2010.08.16 CC Agenda Packet- 11
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
Special Monday Meeting
August 16, 2010
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-3289 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 2010.
C. AM-3288 Approval of claim checks #120458 through #120565 dated August 3, 2010, and
#120566 through #120747 dated August 12, 2010 for $308,787.55. Approval of payroll
direct deposit and checks #49608 through #49686 for the period July 16 through July
31, 2010 for $651,659.19.
D. AM-3286 Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Amendment to the Interlocal Cooperation
Agreement for the Southwest Snohomish County Public Safety Communications Agency
(SNOCOM).
E. AM-3287 Authorization for the Mayor to sign wholesale water supply purchase contract with the
Alderwood Water and Wastewater District.
F. AM-3283 Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the City of
Edmonds and the Edmonds School District for football game security.
G. AM-3279 Ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, amending the provisions of ECDC
20.60.025 relating to total maximum sign area, Subsection A, Business and Commercial
Zone to permit additional window signage and address multi -tenant sites, and fixing a
time when the same shall become effective.
Packet Page 1 of 380
H. AM-3284 Resolution thanking Graham Marmion for his service as a Student Representative.
3. (5 Minutes) Presentation of Resolution and plaque to Student Representative Graham
AM-3285 Marmion.
4. (10 Minutes) Sustainable Works Presentation.
AM-3293
5. (15 Minutes) Public hearing to extend Interim Ordinance No. 3787, amending provisions of Title
AM-3291 20 ECDC relating to Planned Residential Developments to allow closed record
administrative appeal of preliminary PRD decisions and to eliminate overlap of
perimeter buffers and setback for exterior lot lines.
6. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed record Review or as Public
Hearings.
7. (20 Minutes) Discussion on the proposed updates to land use permit review procedures contained
AM-3280 in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 20.01 through
20.08, excluding 20.05, which include staff reassuming the public notice
requirements for project applications; reorganizing and clarifying portions of text;
and updating the permit type matrix in ECDC 20.01.003.A. (File No.
AMD20100013).
8. (30 Minutes) Discussion regarding Snohomish County PUD franchise and potential cooperation
AM-3292 on fiber installation.
9. (15 Minutes) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of August 10, 2010.
AM-3290
10. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
11. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 380
AM-3289
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/16/2010
Time: Consent
Submitted By: Sandy Chase
Department: City Clerk's Office
Review Committee
Committee: Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
08-03-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Inbox
Mayor
Final Approval
Form Started By: Sandy Chase
Final Approval Date: 08/12/2010
Attachments
Form Review
Reviewed By Date
Mike Cooper 08/12/2010 04:23 PM
Sandy Chase 08/12/2010 05:33 PM
Started On: 08/12/2010 02:09 PM
Item #: 2. B.
Packet Page 3 of 380
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
August 3, 2010
At 5:15 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
labor negotiation strategy and negotiations related to a real estate matter. He stated that the executive
session was scheduled to last approximately one hour and forty-five minutes and would be held in the
Police Training Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a
result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor
Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and
Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder, Human Resources Director Debi Humann,
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The
executive session concluded at 7:02 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Michael Clugston, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Plunkett requested Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #120331 THROUGH #120457 DATED JULY 29, 2010
FOR $408,351.73.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 1
Packet Page 4 of 380
ITEM D: UPDATE ON PROGRESS OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS HEALTH BENEFITS
COMMITTEE.
Councilmember Plunkett explained the Health Benefits Committee is reviewing the upcoming change in
employee health benefits. This item includes $21,000 to hire a consultant but does not indicate the source
of those funds. Human Resources Director Debi Humann responded after discussion with Finance
Director Lorenzo Hines, it was determined the $21,500 to hire Wells Fargo as the broker/consultant in the
health insurance process would come from the Human Resources Professional Services' budget. That
budget is currently at 50% and with position vacancies down, it is possible the budget will be under -spent
enough to absorb that cost. The budget will be reviewed again in November and if required a budget
amendment will be submitted requesting additional funds from the General Fund.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
APPROVE ITEM D. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - CAR
SHOW
Chris Fleck, Treasurer, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and Chair of the Car Show, announced
the 10'h annual Edmonds Classic Car Show on Sunday, September 12. The display of 300-400 cars during
the car show attracts thousands of people to the city. Downtown shops are open including restaurants,
four of which have on -street dining. He acknowledged the car show did not directly generate funds other
than to the Chamber via the participant fee. He assured the event was a great deal of fun and encouraged
everyone to attend.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Chamber Foundation, a 501(c)(3), allows people to donate to
the Chamber. Mr. Fleck explained the car show is self-supporting but the Chamber appreciates all
donations. The Chamber Foundation's greatest need is funds for the 4`" of July which is entirely funded
by donations.
4. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: ADOPT -A -DOG
Charles Greenberg explained Old Dog Haven cares for and finds homes for older dogs. He introduced
Alvin, a 12-year old, 7-lb. Toy Poodle available for adoption at Old Dog Haven. Alvin is a very friendly,
loving dog; his only health issue is a heart murmur that causes him to cough when excited.
Mr. Greenburg invited anyone interested in adopting Alvin or another dog to call him at 425-774-0138.
Further information on dogs available for adoption is available at OldDogHaven.org.
5. UPDATE FROM MIKE CARTER OF STEVENS HOSPITAL AND CAL KNIGHT OF SWEDISH
HOSPITAL REGARDING THE HOSPITAL AFFILIATION AND HOSPITAL DISTRICT.
Michael Carter, President and CEO, Stevens Hospital, commented on Stevens Hospital and Swedish's
similar missions; both are not -for -profit organizations, both are secular, and their mission strategies are
very similar. He displayed statistics regarding Stevens Hospital in 2010, summarizing Stevens has been
growing consistently but slowly in the four years he has been there, they have high quality statistics in all
measurable areas, have happy employees — employee satisfaction is now in the 84"' percentile nationally,
stable operations, and are profitable — $15 million in net profit last year and slightly less in 2010.
However, Stevens Hospital has a weak balance sheet, a poor brand image, and restless physicians. For
those reasons, despite outward symbols of prosperity, Stevens Hospital did not think they had a future
without a connection with another organization.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 2
Packet Page 5 of 380
Mr. Carter reviewed the process of developing a Strategic Plan which included involving the public and
community leaders. The six pillars in the Plan (people, serve, quality -safety, finance, growth, community)
all identify the need for a partner. For example, he pointed out affiliation will aid in recruitment and
retention of physicians and employees, something that was becoming more difficult for Stevens.
Cal Knight, President and Chief Operating Officer, Swedish, explained Swedish has two tertiary
hospitals in downtown Seattle, a community hospital in Ballard, a new hospital under construction in
Issaquah, and a relationship pending with Stevens. Swedish's philosophy about the future of healthcare is
it needs to be provided in the communities where people live; their relationship with Stevens Hospital is
consistent with that philosophy. Ideas in health reform and the future of healthcare that most everyone
agrees on include the following, 1) scale matters — to provide the best healthcare to residents in a
community requires a system with scale and scope, and 2) an electronic medical record is essential. He
explained Swedish will install the EPIC electronic health record system at Stevens and begin its use in
January 2012. EPIC is installed at Swedish and does exactly what it was expected to do — reduces errors,
connects clinicians, and allows seamless monitoring of care across the system. EPIC, a very expensive
system that Stevens would not be able to acquire and implement on its own, is one example of what
Swedish will provide as part of the partnership.
Mr. Knight described the free-standing emergency department and ambulatory center that has been in
operation in Issaquah for the past five years. Mill Creek was identified as an area similarly underserved
and a free-standing emergency department is being established in that area. Mr. Knight summarized the
relationship between Stevens and Swedish will be good for the community, good for Stevens and
Swedish as organizations and a great example of how the future of healthcare will be better with systems
rather than independent organizations.
Mr. Carter explained the Hospital District Commission considered all alternatives such as offering the
hospital for sale, developing a joint venture with another organization in which a new company would be
formed, and signing a management agreement to assist with hospital operations. The Commission chose
an operating lease in which the Hospital District retains ownership of the hospital but leases the
operations to a third party, in this case, Swedish. He described how the affiliation will work. Under the
current structure Stevens Hospital and additional Stevens services are operated by Snohomish County
Public Hospital District #2; and the three Swedish campuses, Swedish physician division and additional
Swedish services are operated by Swedish Health Services.
Under the new structure, Public Hospital District #2 will continue to own the hospital and lease the
hospital operations to Swedish on a 30-year term. Swedish will pay the District $600,000 a month in lease
payments; payments escalate 3% per year and by year 15 will reach approximately $1 million/month and
level off for the remaining 15 years of the lease. The lease has a 30 year term and two 10 year extensions
are offered. One milestone remains, State approval of the Certificate of Need; a positive decision is
expected on August 17. Beginning September 1, 2010 (if State regulatory approval is received) Swedish
Health Services will begin to operate Stevens as a private hospital, begin making monthly payments to the
District, and rename Stevens Swedish Edmonds.
The Hospital District will continue to exist under a new name and receive Stevens' cash reserve of
approximately $20-23 million, $600,000/month in lease payments from Swedish as well as $2
million/year via the M&O levy. The other $2 million capital levy will continue until it is paid off in
March 2011. The District will establish a new office, he will go to work for Swedish, the District will hire
a new Superintendent and Commissioners will form a business plan. He explained after September 1,
2010, the hospital's meetings will no longer be public. The Commission will continue to hold public
meetings and will receive periodic reports on the hospital. A Strategic Collaboration Committee will also
be formed in which both organizations work together.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 3
Packet Page 6 of 380
Mr. Carter explained the Commission retains several reserve powers under the agreement including that
Swedish cannot change the hospital's location without the Commission's permission, and any product
line that generates at least $3 million in net revenue (which covers nearly all product offerings) cannot be
eliminated or reduced without the Commission's permission.
Dr. Bruce Williams, Public Health Hospital District #2 Commissioner, explained Hospital District #2
was initially created to operate the hospital. Under the RCW, it has a much broader mandate for the health
of the citizens of the District. He explained the benefit of a lease rather than a sale was that it maintained
the commitment the community has made to the services offered by Stevens Hospital. If the hospital were
sold, there would no longer be any control over retaining those services in the community. Via the
affiliation, the District has leveraged the nominal contribution from the property owners in the District
(the average home in the District contributes via the M&O approximately $25/year per household) to a
much larger amount that can be used to develop wellness and prevention programs. Those programs will
include educational programs and recreational opportunities. He commented on Yost Pool as an example.
Retaining the District also allows the Commission to have some influence via the Strategic Collaboration
Committee.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether expansion at the Swedish Edmonds campus would require
approval of the Commission. Mr. Carter answered that was completely within Swedish's control. There
are several large projects pending due to Stevens' shortage of capital.
Councilmember Wilson recalled the contentious Council meeting with Mr. Carter approximately two
years ago. He was concerned at that time that Stevens Hospital was moving forward without a great deal
of public input. He expressed appreciation for Stevens bringing in Howard Thomas, conducting town hall
meetings, forming a stakeholder advisory committee and now touring area cities to describe the
affiliation. He hoped Stevens agreed that his concern and the subsequent process resulted in a better
product for the community.
Councilmember Wilson commented the District was now in a position to do something tremendously
innovative in terms of health care, in particular public health. He invited Dr. Williams to comment on the
game changing nature of this new entity. Dr. Williams explained it is a direct mechanism for funding
preventative health service, educational and interventional opportunities to help keep people out of the
hospital. The District is open to all ideas such as bike helmets for kids, visiting nurse services for seniors,
diabetes education programs, nutritional education programs, etc. The Commission plans to have public
meetings to hear from the community what they want. For example, members of the public have already
raised the issue of Yost Pool, bicycle lanes, fitness runs, etc.
Mr. Knight explained this is a unique relationship that has not occurred elsewhere in the State of
Washington. The district hospital law in Washington was originally passed so that hospitals could exist in
places that otherwise could not afford a hospital such as rural areas. As a private, non-profit organization,
Swedish feels strongly that a tax subsidy is not necessary to operate a hospital. For example, he compared
Evergreen Hospital which has a large tax subsidy to Overlake Hospital which has none. Swedish's
philosophy is if taxpayers are to taxed for healthcare, the funds should be used for things those property
owners would not otherwise have access to and that a traditional hospital cannot provide well. The result
of this agreement is the best of both worlds — a private hospital with resources and know-how to provide
medical services and a hospital district that is focused on healthcare in a new and different way to address
some of the gaps.
Mr. Carter agreed that a good process resulted from the two years spent reviewing the potential
partnership with Swedish. The beauty of the agreement is that Swedish would have spent the
$600,000/month or more on debt service if they had purchased a hospital. The agreement keeps that
money in the community.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 4
Packet Page 7 of 380
Councilmember Wilson noted the approximately $10 million/year in lease payments and the $20 million
cash was a great deal of money but could quickly be spent on many things. He asked whether those funds
would be used for asset acquisition, an endowment or used operationally on an annual basis. Dr. Williams
agreed although it sounded like a great deal of money, it could easily be spent quickly in a number of
different health arenas. The Commission has a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens to be as wise as
possible and will take time to determine how the funds will be used. He noted the District will continue to
have landlord issues for the hospital property and will retain a reserve for that.
Councilmember Wilson recalled two years ago when this issue was presented to the Council, a resolution
was passed that committed the Council to oppose any sale or transaction of this type. He planned to make
a motion that the Council support this transaction/affiliation or could draft a resolution to that effect.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Stevens and Swedish for everything they have done for the
community, commenting her family has used Stevens and Swedish for the past 50 years. She looked
forward to a great future for the community.
Mayor Cooper congratulated Stevens and Swedish for engaging in a process that resulted in a much better
product.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
THAT THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RESOLVE TO SUPPORT THE AFFILIATION AND
AGREEMENT BETWEEN STEVENS HOSPITAL AND THE SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2010 WATER SYSTEM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
UPDATE.
Public Works Director Phil Williams introduced Tom Lindberg, MSA, the consultant on the development
of the Water Comprehensive Plan and Rob English, City Engineer. Mr. Williams explained since the
Council's last consideration of the 2010 Water System Comprehensive Plan, staff met with
Councilmember Petso to discuss her comments on the plan and subsequently made changes to the
document. He highlighted two of the changes:
• A concern was raised regarding the project list in the Plan that identified the order in which
projects would be completed. Because there are many things that influence when a specific
project is done such as receipt of grant funds, leveraging a private development project, or
another City project, language in Chapters 7, 9 and 10 was modified to create more flexibility
than the original draft appeared to allow.
• The tables illustrating the results of the hydrologic modeling showed five out of hundreds in the
system that have deficient fire flows. Detail was added to explain that many of the hydrants close
to hydrants with deficient flows are well supplied with water and that in any fire event a number
of hydrants would be used to fight the fire and nearly all have more than sufficient fire flow.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out there have only been two rate increases of less than 3% during the
past 6 years; the draft Plan proposes increases of $0.08 and $0.075 to fund what should have been funded
in the past. In the historical financial performance it appears the General Fund at some point was utilized
to fund those deficits. She asked Mr. Williams to explain that General Fund monies were not used for the
Water Utility. Mr. Williams assured there was no General Fund support/subsidy of the Water Utility. He
explained in the past there were only two inflationary sized adjustments in water rates over a 5-6 year
period which results in an erosion of the fund balance. The update of the Plan considered that as well as
the work facing the Water Utility. Edmonds, like many other cities, has not had an ongoing effort to
replace its aging water infrastructure. A goal was established in this Plan to fund the annual replacement
of approximately 1 % of the lineal footage of the City's water mains. He acknowledged at 1 % per year, it
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 5
Packet Page 8 of 380
will take 100 years to replace all the water lines, but it provided an ongoing funding source for that effort
and requires a noticeable rate increase.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the fire hydrant revenue and asked if it was used to replenish
the General Fund. Mr. William explained in Lane v. City of Seattle, a rate payer of the Seattle Public
Utility sued the Utility for a charge on his bill for fire hydrants. Water Utilities have always viewed
providing fire flow for the community as part of their responsibility. After a series of lower court rulings,
the State Supreme Court ruled in Mr. Lane's favor that the provision of fire service was a general
governmental responsibility and not the Utility's responsibility. The Seattle Public Utilities and the City
of Seattle's approach to pay the cost of hydrant maintenance and other fire protection services was to
raise the internal tax on the Water Utility to generate enough revenue to equal the amount they would
need to pay to the Utility to provide those fire protection services. That funding method was also appealed
and the Supreme Court ruled that was appropriate. In 2009 Edmonds raised the utility tax on the Water
Utility by 8.7% to generate resources in the General Fund to pay the Water Utility to provide water -
related fire protection services. This is reflected in the financials as hydrant revenue to the Utility.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that was the Intergovernmental services. Mr. Williams explained for
the Edmonds Water Utility, the overall tax rate is 18.7%, it was only the last 8.7% that was used to
generate revenues for fire protection. The preexisting 10% plus the 8.7% equate to the total
intergovernmental transfer, the total utility tax the Utility pays to the General Fund.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, explained his primary concern was the high cost, an approximately 65%
increase over the next 10 years. Salaries make up 24% of the budget, averaging 6%/year increase, an
amount he suggested be reduced. He pointed out although a portion of the City was 100 years old, much
of the City was constructed in the last 30-40 years and the water mains in the newer areas would not need
to be replaced for a long time. He commented on the City's funding of water service under the double
tracks being installed by BNSF and asked what happened to the money in the General Fund that used to
pay for water mains. In a time when many citizens are having a difficult time, an increase in water rates
can become overwhelming. He suggested the increases be more reasonable.
Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, explained she participates on a national team, Carpe Diem Western Water &
Climate Change. One of the things they are working on is to ensure municipal water supplies in the West
have abundant and pure tap water for the future. As a result, many cities are updating their systems. She
expressed her support for the Water System Comprehensive Plan and the rate increase to ensure water
lines remained clear to allow citizens to "take back the tap" and stop using bottled water.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented on water leakage from aging pipes. He expressed his support for the
Plan and the increase to replace water mains.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE 2010 WATER SYSTEM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. MOTION
CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
7. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND
THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 3.65 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO THE
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE FUNCTIONS AND
AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIRTY-SEVEN
(37) TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING STREET OVERLAYS TO EXTEND
THE LIFE OF CITY STREETS, CONSTRUCTION OF KEY PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS,
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO RELIEVE CONGESTION, TRAFFIC CALMING
MEASURES, CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS, PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING, SIGNALIZATION
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 6
Packet Page 9 of 380
INSTALLATION AND REPLACEMENT, AND BICYCLE LOOP SIGNAGE WITH THE
PROCEEDS OF A FORTY DOLLAR ($40) VEHICLE FEE INCREASE, IF APPROVED BY THE
VOTERS.
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained if passed, the proposed ordinance would expand the
authorities of the existing Edmonds Transportation Benefit District (TBD) which the Council created in
November 2008 under Ordinance 3707. The TBD's duties under that ordinance were limited to
preservation and maintenance. The TBD Board implemented a $20 vehicle license fee that is collected at
every vehicle license transaction for vehicles registered within the city limits of Edmonds which is
contiguous with the boundaries of the TBD.
The proposed ordinance would modify the TBD's authorities to authorize the TBD to seek voter approval
of a $40 increase to the fee that will be used to fund a list of 37 projects identified in the City's
Transportation Improvement Plan.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Diane Talmadge, Edmonds, expressed concern that the proposed ordinance was extending the Council's
own authorities which was not addressed in the explanatory statement in the voter's pamphlet. Although
she supported allowing the voters to decide on the proposed 200% increase in the vehicle license fee, she
disliked the tax because it extended beyond those who own homes to everyone who drove a car. She
preferred the excise tax that taxed drivers based on the value of their car. She viewed this as a very
regressive tax, noting levying a tax on homeowners was less regressive than a 200% increase in car tabs.
To the argument that the increase equated to only a cup of coffee, she pointed out most residents had two
cars. She summarized citizens were facing many increases including water rates and other State taxes and
was concerned many citizens could not afford the $40 increase in addition to the existing $20 fee.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, recalled the Transportation Committee began with a proposal for a $70 fee that
was later reduced to $40. He suggested establishing a fund for projects that come up and a committee to
educate the public regarding the project list.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, supported vehicle owners paying a tax to pay for overlays and other repairs
to extend the life of the streets because drivers use those facilities. However, the proposed list includes
not only overlays but a list of 37 projects totaling $61 million. He objected to several projects on the list
including the roundabout at Five Corners and several traffic signals including one at 9`h & Caspers. He
anticipated staff would have no incentive to apply for grants with a dedicated funding source from a
license fee. Voters may have supported a proposed increase in the vehicle fee to fund the road system
used by vehicles but likely would not support an increase that funded this extensive project list.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
To Ms. Talmadge's comment regarding the regressive nature of this fee, Councilmember Peterson
pointed out it would fund improvements that would benefit the community, particularly projects that will
improve safety around schools, allow students to walk to school and allow citizens to utilize alternate
forms of transportation.
With regard to Mr. Hertrich's comment that there would be no incentive to apply for grants, Mr. Williams
explained the fee provides an ongoing source of revenue that can be used as matching funds for grants the
City is able to obtain. Although the number and size of federal and state grants has diminished in recent
years, there are still grants available and staff will continue to apply for grants to stretch the funds as
much as possible. Staff will also seek to partner with utility projects, private development projects
installing frontage improvements, etc. to complete as many of the projects as quickly as possible.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 7
Packet Page 10 of 380
Councilmember Petso commented no one spoke in favor of the proposed increase likely because, as many
citizens have indicated, it is the wrong revenue source to fund the project list for a variety of reasons.
Although some may view the transfer from the General Fund for roads and sidewalks a subsidy, she
believed voters would be willing to spend some of their property tax revenue on streets and sidewalks.
She did not support the proposed increase.
Councilmember Wilson commented it was good public policy to tax cars because they create a public
nuisance by the creation of carbon monoxide. He next referred to the regressive nature of the proposed fee
increase versus the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) that was tied to the value of a car. He pointed out
if voters approved the proposed fee increase, it would take over 60 years to fund the 37 projects on the list
and none of the projects were prioritized. He preferred in these economic times to focus on a specific list
of 4-7 projects that would be completed in a short period of time. He summarized it was a regressive tax
with little accountability for elected officials. Although he supported taxing negative externalities of
vehicles, this was not the right method. He opposed the proposed increase and pledged to campaign
vigorously against it. He asked to be appointed to the committee writing the con statement for the voters
pamphlet.
Councilmember Wilson concluded this was "fiddling while Rome burns." While the Council has been
discussing a City Manager -Council form of government and placing this vehicle license fee on the ballot,
the most important item to place on the ballot, a property tax levy to pay for basic City operations, has not
been accomplished. Although the City has been discussing an operational levy for nearly two years, the
Council has not been able to make a decision to place it on the August or November ballot. To place a
levy on the February 2011 ballot will cost the City $115,000.
To Councilmember Petso's comment that no one spoke in favor of the increase to the vehicle license fee,
Council President Bernheim acknowledged it was difficult to rally citizens to speak in favor of a tax
increase. By placing the measure on the ballot, the voters would have an opportunity to indicate whether
or not they support the fee. He disagreed it was a regressive tax. As the owner of low cost, subcompact
cars, under the old MEVT, he paid very little MVET whereas owners of heavy, expensive vehicles paid
more tax. The regressive argument also did not apply because the increase was only $40/year and taxed
those who could already afford cars and insurance. The funds generated would not go into a "black hole,"
but would be used to fund specific transportation -related projects. If voters approved the fee increase,
those projects will be constructed; if the voters do not approve the fee increase, the projects will not be
built because there are no funds from any other source.
With regard to Councilmember Wilson's comment that the projects were not prioritized, Council
President Bernheim assured there would be an annual review process and projects would be prioritized
year to year. He pointed out those who are opposed to the license fee have not suggested alternative
funding sources. Although Councilmember Wilson suggested a reprioritization of the projects, his list
contained the same projects. He invited voters to volunteer for the committees to write the pro and con
statement for the voters pamphlet. He expressed his support for the proposed fee increase.
Councilmember Buckshnis voiced her support for the proposed fee increase, noting 21 of the 37 projects
are walkways, safety or bicycles. She was willing to pay $6.66/month for 2 cars, recalling during the
Town Hall meetings that she and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas conducted, citizens repeatedly
expressed interest in more walkways. If the voters approved the increase fee, the first eight projects on the
project list were walkways.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained although she drove a 9-year old car with 140,000 miles on it,
the wear and tear on the road was the same as a new car. She agreed with Council President Bernheim's
statement that people who cannot afford to pay insurance, buy gas, etc. don't drive cars. She found it
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 8
Packet Page 11 of 380
ironic that the Councilmembers who wanted to reprioritize the project list to add walkways and non -
motorized projects were the ones who now did not support the fee. She asked how these projects would
be funded if not by the proposed fee. She questioned whether Edmonds wanted to be a city where the
roads were crumbling because its citizens were not willing to pay $3.33/vehicle/month. She supported
allowing the voters to decide.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3804 TO AMEND THE PROVISION OF CHAPTER
3.65 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
DISTRICT IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE FUNCTIONS AND AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT
TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIRTY-SEVEN (37) TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING STREET OVERLAYS TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF CITY
STREETS, CONSTRUCTION OF KEY PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS, INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS TO RELIEVE CONGESTION, TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES,
CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS, PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING, SIGNALIZATION INSTALLATION
AND REPLACEMENT, AND BICYCLE LOOP SIGNAGE WITH THE PROCEEDS OF A FORTY
DOLLAR ($40) VEHICLE FEE INCREASE, IF APPROVED BY THE VOTERS.
Councilmember Wilson explained he opposed this when it came up as a policy vote in November 2009.
Although he did suggest reprioritizing the projects, he was clearly opposed to the fee and intended to vote
against it. The alternative is a levy. He recalled last April, 8 groups comprised of 65 people who
participated in the Levy Review Committee, told the Council that the City needed more money in the
form of a property tax levy.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reiterated her support for allowing the voters to decide; whether they
wanted to spend $3.33/car/month, the cost of a coffee at Starbucks, or whether they wanted to go
backward.
Councilmember Peterson expressed his support for the motion, explaining if approved by the voters, the
revenue generated by the fee would be used to fund projects and would not get lost in the "netherworld of
the General Fund," an important concept to voters. He agreed a levy was needed to support the General
Fund, those dollars are spent on a variety of governmental activities and are not as easy to pinpoint as the
funds generated by a license fee. Similarly, revenue generated by the increase in water rates is used
specifically for water -related projects. Approving a fee that is used for a specific purpose allows voters to
track its use and does not allow funds to be used for day-to-day operations of the City. He summarized the
projects on the list are tangible projects that are important to the livability of the City, the City's economy
and have a greater good than the fee itself.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, PETERSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, WILSON AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
Mayor Cooper reminded that a meeting of the TBD Board to make a final decision regarding this issue
will follow tonight's City Council meeting.
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
UPDATING THE NUMBER OF PERMITTED PERMANENT SIGNS PER SITE IN BUSINESS
AND COMMERCIAL ZONES. (EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 20.60.025)
(FILE NUMBER AMD20100014).
Planner Mike Clugston reported the Planning Board has recommended for the Council's review and
approval an important change in Chapter 20.60 of the Sign Code. The Sign Code contains numerous
regulations regarding the size and location of signs as well as the maximum number of permitted signs on
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 9
Packet Page 12 of 380
a site. In the current code, a free standing business is allowed a total of three signs of whatever type is
allowed in that area. For multi -tenant sites, each tenant is allowed one sign. Staff has received many
requests from multi -tenant businesses asking for more flexibility. The Planning Board considered several
alternatives and recommended that three signs per multi -tenant site be allowed, similar to a standalone
business. All the existing requirements for size and location still apply. In addition, window signs are
exempt from the total number of permitted signs. Window signs have their own requirements with regard
to size and location. Mr. Clugston provided the proposed language for ECDC 20.60.025.A(4) regarding
the maximum number of permitted permanent signs of three per site. The Planning Board determined the
proposed change would allow multi -tenant sites throughout the City more flexibility.
Council President Bernheim inquired about the rationale for exempting window signs. Mr. Clugston
answered window signs have maximum area requirements, one square of window sign for each lineal foot
of window frontage. Window signs are currently exempt from the maximum sign area, thus are already
allowed the additional sign area. The way the code was previously written window signs were not
excluded from the number of total signs. Council President Bernheim summarized the proposed change
did not affect the maximum permitted area of window signs, only the distribution. Mr. Clugston agreed.
For Councilmember Petso, Mr. Clugston referred to Chapter 20.60.035 that states the maximum area for
window signs is one square foot for each lineal foot of window frontage. Councilmember Petso observed
a business could do a one square foot sign all the way across their window. Mr. Clugston answered if a
business had 20 feet of lineal window, they could put a 20 square foot sign in one window or spread it
over multiple windows. The intent is to provide flexibility. Design standards in areas of the City would
also apply such as the downtown business zones that state windows cannot be completely covered with
signs. Councilmember Petso asked whether there were regulations regarding window signs in the
Neighborhood Business zone. Mr. Clugston answered the same window requirements apply in the
downtown business, neighborhood business and commercial zones.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, supported the City reviewing its sign regulations, recalling his inability to
find the entrance to the new Ace Hardware and the manager's comment that they were not allowed
additional signage. He found the proposed change helpful to businesses and customers which helped the
City's economy. He also welcomed Mayor Cooper.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented he attends most Planning Board meetings and there is often a
Planning Board representative at City Council meetings although there was not tonight. He suggested
Councilmembers attend Planning Board meetings. He supported the proposed change.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out that previously the size of the building was used to determine the
total square footage of allowed signage for a building including window signs. Under this proposal
windows could be used for extra signage. Although window signs can be good, including window signs
would allow a business a great deal of additional signage. He also felt filling windows with signs looked
junky.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE SIGN CODE.
Councilmember Peterson thanked the Planning Board and staff for developing the proposed changes. As a
small business owner, the sign code can seem like a big deal when opening a new business and anything
the City can do to assist small businesses is important. This was a step in the right direction to show the
Council's support for the business community.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 10
Packet Page 13 of 380
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the ordinance will be scheduled on the Council's next Consent
Agenda.
9. PRESENTATION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TO PROCEED WITH A PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON GREEN FUTURES LAB FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
SPECIAL DISTRICT PLANS FOR THE FIVE CORNERS AND WESTGATE COMMERCIAL
CENTERS.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained in March 2010 the Council adopted Resolution 1224 in response
to recommendations from the Economic Development Commission (EDC). One of the Commission's
recommendations was to initiate neighborhood center plans for Five Corners, Perrinville and Westgate in
order to position these areas to attract redevelopment. In an effort to implement that recommendation,
staff and the EDC's land use subcommittee worked with the University of Washington's Green Futures
Lab and the Cascade Land Conservancy (CLC) to develop an 8-9 month project at a substantial cost
savings to the City. The project would involve University professors working with students and classes as
well as utilize CLC, who by contract with the City, has 25 hours to provide.
Mr. Chave explained the project is a public design process with the assistance of University students and
CLC to develop regulations, design guidelines, etc. that would implement design and green development
within the Five Corners and Westgate areas. This would position these areas for future improvement and
redevelopment to provide services for the neighborhoods, improved access and potentially serve as a
template that could be used in other neighborhood planning efforts in the City.
With regard to funding, the base project is expected to cost approximately $40,000. There have been
savings within the Planning Department's Professional Services budget such as money left over from the
code rewrite that will not be spent this year and because development activity is down substantially, funds
in professional services that would have been used for development studies will not be spent this year.
This is a unique opportunity because, 1) the University of Washington can include this project in their
curriculum this year, and 2) there are unlikely to be savings in professional services next year. The EDC
land use subcommittee presented the proposal to the full EDC who unanimously recommended
forwarding it to the Council. The University is ready to proceed upon approval by the Council.
Mr. Chave explained although funding is available for the base study, the University recommends some
type of market analysis accompany the study. The Council would need to identify funding for the market
analysis. There are two levels of funding for a market study, 1) $25,000-$30,000 would provide a full
market analysis for the two centers, or 2) $10,000 would be an expert looking over the shoulder of the
university participants and CLC and providing expert advice on what was feasible.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Council was being asked to approve a dollar amount for a
market study. Mr. Chave answered yes, pointing out in the scope of work, the market analysis occurs in
the early stages of the project, this fall. The Council could defer a decision on the market study for a few
weeks. However, for the University to include this project in their curriculum, they need the Council to
approve the project.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Chave for the assistance he has provided the EDC. As Council
liaison to the EDC, Councilmember Buckshnis commented on the report given by the land use
subcommittee regarding this project. She is also the liaison to the Port who is also utilizing UW students
to do a similar project for Harbor Square. She was concerned with using the Council Contingency Fund
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 11
Packet Page 14 of 380
as a funding source for the market study, preferring to have it reconciled first. She supported proceeding
with the partnership with the UW Futures Lab and CLC.
Councilmember Peterson complimented the work done by Mr. Chave and the EDC, finding this an
incredible opportunity for $40,000. Because the market is somewhat volatile at this time, he suggested it
may be preferable to do the over -the -shoulder look and when the economy is more stable in 1-2 years,
conduct a more detailed market analysis. Mr. Chave answered that was one way to proceed. He supported
at least having someone with some market analysis ability reviewing the concepts and providing an over -
the -shoulder look. He recalled a Planning Board Member mentioned a similar concern with performing a
detailed analysis at this time. He explained the type of market analysis that is done in support of a
planning study was more long term and did not focus on existing development and current possibilities
within a 1-3 year period. Staff has heard that there are some property owners and developers interested in
development at Five Corners and Westgate but their timeframe is unknown.
For Councilmember Peterson, Mr. Chave explained the UW and CLC project would begin with fall
quarter and extend into mid-2011. The University suggested in their scope of work doing the market
analysis upfront during the fall prior to producing alternatives and discussions with the neighborhood.
Councilmember Wilson advised approximately $25,000/year is budgeted for the Council Contingency
Fund. The purpose of that fund is for meetings the Council has, cookies for receptions, etc. In the past,
any remaining balance went into a Council Contingency Reserve Fund. In recent years, the balance was
added to the ending fund balance. He suggested if the Council wanted to fund a market analysis, it be
funded from the ending fund balance.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out this is a perfect example of redeveloping and reenergizing
neighborhoods, fostering economic development and being collaborative. This project would be very
inexpensive via the use of CLC and UW under -grad and graduate students - $15/hour for graduate
students was a great value.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO INITIATE THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS WITH THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON TO PROCEED ON THE STUDY, WITH FUNDING AS
INDICATED.
Councilmember Petso asked how this differed from what had already been done. She referred to the scope
of work, examine existing condition in phase 1, gather public input in phase 2 and plan zoning changes in
phase 3 and asked whether former Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend had done this for
Five Corners. Mr. Chave answered Ms. Gerend had done the initial public outreach and developed very
general policy direction for Five Corners; however, it was never implemented. That process was not
followed at Westgate.
Councilmember Petso asked what would be different via this project. Mr. Chave answered much more
detail. Councilmember Petso asked if it would simply be another study for the shelf. Mr. Chave answered
the end result would be zoning proposals plus design guidance that could be adopted by Council.
Councilmember Buckshnis added this project would also result in a template that could be used in other
areas. The presentation made to the Port indicated the students would prepare 3-D figures, graphic
models, etc. She summarized this was a wonderful opportunity for a partnership between the City, UW
students and CLC.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 12
Packet Page 15 of 380
Councilmember Wilson asked staff's recommendation with regard to the market analysis. Mr. Chave
answered he wanted to see something in the way of market analysis. Either approach would be acceptable
depending on what the Council feels it can afford. The main difference is a formal analysis with numbers,
etc. via the higher level effort equates to more confidence. However, with the right team, value could be
achieved from the lower level study. The Council could proceed as Councilmember Peterson suggested,
doing a lower level study now, and a more detailed look in the future.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO REVIEW A COMPREHENSIVE MARKET FEASIBILITY
ASSESSMENT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000.
Mayor Cooper inquired about the funding source. Councilmember Wilson answered the funding source
was the ending fund balance.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked the amount of the ending fund balance. Councilmember Wilson
responded the Comprehensive Annual Finance Review projected the ending fund balance at yearend to be
$1.2 million.
Councilmember Petso commented she did not have enough background to support the motion. She was
unclear about the scope of the project other than some hearings and one Councilmember is concern about
the funding.
Council President Bernheim pointed out the project scope was well described in the draft agreement. He
was confident in the UW's and CLC's integrity in accomplishing the objectives. He was not concerned
with paying $20,000 to an outstanding UW team of under -graduate and graduate students to develop a
specific draft ordinance to accomplish the EDC's recommendations. However, with regard to the market
study, he felt the City could afford a scaled -back study. He observed the market study would set the
parameter for the students regarding the type of development that was feasible for the area. Mr. Chave
agreed, noting there may be more than one option. Council President Bernheim did not support an
extensive market study that cost $25,000-$30,000. He preferred the $10,000 type of study where a person
with some expertise assisted the UW students.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to delay this decision for two weeks until the Council had an
accounting with regard to the balance in the Council Contingency Fund.
Councilmember Wilson offered to withdraw his motion and have staff identify the most appropriate
funding source. Mr. Chave offered to confer with the UW to determine if they have a preference
regarding the level of market analysis.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
Mayor Cooper advised this would be scheduled on the Council's August 16 agenda.
10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, explained last April she asked the Council to clarify a description that
appeared in the ferry system's long range plan, an allowance of $26 million to enhance multimodal
connections. Four months later, the City received a reply from the ferry system: the $26 million is a
placeholder for unspecified future enhancements to multimodal connections at the existing facility. No
specific projects have been scoped at this time. She did not find this response adequate or true, referring
to a statement on a previous page in the long range plan that states, one improvement project is scheduled
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 13
Packet Page 16 of 380
to be completed at Edmonds in the 2029-2031 biennium and will total $26 million. She anticipated that
one project would be a second slip at the existing pier. She urged the City clarify that with the ferry
system, pointing out a second slip would double the capacity of the existing terminal. She planned to
continue speaking and writing until she got an answer to how the $26 million would be spent in Edmonds.
Dave Page, Edmonds, welcomed Mayor Cooper. He recalled in the past the Council was non -partisan
although there were often heated debates and many 4-3 votes. He urged Councilmembers to abandon their
personal agendas and work together. He recalled the enthusiasm when the Levy Review Committee
subgroups made their reports to the Council, commenting that was the time to pass a levy. He urged the
Council to place a levy on the ballot as soon as possible.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported on the successful toy drive at Top Foods July 9-26, thanking the clity
for the Channel 21 and 29 coverage. He thanked Council President Bernheim for participating in the kick-
off, noting there will be other toy drives in the future. With regard to the Stevens/Swedish presentation, he
urged the public to attend the Hospital District meetings.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled the City had been discussing the ferry system for the past 20 years.
Although he enjoyed sitting on the beach and watching the ferries, he did not like the ferry traffic and the
disruption it caused. He preferred to have the ferry terminal relocated to allow the City to reclaim the
mid -waterfront area and ferry lane. He agreed with Ms. Shippen that the ferry system worked in strange
and mysterious ways but they usually had a plan, particularly for $26 million. He referred to the two slips
in Kingston that occupy the entire waterfront. He referred to the "Four No's" developed when he was
Councilmember that stated the Council's opposition to a second slip. A second slip is undesirable because
the ferry system will park a ferry there overnight, a 60-foot tall structure that will block views. Because
the railroad tracks would be impassable with double tracks, he envisioned the ferry system constructing a
large dock on the water side to house ferry holding lanes.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, a member of the EDC, thanked the Council for moving forward with their
proposal. He explained there are a lot of volunteers on the EDC working hard to pursue good ideas and
plan to present additional proposals in the future. Speaking personally, he supported the Council's
decision to delay a decision on the marketing study. The delay would allow the Council to determine
whether there were alternate funding sources to fund the marketing study.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper welcomed a Boy Scout who was in the audience working on his Communications Merit
Badge.
Mayor Cooper informed the Council that the Hearing Examiner, City Attorney and Prosecuting
Attorney's contracts expire at the end of 2010. He invited Councilmembers to inform staff if they were
interested in doing RFQs for those contracts.
Mayor Cooper reported Snohomish County and the FAA have decided to move forward with additional
study of commercial passenger air at Paine Field. He assured he will continue to communicate the City's
position.
Given the interest in this year's budget, Mayor Cooper announced the budget review committee will
include all seven Councilmembers. He planned to schedule a special meeting on a Saturday morning in
late August to allow the Council to review staff's proposal. He would then use the Council's input to
prepare a budget.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 14
Packet Page 17 of 380
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Wilson commented last week he thanked Council President Bernheim for his leadership
during the interim mayoral period. He relayed his and the Council's appreciation for City staff,
particularly the directors who bear the brunt of long Council meetings. He expressed appreciation for staff
doing what was right, working hard and staying loyal to the community.
To Mr. Page, Councilmember Wilson assured he had not tried to put a bunch of democrats on the
Council. Although there have been comments to the contrary, he assured he was a democrat. He thanked
Mr. Hertrich for his concern about a 60-foot ferry occupying a second slip and blocking views from
midnight to 4:00 a.m. To Ms. Shippen, he pointed out she had received an answer from the Department of
Transportation that the $26 million was a placeholder. He suggested she not expect any Council action
strengthening the City's position opposing a second slip.
Councilmember Peterson echoed Councilmember Wilson's comments about staff, especially the way staff
works with citizen volunteers whether it is the Transportation Committee, the EDC, the Chamber of
Commerce or the Floretum Garden Club. These organizations care about the City and one of the reasons
staff works closely with those groups was because they also care about the City. He urged citizens to
acknowledge City staff.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas assured staff they were not spinning their wheels and the Council heard
their concerns.
Councilmember Petso echoed the praise for staff, particularly the Public Works Director's heroic effort in
meeting with her for nearly two hours on one of his first days on the job. She was impressed with what
they had accomplished. She thanked Mr. Hertrich and Ms. Shippen for their public comment. She
appreciated Mr. Hertrich history of the ferry system and said Ms. Shippen is entitled to ask how the ferry
system plans to spend $26 million.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for their assistance with developing information for the Levy
Committee. She explained the Levy Committee is working on a comprehensive way of looking at the
budget and helping the public understand the process. Several presentations will be made to the Levy
Committee; at the last meeting, one of the members who is a CPA gave a presentation on the difference
between governmental accounting standards and financial accounting standards. The Committee's next
meeting is Monday, August 9 at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room.
Council President Bernheim observed the gardens throughout the City look outstanding. He echoed the
appreciation of staff and thanked Mayor Cooper for inviting the Councilmembers to participate in the
budget process. He also thanked Mayor Cooper for the notice regarding expiration of the Hearing
Examiner and City Attorney contracts.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 15
Packet Page 18 of 380
AM-3288
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/16/2010
Time: Consent
Submitted For: Lorenzo Hines
Department: Finance
Review
f nmmittPP-
Item #: 2. C.
Submitted By: Debbie Karber
Committee Approve for Consent Agenda
Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #120458 through #120565 dated August 3, 2010, and #120566 through
#120747 dated August 12, 2010 for $308,787.55. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #49608
through #49686 for the period July 16 through July 31, 2010 for $651,659.19.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks and direct deposit and checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non -approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2010
Revenue:
Expenditure: $1,224,082.54
Fiscal Impact:
Claims: $542,423.35
Payroll: $681,659.19
Attachments
Claim cks 8-5-10
Claim cks 8-12-10
Form Review
Inbox
Reviewed By
Date
Finance
Lorenzo Hines
08/12/2010 01:46 PM
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
08/12/2010 02:08 PM
Mayor
Mike Cooper
08/12/2010 04:23 PM
Final Approval
Sandy Chase
08/12/2010 05:33 PM
Form Started By: Debbie Karber
Started On: 08/12/2010 01:35 PM
Final Approval Date: 08/12/2010
Packet Page 19 of 380
Packet Page 20 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
08/05/2010 12:21:07PM City of Edmonds
Bank code:
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120458
8/5/2010
070034 41MPRINT INC
1817779
WOTS TOTES
WRITE ON THE SOUND TOTES
117.100.640.573.100.310.00
434.78
Total :
434.78
120459
8/5/2010
072627 911 ETC INC
170821
JULY-2010 911 DATABASE MAINT
Jul-10 911 database maint
001.000.310.518.880.480.00
101.50
Total :
101.50
120460
8/5/2010
065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
283762
1-13992
PEST CONTROL
411.000.656.538.800.410.23
63.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.23
6.01
Total :
69.26
120461
8/5/2010
073343 AFFORDABLE PRODUCTS
2309
INV#2309 - EDMONDS PD
ANCHOR RD-6000 CHARGER
001.000.410.521.400.350.00
30.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.400.350.00
8.50
Total :
38.50
120462
8/5/2010
065568 ALLWATER INC
072910034
COEWASTE
DRINKING WATER
411.000.656.538.800.310.11
19.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11
1.88
Total :
21.68
120463
8/5/2010
001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
161846-100502
APA Membership Machuga 10/1/10 -
APA Membership Machuga 10/1/10 -
001.000.620.558.600.490.00
255.00
180853-100502
APA Membership- Lien 10/1/10 - 9/30
Page: 1
Packet Page 21 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 2
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120463
8/5/2010
001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
(Continued)
APA Membership- Lien 10/1/10 - 9/30
001.000.620.558.600.490.00
280.00
Total :
535.00
120464
8/5/2010
072799 ANDRES, KAREN
ANDRES0729
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR E
001.000.640.574.350.430.00
85.00
Total :
85.00
120465
8/5/2010
069751 ARAMARK
655-5039573
UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SE
001.000.640.576.800.240.00
31.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00
2.96
Total :
34.16
120466
8/5/2010
069751 ARAMARK
655-5039578
21580001
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00
67.13
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00
6.38
Total :
73.51
120467
8/5/2010
001795 AUTOGRAPHICS
77164
PETANQUE SIGNS
PETANQUE RULES OF PLAY SIGN;
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
350.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
33.25
Total :
383.25
120468
8/5/2010
061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON
BAILEY12457
TAEKWON-DO CLASSES
TAEKWON-DO #12457
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
367.50
TAEKWON-DO #12453
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
850.50
BAILEYS12461
TAEKWON DO CLASSES
Page: 2
Packet Page 22 of
380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 3
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120468
8/5/2010
061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON
(Continued)
TOT TAEKWON DO #12461
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
216.45
TOT TAEKWON DO #12465
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
120.25
Total :
1,554.70
120469
8/5/2010
070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING
011581091
COPIER RENTAL
COPIER RENTAL
001.000.230.512.501.450.00
154.40
Total :
154.40
120470
8/5/2010
072319 BEACH CAMP LLC
BEACHCAMP12319
WATERSPORTS CAMP
BEACH CAMP #12319
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
4,200.00
Total :
4,200.00
120471
8/5/2010
066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC
4455
DISPLAY AD
DISPLAY AD - EDMONDS BEACON
001.000.640.574.200.440.00
980.00
Total :
980.00
120472
8/5/2010
069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC
0003322
EBGB.SERVICES 6/19-7/23/10
EBGB.Services 6/19-7/23/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00
956.56
Total :
956.56
120473
8/5/2010
071633 BLACK ROCK CABLE INC
16481
Aug-10 Fiber Lease - 7100 210th St S
Aug-10 Fiber Lease - 7100 210th St E
001.000.310.518.870.450.00
470.00
Aug-10 Franchise fee on Fiber Lease
001.000.310.518.870.450.00
23.50
Total :
493.50
120474
8/5/2010
002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
822332
INV#822332- EDMONDS PD - DIEHL
CARDIGAN SWEATER
001.000.410.521.110.240.00
31.25
Page: 3
Packet Page 23 of
380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 4
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120474
8/5/2010
002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
(Continued)
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.240.00
2.97
824930
INV#824930 - EDMONDS PD - PAUL
S/S UNIFORM SHIRT
001.000.410.521.220.240.00
65.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00
6.24
824993
INV#824993 - EDMONDS PD - BROW
NEW BALANCE SHOES
001.000.410.521.110.240.00
99.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.240.00
9.50
Total :
215.57
120475
8/5/2010
003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
40229033
Ped Walk Way Lease - 8/1-7/31/11
Ped Walk Way Lease - 8/1-7/31/11
111.000.653.542.310.450.00
675.31
Total :
675.31
120476
8/5/2010
072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY
BROCKMANN12517
YOGA CLASSES
YOGA #12517
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
446.60
Total :
446.60
120477
8/5/2010
068183 CHINN, PENNY
AN45970
Time loss not bought back for the
Time loss not bought back for the
001.000.651.519.920.110.00
871.20
Total :
871.20
120478
8/5/2010
063902 CITY OF EVERETT
GORDON GRAHAM
GORDAN GRAHAM - EDMONDS PD
COMPTON
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
40.00
SPEER
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
40.00
ROSSI
Page: 4
Packet Page 24 of
380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 5
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120478
8/5/2010
063902 CITY OF EVERETT
(Continued)
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
40.00
SHIER
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
40.00
HAWLEY
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
40.00
MACHADO
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
40.00
GREENMUN
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
40.00
Total :
280.00
120479
8/5/2010
019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
8007
Street - Signal Maint through 6/18/10
Street - Signal Maint through 6/18/10
111.000.653.542.640.510.00
196.46
Total :
196.46
120480
8/5/2010
035160 CITY OF SEATTLE
2-533584-460571
WATER USEAGE FOR THE MONTH
Water Useage for the Month of
411.000.654.534.800.330.00
523.80
Total :
523.80
120481
8/5/2010
073349 CLEARVIEW RIBBON CO INC
00007716
SWIM MEET RIBBONS
YOST RIBBONS FOR SWIM MEET
001.000.640.575.510.310.00
448.59
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.510.310.00
42.62
Total :
491.21
120482
8/5/2010
004095 COASTWIDE LABS
W2212645
SUPPLIES
LINERS, TOILET TISSUE, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
1,174.55
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
111.58
W2217469
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
CLEANER, SHAMPOO, WATER WAI
Page: 5
Packet Page 25 of
380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 6
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120482
8/5/2010
004095 COASTWIDE LABS
(Continued)
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
191.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
18.16
Total :
1,495.49
120483
8/5/2010
071308 COLELLA, TERESA
COLELLA0730
SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT
SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT @ N
001.000.640.575.520.410.00
624.00
Total :
624.00
120484
8/5/2010
070323 COMCAST
8498310300721433
CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES
BUNDLED SERVICES FOR CEMETE
130.000.640.536.200.420.00
113.52
Total :
113.52
120485
8/5/2010
029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS
July DRS
JULY DRS
July DRS
811.000.000.231.540.000.00
135,948.56
Total :
135,948.56
120486
8/5/2010
064531 DINES, JEANNIE
10-3119
MINUTE TAKING
7/27 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00
417.00
Total :
417.00
120487
8/5/2010
068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL
072010
STATE LOBBYIST FOR JULY 2010
State lobbyist charges for July 2010
001.000.610.519.700.410.00
2,585.00
Total :
2,585.00
120488
8/5/2010
071596 EBORALL, STEVE
EBORALL12484
ART CLUB
ART CLUB #12484
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
155.40
ART CLUB #12481
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
318.50
Page: 6
Packet Page 26 of
380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 7
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120488
8/5/2010
071596 071596 EBORALL, STEVE
(Continued)
Total :
473.90
120489
8/5/2010
073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE
001181/1
PARKS & RECREATION
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
5.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
0.57
001183/1
PARKS AND RECREATION
GRIND POINTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
8.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
0.85
Total :
16.39
120490
8/5/2010
007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
24895
SUPPLIES
OIL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
11.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
1.14
25211
OIL FILTERS
OIL FILTERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
14.74
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
1.40
Total :
29.26
120491
8/5/2010
071719 EDNETICS INC
49271
Cisco Aironet Wireless access point;
Cisco Aironet Wireless access point;
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
867.51
Cisco Aironet Wireless access point;
117.100.640.573.100.350.00
867.51
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
82.42
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.350.00
82.41
Total :
1,899.85
Page: 7
Packet Page 27 of
380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 8
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120492
8/5/2010
008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
057014
MK0653
COPIER CONTRACT/COPIES
411.000.656.538.800.450.41
170.26
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.41
16.17
Total :
186.43
120493
8/5/2010
071967 ENG, STEPHEN
ENG12303
TAEKWON-DO CLASSES
TAEKWON DO #12303
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
125.80
Total :
125.80
120494
8/5/2010
008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES
ENGLAND12423
SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE CLASSE
CLASS #12423
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
128.00
CLASS #12424
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
192.00
CLASS #12425
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
128.00
CLASS #12426
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
128.00
Total :
576.00
120495
8/5/2010
066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
WAMOU20584
SUPPLIES
PARK MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
68.19
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
2.28
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
6.69
Total :
77.16
120496
8/5/2010
071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD
4438369
CEMETERY SANDWICH BOARD
CEMETERY SALES OFFICE SANDY'
130.000.640.536.500.310.00
194.27
9.5% Sales Tax
Page: 8
Packet Page 28 of
380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 9
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120496
8/5/2010
071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD
(Continued)
130.000.640.536.500.310.00
18.46
Total :
212.73
120497
8/5/2010
009880 FEDEX
7-166-59577
FEDEX PRIORITY OVERNIGHT
fed -ex to OMW
001.000.250.514.300.410.00
26.89
Total :
26.89
120498
8/5/2010
009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A
073110
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00
10,940.00
Total :
10,940.00
120499
8/5/2010
069940 FIRST ADVANTAGE SBS
206812
INV 206812 ODY900JJM EDMONDS
CREDIT REPORT - STRONG
001.000.410.521.100.410.00
10.50
Total :
10.50
120500
8/5/2010
070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200
291275
TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKIN
Aug-10 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent
001.000.390.519.900.450.00
300.00
Total :
300.00
120501
8/5/2010
070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC
159990
July 2010 Section 125 plan fees
July 2010 Section 125 plan fees
001.000.220.516.100.410.00
51.10
July 2010 Section 132 plan fees
001.000.220.516.100.410.00
25.00
Total :
76.10
120502
8/5/2010
069469 FLINT TRADING INC
119421
Traffic Control - 8' Left Turn Arrow
Traffic Control - 8' Left Turn Arrow
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
4,412.56
8' Rt Turn Arrow
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
696.72
9'10" Right Str Arrow 2Pk
Page: 9
Packet Page 29 of
380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 10
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120502
8/5/2010
069469 FLINT TRADING INC
(Continued)
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
600.48
13"" Left Combi Arrow
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
1,050.00
13"" Right Combi Arrow
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
630.00
Q5 VG 4'x2' Left Bike Ln Sym
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
1,437.12
Q2 VG 6' Bike Str Arrow
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
268.80
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
864.08
119432
Traffic Control - 77 Packs- Q30' VG
Traffic Control - 77 Packs- Q30' VG
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
8,593.20
Q2 VG6' Bike Str Arw - 5 Packs
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
448.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
858.92
Total :
19,859.88
120503
8/5/2010
011900 FRONTIER
425-776-5316
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MC
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MC
001.000.640.576.800.420.00
109.19
Total :
109.19
120504
8/5/2010
011900 FRONTIER
425-NW2-0887
Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet
Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet
001.000.310.518.880.420.00
280.00
Total :
280.00
120505
8/5/2010
011900 FRONTIER
425-640-8169
PT EDWARDS SEWER PUMP STAT
Phone line for Sewer Lift Station at Pt
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
36.23
425-673-5978
LIFT STATION #1
Lift Station #1
Page: 10
Packet Page 30 of
380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 11
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120505
8/5/2010
011900 FRONTIER
(Continued)
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
49.92
425-771-0158
FS # 16
FS #16
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
163.41
425-775-2069
LIFT ST 7
Lift St 7
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
54.47
425-776-6829
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
109.61
Total :
413.64
120506
8/5/2010
012199 GRAINGER
9300138097
HAND WINCH
HAND WINCH
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
122.55
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
10.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
12.66
Total :
145.85
120507
8/5/2010
068011 HALLAM, RICHARD
58
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00
243.81
Total :
243.81
120508
8/5/2010
013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN
59
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00
189.60
Total :
189.60
120509
8/5/2010
073348 HENSHAW, KRISTINE
HENSHAW0804
BIRDFEST POSTER WINNER
WINNER OF 2010 BIRDFEST POSTI
001.000.240.513.110.410.00
100.00
Total :
100.00
Page: 11
Packet Page 31 of
380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 12
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120510
8/5/2010 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT
60
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00
87.00
Total :
87.00
120511
8/5/2010 067099 HOLLEMAN, JOHN
62
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00
203.76
Total :
203.76
120512
8/5/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
1197653
0205
SLUG BAIT
001.000.640.576.810.310.00
10.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00
1.00
2033884
0205
PAINT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
63.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
6.01
3041577
0205
SCRUB BRUSHES, FOLDING SAWS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
152.05
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
14.44
3044933
0205
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
14.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
1.38
6030562
0205
STEELSTAKE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
17.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
1.70
7034879
0205
Page: 12
Packet Page 32 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 13
08/05/2010 12:21:07PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120512
8/5/2010
067862
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
(Continued)
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
15.85
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
1.51
FCH-003816136
LATE FEE
LATE FEE
001.000.640.576.800.490.00
20.00
Total :
320.06
120513
8/5/2010
067862
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
8593554
6035322500959949
EXPANSION TANK/ PAINT SUPPLIE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
84.34
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
8.01
Total :
92.35
120514
8/5/2010
073346
HOT CLUB SANDWICH LLC
HOTCLUB0808
CITY PARK CONCERT PRESENTEF
CITY PARK CONCERT 8/8/10
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
700.00
Total :
700.00
120515
8/5/2010
070042
IKON
82598307
COPIER LEASE
RECREATION OFFICE COPIER LEP
001.000.640.574.100.450.00
635.14
82625429
COPIER LEASE
PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEA
001.000.640.576.800.450.00
25.14
Total :
660.28
120516
8/5/2010
070042
IKON
82625428
C/A 467070-1003748A4
Finance Copier Rental 7/22-8/21/10
001.000.310.514.230.450.00
454.07
Additional copies 5/24-6/23/10
001.000.310.514.230.450.00
175.51
9.5% Sales Tax
Page: 13
Packet Page 33 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 14
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120516
8/5/2010
070042
IKON
(Continued)
001.000.310.514.230.450.00
59.82
Total :
689.40
120517
8/5/2010
006841
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
5014591007
DSD copies - Ricoh MP171SPF
DSD copies - Ricoh MP171SPF
001.000.620.558.800.450.00
5.46
Total :
5.46
120518
8/5/2010
015270
JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC
476749
54278825
HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.53
3,195.04
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.53
303.53
Total :
3,498.57
120519
8/5/2010
070902
KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY
ULVESTAD12599
DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY CLASS
DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY & THE CC
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
98.00
Total :
98.00
120520
8/5/2010
073136
LANG, ROBERT
RLANG0730
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 7/30/10
001.000.640.574.100.410.00
40.00
Total :
40.00
120521
8/5/2010
073136
LANG, ROBERT
Lang, Ro
City Hall Monitor for 7/29/10 CLC
City Hall Monitor for 7/29/10 CLC
001.000.110.511.100.490.00
36.00
Total :
36.00
120522
8/5/2010
068711
LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY
7010-399
CEMETERY MOWER SUPPLIES
WALKER IGNITION SWITCH W/KEY
130.000.640.536.500.310.00
86.77
Freight
130.000.640.536.500.310.00
8.13
9.5% Sales Tax
Page: 14
Packet Page 34 of
380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 15
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120522
8/5/2010
068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY
(Continued)
130.000.640.536.500.310.00
9.02
7010-413
BAND ASSEMBLY/BLOWERS
BAND ASSEMBLY
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
47.02
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
5.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
4.95
7010-466
GLOVES
NITRILE GLOVES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
214.68
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
5.73
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
20.94
Total :
402.37
120523
8/5/2010
069634 LEXISNEXIS
1201641-20100731
INV 1201641-20100731 EDMONDS F
MINIMUM COMMITMENT FEE
001.000.410.521.210.410.00
50.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.410.00
4.75
Total :
54.75
120524
8/5/2010
018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
104690
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00
149.99
104699
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00
371.12
Total :
521.11
120525
8/5/2010
018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
104717
Copy paper
Copy paper
001.000.610.519.700.310.00
12.00
Page: 15
Packet Page 35 of
380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 16
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120525
8/5/2010
018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
(Continued)
Copy paper
001.000.220.516.100.310.00
12.00
Copy paper
001.000.210.513.100.310.00
12.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00
1.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00
1.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00
1.14
Total :
39.42
120526
8/5/2010
018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
104733
WORK STATION
Workstation EA
001.000.310.514.230.350.00
1,744.44
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.350.00
165.72
104742
Dymo address labels
Dymo address labels
001.000.310.514.230.310.00
20.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00
1.99
Total :
1,933.13
120527
8/5/2010
018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
104693
Business Cards for Lora Petso
Business Cards for Lora Petso
001.000.110.511.100.490.00
26.01
104716
3-hole punched paper for CLC notebc
3-hole punched paper for CLC notebc
001.000.110.511.100.310.00
58.25
Total :
84.26
120528
8/5/2010
018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
104701
DSD Office supplies
DSD Office supplies
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
4.37
Page: 16
Packet Page 36 of
380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 17
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120528
8/5/2010
018760 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS (Continued)
Total :
4.37
120529
8/5/2010
018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA
712900
MOWER BLADES
BLADES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
49.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
4.74
713406
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
19.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
1.89
Total :
76.39
120530
8/5/2010
069362 MARSHALL, CITA
953
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
87.50
955
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
87.50
956
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
87.50
973
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01
87.50
Total :
350.00
120531
8/5/2010
020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
60576009
123106800
CLAMP HANGER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
67.08
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
4.70
Total :
71.78
120532
8/5/2010
072492 MOLINA, NILDA
MOLINA12469
ZUMBA CLASSES
ZUMBA #12469
Page: 17
Packet Page 37 of
380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 18
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120532
8/5/2010
072492
MOLINA, NILDA
(Continued)
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
741.16
Total :
741.16
120533
8/5/2010
072746
MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES
09-1030-15
EBJB.SERVICES THRU 6/30/10
EBJB.Services thru 6/30/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00
3,849.50
Total :
3,849.50
120534
8/5/2010
067891
MYSTIC SEA CHARTERS
MYSTICSEA12401
WHALE WATCH CRUISE
WHALE WATCH CRUISE #12401
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
147.00
Total :
147.00
120535
8/5/2010
072700
NETWORK HARDWARE RESALE LLC
299409
Networking Adaptors
Networking Adaptors
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
300.00
Freight
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
5.73
Total :
305.73
120536
8/5/2010
066391
NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC
13361
260
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54
1,827.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54
173.57
Total :
2,000.57
120537
8/5/2010
061013
NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
1-148883
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:
SIERRA
001.000.640.576.800.450.00
189.87
1-159303
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:
HICKMP
001.000.640.576.800.450.00
305.16
Total :
495.03
120538
8/5/2010
025690
NOYES, KARIN
000 00 147
PB Minutetaker 7/14/10
Page: 18
Packet Page 38 of
380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 19
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120538
8/5/2010
025690 NOYES, KARIN
(Continued)
PB Minutetaker 7/14/10
001.000.620.558.600.410.00
352.00
000 00 148
HPC Minutetaker
HPC Minutetaker
001.000.620.558.600.410.00
112.00
Total :
464.00
120539
8/5/2010
063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
044907
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
CHEMICALS, ETC., FOR YOST POC
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
473.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
45.00
Total :
518.65
120540
8/5/2010
027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
971480
TOPSOIL
TOPSOIL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
220.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
20.93
Total :
241.23
120541
8/5/2010
066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM
011581089
COPIER CONTRACT
COPIER CONTRACT
411.000.656.538.800.450.41
145.22
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.41
13.45
Total :
158.67
120542
8/5/2010
027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.
