2010.09.21 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
6:00 p.m. - Executive session regarding labor negotiation strategy.
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-3374 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 7, 2010.
C. AM-3376 Approval of claim checks #121101 through #121213 dated September 9, 2010 for
$1,729,084.52, and claim checks #121214 through #121351 dated September 16, 2010
for $521,065.12.
D. AM-3372 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Donna L. Breske ($5,000.00).
E. AM-3380 Interlocal Agreement with SERS for Low Cost Dark Fiber.
F. AM-3378 Ordinance amending the Edmonds City Code, Title 10, to add a new Chapter 10.95
Citizens’ Tree Board.
G. AM-3360 Authorization of Resolution to submit grant application for 2011 Snohomish County
CDBG Public Facilities & Infrastructure Projects Funding for Senior Center Siding
Replacement and Waterproofing.
3. (30 Minutes) Public hearing on the proposed updates to land use permit review procedures
Packet Page 1 of 602
3. (30 Minutes)
AM-3371
Public hearing 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)
4. (30 Minutes)
AM-3375
Public Hearing for the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program
(2011-2016).
5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed record Review or as Public
Hearings.
6. (10 Minutes)
AM-3377
Presentation regarding 2010 Citizen Levy Committee.
7. (30 Minutes)
AM-3381
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
8. (10 Minutes)
AM-3369
Extension of sunset date for Citizens Economic Development Commission.
9. (30 Minutes)
AM-3379
Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2016)
10. (15 Minutes)
AM-3382
Report on City Council Committee Meetings of September 14, 2010.
11. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
12. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 602
AM-3374 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/21/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 7, 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.
Attachments
09-07-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 09/15/2010 04:08 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 01:50 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/15/2010 03:54 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/16/2010
Packet Page 3 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
September 7, 2010
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 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 (arrived 7:03 p.m.)
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember (arrived 7:03 p.m.)
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Rob English, City Engineer
Kernen Lien, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Council President Bernheim and Councilmember Buckshnis were not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, 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 AUGUST 24, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 31, 2010.
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #120864 THROUGH #120962 DATED AUGUST 26,
2010 FOR $431,895.06, AND CLAIM CHECKS #120963 THROUGH #121100 DATED
SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 FOR $339,226.45. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT
AND CHECKS #49749 THROUGH #49806 FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 16, 2010
THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2010 FOR $662,509.81.
E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM LISA HANLON
($557.45) AND FROM TERRY CANFIELD ($663.79).
F. AM-3347 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER
CREEK WATERSHED FORUM.
G. PROCLAMATION DECLARING SEPTEMBER "NATIONAL ALCOHOL AND
SUBSTANCE ABUSE RECOVERY MONTH."
Packet Page 4 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 2
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED UPDATES TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE (ECDC) 20.15A ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA). THE UPDATE IS BEING
CONDUCTED AS PART OF THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ITS
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE UPDATE IS BEING DONE TO ENSURE ECDC 20.15A
IS CONSISTENT WITH WAC 197-11, WAC 173-806, AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THIS UPDATE INCLUDES
PROPOSED INCREASES TO CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FLEXIBLE THRESHOLD
LEVELS FOR THE MEDICAL/HIGHWAY 99 ACTIVITY CENTER AS DEFINED BY THE CITY
OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Councilmember Plunkett observed there was no recommendation from Mayor and Staff for Agenda Item
3 or 4 nor any potential action. He asked whether these were public hearings with future potential action
or was it anticipated the Council would take action tonight. Council President Bernheim explained after
the public hearing the Council would determine how to proceed.
Mayor Cooper advised this item began before he was the Mayor and there was no recommendation from
the Mayor at this time.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the difference between Agenda Items 3 and 4, observing that the
narratives in the agenda memos were nearly the same. Mayor Cooper explained the items were split at the
Council’s request when the Council last discussed it. Associate Planner Kernen Lien explained when this
topic was introduced to the Council in July, it was decided to split the Planning Board’s recommendation.
His presentation this evening included an introduction that applied to both areas, the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor.
When Mr. Lien reached the end of the introduction, he suggested the Council make a determination
whether to hear the presentation on both areas before opening the public hearing.
Mr. Lien explained Washington State’s Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was first adopted in 1971.
Among other things, the law requires all state and local governments within the state to:
• “Utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the
natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making
which may have impact on man’s environment,” and
• Ensure that “...environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in
decision making along with economic and technical considerations...” (RCW 43.21C.030(2)(a)
and (2)(b).
Any governmental action may be conditioned or denied pursuant to SEPA. The environmental review
process in SEPA is designed to work with other regulations to provide a comprehensive review of a
proposal. Where most regulations focus on a particular aspect of a proposal, SEPA requires identification
and evaluation of probable impacts of all elements of the environment. Proposals can be project proposals
such as fill and grade, new development, etc. or they can be non-project proposals such as Comprehensive
Plan changes, rezones, etc.
The City of Edmonds SEPA regulations are codified in Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) 20.15A. The City’s first SEPA regulations were adopted in 1976. In 1984 the City adopted
Ordinance No. 2461 which created ECDC 20.15A to be compliant with new SEPA rules in WAC 197-11
and model SEPA ordinances in WAC 173-806. The SEPA regulations the City uses today are essentially
the same ordinance that was adopted 25 years ago having undergone only minor amendments during that
time. Due to changes in the WAC, RCW and the City’s own development regulations since the SEPA
ordinance was adopted, the update to ECDC 20.15A is long overdue.
Packet Page 5 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 3
This update focused on the following four issues:
• Adoption by Reference – WAC 197-11
ECDC 20.15A adopts by reference significant portions of WAC 197-11, the State’s SEPA rules.
Sections of 197-11 have been added or removed since the City adopted its SEPA regulations in
1984 particularly in regard to SEPA-GMA integration. This update reviewed the changes in
WAC 197-11, the adopted list in 20.15A to ensure the City is up-to-date and compliant with the
State’s regulations.
• Model Code – WAC 173-806
ECDC 20.15A is largely based on the State’s model code in WAC 173-806. There have been
changes to the model code since 1984. This update reviewed the model code and made changes to
the City’s SEPA regulations where appropriate to ensure the City is up-to-date and compliant
with the State’s regulations.
• Consistency within ECDC
The City’s development code has undergone a number of amendments since 1984. This update
ensures the SEPA regulations are consistent with the rest of the City’s development regulations.
• Categorical Exemptions Flexible Thresholds
The State’s rules allow local jurisdictions to modify the categorically exempt flexible threshold
levels for certain minor new development. Once the threshold is reached, a SEPA review is
required.
Mr. Lien reviewed the Categorical Exemptions Thresholds in WAC 197-11-800(1) where the City could
adjust the thresholds:
• The construction or location of any residential structures of four dwelling unit – Can be modified
up to 20 dwelling units.
• The construction of agricultural buildings – Does not apply in Edmonds.
• The construction of an office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage building with
4,000 square feet of gross floor area, and associated parking facilities designed for 20
automobiles – Can be modified up to 12,000 square feet and 40 automobiles.
• The construction of a parking lot designed for 20 automobiles – Can be modified up to 40
automobiles.
• Any landfill or excavation of 100 cubic yards – Can be modified up to 500 cubic yards, and has
been at 500 cubic yards since 1984 when the City adopted the ordinance that established 20.15A.
In response to a question raised by the Council regarding why consideration should be given to adjusting
the flexible thresholds, Mr. Lien explained:
• State Rules allow the City to adjust exempt levels where “supported by local conditions,
including zoning or other land use plans or regulations.”
• Determining the environmental impact of a development depends on context and intensity.
Context may vary by physical setting; intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of the
impact. Some proposals may have a significant impact in one location but not in another.
• The Comprehensive Plan provides policy guidance on what type of development should be
encouraged in different areas of the City. The Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Highway
99 Corridor are identified as areas for more intensive development and areas where the City is
interested in expanding the economic tax base of the City by providing incentives for businesses
and commercial development.
• Comprehensive Plan also provides guidance regarding streamlining the permit process.
Mr. Lien provided several excerpts from the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan with regard to
the Highway 99 Corridor and Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
Packet Page 6 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 4
• Highway 99 is recognized as a “…high-intensity development corridor.” (Pg. 59)
• The Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center “…is intended to be an intensively development mixed
use, pedestrian friendly environment…” (Pg. 59)
• Goals for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Highway 99 Corridor include:
o To expand the economic and tax base of the City of Edmonds by providing incentives for
business and commercial redevelopment in a planned activity center;
o Recognize and plan for the distinct difference in opportunities and development character
provided by the Highway 99 corridor versus the local travel access patterns on local streets;
(Pg. 59)
• Policy A.6 of the Activity Center and Corridor Section states:
o Uses adjoining the Highway 99 corridor should provide more intensive levels of mixed use
development. (Pg. 60)
• The Highway 99 Corridor:
o Its economic vitality is important to Edmonds and should be supported. Commercial
development in this area is to be encouraged to its maximum potential. (Pg. 71)
• In-fill Development:
o The overall plan direction has been termed “designed infill” and can be seen in the City’s
emphasis and continued work on streamlining permitting, revising codes to provide more
flexible standards, and improving its design guidelines. (Pg. 150)
• Edmonds Economic Development Plan
o Promote a results-oriented permit and licensing process, which consolidates review
timelines, eliminates unnecessary steps, and maintains a strong customer service approach.
(Pg. 14)
Mr. Lien summarized the Comprehensive Plan identifies the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the
Highway 99 Corridor as areas where more intensive development is appropriate. Increasing the SEPA
threshold for these areas is one way to achieve Comprehensive Plan goals and policies for encouraging
development and streamlining the permit process.
The Planning Board undertook a thorough review of the Categorical Exemption Threshold levels and
recommended the following:
• For landfills and excavations in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) maintain 500 cubic yards in all
locations through the City.
• Increase flexible threshold in the Highway 99 Corridor and Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
as follows:
o Residential units: 20 units
o New construction: 12,000 square feet
o Parking: 40 spaces
o Landfill or excavation: 500 cubic yards (no change)
When this matter was last presented to the Council, a decision was made to split the Planning Board’s
recommendation into parts for the public hearing. Consistency with RCW, WAC, and ECDC applies to
both proposals. One proposal increases flexible thresholds for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
and the second proposal increases flexible thresholds for Highway 99 Corridor. The above information
applies to both the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor.
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
Mr. Lien displayed a map identifying the boundaries of the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, 208th
Street to the north, 80th Avenue to the west, Highway 99 to the east and 228th Street SW to the south. He
reiterated the statements in the Comprehensive Plan about the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, that
it is intended to encourage the development of a pedestrian and transit oriented area focused on two
Packet Page 7 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 5
master planned developments, Stevens Hospital and Edmonds-Woodway High School with the related
high intensity development corridor along Highway 99. The overall character of the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center is intended to be an intensively developed mixed use, pedestrian-friendly environment in
which buildings are linked by walkways served by a centralized parking and landscaping to promote
pedestrian activity in a park-like atmosphere.
Mr. Lien displayed a map of the Comprehensive Plan designations within the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center, explaining the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center is an overlay, not a Comprehensive
Plan designation. The Comprehensive Plan designations within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
include Highway 99 Corridor, Public near the High School, Medical around the hospital, Mixed-Use in
the center and Single Family Urban.
He displayed a map of the zoning within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center that exemplifies the
mixture of uses in the area that include General Commercial along Highway 99 (CG and CG2),
Community Business, Neighborhood Business, Public, Single Family and Multi Family zones.
The Planning Board’s recommendation for increasing the Categorical Exemption Threshold levels for the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center are:
• For landfills and excavations in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) maintain 500 cubic yards in all
locations through the City
• Increase flexible threshold as follows:
o Residential units: 20 units
o New construction: 12,000 square feet
o Parking: 40 spaces
o Landfill or excavation: 500 cubic yards (no change)
With regard to the impact of increasing the flexible thresholds in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center, Mr. Lien explained a total of 193 SEPA reviews have been conducted by the City between
January 2004 and July 2010. Of those, 113 would be subject to the flexible thresholds. Of the 113, 95
exceeded 500 cubic yards fill and/or grade. He noted the largest trigger for SEPA review is fill and grade.
If the proposed increase in the flexible thresholds for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center were in
place, 2 of the 193 projects would have been exempt from SEPA review.
He emphasized SEPA is only one part of the regulatory requirements; the City has other processes and
regulations to provide public notice and hearing opportunity and to control issues that would be
considered such as transportation impacts and Critical Areas regulations. SEPA cannot control the level
of development on a property; it can only condition development based on impacts that are not otherwise
addressed in the code. SEPA has very little impact on development in single family zones.
Mr. Lien provided a case study for a 10-lot residential development in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center, stressing this was a hypothetical development on real property.
• Subject Site and Assumptions
o 7723 and 7807 220th Street SW
o Three parcels totaling 1.92 acres
o Zoned RS-8
o Assumes SEPA exemption thresholds have been increased
• 10-lot subdivision
• Formal Subdivision – Five or more lots
• Multi-Step review and approval process
o Preliminary Approval – Type III-B decision before Hearing Examiner
Packet Page 8 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 6
o Civil Design Review and Approval
o Construction of improvements or Bonding
o Final Approval – Type IV-A decision before City Council
• Formal Subdivision review criteria in ECDC 20.75.085
o Environmental
Minimize impacts or impose restrictions to avoid impacts
Minimize grading
Can be denied if hazardous to future residents or nearby property owners
Designed to minimize offsite impacts
o Lot and Street Layout
Contain usable building area
Special provisions to minimize traffic hazards
Zoning Dimensional Requirements
Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths
o Dedications
City Council may require dedication of land for public use
City Council may approve dedication of park land
Dedication of land for streets
o Improvements
Streets, curbs, sidewalks, stormwater, utilities, etc.
