
survey meeting the standards of the State Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation. “Restoration” means
reconstruction of the historic building or structure with as nearly
the same visual design appearance and materials as is consistent
with full compliance with the State Building Code and consistent
with the requirements of Chapter 20.45 ECDC Edmonds Register
of Historic Places. The reconstruction of all such historic
buildings and structures shall comply with the life safety
provisions of the State Building Code.
D. Maintenance and Alterations.
1. Ordinary maintenance and repair of a
nonconforming building or structure shall be permitted.
2. Alterations which otherwise conform to the
provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site development and bulk
standards, and which do not expand any nonconforming aspect of
the building, shall be permitted.
3. Alterations required by law or the order of a public
agency in order to meet health and safety regulations shall be
permitted.
E. Relocation. Should a nonconforming building or structure
be moved horizontally for any reason for any distance, it shall
thereafter come into conformance with the setback and lot
coverage requirements for the zone in which it is located.
Provided, however, that a building or structure may be moved on
the same site without full compliance if the movement reduces the
degree of nonconformity of the building or structure. Movement
alone of a nonconforming building or structure to lessen an aspect
of its nonconformity shall not require the owner thereof to bring
the building or structure into compliance with other bulk or site
development standard of the city applicable to the building or
structure.
Deleted: or
Deleted: By way of illustration and not
limitation, t
Packet Page 118 of 176
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 5 -
2/22/2008
F. Restoration. If a nonconforming building or structure is
destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to seventy-five (75)
percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction,
said building shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance
with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development
Code. Determination of replacement costs and the level of
destruction shall be made by the building official and shall be
appealable as a staff decision under the provisions of ECDC
20.105.030. Damage of less than 75 percent of replacement costs
may be repaired, and the building returned to its former size, shape
and lot location as existed before the damage occurred, if, but only
if, such repair is initiated by the filing of an application for a
building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19,00.015, et
seq, within one year of the date such damage occurred. This right
of restoration shall not apply if:
1. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed
due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner’s agent; or
2. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the
ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the owner’s
agents.
G. Residential buildings in commercial zones. Existing
nonconforming buildings in commercial zones in use solely for
residential purposes – or structures attendant to such residential use
– may be remodeled or reconstructed without regard to the
limitations of ECDC 17.40.020(B), (E) and (F), if, but only if the
following conditions are met:
1. The remodel or reconstruction takes place within
the footprint of the original building or structure. “Footprint” shall
mean an area equal to the smallest rectangular area in a plane
parallel to the ground in which the existing building could be
placed, exclusive of uncovered decks, steps, porches, and similar
features and provided that the new footprint of the building or
structure shall not be expanded by more than ten (10) percent and
is found by the City Staff to be substantially similar to the original
style and construction after complying with current codes.
2. All provisions of the state building and electrical
code can be complied with entirely on the site. No nonconforming
residential building may be remodeled or reconstructed if, by so
doing, the full use under state law or city ordinance of a
conforming neighboring lot or building would be limited by such
remodel or reconstruction.
Packet Page 119 of 176
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 6 -
2/22/2008
3. These provisions shall apply only to the primary
residential use on site and shall not apply to nonconforming
accessory buildings or structures.
4. A nonconforming residential single-family building
may be rebuilt within the defined building envelope if it is rebuilt
with materials and design which are substantially similar to the
original style and structure after complying with current codes.
“Substantial compliance” shall be determined by the City Staff as a
Staff Decision – Notice Required under the provisions of ECDC
20.95.050, except that any appeal of the Staff Decision shall be to
the ADB rather than to the Hearing Examiner. The decision of the
ADB shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC
20.105.070.
17.40.025 Vested nonconforming or illegal accessory
dwelling units.
A. Illegal or nonconforming accessory dwelling units which
registered with the City during the registration period which ended
October 16, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. are hereby declared to be legal
nonconforming detached and attached accessory dwelling units
(ADU). Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is defined in Chapter
20.21 ECDC.
B. Once registered, a formerly illegal or nonconforming ADU
shall enjoy all the protections and privileges afforded to a
nonconforming building under the provisions of ECDC 17.40.020;
provided, however, that such ADU shall be subject to the permit
review requirement of ECDC 20.100.040 to the end that the city
council reserves the right to impose additional conditions on the
continued use and occupancy of the formerly illegal ADU if it is
found to constitute a nuisance or present a hazardous condition, or
to revoke such registration and permit if a nuisance or hazardous
condition relating to the ADU is not abated.
C. Legal nonconforming units which received a permit
certificate confirming such status and listing the physical
dimensions and other characteristics of the structure may be
continued in accordance with such permit certificate; provided,
however, that the registration and permit of a formerly illegal ADU
may be revoked and/or conditioned in accordance with the
provisions of ECDC 20.100.040.
D. Failure to register a structure within the time period
established by the provisions of this section shall be considered to
be presumptive proof that such a unit is an illegal unit and subject
Deleted: 1.The remodel or
reconstruction takes place within the
footprint of the original building or
structure. “Footprint” shall mean an area
equal to the smallest rectangular area in a
plane parallel to the ground in which the
existing building could be placed,
exclusive of uncovered decks, steps,
porches, and similar features and
provided that the new footprint of the
building or structure shall not be
expanded by more than ten (10) percent
and is found by the ADB to be
substantially similar to the original style
and construction after complying with
current codes. Nothing herein shall
prohibit reconstruction in conformance
with current setback requirements. ¶
2.All provisions of Chapter 19.05
ECDC can be complied with entirely on
the site. No nonconforming residential
building may be remodeled or
reconstructed if, by so doing, the full use
under state law or city ordinance of a
conforming neighboring lot or building
would be limited by such remodel or
reconstruction. ¶
3.These provisions shall apply only to
the primary residential use on site and
shall not apply to nonconforming
accessory buildings or structures. ¶
4.Nonconforming residential single-
family buildings may be rebuilt within
the defined building envelope if: ¶
(a) it is rebuilt with materials and
design which are substantially similar to
the original style and structure after
complying with current codes.
Compliance with the “substantially
similar” requirement shall be determined
by the Architectural Design Board and
appealable to the hearing examiner in a
closed record appeal, and ¶
(b) The provisions of subsection 4 and
its subparagraphs shall be appealable in
the following zones:
___________________
_________________________________
____________________. ¶
G.The determination of the ADB shall
be based upon an open record hearing
held under the notice procedures of
ECDC 20.91.010(B). A closed record
appeal may be taken to the Hearing
Examiner under the procedures
applicable to a staff decision. ECDC
20.105.020. The decision of the Hearing
Examiner shall be final and appealable
only as provided in ECDC 20.105.070.
[Alternative: ADB with appeal to City
Council.] ¶
Packet Page 120 of 176
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 7 -
2/22/2008
to abatement. The owner of such structure may overcome such a
presumption only by presentation of substantial and competent
evidence which establishes the legal nonconforming nature of such
building by clear and convincing evidence that the structure was
permitted by Snohomish County or the city of Edmonds, was
permitted by such agency and was in complete compliance with
the applicable provisions of state law and county or city ordinance,
at the date such construction was initiated and was completed.
17.40.030 Nonconforming lots.
A. Definition. A nonconforming lot is one which met
applicable zoning ordinance standards as to size, width, depth and
other dimensional regulations at the date on which it was created
but which, due to the passage of a zoning ordinance, the
amendment thereof or the annexation of property to the city, no
longer conforms to the current provisions of the zoning ordinance.
A lot which was not legally created in accordance with the laws of
the local governmental entity in which it was located at the date of
the creation is an illegal lot and will not be recognized for
development.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming lot may be developed for
any use allowed by the zoning district in which it is located, even
though such lot does not meet the size, width, depth and other
dimensional requirements of the district, so as long as all other
applicable site use and development standards are met or a
variance from such site use or development standards has been
obtained. In order to be developed a nonconforming lot must meet
minimum lot size standards established by the provisions of this
code, subject to the provisions of subsection D of this section.
C. Combination. If, since the date on which it became
nonconforming due to its failure to meet minimum lot size or
width criteria, an undeveloped nonconforming lot has been in the
same ownership as a contiguous lot or lots, the nonconforming lot
is and shall be deemed to have been combined with such
contiguous lot or lots to the extent necessary to create a
conforming lot and thereafter may only be used in accordance with
the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code,
except as specifically provided in subsection D of this section.
D. Exception for Single-Family Dwelling Units. An applicant
may build one single-family residence consisting of no more than
one dwelling unit on a lot or parcel regardless of the size of the lot
or parcel if, but only if, one of the following exceptions applies:
Packet Page 121 of 176
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 8 -
2/22/2008
1. In an RS zone, such nonconforming lot may be sold
or otherwise developed as any other nonconforming lot pursuant to
the following conditions and standards:
a. The lot area of the nonconforming lot is not
less than the minimum lot area specified in the table below for the
zoning district in which the subject property is located, and
b. Community facilities, public utilities and
roads required to serve the nonconforming lot are available
concurrently with the proposed development, and
c. Existing housing stock will not be destroyed
in order to create a new buildable lot.
Lot Area Table
Zone
% Needed for
Legal Lot
Lot Size Needed
for legal Lot
(1) RS-20 60% 12,000
(2) RS-12 70% 8,400
(3) RS-8 80% 6,400
(4) RS-6 90% 5,400
2. An applicant applies for necessary permits to
construct the unit within five years to the date the lot or parcel is
annexed into the city and the lot or parcel was lawfully created
under provisions of Snohomish County subdivision and zoning
laws as well as the laws of the state of Washington; or
3. An applicant may remodel or rebuild one residence
on a nonconforming lot without regard to the seventy-five (75)
percent destruction requirement of ECDC 17.40.020(F) if a fully
completed building permit application is submitted within one year
of the destruction of the residence and all other development
requirements of this code are complied with; or
4. The lot lines defining the lot or parcel were
recorded in the Snohomish County recorder’s office prior to
December 31, 1972, and the lot or parcel has not at any time been
simultaneously owned by the owner of a contiguous lot or parcel
which fronts on the same access right-of-way subsequent to
December 31, 1972, and the lot or parcel has access to an access
right-of-way which meets the minimum requirements established
by this code; or
Packet Page 122 of 176
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 9 -
2/22/2008
5. The owner of a lot which was lawfully created
under the Snohomish County subdivision and zoning laws and
which was annexed to the city of Edmonds on or after December
16, 1958, may file a fully completed building permit application
for a development lot in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter and develop the lot if a fully completed building
application to develop said lot was filed with the city on or before
the date established by Ordinance No. 3024. This paragraph (D)(5)
shall sunset and be removed from the code two years after the
effective date of the passage of Ordinance No. 3024 and is
intended to provide a window of opportunity for those persons who
comply with the provisions of subsection D of this section but who
are barred due to the passage of time an equal opportunity to
develop a lot in accordance with the provisions of the code.
17.40.040 Nonconforming signs.
Nonconforming signs are injurious to the health, safety and welfare
and destructive of the aesthetic and environmental living
conditions which this zoning ordinance is intended to preserve and
enhance. Nonconforming signs shall be brought into compliance
with the provisions of Chapter 20.60 ECDC under the following
terms and conditions:
A. No nonconforming sign shall be expanded, extended,
rebuilt, reconstructed or altered in any way, except as provided
below. The following acts are specifically permitted and shall not
in and of themselves require conformance with the provisions of
Chapter 20.60 ECDC:
1. Normal maintenance of the sign;
2. A change in the name of the business designated on
the sign; or
3. Any action necessary to preserve the public safety
in the event of damage to the sign brought about by an accident or
an act of God.
B. Any nonconforming sign shall be brought into immediate
compliance with the code in the event that it is expanded in
violation of subsection A above.
C. None of the foregoing provisions relating to permitted
maintenance, name change or preservation of the sign under
paragraph A of this section shall be construed so as to permit the
continuation or preservation of any nonconforming off-premises
sign.
Packet Page 123 of 176
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 10 -
2/22/2008
17.40.050 Nonconforming local public facilities.
A. Local Public Facilities. Existing legal nonconforming local
public facility uses, buildings, and/or signs, owned and/or operated
by local, state, or federal governmental entities, public service
corporations, or common carriers (including agencies, districts,
governmental corporations, public utilities, or similar entities) may
be expanded, enlarged, altered, or modified, subject to review
under the Essential Public Facilities provisions of this code.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 124 of 176
{WSS669341.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
- 11 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2008, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY THE REPEAL AND REENACTMENT OF
CHAPTER 17.40 NONCONFORMING USES, BUILDINGS, SIGNS AND LOTS, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2008.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 125 of 176
A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • 206.447.7000 • Fax: 206.447.0215 • Web: www.omwlaw.com
{WSS633679.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 8, 2006
TO: Edmonds City Council Members
City of Edmonds
CC: Rob Chave, Planning Manager
City of Edmonds
FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney
RE: Nonconforming Uses
As the City Council discusses amendments to the City’s nonconforming use provisions, it might
be helpful to review the basic legal concepts behind nonconforming uses and their status under
the Washington law. As we have discussed, the City’s nonconforming use section is one which
badly needs revision. There have been a wide variety of changes over the years. There are gaps
between the existing categories (nonconforming lots, nonconforming buildings and
nonconforming uses). In some cases, the City has lightened the burden for property owners
regarding nonconforming uses by creating exceptions. The best example is the decision to
permit flexibility regarding construction on nonconforming lots (lots which are below the
minimum lot size in a particular zone.)
At other times, the past City Councils have been extremely restrictive. An example, the City has
abated or phased out nonconforming commercial uses in residential areas acquired through
certain annexations.
NONCONFORMING USES
A nonconforming use is defined by the Washington Supreme Court in this way:
A nonconforming use is a use which lawfully existed prior to the
enactment of a zoning ordinance, and which is maintained after the
effective date of the ordinance, although it does not comply with
the zoning restrictions applicable to the district in which it is
situated.
Packet Page 126 of 176
Edmonds City Council Members
June 8, 2006
Page 2
{WSS633679.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
Rhod-A-Zalea and 35th, Inc. 136 Wn.2d at 6 (citing One Robert M. Anderson, American Law of
Zoning, § 601 (Kenneth H. Young edition, 4th Ed. 1996); University Place v. McGuire, 144
Wn.2d 640, 648, 30 P.3d 453 (2001).
Nonconforming uses are “not favored in law…” Andrew v. King County, 21 Wash. App. 566,
579, 586 P.2d 509 (1978). As the Washington Supreme Court discussed in the Open Door
Baptist Church v. Clark County case:
Nonconforming uses are disfavored under the law. The policy of
zoning legislation is to phase out a nonconforming use. Where a
nonconforming use is in existence at the time that a zoning
ordinance is enacted, and thus allowed to continue, it “cannot be
changed into some other kind of a nonconforming use.”
140 Wn.2d 143, 9995 P.2d 33 (2000) (Citations omitted.)
The policy reasons behind phasing out nonconforming uses were noted with approval in
Anderson v. Island County:
It has been pointed out in several cases that the ultimate purpose of
a zoning ordinance is to confine certain classes of buildings and
uses to certain localities; but since the continued existence of those
which are nonconforming is inconsistent with that object, it is
contemplated the conditions should be reduced to conformity as
completely and speedily as possible with due regard to the special
interests of those concerned, and that where suppression is not
feasible without working a substantial injustice, there shall be
accomplished the greatest possible amelioration of the offending
use which justice permits; and that the generally accepted method
of accomplishing this result is to prevent any increase in the
nonconformity and, when changes in the premises are
contemplated by the owner, to compel, as far as is expedient, a
lessening or complete suppression of the nonconformity.
81 Wn.2d 323.
To summarize the current state of Washington law:
1. Nonconforming uses are those which were legally established prior to regulation
by a zoning code.
2. Although nonconforming uses (buildings, lots, etc.) may be continued, the use,
building or other regulated facet of property may not be expanded in any way. A person who
expands a nonconforming use can lose the right to continue it.
Packet Page 127 of 176
Edmonds City Council Members
June 8, 2006
Page 3
{WSS633679.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
3. Cities have the right to abate uses, that is, to require that they be phased out over a
period of time.
POLICY CHOICES
The original provisions of the City’s nonconforming use section as established in 1980 were
clearly aimed at phasing out nonconforming uses. Over time, the City ordinances have been
amended in a number of respects to provide flexibility for the reconstruction of nonconforming
properties damaged in fires or other similar disasters, to permit the use of undersized building
lots if they are within the range deemed appropriate by the City Council, and to permit
renovation of nonconforming buildings so long as the degree of nonconformity is not expanded.
The latter provision means that a property owner with a home that is too close to the west side
yard property, can renovate the home by expanding in other areas (such as the rear front or east
setback) so long as the nonconforming aspect is not expanded.
That having been said, rewriting the current nonconforming use provisions does not mean that
the City Council is limited in its policy approach. The City Council could:
1. maintain strict nonconforming use provisions;
2. provide for more flexible nonconforming use provisions that would permit some
expansion or reuse of nonconforming properties (see, for example, your current nonconforming
lot provisions); or
3. adopt different nonconforming use standards for different neighborhoods, or
categories of uses.
As we have discussed, the City has certain buildings or housing stock which do not qualify for
historic status. The City Council would find that these buildings, whether commercial or
residential, are worthy of preservation for cultural or other reasons, such as a desire to preserve
affordable housing stock. Therefore, the City Council is not obligated to adopt a one-size-fits-all
category.
Remember however, that if you choose to permit continuation of expansion of nonconforming
uses, those regulations will need to be equally applicable to “good” and “bad” buildings. That is,
subjective determinations that one property with a use category could be expanded or continued
and another in the same category abated would be difficult to justify legally.
One commentator has observed that the basic rationale behind prohibiting the expansion of
nonconforming uses is to preserve the overall integrity of the zoning code. The commentator
analyzed the problem in terms of “spot zoning.” A “spot zone” refers to an illegal zoning
decision by a City Council which inserts one particular use or property in a zone or area where
other properties do not enjoy the same privileges. The commentator analogized allowing
expansion of nonconforming uses to allow individuals to spot zone their properties. He noted
Packet Page 128 of 176
Edmonds City Council Members
June 8, 2006
Page 4
{WSS633679.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
that nonconforming uses can be the basis for variance applications by others under the rationale
that they should enjoy the same privileges as their neighbors. That a nonconforming use, rather
than being disfavored and abated, could become the basis for an expansion of the use throughout
a neighborhood undercuts the entire purpose of the zoning code: it would allow the exception to
gradually swallow the rule.
That having been said, the City Council has a number of policy options. We look forward to
your direction.
WSS:gjz
Packet Page 129 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
November 28, 2007 Page 5
Mr. Hertrich referred to the blue circles on the proposed new park map and noted that the map should be changed to make it
clear that the old Woodway Elementary School should no longer be considered as a possible site for a regional park because
the City Council decided only to retain a large enough area of land to develop a smaller neighborhood park. He considered it
ironic that the updated plan identifies a need for a regional park in the southwest portion of Edmonds because the City
already passed up their opportunity to acquire sufficient space for this purpose.
Mr. Hertrich reported that he attended a good number of the Waterfront Redevelopment Project meetings that were
sponsored by the Port of Edmonds and other private property owners. There has been a lot of public money spent in the
process, and the final preferred alternative was a six-story building with approximately 700 condominiums. However, the
public in attendance at the final meeting questioned why they would want 700 condominiums and the associated traffic on
the waterfront. The public indicated their desire for more open space. He suggested that when the Parks, Recreation and
Open Space Comprehensive Plan is revised, it should take into account the concept put forth by the citizens that this area be
used as an events park. He said there is sufficient literature available to show that once created, this type of park would draw
people to the City and benefit the community more than a 700-unit condominium development. He suggested the Board
review the public comments related to the Waterfront Redevelopment Plan.
Chair Guenther invited the Board to review the draft documents and provide comments to Mr. McIntosh by December 21st.
This would allow staff sufficient time to incorporate the Board’s comments prior to a public hearing in January.
Board Member Reed asked Mr. McIntosh to provide a status report on the Old Mill Town Park. Mr. McIntosh answered that
this park is still under negotiations. His part was to get an appraisal to the City Council, which he completed.
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17 (NUISANCE) (FILE NUMBER AMD-07-6
Mr. Bowman advised that the City Attorney is now recommending that nuisance standards related to the public’s health,
safety and welfare would be better placed in Section 6 of the Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC). Those nuisance standards
that relate to land use and development could remain in Section 17.60 of the Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC). The City Attorney has agreed to review the Planning Board discussions and draft new language for both the ECDC
and EMC. The new language for ECDC Section 17.60 would be presented to the Board for review on December 12th. The
proposed amendments to EMC Section 6 would be forwarded directly to the City Council for review and final approval. He
noted that no public hearing is required for changes to the EMC, and the Planning Board would not be involved in the
process. However, the City Council usually holds public hearings when considering major policy changes.
Vice Chair Dewhirst inquired if the two draft documents would be forwarded to the City Council together. Mr. Bowman
answered that they would be presented to the City Council at the same time, along with minutes of the Planning Board’s
discussion related to the topic.
Mr. Bowman advised that if the nuisance standards are adopted as part of EMC Section 6, the City Council would be able to
quickly address proposed amendments as problems present themselves. If they are adopted as part of the ECDC, the
amendments would be subject to GMA requirements and a public hearing process would be necessary.
Board Member Reed noted that the Board did not take action after the public hearing on October 10th regarding the proposed
changes to ECDC 17.60. He suggested they be prepared to do so on December 12th, when the new draft language is
presented to them for review.