950377
PAINT SUPPLIES
BASE PAINT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
32.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
3.11
Total :
35.81
120543
8/5/2010
066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP
CAMPCASH080410
DAYCAMP PETTY CASH REIMBUR:
Page: 19
Packet Page 39 of
380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 20
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120543
8/5/2010
066412
PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP
(Continued)
REIMBURSEMENT OF DAYCAMP P
001.000.640.575.530.310.00
152.12
Total :
152.12
120544
8/5/2010
071811
PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
185949
2000
UPS/DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIE
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
9.05
Total :
9.05
120545
8/5/2010
065021
PRINTING PLUS
68747
WRITE ON THE SOUND POSTER
WOTS POSTER
123.000.640.573.100.490.00
154.73
9.5% Sales Tax
123.000.640.573.100.490.00
14.70
Total :
169.43
120546
8/5/2010
071911
PROTZ, MARGARET
PROTZ12531
FELDENKRAIS
FELDENKRAIS #12531
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
205.80
Total :
205.80
120547
8/5/2010
068697
PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC
2010-3374
April - June, 2010 PD testing fees
April - June, 2010 PD testing fees
001.000.220.516.210.410.00
300.00
Total :
300.00
120548
8/5/2010
046900
PUGET SOUND ENERGY
7918807004
YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
3,046.47
Total :
3,046.47
120549
8/5/2010
046900
PUGET SOUND ENERGY
084-904-700-6
WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY
WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY
411.000.656.538.800.472.63
38.79
Total :
38.79
Page: 20
Packet Page 40 of
380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 21
08/05/2010 12:21:07PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120550 8/5/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
54.06
0230757007
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE ;
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE ;
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
45.13
1916766007
LIFT STATION #7
LIFT STATION #7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
33.81
2753166004
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & CC
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & CC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
256.10
2776365005
Public Works
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00
4.06
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00
15.41
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00
15.41
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
15.41
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00
15.41
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00
15.39
3689976003
200 Dayton St -Vacant PW Bldg
200 Dayton St -Vacant PW Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00
55.17
5254926008
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
33.97
5322323139
Fire Station # 16
Fire Station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
98.62
5672895009
SEWER LIFT STATION #9
SEWER LIFT STATION #9
Page: 21
Packet Page 41 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 22
08/05/2010 12:21:07PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120550
8/5/2010
046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
(Continued)
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
36.20
5903085008
FLEET
Fleet 7110 210th St SW
511.000.657.548.680.470.00
70.98
6439566008
PUBLIC SAFETY -FIRE STATION
PUBLIC SAFETY -FIRE STATION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
146.69
6490327001
ANDERSON CENTER
ANDERSON CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
697.79
8851908007
LIFT STATION #8
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
54.94
9919661109
FIRE STATION #20
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
55.92
Total :
1,720.47
120551
8/5/2010
030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC
110071
NICHE INSCRIPTION
INSCRIPTION: PARK
130.000.640.536.200.340.00
80.00
110201
MARKER
MARKER-STEELE
130.000.640.536.200.340.00
552.00
Total :
632.00
120552
8/5/2010
062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY
001881
Storm - Dump Fees
Storm - Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00
692.09
Total :
692.09
120553
8/5/2010
067447 RILEY, CHARLES H.
61
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00
219.00
Total :
219.00
Page: 22
Packet Page 42 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 23
08/05/2010 12:21:07PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120554
8/5/2010
071467 S MORRIS COMPANY
7/26/10
ACCT#70014 - ANIMAL DISPOSAL 1
#493465 11 NPC 7/12/10
001.000.410.521.700.410.00
117.48
#493337 6 NPC 7/26/10
001.000.410.521.700.410.00
64.08
Total :
181.56
120555
8/5/2010
036955 SKY NURSERY
285676
MULCH
FERTILE MULCH
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
53.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
5.12
Total :
59.06
120556
8/5/2010
065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY
SKYHAWKS12343
SOCCER CAMP
SOCCER CAMP #12343
001.000.640.575.520.410.00
276.00
Total :
276.00
120557
8/5/2010
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
2016-1027-6
750 15TH AVE S
750 15TH AVE SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00
16.43
2017-6210-1
415 5TH AVE S
415 5TH AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
102.61
2021-6153-5
750 15TH ST SW
750 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00
379.15
Total :
498.19
120558
8/5/2010
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
200124873
SIGNAL LIGHT 9933 100TH W
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
49.00
200422418
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
3,050.58
201283892
4 WAY LIGHT 599 MAIN ST
Page: 23
Packet Page 43 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 24
08/05/2010 12:21:07PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120558
8/5/2010
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
54.27
201563434
SIGNAL LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WAY
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
49.76
201582152
STREET LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W
STREET LIGHT 19600 80th Ave W
111.000.653.542.630.470.00
40.18
201656907
DECO LIGHT 413 MAIN ST
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00
413.95
201703758
23190 100TH W SCHOOL CROSS\/\
23190 100th W School Crosswalk Lit
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
832.91
202421582
LOG CABIN
LOG CABIN
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
108.83
Total :
4,599.48
120559
8/5/2010
038500 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC
298
JULY-10 RECREATION SERVIES C(
07/10 Recreation Servies Contract Fe
001.000.390.519.900.410.00
5,000.00
Total :
5,000.00
120560
8/5/2010
038413 SOUND TRACTOR
IN75703
PARTS
PARKS SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
331.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
31.52
Total :
363.29
120561
8/5/2010
040480 STUSSER ELECTRIC
2338-478421
44-26787
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
300.95
9.5% Sales Tax
Page: 24
Packet Page 44 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 25
08/05/2010
12:21:07PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120561
8/5/2010 040480 STUSSER ELECTRIC
(Continued)
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
28.59
Total :
329.54
120562
8/5/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
1703727
NEWSPAPER AD
8/3 Hearing (signs)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00
59.08
Total :
59.08
120563
8/5/2010 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
0890920563
C/A 571242650-0001
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
001.000.620.524.100.420.00
264.13
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
001.000.250.514.300.420.00
56.88
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
001.000.230.512.500.420.00
114.06
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
001.000.620.558.800.420.00
56.88
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
001.000.620.558.600.420.00
56.88
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
001.000.610.519.700.420.00
56.88
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
001.000.620.532.200.420.00
303.43
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
118.75
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
001.000.310.514.230.420.00
56.88
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
001.000.220.516.100.420.00
56.88
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
001.000.310.518.880.420.00
270.53
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
001.000.210.513.100.420.00
99.89
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
001.000.640.574.100.420.00
61.51
Page: 25
Packet Page 45 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 26
08/05/2010 12:21:07PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor
120563 8/5/2010 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
120564 8/5/2010 061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH
120565 8/5/2010 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC
Invoice PO # Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
001.000.410.521.220.420.00
1,091.51
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Air Cards
001.000.410.521.220.420.00
599.82
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
001.000.650.519.910.420.00
269.92
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
111.000.653.542.900.420.00
61.92
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
511.000.657.548.680.420.00
78.85
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
31.36
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
131.85
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
115.85
6/23-7/22/10 Blackberry Cell Phone
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
186.09
Total :
4,140.75
DRAN.FX.00056126 INV#DRAN.FX.00056126 EDMONDS
ANNUAL PENTOBARBITAL REGIST
001.000.410.521.700.490.00
40.00
Total :
40.00
0141459 SIGN BLANKS - HUTT PARK
SIGN BLANKS - HUTT PARK
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
108.00
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
7.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
10.94
0141681 SIGN BLANKS
SIGN BLANKS - HAINES WHARF PP
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
466.90
Page: 26
Packet Page 46 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 27
08/05/2010 12:21:07PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor
120565 8/5/2010 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC
108 Vouchers for bank code : front
108 Vouchers in this report
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Total
Bank total
Total vouchers
Amount
43.76
48.51
685.32
233,635.80
233,635.80
Page: 27
Packet Page 47 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 1
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code:
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120566
8/12/2010
070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
CR23241
INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01
146.50
Total :
146.50
120567
8/12/2010
065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
283827
MEADOWDALE RODENT CONTROL
RODENT CONTROL @ MEADOWDE
001.000.640.576.800.480.00
82.12
283862
RODENT CONTROL
RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00
93.08
Total :
175.20
120568
8/12/2010
061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX
810110
CAMPER T-SHIRTS
CAMP T-SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.530.310.00
37.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.530.310.00
3.59
Total :
41.39
120569
8/12/2010
071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES
10-340
JANITORIAL SERVICES
JANITORIAL SERVICES
411.000.656.538.800.410.23
334.00
Total :
334.00
120570
8/12/2010
069157 AIONA, CYNDI
AIONA12609
HULA KIDS
HULA KIDS #12609
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
224.00
Total :
224.00
120571
8/12/2010
066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC
101648630
M5Z34
CAL GAS
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
25.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
2.38
101657843
M5Z34
Page: 1
Packet Page 48 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 2
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120571
8/12/2010 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC
(Continued)
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21
60.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21
5.72
Total : 93.35
120572
8/12/2010 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES
0197-001245513
FIRE STATION #20
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
121.71
0197-001245600
Public Works Facility
Public Works Facility
001.000.650.519.910.470.00
24.56
Public Works Facility
111.000.653.542.900.470.00
93.33
Public Works Facility
411.000.654.534.800.470.00
93.33
Public Works Facility
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
93.33
Public Works Facility
511.000.657.548.680.470.00
93.33
Public Works Facility
411.000.652.542.900.470.00
93.32
0197-001245670
FS 16
garbage for F/S #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
126.63
0197-001246340
garbage for MCC
garbage for MCC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
57.40
Total : 796.94
120573
8/12/2010 066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE
ANDERSON0807
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR:
001.000.640.574.100.410.00
285.00
Total : 285.00
Page: 2
Packet Page 49 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 3
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120574
8/12/2010
065378 APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECH
40357256
Unit 130- Access Gauge
Unit 130- Access Gauge
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
11.29
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
8.69
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
1.90
40357479
Unit 130 - Access Gauge
Unit 130 - Access Gauge
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
11.29
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
1.07
Total :
34.24
120575
8/12/2010
069751 ARAMARK
655-5051285
UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SE
001.000.640.576.800.240.00
31.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00
2.96
Total :
34.16
120576
8/12/2010
069751 ARAMARK
655-5051290
21580001
UNIFORM
411.000.656.538.800.240.00
67.18
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00
6.38
Total :
73.56
120577
8/12/2010
069751 ARAMARK
655-5008329
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
5.85
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
0.56
655-5027622
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
32.17
Page: 3
Packet Page 50 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 4
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120577 8/12/2010 069751 ARAMARK (Continued)
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
3.06
655-5031993
PW MATS
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00
1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00
3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00
3.84
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00
3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00
0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00
0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00
0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00
0.34
655-5031994
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00
2.37
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00
2.36
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00
0.23
Page: 4
Packet Page 51 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 5
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120577 8/12/2010 069751 ARAMARK (Continued)
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00
0.22
655-5031996
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
5.85
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
0.56
655-5039574
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
32.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
3.06
655-5043979
PW MATS
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00
1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00
3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00
3.84
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00
3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00
0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00
0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00
0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
Page: 5
Packet Page 52 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 6
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120577
8/12/2010
069751 ARAMARK
(Continued)
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00
0.34
655-5043982
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
7.35
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
0.70
655-5051286
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
32.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
3.06
Total :
175.98
120578
8/12/2010
071653 ARNOLD, MEREDITH
ARNOLD12428
PRECIOUS METAL CLAY
PRECIOUS METAL CLAY #12428
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
145.60
Total :
145.60
120579
8/12/2010
064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC
045956
ALERTON SYSTEM- CITY
alerton system- City-
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
2,550.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
242.25
Total :
2,792.25
120580
8/12/2010
073291 ATSI
1008106
Traffic - Calibration Service for
Traffic - Calibration Service for
111.000.653.542.640.480.00
585.00
Total :
585.00
120581
8/12/2010
070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
56410
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00
32.54
Page: 6
Packet Page 53 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 7
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120581
8/12/2010 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
(Continued)
UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00
32.54
UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00
33.51
UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
109.19
UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
109.19
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00
3.09
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00
3.09
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00
3.19
56480
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00
148.71
UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00
148.71
UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00
153.20
UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
476.61
UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
476.61
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00
14.13
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00
14.13
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00
14.55
Total :
1,772.99
120582
8/12/2010 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
14356
BURIAL SUPPLIES
BURIAL SUPPLIES: RADFORD
Page: 7
Packet Page 54 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 8
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120582
8/12/2010
001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
(Continued)
130.000.640.536.200.340.00
388.00
14421
BURIAL SUPPLIES
BURIAL SUPPLIES: CHRISTENSEN
130.000.640.536.200.340.00
388.00
Total :
776.00
120583
8/12/2010
073035 AVAGIMOVA, KARINE
547
INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01
100.00
554
INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01
100.00
558
INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01
100.00
Total :
300.00
120584
8/12/2010
069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC
COE0710
Background check services
Background check services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00
45.00
Background check services
138.200.210.557.210.490.00
285.00
Total :
330.00
120585
8/12/2010
070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING
011581092
Canon 5870 Copier Lease charge (9/'
Canon 5870 Copier Lease charge (9/'
001.000.610.519.700.450.00
101.35
Canon 5870 Copier Lease charge (9/'
001.000.220.516.100.450.00
101.32
Canon 5870 Copier Lease charge (9/'
001.000.210.513.100.450.00
101.33
Supply charge (same period)
001.000.610.519.700.450.00
25.01
Supply charge (same period)
001.000.220.516.100.450.00
25.00
Page: 8
Packet Page 55 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 9
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120585
8/12/2010
070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING
(Continued)
Supply charge (same period)
001.000.210.513.100.450.00
24.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00
12.01
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00
12.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00
11.99
Total :
415.00
120586
8/12/2010
065485 BDZ CONSTRUCTION INC
Bond Release
96TH AVE WALKWAY.BOND FUND;
96th Ave Walkway -Bond Funds Relea
001.000.000.237.280.000.00
7,062.00
Total :
7,062.00
120587
8/12/2010
072319 BEACH CAMP LLC
BEACHCAMP12320
BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY
BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY #12:
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
2,776.00
Total :
2,776.00
120588
8/12/2010
066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC
8211
Executive Assistant to the Mayor,
Executive Assistant to the Mayor,
001.000.220.516.100.440.00
48.42
Total :
48.42
120589
8/12/2010
069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC
3325
EBGA.SERVICES FROM 6/19-7/23/1,
EBGA.Services from 6/19-7/23/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00
3,656.60
EBGA.Services from 6/19-7/23/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00
1,968.94
Total :
5,625.54
120590
8/12/2010
070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC
352
Onsite consulting meeting with Carl.
Onsite consulting meeting with Carl.
001.000.620.524.100.410.00
175.00
Page: 9
Packet Page 56 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 10
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120590
8/12/2010
070803 070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC
(Continued)
Total :
175.00
120591
8/12/2010
073351 BLASHILL, VIRGINIA
BLASHILL0805
REFUND
REFUND - WITHDRAWAL FROM SV
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
39.00
Total :
39.00
120592
8/12/2010
002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC
IL31597
Unit 91 - Nuts, Bolts, Parts for Gas
Unit 91 - Nuts, Bolts, Parts for Gas
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
264.84
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
17.20
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
26.79
IL31629
Unit 91 - Gas Tank and Gasket
Unit 91 - Gas Tank and Gasket
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
595.80
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
182.91
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
73.98
Total :
1,161.52
120593
8/12/2010
072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY
BROCKMANN13243
PILATES YOGA FUSION
PILATES YOGA FUSION #13243
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
69.30
Total :
69.30
120594
8/12/2010
073354 CARLSON, MARYLU
CARLSON0730
REFUND
REFUND DUE TO MEDICAL REASO
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
63.84
Total :
63.84
120595
8/12/2010
070144 CEDAR GROVE COMPOSTING INC
219036
TWO-WAY TOPSOIL
TWO WAY TOPSOIL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
192.50
Page: 10
Packet Page 57 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 11
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120595
8/12/2010
070144 070144 CEDAR GROVE COMPOSTING INC (Continued)
Total :
192.50
120596
8/12/2010
070144 CEDAR GROVE COMPOSTING INC
5710
Water Dept - TopSoil
Water Dept - TopSoil
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
192.50
Total :
192.50
120597
8/12/2010
068484 CEMEX
9419743623
Storm - Dumping Fees
Storm - Dumping Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00
124.55
9419751678
Storm Dump Fees
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00
53.35
9419751679
Street - Asphalt
Street - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
316.56
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
30.08
9419760179
Street - Asphalt for 3rd Ave Project
Street - Asphalt for 3rd Ave Project
111.000.653.542.610.310.00
360.00
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00
33.12
9419768848
Street - Asphalt
Street - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
176.56
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
16.78
9419798845
Street - Asphalt for Bowdoin Way Proj
Street - Asphalt for Bowdoin Way Proj
111.000.653.542.610.310.00
320.00
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00
29.44
Total :
1,460.44
120598
8/12/2010
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
RN07101033
GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES/HELIUM
Page: 11
Packet Page 58 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 12
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120598
8/12/2010
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
(Continued)
HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS PARTY
001.000.640.575.550.450.00
8.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.550.450.00
0.79
Total :
9.09
120599
8/12/2010
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
LY159360
2948000
WELDING SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
15.51
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
1.47
RN07101034
2954000
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21
33.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21
3.15
Total :
53.33
120600
8/12/2010
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
LY 158715
Water - Carbon Dioxide Tank fill
Water - Carbon Dioxide Tank fill
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
21.10
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
2.01
Total :
23.11
120601
8/12/2010
064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E
CHAPUT12546
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #12546
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
56.00
Total :
56.00
120602
8/12/2010
072351 CHILDREN'S TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOF CTW12240
ICAMP
I CAMP #12240
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
2,124.00
Total :
2,124.00
120603
8/12/2010
065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC
450901-1007
E9GA.SERVICES THRU 07/2010
Page: 12
Packet Page 59 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 13
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120603
8/12/2010
065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC
(Continued)
E9GA.Services thru 07/2010
412.300.630.594.320.410.00
40,252.42
451002-1007
EOFA.SERVICES THRU 7/30/10
EOFA.Services thru 7/30/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00
4,588.25
Total :
44,840.67
120604
8/12/2010
066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FIN SERV INC
17450561
COPIER LEASE PW
copier lease for PW
001.000.650.519.910.450.00
643.07
Total :
643.07
120605
8/12/2010
004095 COASTWIDE LABS
W2217469-1
WATER WANDS
WATER WANDS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
25.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
2.38
W2218117
SUPPLIES
LINERS, TOILET TISSUE,
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
1,465.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
139.25
W2218117-1
SUPPLIES
TOILET TISSUE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
170.19
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
16.17
Total :
1,818.84
120606
8/12/2010
004095 COASTWIDE LABS
W2216111
Fac Maint - TT, Paper Towels, Liners
Fac Maint - TT, Paper Towels, Liners
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
511.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
48.59
Total :
560.05
Page: 13
Packet Page 60 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 14
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120607
8/12/2010
062891 COOK PAGING WA
8015423
WATER WATCH PAGER
pagers -water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
3.95
7.7% sales tax
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
0.29
Total :
4.24
120608
8/12/2010
065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING
JULY 2010
EDMONDS PD - JULY CLEANING
LAUNDRY/DRY CLEANING 07/2010
001.000.410.521.220.240.00
678.69
Total :
678.69
120609
8/12/2010
066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS
0710 2989771 5374044
INV#0710 2989771 5374044 EDMON
HOT/COLD COOLER RENTAL
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
7.00
5 GALLON DRINKING WATER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
53.55
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
2.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
5.76
Total :
68.39
120610
8/12/2010
072189 DATASITE
66400
SHREDDING SERVICES/CABINETS
Doc Shred Services City Clerk
001.000.250.514.300.410.00
50.00
Doc Shred Services Finance
001.000.310.514.230.410.00
50.00
Total :
100.00
120611
8/12/2010
072189 DATASITE
66430
INV#66430 - EDMONDS PD
SHREDDING 7/1/10 2-64 GAL TOTE
001.000.410.521.100.410.00
80.00
SHREDDING 7/29/10 1-64 GAL TOTI
001.000.410.521.100.410.00
40.00
Total :
120.00
Page: 14
Packet Page 61 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 15
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120612
8/12/2010
070230
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING
Thru 08/06/10
STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PI:
State Share of Concealed Pistol
001.000.000.237.190.000.00
216.00
Total :
216.00
120613
8/12/2010
006626
DEPT OF ECOLOGY
2011-WAR045513
2010 STORMWATER - MUNICIPAL
2010 STORMWATER - MUNICIPAL,'
411.000.652.542.900.510.00
11,178.86
Total :
11,178.86
120614
8/12/2010
047450
DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES
2010070108
CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for July 2010
001.000.310.518.880.420.00
285.37
Total :
285.37
120615
8/12/2010
063064
DEZURIK WATER CONTROLS
RPI/56009194
CHAINWHEEL/CHAIN/LINK CLOSIN
CHAINWHEEL/CHAIN/LINK CLOSIN
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
2,675.08
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
96.68
RPI/56009443
GUIDE CHAIN
GUIDE CHAIN
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
1,512.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
23.71
Total :
4,307.47
120616
8/12/2010
064531
DINES, JEANNIE
10-3123
MINUTE TAKER
8-3-10 City Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00
261.00
Total :
261.00
120617
8/12/2010
064531
DINES, JEANNIE
10-3124
Mar-Aug-10 TBD Minutes & Transcrip
Mar-Aug-10 TBD Minutes & Transcrip
631.000.653.542.310.410.00
564.00
Total :
564.00
Page: 15
Packet Page 62 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 16
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120618
8/12/2010
063392 E J BARTELLS
11-289203
FAC - Micro-Lok, Tape, Pipe Insulatio
FAC - Micro-Lok, Tape, Pipe Insulatio
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
401.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
38.13
11-290066
FAC - Supplies
FAC - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
4.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
0.46
Total :
444.80
120619
8/12/2010
068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL
10-09744
Water Quality - Lab Samples
Water Quality - Lab Samples
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
972.00
Total :
972.00
120620
8/12/2010
007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
25321
SPARK PLUGS
SPARK PLUGS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
8.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
0.85
25413
OIL FILTERS
OIL FILTERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
34.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
3.31
Total :
47.93
120621
8/12/2010
007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
25128
Sewer - Supplies
Sewer - Supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
22.81
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
2.17
Total :
24.98
Page: 16
Packet Page 63 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 17
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120622 8/12/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-38565
WATER
18410 82ND AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
23.80
6-00025
CITY MARINA BEACH PARK
CITY MARINA BEACH PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
263.15
6-00410
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
252.07
6-00475
MINI PARK
MINI PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
872.56
6-01250
CITY PARK BALLFIELD
CITY PARK BALLFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
618.44
6-01275
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
818.56
6-02125
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
346.81
6-02727
310 6TH AVE N
310 6TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
197.86
6-02730
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD - SPRIN
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD - SPRIN
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
136.61
6-02900
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (:
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (E
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
489.82
6-03000
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
262.65
6-03275
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
89.61
Page: 17
Packet Page 64 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 18
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120622
8/12/2010
008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
(Continued)
6-03575
CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK
CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
161.83
6-04400
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
734.81
6-04425
8100 185TH PL SW
8100 185TH PL SW
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
300.29
6-04450
SIERRA PARK
SIERRA PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
352.67
6-07775
BALLINGER PARK
BALLINGER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
174.09
6-08500
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
782.40
6-08525
YOST PARK POOL
YOST PARK POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
2,061.97
Total :
8,940.00
120623
8/12/2010
069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL
142439
INV#142439 CLIENT 5118 EDMOND
NEUTER IMPOUND #8156
001.000.410.521.700.490.01
75.14
NEUTER IMPOUND #8155
001.000.410.521.700.490.01
85.00
Total :
160.14
120624
8/12/2010
031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP
089257
RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEME
Radix Monthly Maint Agreement -
411.000.654.534.800.480.00
152.00
Total :
152.00
Page: 18
Packet Page 65 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 19
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120625
8/12/2010
008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
057344
Canon 5870 copy charges 7/7 - 8/7/1(
Canon 5870 copy charges 7/7 - 8/7/1(
001.000.610.519.700.480.00
25.85
Canon 5870 copy charges 7/7 - 8/7/1(
001.000.220.516.100.480.00
25.84
Canon 5870 copy charges 7/7 - 8/7/1(
001.000.210.513.100.480.00
25.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.480.00
2.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.480.00
2.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.480.00
2.46
Total :
84.88
120626
8/12/2010
073265 FREESE LAW OFFICES INC PS
72010
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00
400.00
Total :
400.00
120627
8/12/2010
011900 FRONTIER
425-712-0647
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00
40.78
425-744-1681
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODE
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODE
001.000.640.576.800.420.00
40.78
425-744-1691
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00
40.12
425-776-5316
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MC
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MC
001.000.640.576.800.420.00
108.95
Total :
230.63
120628
8/12/2010
011900 FRONTIER
425 NW1 0060
03 0210 1079569413 10
AUTO DIALER
Page: 19
Packet Page 66 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 20
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120628
8/12/2010
011900 FRONTIER
(Continued)
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
46.47
425 N W 1-0155
03 0210 1099569419 02
TELEMETRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
223.12
425-771-5553
03 0210 1014522641 07
AUTO DIALER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
63.74
Total :
333.33
120629
8/12/2010
011900 FRONTIER
425-774-1031
SEWER - PW TELEMETRY
SEWER - PW TELEMETRY
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
45.93
425-776-1281
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
40.78
425-AB9-0530
1ST & PINE CIRCUIT LINE PT EDW)
1st & Pine Circuit Line for Pt Edwards
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
40.75
Total :
127.46
120630
8/12/2010
068265 FRONTIER ONLINE
16847002
Water - Broadband Service for Augus
Water - Broadband Service for Augus
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
79.99
Total :
79.99
120631
8/12/2010
011210 GC SYSTEMS INC
000023121A
Water- 3/32" Restriction Fitting, 3/8"
Water- 3/32" Restriction Fitting, 3/8"
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
216.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
7.13
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
21.20
Total :
244.33
120632
8/12/2010
011910 GEOLINE BELLEVUE
306473
Storm - Maint of G.I.S Equipment
Storm - Maint of G.I.S Equipment
Page: 20
Packet Page 67 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 21
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120632
8/12/2010
011910 GEOLINE BELLEVUE
(Continued)
411.000.652.542.400.410.00
306.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.410.00
29.14
Total :
335.84
120633
8/12/2010
063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
095955
Unit 41 -Trailer Tire
Unit 41 -Trailer Tire
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
68.64
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
6.52
Total :
75.16
120634
8/12/2010
072515 GOOGLE INC
1506512
INTERNET ANTI -VIRUS & SPAM MP
Aug-10 Internet Anti -Virus & Spam M,
001.000.310.518.880.480.00
523.33
Total :
523.33
120635
8/12/2010
012199 GRAINGER
9310794145
PW - Elect Protector Strip
PW - Elect Protector Strip
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
13.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
1.27
Total :
14.67
120636
8/12/2010
068015 GRICE INDUSTRIES INC
00007138
Water - Pipe Replacement Tool, 75' C
Water - Pipe Replacement Tool, 75' C
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
430.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
11.00
Total :
441.00
120637
8/12/2010
070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE
330835
Unit 582 - Jiffy Stands (3)
Unit 582 - Jiffy Stands (3)
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
16.77
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
1.60
Page: 21
Packet Page 68 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 22
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120637
8/12/2010
070515 070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE (Continued)
Total :
18.37
120638
8/12/2010
073352 HAWKES, LISA
HAWKES0802
REFUND
REFUND DUE TO ILLNESS
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
52.00
Total :
52.00
120639
8/12/2010
072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL
22851
EBFD.SERVICES THRU 7/30/10
EBFD.Services thru 7/30/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00
1,399.73
Total :
1,399.73
120640
8/12/2010
067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
1561217
Roadway - Supplies, Fans, Grass SeE
Roadway - Supplies, Fans, Grass SeE
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
117.53
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
11.17
1568731
Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Saw Blade, Crim
Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Saw Blade, Crim
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
75.86
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
7.21
1573646
PS - Cam Locks
PS - Cam Locks
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
12.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
1.14
2033773
FAC - Radiator Repair Supplies
FAC - Radiator Repair Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
46.68
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
4.43
2038663
LS 7 - Pex Pipe
LS 7 - Pex Pipe
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
1.68
9.5% Sales Tax
Page: 22
Packet Page 69 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 23
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120640
8/12/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
(Continued)
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
0.16
2045175
Fac Maint Unit 95 - Grease Gun, Supl
Fac Maint Unit 95 - Grease Gun, Supl
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
65.37
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
6.21
2091923
Water - Adapters, Pipe Tees, Unions,
Water - Adapters, Pipe Tees, Unions,
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
131.24
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
12.47
2263162
City Hall Finance - Ceiling Grid, Light
City Hall Finance - Ceiling Grid, Light
001.000.310.514.230.490.00
37.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.490.00
3.60
253900
Fac Maint - Supplies Returned
Fac Maint - Supplies Returned
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
-41.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
-3.97
3033534
FAC - Radiator Repair Supplies
FAC - Radiator Repair Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
40.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
3.82
3033552
Fac Maint - Supplies
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
41.80
Unit 26 - Braid Poly
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
8.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
4.82
3033602
FAC - Radiator Repair Supplies
FAC - Radiator Repair Supplies
Page: 23
Packet Page 70 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 24
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120640 8/12/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued)
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
19.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
1.83
4046719
Library - Supplies
Library - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
38.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
3.70
47679
Sewer - 300' Tape
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
2.85
Sewer - 300' Tape
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
29.96
5035444
Street - 3rd Ave Sidewalk - Pipe
Street - 3rd Ave Sidewalk - Pipe
111.000.653.542.610.310.00
7.63
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00
0.72
5262928
City Hall Finance - Drywall, 2x6's,
City Hall Finance - Drywall, 2x6's,
001.000.310.514.230.490.00
100.99
Unit 26 - Flashlight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
14.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.490.00
9.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
1.42
563873
Fac Maint Unit 26 - Hand Seamer, Brt
Fac Maint Unit 26 - Hand Seamer, Bri
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
63.38
Finance - Drywall Mud
001.000.310.514.230.490.00
7.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
6.02
9.5% Sales Tax
Page: 24
Packet Page 71 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 25
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120640
8/12/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
(Continued)
001.000.310.514.230.490.00
0.69
6012150
Fac Maint Shop - Door Stops
Fac Maint Shop - Door Stops
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
31.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
3.04
6046206
FS 16 - Drwr Slides, Screws
FS 16 - Drwr Slides, Screws
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
23.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
2.25
6046213
PW Womens Shower - Shower Head
PW Womens Shower - Shower Head
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
11.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
1.13
6589399
FAC - PVC Cement, 4" Coupling
FAC - PVC Cement, 4" Coupling
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
5.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
0.48
7037466
Storm - Lawn Patch
Storm - Lawn Patch
411.000.652.542.400.310.00
39.92
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00
3.79
8037107
Library - Supplies
Library - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
19.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
1.90
9032155
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
48.40
9.5% Sales Tax
Page: 25
Packet Page 72 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 26
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120640
8/12/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
(Continued)
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
4.60
9047766
City Hall Finance - Tape, Ties
City Hall Finance - Tape, Ties
001.000.310.514.230.490.00
8.93
Unit 26 - Truck Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
39.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.490.00
0.85
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
3.79
9047770
Street - Shell Valley Sidewalk Repair
Street - Shell Valley Sidewalk Repair
111.000.653.542.610.310.00
54.21
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00
5.15
9099482
Water - Supplies
Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
132.55
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
12.59
9588719
Fac Maint - LED Torch
Fac Maint - LED Torch
001.000.651.519.920.350.00
24.93
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00
2.37
99015
Parks -Supplies
Parks -Supplies
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
12.54
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
1.19
Total :
1,394.81
120641
8/12/2010 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
8941
Fac Maint - Paper Towels, Cleaning
Fac Maint - Paper Towels, Cleaning
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
342.65
Page: 26
Packet Page 73 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 27
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120641
8/12/2010
070896
HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
(Continued)
Water Quality - Bleach
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
5.41
PW - Batteries
001.000.650.519.910.310.00
40.96
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
0.52
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00
3.89
Total :
393.43
120642
8/12/2010
060165
HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
21355
EBGC.SERVICES THRU 7/31/10
EBGC.Services thru 7/31/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00
7.50
EBGC.Services thru 7/31/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00
7.50
EBGC.Services thru 7/31/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00
7.50
Total :
22.50
120643
8/12/2010
070042
IKON
82778603
COPIER LEASING
Cannon Image Runner 6/22 - 7/22
001.000.250.514.300.450.00
967.54
Total :
967.54
120644
8/12/2010
070042
IKON
82745320
Rent on reception copier from 7/26
Rent on reception copier from 7/26
001.000.620.558.800.450.00
30.66
Total :
30.66
120645
8/12/2010
006841
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
5014669824
Meter charges for DS large copier fror
Meter charges for DS large copier fror
001.000.620.558.800.450.00
51.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00
4.94
5014669851
Meter Charges for Eng. color copier
Page: 27
Packet Page 74 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 28
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120645
8/12/2010
006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
(Continued)
Meter Charges for Eng. color copier
001.000.620.558.800.450.00
352.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00
33.49
Total :
442.89
120646
8/12/2010
068952 INFINITY INTERNET
2920645
PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTEF
001.000.640.575.560.420.00
15.00
Total :
15.00
120647
8/12/2010
069349 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL INC
2793270
Membership dues - Member No. 0184
Membership dues - Member No. 0184
001.000.620.524.100.490.00
100.00
Total :
100.00
120648
8/12/2010
069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS
516464
Unit 332 - Tool Box
Unit 332 - Tool Box
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
31.49
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
8.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
3.79
517070
Unit 25 - Spark Plugs
Unit 25 - Spark Plugs
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
138.87
Unit 51 Spark Plugs
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
138.87
Unit 97 Spark Plugs
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
138.87
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
52.77
Unit 93 - Spark Plugs
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
138.87
Page: 28
Packet Page 75 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 29
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120648
8/12/2010
069040 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS
(Continued)
Total :
651.93
120649
8/12/2010
014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
770780
Fleet Shop - Tie Cables, Lamps,
Fleet Shop - Tie Cables, Lamps,
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
92.49
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
8.79
Total :
101.28
120650
8/12/2010
066032 J BOZEAT & ASSOCIATES LLC
J3057/A
FIELD SERVICE
FIELD SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.480.21
570.90
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.480.21
54.24
Total :
625.14
120651
8/12/2010
073359 JUBA MARIMBA!
JUBAMARIMBA0815
PARK CONCERT PRESENTER
PARK CONCERT 8115/10
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
400.00
Total :
400.00
120652
8/12/2010
015490 K & K CONCRETE PRODUCTS
34471
Storm Supplies - Junction Boxes, J-B
Storm Supplies - Junction Boxes, J-B
411.000.652.542.400.310.00
266.85
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00
25.35
Total :
292.20
120653
8/12/2010
072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE
3412303
INV#3412303 - EDMONDS PD
MULTI USE PAPER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
129.35
HANDLING FEE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
22.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
12.29
Total :
163.64
Page: 29
Packet Page 76 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 30
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120654
8/12/2010
073355 KINKADE, JILL
KINKADE0730
REFUND
REFUND DUE TO CANCELLED CLA
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
51.00
Total :
51.00
120655
8/12/2010
070120 L E A D S.ONLINE INC
217092
INV#217092 CUST#EDWAPD-EDMC
1 YR SEARCH SERVICE PKG-RENE
001.000.410.521.210.410.00
1,428.00
Total :
1,428.00
120656
8/12/2010
073356 LAROCHE, RACHEL
LAROCHE0728
REFUND
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
500.00
Total :
500.00
120657
8/12/2010
072059 LEE, NICOLE
060710
INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01
122.95
71210
INTERPRETER FEES
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01
122.95
Total :
245.90
120658
8/12/2010
069594 LINK PIPE INC
5705
Sewer - Links Pipe
Sewer - Links Pipe
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
4,469.60
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
212.00
Total :
4,681.60
120659
8/12/2010
068694 LONG, SOKHOM
7/21/10
City holiday for the period 7/5/10
City holiday for the period 7/5/10
411.000.655.535.800.110.00
124.99
Total :
124.99
120660
8/12/2010
018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
104780
Office Supplys, Mayor Cooper
Office Supplys, Mayor Cooper
Page: 30
Packet Page 77 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 31
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120660
8/12/2010
018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
(Continued)
001.000.210.513.100.310.00
47.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00
4.54
104781
Ergonomic Tray
Ergonomic Tray
001.000.210.513.100.310.00
349.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00
33.25
Total :
435.55
120661
8/12/2010
018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
104761
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00
133.24
104762
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00
93.15
Total :
226.39
120662
8/12/2010
018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
104734
Worktable
Worktable
001.000.310.514.230.350.00
495.23
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.350.00
47.05
Total :
542.28
120663
8/12/2010
018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
104756
EDMCTY
COPIER PAPER/MARKERS/PENS
411.000.656.538.800.310.41
45.87
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41
4.36
Total :
50.23
120664
8/12/2010
018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
104698
Backorder of DAF8 film.
Backorder of DAF8 film.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
219.98
Page: 31
Packet Page 78 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 32
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120664
8/12/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
(Continued)
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
20.90
Total :
240.88
120665
8/12/2010 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
609861
Unit 91 - Hydraulic Filter
Unit 91 - Hydraulic Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
4.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
0.38
610721
Unit 12 - Curved Radiator Supplies
Unit 12 - Curved Radiator Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
3.24
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
0.31
610846
Unit 130 - Fuel Filter
Unit 130 - Fuel Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
4.25
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
0.40
610888
Unit 130 - Fuel Filter
Unit 130 - Fuel Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
10.23
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
0.97
611043
Unit 130 - Fuel Filter
Unit 130 - Fuel Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
4.25
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
0.40
611499
Unit 11 - Flasher
Unit 11 - Flasher
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
9.27
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
0.88
611917
Unit 4 - Oil Filter
Page: 32
Packet Page 79 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 33
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120665
8/12/2010
018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
(Continued)
Unit 4 - Oil Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
6.56
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
0.62
Total :
45.76
120666
8/12/2010
071140 MAD SCIENCE OF KING COUNTY
MADSCIENCE12232
MAD SCIENCE CAMP
MAD SCIENCE CAMP #12232
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
1,300.00
Total :
1,300.00
120667
8/12/2010
019583 MANPOWER INC
20639210
Receptions coverage 8/6/2010.
Receptions coverage 8/6/2010.
001.000.620.558.800.410.00
81.15
20679114
Reception coverage 7/26-7/30/10.
Reception coverage 7/26-7/30/10.
001.000.620.558.800.410.00
381.41
Total :
462.56
120668
8/12/2010
069362 MARSHALL, CITA
689
INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01
90.00
954
INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00
87.50
Total :
177.50
120669
8/12/2010
019650 MASTER POOLS OF WASHINGTON INC
55203
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
8.87
YOST POOL CHEMICALS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
93.35
Total :
102.22
120670
8/12/2010
020450 MICRO DATA
40872
INV#40872 - EDMONDS PD
2,200 CRIMINAL CITATION FORMS
Page: 33
Packet Page 80 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 34
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120670
8/12/2010
020450 MICRO DATA
(Continued)
001.000.410.521.110.310.00
583.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.110.310.00
20.44
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00
57.33
Total :
660.77
120671
8/12/2010
063773 MICROFLEX
00019429
JULY 10 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
July-10 Tax Audit Program
001.000.310.514.230.410.00
75.13
Total :
75.13
120672
8/12/2010
020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC
C 58563
Fac Maint Shop Supplies
Fac Maint Shop Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
49.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
4.75
C58600
PS - Shelving Materials
PS - Shelving Materials
001.000.410.521.910.350.00
86.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.350.00
8.26
Total :
149.91
120673
8/12/2010
068662 MINNIHAN, TERRY
63
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00
229.24
Total :
229.24
120674
8/12/2010
064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
0278135-IN
EDM110
GAS MONITOR
411.000.656.538.800.310.12
621.77
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.12
11.24
9.5% Sales Tax
Page: 34
Packet Page 81 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 35
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120674
8/12/2010
064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
(Continued)
411.000.656.538.800.310.12
60.15
Total :
693.16
120675
8/12/2010
063034 NCL
273421
13465
CYLINDER BRUSH/BOD STANDAR[
411.000.656.538.800.310.31
250.45
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31
18.94
Total :
269.39
120676
8/12/2010
024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
0433561-IN
Filters for Fuel Island
Filters for Fuel Island
511.000.657.548.680.340.12
14.14
Fileters for Fuel Island
511.000.657.548.680.340.10
37.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.12
1.34
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.10
3.61
0433878-IN
Filters for Fuel Islands
Filters for Fuel Islands
511.000.657.548.680.340.12
14.14
Filters for Fuel Island
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
9.37
Delo Oil for Fuel Island
511.000.657.548.680.340.21
47.29
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.12
1.34
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.21
4.50
Total :
134.60
120677
8/12/2010
024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY
S3515053.001
2091
Page: 35
Packet Page 82 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 36
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120677
8/12/2010
024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY
(Continued)
ELECTRICAL TAPE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
37.90
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
3.60
Total :
41.50
120678
8/12/2010
025140 NORTH PARK HEATING INC
18120
FAC - 8" Damper
FAC - 8" Damper
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
11.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
1.05
Total :
12.07
120679
8/12/2010
061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
1-164749
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:
CIVIC FI
001.000.640.576.800.450.00
189.87
Total :
189.87
120680
8/12/2010
064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO
2104467-00
RADIAL FAN
RADIAL FAN
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
697.90
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
15.58
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
67.78
Total :
781.26
120681
8/12/2010
025690 NOYES, KARIN
000 00 150
ADB Minutes on August 4, 2010.
ADB Minutes on August 4, 2010.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00
368.00
Total :
368.00
120682
8/12/2010
070306 OBERG, WILLIAM
64
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00
150.00
Page: 36
Packet Page 83 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 37
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120682
8/12/2010
070306
070306 OBERG, WILLIAM
(Continued)
Total :
150.00
120683
8/12/2010
063511
OFFICE MAX INC
289919
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
62.00
SPECIAL ORDER SERVICE CHARG
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
7.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
5.89
469740
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
17.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
1.69
501954
OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
128.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
12.23
Total :
236.36
120684
8/12/2010
063511
OFFICE MAX INC
189067
INV#189067 ACCT#520437 250POL
CD-R RECORDABLE DISCS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00
171.30
CD/DVD SLEEVES
001.000.410.521.220.310.00
243.00
SLIMLINE CD JEWEL CASES
001.000.410.521.910.310.00
37.52
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00
39.37
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00
3.56
Total :
494.75
120685
8/12/2010
063511
OFFICE MAX INC
439602
Fax toner cartridge
Fax toner cartridge
Page: 37
Packet Page 84 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 38
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120685
8/12/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
(Continued)
001.000.610.519.700.310.00
26.88
Fax toner cartridge
001.000.220.516.100.310.00
26.87
Fax toner cartridge
001.000.210.513.100.310.00
26.86
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00
2.55
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00
2.55
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00
2.56
Total : 88.27
120686
8/12/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
323320
INKJET CARTRIDGE
CYAN CARTRIDGE
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
35.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
3.34
430680
PAPER
ORCHID PAPER
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
7.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
0.72
454308
SHEET PROTECTORS
SHEET PROTECTORS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
25.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
2.41
479876
LAMINATING POUCHES
LAMINATING POUCHES
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
30.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
2.86
494786
PAPER
LEGAL PAPER
Page: 38
Packet Page 85 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 39
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120686
8/12/2010
063511 OFFICE MAX INC
(Continued)
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
19.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
1.84
495271
DISCOVERY PROGRAM FOLDERS
FOLDERS FOR DISCOVERY PROGI
001.000.640.574.350.310.00
22.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.350.310.00
2.12
500267
PAPER FOR POOL
BLUE COVER STOCK FOR POOL
001.000.640.575.510.310.00
11.67
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.510.310.00
1.12
561257
ENVELOPES
ASSORTED ENVELOPES, STAPLE
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
121.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
11.59
566285
INKJET CARTRIDGE
BLACK INK CARTRIDGE
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
29.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
2.78
Total :
331.58
120687
8/12/2010
063511 OFFICE MAX INC
451526
PW - 11x17 Paper
PW - 11x17 Paper
001.000.650.519.910.310.00
44.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00
4.22
Total :
48.70
120688
8/12/2010
070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
July, 2010
COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSP
Emergency Medical Services & Traun
001.000.000.237.120.000.00
1,656.95
Page: 39
Packet Page 86 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 40
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120688
8/12/2010
070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
(Continued)
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
001.000.000.237.130.000.00
35,218.18
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.000.237.150.000.00
126.00
State Patrol Death Investigations
001.000.000.237.170.000.00
459.58
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.000.237.180.000.00
5,758.70
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.000.237.200.000.00
655.92
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.000.237.250.000.00
3,225.43
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.000.237.260.000.00
612.39
Total :
47,713.15
120689
8/12/2010
026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT
0060860
23700 104TH AVE W
23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
75.61
Total :
75.61
120690
8/12/2010
063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
045041
YOST POOL CHEMICALS
YOST POOL CHEMICALS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
192.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
18.26
Total :
210.46
120691
8/12/2010
066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION
AX3768
B/W copy overage fee (715)
B/W copy overage fee (715)
411.000.654.534.800.480.00
3.57
B/W copy overage fee (715)
411.000.655.535.800.480.00
3.57
B/W copy overage fee (715)
411.000.652.542.900.480.00
3.57
Page: 40
Packet Page 87 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 41
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120691
8/12/2010
066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION
(Continued)
B/W copy overage fee (715)
111.000.653.542.900.480.00
3.57
Color copy overage fee (816)
411.000.654.534.800.480.00
24.17
Color copy overage fee (816)
411.000.655.535.800.480.00
24.17
Color copy overage fee (816)
411.000.652.542.900.480.00
24.17
Color copy overage fee (816)
111.000.653.542.900.480.00
24.15
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00
2.64
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.480.00
2.64
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.480.00
2.64
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.480.00
2.62
Total :
121.48
120692
8/12/2010
027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
103428
BRUSH DUMP
BRUSH DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
475.20
Total :
475.20
120693
8/12/2010
027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
352618
Strorm Dump fees
Strorm Dump fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00
333.00
Total :
333.00
120694
8/12/2010
027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.
952040
Library - Paint Supplies
Library - Paint Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
40.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
3.82
Page: 41
Packet Page 88 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 42
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120694
8/12/2010
027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.
(Continued)
952510
City Hall - Finance - Paint Supplies
City Hall - Finance - Paint Supplies
001.000.310.514.230.490.00
96.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.490.00
9.13
954104
Library - Paint Supplies
Library - Paint Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
34.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
3.23
954897
FAC - Paint Supplies
FAC - Paint Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
20.63
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
1.96
Total :
209.14
120695
8/12/2010
066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP
CAMPCASH0811
DAYCAMP PETTY CASH REIMBUR:
REIMBURSEMENT FOR DAYCAMP
001.000.640.575.530.310.00
135.58
DAYCAMP PICTURES & BOWLING
001.000.640.575.530.490.00
45.37
Total :
180.95
120696
8/12/2010
070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC
95007
INV#95007 - EDMONDS PD - #10-26
TOWING MERCURY #007UQL
001.000.410.521.220.410.00
158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00
15.01
Total :
173.01
120697
8/12/2010
073357 PELLITTERI, BRENDA
PELLITTERI0727
REFUND
REFUND FOR CANCELLED CLASS
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
60.00
Total :
60.00
Page: 42
Packet Page 89 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 43
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120698
8/12/2010
069690
PERFORMANCE RADIATOR
2989769
Unit 648 - Radiator
Unit 648 - Radiator
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
176.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
16.72
2996310
Unit 235 - Radiator
Unit 235 - Radiator
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
176.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
16.72
3029361
Unit 649 - Radiator
Unit 649 - Radiator
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
176.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
16.72
Total :
578.16
120699
8/12/2010
072838
PNSCTA
0283
PRETREATMENT WORKSHOP/LEIf
PRETREATMENT WORKSHOP/LEIS
411.000.656.538.800.490.71
200.00
Total :
200.00
120700
8/12/2010
073150
POLLARD, ANDREA F
126
Street - Flagging Class
Street - Flagging Class
111.000.653.542.310.490.00
120.00
Total :
120.00
120701
8/12/2010
071811
PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
186104
INV#186104 ACCT#2772 - EDMOND
RETURN ITEMS TO BROWNELLS
001.000.410.521.100.420.00
16.11
Total :
16.11
120702
8/12/2010
071811
PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
185616
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
111.000.653.542.900.420.00
2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
Page: 43
Packet Page 90 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 44
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
120702 8/12/2010 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR (Continued)
185732
185863
186004
186124
PO # Description/Account Amount
411.000.652.542.900.420.00
2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
2.25
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
111.000.653.542.900.420.00
2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
411.000.652.542.900.420.00
2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
2.25
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
111.000.653.542.900.420.00
2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
411.000.652.542.900.420.00
2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
2.25
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
111.000.653.542.900.420.00
2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
411.000.652.542.900.420.00
2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
2.25
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
111.000.653.542.900.420.00
2.24
Page: 44
Packet Page 91 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 45
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120702
8/12/2010
071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
(Continued)
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
411.000.652.542.900.420.00
2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safet
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
2.25
Total :
44.85
120703
8/12/2010
064088 PROTECTION ONE
31146525
24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING -Cl'
24 hour Alarm Monitoring -City Hall
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
37.85
Total :
37.85
120704
8/12/2010
070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE
10-440
COURT SECURITY
COURT SECURITY
001.000.230.512.500.410.00
2,252.50
Total :
2,252.50
120705
8/12/2010
030455 PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
201126
Memebership Dues 7/1/10-7/1/11
Memebership Dues 7/1/10-7/1/11
001.000.390.519.900.490.00
14,665.00
Economic Develpmnt District
001.000.390.519.900.490.00
1,287.00
Total :
15,952.00
120706
8/12/2010
064291 QWEST
233242
INV#233242 - EDMONDS PD
AMA REQUEST - #10-1150
001.000.410.521.210.410.00
150.00
Total :
150.00
120707
8/12/2010
068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC
52440
E01A.SERVICES FROM 6/28-7/25/10
E01A.Services from 6/28-7/25110
412.100.630.594.320.410.00
1,230.10
Total :
1,230.10
120708
8/12/2010
069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN
7472
PUBLIC DEFENDER
Page: 45
Packet Page 92 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 46
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120708
8/12/2010
069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN
(Continued)
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00
400.00
Total :
400.00
120709
8/12/2010
073066 SAFARILAND LLC
110-051253
INV#110-051253 - CUST #EDMPOL-E
BAL OF SALES TAX ON #D10-0003C
001.000.410.521.400.350.00
28.50
Total :
28.50
120710
8/12/2010
069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC
00446-599760
Unit 106 - Windshield
Unit 106 - Windshield
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
432.06
01804-308818
Unit 537 - Chip Repair
Unit 537 - Chip Repair
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
29.95
Total :
462.01
120711
8/12/2010
072375 SAMIONE, JAMI
SAMIONE12377
FUN FACTORY CLASSES
FUN FACTORY #12377
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
516.60
FUN FACTORY #12378
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
516.60
Total :
1,033.20
120712
8/12/2010
036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC
14-219128
Unit 124 & 137 - Jack & 2" Caster
Unit 124 & 137 - Jack & 2" Caster
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
91.88
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
8.73
14-219230
Unit 36- Supplies
Unit 36- Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
42.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
4.03
14-219422
Storm Supplies - Floor Dry
Page: 46
Packet Page 93 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 47
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120712
8/12/2010
036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC
(Continued)
Storm Supplies - Floor Dry
411.000.652.542.400.310.00
349.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00
33.16
Total :
529.20
120713
8/12/2010
036955 SKY NURSERY
287819
Storm - Turf Stakes
Storm - Turf Stakes
411.000.652.542.400.310.00
14.85
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00
1.41
Total :
16.26
120714
8/12/2010
037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1
10-0113
Q2-10 Ambulance Billings & Postage
Q2-10 Ambulance Billings & Postage
001.000.390.526.100.410.00
13,042.36
Total :
13,042.36
120715
8/12/2010
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
2003-2646-0
1000 EDMONDS ST
1000 EDMONDS ST
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
30.02
2013-2711-1
610 PINE ST
610 PINE ST
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
31.55
2015-5730-3
750 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
750 15TH ST SW/EDMONDS CEME-
130.000.640.536.500.470.00
133.48
2022-5063-5
930 9TH AVE N
930 9TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
30.02
Total :
225.07
120716
8/12/2010
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
106928071
2002-0255-4
24400 HIGHWAY 99/RICHMOND PA
411.000.656.538.800.471.62
28.32
Page: 47
Packet Page 94 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 48
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120716
8/12/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62
1.70
120216943
2019-9517-2
9805 EDMONDS WAY WESTGATE
411.000.656.538.800.471.62
29.76
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62
1.79
126862481
2019-2988-2
8421 244TH/RICHMOND PARK
411.000.656.538.800.471.62
28.32
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62
1.70
Total :
91.59
120717
8/12/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
201103561
SIGNAL LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVE
SIGNAL LIGHT - 23800 Firdale Ave
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
55.17
201690849
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 900 PUGET DR
Traffic Signal - 900 Puget Dr
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
30.02
201711785
STREET LIGHTING (150 WATTS = 1
Street Lighting (150 Watts = 183 light:
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
1,406.33
201790003
TELEMETRY SYSTEM
TELEMETRY SYSTEM
411.000.654.534.800.470.00
29.01
202529186
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (200WATTS
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (200WATTS
111.000.653.542.630.470.00
2,649.74
202529202
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (400WATTS
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTING (400WAT'
111.000.653.542.630.470.00
184.24
202576153
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (100WATTS
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (100WATTS
111.000.653.542.630.470.00
13,807.75
Page: 48
Packet Page 95 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 49
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120717
8/12/2010
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
202579488
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (250WATTS
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (250WATTS
111.000.653.542.630.470.00
596.97
Total :
18,759.23
120718
8/12/2010
006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY
1000248585
DUMP FEES #56317
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
919.00
Total :
919.00
120719
8/12/2010
064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER
2010-390
INV#2010-390 - EDMONDS PD
67.67 BOOKINGS FOR 07/10
001.000.410.523.600.510.00
6,090.30
528.92 HOUSING DAYS FOR 07/10
001.000.410.523.600.510.00
33,057.50
REFUND 9 HOUSING DAYS $42
001.000.410.523.600.510.00
-378.00
REFUND 17 HOUSING DAYS $28
001.000.410.523.600.510.00
-476.00
WORK RELEASE FEE FOR 07/10
001.000.410.523.600.510.00
1,680.00
Total :
39,973.80
120720
8/12/2010
070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER
July-2010
07/10 CRIME VICTIMS COURT REM
Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.000.237.140.000.00
916.93
Total :
916.93
120721
8/12/2010
069844 SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PLLC
1100708-1
Water Sewer - SCADA System Techic
Water Sewer - SCADA System Techic
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
697.50
Water Sewer - SCADA System Techic
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
697.50
Total :
1,395.00
120722
8/12/2010
038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
103587
DISPOSAL SERVICES
Page: 49
Packet Page 96 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 50
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120722
8/12/2010
038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
(Continued)
PARK MAINTENANCE DISPOSAL SI
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
670.49
Total :
670.49
120723
8/12/2010
038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
103584
RECYCLING
RECYCLING
411.000.656.538.800.475.66
28.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.475.66
1.70
Total :
29.95
120724
8/12/2010
038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
103583
garbage & recycle for PS
garbage & recycle for PS
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
550.68
103585
garbage & recycle for FAC
garbage & recycle for FAC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
674.47
103586
garbage & recycle for Library
garbage & recycle for Library
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
555.23
103588
garbage & recycle -City Hall
garbage & recycle -City Hall
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
459.89
Total :
2,240.27
120725
8/12/2010
038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
4169899-01
Fac Maint - Painters Bib Overalls -
Fac Maint - Painters Bib Overalls -
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
32.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
3.13
Total :
36.08
120726
8/12/2010
073347 SPUNSTRAND INC
11044
DUCT REPAIR
DUCT REPAIR
411.000.656.538.800.480.21
2,882.00
Page: 50
Packet Page 97 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 51
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120726
8/12/2010
073347 SPUNSTRAND INC
(Continued)
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.480.21
260.00
Total :
3,142.00
120727
8/12/2010
071585 STERICYCLE INC
3001036672
INV#3001036672 CUST#6076358 EE
MINIMUM MONTHLY SERVICE CHA
001.000.410.521.910.410.00
10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.410.00
0.36
Total :
10.36
120728
8/12/2010
040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
2257276
FAC - Elect Supplies
FAC - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
95.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
9.12
2257277
PS - Elect Supplies
PS - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
21.06
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
2.00
2260295
FAC - Elect Supplies
FAC - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
74.54
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
7.08
Total :
209.76
120729
8/12/2010
009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
101415-7/31/2010
NEWSPAPER ADS
Council, TBD & Plan. Agendas
001.000.250.514.300.440.00
1,808.91
Total :
1,808.91
120730
8/12/2010
009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
1703567
NEWSPAPER AD
ORDINANCE 3800
Page: 51
Packet Page 98 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 52
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
120730
8/12/2010
009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
(Continued)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00
32.20
1704623
NEWSPAPER ADS
8-3 TBD PUBLIC HEARING
001.000.250.514.300.440.00
77.56
1704890
NEWSPAPER AD
Ordinance 3801
001.000.250.514.300.440.00
30.52
1704895
NEWSPAPER AD
Ordinance 3802
001.000.250.514.300.440.00
32.20
1704896
NEWSPAPER AD
Ordinance 3803
001.000.250.514.300.440.00
33.88
1705514
NEWSPAPER AD
8-16 HEARING (PRD)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00
67.48
Total :
273.84
120731
8/12/2010
009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
1703665
Accounting Assistant, #10-25
Accounting Assistant, #10-25
001.000.220.516.100.440.00
159.06
Executive Assistant to the Mayor, #10
001.000.220.516.100.440.00
172.42
Total :
331.48
120732
8/12/2010
009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
1703188
AMD2010-4 Notice of Dev. Ap & Plan
AMD2010-4 Notice of Dev. Ap & Plan
001.000.620.558.600.440.00
75.88
1704897
AMD20100021/City of Edmonds - Not
AMD20100021/City of Edmonds - Not
001.000.620.558.600.440.00
50.68
1705191
PLN20100031.Notice of Historic
PLN20100031.Notice of Historic
001.000.620.558.600.440.00
84.28
Page: 52
Packet Page 99 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 53
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : front
Voucher Date
Vendor Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120732 8/12/2010
009350 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY (Continued)
Total :
210.84
120733 8/12/2010
038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 587171
MUSEUM MAINT
monthly elevator maint-museum
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
188.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
17.86
587172
FAC MAINT
monthly elevator maint-FAC
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
829.53
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
78.81
587173
MONTHLY ELEVATOR MAINT-LIBR)
Monthly elevator maint-Library
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
822.18
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
78.10
587174
PUBLIC SAFETY
Quarterly Elevator Maint-PS
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
711.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
67.55
587175
MONITORING -PS
Monitoring -PS 8/1-8/31/10
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
41.90
587176
BI-MONTHLY ELEVATOR MONITOR
Monthly elevator monitoring -Library
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
64.14
594860
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAIN
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAIN
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
154.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
14.71
594861
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MONI
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAIN
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
12.61
Page: 53
Packet Page 100 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 54
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120733
8/12/2010
038315 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (Continued)
Total :
3,081.49
120734
8/12/2010
071590 TOWEILL RICE TAYLOR LLC
Edmonds-July2010
Retainer: Hearing and writing service
Retainer: Hearing and writing service
001.000.620.558.600.410.00
3,600.00
Edmonds-July2010EXP
Postage for Talbot Road/Perrinville
Postage for Talbot Road/Perrinville
001.000.620.558.600.410.00
9.57
Total :
3,609.57
120735
8/12/2010
073358 TRUEB, LORI
TRUEB0726
REFUND
CLASS REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
52.00
Total :
52.00
120736
8/12/2010
061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
8533679
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
NIPS, EXTENSIONS, NOZZLES, ET(
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
935.09
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
88.83
8534148
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
NOZZLES, NIPS, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
35.19
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
3.35
Total :
1,062.46
120737
8/12/2010
061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
8506503
Water - 3/4" Mtr Setters
Water - 3/4" Mtr Setters
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
1,324.40
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
125.82
8524433
Water Meter Inventory -
Water Meter Inventory -
411.000.654.534.800.342.00
2,525.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.342.00
217.20
Page: 54
Packet Page 101 of 380
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 55
08/12/2010
1:30:22PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120737
8/12/2010
061192 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
(Continued)
Total :
4,192.92
120738
8/12/2010
072335 UNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND
BISBEE0810
SCHOLARSHIP
SCHOLARSHIP: JENNICA BISBEE
117.300.640.573.100.490.00
1,000.00
Total :
1,000.00
120739
8/12/2010
064423 USA BLUE BOOK
197994
Water - Utility Lock
Water - Utility Lock
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
247.20
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
43.01
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
27.57
Total :
317.78
120740
8/12/2010
072172 VAUGHAN, ERIC
2613
VAUGHAN/TRAVEL
VAUGHAN/TRAVEL
411.000.656.538.800.430.00
103.50
Total :
103.50
120741
8/12/2010
073196 VC "SKIP" MOYERS
001
PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00
400.00
Total :
400.00
120742
8/12/2010
069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP
23233819
Temp Bldg Dept 7/19-7/23/10
Temp Bldg Dept 7/19-7/23/10
001.000.620.524.100.410.00
416.00
23297920
Temp Bldg Dept 7/26-7/30/10
Temp Bldg Dept 7/26-7/30/10
001.000.620.524.100.410.00
416.00
Total :
832.00
120743
8/12/2010
063439 WA DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
12
TREE SIGNS
4 WILDLIFE TREE SIGNS
001.000.640.574.350.310.00
20.00
Page: 55
Packet Page 102 of 380
vchlist Voucher List Page: 56
08/12/2010 1:30:22PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
front
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
120743
8/12/2010
063439 063439 WA DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE (Continued)
Total :
20.00
120744
8/12/2010
065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL
111000762
INV#111000762 EDM301
BACKGROUND CHECKS 07/2010
001.000.000.237.100.000.00
211.75
Total :
211.75
120745
8/12/2010
067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS
06-8085
Street - Remove 1 Pine & 4 Doug Fir
Street - Remove 1 Pine & 4 Doug Fir
111.000.653.542.710.480.00
420.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.480.00
39.90
Total :
459.90
120746
8/12/2010
049208 WESTERN EQUIP DIST INC
644292
Unit 109 - (4) Air Filters
Unit 109 - (4) Air Filters
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
61.44
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
9.86
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
6.77
Total :
78.07
120747
8/12/2010
064213 WSSUA TREASURER
530
UMPIRING
MEN'S AND CO-ED UMPIRING
001.000.640.575.520.410.00
3,894.00
Total :
3,894.00
182
Vouchers for bank code : front
Bank total :
308,787.55
182
Vouchers in this report
Total vouchers :
308,787.55
Page: 56
Packet Page 103 of 380
AM-3286
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/16/2010
Time: Consent
Submitted For: Mayor Cooper
Department: City Clerk's Office
Review
r nmmittPP-
Submitted By: Sandy Chase
Committee
Action:
Type: Action
Information
Item #: 2. D.
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Amendment to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for the
Southwest Snohomish County Public Safety Communications Agency (SNOCOM).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the amendment.
Previous Council Action
On December 14, 2004, the City Council approved the 2004 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for the
Southwest Snohomish County Public Safety Communications Agency (Exhibit 1).
Narrative
SNOCOM submitted the proposed Amendment (Exhibit 2) that returns Fire District 1 as a voting member
to the SNOCOM Board of Directors. SNOCOM is requesting the City Council's approval of this change.
A representative of SNOCOM will be present at the meeting if you should have any questions.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - 2004 SNOCOM Interlocal Agreement
Exhibit 2 - Amendment to SNOCOM Interlocal Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/12/2010 04:23 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/12/2010 05:33 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 08/12/2010 10:04 AM
Final Approval Date: 08/12/2010
Packet Page 104 of 380
2004 INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
FOR THE
SOUTHWEST SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY
This 2004 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for the Southwest Snohomish County
Public Safety Communications Agency ("Agreement") is entered into by and between all of the
municipalities, agencies, and entities listed on Exhibit A attached hereto, and shall be effective
on the date on which it has been adopted by the legislative authority of the last of each such
municipality, agency, and entity.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34, RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act) permits local government
units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other
localities and thereby to provide services and facilities in a manner that will accord best with
geographic, economic, population, and other factors influencing the needs and development of
local communities; and
WHEREAS, various municipalities, agencies, and entities located within Snohomish
County since 1971 have been parties to an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Southwest
Snohomish County Public Safety Communications Agency, and amendments thereto, aimed at
providing consolidated emergency and public safety communications and records to maximize
efficiency and effectiveness of service to the public at minimum costs; and
WHEREAS, a need has arisen, as recognized by the Board of Directors of the Southwest
Snohomish County Public Safety Communications Agency ("SNOCOM"), and its current
Member Agencies, to consolidate, amend, and make more concise all existing agreements
relating to SNOCOM; and
WHEREAS, to these objectives these municipalities, agencies, and entities are, or will
be, committing themselves by appropriate legislative action;
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AGREED, upon approval of each of the municipalities,
_ agencies, and entities in accordance with RCW 39.34.030:
1. CONTINUATION OF SNOCOM. SNOCOM is hereby continued in operation so
that its current and future Member Agencies can continue to meet their combined needs for
public safety communications, records retention and usage, and other approved functions in the
most efficient and effective manner.
- 315 15--147
Packet Page 105 of 380
2. CONTINUATION OF CONTRACTS RIGHTS AND DUTIES. All contracts,
rights, and duties between SNOCOM and any other persons, organizations, or entities shall
continue in effect and shall not be affected by the adoption of this Agreement.
3. PRIOR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS SUPERSEDED. This Agreement is
intended to supercede and replace all prior interlocal agreements and amendments thereto
relating to SNOCOM.
4. MEMBERSHIP. The "Member Agencies" of SNOCOM shall be the
municipalities, agencies, and entities listed in Exhibit A, that have approved this Agreement in
accordance with RCW 39.34.030, and that have not subsequently withdrawn or been terminated
from membership, as well as those municipalities, agencies, and entities that from time to time
may be permitted by the Member Agencies to join SNOCOM as Member Agencies and that shall
approve this Agreement, and any amendments thereto, in accordance with RCW 39.34.030 and
the provisions of this Agreement.