Improvements determined by ECDC Title 18 and Chapter 19.75 Fire Code
Septic may be approved if certain conditions are met
o Comply with Flood Plain Management
• City Development Codes that may apply
o ECDC 16.20 Single- Family Residential
o ECDC 17.10 Bonds
o ECDC 17.50 Off-Street Parking
o ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires
o ECDC 18.80 Streets and Driveways
o ECDC 18.82 Traffic Impact Fees
o ECDC 18.85 Street Trees
o ECDC 18.90 Sidewalks
o ECDC 18.10 Sewers
o ECDC 18.30 Stormwater Management
o ECDC 18.40 Grading and Retaining Walls
o ECDC 18.45 Land Clearing and Tree Cutting
o ECDC 19.25 Fire Code
o ECDC 20.75 Subdivisions
o ECDC 23.40 – ECDC 23.90 Critical Area Regulations
• Review for consistency with development regulations
o The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed if the criteria
for their approval have been satisfied
o The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential development in urban
growth areas, or other measures of density
o Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities identified in the
Comprehensive Plan
o Whether the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as
required by Chapter 36.70A RCW
• Notice of Application and Public Hearing
o Publish Everett Herald
o Post Subject Site
o Mail to property owners within 300 feet
Packet Page 9 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 7
o City of Lynwood (subject property within 1 mile of Lynnwood)
o Snohomish County (subject property adjacent to Snohomish County)
• Public Hearing before Hearing Examiner
o Type III-B decision
o Appealable to City Council
• Applicant prepares civil design
• Civil Design Review and Approval by City’s Engineering Division
• Once civil design approved, applicant must complete or bond for the required improvements
• Final Approval
o Type IV-A decision by City Council
o Type IV-A decisions require public notice
Notice published in Everett Herald
Posted on site
Mailed to property owners within 300 feet
o City Council’s decision appealable to Superior Court
Mr. Lien explained to this point it was assumed the project would be exempt from SEPA. When a project
is reviewed for SEPA, it must meet all the exemption threshold levels. In the above case study, a 10-lot
subdivision would meet the exemption threshold but it would require significant improvements for
sidewalks, roads, utilities, stormwater, etc. which would likely exceed the 5,000 cubic yard threshold.
Had SEPA applied to this project, SEPA review would be conducted with the underlying subdivision
application. In addition to the land use consistency review, the City will review the proposed subdivision
for consistency with RCW 43.21C (SEPA), the SEPA rules in WAC 197-11, and the City’s SEPA
regulations in ECDC 20.15A and will:
• Determine whether applicable regulations require studies to adequately analyze all of the
proposed project’s specific probable adverse environmental impacts.
• Determine whether applicable regulations require mitigation measures to adequately address
identified environmental impacts.
• 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.
• It is only when existing local, state, or federal regulations do not provide adequate mitigation that
additional conditions under SEPA may be applied.
Mr. Lien reviewed SEPA notice requirements:
• SEPA Threshold Determinations are Type II decisions requiring public notice
• SEPA notice likely combined with Notice of Application and public hearing
• Additional SEPA notice requirements
o Other agencies with jurisdiction
o Department of Ecology
o Posted on SEPA Register at Ecology
• SEPA comment period & appeal
o 14-day comment period on Threshold Determination
o Threshold Determination appealable to Hearing Examiner
Mr. Lien summarized key points from this case study:
• Formal Subdivisions have significant review criteria that must be met
• Public notice and public hearing are required
• SEPA does not significantly add to the review process for formal subdivision
Packet Page 10 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 8
It was the consensus of the Council to combine the public hearing on the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center and the Highway 99 Corridor and Mr. Lien proceeded with his presentation regarding the
Highway 99 Corridor.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED UPDATES TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE (ECDC) 20.15A ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA). THE UPDATE IS BEING
CONDUCTED AS PART OF THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ITS
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE UPDATE IS BEING DONE TO ENSURE ECDC 20.15A
IS CONSISTENT WITH WAC 197-11, WAC 173-806, AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THIS UPDATE INCLUDES
PROPOSED INCREASES TO CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FLEXIBLE THRESHOLD
LEVELS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR AS DEFINED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Mr. Lien provided a map of the Highway 99 Corridor, a narrow corridor from approximately 210th Street
SW to the north to 244th Street SW/Lake Ballinger Way to the south. He referred to the Comprehensive
Plan policies for the Highway 99 Corridor that state uses adjoining the Highway 99 corridor should
provide more intensive levels of mixed use development and the Highway 99 corridor’s economic vitality
is important to Edmonds and should be supported. Commercial development in this area is to be
encouraged to its maximum potential.
Mr. Lien displayed a map of Highway 99 Corridor Comprehensive Plan designations, explaining that
unlike the Activity Center which is an overlay with several Comprehensive Plan designations, the
Highway 99 Corridor itself is a Comprehensive Plan designation. He provided a map of the zoning within
the Highway 99 Corridor; the majority is CG (60 foot building heights) and CG2 (75 foot building
heights), there is also BC and BN zoning as a transition to the residential neighborhoods and limited
amounts of multi family zoning on the fringes of the corridor.
The Planning Board’s recommendation for increasing the Categorical Exemption Threshold levels for the
Highway 99 Corridor are the same as the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center:
• For landfills and excavations in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) maintain 500 cubic yards in all
locations through the City.
• Increase flexible threshold as follows:
o Residential units: 20 units
o New construction: 12,000 square feet
o Parking: 40 spaces
o Landfill or excavation: 500 cubic yards (no change)
With regard to the impact of increasing the flexible thresholds in the Highway 99 Corridor, Mr. Lien
explained a total of 193 SEPA reviews have been conducted by the City between January 2004 and July
2010. Of those, 113 would be subject to the flexible thresholds. Of the 113, 95 exceeded 500 cubic yards
fill and/or grade. If the proposed increase in the flexible thresholds for the Highway 99 Corridor were in
place, 1 of the 193 projects would have been exempt from SEPA review. He reiterated SEPA is only one
part of the regulatory requirements; the City has other processes and regulations to provide public notice
and hearing opportunity and to control issues that would be considered such as transportation impacts and
Critical Areas regulations. SEPA cannot control the level of development on a property; it can only
condition development based on impacts that are not otherwise addressed in the code.
Mr. Lien provided a case study for a mixed use development in the Highway 99 Corridor, reiterating this
was a hypothetical development on real property.
• Subject Site and Assumptions
Packet Page 11 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 9
o 23320 Highway 99
o Two parcels totaling 2.29 acres
o Zoned CG
o Assumes SEPA exemption thresholds have been increased
• Mixed use Development
o 12,000 square feet commercial area on ground floor
o 20 residential units above
o Permitted Use in CG Zone (CG is the most permissive zone, the only use in CG zone that
requires Conditional Use Permit is an aircraft landings strip)
Staff Review, no public hearing required
Type I Design on District Base Design Review conducted by staff
• Reviewed for consistency with development regulations
o The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed if the criteria
for their approval have been satisfied
o The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential development in urban
growth areas, or other measures of density
o Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities identified in the
Comprehensive Plan
o Whether the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as
required by Chapter 36.70A RCW
• City Development Codes that may apply
o ECDC 16.60 CG – General Commercial: CG and CG2 Zones
o ECDC 17.10 Bonds
o ECDC 17.50 Off-Street Parking
o ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires
o ECDC 18.10 Sewers
o ECDC 18.30 Stormwater Management
o ECDC 18.40 Grading and Retaining
o ECDC 19.15 Mechanical Code and Fuel Gas Code
o ECDC 19.20 Plumbing Code
o ECDC 19.25 Fire Code
o ECDC 19.30 Energy Code
o ECDC 19.35 Ventilation Code
o ECDC 19.45 Housing Code
o ECDC 19.55 Electrical Code Walls
o ECDC 18.80 Streets and Driveways
o ECDC 18.82 Traffic Impact Fees
o ECDC 18.85 Street Trees
o ECDC 18.90 Sidewalks
o ECDC 18.95 Parking Lot Construction
o ECDC 19.00 Building Code
o ECDC 19.05 Residential Building Code
o ECDC 20.12 District Based Design Review
o ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements
o ECDC 20.15A Environmental Review (SEPA)
o ECDC 20.60 Sign Code
o ECDC 23.40 – ECDC 23.90 Critical Area Regulations
When a project is reviewed for SEPA, it must meet all the exemption thresholds. This case study has
12,000 square feet of commercial area and 20 residential units which would meet the exemption under the
increased threshold levels. However, during consistency review, the off-street parking regulations in
ECDC 17.50 are also reviewed. Assuming the 20 residential units are 2-bedroom, 1.8 parking spaces
Packet Page 12 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 10
would be required for each or a total of 36 spaces. The 12,000 square feet of office with commercial
service requires 1 space/400 square feet or 30 parking spaces. The total parking required would be 66
spaces which would exceed the SEPA exemption threshold of 40 parking spaces.
Mr. Lien reviewed the project review process for this case study:
• Pre-application conference
o A form that lists the requirements for a complete application
o A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the application
o The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards which may apply to
approval of the application
o The City’s design guidelines
• Complete application
o Routed to departments/divisions with permit review responsibility
o Reviewed for consistency with Development Regulations
o District Based Design Review
• SEPA review conducted with underlying development permit application
The City will review the proposed subdivision for consistency with RCW 43.21C (SEPA), the SEPA
rules in WAC 197-11, and the City’s SEPA regulations in ECDC 20.15A and will:
• Determine whether applicable regulations require studies to adequately analyze all of the
proposed project’s specific probable adverse environmental impacts
• Determine whether applicable regulations require mitigation measures to adequately address
identified environmental impacts
• 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
• It is only when existing local, state, or federal regulations do not provide adequate mitigation that
additional conditions under SEPA may be applied
Mr. Lien reviewed SEPA notice requirements:
• SEPA Threshold Determinations are Type II decisions requiring public notice
o Publish Everett Herald
o Post subject site
o Mail to property owners within 300 feet
• Additional SEPA Notice Requirements
o Other agencies with jurisdiction
o Department of Ecology
o Posted on SEPA Register at Ecology
• City also posts SEPA determinations at City Hall, Public Safety Building, Library and Post office
• SEPA Comment Period & Appeal
o 14-day comment period on Threshold Determination
o Threshold Determination appealable to Hearing Examiner
o Design Review Type I decision appealable to Superior Court
o Other permit decisions on the application may be appealable to Hearing Examiner or Superior
Court depending on specific code section
Mr. Lien summarized key points from this case study:
• Highway 99 and CG zones are one of the most permissive areas in the City. Anything permitted
or requiring a CUP in any other zone in the City is permitted outright in the CG zones other than
an aircraft strip.
Packet Page 13 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 11
• Projects must meet all SEPA exemptions in order to be exempt from SEPA review. The focus has
been on flexible threshold levels, but there are also categorical exemptions, statutory exemptions,
and several exemptions in WAC 197-11-800. If a project does not meet one of the exemption
levels, SEPA would be required.
• SEPA provides an opportunity for public comment and notice
Councilmember Petso asked whether any changes had been made to the provisions in the code where the
City prepares the SEPA checklist for the developer. Mr. Lien responded no changes were made and that
section remains as it currently exists in the SEPA regulations. Completion of the SEPA checklist for a
developer is an option in the model code. In his experience, no developers have asked staff to complete
the SEPA checklist for them. One of the instances cited when staff would fill out the SEPA checklist was
if misinformation had been provided in the past. If the City completed the SEPA checklist, the developer
would be charged for that service.
Councilmember Petso asked where the City’s code departed from the model code with its .025 section,
the model ordinances refers to 158. Mr. Lien explained the section above .025 contains an adoption by
reference list. WAC 197-11-158 is contained within the adoption by reference list, the same code the City
has in another section, ECDC 20.04.002.C. Rather than adopt that section of WAC when an equivalent
section in the City’s code, he referenced it in the adoption list. Councilmember Petso asked whether the
section in the City’s code replacing the WAC makes it any less protective. Mr. Lien answered the
language is essentially the same. Councilmember Petso noted the WAC mentions planning staff will
review the environmental checklist. That was not stated in the substitute section. Mr. Lien answered that
was a given, that was how a developer applied for SEPA review, they submitted a SEPA checklist. There
are other sections that refer to the developer preparing a SEPA checklist.
Councilmember Petso referred to the case studies Mr. Lien provided; the first example was a 10-unit
subdivision on 2 parcels. She asked whether there would be public notice provided if the proposal was 4
units on the western parcel. Mr. Lien answered there would be public notice for a 4-lot subdivision which
is a Type II decision. The same notice requirements would be required for a short plat as are required for
a formal plat. The difference would be the preliminary approval of a short plat is a Type II staff decision,
appealable to the Hearing Examiner versus preliminary approval for a formal subdivision which is a Type
III-B decision which is appealable to the City Council.
Councilmember Petso asked whether major projects on Highway 99 could be proposed without public
notice. Mr. Lien answered if SEPA was not required, there could be major projects on Highway 99
without public notice because the CG zones are the most permissive zone in the City. There are other
zones in the Highway 99 Corridor.
Observing that the ability for staff to complete the SEPA checklist had been in the code for the past 25
years, Councilmember Plunkett assumed City Attorney Scott Snyder was comfortable with staff
completing the SEPA checklist with regard to the City’s liability. Mr. Snyder referred to the Public Duty
Doctrine that generally holds that neither the City nor City staff is liable for simple negligence absent an
ultra-hazardous condition or special relationship. The completion of a SEPA checklist is akin to an
inspection by a Building Inspector.
Council President Bernheim asked who directed that this effort be undertaken, to rewrite Chapter 20.15A?
Mr. Lien answered this is part of the comprehensive code rewrite. The points under review were first
introduced at the Community Services/Development Services Committee in May 2009 and the question
was asked whether to consider the categorical exemption since the Comprehensive Plan includes policies
and goals for those two areas. Staff would have been remiss if they did not ask the question whether to
consider it during the update. It was presented as an option to the Planning Board and the Planning Board
Packet Page 14 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 12
decided that given the economic development direction from the Council, it should be considered. The
Planning Board’s consideration resulted in the recommendation provided to the City Council.
Council President Bernheim asked who suggested the categorical exemption for 40 parking spaces,
12,000 square foot building and 20 units? Mr. Lien stated it was staff’s suggestion. The Planning Board
requested staff present proposals; that was one of several proposals considered by the Planning Board.
Council President Bernheim referred to Section 20.15A.130.E.3 that states “The applicant’s proposed
mitigation measures, clarifications, changes or conditions must be in writing and must be specific.” He
expressed concern with the proposed additional language, “For example, proposals to “control noise” or
“prevent stormwater runoff” are inadequate, whereas proposals to “muffle machinery to X decibel” or
“construct 200-foot stormwater retention pond at Y location” are adequate.” Mr. Lien answered that
language was taken from the model ordinance.
Council President Bernheim referred to a section that states the City shall share the EIS consultant rather
than the City having sole authority. Mr. Lien answered that was also taken from the model ordinance.