CODE RE-WRITE PROJECT UPDATE AND TOPICAL INFORMATION
Mr. Bowman reported that the City Attorney would provide an updated draft of Title 20 (Procedures) for the Board to
consider on December 12th.
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to ECDC Section 17.40 (nonconforming) and advised that staff worked with the City
Attorney to incorporate the changes recommended by the Board at their last meeting. He invited the Board Members to
review the document and identify any additional changes before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council.
Packet Page 130 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
November 28, 2007 Page 6
Board Member Henderson referred to Sections 17.40.010.C.2 and 17.40.030.D.3 and noted that there are conflicting time
constraints. Mr. Bowman noted that one section applies to nonconforming uses and the other applies to nonconforming
structures. However, he agreed that the two should be consistent and identify an 18-month time period.
Board Member Freeman referred to Sections 17.40.010.C.3.a and 17.40.010.C.3.b and noted that the terms “agent” and
“agents” are both used. Mr. Bowman agreed to make this consistent throughout the document.
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred to Section 17.40.020.C and suggested the first seven words in the last sentence be deleted. The
remainder of the Board concurred.
VICE CHAIR DEWHIRST MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO ECDC SECTION 17.40 (NONCONFORMING) AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER YOUNG
SECONDED THE MOTION.
Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that the Board has spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the document and making
major changes. It is the Board’s consensus that they have crafted language they are all comfortable with.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Guenther reviewed that the December 12th agenda would include an update on the code re-write project and a review
of the proposed amendments to ECDC Sections 17.60 (nuisance) and 20 (procedures). Staff would also provide an update
on the Design Standards for the Downtown Retail Core. The Board would elect their 2008 officers on December 12th, too.
Chair Guenther advised that a public hearing regarding the updated Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan
and Cultural Plan would be scheduled for January 23rd.
Chair Guenther said he has communicated via email with a representative from Stevens Hospital, who indicated her
willingness to present their new master plan to the Planning Board. He suggested this presentation be scheduled for early
2008. The Board agreed to schedule the presentation on the January 9th meeting agenda.
Board Member Freeman suggested that the hospital master plan should go beyond the actual campus boundaries to consider
opportunities for affordable housing so that employees can afford to live within walking distance of the hospital. Mr.
Bowman pointed out that the hospital owns property along Highway 99, which could be developed into a mixed use facility
that could include high rise residential units. In addition, the hospital has expressed the need to improve 216th Street as more
of a boulevard to provide a better entrance to the hospital. Board Member Henderson said the Board should also keep in
mind that the hospital is acquiring various medical clinics in the vicinity so the campus boundaries have changed
significantly over the years.
Mr. Bowman pointed out that bus rapid transit service is expected to be available along Highway 99 in 2009. Board Member
Young suggested it would be helpful for the hospital to provide a transportation plan to indicate how they plan to take
advantage of this new service. He would also like them to provide information about whether or not they plan to take
advantage of opportunities for affordable housing.
Mr. Bowman reminded the Board that the hospital’s master plan must eventually be reviewed by the Planning Board and
approved by the City Council for adoption into the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Packet Page 131 of 176
APPROVED
October 10th
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 26, 2007
Chair Guenther called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Cary Guenther, Chair
Janice Freeman
Jim Young
Don Henderson
Judith Works
Michael Bowman
John Reed
STAFF PRESENT
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
John Dewhirst, Vice Chair
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER YOUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER HENDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Harold Huston, Edmonds, thanked the Board for all the work they do on behalf of the community. He has been a volunteer
for the City for the past 17 years and he has worked in construction his whole life, so he knows the difficult load the Board
carries for the citizens of Edmonds. He provided two maps for the Board to review; both artist renderings of what Edmonds
looked like in 1991. He asked the Board to review the maps and then get them back to him.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC)
CHAPTER 17.40 (NON-CONFORMING) (FILE NUMBER AMD-07-12)
Mr. Bowman reminded the Board that the public hearing on File Number AMD-07-12 was opened on September 12, 2007.
Because of time constraints, the Board continued the hearing to September 26, 2007. He noted that, at the September 12th
meeting, Board Member Works pointed that a subsection was left out of the draft language for Section 17.40.020.G, and the
proposed ordinance has been updated to include this language. The Board also received a copy of the suggested changes
submitted by the Historic Preservation Commission. He reminded the Board of their request to hear from the Historic
Packet Page 132 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2007 Page 2
Preservation Commission regarding the proposed ordinance before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. He
introduced Steve Waite, Historic Preservation Commissioner, who was present to review the comments that were submitted.
Board Member Henderson pointed out that Item G at the bottom of Page 6 should be changed to Item H. Board Member
Works noted that something was missing at the end of the first paragraph on Page 5. Mr. Bowman agreed to correct these
two mistakes.
Commissioner Waite reported that the Historic Preservation Commission formed a subcommittee to review the draft
ordinance. The subcommittee consisted of Commissioner VanTassell, Council Member Plunkett and himself. He briefly
described the purpose of the Historic Preservation Commission. They are neither pro nor anti development, and their goal is
to encourage preservation of the City of Edmonds’ cultural and historic assets. By ordinance, the Commission is charged
with listing historic places on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places and advising the City on matters related to historic
preservation. He reviewed the Commission’s recommendations as follows:
• Section 17.40.010.C.2: Commissioner Waite said the Historic Preservation Commission recommends the words “one
year of the date the damage occurred” be replaced with “18 months of the date of the damage, with further extensions of
180 days each granted, if requested in writing and justifiable cause is demonstrated.” He explained that the Commission
felt that if a catastrophic event were to happen in Edmonds, one year may not be sufficient time for property owners to
sort through all of the issues related to insurance, permitting, etc.
• Section 17.40.020.C: Commissioner Waite explained that this section would exempt historic structures that are listed on
the National, State and Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The Commission also recommended the exemption include
historic places identified on a professionally prepared historic inventory list or surveys done on behalf of the City. He
reported that the Commission worked with City Staff to obtain a historic inventory list from a private consultant (the
BOLA Report), which identifies all structures in the downtown that could contribute significantly to the historic character
of the City. While some buildings might not be on a Register, they are identified on the list as potential candidates the
Commission would like included.
• Section 17.40.020.E: Commissioner Waite said the Commission recommends that a graphic illustration be provided in
this section to explain the rules and requirements associated with the relocation of nonconforming structures.
• Section 17.40.020.F: Commissioner Waite noted that two alternatives were provided for this section, and the
Commission has expressed a preference for Alternative 2, which would take catastrophic disasters into account. This
would give assurance to property owners that historic structures that contribute to the historic value of the City could be
reconstructed.
Board Member Freeman noted that if Alternative 2 were used instead of Alternative 1, property owners would be allowed
to replace all non-conforming buildings, regardless of the amount of damage that occurs. Commissioner Waite said the
Commission believes all nonconforming structures that are damaged or completely destroyed by natural disasters, etc.
should be allowed to rebuild. He pointed out that the City’s current building codes would address fire and life safety issues
as part of any redevelopment project, even those that would be nonconforming. The Commission is interested in retaining
the historic structures and allowing their historic nature to carry forward without restrictions.
• Section 17.40.020.G.4.a: Commissioner Waite pointed out that the proposed language suggests that an age limitation be
identified for historic structures. Rather than 50 years, the Commission is recommending that buildings that are at least 40
years old be considered historic, as well. He pointed out that buildings that are less than 50 years old may qualify as
historic for a variety of reasons. He said it is important to recognize that these buildings would eventually represent the
City’s stock of historic structures and should not be penalized for being a few years short of 50 years.
• Land Consolidation: Commissioner Waite said the Commission also raised concern about the City’s current regulations
related to land consolidation. He recalled that the City Attorney has cautioned about allowing properties to consolidate to
accommodate large structures. While this issue does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Historic Preservation
Packet Page 133 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2007 Page 3
Commission, they believe the current land consolidation regulations are such that it is easy for historic structures to be
removed and replaced with larger homes.
Board Member Reed asked if the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance from the perspective
of just the BD1 zone. Commissioner Waite said they also considered the residential zones since most of the historic
structures are found in the residential areas that surround the downtown. There are also some significant historic structures
in the BD1 zone.
Board Member Reid pointed out that Section 17.40.020.F, Alternative 2, provides a blank space that indicates the provision
would only apply to certain zones in the City. He asked if the Commission discussed which zones the proposed ordinance
should apply to. Commissioner Waite answered that the Commission did not have a strong feeling either way.
Board Member Freeman asked if a map was provided as part of the BOLA Report to identify the location of all of the
properties included on the list. She noted that the historic properties identified on the list are scattered throughout a wide
area, and it would be helpful to know where they all are. Mr. Chave clarified that the BOLA Report identifies historic
properties in the downtown area between Casper Street, 9th Avenue, 2nd Avenue, Pine Street and the Waterfront. This area is
consistent with the area identified in the Comprehensive Plan as the Downtown Activity Center. Commissioner Waite added
that the Commission is anticipating additional funding to expand the survey.
Chair Guenther suggested that the City might have to codify the BOLA Report if it is going to be referenced in the draft
ordinance. Mr. Chave agreed that staff would need direction from the City Attorney about whether these types of surveys
must be formally adopted or approved in order to be recognized in the code. He emphasized that the BOLA Report was
presented to the City Council, but they did not take formal action to adopt it. If the Board wants to include and expand the
list of historic structures, they would have to give formal recognition to the report.
Board Member Works said she can’t picture homes that are 40 years old as being historic. Commissioner Waite said that
while houses that were built in the 1970’s may not be considered appealing to some, they do represent a particular movement
and design style so they do have some historic significance. He suggested that 40-year-old buildings are close enough that
the Commission does not want to eliminate them as potential historic structures in the future.
Board Member Freeman agreed that many structures built in the 1970’s represent a true northwest style of architecture, and
there are some beautiful structures that should be preserved. She commented that every era has something that is worth
preserving, but sooner or later all buildings would become historic and typical of the period in which they were built. She
suggested the purpose of historic preservation is to preserve good examples of the architecture from each era, whether people
like the style or not. She reminded the Commission that historic preservation is a voluntary program in the City of Edmonds,
and people can choose whether or not to list their historic properties on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. However,
property owners were not given an opportunity to exclude their historic property from the BOLA Report. She asked if
including the list in the proposed ordinance would result in negative repercussions for the property owners on the list.
Commissioner Waite answered that no encumbrances would be placed on the property owners. The properties would merely
be identified as contributing to the historic value of the City. No restrictions would be applied by including the list as part of
the ordinance. However, the change would provide the property owners with an opportunity that would not normally be
available to them.
Board Member Young asked how the proposed exemption for properties that are more than 40 years old would impact the
City’s capacity to enforce the nonconformance ordinance. He said he is not against historic preservation and feels it is a
good idea, but he expressed concern that allowing an exemption for all properties that are more than 40 years old could make
the ordinance very difficult to enforce citywide. He agreed with Board Members Works and Freeman that while some of the
structures that are more than 40 years old represent the historic character of Edmonds, others do not and they should not be
exempted from the ordinance. He cautioned against making too many exemptions to address historic preservation if the
changes would weaken the enforceability of the vast majority of the building stock that does not fall under the category of
historic. The changes could end up creating loopholes just to address a small percentage of the properties in the City. He
cautioned that age does not necessarily represent historic significance.
Packet Page 134 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2007 Page 4
Chair Guenther said it is important to note the ordinance only applies to nonconforming structures, which includes a very
low percentage of properties in Edmonds. The Commission is proposing numerous changes to address a very small
percentage of the existing housing stock, and the changes could possibly open loopholes that make it difficult for the staff to
apply the nonconformance requirements citywide.
Board Member Works asked how many buildings that are more than 50 years old are nonconforming. Commissioner Waite
answered that many of the buildings that are 50 or more years old are also nonconforming. Mr. Bowman agreed there are a
substantial number of nonconforming properties in the southern portion of the City that were developed as part of the County
using different setback requirements. These were later annexed into the City. Board Member Young agreed it is important
to address these situations, but he would like some assurance from staff that the nonconformance regulations could still be
enforced. The City’s development standards were set for a reason, and he is concerned that the proposed changes would
allow property owners of structures more than 40 years old to find loopholes that allow them to preserve nonconforming
structures that do not really represent the historic character of Edmonds.
Mr. Chave clarified that Item G on Pages 8 and 9 of the draft ordinance only applies to nonconforming buildings in
commercial zones that are used for residential purposes. It would not apply to residential zones throughout the City. He
concluded that this section would really only apply to a very small class of structures. He shared an example of a property
owner who was not allowed to remodel his home in a commercial zone because the existing structure did not meet the City’s
current setback requirements. However, if the property owner decided to tear the structure down and replace it with a
commercial use, the structure would be allowed up to the sidewalk, with no setback requirements. Because the building was
used for residential purposes, the owner was required to abide by all of the current setback requirements. Mr. Chave
explained that the intent of this section is to allow property owners to remodel nonconforming residential structures that are
located in commercial zones because they represent part of the historic character of the downtown. This section would not
be a citywide residential exception. He summarized that this is a narrowly crafted exception that is intended to give property
owners incentive for retaining the houses that currently exist in the downtown commercial area.
Mr. Chave referred to language in the middle of Page 9 of the draft ordinance, which was crafted to address design issues
and prevent a property owner from tearing down an existing home and replacing it with a large structure that doesn’t comply
with the setback and other zoning requirements. Any replacement structure would have to comply with the style and size of
the existing structure.
Mr. Bowman expressed staff’s belief that extending the time period for replacing nonconforming structures that are damaged
would be appropriate. The Commission’s proposal to change the time period to 18 months (Section 17.40.010.2) would be
reasonable from an enforcement standpoint, particularly in the case of a natural disaster that requires insurance, permits, etc.
Board Member Reed noted that the Board had previously agreed to add language to this section that was not identified in the
Historic Preservation Commission’s draft. Mr. Bowman agreed and suggested that if the Board agrees with the Historic
Preservation Commission’s recommended change for this section, staff would be responsible for incorporating this change
into the draft language that was already agreed to by the Board. He noted that any change the Board makes would likely
require staff to update other sections for consistency.
Mr. Bowman referred to Section 17.40.020.G and suggested that when the formatting changes were made, it appears some
language was left out. He agreed to review the previous drafts and reinsert the missing language.
Chair Guenther referred to the Commission’s proposed change to Section 17.40.010.2 and asked if the number of 180 day
extensions would be limited to one. Mr. Bowman answered that while it would be reasonable for the City to allow for one
180-day extension beyond the 18-month time period, he did not feel additional extensions would be appropriate. Allowing
more than one extension could result in someone getting into a cycle of filing one extension after another. The Board
discussed how staff would determine whether or not an extension request was justifiable, and suggested that this term was
too arbitrary. Mr. Bowman agreed and noted that if only one extension were allowed, there would really be no need for staff
to make a judgment call on whether or not an extension request is justified. He summarized that staff would support a
change to grant property owners up to 18 months, plus an additional 6 months (180 days), to start the reconstruction project.
He felt this would allow ample time for property owners to resolve outstanding issues and start their projects.
Packet Page 135 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2007 Page 5
Commissioner Waite said the Historic Preservation Commission would support the allowance of additional extensions if a
property owner could demonstrate justifiable cause. He noted the current situation in the south that resulted from Hurricane
Katrina. While the event took place two years ago, many people are still trying to get their reconstruction projects going.
The city of New Orleans is having a difficult time replacing their historic structures. Mr. Bowman suggested that perhaps it
would not be necessary for the nonconformance section to address catastrophic situations that might occur in the City. He
said it is important to understand that through its recovery program, the City Council could adopt a completely different
direction for nonconforming structures if a catastrophic event such as an earthquake were to occur in Edmonds. Board
Member Freeman agreed and said she could support a 2-year time frame but would not be in support of allowing additional
extensions.
The Board agreed that this section could be changed to identify a time period of 18 months, with one 180-day extension
only. The majority concurred with Mr. Bowman that this time frame would cover the typical situations and leave
catastrophic events as another issue. They emphasized that it would be impossible for the nonconforming ordinance to
address every type of situation that could arise in the future.
Mr. Bowman referred to the Commission’s recommendation for Section 17.40.020.C, which would add language to
recognize buildings that are on professionally prepared historic inventory lists or surveys done on behalf of the City (i.e.
BOLA Report). He said it would be appropriate to obtain feedback from the City Attorney before incorporating this change
to see if the City must take formal action regarding the BOLA Report before it could be referenced in this section. If the City
Attorney indicates it would be appropriate, he said staff would not be opposed to incorporating the Commission’s proposed
language. The majority of the Board Members concurred. Mr. Chave pointed out that expanding the number of eligible
properties beyond those that are identified on local, state and federal registers to include those that are listed on officially
recognized surveys, could give more credence to a structure being preserved and restored.
Mr. Bowman agreed with the Historic Preservation Commission that a graphic illustration should be provided in Section
17.40.020.E to make the rules for moving nonconforming structures clearer. The Board agreed. Mr. Bowman agreed to
work on a graphic illustration for this section to show examples of what can and cannot be done.
BOARD MEMBER REED LEFT THE MEETING.
Board Member Henderson said the language should also be clearer about what it means to improve the nonconformance.
Mr. Bowman shared an example of an older home in the City that needed a new foundation. The current code states that
moving a structure would require a property owner to bring the structure into compliance with the existing code requirements
and address the nonconformance. The proposed language would allow a property owner to lift a building up to put a new
foundation under it. It would also allow a property owner to move the building in one direction or another, as long as the
move would improve the nonconforming situation. Board Member Henderson expressed concern that the proposed language
does not address situations where a property owner might propose to improve the nonconformance on one side, but make it
worse on the other. Mr. Bowman pointed out that the proposed language was meant to address situations where property
owners would be unable to correct the full nonconformance by the move. Mr. Bowman agreed that the language could be
changed to provide a better explanation of how the degree of nonconformity would be determined. The language should
make it clear that a property owner would not be allowed to make one side of the property more nonconforming in order to
make the other side more conforming. He said he would give the section more thought to address the Board’s concerns.
Board Member Young expressed his belief that the nonconformance ordinance should not carve out exceptions for situations
that could be made conforming. If it is possible for a property owner to correct a nonconforming situation, he/she should be
required to so.
The Board discussed the two alternatives for Section 17.40.020.F. Commissioner Waite said the Commission believes that
because Alternative 1 would only allow replacement of a nonconforming structure if it is damaged no more than 75%,
Alternative 2 would more adequately address catastrophic situations in which structures are completely damaged. While he
agreed the City Council could change the ordinance if a catastrophic event were to occur, he suggested it would be better to
address the issue now by adopting Alternate 2, including the changes proposed by the Commission.
Packet Page 136 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2007 Page 6
Board Member Young expressed his concern that Alternative 2 would allow an owner of nonconforming property to rebuild,
regardless of where the property is located and how much the property is damaged. Mr. Bowman explained that Alternative
2 provides a blank space that would allow the Board to recommend specific zones for which the section would apply. He
pointed out that Item F appears to have been designed to apply to commercial buildings in commercial zones, and Item G
would apply only to residential structures in commercial zones. Alternative 1 would limit the replacement of nonconforming
structures to those that are damaged 75% or less. Alternative 2 would allow any nonconforming structure to be replaced,
regardless of the amount of damage, but the Board could recommend limiting this provision to certain zones in the City.
Board Member Young said that if the City feels there are certain historically viable commercial structures that should be
maintained, they should identify these properties. However, he would be opposed to allowing all nonconforming property
owners in the City to rebuild a structure if it is damaged. He suggested that perhaps the language in this section tries to
address too many different situations.
Mr. Chave suggested it would be appropriate to separate the two paragraphs of Alternative 2. The first paragraph could
describe the intent of the restoration provision, and the second could provide a broader policy statement to address how the
concept would be applied. He said that while the proposed language appears to apply to all nonconforming structures in the
City, it is important to note that historic structures would be exempt from the requirements of the nonconformance ordinance.
Board Member Works questioned why the City would want to allow property owners to totally rebuild nonconforming
structures that are not deemed historic. Board Member Henderson expressed his belief that any property owner should be
allowed to restore a home that has been damaged, as long as the nonconformity is not increased. He suggested that
Alternative 1 would address these situations adequately.
Commissioner Waite pointed out that the Critical Areas Ordinance has resulted in increased setback requirements, and there
are a significant number of properties in the City that have been encumbered by the changes. If these properties are
destroyed, the property owners would not be allowed to reconstruct in their current location and size. Even with buffer
averaging and reductions, there is often not enough building space left on the lot. He said that in the event of a catastrophe,
it would be bad enough that a property owner would lose their home, but in many cases they would be extremely
encumbered as to what they would be allowed to rebuild, too. While this doesn’t have anything to do with historic
preservation, it does provide another example in support of Alternative 2.
Board Member Freeman recalled that the City must allow property owners reasonable use of their properties, but she agreed
that the City could get into a debate about what is considered reasonable. Mr. Chave said there is a provision in the Critical
Areas Ordinance that says that under certain situations, a property owner would be allowed to build in a critical area.
Therefore, he did not think the nonconformance standards would conflict with the Critical Areas Ordinance. He explained
that critical areas provisions are different and have different thresholds. He summarized that there are a variety of ways for
allowing property owners to build within the critical areas, so Commissioner Waite’s concern would be adequately addressed
by the Critical Areas Ordinance.