5. PURPOSE. Through this Agreement, the Member Agencies assign to SNOCOM
the responsibility and authority for public safety communications, certain records retention and
usage, and other approved functions, for the purpose of communications and dispatching for
public health and safety services in Southwest Snohomish County.
6. BOARD OF DIRECTORS. SNOCOM shall be governed by a Board of Directors
("Board") composed of Board Members appointed by the legislative bodies of the various
Member Agencies to this Agreement. Each Member Agency shall be entitled to the number of
Board Members specified in Exhibit A. Each Member Agency shall designate one or more
"Alternate Board Member(s)" for its Board Member position(s). Alternate Board Members,
whose names shall be filed with SNOCOM, shall act in lieu of the Board Member when the
Board Member is not otherwise available to attend meetings. The Alternate Board Member shall
have full powers to vote and act as a Board Member at all meetings that the Alternate Board
Member attends in lieu of the regular Board Member.
7. VOTING. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, decisions of the Board
shall be made by majority vote among those Board Members (or Alternate Board Members) then
present and voting; provided that a quorum must be present for the Board to take any official
action.
8. BOARD OF DIRECTORS POWERS. In furtherance of its purposes, the Board
shall have the power to:
a. acquire, construct, receive, own, manage, lease, and sell real, personal, and
intangible property;
b. operate and maintain SNOCOM's equipment and facilities;
enter into contracts with public and private entities;
d. employ and terminate personnel, with or without cause, and contract for
personnel and services with public and private entities;
2
Packet Page 106 of 380
e. defend and pursue legal actions;
f. establish and collect rates, fees, charges, and collect assessments as
determined by this Agreement;
g. establish policies, guidelines, or regulations to carry out SNOCOM's
operations and responsibilities; and
h. exercise all other powers that are within the statutory authority of, and
may be exercised by, its Member Agencies with respect to the public health and safety
communications, recordkeeping responsibility and other duties that each Member Agency has
assigned to SNOCOM pursuant to this Agreement.
9. BOARD DUTIES.
a. Board Chair/Meetings. The Board, at its February meeting, shall elect a
Chair and Vice -Chair from among the Board Members. The Chair will be the presiding officer
of the Board and Board meetings. The Vice -Chair will act as the presiding officer in the Chair's
absence, unless the Vice -Chair is also absent, in which case the Chair will appoint a Board
Member to act as the presiding officer. Should the Chair resign from his or her position during
the year, the Vice -Chair will assume the position of Chair, and the Board shall elect a new Vice -
Chair. At the February meeting, the Board also shall determine the time and place of its
meetings; provided that the Board may, with notice, change its meeting schedule. The Board
shall hold at least one regular meeting each quarter, except when the Board in its discretion
chooses to meet less frequently.
b. Board Committees. The presiding officer may, as the need exists, create
Committees to engage in activities in support of the Board's work. Committees will be
composed of Board Members, Alternate Board Members or members of the Technical Advisory
Committees (see Section 10), as appointed by the presiding officer. Committee members shall
serve at the will of the presiding officer.
C. Agency Director. The Board shall appoint a SNOCOM Director, who
shall be selected based on his or her technical and administrative competence. The Director shall
report to the presiding officer and be responsible to the Board; shall advise the Board, by budget
proposals and other appropriate means, with regard to legislative action being considered by the
Board; shall administer the program and operations of SNOCOM consistent with policies
adopted by the Board; shall be the Board's financial officer, with any disbursements exceeding
budgeted amounts to be approved in advance by the Board; and shall perform sueh additional
duties and exercise such additional authority as the Board may, from time to time, assign to or
confer upon the Director.
d. Additional Services. The Board shall evaluate and determine the
appropriateness of including additional communications, dispatching or other- services for
Member Agencies and others, when so requested, and shall determine whether and how such
services should be provided and the appropriate fees for such services; provided that such fees
shall offset all installation and operational costs applicable to such services. Additional services
may include, but shall not be limited to, alarms for public and private buildings, communications
Packet Page 107 of 380
and dispatching for public works and public utility operations, and telephone response for local
governments during non -business hours. The Board shall not approve additional services that
detract from the effectiveness of SNOCOM's emergency and public safety communications
services.
e. Operational Enhancements. It shall be the objective of the Board to
encourage future additional cooperation among Member Agencies. The Director, with the
advice and assistance of the Technical Advisory Committees, shall actively consider and
evaluate opportunities that would enhance the operational effectiveness of public health and
safety communications, to the benefit of the taxpayers and residents of the areas served. The
Director's and/or Technical Advisory Committees' recommendations and proposed actions shall
be presented to the Board and, when the Board so recommends, to participating Member
Agencies.
f. Personnel Policies. The presiding officer may, as needs require, appoint a
Personnel Committee, which shall advise the Board and the Director in the formulation and
administration of SNOCOM's personnel policies. The Board shall establish the personnel
policies of SNOCOM, and revise them as the Board deems appropriate. Employees may be
hired by the Director after selection in a manner approved by the Board.
g. Budget/Member Contribution. The Board shall consider and give
approval to SNOCOM's annual budget prior to October 1 of the preceding year; provided that
the Board may, by resolution, set a revised deadline as required. The Board shall advise the
Member Agencies of the program and objectives of the budget, the financial participation of
each Member Agency and the planned use of reserves for the ensuing year. No expenditures
outside an approved budget may be made by SNOCOM without express Board approval. Any
and all revenues received by SNOCOM shall be placed in accounts approved by the Board.
(1) The allocation of financial participation between Member
Agencies shall be determined as follows:
(i) The annual budget shall be split 1/3 to the fire dispatch
function and 2/3 to the police dispatch function.
(ii) All Member Agencies participating in the fire dispatch
function shall be allocated the cost of that function as follows: the 2004 (and each subsequent
year) fixed costs of 46% of the fire dispatch function budget share (1/3 of the total budget) shall
be allocated 1/2 based on population for the ensuing year (as determined by the State Census
Bureau for the current year and with boundaries to be those existing as of the date of the census
_ approval), and 1/2 of the 46% based on the assessed valuation within each Member Agency's
jurisdiction (as certified by the Snohomish County Assessor for the ensuing year); the variable
cost which is 54% of the total fire dispatch budget share shall be allocated to Member Agencies
based on the number of fire dispatchable calls and referral calls for their jurisdictions during the
past year.
(iii) All Member Agencies participating in the police dispatch
function shall be allocated the cost of that function as follows: the 2004 (and each subsequent
0
Packet Page 108 of 380
year) fixed costs of 46% of the police dispatch function budget share (2/3 of the total budget)
shall be allocated 1/2 based on population for the ensuing year (as determined by the State
Census Bureau for the current year and with boundaries to be those existing as of the date of the
census approval), and 1/2 of the 46% based on the assessed valuation within each Member
Agency's jurisdiction (as certified by the Snohomish County Assessor for the ensuing year); the
variable cost which is 54% of the total police dispatch budget share shall be allocated to Member
Agencies based on the number of police dispatchable calls and referral calls for their jurisdiction
during the past year.
(2) The Board may increase the required financial contributions of the
Member Agencies within a budget year to meet emergency needs or cover extraordinary
expenses not anticipated in SNOCOM's approved budget.
(3) From time to time, some form of new service may be available to
make all or part of SNOCOM's operation more beneficial to some participating Member
Agencies than to others. If this should be the case, and after the Board has approved such an
addition or operation, then all Member Agencies participating in the new service shall share in
costs of said service based on an assessment formula approved by the Board.
(4) If a new Member Agency joins SNOCOM, the Board shall
determine the financial contribution for the new Member Agency from the effective date of
membership until the next regular cost allocation among all Member Agencies.
10. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES. Police and Fire Technical Advisory
Committees, to be composed of the Police and Fire Chiefs of the Member Agencies, or their
designees, shall meet periodically with the Director to assist and advise the Director as to
operational and procedural matters. Each Technical Advisory Committees shall select an
individual to act as its chair. The chairs shall advise the Board at its regularly scheduled
meetings, and otherwise as appropriate, of the needs of the operating departments serviced by
SNOCOM.
11. EQUIPMENT. As needed, and in conformance with the approved budget,
equipment and furnishings may be acquired by, and title shall rest with, SNOCOM. The
Director shall maintain a schedule of such equipment. When preparing the proposed budget for
the ensuing year, the Director shall present to the Board any proposed changes to SNOCOM's
equipment or furnishings that will require additional financial contributions by the Member
Agencies,
12. WITHDRAWAL/DISSOLUTION.
a. Withdrawal. Any Member Agency may withdraw from SNOCOM by
giving written notice of no less than twenty-four (24) months (the "Withdrawal Period"). The
written notice must contain evidence of approval of the withdrawal by the Member Agency's
legislative authority. The withdrawal will be effective on December 31 following the expiration
of the Withdrawal Period. Once submitted, a notice of withdrawal may be rescinded only with
approval of the Board.
Packet Page 109 of 380
b. Dissolution. SNOCOM will be dissolved effective December 31 of any
year in which the Member Agencies unanimously vote for dissolution.
13. DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY AND FUNDS UPON DISSOLUTION. Upon
the dissolution of SNOCOM, after payment of all valid costs, expenses, and charges incurred by
SNOCOM, the Agency and/or the Board shall disburse all funds held by SNOCOM, as well as
any funds derived from the sale of any property, to the then participating Member Agencies in an
amount by proportion to the Member Agency's percentage of contribution made during the year
of dissolution.
Any Member Agency whose withdrawal from this Agreement has become effective as
provided in Section 12(a), or whose termination has become effective as provided in Section
12(c), shall have no right to any portion of SNOCOM's assets by virtue of its participation in
SNOCOM prior to the effective date of its withdrawal or termination.
Any Member Agency that, having withdrawn from or been terminated by SNOCOM, is
subsequently permitted to renew its membership shall share in any disbursement of assets upon
dissolution in the same manner as any other Member Agency.
14. OPERATIONAL INTERCONNECTS. Each Member Agency shall retain the
responsibility for and authority over its operational departments, and for such equipment and
services as are required at its place of operation to interconnect with SNOCOM's operations.
Interconnecting equipment and services may be included in SNOCOM's budget and operational
program.
15. INSURANCE. SNOCOM shall maintain, and shall include in its budget
provision for, liability and casualty insurance policies as the Board shall determine appropriate.
This obligation may be accomplished by participation in an insurance pool established in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington.
16. INDEMNIFICATION/SURVIVAL OF INDEMNITY. The Member Agencies
and any former Member Agencies shall share in any excess liability of SNOCOM for claims,
losses, or liabilities that arose during a budget year on the same percentage basis as their relative
financial participation in SNOCOM for that budget year, as determined in Section 9(g) above.
"Excess liability" shall refer to liability incurred by SNOCOM, as determined by judgment or
approved settlement agreement, that is in excess of applicable insurance coverage. Whether or
not a claim, loss, or liability arose during a particular budget year shall be determined by the date
on which the incident or incidents occurred that gave rise to such liability. A Member Agency
that withdraws from SNOCOM shall by its participation in any budget year be obligated to share
in any excess liability arising during that budget year as stated herein.
17. RECORDS ACCESS. SNOCOM shall be responsible for ensuring that its use of
confidential information complies with all applicable laws. SNOCOM shall establish rules and
regulations governing access to and security for the data communications network and for any
confidential information it receives. Such rules and regulations shall be consistent with the
applicable laws governing confidentiality and authorized uses of such records.
no
Packet Page 110 of 380
t
18. FILING. Prior to its entry in force, this Agreement shall be filed with the
Snohomish County Auditor, as required by RCW 39.34.040, and with the City Clerks or other
appropriate office of any Member Agency.
19. VALIDITY. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or
unenforceable, all of the other provisions shall remain valid and enforceable notwithstanding,
unless the provision found to be unenforceable is of such material effect that this Agreement
cannot be performed in accordance with the intent of the Member Agencies in the absence
thereof.
20. AUTHORITY. This Agreement shall be executed on behalf of each Member
Agency by its authorized representative, pursuant to appropriate legislative action by such
Member Agency. It shall be deemed adopted upon the date of execution by the last so
authorized representative.
21. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement, and any exhibits to it, may be amended by
written agreement approved by appropriate legislative action by all participating Member
Agencies.
22. WAIVER. Nothing herein shall be deemed to waive the immunities established
pursuant to RCW 38.52.180 et seq. or to create third party rights or liabilities.
THIS AGREEMENT is approved and entered into by the undersigned local government
units:
CITY OF BRIER, WASHINGTON
By
Date
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
By
Date
CITY OF LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON
By-..-----
Date
CITY OF MILL CREEK, WASHINGTON
By
Date / -16-0�
7
Packet Page 111 of 380
CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WASHINGTON
By
Date 1 lip
CI SH GTO
BTKILTE7O,�A
�
Date —
TOWN OF WOODWAY, WASHINGTON
((::nn
By 4 LZ l.� ,�, �LbJ-4
Date3 S�
Packet Page 112 of 380
Exhibit A
The following municipalities, agencies, and entities are Member Agencies of SNOCOM,
and are entitled to appoint the number of Board Members identified below:
Entity
Number of Board Members
City of Brier
1
City of Edmonds
2
City of Lynnwood
2
City of Mill Creek
1
City of Mountlake Terrace
2
City of Mukilteo
1
Town of Woodway
1
As provided in Paragraph 21 of the Agreement, this Exhibit may be amended by written
agreement approved by all Member Agencies.
0
Packet Page 113 of 380
AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR THE
SOUTHWEST SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY
This is an Amendment to the 2004 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for the Southwest
Snohomish County Public Safety Communications Agency (the "Agreement")
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting of July 22, 2010, the Board of Directors for
Southwest Snohomish County Public Safety Communications Agency ("SNOCOM"), approved
a motion to restore Snohomish County Fire District No. 1, as a SNOCOM Member Agency; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Paragraph 21 of the Agreement, SNOCOM desires to
include Snohomish County Fire District No. 1, as specified in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT AGREED, pursuant to the appropriate resolution or
ordinance of each local government, this Amendment shall be effective on the last date on which
it has been adopted, approved and executed by the authorized representative of each
municipality, agency, and entity listed on Exhibit A.
CITY OF BRIER, WASHINGTON
By
Date
CITY OF LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON
By
Date
CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE,
WASHINGTON
By
Date
TOWN OF WOODWAY, WASHINGTON
By
Date
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
By
Date
CITY OF MILL CREEK, WASHINGTON
By
Date
CITY OF MUKILTEO, WASHINGTON
By
Date
SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
NO. 1
By_
Date
Packet Page 114 of 380
Exhibit A
The following municipalities, agencies, and entities are Member Agencies of SNOCOM,
and are entitled to appoint the number of Board Members identified below:
Entity
Number of Board Members
City of Brier
1
City of Edmonds
2
City of Lynnwood
2
City of Mill Creek
1
City of Mountlake Terrace
2
City of Mukilteo
1
Town of Woodway
1
Snohomish County Fire District 1
1
As provided in Paragraph 21 of the Agreement, this Exhibit may be amended by written
agreement approved by all Member Agencies.
2
Packet Page 115 of 380
AM-3287
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/16/2010
Time: Consent
Submitted For: Phil Williams, Director
Department:
Committee:
Public Works
Finance
Submitted By: Carla Raymond
Type: Action
Information
Item #: 2. E.
Subiect Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign wholesale water supply purchase contract with the Alderwood Water
and Wastewater District.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Mayor Cooper and staff recommend approval of this agreement. The executed agreement will ensure the
City of Edmonds has a reliable source of high -quality potable water to vend to our citizens and businesses
for the next 45 years.
Previous Council Action
The Alderwood Water and Wastewater District (AWWD) water purchase agreement was presented to
and reviewed by the Edmonds City Council Finance Committee on 2/9/10.
On August 10, 2010 the Finance Committee approved placing this agreement on the Consent Agenda for
approval.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds established a water utility very early in its history and developed a number of local
water supply sources to meet the then modest demand. The utility had great difficulty keeping pace with
increasing demands as the city grew rapidly after WWII. The Utility began to supplement its own water
supply by purchasing water from both AWWD and Seattle Public Utilities (SPU). Eventually the
economies of scale that were working against the City's internal water sources led to significant cost
escalation. This escalation continued to the point where purchasing all of Edmonds' water from the two
larger utilities was the best option. As a result the City of Edmonds discontinued using their own sources.
For quite some time the City bought approximately 2/3 of its water from AWWD and about 1/3 from
SPU. Costs for water from SPU climbed substantially faster than for AWWD. The City of Edmonds
trimmed and eventually discontinued purchases from SPU. For about the last ten years Edmonds has
purchased 100% of its supply from AWWD who purchases 100% of their water, in turn, from the City of
Everett. This proposed agreement runs for 45 years and establishes procedures for how the AWWD will
interface with its wholesale customers, how the wholesale rates will be established, billed, and collected;
how high the peak demand from Edmonds can climb to in the future, and other conditions of service.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Water Supply Agreement
Form Review
Inbox
Reviewed By Date
City Clerk
Sandy Chase 08/12/2010 11:59 AM
Mayor
Mike Cooper 08/12/2010 04:23 PM
Final Approval
Sandy Chase 08/12/2010 05:33 PM
Packet Page 116 of 380
Form Started By: Carla Raymond
Final Approval Date: 08/12/2010
Started On: 08/12/2010
Packet Page 117 of 380
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Between Alderwood Water & Wastewater District
and City of Edmonds
Table of Contents
SECTION I. - WATER SUPPLY........................................................................................... 2
SECTION II. - DEFINITIONS..............................................................................................
3
SECTION III. - FUTURE FACILITY ACQUISITIONS.................................................. 5
SECTION IV. - CONTINUITY OF SERVICE.................................................................... 7
SECTION V. - OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY................................................................. 8
SECTION VI. - WHOLESALE COMMITTEE.................................................................. 9
SECTION VII. - MASTER METER...................................................................................
10
SECTION VIII. - AREA OF USE........................................................................................
11
SECTION IX. - WATER QUALITY...................................................................................
11
SECTION X. - SUPPLY TO DISTRICT -OWNED SERVICES TRANSMITTED
THROUGH CUSTOMER MAINS............................................................
11
SECTION XI. - WHOLESALE WATER RATE...............................................................
12
SECTION XII. - BILLING & PAYMENT.........................................................................
16
SECTION XIII. - TERM & EXPIRATION.......................................................................
16
SECTION XIV. - NOTICE OF NEGOTIATION.............................................................
17
SECTION XV. - FORCE MAJEURE AND CHANGES IN LAW ..................................
17
SECTION XVI. - LEGAL RELATIONS............................................................................
17
SECTION XVII. - DISPUTE RESOLUTION...................................................................
18
SECTION XVIII. - GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE ..................................................
19
SECTION IXX. - NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES ..............................................
19
SECTION XX. - LIMITATION ON DAMAGES..............................................................
19
SECTION XXI. - GENERAL PROVISIONS....................................................................
19
EXHIBIT A - QUANTITY OF WATER TO BE PURCHASED ................................... 23
EXHIBIT B - WHOLESALE FACILITIES..................................................................... 24
EXHIBIT C - REGIONAL FACILITIES......................................................................... 25
EXHIBIT D - CUSTOMERS WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT TO OTHER
SUPPLIERS................................................................................................ 26
EXHIBIT E - MASTER METER LOCATION............................................................... 27
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds
Packet Page 118 of 380
pg. 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
ALDERWOOD WATER & WASTEWATER DISTRICT
AND CITY OF EDMONDS
FOR WATER SUPPLY
This Wholesale Water Supply Agreement ("Agreement") between the ALDERWOOD
WATER & WASTEWATER DISTRICT, a special purpose municipal corporation (the
"District,") and CITY OF EDMONDS (the "Customer") (individually a "Party" and collectively
the "Parties") for the purposes set forth herein.
WHEREAS, the District and the Customer are each authorized under the law of the
State of Washington to supply potable water to their retail customers and to enter into
wholesale contracts for the purchase and sale of wholesale water supply; and
WHEREAS, the District and the Customer desire to enter into an agreement wherein
the District sells wholesale water to the Customer at a wholesale water rate that will adequately
compensate the District for those current and future costs attributable to supplying wholesale
water to the Customer;
NOW, THEREFORE, The District and the Customer agree as follows:
SECTION I. - WATER SUPPLY
The District agrees to sell to the Customer and the Customer agrees to purchase from
the District up to the daily quantity of water shown in Exhibit "A" according to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement. The water shall be delivered to a Master Meter at a point in or
immediately adjacent to a site as depicted on Exhibit B and E. The District shall be the
Customer's primary source of water; provided that the Customer may use any existing
alternate source connections and re -use water as sources of water supply.
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds
Packet Page 119 of 380
pg. 2
32 SECTION II. - DEFINITIONS
33
34 As used in this Agreement, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the
35 following words and phrases shall mean:
36 "Administrative Time" means the District's administrative costs incurred to
37 maintain, operate and repair the Wholesale Facilities.
38 Cubic Foot" means a unit of measurement of water equal to 7.48 gallons. The term "CCF"
39 shall mean 100 cubic feet of water.
40 "Distribution Main means any water main owned and operated by either the District or by the
41 Customer as part of its Retail Water System.
42 "District Peak Day Water" means the 24-hour maximum usage day measured in million
43 gallons pumped from the Everett System through the three pump stations operated by the
44 District.
45 "Everett Supply Contract" means the current agreement between the City of Everett and the
46 District for water supply, dated January 28, 2005, and any future amendments thereof.
47 Master Meter" means the measuring device installed to measure the volume of water
48 supplied to the Customer by the District.
49 "Peak Day Water" means the 24-hour maximum usage day measured in million gallons
50 during a calendar year.
51 "Regional Facilities" means District assets as identified on Exhibit C that are necessary to
52 provide service to all District retail and wholesale customers.
53 "Retail Water System means that system owned and operated by the District or by the
54 Customer composed of Distribution Mains and appurtenances used for receiving a supply of
55 water and distributing it directly to the District's or the Customer's retail customers.
56 "Service Connections means those separate connections between a Retail Water System
57 and a retail customer.
58 Service Meters means the meter or measuring device installed on a service line or Service
59 Connection for the purpose of measuring the volume of water supplied to a retail customer.
60 "Terminal Storage Reservoir" means a storage reservoir used primarily to provide
61 reserves against transmission failure from the supply, supply or pumping failure, pump control
62 storage to balance and economically operate the supply pumps and which permits a reduced
63 sizing in the supply transmission and pumping system to the terminal storage reservoirs.
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 3
Packet Page 120 of 380
64 Transmission Main means a pipe owned and operated by the District primarily used for
65 carrying water from a source (currently the Everett Water System) to a Retail Water System that
66 normally has limited or no Service Connections.
67 "Wholesale Customer" means a customer who purchases water from the District
68 according to the terms and conditions of this Agreement or an agreement with substantially
69 similar terms and conditions, delivered through the Wholesale Facilities.
70 "Wholesale Facilities" means current assets, identified on Exhibit B, and future assets
71 hereafter added to an amended Exhibit B, owned and operated by the District that are necessary
72 to supply water to the Wholesale Customers in this Agreement. These Wholesale Facilities may
73 also be part of the Regional Facilities.
74 "Wholesale Water Cost" means all of the costs incurred by the District to supply water to
75 Wholesale Customers, including
76 (1) The cost of purchased water, which is the annual amount (U.S dollars) paid by the
77 District for water supplied to the Wholesale Customers under either the Everett
78 Supply Contract or any other agreement for the purchase of water to supply the
79 Wholesale Customers.
80 (2) Maintenance and operation costs ("Wholesale M&O costs"), which are costs
81 incurred by the District to maintain, operate and repair the Wholesale Facilities,
82 including Administrative Time, cost of materials and supplies, and the full cost of
83 labor attributable to serving the Wholesale Customers.
84 (3) "Power Costs," which are the electrical and other fuel charges associated with
85 operating the Wholesale Facilities.
86 (4) "Existing Wholesale Debt," (Principal + Interest) which is the existing bonded
87 debt service and debt obligations of the District attributable to serving the
88 Wholesale Customers, including principal and interest payments.
89 (5) "Future Wholesale Debt Service," (Principal + Interest), which is future debt
90 issued by the District to finance capital improvements and infrastructure,
91 attributable to serving the Wholesale Customers, including principal and interest
92 payments.
93 (6) "Cash (Rate) Funded Wholesale Facility Improvements," ("CFI") which is that
94 revenue component of the Wholesale Water Rate used, in whole or in part, to cash
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 4
Packet Page 121 of 380
95 fund Wholesale Facilities.
96 (7) "Other Program Funding," which includes costs incurred by the District that
97 benefit Wholesale Customers but are not otherwise included in the Wholesale
98 Water Rate.
99 (8) "Quantity of Water Supplied," which is the prior year's total of water supplied to
100 the Wholesale Customers (CCF) as measured by all Master Meters, plus or minus
101 any adjustments for individual services of the Customer or District connected
102 upstream or downstream, respectively, of the Master Meters.
103 (9) "District Finance Option," which is a revenue component of the Wholesale Water
104 Rate used in whole or in part to fund capital improvements where bonds or CFI
105 are impractical or are not available.
106 "Wholesale Water Rate" means the cost of water to the Wholesale Customer in dollars
107 per hundred cubic feet (CCF).
108 "Wholesale Water System" includes the Wholesale Facilities and the Retail Water
109 System of any Wholesale Customer and of the District.
110
III SECTION III. - FUTURE FACILITY ACQUISITIONS
112
113 The Customer and the District agree that at such times in the future that the Customer
114 extends its corporate boundaries to include parts of the District's service area, the Parties will
115 benefit from having a process in place to determine what will become the property of the
116 Customer and what will remain the property of the District. Recognizing that Chapter 35.13A
117 RCW is the governing basis for such a process, the fact that the District provides service to seven
118 cities and the county's unincorporated area adds complexity to the process which requires more
119 process detail to insure that both the Customer and the District can fulfill their respective
120 obligations for service. Therefore, the following process shall define the requirements and
121 responsibilities of each party.
122 The Parties agree that the facilities and infrastructure that are necessary for supporting the
123 District's regional customers ("Regional Facilities") are identified herein. In areas proposed for
124 annexation, where the potential exists for the transfer of ownership of any portion of the
125 Regional Facilities, it is agreed that the Regional Facilities shall remain in the ownership and
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 5
Packet Page 122 of 380
126 control of the District. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to waive any right or obligation under
127 Washington law as the same exists or shall hereinafter be created.
128 If the Customer initiates the process to consider annexation of additional areas that are
129 located within the District, the Customer will notify the District in writing of its intent. After
130 receiving Customer's notice of intent to annex, representatives of the Customer and the District
131 shall meet at a mutually agreeable time and place to review the proposed annexation area with
132 regard to its potential impact on water and sewer service. Discussions between the Customer and
133 the District shall include a preliminary assessment of service continuing with the District and/or
134 the potential of facility transfer to the Customer. The preliminary assessment should include a
135 review of the extent of modifications that would be required to transfer the utilities to the
136 Customer, including the possibility for relocation of master meters and realignment of existing
137 distribution utilities.
138 Within 30 days following the initial meetings and completion of the preliminary
139 assessment of utility options, the Customer agrees to notify the District in writing of its intent
140 regarding which Party should be the service provider to the proposed annexation area.
141 If the Customer provides notice of its intent to further consider Customer ownership of
142 certain utilities owned by the District within the proposed annexation area, the Customer and the
143 District may agree to participate in a more detailed study in order to determine the extent of
144 facility modifications and costs impacts associated with the transfer of the utilities in the annexed
145 areas. The cost of any such study shall be split equally between the Parties.
146 After the Parties' review and analysis of the additional data provided by the detailed
147 study, if the Customer notifies the District in writing of its decision to assume ownership of the
148 utilities, a plan will be developed jointly for defining the steps necessary to complete the transfer
149 of ownership. The plan will include design and specifications for any required infrastructure
150 improvements, transfer of accounts, and final agreements on costs involved including costs
151 related to outstanding bond indebtedness. The costs associated with the preparation of this plan
152 shall be split equally between the Parties.
153 Once the plan (including the allocation of construction costs between the Parties) has
154 been agreed to by the Customer and the District, the District will prepare the final contract plans
155 and specifications for the required improvements, and will administer the contract for the
156 construction.
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 6
Packet Page 123 of 380
157 Upon completion of the required improvements and payment to the District of agreed
158 costs associated with the assumption of the utilities, including all associated construction costs,
159 the District will transfer accounts, assign any existing easements, and provide the necessary bills
160 of sale for the transferred utilities.
161 The parties agree that the contract may be reopened if the assumption will affect rates. If
162 the process leads to facility assumption, the parties agree that the District would be provided
163 three (3) years to make the changes necessary to allow for transitional impact adjustments by the
164 District.
165 In the event the Parties are not able to agree on the plan, the amounts to be paid by the
166 Customer for the transfer of facilities, or any other disputes relating to the Customer's
167 acquisition of the District's facilities, the matter shall be referred to mediation for resolution in
168 accordance with Section XVII (Dispute Resolution). If the matter is not resolved through
169 mediation, the Parties shall proceed in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures set
170 forth in Section XVII.
171
172 SECTION IV. - CONTINUITY OF SERVICE
173
174 Except as otherwise provided, the District's supply of water to the Customer shall be
175 continuous. In the event of a general emergency or water shortage affecting the District, the
176 District and the Customer shall implement necessary water conservation measures. Because
177 the District and the Customer have critical customers, the District shall consult with the
178 Customer regarding water allocations. General restrictions placed upon deliveries to the
179 Customer shall be made according to the District's most recent Emergency/Drought
180 Response Plan. In the event of localized emergency problems, temporary service
181 interruptions may result.
182 The District may have to implement emergency Wholesale Water System
183 conservation measures to meet an emergency condition. The Customer shall assist and
184 support such emergency conservation measures.
185 If the District determines that interruptions and reductions are necessary or reasonable in
186 case of system emergencies, the District shall provide oral notice to the Customer and may
187 temporarily interrupt or reduce deliveries of water to the Customer. Except in cases of
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 7
Packet Page 124 of 380
188 emergency, and to avoid unreasonable interference with the Customer's operations, the District
189 shall give the Customer at least fourteen (14) calendar days notice of any proposed interruptions
190 or reduction in service, the reason therefore, and the probable duration thereof, including any
191 interruptions or reduction in services that will be caused by the installation of equipment, repairs,
192 replacements, investigations, inspections or other maintenance performed by the District on its
193 water system or those parts of the system supplying the Customer.
194 The City of Everett currently holds water rights regulated by the State Department
195 of Ecology and an approved Water System Plan regulated by the State Department of
196 Health that enables the City of Everett to perform the Everett Supply Contract. Said water
197 rights and plan currently authorize the District to supply City of Everett water to Customer
198 under this Agreement and consistent with the terms of the Everett Supply Contract.
199 Customer acknowledges and agrees that any interruption or restriction of said authorization
200 could result in the curtailment, interruption or reduction in the District's service to
201 Customer, the declaration of an emergency, or other measures reasonable under the
202 circumstances.
203 In the event of any of the foregoing or otherwise, the District shall have no
204 obligation whatsoever to obtain and furnish a substitute supply of water and Customer may
205 obtain and use any alternate lawful source of water supply including re -use water as
206 substitute water supply. The District shall cooperate with the Customer and use its best
207 efforts to assist Customer in obtaining an alternative source(s) of water supply. Nothing
208 herein shall be interpreted to waive any right or obligation under Washington law as the
209 same exists or shall hereinafter be created.
210
211 SECTION V. - OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY
212
213 The Everett Supply Contract includes a rate component of peak to average day flow
214 that affects the District and the Customer. Therefore, as a material element of this
215 Agreement, the Customer shall track during the high water demand period June through
216 August the operational control components of its Retail Water System, including, at a
217 minimum, reservoir storage capacity and flow controls, and provide the data collected to
218 the District in accordance with procedures and on a schedule as established by the
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 8
Packet Page 125 of 380
219 Wholesale Committee.
220
221 SECTION VI. - WHOLESALE COMMITTEE
222
223 The District shall establish and staff, and the Customer shall participate in, a wholesale
224 committee ("Wholesale Committee") composed of the District and each Wholesale Customer.
225 Each Wholesale Customer shall designate in writing a representative to serve on the Wholesale
226 Committee. A representative may be replaced by a written designation of the committee
227 member. The Wholesale Committee shall have the powers and authority as set forth below:
228 1. Advisory Powers and Authority. The Wholesale Committee shall review and advise
229 the District on the following topics or issues:
230 a. Proposed wholesale rate changes, including Administrative Time;
231 b. Proposed multi -year wholesale capital improvement plans;
232 c. Coordination with the District on day-to-day operations relating to high water
233 demand;
234 d. Proposed bond issues for wholesale system capital improvements;
235 e. Changes in District standards that would apply to wholesale improvements;
236 f. Proposed modifications to the Everett Supply Contract;
237 g. Proposed regulatory changes that could potentially impact wholesale customers;
238 h. Day-to-day operational issues and coordination efforts; and
239 i. District Finance Option
240
241 2. Approval Powers and Authority. The Wholesale Committee shall review and approve
242 of the following topics:
243 a. The District's Emergency/Drought Response Plan;
244 b. Limits on cash funded wholesale system capital improvements; and
245 c. "Other Program Funding" as defined and used in this Agreement.
246 Approval will require a majority vote of the Wholesale Customers plus District.
247 The Wholesale Committee shall meet annually by the 15th of March to review the
248 proposed wholesale rates and, as necessary, to address the other topics as outlined above. A
249 meeting may be called by any member of the Wholesale Committee. The Wholesale
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds
Packet Page 126 of 380
pg. 9
250 Committee shall evaluate each Wholesale Customer's operational efficiency by the end of each
251 year and provide a report and recommendation to the District's Board of Commissioners on the
252 summarized data of the Wholesale Customers' tracking of high water demand to identify
253 potential efficiency measures to be implemented under the state -mandated Water Use
254 Efficiency Rule. Each Wholesale Customer shall receive a copy of the report.
255
256 SECTION VII. - MASTER METER
257
258 All water delivered by the District to Customer shall be measured by a Master
259 Meter. All Master Meters, including vaults and appurtenances, will be owned, maintained,
260 repaired, replaced and upgraded by the District and the cost thereof included in the
261 Wholesale Water Cost. The District shall own all facilities from the connection to the
262 District pipeline to the upstream flange of the valve downstream of the Master Meter. The
263 cost of a new Master Meter requested by the Customer, including appurtenances and
264 installation, shall be paid by the Customer. Relocation of a Master Meter necessitated by
265 the Customer shall be paid by the Customer.
266 The District shall establish standards for Master Meters, including appurtenances
267 and access to flow data. Access to the Master Meter and the flow records shall be made
268 available to the Customer upon request. The Master Meter shall be checked by the District
269 on a schedule and for accuracy per the manufacturer's recommendation and the cost thereof
270 included in the Wholesale Water Cost. Either the District or the Customer may request
271 additional tests. The costs of additional tests shall borne equally, if both Parties agree to
272 the test; otherwise, by the Party requesting the test, unless the meter is not performing
273 within the manufacturer's specification, whereupon the benefited Party shall pay for the
274 test. Any adjustment to charges for water supplied shall be determined by the average water
275 use of the three prior years for the same period, unless some other method is agreed upon.
276 Either a credit or an additional billing calculated at the applicable Wholesale Water Rate
277 shall accrue to the appropriate party. If review of the meter records does not establish when
278 the change in accuracy occurred, the period of adjustment shall be one-half of the period
279 since the last meter calibration, not to exceed 12 months.
280
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 10
Packet Page 127 of 380
281 SECTION VIII. - AREA OF USE
282
283 The Customer shall not furnish service under any terms to services or systems other than
284 those within its approved service area as defined within its Water Comprehensive Plan without
285 first receiving written approval of the District. The Customer currently serves other water
286 suppliers or the service area of such suppliers by agreement. Those agreements are identified on
287 Exhibit D and continued service to those suppliers is hereby approved by District.
288
289 SECTION IX. - WATER QUALITY
290
291 The water delivered by the District to the Master Meter shall comply with state and
292 federal standards for drinking water and be of the same standard and quality normally
293 delivered to the District's other customers. The District shall not be liable for any
294 degradation of water quality and resulting damages that may occur beyond the Master
295 Meter, including liability for acts of sabotage. Customer shall operate its system in
296 conformance with law and in a manner which does not impair the water quality of the
297 "Wholesale Water System."
298
299 SECTION X. - SUPPLY TO DISTRICT -OWNED SERVICES TRANSMITTED
300 THROUGH CUSTOMER MAINS
301
302 The District shall have the right to continue to serve its Retail Water System with
303 water transmitted through the Customer's Master Meter and Retail Water System. Every
304 two months, the District shall read meters in that portion of the District's Retail Water
305 System supplied through Customer's Master Meter and Retail Water System. The volume
306 of water shown by meter reading shall be deducted from the total Master Meter reading for
307 the month in which these meters are read, plus 25% added for meter losses, flushing, leakage
308 and other authorized unmetered usage.
309
310
311
312
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 11
Packet Page 128 of 380
313 SECTION XI. - WHOLESALE WATER RATE
314
315 Wholesale Customers shall pay a Wholesale Water Rate that shall be adjusted annually
316 on April 1 and shall be effective on that date. The Wholesale Water Rate shall recover the
317 District's Wholesale Water Cost computed by the following formula:
318
319 R=E+M+P+(ED+FD)+CFI+DFO+O
320 Q
321 Where:
322 R = Wholesale Water Rate ($/CCF) computed to the nearest ten -thousandth of a
323 dollar
324 E = The District's cost of Purchased Water ($/CCF)
325 M = Wholesale M&O Costs for the prior calendar year, excluding Power Costs
326 P = Power Costs for the prior calendar year [Wholesale -Related Portion Only]
327 ED = Existing Wholesale Debt including Principal + Interest
328 FD = Future Wholesale Debt Service including Principal + Interest
329 CFI = Cash (Rate) Funded Wholesale Facility Improvements
330 DFO = District Finance Option
331 O = Other Program Funding as may be deemed appropriate by the Wholesale
332 Committee
333 Q = Quantity of Water Supplied (CCF) in the prior calendar year measured by
334 the Wholesale Customers' Master Meters
335
336 In determining the Wholesale Water Rate, the District shall be governed by the following
337 principles:
338
339 1. Revenue recovery for debt service shall be based upon the debt service
340 (payment) schedule associated with each debt issue. Whenever the District issues re-
341 funding debt, it shall analyze the refunding issue to determine an equitable allocation of
342 principal and interest to the Wholesale Water Rate. The Wholesale Committee shall be
343 convened to review the allocation for either a new debt issue or a refunding issue.
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 12
Packet Page 129 of 380
344
345 2. In the year in which the District proposes to issue a new long-term debt
346 instrument to finance, in whole or in part, the construction of or improvements to
347 Wholesale Facilities, the cost attributable to Wholesale Facilities, including projected
348 principal, interest, reserve payments, and debt service, incurred by the District for that
349 year shall be included in the Wholesale Water Rate. The cost of such debt shall be
350 allocated to the Wholesale Customers, over the life of the debt issue, according to the
351 specific use of proceeds from that debt issuance. At the end of the year, and after the
352 debt has been issued, the debt issue is considered "Existing Wholesale Debt" for purposes
353 of establishing wholesale water rates in subsequent years.
354
355 3. Whenever financially feasible, debt service coverage shall be met by the
356 District's overall financial operations (retail and wholesale). If debt service coverage
357 cannot be met by the District's overall financial operations, then the Wholesale Water
358 Rate shall be adjusted to include a component sufficient to meet the specific debt service
359 coverage covenants.
360
361 4. Every fifth (5) year commencing in the year 2015, the District shall re-
362 determine Wholesale M&O Costs for the purpose of setting the Wholesale Water Rate
363 for that year. In each of the subsequent four years, the Wholesale M&O Cost (M) shall
364 be escalated by the consumer price index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
365 (Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton metropolitan area) December to December or a comparable
366 index, if that index is unavailable; provided that in any year, the District may, at its
367 discretion, forego escalation of cost according to the index and determine the actual
368 Wholesale M&O Costs that year.
369
370 5. Power Costs attributable to the Wholesale Customers shall be determined
371 when the Wholesale Water Rate is re -calculated and shall be equal to the following:
372 P = (District's prior calendar year cost of power at Wholesale Facilities identified on
373 Exhibit B, and as Exhibit B may be amended) times (the Wholesale Customers'
374 combined prior calendar year volumetric use of water as recorded on Master Meters
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 13
Packet Page 130 of 380
375 identified on Exhibit B, and as Exhibit B may be amended) divided by (the District's
376 prior calendar year volumetric use of water as recorded at the District's Master Maters at
377 the Evergreen Way Pump Stations.
378
379 6. The CFI component of the Wholesale Water Rate shall be determined by
380 the District after a review of the District's 5-year capital improvement plan by the
381 Wholesale Committee. The Wholesale Committee shall approve CFI funding for each
382 year of the five (5) year capital improvement plan, after considering the different
383 financial and rate impacts of funding wholesale projects with cash or by debt and such
384 other factors deemed relevant by the Committee.
385
386 7. Annually, before the Wholesale Water rate is developed, the Wholesale
387 Committee shall review and approve what, if any, Other Program Funding, including
388 costs incurred by the District that are not otherwise included in the Wholesale Water
389 Cost, should be allocated to Wholesale Customers and included in the Wholesale Water
390 Rate. Approval will require a majority vote of the Wholesale Customers plus District.
391
392 8. The District shall establish a separate wholesale capital improvement
393 sinking fund (reserve) to segregate and account for certain revenues received from the
394 Wholesale Customers as identified in this Agreement. The sinking fund shall contain the
395 balance in the bond reserve fund as identified in the current wholesale contract. The
396 District shall deposit into the wholesale capital improvement sinking fund all revenues
397 received from:
398
399 A. The Cash (Rate) Funded Improvements (CFI) component of the
400 Wholesale Water Rate; and
401 B. Wholesale Water Rates to meet the minimum debt service coverage
402 ratio requirements (rate covenant).
403
404 Interest earned on the balance of the Wholesale Capital Improvement Sinking
405 Fund shall be retained in the sinking fund and credited to the sinking fund on a monthly
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 14
Packet Page 131 of 380
406 basis in a manner consistent with the methodology the District uses to allocate interest to
407 its funds.
408 Except as otherwise provided, all funds deposited into the Wholesale Capital
409 Improvement Sinking Fund shall be applied to the cost of wholesale capital improvement
410 projects undertaken by the District. On the recommendation of the Wholesale Committee
411 the District may use these funds to pay the cost of any other wholesale -related activity
412 (e.g. early buy -down of debt, buy -down a rate adjustment, rate transition, etc.).
413
414 9. Whenever a component of the Wholesale Water Cost is determined by
415 meter readings and some condition (e.g. meter failure, emergency conditions [e.g.
416 earthquake]) would make the use of those readings unreasonable or inequitable to the
417 District or to the Wholesale Customers, the District shall use its best and reasonable
418 judgment to "normalize" the volumetric usage data for purposes of establishing the
419 affected component of the Wholesale Water Rate.
420
421 10. The District may utilize District funds to finance Wholesale Facility
422 improvements, the funding size of which is not practical for issuance of bonds, and the
423 Cash (Rate) Funded Wholesale Facility Improvements option has not been approved by
424 the Wholesale Committee. The capital funds necessary for the improvement would be
425 provided by the District subject to reimbursement through wholesale water rates for a
426 term not to exceed ten (10) years. The rate would be determined based upon the average
427 rate of investments for District funds for the prior year. The rate may be adjusted
428 annually utilizing the District's annual investment rate for the prior year. The District
429 also reserves the right to terminate this funding option at any time during the term by
430 adding the remaining funds yet to be paid to a larger bond issue. If so elected, the
431 wholesale portion would be the pro rata share of the bond issue at the terms of the bond
432 issue.
433
434
435
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds
Packet Page 132 of 380
pg. 15
436 SECTION XII. - BILLING & PAYMENT
437
438 The District shall bill the Customer for water supplied under this Agreement on regular
439 monthly intervals.
440 The Master Meters shall be read and recorded on or about the last normal work day of the
441 month in which the service was furnished. Billing to the Customer shall be made by the 1 Oth day of
442 the month following, and payment to the District is due by the 30th day of the month in which the
443 statement is received. If any payment or portion thereof due the District shall remain unpaid for
444 25 days following its due date, the Customer shall be charged with and pay to the District interest
445 on the amount unpaid from its due date until paid at the rate of eight (8)% per annum.
446 If any or all of a bill is in dispute, the Customer shall pay the amount as billed and both
447 the District and the Customer shall agree to the time line to resolve the disputed amount. If any
448 material error, an amount greater than $1,000 per month is discovered in the rate calculation,
449 billing, payment, interest allocation, or any other calculation or assumption, the District shall
450 correct the error retroactively from the date of receipt of notice of the error backwards for a
451 period of up to three (3) years or as mutually agreed. The $1,000 amount shall be adjusted for
452 inflation every five (5) years with CPI-U as described in Section XI of this agreement.
453
454 SECTION XIII. - TERM & EXPIRATION
455
456 (1) The term of this Agreement shall be from its effective date until January 1, 2055.
457 The Parties may renew this Agreement by mutual written agreement upon such terms and
458 conditions as the Parties may later agree.
459 (2) If the Customer shall cease to take water from the District without the District's
460 consent, the Customer shall remain liable for its proportionate share of the then existing wholesale
461 bonded indebtedness issued before January 1, 2055 as may at that time be determined including
462 credits for certain payments and recognition given to the growth experienced in the Customer, District,
463 and all other Wholesale Customers. This liability shall continue only until such time as all or
464 part of the water supply no longer taken by the Customer from the District is sold by the District
465 to another party. In that event, liability shall be reallocated, in whole or in part, to the new
466 customer.
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 16
Packet Page 133 of 380
467 (3) If the District shall cease to supply water to the Customer without the Customer's
468 consent, the Customer shall cease to be liable for its proportionate share of the wholesale bonded
469 indebtedness as described in Subsection 2 above.
470
471 SECTION XIV. - NOTICE OF NEGOTIATION
472
473 The Customer shall receive timely written notice of negotiation with City of Everett for a
474 rate change or additional water and the Customer shall have the right to be present at such meetings.
475
476 SECTION XV. - FORCE MAJEURE AND CHANGES IN LAW
477
478 Neither Party hereto shall be considered to be in default in respect to any obligations
479 hereunder if prevented from fulfilling such obligations due to conditions beyond their reasonable
480 control or due to changes in state or federal law. If a Party is unable to perform in whole or in
481 part because of such condition or change in the law, the Party shall diligently and promptly take
482 reasonable steps to allow it to perform. The Parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the
483 inability or preclusion of the City of Everett to perform, in whole or material part, the Everett
484 Supply Agreement caused by an order or directive of governmental authority or a court with
485 jurisdiction shall constitute a force majeure or change in law event hereunder.
486
487 SECTION XVI. - LEGAL RELATIONS
488
489 Each Party shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the other from any and all claims,
490 demands, suits, and judgments arising out of its conduct. If, and to the extent, the Parties are
491 both liable to a third party claimant, each Party shall be responsible to the extent of its fault, and
492 shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the other for its fault. The foregoing indemnity is
493 specifically and expressly intended to constitute a waiver of each Party's immunity under
494 Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, RCW Title 51, but only with respect to the other Party
495 only, and only to the extent necessary to provide each Party with a full and complete indemnity
496 of claims made by the other Party's employees. The Parties acknowledge that these provisions
497 were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them.
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 17
Packet Page 134 of 380
498 SECTION XVII. - DISPUTE RESOLUTION
499
500 The Parties are committed to working cooperatively in resolving all matters related to this
501 Agreement and achieving its intent and purpose. If a dispute should arise, the Parties agree to
502 meet on an informal basis within fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt of written notice of the
503 dispute submitted by a Party to attempt to resolve the dispute.
504 If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute on an informal basis within thirty (30)
505 days, the Parties agree they shall utilize mediation. Each Party shall be responsible for the costs
506 of their own legal representation and pro rata cost of mediator.
507 Any dispute arising under this Agreement that is not resolved pursuant to the mediation
508 process may, upon mutual agreement of the Parties, if such agreement occurs within twenty
509 (20) calendar days of the failure of the Parties to reach resolution through mediation, be resolved
510 by binding arbitration by a single arbitrator. Within seven (7) calendar days of the date the
511 Parties agree to arbitration, each Party shall provide the other Party with the names of three (3)
512 neutral arbitrators having experience in the subject matter of the dispute and in arbitrating
513 disputes. The Parties will thereafter attempt in good faith to select an arbitrator from this panel
514 of six (6) potential arbitrators.
515 If the Parties are unable to agree upon a single arbitrator within twenty (20) calendar days
516 from the date the Parties agree to binding arbitration, then each Party shall designate one (1)
517 arbitrator from its panel of three (3) arbitrators. The two (2) designated arbitrators shall then
518 select a third arbitrator from the remaining arbitrator panel members, and this third arbitrator
519 shall act and serve as the single arbitrator for the dispute. The Parties shall equally split the
520 arbitrator's fee and all arbitration expenses. The prevailing party at arbitration shall be entitled to
521 an award by the arbitrator of its attorneys' fees and costs at the arbitrator's discretion.
522 The Parties agree that this dispute resolution process shall precede any action in a judicial
523 or quasi-judicial tribunal.
524 The Parties also agree that at all times pending resolution of the dispute, the Parties shall
525 continue to perform their respective duties and obligations in accordance with the terms and
526 conditions of this Agreement. The intent of the Parties is to preserve the status quo under the
527 Agreement. By way of illustration and not limitation, the Parties wish to assure uninterrupted
528 water service and compliance with the payment provisions of Section XII.
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 18
Packet Page 135 of 380
529 SECTION XVIII. - GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE
530
531 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
532 state of Washington. Any lawsuit or judicial action or proceeding arising out of or relating to
533 this Agreement that could not be resolved through Dispute Resolution, shall be heard in the
534 Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Snohomish County.
535
536 SECTION IXX. - NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
537
538 Except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, nothing in this Agreement is intended
539 to confer upon any person or entity, other than the Parties hereto, any rights, benefits, or
540 obligations. No such third -party shall have any right to enforce any of the provisions of this
541 Agreement unless expressly stated otherwise herein.
542
543 SECTION XX. - LIMITATION ON DAMAGES
544
545 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, neither the District nor the
546 Customer shall be liable to the other under or pursuant to this Agreement for indirect,
547 incidental, special, exemplary, punitive, or consequential damages, including but not limited
548 to damages for lost profits, revenues or benefits, loss of property use, the cost of capital, or
549 the cost of purchased or replacement water.
550
551 SECTION XXI. - GENERAL PROVISIONS
552
553 (1) Waiver: A waiver by either Party of any terms or conditions of this
554 Agreement shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of any other term or condition,
555 nor shall the waiver of any breach be deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of any
556 subsequent breach, whether of the same or any other term or condition of this Agreement.
557 (2) Assignment: Except where one of the Parties merges, consolidates or
558 combines with another entity neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or
559 obligations created hereunder may be assigned by either Party without the written consent of
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 19
Packet Page 136 of 380
560 the other Party. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
561 successors and assigns of the respective Parties.
562 (3) Notices: Any notices required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be given
563 in writing and shall be delivered (a) in person, (b) by certified mail, postage prepaid, return
564 receipt requested, (c) by electronic transmission in the form of email or facsimile, or (d) by a
565 commercial overnight courier that guarantees next day delivery and provides a receipt, and such
566 notices shall be addressed as follows:
567
568 To the Customer:
569
Public Works Director
570
City of Edmonds
571
7110 210th Street SW
572
Edmonds, WA 98026
573
Fax: 425-774-6057
574
575 To the District:
576 General Manager
577 Alderwood Water & Wastewater District
578 3626 - 156th Street SW
579 Lynnwood, Washington 98087
580 Fax: 425-742-4562
581
582 or to such other address designated in writing by the addressee.
583 (4) Entirety: All prior negotiations and agreements between the parties hereto
584 relating to the subject matter hereof are merged into and superseded by this Agreement,
585 which shall constitute the entire agreement between the Customer and the District concerning
586 the sale of water to the Customer.
587 (5) Authority: Each Party represents and warrants that it has the power and legal
588 authority to enter into this Agreement. The individual(s) executing this Agreement on behalf
589 of the respective Party represents and warrants that such individual has the power and
590 authority to do so.
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 20
Packet Page 137 of 380
591 (6) Effective Date: This Agreement shall become effective ("Effective Date")
592 upon the date of the expiration or termination of the existing contract for wholesale water
593 supply between the Parties dated the 20th day of September 2010.
594 (7) Attorneys' Fees and Costs: In the event that either Party commences any legal
595 action or proceeding relating to the provisions or enforcement of this Agreement, the
596 prevailing party shall be entitled to receive, and the non -prevailing party shall pay, its
597 reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including those incurred in any appeal.
598 (8) Exhibits Incorporated by Reference: Any exhibits attached to this Agreement
599 are fully incorporated herein by this reference.
600 (9) Titles to sections and subsections in this Agreement are for reference purposes
601 only and shall have no substantive effect.
602 (10) In the event of a material breach or default of this Agreement by either of the
603 Parties, the Parties acknowledge that it may be difficult to measure the resulting damages and
604 that monetary damages may not provide a complete or adequate remedy. Accordingly, the
605 non -defaulting Party, in addition to damages and any other relief sought or recovered, shall
606 be entitled to seek injunctive relief and the specific performance of the terms and conditions
607 of this Agreement.
608 (11) If any term, condition or provision of this Agreement is determined to be void,
609 unenforceable or limited in its application or effect in a legal proceeding, such determination
610 shall not affect any other provisions in this Agreement and all other provisions shall remain
611 in full force and effect.
612 (12) Any new water Wholesale Customer Agreement utilizing the same Wholesale
613 Water Facilities as included in the Agreement, shall have the same terms and conditions as
614 this Agreement, with the exclusion of Exhibits A, D and E.
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds
Packet Page 138 of 380
pg. 21
622
CITY OF EDMONDS
623
A Municipal Corporation
624
625
626
By:
627 Its:
628 Date:
629
630
631 ATTEST:
632
633 City Clerk
634
635 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
636
637 City Attorney
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
•W:
ALDERWOOD WATER & WASTEWATER
DISTRICT
A Municipal Corporation
By:
Its:
Date:
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 22
Packet Page 139 of 380
ALDERWOOD WATER & WASTEWATER DISTRICT
AND CITY OF EDMONDS
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT A — QUANTITY OF WATER TO BE PURCHASED
All quantities in Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
2010 3.6 7.1
2020 3.6 7.2
2050 4.6 9.0
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds
Packet Page 140 of 380
pg. 23
ALDERWOOD WATER & WASTEWATER DISTRICT
AND CITY OF EDMONDS
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT B - WHOLESALE FACILITIES
The water lines including transmission facilities are shown on a separate map exhibit.
The following is a list of the wholesale facilities referenced in the Agreement, in addition to the
water lines shown on the separate map.
Evergreen Wasp Station Site (6003 Evergreen Way, Everett)
Pump Station No. 1
Pump Station No. 2
Maintenance and Operation Site (15204 35th Avenue W, Lynnwood)
Reservoir No. 1
Chlorination Facility
Ancillary valves and piping associated with the above assets
Administration Site (3626 156th Street SW, Lynnwood)
Reservoir No. 2
Reservoir No. 3
Chlorination Facility
Ancillary valves and piping associated with the above assets
Edmonds Master Meter Site (168th Street SW and 62nd Avenue W, Edmonds)
Master Meter
Vault and ancillary assets
Lynnwood Master Meter Site (Spruce Way and 164th Street SW, Lynnwood)
Master Meter
Vault and ancillary assets
Mountlake Terrace Master Meter Site (212th Street SW and 44th Avenue W, Mountlake Terrace)
Master Meter
Vault and ancillary assets
(Emergency supply at 38th Avenue W and 228th Street SW)
Mukilteo Water & Wastewater District Meter Site (Harbour Point Boulevard and St. Andrews
Drive; and Beverly Park Road and Center Road, Mukilteo)
Master Meter
Vault and ancillary assets
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds
Packet Page 141 of 380
pg. 24
ALDERWOOD WATER & WASTEWATER DISTRICT
AND CITY OF EDMONDS
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT C - REGIONAL FACILITIES
The regional water lines and larger water transmission facilities are shown on a separate map
exhibit.
The following list contains additional regional facilities as referenced in the Agreement.
Evergreen Way Pump Station Site (6003 Evergreen Way, Everett)
Leased Site
Pump Station No. 1
Pump Station No. 2
Maintenance and Operation Site (15204 35th Avenue W, Lynnwood)
Site
Reservoir No. 1
High Tank No. 1
High Tank No. 2
Booster Pump Station
Chlorination Facility
Ancillary valves and piping associated with the above assets
Maintenance and Operation Administration Building
Shop Facility
Warehouse Facilities
Material Storage Facilities
Administration Site (3626 156th Street SW, Lynnwood)
Site
District Administration Building
Reservoir No. 2
Reservoir No. 3
Chlorination Facility
Ancillary valves and piping associated with the above assets
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds
Packet Page 142 of 380
pg. 25
ALDERWOOD WATER & WASTEWATER DISTRICT
AND CITY OF EDMONDS
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT D - CUSTOMERS WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT TO OTHER
SUPPLIERS
NONE IDENTIFIED
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds
Packet Page 143 of 380
pg. 26
ALDERWOOD WATER & WASTEWATER DISTRICT
AND CITY OF EDMONDS
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT E — MASTER METER LOCATION
168th Street SW and 62nd Avenue W
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds
Packet Page 144 of 380
pg. 27
AM-3283
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/16/2010
Time: Consent
Submitted By: Gerry Gannon
Department: Police Department
Committee: Public Safety
Type: Action
Information
Item #: 2. F.
Subiect Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Edmonds and the
Edmonds School District for football game security.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the Council approve the Interlocal Agreement for the Mayor's signature.
Previous Council Action
The City Attorney approved the Interlocal Agreement as to form. The Committee approved the Interlocal
Agreement for the consent agenda for Council approval.
Narrative
The Edmonds Police Department has provided security at the Edmonds School District Stadium
for football games for several years. This service has been provided without an ILA, but with a more
informal annual contract. All past costs incurred by City have been reimbursed by the school district.
The ILA will provide a long term agreement that is set to expire on August 31, 2013. The ILA covers the
terms, services to be provided, and responsibilities of off duty police officers. The ILA has been
approved as to form by the City Attorney.
We request that the Council approve the ILA between the City of Edmonds and the Edmonds School
District.
ILA attached.
AttarhmPntc
ILA between the City of Edmonds and the Edmonds School District
Fnrm RnviPw
Inbox
Reviewed By
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
Mayor
Mike Cooper
Final Approval
Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Gerry Gannon
Final Approval Date: 08/12/2010
Date
08/12/2010 09:59 AM
08/12/2010 04:23 PM
08/12/2010 05:33 PM
Started On: 08/12/2010
Packet Page 145 of 380
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT
and
CITY OF EDMONDS
for
POLICE COVERAGE AT ATHLETIC EVENTS
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the Edmonds School District No.
15, hereafter referred to as "District", and the City of Edmonds, a Washington
State municipal corporation, hereafter referred to as "Edmonds."
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the District and Edmonds desire to cooperate pursuant to
Chapter 39.34 RCW, Interlocal Cooperation Act, in order to make the
most efficient use of their respective governmental powers within their
jurisdiction; and
B. WHEREAS, Edmonds and the District desire to have police coverage at
athletic events to provide security, promote the safety, and serve as a
positive resource to the District; and
C. WHEREAS, Edmonds is desirous to assign a uniformed Police Officer
(hereafter referred to as "Officer") to provide police coverage at athletic
events, in return for a rate of compensation that is agreed upon by the
parties hereto;
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual representation and covenants
contained herein, the parties agree as fellows;
1. P ose. This Agreement is intended to provide police coverage at all football
games as scheduled by the District, plus any post -season games to be determined,
at Edmonds-Woodway High School located in the District through the assignment
by Edmonds of experienced commissioned Edmonds Officer/s to service that
location at the specified rate of compensation herein.
Packet Page 146 of 380
2. Term. This Agreement shall commence on September 1, 2010 and shall expire
on August 31, 2013, unless otherwise terminated under the provisions of this
Agreement.
3. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon
sixty (60) days written notice to the other party. This Agreement is subject to
funding, and either party may terminate with proper written notice due to lack of
funding.
4. Duties of Officers. Edmonds shall assign the Officer to provide police
coverage at athletic events. The duties and responsibilities of the Officer include,
but not limited to, the following:
• Support game management with CROWD CONTROL and enforce the
laws of the State of Washington and the City of Edmonds.
• Arrive at the stadium at the time indicated on the sign-up sheet, which is
45 minutes prior to the start of the game. Officer will report to the District
Event Manager in the Stadium Office.
• Officer's primary function is to support the efforts of the game staff in
providing a safe surrounding for students, parents, game participants and
other attendees.
• The District will provide Officers with a portable radio with District staff
frequency to monitor for any requests by the stadium staff for police
assistance.
• If two Officers are working a game, one will need to be at each of the two
ticket booths until game time or until notified by the Event Manager. If
only one Officer is working, the Officer will alternate between the two
ticket booths.
• During the game, one Officer will need to be at each end of the
grandstand. It is important that Officers are generally easy to spot in case
a need arises.
• At half time, at least one Officer needs to report to the east side of the
grandstand to assist with crowd control.
• At the conclusion of the 2nd and 3rd quarters, one Officer(s) will need to
assist the ticket sellers as they transport gate receipts back to the Stadium
Office.
• At game end, the Event Manager may ask for assistance on the field to
ensure that the crowd does not enter the field or to safeguard officials to
their locker room.
• Enforce rules pertaining to tobacco, alcohol, and drugs on public school
property. Officers shall take enforcement action (juvenile referral or
citation) when probable cause exits for any violations. Officers will notify
the appropriate school administrator and /or the School Resource Officer
of the arrest of any student during District sponsored event.
• After the game, the Officer(s) will report to the game management office
to sign out or be assigned other duties as directed by the Stadium Event
Manager.
2
Packet Page 147 of 380
5. Independent Contractor. Edmonds and the District understand and agree that
Edmonds is acting as an independent contractor under the terms of this
Agreement.
6. Supervision of Officer. The Officer shall remain an employee of Edmonds and
is not an employee of the District. The Officer shall remain responsive to the
supervision of the chain of command of the Edmonds Police Department.
Edmonds shall be solely responsible for Officer's training, discipline, or
dismissal.
7. Compensation. Officer's rate of pay shall be compensation at the rate of one
and one-half (1.5) times the Officer's regular straight time hourly rate of pay, plus
applicable employer contributions for state retirement, FICA equivalent, and state
industrial insurance.
8. Pa ment. District shall pay Edmonds within thirty (30) days from the date of
receipt of a proper invoice.
9. Insurance and Indemnification. The parties shall separately maintain their own
appropriate liability and casualty insurance policies as they, in their sole
discretion, deem appropriate. The parties further agree that no indemnification
shall be provided for, except as specifically set forth below, and that the
respective liability of the parties to each other and to third persons shall be
deemed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The District will
protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Edmonds, its officers, employees,
officials or agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments, or awards of
damages arising out of, or in any way resulting from, wrongful acts or omissions
of the District, its officers, employees, or agents. The District waives immunity
under Title 51 RCW, the Industrial Insurance Act, but only for purposes of
fulfilling its indemnification obligations towards Edmonds under this provision,
and acknowledges that this waiver has been specifically negotiated. Nothing
contained in this section shall be deemed to waive any other immunities
established pursuant to state statutes or to create third party rights or immunities.
In the event of concurrent liability, the parties shall have the right of contribution
in proportion to the respective liability of each party.
10. District Responsibility for Safety and Security. The parties understand and
agree that the District retains its legal responsibility for the safety and security of
the District, its employees, students and property, and this Agreement does not
alter that responsibility except as provided by paragraph 9 above.
11. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State
of Washington.
K3
Packet Page 148 of 380
12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the entire agreement between parties
and supersedes and merges with any prior agreements of the parties, written or
oral. This Agreement shall be amended only in writing with the written consent
of the parties.
13. Notice. Edmonds Assistant Chief of Administrative Services shall serve as
the administrator of this Agreement for Edmonds. Notices to Edmonds shall be
sent to the following address:
City of Edmonds Police Department
ATTN: Assistant Police Chief of Administrative Services
250 5th Avenue N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Director of Athletics shall serve as the administrator of this Agreement for the
District. Notices to the District shall be sent to the following address:
Edmonds School District #15
ATTN: Director of Athletics
20420 68th Ave W.,
Lynnwood, WA 98036
15. Duty to File Agreement With County Auditor. The District shall, within 10
days after this Agreement is executed by both parties, file this Agreement with the
Snohomish County Auditor or, alternatively, listed by subject on a public agency's
web site or other electronically retrievable public source as allowed in RCW
39.34.040.
EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OF EDMONDS
By: By:
Marla S. Miller
Dated: '?'�/ ld-Ll / U Dated:
Its: Executive Director
Business and Operations
4
Packet Page 149 of 380
AM-3279 Item #: 2. G.
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/16/2010
Time:
Submitted By: Michael Clugston
Department: Planning
Review Committee Approve for Consent Agenda
Committee: Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, amending the provisions of ECDC 20.60.025 relating to
total maximum sign area, Subsection A, Business and Commercial Zone to permit additional window
signage and address multi -tenant sites, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve attached ordinance (Exhibit 1).