Council President Bernheim asked why this much time was being spent on the amendment if it would
have only impacted 2 projects in the past 25 years? Mr. Lien answered he was surprised by the number of
projects that would not be exempt by the proposal. The Planning Board recommended this amendment as
part of the SEPA update.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how long it took to complete a SEPA checklist. Mr. Lien answered it
depends on the complexity of the project; it could take one to a few hours depending on the person’s
familiarity with the project and how much information is included. Councilmember Buckshnis
commented in view of all the other requirements, completing a checklist would not be much more
burdensome. Mr. Lien answered the checklist was only part of the process. SEPA adds to the permit
“hoops” a developer would need to go through. The Comprehensive Plan addresses streamlining the
permit process. This was one thing that could be done to streamline the permit process.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Colleen McDonald, Edmonds, a resident of unincorporated Esperance within 300 feet of the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, expressed her opposition to the proposed changes to the exemption
thresholds for the Activity Center area. One of the goals for the Medical Activity Center in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan is to avoid encroaching into single family neighborhoods; this proposed change
would do just that. While the proposed change would only affect a small number of projects according to
planning staff, the magnitude of the increase is substantial for those living next to a project; 4 houses to
20 houses, 40,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet for commercial building, and 20 parking spaces to 40
parking spaces. She pointed a large residential neighborhood was currently included in the Medical
Activity Center and sections of the Center border other neighborhoods. She supported development in
appropriate locations and would be willing to consider changes if there were a way to appeal an
exemption; according to the current wording, an exemption was final and there was no opportunity for
appeal. Approving this change would send a message to residents in neighborhood within the Medical
Activity Center that commercial development was more important than preserving neighborhoods. She
questioned the proposal to expand the threshold to the maximum allowed, commenting that may be
appropriate for a large city but not for Edmonds. She urged the Council to vote against the proposed
change in the interest of the families who live in the targeted areas.
Todd Cloutier, Edmonds, commented the flexible thresholds could be omitted and the remaining
changes adopted without any noticeable impact. He commented on the inappropriate use of SEPA to
control development when the intent of SEPA is environmental protection. The City controls
Packet Page 15 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 13
development via the development code not by misapplication of environmental concerns to achieve
development goals. He acknowledged there were real development concerns in the Medical Activity
Center area and there are numerous single family residences in that area. The area needs to be reviewed in
more detail, an issue separate from this SEPA proposal. A recent proposal for a large medical facility in
the Medical Activity Center zone located within a residential neighborhood highlighted the problem with
the boundaries of the Medical Activity Center. SEPA is not the correct tool to stop that development; the
development code is. The Planning Board recommended tailoring the SEPA review level to the area,
areas with proposed raised thresholds are completely built out and the environment is already understood
and development regulations prevent doomsday development regulations. The expected impact of
changes to the flexible thresholds is minimal. SEPA checklists are not a large burden and if there is an
environmental concern, it should be addressed. He recommended adoption of the proposed SEPA changes
with the exception of the new flexible thresholds. To address the real development problems in the
Medical Activity Center, he recommended a reassessment of the boundaries of that area in the
Comprehensive Plan as well as a review of the zoning in that area. He voiced a similar concern along
Highway 99, commenting that although Highway 99 was appropriately zoned, the areas directly adjacent
should be considered as a transition area.
Joe St. Laurent, stated he represents James Klug, the majority land owner on this block within the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. He relayed Mr. Klug’s concurrence with Ms. McDonalds’s and
Mr. Cloutier’s comments. He stated Mr. Klug’s opposition to the proposed changes in the flexible
thresholds. The neighborhood within the 200th Avenue West, 80th Avenue West, and 76th Avenue West
area is a prosperous middle class neighborhood. Mr. Klug is a majority land owner on the block proposed
to be developed by Kruger Clinic, Blue Star and Tony Shapiro into a 4-story, 30,000 square foot mixed
commercial use medical building. This project is not a minor intrusion into the neighborhood; it will have
a major impact on an area already impacted by traffic, drainage and congestion issues. It appears the City
is trying to push development of this area and eliminate the middle class and affordable housing in this
area for commercial enterprises that may provide minimal tax revenue to the City. If a project is exempt
from SEPA, he wanted to ensure that due process was available for citizens to voice their concerns and
participate in the process as well as the ability to appeal any decision.
Marian Bacon, Edmonds, a resident on 220th for 48 years, explained 220th is very busy and a main
corridor to Edmonds and she feared commercial development in their neighborhood would increase
traffic volumes. Her neighborhood is a residential area and once businesses begin to move in, historically
there is more than one business. Businesses locating in their neighborhood will reduce home values. She
asked whether any Councilmember would be willing to have a commercial building across the street from
their home. She concurred with the comments made by the previous speakers.
Cathy Lester, Edmonds, a resident in the middle of the Activity Center, encouraged the Council to vote
against the SEPA exemption in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. She pointed out the diversity of
neighborhoods in the Activity Center that includes many single family residential homes. A blanket
exemption for larger developments is not feasible in an area where there is such diversity. The larger a
development proposal is, 20 homes versus 4 homes, 12,000 square feet versus 4,000 square feet, the more
important it is to have a thorough review of the project and SEPA is an integral part of the process. If as
the case study provided by staff states, SEPA likely would not significantly add to the review process for
the formal subdivision, she suggested keeping the review process as it currently exists. She questioned the
compelling reason for adopting the SEPA exemption for these two areas. She did not support any
reduction in the process or public notice for development of any size. She was also uncomfortable with
leaving the Department of Ecology out of the process which the exemption would do.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recommended the Council not approve the proposed exemptions, pointing
out the benefit to the developer versus the cost to Edmonds citizens was not balanced. Greater harm was
possible to the environment and citizens’ right to participate under the proposed exemption. Changes in
Packet Page 16 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 14
the Highway 99 Corridor zoning allowed nearly unlimited development; however, there are residential
areas close to Highway 99 that are affected. He suggested the case study for the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center was not the correct study; the medical center and accompanying parking lot would have
been a more appropriate case study. He referred to Council President Bernheim’s question regarding how
this proposal originated, envisioning it was staff-driven or it was simply change for the sake of change.
He suggested the number of regulations referred to in the case study created the delay in the permit
process, not SEPA.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, pointed out comments regarding the Medical Activity Center highlight
concerns with the borders of that zone. He agreed with Mr. Cloutier’s suggestion to reassess the
boundaries of the Medical Activity Center as well as the zoning within that area and suggested that be
done before the SEPA thresholds were changed.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, one of two citizen representatives on the Highway 99 Task Force for
Economic Development and one of seventeen commissioners on the Economic Development
Commission, stated he was not speaking on either group’s behalf but as a citizen who lives in the Aurora
Marketplace Neighborhood near Highway 99. He supported intelligent economic development throughout
the City. He did not support economic development that did not take into consideration the impact of
development on long established neighborhoods. He supported the comments made in an email from Jim
Underhill, his citizen colleague on the Highway 99 Task Force as well as the comments of Ms. McDonald
and others in her neighborhood who spoke against the proposed changes. He urged the Council to build in
protections for single family neighborhoods that surround Highway 99 and the Medical Activity Center
before embarking on a relaxation of regulations that could adversely affect long established
neighborhoods. Appropriate development on Highway 99 and in the Medical Activity Center should be
permitted but as that development begins to encroach on and impact surrounding neighborhoods,
neighborhood protections should be in place to appropriately lessen the encroachment and impact.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether a change to the Comprehensive Plan needed to be initiated by the
Council or citizens. Mr. Lien answered it could come from the Council or citizens. The deadline to submit
a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is December 31. To place an item on the docket for next
year, it would need to be submitted by December 31, 2010. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the
Council could request an emergency amendment be expedited this year. Mr. Lien answered it would be
difficult to complete a Comprehensive Plan change by yearend.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Council should give the Planning Board specific direction to
consider the boundaries of the Medical Activity Center. Mr. Lien explained that was an issue separate
from the proposed SEPA update under discussion. If the City Council chose, they could provide policy
direction to the Planning Board to consider the boundaries of the Medical Activity Center.
With regard to how this proposal originated, Councilmember Wilson recalled an April 21, 2009 meeting
when 65 citizens on the Levy Review Committee stated, 1) we need a levy, and 2) to avoid a future levy,
the City needs to work on economic development. In addition, the Council passed a resolution creating an
Economic Development Commission. Within that context, it was reasonable that the Planning Board and
staff would look for ways to expedite economic development. It is now 14-16 months later, there are three
new Councilmembers and a new Mayor. He appreciated staff and the Planning Board asking the question,
commenting it was now up to the Council to make a decision.
Council President Bernheim expressed concern that major policy changes were included in the draft along
with updates that were technical corrections. The proposed change to the SEPA threshold seemed like a
very low priority but has consumed a great deal of staff and Planning Board time. He preferred that
Packet Page 17 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 15
planning staff work on green building codes, incentives for development based on energy efficiency,
preservation of view corridors, etc. He did not support the repeal of environmental safeties to facilitate
development which is what this sounded like to him. He did not support eliminating environmental policy
procedures for an entire class of development in the name of economic development. Because Highway
99 and the Medical Activity Center are economic development zones did not mean they should be exempt
from environmental protections. He preferred the entire City be subject to SEPA review.
Council President Bernheim expressed concern that this amount of work had been done with only one
presentation to the Community Services/Development Services Committee and no request for guidance
from the Committee. The only City Council involvement following the presentation to the Committee
was the presentation staff provided in July. He did not want the Planning Board to view this as another
effort on which the Council did not act. He did not want the message to be that the Council was interested
in promoting economic development by repealing environmental regulations. He acknowledged many of
the technical updates were non-controversial.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed the motive for the proposal was as Councilmember Wilson described but
in this case the Planning Board got it wrong. He would have preferred the Planning Board bring the
policy issue of whether to increase the SEPA threshold to the Council prior to providing a
recommendation on the updates for consistency along with a change in the policy. That would have
achieved both objectives, 1) the technical update, and 2) determining whether the Council was interested
in pursuing an increase in the SEPA threshold.
Councilmember Petso suggested staff return the proposal to the Council with the technical corrections and
without the change in the flexible thresholds.
Mr. Lien clarified the Council was not interested in repealing the 500 cubic yards that has applied
throughout the City for 25 years, only the Activity Center and the Highway 99 corridor. Councilmember
Petso agreed, expressing her intent to leave the policy thresholds as they are and make the other technical
updates to better conform to the model ordinance. She was not proposing a change to the grading
threshold.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO ASK
STAFF TO BRING BACK THE SEPA UPDATES WITHOUT THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO
THE FLEXIBLE THRESHOLD.
Councilmember Peterson concurred with Councilmember Wilson’s explanation that direction for this
review came from the Council as a result of the Levy Review Committee’s recommendation and the
formation of an Economic Development Commission. The Council has told staff and citizen groups to
look for positive economic development efforts. He emphasized the zoning would not change under the
proposal to increase the SEPA threshold; SEPA is a minor part of a development proposal. As an
environmentalist, he supports SEPA but wants to ensure citizens are aware that it is the development code
and zoning that protects single family neighborhoods, not SEPA. He recalled the proposal by the Kruger
Clinic would have required an extensive review; SEPA review would not have prevented that
development. He clarified neither staff, the Planning Board nor the Council was interested in radically
changing policy; the policy is in the zoning code and development code, not in the SEPA regulations. He
expressed his support for the motion.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified he did not mean that the Planning Board should not explore things, he
was suggesting the process was wrong when major policy changes did not come to the Council first
before the Planning Board spent time on it.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 18 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 16
Councilmember Wilson suggested redefining the boundaries of the Medical Activity Center as part of the
2011 Comprehensive Plan docket. He recalled the overwhelming lesson at the time of the Kruger Clinic’s
proposal was that the Medical Activity Center was poorly defined which created conflicts between the
City’s vision for the area and how it was described in the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Petso suggested the Community Services/Development Services Committee discuss a
Comprehensive Plan amendment at their next meeting and return to Council with a plan of action.
Mr. Snyder suggested a motion to docket review of the language and limits of the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center in next year’s Comprehensive Plan amendment. Councilmember Wilson clarified the
Council could docket a proposed question without an answer to the question. Mr. Snyder answered yes,
explaining it kept all the options open.
Councilmembers Peterson and Petso expressed support for docketing review of the language and limits of
the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
PLACE REVIEW OF THE MEDICAL ACTIVITY CENTER ON THE 2011 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DOCKET. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, reiterated her question, how the ferry system plans to spend $26 million in
Edmonds and why the eight elected officials in Edmonds do not know how those funds will be spent. She
suspected the reason elected officials did not know the answer was because the elected officials have
never asked the ferry system that question; the email Mr. Clifton sent to the ferry system stated Ms.
Shippen was asking the question. The ferry system’s response has been the funds are a placeholder. Next,
she asserted the City had never asked the ferry system what one improvement project would be built with
the $26 million. She urged the Mayor and Council to ask the ferry system what the $26 million would be
spent on. To the comment that this is far in the future, she pointed out the project would be built in 19
years, and the ferry system must know what the project is. She objected to the suggestion to appeal to the
legislature with regard to this issue, anticipating they would have little interest. She assumed the project
was a second slip at the main street terminal and planned to pursue discussion of the second slip and the
Edmonds Crossing “crackpot scheme.”
Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, Steering Committee Member of the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Project,
spoke in favor of the ordinance to create a Citizens Tree Board. Last April, Edmonds received
Community Wildlife Habitat certification from the National Wildlife Federation following nearly two
years of dedicated work by Laura and Paul Spehar and a committee with the support of 191 residential
property owners, 5 schools and 19 parks and green zone managers who registered their properties as
backyard wildlife habitats. The Tree Board will engage in several sub-projects that include, 1) developing
a tree ordinance designed to preserve and protect existing trees and encourage planting of additional trees,
2) increasing community outreach and education regarding the value of trees, proper selection of trees and
current methods of planting and carrying for trees, 3) working with citizen groups to organize invasive
plant removal and native vegetation planting in conjunction with the Department of Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services, 4) sponsoring an annual Arbor Day event, 5) working toward achievement of Tree City
USA status. Meetings will be open to the public and minutes will be filed with the City Clerk’s Office.
Dr. Richard Senderoff and she met with Planning Manager Rob Chave and Parks Director Brian
McIntosh who reviewed and provided input on the ordinance. The ordinance has also been reviewed by
the City Attorney Scott Snyder. Once the ordinance to create the Tree Board is approved by the Council,
the Mayor’s office will prepare a press release seeking applicants for the Tree Board. She encouraged all
interested parties to apply.