Board Member Bowman suggested that the issue is really related to City policy. When someone is faced with a catastrophe
and their house suffers significant damage, does the City want to grant them the ability to rebuild the house or force them to
redesign and bring the building into compliance? Board Member Young agreed that this is really a policy decision that must
ultimately be made by the City Council. However, he expressed his belief that if a nonconforming building is totally
destroyed, any replacement structure should be required to comply with current zoning and building code requirements. He
suggested it would be impossible to create language that would cover every possible situation, but it is important to
remember that the ordinance does not need to address critical areas, historic buildings, or natural disasters. Board Member
Henderson agreed with Board Member Young that if a nonconforming structure is damaged more than 75% the City should
require any new structure to meet all of the code requirements of the existing zone.
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to Section 17.40.020.G.4, which states that “substantial compliance” shall be determined by
the Architectural Design Board and appealable to the Hearing Examiner. He suggested that perhaps it would be more
appropriate to allow staff to make decisions regarding “substantial compliance” with an appeal to the ADB or Hearing
Examiner instead of requiring an upfront ADB review. However, he noted that, regardless of who is responsible for making
Packet Page 137 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 26, 2007 Page 7
these decisions, the term “substantial compliance” must be clearly defined and review criteria must be established. Board
Member Young pointed out that this section is intended to apply only to nonconforming residential single-family structures
in the commercial zones, not the residential zones. Therefore, he suggested it would be appropriate for staff to make the
initial decision, and any appeals could be directed towards the Historic Preservation Commission.
Board Member Young said he would prefer to remove any reference to building age from Section 17.40.020.G.4, since any
specific number would be arbitrary. He noted that some buildings could be considered historic even though they are not yet
40 years old. He suggested that this section should apply to all nonconforming residential structures in commercial zones,
and not just those that are older than 40 years.
Board Member Freeman recalled that the Historic Preservation Commission has often talked about the town being eclectic,
and they are trying to preserve examples of each era. She noted that structures that are built today could become good
examples of the current era. Therefore, it should be emphasized that not only should the City encourage the preservation of
old structures, they should be interested in preserving good architecture from all of the various time periods. Commissioner
Waite agreed. Mr. Bowman reminded the Board that this section only applies to residential structures or houses in
commercial zones. There is a range of different styles of house from older to newer, and much of the concern raised by the
City Council had to do with preserving some of the residential uses in the downtown commercial area. The City Council is
not likely looking for a specific age of buildings, but more of a mixture of uses and styles in the downtown.
The Board agreed that Alternative 1 would be their preference for Section 17.40.020.F. They further agreed that the
language proposed by the Historic Preservation Commission regarding nonconforming single-family houses in commercial
zones (Section 17.40.020.G) should be incorporated into Alternative 1. However, they concurred that no specific reference
to age of a structure should be provided.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Bowman suggested staff be allowed time to update the draft based on the suggestions made by the Planning Board and
Historic Preservation Commission. He said he would work with Mr. Chave and the City Attorney to discuss the best way to
incorporate each of the changes. An updated draft could be presented to the Board for final review at their November 14th
meeting.
BOARD MEMBER YOUNG MOVED THAT THE BOARD DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN UPDATED
DRAFT OF THE NONCONFORMANCE ORDINANCE THAT INCORPORATES ALL THE CHANGES AND
DISCUSSION THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE THUS FAR AND PRESENT IT TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL
REVIEW ON NOVEMBER 14, 2007. BOARD MEMBER WORKS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK AT 8:50 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 9:02 P.M.
CODE RE-WRITE PROJECT UPDATE AND TOPICAL DISCUSSION
Mr. Chave reported that Mr. Bowman is working with the City Attorney to prepare draft language for Title 20 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code. In addition, the Hearing Examiner provided a report to the City Council, along
with some recommended code changes that have already been integrated into the proposed code language. However, the
Hearing Examiner also recommended some changes to the City’s Planned Residential Development (PRD) Regulations, and
these changes could have an impact on Title 20, as well. Mr. Bowman would continue to work with the City Attorney to
address both the Title 20 changes, as well as the recommended changes to the PRD Ordinance. The draft ordinance should
be ready for Board’s review by the end of October or first of November.
Packet Page 138 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2007 Page 6
Board Member Henderson expressed his belief that the application adequately addresses all of the rezone criteria, and he
plans to support the proposed change. Board Member Works agreed the application meets all of the rezone criteria as
outlined by the applicant and in the Staff Report.
Board Member Reed said he would support the rezone application, but he has some concerns. He recalled that when the
Board forwarded their recommendation on the BC-EW zoning classification to the City Council, he voted against it because
it would create the potential of a 45-foot tall building on the Edmonds Way street front. He felt this height would be too
great. He noted that the subject property has 434 feet of street frontage along Edmonds Way, and it is difficult for him to tell
how the average grade would be calculated and what the impact of the potential height would be. However, he said he is
confident the Architectural Design Board could work this issue out.
Board Member Reed noted the property is adjacent to single-family residential properties. While the residential development
close to Highway 99 would likely be redeveloped in the near future, the developer must be sensitive to the single-family
development located on the top of the hill across from 228th Street.
Vice Chair Dewhirst said he plans to support the proposal. However, he suggested two additional conditions. First he
proposed that the applicant be required to provide a mix of uses, including both residential and commercial. He noted that
the current zoning designation would allow an all commercial development, and this would not be appropriate in this
location. Second, he suggested the applicant be required to provide a minimum 25-foot landscape buffer along 228th Street,
which would be equal to the setback requirements of an RS-8 zone. Mr. Chave explained that the Board does not have the
ability to impose additional conditions on a rezone application unless the applicant offers them as part of a contract rezone.
Board Member Freeman said she would support the proposed rezone because it meets all of the conditions and criteria as
outlined by the applicant and the Staff Report. In addition, she noted that the proposal would also provide a relative gain to
the public health, safety and welfare. She recalled that at the last City Council Meeting, Council Member Marin talked of his
concern about having enough housing for elderly people who can no longer drive. The subject property is located close and
within easy walking distance to many of the services that people who can’t drive need. Chair Guenther said he would
support the proposed rezone application, as well, for the same reasons previously stated and based on the analysis provided
in the Staff Report.
BOARD MEMBER HENDERSON MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD FILE R-2007-35 TO THE CITY
COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE REZONE
CRITERIA PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND BY THE APPLICANT. BOARD MEMBER FREEMAN
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.40
(NONCONFORMANCE STANDARDS)
City Attorney, Scott Snyder, said he originally intended to provide a presentation to the public regarding the proposed
changes to the nonconformance standards (Chapter 17 of the Edmonds Community Development Code). However, because
there was no one in the audience to participate in the hearing, he suggested they dispense with the lengthy presentation since
the Board heard the report previously. The Board agreed to skip the presentation and begin their review and discussion of
the proposed draft language.
Board Member Works referred to Item C (Lapse of Time) on Page 5 of the draft ordinance and suggested the proposed
language is confusing. Mr. Snyder explained that, as proposed, any property that is damage less than 75% could be
reestablished as a matter of right. He referred to Item B (Continuation) on Page 3 of the draft ordinance, which states the
general rule that nonconforming uses may continue unless required to be abated by Item C on Page 5. He suggested, and
the Board concurred, that the word “only” should be inserted between “reestablished” and “if.” This would help
make the section more clear. Board Member Works suggested it would also be helpful to have a clean copy of the proposed
new language, as well as a document that identifies all of the changes that are being proposed.
Packet Page 139 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2007 Page 7
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred to Item C.2 (Lapse of Time) on Page 5 and suggested that one year may not be enough for
property owners to begin reconstruction when a building has been significantly damaged. Mr. Snyder recalled the Board
discussed this issue at their last meeting, and Section F on Page 8 of the draft ordinance was changed to require that the
repair be initiated by filing an application for a building permit within one year of the date such damage occurs. He
suggested the same type of language could be incorporated into Item C.2 on Page 5 and in other sections of the document to
address Vice Chair Dewhirst’s concern. Board Member Young pointed out that this change would give property owners one
year plus the time it takes to process a building permit. The Board agreed that the last sentence of Item C.2 on Page 5
should be changed to read, “The use may be reestablished only if construction of a new or repaired building is begun
within one year of the date damage occurred by the filing of a building permit in accordance with the requirements of
the vesting ordinance (specific reference would be provided).” They further agreed that this language should be
applied uniformly throughout the document.
Mr. Chave suggested that a third item be added to Item F (Restoration) on Page 9 to read, “If the building permit is
allowed to expire, a property owner’s right to restore would be extinguished.” The Board agreed with this change.
Vice Chair Dewhirst noted that this is a common requirement for any building permit.
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred to the underlined words on the last line of Item B (Continuation) on Page 6. Mr. Snyder said
this was meant to refer to the remainder of the section. To make Item B on Page 6 more clear, Mr. Snyder suggested the
last line be changed to read, “except as provided in the remaining subparagraphs in the section.” The remainder of
the Board concurred with the proposed change.
Board Member Henderson referred to the two alternatives for the restoration section on Pages 8 and 9 of the draft document.
He indicated he would prefer Alternative 1. He expressed his belief that Alternative 1 would be the simplest, and Alternative
2 would be more complex and probably unnecessary. Board Member Freeman inquired if Alternative 1 would ensure that a
use such as the movie theater would be allowed to rebuild without having to meet the current parking requirements. Mr.
Snyder cautioned that the two alternatives relate to nonconforming buildings, not nonconforming uses. He noted that while
the City could permit the reconstruction of a nonconforming building, they would not be able to limit its future use. Mr.
Chave reminded the Board that there is no longer a parking requirement for commercial uses in the BD1 zone. However, if
an existing nonconforming building is reconstructed and converted from a commercial to a residential use, a parking
requirement would be imposed.
Board Member Reed explained that Item C (Historic Buildings and Structures) on Page 6 would protect buildings such as the
movie theater and allow them to be restored to their existing form if they are listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic
Places. Mr. Chave said the Historic Preservation Commission is in favor of encouraging the adaptive reuse of historic
properties in their original form. He cautioned that while the Commission might regret the loss of a particular use, they are
more interested in retaining the historic buildings.
Board Member Freeman said Item C on Page 6 refers to properties that are on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Mr.
Snyder emphasized that property owners must voluntarily place their properties on the Register. The Historic Preservation
Commission has suggested that including provisions for the adaptive reuse of nonconforming structures might provide
incentive for more people to list their properties on the Register. Vice Chair Dewhirst explained that the City cannot protect
historic properties that are not on the Register because they do not have a mandatory preservation program. Again, Board
Member Henderson explained that Item C on Page 6 offers rights for property owners to rebuild structures, but there would
be no requirement that the property owner rebuild the building to its original form.
Vice Chair Dewhirst recalled that the Board previously requested feedback from the Historic Preservation Commission
regarding the two alternatives for the restoration section. Board Member Works recalled that the two alternatives were
included in the draft to allow the public to comment on their preferred choice. Mr. Chave said the Board could still ask the
Historic Preservation Commission to comment on the two alternatives. Mr. Snyder explained that Alternative 2 would
require an Architectural Design Board review to make sure the reconstructed building would be similar in design to the
building that was destroyed. Board Member Works said she would not be in favor of requiring people to rebuild to a certain
style. Mr. Chave noted that a property owner would still be allowed to choose between rebuilding based on the
nonconformance standards or rebuilding based on the current zoning standard.
Packet Page 140 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2007 Page 8
Vice Chair Dewhirst expressed his belief that forwarding a recommendation to the City Council without soliciting feedback
from the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the two alternatives could result in the City Council remanding the
issue back to the Board for further review. Mr. Snyder agreed it would be appropriate to solicit feedback from the Historic
Preservation Commission regarding this section, but the Board could still review the remainder of the document.
Board Member Reed referred to Item C (Historic Buildings and Structures) on Page 6 of the draft document and inquired if it
would be possible for the City to require people to place historic properties on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Mr.
Snyder answered that some cities have mandatory historic districts, but applying this concept in Edmonds could be difficult
because there is no standard architectural type or style of buildings. To this point, the City’s preservation program has been
voluntary. Making the program mandatory could run into significant constitutional issues because the majority of the
buildings in the downtown are not historic. Therefore, the property owners would likely be opposed to having limitations
placed on their ability to reuse their properties. Mr. Chave added that the Historic Preservation Commission has discussed
the option of creating a historic district in the downtown, but they agreed that would not be appropriate for Edmonds. He
expressed his belief that Alternative 1 would be the simplest, and Alternative 2 would be more complex and probably
unnecessary. Because the Commission was not confident they could create a mandatory historic district, they decided it
would be more appropriate to create specific design standards for the BD1 zone that could require that building design within
the zone be consistent with the character of the district.
The Board directed Mr. Chave to invite representatives from the Historic Preservation Commission to the Board’s August 8th
meeting to provide input regarding the two alternatives for the restoration section. It was noted that this would require a
continuation of the public hearing to that date, as well. Mr. Chave agreed to provide the standard advertising for the
continued hearing, as well as a display ad in the local newspapers. He also agreed to contact local reporters to encourage
them to write an article about the issues that are currently being considered by the Board.
Mr. Snyder said it is important to understand that the nonconforming use section is intended to be a bridge between historic
preservation and reconstruction, and the goal is to offer owners of nonconforming historic structures a way to continue the
uses that are beneficial to the neighborhood in terms of their ambiance, size, etc. Staff is interested in creating a tool that is
somewhere between the existing nonconformance standards that have a very strict abatement process and a mandatory
historic preservation program.
Board Member Young expressed his belief that the proposed new language would meet this goal as stated above by Mr.
Snyder, and he plans to recommend approval of Alternative 1. He reminded the Board that they are only responsible for
making a recommendation, and the City Council would make the final decision. The Board has talked about historic
preservation and whether or not the City could compel a property owner to place a building on the Register. Allowing a
structure to be rebuilt if it is on the Register would provide a significant incentive to property owners. He said he is ready to
forward a recommendation to the City Council without waiting for additional comments from the Historic Preservation
Commission. Board Member Henderson agreed that the Board should not wait to forward their recommendation to the City
Council.
Mr. Snyder referred to Section 17.40.025 (vested nonconforming or illegal accessory dwelling units) on Page 11 of the draft
document. He explained that this section was originally set up to encourage property owners to register nonconforming
accessory dwelling units. The time period set in the ordinance has expired, so this language is no longer necessary.
Next, Mr. Snyder referred to Section 17.40.030 (nonconforming lots) on Page 15 of the draft document. He explained that
the current language works well, but he recommended they delete Item D at the bottom of Page 17. He advised that
requiring a lot to be consistent with the character of the surrounding area could run into legal challenges based on the
Anderson versus Issaquah case. He noted that no substantive changes were proposed for Section 17.40.040 (nonconforming
signs).
Mr. Snyder referenced the memorandum he prepared to provide an update on the constitutional limitations on the application
of land use regulations to religious structures. He said that based on the information he provided in the memorandum, he is
recommending that Item A (local churches) in Section 17.40.050 (nonconforming local public facilities) on Page 21 of the
Packet Page 141 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2007 Page 9
document be deleted. He also recommended that Item B (schools) on Page 22 be deleted. He explained that from a policy
point of view, staff feels the school district is responsible for determining the use of their buildings. In addition, the Essential
Public Facilities Ordinance renders much of the language in Item C (local public facilities) on Page 23 unnecessary. Lastly,
Mr. Snyder advised that Item D (parks) on Page 24 of the document would no longer be necessary. He suggested that this
language was added when parks were treated different in the zoning code. Now the City’s structure for designating parks in
the Comprehensive Plan has been changed so that they cannot be nonconforming.
Mr. Chave expressed his belief that it would be worthwhile to continue the public hearing to August 8th to allow the Historic
Preservation Commission and members of the public to comment further on the proposed ordinance, particularly the two
alternatives discussed earlier for restoration. He suggested they invite the public and Commission to provide specific
wording recommendations rather than general points of discussion. Board Member Dewhirst agreed and noted that this
could become a politically charged issue, and a two-week delay would not be a significant problem. He suggested that staff
send a letter to the Historic Preservation Commission offering them an opportunity to comment at the next meeting before
the draft language is forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Snyder asked the Board to provide additional direction to allow him
to bring back an updated draft ordinance that is close to its final form at the next meeting.
BOARD MEMBER HENDERSON MOVED THAT THE BOARD DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO UPDATE
THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AS PER THE BOARD’S DISCUSSION, USING ALTERNATIVE 1 AS THE
PREFERRED LANGUAGE FOR THE RESTORATION SECTION. BOARD MEMBER WORKS SECONDED
THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD MEMBER HENDERSON MOVED THAT THE HEARING ON ECDC 17.40 BE CONTINUED TO
AUGUST 8, 2007. BOARD MEMBER YOUNG SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK AT 8:50 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 9:02 P.M.
DISCUSSION ON EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TITLE 20 MATERIAL
Mr. Snyder explained that staff’s intent is to rewrite Chapter 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) to
combine all of the procedures into a logical format and to use a grid to make the processes more clear. He referred to Page 2
of the draft document, which provides an example of a uniform provision that is easier for staff to apply and the development
community and citizens to understand. He emphasized that staff is trying to make as few substantive changes as possible as
they rewrite the chapter. He recalled that at the last meeting the Board discussed two of the more substantial changes, which
were related to the role of the City Council in quasi-judicial decisions and shifting the mailing notification burden to the
applicant rather than City staff. He said staff intends to highlight significant policy changes and invite the public and Board
to comment on them at the public hearing.
Mr. Chave advised that there are a number of decisions where a notice of application is sent out prior to a staff decisions.
Staff recommends adding a new column to the tables on Pages 2 and 3 to identify Type II staff decisions that require
notice. The Board agreed that would be appropriate. Mr. Snyder recalled that at their last meeting, the Board asked staff
to collect information from other jurisdictions that place the burden of sending out notices on the applicants. He referred the
Board to information from the City of Bothell, which was provided by staff as part of the Board’s packet.
Board Member Works inquired if the comments provided by the Hearing Examiner regarding the reconsideration section
were incorporated into the draft language. Mr. Snyder explained that the Hearing Examiner recommendations related to
problems in the current code were changed. However, he was hesitant to incorporate the suggestions that would significantly
change the City’s current process for reconsideration. He cautioned against creating public controversy by changing the
rules. Instead, the goal is to make the existing rules more clear.
Board Member Works noted the time limitations for reconsideration were not updated as recommended by the Hearing
Examiner. Mr. Snyder explained that the Hearing Examiner’s proposed change would be appropriate in situations where
Packet Page 142 of 176
CODE RE-RITE PROJECT UPDATE AND TOPICAL DISCUSSION
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to the latest version of Title 17, which was last updated on May 9, 2007. He reported that
he received comments from Board Members Freeman, Dewhirst and Works, and many of them were incorporated into the
new draft document. He said the purpose of this meeting is to review each of the changes that have been made since the
Board’s last meeting.
Mr. Bowman advised that the Historic Preservation Commission has requested an opportunity to meet with the Planning
Board to report on their work on the historic preservation aspects of the code. He suggested that either the entire
Commission or a subcommittee of the Commission could be invited to participate in a workshop discussion with the Board at
their May 23rd meeting regarding the non-conformance standards and the regulations pertaining to adaptive reuse of
properties. He noted that the City Attorney would be invited to participate in the discussion, as well. He suggested that, in
light of this future discussion, it would be appropriate for the Board to focus their attention tonight on the other code
sections.
Mr. Bowman recommended that when the Board reaches the public hearing stage, it would be helpful to split Title 17 into
three separate hearings. One could focus on the nuisance regulations and another on the non-conformance standards. The
third public hearing could focus on all other sections of Title 17. He noted that the non-conformance standards and nuisance
regulations would likely cause the most public concern and comment.
Section 17.50 – Parking Requirements
Mr. Bowman recalled that the Board made several suggestions at their last meeting related to parking. He said he has
completed research to help the Board consider options for revising the parking standards, especially those related to the
Highway 99 Corridor. He reminded the Board of Community Transit’s plans to provide bus rapid transit on Highway 99, as
well as a number of other transportation improvements. Therefore, now is an excellent time for the City to rework their
parking standards and move away from the more prescriptive standards that currently exist.
Section 17.60.010 – Definitions
Mr. Bowman reported that he discussed the Board’s concerns regarding the organization of the definition section. The City
Attorney has recommended all definitions in the code be placed in one section rather than floating the definitions throughout
the document. Staff supports that recommendation.
Section 17.60.010.M -- Junk
Mr. Bowman advised that Board Member Freeman recommended a definition be provided for the term “junk.” She correctly
noted that the definition should include the terms “boxes” and “cartons.” This section was changed to read, “Junk means
discarded, broken or disabled material including but not limited to: “household items; house or lawn furniture; boxes,
cartons, appliances; toys; construction items; hot tubs; trampolines; vehicle parts; or other items that are not in functioning
condition.”
Section 17.60.020.G – Waste Disposal
Mr. Bowman advised that Board Member Freeman suggested the word “rodents” be added to this section. In addition, she
recommended that “compost bins” be excluded from the requirement, since they can be designed to keep rodents out. Board
Member Freeman noted that Snohomish County does not require that compost bins have bottoms to keep out rodents, but
King County does. She suggested the Board consider making rodent-proof compost bins a requirement in the City of
Edmonds, as well. Chair Guenther expressed his belief that rodent-proof compost bins should be recommended, but not a
requirement. Board Member Freeman agreed the City should at least encourage people to use compost bin that are
distributed by the County, since they have a model that is rodent proof.