Previous Council Action
Council voted unanimously to approve the code change on August 3, 2010 (Exhibit 2).
Narrative
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Ordinance updating maximum number of commercial signs
Exhibit 2 - Council minutes excerpt 8/3/10
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/11/2010 02:07 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/12/2010 04:22 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/12/2010 05:33 PM
Form Started By: Michael Clugston Started On: 08/09/2010 09:47 AM
Final Approval Date: 08/12/2010
Packet Page 150 of 380
0006.90000
wss/gj,Z
8/4/ 10
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC
20.60.025 RELATING TO TOTAL MAXIMUM SIGN AREA,
SUBSECTION A, BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL ZONE TO
PERMIT ADDITIONAL WINDOW SIGNAGE AND ADDRESS
MULTI -TENANT SITES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City's development regulations currently limit the number of
permitted permanent signs in commercial locations to three and provide a maximum signage area
per site, and
WHEREAS, it has been recommended following public hearing before the
Planning Board that the standards be amended to address signage on commercial sites with
multiple business tenants and to exempt window signage from the total number of permitted
signs, retaining the sign area limitations, and
WHEREAS, following its own public hearing, the City Council finds it to be in
the public interest to enact the recommended changes in order to provide better directional
information and as an economic development measure, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code, Section 20.60.025
Total Maximum Permanent Sim, subsection A, Business and Commercial Zone Districts
is hereby amended to read as follows:
{WSS808345.DOC;1\00006.900000\ 1, - 1 -
Packet Page 151 of 380
20.60.025 Total maximum permanent sign area.
A. Business and Commercial Zone Districts (BN, BC, BD,
CW and CG).
1. The maximum total permanent sign area for allowed or
permitted uses in the BN, BC, BD and CW zones shall be one
square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of wall containing the
main public entrance to the primary building or structure located
upon a separate legal lot.
2. The maximum total permanent sign area for allowed or
permitted uses in the CG zone shall be one square foot of sign area
for each lineal foot of building frontage along a public street and/or
along a side of the building containing the primary public entrance
to a maximum of 200 square feet. The allowable sign area shall be
computed separately for each qualifying building frontage, and
only the sign area derived from that frontage may be oriented
along that frontage. Sign areas for wall -mounted signs may not be
accumulated to yield a total allowable sign area greater than that
permitted upon such frontage, except that businesses choosing not
to erect a freestanding sign may use up to 50 percent of their
allowable freestanding sign area for additional attached sign area.
Use of the additional area shall be subject to the review of the
architectural design board.
3. The maximum total permanent sign area may be divided
between wall, projecting, and freestanding signs, in accordance
with regulations and maximum sign area and height for each type
of sign, as provided in ECDC 20.60.030 through 20.60.050.
Window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do
not count against the total permanent sign area permitted.
4. The maximum number of permitted permanent signs is
three per site, or three per physically enclosed business space on
commercial sites with multiple business tenants. Window signs
meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do not count against
the total number of permitted permanent signs. Multi -tenant sites
are allowed one additional group sign identifying the individual
subtenants at the site. The total sign area of all signs permitted on -
site must also comply with the maximum total permanent sign area
specified in this chapter.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
{WSS808345.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } -2-
Packet Page 152 of 380
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 MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
M.
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
{WSS808345.DOC;1\00006.900000\ 1, - 3 -
Packet Page 153 of 380
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2010, 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 ECDC 20.60.025 RELATING TO TOTAL MAXIMUM SIGN AREA,
SUBSECTION A, BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL ZONE TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL
WINDOW SIGNAGE AND ADDRESS MULTI -TENANT SITES, 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 92010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{WSS808345.DOC;1\00006.900000\ 1- 4 -
Packet Page 154 of 380
ironic that the Councilmembers who wanted to reprioritize the project list to add walkways and non -
motorized projects were the ones who now did not support the fee. She asked how these projects would
be funded if not by the proposed fee. She questioned whether Edmonds wanted to be a city where the
roads were crumbling because its citizens were not willing to pay $3.33/vehicle/month. She supported
allowing the voters to decide.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3804 TO AMEND THE PROVISION OF CHAPTER
3.65 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
DISTRICT IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE FUNCTIONS AND AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT
TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIRTY-SEVEN (37) TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING STREET OVERLAYS TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF CITY
STREETS, CONSTRUCTION OF KEY PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS, INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS TO RELIEVE CONGESTION, TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES,
CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS, PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING, SIGNALIZATION INSTALLATION
AND REPLACEMENT, AND BICYCLE LOOP SIGNAGE WITH THE PROCEEDS OF A FORTY
DOLLAR ($40) VEHICLE FEE INCREASE, IF APPROVED BY THE VOTERS.
Councilmember Wilson explained he opposed this when it came up as a policy vote in November 2009.
Although he did suggest reprioritizing the projects, he was clearly opposed to the fee and intended to vote
against it. The alternative is a levy. He recalled last April, 8 groups comprised of 65 people who
participated in the Levy Review Committee, told the Council that the City needed more money in the
form of a property tax levy.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reiterated her support for allowing the voters to decide; whether they
wanted to spend $3.33/car/month, the cost of a coffee at Starbucks, or whether they wanted to go
backward.
Councilmember Peterson expressed his support for the motion, explaining if approved by the voters, the
revenue generated by the fee would be used to fund projects and would not get lost in the "netherworld of
the General Fund," an important concept to voters. He agreed a levy was needed to support the General
Fund, those dollars are spent on a variety of governmental activities and are not as easy to pinpoint as the
funds generated by a license fee. Similarly, revenue generated by the increase in water rates is used
specifically for water -related projects. Approving a fee that is used for a specific purpose allows voters to
track its use and does not allow funds to be used for day-to-day operations of the City. He summarized the
projects on the list are tangible projects that are important to the livability of the City, the City's economy
and have a greater good than the fee itself.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, PETERSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, WILSON AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
Mayor Cooper reminded that a meeting of the TBD Board to make a final decision regarding this issue
will follow tonight's City Council meeting.
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
UPDATING THE NUMBER OF PERMITTED PERMANENT SIGNS PER SITE IN BUSINESS
AND COMMERCIAL ZONES. (EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 20.60.025)
(FILE NUMBER AMD20100014).
Planner Mike Clugston reported the Planning Board has recommended for the Council's review and
approval an important change in Chapter 20.60 of the Sign Code. The Sign Code contains numerous
regulations regarding the size and location of signs as well as the maximum number of permitted signs on
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 9
Packet Page 155 of 380
a site. In the current code, a free standing business is allowed a total of three signs of whatever type is
allowed in that area. For multi -tenant sites, each tenant is allowed one sign. Staff has received many
requests from multi -tenant businesses asking for more flexibility. The Planning Board considered several
alternatives and recommended that three signs per multi -tenant site be allowed, similar to a standalone
business. All the existing requirements for size and location still apply. In addition, window signs are
exempt from the total number of permitted signs. Window signs have their own requirements with regard
to size and location. Mr. Clugston provided the proposed language for ECDC 20.60.025.A(4) regarding
the maximum number of permitted permanent signs of three per site. The Planning Board determined the
proposed change would allow multi -tenant sites throughout the City more flexibility.
Council President Bernheim inquired about the rationale for exempting window signs. Mr. Clugston
answered window signs have maximum area requirements, one square of window sign for each lineal foot
of window frontage. Window signs are currently exempt from the maximum sign area, thus are already
allowed the additional sign area. The way the code was previously written window signs were not
excluded from the number of total signs. Council President Bernheim summarized the proposed change
did not affect the maximum permitted area of window signs, only the distribution. Mr. Clugston agreed.
For Councilmember Petso, Mr. Clugston referred to Chapter 20.60.035 that states the maximum area for
window signs is one square foot for each lineal foot of window frontage. Councilmember Petso observed
a business could do a one square foot sign all the way across their window. Mr. Clugston answered if a
business had 20 feet of lineal window, they could put a 20 square foot sign in one window or spread it
over multiple windows. The intent is to provide flexibility. Design standards in areas of the City would
also apply such as the downtown business zones that state windows cannot be completely covered with
signs. Councilmember Petso asked whether there were regulations regarding window signs in the
Neighborhood Business zone. Mr. Clugston answered the same window requirements apply in the
downtown business, neighborhood business and commercial zones.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, supported the City reviewing its sign regulations, recalling his inability to
find the entrance to the new Ace Hardware and the manager's comment that they were not allowed
additional signage. He found the proposed change helpful to businesses and customers which helped the
City's economy. He also welcomed Mayor Cooper.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented he attends most Planning Board meetings and there is often a
Planning Board representative at City Council meetings although there was not tonight. He suggested
Councilmembers attend Planning Board meetings. He supported the proposed change.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out that previously the size of the building was used to determine the
total square footage of allowed signage for a building including window signs. Under this proposal
windows could be used for extra signage. Although window signs can be good, including window signs
would allow a business a great deal of additional signage. He also felt filling windows with signs looked
junky.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE SIGN CODE.
Councilmember Peterson thanked the Planning Board and staff for developing the proposed changes. As a
small business owner, the sign code can seem like a big deal when opening a new business and anything
the City can do to assist small businesses is important. This was a step in the right direction to show the
Council's support for the business community.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 10
Packet Page 156 of 380
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the ordinance will be scheduled on the Council's next Consent
Agenda.
9. PRESENTATION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TO PROCEED WITH A PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON GREEN FUTURES LAB FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
SPECIAL DISTRICT PLANS FOR THE FIVE CORNERS AND WESTGATE COMMERCIAL
CENTERS.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained in March 2010 the Council adopted Resolution 1224 in response
to recommendations from the Economic Development Commission (EDC). One of the Commission's
recommendations was to initiate neighborhood center plans for Five Corners, Perrinville and Westgate in
order to position these areas to attract redevelopment. In an effort to implement that recommendation,
staff and the EDC's land use subcommittee worked with the University of Washington's Green Futures
Lab and the Cascade Land Conservancy (CLC) to develop an 8-9 month project at a substantial cost
savings to the City. The project would involve University professors working with students and classes as
well as utilize CLC, who by contract with the City, has 25 hours to provide.
Mr. Chave explained the project is a public design process with the assistance of University students and
CLC to develop regulations, design guidelines, etc. that would implement design and green development
within the Five Corners and Westgate areas. This would position these areas for future improvement and
redevelopment to provide services for the neighborhoods, improved access and potentially serve as a
template that could be used in other neighborhood planning efforts in the City.
With regard to funding, the base project is expected to cost approximately $40,000. There have been
savings within the Planning Department's Professional Services budget such as money left over from the
code rewrite that will not be spent this year and because development activity is down substantially, funds
in professional services that would have been used for development studies will not be spent this year.
This is a unique opportunity because, 1) the University of Washington can include this project in their
curriculum this year, and 2) there are unlikely to be savings in professional services next year. The EDC
land use subcommittee presented the proposal to the full EDC who unanimously recommended
forwarding it to the Council. The University is ready to proceed upon approval by the Council.
Mr. Chave explained although funding is available for the base study, the University recommends some
type of market analysis accompany the study. The Council would need to identify funding for the market
analysis. There are two levels of funding for a market study, 1) $25,000-$30,000 would provide a full
market analysis for the two centers, or 2) $10,000 would be an expert looking over the shoulder of the
university participants and CLC and providing expert advice on what was feasible.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Council was being asked to approve a dollar amount for a
market study. Mr. Chave answered yes, pointing out in the scope of work, the market analysis occurs in
the early stages of the project, this fall. The Council could defer a decision on the market study for a few
weeks. However, for the University to include this project in their curriculum, they need the Council to
approve the project.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Chave for the assistance he has provided the EDC. As Council
liaison to the EDC, Councilmember Buckshnis commented on the report given by the land use
subcommittee regarding this project. She is also the liaison to the Port who is also utilizing UW students
to do a similar project for Harbor Square. She was concerned with using the Council Contingency Fund
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 11
Packet Page 157 of 380
AM-3284
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/16/2010
Time: Consent
Submitted For: Council President Bernheim
Department: City Council
Review
i'nmmittaa•
Submitted By: Jana Spellman
Committee
Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Resolution thanking Graham Marmion for his service as a Student Representative.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Resolution thanking Graham Marmion for his service as a Student Representative.
Resolution -Graham Marmion
Inbox
City Clerk
Mayor
Final Approval
Form Started By: Jana Spellman
Final Approval Date: 08/12/2010
Attar-hmPnte
Form Review
Reviewed By Date
Sandy Chase 08/12/2010 09:59 AM
Mike Cooper 08/12/2010 04:23 PM
Sandy Chase 08/12/2010 05:33 PM
Started On: 08/12/2010 09:49 AM
Item #: 2. H.
Packet Page 158 of 380
o0tutiou
.Qo: 1232
A 1Xesolution of the Edmonds City Council Commending
Graham 914armion
for Jfis Service as a Student Representative of the Edmonds City Council
Whereas, Graham Marmion, a student at Edmonds-Woodway High School, was selected to serve
as a Student Representative of the Edmonds City Council; and
Whereas, Graham Marmion, served as a student member of the City Council from September
2009 to April 2010; and
Whereas, During his tenure as Student Representative, Graham Marmion demonstrated
enthusiasm and attentiveness in the work of the body. His well-informed comments
were appreciated by all.
,Now, Therefore, Be It 12esoked ,, that Graham Marmion be commended for his participation in city
government in Edmonds during his term as Student Representative while
participating in a variety of school activities, and
Be It Further Resokedf that the City Council and the Mayor hereby extend their best wishes to
Graham in his future endeavors and express the hope that he will continue to
contribute his fine talents to the democratic process of government in the City of
Edmonds and elsewhere.
Now, Therefore, Be It Passed, Approved, and Adopted the 16th day of August, 2010.
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Councilman
Strom Peterson, Councilman
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilwoman
Attest: City Clerk
Steve Bernheim, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Councilwoman
D.J. Wilson, Councilman
Lora Petso, Councilwoman
Packet Page 159 of 380
AM-3285
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/16/2010
Time: 5 Minutes
Submitted For: Council President Bernheim
Department: City Council
Review
i'nmmi++aa•
Submitted By: Jana Spellman
Committee
Action:
Type: Information
Information
Item #: 3.
Subject Title
Presentation of Resolution and plaque to Student Representative Graham Marmion.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Presentation of Resolution and plague to Student Representative Graham Marmion.
Inbox
City Clerk
Mayor
Final Approval
Form Started By: Jana Spellman
Final Approval Date: 08/12/2010
Form Review
Reviewed By Date
Sandy Chase 08/12/2010 09:59 AM
Mike Cooper 08/12/2010 04:23 PM
Sandy Chase 08/12/2010 05:33 PM
Started On: 08/12/2010 09:52 AM
Packet Page 160 of 380
AM-3293
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/16/2010
Time: 10 Minutes
Submitted For: Sustainable Works
Department: Planning
Review
Committee:
Type: Information
Subject Title
Sustainable Works Presentation.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
No action is required.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Submitted By: Rob Chave
Committee
Action:
Information
Item #: 4.
SustainableWorks is "a community -based non-profit created solely to help homeowners with
home retrofits to reduce energy use while also creating quality jobs." They received a federal
ARRA grant and Edmonds/Lynnwood will be their next project location. In addition to this
Council presentation, they would also like to get the word out through as many local outlets as
possible. Staff will be assisting in this effort.
For additional information on their programs, their website is located at:
http://sustainableworks.com/
Additional information from their website includes:
"The Sustainable Works model is scalable, efficient, and sustainable in order to maximize job
creation and carbon reductions.
• Organize communities through volunteer support, local institutional participation, public
events, and neighbor interaction to engage home and small business owners in energy efficiency
retrofits.
• Deploy certified energy consultants and auditors to assess building energy use and potential
savings and identify retrofit measures that are cost-effective.
• Create a financing package that combines utility, government and customer participation so that
costs are offset with affordable loans
Packet Page 161 of 380
• Pool the retrofit projects within neighborhoods (100 — 200 at a time) to gain efficiencies and
obtain the most competitive quotes from qualified contractors.
• Create quality Green Jobs by selecting and overseeing contractors who agree to:
o Participate in quality and efficiency training
o Utilize 20% apprentices and hire from targeted constituencies.
o Pay prevailing wages and benefits.
• Guarantee the quality of the retrofits by assuring customer satisfaction and the effectiveness of
energy saving measures."
Inbox
Reviewed By
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
Mayor
Mike Cooper
Final Approval
Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Rob Chave
Final Approval Date: 08/12/2010
Form Review
Date
08/12/2010 03:15 PM
08/12/2010 04:26 PM
08/12/2010 05:33 PM
Started On: 08/12/2010 02:57 PM
Packet Page 162 of 380
AM-3291 Item #: 5.
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/16/2010
Time: 15 Minutes
Submitted By: Rob Chave
Department: Planning
Review Committee
Committee: Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing to extend Interim Ordinance No. 3787, amending provisions of Title 20
ECDC relating to Planned Residential Developments to allow closed record administrative
appeal of preliminary PRD decisions and to eliminate overlap of perimeter buffers and
setback for exterior lot lines.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the ordinance extending the interim provisions.
Previous Council Action
The City Council approved interim zoning Ordinance #3787 on April 6, 2010.
Narrative
On April 6, 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance #3787 amending the Edmonds
Community Development Code to provide for closed record administrative appeals of PRD's to
the City Council and eliminating the possibility of having perimeter buffers overlap or coincide
with lot setbacks. It is necessary to extend the interim ordinance to enable the Planning Board
time to complete its complete its review.
Exhibit 1: Ordinance #3787
Exhibit 2: City Council Minutes
Inbox
Reviewed By
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
Mayor
Mike Cooper
Final Approval
Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Rob Chave
Final Approval Date: 08/12/2010
AttarhmPntc
Form Review
Date
08/12/2010 03:15 PM
08/12/2010 04:25 PM
08/12/2010 05:33 PM
Started On: 08/12/2010
Packet Page 163 of 380
ORDINANCE NO.3787
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20
ECDC RELATING TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENTS TO ALLOW CLOSED RECORD
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY PRD
DECISIONS AND TO ELIMINATE OVERLAP OF
PERIMETER BUFFERS AND SETBACKS FOR EXTERIOR
LOT LINES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, preliminary planned residential development (PRD) decisions are
issued by the Hearing Examiner upon recommendation by the Architectural Design Board on site
and building designs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to afford the opportunity for closed record
appeals on preliminary PRD decisions issued by the hearing examiner; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes eliminate ambiguity on whether setbacks for
exterior lot lines and perimeter buffers can overlap; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council hereby makes the findings as set forth
in the "WHEREAS" clauses, which are adopted and incorporated herein by this reference in
support of this interim Ordinance.
Section 2. Amended. Subsection ECDC 20.01.003(A) of the Edmonds
Community Development Code and previously adopted interim ordinance amending the same,
are hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Decisions.
f BFP779770.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 1 -
Packet Page 164 of 380
TYPE I
TYPE II
TYPE III -A
TYPE III-B
TYPE IV -A
IV -
TYPE V
Statement of
Modification to
Plat vacations
Essential public
Final formal
Site
Development
zoning
landscape plans
and alterations
facilities
plats
specific/
agreements
restriction
contract
rezone
Boundary line
Formal
Architectural
Final planned
Zoning text
adjustments, lot
interpretation of
design board
residential
amendments;
line
the text of the
review
development
area -wide zoning
adjustment, lot
ECDC by the
map amendments
combination
director or
designated staff
Permitted uses
Home
Site plan/major
Shoreline
Comprehensive
not requiring
occupation
amendments to
substantial
plan amendments
site plan review
permit
site plans
development,
shoreline
conditional
use, shoreline
variance
Special use
Accessory
Conditional
Annexations
permits
dwelling unit
use
Minor
SEPA
General
Development
amendments to
determinations
variances and
regulations
planned
residential
sign permit
development
variances
Minor
Revisions to
Draft
Master plan
preliminary
shoreline
plat
management
environmental
amendment
permits
impact
statement
Staff design
Administrative
Preliminary
review
variances
formal plats
Sign permits
Preliminary
Preliminary
short plats
planned
residential
development
Final short
Land clearing /
grading
plats
{BFP779770.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 2 -
Packet Page 165 of 380
Section 3. Amended. Subsection 20.35.080(A)(4) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
4. The Public Hearing with the Hearing Examiner. The
hearing examiner shall review the proposed PRD for
compliance with this section as a Type III-B decision.
If, after all appeals are exhausted, the proposal is denied, a
similar plan for the site may not be submitted to the
development services department for one year. A new plan
which varies substantially from the denied proposal, as
determined by the development services director, or one
that satisfies the objections stated by the final decision -
maker may be submitted at any time.
An applicant who intends to subdivide the land for sale as
part of the project shall obtain subdivision approval in
accordance with Chapter 20.75 ECDC before any building
permit or authorization to begin construction is issued, and
before sale of any portion of the property. The preferred
method is for the applicant to process the subdivision
application concurrently with the planned residential
development proposal.
Section 4. Amended. Subsection 20.35.050(C)(2) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
2. Provide a landscape buffer, open space or passive use
recreational area of a depth from the inner boundaries of
exterior property line setbacks at least equal to the depth of
the rear yard setback applicable to the zone. If such a buffer
is provided, interior setbacks may be flexible and shall be
determined pursuant to ECDC 20.35.030. When the
exterior property line abuts a public way, a buffer at least
equal to the depth of the front yard required for the
underlying zone shall be provided.
Section 5. Public Hearin>;. As required by RCW 35A.63.220, this interim
Ordinance shall expire six months from the date of adoption, unless sooner repealed or
subsequently extended by act of the City Council. In the meantime, as further required by
{BFP779770.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 3 -
Packet Page 166 of 380
RCW 35A.63.220, the City Clerk is directed to schedule a public hearing on this ordinance
within sixty (60) days of its adoption. The City Council may in its discretion adopt additional
findings in support of this interim Ordinance at the conclusion of the public hearing. The
Planning Board is required to make a recommendation on the final version of this ordinance to
be adopted by the City Council prior to its expiration.
Section 6. Ordinance to be Transmitted to Department. Pursuant to RCW
36.70A.106, this interim Ordinance shall be transmitted to the Washington Department of
Community, Trade, and Economic Development as required by law.
Section 7. 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 interim Ordinance.
Section 8. 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.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
d Ao"
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF A EY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
APPROV
MA R G Y HAAKENSON
{BFP779770.DOC,1\00006.150243\ }
Packet Page 167 of 380
SM
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 04-02-2010
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 04-06-2010
PUBLISHED: 04-11-2010
EFFECTIVE DATE: 04-16-2010
ORDINANCE NO. 3787
{BFP779770.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 5 -
Packet Page 168 of 380
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3787
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 6th day of April, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. 3787. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20
ECDC RELATING TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENTS TO ALLOW CLOSED RECORD
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY PRD
DECISIONS AND TO ELIMINATE OVERLAP OF
PERIMETER BUFFERS AND SETBACKS FOR EXTERIOR
LOT LINES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 7th day of April, 2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{BFP779770.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 6 -
Packet Page 169 of 380
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
oF. °
(c. I890
Affidavit of Publication
} S.S.
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of
THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of
Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general
circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Courtof Snohomish County and that the notice
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3787
Of the ity of Edmonds, Washington
On the 6th day of. April, 2010, the City Council of the City of
Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3787. A summary of the content
of said ordinance, consistingUf
Summate of Ordinance No. 3787
the title, provides as -follows:
AN INTERIM ODINANWASH
NGTON, RAM EN P OVI O SOF THE CITYOOF OT TOLE D20'
.ECDC RELATING:TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP-
Interim Ordinance
MENTS TO ALLOW"CLOSED'. RECORD ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY PRD DECISIONS AND TO ELIM-
INATE;OVERLAP OF PERIMETER SUFFERS AND SET-
BACKS FOR EXTERIOR LOT LINES, AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN. THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 7th day of April, 2010...
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in
Published: April 11 2010 CITY CLERK, SANDRA S, CHASE
supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and
— '
times, namely:
April 11, 2010
APR 8 2010
is y i
1r L ti't
Account Name: City of Edmonds
and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period.
o6d44 C Q�u
Principal Clerk
Subscribed and swom to before me this 12th
day of April, 2010
at Eve
Notary Public in and a ate of 4Yas to
County.,'
ff �w ,y 1tf1r f
A Pr
Account Number: 1014i6 ; tl l t t1 'ryi
Snohomish
0001691693
Packet Page 170 of 380
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
In response to Mr. Hertrich's question about visibility blockage, Mr. Snyder explained the proposed
revisions address where in the code penalties can be found. Visibility blockage is defined elsewhere in the
code; visibility blockage refers to impediments to the view of the public as it travels on public or private
easements. The Community Services/Development Services Committee recommended an increase in the
penalty for an illegal sewer connection fee. The Committee also discussed whether the penalty for illegal
tree cutting was adequate, currently $1000/day and $500/tree and tripled to $3000/day or $1500/tree for
clearing in a critical area. Recent discussions of tree value in Native Growth Protection Easements
indicated those penalties are somewhat low. An upcoming Council agenda will include a discussion
regarding trees in general and the Committee felt it would be appropriate to discuss tree value and
whether to raise the penalty at that time. The revisions to Title 18 were intended to provide clear appeal
references and not make substantive changes. Council President Bernheim advised that discussion was
scheduled for the May Community Services/Development Services Committee meeting.
With regard to Ms. Petso's comment, a variance in a subdivision or PRD from the City's requirements
should be considered as a waiver in that process. The process in Title 18 is intended to be applicable only
to undergrounding requirement for individual homes and the extension of existing systems rather than
new subdivisions.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3788. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is as follows:
COORDINATING THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18 AND TITLE 20 BY AMENDING ECDC
SECTION 18.00.020(C); AMENDING 18.10.010 SEWER CONNECTIONS, SECTION E
HEARING; AMENDING 18.10.030 UNLAWFUL CONNECTIONS; AMENDING 18.30.065
EXCEPTIONS TO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING 18.30.080 ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS, (C) CIVIL PENALTY; AMENDING 18.30.130(C); AMENDING 18.40.120
PROHIBITED ROCKERIES, BY AMENDING SECTIONS (B) AND (C) AND ADDING A NEW
SECTION (D); AMENDING SECTION 18.45.070 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES; AMENDING
CHAPTER 18.60 BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 18.60.050 DECISION AND APPEAL;
AMENDING SECTION 18.70.030 (D) APPEAL; AMENDING SECTION 18.80.060 DRIVEWAY
AND CURB CUT REQUIREMENTS, BY AMENDING SECTION (D) AND ADDING A NEW
SECTION (E) APPEALS; SECTION 18.80.070 STREET SLOPE REQUIREMENTS; SECTION
18.85.060 VISIBILITY BLOCKAGE, (B) ENFORCEMENT; SECTION 18.95.030 TO ADD A NEW
SUBSECTION (C), AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
5B. INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20 ECDC RELATING TO
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO ALLOW CLOSED RECORD
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY PRD DECISIONS AND TO ELIMINATE
OVERLAP OF PERIMETER BUFFERS AND SETBACKS FOR EXTERIOR LOT LINES
(Formerly Consent Agenda Item 2K)
Council President Bernheim explained there were two issues proposed by this ordinance, 1) returning the
appeal of a PRD to the City Council, making it a type III-B application rather that the current III -A where
appeals are to the Hearing Examiner, and 2) clarifying the language so that PRD perimeter buffers are
separate from setback requirements. He explained under the current ambiguous language, a property
owner on the perimeter of a PRD may find their backyard is comprised of the setback and perimeter
buffer. If the intent is to have a perimeter buffer as compensation for the increased density allowed in a
PRD, the perimeter buffer should be separate from backyards and setbacks. He proposed the Council
adopt the Option 1 ordinance included in the packet that would adopt these two revisions on an interim
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 6
Packet Page 171 of 380
basis and to schedule a public hearing within the next 1-2 months. He explained the options before the
Council were to adopt the interim ordinance tonight and have these two provisions in place for a six
month period pending a public hearing and further discussion/action. If no further action was taken, the
provisions would expire in six months. The other option was not to adopt the interim ordinance and set a
public hearing prior to any further action.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3787, ALTERNATIVE 1 IN THE COUNCIL
PACKET.
Mr. Snyder clarified PRD's allow concentrated density not enhanced density. He explained Council
President Bernheim's direction to the City Attorney's office was to prepare an ordinance for public
hearing; it was unclear whether the intent was a public hearing tonight or on a future date. The ordinances
provide both options. Council President Bernheim advised a public hearing would be scheduled for a
future date. Mr. Snyder advised the date of the public hearing was not included in the ordinance; a date
within 60 days should be inserted.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3787 — AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20 ECDC RELATING TO
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO ALLOW CLOSED RECORD
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY PRD DECISIONS AND TO ELIMINATE
OVERLAP OF PERIMETER BUFFERS AND SETBACKS FOR EXTERIOR LOT LINES, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
5C. FISCAL POLICIES (Formerly Azenda Item 12)
Councilmember Buckshnis explained at the Council retreat she was asked to prepare fiscal policies. After
conducting a great deal of research of other cities' fiscal policies, and discussion with Finance Director
Lorenzo Hines and Councilmember Plunkett she drafted fiscal policies and resolution. After reviewing
the policies, City Attorney Scott Snyder drafted an alternate resolution as well as an ordinance. She
identified sections of her proposed fiscal policies that Mr. Snyder separated into a resolution and an
ordinance and his addition of a section that states the forms and information must be compliant with the
requirements established by the State Auditor. She relayed the conversation Mr. Hines and she had
regarding modified accrual accounting and full accrual accounting; modified accrual accounting is
typically used in municipalities because there is not a net worth or income statement.
She reviewed the changes that would occur when the policies were adopted:
• Improved report labeling. She displayed City of Redmond's reports that are labeled Monthly All
Recap Funds, the month, biennium budget. By comparison, Edmonds' reports are labeled
Example B.
• Including financial information on the City's website. She displayed financial information
available on the City of Lake Oswego's website that included budget projections and details that
help the citizens understand the city's financial condition. The goal will be to provide information
in the finance section of the City's website.
• Providing the fund flow of the General Fund.
• Improved narrative of trends and indicators. She displayed the City of Des Moines quarterly
report that provides explanation of revenue and expenses. This provides a framework to support
the City's financials.
She summarized providing this information on the City's website would allow citizens to become more
familiar with the City's financial condition.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 6, 2010
Page 7
Packet Page 172 of 380
AM-3280 Item #: 7.
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/16/2010
Time: 20 Minutes
Submitted By: Michael Clugston
Department: Planning
Review Committee Recommend Review by Full
Committee: Action: Council
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Discussion on the proposed updates to land use permit review procedures contained in the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 20.01 through 20.08, excluding
20.05, which include staff reassuming the public notice requirements for project
applications; reorganizing and clarifying portions of text; and updating the permit type
matrix in ECDC 20.01.003.A.(File No. AMD20100013).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Staff asks that the Council review the Planning Board's 7/28/10 recommendation regarding the proposed
changes and schedule a public hearing.
Previous Council Action
Council approved a major update to the land use permit processing procedures in the ECDC in June
2009. In January 2010, Council approved interim ordinances #3775 and #3783 to reassume closed record
administrative appeal reviews for certain land use projects (Exhibits 1 and 2).
Narrative
In January 2010 the Council approved an interim zoning ordinance reinstating its role in certain appeals,
and referred the issue to the Planning Board for a recommendation for a permanent code change. The
change essentially reinstated the Council's role as it was prior to the Title 20 amendments adopted in
June, 2009.
Since the Title 20 updates were adopted by Council in June 2009, staff has also identified several
areas requiring further refinement, and these were included in the Planning Board's review.
The Planning Board's recommendaton includes action on the Council's appeals along with the
administrative staff refinements. The proposed changes are included in a redlined version of the code
(Exhibit 3) and a clean version (Exhibit 4) for ease of comparison. Exhibits 5 and 6 are the draft
minutes and agenda memo from the Planning Board's public hearing held on July 28. Exhibit 7 contains
additional Planning Board minutes and supplemental material reviewed by the Planning Board in April
and June.
The proposed changes will codify the Council's interim ordinances adopted earlier this year, ordinances
#3775 and #3783. The Planning Board discussed again at length the merits of closed record
administrative appeals being heard by Council (Exhibit 5). Ultimately, the
Board recommended continuing Council's involvement at that stage of the permitting process while
suggesting further study of the topic by the Council (see minutes).
Packet Page 173 of 380
Other changes proposed include:
1) Staff reassuming the public notice requirements for project applications;
2) Reorganizing and clarifying portions of text;
3) Updating the permit type matrix in ECDC 20.01.003.A to accurately reflect the types of permits
processed in Edmonds;
4) Adding a 90-day extension opportunity for applicants to submit required information in support of
incomplete permits;
5) Removing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) from the permit matrix. The DEIS is not
a land use permit but rather a factual document used in support of making a land use permit decision like
a subdivision or a rezone. There is no decision for the Hearing Examiner to make on a DEIS and there are
separate statutory requirements that a lead agency must follow for DEIS review and appeal which are
fully described in ECDC 20.15A. ECDC 20.15A adopts WAC 197-11-535 which allows for the option of
a public hearing on the DEIS and the WAC specifies a process for how such a hearing must be held.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Ord. #3775
Exhibit 2 - Ord. #3783
Exhibit 3 - Title 20 changes redlined
Exhibit 4 - Title 20 changes clean
Exhibit 5 - Draft PB minutes excerpt 7-28-10
Exhibit 6 - 7-28-10 PB agenda memo
Exhibit 7 - PB Review Material
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Planning Department Rob Chave 08/13/2010 09:54 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/13/2010 09:57 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/13/2010 10:25 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/13/2010 10:27 AM
Form Started By: Michael Clugston Started On: 08/09/2010 10:28 AM
Final Approval Date: 08/13/2010
Packet Page 174 of 380
0006.90000
BFP/
01/04/10
ORDINANCE NO.3775
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING TITLE 20 ECDC REVIEW
CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES TO EXPAND
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CLOSED RECORD
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN
THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, Title 20 ECDC was recently amended; and
WHEREAS, during said recent amendment, closed record administrative appeals
before the City Council on quasi judicial matters were limited; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to afford the opportunity for closed record
appeals on quasi judicial matters as it did before the aforementioned amendment; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council hereby makes the findings as set forth in
the "WHEREAS" clauses, which are adopted and incorporated herein by this reference in
support of this interim Ordinance.
Section 2. Amended. Subsection ECDC 20.01.003(A) of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
{BFP757425.D0Q1\00006.150243\ } - 1 -
Packet Page 175 of 380
A. Decisions.
TYPE I
TYPE II
TYPE III -A
TYPE III-B
TYPE IV -A
TYPE
TYPE V
Statement of
Modification to
Plat vacations
Essential public
Final plats
Site
Development
zoning
landscape plans
and alterations
facilities
specific/
agreements
restriction
contract
rezone
Boundary line
Formal
Preliminary
Architectural
Final planned
Zoning text
adjustments, lot
interpretation of
planned
design board
residential
amendments;
line
the text of the
residential
review
development
area -wide zoning
adjustment, lot
ECDC by the
development
map amendments
combination
director or
designated staff
Permitted uses
Home
Site plan/major
Shoreline
Comprehensive
not requiring
occupation
amendments to
substantial
plan amendments
site plan review
permit
site plans
development,
shoreline
conditional
use, shoreline
variance
Special use
Accessory
Conditional
Annexations
permits
dwelling unit
use
Minor
SEPA
General
Development
amendments to
determinations
variances and
regulations
planned
sign permit
residential
development
variances
Minor
Revisions to
Draft
Master plan
preliminary
shoreline
environmental
plat
management
impact
amendment
permits
statement
Staff design
Administrative
Preliminary
review
variances
long plats
Sign permits
Preliminary
short plats
Land clearing /
grading
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 2 -
Packet Page 176 of 380
Section 3. Amended. Subsection 17.50.090(A)(3) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3. Applications for a conditional use permit, or an appeal of a
staff decision approving or denying a one-year extension thereof shall
be reviewed by the hearing examiner under the same terms and
conditions as any conditional use permit utilizing the criteria contained
in Chapter 20.05 ECDC and under the procedural requirements
contained in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. An application for a two-year
extension of a conditional use permit for a temporary parking lot shall
be processed in the same manner as an initial application for a
conditional use permit for a temporary parking lot and new or changed
conditions may be imposed in the course of that process. Decisions of
the hearing examiner on granting or extending conditional use permits
for temporary parking lots shall be appealable to the city council under
the process contained in Chapter 20.07 ECDC.
Section 4. Amended. Section 17.70.010, Other temporary buildings., of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.70.010 Other temporary buildings.
Except as provided in ECDC 17.70.030, a conditional use permit shall
be required to construct a temporary building in any zone. The permit
shall be administratively reviewed by staff and shall be valid for a
period of one year; provided, however, that said permit may be
extended by the development services director for a single one-year
extension upon submittal of a written application prior to the
expiration of the original permit. All the requirements of the zoning
district shall be met. An appeal of the staff decision granting or
denying such a permit or extension shall be reviewed by the hearing
examiner in accordance with the requirements for any other
conditional use permit under Chapter 20.06 ECDC, with the decision
being appealable to the city council under the procedures applicable to
any other conditional use permit.
Section 5. Amended. Section 17.75.020, Primary uses requiring a conditional use
permit., of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.75.020 Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit.
Outdoor dining shall be a primary use requiring a conditional use
permit in the BN — neighborhood business zone, BC — community
(BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ )
Packet Page 177 of 380
-3-
business zone, BD — downtown business zone, CW — commercial
waterfront zone, and CG — general commercial zone, for outdoor
seating which exceeds 10 percent of the existing interior seating in the
establishment or more than eight seats, whichever is greater. This use
shall be established and maintained only in accordance with the terms
of a conditional use permit approved by the hearing examiner as a
Type III-B decision under the procedural requirements contained in
Chapter 20.06 ECDC. At a minimum, the conditions considered for
imposition by the hearing examiner may include a restriction on
operating hours, location of the outdoor seating, and/or buffering of
the noise and visual impacts related to the outdoor dining seating. All
seating permitted pursuant to the conditional use permit shall be
located outside of public rights -of -way. If outdoor seating is approved
under these provisions, no additional parking stalls shall be required
for the outdoor dining.
Section 6. Amended. Subsection 17.100.030(B) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. Decisions to approve, condition, deny, review or decline to
renew a CUP shall be a Type III-B decision.
Section 7. Amended. Section 20.05.020, General requirements., of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.05.020 General requirements.
A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review and decide on
conditional use permit applications as Type III-B decisions as set forth
in ECDC 20.01.003.
B. Appeals. Appeals of the hearing examiner's decisions shall be
to the city council in accordance with Chapter 20.07 ECDC.
C. Time Limit. Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if
no building permit is required, substantially commences the use
allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use
permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension before the expiration date and the city
approves the application.
D. Review of Extension Application. An application for any
extension of time shall be reviewed by the community development
director as a Type II decision.
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006,150243\ } - 4 -
Packet Page 178 of 380
E. Location. A conditional use permit applies only to the property
for which it has been approved and may not be transferred to any other
property.
F. Denial. A conditional use permit application may be denied if
the proposal cannot be conditioned so that the required findings can be
made.
Section 8. Amended. Section 20.19.010, Conditional use permit required., of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.19.010 Conditional use permit required.
When a conditional use permit is required by the provisions of Title 16
ECDC relating to the zoning districts, conditional use permit
applications for operation of a mini day-care shall be processed as a
Type III-B decision utilizing the criteria set forth in this chapter. In
addition to the specific criteria set forth herein, the hearing examiner
and city council on appeal shall also review the application under the
criteria and required findings set forth in Chapter 20.05 ECDC relating
to conditional use permits in order to establish that the proposed
facility is not deleterious to the immediately surrounding
neighborhood nor constitutes a public nuisance. The hearing examiner,
or the city council on appeal, may impose reasonable conditions on the
approval of the conditional use permit for mini day-care facilities in
order to ensure that the criteria of ECDC 20.19.020 are met and that
the facility is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. The city
council's decision on appeal shall be final.
Section 9. Amended. Section 20.19.050, Appeal., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.19.050 Appeal.
Appeals may be taken from the hearing examiner's decision to the city
council under the provisions of Chapter 20.07 ECDC. An appellant
may challenge the imposition of conditions or may elect to challenge a
later determination as to whether those conditions have been met. The
city council's decision on appeal shall be final.
Section 10. Amended. Subsection 20.20.010(B) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(BFP757425.DOCJ\00006.150243\ ) - 5 -
Packet Page 179 of 380
B. A home occupation which does not meet one or more of the
requirements of subsection A of this section may be approved as a
conditional use permit (Type III-B decision) pursuant to Chapter 20.05
ECDC and the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC, if the
home occupation:
Section 11. Amended. Section 20.55.030, Review., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.55.030 Review.
The hearing examiner shall review and issue decisions on shoreline
permits as a Type III-B decision, using the criteria contained in the
city shoreline master program, Chapter 23.10 ECDC, the policies of
the Shoreline Act and of Chapter 173-14 WAC, or as the same may be
amended.
Section 12. Amended. Subsection 20.75.065(D) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall
review a formal subdivision as a Type III-B decision in accordance
with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
Section 13. Amended. Section 20.75.070, Formal subdivision - Time limit., of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.75.070 Formal subdivision — Time limit.
A decision on preliminary plats of a proposed formal subdivision shall
be made within 90 days of the date of filing, unless the applicant
agrees to extend the time. Where applicable, additional time needed to
prepare and circulate an environmental impact statement shall not be
included within said 90 days.
Section 14. Amended. Section 20.85.020, General requirements., of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.85.020 General requirements.
A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review variances as Type III-B
decisions in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 6 -
Packet Page 180 of 380
B. Appeals. Appeals of the hearing examiner's decisions shall be to
the city council in accordance with Chapter 20.07 ECDC.
C. Time Limit. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner
within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire
and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an
extension before the expiration and the city approves the application.
D. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension
of time shall be reviewed by the community development director as a
Type II decision (Staff Decision — Notice Required).
E. Location. A variance applies only to the property for which it has
been approved and may not be transferred to any other property.
Section 15. Amended. Subsection 23.40.210(C) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Hearing Examiner Review. The city hearing examiner shall, as
a Type III-B decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC), review variance
applications and conduct a public hearing. The hearing examiner shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny variance applications based
on a proposal's ability to comply with general and specific variance
criteria provided in subsections (A) and (B) of this section.
Section 16. Ordinance to be Transmitted to Department. Pursuant to RCW
36.70A.106, this interim Ordinance shall be transmitted to the Washington Department of
Community, Trade, and Economic Development as required by law.
Section 17. Public Hearing. As required by RCW 35A.63.220, this interim
Ordinance shall expire six months from the date of adoption, unless sooner repealed or
subsequently extended by act of the City Council. In the meantime, as further required by RCW
35A.63.220, the City Clerk is directed to schedule a public hearing on this ordinance within sixty
(60) days of its adoption. The City Council may in its discretion adopt additional findings in
support of this interim Ordinance at the conclusion of the public hearing. The Planning Board is
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 7 -
Packet Page 181 of 380
required to make a recommendation on the final version of this ordinance to be adopted by the
City Council prior to its expiration.
Section 18. 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 interim Ordinance.
Section 19. 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 G HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
4 e4"
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO ORM:
OFFICE OF E TY A EY
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 01-05-10
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 01-05-10
PUBLISHED: 01-10-10
EFFECTIVE DATE: 01-15-10
ORDINANCE NO. 3775
{BFP757425.D0C;1\00006.150243\ } - 8 -
Packet Page 182 of 380
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3775
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 5th day of January, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. 3775. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING TITLE 20 ECDC REVIEW
CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES TO EXPAND CLOSED
RECORD ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 6th day of January, 2010.
2a"-O� "Zd- 1��
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{ BFP757425. DOC; 1 \00006.150243\ } - 9 -
Packet Page 183 of 380
STATE OF WASHING T ON,
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3775
--of the City of Edmonds, ashmgton
On the 5th day of January; 2010, the City Council of the City of
,Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3775. A summary of the content
�Of said ordinance; consisting of the title, provides as follows:
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
"'WASHINGTON, AMENDING TITLE 20 ECDC REVIEW
i r: CRITERIA AND. PROCEDURES TO EXPAND C S�6
RECORD, ADMINIMATIVEAPPEALS, AND FIXING A
TIME. WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full textof this Ordinance'will be mailed upon request.
QATED this 6th day'of January, 2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Xhlished:'Januarv.10.2010.
Affidavit of Publication
I S.S.
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of
THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of
Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general
circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice
Ordinance No. 3775
Amending Title 20ECDC
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not
in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and
times, namely:
January 10, 2010
and that said ncv�spaper was regularly distributed to
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
TRECsI day of January, 201
JAN 21 2010 A4 �2vc,
during all of said period.
11th
Notary Public in and for e S to ofa.�5vreasti(' jt!Lgg
"f
County.ic�Yth:
gyEveAccount Number: 10141fx''' t.•;, :.f'i . M7jiieryctu
iJtt .i 4z V:.•��. .
Snohomish
0001681222
Packet Page 184 of 380
0006.90000
BFP/WSS
01 /04/10
R:1/28/l Ogjz
ORDINANCE NO.3783
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING INTERIM ORDINANCE 3775
AND TITLE 20 ECDC REVIEW CRITERIA AND
PROCEDURES TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CLOSED
RECORD ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, Title 20 ECDC was recently amended; and
WHEREAS, during said recent amendment, closed record administrative appeals
before the City Council on quasi judicial matters were limited; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to afford the opportunity for closed record
appeals on quasi judicial matters as it did before the aforementioned amendment; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3775, the
City Council deems it to be in the public interest to correct certain references in Title 20 to
achieve consistency and restore or clarify provisions eliminated in the original code amendment
and relevant to the amendments of Interim Ordinance No. 3775; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council hereby makes the findings as set forth in
the "WHEREAS" clauses, which are adopted and incorporated herein by this reference in
support of this interim Ordinance.
{BFP757425.D0C;1\00006.150243\ } - 1 -
Packet Page 185 of 380
Section 2. Amended. Interim Ordinance 3775 and subsection ECDC
20.01.003(A) of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
A. Decisions.
TYPE I
TYPE II
TYPE III -A
TYPE III-B
TYPE IV -A
Y B
IV -Statement
TYPE V
of
Modification to
Plat vacations
Essential public
Final formal
Site
Development
zoning
landscape plans
and alterations
facilities
plats
specific/
agreements
restriction
contract
rezone
Boundary line
Formal
Preliminary
Architectural
Final planned
Zoning text
adjustments, lot
interpretation of
planned
design board
residential
amendments;
line
the text of the
residential
review
development
area -wide zoning
adjustment, lot
ECDC by the
development
map amendments
combination
director or
designated staff
Permitted uses
Home
Site plan/major
Shoreline
Comprehensive
not requiring
occupation
amendments to
substantial
plan amendments
site plan review
permit
site plans
development,
shoreline
conditional
use, shoreline
variance
Special use
Accessory
Conditional
Annexations
permits
dwelling unit
use
Minor
SEPA
General
Development
amendments to
determinations
variances and
regulations
planned
residential
sign permit
development
variances
Minor
Revisions to
Draft
Master plan
preliminary
shoreline
environmental
plat
management
impact
amendment
permits
statement
Staff design
Administrative
Preliminary
review
variances
formal plats
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 2 -
Packet Page 186 of 380
Sign permits
Preliminary
short plats
Final short
Land clearing /
plats
grading
Section 3. Amended. Subsection 17.50.090(A)(3) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3. Applications for a conditional use permit, or an appeal of a
staff decision approving or denying a one-year extension thereof shall
be reviewed by the hearing examiner under the same terms and
conditions as any conditional use permit utilizing the criteria contained
in Chapter 20.05 ECDC and under the procedural requirements
contained in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. An application for a two-year
extension of a conditional use permit for a temporary parking lot shall
be processed in the same manner as an initial application for a
conditional use permit for a temporary parking lot and new or changed
conditions may be imposed in the course of that process. Decisions of
the hearing examiner on granting or extending conditional use permits
for temporary parking lots shall be appealable to the city council under
the process contained in Chapter 20.07 ECDC.
Section 4. Amended. Interim Ordinance 3775 and Section 17.70.010, Other
temporary buildings., of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
17.70.010 Other temporary buildings.
Except as provided in ECDC 17.70.030, a conditional use permit shall
be required to construct a temporary building in any zone. The permit
shall be administratively reviewed by staff and shall be valid for a
period of one year; provided, however, that said permit may be
extended by the development services director for a single one-year
extension upon submittal of a written application prior to the
expiration of the original permit. All the requirements of the zoning
district shall be met. An appeal of the staff decision granting or
denying such a permit or extension shall be reviewed by the hearing
examiner in accordance with the requirements for any other
conditional use permit under Chapter 20.06 ECDC,
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } -3-
Packet Page 187 of 380
Section 5. Amended. Section 17.75.020, Primary uses requiring a conditional use
permit., of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.75.020 Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit.
Outdoor dining shall be a primary use requiring a conditional use
permit in the BN — neighborhood business zone, BC — community
business zone, BD — downtown business zone, CW — commercial
waterfront zone, and CG — general commercial zone, for outdoor
seating which exceeds 10 percent of the existing interior seating in the
establishment or more than eight seats, whichever is greater. This use
shall be established and maintained only in accordance with the terms
of a conditional use permit approved by the hearing examiner as a
Type III-B decision under the procedural requirements contained in
Chapter 20.06 ECDC. At a minimum, the conditions considered for
imposition by the hearing examiner may include a restriction on
operating hours, location of the outdoor seating, and/or buffering of
the noise and visual impacts related to the outdoor dining seating. All
seating permitted pursuant to the conditional use permit shall be
located outside of public rights -of -way. If outdoor seating is approved
under these provisions, no additional parking stalls shall be required
for the outdoor dining.
Section 6. Amended. Subsection 17.100.030(B) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. Decisions to approve, condition, deny, review or decline to
renew a CUP shall be a Type III-B decision.
Section 7. Amended. Section 20.05.020, General requirements., of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.05.020 General requirements.
A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review and decide on
conditional use permit applications as Type III-B decisions as set forth
in ECDC 20.01.003.
B. Appeals. Appeals of the hearing examiner's decisions shall be
to the city council in accordance with Chapter 20.07 ECDC.
C. Time Limit. Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if
no building permit is required, substantially commences the use
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 4 -
Packet Page 188 of 380
allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use
permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension before the expiration date and the city
approves the application.
D. Review of Extension Application. An application for any
extension of time shall be reviewed by the community development
director as a Type II decision.
E. Location. A conditional use permit applies only to the property
for which it has been approved and may not be transferred to any other
property.
F. Denial. A conditional use permit application may be denied if
the proposal cannot be conditioned so that the required findings can be
made.
Section 8. Amended. Section 20.19.010, Conditional use permit required., of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.19.010 Conditional use permit required.
When a conditional use permit is required by the provisions of Title 16
ECDC relating to the zoning districts, conditional use permit
applications for operation of a mini day-care shall be processed as a
Type III-B decision utilizing the criteria set forth in this chapter. In
addition to the specific criteria set forth herein, the hearing examiner
and city council on appeal shall also review the application under the
criteria and required findings set forth in Chapter 20.05 ECDC relating
to conditional use permits in order to establish that the proposed
facility is not deleterious to the immediately surrounding
neighborhood nor constitutes a public nuisance. The hearing examiner,
or the city council on appeal, may impose reasonable conditions on the
approval of the conditional use permit for mini day-care facilities in
order to ensure that the criteria of ECDC 20.19.020 are met and that
the facility is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. The city
council's decision on appeal shall be final.
Section 9. Amended. Section 20.19.050, Appeal., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 5 -
Packet Page 189 of 380
20.19.050 Appeal.
Appeals may be taken from the hearing examiner's decision to the city
council under the provisions of Chapter 20.07 ECDC. An appellant
may challenge the imposition of conditions or may elect to challenge a
later determination as to whether those conditions have been met. The
city council's decision on appeal shall be final.
Section 10. Amended. Subsection 20.20.010(B) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. A home occupation which does not meet one or more of the
requirements of subsection A of this section may be approved as a
conditional use permit (Type III-B decision) pursuant to Chapter 20.05
ECDC and the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC, if the
home occupation:
Section 11. Amended. Section 20.55.030, Review., of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.55.030 Review.
The hearing examiner shall review and issue decisions on shoreline
permits as a Type III-B decision, using the criteria contained in the
city shoreline master program, Chapter 23.10 ECDC, the policies of
the Shoreline Act and of Chapter 173-14 WAC, or as the same may be
amended.
Section 12. Amended. Subsection 20.75.065(D) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall
review a formal subdivision as a Type III-B decision in accordance
with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
Section 13. Amended. Section 20.75.070, Formal subdivision - Time limit., of the
Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.75.070 Formal subdivision — Time limit.
A decision on preliminary plats of a proposed formal subdivision shall
be made within 90 days of the date of filing, unless the applicant
{BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ ) - 6 -
Packet Page 190 of 380
agrees to extend the time. Where applicable, additional time needed to
prepare and circulate an environmental impact statement shall not be
included within said 90 days.
Section 14. Amended. Section 20.85.020, General requirements., of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
20.85.020 General requirements.
A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review variances as Type III-B
decisions in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
B. Appeals. Appeals of the hearing examiner's decisions shall be to
the city council in accordance with Chapter 20.07 ECDC.
C. Time Limit. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner
within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire
and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an
extension before the expiration and the city approves the application.
D. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension
of time shall be reviewed by the community development director as a
Type II decision (Staff Decision — Notice Required).
E. Location. A variance applies only to the property for which it has
been approved and may not be transferred to any other property.
Section 15. Amended. Subsection 23.40.210(C) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Hearing Examiner Review. The city hearing examiner shall, as
a Type III-B decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC), review variance
applications and conduct a public hearing. The hearing examiner shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny variance applications based
on a proposal's ability to comply with general and specific variance
criteria provided in subsections (A) and (B) of this section.
{BFP757425.DOQ1\00006.150243\ } - 7 -
Packet Page 191 of 380
Section 16. Interim Ordinance 3775 and the Edmonds Community Development
Code Chapter 20.100 Miscellaneous Review is hereby amended by the addition of a new section
20.100.030 Return of Appeal Fee to read as follows:
If an appeal to the City Council is upheld, the appeal fee shall be
returned to the appellant. In the event an appeal is upheld in an
administrative hearing conducted under the appeal processes
provided for in ECDC 20.110.040(B) or (C), including appeals
from the order of the building official, zoning official, or code
enforcement officer, the appeal fee shall also be returned.
Section 17. Ordinance to be Transmitted to Department. Pursuant to RCW
36.70A.106, this interim Ordinance shall be transmitted to the Washington Department of
Community, Trade, and Economic Development as required by law.
Section 18. 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 interim Ordinance.
Section 19. 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.
APPRO D:
MA OR G Y HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
(BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ ) - 8 -
Packet Page 192 of 380
APPROVED S T O
OFFICE OF hiY A E
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 01-29-2010
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 02-02-2010
PUBLISHED: ' 02-07-2010
EFFECTIVE DATE: 02-12-2010
ORDINANCE NO. 3783
(BFP757425.DOC;1\00006.150243\ ) 9 -
Packet Page 193 of 380
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3783
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 2nd day of February, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. 3783. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
INTERIM ORDINANCE 3775 AND TITLE 20 ECDC REVIEW CRITERIA AND
PROCEDURES TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CLOSED RECORD
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 3rd day of February, 2010.
;"_1 Z. e'4�
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{BFP757425.D0C;1\00006.150243\ } - 10 -
Packet Page 194 of 380
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
d
{
ak :i
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3783 d
of the City of Edmonds, Was mgton
On the 2nd day of February, 2010, the City Council of the C 'of
Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3783. A summary of the core t
of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows..
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS 1N
INGTON, AMENDING INTERIM ORDINANCE 3775 AN _.. ' CE
20 ECDC REVIEW CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES TO EXP ND
OPPORT ITI R —CLOSED RECORD ADM INISTRA VE
APPEALS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME S Ll
BECOME EFFECTIVE. 4
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request, 1
DATED this 3rd day of February 2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Published: February 7, 2010.
FEB 16 2010
EDMON'D C— F Y � - 3
Account Name: City of Edmonds
Affidavit of Publication
S.S.
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of
THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of
Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general
circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice
Summary of Ordinance No. 3783
Interim Ordinance
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not
in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and
times, namely:
07, 2010
and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th
day of February, 20
Notary Public in and for a tate,a`f: 4q0mjiregidmg. Ev t, Snohomish
County."; =Vie;:^.: :tas`r;
—
Account Number: 10147T - — 1 ``t CSFai Number: 0001684510
� �r;� 3._
Packet Page 195 of 380
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 20.01
TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMITS Deleted: APPLICATIONS
Sections:
20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions
20.01.001 rTypes ofActions ——-
20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type.
20.01.003 Permit type and decisionframew_ork_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
_ [moved 20.01.004 Joint Public Hearings to 20.06Open Record Public
Hearings ]
_ [incorporated 20.01.005 Decision with 20.01.0011
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted.
20.01.007 Exempt projects. ———————————————————
20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions
A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standard procedures, decision criteria,
public notification, and timing for development project permit application decisions made
by the City of Edmonds. These procedures are intended to:
• Promote timely and informed public participation;
• Eliminate redundancy in the application, permit review, and appeals processes;
• Process permits equitably and expediently,
• Balance the needs of permit applicants with neighbors;
• Ensure that decisions are made consistently and predictably; and
• Result in development that furthers City goals as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
These procedures provide for an integrated and consolidated land use permit process. The
procedures integrate the environmental review process with land use procedures,
decisions, and consolidated appeal processes.
B. The Drovisions of this chaDter supersede all other Drocedural reauirements that
may exist in other sections of the City Code. When interpretingand nd applying the
standards of this Code, its provisions shall be the minimum requirements. Where
conflicts occur between provisions of this Code and/or between the Code and other City
regulations, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. Where conflict between the text
of this Code and the zoning map ensue, the text of this Code shall prevail.
C. Unless otherwise specified. all references to days shall be calendar days.
Whenever the last day of a deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday desi ng ated
by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or any day when city hall or the City's
Development Services Department is closed to the public by formal executive or
leuislative action the deadline shall run until the next day that is not a Saturday. Sunday.
or holiday or closed day.
Comment: New section
Deleted: Procedures for processing
development project permits.
Deleted: Development project permit
application
Deleted: 20.01.004
Deleted: Joint public hearings.
Deleted:.001
Deleted: 20.01.005
Deleted: Decisions.
Deleted: Exemptions from
development project permit application
processing
Packet Page 196 of 380
20.01.001 Types of Actions
There are five main types of actions (or permits) that are reviewed under the
provisions of this chapter. The types of actions are based on who makes the decision, the
amount of discretion exercised by the decision making body, the level of impact
associated with the decision, the amount and type of public input sought, and the type of
appeal opportunity.
A. Administrative Decisions. Type I and II decisions are administrative
decisions made by the Development Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the
"director") Type I permits are ministerial decisions are based on compliance with
specific, nondiscretionary and/or technical standards that are clearly enumerated. Type II
permits are administrative decisions where the Director makes a decision based on
standards and clearly identified criteria, but where public notice is required. Unless
otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated as set forth in ECDC
20.07.004.
B. Quasi-judicial Decisions. Type III, Type IV and appeal of Type II
decisions are quasi-judicial decisions that involve the use of discretionary judgement in
the review of each specific application. Quasi-judicial decisions are made by the Hearing
Examiner, the Architectural Design Board, and/or the city council.
C. Legislative Decision. Type V actions are legislative decisions made by
the city council under its authority to establish policies and regulations regardingfuture
uture
private and public developments, and management of public lands.
1. Planning Board. The Planning Board shall hold a public hearing
and make recommendations to the city council on Type V actions, except that the city
council may hold a public hearing itself on area -wide rezones to implement city policies,
or amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map. The
public hearing shall be held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC,
RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law.
2. City Council. The city council may consider the Planning Board's
recommendation in a public hearing held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter
20.06 ECDC and RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law. If the city council
desires to hold a public hearing on area -wide rezones to implement city policies, or
amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map, it may do
so without forwarding the proposed decision to the Planning Board for a hearing_
3. Public Notice. Notice of the public hearing or public meeting shall
be provided to the public as set forth in ECDC 20.03.004.
4. Implementation. City council decision shall be by ordinance or
resolution and shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance or resolution.
Council Discussion Draft 5-16-lo 2
Packet Page 197 of 380
Deleted: 20.01.001 . Procedures for
processing development project permits.1
20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type. \
Deleted: A.. For the purpose of
hl
development project permit processing,
A. Determination by Director. The director shall determine the proper
!II
all development project permit
applications shall be classified as one of
procedure for all project applications. Questions concerning the appropriate procedure 191
the following as addressed and referenced
shall be resolved In favor Of the higher numbered procedure. �I
in ECDC 20.01.003: Type 1, Type 11,
Type III or Type IV. Legislative
III
decisions are Type V actions, and are
B. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves
addressed in ECDC 20.01.005.
III
two or more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered II III
1 Exclusions from the requirements of
I development project permit application
procedure required for any part of the application or may be processed individually under
processing are contained in ECDC
I
each of the application procedures identified in ECDC 20.01.003. The applicant may II
1 20.01.003(B).
III
determine whether the application will be processed collective) or individual) If the
PP P Y Y• II
Deleted: [incorporated and expanded
I I to 20.01.0001
applications are processed individually, the highest numbered type procedure shall be
d
undertaken first, followed by the other procedures in sequence from the highest p
Inserted: [incorporated and expanded
0 in 20.01.0001
numbered to the lowest.
Deleted: I
Deleted: I
C. Decisionmaker(s). Applications processed in accordance with subsection
p B.. Unless otherwise specified, all
B of this section which have the same procedure number, but are assigned to different
p g difft
I references to days shall d calendar
days. Whenever the last day of a
hearing bodies, shall be heard collectively by the highest decisionmaker; the city council
II deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday,
beingRCW
the highest body, followed b the hearing examiner or Planning Board, as
g Y Y g g
d legal holiday designated by ce,
1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or
applicable, and then the director. Joint public hearings with other agencies shall be
any day when city hall or the City's
processed according to ECDC 20.01.004. Concurrent public hearings held with the
is
Dosed to public Services by formal
design review board and any other decisionmaker shall proceed with both decisionmakers
II executive or legislative action t ... t
present.
Deleted: Development Services
Deleted: development
20.01.003 hermit Tyke and Decision Framework. _ _ _ _ _
Deleted: Development project p ril
A. Permit Types. � Deleted: Decisions
/ Formatted: Centered
Deleted: Statement of zoning
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
1
11
III -A
111-13
IV -A
IV-B
V
onin _
_ _ _ _ _
Outdoor _
Essential _
Final formal
Site _
Developmknt
Compliance
D1nin�` _
Public _ _
plats
specific
agreements,
J
Letter
Facilities
rezone
,,ot Line
Fo_rm_al
Tech_nological
,pesin_
Final
Zoning tiexx
_ _
Adjustment;
_ _ _
interpretation of
impracticality
_
review where
_ _
Planned_ _
_ _
_ _
am_endments
waiver for
the text of the
public hearing
Residential
area -wide —
by
ECDC by the
amateur radio
Development
zoning map
Director,
antennas
Architectural
amendments'
Design Board
_
_
is required)
1
Shoreline
Co_mp_reheterYsive
_
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_
substantial
_ _ _ _
_ _
plan
development,
amendments
Council Discussion Draft 5-16-lo 3
Deleted: Modification to landsc� ._. ��
Inserted:
Deleted: Plat vacations and alterations
Deleted: / contract
Deleted: Boundary line adjustments,)
Deleted: Architectural
Deleted:,
Deleted: lot combination
Deleted: or designated staff
Comment: Edmonds doesn't
Comment: Home occ is with
Comment: Edmonds doesn't
Deleted: Permitted uses not r
Deleted: Home occupation permit
Deleted: Site plan/major amen( —
Packet Page 198 of 380
shoreline
conditional
use, shoreline
variance
Ac_cessog _ _
_ _ _ _
Conditional
_
Annexations -
Dwelling Unit
use permits
(where public
hearing by
Hearine
Examiner is
required)
Minor
SEPA
;Variances
Development
Amendments
determinations
_ _
regulations
to Planned
Residential
Development
Minor
Revisions to
Preliminary
Plat
Amendment
shoreline
management
permits
\
\
Staff design
Administrative
Preliminary
review,
variances
formal plat
igns
includingsigns
Prelimin_ary�sshort
Preliminary
plat
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
Planned
Residential
\
Development
Sales
Land
Home
Office/Model
clearing/G,Lading
Occupation
Permit where
(17.70.005)
public hearing
by Hearing
Examiner is
required.)
,
Shoreline
Land Use Permit
Extension
Exemptions
Requests
Final Short
Guest House
Plat
Critical Area
Determinations
.[moved to 20.01.007 Exemption from development project permit application
processing-)
P. pecision Table._ _
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 4
Comment: Edmonds doesn't have
sups
Deleted: Special use permits
Deleted: General
Deleted: and sign permit variances
Comment: DEIS is not a permit and
follows existing requirements in RCW,
WAC and ECDC 20.15A
Deleted: Draft environmental impact
statement
Deleted: Master Plan
Comment: Staff design review
w/building permit
Deleted: Sign permits
Deleted: Short
Formatted: Font: 11 pt
Formatted: Strikethrough
Deleted: B.. The following permits or
approvals are specifically excluded from
the procedures set forth in this Title:
landmark designations, building permits,
street vacations, street use permits,
encroachment permits, and other public
works permits issued under Title 18.