Packet Page 19 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 17
Carlo Boley, Edmonds, expressed support for the creation of a Citizens Tree Board to provide oversight
to the process of tree removal. He has helped organize a community greenbelt cleanup and removal of
invasive species around the former Woodway Elementary and Madrona Schools. He envisioned the Tree
Board could provide support for such efforts. He noted one of the goals of the Mayor’s Climate Protection
Agreement is to reduce the City’s carbon emissions by 7% below 1990 levels by 2012; protecting trees is
one way to achieve this goal.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, asked whether the City could still collect taxes that funded the water and
sewer bonds after the bonds were paid off. He concurred with Ms. Shippen’s request that the Mayor and
Council should ask the ferry system how they plan to spend $26 million in Edmonds. Next, he objected to
the Planning Department’s efforts to incorporate PRD regulations into the subdivision ordinance.
Observing that a PRD is a special type of zoning that provides protection for neighborhoods, he urged the
Council to instruct the Planning Board to discontinue that effort. He summarized if PRDs were
eliminated, there would not be any perimeter requirements.
Sheri Cam, Edmonds, a Floretum Garden Club Member, Snohomish County Master Gardener,
Backyard Habitat, Plant Amnesty Member, and Heritage Tree Foundation promoter in Seattle, expressed
support for establishing a Tree Board in Edmonds. She encouraged Edmonds to also establish a Heritage
Tree Program.
6. UPDATE FROM PLANNING BOARD ON PRD/SUBDIVISION STUDY, PRD PERIMETER
BUFFER ORDINANCE AND PLANNING BOARD NEEDS/PRIORITIES.
Council President Bernheim observed the Planning Board indicates they plan to review the perimeter
buffer issue next week and hold a public hearing in late October. He suggested the Council review the
Planning Board’s Work Plan and he will schedule discussion of the Work Plan on a future agenda.
7. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED “TREE
BOARD.”
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this topic was discussed at the Community Services/
Development Services Committee. The Tree Board is proposed in support of Tree City USA as well as to
undertake proactive efforts. If and when the Tree Board begins to review City regulations, they will need
Council approval because that effort will require substantial staff time. The Tree Board will do a lot of
their work because there will not be any staff directed to that effort. He requested the Council clarify
whether the Council President or Mayor would appoint the alternate and how replacement members
would be appointed. The standard process is for the Mayor to make appointments which are then
confirmed by the Council.
Council President Bernheim explained there is a question regarding the number of members. As
proposed, there would be 7 members; it has been suggested there be up to 15 members. Another issue is
appointment to staggered terms. He suggested if the Council approves the formation of the Tree Board,
half the members be appointed to a full term and half appointed to a half term to provide some rotation.
Mr. Chave relayed Mr. Snyder’s suggestion that the sunset clause in Section 2 be eliminated.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the Tree Board would be staffed. Mr. Chave explained it would be
similar to the Historic Preservation Commission where staff does what they can. Historic Preservation
Commissioners do their own research. There is also no funding for minute taking for the Tree Board; they
would be expected to elect a Secretary who would prepare minutes.
Councilmember Wilson asked if a Tree Board was required to become a Tree City USA. Mr. Chave
answered it was one of the requirements.
Packet Page 20 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 18
Councilmember Wilson commented there was no other commission structured like this in the City; even
the Historic Preservation Commission has a Council liaison. There was no provision for a
Councilmember to participate on the Tree Board. Mr. Chave answered that was typical for most boards
and commissions; there is not a direct Council liaison.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the Tree Board could be structured to ensure the Board integrated the
Council’s vision. Mr. Chave commented most boards and commissions periodically report to the Council.
Providing staff and a minute taker for the Tree Board was a budget issue.
Mr. Snyder commented the Tree Board was being created to develop a tree ordinance designed to
preserve and protect trees. If the tree ordinance affected the zoning code, review and public hearing by the
Planning Board would be required. Although the Tree Board would be subject to the Open Public
Meetings Act, there are no public hearing requirements. Mr. Chave viewed the Tree Board as a fact-
gathering advisory body. The Tree Board could also serve as a sounding board when the tree regulations
are reviewed in the future.
Councilmember Wilson supported having 7 members appointed by Councilmembers. He suggested rather
than having half the members serve 3 years and half serving 4 years, the terms be 2 years and 4 years. He
did not feel it was necessary to appoint an alternate. Although he supported the formation of a Tree Board
and a tree ordinance and protecting and preserving as many trees as possible, he did not want to protect
and preserve 100% of the trees in Edmonds.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES:
1. KEEP THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS AT 7.
2. REVISE THE LAST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH A ON PAGE 2 TO READ,
“SUBSEQUENT TO THE INITIAL APPOINTMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
RENEWAL/REPLACEMENTS, WHEN REQUIRED, WILL BE MADE BY THE FULL
COUNCIL.”
3. CHANGE 3 YEAR TERMS TO 2 YEAR TERMS.
4. REMOVE THE PROVISION REGARDING AN ALTERNATE MEMBER.
5. REMOVE THE SUNSET CLAUSE IN SECTION 2.
Councilmember Wilson suggested clarifying in Section 10.95.010B that the terms correlate to the terms
of Councilmembers. Council President Bernheim agreed. Mr. Snyder suggested the ordinance be revised
in accordance with Council direction and scheduled on the Council’s next Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Peterson referred to Section 10.95.010B that states each member may seek renewal for
one additional term. He clarified if a person were appointed to a 2 year term, they could seek renewal for
one additional term, a total of 6 years. Council President Bernheim agreed, noting subsequent to the initial
appointments, all terms would be 4 years.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether other boards and commissions had term limits. Mr. Snyder
answered there were on some.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
In response to Ms. Shippen, Mayor Cooper explained Mr. Clifton’s communication with the Washington
State Ferries (WSF) was at his request and there have been several telephone conversations subsequent to
the email Ms. Shippen referred to. Staff is pressing WSF but the answer they give is the answer they give
and there was little more that could be done other than make the City’s position clear. He suggested the
Packet Page 21 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 19
Council may want to consider making its position clear to WSF at some point. Their consistent answer
has been it is a long term project 19 years in the future and the project has not yet been determined. He
has a meeting scheduled with WSF’s executive director and he will raise the subject then.
Mayor Cooper encouraged citizens to complete the customer satisfaction survey available on the City’s
website. In the short time the survey has been available, approximately 80 responses have been received.
He looked forward to reviewing the results of the survey with the Council later this month.
Mayor Cooper congratulated Edmonds-Woodway High School’s football team who participated in the
Red Onion Burger Intimidator’s Challenge, defeating Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood and Meadowdale
High School’s football teams. The Edmonds-Woodway High School’s football player finished 3.5 lbs. of
food. As a result of Edmonds-Woodway High School’s football team winning the challenge, Mountlake
Terrace Mayor Jerry Smith will be on display at halftime at one of Edmonds-Woodway High School’s
football games dressed in feminine attire in Edmonds-Woodway colors.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Peterson congratulated the citizens involved in forming the Tree Board and bringing the
matter to the Council. This is a great opportunity for Edmonds to be a leader in environmental efforts.
Councilmember Peterson announced a fundraiser at the Edmonds Center for the Arts on Friday,
September 10 for a new 501(c)(3) started by an Edmonds resident that helps soldiers returning with Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder. Further information is available at EC4arts.org or Operation Open Arms’
website, operation-open-arms.com
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the 2010 Citizen Levy Committee is meeting Monday, September 13
at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room. The team is working hard, looking at various aspects of a levy and
how the City operates. The Committee had a presentation from Finance Director Lorenzo Hines at the last
meeting and. Public Works Director Phil Williams will make a presentation at the September 13 meeting.
Councilmember Buckshnis provided a reminder regarding the car show on Sunday, September 12.
Councilmember Wilson expressed thanks to Parks and Recreation Director Brian McIntosh who is
retiring after 27 years with the City. Councilmember Wilson explained he joined the Council in 2008;
since April 1, 2009, 6 of the 10 director positions in the City have been vacated –Finance Director,
Administrative Services Director, Parks Director, Fire Chief, Public Works Director, and the
Development Services Director. He noted 3 of the 10 positions have not been filled since the position was
vacated. He summarized that although there had been a lot of turnover on the Council and staff, the
employees who serve the City continue to do a great job.
Councilmember Plunkett congratulated Mr. McIntosh, noting he had always been available and helpful.
He will be missed.
Councilmember Plunkett reported on the special Finance Committee meeting that was held regarding the
budget amendment presented to the Council. Mr. Hines spent 2 hours with 3 Councilmembers and 6-7
members of the public and satisfied about 80% of their questions. The Finance Committee has
recommended to the Council President that the budget amendment not be scheduled on the Council
agenda until two things are resolved, 1) an hour with Ms. Councilmember Petso to address additional
questions, and 2) there is a $2 million accounting that is still being researched. The CAFR actual General
Fund balance at the end of 2009 is $6 million. When that is moved forward via the amendment, the
balance is $4 million including the emergency reserves according to Exhibit A in the quarterly report.
Mr. Hines has said that money is rolled in and he can and will account for it. Councilmember Plunkett
Packet Page 22 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 20
assured he was not saying the money was not there, it just has not been accounted for in the quarterly
report.
He referred to clauses in the resolution on financial accountability, Resolution 1266, that are incorporated
in Chapter 3.04 Financial Reporting, which strongly suggest Mr. Hines having the information in his head
and on his computer does not meet the financial reporting requirements. He summarized that when the
amendment is presented to the Council, the Council should be able to see the numbers.
Councilmember Wilson expressed appreciation to the Finance Committee for holding a special meeting.
He expected none of the Councilmembers would say their expectations had been met with regard to
financial reporting. He observed the $6 million at the end of 2009 was the actual. The $4 million in the
quarterly report was based on the adopted budget. His understanding was there would be a $2 million net
benefit to the actual reserves once the amendment was adopted which would make the $4 million in the
Quarterly Report equivalent to the $6 million in the actual. Councilmember Plunkett preferred to see the
numbers on paper.
Mayor Cooper commented Councilmember Wilson’s explanation was accurate with regard to how the
money flowed. It’s comparing apples and oranges by comparing the CAFR to the Quarterly Report, it’s
actual versus budget.
Council President Bernheim commented the objective of the budget amendment and the budget process
was for the Council to understand what was going on. He looked forward to an understandable
presentation.
Council President Bernheim commented all the turnover of directors except in one case had been due to
retirements which is a great testimony to the City.
Council President Bernheim announced there are two vacancies on the Planning Board. He encouraged
anyone interested in applying to contact the Mayor’s office.
10. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:19 p.m.