Section 17.60.020H – Open Storage
At the suggestions of Board Members Freeman and Dewhirst, Mr. Bowman said he revised the language in this section to
clearly indicate that it only applies to commercial properties. He noted that residentially zoned districts are covered in
Section 17.60.030. In addition, Mr. Bowman advised that he replaced “heavy wire fence” with “sight obscuring fence,” and
“hedge” with “vegetation.” He also deleted the words “board fence.” While Vice Chair Dewhirst also recommended the
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2007 Page 2
Packet Page 143 of 176
Board consider prohibiting open storage containers within 20 feet of the property line or the minimum setback, whichever is
greater, Mr. Bowman questioned if this strict requirement would be appropriate for commercial zones.
Section 17.60 – General Organization
Board Member Henderson objected to the way the nuisance section was organized. For example, he noted that a person
would have to look in three separate sections of the code to find out if, where and how trailers could be stored in residential
zones. He suggested that nuisances and permitted uses should be covered in the same section to clearly indicate what is and
is not allowed. Anything that is permitted in certain areas on a property should be addressed as to proper storage in the same
section. Mr. Bowman explained that, from a code enforcement standpoint, staff directs the citizens to the sections of the
code that apply to their particular situation. However, he agreed with Board Member Henderson’s concern and suggested
that the language in Sections 17.60.030.E and 17.60.040.E could be combined into one section.
Public Education
Board Member Works asked how staff plans to educate the public about future amendments to the nuisance section of the
code. Mr. Bowman advised that the City already has a pamphlet describing the nuisance laws, and the document would be
updated to incorporate the approved amendments. Board Member Works suggested that perhaps a notice could be added to
the utility bills to notify the public that a pamphlet is available for their information. Mr. Bowman agreed and added that it
would also be appropriate to publish a code enforcement article in THE EDMONDS UPDATE, that is sent out to all
households in the City. He noted that prior to the public hearings related to Title 17, staff plans to talk with local newspaper
reporters in an effort to get articles published in the newspapers so people can be made aware of the issues that are being
considered and invited to participate.
Board Member Young suggested that the public advertisement emphasize that many of the changes are being considered
because of enforcement problems associated with the existing code. He felt that if the public has a clear understanding of
these problems, they will know why the City is reviewing all of the details of this section of the code. Mr. Bowman said that
while he typically favors simplifying the code, it is important to have clear and concise language in this section so that people
understand what they can and cannot do.
Section 17.60.030.B – Attractive Nuisances Dangerous to Children
Mr. Bowman recalled that at their last meeting the Board discussed the importance of prohibiting the storage of items that
pose a danger to children. At the request of the Board, this section was changed to read, “Attractive nuisances dangerous to
children including but not limited to the following items when located on any developed or vacant lot.”
Board Member Freeman questioned about the safety of portable toilets that are used by construction companies while
working in residential areas. She pointed out that if these facilities are left unlocked, they could be accessed by children and
an accident could occur if a child were to fall in. Mr. Bowman said this has never been a problem for the City, but he agreed
to research the issue further to see if it needs to be addressed in the code.
Section 17.60.040 – Recreational Vehicles
Mr. Bowman said Board Member Freeman raised concern about the size of Recreational Vehicles (RV’s) that are allowed to
be stored on residential properties and whether or not they should be prohibited in side and front yards. In addition, Vice
Chair Dewhirst suggested that storage of vehicles such as personal watercraft, should be prohibited in the front and side
yards. Mr. Bowman said the Board could decide to regulate RV’s based on size, but the standard would have to be clear and
concise.
Board Member Henderson noted that Sections 17.60.040.E.2.l and 17.60.040.E.2.m both address the size of RV’s. Board
Member Reed noted that the language proposed in Section 17.60.040.E.2.1 would allow almost all of the front yard to be
used as a parking space for an RV. Mr. Bowman agreed. He noted that most of the concerns related to RV’s are associated
with the large size and the blue tarp coverings. The City also receives numerous complaints about people living in RV’s in
residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Bowman advised that if the Board decides they want to regulate the storage of RV’s, staff could come up with some
language for them to consider. He noted that regulating the storage of RV’s would likely create a stir amongst the
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2007 Page 3
Packet Page 144 of 176
community both pro and con. He agreed that staff could contact the City of Redmond to find out how they regulate RV’s.
He would forward the document to the Board members, highlighting those sections that are directly related to RV’s. He also
agreed to obtain information from other jurisdictions in the region.
Board Member Freeman recalled the Board’s previous discussion about the need to keep the setback areas clear for
emergency access. She noted that storing large RV’s in the side setback areas could present a safety hazard. She further
noted that permanent structures are not allowed in the setbacks, so perhaps they should prohibit the storage of large RV’s, as
well. Mr. Bowman noted that RV’s can be moved in case of emergency, so they should not be treated the same as permanent
structures within setbacks.
Section 17.60.020 .J – Storage Containers and Tents
Mr. Bowman explained that staff is proposing this new section to address the more than 85 outstanding complaints the code
enforcement officer has on file related to storage containers and tent structures. The current code prohibits temporary
structures of this size if they are larger than 120 square feet. However, this particular code regulation has been suspended
until the City’s code has been updated.
Vice Chair Dewhirst said he doesn’t see the difference between a storage container and a butler building. He questioned
why one should be allowed and not the other. Mr. Bowman said he believes there is a significant difference between metal
storage buildings and surplussed cargo containers, which are typically very large. The majority of the Board agreed they did
not want to allow shipping or cargo containers to be used for storage in residential areas. Mr. Bowman said issues related to
cargo and shipping containers are coming up more often, and he suggested the City consider being ahead of the curve in
regulating this use.
Board Member Freeman asked if staff has ever had difficulty enforcing the nuisance code requirements based on cultural
issues. Mr. Bowman said that as long as the standards are applied uniformly and community wide, there should be no
problems of this type. The City should avoid standards that are directed towards a specific cultural area.
Section 17.60.050 – Habitation Uses Prohibited
Mr. Bowman said the language proposed by staff would allow habitation of RV’s in the case of family or visitors staying
temporarily for a period not to exceed 30 days. Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested that this use be limited to 30 days per year to
prevent a property owner from moving the RV for a period of time and then bringing it back for another 30 days.
Section 17.60.030.N -- Garbage Stored Outside
Board Member Henderson asked if this proposed language would apply to containers that are left at the street for garbage
pick up. Mr. Bowman said this would not be considered storage of garbage containers, but he agreed the language should
clarify the matter. He said the City has received complaints about people who leave their garbage containers out at the street
for days after the garbage has been collected.
Section 17.60. 030.I – Accumulation of Construction Supplies
Vice Chair Dewhirst noted that, originally, a provision was added to this section that required a property owner to begin a
project in five business days. He expressed his belief that this would be irrational since a host of things could keep a
property owner from completing a project. Mr. Bowman pointed out that this language is really targeted at potential code
violators who like to hoard or store buildings materials on their property that they never get around to using. He suggested it
would be appropriate to have some type of time limit.
Board Member Henderson suggested that a 30-day time limit be established for the project to be started. They should also
identify a project completion time limit. He noted that this section only applies to projects that do not require a building
permit. Chair Guenther expressed his concern about requiring someone who is landscaping his/her property to complete the
project in a certain amount of time. While he understands the need to keep the project active, he questioned if a time limit
language would accomplish this goal. Mr. Bowman agreed to talk with the code enforcement officer about whether they
should include a time limit for project completion.
Section 17.60.040.E.2.f – Storage of Vehicles on Vacant Residential Property
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2007 Page 4
Packet Page 145 of 176
Mr. Bowman said Vice Chair Dewhirst raised a concern that this proposed language would prohibit a person who owns
adjoining property from parking a vehicle on a property that does not have a dwelling unit. He said he agrees with this
concern. There are situations in the City where a single property owner owns two lots, and the proposed language would
prohibit the property owner from parking cars on the vacant lot. He explained that the language is intended to prevent
people from parking cars on residential vacant lots, but he agreed to come up with new language for the Board to consider
that would exclude adjacent lots that are under common ownership.
Conclusion
Mr. Bowman summarized that staff would work to obtain sample regulations for RV’s from other jurisdictions in the region
and forward them to the Board as soon as possible. He asked that the Board review the samples and forward their ideas to
him prior to the next meeting. Staff would work to finalize the draft code amendments for the Board’s review prior to the
public hearing. In addition to the updated language for Title 17, Mr. Bowman advised that he would provide draft language
to address the parking standards, particularly as they relate to Highway 99. If the City is going to support the concept of bus
rapid transit, they should do their part to encourage less parking and more transit use.
Board Member Freeman referred the Board and staff to a recent article in THE SEATTLE POST INTELLIGENCER, which
provides information about the average number of cars per dwelling unit in various areas of Seattle. She noted that in some
of the more populated areas of Seattle, there are only .9 parking spaces per unit.
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred the Board to the Victoria Transportation Website, which provides helpful information related
to the issue of parking. He expressed his belief that the site is valid to the issues that are being raised by the City now.
Board Member Freeman questioned how the Board and staff could educate the City Council about the need to change the
City’s parking requirements. Mr. Bowman replied that the Board needs to make it clear in their recommendation to the City
Council why they want to change the parking standards on Highway 99 to encourage rapid transit and higher density
development. He said the Board’s job is to do the necessary research and due diligence and then forward their best
recommendations to the City Council. He noted that the City Council is very supportive of Community Transit’s bus rapid
transit service on Highway 99, which should be operational some time next year.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Bowman announced that two rezone public hearings have been scheduled on the Board’s May 23rd meeting. He
suggested the Board considering starting their meeting earlier to allow time for them to meet with the City Attorney and
Historic Preservation Commission as previously discussed.
Board Member Young suggested that rather than meeting for one hour prior to the next regular meeting, perhaps it would be
appropriate for the Historic Preservation Commission to provide a brief report outlining the issues they want the Board to
consider as they review the non-conformance section of the code. Mr. Bowman expressed his belief that it would be helpful
for the Board to meet with the Historic Preservation Commission and allow them an opportunity to share their thoughts and
recommendations so that the Commission’s work could be blended into the Board’s review of the code. He also reminded
the Board that the City Attorney would be in attendance for this discussion.
The Board agreed to start their joint discussion with the Historic Preservation Commission at 6:30 p.m. The regular meeting
would follow at 7:30 p.m.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Guenther reminded the Board that they have been invited to a Short Course in Public Planning that would be hosted by
the City of Lynnwood later in May.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2007 Page 5
Packet Page 146 of 176
Board Member Freeman suggested that perhaps the Board should provide additional comments to strengthen their reasons
for supporting the proposed rezone application. Vice Chair Dewhirst clarified that his motion would recommend approval of
the application based on the points made on Pages 4 and 5 of the Staff Report.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE BOARD TOOK A 5-MINUTE BREAK AT 8:25 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 8:30 P.M.
DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17 AND 20 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC)
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to the draft documents that were provided related to Chapters 17 and 20 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC). He said the purpose of the discussion is to allow the Board an opportunity to
provide feedback regarding the proposed language before it is prepared for a public hearing. The Board and staff reviewed
and discussed the following sections of Chapter 17:
• Section 17.05.020 – Reasonable Accommodations. Mr. Bowman pointed out that the Development Services Director
makes decisions related to reasonable accommodations. Therefore, the language should be amended to make it clear that
these decisions would not be made by the Community Services Director.
• Section 17.05.050 -- Appeal. Mr. Bowman said this language would be amended to make it easier to read and clearer
about who can appeal a reasonable accommodations request. No substantive changes have been proposed.
Board Member Reed pointed out that once the Development Services Director has made a determination, the only
recourse is to appeal the decision to the court. He questioned whether or not this would be wise. Mr. Bowman pointed
out that this is a building code question, and building code questions can only be appealed to Superior Court.
• Section 17.10.000 – Bond Required. Mr. Bowman said that in the past 30 years, he has never seen the City cash a
performance bond on a building project. However, bonds have been cashed for not completing landscaping or public
improvements. He said that, in his opinion, the City should only require bonds for public improvements that are required
or when someone wants occupancy before everything is done. He noted that the current requirement creates unnecessary
paperwork for the staff and added costs for the developer. However, the City doesn’t really receive a significant value
from the requirement. When an occupancy is requested and required non-life safety improvements such as landscaping
have not been installed, the proposed new language would authorize the Development Services Director to allow a
develop or owner to post a performance bond or similar security to ensure that improvements would be installed within a
specified time period.
• Section 17.30.035 – Trellises and Arbors. Mr. Bowman recalled the Board’s 2004 discussion regarding trellises, arbors
and fences. He expressed his belief that it doesn’t make sense to restrict plantings on a trellis when they are intended to
potentially allow such plantings. Site distance is already regulated. He pointed out that the proposed language would
delete Item 2 because it is not necessary.
• Definitions – Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that the definitions are scattered throughout the document. Mr. Bowman
said all of the definitions would be taken from the back of the code and placed at the front of the code. Staff is attempting
to cross reference terms and find definitions for those that are not yet defined. Then they would all be pulled together into
one section.
• Section 17.35 – Animals. Mr. Bowman suggested it would be appropriate for the Development Services Department to
get out of the business of regulating animals. He noted that there is an animal control arm of the City, so these regulations
really should be moved into Chapter 5 of the Edmonds Municipal Code. He emphasized that he has not discussed this
change with the Animal Control staff, but it seems it would make more sense to put this in the specific section in the
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 8
Packet Page 147 of 176
Municipal Code that talks about animals. He said he would work with the Police Department staff regarding this potential
change.
• Section 17.50 – Off-Street Parking. Mr. Bowman said staff would be working to update the off-street parking
regulations to incorporate the new downtown zone (BD-1). He particularly referred to Item B22 on Page 17-22 and noted
that the regulations do not currently address the issue of what to do with outdoor vehicle sales. He suggested that because
there are a number of car dealerships on Highway 99, the City must have regulations to deal with their parking
requirements. Staff has discussed the concept of treating parking requirements for Highway 99 much like they did for the
downtown zones. They could identify a parking standard for commercial uses and another for residential uses. He noted
that there would likely be more mixed-use developments along Highway 99 in the future, and having a standard parking
requirement for both commercial and residential uses would make it easier for developers to make decisions on what to do
with their properties. Mr. Chave added that, currently, the City must track and recalculate the parking requirements when
uses are changed. This creates a significant problem when tenants change frequently.
If the Board is interested in pursuing this new concept for parking requirements along Highway 99, Mr. Bowman said
staff could research various options further and provide direction to the Board at their next meeting. He noted that another
option would be to establish both a minimum and a maximum parking standard for zones along Highway 99.
Board Member Freeman expressed her belief that the City should try to reduce the parking requirement to discourage
people from using their cars instead of the public transportation that is readily available on Highway 99. Mr. Bowman
said that establishing a maximum parking standard would force developers to look at other options such as encouraging
public transit opportunities. Board Member Freeman also suggested the City establish a maximum standard for the size of
a parking stall so that people are encouraged to use smaller cars. In addition, the City should consider whatever options
are available to reduce greenhouse gases and encourage people to utilize the public transportation system.
Vice Chair Dewhirst agreed it would be appropriate to consider a maximum parking requirement, particularly for
developments that are located close to rapid transit opportunities. He suggested it would be helpful to review the bubble
diagrams created by Makers to identify the districts. The Board and staff could consider the concept of tailoring the
parking requirements to accommodate the types of uses they envision in the various areas.
Board Member Henderson emphasized the importance of maintaining flexibility. For example, a Costco type business
would require someone to drive to the store rather than ride a bus. He noted that Costco parking lots are often maximized,
and the City must allow enough flexibility for these types of businesses to potentially located along Highway 99 and still
meet their customers’ needs. Chair Guenther agreed and suggested that perhaps the parking requirement could be based
on the type of use that is being proposed. Mr. Chave cautioned that it would be more straightforward to come up with an
average that works for the vast majority of commercial uses and then identify some exceptions.
Board Member Young recalled a retreat discussion that rather than having a prescriptive parking requirement, a developer
should be allowed to figure out how many parking spaces would be needed, depending on the nature of the business. Mr.
Bowman noted that the impervious surface limitations would play a significant role in deciding the number of parking
spaces that could be provided and what materials would be used.
Board Member Bowman noted that in some zones, there are no parking requirements for new construction. Board
Member Young pointed out that only the BD-1 zone has no parking requirement. Board Member Bowman suggested the
City allow the market to sort out the number of parking spaces that would be required. Mr. Bowman explained that if
there were no parking standards for Highway 99, adeveloper would have to conduct a market analysis to determine the
amount of parking that would be necessary to support the businesses and then decide how they could comply with the
impervious surface, landscape and stormwater detention requirements. Vice Chair Dewhirst expressed his concern that
allowing the market to decide the parking requirement would favor the large developer over the small developer. In his
experience, this concept could also result in a developer significantly overbuilding the parking area. Therefore, placing a
cap on the maximum number of parking spaces allowed would be important.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 9
Packet Page 148 of 176
Board Member Young said he likes the idea of capping the number of parking spaces a developer could provide, but he
would like to see some ideas about how this concept could be implemented. Perhaps a developer could be allowed
additional parking spaces if low-impact development techniques are incorporated into the design. Board Member Young
said the Board should also discuss whether it is more important to limit the number and size of parking spaces and
encourage low-impact development or encourage economic development. He noted that the City does not have control
over whether people use smaller cars or the public transit system.
Mr. Bowman agreed to come back to the Board with two or three alternatives for them to consider for potential parking
requirements. Mr. Chave pointed out that the ITE Manual is a supply driven model for parking, and there are other
manuals that talk about demand for parking. The demand standards are almost always significantly lower than the supply
driven standards.
• Section 17.50.090 – Temporary Parking Lots. Mr. Bowman questioned why someone would want to pay for a
conditional use permit to construct a temporary parking lot, when it would only be good for one year. He suggested it
would be better to allow a property owner to apply for a conditional use permit for a time period that is consistent with the
regulations.
Vice Chair Dewhirst asked why temporary parking lots permits could not be an administrative decision rather than require
a conditional use permit. Mr. Bowman answered that would be one option the Board could consider. However, a
conditional use permit would require a public process to let people know what is being proposed. Another option would
be to make it an administrative decision with a notice requirement to all property owners within 300 feet. Mr. Chave
added that the notices could be sent out up front so the public would have an opportunity to comment before a decision
has been issued by staff.
• Section 17.50.100 – Commercial Vehicle Regulations. Mr. Bowman explained that staff is proposing an additional
clause in this section that would allow night parking of authorized towing vehicles under contract to provide services to
the City. He explained that sometimes tow truck drivers who live in the City are required to park their vehicle at home
when they are on call, and the current regulations would not allow this to occur.
• Section 17.60 – Property Performance Standards. Mr. Bowman advised that Mr. Thies, the City’s Code Enforcement
Officer has been working to gather information from other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound area to learn how they address
issues that are common to the City of Edmonds. Mr. Thies invited the Board Members to share their ideas on the draft
language that was provided for their review.
Board Member Henderson said he does not like the way the performance standards are divided up. For examples, parking
of trailers on residential property is addressed in two different sections. He suggested it would be helpful to have all
regulations related to a single issue in the same section. Board Member Freeman agreed that it is difficult to go back and
forth from section to section to see what is and is not allowed.
Board Member Freeman noted that the proposed language does not differentiate between a small trailer and a large
recreational vehicle, and she felt there should be distinctly separate regulations for each, depending on the size and bulk of
the vehicle. Property owners should not be encouraged to store large recreational vehicles in residential neighborhoods.
She said the proposed language also fails to differentiate between setbacks and yards and what is allowed in each.
• Section 17.60.020.H.1 – Open Storage. Vice Chair Dewhirst asked if the proposed language includes a definition for the
terms “lumber,” “coal,” and “other combustible materials.” Mr. Thies explained that this language came from the existing
code, and the purpose of the update is to eliminate language that is ambiguous. Mr. Chave further explained that Mr.
Thies collected numerous regulations from various jurisdictions for the Board to consider. At this time, Mr. Thies is
seeking feedback from the Board regarding the concepts the Board wants staff to pursue.
• Section 17.60.030.B – Attractive Nuisances. Board Member Freeman noted that the intent of the proposed language is
to protect children. Therefore, property owners should not be allowed to store any of the listed items on their property
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 10
Packet Page 149 of 176
where children have access. The Board agreed to change the last part of the section to read, “. . . located outside an
enclosed building.”
• Section 17.60.030.J – Unconventional Construction. Vice Chair Dewhirst questioned why the City should prohibit
shipping and cargo containers, but allow storage buildings. Mr. Bowman said the City has received numerous complaints
about shipping and cargo containers on adjacent properties. The Board must decide whether these should be considered
structures and/or buildings and whether or not they should be allowed in residential neighborhoods. He noted that tents,
tarps and canopy structures are a significant issue, as well. The City currently has 85 complaints of this type.
• Section 17.60.030 – Nuisance. Board Member Works asked if any consideration has been giving to forcing people to cut
down their blackberries. Mr. Thies said the City Council discussed this issue and raised the idea that “one person’s
nuisance could be another person’s garden. They indicated they would not be interested in having a vegetation regulation.
• Section 17.60.030.D – Graffiti. Board Member Bowman pointed out this section would require property owners to take
care of graffiti on their property immediately. He pointed out that his building on 5th Avenue has been vandalized
multiple times, and graffiti has occurred more and more around town. The proposed language would require the victims
of graffiti to resolve the problem. Mr. Bowman advised that the City Council recently discussed the issue of graffiti.