Deleted: C
Deleted: Action Type
Packet Page 199 of 380
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT
APPLICATIONS
(TYPE I — IV)
LEGISLATIVE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
I
11
III -A
III-B
IV -A
IV-B
V
Recommendation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Planning Board
Planning Board
by:
Final decision
Director
Director
Hearing
Hearing
City
City
City
by:
examiner
examiner
council
council
council
/ADB
Notice of
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
application:
Open record
No
Only if
Yes,
Yes,
No
Yes, before
Yes, before
public hearing or
appealed,
before
before
Planning Board
Planning Board
open record
open
hearing
hearing
which makes
which makes
appeal of a final
record
examiner
examiner
recommendation
recommendation
decision:
hearing
to render
or board
to council
to council
before
final
to render
hearing
decision
final
examiner
decision
Closed record
No
No
No
Yes,
No
Yes,
Yes, or council
review:
before
before
could hold its
the
the
own hearing I
council
council
Judicial appeal:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Imoved 20.01.004 Joint Public Hearings to 20.06.001 &en Record Public ,I
Hearings _ _ _ _
.fmoved,20.01.005 Decisions to 20.01.001 Types ofActionsl
D�
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted.
Nothing in this chapter or the permit processing procedures shall limit the
authority of the city council to make changes to the city's comprehensive plan, or the
city's development regulations as part of the annual revision process.
20.01.007 exempt projects.
A. Jhe following projects are specifically excluded from the procedures set_
forth in this Chapter: landmark designations, building permits, street vacations, street use `
permits, encroachment permits, and other public works permits issued under Title 18.
B. Pursuant RCW 36.70B.140(2), lot line or boundary adjustments, building
and/or other construction permits, or similar administrative approvals categorically
exempt from environmental review under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW and the city's
Council Discussion Draft 5-16-lo 5
Deleted: 20.01.004 . Joint public
hearings.
Deleted: section
Deleted: -
Deleted: ¶
I
A.. Administrator's Decision to Hold
Joint Hearing. The director may combine
any public hearing on a development
project permit application with any
hearing that may be held by another local,
state, regional, federal, or other agency,
on the proposed action, as long as: (1) the
hearing is held within the city limits; and
(2) the requirements of subsection C of
this section are met.1
I
B. _ Applicant's Request for a Joint
Hearing. The applicant may request that
the public hearing on a permit application
be combined as long as the joint hearing
can be held within the time periods set
forth in this title. In the alternative, the
applicant may agree to a particular
schedule if that additional time is needed
in order to complete the hearings.1
I
C.. Prerequisites to Joint Public Hearing.
A joint public hearing may be held with
another local, state, regional, federal or
other agency and the city, when:1
I
1.. The other agency is not expressly
prohibited by statute from doing so;J
1
2.. Sufficient notice of the hearing is
given to meet each of the agencies'
adopted notice requirements as set forth
in statutes, ordinances, or mles;1
3. The agency has received the
necessary information about the proposed
project from the applicant in enough time
to hold its hearing at the same time as the
city hearing; or I
I F 111
\\ Deleted: 20.01.005 . Decisions.
\ Deleted: section
Deleted: I
I
A. - Administrative Decisions. Type I
and n decisions are administrative.
Administrative decisions are made by the
Director. Unless otherwise provided,
appeals of Type II decisions shal .., jt2j
Deleted: Exemptions from
development project permit application
processing
Deleted: Whenever a permit or
approval in the Edmonds Community
Development Code has been designated
as a Type I, H, In or IV permit, the
procedures in this title shall be followed
in development project permit processing,
except as provided in ECDC
Packet Page 200 of 380
SEPA/environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC), or permits/approvals for
which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project Deleted: development
permits, are excluded from the requirements of RCW 36.70B.060 and 36.70B.110
through 36.70B.130, which includes the following procedures:
1. Notice of application (ECDC 20.02.004) unless an open record hearing is
allowed on the permit decision; _ , Deleted: development project
2. Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.140, optional consolidated permit Deleted: development project
review processing (ECDC 20.01.002(B));
3. Joint public hearings (ECDC 0,2 06.001); _ Deleted: 20.01.004
4. Single report stating all of the decisions and recommendations made as of
the date of the report that do not require an open public record hearing (ECDC
20.06.002(C)); and
5. Notice of decision (ECDC 20.06.009).
Council Discussion Draft 5-16-10 6
Packet Page 201 of 380
Chapter 20.02
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS Deleted: TYPE I — IV
-- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sections:
20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference.
20.02.002 Permit application requirements. _ Deleted: Development project permit
20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application.
[moved 20.02.004 Notice o[a_pplication to 20.03.002 Public Noticel _ , Deleted: 20.02.004 J
20.02.005 Referral and review ofpermit applications. Deleted: Notice of application.
\ Deleted: development project
20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference.
A. Prior to filing applications for,Type Factions requiring a preliminar plat ,
,and Type III and IV actions, applicants are encouraged to participate ink preapplication
conference. XreMlication meetings with staff provide an opportunity to discuss the
proposal in general terms, identif t�pplicable City requirements and the project \ \
review process including the permits required by the action, timingof the permits and the \
approval process. , Plans presented at the preapplication meeting are nonbinding and do
not "vest" an application. v
B. The conference shall be held within 28 days of the request, upon payment
of applicable fee(s) as set forth in the city's adopted fee resolution.
Deleted: development project permit
Deleted:I
Deleted: or site plan review
Deleted: the
Deleted: may request
Deleted: The purpose of the
preapplication conference is to merely
acquaint the applicant with the
requirements of the Edmonds Community
Development Code.
Deleted: Applicant shall be responsible
for verifying the accuracy of information
C. The Development Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the provided by the city at the conference.
"director"I shall provide the applicant with the following during the conference: Deleted: The director
1 A form which lists the requirements for a completed application;
2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the
application;
3. The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards
which may apply to approval of the application; and
4. The city's design guidelines.
D. Neither the discussions at the conference nor the information on the form
provided by the director to the applicant under ECDC 20.02.001(C) shall bind the city in
any manner or prevent the city's future application or enforcement of all applicable
codes, ordinances and regulations.
E. Requests for preapplication conferences for all other types of applications
will be considered on a time -available basis by the director.
Deleted: Development project permit
20.02.002 permit aapplication requirements.
Council Discussion Draft 5-16-10 %
Packet Page 202 of 380
,An application shall consist of all materials required by the _applicable Deleted: Applications for development
development regulations,and shall include the followinggeneral informatio — project permits Shall be emitted on
p — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — � — — — — forms provided by the director.
A. A completed and use application form; — -- Deleted:,
— — — — — — — — — Deleted: as applicable:
B. A verified statement by the applicant that the property affected by the Deleted: development project permit
application is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant, or that the applicant has
submitted the application with the consent of all owners of the affected property;
C. A property and/or legal description of the site for all applications, as
required by the applicable development regulations;
D. The applicable fee; and
E. Cover letter describing how the proposal satisfies ftapplicable standards, Deleted: Statement
E
requirements and criteria in the development regulations. Deleted: addressing all
,0.02.003 — Submission and acceptance of application. _ Deleted: I
A. Determination of Completeness. Within 28 days after receiving an
,application, thedirector shall mail or personall_y deliver to the applicant a determination Deleted: development project permit
which states that either: Deleted: city
The application is complete; or _ Deleted: That t
2. The application is incomplete and —what is necessary to make the Deleted:Thatt
application complete.
B. Identification of Other Agencies with Jurisdiction. To the extent known by
the city, other agencies with jurisdiction over the project shall be identified in the
determination of completeness.
C. Additional Information. An ppplication is complete for the purposes of Deleted: development project permit
this section when it meets the submission requirements of ECDC 20.02.002 and the
submission requirements of the applicable development regulations. The determination
of completeness shall be made when the application is sufficiently complete for review,
even though additional information may be required or project modifications may be
undertaken subsequently. The determination of completeness shall not preclude the Deleted: director's
director's ability to request additional information or studies whenever new information
is required, or when substantial changes are made to the proposed project.
D. Incomplete Applications.
1. Whenever the applicant receives a determination from the city pursuant to
ECDC 20.02.003(A)(2) that the application is incomplete, the applicant shall _have _90_ Deleted: development project permit
days to submit the necessary information. Within 14 days after an applicant has submitted
Council Discussion Draft 5-16-10 8
Packet Page 203 of 380
the requested additional information, the director shall make a determination of
completeness and notify the applicant in the manner provided in subsection A of this
section.
2. Whenever the applicant receives a notice that the contents of the
application, which had been previously determined under ECDC 20.02.003(A)(1) to be
complete, is insufficient, ambiguous, undecipherable, or otherwise unresponsive of the
information being sought, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary
information. If circumstances warrant, the applicant may apply in writing to the director
requesting a one-time 90-day extension. The extension request must be received by the
City prior to the end of the initial 90-day compliance period.
Deleted: for the development project
permit,
Deleted: development project permit
I[ Deleted: Development project
II Deleted: found
III Deleted: the application requires
''ll[ Deleted: for
III Deleted: 20.02.004 - Notice of
Illli� application.
3. If the applicant does not submit the additional information requested I hll
within the 90-day period (or within the 90-day extension period, as applicable), the I 1141p
director shall make findings and issue a decision, according to the Type I procedure, that Ilhlp
the application has lapsed for lack of information necessary to complete the review. The (I,III
decision shall state that no further action will be taken on the applications, and that if the 1p4
applicant does not make arrangements to pick up the application materials from the 114pI
planning and/or public works/engineering departments within 30 days from the date of 141h
the decision, the application materials will be destroyed. II
II IIIII
4. When the director determines that an application has lapsed because the 111144
applicant has failed to submit required information within the necessary time period, the III 144
applicant may request a refund of the application fee remaining after the city's III IIIII
determination of completeness.
II IIIII
E. Director's Failure to Provide Determination of Completeness. An III IIII
ppelication shall be deemed complete under this section if the director does not provide a III Ildl
written determination to the applicant that the application is incomplete as provided in II pll
subsection A of this section. it Ilil
F Date of Acceptance of Application. ,permit applications shall not be 4 f
officially accepted until complete. When an application is determined to be complete, the IIII
director shall note the date of acceptance for continued processing. 11
G. After acceptance, the city shall begin processing the applications. Under 4ll
no circumstances shall the city place any applications on "hold" to be processed at some Ilp
later date, even if the request for the "hold" is made by the applicant, and regardless of IIII
the requested length of the "holding" period. This subsection does not apply to III
applications placed on "hold" upon determination by the city that additional information IIII
is required in order to makes decision._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Jll
Lmoved 20.02.004 Notice of Application to 20.03.0021 _ JI �I
�0.02.005 _ Referral and review of development_projectpermit applications.
Council Discussion Draft 5-16-10 9
Deleted: I
Deleted: I
A.. Generally. A notice of application
shall be provided to the public, all city
departments and agencies with
jurisdiction of all Type II, III and IV
development project permit applications
in accordance with Chapter 20.03 ECDC. 9
`R
B.. Issuance of Notice of Application.1
I
1.. Within 14 days after the city has
made a determination of completeness
pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003, a notice of
application shall be issued.1
4
2.. If any open record predecision
hearing is required for the requested
development project permit(s), the notice
of application shall be provided at least
15 days prior to the open record hearing.91
I
C.. Contents. The notice of application
shall include: I
4
1.. The date of submission of the initial
application, the date of the notice of
completion and acceptance of the
application, and the date of the notice of
application; I
1
2.. A description of the proposed project
and a list of the development project
permits requested in the application and,
if applicable, a list of any studies
requested under Chapter 36.7013 RCW;J
1
3.. A description of other required
permits not included in the application, to
the extent known by the city at that time;)
1
4.. A description of existing
environmental documents that evaluate
the proposed project, and, if not
otherwise stated on the document
providing notice of application, the
location where the application and any
studies can be reviewed -,I
1
5. _ A statement setting forth: (a) the time
for the public comment period, which
shall be not less than 14 nor more than 30
days following the date of notice of
application; (b) the right of any person to
comment on the application, receive
notice of and participate in any hI`f141
Packet Page 204 of 380
Within 10 days of accepting an_ application, the director shall transmit a copy of
the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to each affected government
agency and city department for review and comment, including those responsible for
determining compliance with state and federal requirements.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 10
Deleted: complete
Deleted: The affected agencies and city
departments shall have 15 days to
comment on the application. The agency
or city department is presumed to have no
comments if comments are not received
within the 15-day period. The director
shall grant an extension of time only if
the application involves unusual
circumstances. Extensions shall be for a
maximum of five working days.
Packet Page 205 of 380
Chapter 20.03
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Formatted: Don't keep with next
/ Deleted: Public notice
Deleted: 20.03.003 . Optional public
—fi—
Sections: /
20.03.001 Responsibility for providing public notice.
20.03.002 Notice of application _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J /
Imoved Optional public notice to end of chapterj,20.03.0(allotice of public hearing.
20.03.004 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) notice.
20.03.005 Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) notice.
20.03.006 Optional public notice.
I
1
1
20.03.001 Responsibility for providing public notice.
1
1
r
A. The Development Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the
"director") is responsible for all public notice requirements.- — — I
II
II
20.03.002 Notice of application. [moved from 20.02.0041 p
-----III
A. Generally. A notice of application shall be provided to the public, all city IIII
departments and agencies with jurisdiction of all Type II, 111 and IV development project j II
permit applications in accordance with Chapter 20.03 ECDC. The Notice of application III
for these permits shall also be provided to the public by posting publishing and mailin& jllll
B. Issuance of Notice of Application. IIII�I
1. A notice of application shall be issued within 14 days after the city has II III
made a determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003. III
2. If any open record predecision hearingis s required for the requested p
development project permit(s), the notice of application shall be provided at least 14 days
prior to the open record hearing_
II
C. Contents. The notice of application shall include the following information
in a format determined by the director:
II
1. The date of submission of the initial application, the date of the notice of
completion and acceptance of the application, and the date of the notice of application;
2. A description of the proposed project and a list of the development project
permits requested in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested
under Chapter 36.70B RCW;
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 11
Deleted: I
Deleted: 4
Deleted: A.. Except where an action is
initiated by the city, the applicant for a
development project permit application
shall be responsible for all posting,
publishing, mailing and other notification
required by the director. I
4
1.. No later than 14 days after the
required date of posting, publishing
and/or mailing, the applicant shall
provide to the director an affidavit
attesting that each required method of
notification was carried out in
conformance with the regulations in this
and other applicable chapters. For
required mail notice, the applicant shall
submit a U.S. Postal Service Certificate
of Mailing containing the names and
addresses of all parties provided public
notice. I
1
2. _ If the affidavit and U.S. Postal
Service Certificate of Mailing is not filed
as required, any scheduled hearing or date
by which the public may comment on an
application shall be postponed, if
necessary, in order to allow compliance
with the notice requirements of this and
other applicable chapters.1
1
3. _ If the applicant fails to file the
affidavit and U.S. Postal Service
Certificate of Mailing as herein required
within 90 days of required date of
posting, publishing and/or mailing, the
director shall make findings and issue a
decision, according to the Type I
procedure, that the application has lapsed
for lack of information necessary to
complete the review. The decision shall
state that no further action will be taken
on the applications, and that if the
applicant does not make arrangements to
pick up the application materials from the
planning and/or public works/en ... [15]
Deleted: B
Deleted: The appellant of a
development project permit decision shall
be responsible for all posting, publishing,
mailing and other notification required by
the director.
Deleted: 1.. No later than 14 days after
the required date of posting, publishing
and/or mailing, the appellant shall
provide to the director an affidavit
attesting that each required method of
notification was carried out in
Deleted: Public n
Packet Page 206 of 380
3. A description of other required permits not included in the application, to
the extent known by the city at that time;
4. A description of existing environmental documents that evaluate the
proposed project, and, if not otherwise stated on the document providint; notice of
application, the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed;
5. A statement setting forth: (a) the time for the public comment period,
which shall be not less than 14 nor more than 30 days following the date of notice of
application; (b) the right of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of
and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application; and
(c) any appeal rights;
6. The date, time, place and type of hearing, if a hearing has been scheduled
when the date of notice of application is issued;
7. Any other information determined appropriate by the director such as the
director's threshold determination, if complete at the time of issuance of the notice of
application.
D. Mailed Notice. Notice of application shall be mailed to:
1. the owners of the property involved if different from applicant; and
2. the owners of real property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the
property(ies) involved in the application. Addresses for a mailed notice required by this
code shall be obtained from the applicable county's real property tax records. The
adjacent property owners list must be current to within six (6) months of the date of
initial application.
All mailed public notices shall be deemed to have been received on the next business day
followingthe he day that the notice is deposited in the mail.
E. Published Notice. Notice of application shall be published in the city's official
newspaper (The Everett Herald, as identified in ECDC 1.03). The format shall be
determined by the director and the notice must contain the information listed in ECDC
20.03.002.C.
Deleted: Notice of application for Type
n, Type III and Type IV development
project permits shall be provided by
posting, publishing and mailing.[
Z. _ _Posting. Posting of thepro�erty for site specific�roposals shall consist of one or Deleted:A
more notice boards as follows:
A single notice board shall be placed Deleted: by the applicant
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 12
Packet Page 207 of 380
a. At the midpoint of the street fronting the site or as otherwise
directed by the director for maximum visibility;
b. Five feet inside the street property line, except when the board is
structurally attached to an existing building; provided, that no notice board shall be
placed more than five feet from the street without approval of the director;
above grade; and
c. So that the bottom of the notice board is between two and four feet
d. Where it is completely visible to pedestrians.
e. The size of the notice board shall be determined by the director.
2. Additional notice boards may be required when:
a. The site does not abut a public road;
Deleted: by the applicant
Deleted: 30
b. A large site abuts more than one public road; or
Deleted: 15
Deleted: 15
c. The director determines that additional notice boards are necessary IIII
Deleted: after the end of the notice
to provide adequate public notice. IIIII
period
Deleted: 5.. Notice boards shall be
1111
3. Notice boards Shall be: I I I
I
constructed and installed in accordance
with specifications promulgated by the
II II I
director. The format and content of the
a. Maintained in good condition during the notice_period-, _ _ _ _ J I I II I
notice must be pre -approved by the
director, and contain at least the project
location, description, type of permit(s)
b. In lace at least 4 days to the date of anhearing, and at II II I
required,eases,and
q i n, o`erne period
prior
P — — —
Papplication
least iA days prior to the end of any required comment period, JI II I
may be reviewed.%
Deleted: B.. Published Notice. Notice
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
II I
c. Removed within,30 days of the date of the project decision. If the
of application shall be published in the
project is appealled, the sign must be removed 30 after the appeal decision is issue cL
City, s official newspaper (or if one has
not been designated, in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City). The
format and content of the notice must be
4. Removal of the notice board prior to the end of the notice period
pre -approved by the director, and contain
shall be cause for discontinuance of the department review until the notice board is I 1
P
at least the project location, description,
replaced and remains in place for the specified time period.
typeent
eriod permit(s)
p and a ocat on where e the
complete application may be reviewed.1
Deleted: C.. Mailed Notice. Notice of
JI
application shall be mailed to the
J
following: (1) owner of the property
involved if different from applicant; and
G. Public Comment on the Notice of Application. All public comments in
(2) owners of real property, as shown by
the records of the county assessor, within
300 feet of the boundaries of the
property(ies) involved in the application.
The format and content of the notice of
application must be pre -approved by the
director, and contain at least the project
location, description, type of permit(s)
required, comment period dates, and a
response to the notice of application must be received by the city' s development services
department by 4:00 PM on the last day of the comment period. Comments in response to
the notice of application received after the comment period has expired will not be
accepted no matter when they were mailed or postmarked. Comments shall be mailed or
personally delivered. Comments should be as specific as possible.
location where the complete application
may be reviewed.`)(
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 13
Packet Page 208 of 380
,[separated out Shoreline permits and inoved to 20.03.005L
�-0.03 0�03 _ Notice of public hearing. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A. Applicants of Type III or Type V actions, and appellants of Type II
actions shall provide notice of public hearing by mailing, posting and publishing. i
II
B. Content of Notice of Public Hearing for All Applications. The notice of a II
public hearing required by this chapter shall contain:
I
1. The name and address of the applicant and the applicant's representative;
II
I
2 A description of the subject property reasonably sufficient to inform the II
public of its location, including but not limited to a vicinity location or written
description, a map or postal address, and a subdivision lot and block designation
II
(complete legal description not required);
I
3. The date, time and place of the hearing;
I I
I I
4. The nature of the proposed use or development;
I I
5. A statement that all interested persons may appear and provide testimony; I
I
6. The sections of the code that are pertinent to the hearing procedure; I
I
7. A statement explaining when information may be examined, and when I
and how written comments addressing findings required for a decision by the hearing I
body may be admitted;
I
8. The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone number
where additional information may be obtained;
I
9. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence
relied upon by the applicant, and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost
and that copies will be provided at the requestor's cost; and
10. A statement explaining that a copy of the staff report will be available for
inspection at no cost at least seven days prior to the hearing and that copies will be
provided at the requestor's cost.
follows:
C. Mailed Notice. Mailed notice of the public hearing shall be provided as
1. The notice of the public hearing shall be mailed to:
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 14
Deleted: D
Deleted: I
I
1.. Methods of Providing SMP Notice.
Notice of the application of a permit
under the purview of the city's shoreline
master program (SMP) shall be given by
one or more of the following methods:1
I
a. _ Mailing of the notice to real property
owners as shown by the records of the
county assessor within 300 feet of the
boundary of the property upon which the
proposed project is to be built; I
I
b.. Posting of the notice in a conspicuous
manner, as determined by the director, on
the property upon which the project is to
be constructed; ory[
4
c.. Any other manner deemed
appropriate by the director to accomplish
the objectives of reasonable notice to
adjacent landowners and the public.1
1
2.. Content of SMP Notice. SMP notices
shall include:1
a.. A statement that any person desiring
to submit written comments concerning
an application, or desiring to receive
notification of the final decision
concerning an application, may submit
comments, or requests for the decision, to
the director within 30 days of the last date
that notice is published pursuant to this
subsection;q
b.. A statement that any person may
submit oral or written comments at the
hearing;)
I
I . An explanation of the manner in
which the public may obtain a copy of the
city's decision on the application no later
than two days after its issuance. I
I
3.. Public Comment Period. The public
comment period shall be 30 days.1
I
4.. The director shall mail or o 17
Deleted: 20.03.003 _ Optional public
notice. The director, in his or her sole
discretion, may:J
I
A.. Notify the public or private groups
with known interest in a proposal or type
of proposal; I
I �
B.. Notify the news media;)
I�
C.. Place notices in appropriate regional
or neighborhood newspapers or trade
journals;) 18
Deleted: 004
Packet Page 209 of 380
a. The applicant;
b. The owner of the subject property, if different from applicant;
C. All owners of real property, as shown by the records of the county
assessor, within 300 feet of the boundaries of the property(ies) involved in the
application; and
�1. Any person who submits a public comments on an application; Deleted: c
2. Type III Preliminary Plat Actions. In addition to the above, requirements
for mailed notice of public hearing for preliminary plats and proposed subdivisions shall
also include the following:
a. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat adjacent to or within one
mile of the municipal boundaries of any city or town, or which contemplates the use of
any city or town utilities shall be given to the appropriate city or town authorities;
b. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision
adjoining the boundaries of Snohomish County shall be given to the appropriate county
officials;
C. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision
located adjacent to the right-of-way of a state highway shall be given to the secretary of Deleted: or Within two miles of the
transportation; boundary of a state or municipal airport
d. If the owner of the real property which is proposed to be
subdivided owns another parcel or parcels of real property which lie adjacent to the real
property proposed to be subdivided, notice under RCW 58.17.090(1)(b) shall be given to
owners of real property located with 300 feet from any portion of the boundaries of the
adjacent parcels owned by the owner of the real property to be subdivided.
3. For a plat alteration or a plat vacation, notice shall be as provided in RCW
58.17.080 and 58.17.090.
4. Procedure for Mailed Notice of Public Hearing, Deleted: General
a. The records of the Snohomish County assessor's office shall be
used for determining the property owner of record. Addresses for a mailed notice
required by this code shall be obtained from the applicable county's real property tax
records. As required under ECDC 20.03.001, the applicant shall provide a sworn
certificate of mailing to all persons entitled to notice under this Chapter.
b. All mailed public notices shall be deemed to have been received on
the next business day following the day that the notice is deposited in the mail.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 15
Packet Page 210 of 380
D. Procedure for Posted or Published Notice of Public Hearing.
1. Posted notice of the public hearing shall comply with requirements set
forth in ECDC 20.03.002.E Deleted: (A)
2. Notice of public hearing shall be published in the city's official newspaper
(The Everett Herald, as identified in ECDC 1.03J. The format shall be determined by the
director and the notice must contain the information listed in ECDC 20.03.003.B.
E. Timepf Notice of Public Hearing. —
1. Notice shall be mailed, posted and first published not less than Wor more
than 30 days prior to the hearing date ...
20.03.004 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) notice.
1. Whenever possible, the city shall integrate the public notice required under
this subsection with existing notice procedures for the City's nonexempt permits(s) or
approvals(s) required for the proposal.
2. Whenever the City issues a DNS under WAC 197-11-340(2) or a DS under
WAC 197-11-360(3) the City shall give public notice as follows:
a. If public notice is required for a nonexempt license, the notice shall state
whether a DS or DNS has been issued and when comments are due.
b. If an environmental document is issued concurrently with the notice of
application, the public notice requiremnts for the notice of application in
RCW 36.70B.110(4) will suffice to meet the SEPA public notice requirments in
WAC 197-11-510(1).
c. If no public notice is otherwise required for the permit or approval, the City
shall give notice of the DNS or DS by
• Posting the property, for site specific proposals;
• Mailed to real DroDertv owners as shown by the records of the count
assessor within 300 feet of the boundary of the property, for site specific
proposals; and
• Publishing notice in the City's official newspaper (or if one has not been
designated, in a newspaper of general circlulation within the City).
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 16
Deleted: or if one has not been
designated, in a newspaper of general
circulation within the City
Deleted: The format and content of the.
notice must be pre -approved by the
director.
Deleted: and Cost
Deleted: 10
Deleted: Posted notices shall be
removed by the applicant within 15 days
following the public hearing.
Deleted: 2.. All costs associated with
the public notice shall be borne by the
applicant of Type III and Type IV
actions, or appellant of Type II actions.
Packet Page 211 of 380
d. Whenever the City issues a DS under WAC 197-11-360(3), the City shall
state the scoping procedure for the proposal in the DS as required in WAC 197-11-408
and in the public notice.
3. If a DNS is issued using the optional DNS process, the public notice
requirments for a notice of application in RCW 36.70B.110(4) as supplemented by the
requirments in WAC 197-11-355 will suffice to meet the SEPA public notice requirments
in WAC 197-11-510(1)(b).
4. Whenever the City issues a DEIS under WAC 197-11-455(5) or a SEIS under
WAC 197-11-620, notice of the availability of those documents shall be given by:
a. Indicating the availability of the DEIS in any public notice required for a
nonexempt license;
Posting the property, for site specific proposals;
C. Mailed to real property owners as shown by the records of the county
assessor within 300 feet of the boundary of the property, for site specific proposals; and
c. Publishing notice in the City's official newspaper (or if one has not been
designated, in a newspaper of general cirulation within the City).
5. Public notice for projects that qualify as planned actions shall be tied to
underlying permit as specificed in WAC 197-11-172(3).
6. The City may require an applicant to complete the public notice requirements
for the applicant's proposal at his or her expense.
20.03.005 Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Notice.
1. Methods of Providing SMP Notice. Notice of the application of a
permit under the purview of the city's shoreline master program (SMP) shall be given by
one or more of the following methods:
a. Mailing of the notice to real property owners as shown by the
records of the county assessor within 300 feet of the boundary of the property upon
which the proposed project is to be built;
b. Posting of the notice in a conspicuous manner, as determined by
the director, on the property upon which the project is to be constructed; or
c. Any other manner deemed appropriate by the director to
accomplish the objectives of reasonable notice to adjacent landowners and the public.
2. Content of SMP Notice. SMP notices shall include:
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 17
Packet Page 212 of 380
a. A statement that any person desiring to submit written comments
concerning an application, or desiring_ to receive notification of the final decision
concerning an application, may submit comments, or requests for the decision, to the
director within 30 days of the last date that notice is published pursuant to this
subsection;
b. A statement that any person may submit oral or written comments
at the hearing;
c. An explanation of the manner in which the public may obtain a
copy of the city's decision on the application no later than two days after its issuance.
3. Public Comment Period. The public comment period shall be 30
days.
4. The director shall mail or otherwise deliver a copy of the decision
to each person who submits comments or a written request for the decisions.
20.03.006 Optional public notice. The director, in his or her sole discretion, maw
A. Notify the public or private groups with known interest in a proposal or type of
proposal;
B. Notify the news media;
C. Place notices in appropriate regional or neighborhood newspapers or trade
journals;
D. Publish notice in agency newsletters or send notice to agency mailing lists, either
general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas; and
E. Mail notice to additional neighboring property owners.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 18
Packet Page 213 of 380
Chapter 20.04
CONSISTENCY WITH
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SEPA
Sections:
20.04.001 Determination of consistency.
20.04.002 Initial SEPA analysis.
20.04.003 Categorically exempt and planned actions.
20.04.001 Determination of consistency.
A. Purpose. Consistency between a proposed development project permit
application, applicable regulations and comprehensive plan shall be determined through
the process described in this section.
B. Consistency. During application review, the_Development Services_ Deleted: development project permit
Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the "director") hall determine_ w_hethe_r the_ _ Deleted: the director
development regulations applicable to the proposed project, or in the absence of
applicable development regulations, the city's comprehensive plan, address the
following:
1. The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be
allowed if the criteria for their approval have been satisfied;
2. The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential
development in urban growth areas, or other measures of density;
3. Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities identified
in the comprehensive plan; and
4. Whether the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these
facilities as required by Chapter 36.70A RCW.
C. Project Review. Project review by the director and appropriate city staff
shall identify specific project design and conditions relating to the character of
development, such as the details of site plans, curb cuts, drainage swales, the payment of
impact fees, or other measures to mitigate a proposal's probable significant adverse
environmental impacts. During project review, neither the director nor any other city
reviewing body may re-examine alternatives or hear appeals on decided matters which
have already been found to be consistent with development regulations and/or the
comprehensive plan, except for issues of code interpretation.
20.04.002 Initial SEPA analysis.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 19
Packet Page 214 of 380
A. In addition to the land use consistency review, the director shall review the
permit application for consistency with the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"), , Deleted: development project
Chapter 43.21C RCW, the SEPA Rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC, and the city
environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC, and shall:
1. Determine whether applicable regulations require studies to adequately
analyze all of the proposed project's specific probable adverse environmental impacts;
2. Determine whether applicable regulations require mitigation measures to
adequately address identified environmental impacts; and
3. Provide prompt and coordinated review by other government agencies and
the public on compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including
mitigation for specific project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the
plan or development regulation level.
B. Indreview of a,permit application, the director shall determine whether Deleted: its
the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and mitigation measures in the Deleted: development project
applicable development regulations, comprehensive plan and/or in other applicable local,
state or federal laws provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse
environmental impacts of the proposal.
C. If the director bases or conditions his or her approval of the,application on Deleted: development project permit
compliance with the requirements or mitigation measures described in subsection A of
this section, the city shall not impose additional mitigation under SEPA during project
review for the same adverse environmental impacts.
D. A comprehensive plan, development regulation or other applicable local,
state or federal law provides adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, the specific adverse
environmental impacts of a proposal when:
1. The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or
2. The city has designated in the plan, regulation or law that certain levels of
service, land use designations, development standards or other land use conditions
allowed by Chapter 36.70A RCW are acceptable.
E. In deciding whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been
addressed by an existing city plan or development regulation, or by the regulations or
laws of another government agency, the director shall consult orally or in writing with
that agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the director
shall base or condition any project approval on compliance with these other regulations.
F. Nothing in this section limits the authority of the director in reviewing or
mitigating the impacts of a proposed project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental
analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided by Chapter 43.21C RCW.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 20
Packet Page 215 of 380
G. The director shall also review the application under Chapter 20.15A
ECDC, the city environmental policy ordinance; provided, that such review shall be
coordinated with the underlying permit application review.
20.04.003 Categorically exempt and planned actions.
A. Categorically Exempt. Actions categorically exempt under RCW
43.21C.110(1)(a) do not require environmental review or the preparation of an
environmental impact statement. An action that is categorically exempt under the rules
adopted by the Department of Ecology (Chapter 197-11 WAC) may not be conditioned
or denied under SEPA.
B. Planned Actions.
1. A planned action does not require a threshold determination or the
preparation of an environmental impact statement under SEPA, but is subject to
environmental review and mitigation under SEPA.
2. A "planned action" means one or more types of project action that:
a. Are designated planned actions by an ordinance or resolution
adopted by the city;
b. Have had the significant impacts adequately addressed in an
environmental impact statement prepared in conjunction with:
i. A comprehensive plan or subarea plan adopted under Chapter
36.70A RCW, or
ii. A fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master
planned development or a phased project;
C. Are subsequent or implementing projects for the proposals listed in
paragraph (2)(b) of this subsection;
d. Are located within an urban growth area, as defined in RCW
36.70A.030;
e. Are not essential public facilities, as defined in RCW 36.70A.200;
and
f. Are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan adopted under
Chapter 36.70A RCW.
C. Limitations on Planned Actions. The city shall limit planned actions to
certain types of development or to specific geographical areas that are less extensive than
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 21
Packet Page 216 of 380
the jurisdictional boundaries of the city, and may limit a planned action to a time period
identified in the environmental impact statement or this title.
exact restatement of 20.04.00LCI
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 22
Deleted: D.. During project review, the
city shall not re-examine alternatives to
or hear appeals on the items identified in
ECDC 20.04.001(B), except for issues of
code interpretation. I
I
E.. Project review shall be used to
identify specific project design and
conditions relating to the character of
development, such as the details of site
plans, curb cuts, drainage swales, the
payment of impact fees, or other
measures to mitigate a proposal's
probable adverse environmental
impacts.
Packet Page 217 of 380
Chapter 20.06
OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Sections:
20.06,000 General. Deleted:00i
20.06.001 Joint Public Hearings
20.06.002 Responsibility of director for hearing.
20.06.003 Conflict of interest.
20.06.004 Ex parte communications.
20.06.005 Disqualification.
20.06.006 Burden and nature of proof.
20.06.007 Order of proceedings.
20.06.008 Decision.
20.06.009 Notice of final decisionDeleted: -Miscellaneous
20.06.010 Reconsideration of decision.
Deleted: ool
20.06MO General.
A. An Queen record public hearings a hearing conducted by an authorized ,
body or officer That creates the city's record_ through testimony and submission of
evidence and information, A public heariU may be held prior to the citf s decision on a
development project permitqpplication; his is an "men record predecision hearijI." A_
public ,}searing may be held on an appeano omen record predecision hearing as held
or the errmt=this is an "open record appeal hearing.': —
B. Open record predecision hearings on all Type III and IV ,Permit P\�
applications and open record appeal hearings on all Type II decision appeals shall be \ \\\\ \
conducted in accordance with this chapter. Public hearings conducted by the city hearing \ \\\
examiner shall also be subject to the hearing examiner's rules.
C. Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated
as set forth in ECDC 20.07.004. \
20.06.001 Joint public hearings. [moved from 20.01.0041
A. Decision to Hold Joint Hearing. The Development Services Director or
his/her designee (hereinafter the "director") may combine any public hearing on a project
application with any hearing that may be held by another local, state, regional, federal, or
other agency, on the proposed action, as long as: (1) the hearing is held within the city
limits: and (2) the reauirements of subsection C of this section are met.
B. ADDlicant's Reauest for a Joint Hearing. The applicant may reauest that
the public hearing on a permit application be combined as lop as s the joint hearing can be
held within the time periods set forth in this chapter. In the alternative, the applicant may
agree to a Darticular schedule if that additional time is needed in order to complete the
hearings.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 23
Deleted: O
Deleted: , or simply public hearing,
means
Deleted: single hearing
Deleted: authorized to conduct such
hearings
Deleted: , under procedures prescribed
in this Chapter.
Deleted: to be known as
Deleted: record
Deleted: , to be known as an "open
record appeal hearing,"
Deleted: has been
Deleted: on
Deleted: development project
Deleted:.
Deleted: development project
Packet Page 218 of 380
C. Prerequisites to Joint Public Hearing. A joint public hearing may be held
with another local, state, regional, federal or other agency and the city, when:
1. The other agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so;
2. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencies'
adopted notice requirements as set forth in statutes, ordinances, or rules;
3. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed
project from the applicant in enough time to hold its hearing at the same time as the city
hearing; or
4. The hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the city.
20.06.002 Responsibility of director for hearing.
The director shall:
A. Schedule project applications for review and public hearing;
B. Verify compliance with notice requirements;
C. Prepare the staff report on the application, which shall be a single report
which sets forth all of the decisions made on the proposal as of the date of the report,
including recommendations on project _permits in the consolidated permit process that do Deleted: development
not require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall also describe any
mitigation required or proposed under the city's development regulations or SEPA
authority. If the threshold determination, other than a determination of significance, has
not been issued previously by the city, the report shall include or append this
determination.
D. Prepare the notice of decision, if required by the hearing body, and mail a
copy of the notice of decision to those entitled by this chapter to receive the decision.
20.06.003 Conflict of interest.
The hearing body shall be subject to the code of ethics, prohibitions on conflict
of interest and appearance of fairness doctrine as set forth in Chapter 42.23 RCW, and
Chapter 42.36 RCW as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended.
20.06.004 Ex parte communications.
A. No member of the hearing body may communicate, directly or indirectly,
regarding any issue in a proceeding before him or her, other than to participate in
communications regarding procedural aspects necessary for maintaining an orderly
process, unless he or she provides notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 24
Packet Page 219 of 380
Nothing herein shall prevent the hearing body from seeking legal advice from its legal
counsel on any issue.
B. If, before serving as the hearing body in a quasi-judicial proceeding, any
member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication of a type that could not
properly be received while serving, the member of the hearing body, promptly after
starting to serve, shall disclose the communication as described in ECDC 20.06.004(C).
C. If a member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication in
violation of this section, he or she shall place on the record:
All written communications received;
All written responses to the communications;
The substance of all oral communications received, and all responses
made; and
4. The identity of each person from whom the member received any ex parte
communication.
The hearing body shall advise all parties that these matters have been placed on
the record. Upon request made after notice of the ex parte communication, any party
desiring to rebut the communication shall be allowed to place a rebuttal statement on the
record.
20.06.005 Disqualification.
A. Any member who is disqualified shall make full disclosure to the audience
of the reason(s) for the disqualification, abstain from voting on the proposal, and
physically leave the hearing.
B. If enough members of the hearing body are disqualified so that a quorum
cannot be achieved, then all members present, after stating their reasons for
disqualification, shall be requalified and deliberations shall proceed.
20.06.006 Burden and nature of proof.
A. Except for Type V actions, appeal of Type II actions and closed record
appeals, the burden of proof is on the proponent. The development project permit
application must be supported by convincing proof that it conforms to the applicable
elements of the city's development regulations and comprehensive plan (review criteria).
The proponent must also prove that any significant adverse environmental impacts have
been adequately mitigated.
B. In an appeal of Type II actions or closed record appeal, the appellant has
the burden of proof with respect to points raised on appeal.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 25
Packet Page 220 of 380
C. In a closed record appeal of the Architectural Design Board, its decision
shall be given substantial deference regarding decision review within its expertise and
contained in its decisions.
20.06.007 Order of proceedings.
The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the nature of the
hearing. The following shall be supplemented by administrative procedures as
appropriate.
A. Before receiving testimony and other evidence on the issue, the following
shall be determined:
1. Any objections on jurisdictional grounds shall be noted on the record and
if there is objection, the hearing body may proceed or terminate the proceeding;
Any member disqualifications shall be determined.
B. The presiding officer may take official notice of commonly known and
accepted information, such as:
and state law;
Ordinances, resolutions, rules, officially adopted development standards,
Public records and facts judicially noticeable by law.
C. Information officially noticed need not be proved by submission of formal
evidence to be considered by the hearing body. Parties requesting official notice of any
information shall do so on the record. The hearing body, however, may take notice of
matters listed in subsection B of this section at any time. Any information given official
notice may be rebutted.
D. The hearing body may view the proposed project site or planning area
with or without notification to the parties, but shall put into the record a statement setting
forth the time, manner and circumstances of the site visit.
E. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and
opponents. The presiding officer may, in his or her discretion, permit persons attending
the hearing to ask questions. Unless the presiding officer specifies otherwise, approved
questions will be asked of persons submitting testimony by the presiding officer.
F. When the presiding officer has closed the public hearing portion of the
hearing, the hearing body may openly discuss the issue and may further question the staff
or any person submitting information. An opportunity to present rebuttal shall be
provided if new information is presented in the questioning. When all evidence has been
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 26
Packet Page 221 of 380
presented and all questioning and rebuttal completed, the presiding officer shall officially
close the record and end the hearing.
20.06.008 Decision.
A. Following the hearing procedure described in ECDC 20.06.007, the
hearing body shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. If the hearing
is an appeal, the hearing body shall affirm, reverse or, with the written consent of the
applicant, which shall include a waiver of the statutory prohibition against two open
record hearings, remand the decision for additional information.
B. The hearing body's written decision shall be issued within 10 working
days after the close of record of the hearing and within 90 days of the opening of the
hearing, unless a longer period is agreed to by the parties.
C. The city shall provide a notice of decision as provided in ECDC
20.06.009.
D. If the city is unable to issue its final decision on an application within the Deleted: development project permit
time limits provided for in this section, it shall provide written notice of this fact to the
project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits
have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of decision.
Deleted: -Miscellaneous
20.06.009 Notice of final decisionL
A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the
issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided,
that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall
be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include
the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal and a description of any available
administrative appeals. For Type II, III and IV permits, the notice shall contain the Deleted: development project
requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affected property owners
may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any program of
revaluation.
1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the
applicant, to any person who submitted comments on the application or requested a copy
of the decision, and to the Snohomish County assessor.
2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means
deemed reasonable by the director.
B. In calculating the 120-day period for issuance of the notice of final
decision, or other decision period specified in 20.06.009(A) ECDC, the following periods
shall be excluded:
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 27
Packet Page 222 of 380
1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the director
to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. The
period shall be calculated from the date the director notifies the applicant of the need for
additional information until the earlier of the dates the director determines that the
additional information provided satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the
date the additional information is provided to the city;
2. If the director determines that the information submitted is insufficient, the
applicant shall be informed of the¢eficiencies and the procedures set forth in subsection Deleted: particular insufficiencies
(13)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion period shall apply;
3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is
being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time
period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by Chapter 20.15A ECDC;
4. Any period for consideration and issuance of a decision for administrative
appeals of development project permits, which shall be not more than 90 days for open
record appeals and 60 days for closed record appeals, unless a longer period is agreed to
by the director and the applicant;
5. Any extension of time mutually agreed to by the director and the applicant
in writing.
C. The time limits established in this title do not apply if apermit 4pplication_ , Deleted: development project
1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development
regulation;
2. Requires siting approval of an essential public facility as provided in
RCW 36.70A.200; or
3. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period
shall start from the date that a determination of completeness for the revised application
is issued by the director pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003 and RCW 36.70B.070.
20.06.010 Reconsideration of decision.
A. General. Any person identified in ECDC 20.07.003 as having standing to
file an administrative appeal may request reconsideration of a decision of the hearing
examiner which issues immediately after the open record public hearing on a ,?ermit Deleted: development project
application described in this chapter. (There shall be no reconsideration of a decision of
the director (staff), ADB or city council.) Reconsideration is not a condition precedent to
any appeal. Reconsideration shall be limited to:
error(s) of procedure;
error(s) of law or fact;
error(s) of judgment; and/or
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 28
Packet Page 223 of 380
4. the discovery of new evidence that was not known and could not in
the exercise of reasonable diligence, been discovered.
B. Time to File. A request for reconsideration, including reconsideration fee,
must be filed with the director within 10 calendar days of the hearing examiner's written Deleted: city planning
decision. Such requests shall be delivered to the director before 4:30 p.m. on the last
business day of the reconsideration period. Requests for reconsideration that are received
by mail after 4:30 p.m. on the last day of this reconsideration period will not be accepted,
no matter when such requests were sent, mailed or postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing a
request for reconsideration, the day the hearing examiner's decision is issued shall not be
counted. If the last day of the reconsideration is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday
designated by RCW 1.16.050, or by a city ordinance, then the reconsideration may be
filed on the next business day.
D. Content of Request for Reconsideration. Requests for reconsideration shall
be in writing, be accompanied by the required reconsideration fee, and contain the , Deleted: (which shall be the same as
following information: the administrative appeal fee)
The name, address and phone number of the requestor;
2. Identification of the application and final decision which is the subject of
the request for reconsideration;
3. Requestor's statement of grounds for reconsideration and the facts upon
which the request is based;
The specific relief requested;
5. A statement that the requestor believes the contents of the request to be
true, followed by his/her signature.
6. All written submittals shall be typed on letter size paper (8.5 x 11), with
one inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no
smaller than 12), single sided.
E. Effect. The timely filing of a request for reconsideration shall stay the
hearing examiner's decision until such time as the hearing examiner issues a decision on
reconsideration.
F. Notice of Request for Reconsideration. The irector shall provide mailed Deleted: requestor
notice that a request for reconsideration has been filed to all parties of record as defined
in ECDC 20.07.003.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 29
Packet Page 224 of 380
G. Hearing Examiner's Action on Request. The hearing examiner shall
consider the request for reconsideration without a hearing, but may solicit written
arguments from parties of record. A decision on the request for reconsideration shall be
issued within 10 business days after receipt of the request for reconsideration by the city.
1. The time period for appeal shall recommence and be the same for
all parties of record, regardless of whether a party filed a motion for reconsideration.
2. Only one request for reconsideration may be made by a party of
record. Any ground not stated in the initial motion is waived.
A decision on reconsideration or a matter that is remanded to the
hearing examiner by the City Council is not subject to a motion for reconsideration.
H. Limitations on Hearing Examiner's Reconsideration. The hearing
examiner shall consider the request for reconsideration based on the administrative record
compiled on the application up to and including the date of the hearing examiner's
decision. The hearing examiner may require or permit corrections of ministerial errors or
inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record and the hearing examiner's
decision. The reconsideration decision issued by the hearing examiner may modify,
affirm or reverse the hearing examiner's decision.
I. Notice of Final Decision on Reconsideration. The director shall issue a
notice of final decision on reconsideration in the manner set forth and to the persons
identified in ECDC 20.06.009.
J. Further Appeals. If no administrative appeal is allowed of the hearing
examiner's decision, and a request for reconsideration was timely filed, then any judicial
appeal must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the decision on reconsideration, as
provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 30
Packet Page 225 of 380
Chapter 20.07
CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Sections:
20.07.001
Appeals of decisions.
20.07.002
Consolidated appeals.
20.07.003
Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
20.07.004
Appeals of recommendations and decisions.
20.07.005
Procedure for closed record decision/appeal.
20.07.006
Judicial appeals.
20.07.007
Resubmission of application.
20.07.001 Appeals of decisions.
A. "Closed record appeal" means an administrative appeal on the record to
the city council, following an open record public hearing on a development project permit
application when the appeal is on the record with no new evidence or information
allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC 20.07.005(B), and only appeal
argument allowed.
B. The right of appeal for all permit implications and Type V land use Deleted: development project
decisions shall be as described in the matrix set forth in ECDC 20.01.003.
20.07.002 Consolidated appeals.
All appeals of development project permit application decisions, other than
appeals of determinations of significance ("DS"), and exempt permits and approvals
under ECDC 20.01.007, shall be considered together in a consolidated appeal using the
appeal procedure for the highest type permit application.
20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
A. Limited to Parties of Record. Only parties of record may file an
administrative appeal.
B. Definition. The term "parties of record," for the purposes of this chapter,
shall mean:
1. The applicant;
2. Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the
application;
3. Any person who individually submits written comments concerning the
application at the open record public hearing (or to staff if an appeal of a Type H
decision). Persons who have only signed petitions are not parties of record; and/or
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 31
Packet Page 226 of 380
4. The city of Edmonds.
20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions.
Permit Decisions or Recommendations. Appeals of a hearing body's
recommendation or decision on a0ermit application shall be governed by the following _ , Deleted: development project
A. Standing. Only parties of record have standing to appeal the hearing body's
decision.
B. Time to File. An appeal must be filed within 14 days after the issuance of the
hearing body's written decision. The appeal period shall be extended for an additional
seven days, if state or local rules adopted pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW allow public
comment on a determination of nonsignificance issued as part of the appealable project
permit decision. Appeals, including fees, must be received by the city's development
services department by mail or by personal delivery at or before 4:30 PM on the last
business day of the appeal period. Appeals received by mail after 4:30 PM on the last day
of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when such appeals were mailed or
postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an
appeal, the day the hearing body's decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day
of the appeal is a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050 or by a
city ordinance, or any day when city hall or the City's Development Services Department
is closed to the public by formal executive or legislative action, then the appeal may be
filed on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, holiday or closed day.
D. Content of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by the required
appeal fee as set forth in the city's adopted fee resolution, and contain the following
information:
Appellant's name, address and phone number;
A statement describing appellant's standing to appeal;
Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal;
4. Appellant's statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the
appeal is based with specific references to the facts in the record;
The specific relief sought;
6. A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the
contents to be true, followed by the appellant's signature.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 32
Packet Page 227 of 380
7. All written submittals shall be typed on letter size paper (8.5 x 11), with
one inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no
smaller than 12), single sided.
E. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the hearing body's decision until
such time as the appeal is concluded or withdrawn.
F. Notice of Appeal. The Development Services Director (hereinafter the "director")
shall provide mailed notice of the appeal to all parties of record as defined in ECDC Deleted: The appellant
20.07.003.
20.07.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal.
A. Closed record appeals shall be based on the record established at the open
record hearing before the hearing body/officer whose decision is appealed, which shall
include the written decision of the hearing body/officer, copies of any exhibits admitted
into the record, and official transcript, minutes or tape recording of the proceedings.
1. At his/her own expense, a party to the appeal may have the official tape
recording of the open record hearing transcribed; however, to be admitted into the record,
the transcription must be performed and certified by a transcriber that is pre -approved by
the City. In addition, the certified transcription must be received by the City directly
from the transcriber at least 16 working days before the date scheduled for the closed
record review. It shall be each party of record's responsibility to obtain a copy of the
transcription from the City.
2. The director shall maintain a list of pre -approved transcribers that are
court approved; and if needed, shall coordinate with parties to the appeal so that no more
than one official transcription is admitted into the record.
B. No new testimony or other evidence will be accepted by the city council
except: (1) new information required to rebut the substance of any written or oral ex parte
communication provided during an appearance of fairness disclosure; and (2) relevant
information that, in the opinion of the city council, was improperly excluded by the
hearing body/officer.
1. Appellants who believe that information was improperly excluded must
specifically request in writing within 5 working days of the appeal deadline that the
information be made part of the record. The request shall be addressed to the city council
president, describing the information excluded, its relevance to the issues appealed, the
reason(s) that the information was excluded by the hearing body/officer, and the reason
why the hearing body/officer erred in excluding the information.
2. In determining whether the information should be admitted, the city
council president may request other parties of record to submit written arguments
rebutting the above. Non response by the city council president within 5 working days of
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-lo 33
Packet Page 228 of 380
the initial request that the information be made part of the record shall constitute a
rejection of the same.
C. Parties to the appeal may present written arguments to the city council.
Arguments shall describe the particular errors committed by the decision make with
specific references to the administrative record. The appellant shall bear the burden to
demonstrate that the decision }s clearer erroneous given the record.—
D. While not required, ppellant may submit his or her written arguments 12
working days before the date scheduled for the closed record review. Parties of record,
except for the appellant, may respond in writing to appellant's arguments no later than 7
working days before the closed record review. Appellant may rebut in writing to
responses submitted by parties of record no later than 4 working days before the closed
record review. If the applicant is not the appellant, applicant may submit a final
surrebuttal in writing to appellant's rebuttal no later than 2 working days before the
closed record review.
E. Written arguments, responses, rebuttal and surrebuttals must be received
by the city's development services department by mail or personal delivery at or before
4:30 PM of the date due. Late submittals shall not be accepted. Submittals received by
mail after 4:30 PM on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter
when such submittals were mailed or postmarked. It shall be the responsibility of the
parties involved to obtain for their own use from the city copies of written arguments,
responses, rebuttals and surrebuttals submitted.
F. All written submittals shall be typed on letter size paper (8.5 x 11), with
one inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no
smaller than 12), single sided, double spaced and without exceeding twelve pages in
length, including exhibits, if any. Exhibits that are not already in the record shall not be
allowed.
G. The review shall commence with the resolution of appearance of fairness
issues, if any, followed by a presentation by the directorEof the general background of the
proposed development and the issues in dispute. After the director's presentation, the city
council may ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to parties of record, with an
opportunity for the director p appellant and/or applicant, respectively, to rebut to the
response. The city council shall not request information outside the administrative
record.
H. The city council shall determine whether the decision ,by the hearing
body/officer is clearly erroneous given the evidence in the record. The city council shall
affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the hearing body/officer accordingly. Upon
written agreement by the applicant to waive the requirement for a decision within the
time periods set forth in RCW 36.70B.080, as allowed by RCW 36.70B.080(3), the city
council may remand the decision with instructions to the hearing body for additional
information.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 34
Deleted: below
Deleted: below
Deleted: A
Deleted: , or the director's designee,
Deleted: (or designee)
Deleted: below
Packet Page 229 of 380
I. Notice of Final Decision on Closed Record Appeal. The director shall
issue a notice of final decision on closed record appeal in the manner set forth and to the
persons identified in ECDC 20.06.009.
20.07.006 Judicial appeals.
The city's final decision on an application may be appealed by a party of record
with standing to file a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court. Such
petition must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the decision, as provided in
Chapter 36.70C RCW.
20.07.007 Resubmission of application.
Any permit application or other request for approval submitted pursuant to this
chapter that is denied shall not be resubmitted or accepted by the director for evx iew fora Deleted: reconsideration
period of 12 months from the date of the last action by the city on the application or
request unless, in the opinion of the director, there has been a significant change in the
application or a significant change in conditions related to the impacts of the proposed
project.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 35
Packet Page 230 of 380
Chapter 20.08
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Sections:
20.08.010 Authority„
Deleted: and general provisions
20.08.020 General provisions of development agreements.
20.08.030 Enforceability.
20.08.040 Approval procedure for development agreements.
20.08.050 Form of agreement, council approval, recordation.
20.08.060 Judicial appeal.
Deleted: and general provisions
20.08.010 Authority, `
A. The city may enter intoia development agreement with a person having
Deleted: consider, and
ownership or control of real property within the city limits. The city may also enter a
Deleted:,
development agreement for real property outside of the city limit but within the urban
Deleted: consider
growth area (UGA) as part of a proposed annexation or a service agreement.
Deleted: B. _ A development agreement
shall be consistent with the applicable
20.08.020 General provisions of development agreements.
policies and goals of the city of Edmonds
comprehensive plan and applicable
development regulations.
A. A development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable policies
and goals of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan and applicable development
regulations. As applicable, the development agreement shall specify the following:
1. Project components which define and detail the permitted uses, residential
densities, nonresidential densities and intensities or building sizes;
2. The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or agreed to in
accordance with any applicable provisions of state law, any reimbursement provisions,
other financial contributions by the property owner, inspection fees, or dedications;
3. Mitigation measures, development conditions and other requirements of
Chapter 43.21C RCW;
4, Design standards such as architectural treatment, maximum heights,
setbacks, landscaping, drainage and water quality requirements and other development
features;
5. Provisions for affordable housing, if applicable;
6. Parks and common open space preservation;
7. Phasing;
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 36
Packet Page 231 of 380
8. A build -out or vesting period for applicable standards; and
9. Any other appropriate development requirement or procedure which is
based upon a city policy, rule, regulation or standard.
B. As provided in RCW 36.70B.170, the development agreement shall
reserve authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a
serious threat to public health and safety.
20.08.030 Enforceability.
Unless amended or terminated, a development agreement is enforceable during
its term by a party to the agreement. A development agreement and the development
standards in the agreement govern during the term of the agreement, or for all or that part
of the build -out period specified in the agreement. The agreement may not be subject to
an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development standard or a new zoning ordinance
or development standard or regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement.
The permit approval issued by the city after the execution of the agreement must be
consistent with the development agreement.
20.08.040 Approval procedure for development agreements.
A development agreement is a Type V development project permit application
and shall be processed in accordance with the procedures established in this title. A
development agreement shall be approved by the Edmonds city council after a public
hearing.
20.08.050 Form of agreement, council approval, recordation.
A. Form. All development agreements shall be in a form provided by the city
attorney's office. The city attorney shall approve all development agreements for form
prior to consideration by the Planning Board.
B. Term. Development agreements may be approved for a maximum period
of five years.
C. Recordation. A development agreement shall be recorded against the real
property records of the Snohomish County assessor's office. During the term of the
development agreement, the agreement is binding on the parties and their successors,
including any area that is annexed to the city.
20.08.060 Judicial appeal.
If the development agreement relates to a project permit application, the
provision of Chapter 36.70C RCW shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the
development agreement.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-lo 37
Packet Page 232 of 380
Page 3: [1] Deleted Setup 10/29/2009 10:36 AM
B. Unless otherwise specified, all references to days shall be
calendar days. Whenever the last day of a deadline falls on a
Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050 or by a
city ordinance, or any day when city hall or the City's Development
Services Department is closed to the public by formal executive or
legislative action the deadline shall run until the next day that is not a
Saturday, Sunday, or holiday or closed day.
Page 3: [2] Deleted Setup
3/9/2010 10:11 AM
Development Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the "director")
Page 3: [3] Deleted Setup
10/28/2009 5:15 PM
Development project permit application framework
Page 3: [4] Deleted Setup
11/2/2009 2:16 PM
Statement of zoning restriction
Page 3: [5] Deleted Setup
10/27/2009 12:49 PM
Modification to landscape plans
Page 3: [6] Comment Setup
6/1/2010 3:43 PM
Edmonds doesn't have site plan review
Page 3: [7] Comment Setup
6/1/2010 3:44 PM
Home occ is with business license or III-B
Page 3: [8] Comment Setup
6/1/2010 3:44 PM
Edmonds doesn't have site plan
Page 3: [9] Deleted Setup
10/27/2009 10:38 AM
Permitted uses not requiring site plan review
Page 3: [10] Deleted Setup
3/12/2010 8:40 AM
Site plan/major amendments to site plans
Page 5: [11] Deleted Setup
10/29/2009 10:32 AM
A. Administrator's Decision to Hold Joint Hearing. The director may combine any
public hearing on a development project permit application with any hearing that may be
held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, on the proposed action, as
long as: (1) the hearing is held within the city limits; and (2) the requirements of
subsection C of this section are met.
B. Applicant's Request for a Joint Hearing. The applicant may request that the public
hearing on a permit application be combined as long as the joint hearing can be held
Packet Page 233 of 380
within the time periods set forth in this title. In the alternative, the applicant may agree to
a particular schedule if that additional time is needed in order to complete the hearings.
C. Prerequisites to Joint Public Hearing. A joint public hearing may be held with
another local, state, regional, federal or other agency and the city, when:
1. The other agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so;
2. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencies' adopted
notice requirements as set forth in statutes, ordinances, or rules;
3. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed project
from the applicant in enough time to hold its hearing at the same time as the city hearing;
or
4. The hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the city.
Page 5: [12] Deleted Setup 10/29/2009 10:51 AM
A. Administrative Decisions. Type I and II decisions are administrative.
Administrative decisions are made by the Director. Unless otherwise provided, appeals
of Type II decisions shall be initiated as set forth in ECDC 20.07.004.
B. Quasi-judicial Decisions. Type III, Type IV and appeal of Type II decisions are
quasi-judicial. Quasi-judicial decisions are made by the Hearing Examiner and/or the
city council.
C. Legislative Decision. Type V decisions are legislative. Legislative decisions are
made by the city council.
1. Planning Board. The Planning Board shall hold a public hearing and make
recommendations to the city council on Type V actions, except that the city council may
hold a public hearing itself on area -wide rezones to implement city policies, or
amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map. The public
hearing shall be held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC, RCW
36.70A.035 and all other applicable law.
2. City Council. The city council may consider the Planning Board's
recommendation in a public hearing held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter
20.06 ECDC and RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law. If the city council
desires to hold a public hearing on area -wide rezones to implement city policies, or
amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map, it may do
so without forwarding the proposed decision to the Planning Board for a hearing.
3. Public Notice. Notice of the public hearing or public meeting shall be
provided to the public as set forth in ECDC 20.03.004.
Packet Page 234 of 380
4. Implementation. City council decision shall be by ordinance or resolution
and shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance or resolution.
Page 5: [13] Deleted Setup 10/29/2009 11:49 AM
Whenever a permit or approval in the Edmonds Community Development Code
has been designated as a Type I, H, III or IV permit, the procedures in this title shall be
followed in development project permit processing, except as provided in ECDC
20.01.003(B)
Page 9: [14] Deleted Setup 10/29/2009 12:12 PM
A. Generally. A notice of application shall be provided to the public, all city
departments and agencies with jurisdiction of all Type II, III and IV development project
permit applications in accordance with Chapter 20.03 ECDC.
B. Issuance of Notice of Application.
1. Within 14 days after the city has made a determination of completeness pursuant
to ECDC 20.02.003, a notice of application shall be issued.
2. If any open record predecision hearing is required for the requested development
project permit(s), the notice of application shall be provided at least 15 days prior to the
open record hearing.
C. Contents. The notice of application shall include:
1. The date of submission of the initial application, the date of the notice of
completion and acceptance of the application, and the date of the notice of application;
2. A description of the proposed project and a list of the development project
permits requested in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested
under Chapter 36.70B RCW;
3. A description of other required permits not included in the application, to the
extent known by the city at that time;
4. A description of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed
project, and, if not otherwise stated on the document providing notice of application, the
location where the application and any studies can be reviewed;
5. A statement setting forth: (a) the time for the public comment period, which shall
be not less than 14 nor more than 30 days following the date of notice of application; (b)
the right of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in
any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application; and (c) any appeal
rights;
6. The date, time, place and type of hearing, if a hearing has been scheduled when
the date of notice of application is issued;
Packet Page 235 of 380
7. Any other information determined appropriate by the director such as the
director's threshold determination, if complete at the time of issuance of the notice of
application.
D. Public Comment on the Notice of Application. All public comments in response
to the notice of application must be received by the city's development services
department by 4:00 PM on the last day of the comment period. Comments in response to
the notice of application received after the comment period has expired will not be
accepted no matter when they were mailed or postmarked. Comments shall be mailed or
personally delivered. Comments should be as specific as possible.
E. SEPA Exempt Projects. A notice of application shall not be required for
development project permits that are categorically exempt under SEPA, unless a public
comment period or an open record predecision hearing is required.
Page 11: [15] Deleted Setup 10/29/2009 1:48 PM
A. Except where an action is initiated by the city, the applicant for a development
project permit application shall be responsible for all posting, publishing, mailing and
other notification required by the director.
1. No later than 14 days after the required date of posting, publishing and/or mailing,
the applicant shall provide to the director an affidavit attesting that each required method
of notification was carried out in conformance with the regulations in this and other
applicable chapters. For required mail notice, the applicant shall submit a U.S. Postal
Service Certificate of Mailing containing the names and addresses of all parties provided
public notice.
2. If the affidavit and U.S. Postal Service Certificate of Mailing is not filed as
required, any scheduled hearing or date by which the public may comment on an
application shall be postponed, if necessary, in order to allow compliance with the notice
requirements of this and other applicable chapters.
3. If the applicant fails to file the affidavit and U.S. Postal Service
Certificate of Mailing as herein required within 90 days of required date of posting,
publishing and/or mailing, the director shall make findings and issue a decision,
according to the Type I procedure, that the application has lapsed for lack of information
necessary to complete the review. The decision shall state that no further action will be
taken on the applications, and that if the applicant does not make arrangements to pick up
the application materials from the planning and/or public works/engineering departments
within 30 days from the date of the decision, the application materials will be destroyed
Page 11: [16] Deleted Setup 3/12/2010 8:59 AM
1. No later than 14 days after the required date of posting, publishing and/or mailing,
the appellant shall provide to the director an affidavit attesting that each required method
of notification was carried out in conformance with the regulations in this and other
applicable chapters. For required mail notice, the applicant shall submit a U.S. Postal
Packet Page 236 of 380
Service Certificate of Mailing containing the names and addresses of all parties provided
public notice.
2. When the responsibility of providing notice is on the appellant, failure to timely
or properly file affidavit of notice and certificate of mailing may be grounds for the
director to summarily dismiss the appeal.