Packet Page 23 of 602
AM-3376 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/21/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Submitted By:Debbie Karber
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #121101 through #121213 dated September 9, 2010 for $1,729,084.52, and
claim checks #121214 through #121351 dated September 16, 2010 for $521,065.12.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expeditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010
Revenue:
Expenditure:2,250,149.64
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $2,250,149.64
Attachments
claim checks 9-9-10
claim checks 9-16-10
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Lorenzo Hines 09/16/2010 01:53 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 01:55 PM
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 09/16/2010 03:18 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 03:30 PM
Form Started By: Debbie Karber Started On: 09/16/2010 09:39 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/16/2010
Packet Page 24 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121101 9/9/2010 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 282862 RODENT CONTROL/MEADOWDALE
RODENT CONTROL @ MEADOWDALE CC
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 82.12
RODENT CONTROL282873
RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 93.08
RODENT CONTROL/MEADOWDALE285081
RODENT CONTROL @ MEADOWDALE
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 82.12
RODENT CONTROL285103
RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 93.08
Total :350.40
121102 9/9/2010 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101704547 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
Total :27.38
121103 9/9/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5098957 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
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
121104 9/9/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5098962 21580001
UNIFORMS
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
1Page:
Packet Page 25 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121105 9/9/2010 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM
PARKS FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 83.14
Total :83.14
121106 9/9/2010 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 14883 BURIAL SUPPLIES
BURIAL SUPPLIES: MURZA
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 388.00
BURIAL SUPPLIES14925
BURIAL SUPPLIES: VAKULCHIK
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 388.00
BURIAL SUPPLIES14981
BURIAL SUPPLIES: KINLER
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 388.00
BURIAL SUPPLIES15058
BURIAL SUPPLIES: GEBREMARIAM
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 388.00
Total :1,552.00
121107 9/9/2010 073035 AVAGIMOVA, KARINE 548 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 100.00
INTERPRETER FEE549
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 100.00
INTERPRETER FEE550
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 100.00
INTERPRETER FEE551
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
INTERPRETER FEE552
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
INTERPRETER FEE557
INTERPRETER FEE
2Page:
Packet Page 26 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121107 9/9/2010 (Continued)073035 AVAGIMOVA, KARINE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
INTERPRETER FEE580
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
INTERPRETER FEE581
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
Total :800.00
121108 9/9/2010 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 74698 BASKETBALL PLAQUES
RE-ENGRAVE BASKETBALL PLAQUES
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 13.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 1.24
Total :14.24
121109 9/9/2010 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0810 Background check services
Background check services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 105.00
Total :105.00
121110 9/9/2010 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 011607772 COPIER RENTAL
COPIER RENTAL
001.000.230.512.501.450.00 154.40
Total :154.40
121111 9/9/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 827488 INV#827488 - EDMONDS PD - MACK
UNIFORM PANTS
001.000.410.521.710.240.00 108.50
S/S UNIFORM SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.710.240.00 196.98
LEATHER BOOTS
001.000.410.521.710.240.00 249.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.710.240.00 52.77
3Page:
Packet Page 27 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :608.20121111 9/9/2010 002500 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
121112 9/9/2010 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN13248 PILATES YOGA FUSION
PILATES YOGA FUSION #13248
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 69.30
Total :69.30
121113 9/9/2010 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14130268 C-311
C-311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 894.25
Total :894.25
121114 9/9/2010 003330 CASCADE TROPHY 30900 Planning Board Plaque/ Bullock
Planning Board Plaque/ Bullock
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 42.50
Engraving/ Edmonds Logo
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 25.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 6.41
Total :73.91
121115 9/9/2010 068484 CEMEX 9419976882 MARINA BEACH CURBING
MATERIAL FOR MARINA BEACH CURBING
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 199.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.31
Total :217.31
121116 9/9/2010 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN08101030 GYMNASTICS HELIUM
HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BIRTHDAY PARTIES
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
121117 9/9/2010 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN08101031 2954000
CYLINDER RENTAL
4Page:
Packet Page 28 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121117 9/9/2010 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 33.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 3.15
Total :36.35
121118 9/9/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8109 MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
411.000.655.535.800.472.00 13,800.83
Total :13,800.83
121119 9/9/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2225932 CLEANING SUPPLIES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 81.49
TOILET TISSUE, PAPER TOWELS, CLEANERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 857.80
Total :939.29
121120 9/9/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2228304 Fac Maint - Towels, Bleach, Cleaners,
Fac Maint - Towels, Bleach, Cleaners,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 449.28
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 42.68
Fac Maint - Complete Finish CleanerW2228304-1
Fac Maint - Complete Finish Cleaner
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 58.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.53
Total :555.66
121121 9/9/2010 070300 CODE 4 INC 8142 INV 8142 CISM SUICIDE PREVENTION - TRYKA
CISM: SUICIDE PREVENTION - TRYKAR
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 199.00
Total :199.00
121122 9/9/2010 070323 COMCAST 0721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES
BUNDLED SERVICES FOR CEMETERY OFFICE
5Page:
Packet Page 29 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121122 9/9/2010 (Continued)070323 COMCAST
130.000.640.536.200.420.00 113.42
Total :113.42
121123 9/9/2010 062891 COOK PAGING WA 8047094 WATER DEPT CALL-OUT PAGER
pagers-water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 3.95
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 0.29
Total :4.24
121124 9/9/2010 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING AUGUST 2010 EDMONDS PD - AUGUST DRY CLEANING
LAUNDRY/DRY CLEANING 08/2010
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 967.67
Total :967.67
121125 9/9/2010 073390 CUMMINGS, DAVID L 7-04625 RE: #467588 UTILITY REFUND
#467588 UB Refund Cummings/Cavanaugh
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 119.86
Total :119.86
121126 9/9/2010 072189 DATASITE 66736 INV#66736 - EDMONDS PD
SHREDDING 08/26/10 -64 GAL TOTE
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 40.00
Total :40.00
121127 9/9/2010 072189 DATASITE 66699 SHREDDING SERVICES/CABINETS
Doc Shred Services City Clerk
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 25.00
Doc Shred Services Finance
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 25.00
Total :50.00
121128 9/9/2010 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 7/21/10-9/2/10 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL
State Share of Concealed Pistol
001.000.000.237.190.000.00 165.00
6Page:
Packet Page 30 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :165.00121128 9/9/2010 070230 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING
121129 9/9/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3133 MINUTE TAKING
8/31 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 354.00
Total :354.00
121130 9/9/2010 072582 DORSE AIR PORDUCTS 53255 PS - Parts
PS - Parts
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 103.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.79
Total :112.79
121131 9/9/2010 065892 EAF FOUNDATION EAC0908 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT
TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT
123.000.640.573.100.410.00 900.00
Total :900.00
121132 9/9/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001204/1 FAC MAINT
Boys & Girls Club - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.27
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.50
FAC MAINT001213/1
Boys & Girls Club- Metal Repair Tape
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.95
FAC MAINT001214/1
Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Hex Key Set
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.04
FAC MAINT001216/1
FAC - Bee Spray
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.28
7Page:
Packet Page 31 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121132 9/9/2010 (Continued)073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.88
FAC MAINT1203/1
PS - Quick Set Epoxy
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.47
FAC MAINT1206/1
Fac Maint - Fasteners, Hex Key set
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.43
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.99
FAC MAINT1220/1
Plaza Rm - Fasteners
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.68
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.44
Total :60.90
121133 9/9/2010 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP BROCKMANN0902 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPS
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPS
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 52.00
Total :52.00
121134 9/9/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 CITY PARK
CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 318.88
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 905.45
SPRINKLER1-00875
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 43.15
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER1-02125
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER
8Page:
Packet Page 32 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121134 9/9/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 45.34
SPRINKLER1-03900
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 69.50
GAZEBO IRRIGATION1-05285
GAZEBO IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 34.36
CORNER PARK1-05340
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 51.93
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05650
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.58
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP1-05675
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 673.23
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05700
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 139.77
CORNER PARK1-09650
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 65.11
SW CORNER SPRINKLER1-09800
SW CORNER SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 69.50
PLANTER1-10780
PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 62.91
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH1-16130
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 62.91
CORNER PARKS1-16300
CORNER PARKS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 82.68
118 5TH AVE N1-16420
9Page:
Packet Page 33 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121134 9/9/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
WATER: 118 5TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 40.95
CITY HALL TRIANGLE1-16450
CITY HALL TRIANGLE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 135.93
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX1-16630
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 45.34
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER1-17475
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 67.30
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD1-19950
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 51.83
1141 9TH AVE S1-36255
WATER 1141 9TH AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.58
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)2-25150
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.17
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)2-25175
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 51.93
SPRINKLER2-28275
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 67.30
MINI PARK2-37180
MINI PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 35.65
820 15TH ST SW7-05276
SEWER/STORM DRAIN:
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 105.24
23700 104TH AVE W8-40000
STORM DRAIN/HICKMAN PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 4,235.67
10Page:
Packet Page 34 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :7,545.19121134 9/9/2010 008705 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
121135 9/9/2010 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 090007 RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEMENT
Radix Monthly Maint Agreement -~
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 152.00
Total :152.00
121136 9/9/2010 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 057570 COPIER MAINT
COPIER MAINT
001.000.230.512.500.480.00 50.33
Total :50.33
121137 9/9/2010 073389 ERIKSEN, LEE KRISTIAN 09032010 REFUND FOR CONCEALED PISTOL LICENSE
Refund for concealed pistol license
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 32.00
Total :32.00
121138 9/9/2010 009410 EVERETT STEEL INC 456927 EDMCI
CHANNEL/ANGLE/PLATE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,066.67
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 101.33
Total :1,168.00
121139 9/9/2010 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU21000 Water - Supplies
Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.48
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 0.43
Total :4.91
121140 9/9/2010 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0264783 Water - Supplies
Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 391.37
Inventory - w-pipeco-0.75-011
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 1,618.50
9.5% Sales Tax
11Page:
Packet Page 35 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121140 9/9/2010 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 37.18
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 153.75
Water - Supplies0264783-1
Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 97.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 9.26
Water Supplies0266829
Water Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 993.13
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 94.35
Total :3,395.04
121141 9/9/2010 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 161846 August 2010 Section 125 & 132 Plan fees
August 2010 Section 125 & 132 Plan fees
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 86.50
Total :86.50
121142 9/9/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-FLO-0017 FS #16 FRAME RELAY 8/20-9/19/10
FS #16 Frame Relay 8/20-9/19/10
001.000.510.528.600.420.00 720.24
Total :720.24
121143 9/9/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 45.78
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-5055
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 63.67
Total :109.45
121144 9/9/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425 NW1-0155 03 0210 1099569419 02
TELEMETRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 218.12
12Page:
Packet Page 36 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121144 9/9/2010 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
03 0210 101452264107425771-5553
AUTO DIALER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 94.69
03 0210 1079569413 10425NW1-0060
BPS TELEMETRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.47
Total :354.28
121145 9/9/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-640-8169 PT EDWARDS SEWER PUMP STATION MONITOR
Phone line for Sewer Lift Station at Pt
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 41.23
LIFT STATION #1425-673-5978
Lift Station #1
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 49.92
FS # 16425-771-0158
FS #16
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 163.41
LIFT ST 7425-775-2069
Lift St 7
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 59.47
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-6829
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 109.61
Total :423.64
121146 9/9/2010 069675 GALAXY SPECIALTY COMPANY 68007 CALENDARS FOR COURT ROOM
CALENDARS FOR COURT ROOM
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 30.15
Total :30.15
121147 9/9/2010 012560 HACH COMPANY 6876377 Water Quality - Labor Yost, Seaview CO2
Water Quality - Labor Yost, Seaview CO2
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 370.00
Mileage Charge
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 295.00
13Page:
Packet Page 37 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121147 9/9/2010 (Continued)012560 HACH COMPANY
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 35.15
Total :700.15
121148 9/9/2010 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 23038 E0FD.SERVICES THRU 8/27/10
E0FD.Services thru 8/27/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,270.26
Total :1,270.26
121149 9/9/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 3060022 6035322500959949
PAINT SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 45.12
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.29
60353225009599495093924
WHT. LOUVER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 11.87
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.13
60353225009599496042223
WIRE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 25.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.45
60353225009599496591181
PLUGS
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 23.97
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.28
60353225009599498043992
ABS REDUCER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 22.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.13
60353225009599499043830
14Page:
Packet Page 38 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121149 9/9/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
LUMBER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 19.97
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.90
Total :163.28
121150 9/9/2010 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 8941 Fac Maint - Towels
Fac Maint - Towels
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 235.40
Total :235.40
121151 9/9/2010 070042 IKON 83111768 PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE
PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 25.41
Total :25.41
121152 9/9/2010 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 5014790659 Meter charges for reception copier.
Meter charges for reception copier.
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 6.57
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 0.62
Total :7.19
121153 9/9/2010 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 2925786 PRESCHOOL INTERNET SERVICE
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET SERVICE
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00
Total :15.00
121154 9/9/2010 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3422423 INV#3422423 - EDMONDS PD
MULTI USE PAPER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 233.40
HANDLING FEE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 35.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 22.17
15Page:
Packet Page 39 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :290.57121154 9/9/2010 072650 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE
121155 9/9/2010 062477 KEEP POSTED 14279 ADVERTISING
ADVERTISING/NATALIE GOLDBERG
123.000.640.573.100.440.00 112.00
Total :112.00
121156 9/9/2010 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 0810-108246 E8GC.SERVICES THRU JULY 2010
E8GC.Services thru July 2010
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 1,223.86
E8GC.Services thru July 2010
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,223.86
E8GC.Services thru July 2010
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 1,223.85
Total :3,671.57
121157 9/9/2010 070285 KPLU-FM IN-1100823003 RADIO ADVERTISING WEEK OF 8/02/10
Radio advertising on KPLU week of
001.000.240.513.110.440.00 950.00
Total :950.00
121158 9/9/2010 073136 LANG, ROBERT LANG0903 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 9/3/10
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 40.00
Total :40.00
121159 9/9/2010 069634 LEXISNEXIS 1201641-20100831 INV 1201641-20100831 EDMONDS PD
SEARCHES, REPORTS FOR AUG 2010
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 80.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 7.62
Total :87.87
121160 9/9/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104975 Copy paper
Copy paper
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 24.67
Copy paper
16Page:
Packet Page 40 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121160 9/9/2010 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 24.66
Copy paper
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 24.67
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 2.34
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 2.34
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 2.35
Total :81.03
121161 9/9/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104947 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 362.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 34.47
Total :397.27
121162 9/9/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104944 Task Chair for receptionists.
Task Chair for receptionists.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 368.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 34.96
Engineering letterhead.104951
Engineering letterhead.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 243.05
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 23.09
Total :669.10
121163 9/9/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104766 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 7.44
SUPPLIES104956
SUPPLIES
17Page:
Packet Page 41 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121163 9/9/2010 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 176.80
Total :184.24
121164 9/9/2010 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 703547 CREDIT/PAID TWICE
PARTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 -4.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 -0.45
SUPPLIES709528
CARBURETOR PARTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 71.37
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.78
SUPPLIES716879
SUPPLIES FOR GAS EDGER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.79
Total :82.06
121165 9/9/2010 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 957 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE958
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE959
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE960
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE961
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 107.50
18Page:
Packet Page 42 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121165 9/9/2010 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
INTERPRETER FEE962
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE963
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE964
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE968
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE969
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE970
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE971
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
Total :1,070.00
121166 9/9/2010 073376 MEISLAHN, ERIC BLD20100473 Duplicate online permit. Both homeowner
Duplicate online permit. Both homeowner
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 80.00
Total :80.00
121167 9/9/2010 070788 NETRIVER INC 51131 ANNUAL DOMAIN NAME RENEWAL BIRD FEST
Annual domain renewal fee for Puget
120.000.310.575.420.410.00 39.90
Total :39.90
121168 9/9/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-174474 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: YOST PARK POOL
19Page:
Packet Page 43 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121168 9/9/2010 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 222.89
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-174760
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: HUMMINGBIRD PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 101.20
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-176626
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: HICKMAN PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 305.16
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-181912
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: CIVIC FIELD
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
Total :819.12
121169 9/9/2010 068769 NORTHWEST CASTER 1079537 Plaza Rm - Casters
Plaza Rm - Casters
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 34.06
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.24
Total :37.30
121170 9/9/2010 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 149 Planning Board Minutes on 7/28/10.
Planning Board Minutes on 7/28/10.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 368.00
Planning Board Minutes on 8/25/10/000 00 156
Planning Board Minutes on 8/25/10/
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 240.00
ADB Minutes 9/1/10000 00 158
ADB Minutes 9/1/10
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 96.00
Total :704.00
121171 9/9/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 525636 TONER CARTRIDGE
LASER CARTRIDGE
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 107.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 10.22
20Page:
Packet Page 44 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121171 9/9/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
SHREDDER546766
SHREDDER FOR FRONT DESK OFFICE
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 191.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 18.24
CREDIT FOR SHREDDER552625
CREDIT FOR SHREDDER
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 -191.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 -18.24
GLOVES585992
DISCOVERY PROGRAM: GLOVES
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 6.91
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 0.66
OFFICE SUPPLIES633486
PAPER, ERASER CAPS, THUMB TACKS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 13.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.25
SHARPIES639040
SHARPIES
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 5.22
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.50
DISCOVERY PROGRAM/TAPE648938
TAPE FOR DISCOVERY PROGRAM
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 4.35
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 0.41
INKJET CARTRIDGE664928
MAGENTA CARTRIDGE
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 35.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.34
21Page:
Packet Page 45 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121171 9/9/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
BLUE PAPER675122
BLUE BOND PAPER
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 7.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.73
PAPER715565
8 X 10 COPY PAPER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 215.52
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.48
TONER CARTRIDGE781096
LASER CARTRIDGE
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 107.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 10.22
OFFICE SUPPLIES802524
MANILA FOLDERS, PENCILS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 19.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.89
DISCOVERY PROGRAM NAME TAGS815649
DISCOVERY PROGRAM NAME TAGS
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 15.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 1.49
OFFICE SUPPLIES877091
DISCOVERY PROGRAM/ERASERS
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 2.37
GLUE STICKS, PAPER CLIPS, ETC.