While business owners are not really happy about being required to paint their buildings, it has been demonstrated that
leaving the graffiti in place encourages the situation to grow. Taking care of graffiti right away tends to detract future
situations. Unless they catch the person responsible, the only recourse the City has is to require property owners to take
care of the problem.
• Section 17.60.030 – Nuisance. Board Member Reed suggested that if he were to apply the list of nuisances to properties
along his street, he would find numerous violations. He suggested that while there are some issues that must be addressed,
some of the items in this section are common occurrences. While they might not be the most attractive situations, he
questioned whether or not the City should try to regulate them all.
• Section 17.60.040 – Vehicles. Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested there needs to be some leeway for people to use trailers
when guests are visiting. Mr. Thies said the only complaints the City has received on this matter have come from people
who are concerned about grown children being allowed to live in trailers for long, extended periods of time.
• Section 17.95 – Commute Trip Reduction Plan. Mr. Bowman advised that this section must be updated and submitted
to the state by the end of June, 2007. However, the City’s new Traffic Engineer would not be on staff until mid May. It is
likely staff would request an extension from the State, but sometime in the near future staff would provide new language
for this section that would meet the new State laws.
• Outdoor Dining. Board Member Works suggested that staff review the outdoor dining section of the ECDC to make sure
there are as many outdoor dining opportunities as possible in the City, particularly in light of the new arts corridor.
Perhaps the City should expand the outdoor dining use to other zones in the City.
• Section 17.40 – Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, Signs and Lots. Mr. Bowman referred the Board to the written
comments provided by the City Attorney regarding this section. The City Attorney attempted to incorporate all of the
comments provided previously by the Board. At some point, the Board must also have a discussion with the Historic
Preservation Commission about how to integrate historic preservation and nonconformance elements together.
Mr. Bowman explained that the current nonconformance regulations are very restrictive and won’t allow a nonconformity
to expand. He said the Board must hold an in-depth discussion about whether or not it would be appropriate to allow
nonconforming structures to be expanded if the expansion would further encroach into the setback area. Board Member
Young questioned why the City should allow anyone to encroach into a setback. Mr. Chave said staff works with many
situations related to nonconforming structures. In addition, the Historic Preservation Commission has expressed concern
about the small historic buildings that are located in the downtown. Many of these structures protrude into the setback. If
the City wants to encourage historic preservation, they must consider options that would provide some flexibility to
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 11
Packet Page 150 of 176
address nonconforming issues. He concluded that while this may seem like a simple situation, a lot of issues must be
considered.
Mr. Chave pointed out that there is an interaction between the nonconforming provisions and the variance provisions. If
the City’s nonconforming regulations are extremely tight and the rules on variances are strictly enforced, many property
owners would be left with no options for resolving difficult situations.
The Board agreed it would be appropriate to meet with the Historic Preservation Commission as soon as possible. Staff
agreed to find out where the Commission is in their process and arrange a meeting date, possibly May 9th.
Mr. Bowman requested that Board Members forward their additional comments to him as soon as possible. He said he
would compile the comments and prepare a written response for the Board’s review. The Board could continue their review
of the proposed code amendments at their May 9th meeting. He pointed out that staff intends to leave the definitions in this
section. When dealing with chronic code violators, it is easier to show them the rules and regulations when the definitions
are readily available.
Mr. Bowman advised that comments from the Hearing Examiner related to Title 20 should be available soon. Once they are
received, staff would forward a copy to each of the Board Members. In addition, Mr. Bowman said he would meet with the
City Attorney to draft language for the Board’s consideration.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Board Member Freeman recalled that at their retreat, the Board talked about tightening up some odds and ends in the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave suggested the Board could discuss possible Board initiated code amendments at their May
9th meeting.
Mr. Chave announced that another rezone application is scheduled to come before the Board for a public hearing on June
13th.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Guenther announced that a memorial service for Police Chief David Stern has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 1st, at
11 a.m. at the Westgate Chapel.
Chair Guenther reported that he and Vice Chair Dewhirst met with the Mayor, Council President, and Chair of the
Architectural Design Board, where they reviewed the items discussed by the Board at their retreat. He noted that the
Mayor’s Climate Committee meets the first Thursday of every month, and Board Member Freeman has agreed to represent
the Board on this committee.
Vice Chair Dewhirst said the Mayor recommended the Board and City Council meet together on a quarterly basis. Chair
Guenther said the Mayor’s intent was to give the Board an opportunity to talk to the City Council on a more regular basis
about policy issues that are coming before them.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
None of the Board Members provided comments during this portion of the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 12
Packet Page 151 of 176
ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS
BOARD MEMBER WORKS NOMINATED CARY GUENTHER AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR
2007. BOARD MEMBER DEWHIRST SECONDED THE NOMINATION. BOARD MEMBER YOUNG MOVED
THAT NOMINATIONS BE CLOSED. BOARD MEMBER REED SECONDED THE MOTION. THE
NOMINATION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
Board Member Guenther assumed the role of Chair for the remainder of the meeting.
BOARD MEMBER FREEMAN NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER DEWHIRST AS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE
PLANNING BOARD FOR 2007. BOARD MEMBER YOUNG SECONDED THE MOTION. BOARD MEMBER
BOWMAN MOVED THAT NOMINATIONS BE CLOSED. BOARD MEMBER FREEMAN SECONDED THE
MOTION. THE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
OVERVIEW OF CODE REWRITE PROJECT
Mr. Bowman explained the process for accomplishing the code rewrite project. He recalled that the City Council indicated
their desire for the code amendments to be presented to them section by section. He advised that the code rewrite project
would start with the non-conforming regulations found in Chapter 17, and the City Attorney has prepared a draft ordinance
for the Board’s consideration. He said staff’s goal is to obtain feedback from the Board regarding the non-conforming
regulations, and then the entire Chapter 17 would be brought before the Board for review, public hearing and a
recommendation to the City Council on March 14th. After the Board has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council
for Chapter 17, they could begin their review of the process and procedures section, and then the definitions and nuisance
sections.
Mr. Bowman explained that staff intends to bring one code section per month to the Board for review so that a public hearing
could be scheduled the next month. While staff does not anticipate the City Council would adopt the code amendments by
the end of the year, they would like the Board to get through their review by the end of December. The City Council could
adopt all of the amendments sometime in early 2008.
CODE REWRITE PROJECT: REVIEW OF NON-CONFORMING REGULATIONS (ECDC 17.40) (FILE
NUMBER CDC-06-5)
Mr. Snyder advised that, with the exception of the non-conforming regulations, most of the amendments to the code
provisions would be minor changes. He noted there have been significant changes in the law in the community, which
highlight the need to review the City’s current non-conforming use provisions and identify what the City wants to
accomplish and what changes could be made.
Mr. Snyder explained that in 1980 the City enacted its last major re-codification of its zoning ordinances. This involved an
extensive community process and the product reflected the philosophy of the time. The City’s non-conforming use
provisions were extremely narrow and restrictive, and this philosophy has also been reflected in the way the City deals with
variances. In both cases, non-conforming uses were intended to be phased out or abated over time, and specific abatement
provisions were established for annexation areas. A variance provision was created to deal with deviations to the zoning
ordinance. However, if the City’s variance ordinance was strictly applied, there would be no variances issued.
Mr. Snyder advised that changes have occurred since 1980 that warrant amendments to the City’s non-conforming use
regulations. First, the annexation climate has changed entirely. People are not anxious to be annexed into the City of
Edmonds, and those areas within the City’s urban growth area contain pockets of people who are very opposed to being part
of Edmonds. Unlike times in the past when neighborhoods sought to annex into the City, current districts contain people
who have uses they want to continue.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
January 24, 2007 Page 2
Packet Page 152 of 176
Mr. Snyder explained that since the Growth Management Act was enacted, the City has been pressured to accept or make
provisions over time to accommodate more density. The Growth Management Act also emphasizes mixed-use development.
There is also interest within the City to preserve affordable housing in an increasingly difficult market and to preserve
historic and near historic buildings and neighborhoods. To encourage historic reuse or preserve existing neighborhoods, he
suggested the City review their non-conforming use provisions to avoid unintended consequences. He noted that many
citizens feel it would be better to preserve the existing housing stock and charm of the neighborhoods by finding ways to
permit the homes to be reused and rebuilt overtime instead of providing economic incentives that encourage their
replacement with structures that utilized the entire lot coverage permitted.
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred to Mr. Snyder’s memorandum that mentions the provisions of the Federally Religious Land
Uses and Institutionalized Person Act of 2000. He said he had no idea that cities no longer had the ability to enforce health
and safety provisions of the building code on existing church facilities. Mr. Snyder explained that an existing case in the
State of Washington involves a church school that had a preschool in the basement of a building with no viable fire exits.
The City of Renton was prohibited from closing the school down based on this act. However, the act only applies to existing
facilities, and new facilities would have to comply with the State building codes. Vice Chair Dewhirst asked if a city would
be liable if a fire were to occur in such a facility. Mr. Snyder said a City would probably not be held liable assuming they
actively pursues remedies and inspections. A city’s failure to attempt to deal with a violation could lead to liability.
Mr. Snyder cautioned that as the Board considers policies and what they want to encourage and what they want to end, they
should remember that once a policy has been established, the rules would be applicable to all building in Edmonds. He also
cautioned that there is really no way to inject aesthetic sense into the non-conforming use provisions. He suggested the
Board work with the staff to come up with examples of how the provisions would apply to certain structures they want to
preserve or that should be abated to test how it would work.
Mr. Snyder and the Board Members reviewed the following proposed changes:
• Section 17.40.000: Mr. Snyder explained that the intent of the existing code is to prohibit further non-conformity. Rather
than permit non-conformity, this section was changed in order to establish greater flexibility in the preservation of non-
conforming buildings. Limiting the continuation of certain aspects of non-conformity, such as historic reuse or
encouraging existing housing stock, may be appropriate.
• Section 17.40.010.C.1: Mr. Snyder explained that Washington State Law provides for an agricultural exemption for
certain seasonal uses such as Christmas tree lots and pumpkin farms. A provision was added to Subparagraph C to
acknowledge that there are certain uses that fall outside the “six months of continuous use” rule.
• Section 17.40.010.C.2: Mr. Snyder explained that, currently, this non-conforming use provision states that if a residential
use ceases because it is damaged in excess of 50% of the value, the use may be reestablished. The proposed ordinance
would change the threshold for damage from 50% to 75%. Chair Guenther questioned how this change would impact the
thresholds in other City regulations. For example, the Building Code has sections with a 50% threshold. Mr. Snyder
pointed out that there is no grandfathering of life safety provisions under the Building Code. Section 17.40.010.C deals
with issues such as use, setback requirements, etc. Mr. Chave pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan talks about
preservation of residential development, and a 75% threshold would be a little more lenient. He cautioned that this section
would only apply to non-conforming residential uses. Mr. Snyder explained that, with many properties in Edmonds, the
structure has little value in relation to the value of the land.
Board Member Reed noted that Section 17.40.010.F includes a statement that determination of replacement costs and the
level of destruction shall be made by the building official. He asked if this same language should be included in Section
17.40.010.C, as well. Mr. Snyder agreed that is something to consider. He explained that the International Building Code
contains tables of value and a more standard way of applying value to structures.
Vice Chair Dewhirst recalled that he has worked in jurisdictions where a non-conforming building that was destroyed
could be reconstructed using the building code at the time it was constructed rather than the current code. He pointed out
that, particularly with historic structures, there are requirements of a building code, other than life safety concerns, that
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
January 24, 2007 Page 3
Packet Page 153 of 176
could make or break a property owner’s ability to rebuild a structure. Mr. Snyder agreed. He suggested they invite the
Building Official to attend a future meeting to talk about the building codes, but there are certain life safety provisions that
the Board will probably not want to lighten up on. Mr. Chave suggested a representative from the Historic Preservation
Commission be invited to meet with the Board, as well, since they have a keen interest in the non-conforming provisions
relative to the building codes and historic buildings. In addition to provisions in the building codes, Mr. Snyder said the
Board might also want to consider the State Energy Code requirements.
Board Member Works noted that some sections of the proposed language use the term “building and/or structure” and
other sections only use the term “structure.” Mr. Snyder answered that a structure is defined as any combination of
materials attached to the ground, and a building is a structure with a roof. He said he had intended to use the term
“building and/or structure” consistently throughout the document. Chair Guenther pointed out that the International
Building Code defines a structure as anything that is built and attached to the ground, and a building is defined as any
structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy.
• Section 17.40.010.C: Mr. Snyder explained that, currently, the City has no buildings to abate. This section was aimed at
a series of annexations that occurred in the early 1980’s, and all of these structures have been abated. He recommended
that this section of the code be eliminated. A new abatement process would have to be adopted if an annexation occurred
or the Board and/or City Council decided there were uses they wanted abate. Board Member Reed asked if problems
could arise if the City were to annex property in the future without having an abatement process in place. Mr. Snyder
answered negatively. He explained that whether or not the City decides to abate or continue non-conforming uses is going
to be a large part of the sales pitch to the audience in the annexation area. If the annexation area had a use they wanted to
abate, the City could design and enact zoning as a part of the annexation process to address their problem. Rather than
have an out-of-date abatement process, a new abatement process could be crafted as part of pre-annexation zoning.
• Section 17.40.010.D: Mr. Snyder explained that the expansion provisions in this section were tweaked slightly. The goal
was to tie this section back to the continuation provisions so that the terms are better defined.
• Section 17.40.020.C: Mr. Snyder suggested that because the Historic Preservation Commission is becoming more active,
it might be appropriate for the Board to craft a provision in conjunction with their recommendations. He attempted to list
the two issues: compliance with the building code and consistency with the Register of Historic Places. He noted that
while the ordinance, as drafted, would require full compliance and consistency with the Register of Historic Places, the
Board may want to provide greater flexibility.
Board Member Reed asked which section would be modified to deal with near historic buildings and structures, as
discussed earlier by Mr. Snyder. Mr. Snyder answered that this issue would be dealt with in the reuse section starting on
Page 5. The goal would be to provide more flexibility for existing structures.
Board Member Freeman asked if this section would distinguish between buildings that are on the Register and those that
are candidates for the Register. She noted that there are not many buildings on the Register to date, but quite a few have
been designated as candidates. Mr. Snyder advised that placing a property on the Register is a voluntary process, and the
requirements are very specific. Mr. Snyder suggested the Board work with the Historic Preservation Commission to
consider how best to handle historic buildings that are not yet on the Register. Offering non-conforming use rights might
encourage people to add their properties to the Register. Mr. Chave said that if the City were to offer all of the benefits to
historic properties that are not on the Register, there would be no incentive for people to place their properties on the
Register.
• Section 17.40.020.E: Board Member Freeman requested clarification about the proposed provision related to moving a
non-conforming building horizontally any distance. Mr. Snyder explained that, currently, the provision is very onerous
and would prevent someone from jacking up a building to put a new foundation under it. When moving buildings from
one location to another, the building would have to come into compliance with lot coverage and setback requirements.
The proposed language in this section would allow buildings to be jacked up for new foundations. In addition, it would
permit a building to be moved if it would improve the degree of non-conformity.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
January 24, 2007 Page 4
Packet Page 154 of 176
• Section 17.40.020.F: Mr. Snyder noted that two alternatives were proposed for this section. Alternative 1 would
increase the amount of loss that a structure must sustain before coming into full compliance from 50% to 75%.
Alternative 2 would allow full reconstruction if a casualty occurs without the unlawful action of the owner. These options
are intended to encourage reuse of existing housing and commercial stock. Board Member Works asked if the term “75%
replacement costs” in Section 17.40.020.F would be different than the term “75% of its value” in Section 17.40.010.C.2.
Mr. Snyder agreed that these two sections should be made consistent. Board Member Freeman pointed out that if the
theater were destroyed, the owners would be unable to rebuild it if they had to meet the City’s current parking
requirement. She said she would support an alternative that would enable the City to protect historic structures such as the
movie theater. Mr. Snyder said this section was aimed at addressing bulk requirements, but addressing the parking
requirement would also be appropriate. Mr. Chave noted that the new zoning the City Council recently approved for the
downtown does not include any commercial parking requirement. Board Member Freeman agreed, but she noted that the
parking requirements change from time to time. Mr. Bowman summarized that Alternative 2 would allow the theater
building to be reconstructed using the same footprint and square footage, regardless of the parking requirement. Mr.
Snyder pointed out that the non-conforming provisions refer to legal non-conformity, or uses that complied with all codes
in effect at the time it was established.
Mr. Snyder advised that the non-conforming use provisions do not have to be uniform throughout the City. For example,
the Board may want to hear from residents who live along Highway 99. If they like the current look and feel in downtown
Edmonds, they might want to encourage reuse. But that might not be the case for other neighborhoods in the City.
Particularly along Highway 99, the City might want to encourage redevelopment. He suggested that they may want to
retain the current 50% threshold for areas where they want to encourage change.
• Section 17.40.020.G: Mr. Snyder explained that this section has to do with residential structures in the downtown area
and allows buildings in commercial zones that are used for residential purposes to be remodeled or reconstructed, ignoring
the requirement that they be brought into conformity. This issue was raised by the City Council, so the Board should
consider on an area-by-area basis whether or not this policy would maximize the use of the City’s limited commercial
areas. Mr. Bowman explained that the City Council was very concerned about the residential uses that were scattered
throughout the downtown BD-1 zone.
• Section 17.40.025: Mr. Snyder explained that this current code provision was designed to establish a registration period
for non-conforming or illegal accessory dwelling units. Given that the period has passed, this section could be greatly
reduced. The draft language recognizes that registered accessory dwelling units, whether detached or attached, may be
continued.
• Section 17.40.030: Mr. Snyder advised that this section was changed about 10 years ago and has been a resounding
success. Rather than having a rigid structure that prevented the reuse of existing lots, this section used a sliding scale that
allowed lots that were non-conforming to be developed rather than combined. It allowed properties to be developed to
look like the rest of the neighborhood. The provisions in this section encouraged infill development, encouraged the
retention of the look and feel of existing neighborhoods, and allowed people to get value out of property they had owned
and held for many years.
Board Member Works noted that in this section the terms “dwelling units” and “residence” are both used. Mr. Snyder
agreed that the terms should be made consistent. Board Member Reed referred to Item 3 on Page 12 and noted that the
term 50% should be changed to 75% to be consistent with changes made earlier in the document.
Mr. Chave referred to Section D.1.c at the bottom of Page 11. He explained that the intent of this provision was to avoid
situations where the character of an existing neighborhood would be altered. However, it could create some interesting
situations. For example, one individual owned two, platted lots, with a house straddling the center lot line. He wanted to
tear the house down and sell the property as two lots, but this particular provision that prohibits existing housing stock
from being destroyed would not allow the change to occur. The Board must consider whether or not this is a policy they
want to retain, and if so, is the language constructed the right way. Mr. Chave said that if the Board is happy with the
sliding scale table, then the provision related to preserving the existing housing stock might become moot. Mr. Snyder
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
January 24, 2007 Page 5
Packet Page 155 of 176
recalled that the current language comes from an era where the City Council was taking a bold initiative by creating the
sliding scale, and they weren’t sure how it would be used.
• Section 17.40.040: Mr. Snyder explained that the proposed changes to this section would allow greater flexibility in the
reuse of existing signs. Mr. Bowman said the existing language is problematic for business owners who want to do tenant
improvements inside the building. Board Member Reed noted that while the last sentence in this section refers to
Subparagraph D, there is actually no Subparagraph D in the existing language. Mr. Snyder agreed to clear up this
typographical error. He noted that the numbering on Page 13 should also be corrected.
Mr. Chave said the proposed new language is intended to allow a property owner to change a non-conforming sign to
reflect new information without changing the sign’s structure. Mr. Snyder agreed but noted that a property owner would
not be allowed to expand a non-conforming sign. Mr. Chave suggested the language in Subparagraph A be changed
because it says a non-conforming sign shall not be altered in any way. Perhaps it would be appropriate to provide a few
examples to indicate what is included in this section. Mr. Snyder agreed.
• Section 17.40.050.A: Because of changes in the law, Mr. Snyder advised that this provision is virtually unenforceable
and should be removed from the code.
• Section 17.40.050.B: The Board may get some public feedback in terms of schools and uses in neighborhoods. While
the City may regulate certain aspects by zoning and the building code, the school district is vested with the right to
determine what programs are offered at their schools. He suggested that this provision would add little to the discussion.
• Section 17.40.050.C: Mr. Snyder explained that the City Council has a lot of discretion over whether to reuse, change or
remodel City facilities. Therefore, rather than have a specific provision relating to the expansion of existing legal non-
conforming public uses, Mr. Snyder suggested the issue be handled under the City’s essential public facilities ordinance.
• Section 17.40.050.D: Mr. Snyder noted that the City Council adopts annual changes to the City’s Comprehensive Park,
Recreation and Open Space Plan, and the facilities that are constructed or maintained must be in compliance. Because the
City Council has the full authority to end, continue or expand any use, this provision is redundant and unnecessary.