Page 14: [17] Deleted Setup 3/12/2010 10:20 AM
1. Methods of Providing SMP Notice. Notice of the application of a permit under the
purview of the city's shoreline master program (SMP) shall be given by one or more of
the following methods:
a. Mailing of the notice to real property owners as shown by the records of the
county assessor within 300 feet of the boundary of the property upon which the proposed
project is to be built;
b. Posting of the notice in a conspicuous manner, as determined by the director, on
the property upon which the project is to be constructed; or
C. Any other manner deemed appropriate by the director to accomplish the
objectives of reasonable notice to adjacent landowners and the public.
2. Content of SMP Notice. SMP notices shall include:
a. A statement that any person desiring to submit written comments concerning an
application, or desiring to receive notification of the final decision concerning an
application, may submit comments, or requests for the decision, to the director within 30
days of the last date that notice is published pursuant to this subsection;
b. A statement that any person may submit oral or written comments at the hearing;
C. An explanation of the manner in which the public may obtain a copy of the city's
decision on the application no later than two days after its issuance.
3. Public Comment Period. The public comment period shall be 30 days.
4. The director shall mail or otherwise deliver a copy of the decision
to each person who submits comments or a written request for the decisions.
Page 14: [18] Deleted Setup 3/12/2010 10:39 AM
20.03.003 Optional public notice. The director, in his or her sole discretion,
may:
A. Notify the public or private groups with known interest in a proposal or type of
proposal;
Packet Page 237 of 380
B. Notify the news media;
C. Place notices in appropriate regional or neighborhood newspapers or trade
journals;
D. Publish notice in agency newsletters or send notice to agency mailing lists, either
general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas; and
E. Mail notice to additional neighboring property owners.
Packet Page 238 of 380
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 20.01
TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMITS
Sections:
20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions
20.01.001 Types of Actions
20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type.
20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework.
[moved 20.01.004 Joint Public Hearings to 20.06 Open Record Public
Hearings ]
[incorporated 20.01.005 Decision with 20.01.001]
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted.
20.01.007 Exempt projects.
20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions
A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standard procedures, decision criteria,
public notification, and timing for development project permit application decisions made
by the City of Edmonds. These procedures are intended to:
• Promote timely and informed public participation;
• Eliminate redundancy in the application, permit review, and appeals processes;
• Process permits equitably and expediently;
• Balance the needs of permit applicants with neighbors;
• Ensure that decisions are made consistently and predictably; and
• Result in development that furthers City goals as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
These procedures provide for an integrated and consolidated land use permit process. The
procedures integrate the environmental review process with land use procedures,
decisions, and consolidated appeal processes.
B. The provisions of this chapter supersede all other procedural requirements that
may exist in other sections of the City Code. When interpreting and applying the
standards of this Code, its provisions shall be the minimum requirements. Where
conflicts occur between provisions of this Code and/or between the Code and other City
regulations, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. Where conflict between the text
of this Code and the zoning map ensue, the text of this Code shall prevail.
C. Unless otherwise specified, all references to days shall be calendar days.
Whenever the last day of a deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designated
by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or any day when city hall or the City's
Development Services Department is closed to the public by formal executive or
legislative action the deadline shall run until the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday,
or holiday or closed day.
Exhibit 1
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 1
Packet Page 239 of 380
20.01.001 Types of Actions
There are five main types of actions (or permits) that are reviewed under the
provisions of this chapter. The types of actions are based on who makes the decision, the
amount of discretion exercised by the decision making body, the level of impact
associated with the decision, the amount and type of public input sought, and the type of
appeal opportunity.
A. Administrative Decisions. Type I and II decisions are administrative
decisions made by the Development Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the
"director"). Type I permits are ministerial decisions are based on compliance with
specific, nondiscretionary and/or technical standards that are clearly enumerated. Type II
permits are administrative decisions where the Director makes a decision based on
standards and clearly identified criteria, but where public notice is required. Unless
otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated as set forth in ECDC
20.07.004.
B. Quasi-judicial Decisions. Type III, Type IV and appeal of Type II
decisions are quasi-judicial decisions that involve the use of discretionary judgement in
the review of each specific application. Quasi-judicial decisions are made by the Hearing
Examiner, the Architectural Design Board, and/or the city council.
C. Legislative Decision. Type V actions are legislative decisions made by
the city council under its authority to establish policies and regulations regarding future
private and public developments, and management of public lands.
1. Planning Board. The Planning Board shall hold a public hearing
and make recommendations to the city council on Type V actions, except that the city
council may hold a public hearing itself on area -wide rezones to implement city policies,
or amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map. The
public hearing shall be held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC,
RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law.
2. City Council. The city council may consider the Planning Board's
recommendation in a public hearing held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter
20.06 ECDC and RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law. If the city council
desires to hold a public hearing on area -wide rezones to implement city policies, or
amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map, it may do
so without forwarding the proposed decision to the Planning Board for a hearing.
3. Public Notice. Notice of the public hearing or public meeting shall
be provided to the public as set forth in ECDC 20.03.004.
4. Implementation. City council decision shall be by ordinance or
resolution and shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance or resolution.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 2
Packet Page 240 of 380
20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type.
A. Determination by Director. The director shall determine the proper
procedure for all project applications. Questions concerning the appropriate procedure
shall be resolved in favor of the higher numbered procedure.
B. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves
two or more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered
procedure required for any part of the application or may be processed individually under
each of the application procedures identified in ECDC 20.01.003. The applicant may
determine whether the application will be processed collectively or individually. If the
applications are processed individually, the highest numbered type procedure shall be
undertaken first, followed by the other procedures in sequence from the highest
numbered to the lowest.
C. Decisionmaker(s). Applications processed in accordance with subsection
B of this section which have the same procedure number, but are assigned to different
hearing bodies, shall be heard collectively by the highest decisionmaker; the city council
being the highest body, followed by the hearing examiner or Planning Board, as
applicable, and then the director. Joint public hearings with other agencies shall be
processed according to ECDC 20.01.004. Concurrent public hearings held with the
design review board and any other decisionmaker shall proceed with both decisionmakers
present.
20.01.003 Permit Type and Decision Framework.
A. Permit Types.
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
I
II
III -A
III-B
IV -A
IV-B
V
Zoning
Outdoor
Essential
Final formal
Site
Development
Compliance
Dining
Public
plats
specific
agreements
Letter
Facilities
rezone
Lot Line
Formal
Technological
Design
Final
Zoning text
Adjustment
interpretation of
impracticality
review (where
Planned
amendments;
the text of the
waiver for
public hearing
Residential
area -wide
ECDC by the
amateur radio
by
Development
zoning map
Director
antennas
Architectural
amendments
Design Board
is required)
Shoreline
Comprehensive
substantial
plan
development,
amendments
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 3
Packet Page 241 of 380
shoreline
conditional
use, shoreline
variance
Accessory
Conditional
Annexations
Dwelling Unit
use permits
(where public
hearing by
Hearing
Examiner is
required)
Minor
SEPA
Variances
Development
Amendments
determinations
regulations
to Planned
Residential
Development
Minor
Revisions to
Preliminary
shoreline
Plat
management
Amendment
permits
Staff design
Administrative
Preliminary
review,
variances
formal plat
including signs
Preliminary short
Preliminary
plat
Planned
Residential
Development
Sales
Land
Home
Office/Model
clearing/Grading
Occupation
(17.70.005)
Permit (where
public hearing
by Hearing
Examiner is
required.)
Shoreline
Land Use Permit
Exemptions
Extension
Requests
Final Short
Guest House
Plat
Critical Area
Determinations
[moved to 20.01.007 Exemption from development project permit application
processing]
B. Decision Table.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 4
Packet Page 242 of 380
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT
APPLICATIONS
(TYPE I — IV)
LEGISLATIVE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
I
H
III -A
III-B
IV -A
IV-B
V
Recommendation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Planning Board
Planning Board
by:
Final decision
Director
Director
Hearing
Hearing
City
City
City
by:
examiner
examiner
council
council
council
/ADB
Notice of
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
application:
Open record
No
Only if
Yes,
Yes,
No
Yes, before
Yes, before
public hearing or
appealed,
before
before
Planning Board
Planning Board
open record
open
hearing
hearing
which makes
which makes
appeal of a final
record
examiner
examiner
recommendation
recommendation
decision:
hearing
to render
or board
to council
to council
before
final
to render
hearing
decision
final
examiner
decision
Closed record
No
No
No
Yes,
No
Yes,
Yes, or council
review:
before
before
could hold its
the
the
own hearing
council
council
Judicial appeal:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
[moved 20.01.004 Joint Public Hearings to 20.06.001 Open Record Public
Hearings]
[moved 20.01.005 Decisions to 20.01.001 Types of Actions]
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted.
Nothing in this chapter or the permit processing procedures shall limit the
authority of the city council to make changes to the city's comprehensive plan, or the
city's development regulations as part of the annual revision process.
20.01.007 Exempt projects.
A. The following projects are specifically excluded from the procedures set
forth in this Chapter: landmark designations, building permits, street vacations, street use
permits, encroachment permits, and other public works permits issued under Title 18.
B. Pursuant RCW 36.70B.140(2), lot line or boundary adjustments, building
and/or other construction permits, or similar administrative approvals categorically
exempt from environmental review under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW and the city's
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 5
Packet Page 243 of 380
SEPA/environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC), or permits/approvals for
which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project
permits, are excluded from the requirements of RCW 36.70B.060 and 36.70B.110
through 36.70B.130, which includes the following procedures:
1. Notice of application (ECDC 20.02.004) unless an open record hearing is
allowed on the permit decision;
2. Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.140, optional consolidated permit
review processing (ECDC 20.01.002(B));
3. Joint public hearings (ECDC 20.06.001);
4. Single report stating all of the decisions and recommendations made as of
the date of the report that do not require an open public record hearing (ECDC
20.06.002(C)); and
5. Notice of decision (ECDC 20.06.009).
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 6
Packet Page 244 of 380
Chapter 20.02
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Sections:
20.02.001
Optional preapplication conference.
20.02.002
Permit application requirements.
20.02.003
Submission and acceptance of application.
[moved 20.02.004 Notice of application to 20.03.002 Public Notice]
20.02.005
Referral and review of permit applications.
20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference.
A. Prior to filing applications for Type II actions requiring a preliminary plat
and Type III and IV actions, applicants are encouraged to participate in a preapplication
conference. Preapplication meetings with staff provide an opportunity to discuss the
proposal in general terms, identify the applicable City requirements and the project
review process including the permits required by the action, timing of the permits and the
approval process. Plans presented at the preapplication meeting are nonbinding and do
not "vest" an application.
B. The conference shall be held within 28 days of the request, upon payment
of applicable fee(s) as set forth in the city's adopted fee resolution.
C. The Development Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the
"director") shall provide the applicant with the following during the conference:
A form which lists the requirements for a completed application;
2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the
application;
3. The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards
which may apply to approval of the application; and
4. The city's design guidelines.
D. Neither the discussions at the conference nor the information on the form
provided by the director to the applicant under ECDC 20.02.001(C) shall bind the city in
any manner or prevent the city's future application or enforcement of all applicable
codes, ordinances and regulations.
E. Requests for preapplication conferences for all other types of applications
will be considered on a time -available basis by the director.
20.02.002 Permit application requirements.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 %
Packet Page 245 of 380
An application shall consist of all materials required by the applicable
development regulations and shall include the following general information:
A. A completed land use application form;
B. A verified statement by the applicant that the property affected by the
application is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant, or that the applicant has
submitted the application with the consent of all owners of the affected property;
C. A property and/or legal description of the site for all applications, as
required by the applicable development regulations;
D. The applicable fee; and
E. Cover letter describing how the proposal satisfies theapplicable standards,
requirements and criteria in the development regulations.
20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application.
A. Determination of Completeness. Within 28 days after receiving an
application, the director shall mail or personally deliver to the applicant a determination
which states that either:
1. The application is complete; or
2. The application is incomplete and what is necessary to make the
application complete.
B. Identification of Other Agencies with Jurisdiction. To the extent known by
the city, other agencies with jurisdiction over the project shall be identified in the
determination of completeness.
C. Additional Information. An application is complete for the purposes of
this section when it meets the submission requirements of ECDC 20.02.002 and the
submission requirements of the applicable development regulations. The determination
of completeness shall be made when the application is sufficiently complete for review,
even though additional information may be required or project modifications may be
undertaken subsequently. The determination of completeness shall not preclude the
director's ability to request additional information or studies whenever new information
is required, or when substantial changes are made to the proposed project.
D. Incomplete Applications.
1. Whenever the applicant receives a determination from the city pursuant to
ECDC 20.02.003(A)(2) that the application is incomplete, the applicant shall have 90
days to submit the necessary information. Within 14 days after an applicant has submitted
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 8
Packet Page 246 of 380
the requested additional information, the director shall make a determination of
completeness and notify the applicant in the manner provided in subsection A of this
section.
2. Whenever the applicant receives a notice that the contents of the
application, which had been previously determined under ECDC 20.02.003(A)(1) to be
complete, is insufficient, ambiguous, undecipherable, or otherwise unresponsive of the
information being sought, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary
information. If circumstances warrant, the applicant may apply in writing to the director
requesting a one-time 90-day extension. The extension request must be received by the
City prior to the end of the initial 90-day compliance period.
3. If the applicant does not submit the additional information requested
within the 90-day period (or within the 90-day extension period, as applicable), the
director shall make findings and issue a decision, according to the Type I procedure, that
the application has lapsed for lack of information necessary to complete the review. The
decision shall state that no further action will be taken on the applications, and that if the
applicant does not make arrangements to pick up the application materials from the
planning and/or public works/engineering departments within 30 days from the date of
the decision, the application materials will be destroyed.
4. When the director determines that an application has lapsed because the
applicant has failed to submit required information within the necessary time period, the
applicant may request a refund of the application fee remaining after the city's
determination of completeness.
E. Director's Failure to Provide Determination of Completeness. An
application shall be deemed complete under this section if the director does not provide a
written determination to the applicant that the application is incomplete as provided in
subsection A of this section.
F Date of Acceptance of Application. permit applications shall not be
officially accepted until complete. When an application is determined to be complete, the
director shall note the date of acceptance for continued processing.
G. After acceptance, the city shall begin processing the applications. Under
no circumstances shall the city place any applications on "hold" to be processed at some
later date, even if the request for the "hold" is made by the applicant, and regardless of
the requested length of the "holding" period. This subsection does not apply to
applications placed on "hold" upon determination by the city that additional information
is required in order to make a decision.
[moved 20.02.004 Notice of Application to 20.03.0021
20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 9
Packet Page 247 of 380
Within 10 days of accepting an application, the director shall transmit a copy of
the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to each affected government
agency and city department for review and comment, including those responsible for
determining compliance with state and federal requirements.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 10
Packet Page 248 of 380
Chapter 20.03
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Sections:
20.03.001 Responsibility for providing public notice.
20.03.002 Notice of application.
[moved Optional public notice to end of chapter] 20.03.003 Notice of public hearing.
20.03.004 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) notice.
20.03.005 Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) notice.
20.03.006 Optional public notice.
20.03.001 Responsibility for providing public notice.
A. The Development Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the
"director") is responsible for all public notice requirements.
20.03.002 Notice of application. [moved from 20.02.004]
A. Generally. A notice of application shall be provided to the public, all city
departments and agencies with jurisdiction of all Type II, III and IV development project
permit applications in accordance with Chapter 20.03 ECDC. The Notice of application
for these permits shall also be provided to the public by posting, publishing and mailing.
B. Issuance of Notice of Application.
1. A notice of application shall be issued within 14 days after the city has
made a determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003.
2. If any open record predecision hearing is required for the requested
development project permit(s), the notice of application shall be provided at least 14 days
prior to the open record hearing.
C. Contents. The notice of application shall include the following information
in a format determined by the director:
1. The date of submission of the initial application, the date of the notice of
completion and acceptance of the application, and the date of the notice of application;
2. A description of the proposed project and a list of the development project
permits requested in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested
under Chapter 36.70B RCW;
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 11
Packet Page 249 of 380
3. A description of other required permits not included in the application, to
the extent known by the city at that time;
4. A description of existing environmental documents that evaluate the
proposed project, and, if not otherwise stated on the document providing notice of
application, the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed;
5. A statement setting forth: (a) the time for the public comment period,
which shall be not less than 14 nor more than 30 days following the date of notice of
application; (b) the right of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of
and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application; and
(c) any appeal rights;
6. The date, time, place and type of hearing, if a hearing has been scheduled
when the date of notice of application is issued;
7. Any other information determined appropriate by the director such as the
director's threshold determination, if complete at the time of issuance of the notice of
application.
D. Mailed Notice. Notice of application shall be mailed to:
1. the owners of the property involved if different from applicant; and
2. the owners of real property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the
property(ies) involved in the application. Addresses for a mailed notice required by this
code shall be obtained from the applicable county's real property tax records. The
adjacent property owners list must be current to within six (6) months of the date of
initial application.
All mailed public notices shall be deemed to have been received on the next business day
following the day that the notice is deposited in the mail.
E. Published Notice. Notice of application shall be published in the city's official
newspaper (The Everett Herald, as identified in ECDC 1.03). The format shall be
determined by the director and the notice must contain the information listed in ECDC
20.03.002.C.
F. Posting. Posting of the property for site specific proposals shall consist of one or
more notice boards as follows:
1. A single notice board shall be placed:
Packet Page 250 of 380
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 12
a. At the midpoint of the street fronting the site or as otherwise
directed by the director for maximum visibility;
b. Five feet inside the street property line, except when the board is
structurally attached to an existing building; provided, that no notice board shall be
placed more than five feet from the street without approval of the director;
above grade; and
c. So that the bottom of the notice board is between two and four feet
d. Where it is completely visible to pedestrians.
e. The size of the notice board shall be determined by the director.
2. Additional notice boards may be required when:
a. The site does not abut a public road;
b. A large site abuts more than one public road; or
c. The director determines that additional notice boards are necessary
to provide adequate public notice.
3. Notice boards shall be:
a. Maintained in good condition during the notice period;
b. In place at least 14 days prior to the date of any hearing, and at
least 14 days prior to the end of any required comment period;
c. Removed within 30 days of the date of the project decision. If the
project is appealled, the sign must be removed 30 after the appeal decision is issued.
4. Removal of the notice board prior to the end of the notice period
shall be cause for discontinuance of the department review until the notice board is
replaced and remains in place for the specified time period.
G. Public Comment on the Notice of Application. All public comments in
response to the notice of application must be received by the city's development services
department by 4:00 PM on the last day of the comment period. Comments in response to
the notice of application received after the comment period has expired will not be
accepted no matter when they were mailed or postmarked. Comments shall be mailed or
personally delivered. Comments should be as specific as possible.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 13
Packet Page 251 of 380
[separated out Shoreline permits and moved to 20.03.0051
20.03.003 Notice of public hearing.
A. Applicants of Type III or Type V actions, and appellants of Type II
actions shall provide notice of public hearing by mailing, posting and publishing.
B. Content of Notice of Public Hearing for All Applications. The notice of a
public hearing required by this chapter shall contain:
1. The name and address of the applicant and the applicant's representative;
2 A description of the subject property reasonably sufficient to inform the
public of its location, including but not limited to a vicinity location or written
description, a map or postal address, and a subdivision lot and block designation
(complete legal description not required);
3. The date, time and place of the hearing;
4. The nature of the proposed use or development;
5. A statement that all interested persons may appear and provide testimony;
6. The sections of the code that are pertinent to the hearing procedure;
7. A statement explaining when information may be examined, and when
and how written comments addressing findings required for a decision by the hearing
body may be admitted;
8. The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone number
where additional information may be obtained;
9. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence
relied upon by the applicant, and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost
and that copies will be provided at the requestor's cost; and
10. A statement explaining that a copy of the staff report will be available for
inspection at no cost at least seven days prior to the hearing and that copies will be
provided at the requestor's cost.
follows:
C. Mailed Notice. Mailed notice of the public hearing shall be provided as
1. The notice of the public hearing shall be mailed to:
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 14
Packet Page 252 of 380
a. The applicant;
b. The owner of the subject property, if different from applicant;
C. All owners of real property, as shown by the records of the county
assessor, within 300 feet of the boundaries of the property(ies) involved in the
application; and
d. Any person who submits a public comments on an application;
2. Type III Preliminary Plat Actions. In addition to the above, requirements
for mailed notice of public hearing for preliminary plats and proposed subdivisions shall
also include the following:
a. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat adjacent to or within one
mile of the municipal boundaries of any city or town, or which contemplates the use of
any city or town utilities shall be given to the appropriate city or town authorities;
b. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision
adjoining the boundaries of Snohomish County shall be given to the appropriate county
officials;
C. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision
located adjacent to the right-of-way of a state highway shall be given to the secretary of
transportation;
d. If the owner of the real property which is proposed to be
subdivided owns another parcel or parcels of real property which lie adjacent to the real
property proposed to be subdivided, notice under RCW 58.17.090(1)(b) shall be given to
owners of real property located with 300 feet from any portion of the boundaries of the
adjacent parcels owned by the owner of the real property to be subdivided.
3. For a plat alteration or a plat vacation, notice shall be as provided in RCW
58.17.080 and 58.17.090.
4. Procedure for Mailed Notice of Public Hearing.
a. The records of the Snohomish County assessor's office shall be
used for determining the property owner of record. Addresses for a mailed notice
required by this code shall be obtained from the applicable county's real property tax
records. As required under ECDC 20.03.001, the applicant shall provide a sworn
certificate of mailing to all persons entitled to notice under this Chapter.
b. All mailed public notices shall be deemed to have been received on
the next business day following the day that the notice is deposited in the mail.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 15
Packet Page 253 of 380
D. Procedure for Posted or Published Notice of Public Hearing.
1. Posted notice of the public hearing shall comply with requirements set
forth in ECDC 20.03.002.F.
2. Notice of public hearing shall be published in the city's official newspaper
(The Everett Herald, as identified in ECDC 1.03). The format shall be determined by the
director and the notice must contain the information listed in ECDC 20.03.003.B.
E. Time of Notice of Public Hearing.
1. Notice shall be mailed, posted and first published not less than 14 or more
than 30 days prior to the hearing date.
20.03.004 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) notice.
1. Whenever possible, the city shall integrate the public notice required under
this subsection with existing notice procedures for the City's nonexempt permits(s) or
approvals(s) required for the proposal.
2. Whenever the City issues a DNS under WAC 197-11-340(2) or a DS under
WAC 197-11-360(3) the City shall give public notice as follows:
a. If public notice is required for a nonexempt license, the notice shall state
whether a DS or DNS has been issued and when comments are due.
b. If an environmental document is issued concurrently with the notice of
application, the public notice requiremnts for the notice of application in
RCW 36.70B.110(4) will suffice to meet the SEPA public notice requirments in
WAC 197-11-510(1).
c. If no public notice is otherwise required for the permit or approval, the City
shall give notice of the DNS or DS by:
• Posting the property, for site specific proposals;
• Mailed to real property owners as shown by the records of the county
assessor within 300 feet of the boundary of the property, for site specific
proposals; and
• Publishing notice in the City's official newspaper (or if one has not been
designated, in a newspaper of general circlulation within the City).
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 16
Packet Page 254 of 380
d. Whenever the City issues a DS under WAC 197-11-360(3), the City shall
state the scoping procedure for the proposal in the DS as required in WAC 197-11-408
and in the public notice.
3. If a DNS is issued using the optional DNS process, the public notice
requirments for a notice of application in RCW 36.70B.110(4) as supplemented by the
requirments in WAC 197-11-355 will suffice to meet the SEPA public notice requirments
in WAC 197-11-510(1)(b).
4. Whenever the City issues a DEIS under WAC 197-11-455(5) or a SEIS under
WAC 197-11-620, notice of the availability of those documents shall be given by:
a. Indicating the availability of the DEIS in any public notice required for a
nonexempt license;
Posting the property, for site specific proposals;
C. Mailed to real property owners as shown by the records of the county
assessor within 300 feet of the boundary of the property, for site specific proposals; and
c. Publishing notice in the City's official newspaper (or if one has not been
designated, in a newspaper of general cirulation within the City).
5. Public notice for projects that qualify as planned actions shall be tied to
underlying permit as specificed in WAC 197-11-172(3).
6. The City may require an applicant to complete the public notice requirements
for the applicant's proposal at his or her expense.
20.03.005 Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Notice.
1. Methods of Providing SMP Notice. Notice of the application of a
permit under the purview of the city's shoreline master program (SMP) shall be given by
one or more of the following methods:
a. Mailing of the notice to real property owners as shown by the
records of the county assessor within 300 feet of the boundary of the property upon
which the proposed project is to be built;
b. Posting of the notice in a conspicuous manner, as determined by
the director, on the property upon which the project is to be constructed; or
c. Any other manner deemed appropriate by the director to
accomplish the objectives of reasonable notice to adjacent landowners and the public.
2. Content of SMP Notice. SMP notices shall include:
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 17
Packet Page 255 of 380
a. A statement that any person desiring to submit written comments
concerning an application, or desiring to receive notification of the final decision
concerning an application, may submit comments, or requests for the decision, to the
director within 30 days of the last date that notice is published pursuant to this
subsection;
b. A statement that any person may submit oral or written comments
at the hearing;
c. An explanation of the manner in which the public may obtain a
copy of the city's decision on the application no later than two days after its issuance.
3. Public Comment Period. The public comment period shall be 30
days.
4. The director shall mail or otherwise deliver a copy of the decision
to each person who submits comments or a written request for the decisions.
20.03.006 Optional public notice. The director, in his or her sole discretion, may:
A. Notify the public or private groups with known interest in a proposal or type of
proposal;
B. Notify the news media;
C. Place notices in appropriate regional or neighborhood newspapers or trade
journals;
D. Publish notice in agency newsletters or send notice to agency mailing lists, either
general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas; and
E. Mail notice to additional neighboring property owners.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 18
Packet Page 256 of 380
Chapter 20.04
CONSISTENCY WITH
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SEPA
Sections:
20.04.001 Determination of consistency.
20.04.002 Initial SEPA analysis.
20.04.003 Categorically exempt and planned actions.
20.04.001 Determination of consistency.
A. Purpose. Consistency between a proposed development project permit
application, applicable regulations and comprehensive plan shall be determined through
the process described in this section.
B. Consistency. During application review, the Development Services
Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the "director") shall determine whether the
development regulations applicable to the proposed project, or in the absence of
applicable development regulations, the city's comprehensive plan, address the
following:
1. The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be
allowed if the criteria for their approval have been satisfied;
2. The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential
development in urban growth areas, or other measures of density;
3. Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities identified
in the comprehensive plan; and
4. Whether the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these
facilities as required by Chapter 36.70A RCW.
C. Project Review. Project review by the director and appropriate city staff
shall identify specific project design and conditions relating to the character of
development, such as the details of site plans, curb cuts, drainage swales, the payment of
impact fees, or other measures to mitigate a proposal's probable significant adverse
environmental impacts. During project review, neither the director nor any other city
reviewing body may re-examine alternatives or hear appeals on decided matters which
have already been found to be consistent with development regulations and/or the
comprehensive plan, except for issues of code interpretation.
20.04.002
Initial SEPA analysis.
Packet Page 257 of 380
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 19
A. In addition to the land use consistency review, the director shall review the
permit application for consistency with the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"),
Chapter 43.21C RCW, the SEPA Rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC, and the city
environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC, and shall:
1. Determine whether applicable regulations require studies to adequately
analyze all of the proposed project's specific probable adverse environmental impacts;
2. Determine whether applicable regulations require mitigation measures to
adequately address identified environmental impacts; and
3. Provide prompt and coordinated review by other government agencies and
the public on compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including
mitigation for specific project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the
plan or development regulation level.
B. In the review of a permit application, the director shall determine whether
the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and mitigation measures in the
applicable development regulations, comprehensive plan and/or in other applicable local,
state or federal laws provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse
environmental impacts of the proposal.
C. If the director bases or conditions his or her approval of the application on
compliance with the requirements or mitigation measures described in subsection A of
this section, the city shall not impose additional mitigation under SEPA during project
review for the same adverse environmental impacts.
D. A comprehensive plan, development regulation or other applicable local,
state or federal law provides adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, the specific adverse
environmental impacts of a proposal when:
1. The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or
2. The city has designated in the plan, regulation or law that certain levels of
service, land use designations, development standards or other land use conditions
allowed by Chapter 36.70A RCW are acceptable.
E. In deciding whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been
addressed by an existing city plan or development regulation, or by the regulations or
laws of another government agency, the director shall consult orally or in writing with
that agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the director
shall base or condition any project approval on compliance with these other regulations.
F. Nothing in this section limits the authority of the director in reviewing or
mitigating the impacts of a proposed project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental
analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided by Chapter 43.21C RCW.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 20
Packet Page 258 of 380
G. The director shall also review the application under Chapter 20.15A
ECDC, the city environmental policy ordinance; provided, that such review shall be
coordinated with the underlying permit application review.
20.04.003 Categorically exempt and planned actions.
A. Categorically Exempt. Actions categorically exempt under RCW
43.21C.110(1)(a) do not require environmental review or the preparation of an
environmental impact statement. An action that is categorically exempt under the rules
adopted by the Department of Ecology (Chapter 197-11 WAC) may not be conditioned
or denied under SEPA.
B. Planned Actions.
1. A planned action does not require a threshold determination or the
preparation of an environmental impact statement under SEPA, but is subject to
environmental review and mitigation under SEPA.
2. A "planned action" means one or more types of project action that:
a. Are designated planned actions by an ordinance or resolution
adopted by the city;
b. Have had the significant impacts adequately addressed in an
environmental impact statement prepared in conjunction with:
i. A comprehensive plan or subarea plan adopted under Chapter
36.70A RCW, or
ii. A fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master
planned development or a phased project;
C. Are subsequent or implementing projects for the proposals listed in
paragraph (2)(b) of this subsection;
d. Are located within an urban growth area, as defined in RCW
36.70A.030;
e. Are not essential public facilities, as defined in RCW 36.70A.200;
and
f. Are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan adopted under
Chapter 36.70A RCW.
C. Limitations on Planned Actions. The city shall limit planned actions to
certain types of development or to specific geographical areas that are less extensive than
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 21
Packet Page 259 of 380
the jurisdictional boundaries of the city, and may limit a planned action to a time period
identified in the environmental impact statement or this title.
exact restatement of 20.04. 001. C]
Packet Page 260 of 380
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 22
Chapter 20.06
OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Sections:
20.06.000
General.
20.06.001
Joint Public Hearings
20.06.002
Responsibility of director for hearing.
20.06.003
Conflict of interest.
20.06.004
Ex parte communications.
20.06.005
Disqualification.
20.06.006
Burden and nature of proof.
20.06.007
Order of proceedings.
20.06.008
Decision.
20.06.009
Notice of final decision.
20.06.010
Reconsideration of decision.
20.06.000 General.
A. An open record public hearingis a hearing conducted by an authorized
body or officer that creates the city's record through testimony and submission of
evidence and information. A public hearing may be held prior to the city's decision on a
development project permit application; this is an "open record predecision hearing." A
public hearing may be held on an appealif no open record predecision hearing was held
for the permit; this is an "open record appeal hearing."
B. Open record predecision hearings on all Type III and IV permit
applications and open record appeal hearings on all Type H decision appeals shall be
conducted in accordance with this chapter. Public hearings conducted by the city hearing
examiner shall also be subject to the hearing examiner's rules.
C. Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated
as set forth in ECDC 20.07.004.
20.06.001 Joint public hearings. [moved from 20.01.0041
A. Decision to Hold Joint Hearing. The Development Services Director or
his/her designee (hereinafter the "director") may combine any public hearing on a project
application with any hearing that may be held by another local, state, regional, federal, or
other agency, on the proposed action, as long as: (1) the hearing is held within the city
limits; and (2) the requirements of subsection C of this section are met.
B. Applicant's Request for a Joint Hearing. The applicant may request that
the public hearing on a permit application be combined as long as the joint hearing can be
held within the time periods set forth in this chapter. In the alternative, the applicant may
agree to a particular schedule if that additional time is needed in order to complete the
hearings.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 23
Packet Page 261 of 380
C. Prerequisites to Joint Public Hearing. A joint public hearing may be held
with another local, state, regional, federal or other agency and the city, when:
1. The other agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so;
2. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencies'
adopted notice requirements as set forth in statutes, ordinances, or rules;
3. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed
project from the applicant in enough time to hold its hearing at the same time as the city
hearing; or
4. The hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the city.
20.06.002 Responsibility of director for hearing.
The director shall:
A. Schedule project applications for review and public hearing;
B. Verify compliance with notice requirements;
C. Prepare the staff report on the application, which shall be a single report
which sets forth all of the decisions made on the proposal as of the date of the report,
including recommendations on project permits in the consolidated permit process that do
not require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall also describe any
mitigation required or proposed under the city's development regulations or SEPA
authority. If the threshold determination, other than a determination of significance, has
not been issued previously by the city, the report shall include or append this
determination.
D. Prepare the notice of decision, if required by the hearing body, and mail a
copy of the notice of decision to those entitled by this chapter to receive the decision.
20.06.003 Conflict of interest.
The hearing body shall be subject to the code of ethics, prohibitions on conflict
of interest and appearance of fairness doctrine as set forth in Chapter 42.23 RCW, and
Chapter 42.36 RCW as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended.
20.06.004 Ex parte communications.
A. No member of the hearing body may communicate, directly or indirectly,
regarding any issue in a proceeding before him or her, other than to participate in
communications regarding procedural aspects necessary for maintaining an orderly
process, unless he or she provides notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 24
Packet Page 262 of 380
Nothing herein shall prevent the hearing body from seeking legal advice from its legal
counsel on any issue.
B. If, before serving as the hearing body in a quasi-judicial proceeding, any
member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication of a type that could not
properly be received while serving, the member of the hearing body, promptly after
starting to serve, shall disclose the communication as described in ECDC 20.06.004(C).
C. If a member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication in
violation of this section, he or she shall place on the record:
1. All written communications received;
2. All written responses to the communications;
3. The substance of all oral communications received, and all responses
made; and
4. The identity of each person from whom the member received any ex parte
communication.
The hearing body shall advise all parties that these matters have been placed on
the record. Upon request made after notice of the ex parte communication, any party
desiring to rebut the communication shall be allowed to place a rebuttal statement on the
record.
20.06.005 Disqualification.
A. Any member who is disqualified shall make full disclosure to the audience
of the reason(s) for the disqualification, abstain from voting on the proposal, and
physically leave the hearing.
B. If enough members of the hearing body are disqualified so that a quorum
cannot be achieved, then all members present, after stating their reasons for
disqualification, shall be requalified and deliberations shall proceed.
20.06.006 Burden and nature of proof.
A. Except for Type V actions, appeal of Type II actions and closed record
appeals, the burden of proof is on the proponent. The development project permit
application must be supported by convincing proof that it conforms to the applicable
elements of the city's development regulations and comprehensive plan (review criteria).
The proponent must also prove that any significant adverse environmental impacts have
been adequately mitigated.
B. In an appeal of Type II actions or closed record appeal, the appellant has
the burden of proof with respect to points raised on appeal.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 25
Packet Page 263 of 380
C. In a closed record appeal of the Architectural Design Board, its decision
shall be given substantial deference regarding decision review within its expertise and
contained in its decisions.
20.06.007 Order of proceedings.
The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the nature of the
hearing. The following shall be supplemented by administrative procedures as
appropriate.
A. Before receiving testimony and other evidence on the issue, the following
shall be determined:
1. Any objections on jurisdictional grounds shall be noted on the record and
if there is objection, the hearing body may proceed or terminate the proceeding;
2. Any member disqualifications shall be determined.
B. The presiding officer may take official notice of commonly known and
accepted information, such as:
1. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, officially adopted development standards,
and state law;
2. Public records and facts judicially noticeable by law.
C. Information officially noticed need not be proved by submission of formal
evidence to be considered by the hearing body. Parties requesting official notice of any
information shall do so on the record. The hearing body, however, may take notice of
matters listed in subsection B of this section at any time. Any information given official
notice may be rebutted.
D. The hearing body may view the proposed project site or planning area
with or without notification to the parties, but shall put into the record a statement setting
forth the time, manner and circumstances of the site visit.
E. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and
opponents. The presiding officer may, in his or her discretion, permit persons attending
the hearing to ask questions. Unless the presiding officer specifies otherwise, approved
questions will be asked of persons submitting testimony by the presiding officer.
F. When the presiding officer has closed the public hearing portion of the
hearing, the hearing body may openly discuss the issue and may further question the staff
or any person submitting information. An opportunity to present rebuttal shall be
provided if new information is presented in the questioning. When all evidence has been
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 26
Packet Page 264 of 380
presented and all questioning and rebuttal completed, the presiding officer shall officially
close the record and end the hearing.
20.06.008 Decision.
A. Following the hearing procedure described in ECDC 20.06.007, the
hearing body shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. If the hearing
is an appeal, the hearing body shall affirm, reverse or, with the written consent of the
applicant, which shall include a waiver of the statutory prohibition against two open
record hearings, remand the decision for additional information.
B. The hearing body's written decision shall be issued within 10 working
days after the close of record of the hearing and within 90 days of the opening of the
hearing, unless a longer period is agreed to by the parties.
C. The city shall provide a notice of decision as provided in ECDC
20.06.009.
D. If the city is unable to issue its final decision on an application within the
time limits provided for in this section, it shall provide written notice of this fact to the
project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits
have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of decision.
20.06.009 Notice of final decision.
A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the
issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided,
that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall
be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include
the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal and a description of any available
administrative appeals. For Type II, III and IV permits, the notice shall contain the
requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affected property owners
may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any program of
revaluation.
1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the
applicant, to any person who submitted comments on the application or requested a copy
of the decision, and to the Snohomish County assessor.
2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means
deemed reasonable by the director.
B. In calculating the 120-day period for issuance of the notice of final
decision, or other decision period specified in 20.06.009(A) ECDC, the following periods
shall be excluded:
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 27
Packet Page 265 of 380
1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the director
to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. The
period shall be calculated from the date the director notifies the applicant of the need for
additional information until the earlier of the dates the director determines that the
additional information provided satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the
date the additional information is provided to the city;
2. If the director determines that the information submitted is insufficient, the
applicant shall be informed of the deficiencies and the procedures set forth in subsection
(13)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion period shall apply;
3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is
being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time
period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by Chapter 20.15A ECDC;
4. Any period for consideration and issuance of a decision for administrative
appeals of development project permits, which shall be not more than 90 days for open
record appeals and 60 days for closed record appeals, unless a longer period is agreed to
by the director and the applicant;
5. Any extension of time mutually agreed to by the director and the applicant
in writing.
C. The time limits established in this title do not apply if a permit application:
1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development
regulation;
2. Requires siting approval of an essential public facility as provided in
RCW 36.70A.200; or
3. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period
shall start from the date that a determination of completeness for the revised application
is issued by the director pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003 and RCW 36.70B.070.
20.06.010 Reconsideration of decision.
A. General. Any person identified in ECDC 20.07.003 as having standing to
file an administrative appeal may request reconsideration of a decision of the hearing
examiner which issues immediately after the open record public hearing on a permit
application described in this chapter. (There shall be no reconsideration of a decision of
the director (staff), ADB or city council.) Reconsideration is not a condition precedent to
any appeal. Reconsideration shall be limited to:
1. error(s) of procedure;
2. error(s) of law or fact;
3. error(s) of judgment; and/or
Packet Page 266 of 380
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 28
4. the discovery of new evidence that was not known and could not in
the exercise of reasonable diligence, been discovered.
B. Time to File. A request for reconsideration, including reconsideration fee,
must be filed with the director within 10 calendar days of the hearing examiner's written
decision. Such requests shall be delivered to the director before 4:30 p.m. on the last
business day of the reconsideration period. Requests for reconsideration that are received
by mail after 4:30 p.m. on the last day of this reconsideration period will not be accepted,
no matter when such requests were sent, mailed or postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing a
request for reconsideration, the day the hearing examiner's decision is issued shall not be
counted. If the last day of the reconsideration is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday
designated by RCW 1.16.050, or by a city ordinance, then the reconsideration may be
filed on the next business day.
D. Content of Request for Reconsideration. Requests for reconsideration shall
be in writing, be accompanied by the required reconsideration fee, and contain the
following information:
1. The name, address and phone number of the requestor;
2. Identification of the application and final decision which is the subject of
the request for reconsideration;
3. Requestor's statement of grounds for reconsideration and the facts upon
which the request is based;
4. The specific relief requested;
5. A statement that the requestor believes the contents of the request to be
true, followed by his/her signature.
6. All written submittals shall be typed on letter size paper (8.5 x 11), with
one inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no
smaller than 12), single sided.
E. Effect. The timely filing of a request for reconsideration shall stay the
hearing examiner's decision until such time as the hearing examiner issues a decision on
reconsideration.
F. Notice of Request for Reconsideration. The director shall provide mailed
notice that a request for reconsideration has been filed to all parties of record as defined
in ECDC 20.07.003.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 29
Packet Page 267 of 380
G. Hearing Examiner's Action on Request. The hearing examiner shall
consider the request for reconsideration without a hearing, but may solicit written
arguments from parties of record. A decision on the request for reconsideration shall be
issued within 10 business days after receipt of the request for reconsideration by the city.
1. The time period for appeal shall recommence and be the same for
all parties of record, regardless of whether a party filed a motion for reconsideration.
2. Only one request for reconsideration may be made by a party of
record. Any ground not stated in the initial motion is waived.
3. A decision on reconsideration or a matter that is remanded to the
hearing examiner by the City Council is not subject to a motion for reconsideration.
H. Limitations on Hearing Examiner's Reconsideration. The hearing
examiner shall consider the request for reconsideration based on the administrative record
compiled on the application up to and including the date of the hearing examiner's
decision. The hearing examiner may require or permit corrections of ministerial errors or
inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record and the hearing examiner's
decision. The reconsideration decision issued by the hearing examiner may modify,
affirm or reverse the hearing examiner's decision.
I. Notice of Final Decision on Reconsideration. The director shall issue a
notice of final decision on reconsideration in the manner set forth and to the persons
identified in ECDC 20.06.009.
J. Further Appeals. If no administrative appeal is allowed of the hearing
examiner's decision, and a request for reconsideration was timely filed, then any judicial
appeal must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the decision on reconsideration, as
provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 30
Packet Page 268 of 380
Chapter 20.07
CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Sections:
20.07.001
Appeals of decisions.
20.07.002
Consolidated appeals.
20.07.003
Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
20.07.004
Appeals of recommendations and decisions.
20.07.005
Procedure for closed record decision/appeal.
20.07.006
Judicial appeals.
20.07.007
Resubmission of application.
20.07.001 Appeals of decisions.
A. "Closed record appeal" means an administrative appeal on the record to
the city council, following an open record public hearing on a development project permit
application when the appeal is on the record with no new evidence or information
allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC 20.07.005(B), and only appeal
argument allowed.
B. The right of appeal for all permit applications and Type V land use
decisions shall be as described in the matrix set forth in ECDC 20.01.003.
20.07.002 Consolidated appeals.
All appeals of development project permit application decisions, other than
appeals of determinations of significance ("DS"), and exempt permits and approvals
under ECDC 20.01.007, shall be considered together in a consolidated appeal using the
appeal procedure for the highest type permit application.
20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
A. Limited to Parties of Record. Only parties of record may file an
administrative appeal.
B. Definition. The term "parties of record," for the purposes of this chapter,
shall mean:
1. The applicant;
2. Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the
application;
3. Any person who individually submits written comments concerning the
application at the open record public hearing (or to staff if an appeal of a Type II
decision). Persons who have only signed petitions are not parties of record; and/or
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 31
Packet Page 269 of 380
4. The city of Edmonds.
20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions.
Permit Decisions or Recommendations. Appeals of a hearing body's
recommendation or decision on a permit application shall be governed by the following:
A. Standing. Only parties of record have standing to appeal the hearing body's
decision.
B. Time to File. An appeal must be filed within 14 days after the issuance of the
hearing body's written decision. The appeal period shall be extended for an additional
seven days, if state or local rules adopted pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW allow public
comment on a determination of nonsignificance issued as part of the appealable project
permit decision. Appeals, including fees, must be received by the city's development
services department by mail or by personal delivery at or before 4:30 PM on the last
business day of the appeal period. Appeals received by mail after 4:30 PM on the last day
of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when such appeals were mailed or
postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an
appeal, the day the hearing body's decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day
of the appeal is a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050 or by a
city ordinance, or any day when city hall or the City's Development Services Department
is closed to the public by formal executive or legislative action, then the appeal may be
filed on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, holiday or closed day.
D. Content of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by the required
appeal fee as set forth in the city's adopted fee resolution, and contain the following
information:
1. Appellant's name, address and phone number;
2. A statement describing appellant's standing to appeal;
3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal;
4. Appellant's statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the
appeal is based with specific references to the facts in the record;
5. The specific relief sought;
6. A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the
contents to be true, followed by the appellant's signature.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 32
Packet Page 270 of 380
7. All written submittals shall be typed on letter size paper (8.5 x 11), with
one inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no
smaller than 12), single sided.
E. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the hearing body's decision until
such time as the appeal is concluded or withdrawn.
F. Notice of Appeal. The Development Services Director (hereinafter the "director")
shall provide mailed notice of the appeal to all parties of record as defined in ECDC
20.07.003.
20.07.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal.
A. Closed record appeals shall be based on the record established at the open
record hearing before the hearing body/officer whose decision is appealed, which shall
include the written decision of the hearing body/officer, copies of any exhibits admitted
into the record, and official transcript, minutes or tape recording of the proceedings.
1. At his/her own expense, a party to the appeal may have the official tape
recording of the open record hearing transcribed; however, to be admitted into the record,
the transcription must be performed and certified by a transcriber that is pre -approved by
the City. In addition, the certified transcription must be received by the City directly
from the transcriber at least 16 working days before the date scheduled for the closed
record review. It shall be each party of record's responsibility to obtain a copy of the
transcription from the City.
2. The director shall maintain a list of pre -approved transcribers that are
court approved; and if needed, shall coordinate with parties to the appeal so that no more
than one official transcription is admitted into the record.
B. No new testimony or other evidence will be accepted by the city council
except: (1) new information required to rebut the substance of any written or oral ex parte
communication provided during an appearance of fairness disclosure; and (2) relevant
information that, in the opinion of the city council, was improperly excluded by the
hearing body/officer.
1. Appellants who believe that information was improperly excluded must
specifically request in writing within 5 working days of the appeal deadline that the
information be made part of the record. The request shall be addressed to the city council
president, describing the information excluded, its relevance to the issues appealed, the
reason(s) that the information was excluded by the hearing body/officer, and the reason
why the hearing body/officer erred in excluding the information.
2. In determining whether the information should be admitted, the city
council president may request other parties of record to submit written arguments
rebutting the above. Non response by the city council president within 5 working days of
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 33
Packet Page 271 of 380
the initial request that the information be made part of the record shall constitute a
rejection of the same.
C. Parties to the appeal may present written arguments to the city council.
Arguments shall describe the particular errors committed by the decision maker, with
specific references to the administrative record. The appellant shall bear the burden to
demonstrate that the decision is clearly erroneous given the record.
D. While not required, appellant may submit his or her written arguments 12
working days before the date scheduled for the closed record review. Parties of record,
except for the appellant, may respond in writing to appellant's arguments no later than 7
working days before the closed record review. Appellant may rebut in writing to
responses submitted by parties of record no later than 4 working days before the closed
record review. If the applicant is not the appellant, applicant may submit a final
surrebuttal in writing to appellant's rebuttal no later than 2 working days before the
closed record review.
E. Written arguments, responses, rebuttal and surrebuttals must be received
by the city's development services department by mail or personal delivery at or before
4:30 PM of the date due. Late submittals shall not be accepted. Submittals received by
mail after 4:30 PM on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter
when such submittals were mailed or postmarked. It shall be the responsibility of the
parties involved to obtain for their own use from the city copies of written arguments,
responses, rebuttals and surrebuttals submitted.
F. All written submittals shall be typed on letter size paper (8.5 x 11), with
one inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no
smaller than 12), single sided, double spaced and without exceeding twelve pages in
length, including exhibits, if any. Exhibits that are not already in the record shall not be
allowed.
G. The review shall commence with the resolution of appearance of fairness
issues, if any, followed by a presentation by the director of the general background of the
proposed development and the issues in dispute. After the director's presentation, the city
council may ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to parties of record, with an
opportunity for the director , appellant and/or applicant, respectively, to rebut to the
response. The city council shall not request information outside the administrative
record.
H. The city council shall determine whether the decision by the hearing
body/officer is clearly erroneous given the evidence in the record. The city council shall
affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the hearing body/officer accordingly. Upon
written agreement by the applicant to waive the requirement for a decision within the
time periods set forth in RCW 36.70B.080, as allowed by RCW 36.70B.080(3), the city
council may remand the decision with instructions to the hearing body for additional
information.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 34
Packet Page 272 of 380
I. Notice of Final Decision on Closed Record Appeal. The director shall
issue a notice of final decision on closed record appeal in the manner set forth and to the
persons identified in ECDC 20.06.009.
20.07.006 Judicial appeals.
The city's final decision on an application may be appealed by a party of record
with standing to file a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court. Such
petition must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the decision, as provided in
Chapter 36.70C RCW.
20.07.007 Resubmission of application.
Any permit application or other request for approval submitted pursuant to this
chapter that is denied shall not be resubmitted or accepted by the director for review for a
period of 12 months from the date of the last action by the city on the application or
request unless, in the opinion of the director, there has been a significant change in the
application or a significant change in conditions related to the impacts of the proposed
project.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 35
Packet Page 273 of 380
Chapter 20.08
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Sections:
20.08.010
Authority.
20.08.020
General provisions of development agreements.
20.08.030
Enforceability.
20.08.040
Approval procedure for development agreements.
20.08.050
Form of agreement, council approval, recordation.
20.08.060
Judicial appeal.
20.08.010 Authority.
A. The city may enter into a development agreement with a person having
ownership or control of real property within the city limits. The city may also enter a
development agreement for real property outside of the city limit but within the urban
growth area (UGA) as part of a proposed annexation or a service agreement.
20.08.020 General provisions of development agreements.
A. A development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable policies
and goals of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan and applicable development
regulations. As applicable, the development agreement shall specify the following:
1. Project components which define and detail the permitted uses, residential
densities, nonresidential densities and intensities or building sizes;
2. The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or agreed to in
accordance with any applicable provisions of state law, any reimbursement provisions,
other financial contributions by the property owner, inspection fees, or dedications;
3. Mitigation measures, development conditions and other requirements of
Chapter 43.21C RCW;
4, Design standards such as architectural treatment, maximum heights,
setbacks, landscaping, drainage and water quality requirements and other development
features;
5.
6.
7.
Provisions for affordable housing, if applicable;
Parks and common open space preservation;
Phasing;
Packet Page 274 of 380
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 36
8. A build -out or vesting period for applicable standards; and
9. Any other appropriate development requirement or procedure which is
based upon a city policy, rule, regulation or standard.
B. As provided in RCW 36.70B.170, the development agreement shall
reserve authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a
serious threat to public health and safety.
20.08.030 Enforceability.
Unless amended or terminated, a development agreement is enforceable during
its term by a party to the agreement. A development agreement and the development
standards in the agreement govern during the term of the agreement, or for all or that part
of the build -out period specified in the agreement. The agreement may not be subject to
an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development standard or a new zoning ordinance
or development standard or regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement.
The permit approval issued by the city after the execution of the agreement must be
consistent with the development agreement.
20.08.040 Approval procedure for development agreements.
A development agreement is a Type V development project permit application
and shall be processed in accordance with the procedures established in this title. A
development agreement shall be approved by the Edmonds city council after a public
hearing.
20.08.050 Form of agreement, council approval, recordation.
A. Form. All development agreements shall be in a form provided by the city
attorney's office. The city attorney shall approve all development agreements for form
prior to consideration by the Planning Board.
B. Term. Development agreements may be approved for a maximum period
of five years.
C. Recordation. A development agreement shall be recorded against the real
property records of the Snohomish County assessor's office. During the term of the
development agreement, the agreement is binding on the parties and their successors,
including any area that is annexed to the city.
20.08.060 Judicial appeal.
If the development agreement relates to a project permit application, the
provision of Chapter 36.70C RCW shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the
development agreement.
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 37
Packet Page 275 of 380
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
July 28, 2010
Chair Bowman called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5"' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
STAFF PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
John Reed, Vice Chair
Mike Clugston, Planner
Kevin Clarke
Karin Noyes, Recorder
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 14, 2010 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
"0011-l1[N Did I DION 1[I] VEX" D10It�1
Chair Lovell added a briefing by Board Member Johnson relative to the most recent activities of the Citizens Economic
Development Commission (CEDC) to the agenda as Item 8a. The remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, reported that at their last meeting, the City Council discussed the Board's recommendation
regarding flexible thresholds for State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. It was pointed out that, as proposed, an 18-
unit planned residential development (PRD) would not require SEPA review. He suggested that SEPA review may help
identify additional problems that would not show up as part of the PRD review. He expressed his belief that the Board's
recommendation would not receive favorable support from either the public or the City Council. When the Board works in
contrast to the position of the general majority of the City Council, it casts a negative light on their efforts. He encouraged
them to work more within the philosophy portrayed by the City Council.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED UPDATES TO LAND USE PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) CHAPTERS 20.01 THROUIGH 2O.08, EXCLUDING
20.05. (FILE NUMBER AMD 20100013)
Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Board discussed the proposed updates at their meetings of April 14th and 281h, as well as at a
public hearing on June 9th when they decided to postpone their recommendation. While they were generally satisfied with the
proposed updates to the Title 20 procedures, they wanted to revisit the question of City Council involvement in land -use
permit appeals. At this time, staff is proposing the following options for the Board's consideration: retain the code changes
approved by the City Council in 2009, which removed the Council from most appeal proceedings, or affirm the interim
zoning ordinance approved by the City Council in 2010, which reinstated the Council's role in appeals.
Packet Page 276 of 380
Mr. Clugston referred to Attachment 2, which is the permit matrix (ECDC 20.01.003.A) that was approved by the City
Council in 2009. He also referenced Attachment 3, which is the entirety of the Title 20 updates. The matrix (Attachment 2)
includes a proposal to change all Type III-B action to Type 111-A action, which would eliminate the City Council's role in
appeals associated with certain types of applications (shoreline substantial development, conditional uses, variances,
preliminary formal plats, and preliminary planned residential developments). He reminded the Board that in early 2010, the
City Council adopted an interim ordinance that changed these types of actions back to Type III-B, which requires appeals to
go before the City Council rather than Superior Court. If the Board desires to affirm the interim ordinance, they could
recommend that the matrix be updated to identify the actions as Type III-B.
Mr. Clugston advised that staff is also proposing that the "draft environmental impact statement (EIS) currently identified as a
Type III-B action be removed entirely. He explained that a draft EIS is not a land -use permit, but rather a factual document
used in support of making a land -use permit decision. There is no decision for the Hearing Examiner to make related to a
draft EIS. In addition, there are separate statutory requirements that a lead agency must follow for a draft EIS review and
appeal. These are fully described in ECDC 20.15A, adopts WAC 197-11-535 and allows for the option of a public hearing
on the EIS and outlines the hearing process. Vice Chair Reed asked if the proposed change related to the draft EIS would
still be applicable if the Board recommends affirming the interim ordinance. Mr. Clugston answered that staff is
recommending that the draft EIS be eliminated from the matrix regardless of the action the Board takes. Board Member
Clarke questioned if it would be appropriate for the Board to take action on the proposed changes to SEPA separate from
their action related to who hears the appeals. Mr. Chave suggested the Board focus their discussion on whether or not the
City Council should continue to hear certain Type III appeals. The other recommended changes would be applicable to both
alternatives. He expressed his belief that the Board could address all the changes in a single action.
Chair Lovell referred to the matrix (ECDC 20.01.003) and noted that, as currently drafted, essential public facilities are the
only actions in the Type III-B column. Mr. Clugston noted that the matrix approved by the City Council in 2009 included
both essential public facilities and architectural design review as Type III-B actions. In the proposed update essential public
facilities would remain as Type III-B actions, and architectural design review was changed to "design review where public
hearing by Architectural Design Board is required." Essentially, the requirement would remain the same.
Board Member Stewart pointed out that the language on Pages 35, 38 and 40 requires that written submittals be single -sided.
She reminded the Board of the City's current effort to become more sustainable and recommended that this decision be left up
to the person producing the documents and not a City requirement. She advised that the City of Seattle has a program for
cutting the amount of paper used by their government by encouraging people to produce double -sided documents. She
suggested this is something the City of Edmonds should do, as well. Mr. Clugston agreed the language could be changed so
that single -sided submittals would not be required. He said the intent of the proposed language was to ensure the submittals
were legible. Chair Lovell inquired if there are legal requirements for single -sided documents. Mr. Chave answered that
Superior Court may require single -side documents, but the City does not. The Board agreed that if there are no legal
requirements for single -side documents, the language should be changed as proposed by Board Member Stewart. Staff agreed
to research Superior Court requirements, and then make the appropriate changes to the proposed language.
Chair Lovell reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, reminded the Board that three City Council candidates indicated that one of their main desires
was to have the appeal process go back to the City Council, and the public elected these individuals. He referred to the
interim ordinance and emphasized that the City Council has given the Board clear direction about what they want. Therefore,
he questioned the need to go through the entire process again. While members of the Board may have a passion to prove the
City Council wrong, the City Council has clearly voiced their philosophy to the public and the Board. He expressed concern
that it costs appellants a lot of money to hire an attorney to go to Superior Court, and it is less costly to present appeals to the
City Council. If the City Council makes a error, the Superior Court will have an opportunity to correct the error. He recalled
a recent situation in which the City incurred a significant expense when someone appealed a decision to the Superior Court.
He summarized that the City Council and the public have clearly expressed their opinions, and the Board should recommend
language that is representative of the interim ordinance. They need to understand that citizens want protection for their
neighborhoods. They want to be able to present their appeals to the City Council. He disagreed with previous Planning
Board comments that City Council members are young and inexperienced. He pointed out that two Council Members are
Planning Board Minutes
July 28, 2010 Page 2
Packet Page 277 of 380
attorneys, and the rest of them are very knowledgeable. He does not believe they will make unwise decisions because they
will listen to the recommendations provided by their legal counsel.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Board Member Johnson stated that, as an individual, she would prefer a closed record appeal to the City Council. However,
as a Planning Board Member, she needs to give considerable weight to the recommendations provided by the staff and City
Attorney, who have spoken in favor of appeals going to Superior Court. Because this is a deeply divided issue, she asked that
the Board's recommendation include a suggestion that the City Council take advantage of whatever opportunities there are
from legal and planning professional organizations and other resources to more fully explore the issue.
Board Member Stewart asked if there is a record of how many members of the public have spoken in favor or against the City
Council hearing appeals. She said she is currently undecided on the matter. Having read more thoroughly the language that a
citizen must sort through and understand in order to present a case effectively, she worries about those who do not have the
financial means to get the support they need carry appeals through the process. However, she also agreed with Board
Member Johnson that it is important to consider the counsel provided by staff and the City Attorney regarding potential
exposure to the City if the City Council were to make an error in judgment.
Vice Chair Reed said he is not aware of a tally of citizens who are for or against the issue. Nor does he recall a significant
amount of public comment at any of the Board's more recent discussions in April or June. He recalled that when the issue
came before the Board in late 2008 and 2009, he was the lone vote against the proposed change to take the City Council out
of the appeal process, and he still supports this position for the following reasons:
• Two remands were reversed when sent back to their source. In addition, three appeals were affirmed by the City Council
and only one was reversed and the Hearing Examiner's decision was changed.
• Data shows that the City Council's costs for hearing appeals were $175,000, which is less than $20,000 per appeal. The
average cost for all cities in the region was $57,000 per appeal.
• Perhaps the City Council's understanding of land -use issues is enhanced when they conduct an appeal hearing as a
closed record review, and this can facilitate the changes that need to be made.
• Appeals to the City Council are less costly than those to Superior Court. The latter can cause citizens to give up, and
developers often have a distinct advantage. Perhaps it would be appropriate for the City to designate an ombudsman
who could help citizen through the appeal process.
• ECDC 20.07.005 has been updated so that appeals can only be submitted in writing. Therefore, opportunities for oral
argument that was taking place in appeals before the City Council has been eliminated. Appellants can only add new
pieces of information that were not known when the original hearing took place.
• The financial gain to the City from developers can lead to interpretations supportive of approval and sometimes
restrictions might be overlooked or compromised.
• The City Attorney is very adept at keeping people on track, and appeal hearings are well managed.
• There were at least two lawsuits that were pursued after decisions, and in both cases, the City's decisions were
determined to be at fault. These were costly to the City.
Board Member Clarke agreed with the points articulated by Vice Chair Reed. He explained that until 1995, his neighborhood
was part of unincorporated Snohomish County. One of their significant frustrations with being situated at the south end of the
County was they felt they had little representation in their local government. When the neighborhood was annexed into the
City of Edmonds, they felt totally different. He noted that since annexation, there have been some land use actions that
involved zoning changes, etc. Most of their community felt that the locally -elected officials were fair and took time to
understand their concerns. On the other hand, he said he can appreciate staff's recommendation and the work they do to
implement the land -use regulations. He disagreed with Mr. Hertrich's sweeping generalization that three individuals ran their
campaigns based on this issue. He said he does not remember any candidates who had this issue as a major campaign focus.
These individuals may have been voted into office for a number of unrelated reasons. He noted that because Mr. Hertrich was
the only citizen who participated in the public hearing, perhaps it is not a burning issue for the public at this time. However,
he said he plans to support Vice Chair Reed's balanced and rational approach.
Planning Board Minutes
July 28, 2010 Page 3
Packet Page 278 of 380
Board Member Lovell recalled that the City Attorney made a very strong recommendation that these types of decisions should
not be made by the City Council. While he is very sensitive to the comments made tonight, including those related to the new
structure of the City Council and their capabilities, he would ask that, at a minimum, they recommend the City Council once
again consider the advice of the City Attorney regarding appeals.
Board Member Clarke said he has watched a neighborhood go through the appeal process at the Superior Court level, and it is
a costly and time-consuming effort. It is also very unfair to the common citizens who feel they have been wronged. He
suggested that sometimes the balance needs to tip to the individual property owners. They are talking about property rights,
land use issues, quality of life, and protection of neighborhoods. He recalled Vice Chair Reed's earlier comment that the cost
of each hearing before the City Council is not significant. He suggested that sometimes they need to error on the side of
protecting the taxpayers and allowing their voice to be heard without spending a huge amount of money. He agreed it would
be helpful for the City Attorney to once again share his thoughts at the City Council's hearing regarding the proposed
amendments.
Board Member Johnson said she would like to know more about the legal risks that City Attorney Snyder has talked about
previously, as well as experiences of other jurisdictions that have gone through the process. She suggested the Board
recommend the City Council pursue this information in a collective way. Chair Lovell agreed the Board could recommend
the City Council research the issue further before rendering a final decision.
VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THE BOARD FORWARD ATTACHMENT 3 TO THE CITY COUNCIL,
AFFIRMING ALL OF THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:
• THAT THEY AFFIRM THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN
2010, WHICH REINSTATED THE CITY COUNCIL'S ROLE IN APPEALS.
• THE "DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT" BE ELIMINATED FROM THE TYPE III-B
COLUMN IN THE MATRIX (ECDC 20.01.003.A).
BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Clarke said is interesting to observe that someone could run for City Council and lose by popular vote, but
still be appointed by the current City Council to fill vacant positions. He suggested that democracy is fickle, and sometimes
the public speaks out of both sides of their mouth. He agreed this is not a clear issue, but the Board has tried to give their best
perspective.
THE MOTION CARRIED 3-1, WITH BOARD MEMBERS REED, CLARKE AND STEWART VOTING IN
FAVOR, BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON IN OPPOSITION, AND BOARD MEMBER LOVELL ABSTAINING.
Vice Chair Reed suggested that when the Board's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council, it should be
accompanied with a suggestion that rather than moving through the issue quickly, the Council should carefully consider the
new information provided to the Board, as well as the comments made by Board Member Johnson that they explore all the
implications as part of an on -going process for dealing with land use issues. Mr. Clugston said that based on further research,
staff would make the appropriate language adjustments related to "single -document" submittals before the proposal is
submitted to the City Council.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE (ECDC) 18.05 AND 20.50 CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS AND PROCESSES FOR REGULATION OF
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Mr. Clugston reviewed that the City Council asked the Planning Board to review and strengthen siting requirements for
wireless facilities on utility poles located in unzoned rights -of -way. However, in the Board's previous discussions in April
and June it became apparent that there were opportunities to tighten the siting requirements for wireless facilities on zoned
parcels, as well. He reminded the Board of the City Attorney's counsel that the City cannot regulate wireless facilities on the
Planning Board Minutes
July 28, 2010 Page 4
Packet Page 279 of 380
Print Agenda Item
Page I of 2
AI-3228
Planning Board Agenda
Date: 07/28/2010
Item #: 6. a.