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 19.85
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 0.23
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.88
22Page:
Packet Page 46 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :614.06121171 9/9/2010 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
121172 9/9/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 762916 PW Admin - Office Supplies
PW Admin - Office Supplies
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 55.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 5.24
Fac Maint - Printer Ink763517
Fac Maint - Printer Ink
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 50.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.76
Total :115.18
121173 9/9/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 125217 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 -191.38
SUPPLIES125217
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 191.38
SUPPLIES130824
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 467.34
SUPPLIES196098
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 45.75
SUPPLIES436135
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 72.05
SUPPLIES455166
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 108.62
Total :693.76
121174 9/9/2010 068709 OFFICETEAM 31690424 TEMPORARY HELP
Temp. Help in Clerk's Office
23Page:
Packet Page 47 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121174 9/9/2010 (Continued)068709 OFFICETEAM
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 679.60
Total :679.60
121175 9/9/2010 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0000130 220TH ST SW & 84TH AVE W
WATER: 220TH ST SW & 84TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 35.40
820 15TH ST SW0001520
WATER: 820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 29.55
820 15TH ST SW0001530
820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 126.42
5TH & ST RTE0002930
WATER: 5TH & ST RTE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 39.04
9803 EDMONDS WAY0005060
WATER: 9803 EDMONDS WAY
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.95
Total :254.36
121176 9/9/2010 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0021400 FIRE STATION #20
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 176.75
Total :176.75
121177 9/9/2010 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 045467 YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL CHEMICALS/SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 457.35
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 43.45
Total :500.80
121178 9/9/2010 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.961717 FAC - Paint Supplies
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.47
FAC - Paint Supplies
24Page:
Packet Page 48 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121178 9/9/2010 (Continued)027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 25.99
Total :28.46
121179 9/9/2010 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 95126 INV#95126 - EDMONDS PD - #10-3239
TOWING 1999 JEEP #436YUY
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 197.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 18.76
Total :216.26
121180 9/9/2010 028400 PITNEY BOWES 581396 LETTER OPENER YEARLY MAINT
10/1/10-09/30/11 letter opener
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 293.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 27.84
Total :320.84
121181 9/9/2010 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 0186251 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.26
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.26
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.27
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.26
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST186425
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.25
25Page:
Packet Page 49 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121181 9/9/2010 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST186548
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.25
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST186667
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.25
Total :35.96
121182 9/9/2010 070979 PRECISION EARTHWORKS INC E6DA.Pmt 11 E6DA.PAYMENT 11.SERVICES THRU 8/31/10
E6DA.Payment 11.Services thru 8/31/10
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 57,490.89
Total :57,490.89
121183 9/9/2010 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING -CITY HALL
24 hour Alarm Monitoring-City Hall~
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 37.85
Total :37.85
121184 9/9/2010 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 10-543 COURT SECURITY
COURT SECURITY
001.000.230.512.500.410.00 2,475.63
Total :2,475.63
26Page:
Packet Page 50 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121185 9/9/2010 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 111134 INSCRIPTION
INSCRIPTION: KELLY
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 160.00
Total :160.00
121186 9/9/2010 067447 RILEY, CHARLES H.69 LEOFF1 Reimbursement
LEOFF1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 579.70
Total :579.70
121187 9/9/2010 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 7478 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 1,600.00
Total :1,600.00
121188 9/9/2010 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY 08/30/10 ACCT#70014 - ANIMAL DISPOSAL- EDMONDS PD
#157464 12 NPC 08/16/10
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 128.16
Total :128.16
121189 9/9/2010 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 594182 INV#594182 - CUST#0001733 - EDMONDS PD
LAWMAN CLEANFIRE 40 CAL 180GR
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 5,754.58
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 546.69
Total :6,301.27
121190 9/9/2010 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC 1101771 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 674.39
Total :674.39
121191 9/9/2010 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-220724 Fleet Shop Tool
Fleet Shop Tool
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 19.78
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 1.88
27Page:
Packet Page 51 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121191 9/9/2010 (Continued)036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC
Fleet Shop Supplies14-220725
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 68.80
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 6.54
Fleet Shop Supplies - Blue Slick1-704298
Fleet Shop Supplies - Blue Slick
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 10.93
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 1.04
Total :108.97
121192 9/9/2010 036955 SKY NURSERY 288149 PLANTS FOR COLUMBARIUM POTS
PLANTS FOR COLUMBARIUM POTS
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 49.55
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 4.71
Total :54.26
121193 9/9/2010 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY SKYHAWKS12349 SPORTS CAMPS
CAMP #12349
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 1,592.00
CAMP #12362
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 312.00
CAMP #12363
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 894.70
CAMP #12364
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 584.00
CAMP #12365
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 90.00
CAMP #12366
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 220.00
Total :3,692.70
121194 9/9/2010 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 Q4-2010 Q4 2010 Fire Services Contract Payment
28Page:
Packet Page 52 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121194 9/9/2010 (Continued)037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1
Q4 2010 Fire Services Contract Payment
001.000.390.522.200.510.00 1,550,830.50
Total :1,550,830.50
121195 9/9/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2004-9314-6 19827 89TH PL W
19827 89TH PL W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.04
131 SUNSET AVE2006-6395-3
131 SUNSET AVE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 138.13
23202 EDMONDS WAY2009-4334-8
23202 EDMONDS WAY
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 120.60
50 RAILROAD AVE2010-5432-7
50 RAILROAD AVE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 63.20
100 RAILROAD AVE2021-3965-5
100 RAILROAD AVE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 35.02
24000 78TH AVE W2026-2041-5
24000 78TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.02
Total :418.01
121196 9/9/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 123555493 2025-7952-0
VARIOUS LOCATIONS
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 7.56
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 0.45
2019-2991-6133509321
23219 74TH AVE W
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 29.28
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.76
29Page:
Packet Page 53 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :39.05121196 9/9/2010 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
121197 9/9/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202919 LIFT STATION #8 113 RR AVE
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 208.32
BEACON LIGHT CROSS WALK 23602 76TH AVE W200274959
BEACON LIGHT CROSS WALK~
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 34.93
TRAFFIC LIGHT 220TH 76TH200493153
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 52.37
4 WAY LIGHT 224TH 76TH200594885
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 74.40
SIGNAL LIGHT 9730 220TH200748606
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
DECORATIVE LIGHTS 115 2ND AVE S200913853
deocrative lighting
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 32.39
SCHOOL LIGHT 21506 84TH W201151420
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH W201187895
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.82
Ballinger Lift Station 7403 Ballinger201427317
Ballinger Lift Station 7403 Ballinger
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.04
LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH PL SW201501277
LIFT STATION #14
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.04
LIFT STATION 7201532926
Lift St 7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 349.61
SIGNAL LIGHT 22400 HWY 99202289096
30Page:
Packet Page 54 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121197 9/9/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
SIGNAL LIGHT - 22400 Hwy 99
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 91.14
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH202356739
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 36.07
LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS202499539
LIFT STATION #1
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 689.84
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (200WATTS:303 LITES)202529186
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (200WATTS:303 LITES)
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 2,649.74
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (400WATTS:13 LITES)202529202
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTING (400WATTS:13
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 184.24
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (100WATTS:2029 LITE)202576153
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (100WATTS:2029 LITE)
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 13,807.75
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (250WATTS:58 LITES)202579488
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (250WATTS:58 LITES)
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 596.97
Total :18,963.73
121198 9/9/2010 038700 SO SNO CO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 09012010 SO SNO CO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LUNCHEON
So Sno Co Chamber of Commerce Community
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 70.00
Total :70.00
121199 9/9/2010 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587 WASTE DISPOSAL
PARK MAINTENANCE DISPOSAL SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 670.49
Total :670.49
121200 9/9/2010 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103584 RECYCLING
RECYCLING
411.000.656.538.800.475.66 28.25
31Page:
Packet Page 55 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121200 9/9/2010 (Continued)038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.475.66 1.70
Total :29.95
121201 9/9/2010 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 garbage & recycle for PS
garbage & recycle for PS
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 550.68
garbage & recycle for FAC103585
garbage & recycle for FAC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 674.47
garbage & recycle for Library103586
garbage & recycle for Library
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 578.55
garbage & recycle-City Hall103588
garbage & recycle-City Hall
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 459.89
Total :2,263.59
121202 9/9/2010 073049 TEC-WORKS INC 11755 Transition Networks & Point system
Transition Networks & Point system
001.000.310.518.870.350.00 1,302.84
Freight
001.000.310.518.870.350.00 33.80
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.870.350.00 117.26
Total :1,453.90
121203 9/9/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 148134-8/31/2010 Court Clerk, #10-27 ad
Court Clerk, #10-27 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 155.40
Total :155.40
121204 9/9/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 101415-08/31/2010 NEWSPAPER ADS
Council & Plan. Brd Agendas
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 2,602.46
32Page:
Packet Page 56 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :2,602.46121204 9/9/2010 009350 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
121205 9/9/2010 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8472460 Water - Meter Lids & Boxes
Water - Meter Lids & Boxes
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,806.24
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 171.60
Water Inventory - w-setterck-0.75-0128523886
Water Inventory - w-setterck-0.75-012
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 1,256.80
Water Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 816.78
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 119.40
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 77.59
Water Supplies - Repair Clamps8530195
Water Supplies - Repair Clamps
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 192.27
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 18.27
Water - Resetters8534230
Water - Resetters
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,699.92
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 161.49
Water Supplies8539227
Water Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 268.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 25.49
Water Supplies - Repair clamps8541913
Water Supplies - Repair clamps
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 187.71
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 17.83
33Page:
Packet Page 57 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121205 9/9/2010 (Continued)061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
Water Inventory - w-setterck-0.75-0128549895
Water Inventory - w-setterck-0.75-012
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 1,256.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 119.39
Water Inventory - w-mtrliddi-02-0108559041
Water Inventory - w-mtrliddi-02-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 370.60
Water Meter Boxes (4)
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 325.64
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 35.22
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 30.93
Water Supplies - Setters8561303
Water Supplies - Setters
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,680.48
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 159.64
Total :10,798.34
121206 9/9/2010 062693 US BANK 3249 POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS
POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 115.20
Total :115.20
121207 9/9/2010 044300 US POSTAL SERVICE 00248 POSTAGE FOR CITY METER
Postage for City Meter250-00248
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 8,000.00
Total :8,000.00
121208 9/9/2010 045800 WA MUNICIPAL CLERKS ASSOC 09172010 SEMINAR REGISTRATION
City Clerk Training
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 125.00
Total :125.00
34Page:
Packet Page 58 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121209 9/9/2010 068227 WCCFA EDWARDS0910 CONVENTION REGISTRATION
2010 FALL CONVENTION REGISTRATION:
130.000.640.536.200.490.00 295.00
Total :295.00
121210 9/9/2010 070796 WEED GRAAFSTRA & BENSON INC PS 10 C/A 4181-03M
Aug-10 Conflict Counsel Reidy/Theisen
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 2,270.00
Total :2,270.00
121211 9/9/2010 064213 WSSUA TREASURER 541 UMPIRING
UMPIRING OF LEAGUE GAMES
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 3,145.00
Total :3,145.00
121212 9/9/2010 070717 WSU URBAN & PESTICIDE SAFETY ROCKNE/EDHOUSE PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION TRAINING
PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION TRAINING:
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 200.00
Total :200.00
121213 9/9/2010 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0142318 CITY WIDE SIGNS
PARKS CITY WIDE SIGNS
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 287.20
Freight
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 39.10
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 31.00
Total :357.30
Bank total :1,729,084.52113 Vouchers for bank code :front
1,729,084.52Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report113
35Page:
Packet Page 59 of 602
09/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
10:19:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
36Page:
Packet Page 60 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121214 9/16/2010 073417 3M COMPANY SS41672 CITY WIDE PARK SIGNS
PARKS CITY WIDE SIGNS
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 183.75
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.45
CITY WIDE PARK SIGNSSS41673
CITY WIDE PARK SIGNS
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 802.50
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 76.23
Total :1,079.93
121215 9/16/2010 072627 911 ETC INC 171062 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT
Aug-10 911 database maint
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 101.50
Total :101.50
121216 9/16/2010 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 10171653 M5Z34
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 :65.97
121217 9/16/2010 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 8894 Monthly Wholesale Charges for Aug 2010
Monthly Wholesale Charges for Aug 2010
411.000.654.534.800.330.00 149,074.89
Total :149,074.89
121218 9/16/2010 073391 ALL CLIMATE HEATING & AIR COND BLD20100635 Online permit outside city limits.