Board Member Henderson referred to Alternative 2 on Page 7, which states that if an old, architecturally interesting building
that didn’t have sufficient setbacks for the current zone was destroyed by fire, the owner would be able to reconstruct the
building using the same footprint and the same degree of non-conformity, but it does not say it must be the same style of
building. If the City allows this flexibility to restore with the same footprint, perhaps the new building should be of similar
architecture. Mr. Snyder explained that non-conforming uses typically relate to bulk requirements such as setback, height,
etc., and that is the current focus of this section. He suggested that Board Member Henderson’s point be considered zoning
district by zoning district. Perhaps the Board could work with the Architectural Design Board to create design guidelines to
make sure any new buildings would look the same. Mr. Bowman and Mr. Chave both emphasized the importance of having
clear code language to indicate whether or not a building design could be changed when a non-conforming building is
reconstructed, particularly if the new design would increase the building’s non-conformance.
Mr. Snyder commented that when people come to the City with hard questions, it is often because they want to spend the
least amount of money. He cautioned that the City should not go overboard in order to give people an economic break.
Because of the high value of properties, the hardships are often not as great as they are presented.
Vice Chair Dewhirst said that while working in other jurisdictions, a few situations have come up where fire has destroyed a
home. During this traumatic time, property owners come to the City to find their structure is non-conforming. It has been
his experience that cities try to do everything possible to allow the house to be rebuilt.
Vice Chair Dewhirst inquired how the non-conforming use regulations would apply to animals. Mr. Bowman said that when
the entire chapter is presented to the Board, they will find there is already language to deal with the regulation of animals.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
January 24, 2007 Page 6
Packet Page 156 of 176
Board Member Works requested that staff provide some picture of some of the non-conforming situations that already exist
in the City. Mr. Bowman said he would provide some examples. He agreed this would make it easier for the public to
understand what is being proposed. Mr. Chave pointed out that non-conforming situations exist throughout the City, but
most people do not recognize them as such. Mr. Bowman referred to the properties that were annexed in the southern
portion of the City. He explained that when the properties were annexed, the County’s setback requirement was 5 feet for an
8,400 zone, and the City’s set back requirement is 7½ feet for an RS-8 zone.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board of the interaction between the non-conforming provisions, bulk provisions, and the rules for
variances. The tighter the City makes one, the more pressure it places on the others. For example, if the setback rules and
non-conforming provisions are very tight, it would place a tremendous amount of pressure on the variance rules. He urged
the Board to review all of these provisions in relation to each other to understand how they interact and achieve the overall
goals. Mr. Snyder agreed and emphasized that in discussions with the City Council, he has detected very little interest in
lightening up on the variance rules. This makes sense because the City of Edmonds is an infill community that is nearly built
out. If the City wants to preserve the current look and feel of Edmonds, they should lighten up on the non-conformance
regulations to allow the existing housing stock and uses to be retained. He noted that some areas of the City are
underutilized, such as the Highway 99 area where they might want to encourage change. Mr. Chave agreed that the City
Council is interested in clamping down tough on variances. Therefore, the only opportunity to provide flexibility in the code
would come via the non-conforming provisions, setbacks, etc.
Board Member Young asked if the documents presented to the Board for review represent the City Council’s entire policy
guidance, or would the City Council be open to suggestions. He pointed out that the purpose of revising the non-
conformance regulations is to encourage annexations into the City and to allow greater flexibility regarding the reuse of non-
conforming sites. Mr. Snyder said that, up to this point, the City Council has not participated in drafting the document
currently before the Board for consideration. The document was created by the staff and City Attorney to identify policy
concerns that have come up over the years. However, the Board and the City Council are ultimately responsible for directing
policy.
Mr. Snyder suggested that staff work with the City Attorney to clean up the document based on the comments provided by
the Board. Once a new draft has been created, the Board could meet with the Historic Preservation Commission to discuss
whether the provisions would be better or more applicable to certain areas of the City than others. Board Member Reed
asked if the meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission should take place before the public hearing. Mr. Snyder
answered that would be up to the Board. However, he suggested it is usually better to provide concrete language for the
public to comment on. Hearing policy input from the Planning Board and Historic Preservation Commission would allow
the staff to do a better job of drafting language. Mr. Bowman suggested the draft document be presented to the Historic
Preservation Commission soon so that their comments could be incorporated into a new draft for the public hearing.
Board Member Young said that rather than just asking the Historic Preservation Commission to propose changes to the draft
language, he would be more interested in learning what their specific issues and concerns are. They must identify the
problems before they can come up with appropriate solutions. Mr. Bowman said the draft document was presented to the
Board to illustrate some of the issues staff is struggling with and to solicit feedback from the Board. He suggested the same
document could be presented to the Historical Preservation Commission, and their comments and concerns could be
incorporated into the next draft prior to the public hearing. The Historic Preservation Commission could also send a
representative to the hearing to state their views. Mr. Snyder pointed out that many of the changes the Board has discussed
represent ways to preserve buildings long enough to become historic. He said that when drafting the document, he tried to
focus on areas in the City that have patina. The goal should be to preserve these areas long enough for them to be historic.
Again, Board Member Young said he would like the Historic Preservation Commission to first identify the issues they would
like to resolve by changing the non-conforming regulations. Mr. Snyder explained that, unlike other recent issues that have
come before the Board, the City Council did not provide specific direction regarding the non-conforming. However, because
of the Board’s recent work with the design guidelines, historic reuse, and preservation of the downtown area, staff believes
the Board could play a significant role in the rewrite process.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
January 24, 2007 Page 7
Packet Page 157 of 176
The Board discussed that age is not the only criteria used to identify structures of historic significance. Mr. Snyder explained
that in order to encourage the preservation of truly historic structures, the City must offer incentives to owners who place
their properties on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Rather than just addressing the preservation of historic
structures, most of the staff’s comments have been about the reuse of structures in a way that preserves the existing fabric of
the community, such as the size of homes, the scale, and the way neighborhoods are put together. He advised that the 1980
code changed a variety of zoning and setback standards by using a cookie-cutter approach. It was assumed that through
abatement and very strict non-conforming provisions, things would be get homogenized to look like the conceptual plan.
However, because the City is fully built out, the philosophy must be different. They must now consider opportunities for
preserving the look, texture and feel of the City as opposed to achieving specific setback requirements.
Chair Guenther said they must also consider opportunities to replace existing uses within residential areas with other uses
that are vital to the neighborhood. Mr. Snyder said he lives in the central district of Seattle, where many of the structures
were previously used for commercial purposes. Now the commercial uses are coming back to the neighborhood.
The Board took a break at 9:00 p.m. They reconvened at 9:05 p.m.
REVIEW OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND ECDC CHAPTER 20.60 SIGN CODE (FILE NUMBER
AMD-2007-2)
Mr. McIntosh thanked Chair Guenther for participating on the selection committee for the 6-Year Parks, Recreation and
Open Space Comprehensive Plan. Four consulting firms were interviewed. He advised that staff would provide updates to
the Board periodically as the project progresses.
Mr. McIntosh explained that for several years the community has expressed interest in having a third location to publicize
community events. He noted that the City used to have five locations, but now they have only two as a result of the new
PUD restrictions. Staff has identified a suitable new site for installing poles for pole-mounted community event banners on
the Public Works property on the north side of 212th Street. However, installation has been delayed because the current sign
code does not address special situations where poles are located on City property.
Mr. McIntosh referred the Board to Page 2 of the proposed ordinance. He advised that, as proposed, the first paragraph of
Section 20.60.005 would be added to address community event banners. He explained that the City’s current policy for
street banners is about 25 years old, so updates would likely be necessary to match the proposed amendment.
Board Member Works questioned why “cloth, fabric and canvas” must all be used to describe the types of materials that
could be utilized for the banners. Mr. McIntosh said the intent was to include all of the different types of materials that could
be used. He agreed that cloth, fabric and canvas are synonymous. He noted that most of the current banners are plastic, with
cloth for reinforcement.
Mr. McIntosh noted that the proposed sign code amendment requires a public hearing before the Board and a
recommendation to the City Council. He requested the Board conduct the public hearing on February 14th, and the Board
agreed.
CONTINUED DELIBERATIONS ON CODE UPDATES REQUIRED TO INTEGRATE GUIDELINES AND
REVISED DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS INTO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (FROM PUBLIC HEARING HELD
ON DECEMBER 13, 2006)
Mr. Chave referred the Board to the documentation that was attached to memorandums from staff dated January 10th and
January 24th. He reminded the Board that when they previously held a public hearing and discussed this issue on December
13th, they agreed to have further discussion on the suggestions made by ADB Board Member Utt regarding monotonous
buildings. They also agreed to consider applicant submission requirements that could be incorporated into the code.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
January 24, 2007 Page 8
Packet Page 158 of 176
Approved January 9, 2008
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
December 12, 2007
Chair Guenther called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 259 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Cary Guenther, Chair
John Dewhirst, Vice Chair
Janice Freeman
Judith Works
Don Henderson
Michael Bowman
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Jim Young (excused)
John Reed (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER HENDERSON MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28,
2007 AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The Board agreed to switch Item 7a (File Number AMD-07-13) and Item 7b (File Number AMD-07-6). The remainder of
the agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience who expressed a desire to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting.
CODE RE-WRITE PROJECT UPDATE AND TOPICAL DISCUSSION
Mr. Bowman advised that after discussions with the City Attorney, staff determined the best course of action is for him to
finish with the amendments to Chapter 20, and then they will go out for a contract for a consultant to help them complete the
remainder of the updates. He reported that the City Attorney, Scott Snyder, will be having surgery that would require him to
be immobilized for 23 hours a day for the next four to seven weeks. However, he anticipates that after a few weeks, he
should be able to resume his work on the code language. In the meantime, Zach Lell, an attorney from Mr. Snyder’s Office,
would work with the staff.
Packet Page 159 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
December 12, 2007 Page 2
DISCUSSION REGARDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17 (NUISANCE)
(FILE NUMBER AMD-07-6)
Mr. Bowman advised that he and Mike Theis, the City’s Code Enforcement Officer, met with Mr. Lell to review the work
the Planning Board previously completed for amendments to Chapter 17.60. Mr. Lell strongly recommended the nuisance
standards be removed from the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and placed in the Edmonds City Code
(ECC) since they are related more to public safety than to land use issues.
Mr. Bowman explained that many of the nuisance items that were originally proposed for ECDC 17.60 were moved to ECC
6. However, those that are related to land use issues would be moved to ECDC 20 as part of the performance standards. He
referred the Board to the updated language for ECC 6 and noted that the City Council would most likely hold a public
hearing on the proposed amendments since they are substantive. The Planning Board is not required to review the
amendments and provide a recommendation to the City Council.
Board Member Henderson referred to ECC 6:30.040, which would require property owners to eliminate noxious weeds and
thistles. He pointed out that if the language is approved as written, the City’s Parks Department could be required to remove
all the noxious weeds and thistles from park property if someone were to complain. He suggested this could utilize a
significant amount of the park maintenance budget.
Board Member Works referenced ECC 6.10.020 and asked who the City’s health officer is. Mr. Bowman answered that the
City contracts with the Snohomish County Health Department for this service. He explained that this section was modified
to clearly define who the health officer is. It was also cleaned up so the health officer would no longer be responsible for
dealing with nuisances.
Mr. Bowman said the Mr. Lell recommended that standards related to vehicles in residential zones and abatement issues
could be addressed in ECDC 17.60. Another option would be to put this information in the zoning code, which could make
the zoning code a bit messy. Staff recommends the standards be placed in ECDC 17.60.
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred to Section 17.60.010.B and inquired if the language in this section would also address concerns
related to light pollution in the sky. Mr. Bowman noted that the language in this section was taken from the current code,
and it would not address the issue of light pollution in the sky. Vice Chair Dewhirst reminded the Board that many people
have expressed concern about minimizing light pollution. Chair Guenther recalled that he previously provided information
to the Board regarding the topic of dark skies and light pollution. Board Member Freeman suggested this issue should be
addressed by the City as they consider opportunities for requiring green and sustainable development.
Mr. Bowman recommended the Commission place this topic on their work list for the future. However, he encouraged them
to not postpone the currently proposed language while they work through the issue. Board Member Freeman suggested that
even if the City of Edmonds has to lead the way, they should move forward to address the concerns. Chair Guenther agreed
with Mr. Bowman that the Board should wrap up their review of ECDC 17.60 with the changes proposed by staff and then
consider the light issue at a future time. Mr. Bowman agreed to pass the concern on to the Mayor’s Climate Control
Committee as a topic of future discussion.
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred to Section 17.60.010.H.1 and noted that a heavy wire fence would not obscure storage
materials from view. Mr. Bowman pointed out that this language is from the current code. Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested
the language be changed to read, “All storage shall be located more than 20 feet and be screened from the street right-of-way
line and shall be enclosed with a . . .”
Next, Vice Chair Dewhirst requested clarification of Section 17.60.040.C. Mr. Bowman explained that if a property owner
cannot park a recreation vehicle as per the other standards in the section, then it must be parked off site, except when
loading, etc. Vice Chair Dewhirst asked if the term “side or rear yard” actually means within the setbacks or just the side and
rear yard. Mr. Bowman clarified that the purpose of this section is to get recreational vehicles out of the setback areas. Vice
Packet Page 160 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
December 12, 2007 Page 3
Chair Dewhirst suggested the third sentence be changed to read, “If the recreational vehicle cannot be stored as described in
17.60.040.E.1 or in a side or rear yard setback due to site constraints, the recreational vehicle shall be parked off-site during
those extended times when not in use.
Board Member Works referenced Section 17.60.010.A and asked if the City has always allowed noise up to 60 decibels until
11:30 p.m. at night. Mr. Bowman answered that these are adopted standards that are measurable and regulated by the Puget
Sound Clean Air Act. Board Member Works suggested these standards be reviewed again when the Board considers clean
and sustainable options.
Board Member Freeman referred to Section 17.60.010.G, which states that no waste products shall be exposed to view from
eye level from any property line. She suggested this might be difficult to enforce. Mr. Bowman concurred and suggested the
last sentence be eliminated.
Board Member Henderson referred to Section 17.60.010.F and asked if this standard is monitored by the Puget Sound Air
Quality Board, too. Mr. Bowman explained that if a complaint is filed related to smoke, the City calls in the Puget Sound
Air Quality Board to investigate. Board Member Henderson suggested that perhaps the words, “in accordance with
standards from the Puget Sound Air Quality Board.” Should be added. That way, if the standards are made stricter at some
point in the future, the City won’t have to revise their code language. Mr. Bowman agreed to work with Mr. Lell to insert
this language.
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to Section 17.70, which includes a new section related to temporary storage units. He
explained that while temporary storage units can become nuisances to some people, they are valid uses that people need and
the City’s code must provide for them.
Mr. Bowman explained that the City’s current code requires a property owner to obtain a conditional use permit in order to
place a temporary structure on site, and the permits are only good for two years. He expressed his belief that the fees to the
Hearing Examiner exceed the value of what the property owner is typically trying to do. He said staff believes permits for
temporary structures could be handled administratively, and this would allow the costs to be more in scale with what an
applicant is trying to do. Staff is proposing a change to Section 17.70 to allow staff to administratively review and approve
temporary structure permits. If someone wants to appeal the permit, they could do so to the Hearing Examiner of the City
Council. The Board concurred with staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Bowman agreed to bring back an updated draft of Section 17.60, incorporating all the changes identified by the Board,
prior to scheduling a public hearing.
DISCUSSION REGARDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20
(PROCEDURES) (FILE NUMBER AMD-07-13
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to the matrix he and Mr. Chave prepared to outline the City’s current list of project permit
applications and the review, decision making, and appeal process for each. He invited the Board to review the document and
provide feedback and guidance to staff as they prepare to write new code language for ECDC 20.
Mr. Bowman recalled that when the Board discussed ECDC 20 on a previous occasion, the majority appeared to be in favor
of moving towards a process where the Hearing Examiner would handle the majority of quasi-judicial applications, with
closed record reviews and appeals going straight to Superior Court. He pointed out that there are certain permit applications
in which the City Council must make the final decision, but most of the other quasi-judicial permit applications could be
handled by the Hearing Examiner. He advised that final plat applications cannot be handled by the Hearing Examiner
because the City Council has to accept the dedications and easements associated with the final plat approval. While
development agreements could be reviewed by the appropriate body, the final decision must also be made by the City
Council.
Packet Page 161 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
November 28, 2007 Page 5
Mr. Hertrich referred to the blue circles on the proposed new park map and noted that the map should be changed to make it
clear that the old Woodway Elementary School should no longer be considered as a possible site for a regional park because
the City Council decided only to retain a large enough area of land to develop a smaller neighborhood park. He considered it
ironic that the updated plan identifies a need for a regional park in the southwest portion of Edmonds because the City
already passed up their opportunity to acquire sufficient space for this purpose.
Mr. Hertrich reported that he attended a good number of the Waterfront Redevelopment Project meetings that were
sponsored by the Port of Edmonds and other private property owners. There has been a lot of public money spent in the
process, and the final preferred alternative was a six-story building with approximately 700 condominiums. However, the
public in attendance at the final meeting questioned why they would want 700 condominiums and the associated traffic on
the waterfront. The public indicated their desire for more open space. He suggested that when the Parks, Recreation and
Open Space Comprehensive Plan is revised, it should take into account the concept put forth by the citizens that this area be
used as an events park. He said there is sufficient literature available to show that once created, this type of park would draw
people to the City and benefit the community more than a 700-unit condominium development. He suggested the Board
review the public comments related to the Waterfront Redevelopment Plan.
Chair Guenther invited the Board to review the draft documents and provide comments to Mr. McIntosh by December 21st.
This would allow staff sufficient time to incorporate the Board’s comments prior to a public hearing in January.
Board Member Reed asked Mr. McIntosh to provide a status report on the Old Mill Town Park. Mr. McIntosh answered that
this park is still under negotiations. His part was to get an appraisal to the City Council, which he completed.
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17 (NUISANCE) (FILE NUMBER AMD-07-6
Mr. Bowman advised that the City Attorney is now recommending that nuisance standards related to the public’s health,
safety and welfare would be better placed in Section 6 of the Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC). Those nuisance standards
that relate to land use and development could remain in Section 17.60 of the Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC). The City Attorney has agreed to review the Planning Board discussions and draft new language for both the ECDC
and EMC. The new language for ECDC Section 17.60 would be presented to the Board for review on December 12th. The
proposed amendments to EMC Section 6 would be forwarded directly to the City Council for review and final approval. He
noted that no public hearing is required for changes to the EMC, and the Planning Board would not be involved in the
process. However, the City Council usually holds public hearings when considering major policy changes.
Vice Chair Dewhirst inquired if the two draft documents would be forwarded to the City Council together. Mr. Bowman
answered that they would be presented to the City Council at the same time, along with minutes of the Planning Board’s
discussion related to the topic.
Mr. Bowman advised that if the nuisance standards are adopted as part of EMC Section 6, the City Council would be able to
quickly address proposed amendments as problems present themselves. If they are adopted as part of the ECDC, the
amendments would be subject to GMA requirements and a public hearing process would be necessary.
Board Member Reed noted that the Board did not take action after the public hearing on October 10th regarding the proposed
changes to ECDC 17.60. He suggested they be prepared to do so on December 12th, when the new draft language is
presented to them for review.
CODE RE-WRITE PROJECT UPDATE AND TOPICAL INFORMATION
Mr. Bowman reported that the City Attorney would provide an updated draft of Title 20 (Procedures) for the Board to
consider on December 12th.
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to ECDC Section 17.40 (nonconforming) and advised that staff worked with the City
Attorney to incorporate the changes recommended by the Board at their last meeting. He invited the Board Members to
review the document and identify any additional changes before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council.
Packet Page 162 of 176
APPROVED ON OCTOBER 24, 2007
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 10, 2007
Chair Guenther called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Cary Guenther, Chair
John Dewhirst, Vice Chair
Janice Freeman
Jim Young
Don Henderson
Judith Works
John Reed
STAFF PRESENT
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Mike Thies, Code Enforcement Officer
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Michael Bowman (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER YOUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER HENDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY, WITH BOARD MEMBERS DEWHIRST AND REED ABSTAINING.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience who expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) CHAPTER 17
(NUISANCE) (FILE NUMBER AMD-07-6
Mr. Bowman recalled that on April 25, 2007 the Planning Board reviewed a draft of potential changes to Chapter 17.50 of
the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) regarding property performance standards. He noted that the
proposed amendments were driven by the types of complaints the City’s Code Enforcement Officer has receive over the past
several years. He advised that the draft ordinance was updated to reflect the comments provided by the Board on April 25th.
The following changes were made:
• Section 17.60.030.B was modified to prohibit attractive nuisances dangerous to children from be located outside an
enclosed building or on a vacant lot.
• Section 17.60.030.H was modified to allow up to 10 days to begin a construction project.
Packet Page 163 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2007 Page 2
• In order to consolidate vehicle regulations, provisions related to prohibiting trailers and canopies were moved to a new
Section 17.60.040.E.2.n.
Mr. Bowman emphasized that the proposed changes to Chapter 17.60 are representative of the types of complaints the staff
gets from the community regarding nuisance situations. The Board must review the proposed document and determine
whether or not they are appropriate to move forward to the City Council for final approval. He suggested that when
reviewing the proposed code language, the Board members should ask themselves whether or not the nuisances are
something they would like to have located near their property. He noted that a number of jurisdictions are working to clear
up their nuisance regulations. Mountlake Terrace and Yakima are both actively pursuing more enforceable nuisance codes.