Public hearing on proposed updates to land use procedures ECDC 20.01 - 20.08,
excluding 20.05
Staff Lead/Author: Michael Clugston
Department: Planning
Initiated By: City Staff
Information
Subject/Purpose
Public hearing on proposed updates to land use procedures contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) (Chapters 20.01 through 20.08, excluding 20.05)
which include, staff reassuming the public notice requirements for project applications,
reorganizing and clarifying portions of text, and updating the permit type matrix in ECDC
20.01.003.A. Two options are being considered by the Planning Board; one option would
retain the code changes approved by the City Council in 2009 which removed the Council
from most appeals proceedings, while the second option would affirm the interim zoning
ordinance approved by the City Council in 2010 which reinstated the Council's role in
appeals. (File No. AMD20100013).
Staff Recommendation
Recommend to City Council for a public hearing
Previous Board Action
The Planning Board discussed the proposed updates at their April 14 and April 28 meetings
and at the public hearing on June 9. The Board did not move the proposed changes on
June 9 but rather wanted to further consider options for Council involvement in land
use appeals. (Attachment 1)
Narrative
While the Board was generally satisfied with the proposed updates to the Title 20
procedures, members wanted to revisit the question of City Council involvement in land use
permit appeals. As discussed above, two options are proposed for consideration - one
option would retain the code changes approved by the City Council in 2009 which removed
the Council from most appeal proceedings, while the second would affirm the interim zoning
ordinance approved by the City Council in 2010 which reinstated the Council's role in
appeals. Attachment 2 is the permit matrix in ECDC 20.01.003.A as it was approved in
2009 and Attachment 3 is the entirety of the Title 20 updates including strike -outs within the
matrix in column III-B with those procedures moved to III -A.
Staff is also proposing one additional change to the permit matrix. The 'Draft environmental
impact statement' that is shown in column III-B is proposed to be removed entirely. A
draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is not a land use permit but rather
a factual document used in support of making a land use permit decision like a subdivision
or a rezone. There is no decision for the Hearing Examiner to make on a DEIS and there
are separate statutory requirements that a lead agency must follow for DEIS review and
appeal which are fully described in ECDC 20.15A. ECDC 20.15A adopts WAC 197-11-535
which allows for the option of a public hearing on the DEIS and the WAC specifies a
process for how such a hearing must be held.
Packet Page 280 of 380
http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3228&rev=0&mode=External... 8/9/2010
Print Agenda Item
Page 2 of 2
Attachments
Attachment 1 - 6/9 PB minutes exceprt
Attachment 2 - June 2009 permit matrix
Attachment 3 - proposed Title 20 text
Packet Page 281 of 380
http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3228 &rev=0&mode=External... 8/9/2010
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED UPDATES TO LAND USE PROECEDURS (CHAPTERS 20.01 THROUGH
20.08, EXCLUDING 20.05)
Mr. Clugston reviewed that since Title 20 was adopted by the City Council in June 2009, staff identified several areas that
needed further refinement. These include staff reassuming the public notice requirements for project applications,
reorganizing and clarifying portions of the text, and updating the permit type matrix in ECDC 20.01.003.A. Board Member
Lovell recalled the Board's previous discussions regarding the proposed changes. He noted that the Board generally agreed
with the changes proposed by staff. However, the majority of the Board disagreed with the decision made by the City
Council to change the permits that were identified at Type III -A decisions to Type III-B decisions, allowing appeals to come
before the City Council for closed record review. He referred to the Planning Board Minutes of April 14, 2010 (Attachment
5), which reflects the majority of the Board's position on this matter.
Board Member Reed noted that some Type IV decisions go before the Planning Board, so perhaps Section 20.01.001.13
should be updated to include language similar to Section 10.01.001.C.1. The Board concurred that it is important to clarify
the role of each of the hearing bodies. City Attorney Snyder pointed out that there is an entire section on quasi-judicial
hearings elsewhere in the code. Mr. Chave agreed to review the language to determine if the Planning Board's role in quasi-
judicial decisions is covered adequately elsewhere in the code or if new language should be added to address the concern.
Board Member Reed requested clarification about why "home occupation permits" were eliminated from the matrix as a
Type II decision. Mr. Clugston answered that home occupations are handled administratively or through a conditional use
process if a certain threshold is exceeded.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to Section 20.07.004.13, which requires that appeals be filed in person or by mail. He
suggested this be changed to allow an appellant to submit an appeal via fax or Western Union. He also recommended that
the fee be eliminated for closed record appeals because it is the second time around.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
City Attorney Snyder explained that fees are not established by the proposed ordinance. They are established separately via
a City Council resolution. He advised that the City Council has established that fees should be set at a level consistent to
recover costs. Mr. Chave added that appeal fees are actually set at a level to recover some costs, but not the full cost. In
addition, it is not possible for appellants to submit appeals via fax because they are required to also pay a fee at the time an
appeal is filed. There is no way for them to submit their payment via fax.
Board Member Reed recalled that when the previous amendments to Title 20 were forwarded to the City Council for
adoption a few years ago, he was the only Board Member who voted in opposition. As a group, the Board voted to take the
City Council out of the appeal process, and the City Council adopted the change. However, in early 2010, the City Council
reversed their decision. He said his position remains the same for the reasons he previously stated.
Board Member Stewart pointed out that even if an appeal is mailed to the City in a timely manner, there can still be issues if
the mail is slow and the appeal doesn't arrive on time. She expressed concern for people who are housebound and do not
have the ability to submit documents to the City in person. Mr. Chave said he has never heard of an instance where someone
was unable to file a timely appeal. If the City receives a communication that indicates someone is having a problem, they
will find a way to accommodate their needs.
Vice Chair Lovell suggested the Board revert back to the original matrix and take the City Council out of the appeal process.
He referred to materials provided in the staff report from the City Attorney about the pros and cons of having the City
Council hear appeals. He specifically referred to Attachment 2, which identifies an average cost $57,000 per claim for
lawsuits associated with land use decisions. He suggested the Board recommend the City Council reverse their earlier
decision and move a number of appeals to the Hearing Examiner or Superior Court rather than to the City Council. He
observed that the current City Council is primarily new and inexperienced, and he would like to place the appeal process in
the hands of a professional Hearing Examiner. In addition, it is important to keep in mind that the City Council will have
their hands full with other matters such as economic development and the budget situation.
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2010 Page 15
Packet Page 282 of 380
VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED TO FORWARD THE PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE LAND USE
PROCEDURES IN ECDC CHAPTER 20 AS PRESENTED WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE MATRIX IN
SECTION 20.01.003.A BE CHANGED BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS PRIOR TO THE INTERIM ORDINANCE
THAT WAS RECENTLY ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THIS WOULD RESULT IN ALL APPEALS TO
TYPE III-B DECISIONS GOING TO THE HEARING EXAMINER RATHER THAN THE CITY COUNCIL.
Mr. Chave suggested that, rather than forwarding a recommendation to the City Council at this time, the Board could direct
staff to update the matrix in Section 20.01.003.A as per the Board's direction. The updated matrix could be presented to the
Board at their next meeting for additional review prior to their recommendation.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief that it is not appropriate for the City Council to hold closed -record appeals.
Instead, they should be interacting with the citizens regarding land use issues and waterfront redevelopment. He cautioned
that there could be appearance of fairness issues if the City Council Members were to get deeply involved in waterfront
redevelopment issues. They would not have the ability to then serve as THE hearing body for quasi-judicial appeals related
to redevelopment proposals. Mr. Chave referred the Board to Attachment 1, which was prepared by staff to outline the pros
and cons of having the City Council involved in quasi-judicial decision making. Board Member Cloutier said that while he
likes the venue, he does not like the risk. If the City Council is trying to do everything right, they will end up getting ham
strung and not be able to execute a quasi-judicial review.
Board Member Reed expressed concern about placing citizens in the position of having to take an appeal to Superior Court.
Many citizens cannot afford this expense, but they feel strongly about an issue. However, he emphasized that when appeals
go before the City Council for review, the closed -record review process must be well managed. This requires that appeals be
submitted in writing. He expressed his belief that having the City Council hear quasi-judicial appeals on behalf of the
citizens is the best approach. He noted that developers have the advantage of being able to afford costly legal fees, and
statistics show that the City Council has overturned decisions both ways. He said he always wants the City to err on the side
of giving the citizens an appeal route that is more practical than hiring an attorney or representing themselves at a Superior
Court hearing. He suggested the Planning Board invite the public to provide their feedback about the issue, but unless
someone can provide him with a clear reason to change his mind, he intends to vote against the recommendation. Board
Member Cloutier said he supports the idea of giving the citizens another place to go that does not require Superior Court, but
he is concerned that the City Council could end up in a difficult spot.
Vice Chair Lovell said he would vote in favor of recommending the City Council be taken out of the quasi-judicial decision
making process based on the information provided by staff and the City Attorney.
Board Member Guenther agreed with the recommendation of the City Attorney, the insurance agency and staff that the City
is at risk when the City Council is in the position of making land use decisions. Having the Hearing Examiner make these
decisions involves less risk. He expressed concern that, in the past, it has been difficult for the City Council to conduct
closed -record reviews because people try to submit new information into the record.
Board Member Stewart said that while she appreciates Board Member Reed's concerns about citizens not having sufficient
funds to pursue appeals against a developer, she would like to think that the Hearing Examiner will be fair and that both
sides can be represented well. She said she still believes that the City has a huge liability when the City Council involves
themselves in quasi-judicial decisions and they no longer have the ability to discuss land use issues with citizens. She said
she is still leaning towards her original position that the City Council should not be involved in quasi-judicial decisions.
They already have plenty on their plate, and they do not have the time to get into the details associated with closed -record
appeals.
Mr. Chave clarified that none of the proposed changes would replace the role of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing
Examiner would remain part of the process. The only question is what comes after the Hearing Examiner decision. On one
hand, a decision could go straight to court. On the other hand, there is a potential intermediate stop, which is consistent with
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2010 Page 16
Packet Page 283 of 380
the City Council's interim ordinance. He emphasized, however, that even when the City Council hears an appeal, the issue
could still end up in Superior Court. Either route, the main record is established by the Hearing Examiner.
Board Member Johnson said that if the Board is going to revisit the issue of whether or not the City Council should be part of
quasi-judicial decisions, she would like to research the previous discussions that have taken place at the Planning Board and
City Council levels. Mr. Chave said this information could be obtained by searching minutes starting in October of 2008.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE
NEXT MEETING TO CONSIDER REVISED LANGUAGE RELATED TO QUASI-JUDICIAL APPEALS. THE
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
City Attorney Snyder reminded the Board that they closed the public hearing and members of the audience have left the
meeting. Therefore, it would be necessary to re -advertise if the Board desires to allow additional public comment. He
suggested the Board advertise and conduct an additional hearing, which does not require a formal action. The Board
concurred.
REVIEW OF CIVIL ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS
City Attorney Snyder advised that late last year, the Washington Supreme Court in Post v. Tacoma determined that code
enforcement procedures that apply continuing penalties must afford an opportunity for appeal before continuing penalties are
levied. Section 1 of the ordinance is intended to correct the problem by providing for notice and an opportunity to appeal
each and every penalty assessment. Section 2 of the ordinance specifically addresses the code enforcement procedures. The
current code references a 10-day appeal to Superior Court. However, the subsequently adopted Land Use Petition Act,
which outlines the appeal procedure process, identifies a longer appeal period of 21 days. He recommended the language be
amended to acknowledge the longer appeal period and to provide direction to appellants as to the appropriate statutory
procedure.
Mr. Snyder explained that, as currently proposed, staff would be required to provide additional notice every time a penalty is
assessed. In most cases, the Hearing Examiner will render a decision that covers a certain number of days. If the individual
for which the enforcement action is aimed at does not comply with the Hearing Examiner's decision, they will receive
another notice and have another opportunity for a hearing. The Supreme Court noted in its decision that code violators may
have corrected the situations and levying fines without given them an opportunity to provide that information is a violation
of their due process rights. Individuals should be afforded an opportunity to come forward with information that they have
fixed the violation.
Board Member Reed asked if the $100 fee would apply regardless of the type of violation. Mr. Snyder answered that
Chapter 18 lists a number of violations that carry a higher per day fine, such as critical areas violations, tree cutting, etc., but
$100 is the default fine if there is no other reference in the code.
Vice Chair Lovell summarized that, as proposed, when a person is cited for a specific violation and a $100 fine is instituted,
it takes two weeks for the process to get to the Hearing Examiner where a decision is made that the action must be corrected
or the penalty would stand. At that point, the person would owe the City $1,400. If the Hearing Examiner finds that the
person has still not corrected the violation, the City must send out a new notice and the process starts again. City Attorney
Snyder noted that at the hearing, the person would have an opportunity to appeal to the Hearing Examiner and another
inspection would be conducted. If it is found that the violation has not been corrected, another notice would be sent out and
the process would start again.
Vice Chair Lovell asked if there are consequences for people who do not pay their assessed fines. City Attorney Snyder
answered that the City has injunctive relief for certain violations such as those related to critical areas. They can also turn the
situation over to collections, but unfortunately, this is not typically very successful. Another option is to take the person to
court.
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2010 Page 17
Packet Page 284 of 380
C. Decisionmaker(s). Applications processed in accordance with subsection B of this
section which have the same procedure number, but are assigned to different hearing
bodies, shall be heard collectively by the highest decisionmaker; the city council being
the highest body, followed by the hearing examiner or Planning Board, as applicable, and
then the director. Joint public hearings with other agencies shall be processed according
to ECDC 20.01.004. Concurrent public hearings held with the design review board and
any other decisionmaker shall proceed with both decisionmakers present.
20.01.003 Development project permit application framework.
A. Decisions.
TYPE I
TYPE II
TYPE III -A
TYPE 1111-B
TYPE IV -A
Type IV-B
TYPE V
Statement of
Modification
Plat vacations
Essential
Final plats
Site specific /
Development
zoning
to landscape
and
Public
contract
agreements
restriction
plans
alterations
Facilities
rezone
Boundary
Formal
Shoreline
Architectural
Final
Zoning text
line
interpretation
substantial
Design
Planned
amendments;
adjustments,
of the text of
development,
review
Residential
area -wide
lot line
the ECDC by
shoreline
Development
zoning map
adjustment,
the Director or
conditional
amendments
lot
designated
use, shoreline
combination
staff
variance
Permitted
Home
Preliminary
Comprehensive
uses not
occupation
Planned
plan
requiring site
permit
Residential
amendments
plan review
Development
Special use
Accessory
Conditional
Annexations
permits
Dwelling Unit
use
Minor
Draft
General
Development
amendments
environmental
variances,
regulations
to Planned
impact
and sign
Residential
statement /
permit
Development
SEPA
variances,
determinations
Minor
Revisions to
Site
Master Plan
Preliminary
shoreline
plan/major
Plat
management
amendments
amendment
permits
to site plans
Minor design
Administrative
Preliminary
review
variances
plats
Sign permits
Short plat
Land clearing/
grading
{ BFP724405.DOC; 1/00006.900150/)
Packet Page 285 of 380
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 20.01
TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMITS APPLICATIONS
I n TTONS
Sections:
20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions [new]
20.01.001 n,-,.,.oaWes for- ^ g development pFoject pe mits.Types of Actions
20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type.
20.01.003 Development project pefmit applicat Permit type and decision
framework.
20 n�oT . [move to 20.06.0011
2001. s [incorporated with 20.01.0011
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted.
20.01.007
preEessingExempt projects.
20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions
A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standard procedures, decision criteria,
public notification, and timing for development project permit application decisions made
by the City of Edmonds. These procedures are intended to:
• Promote timely and informed public participation;
• Eliminate redundancv in the application. hermit review. and anneals processes:
• Process permits equitably and expediently;
• Balance the needs of permit applicants with neighbors;
• Ensure that decisions are made consistently and predictably; and
• Result in development that furthers City goals as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
These procedures provide for an integrated and consolidated land use permit process. The
procedures integrate the environmental review process with land use procedures,
decisions, and consolidated appeal processes.
B. The provisions of this chapter supersede all other procedural reauirements that
may exist in other sections of the City Code. When interpreting and applying the
standards of this Code, its provisions shall be the minimum requirements. Where
conflicts occur between provisions of this Code and/or between the Code and other City
regulations, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. Where conflict between the text
of this Code and the zoning map ensue, the text of this Code shall prevail.
C. Unless otherwise specified, all references to days shall be calendar days.
Whenever the last day of a deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designate
by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or any day when city hall or the City's
Development Services Department is closed to the public by formal executive or
Attachment 3
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 1
Packet Page 286 of 380
legislative action the deadline shall run until the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday,
or holidav or closed day.
ir�.JtLnc�orora�ted in i i iii
20.01.001 Tvnes of Actions
There are five main tvpes of actions (or permits) that are reviewed under the
provisions of this chapter. The types of actions are based on who makes the decision, the
amount of discretion exercised by the decision making body, the level of impact
associated with the decision, the amount and type of public input sought, and the type of
appeal opportunity.
A. Administrative Decisions. Type I and 11 decisions are administrative
decisions made by the Development Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the
"director"). Type I permits are ministerial decisions are based on compliance with
specific, nondiscretionary and/or technical standards that are clearly enumerated. Type II
permits are administrative decisions where the Director makes a decision based on
standards and clearly identified criteria, but where public notice is required. Unless
otherwise provided. anneals of Tvne II decisions shall be initiated as set forth in ECDC
20.07.004.
B. Quasi-judicial Decisions. Type III, Type IV and appeal of Type II
decisions are quasi-judicial decisions that involve the use of discretionary judgement in
the review of each specific application. Quasi-judicial decisions are made by the Hearing
Examiner, the Architectural Design Board, and/or the city council.
C. Legislative Decision. Type V actions are legislative decisions made by
the city council under its authority to establish policies and regulations regardingfuture
private and public developments, and management of public lands.
1. Planning Board. The Planning Board shall hold a public hearing
and make recommendations to the city council on Type V actions, except that the city
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-io 2
Packet Page 287 of 380
council may hold a public hearing itself on area -wide rezones to implement city policies,
or amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map. The
public hearing shall be held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC,
RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law.
2. City Council. The city council may consider the Planning Board's
recommendation in a public hearing held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter
20.06 ECDC and RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law. If the city council
desires to hold a public hearing on area -wide rezones to implement city policies, or
amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map, it may do
so without forwarding the proposed decision to the Planning Board for a hearing_
3. Public Notice. Notice of the public hearing or public meeting shall
be provided to the public as set forth in ECDC 20.03.004.
4. Implementation. City council decision shall be by ordinance or
resolution and shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance or resolution.
20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type.
A. Determination by Director. The Development Serwiees Dir-eetor- of- hi
designee (hereinafter- the "director! --director shall determine the proper procedure for all
developmentproject applications. Questions concerning the appropriate procedure shall
be resolved in favor of the higher numbered procedure.
B. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves
two or more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered
procedure required for any part of the application or may be processed individually under
each of the application procedures identified in ECDC 20.01.003. The applicant may
determine whether the application will be processed collectively or individually. If the
applications are processed individually, the highest numbered type procedure shall be
undertaken first, followed by the other procedures in sequence from the highest
numbered to the lowest.
C. Decisionmaker(s). Applications processed in accordance with subsection
B of this section which have the same procedure number, but are assigned to different
hearing bodies, shall be heard collectively by the highest decisionmaker; the city council
being the highest body, followed by the hearing examiner or Planning Board, as
applicable, and then the director. Joint public hearings with other agencies shall be
processed according to ECDC 20.01.004. Concurrent public hearings held with the
design review board and any other decisionmaker shall proceed with both decisionmakers
present.
20.01.003 ermit Type and
Decision Framework.
A. DecisiensPermit Types.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 3
Packet Page 288 of 380
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
I
II
III -A
III-B
IV -A
IV-B
V
Statement 0r
Medifieafien
Outdoor
Essential
Final formal
Site
Development
Bening
to landscape
Dining Pit
Public
plats
specific
agreements
r-estfietionZoLing
Plans
vaeatiens and
Facilities
Compliance
,,,I
a�et
Letter
rezone
Boundai:y line
Formal
Technological
° rehig al
Final
Zoning text
adj Lot
interpretation
impracticality
Design
Planned
amendments;
waiver for
Line
of the text of
review where
Residential
area -wide
Adjustment; let
the ECDC by
amateur radio
public hearinjg
Development
zoning map
antennas
by
eembinatien
the Director of
amendments
designated
Architectural
Design Board
staff
is required)
Pe-mAtted uses
Heme
Shoreline
ShOfeliee
Comprehensive
net s.-W
substantial
substantial
plan
plan re"ewi
pe g
development,
development,
amendments
shorelines
conditional
eondi-tienal
use, shoreline
use, shoreli.e
variance Site
amens
to
vari-anee
site plans
Sfleeial use
Accessory
Conditional
Conditional
Annexations
pefn--&�
Dwelling Unit
nse permits
use permits
(where public
r..
hearing by
13ea
Hearing
1=learn
Examiner is
Examines
required
Minor
SEPA
Variances
General
Development
Amendments to
determinations
V,,,.ianees a
regulations
Planned
sign penit
Residential
v-ari-anees
Development
Minor
Revisions to
Daft
Master Plan
Preliminary Plat
shoreline
fHeH '
Amendment
management
inVaet
permits
statement
Staff design
Administrative
Preliminary
formal plat
review,
variances
€ernlal j�lat
includin sg igns
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 4
Packet Page 289 of 380
Sign p ffiznit'
Preliminary
Preliminary
Preliminary
Planned
short plat
Planne
Residential
Residential
Development
Development
Sales
Land clearing/
Home
Home
Office/Model
Grading
Occupation
9�
(17.70.005)
Permit (where
Permit (...hefe
public
publ e heafiftg
hearing by
Hearing
Examinef: is
Examiner is
�}
required
Shoreline
Land Use
Exemptions
Permit
Extension
Requests
Final Short Plat
Guest House
Critical Area
Determinations
ftlow. IN
to 20. 01. lI
EB. Aefien TypeDecision Table.
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT
APPLICATIONS
(TYPE I — IV)
LEGISLATIVE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
TYPE
I
II
III -A
III-B
IV -A
IV-B
V
Recommendation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Planning Board
Planning Board
by:
Final decision
Director
Director
Hearing
Hearing
City
City
City
by:
examiner
examiner
council
council
council
/ADB
[Notice of
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
application:
Open record
No
Only if
Yes,
Yes,
No
Yes, before
Yes, before
public hearing or
appealed,
before
before
Planning Board
Planning Board
open record
open
hearing
hearing
which makes
which makes
appeal of a final
record
examiner
examiner
recommendation
recommendation
decision:
hearing
to render
or board
I
to council
to council
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 5
Packet Page 290 of 380
before
final
to render
hearing
decision
final
examiner
decision
Closed record
No
No
No
Yes,
No
Yes,
Yes, or council
review:
before
before
could hold its
the
the
own hearing
council
council
Judicial appeal:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
. [moved section to 20.06.001 — Open Record Public
Hearings]
W6
20n i nnc Dee sions. [moved section to 20.01.001 ]
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 6
Packet Page 291 of 380
•
_01.Mml
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted.
Nothing in this chapter or the permit processing procedures shall limit the
authority of the city council to make changes to the city's comprehensive plan, or the
city's development regulations as part of the annual revision process.
20.01.007 Exemptions 40M development project peffnit application
pr-eees4p,gExempt projects.
A. Whenever- a pr-oval in the Edmonds Community Development
Code has been designated as a T. ype T, TT, TTI or- W permit, the procedures in this IiI
twe
20 01 003(B)The following projects are specifically excluded from the procedures set
forth in this Chapter: landmark designations, building permits, street vacations, street use
permits, encroachment permits, and other public works permits issued under Title 18.
B. Pursuant RCW 36.70B.140(2), lot line or boundary adjustments, building
and/or other construction permits, or similar administrative approvals categorically
exempt from environmental review under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW and the city's
SEPA/environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC), or permits/approvals for
which environmental review has been completed in connection with other development.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-io 7
Packet Page 292 of 380
project permits, are excluded from the requirements of RCW 36.70B.060 and 36.70B.1 10
through 36.70B.130, which includes the following procedures:
1. Notice of application (ECDC 20.02.004) unless an open record hearing is
allowed on the permit decision;
2. Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.140, optional consolidated
permit review processing (ECDC 20.01.002(B));
I 3. Joint public hearings (ECDC_ 20.01.00420.06.001);
4. Single report stating all of the decisions and recommendations made as of
the date of the report that do not require an open public record hearing (ECDC
20.06.002(C)); and
5. Notice of decision (ECDC 20.06.009).
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 8
Packet Page 293 of 380
Chapter 20.02
TYPE r W DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Sections:
20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference.
20.02.002 Permit application requirements.
20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application.
20.02. . moved to 20.03.0021
20.02.005 Referral and review of permit applications.
20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference.
A. Prior to filing applications for Type III actions
requiring a preliminary plat and Type III and IV actions, the
applicants are encouraged to participate in a preapplication conference. The
puFpose of the preapplieation confer-enee is to mefely acquaint the applieant with the
. 'ments of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Preapplication meetings
with staff provide an opportunity to discuss the proposal in general terms, identify the
applicable Citv reauirements and the proiect review process includina the hermits
reauired by the action. timinL- of the hermits and the approval process.
conferenee.Plans presented at the preapplication meeting are nonbinding and do not
"vest" an application.
B. The conference shall be held within 28 days of the request, upon payment
of applicable fee(s) as set forth in the city's adopted fee resolution.
C. The Development Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the
"director" )Thor shall provide the applicant with the following during the
conference:
A form which lists the requirements for a completed application;
2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the
application;
3. The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards
which may apply to approval of the application; and
4. The city's design guidelines.
D. Neither the discussions at the conference nor the information on the form
provided by the director to the applicant under ECDC 20.02.001(C) shall bind the city in
any manner or prevent the city's future application or enforcement of all applicable
codes, ordinances and regulations.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 9
Packet Page 294 of 380
E. Requests for preapplication conferences for all other types of applications
will be considered on a time -available basis by the director.
20.02.002 Permit application requirements.
Applieations for- development pr-qjeet pefmits shall be submitted an for-ms
pFovided—by the dirreeton An application shall consist of all materials required by the
applicable development regulations; and shall include the following general information
as applicable::
A. A completed land use application form;
B. A verified statement by the applicant that the property affected by the
application is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant, or that the applicant has
submitted the application with the consent of all owners of the affected property;
C. A property and/or legal description of the site for all applications, as
required by the applicable development regulations;
D. The applicable fee; and
E. Statement Cover letter describing how the proposal satisfies thea4dfe&sii}g
all --applicable standards, requirements and criteria in the development regulations.
20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application.
A. Determination of Completeness. Within 28 days after receiving an
application, the e4y-director shall mail or personally deliver
to the applicant a determination which states that either:
1. That The application is complete; or
I 2. That The application is incomplete and what is necessary to make the
application complete.
B. Identification of Other Agencies with Jurisdiction. To the extent known by
the city, other agencies with jurisdiction over the project shall be identified in the
determination of completeness.
C. Additional Information. An application is
complete for the purposes of this section when it meets the submission requirements of
ECDC 20.02.002 and the submission requirements of the applicable development
regulations. The determination of completeness shall be made when the application is
sufficiently complete for review, even though additional information may be required or
project modifications may be undertaken subsequently. The Tdetermination of
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 10
Packet Page 295 of 380
completeness shall not preclude the director's ability to request additional information or
studies whenever new information is required, or when substantial changes are made to
the proposed project.
D. Incomplete Applications.
1. Whenever the applicant receives a determination from the city pursuant to
ECDC 20.02.003(A)(2) that the application is incomplete,
the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary information. Within 14 days
after an applicant has submitted the requested additional information, the director shall
make a determination of completeness and notify the applicant in the manner provided in
subsection A of this section.
2. Whenever the applicant receives a notice that the contents of the
application, which had been previously determined under ECDC 20.02.003(A)(1) to be
complete, is insufficient, ambiguous, undecipherable, or otherwise unresponsive of the
information being sought, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary
information. If circumstances warrant, the applicant may apply in writing to the director
requesting a one-time 90-day extension. The extension request must be received b, the
City prior to the end of the initial 90-day compliance period.
3. If the applicant does not submit the additional information requested
within the 90-day period (or within the 90-day extension period, as applicable), €— the
permit,devele et the director shall make findings and issue a decision,
according to the Type I procedure, that the application has lapsed for lack of information
necessary to complete the review. The decision shall state that no further action will be
taken on the applications, and that if the applicant does not make arrangements to pick up
the application materials from the planning and/or public works/engineering departments
within 30 days from the date of the decision, the application materials will be destroyed.
4. When the director determines that an application has lapsed because the
applicant has failed to submit required information within the necessary time period, the
applicant may request a refund of the application fee remaining after the city's
determination of completeness.
E. Director's Failure to Provide Determination of Completeness. An
development project per-fnit application shall be deemed complete under this section if the
director does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is
incomplete as provided in subsection A of this section.
F Date of Acceptance of Application. permit
applications shall not be officially accepted until complete. When an application is found
determined to be complete, the director shall note the date of acceptance for continued
processing.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 11
Packet Page 296 of 380
G. After acceptance, the city shall begin processing the applications. Under
no circumstances shall the city place any applications on "hold" to be processed at some
later date, even if the request for the "hold" is made by the applicant, and regardless of
the requested length of the "holding" period. This subsection does not apply to
applications placed on "hold" upon determination by the city that
additional information is required in order to make €era decision.
. %moved to 20.03.0021
M
'.�'�'�•fiiJii�-
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 12
Packet Page 297 of 380
20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications.
Within 10 days of accepting an complete application, the director shall transmit a
copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to each affected
government agency and city department for review and comment, including those
responsible for determining compliance with state and federal requirements. The affeeted
�s and eity depaFtments shall have 45 days to coninient on the application. The
ageney or- eity depar-tment is presumed to have no eomments if eomments are no
.---..ed within the 15 day period. The difeetof shall gfant an extension of fifne only i
the applieation involves unusual eir-etimstanees. Extensions shall be fef- a MaXifflUffl E)
five,vIII,or-king days.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 13
Packet Page 298 of 380
Chapter 20.03
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Sections:
20.03.001 Responsibility for providing public notice.
20.03.002 Public ^^*i^ee Notice of application.
moved to end of chapter
20.03.0043 Notice of public hearing.
20.03.004 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) notice.
20.03.005 Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) notice.
20.03.006 Optional public notice.
20.03.001 Responsibility for providing public notice.
as �� ss
s: seems:��ss�ses:*:�ate:�!s s to r
.jjj�.•!�r
.. , I
bp.WM
,:
BA. The Development Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the
"director"T is responsible for all public notice requirements. The appellant of
,
mailing and othef: notifioation required by the di-feetof.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 14
Packet Page 299 of 380
20.03.002 Public-nNotice of application. [moved from 20.02.0041
A. Generally. A notice of application shall be provided to the public, all city
departments and agencies with jurisdiction of all Type II, III and IV development project
permit applications in accordance with Chapter 20.03 ECDC. The Notice of application
for these permits shall also be provided to the public by posting publishing and mailing
B. Issuance of Notice of Application.
1. A notice of application shall be issued within 14 days after the city has
made a determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003.
2. If any open record predecision hearingis s required for the requested
development project permit(s), the notice of application shall be provided at least 14 days
prior to the open record hearing
C. Contents. The notice of application shall include the following information
in a format determined by the director:
The date of submission of the initial application, the date of the notice of
completion and acceptance of the application, and the date of the notice of application;
2. A description of the proposed project and a list of the development project
permits requested in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested
under Chapter 36.7013 RCW;
3. A description of other required permits not included in the application, to
the extent known by the citv at that time:
4. A description of existing environmental documents that evaluate the
proposed project, and, if not otherwise stated on the document providing notice of
application, the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed;
A statement setting forth: (a) the time for the public comment
which shall be not less than 14 nor more than 30 days following the date of notice of
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 15
Packet Page 300 of 380
application; (b) the right of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of
and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application; and
(c) any appeal rights;
6. The date, time, place and type of hearing, if a hearing has been scheduled
when the date of notice of application is issued;
7. Any other information determined appropriate by the director such as the
director's threshold determination, if complete at the time of issuance of the notice of
application.
D. Mailed Notice. Notice of application shall be mailed to:
1. the owners of the property involved if different from applicant; and
2. the owners of real property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the
property(ies) involved in the application. Addresses for a mailed notice required by this
code shall be obtained from the applicable county's real property tax records. The
adjacent property owners list must be current to within six (6) months of the date of
initial application.
All mailed public notices shall be deemed to have been received on the next business day
followingthe he day that the notice is deposited in the mail.
E. Published Notice. Notice of application shall be published in the city's official
newspaper (The Everett Herald, as identified in ECDC 1.03). The format shall be
determined by the director and the notice must contain the information listed in ECDC
20 03_002_C'_
AF. Posting. Posting of the property for site specific proposals shall consist of one or
more notice boards as follows:
1. A single notice board shall be placedby the appli
a. At the midpoint of the street fronting the site or as otherwise
directed by the director for maximum visibility;
b. Five feet inside the street property line, except when the board is
structurally attached to an existing building; provided, that no notice board shall be
placed more than five feet from the street without approval of the director;
c. So that the bottom of the notice board is between two and four feet
above grade; and
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 16
Packet Page 301 of 380
d. Where it is completely visible to pedestrians.
e. The size of the notice board shall be determined by the director.
2. Additional notice boards may be required when:
a. The site does not abut a public road;
b. A large site abuts more than one public road; or
c. The director determines that additional notice boards are necessary
to provide adequate public notice.
3. Notice boards shall be:
a. Maintained in good condition by the applicant during the notice
period;
b. In place at least 34-14 days prior to the date of any hearing, and at
least 144-5 days prior to the end of any required comment period;
c. Removed within_45--30 days of the date of the project decision. If
the project is appealled, the sign must be removed 30 after the appeal decision is
issued .
4. Removal of the notice board prior to the end of the notice period
shall be cause for discontinuance of the department review until the notice board is
replaced and remains in place for the specified time period.
.411
IPlanning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 17
Packet Page 302 of 380
MifiiC/'
G. Public Comment on the Notice of AUUlication. All public comments in
response to the notice of application must be received by the city's development services
department by 4:00 PM on the last day of the comment period. Comments in response to
the notice of application received after the comment period has expired will not be
accepted no matter when they were mailed or postmarked. Comments shall be mailed or
personally delivered. Comments should be as specific as possible.
D. [separated out and moved to
20.03.0051
MMM
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 18
Packet Page 303 of 380
ff�
rl�
20.03.004003 Notice of public hearing.
A. Applicants of Type III or Type V actions, and appellants of Type Il
actions shall provide notice of public hearing by mailing, posting and publishing.
B. Content of Notice of Public Hearing for All Applications. The notice of a
public hearing required by this chapter shall contain:
1. The name and address of the applicant and the applicant's representative;
2 A description of the subject property reasonably sufficient to inform the
public of its location, including but not limited to a vicinity location or written
description, a map or postal address, and a subdivision lot and block designation
(complete legal description not required);
3. The date, time and place of the hearing;
4. The nature of the proposed use or development;
5. A statement that all interested persons may appear and provide testimony;
6. The sections of the code that are pertinent to the hearing procedure;
7. A statement explaining when information may be examined, and when
and how written comments addressing findings required for a decision by the hearing
body may be admitted;
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 19
Packet Page 304 of 380
8. The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone number
where additional information may be obtained;
9. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence
relied upon by the applicant, and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost
and that copies will be provided at the requestor's cost; and
10. A statement explaining that a copy of the staff report will be available for
inspection at no cost at least seven days prior to the hearing and that copies will be
provided at the requestor's cost.
follows:
C. Mailed Notice. Mailed notice of the public hearing shall be provided as
1. The notice of the public hearing shall be mailed to:
a. The applicant;
b. The owner of the subject property, if different from applicant;
C. All owners of real property, as shown by the records of the county
assessor, within 300 feet of the boundaries of the property(ies) involved in the
application; and
ed. Any person who submits a public comments on an application;
2. Type III Preliminary Plat Actions. In addition to the above, requirements
for mailed notice of public hearing for preliminary plats and proposed subdivisions shall
also include the following:
a. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat adjacent to or within one
mile of the municipal boundaries of any city or town, or which contemplates the use of
any city or town utilities shall be given to the appropriate city or town authorities;
b. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision
adjoining the boundaries of Snohomish County shall be given to the appropriate county
officials;
C. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision
located adjacent to the right-of-way of a state highway ^r within two miles o
shall be given to the secretary of transportation;
d. If the owner of the real property which is proposed to be
subdivided owns another parcel or parcels of real property which lie adjacent to the real
property proposed to be subdivided, notice under RCW 58.17.090(1)(b) shall be given to
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 20
Packet Page 305 of 380
owners of real property located with 300 feet from any portion of the boundaries of the
adjacent parcels owned by the owner of the real property to be subdivided.
3. For a plat alteration or a plat vacation, notice shall be as provided in RCW
58.17.080 and 58.17.090.
4. General Procedure for Mailed Notice of Public Hearing.
a. The records of the Snohomish County assessor's office shall be
used for determining the property owner of record. Addresses for a mailed notice
required by this code shall be obtained from the applicable county's real property tax
records. As required under ECDC 20.03.001, the applicant shall provide a sworn
certificate of mailing to all persons entitled to notice under this Chapter.
b. All mailed public notices shall be deemed to have been received on
the next business day following the day that the notice is deposited in the mail.
D. Procedure for Posted or Published Notice of Public Hearing.
1. Posted notice of the public hearing shall comply with requirements set
forth in ECDC 20.03.002.F�A .
2. Notice of public hearing shall be published in the city's official newspaper
(The Everett Herald, as identified in ECDC 1.03 , in
newspaper of general „l.,tion within the -City). The for -mat .,,-,.1 „tent of the notiee—
must be pr-e approved by the format shall be determined by the director and
the notice must contain the information listed in ECDC 20.03.003.B.
E. Time and Cost Notice of Public Hearing.
1. Notice shall be mailed, posted and first published not less than 144-0 or
more than 30 days prior to the hearing date. Posted notiees shall be removed by the
applicant within 15 days following the publie hearing
20.03.004 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) notice.
1. Whenever possible, the city shall integrate the public notice required under
this subsection with existing notice procedures for the City's nonexempt permits(s) or
approvals(s) required for the proposal.
2. Whenever the City issues a DNS under WAC 197-11-340(2) or a DS under
WAC 197-11-360(3) the Cit, shall public notice as follows:
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 21
Packet Page 306 of 380
a. If public notice is required for a nonexempt license, the notice shall state
whether a DS or DNS has been issued and when comments are due.
b. If an environmental document is issued concurrently with the notice of
application, the public notice requiremnts for the notice of application in
RCW 36.70B.110(4) will suffice to meet the SEPA public notice requirments in
WAC 197-11-510(1).
c. If no public notice is otherwise required for the permit or approval, the City
shall give notice of the DNS or DS bv:
Posting the property, for site specific proposals;
Mailed to real property owners as shown by the records of the county assessor
within 300 feet of the boundary of the property, for site specific proposals; and
Publishing notice in the City's official newspaper (or if one has not been
designated, in a newspaper of general circlulation within the City).
d. Whenever the City issues a DS under WAC 197-11-360(3), the Cites
state the scoping procedure for the proposal in the DS as required in WAC 197-11-408
and in the public notice.
3. If a DNS is issued usingtptional DNS process, the public notice
requirments for a notice of application in RCW 36.70B.110(4) as supplemented by the
requirments in WAC 197-11-355 will suffice to meet the SEPA public notice requirments
in WAC 197-11-510(1)(b).
4. Whenever the Citv issues a DEIS under WAC 197-11-455(5) or a SEIS under
WAC 197-11-620, notice of the availability of those documents shall be _iv y:
a. Indicating the availability of the DEIS in any public notice required for a
nonexempt license;
Posting the property, for site specific proposals;
c. Mailed to real property owners as shown by the records of the county
assessor within 300 feet of the boundary of the property, for site specific proposals; and
c. Publishing notice in the City's official newspaper (or if one has not been
designated, in a newspaper of general cirulation within the City).
5. Public notice for projects that qualify as planned actions shall be tied to
underlying permit as specificed in WAC 197-11-172(3).
6. The City may require an applicant to complete the public notice requirements
for the applicant's proposal at his or her expense.
20.03.005 Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Notice.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 22
Packet Page 307 of 380
1. Methods of Providing SMP Notice. Notice of the application of a
permit under the purview of the city's shoreline master program (SMP) shall be given by
one or more of the following methods:
a. Mailing of the notice to real property owners as shown by the
records of the county assessor within 300 feet of the boundary of the property upon
which the proposed project is to be built;
b. Posting of the notice in a conspicuous manner, as determined by
the director, on the property upon which the project is to be constructed; or
c. Any other manner deemed appropriate by the director to
accomplish the objectives of reasonable notice to adjacent landowners and the public.
2. Content of SMP Notice. SMP notices shall include:
a. A statement that any person desiring to submit written comments
concerning an application, or desiring to receive notification of the final decision
concerning an application, may submit comments, or requests for the decision, to the
director within 30 days of the last date that notice is published pursuant to this
subsection;
b. A statement that any person may submit oral or written comments
at the hearing;
c. An explanation of the manner in which the public may obtain a
copy of the city's decision on the application no later than two days after its issuance.
3. Public Comment Period. The public comment period shall be 30
days.
4. The director shall mail or otherwise deliver a copy of the decision
to each person who submits comments or a written reauest for the decisions.
20.03.006 Optional public notice. The director. in his or her sole discretion. mav:
A. Notify the public or private groups with known interest in a proposal or type of
proposal;
B. Notify the news media;
C. Place notices in appropriate regional or neighborhood newspapers or trade
journals;
D. Publish notice in agency newsletters or send notice to agency mailing lists, either
general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas; and
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 23
Packet Page 308 of 380
E. Mail notice to additional neighboring property owners.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 24
Packet Page 309 of 380
Chapter 20.04
CONSISTENCY WITH
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SEPA
Sections:
20.04.001 Determination of consistency.
20.04.002 Initial SEPA analysis.
20.04.003 Categorically exempt and planned actions.
20.04.001 Determination of consistency.
A. Purpose. Consistency between a proposed development project permit
application, applicable regulations and comprehensive plan shall be determined through
the process described in this section.
B. Consistency. During development ^rojeet po, r,,;* application review, the
Development Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the "director") the
difeet shall determine whether the development regulations applicable to the proposed
project, or in the absence of applicable development regulations, the city's
comprehensive plan, address the following:
1. The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be
allowed if the criteria for their approval have been satisfied;
2. The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential
development in urban growth areas, or other measures of density;
3. Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities identified
in the comprehensive plan; and
4. Whether the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these
facilities as required by Chapter 36.70A RCW.
C. Project Review. Project review by the director and appropriate city staff
shall identify specific project design and conditions relating to the character of
development, such as the details of site plans, curb cuts, drainage swales, the payment of
impact fees, or other measures to mitigate a proposal's probable significant adverse
environmental impacts. During project review, neither the director nor any other city
reviewing body may re-examine alternatives or hear appeals on decided matters which
have already been found to be consistent with development regulations and/or the
comprehensive plan, except for issues of code interpretation.
20.04.002 Initial SEPA analysis.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 25
Packet Page 310 of 380
A. In addition to the land use consistency review, the director shall review the
permit application for consistency with the State Environmental
Policy Act ("SEPA"), Chapter 43.21C RCW, the SEPA Rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC,
and the city environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC, and shall:
1. Determine whether applicable regulations require studies to adequately
analyze all of the proposed project's specific probable adverse environmental impacts;
2. Determine whether applicable regulations require mitigation measures to
adequately address identified environmental impacts; and
3. Provide prompt and coordinated review by other government agencies and
the public on compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including
mitigation for specific project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the
plan or development regulation level.
B. In its -the review of a permit application, the director
shall determine whether the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and
mitigation measures in the applicable development regulations, comprehensive plan
and/or in other applicable local, state or federal laws provide adequate analysis of and
mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the proposal.
C. If the director bases or conditions his or her approval of the
application on compliance with the requirements or mitigation measures
described in subsection A of this section, the city shall not impose additional mitigation
under SEPA during project review for the same adverse environmental impacts.
D. A comprehensive plan, development regulation or other applicable local,
state or federal law provides adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, the specific adverse
environmental impacts of a proposal when:
1. The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or
2. The city has designated in the plan, regulation or law that certain levels of
service, land use designations, development standards or other land use conditions
allowed by Chapter 36.70A RCW are acceptable.
E. In deciding whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been
addressed by an existing city plan or development regulation, or by the regulations or
laws of another government agency, the director shall consult orally or in writing with
that agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the director
shall base or condition any project approval on compliance with these other regulations.
F. Nothing in this section limits the authority of the director in reviewing or
mitigating the impacts of a proposed project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental
analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided by Chapter 43.21C RCW.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 26
Packet Page 311 of 380
G. The director shall also review the application under Chapter 20.15A
ECDC, the city environmental policy ordinance; provided, that such review shall be
coordinated with the underlying permit application review.
20.04.003 Categorically exempt and planned actions.
A. Categorically Exempt. Actions categorically exempt under RCW
43.21C.110(1)(a) do not require environmental review or the preparation of an
environmental impact statement. An action that is categorically exempt under the rules
adopted by the Department of Ecology (Chapter 197-11 WAC) may not be conditioned
or denied under SEPA.
B. Planned Actions.
1. A planned action does not require a threshold determination or the
preparation of an environmental impact statement under SEPA, but is subject to
environmental review and mitigation under SEPA.
2. A "planned action" means one or more types of project action that:
a. Are designated planned actions by an ordinance or resolution
adopted by the city;
b. Have had the significant impacts adequately addressed in an
environmental impact statement prepared in conjunction with:
i. A comprehensive plan or subarea plan adopted under Chapter
36.70A RCW, or
ii. A fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master
planned development or a phased project;
C. Are subsequent or implementing projects for the proposals listed in
paragraph (2)(b) of this subsection;
d. Are located within an urban growth area, as defined in RCW
36.70A.030;
e. Are not essential public facilities, as defined in RCW 36.70A.200;
and
f. Are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan adopted under
Chapter 36.70A RCW.
C. Limitations on Planned Actions. The city shall limit planned actions to
certain types of development or to specific geographical areas that are less extensive than
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 27
Packet Page 312 of 380
the jurisdictional boundaries of the city, and may limit a planned action to a time period
identified in the environmental impact statement or this title.
FRI
restatement of 20.04. 001.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 28
Packet Page 313 of 380
Chapter 20.06
OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Sections:
20.06.004-000
General.
20.06.001
Joint Public Hearings
20.06.002
Responsibility of director for hearing.
20.06.003
Conflict of interest.
20.06.004
Ex parte communications.
20.06.005
Disqualification.
20.06.006
Burden and nature of proof.
20.06.007
Order of proceedings.
20.06.008
Decision.
20.06.009
Notice of final decision M risen,,,
20.06.010
Reconsideration of decision.
20.06.004-000 General.
A. An 9open record public hearingsimply ^��'''ie ''eaing; reanr�is a
hearing conducted by an single heari g authorized body or officer .,ut r4zed to ,,,,.,, uet
such that creates the city's record through testimony and submission of evidence
and information_., . A public hearing may be
held prior to the city's decision on a development project permit_pplication; to
this is an "open record predecision hearing." A public reeord-hearing may be held on
an appeal, be known as an appeal hem' if no open record predecision
hearing has beenwas held off -for the permit; this is an "open record
appeal hearing. .
B. Open record predecision hearings on all Type III and IV development
prejeE�permit applications and open record appeal hearings on all Type II decision
appeals shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter. Public hearings conducted by
the city hearing examiner shall also be subject to the hearing examiner's rules.
C. Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated
as set forth in ECDC 20.07.004.1
20.06.001 Joint public hearings. [moved from 20.01.004�
A. Decision to Hold Joint Hearina. The Development Services Director or
his/her designee (hereinafter the "director") may combine any public hearing on a project
application with any hearing that may be held by another local, state, regional, federal, or
other agency, on the proposed action, as long as: (1) the hearing is held within the city
limits; and (2) the requirements of subsection C of this section are met.
B. Applicant's Request for a Joint Hearing. The applicant may request that
the public hearing on a permit application be combined as lop as the joint hearing can be
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 29
Packet Page 314 of 380
held within the time periods set forth in this chapter. In the alternative, the applicant maX
agree to a particular schedule if that additional time is needed in order to complete the
hearings.
C. Prerequisites to Joint Public Hearing. A joint public hearing may be held
with another local, state, regional, federal or other agency and the city, when:
1. The other agency is not expressly_ prohibited by statute from doing so,
2. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencies'
adopted notice requirements as set forth in statutes, ordinances, or rules;
3. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed
project from the applicant in enough time to hold its hearing at the same time as the city
hearing; or
4. The hearing is held within the geo _graphic boundary of the city.
20.06.002 Responsibility of director for hearing.
The director shall:
A. Schedule project applications for review and public hearing;
B. Verify compliance with notice requirements;
C. Prepare the staff report on the application, which shall be a single report
which sets forth all of the decisions made on the proposal as of the date of the report,
including recommendations on project permits in the consolidated permit
process that do not require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall also
describe any mitigation required or proposed under the city's development regulations or
SEPA authority. If the threshold determination, other than a determination of
significance, has not been issued previously by the city, the report shall include or append
this determination.
D. Prepare the notice of decision, if required by the hearing body, and mail a
copy of the notice of decision to those entitled by this chapter to receive the decision.
20.06.003 Conflict of interest.
The hearing body shall be subject to the code of ethics, prohibitions on conflict
of interest and appearance of fairness doctrine as set forth in Chapter 42.23 RCW, and
Chapter 42.36 RCW as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended.
20.06.004 Ex parte communications.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 30
Packet Page 315 of 380
A. No member of the hearing body may communicate, directly or indirectly,
regarding any issue in a proceeding before him or her, other than to participate in
communications regarding procedural aspects necessary for maintaining an orderly
process, unless he or she provides notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.
Nothing herein shall prevent the hearing body from seeking legal advice from its legal
counsel on any issue.
B. If, before serving as the hearing body in a quasi-judicial proceeding, any
member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication of a type that could not
properly be received while serving, the member of the hearing body, promptly after
starting to serve, shall disclose the communication as described in ECDC 20.06.004(C).
C. If a member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication in
violation of this section, he or she shall place on the record:
1. All written communications received;
2. All written responses to the communications;
3. The substance of all oral communications received, and all responses
made; and
4. The identity of each person from whom the member received any ex parte
communication.
The hearing body shall advise all parties that these matters have been placed on
the record. Upon request made after notice of the ex parte communication, any party
desiring to rebut the communication shall be allowed to place a rebuttal statement on the
record.
20.06.005 Disqualification.
A. Any member who is disqualified shall make full disclosure to the audience
of the reason(s) for the disqualification, abstain from voting on the proposal, and
physically leave the hearing.
B. If enough members of the hearing body are disqualified so that a quorum
cannot be achieved, then all members present, after stating their reasons for
disqualification, shall be requalified and deliberations shall proceed.
20.06.006 Burden and nature of proof.
A. Except for Type V actions, appeal of Type II actions and closed record
appeals, the burden of proof is on the proponent. The development project permit
application must be supported by convincing proof that it conforms to the applicable
elements of the city's development regulations and comprehensive plan (review criteria).
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 31
Packet Page 316 of 380
The proponent must also prove that any significant adverse environmental impacts have
been adequately mitigated.
B. In an appeal of Type II actions or closed record appeal, the appellant has
the burden of proof with respect to points raised on appeal.
C. In a closed record appeal of the Architectural Design Board, its decision
shall be given substantial deference regarding decision review within its expertise and
contained in its decisions.
20.06.007 Order of proceedings.
The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the nature of the
hearing. The following shall be supplemented by administrative procedures as
appropriate.
A. Before receiving testimony and other evidence on the issue, the following
shall be determined:
l . Any objections on jurisdictional grounds shall be noted on the record and
if there is objection, the hearing body may proceed or terminate the proceeding;
2. Any member disqualifications shall be determined.
B. The presiding officer may take official notice of commonly known and
accepted information, such as:
1. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, officially adopted development standards,
and state law;
2. Public records and facts judicially noticeable by law.
C. Information officially noticed need not be proved by submission of formal
evidence to be considered by the hearing body. Parties requesting official notice of any
information shall do so on the record. The hearing body, however, may take notice of
matters listed in subsection B of this section at any time. Any information given official
notice may be rebutted.
D. The hearing body may view the proposed project site or planning area
with or without notification to the parties, but shall put into the record a statement setting
forth the time, manner and circumstances of the site visit.
E. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and
opponents. The presiding officer may, in his or her discretion, permit persons attending
the hearing to ask questions. Unless the presiding officer specifies otherwise, approved
questions will be asked of persons submitting testimony by the presiding officer.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 32
Packet Page 317 of 380
F. When the presiding officer has closed the public hearing portion of the
hearing, the hearing body may openly discuss the issue and may further question the staff
or any person submitting information. An opportunity to present rebuttal shall be
provided if new information is presented in the questioning. When all evidence has been
presented and all questioning and rebuttal completed, the presiding officer shall officially
close the record and end the hearing.
20.06.008 Decision.
A. Following the hearing procedure described in ECDC 20.06.007, the
hearing body shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. If the hearing
is an appeal, the hearing body shall affirm, reverse or, with the written consent of the
applicant, which shall include a waiver of the statutory prohibition against two open
record hearings, remand the decision for additional information.
B. The hearing body's written decision shall be issued within 10 working
days after the close of record of the hearing and within 90 days of the opening of the
hearing, unless a longer period is agreed to by the parties.
C. The city shall provide a notice of decision as provided in ECDC
20.06.009.
D. If the city is unable to issue its final decision on an development pr-Ojee
permit -application within the time limits provided for in this section, it shall provide
written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of
reasons why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the
notice of decision.
20.06.009 Notice of final decision Miscellaneous.
A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the
issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided,
that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall
be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include
the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal and a description of any available
administrative appeals. For Type II, III and IV permits, the notice
shall contain the requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affected
property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any
program of revaluation.
1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the
applicant, to any person who submitted comments on the application or requested a copy
of the decision, and to the Snohomish County assessor.
2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means
deemed reasonable by the director.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 33
Packet Page 318 of 380
B. In calculating the 120-day period for issuance of the notice of final
decision, or other decision period specified in 20.06.009(A) ECDC, the following periods
shall be excluded:
1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the director
to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. The
period shall be calculated from the date the director notifies the applicant of the need for
additional information until the earlier of the dates the director determines that the
additional information provided satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the
date the additional information is provided to the city;
2. If the director determines that the information submitted is insufficient, the
applicant shall be informed of the particular ins ff;eieneiesdeficiencies and the
procedures set forth in subsection (13)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion
period shall apply;
3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is
being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time
period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by Chapter 20.15A ECDC;
4. Any period for consideration and issuance of a decision for administrative
appeals of development project permits, which shall be not more than 90 days for open
record appeals and 60 days for closed record appeals, unless a longer period is agreed to
by the director and the applicant;
5. Any extension of time mutually agreed to by the director and the applicant
in writing.
C. The time limits established in this title do not apply if a development
prejeet-permit application:
1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development
regulation;
2. Requires siting approval of an essential public facility as provided in
RCW 36.70A.200; or
3. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period
shall start from the date that a determination of completeness for the revised application
is issued by the director pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003 and RCW 36.7013.070.
20.06.010 Reconsideration of decision.
A. General. Any person identified in ECDC 20.07.003 as having standing to
file an administrative appeal may request reconsideration of a decision of the (hearing
examiner which issues immediately after the open record public hearing on a
development pfojeet permit application described in this chapter. (There shall be no
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 34
Packet Page 319 of 380
reconsideration of a decision of the director (staff), ADB or city council.)
Reconsideration is not a condition precedent to any appeal. Reconsideration shall be
limited to:
1. error(s) of procedure;
2. error(s) of law or fact;
3. error(s) of judgment; and/or
4. the discovery of new evidence that was not known and could not in
the exercise of reasonable diligence, been discovered.
B. Time to File. A request for reconsideration, including reconsideration fee,
must be filed with the director within 10 calendar days of the hearing
examiner's written decision. Such requests shall be delivered to the director before 4:30
p.m. on the last business day of the reconsideration period. Requests for reconsideration
that are received by mail after 4:30 p.m. on the last day of this reconsideration period will
not be accepted, no matter when such requests were sent, mailed or postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing a
request for reconsideration, the day the hearing examiner's decision is issued shall not be
counted. If the last day of the reconsideration is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday
designated by RCW 1.16.050, or by a city ordinance, then the reconsideration may be
filed on the next business day.
D. Content of Request for Reconsideration. Requests for reconsideration shall
be in writing, be accompanied by the required reconsideration fee (which shall be the
same as the Amin'
, and contain the following information:
1. The name, address and phone number of the requestor;
2. Identification of the application and final decision which is the subject of
the request for reconsideration;
3. Requestor's statement of grounds for reconsideration and the facts upon
which the request is based;
4. The specific relief requested;
5. A statement that the requestor believes the contents of the request to be
true, followed by his/her signature.
6. All written submittals shall be typed on letter size paper (8.5 x 11), with
one inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no
smaller than 12), single sided.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 35
Packet Page 320 of 380
E. Effect. The timely filing of a request for reconsideration shall stay the
hearing examiner's decision until such time as the hearing examiner issues a decision on
reconsideration.
F. Notice of Request for Reconsideration. The r-eque itof director shall
provide mailed notice that a request for reconsideration has been filed to all parties of
record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003.
G. Hearing Examiner's Action on Request. The hearing examiner shall
consider the request for reconsideration without a hearing, but may solicit written
arguments from parties of record. A decision on the request for reconsideration shall be
issued within 10 business days after receipt of the request for reconsideration by the city.
1. The time period for appeal shall recommence and be the same for
all parties of record, regardless of whether a party filed a motion for reconsideration.
2. Only one request for reconsideration may be made by a party of
record. Any ground not stated in the initial motion is waived.
3. A decision on reconsideration or a matter that is remanded to the
hearing examiner by the City Council is not subject to a motion for reconsideration.
H. Limitations on Hearing Examiner's Reconsideration. The hearing
examiner shall consider the request for reconsideration based on the administrative record
compiled on the application up to and including the date of the hearing examiner's
decision. The hearing examiner may require or permit corrections of ministerial errors or
inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record and the hearing examiner's
decision. The reconsideration decision issued by the hearing examiner may modify,
affirm or reverse the hearing examiner's decision.
I. Notice of Final Decision on Reconsideration. The director shall issue a
notice of final decision on reconsideration in the manner set forth and to the persons
identified in ECDC 20.06.009.
J. Further Appeals. If no administrative appeal is allowed of the hearing
examiner's decision, and a request for reconsideration was timely filed, then any judicial
appeal must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the decision on reconsideration, as
provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 36
Packet Page 321 of 380
Chapter 20.07
CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Sections:
20.07.001
Appeals of decisions.
20.07.002
Consolidated appeals.
20.07.003
Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
20.07.004
Appeals of recommendations and decisions.
20.07.005
Procedure for closed record decision/appeal.
20.07.006
Judicial appeals.
20.07.007
Resubmission of application.
20.07.001 Appeals of decisions.
A. "Closed record appeal" means an administrative appeal on the record to
the city council, following an open record public hearing on a development project permit
application when the appeal is on the record with no new evidence or information
allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC 20.07.005(B), and only appeal
argument allowed.
B. The right of appeal for all permit applications and
Type V land use decisions shall be as described in the matrix set forth in ECDC
20.01.003.
20.07.002 Consolidated appeals.
All appeals of development project permit application decisions, other than
appeals of determinations of significance ("DS"), and exempt permits and approvals
under ECDC 20.01.007, shall be considered together in a consolidated appeal using the
appeal procedure for the highest type permit application.
20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
A. Limited to Parties of Record. Only parties of record may file an
administrative appeal.
B. Definition. The term "parties of record," for the purposes of this chapter,
shall mean:
1. The applicant;
2. Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the
application;
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 37
Packet Page 322 of 380
3. Any person who individually submits written comments concerning the
application at the open record public hearing (or to staff if an appeal of a Type II
decision). Persons who have only signed petitions are not parties of record; and/or
4. The city of Edmonds.
20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions.
Permit Decisions or Recommendations. Appeals of a hearing body's
recommendation or decision on a deve epfnent-�^* permit application shall be
governed by the following:
A. Standing. Only parties of record have standing to appeal the hearing body's
decision.
B. Time to File. An appeal must be filed within 14 days after the issuance of the
hearing body's written decision. The appeal period shall be extended for an additional
seven days, if state or local rules adopted pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW allow public
comment on a determination of nonsignificance issued as part of the appealable project
permit decision. Appeals, including fees, must be received by the city's development
services department by mail or by personal delivery at or before 4:30 PM on the last
business day of the appeal period. Appeals received by mail after 4:30 PM on the last day
of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when such appeals were mailed or
postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an
appeal, the day the hearing body's decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day
of the appeal is a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050 or by a
city ordinance, or any day when city hall or the City's Development Services Department
is closed to the public by formal executive or legislative action, then the appeal may be
filed on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, holiday or closed day.
D. Content of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by the required
appeal fee as set forth in the city's adopted fee resolution, and contain the following
information:
1. Appellant's name, address and phone number;
2. A statement describing appellant's standing to appeal;
3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal;
4. Appellant's statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the
appeal is based with specific references to the facts in the record;
5. The specific relief sought;
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 38
Packet Page 323 of 380
6. A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the
contents to be true, followed by the appellant's signature.
7. All written submittals shall be typed on letter size paper (8.5 x 11), with
one inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no
smaller than 12), single sided.
E. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the hearing body's decision until
such time as the appeal is concluded or withdrawn.
F. Notice of Appeal. The Development Services Director (hereinafter the "director")
The appellant shall provide mailed notice of the appeal to all parties of record as defined
in ECDC 20.07.003.
20.07.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal.
A. Closed record appeals shall be based on the record established at the open
record hearing before the hearing body/officer whose decision is appealed, which shall
include the written decision of the hearing body/officer, copies of any exhibits admitted
into the record, and official transcript, minutes or tape recording of the proceedings.
1. At his/her own expense, a party to the appeal may have the official tape
recording of the open record hearing transcribed; however, to be admitted into the record,
the transcription must be performed and certified by a transcriber that is pre -approved by
the City. In addition, the certified transcription must be received by the City directly
from the transcriber at least 16 working days before the date scheduled for the closed
record review. It shall be each party of record's responsibility to obtain a copy of the
transcription from the City.
2. The director shall maintain a list of pre -approved transcribers that are
court approved; and if needed, shall coordinate with parties to the appeal so that no more
than one official transcription is admitted into the record.
B. No new testimony or other evidence will be accepted by the city council
except: (1) new information required to rebut the substance of any written or oral ex parte
communication provided during an appearance of fairness disclosure; and (2) relevant
information that, in the opinion of the city council, was improperly excluded by the
hearing body/officer.
1. Appellants who believe that information was improperly excluded must
specifically request in writing within 5 working days of the appeal deadline that the
information be made part of the record. The request shall be addressed to the city council
president, describing the information excluded, its relevance to the issues appealed, the
reason(s) that the information was excluded by the hearing body/officer, and the reason
why the hearing body/officer erred in excluding the information.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 39
Packet Page 324 of 380
2. In determining whether the information should be admitted, the city
council president may request other parties of record to submit written arguments
rebutting the above. Non response by the city council president within 5 working days of
the initial request that the information be made part of the record shall constitute a
rejection of the same.
C. Parties to the appeal may present written arguments to the city council.
Arguments shall describe the particular errors committed by the decision maker,
with specific references to the administrative record. The appellant shall bear the burden
to demonstrate that the decision his clearly erroneous given the record.
D. While not required, Aappellant may submit his or her written arguments
12 working days before the date scheduled for the closed record review. Parties of
record, except for the appellant, may respond in writing to appellant's arguments no later
than 7 working days before the closed record review. Appellant may rebut in writing to
responses submitted by parties of record no later than 4 working days before the closed
record review. If the applicant is not the appellant, applicant may submit a final
surrebuttal in writing to appellant's rebuttal no later than 2 working days before the
closed record review.
E. Written arguments, responses, rebuttal and surrebuttals must be received
by the city's development services department by mail or personal delivery at or before
4:30 PM of the date due. Late submittals shall not be accepted. Submittals received by
mail after 4:30 PM on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter
when such submittals were mailed or postmarked. It shall be the responsibility of the
parties involved to obtain for their own use from the city copies of written arguments,
responses, rebuttals and surrebuttals submitted.
F. All written submittals shall be typed on letter size paper (8.5 x 11), with
one inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no
smaller than 12), single sided, double spaced and without exceeding twelve pages in
length, including exhibits, if any. Exhibits that are not already in the record shall not be
allowed.
G. The review shall commence with the resolution of appearance of fairness
issues, if any, followed by a presentation by the director, , _of
the general background of the proposed development and the issues in dispute. After the
director's presentation, the city council may ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to
parties of record, with an opportunity for the director (or designee), appellant and/or
applicant, respectively, to rebut to the response. The city council shall not request
information outside the administrative record.
H. The city council shall determine whether the decision below —by the
hearing body/officer is clearly erroneous given the evidence in the record. The city
council shall affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the hearing body/officer
accordingly. Upon written agreement by the applicant to waive the requirement for a
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 40
Packet Page 325 of 380
decision within the time periods set forth in RCW 36.70B.080, as allowed by RCW
36.70B.080(3), the city council may remand the decision with instructions to the hearing
body for additional information.