Online permit outside city limits.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 75.00
Total :75.00
121219 9/16/2010 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-001255883 FIRE STATION #20
1Page:
Packet Page 61 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121219 9/16/2010 (Continued)061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 123.75
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY0197-001255970
Public Works Facility
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 25.38
Public Works Facility
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 96.44
Public Works Facility
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 96.44
Public Works Facility
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 96.44
Public Works Facility
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 96.44
Public Works Facility
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 96.44
F/S #16 GARBAGE0197-001256040
F/S #16 Garbage
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 129.89
MCC GARBAGE0197-001256723
garbage for MCC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 59.88
Total :821.10
121220 9/16/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5110822 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
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
121221 9/16/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5079390 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
2Page:
Packet Page 62 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121221 9/16/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.23
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.22
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5079392
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
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5091412
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
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.22
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5091414
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
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-5098958
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
PW MATS655-5103333
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
3Page:
Packet Page 63 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121221 9/16/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
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
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5103336
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
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-5110823
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
PW MATS655-5115231
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
4Page:
Packet Page 64 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121221 9/16/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
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
Total :145.93
121222 9/16/2010 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0107758-IN Fleet Regular Gas - 9316 Gal
Fleet Regular Gas - 9316 Gal
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 20,500.79
St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 3,662.13
WA St Svc Fee
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 40.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 3.80
Total :24,206.72
121223 9/16/2010 064343 AT&T 7303860502001 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works Fax Line
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 1.88
5Page:
Packet Page 65 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121223 9/16/2010 (Continued)064343 AT&T
Public Works Fax Line
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 7.14
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 7.14
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 7.14
Public Works Fax Line
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 7.14
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 7.14
Total :37.58
121224 9/16/2010 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 56866 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 89.21
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 89.21
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 91.92
UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 286.74
UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 286.73
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.47
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.47
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.74
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS56897
UB Outsourcing area # 700 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 23.10
UB Outsourcing area # 700 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 23.10
UB Outsourcing area # 700 Printing
6Page:
Packet Page 66 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121224 9/16/2010 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 23.79
UB Outsourcing area # 700 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 97.46
UB Outsourcing area # 700 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 97.46
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 2.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 2.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 2.25
Total :1,141.05
121225 9/16/2010 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 0003400 E8GA.SERVICES FROM 07/24-08/20/10
E8GA.Services from 07/24-08/20/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 11,588.63
Total :11,588.63
121226 9/16/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 827488-02 INV#827488-02 - EDMONDS PD - MACK
UNIFORM PANTS
001.000.410.521.710.240.00 189.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.710.240.00 18.00
INV#829600 - EDMONDS PD - STRONG829600
WOOL UNIFORM PANTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 325.50
S/S UNIFORM SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 131.32
L/S UNIFORM SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 179.74
5 IN 1 JACKET
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 200.00
NAME TAGS - D.J. STRONG
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 11.00
APPLY HEAT STAMP
7Page:
Packet Page 67 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121226 9/16/2010 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00
REFLECTIVE POLICE PANEL
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 8.00
L/S SHIRT - CLASS A
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 89.87
SILVER METAL BUTTONS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.95
METAL NAMETAG - D.J. STRONG
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 18.00
NAVY TIE
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 93.32
INV#829766 - EDMONDS PD - NELSON829766
L/S UNIFORM SHIRT
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 89.87
SERVICE BARS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 9.28
INV#832009 - EDMONDS PD - STRONG832009
STRIKER II BOOTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 139.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 13.30
Total :1,543.35
121227 9/16/2010 067947 BROWNELLS INC 06110245.00 INV#06110245.00, A/C#00557761-EDMONDS PD
7/8" SQ SUPER DUTY PATCHES
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 21.86
Freight
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 11.50
INV#06110245.01, A/C#00557761-EDMONDS PD06110245.01
7/8" SQ SUPER DUTY PATCHES
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 32.79
8Page:
Packet Page 68 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121227 9/16/2010 (Continued)067947 BROWNELLS INC
2" SQ SUPER DUTY PATCHES
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 135.60
CREDIT FOR RETURNED MERCHANDISERT00355156
1 1/8" MICRO FIBER PATCH
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 -66.52
2" MICRO FIBER PATCH
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 -79.32
Total :55.91
121228 9/16/2010 064592 CASCADE COLUMBIA DIST CO 532182 03432
CALCIUM NITRATE
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 1,425.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 116.38
Total :1,541.38
121229 9/16/2010 070088 CASCADIA CONSULTING GROUP DILL1103 GREEN GARDENING PROGRAM
DEBRA DILL: GREEN GARDENING PROGRAM
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 50.00
Total :50.00
121230 9/16/2010 073393 CHO, HOON MUN 8-20650 RE: 7777-001528 UTILITY REFUND
Utility Ref US Bank/Cho
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 2.49
Total :2.49
121231 9/16/2010 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FIN SERV INC 17639632 COPIER LEASE PW
copier lease for PW
001.000.650.519.910.450.00 643.07
Total :643.07
121232 9/16/2010 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I10002548 Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis
Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 981.00
Total :981.00
9Page:
Packet Page 69 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121233 9/16/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8126 INV#8126 CUST#1430 - EDMONDS PD
VERIZON PHONES FOR NARCS 08/10
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 50.68
INV#8127 CUST#45 - EDMONDS PD8127
NARC NEXTEL PHONES - 08/10
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 56.37
Total :107.05
121234 9/16/2010 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 2-533584-460571 WATER USEAGE FOR THE MONTH
Water Useage for the Month of August
411.000.654.534.800.330.00 510.00
Total :510.00
121235 9/16/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2231009 Fac Maint - Cleaner, TT, Towels,
Fac Maint - Cleaner, TT, Towels,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 496.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 47.13
Total :543.25
121236 9/16/2010 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC Sep-10 C/A CITYOFED00001
Sep-10 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.310.518.870.420.00 916.20
Total :916.20
121237 9/16/2010 066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS 5374044 082610 INV#5374044 082610-29897715374044 EDMOND
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 2.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 5.76
Total :68.33
121238 9/16/2010 060914 CUMMINS NORTHWEST LLC 001-21000 FS 16 - Thermostat and Supplies
10Page:
Packet Page 70 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121238 9/16/2010 (Continued)060914 CUMMINS NORTHWEST LLC
FS 16 - Thermostat and Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 40.54
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.99
Total :57.53
121239 9/16/2010 073414 DEIHL, BARBARA 073414 BIRD FEST SPEAKER
Bird Fest Speaker
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 60.00
Total :60.00
121240 9/16/2010 073371 DENALI ADVANCED INTEGRATION 0139007-in HIGH AVAILABILITY FIREWALLS
Palo Alto Networks PA-500 - Firewall310-00141
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 5,746.00
Threat Updates Subscription:310-00141
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 872.00
Support 1YR310-00141
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 1,304.00
Freight
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 13.42
Freight
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 5.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 545.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 206.72
Total :8,693.09
121241 9/16/2010 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2010080110 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for August 2010
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 281.20
Total :281.20
11Page:
Packet Page 71 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121242 9/16/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3132 INV#10-3132 - EDMONDS PD
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #10-0056
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 75.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #10-1927
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 111.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #10-1639
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 96.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #10-0172
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 69.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #10-2424
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 153.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #10-2863
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 39.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #10-0294
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 21.00
Total :564.00
121243 9/16/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3134 MINUTE TAKING
09/07 City Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 252.00
Total :252.00
121244 9/16/2010 070336 DOSSETT, MICHAEL CON 091110 BIRD FEST SPEAKER
Bird Fest presentation & field trip
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 180.00
Total :180.00
121245 9/16/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001226/1 PARKS & RECREATION
ROD THREAD
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 3.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 0.38
PARKS AND RECREATION1187/1
ALLIGATOR CLIP
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.99
9.5% Sales Tax
12Page:
Packet Page 72 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121245 9/16/2010 (Continued)073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.28
PARKS AND RECREATION1198/1
HORNET SPRAY
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.79
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.46
PARKS AND RECREATION1207/1
BUCKET
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.43
Total :17.81
121246 9/16/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 26855 BRAKE CLEANER
BRAKE CLEANER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.13
Total :13.07
121247 9/16/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 26763 Sewer - LS 6 - Fan Belts
Sewer - LS 6 - Fan Belts
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 33.78
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.21
Total :36.99
121248 9/16/2010 067703 EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE EDCC2010 GYM RENTAL
ED CC GYM RENTAL FOR VOLLEYBALL
001.000.640.575.520.450.00 5,210.00
Total :5,210.00
121249 9/16/2010 008550 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 ESD0902 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR PLAZA ROOM
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 200.00
13Page:
Packet Page 73 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :200.001212499/16/2010 008550 008550 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15
121250 9/16/2010 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 058160 Canon 5870 copy charge (color) and
Canon 5870 copy charge (color) and
001.000.610.519.700.480.00 38.97
Canon 5870 copy charge (color) and
001.000.220.516.100.480.00 38.96
Canon 5870 copy charge (color) and
001.000.210.513.100.480.00 38.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.480.00 3.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.480.00 3.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.480.00 3.70
Total :127.98
121251 9/16/2010 061759 FALK, ERIC M 9-7-10 FALK COLLISION RECONSTRUCTION - SPOKANE
LODGING - 19 DAYS - FALK
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 1,825.90
FALK - DINNER - 8/8/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 11.63
FALK - LUNCH 8/9/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 5.42
FALK - LUNCH 8/10/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 7.38
FALK - DINNER 8/10/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 13.85
FALK - LUNCH 8/11/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 8.34
FALK - DINNER 8/11/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 48.76
FALK - LUNCH 8/12/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 11.23
FALK - BREAKFAST 8/13/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 5.15
14Page:
Packet Page 74 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121251 9/16/2010 (Continued)061759 FALK, ERIC M
FALK - LUNCH 8/13/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 8.84
FALK - DINNER 8/13/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 36.89
FALK - DINNER 8/14/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 15.50
FALK - BREAKFAST 8/15/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 3.97
FALK - DINNER 8/16/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 13.44
FALK - ROOM REFRIGERATOR
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 10.87
FALK - BREAKFAST 8/17/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 8.54
FALK - DINNER 8/18/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 11.83
FALK - BREAKFAST 8/19/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 4.02
FALK - LUNCH 8/19/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 7.24
FALK - DINNER 8/19/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 40.44
FALK - LUNCH 8/20/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 8.34
FALK - DINNER 8/20/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 14.72
FALK - LUNCH 8/22/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 7.66
FALK - LUNCH 8/23/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 9.77
FALK - BREAKFAST 8/24/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 3.96
FALK - DINNER 8/24/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 11.08
15Page:
Packet Page 75 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121251 9/16/2010 (Continued)061759 FALK, ERIC M
FALK - LUNCH 8/25/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 10.73
FALK - DINNER 8/25/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 34.39
FALK - DINNER 8/26/10
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 15.50
Total :2,215.39
121252 9/16/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 40.96
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1691
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 40.30
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM425-776-5316
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 109.93
Total :191.19
121253 9/16/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-197-0932 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS~ Numbers
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS~ Numbers
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 261.08
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS~ Numbers
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 261.07
FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE425-672-7132
FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 96.20
SEWER - PW TELEMETRY425-774-1031
SEWER - PW TELEMETRY
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 45.93
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE425-776-1281
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 40.96
LS 7425-776-2742
LS 7
16Page:
Packet Page 76 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121253 9/16/2010 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 25.56
LS 8425-778-5982
LS 8
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 54.65
1ST & PINE CIRCUIT LINE PT EDWARDS425-AB9-0530
1st & Pine Circuit Line for Pt Edwards
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 45.75
Total :831.20
121254 9/16/2010 068265 FRONTIER ONLINE 18491796 WATER - BROADBAND SERVICE
Water- Broadband Service for Sept 2010
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 79.99
Total :79.99
121255 9/16/2010 069678 GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC 271167 Museum Project Prof Svc through 8/1/10
Museum Project Prof Svc through 8/1/10
116.000.651.519.920.410.00 1,420.24
Total :1,420.24
121256 9/16/2010 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 096299 Unit 58 - Tires
Unit 58 - Tires
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 391.36
Fleet Tire Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.30 1,886.80
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 37.18
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.30 179.25
Total :2,494.59
121257 9/16/2010 072515 GOOGLE INC 1600119 INTERNET ANTI-VIRUS & SPAM MAINT FEE
Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint Fee
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 523.33
Total :523.33
121258 9/16/2010 012355 GRCC/BAT HARRIS1115 BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TEST
17Page:
Packet Page 77 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121258 9/16/2010 (Continued)012355 GRCC/BAT
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 245.00
BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TESTROMERO0090
APPLICATION FOR BAT CERTIFICATION
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 245.00
Total :490.00
121259 9/16/2010 068015 GRICE INDUSTRIES INC 00007223 Water - 50' Cable for Pipe Tool
Water - 50' Cable for Pipe Tool
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 95.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 9.00
Total :104.00
121260 9/16/2010 072900 GUTTMAN, BURTON C CON 0901110 BIRD FEST SPEAKER 2010
Bird Fest Speaker
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 60.00
Total :60.00
121261 9/16/2010 064721 HATZENBUHLER, HAROLD 70 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 125.00
Total :125.00
121262 9/16/2010 073413 HAUPT, LYANDA LYNN CON 091110 BIRD FEST KEYNOTE SPEAKER
Bird Fest Keynote speaker
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 300.00
Total :300.00
121263 9/16/2010 072466 HOME STREET BANK E5MC.Retainage 10 E5MC.PREMIUM CONSTRUCTION RETAINAGE 10
E5MC.Premium Construction Retainage 10
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 2,183.79
Total :2,183.79
121264 9/16/2010 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 20704 Revised E6DA.SERVICES THRU 11/28/10
E6DA.Services thru 11/28/10 - Remaining
18Page:
Packet Page 78 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121264 9/16/2010 (Continued)060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 11,274.50
E6DA.SERVICES THRU 6/26/1021198
E6DA.Services thru 6/26/10
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 7,111.00
E6DA.SERVICES THRU 07/31/1021356
E6DA.Services thru 07/31/10
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 1,523.50
E6DA.SERVICES THRU 08/28/1021407
E6DA.Services thru 08/28/10
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 748.50
E8GC.SERVICES THRU 8/27/1021447
E8GC.Services thru 8/27/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 441.67
E8GC.Services thru 8/27/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 441.67
E8GC.Services thru 8/27/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 441.66
Total :21,982.50
121265 9/16/2010 070042 IKON 83111765 C/A 467070-1003748A4
FINANCE COPIER RENTAL 8/22-9/21
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 454.07
METER CHARGES 6/23-7/26
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 85.01
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 51.22
Total :590.30
121266 9/16/2010 070042 IKON 83157817 COPIER LEASING
Cannon Image Runner 7/22-8/31
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 1,128.91
Total :1,128.91
121267 9/16/2010 070042 IKON 83132778 Rent on reception copier.
Rent on reception copier.
19Page:
Packet Page 79 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121267 9/16/2010 (Continued)070042 IKON
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 30.66
Rent on Engineering color copier for83184309
Rent on Engineering color copier for
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 443.48
Rent on large copier for billing period83184312
Rent on large copier for billing period
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 827.00
Total :1,301.14
121268 9/16/2010 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 5014936742 Meter charges for the large copier -
Meter charges for the large copier -
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 114.03
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 10.83
Meter charges for Engineering copier5014954641
Meter charges for Engineering copier
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 93.67
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 8.90
Total :227.43
121269 9/16/2010 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 517819 Unit 69 - Onboard Battery Charger
Unit 69 - Onboard Battery Charger
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 35.99
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.22
Unit 124 - Tubing Bender Set518981
Unit 124 - Tubing Bender Set
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.39
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.84
Fleet Shop Tool - Air Gauge519109
Fleet Shop Tool - Air Gauge
20Page:
Packet Page 80 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121269 9/16/2010 (Continued)069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 10.75
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 1.02
Fleet Shop Supplies519626
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 132.40
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 8.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 13.38
Total :235.79
121270 9/16/2010 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 772216 Unit 128 - Auto Parts and Supplies
Unit 128 - Auto Parts and Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 54.70
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.20
Total :59.90
121271 9/16/2010 073379 JOHNSON, RONALD D PLN20100055 Application withdrawn.