Mr. Thies explained that in the draft document, staff attempted to identify the types of issues they deal with on a regular
basis via citizen complaints. He noted that the definition section was updated to provide a clear definition for what is meant
by the term “vehicle.” He provided pictures to illustrate examples of the following situations that currently exist in the City:
• Vegetation growing around junk vehicles.
• Over abundance of recreational vehicles parked on a single-property.
• Recreational vehicles that are so large they overpower the neighborhood.
• Recreational vehicles that are covered by blue tarps.
• Too many vehicles parked in front yards or on the street in front.
• Containers and plywood and/or plastic buildings.
• Overgrown and unkempt vegetation in yards.
• Canopies and tarps.
• Outdoor storage units
• People living in recreational vehicles on single-family residential properties.
Mr. Thies advised that the City has received 85 complaints about canopies and tarps that are used to cover vehicles. These
situations are usually located in areas where the City would not allow permanent structures, typically within the setback
areas.
Mr. Bowman advised that staff attempted to put together suggested code language for property performance standards that
address the issues that are raised on a regular basis. He referred to the pictures that were shown by Mr. Thies and suggested
the Board consider whether or not they represent situations that are desirable in the City’s residential neighborhoods. The
proposed ordinance should represent the community’s desires and not necessarily what staff wants.
CHAIR GUENTHER NOTED THAT NO ONE WAS PRESENT IN THE AUDIENCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
The Board reviewed draft language and made the following observations and suggestions:
• Section 17.60.030.F: Board Member Henderson questioned if the City has a definition for “hazardous trees.” Mr.
Bowman answered that this term refers to trees that show obvious signs of distress. Board Member Henderson suggested
that including the phrase “any other vegetation” could open up a can of worms. Mr. Thies pointed out that this language
already exists in the code and would not really apply to vegetation on public property. It is more related to vegetation that
extends into the public rights-of-way. Board Member Henderson suggested the language be made clearer.
• Storage Containers: Board Member Henderson said he supports the proposed language related to storage containers.
However, he pointed out that property owners can request that large dumpsters be delivered to their home, and they are
not charged extra to leave them there for extended periods of time. Mr. Thies said staff has only received two complaints
related to this type of situation in the last five years, so he does not see it as a significant problem.
• Sections 17.60.030.M and 17.60.030.N: Board Member Henderson pointed out that the proposed language states that
garbage and recycling containers cannot be stored in front yards. However, it should be noted that everyone puts these
Packet Page 164 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2007 Page 3
containers out in front of their homes on garbage days. He suggested the language be changed to either define the term
“stored” or provide a specific exception for garbage days. Mr. Thies said the City has only received six to ten complaints
of this type over the past five years; and typically, they are related to situations where property owners do not move their
containers after the garbage has been picked up. Mr. Bowman agreed with Board Member Henderson’s concern and said
staff would update the language as per his recommendation.
Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that Section M would prohibit property owners from storing garbage containers in their
front yards. However, in some situations, homes are further back on the property and there is no other place to store the
containers except in the front yard against the house. The Board agreed the language should be changed to allow
containers to be stored in front yards as long as they are screened from the public’s sight and not within the public rights-
of-way.
Board Member Freeman pointed out that some properties have steep slopes that make it difficult to move the garbage
containers from the back of a property to the street front. She suggested the language allow staff to take the actual
configuration and topography of the lot into consideration when regulating these situations. Mr. Bowman agreed to
review the language to consider difficult storage factors
• Overgrown Vegetation: Board Member Works expressed concern about allowing vegetation to become significantly
overgrown in residential neighborhoods. She noted that invasive plants tend to spread onto neighboring properties. Board
Member Reed questioned if there is anything in the proposed language to regulate vegetation on residential properties.
Mr. Bowman said there are no significant provisions in the current draft to deal with overgrown vegetation. Board
Member Freeman suggested the ordinance should address all noxious weeds and invasive vegetation and not single out
certain types. Mr. Thies said overgrown vegetation is a difficult subject to address, but other jurisdictions in the area have
attempted to do so. Mr. Bowman agreed to discuss this concept with the City Attorney to identify the City’s options for
regulating overgrown vegetation and noxious weeds.
Mr. Thies said the City receives numerous complaints related to vegetation and noxious weeds. Vice Chair Dewhirst
questioned if the City’s fire code would address situations that occur within the public rights-of-way and setback areas.
Mr. Thies said the fire code would only address these situations if there are drought conditions. Mr. Bowman said the
City does have some authority to regulate these situations if they present a danger to the public’s health and safety. He
suggested the Board carefully consider what the public wants. He noted that most property owners would be against
allowing these situations to occur in their neighborhood because they often result in decreased property values for
surrounding property owners.
Board Member Young recalled that a few years ago, the Board agreed the City did not have the right or authority to
guarantee a property owner’s view. He suggested there could be repercussions if the City were to regulate noxious weeds,
but not other situations that could have a significant impact on property values. He questioned if the City should be
responsible for these situations if they do not present health or safety hazards to the public.
Board Member Young agreed that the majority of property owners in the City would be in favor of keeping nuisance
situations out of the setback and right-of-way areas. However, instead of creating codes to accomplish this task, the City
could address these situations as public health and safety issues. He suggested it would be more appropriate to encourage
property owners to work together to resolve issues rather than expecting the City to take care of their problems. Mr.
Bowman countered that sometimes a property owner is unwilling to work with neighbors to resolve problems.
Chair Guenther suggested that perhaps vegetation could be regulated by the degree of nuisance. If a situation only
impacts an adjacent property owner, the City could require both parties to work the problem out on their own. However,
if a situation reaches the point that it impacts the character of the entire neighborhood, the City could get involved. He
pointed out that many of the City’s current zoning codes are intended to preserve the character of the neighborhoods.
Board Member Freeman expressed her belief that all property owners have the right to enjoy their properties, and they
have a right to expect the City to protect them from situations that impact their ability to enjoy their properties. Board
Member Works agreed. She noted that while most property owners are reasonable and problems can be worked out
Packet Page 165 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2007 Page 4
through compromise without the City getting involved, some situations involve property owners who are unwilling to
work with their neighbors.
Board Member Young questioned the harm of allowing citizens to do whatever they want on their properties as long as it
does not present harm to the surrounding property owners. Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested that this decision must be
made by the community. He recommended the Board forward the draft language to the City Council. Hopefully, the
public would participate in the hearing before the City Council and indicate whether or not they want the City to regulate
noxious weeds and/or invasive vegetation. He questioned if there is a definition for the term “noxious weeds.” Chair
Guenther answered that the State has a definition for this term.
Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested the City Council would likely find there is public interest in keeping invasive species off
of private property. Board Member Henderson pointed out that many noxious weeds are so prevalent in neighborhoods
that it is very difficult for property owners to get rid of them. He expressed his belief that it would not be practical to
adopt code language that would allow the City to penalize property owners who have these species present on their
properties. Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that the code enforcement officer would only become involved in these
situations if a complaint were filed. Board Member Henderson questioned if it would even be appropriate for the City to
regulate noxious weeds if it is impossible to get rid of them. Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested it would be appropriate for
the City to start addressing the problem of noxious weeds by prohibiting them in the setbacks and rights-of-way.
• Section 17.60.040.C: Board Member Henderson noted that the section reference should actually be 17.50.040.E.
• Sections 17.60.020.G and 17.60.030.K: Board Member Reed noted that both of these sections deal with the storage of
waste which attracts insects or rodents. He said some people might argue that compost piles attract rodents, so the
proposed language should make it clear that composting would not beprohibited. Mr. Bowman pointed out that Section
17.60.030.O talks about composting and requires that it be kept in a manner that does not attract insects and/or animals.
However, he agreed to review the draft language to make sure that composting would not be prohibited.
• Sections 17.60.030.I and 17.60.030.J: Board Member Reed suggested that it might be appropriate to include fire wood
in these two sections that talk about the storage of combustible or flammable materials or substances. Mr. Bowman
agreed to change the language to include firewood.
• Section 17.60.030: Board Member Reed expressed his opinion that the introduction to this section was unclear. He
suggested the words “any of the following” be moved to just after the word “maintained.” In addition, he suggested the
term “maintained” be defined in the code.
• Section 17.60.040.D: Board Member Reed pointed out that the proposed language would prohibit all vehicle oriented
businesses. He questioned if the real intent of the language is to prohibit business that require the actual storage of
vehicles on site. Mr. Thies said this section is intended to apply to property owners who sell or repair cars in residential
neighborhoods as a business. Mr. Bowman added that the intent of the proposed language is to avoid situations where
vehicles are allowed to accumulate. Board Member Reed again stated his opinion that the term “vehicle oriented
businesses” is broader than the intent of this section.
• Section 17.60.040.E.2.d: Board Member Reed said this section places limitations on a property owner’s ability to work
on vehicles outside an enclosed structure. He questioned if this prohibition would prohibit a property owner from
renovating or overhauling a bus or boat if he/she were unable to place the vehicle within an enclosed structure. He
suggested that if the language is not intended to prohibit this type of activity, then the wording should be changed to make
it clearer.
• Section 17.60.040.E.2.f: Vice Chair Dewhirst recalled that the Board previously agreed it would be inappropriate to not
allow a property owner of two adjacent lots to park recreational vehicles on one of the lots. He noted there are several
situations in Edmonds where this type of use occurs, and it should be allowed to continue. The remainder of the Board
agreed this would be appropriate as long as the properties are adjacent to each other. Mr. Bowman agreed to make the
change as recommended by the Board.
Packet Page 166 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2007 Page 5
• Section 17.60.050: Vice Chair Dewhirst recalled the Board’s earlier decision that the language in this section be changed
to allow some leeway for people to use recreational vehicles when guests are visiting. The Board agreed that this change
should be made, and Mr. Bowman agreed to make the change.
• Section 17.60.030.L: Board Member Dewhirst pointed out that, as currently proposed, the language in this section infers
that the City would be allowed to have stagnant water, but no one else would. Mr. Bowman agreed to rework the
language in this section to make its intent clear.
• Section 17.60.040: Board Member Reed pointed out that the formatting must be updated in this section because it
currently skips h, i, j, and k.
Mr. Bowman invited the Board to provide feedback about whether or not they are in favor of updating the code to make it
more aggressive in addressing nuisance situations. Board Member Young agreed that the nuisance ordinance is necessary in
order to protect the general public from things that are nuisances. However, in his opinion, most of the pictures shown by
Mr. Thies represent situations that would not qualify as any other nuisance than visual annoyance.
Board Member Freeman said she moved to Edmonds from a Columbia, Maryland, a community that was well regulated.
When looking for a home, she immediately walked away from a property that was located across the street from property
where numerous junk cars were stored. She suggested that if they want to have community standards, the City must go
beyond regulating just those nuisances that represent public safety and health concerns.
Based on the number of complaints the staff has received, Board Member Works said it is apparent the community would be
in favor strengthening the nuisance section of the code. She agreed with Vice Chair Dewhirst that it would be appropriate to
forward the draft ordinance to the City Council so they can solicit public input regarding the issue. Board Member
Henderson said he would support the draft ordinance, with the exception of the comment he made earlier that the City should
not regulate vegetation.
Board Member Reed noted that most of the pictures provided by staff illustrate situations where nuisances infringe in the
setback areas or onto other properties and public rights-of-way. He suggested that perhaps the ordinance should protect the
setback areas and public rights-of-way and then not worry so much about what people do on the rest of their property. He
expressed his belief that property owners must have the right to use their property however they want. He summarized there
are certain things that should be regulated because they represent a common vision of what citizens of Edmonds want to see,
but the City should not go overboard in this effort. He expressed his belief that the draft language represents a good
compromise for regulating nuisances.
Board Member Freeman suggested they approach the issue from the standpoint of requiring property owners to respect their
neighbors’ rights rather than allowing them the right to do whatever you want on your own property, regardless of its impact
to neighboring property owners. She expressed her belief that government should be utilized to help people live in harmony
with each other. Mr. Bowman suggested that the proposed ordinance would provide a basis for property owners to work
together to resolve conflicts. If a property owner doesn’t want to cooperate with the neighbors, a complaint could be filed
and the City could step in to address the problem. Vice chair Dewhirst noted there are many neighborhood situations that
make it difficult for property owners to work together, and the City must have codes in place to deal with the chronic
offenders who are difficult to work with. He summarized there is a community expectation that the City should help
property owners address significant situations. He expressed his opinion that the language proposed in the draft ordinance
would be appropriate and on the right course for accomplishing this goal.
Board Member Young inquired if the proposed ordinance would be enforceable, as written. Mr. Thies answered
affirmatively. Board Member Young said that if the proposed ordinance would be enforceable, he would be in favor of
moving it forward to the City Council.
CHAIR GUENTHER CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Packet Page 167 of 176
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 10, 2007 Page 6
Mr. Bowman advised that he would invite the City Attorney to review the changes and provide feedback, particularly related
to the noxious weed language, and attempt to have a new draft before the Board for consideration at their November 14th
meeting. At that time the Board could decide if they want to add language related to vegetation.
Mr. Bowman emphasized that it is important to find out what the community wants and this would likely become evident
when the draft language is presented to the City Council for review and a public hearing. He explained he would present the
draft ordinance to the City Council’s Community Services Committee first. The Committee would likely schedule the
ordinance as a work session before the entire City Council as a whole prior to the actual public hearing.
CODE RE-WRITE PROJECT UPDATE AND TOPICAL DISCUSSION
Mr. Bowman announced that there has been some recent controversy regarding the Planned Residential Development (PRD)
regulations found in ECDC 20.35 that requires the City to move this section up in the code rewrite process. He advised that
the Hearing Examiner recently issued two decisions regarding PRD’s that were contrary to the way the City has processed
and interpreted the PRD Ordinance in the past. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner raised issues regarding perimeter
buffering requirements. In addition, staff has raised concerns over criteria for tree retention and what is meant by the term.
Staff recommends the Board consider the impact of the critical area and common useable open space requirements. At this
time, there is confusion about whether or not the required critical area space can be credited as open space.
Mr. Bowman reminded the Board that the City Attorney has drafted language (Title 20) that would consolidate the
preliminary subdivision and PRD review process to just the Hearing Examiner, and this language would likely be presented
to the Board on November 28th. However, the City Council has expressed their desire that the Board address issues related
to the PRD ordinance as soon as possible.
Board Member Reed recalled that in addition to their recommendations to the City Council related to the PRD Ordinance, the
Hearing Examiner also raised other concerns related to the development code and offered to help staff rewrite sections of the
code to address the concerns they raised. Mr. Bowman summarized that the Hearing Examiner has offered possible
amendments to clarify certain sections of the code language, particularly the PRD Ordinance.
Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that the initial approach staff gave for the code rewrite project is long gone. Mr. Bowman
agreed that the work is being driven by the importance of issues. Vice Chair Dewhirst asked for a timeline for sequencing
the rewrite of each of the code sections. Mr. Bowman reviewed that the Board has already worked through the
nonconforming and nuisance sections, and staff would bring back the nuisance section for final review before moving it on
to the City Council. Meanwhile, the City Attorney would continue preparing draft language for the procedures section (Title
20). The Board must also deal with the PRD ordinance as soon as possible and then move into the sign and zoning
regulations. They must also review the definitions section. He said staff’s goal is for the Board to get through all of the
sections by early 2008 so the changes could be adopted by the City Council in the spring.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Guenther asked staff to contact Mr. MacIntosh to schedule an update on the Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Programs.
Vice Chair Dewhirst asked when the Waterfront Redevelopment Plan would come before the Board for review. Board
Member Reed reported that a public meeting was conducted on October 5th, where the consultant presented five alternatives,
and an additional public meeting has been scheduled for October 18th for this same purpose. The group intends to announce
the preferred alternative at a public meeting on October 25th. He advised that Chris Keuss, Port of Edmonds Executive
Director, is currently making presentations before several different groups in the City and information regarding the plan is
also available via the Port’s website. Mr. Bowman advised that once a preferred alternative has been selected, the group
would work with the City on the public process for getting a final plan adopted.
Packet Page 168 of 176
CODE RE-RITE PROJECT UPDATE AND TOPICAL DISCUSSION
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to the latest version of Title 17, which was last updated on May 9, 2007. He reported that
he received comments from Board Members Freeman, Dewhirst and Works, and many of them were incorporated into the
new draft document. He said the purpose of this meeting is to review each of the changes that have been made since the
Board’s last meeting.
Mr. Bowman advised that the Historic Preservation Commission has requested an opportunity to meet with the Planning
Board to report on their work on the historic preservation aspects of the code. He suggested that either the entire
Commission or a subcommittee of the Commission could be invited to participate in a workshop discussion with the Board at
their May 23rd meeting regarding the non-conformance standards and the regulations pertaining to adaptive reuse of
properties. He noted that the City Attorney would be invited to participate in the discussion, as well. He suggested that, in
light of this future discussion, it would be appropriate for the Board to focus their attention tonight on the other code
sections.
Mr. Bowman recommended that when the Board reaches the public hearing stage, it would be helpful to split Title 17 into
three separate hearings. One could focus on the nuisance regulations and another on the non-conformance standards. The
third public hearing could focus on all other sections of Title 17. He noted that the non-conformance standards and nuisance
regulations would likely cause the most public concern and comment.
Section 17.50 – Parking Requirements
Mr. Bowman recalled that the Board made several suggestions at their last meeting related to parking. He said he has
completed research to help the Board consider options for revising the parking standards, especially those related to the
Highway 99 Corridor. He reminded the Board of Community Transit’s plans to provide bus rapid transit on Highway 99, as
well as a number of other transportation improvements. Therefore, now is an excellent time for the City to rework their
parking standards and move away from the more prescriptive standards that currently exist.
Section 17.60.010 – Definitions
Mr. Bowman reported that he discussed the Board’s concerns regarding the organization of the definition section. The City
Attorney has recommended all definitions in the code be placed in one section rather than floating the definitions throughout
the document. Staff supports that recommendation.
Section 17.60.010.M -- Junk
Mr. Bowman advised that Board Member Freeman recommended a definition be provided for the term “junk.” She correctly
noted that the definition should include the terms “boxes” and “cartons.” This section was changed to read, “Junk means
discarded, broken or disabled material including but not limited to: “household items; house or lawn furniture; boxes,
cartons, appliances; toys; construction items; hot tubs; trampolines; vehicle parts; or other items that are not in functioning
condition.”
Section 17.60.020.G – Waste Disposal
Mr. Bowman advised that Board Member Freeman suggested the word “rodents” be added to this section. In addition, she
recommended that “compost bins” be excluded from the requirement, since they can be designed to keep rodents out. Board
Member Freeman noted that Snohomish County does not require that compost bins have bottoms to keep out rodents, but
King County does. She suggested the Board consider making rodent-proof compost bins a requirement in the City of
Edmonds, as well. Chair Guenther expressed his belief that rodent-proof compost bins should be recommended, but not a
requirement. Board Member Freeman agreed the City should at least encourage people to use compost bin that are
distributed by the County, since they have a model that is rodent proof.
Section 17.60.020H – Open Storage
At the suggestions of Board Members Freeman and Dewhirst, Mr. Bowman said he revised the language in this section to
clearly indicate that it only applies to commercial properties. He noted that residentially zoned districts are covered in
Section 17.60.030. In addition, Mr. Bowman advised that he replaced “heavy wire fence” with “sight obscuring fence,” and
“hedge” with “vegetation.” He also deleted the words “board fence.” While Vice Chair Dewhirst also recommended the
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2007 Page 2
Packet Page 169 of 176
Board consider prohibiting open storage containers within 20 feet of the property line or the minimum setback, whichever is
greater, Mr. Bowman questioned if this strict requirement would be appropriate for commercial zones.
Section 17.60 – General Organization
Board Member Henderson objected to the way the nuisance section was organized. For example, he noted that a person
would have to look in three separate sections of the code to find out if, where and how trailers could be stored in residential
zones. He suggested that nuisances and permitted uses should be covered in the same section to clearly indicate what is and
is not allowed. Anything that is permitted in certain areas on a property should be addressed as to proper storage in the same
section. Mr. Bowman explained that, from a code enforcement standpoint, staff directs the citizens to the sections of the
code that apply to their particular situation. However, he agreed with Board Member Henderson’s concern and suggested
that the language in Sections 17.60.030.E and 17.60.040.E could be combined into one section.
Public Education
Board Member Works asked how staff plans to educate the public about future amendments to the nuisance section of the
code. Mr. Bowman advised that the City already has a pamphlet describing the nuisance laws, and the document would be
updated to incorporate the approved amendments. Board Member Works suggested that perhaps a notice could be added to
the utility bills to notify the public that a pamphlet is available for their information. Mr. Bowman agreed and added that it
would also be appropriate to publish a code enforcement article in THE EDMONDS UPDATE, that is sent out to all
households in the City. He noted that prior to the public hearings related to Title 17, staff plans to talk with local newspaper
reporters in an effort to get articles published in the newspapers so people can be made aware of the issues that are being
considered and invited to participate.
Board Member Young suggested that the public advertisement emphasize that many of the changes are being considered
because of enforcement problems associated with the existing code. He felt that if the public has a clear understanding of
these problems, they will know why the City is reviewing all of the details of this section of the code. Mr. Bowman said that
while he typically favors simplifying the code, it is important to have clear and concise language in this section so that people
understand what they can and cannot do.