I. Notice of Final Decision on Closed Record Appeal. The director shall
issue a notice of final decision on closed record appeal in the manner set forth and to the
persons identified in ECDC 20.06.009.
20.07.006 Judicial appeals.
The city's final decision on an application may be appealed by a party of record
with standing to file a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court. Such
petition must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the decision, as provided in
Chapter 36.70C RCW.
20.07.007 Resubmission of application.
Any permit application or other request for approval submitted pursuant to this
chapter that is denied shall not be resubmitted or accepted by the director for
r-eeensideft-4io*--review for a period of 12 months from the date of the last action by the
city on the application or request unless, in the opinion of the director, there has been a
significant change in the application or a significant change in conditions related to the
impacts of the proposed project.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 41
Packet Page 326 of 380
Chapter 20.08
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Sections:
20.08.010
Authority and genefal
20.08.020
General provisions of development agreements.
20.08.030
Enforceability.
20.08.040
Approval procedure for development agreements.
20.08.050
Form of agreement, council approval, recordation.
20.08.060
Judicial appeal.
20.08.010 Authority
A. The city may censider-,-afi&enter into; a development agreement with a
person having ownership or control of real property within the city limits. The city may
also enter eensider- a development agreement for real property outside of the city limit but
within the urban growth area (UGA) as part of a proposed annexation or a service
agreement.
20.08.020 General provisions of development agreements.
A. A development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable policies
and goals of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan and applicable development
regulations. As applicable, the development agreement shall specify the following:
1. Project components which define and detail the permitted uses, residential
densities, nonresidential densities and intensities or building sizes;
2. The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or agreed to in
accordance with any applicable provisions of state law, any reimbursement provisions,
other financial contributions by the property owner, inspection fees, or dedications;
3. Mitigation measures, development conditions and other requirements of
Chapter 43.21C RCW;
4, Design standards such as architectural treatment, maximum heights,
setbacks, landscaping, drainage and water quality requirements and other development
features;
5. Provisions for affordable housing, if applicable;
6. Parks and common open space preservation;
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 42
Packet Page 327 of 380
7. Phasing;
8. A build -out or vesting period for applicable standards; and
9. Any other appropriate development requirement or procedure which is
based upon a city policy, rule, regulation or standard.
B. As provided in RCW 36.70B.170, the development agreement shall
reserve authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a
serious threat to public health and safety.
20.08.030 Enforceability.
Unless amended or terminated, a development agreement is enforceable during
its term by a party to the agreement. A development agreement and the development
standards in the agreement govern during the term of the agreement, or for all or that part
of the build -out period specified in the agreement. The agreement may not be subject to
an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development standard or a new zoning ordinance
or development standard or regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement.
The permit approval issued by the city after the execution of the agreement must be
consistent with the development agreement.
20.08.040 Approval procedure for development agreements.
A development agreement is a Type V development project permit application
and shall be processed in accordance with the procedures established in this title. A
development agreement shall be approved by the Edmonds city council after a public
hearing.
20.08.050 Form of agreement, council approval, recordation.
A. Form. All development agreements shall be in a form provided by the city
attorney's office. The city attorney shall approve all development agreements for form
prior to consideration by the Planning Board.
B. Term. Development agreements may be approved for a maximum period
of five years.
C. Recordation. A development agreement shall be recorded against the real
property records of the Snohomish County assessor's office. During the term of the
development agreement, the agreement is binding on the parties and their successors,
including any area that is annexed to the city.
20.08.060 Judicial appeal.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 43
Packet Page 328 of 380
If the development agreement relates to a project permit application, the
provision of Chapter 36.70C RCW shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the
development agreement.
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 44
Packet Page 329 of 380
a subcommittee to work on green business recognition, and perhaps it would be helpful to provide incentives for green
businesses to locate in Edmonds.
Mr. Clugston summarized that staff would prepare draft code language based on Option 2, including language to remove
window signs from the number of signs allowed and the total sign area. He expressed his belief that allowing a business up
to three signs would address situations where a business has multiple street frontages.
CONTINUED REVIEW OF TITLE 20 PROCEDURES
Mr. Clugston recalled that the Commission previously reviewed proposed amendments to Title 20 that would result in staff
reassuming the public notice requirements for project applications. The current process, which makes applicants responsible
for sending out public notice, is difficult for staff to administer. The intent of the proposed amendment is to bring this
responsibility back into staff s purview. They also reviewed amendments that would reorganize and clarify some portions of
the text to make it flow better and make it easier to administer.
Mr. Clugston recalled that the Board previously reviewed proposed amendments to update the permit type matrix to more
accurately reflect what the City does. The Board pointed out that as a result of the City Council's decision to hold closed -
record appeals of quasi-judicial applications, all Type III -A permits identified in the matrix were changed to TYPE III-B
permits. The Board suggested staff consider eliminating the Type III -A category. However, after further review, staff found
there are still some processes that fall within the Type III -A permit category but have not been included in the matrix. For
example, outdoor dining requires a conditional use permit, which can be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner if an applicant
wants to exceed a certain threshold. This type of application is listed in the code language as a Type III -A Permit. Another
example of a Type III -A Permit is the technology and practicality waiver for amateur radio antennas in single-family zones.
The waiver provision allows an applicant to request a conditional use permit from the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Clugston
suggested that these types of permits could be added to the matrix to make it clear there are still some Type III -A procedures.
Board Member Reed agreed that these types of procedures should be listed on the matrix. He reminded the Board that the
matrix is intended to be all-inclusive. Mr. Clugston said there are likely other procedures in the code that are not referenced
on the matrix. The Board agreed it would be appropriate to reference all procedural types on the matrix.
Mr. Clugston said that while the Board was generally satisfied with the proposed updates, they wanted to revisit the role of
the Council in closed -record appeals. He reminded the Board that the proposed amendments incorporate the City Council's
recent decision regarding their role in closed -record appeals. At the request of the Board, staff provided a document
(Attachment 1) outlining the pros and cons of City Council involvement in quasi-judicial decisions. They also provided
summary documents (Attachment 2) from the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) regarding municipal claims
and losses, including those from land -use decisions. As per the Board's request, staff provided an assessment of the
numbers of closed -record appeals that have gone to the City Council and their outcome. He reported that since 2005, there
have been six closed -record appeals heard by the City Council. Of those, one was remanded back to the Hearing Examiner
and another was remanded to the Architectural Design Board. In each case, the decision maker reversed their original
decision. There were three appeals where the City Council affirmed the Hearing Examiner's decision and denied the appeal.
There was also one appeal where the City Council reversed the Hearing Examiner's decision and upheld the appeal.
Chair Bowman observed that in recent years, there have not been a significant number of land use applications due to the
poor economy. He suggested there were likely more quasi-judicial appeals in years prior to 2005. Mr. Chave explained that
there are not typically a large number of appeals to the City Council regardless of activity levels. However, he agreed to
provide the Board with information dating back to 1999.
Mr. Clugston recalled the Board requested staff provide examples of how other jurisdictions deal with closed record appeals.
He referred to Attachments 4 through 6, which outline how Mukilteo, Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline treat appeals. He
summarized that some have closed record appeals to their City Council and some do not.
Vice Chair Lovell requested information about how staff developed the list of pros and cons of City Council involvement in
quasi-judicial decisions (Attachment 1). Mr. Chave said he was the author of the list, and the information came from
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2010 Page 10
Packet Page 330 of 380
hearings that were conducted years ago on the role of the Hearing Examiner and City Council in decision making. He
recalled that there was an extended period of public hearings regarding the matter. The document was prepared to
encapsulate the arguments on both sides in a simple manner. Vice Chair Lovell said that after reading the document, he has a
hard time understanding why anyone would support closed record appeals before the City Council. Board Member Reed
recalled that the document was helpful in the Board's previous discussions and was a key reason why they recommended 6-1
that a change be made. The City Council adopted the Board's recommendation by a vote of 4-3. However, this decision was
overturned by a new Council in 2010.
Mr. Clugston agreed to prepare draft code language for the upcoming public hearing before the Board on June 9tn
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Chave advised that he has been working with the Chair and Vice Chair to make minor tweaks to the extended agenda as
additional items come up. He complimented the Board for moving through the large number of items on their agenda.
Chair Bowman reminded the Board that they previously discussed a desire to hold a retreat as soon as possible. The Board
considered potential dates and directed staff to schedule the retreat for June 2nd at 6 p.m. in the Fourtner or Brackett Room of
City Hall.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Bowman did not have any additional comments at this point of the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Johnson announced that the Port of Edmonds would conduct a public open house on Wednesday, May 5th,
from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. in Building 2 at Harbor Square. Board Member Reed advised that the Port is considering the option
of applying for a rezone for the Harbor Square Property. If they move forward with a rezone, the issue would come before
the Board as a quasi-judicial public hearing. He cautioned the Board about the Appearance of Fairness Rules regarding
quasi-judicial hearings.
Board Member Johnson reported on her attendance at the April 21st Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC)
meeting, where each of the four subcommittees provided the following report:
• Strategic Planning and Visioning Subcommittee: This group is meeting weekly to develop a recommendation to the
City Council regarding why strategic planning is needed, what process should be developed, and what should be
included in the plan.
• Technology Subcommittee: This group is focusing their efforts on a business plan for the City's fiber optic capability.
• Land Use Subcommittee: This group has the responsibility of initiating neighborhood business center plans for Five
Corners and Westgate to position the areas to attract redevelopment. They will ask the City Council to retain a
consultant to work with City staff to facilitate a design and planning policy for the area that would result in forming
design standards and facilitating a review process by November 1st
• Tourism Subcommittee: The Google Corporation wants to invest a great deal of money in a super high-speed intemet
test case, and Edmonds is one potential site. The subcommittee went on a field trip to Portland and met with their
mayor, who said their sustainability program drives all decision making in their city.
Board Member Stewart said numerous people have expressed appreciation for Board Member Johnson's willingness to
attend the CEDC meetings on behalf of the Board. They appreciate the input she has provided, and feel it would be helpful
for the Board to provide a consistent Board representative to attend the meetings. Board Member Johnson said that although
she has not been appointed as a member of the CEDC, she serves as a Planning Board Liaison. She asked if it would be
appropriate for her to let the CEDC know of upcoming Planning Board hearings. The Board agreed that would be
appropriate.
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2010 Page 11
Packet Page 331 of 380
The Board concurred and Board Member Reed noted that the other alternatives would be available to the public as part of the
record.
UPDATE ON TITLE 20 PROCEDURES
Mr. Clugston reviewed that Title 20 was adopted by the City Council in June 2009. As staff has administered the new code
over the past several months, they have identified several areas that need further refinement. He advised that the proposed
amendments focus on the following:
• The majority of the changes are intended to better organize and/or clarify the language in an attempt to make it easier to
use and administer.
• While staff had originally felt it would be a good idea for applicant's to be responsible for providing notice, they have
found it difficult to get applicants to do the notices correctly. Staff now believes it would be appropriate for the City to
reassume the public noticing requirement, and they believe the change would result in a more efficient use of staff time
and ensure that notice is handled consistently.
• Staff found that a number of permit descriptions and types identified in the matrix in Section 20.01.003.A do not
actually exist in the City or they are called something else. They reviewed the chart and made changes to more
accurately describe the City's current processes.
Mr. Clugston referred to Section 20.01.000, which is a new section outlining the purpose and intent of Title 20. Staff
believes it is important to identify the purpose of Title 20 upfront.
Board Member Reed referred to the proposed amendments to the decision matrix and noted that all Type III -A decisions
have been eliminated from the matrix. Mr. Clugston agreed and explained that the City Council recently made the decision
to change the permits that were identified as Type III -A decisions to Type III-B decisions, allowing the applications to come
before the City Council for closed record reviews. He said staff tried to identify all the relevant permit types on the matrix,
but they may have missed some that could fit into the Type III -A category.
Board Member Reed explained that the City Council enacted an ordinance on January 5"' that placed the City Council back
into the decision -making process for certain items. These items were moved from Type III -A decisions to Type III-B
decisions. The procedures for Type III-B decisions were not changed; as currently written, there is a provision for closed
record reviews before the City Council.
Board Member Stewart referred to Section 20.07.005.H, which allows the City Council to determine whether a decision by a
hearing body/officer is clearly erroneous given the evidence in the record. After a closed record review, the City Council
could affirm, modify or reverse the decision accordingly. She asked if this process has always been the case in the City of
Edmonds. Mr. Clugston answered that this process was used previously by the City for many types of permits. When Title
20 was updated in June of 2009, a number of appeals were moved to the Hearing Examiner or Superior Court rather than to
the City Council. However, in a recent action, the City Council decided to once again assume this responsibility some types
of permits. Board Member Stewart asked if the City Council is in the position to do all of the necessary research to make an
informed decision. She observed that the Hearing Examiner puts a lot of time into the process, and it appears the new
process would allow his or her work to be undone too easily. Mr. Clugston advised that when amendments were presented
to the City Council in early 2009, the City Attorney advised that they should move away from having closed record appeals.
Instead, they should utilize the services of a Hearing Examiner (an independent body) to make these decisions. He recalled
that when Title 20 was approved in 2009, it was a very contentious issue. When the new City Council was put in place in
January 2010, this change was one of their first tasks.
Vice Chair Lovell referred to Section 20.07.006 and expressed his belief that the currently -approved process has the potential
of becoming quite a legal struggle. If the applicant or party of record does not like the City Council's decision, they can take
an issue to Superior Court for adjunctive relief. In these cases, the City Council would no longer be in the loop. Mr.
Clugston agreed the current process offers an additional level of judicial appeal. Vice Chair Lovell noted that the process
could be costly for either the City or the applicant. Chair Bowman agreed and said that was one of the Board's original
concerns when they forwarded their recommendation to the City Council in 2009.
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2010 Page 8
Packet Page 332 of 380
Board Member Cloutier asked staff to share information about how many appeals went to the City Council in the last several
years under the old Title 20 and what the outcomes were. He questioned if there were unsatisfactory outcomes that drove the
City Council to make a change in June of 2009. If so, he questioned if this information was conveniently forgotten when the
City Council made their most recent decision to go back to closed record reviews.
Mr. Clugston said that if the proposed changes appear reasonable to the Board, staff would prepare them in final form for a
public hearing in the near future. He agreed to provide information about appeals and their outcomes. The Board suggested
it would also be appropriate for staff to solicit information from other jurisdictions that use a similar review procedure. They
further requested information about the City Attorney's position on the matter.
Board Member Johnson suggested that because there are no permits listed in the Type III -A category, perhaps it could be
eliminated and Type III-B permits could be changed to Type III permits. Mr. Clugston agreed that could be possible, but he
suggested staff review the permit types again to make sure there are none that would fall within the Type III -A category
before it is eliminated. The Board agreed that if the Type III -A category is not used, it should be deleted.
DISCUSSION OF SIGN CODE (ECDC 20.60) RESTRICTIONS ON NUMBERS OF SIGNS PER SITE IN
COMMERCIAL ZONES
Mr. Clugston advised that the sign code was last updated three or four years ago, and the purpose of the current discussion is
to consider just one specific change to ECDC 20.60.025.A(4). He explained that, as currently written, the maximum number
of permitted permanent signs is three per site, or one per physically enclosed business space on commercial sites with
multiple business tenants, whichever is greater. In addition, the total sign area of all signs permitted on site must also comply
with the maximum total permanent sign area specified in the chapter. He advised that for a stand-alone business on a site by
itself, the maximum sign provision has been workable, allowing the business a total of three signs of whatever types are
permitted in the area. However, the provision has been difficult to implement in many instances on sites with multiple
tenants. While wanting to minimize the total number of signs at a multi -tenant site is not unreasonable, it is uncertain why
there is a difference between the number of signs allowed on an individual site as opposed to a multi -tenant site. He noted
there are a variety of design standards for signs in the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan to control the appearance
of individual signs in addition to the size and location requirements of Section 20.60. These standards apply to all business
and commercial sites. He said staff is recommending the Board consider the following two options:
Option 1. Remove the maximum number of permitted signs in business and commercial zones by striking ECDC
20.60.025.A(4). In this case, each business would have a maximum amount of sign area to divide up into the number of
signs they felt appropriate. The type, size and design of the signs would be limited by the provisions of ECDC 20.60
and the applicable design standards.
Option 2. Continue but extend the three signs rule to provide additional flexibility in how multi -tenant sites are
addressed. The maximum number of permitted permanent signs would be three per site, or three per physically -enclosed
business space on commercial sites with multiple business tenants. Multi -tenant sites would be allowed an additional
group sign identifying the individual subtenants at the site. This option would allow up to three signs per business
regardless of location and would provide for a directory -type sign for multi -tenant sites. The maximum total permanent
sign area allowed would not be changed.
Chair Bowman observed that commercial signs are fairly self limiting because of their cost. It is important that the City use
common sense when dealing with multi -tenant sites. He noted that if a change is implemented and found to be undesirable,
the Board could recommend additional changes to address the issues. He summarized that because of the high cost for signs
and the existing limitations on square footage, he felt comfortable with the either of the options proposed by staff. He noted
that temporary signs are the most significant concern in the downtown at this time. Mr. Clugston agreed that the Board will
need to address temporary signs at some point in the future, but the intent of the proposed change is to address permanent
signs on multi -tenant sites, only. He shared several examples of how the proposed new language could be applied to various
sites throughout the City.
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2010 Page 9
Packet Page 333 of 380
Why have the Council involved in quasi-judicial decision -making
I . The City Council is representative. As elected officials, City Councilmembers are theoretically
representative of their citizens' views and are best able to carry out their citizens' wishes.
2. The City Council is elected. If the Council makes poor decisions, the citizens can ultimately have
a direct impact on who their representatives are — or are not.
3. The City Council is the highest local authority. Decisions affecting land use and property should
be made by those with a "stake" in the town — i.e. by someone who lives there. City
Councilmembers all live in Edmonds.
4. The City Council can better monitor and understand how city regulations and policies interact
with specific land use decisions if they are able to see "first hand" what the issues are.
5. For an appeal, going to court is not an adequate substitute for going to the City Council. Going to
court costs more time and money (e.g. hiring an attorney) than going to a City Council meeting,
and this setting is more intimidating and less understandable to the average citizen. This would
make the appeal process less accessible to the average citizen.
Why the Council should not be involved
l . The actual latitude afforded a decision -maker is very limited. Quasi-judicial decisions must be
made according to adopted policies and regulations. Councilmembers can only make decisions
that are supported by the same rules that others would apply.
2. Freedom to discuss issues with citizens. If the Council is taken out of the quasi-judicial decision
process, individual citizens can discuss their concerns over a specific project or development
proposal with Councilmembers. Currently, that can only happen after -the -fact (after all decisions
and appeals have been exhausted), which limits accessibility of citizens to their elected officials.
3. Freedom to get involved in the details of public design projects. Currently, the City Council must
be careful how it gets involved in public projects, since these can end up on a Council agenda as
an appealed quasi-judicial decision (e.g. ADB decisions on the design of public buildings).
4. Quasi-judicial decisions must be decided professionally. Elected officials must be educated in and
understand the limits of their decision -making power and be careful to follow adopted rules and
regulations, not react to citizen wishes. The number of people on one side or the other of the issue
is irrelevant, contrary to the rules that may apply in a political process. It can be difficult to
explain this to a constituent who believes that their elected representative should decide according
to how the "majority" of the neighborhood feels.
5. Liability is a serious concern. The courts have increasingly come down hard on decision -makers
who do not properly make quasi-judicial decisions. City Councilmembers can be held personally
liable for their quasi-judicial decisions. Quasi-judicial decisions are best made by those
professionally trained to make them — according to existing rules.
6. The political process is complex and responds to different influences than are available — or are
relevant — in a quasi-judicial process. Political processes are most appropriate for dealing with
goals, policies, and regulations that can be developed and discussed in an open legislative forum.
7. Taking the City Council out of the appeal process for quasi-judicial decisions removes only one
intermediate step in the appeal process; going to court has always been available to a citizen as an
option. In many instances (especially the most controversial), attorneys are already involved in
the dispute, and having one less appeal hearing to attend could actually reduce attorney time (and
fees). Removing Council from the process does not reduce citizen involvement; public hearings
are still held — only the Council's limited, non -discretionary, on -the -record review is removed.
Attachment 1
Packet Page 334 of 380
0
0 0
LO Ln
00 *-
+- 00
0
O
O
O
i
O -t
r
Ln
�
�
U
0
o
N
CO
0
0)
=O cz
i
zQ 0)
Q
C) Q
m
o m
0
Q
Li
Q Q cn
\ o
0
00
O
N
0
N
`
o o
°
-.0 o°
-.0 -.0O
CDC
r m
M I-
C
O O
,It(D
CDr
OT
O
r 00
C
4 L6
00
C
CT
0 -.-0 -.,0
-.-0\
o o\
-.-0 -0-0 -,0
-0-000
N
d'
G
r0-)q
C
O CD°O
O
q
CCD
CD CD r
7
Ln
r
T
r CO
r 00
T
O CD
CDN
GD
r
70
LO
r
-a
CO r
N Cl)
r 00 0)
LO OD N
r CD
04
I4
C
fC
i
C)
0
DTI-
C
O
o N o
r 4 LO r l0 r 00 0A N CD N O CD LO LO
d r Cl) d
N
CD _ CO
m •
C
.LM
i
Q
0) —
4) —
0 —
�
Q N
Q O)
a)
Q O)
Q Q
Q Q
fl
QCyi
>
>
>�
o T 6
0 T)
o o
l.,
t::_
Q
Q D>
Q D O
H
Q D> O
�
O
V U
O O
p
C C
C C
~
O O
E E
Q
C) V
U U
X K
_
O
w w
o
O
o o
U U
c
ai
o_
LLI W
�
U-
U U
2 2
2 2
C7
Packet Page 335 of 380
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
O O C O O O
T O CO (O V N
O
O
O
o6
w
@
U
a'
r
C
O O
E U
O U
E
E
w
a)
U,
c
@
J
O
O
co
w
m
U
d
PA
O O O O O O O
C C C O C O O
(f3 fA Qs l fA fH fA fH
Attachment 2
Packet Page 336 of 380
0
>; I:t
�o
4) ti
_0 LO
W
N
vI
O
AM'
,CD^
uJ
L
CO
_0 LO
=
J N
GGI
00
CO
N
o�
'
�
U) coo
U N
o
r
a �
ti
CO
cM
N �
00
d•
Gc�
O
V/ M
Q) \N'
N
0-�
x LO
wti
COo
w-T--
a) 61>
J
CO
U
CO
O0 U LO
CU L f J
Ear
w
N LO
O�
OCO
06 � w
Packet Page 337 of 380
c
0
Eti
�rn
600
cc
00
N
0O (
N
U
N �
a) �
U
a)
(PI
m
4)
F-
Packet Page 338 of 380
9�b
m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N O 00 O It N
Ef} EfJ Ef3
Packet Page 339 of 380
c o 0 0
O O O O O O
O 00 to d N
il�
00
ro
J N
O
ro
� O
N C
() O
C t;
O_ N
�0
N a-)
�
E u
O O.
X
W
Packet Page 340 of 380
0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 1� (O LO It M N
a)
CO
0
a>
a�
TV
_Of
Packet Page 341 of 380
J
Il
MI.J.
Idw
a
1Ow
S4
t�
w
O
-'
Attachment 3
Packet Page 342 of 380
Cn
U)
O
Oo
LL
4)
�
4-
O
O
■
U
\
UI
■
■
. ®
co�(/o
p
(n
U)
p
p
p
06
Packet Page 343 of 380
I
uy- �: Cn(n Cn.— 0.— 70 Cn Cn 0
C6�
Cu ,_ Cu
1� 4-a -4--j E
w
Packet Page 344 of 380
I
Q.
O
O
(j
4
�
.� O
U)
U
U O
N
C
N
C
C3)
C
O
O
>+
X
.E O
NC
C
O
uj Cu
C
E
C
C
.0
`2
E
-O N
O
O
�
O
�'
.0
a)a)
a)
:3
®
m
Cn
�+
C:
(Y
CU
U
UCn
OFL
Cu
U
O
.Cu
Cn
:3
O
.� Cn
�
U
O
-w
=
a)N
Cn
�
�
Cu
O
�
O
� �
N
. L
U
Cu
a
E
-I--r
/0
U
A `
x
tu
�
i
.�
>
N
t6
O
a)L-
COp
_
-1--+
^N^``
L
A
�1�)
�
�
Q
V/
Q
L
m
C�
.Q
W
n
W
Packet Page 345 of 380
w
C/)
75
w�
v
4-
O '>
►�
Cn
E
c
:
•—
a)
•�
O
-?'
v
Cn a)
ON
0- a CnO
N Cn O
0
N
0O
� L
O
N
C
'
®
U
N N
>+
U
to
.>
4 N
�
4- = ®
L
�
.Q
to
CO
> '�
® • L, L
O O
N
�
to
Cr
D. ®
?�
0
O
to
�
L
O >
>
L
�
N
•(�
0) U) ®
(6 �.
= �L
�
-M
N
U
C
_ Q
N CL
Cl)®
. to
X
• X CO
-
O
v
CuO
O L
-a
� O
4-
V
>
Vol
=
°
U
U)
•E
Q� o
a)
�
L
O
°
E
Cu .}' E
�
a)6
� -1--+
Cu
Cu
Cn
CL
®
U) L
V
>.
-�
in
L
O
> Q
�
O
�
'_
.®
U Cu
> O o
a)
O O
Cr
L
a)Cu
a)
®'
E
0
Cu
-Q O _
,XE
Packet Page 346 of 380
e
9
■U
■
I
■
N
C `)
V
ULu
A.
A
Packet Page 347 of 380
w
■
mo
m
■
® I
a)
n
C
0
---+
.+�
CO
v
m
0
■
0
(\w,, 1/
UE
c:
.C:
X
0
■
0
0
w
>
Packet Page 348 of 380
i>>
�
C6
U
CU
Packet Page 349 of 380
U)
U
N
i
LL
4
0
U
C
(1
Q
i
PY
0!.-N
* 10
WI I
Packet Page 350 of 380
W 1
Packet Page 351 of 380
U)
a)
O
I,
L:J
•
I
FM
•
•
I
Packet Page 352 of 380
es
I
lb
I
•
•
9
Im
M
•
• U ■
I
v
�
v
-0
m
acket Page 353 of 380
CU
0
®�
U
0
U
X
�W\ui
V�
0
°
4'
A
N0
•
f�a
V
X
W
Packet Page 354 of 380
U)
(U))
W
f
i
■
L
O
a)
C)
C
C
tt3
a
Q
QL
I
l
cn
—
®
O
E
O
y—
Packet Page 355 of 380
9
\U)
pur
CR
Y /
w
O
' ^
v ,
.E
L
O
U
Q
•�
ii
®
�j
Packet Page 356 of 380
4-I
CU
O
0
U)
U)
ff
s
LL
O
•
1
•
-
Cr
-
•
•
•
•
•
,
•
•LO
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
,
'
•
1
•
•
•
•
,
M a) 'E r
1J -� � 0 () • U W
U � V a) 4-- -0 a
U U Q O
U
it
Packet Page 357 of 380
y
UU)
a)
a)
},
M.
a)
U/
4-a
U)
C
`
U
0
U
t
is
�
O
0
CIO
■
®
�J
CO
0
(�
L
.0
V
Cn
U
Cn
v
Packet Page 358 of 380
`J
Packet Page 359 of 380
Packet Page 360 of 380
AM-3292
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/16/2010
Time: 30 Minutes
Submitted By: Lorenzo Hines
Department: Finance
Review Committee
Committee: Action:
Type: Information
Information
Item #: 8.
Subject Title
Discussion regarding Snohomish County PUD franchise and potential cooperation on fiber
installation.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For information only
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
The Snohomish County PUD is planning to install fiber optic cable, to reinforce their grid, within the city
limits of Edmonds. We would like to discuss the background and potential cooperative actions with the
Snohomish County PUD that might benefit the city and it's current fiber network.
Letter to SCPUD
Attachments
Fnrm RvviPw
Inbox
Reviewed By
Date
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
08/12/2010 03:04 PM
Finance
Sandy Chase
08/12/2010 03:16 PM
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
08/12/2010 03:16 PM
Mayor
Mike Cooper
08/12/2010 04:25 PM
Final Approval
Sandy Chase
08/12/2010 05:33 PM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines
Started On: 08/12/2010 02:52 PM
Final Approval Date: 08/12/2010
Packet Page 361 of 380
BEN
PY
R "UY
ffEACE
P.L.L.(
A T T 0 R N.E Y S AT
L A W
W. Scott Snyder
ssnyder@omwCazv.conz
August 11, 2010
Anne Spangler, General Counsel
Snohomish County PUD
2320 California Street
P. O. Box 1107
Everett WA 98206-1107
RE: Edmonds / Snohomish County PUD
Dear Anne:
Nice meeting you and speaking with the PUD contingent Monday.
I am writing to follow up regarding two inter -related issues. Mr. Klein expressed concern
regarding the hold up on five recent permit applications. I raised the issue of the expiration in
1967 of the only electric distribution franchise ever approved by the City and accordingly access
to the City's blanket/expedited permit procedures. My understanding is that Jennifer Lambert,
Engineering Technician, responded to the permit requests at issue with a request of her own for
information, asking under what authority the application was made. A copy of her e-mail is
enclosed. The two issues may be inter -related. It is also my understanding that staff in Edmonds
has been awaiting a reply to her question and that the lack of response is the basis for the current
hold up.
My understanding based on our conversation yesterday is that the PUD's installation of fiber is
solely for the purpose of providing a platform for a "smart grid" and is therefore a component of
the PUD's electrical distribution system. My notes indicate that that Mr. Klein was emphatic
that the fiber would not be used for telecommunication purposes and indeed could not, due to
bond covenants limiting the use of funds generated to governmental purposes. I took that to
mean that telecommunication services like broadband, a proprietary as opposed to governmental
function, would be barred by the terms of the borrowing. If I have garbled the message, please
correct me. If my summary is inexpertly worded but otherwise accurate, I would appreciate a
copy of as much of the relevant bond covenant or borrowing limitation as is available as public
information. That information will help address the initial reason for Ms. Lambert's inquiry —
the PUD's authority. If the installation is a part of the PUD's electric distribution system, then
the fiber is being installed as a part of the PUD's basic mission and would be covered by an
electronic distribution franchise. The City has other nonexclusive franchises for triple play
Established 1902
A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide
Seattle, WA 98101-1686 206.4477000 • Fax: 206.447.0215 • Web: www.amwlaw.com
Packet Page 362 of 380
Anne Spangler, General Counsel
August 11, 2010
Page 2
networks with Verizon and Comeast-----if the PUD is not seeking to enter that market, a
telecommunications franchise would not be required.
However the issue of a franchise to operate an electronic distribution system in the City's right of
way remains. RCW 80.32.010 provides that the City has the right to grant (and therefore the
right to require) a franchise for the use of its right of way for electrical transmission. (As an
aside, a different statute RCW 80.36.040 authorizes the City to franchise telecommunications
facilities, hence Ms. Lambert's inquiry). Because of the age of the statute, a number of archaic
procedural requirements attach, such as referendurn requirements. RCW 80.32.040. Given your
expertise in the field of PUD law, I would appreciate your thoughts —are there other statutes or
case law that control over these provisions?
As the enclosed documents indicate, it appears that our clients have in the past referred to the
City's Ordinance 259 as the basis for inclusion of the PUD in the city's blanket, expedited permit
procedures. As I indicated yesterday, the ordinance/franchise expired on its face in 1967, Even
assuming that the PUD is the successor in interest to the former franchisee, a new franchise is
required.
As our clients look for ways to cooperate to get the most tax/rate payer bang for the tax/rate
dollar, this seems like a good time to clean up the issue of the lack of a franchise. I take Mr.
Klein's point that extra charges or impositions may be passed on to the rate payer. At this point I
do not have explicit direction or negotiating authority regarding the terms of a franchise and
what if any consideration the city council may deem appropriate in a new franchise agreement.
I look forward to the initiation of a process and negotiation to obtain a franchise for the PUD and
to remove any obstacles to its use of the expedited permit procedures for its upcoming
installations. I trust that staff communications regarding the ways that our clients can cooperate
in the installation of fiber facilities will also move forward to identify routes and construction
time tables. The Mayor will designate contacts such as Messrs. Williams and Nelson to carry
that effort forward. Mr. Nelson also indicates that he received a ,positive follow up from Mr.
I-leimgarten regarding the potential for cooperation on route and installation. Mr. I-Ieimgarten's
prompt response is much appreciated.
I look forward to your response.
Very truly yours,
n,
OGD1N MURPI-lY WALLACE, PLLC
W. Scott �,nyder
WSS/gjz
Enclosures
tWSS810320.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
Packet Page 363 of 380
W. Scott Snyder
From: Lambert, Jennifer Bennifer.lambert@ci.edmonds.wa.usj
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 10:06 AM
To: SNStangvik@SNOPUD.com
Cc: English, Robert; Miller, Noel; Nelson, Carl; McConnell, Jeanie
Subject: Fiber Optics
Steve,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us on Wednesday to discuss fiber optics. Please let me know if there is any
information that the city can provide to PUD to help come to a resolution for partnership between PUD and the City of
Edmonds regarding fiber optics.
Also, can you please site and/or provide the legal documentation that permits you to have fiber within the City of
Edmonds? The pre-existing franchise agreement between PUD and the City of Edmonds allows electrical facilities within
the right-of-way, but does include provisions for communication facilities.
Thank you for your help,
Jennifer Lambert
Engineering Technician
City of E(fin 011(15
425-771-0220 ext 1321
j e n n i fer.la nz berme i. ed m on d s.wa. us
Packet Page 364 of 380
of the building Committee of the City Coureil.
SECTIOU 4: Any person or corporation, whether owner,contrac-
n� tor, agent or builder, or any other person who shall violate any
Q/r of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed gai.lty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum
not exceeding ore hundred ($100.00) dollars.
SECTIO11, 5: Any building, or any addition to any building,con--
i4truoted contrary to the provisions and terms of this Ordinance
r shall be deemed a nuisance and may be abated as such by the proper
officers of the City of Edmonds in accordance with ordinance and
laws governing such cases.
SEOTIOV 6: Ordinance I,o.176 of the City of Edmonds enacted
on the 18th day of February 1909, and all other Ordinances, or
parts of Ordina:rees in conflict hexewith are hereby repealed.
Approved by the Mayor of the City of Edmonds, Snohomish
County, Washington, this 14th day of February, 1917.
Attest: J.T.McElroy,City Clerk. J.A.Robertson, Mayor.
Published.
I, J.T.McElroy, City Clerk of the City of Edmonds, do hereby
certify that the foregoing ordinance. Po.293 is a correct and true
copy of the Ordinance as passed by the Council of the City of Ed-
monds or the 14th flay of February,1917. J.T.AlcElroy,city, Clerk.
ORDINATIOE P0.297.
0 I 6q ELECTRIC FRZCHISE, CITY OF EDMOEDS, WASHIT,GTOr-
t� Being an ordinance granting unto the Washington Coast Utilities
of Edmonds, Washington, and to their legal successors in interest,
(r, the right and authority to erect and maintain poles and crossarms
l� thereon within the City of Edmords, to stretch wires on said poles
and crossarms for the trarsmisaion of electrical currents; to furn-
ish electrical currents to the said City of Edmonds and the inhabi-
tants. thereof for the production of lights, heat and power and for
any and all other purposes and uses to which electrical currents
pan or may be put; and to charge reasonable rates to the consum-
ers of said electrical current.
Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Edmonds:
4 SEOTIOY 1: That there be, and hereby is, grarted to the gash
irgton Coast utilities of Edmonds, Washington, and to its legal
successors in interest, the right, privilege, and authority for 1% %
and during a period of fift _h,) years from the date of the pass-
ge of this Or inenee, and. subject to all the conditions and pro-
r visions thereof, to locate, erect, place, and maintain and use in
Avenues, Streets, lanes, alleys, highways and public parks and
grounds within the said City of Edmonds, and the extensions of
all Avenues, streets, lanes, alleys, highways, and public parks
and grounds which may hereafter be made and extended, and all
Avenues, Streets, lanes, alleys, highways and public parks and
grounds which may hereafter be laid out or dedicated to the public
in said City of Edmonds, poles with crossarms and thereon to faster
wires and appliances and to stretch said wires along, scross and
through said Avenues, Streets, lanes, alleys, highways and public
parks and grounds for the use of thereby transmitting, distribut-
irg and furnishirg to consumers thereof electrical currents for
the production of light, heat and power and for any and all purpo--
sea and uses to which electrical current can or may be put throughO
out the said Gity of Edmonds, and of charging reasonable rates to
the consumers of said. electrical current. All poles to be placed
in locations satisfactory to and under the supervision of the pro-
per authorities of said City of Edmonds.—"
SECTION 2: That the grant hereby made is intended to, and
does,include any, all and evexy part of the Streets, Avenues,lanes,
'y! I,JSalleys, highways and public parks and grounds of said City* of Ed--
�t rAonds as now laid out, platted and dedicated, and all Avenues,
4 streets, lanes, alleys,highways, and public parks and grounds that
may hereafter be laid out and dedicated within the now limits of
said Gity of Edmonds and the limits thereof as the same may here -
Packet Page 365 of 380
1. k.r it.
after be extended to, and all Avenues, Streets, lanes, alleys,
highways, and public parks and grounds as now platted and the ex-
tensions and continuations of the same and on lines thereof, whethEr
the same shall, be projected and extended in their pow names or not.
SECTIOD 3: That whenever it shall be necessary, in the erec-
tion of said poles, to take up any portion of the sidewalks or to(C./Y'w,
dig up the ground at or near the sides or corners of any of the T,n ua
said Avenues, Streets, alleys, lanes, or highways or within said _A�t` �`r
public parks or grounds, then the said Washington Coast Utilities ,C-
or its successors in interest shall, after such pales are erected,
without delay, replace such sidewalks and properly refit the
stringers and planks thereof or replace any other kind of sidewalk.
in a r.eat and workmanlike manner and remove from such Streets,
Avenues, alleys, lanes, highways, or public parks and grounds all
rubbish, sand, dirt or other materials that may have been placed
there, taken up or dug up in the erection of said poles and shall
restore such sidewalks, streets, Avenues, lanes,alleys, highways,
or public grounds to as good condition as they were in before being
taken up, dug up or disturbed.
SECTIOP 4: That all rights, privileges, authority, and fran- %v �;
chiles herein and hereby conferred upon and granted to said Wash-a"101,
ington Coast Utilities and to its legal successors in interest, >,
shall continue and be in force for fifty (50) years from acid after,h
the date of the passage of this Ordinance, subject to the condi-
tions and provisions herein contained.
SECTIOY 6: That the said Washington Coast Utilities and its I
legal successors in interest covenant to iandemnify the said City offv /1
Edmonds for any injury arising from any casualty or accident to
parsons or property by reason of any neglect or omission to keep
such poles and wires in a safe condition and to defend all claim'e
against said City for damages cause& by such poles or wires or by
any electrical currents conducted thereby.
SECTION 6: That nothing contaired herein shall be construed Wp two,
as, granting to the Washington Coast Utilities and its legal succes-&,yr, any
sore in interest the right or authority to stretch wires over or (r,
attach wires to the roof of any building for the purpose of conduct--G
ing electrical currents, not erect poles upon or stretch wires a-
cross private property without first obtaining permission from the
.owner or agent of said building or property so to do.
SECTION WA
That unless the said Washington Coast Utilities
or its successors in interest shall, within sixty (60) day; from Jlt
� �
and after the passage and approval of this Ordinance, file with uW
the Clerk of the City of Edmonds, its acceptance of the Franchise
herein granted, subject to all the conditions and provisions hereir,
and a surrender of all Tights acquired by said grar..tee under and
by virtue of that certain pranchise heretofore grar:ted to the
Edmonds Electric Tight and Pawer Company, under Ordinance Iio.
this Ordinance shall be void.
SECTIOE B: That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force from and after five (6) days after its passage, approval and
publication according to law.
Passed the City Council, of the City of Edmonds, Snohomish
County, Washington, in regular session this 19th day of December
1917, and approved by me the same date.
Attest: J.T.IMcEiroy, City Clerk. J.A.1?oberteon, :dayor.
I hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and
correct copy of Ordinance i<o.297 of the City of Edmonds, Mash.
J.T.IAcElroy, City Clerk.
y: :k :�: t x a: :r: r: +•: Y: v. y: ;.: ;.: :+:nc �: *
ORD11 OI CE L' 0. 3052
Axe Ordinance regulating the conduct of pool rooms, card rooms,��'
and billiard halls in the City of Edmonds, and prohibiting the owner ;
keeper, agent or manager, of such places from allowing or permittixg �J
Packet Page 366 of 380
Inc 189",
CITY OF EDMONDS GARYHAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building - Engineering
CITY OF EDMONDS
COLLECTIVE & CONSOLIDATED BLANKET PERMIT POLICY
for
PUGET SOUND ENERGY,
A T & T CABLE SERVICES,
GTE NORTHWEST INCORPORATED,
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER & SEWER DISTRICT and
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1
This olic shall ap 1 onl to utilities with valid franchise a regiments. Through authority vested in the City
Engineer from such documents as Ordinance 2346, Franchise Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Puget Sound
Energy and Ordinance 3083, Franchise Agreement between the City of Edmonds and A T & T Cable Services (formerly
Chambers Cable Company) and Ordinance 1780, Franchise Agreement between the City of Edmonds and GTE Northwest
Incorporated and Ordinance 297, Franchise Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Snohomish County Public Utility
District No. 1, this policy is deemed effective from the date of issuance through December 31, 2000. This policy is effective
only within the corporate limits of the City for work done in conjunction with right-of-way, street use and other similar permits.
No procedures established by this policy or actions taken hereunder shall vest any continuing right in any franchisee. The
provisions of the policy are intended to supersede existing procedures only to the extent that the existing procedures are
specifically contradicted herein. All other procedures shall remain in full force and effect. Cancellation of the policy on
December 31, 2000 shall not void any permit then in effect and such permit shall be continued for the period for which it was
issued. The City shall, however, have the right to terminate this policy for cause as provided below.
Permit Types
Type "A" -- Work performed under pre -approved conditions (Blanket Permitted Work).
Type "B" — Work performed requiring specifec review and approval (Major Activities).
Type "C" — Work performed requiring no permits to be issued (Minor Activities).
Type "D" — Work performed under pre -approved conditions (Annual Blanket Permitted Work).
Tyne "A" -- Blanket Permitted Work:
1. Underground installations of direct buried wires, conduits and similar secondary services for distances less than
one hundred (100) lineal feet within City right-of-way.
2. Aerial replacement of poles, wires and like facilities where no facilities replaced exceed the 10% rule per
ordinance.
3. Asphalt and/or concrete cuts within the right-of-way of pavement seven (7) years old or older.
Type "BT"— Major Activities:
1. Any and all underground facilities including, but not limited to, primary/feeder services and distribution
systems, water mains, gas mains and their associated appurtenances such as manholes, vaults, valves and like
facilities.
2. Aboveground installations of facilities and their appurtenances exceeding the 10% requirement as described per
ordinance including, but not limited to, pedestals, cabinets, hydrants, transformers, poles, towers and other like
facilities.
3. Installation or maintenance work on state highways, arterial roadways, major collector roadways and/or
roadway sections and intersections creating disrupted traffic flows and disruption to general public safety.
4. Asphalt and/or concrete cuts within the right-of-way of pavement less than seven (7) years old.
5. Any activity that requires trimming or removal of street trees or trees in a public park. 2 1
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 ' f
Packet Page 367 of 380 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Tyne "C" -- Minor Activities:
Maintenance operations such as, but not limited to, the following shall be considered incidental to the day to day
operations of the utility and shall not require a Right -of -Way Construction Permit of either type.
• Inspections
• Storm and outage repairs
• Street light repairs
• Response to customer complaints
• Emergency work
Tyne "D" --Annual Blanket Permitted Work:
The following Maintenance operations are incidental to the day to day operations of the utility but require one annual
blanket Right -of -Way Construction Permit each year. .Provide at least two weeks notification prior to any tree or
vegetation maintenance adjacent to City or County owned property.
• Normal and routine tree and vegetation maintenance.
Conditions pf T e "A" Permits. As long as the utility has a valid franchise agreement, Type "A" permits require no
review or approval of work by the City Engineer. Work shall be performed to City standards and specifications and under
conditions set forth in all City codes. For tracking of work performed under Type "A" Permits, an e-mail shall be sent prior to
10 AM of each working day listing the addresses of work to be performed that day. No work shall be performed under the
blanket policy prior to notification via e-mail. Such permits shall have an expiration date of 120 days after issuance.
Conditions of lype "B" Permits. Type "B" permits require review and prior approval of work by the City Engineer.
Work shall be performed to City standards and specifications and under conditions set forth in all City codes as well as any
requirements set forth in addition, as specified by the City Engineer. For tracking of work performed under Type "B" permits,
an a -mail shall be sent prior to 10 AM of each working day listing the addresses of work to be performed that day. Type "B"
permits typically have an expiration date of sixty (60) days after issuance.
Payment. Payment for permitted work shall be invoiced quarterly by the City. The invoice amount shall be calculated
by totaling each separate use of right-of-way over a three (3) month period.
Termination For Cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this collective and consolidated policy for cause at
any time, and either the policy or any permit issued hereunder may be terminated due to the failure of any franchisee to comply
with any written term of this policy or an incorporated standard or code condition. Termination shall be effective immediately
upon written notification. Written notification shall be deemed accepted within forty-eight (48) hours of the date such
notification is deposited, post paid, in the U.S. mail to the address shown on the franchisee's franchise agreement or permit
application. Written notification shall terminate any and all permits then outstanding.
Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The franchisees applying for issuance of a blanket permit promise to hold
harmless and indemnify the City from any and all liability arising from or out of the issuance of such blanket permit. The
indemnification and hold harmless provided in the underlying franchise agreement shall remain in full force and effect
provided, however, that both indemnification provisions shall be subject to the same terms and conditions set forth in the
underlying franchise document. By way of illustration but not limitation, such limitation shall include such provisions as are
included in Ordinances 2346, 3083, 1780, 297 and the said Agreement to Reaffirm and Ratify the Existing Agreement with
Olympic View Water & Sewer District, dated the 11"' day of January 1999 and other Cityfranchise documents.
fh a
This policy has been posted and copies mailed to City franchisees on the day of CGa/t,C 2000.
It shall be effective as to any franchisee when a copy has been duly executed, is acknowledged by a franchisee and returned to
the City Engineer in care of the City Clerk, 121 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020.
By direction of:
�A�.Tsc.Walker, P.E.
City Engineer
Packet Page 368 of 380 Page 2
Blanket permit policy accepted by:
Fg • Pug Soun {,nergy Date
c
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF SNOff0hiffiH )
Kt1sC�
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that �os��N V. .�A l '� is the person who
appeared before me and said person acknowledged that lie/she was authorized to execute the instrument and
acknowledged it as lvl40IQPAL kA^1f3 P4 NNE of R%.ET 6A94wo to be the free and
voluntary act and deed of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument.
DATED: M AY 15w, 'a 00 0
'Q �i
O•`�gi0rtii" •
•+:
.* "0rIQ7
(Signature)
YAI���
u .+
r
I C.1-(�'J LY•� 5 �- FI-c�2 o S
Na: � :,..y PUBLIC •.
�0�.
(Print Name)
OF5i ... �.`
NOTARY PUBLIC
My appointment expires:
Blanket permit polic acc y:
I+ R: A T & T Cable Services
Date
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) as
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Z_e_ S r is the person who
appeared before me and said person acknowledged that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and
taL
acknowledged it as r �u'�Sc of rr r GGf«� ` to be the free and
voluntary act and deed of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument.
DATED: .' 6y 0
(Si nature) >>
V'-�ji A) �_ tr'�Ex 2�2�.Gli�
(Print Name)
NOTARY PUBLIC
My appointment expires:
Page 3
Packet Page 369 of 380
Blanket permit policy accepted by:
FOR: GTE Northwest, Incorporate
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
.:.4 414" ) ss
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
appeared before yne and said pe so acknowIMP'
ged that.
acknowledged it as�.�ik•�P.C, l't P ato�
voluntary act and deed of such party for the uses and purposes
Date
h -#J 441 sd It/ is the person who
was autho ized to execute the instrument and
'�f: d �rM-4 to be the free and
mentioned ifs this instrument.
DATED: / 11 U 0
Q' Sc,10 NE S�
(Sig ature)
jARY
s /
'0 (Print Name)
NOTARY PUBLIC
rF OF W Psi
My appointment expires:
Bla et permit policy accepted
/2
FOR: Olympic View Water is
' t Date
STATE OF WASHINGTON }
) ss
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that /?0q er r �aP / is the person who
appeared before mp and said perso i acknowledgeda tthat he sl was autl orized to/ execute the instrument and
acknowledged it ast4.2 1314.0 , �� nyLT- 01 r r of T o K/W0005 to be the free and
voluntary act and deed of such party for the uses an4 purposes mentioned in khis instrument.
DATED: ';�y a 0 4
(Si ature)
(Print Name)
NOTARY PUBLIC
My appointment expires:
0G/0 9/0 o
Packet Page 370 of 380 Page 4
Blanket permit policy accepted b
S.. 9,. o0
FOR: Snohomish County Publi tility District No. 1 Date
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that �C ff' Ht f#-AJ IV C & • is the person who
appeared before erne and said person acknowledged that he/sht—was authorized to execute the instrument and
acknowledged it as of to be the free and
voluntary act and deed of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument.
U �OJ AR Y z
5 xa a N� 9OA (Ii
GAF aF �� P��
DATED: /- l 4 9__
--,�
L. v�z &VV
(Print ame)
NOTARY PUBLIC
My appointment expires:
c:u�ynfl�fL'li1#'�`Oao� Page 5
AM-3290 Item #: 9.
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/16/2010
Time: 15 Minutes
Submitted By: Sandy Chase
Department: City Clerk's Office
Review Committee
Committee: Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Report on City Council Committee Meetings of August 10, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached are copies of the following City Council Committee Meeting Minutes:
•08-10-10 Community Services/Development Services Committee Minutes
•08-10-10 Finance Committee Minutes
•08-10-10 Public Safety Committee Minutes
08-10-10 CSDS Committee Minutes
08-10-10 Finance Committee Minutes
08-10-10 Public Safety Committee Minutes
Inbox
Mayor
Final Approval
Form Started By: Sandy Chase
Final Approval Date: 08/12/2010
A ttarhmPntc
Form Review
Reviewed By Date
Mike Cooper 08/12/2010 04:24 PM
Sandy Chase 08/12/2010 05:33 PM
Started On: 08/12/2010 02:14 PM
Packet Page 372 of 380
Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting
August 10, 2010
Elected Officials Present:
Council Member Strom Peterson, Chair
Council Member Petso
The committee convened at 6:17 p.m.
Staff Present:
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Brian McIntosh, Parks Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Stephen Clifton, CS/Econ Dev Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
A. Continued discussion regarding a proposed "Tree Board."
Barbara Tipton, Rich Senderoff, and Ann Heckman participated in the discussion, explaining that
the benefits and purpose of establishing a tree board are outlined in the draft ordinance. A major
purpose is to move the city toward obtaining the Tree City USA designation, since having a tree
board is a necessary requirement for obtaining that status. The ordinance does not introduce any
new regulations or requirements beyond what the city is already doing, but the designation would
enable the city to seek funding to help in researching and promoting the benefits of trees in the
community. The tree board could also serve as a resource the city could draw on.
The Committee also briefly discussed existing penalties for tree cutting, and agreed to discuss this
subject further at the September meeting.
ACTION: The Committee agreed to forward the draft ordinance to the City Attorney to put in final
form for consideration for adoption by the full Council.
B. Removing leashed dog restrictions in Hutt Park and the asphalt areas of Brackett's
Landing north and south of the ferry terminal.
Brian McIntosh explained that the proposal to extend provisions to allow dogs to be on -leash in Hutt
Park came about at the April 20, 2010 public hearing in regard to a similar discussion for five other
park areas in the City. Three of those parks were recommended to become on -leash (with
restrictions) and Council decided not to extend that recommendation to Brackett's Landing North &
South. As Hutt Park was not part of the public hearing, it was decided to take this to Council
Committee as the next step.
Council President Bernheim tonight spoke in favor of extending the on -leash areas to both
Brackett's Landing North & South Parks adjacent to the ferry terminal. Consensus of the Committee
was to move forward with the proposal for Hutt Park but deny the request to extend on -leash
provisions to the Brackett's Landing parks.
ACTION: As this action would result in a code change, the Committee agreed thet it should
be forwarded to full Council as a public hearing at a future date.
Packet Page 373 of 380
CS/DS Committee Minutes
August 10, 2010
Page 2
C. Discussion on possible 'green' initiatives and zoning clarifications for downtown business
zones.
Rob Chave introduced the discussion by explaining that there are several items staff wishes to
initiate to clean up in the existing downtown BD zones, such as the required depth of commercial
uses, the zoning requirements along the 41" Avenue Arts Corridor, and clarifying where the
commercial street frontages are outside of the BD1 zone. In addition, Stephen Clifton reported that
staff has been fielding inquiries from major private interests on zoning requirements related to
downtown; these interests range from individual property owners to developers of hotels and other
projects. In all cases, concern has been expressed about working within existing code requirements.
In light of the city's adoption of its sustainability element, staff considers it a good time to see
whether Council would be receptive to including incentives in the code that would promote features
such as green building projects (LEED Gold being an example), expanded open space and sidewalk
areas, or other amenities that would improve downtown streetscape and design. Additional height
was noted as being something developers have asked about, and that small, carefully situated
height bonuses implemented as part of a project -specific negotiated development agreement
approved by Council, could be something that staff and the Council could develop within the code.
Council Member Peterson noted that this could be something that fits well with the city's economic
development goals, as well as showing leadership in sustainability and green development. Council
Member Petso expressed support for including green development standards within the code as a
basic requirement, but said she did not support trading environmental benefits for any increases in
height or other incentives.
The Committee discussed the approach of asking the full Council to discuss the issue, or allow the
Economic Development Commission to work with the Climate Committee and/or Planning Board to
develop some ideas that could be brought back to the Committee for further discussion.
ACTION: The Committee agreed to forward the staff recommended minor BD zone updates
(review of the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor zoning and street frontage mapping) to the Planning
Board for review. The Committee also forwarded the commercial depth requirements to the
Planning Board, asking the Board to review the existing depth for the BD1 zone along with
the other BD zones; the Committee expressed doubt that the existing 30-foot depth in the
BD1 zone is adequate to encourage sustainable commercial use.
ACTION: The Committee agreed to forward the issue of code incentives and/or requirements
for sustainable development downtown to the EDC and Climate Committee to develop
further, with ideas brought back to the Committee for further review and discussion.
D. Proposed 8th Ave South pathway south of Alder Street.
Rob English (City Engineer) presented Mr. Adams' proposal to build a pathway between 802 and
724 Alder St. in the unimproved 8th Ave right of way. The pathway would begin at Alder St and
continue to the existing path on the south half of the 8th Ave right of way between Alder and Walnut
Streets. Mr. Adams has offered to hire and pay a contractor to construct the path. The conceptual
drawing submitted by Mr. Adams was shown to the committee.
The history on previous City Council action related to the possible vacation of 8th Ave and the
pathway between Alder and Walnut Streets was discussed. In November 2005, the City Council
Packet Page 374 of 380
CS/DS Committee Minutes
August 10, 2010
Page 3
decided not to pursue the vacation of 8th Ave and in February 2006, the City Council directed staff
to build only the south half of the pathway between Alder and Walnut Streets.
The Committee recognized and asked for comments from Mr. and Mrs. Martin who own 724 Alder
St. The Martins explained their observations of how the path is used by citizens and how they
believe a new pathway is not necessary. They also expressed that Mr. Adams is one of four
property owners adjacent to the unopened 8th Ave right of way between Alder and Walnut Streets
and he is the only owner in favor of constructing the proposed pathway.
ACTION: The Committee voted to not proceed with Mr. Adams' request to construct the
proposed pathway.
Packet Page 375 of 380
Finance Committee Minutes
August 10, 2010
Attending: Council Members: Bernheim, Buckshnis and Plunkett, Staff members: Phil Williams, Rob English, and
Leonard Yarberry. Public: Roger Hertrich.
Meeting started 6:15 p.m. and ended at 7:00 p.m.
Item A — Hearing Examiners Contract.
Council President Bernheim did a presentation that the following cities utilize the same hearing examiner and pay an
hourly rate of $120 to $140 an hour: Maple Valley $120 since 8/06 and not to exceed $50K; Everett 2/09 $120 hr to
$10K max; Fife $120 hr since 2/07; Enumclaw $140 hr since 12/07 and Redmond $140 hr since 12/09. We pay retainer
of $3.51K a month and to date Edmonds has not had enough services to make the contract revenue neutral (i.e. $-35K).
Mr. Bernheim suggested we look at an hourly rate of $140/hr. Finance agreed to the change and advised to send this
item to council to discuss.
Item E — Alderwood Water Suooly New 45 Year Contract.
Mr. Williams discussed the history of the water contracts Edmonds has had and the reason for the new 45 year contract
and that it was a joint contract with the Cities of Lynnwood, Edmonds and Mount Lake Terrace. The contract has an
inflationary adjustment in it and basically Edmonds will be paying $1.5 MM a year. Mr. Plunkett asked if we could get
water elsewhere if it became cheaper and Mr. Williams indicated yes. Finance Committee agreed yes and to put it on
Consent.
Item F — Mural Fees.
Mr. Yarberry presented the two types of fees that could be charged in relation to the current mural program. After
discussion and questions in which one fee could be charged for a series of murals being presented at one time, the
Finance committee supports the design fee process and recommends that for City Council consideration.
Items B and D were postponed since staff was not present to discuss the reason for the debt service being charged to
the property acquisition fund. The City's leakage policy had not changed and Ms. Buckshnis stated she had sent Mr.
Hines her recommendations in an email last week regarding rather than use a 30 day timeframe, to use a percentage
increase of the bill. She also indicated that she had requested that up front the policy state where the City is responsible
and when the citizen is responsible.
Item G and H were discussed and it was decided that both would be sent to City Council since Council Member Petso
could not attend the meeting to discuss removing the discretionary pay increase or the unexpended wages and benefits
proposals.
Item C was the June quarterly and was also recommended to be sent to City Council for full review. Ms. Buckshnis has
requested that Mr. Hines prepare the General Fund as stated in the dollar amount and follow that of the ordinance
which is stated as follows: "A monthly General Fund analysis of comparing revenue budget to actual and expenditure
budget to actual with the net balance is requested."
Public Comment
Mr. Hertrich stated that Finance Committee should request that staff change the debt service to be reflective from the
correct account for items that are not property acquisition.
Packet Page 376 of 380
Minutes
Public Safety Committee Meeting
August 10, 2010
Elected Officials Present: Council Member D. J. Wilson, Committee
Chair
Council Member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas
Council Member Diane Buckshnis
Staff Present: ACOP Gerald Gannon
Fire Marshal John Westfall
PW Director Phil Williams
The meeting was called to order by Chair Wilson at 6:20 p.m.
A. Interlocal Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Edmonds
School District for football game security.
Assistant Chief Gannon discussed the Interlocal Agreement with the Edmonds
School District. He advised that Edmonds Police Department has provided
security at the Edmonds School District Stadium for football games for several
years. This service has been provided without an Interlocal Agreement, but with
a more informal annual contract. All past costs incurred by City have been
reimbursed by the School District. If approved, the Interlocal Agreement will
extend through August 31, 2013. The agreement covers the terms, services to
be provided, and responsibilities of off duty police officers providing football game
security. The Interlocal Agreement has been approved as to form by the City
Attorney.
Committee members DJ Wilson and Adrienne Fraley-Monillas approved the
Interlocal Agreement for the Council Consent Agenda.
Action: Forward to City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to
approve.
B. Residential fire sprinkler system (RFSS) stakeholder discussion.
RFSS stakeholders were invited to the meeting by Chair Wilson. Guests included
Snohomish FD#1 Deputy Fire Chief Steve Sherman; Master Builders Association
South Snohomish County Manager Jennifer Jerabek; Snohomish County-
Camano Association of Realtors Government Affairs Director Ryan Mclrvin; and
Edmonds Developer and resident Michael Echelbarger.
Public Safety Committee Meeting
August 10, 2010
Page 1 of 4
Packet Page 377 of 380
Introductions were made. Public Safety Chair Wilson introduced the discussion
and informed newcomers of efforts on this agenda item to date. The intent is for
all stakeholders - fire, builders, water purveyors, insurance industry, installers, et
al - to work together in finding an agreeable solution that balances the risks and
benefits of the public safety proposal for the installation of fire sprinkler systems
in dwellings.
Councilmember Wilson described the process for the RFSS agenda item as a
collaboration in a community mind that will be agreeable to all interests, or at
very least, not entirely objectionable to any stakeholder group. His goal is to
remove the emotions from stakeholders' positions for the sake of rational
discussion. He hopes that a rational discussion will not be reduced to a "saving
lives vs. saving jobs" stalemate.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas distributed an email discussion from Mayor
Cooper dated 8/9/10.
Fire Marshal Westfall described the state of the 2009 International Residential
Code (IRC) regarding residential fire sprinklers in all new one-, two-family, and
townhouses. The State of Washington removed the requirements from IRC in an
amendment and packaged the requirements so that cities and counties could
independently discuss and approve them at local level.
The work in committee has brought us to three options for endorsement: 1) all
dwellings; 2) dwellings exceeding 3,000 square feet; and 3) dwellings exceeding
5,000 square feet. Remodels are not part of the ordinances.
Ms. Jerabek distributed literature from the Master Builders Association. She
explained that Master Builder members were opposed to the sprinkler ordinances
for a variety of reasons. Members do not like mandates to home construction,
smoke alarms were adequate to save lives by alerting residents to smoke from
fire, and the cost of the systems mean additional costs for homes. The customer
may not want the system; she prefers to allow the buyer option for installation of
RFSS.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested that residential sprinklers will provide
the next step in home safety beyond smoke alarms. Ms. Jerabek likened these to
seat belt and air bags in vehicles. Airbags remain optional equipment and options
can be purchased to improve safety performance.
Deputy Chief Sherman refuted points in the Master Builder literature. Fire
sprinklers will eliminate the threat of fire, while alarms, when working, still require
the occupant to be of sound mind and body to escape while the fire burns.
Firefighters are just putting on their gear at the station following an alarm
dispatch when a sprinkler in a house fire opens.
Public Safety Committee Meeting
August 10, 2010
Page 2 of 4
Packet Page 378 of 380
Fire Marshal Westfall spoke to the costs of the installations in Edmonds, where
the City and Olympic View Water District provide water services. There was
discussion of costs for design, installation, permits, water meter and connection
cost. There is no backflow assembly required on "flow -through" fire sprinkler
systems because water continues to move and no threat of cross contamination
exists. In a flow -through design, water in the sprinkler system is same as
domestic water used for laundry, sinks, and toilets. Flow -through designs are
now allowed instead of traditional, static systems that are isolated from the
domestic water with a backflow device. Static design requires annual backflow
assembly maintenance, approximately $100 per month, according to Robinson
Plumbing, who installs sprinklers and performs this maintenance service.
Public Works collects service reports by mail notification from Water Quality. Fire
inspectors will not enter the premises except in emergency circumstances or with
warrant for probable cause of fire code violation.
Public Works Director Williams suggested that costs savings could be provided in
City water rates. General Facility Charges (GFC) are calculated by the size of
meter and anticipated rate of usage. A 5/8"-3/4" meter GFC is approx $900
where a 1" meter GFC is approx $2200. Because a residential sprinkler will not
be providing a greater rate of flow except in emergency, the Council could
exempt the upsized GFC when a meter increase is required due to fire sprinkler
design.
Mr. Echelbarger was president of Master Builders Association and an Edmonds
builder for 30 years. He believes sprinklers are to smoke alarms are what a 5-
point aircraft harness is to a seatbelt, and unnecessary.
Mr. Mclrvin commented upon Mayor Cooper's email regarding the statistics that
only six homes exceeding 5,000 square feet had been constructed since 2007.
He noted that 30 homes were constructed exceeding 3,000 square feet. He feels
that the present economy and development downturn underestimate the effect
during a good economy, where many more houses would be developed.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas feels that a 5,000 s.f. starting threshold could be
further reduced as success at that level is shown. Ms. Jerabek and Mr.
Echelbarger both expressed concern over threshold "creep". Discussion
continued about limiting council revisits to sprinkler threshold reductions.
Chair Wilson asked the stakeholders if they could be agreeable to 5,000 s.f. if 1)
the ordinance limited the revisit period to the 2012 International Code cycle that
would be adopted in 2013, and 2) if the ordinance included the language
described by Director Williams, eliminating the GFC cost overage to fire-
sprinklered houses. Stakeholders agreed to return to their groups with the
proposal and return to next committee meeting.
Public Safety Committee Meeting
August 10, 2010
Page 3 of 4
Packet Page 379 of 380
Action: Staff was directed to bring this item back to the September Public Safety
Committee meeting with options for proposed ordinance.
The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Public Safety Committee Meeting
August 10, 2010
Page 4 of 4
Packet Page 380 of 380