Section 17.60.030.B – Attractive Nuisances Dangerous to Children
Mr. Bowman recalled that at their last meeting the Board discussed the importance of prohibiting the storage of items that
pose a danger to children. At the request of the Board, this section was changed to read, “Attractive nuisances dangerous to
children including but not limited to the following items when located on any developed or vacant lot.”
Board Member Freeman questioned about the safety of portable toilets that are used by construction companies while
working in residential areas. She pointed out that if these facilities are left unlocked, they could be accessed by children and
an accident could occur if a child were to fall in. Mr. Bowman said this has never been a problem for the City, but he agreed
to research the issue further to see if it needs to be addressed in the code.
Section 17.60.040 – Recreational Vehicles
Mr. Bowman said Board Member Freeman raised concern about the size of Recreational Vehicles (RV’s) that are allowed to
be stored on residential properties and whether or not they should be prohibited in side and front yards. In addition, Vice
Chair Dewhirst suggested that storage of vehicles such as personal watercraft, should be prohibited in the front and side
yards. Mr. Bowman said the Board could decide to regulate RV’s based on size, but the standard would have to be clear and
concise.
Board Member Henderson noted that Sections 17.60.040.E.2.l and 17.60.040.E.2.m both address the size of RV’s. Board
Member Reed noted that the language proposed in Section 17.60.040.E.2.1 would allow almost all of the front yard to be
used as a parking space for an RV. Mr. Bowman agreed. He noted that most of the concerns related to RV’s are associated
with the large size and the blue tarp coverings. The City also receives numerous complaints about people living in RV’s in
residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Bowman advised that if the Board decides they want to regulate the storage of RV’s, staff could come up with some
language for them to consider. He noted that regulating the storage of RV’s would likely create a stir amongst the
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2007 Page 3
Packet Page 170 of 176
community both pro and con. He agreed that staff could contact the City of Redmond to find out how they regulate RV’s.
He would forward the document to the Board members, highlighting those sections that are directly related to RV’s. He also
agreed to obtain information from other jurisdictions in the region.
Board Member Freeman recalled the Board’s previous discussion about the need to keep the setback areas clear for
emergency access. She noted that storing large RV’s in the side setback areas could present a safety hazard. She further
noted that permanent structures are not allowed in the setbacks, so perhaps they should prohibit the storage of large RV’s, as
well. Mr. Bowman noted that RV’s can be moved in case of emergency, so they should not be treated the same as permanent
structures within setbacks.
Section 17.60.020 .J – Storage Containers and Tents
Mr. Bowman explained that staff is proposing this new section to address the more than 85 outstanding complaints the code
enforcement officer has on file related to storage containers and tent structures. The current code prohibits temporary
structures of this size if they are larger than 120 square feet. However, this particular code regulation has been suspended
until the City’s code has been updated.
Vice Chair Dewhirst said he doesn’t see the difference between a storage container and a butler building. He questioned
why one should be allowed and not the other. Mr. Bowman said he believes there is a significant difference between metal
storage buildings and surplussed cargo containers, which are typically very large. The majority of the Board agreed they did
not want to allow shipping or cargo containers to be used for storage in residential areas. Mr. Bowman said issues related to
cargo and shipping containers are coming up more often, and he suggested the City consider being ahead of the curve in
regulating this use.
Board Member Freeman asked if staff has ever had difficulty enforcing the nuisance code requirements based on cultural
issues. Mr. Bowman said that as long as the standards are applied uniformly and community wide, there should be no
problems of this type. The City should avoid standards that are directed towards a specific cultural area.
Section 17.60.050 – Habitation Uses Prohibited
Mr. Bowman said the language proposed by staff would allow habitation of RV’s in the case of family or visitors staying
temporarily for a period not to exceed 30 days. Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested that this use be limited to 30 days per year to
prevent a property owner from moving the RV for a period of time and then bringing it back for another 30 days.
Section 17.60.030.N -- Garbage Stored Outside
Board Member Henderson asked if this proposed language would apply to containers that are left at the street for garbage
pick up. Mr. Bowman said this would not be considered storage of garbage containers, but he agreed the language should
clarify the matter. He said the City has received complaints about people who leave their garbage containers out at the street
for days after the garbage has been collected.
Section 17.60. 030.I – Accumulation of Construction Supplies
Vice Chair Dewhirst noted that, originally, a provision was added to this section that required a property owner to begin a
project in five business days. He expressed his belief that this would be irrational since a host of things could keep a
property owner from completing a project. Mr. Bowman pointed out that this language is really targeted at potential code
violators who like to hoard or store buildings materials on their property that they never get around to using. He suggested it
would be appropriate to have some type of time limit.
Board Member Henderson suggested that a 30-day time limit be established for the project to be started. They should also
identify a project completion time limit. He noted that this section only applies to projects that do not require a building
permit. Chair Guenther expressed his concern about requiring someone who is landscaping his/her property to complete the
project in a certain amount of time. While he understands the need to keep the project active, he questioned if a time limit
language would accomplish this goal. Mr. Bowman agreed to talk with the code enforcement officer about whether they
should include a time limit for project completion.
Section 17.60.040.E.2.f – Storage of Vehicles on Vacant Residential Property
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2007 Page 4
Packet Page 171 of 176
Mr. Bowman said Vice Chair Dewhirst raised a concern that this proposed language would prohibit a person who owns
adjoining property from parking a vehicle on a property that does not have a dwelling unit. He said he agrees with this
concern. There are situations in the City where a single property owner owns two lots, and the proposed language would
prohibit the property owner from parking cars on the vacant lot. He explained that the language is intended to prevent
people from parking cars on residential vacant lots, but he agreed to come up with new language for the Board to consider
that would exclude adjacent lots that are under common ownership.
Conclusion
Mr. Bowman summarized that staff would work to obtain sample regulations for RV’s from other jurisdictions in the region
and forward them to the Board as soon as possible. He asked that the Board review the samples and forward their ideas to
him prior to the next meeting. Staff would work to finalize the draft code amendments for the Board’s review prior to the
public hearing. In addition to the updated language for Title 17, Mr. Bowman advised that he would provide draft language
to address the parking standards, particularly as they relate to Highway 99. If the City is going to support the concept of bus
rapid transit, they should do their part to encourage less parking and more transit use.
Board Member Freeman referred the Board and staff to a recent article in THE SEATTLE POST INTELLIGENCER, which
provides information about the average number of cars per dwelling unit in various areas of Seattle. She noted that in some
of the more populated areas of Seattle, there are only .9 parking spaces per unit.
Vice Chair Dewhirst referred the Board to the Victoria Transportation Website, which provides helpful information related
to the issue of parking. He expressed his belief that the site is valid to the issues that are being raised by the City now.
Board Member Freeman questioned how the Board and staff could educate the City Council about the need to change the
City’s parking requirements. Mr. Bowman replied that the Board needs to make it clear in their recommendation to the City
Council why they want to change the parking standards on Highway 99 to encourage rapid transit and higher density
development. He said the Board’s job is to do the necessary research and due diligence and then forward their best
recommendations to the City Council. He noted that the City Council is very supportive of Community Transit’s bus rapid
transit service on Highway 99, which should be operational some time next year.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Bowman announced that two rezone public hearings have been scheduled on the Board’s May 23rd meeting. He
suggested the Board considering starting their meeting earlier to allow time for them to meet with the City Attorney and
Historic Preservation Commission as previously discussed.
Board Member Young suggested that rather than meeting for one hour prior to the next regular meeting, perhaps it would be
appropriate for the Historic Preservation Commission to provide a brief report outlining the issues they want the Board to
consider as they review the non-conformance section of the code. Mr. Bowman expressed his belief that it would be helpful
for the Board to meet with the Historic Preservation Commission and allow them an opportunity to share their thoughts and
recommendations so that the Commission’s work could be blended into the Board’s review of the code. He also reminded
the Board that the City Attorney would be in attendance for this discussion.
The Board agreed to start their joint discussion with the Historic Preservation Commission at 6:30 p.m. The regular meeting
would follow at 7:30 p.m.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Guenther reminded the Board that they have been invited to a Short Course in Public Planning that would be hosted by
the City of Lynnwood later in May.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2007 Page 5
Packet Page 172 of 176
Board Member Freeman suggested that perhaps the Board should provide additional comments to strengthen their reasons
for supporting the proposed rezone application. Vice Chair Dewhirst clarified that his motion would recommend approval of
the application based on the points made on Pages 4 and 5 of the Staff Report.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE BOARD TOOK A 5-MINUTE BREAK AT 8:25 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 8:30 P.M.
DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17 AND 20 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC)
Mr. Bowman referred the Board to the draft documents that were provided related to Chapters 17 and 20 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC). He said the purpose of the discussion is to allow the Board an opportunity to
provide feedback regarding the proposed language before it is prepared for a public hearing. The Board and staff reviewed
and discussed the following sections of Chapter 17:
• Section 17.05.020 – Reasonable Accommodations. Mr. Bowman pointed out that the Development Services Director
makes decisions related to reasonable accommodations. Therefore, the language should be amended to make it clear that
these decisions would not be made by the Community Services Director.
• Section 17.05.050 -- Appeal. Mr. Bowman said this language would be amended to make it easier to read and clearer
about who can appeal a reasonable accommodations request. No substantive changes have been proposed.
Board Member Reed pointed out that once the Development Services Director has made a determination, the only
recourse is to appeal the decision to the court. He questioned whether or not this would be wise. Mr. Bowman pointed
out that this is a building code question, and building code questions can only be appealed to Superior Court.
• Section 17.10.000 – Bond Required. Mr. Bowman said that in the past 30 years, he has never seen the City cash a
performance bond on a building project. However, bonds have been cashed for not completing landscaping or public
improvements. He said that, in his opinion, the City should only require bonds for public improvements that are required
or when someone wants occupancy before everything is done. He noted that the current requirement creates unnecessary
paperwork for the staff and added costs for the developer. However, the City doesn’t really receive a significant value
from the requirement. When an occupancy is requested and required non-life safety improvements such as landscaping
have not been installed, the proposed new language would authorize the Development Services Director to allow a
develop or owner to post a performance bond or similar security to ensure that improvements would be installed within a
specified time period.
• Section 17.30.035 – Trellises and Arbors. Mr. Bowman recalled the Board’s 2004 discussion regarding trellises, arbors
and fences. He expressed his belief that it doesn’t make sense to restrict plantings on a trellis when they are intended to
potentially allow such plantings. Site distance is already regulated. He pointed out that the proposed language would
delete Item 2 because it is not necessary.
• Definitions – Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that the definitions are scattered throughout the document. Mr. Bowman
said all of the definitions would be taken from the back of the code and placed at the front of the code. Staff is attempting
to cross reference terms and find definitions for those that are not yet defined. Then they would all be pulled together into
one section.
• Section 17.35 – Animals. Mr. Bowman suggested it would be appropriate for the Development Services Department to
get out of the business of regulating animals. He noted that there is an animal control arm of the City, so these regulations
really should be moved into Chapter 5 of the Edmonds Municipal Code. He emphasized that he has not discussed this
change with the Animal Control staff, but it seems it would make more sense to put this in the specific section in the
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 8
Packet Page 173 of 176
Municipal Code that talks about animals. He said he would work with the Police Department staff regarding this potential
change.
• Section 17.50 – Off-Street Parking. Mr. Bowman said staff would be working to update the off-street parking
regulations to incorporate the new downtown zone (BD-1). He particularly referred to Item B22 on Page 17-22 and noted
that the regulations do not currently address the issue of what to do with outdoor vehicle sales. He suggested that because
there are a number of car dealerships on Highway 99, the City must have regulations to deal with their parking
requirements. Staff has discussed the concept of treating parking requirements for Highway 99 much like they did for the
downtown zones. They could identify a parking standard for commercial uses and another for residential uses. He noted
that there would likely be more mixed-use developments along Highway 99 in the future, and having a standard parking
requirement for both commercial and residential uses would make it easier for developers to make decisions on what to do
with their properties. Mr. Chave added that, currently, the City must track and recalculate the parking requirements when
uses are changed. This creates a significant problem when tenants change frequently.
If the Board is interested in pursuing this new concept for parking requirements along Highway 99, Mr. Bowman said
staff could research various options further and provide direction to the Board at their next meeting. He noted that another
option would be to establish both a minimum and a maximum parking standard for zones along Highway 99.
Board Member Freeman expressed her belief that the City should try to reduce the parking requirement to discourage
people from using their cars instead of the public transportation that is readily available on Highway 99. Mr. Bowman
said that establishing a maximum parking standard would force developers to look at other options such as encouraging
public transit opportunities. Board Member Freeman also suggested the City establish a maximum standard for the size of
a parking stall so that people are encouraged to use smaller cars. In addition, the City should consider whatever options
are available to reduce greenhouse gases and encourage people to utilize the public transportation system.
Vice Chair Dewhirst agreed it would be appropriate to consider a maximum parking requirement, particularly for
developments that are located close to rapid transit opportunities. He suggested it would be helpful to review the bubble
diagrams created by Makers to identify the districts. The Board and staff could consider the concept of tailoring the
parking requirements to accommodate the types of uses they envision in the various areas.
Board Member Henderson emphasized the importance of maintaining flexibility. For example, a Costco type business
would require someone to drive to the store rather than ride a bus. He noted that Costco parking lots are often maximized,
and the City must allow enough flexibility for these types of businesses to potentially located along Highway 99 and still
meet their customers’ needs. Chair Guenther agreed and suggested that perhaps the parking requirement could be based
on the type of use that is being proposed. Mr. Chave cautioned that it would be more straightforward to come up with an
average that works for the vast majority of commercial uses and then identify some exceptions.
Board Member Young recalled a retreat discussion that rather than having a prescriptive parking requirement, a developer
should be allowed to figure out how many parking spaces would be needed, depending on the nature of the business. Mr.
Bowman noted that the impervious surface limitations would play a significant role in deciding the number of parking
spaces that could be provided and what materials would be used.
Board Member Bowman noted that in some zones, there are no parking requirements for new construction. Board
Member Young pointed out that only the BD-1 zone has no parking requirement. Board Member Bowman suggested the
City allow the market to sort out the number of parking spaces that would be required. Mr. Bowman explained that if
there were no parking standards for Highway 99, adeveloper would have to conduct a market analysis to determine the
amount of parking that would be necessary to support the businesses and then decide how they could comply with the
impervious surface, landscape and stormwater detention requirements. Vice Chair Dewhirst expressed his concern that
allowing the market to decide the parking requirement would favor the large developer over the small developer. In his
experience, this concept could also result in a developer significantly overbuilding the parking area. Therefore, placing a
cap on the maximum number of parking spaces allowed would be important.
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 9
Packet Page 174 of 176
Board Member Young said he likes the idea of capping the number of parking spaces a developer could provide, but he
would like to see some ideas about how this concept could be implemented. Perhaps a developer could be allowed
additional parking spaces if low-impact development techniques are incorporated into the design. Board Member Young
said the Board should also discuss whether it is more important to limit the number and size of parking spaces and
encourage low-impact development or encourage economic development. He noted that the City does not have control
over whether people use smaller cars or the public transit system.
Mr. Bowman agreed to come back to the Board with two or three alternatives for them to consider for potential parking
requirements. Mr. Chave pointed out that the ITE Manual is a supply driven model for parking, and there are other
manuals that talk about demand for parking. The demand standards are almost always significantly lower than the supply
driven standards.
• Section 17.50.090 – Temporary Parking Lots. Mr. Bowman questioned why someone would want to pay for a
conditional use permit to construct a temporary parking lot, when it would only be good for one year. He suggested it
would be better to allow a property owner to apply for a conditional use permit for a time period that is consistent with the
regulations.
Vice Chair Dewhirst asked why temporary parking lots permits could not be an administrative decision rather than require
a conditional use permit. Mr. Bowman answered that would be one option the Board could consider. However, a
conditional use permit would require a public process to let people know what is being proposed. Another option would
be to make it an administrative decision with a notice requirement to all property owners within 300 feet. Mr. Chave
added that the notices could be sent out up front so the public would have an opportunity to comment before a decision
has been issued by staff.
• Section 17.50.100 – Commercial Vehicle Regulations. Mr. Bowman explained that staff is proposing an additional
clause in this section that would allow night parking of authorized towing vehicles under contract to provide services to
the City. He explained that sometimes tow truck drivers who live in the City are required to park their vehicle at home
when they are on call, and the current regulations would not allow this to occur.
• Section 17.60 – Property Performance Standards. Mr. Bowman advised that Mr. Thies, the City’s Code Enforcement
Officer has been working to gather information from other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound area to learn how they address
issues that are common to the City of Edmonds. Mr. Thies invited the Board Members to share their ideas on the draft
language that was provided for their review.
Board Member Henderson said he does not like the way the performance standards are divided up. For examples, parking
of trailers on residential property is addressed in two different sections. He suggested it would be helpful to have all
regulations related to a single issue in the same section. Board Member Freeman agreed that it is difficult to go back and
forth from section to section to see what is and is not allowed.
Board Member Freeman noted that the proposed language does not differentiate between a small trailer and a large
recreational vehicle, and she felt there should be distinctly separate regulations for each, depending on the size and bulk of
the vehicle. Property owners should not be encouraged to store large recreational vehicles in residential neighborhoods.
She said the proposed language also fails to differentiate between setbacks and yards and what is allowed in each.
• Section 17.60.020.H.1 – Open Storage. Vice Chair Dewhirst asked if the proposed language includes a definition for the
terms “lumber,” “coal,” and “other combustible materials.” Mr. Thies explained that this language came from the existing
code, and the purpose of the update is to eliminate language that is ambiguous. Mr. Chave further explained that Mr.
Thies collected numerous regulations from various jurisdictions for the Board to consider. At this time, Mr. Thies is
seeking feedback from the Board regarding the concepts the Board wants staff to pursue.
• Section 17.60.030.B – Attractive Nuisances. Board Member Freeman noted that the intent of the proposed language is
to protect children. Therefore, property owners should not be allowed to store any of the listed items on their property
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 10
Packet Page 175 of 176
where children have access. The Board agreed to change the last part of the section to read, “. . . located outside an
enclosed building.”
• Section 17.60.030.J – Unconventional Construction. Vice Chair Dewhirst questioned why the City should prohibit
shipping and cargo containers, but allow storage buildings. Mr. Bowman said the City has received numerous complaints
about shipping and cargo containers on adjacent properties. The Board must decide whether these should be considered
structures and/or buildings and whether or not they should be allowed in residential neighborhoods. He noted that tents,
tarps and canopy structures are a significant issue, as well. The City currently has 85 complaints of this type.
• Section 17.60.030 – Nuisance. Board Member Works asked if any consideration has been giving to forcing people to cut
down their blackberries. Mr. Thies said the City Council discussed this issue and raised the idea that “one person’s
nuisance could be another person’s garden. They indicated they would not be interested in having a vegetation regulation.
• Section 17.60.030.D – Graffiti. Board Member Bowman pointed out this section would require property owners to take
care of graffiti on their property immediately. He pointed out that his building on 5th Avenue has been vandalized
multiple times, and graffiti has occurred more and more around town. The proposed language would require the victims
of graffiti to resolve the problem. Mr. Bowman advised that the City Council recently discussed the issue of graffiti.
While business owners are not really happy about being required to paint their buildings, it has been demonstrated that
leaving the graffiti in place encourages the situation to grow. Taking care of graffiti right away tends to detract future
situations. Unless they catch the person responsible, the only recourse the City has is to require property owners to take
care of the problem.
• Section 17.60.030 – Nuisance. Board Member Reed suggested that if he were to apply the list of nuisances to properties
along his street, he would find numerous violations. He suggested that while there are some issues that must be addressed,
some of the items in this section are common occurrences. While they might not be the most attractive situations, he
questioned whether or not the City should try to regulate them all.
• Section 17.60.040 – Vehicles. Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested there needs to be some leeway for people to use trailers
when guests are visiting. Mr. Thies said the only complaints the City has received on this matter have come from people
who are concerned about grown children being allowed to live in trailers for long, extended periods of time.
• Section 17.95 – Commute Trip Reduction Plan. Mr. Bowman advised that this section must be updated and submitted
to the state by the end of June, 2007. However, the City’s new Traffic Engineer would not be on staff until mid May. It is
likely staff would request an extension from the State, but sometime in the near future staff would provide new language
for this section that would meet the new State laws.
• Outdoor Dining. Board Member Works suggested that staff review the outdoor dining section of the ECDC to make sure
there are as many outdoor dining opportunities as possible in the City, particularly in light of the new arts corridor.
Perhaps the City should expand the outdoor dining use to other zones in the City.
• Section 17.40 – Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, Signs and Lots. Mr. Bowman referred the Board to the written
comments provided by the City Attorney regarding this section. The City Attorney attempted to incorporate all of the
comments provided previously by the Board. At some point, the Board must also have a discussion with the Historic
Preservation Commission about how to integrate historic preservation and nonconformance elements together.
Mr. Bowman explained that the current nonconformance regulations are very restrictive and won’t allow a nonconformity
to expand. He said the Board must hold an in-depth discussion about whether or not it would be appropriate to allow
nonconforming structures to be expanded if the expansion would further encroach into the setback area. Board Member
Young questioned why the City should allow anyone to encroach into a setback. Mr. Chave said staff works with many
situations related to nonconforming structures. In addition, the Historic Preservation Commission has expressed concern
about the small historic buildings that are located in the downtown. Many of these structures protrude into the setback. If
the City wants to encourage historic preservation, they must consider options that would provide some flexibility to
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 25, 2007 Page 11
Packet Page 176 of 176