Application withdrawn.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 1,241.89
Total :1,241.89
121272 9/16/2010 065056 JOHNSON, TROY Johnson, Troy Monitor for City Hall Lobby for 9/13/10
Monitor for City Hall Lobby for 9/13/10
001.000.110.511.100.490.00 36.00
Total :36.00
121273 9/16/2010 073412 JORDAN, MARTHA CON 091110 BIRD FEST SPEAKER
Bird Fest speaker
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 60.00
Total :60.00
121274 9/16/2010 066913 KDL HARDWARE SUPPLY INC 438522 Fac Maint - Lock Parts
Fac Maint - Lock Parts
21Page:
Packet Page 81 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121274 9/16/2010 (Continued)066913 KDL HARDWARE SUPPLY INC
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 58.80
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.62
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.11
City Hall - Lock Supplies438563
City Hall - Lock Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.24
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.42
Total :109.95
121275 9/16/2010 072976 KOMPAN INC INV68095 HICKMAN PARK PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENT
HICKMAN PARK PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 1,004.60
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 95.44
Total :1,100.04
121276 9/16/2010 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 26761 TASK ORDER 10-02.ISSACSON
Task Order 10-02.Issacson
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 1,499.26
Total :1,499.26
121277 9/16/2010 072059 LEE, NICOLE 457 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 119.60
Total :119.60
121278 9/16/2010 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 27420 2795
MAINTENANCE HVAC
411.000.656.538.800.480.23 525.13
9.5% Sales Tax
22Page:
Packet Page 82 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121278 9/16/2010 (Continued)067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC
411.000.656.538.800.480.23 49.89
Total :575.02
121279 9/16/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105001I LARGE HOOK
LARGE HOOK
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 15.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 1.47
FOLDER105002I
FOLDERS
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 37.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 3.61
Total :58.56
121280 9/16/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104999 DIRECTOR'S OFFICE CHAIR
OFFICE CHAIR FOR P&R DIRECTOR
001.000.640.574.100.350.00 523.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.350.00 49.72
Total :573.08
121281 9/16/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104987 Misc. office supplies including heavy
Misc. office supplies including heavy
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 232.61
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 22.10
Total :254.71
121282 9/16/2010 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 612217 Unit 775 - Lubricant
Unit 775 - Lubricant
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.49
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.52
Unit Toy-Pol - Oil Filter612695
23Page:
Packet Page 83 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121282 9/16/2010 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
Unit Toy-Pol - Oil Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.28
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.31
Unit 18 - Fuel Filter612873
Unit 18 - Fuel Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.57
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.34
Fleet Returns613557
Fleet Returns
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -8.72
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -0.83
Unit 20 - Filters613690
Unit 20 - Filters
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 32.36
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.07
Unit 20 - Fuel Filter613990
Unit 20 - Fuel Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.99
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.61
Unit 27 - Supplies614310
Unit 27 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 41.70
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.96
Unit 63 - Filters, Belts614498
Unit 63 - Filters, Belts
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 44.48
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.23
Unit 114- Filter, Oil614572
24Page:
Packet Page 84 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121282 9/16/2010 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
Unit 114- Filter, Oil
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 33.10
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.14
Unit 105 - Wiper Blades614599
Unit 105 - Wiper Blades
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.30
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.93
Total :210.83
121283 9/16/2010 068897 MARK-IT/LEGAL AFFAIRS N/A INV# N/A - EDMONDS PD
4X6 ZIPLOCK CITATION ENVELOPES
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 120.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 7.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 12.13
Total :139.78
121284 9/16/2010 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1138 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE1139
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
Total :175.00
121285 9/16/2010 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 71 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.290.00 5,582.25
Total :5,582.25
121286 9/16/2010 063773 MICROFLEX 00019477 TAXTOOLS ANNUAL MAINT 9/1/10-8/31/11
TAXTOOLS ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT
25Page:
Packet Page 85 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121286 9/16/2010 (Continued)063773 MICROFLEX
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 892.43
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 84.78
Aug-10 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM00019487
Aug-10 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 43.22
Total :1,020.43
121287 9/16/2010 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0436036-IN Sewer Lift Station 4 - Filter Supply
Sewer Lift Station 4 - Filter Supply
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 131.92
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.53
Fleet - Filter Inventory0436147-IN
Fleet - Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 85.82
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 8.15
Total :238.42
121288 9/16/2010 065767 NORTHEND RENTAL & CONSTRUCTION 87548 Sewer - Portable Generator Rental Fees
Sewer - Portable Generator Rental Fees
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 75.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 7.13
Total :82.13
121289 9/16/2010 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 14637 260
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 771.40
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 73.28
Total :844.68
121290 9/16/2010 070045 NORTHUP GROUP 2230 INV #2230 EDMONDS PD - STRONG
26Page:
Packet Page 86 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121290 9/16/2010 (Continued)070045 NORTHUP GROUP
PRE-EMPLOY EVALUATION
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 340.00
Total :340.00
121291 9/16/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-183180 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: PINE STREET PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-183181
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: SIERRA PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
Total :379.74
121292 9/16/2010 073392 NORTHWEST PERMIT INC BLD20100625 Duplicate online permit.
Duplicate online permit.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 65.00
Total :65.00
121293 9/16/2010 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 2119186 Fleet Waste Disposal Maint Contract
Fleet Waste Disposal Maint Contract
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 280.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 26.69
Total :307.64
121294 9/16/2010 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 160 Planning Board minutes on 9/8/10.
Planning Board minutes on 9/8/10.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 384.00
Total :384.00
121295 9/16/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 939514 INV#939514 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
KLEENEX FACIAL TISSUE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 62.15
MANILA FOLDERS-LETTER SIZE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 14.83
5x2 POST IT NOTES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 11.01
27Page:
Packet Page 87 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121295 9/16/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
3x3 POST IT NOTES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 25.84
JUMBO PAPER CLIPS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 17.32
HP INKJET Q2612A
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 70.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 12.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 6.67
Total :220.45
121296 9/16/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 125217 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 -191.38
SUPPLIES130824
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 467.34
SUPPLIES196098
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 45.75
SUPPLIES436135
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 72.05
SUPPLIES455166
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 108.62
SUPPLIES950809
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 354.82
Total :857.20
121297 9/16/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 804892 DVD+RW, WALL CLOCK, TRAY, TONER
DVD+RW
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 21.44
28Page:
Packet Page 88 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121297 9/16/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
WALL CLOCK, TRAY TONER
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 496.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 2.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 47.13
MOUSE PAD, CHAIRMATS910915
MOUSE PAD, CHAIRMATS
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 141.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 13.40
Total :721.29
121298 9/16/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 927645 VOICE RECORDER/OFFICE SUPPLIES
FOLDERS
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 12.88
DIGITAL VOICE RECORDER
117.100.640.573.100.350.00 58.24
KLEENEX, BATTERIES
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 13.66
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 1.22
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.350.00 5.53
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.30
PAPER/PENS958226
PASTEL PAPER, PENS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 48.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 4.64
Total :146.29
121299 9/16/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 874540 OFFICE SUPPLIES
office supplies
29Page:
Packet Page 89 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121299 9/16/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 51.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 4.90
OFFICE SUPPLIES897769
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 110.63
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 10.51
OFFICE SUPPLIES897929
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 20.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 1.91
OFFICE SUPPLIES907957
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 16.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 1.59
Total :218.15
121300 9/16/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 860106 Water Quality - Mailing Labels
Water Quality - Mailing Labels
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 91.88
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.73
Total :100.61
121301 9/16/2010 068709 OFFICETEAM 31717930 TEMPORARY HELP
Temporary Help in Clerk's Office
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 679.60
Total :679.60
121302 9/16/2010 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION B07660 B/W copy overage fee (2395 overage)
B/W copy overage fee (2395 overage)
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 11.96
30Page:
Packet Page 90 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121302 9/16/2010 (Continued)066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION
B/W copy overage fee (2395 overage)
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 11.96
B/W copy overage fee (2395 overage)
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 11.96
B/W copy overage fee (2395 overage)
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 11.95
Color copy overage fee (1068 copies)
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 31.63
Color copy overage fee (1068 copies)
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 31.63
Color copy overage fee (1068 copies)
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 31.63
Color copy overage fee (1068 copies)
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 31.63
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 4.14
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 4.14
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 4.14
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 4.14
Total :190.91
121303 9/16/2010 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.964096 Museum - Primer
Museum - Primer
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.41
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.99
MCH - Paint Roller964101
MCH - Paint Roller
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.66
31Page:
Packet Page 91 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :18.961213039/16/2010 027165 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.
121304 9/16/2010 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 15808 INV#15808 - EDMONDS PD
GATE LOCK BOX & KEYS TO DOCKS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 83.50
Total :83.50
121305 9/16/2010 072444 PREMIUM CONSTRUCTION GROUP Prog Pmt 10 E5MC.PMT 10 FINAL
E5MC.Pmt 10 FINAL
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 45,630.48
Total :45,630.48
121306 9/16/2010 073056 PROSPECT CONSTRUCTION INC 9 C-311
C-311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 127,604.95
Total :127,604.95
121307 9/16/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 3,111.43
Total :3,111.43
121308 9/16/2010 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 111610 INSCRIPTION
INSCRIPTION: FLEURY
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 131.00
REPLACEMENT SCROLL111611
REPLACEMENT SROLL: VALIAR
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 226.00
INSCRIPTION111612
INSCRIPTION: TAYLOR
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00
INSCRIPTION111613
INSCRIPTION: CHAPMAN
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 84.00
INSCRIPTION111614
INSCRIPTION: MARKEY
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 86.00
32Page:
Packet Page 92 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121308 9/16/2010 (Continued)030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC
INSCRIPTION111615
INSCRIPTION: PROCTOR
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 104.00
Total :711.00
121309 9/16/2010 064291 QWEST 206 Z02-0478 TELEMETRY
TELEMETRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 138.52
Total :138.52
121310 9/16/2010 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 64108 INV#64108 - EDMONDS PD
TOWING 2010 DODGE #BB7X980
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
121311 9/16/2010 073409 ROGERS, VANESSA ROGERS0907 REFUND
CLASS REFUND - CHILD TOO YOUNG FOR
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 54.00
Total :54.00
121312 9/16/2010 073410 SAGER, JILL SAGER0908 REFUND
REFUND FOR WRITE ON THE SOUND FEE
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 106.00
Total :106.00
121313 9/16/2010 071660 SARVEY AUDUBON SOCIETY CON 091110 BIRD FEST SPEAKER
Bird Fest Speaker & Presenter
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 375.00
Total :375.00
121314 9/16/2010 068816 SIMPLEX GRINNELL 73824139 485514
TEST & INSP. SPRINKLER SYSTEM
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 250.00
33Page:
Packet Page 93 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :250.001213149/16/2010 068816 068816 SIMPLEX GRINNELL
121315 9/16/2010 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0113764-IN Unit 31 - Supplies
Unit 31 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 780.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.74
Total :794.74
121316 9/16/2010 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-220725-1 Unit K93 - Sensor
Unit K93 - Sensor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 68.57
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.51
Unit 20 - Gaskets1-705318
Unit 20 - Gaskets
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.78
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.26
Unit 20 - Brake and Axle Supplies19-027865
Unit 20 - Brake and Axle Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 133.50
9.2% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.28
Total :223.90
121317 9/16/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2006-5085-1 600 3RD AVE S
600 3RD AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 41.46
600 3RD AVE S2006-5164-4
600 3RD AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 357.15
250 6TH AVE N2008-6924-6
250 6TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 101.28
23700 104TH AVE W2011-8453-8
34Page:
Packet Page 94 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121317 9/16/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 122.03
603 3RD AVE S2013-8327-0
603 3RD AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.51
251 6TH AVE N2014-5305-7
251 6TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 155.47
600 3RD AVE S2021-1448-4
UTILITIES: 600 3RD AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 70.16
Total :877.06
121318 9/16/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200496834 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD
LIFT STATION #10
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 102.79
SCHOOL LIGHT 9110 OVD201431236
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
SCHOOL LIGHT 7801 212TH SW202191284
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 31.04
Total :164.87
121319 9/16/2010 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE I000253261 INV#I000253261 CUST#SSH00010 EDMONDS PD
TASK FORCE JULY-DEC 2010
001.000.410.521.100.510.00 4,900.50
Total :4,900.50
121320 9/16/2010 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE AUG 2010 INMATE PRESCRIPTIONS - EDMONDS PD
INMATE PRESCRIPTIONS 08/10
001.000.410.523.600.310.00 387.80
Total :387.80
121321 9/16/2010 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I000253911 SOLID WASTE CHARGES 56687
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
35Page:
Packet Page 95 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121321 9/16/2010 (Continued)006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,268.00
Total :1,268.00
121322 9/16/2010 064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 2010-410 INV 2010-410 EDMONDS PD
64.67 BOOKINGS - AUGUST 2010
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 5,820.30
556.33 HOUSING DAYS - AUG 2010
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 34,770.63
64 DAYS WORK RELEASE - AUG 2010
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 2,688.00
INMATE PAYMENTS 12 DAYS @ $28
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -336.00
INMATE PAYMENTS 21 DAYS @ $42
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -882.00
Total :42,060.93
121323 9/16/2010 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT EDMONDS PD 08/10 EDMONDS PD 08/10 - ROBINSON
ADMIN FEE 8/27/10
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 20.00
HEP B VACCINE 8/27/10
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 36.00
OFFICE VISIT 8/27/10
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 36.00
Total :92.00
121324 9/16/2010 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 29423 FS 20 - Door Operations Repairs
FS 20 - Door Operations Repairs
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 202.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 19.26
Total :222.01
121325 9/16/2010 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L85018 Audit Fees August 2010
Audit Fees August 2010
001.000.390.519.900.510.00 267.18
36Page:
Packet Page 96 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121325 9/16/2010 (Continued)039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE
Audit Fees August 2010
411.000.652.542.900.510.00 13.36
Audit Fees August 2010
411.000.654.534.800.510.00 44.53
Audit Fees August 2010
411.000.655.535.800.510.00 44.53
Audit Fees August 2010
411.000.656.538.800.510.00 44.53
Audit Fees August 2010
111.000.653.543.300.510.00 13.36
Audit Fees August 2010
511.000.657.548.680.510.00 17.81
Total :445.30
121326 9/16/2010 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 2963384 103364
BRIDGE CLAMP/SCREW
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 121.31
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 11.16
Total :132.47
121327 9/16/2010 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3001075334 INV#3001075334 CUST#6076358 EDMONDS PD
MINIMUM MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE
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
121328 9/16/2010 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2286832 Sewer - Electric Parts for the Portable
Sewer - Electric Parts for the Portable
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 3,737.13
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 355.03
PW - Elect Supplies2294346
PW - Elect Supplies
37Page:
Packet Page 97 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121328 9/16/2010 (Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 25.86
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.46
Total :4,120.48
121329 9/16/2010 060801 SUBURBAN PROPANE 147005 Sewer - Propane Tank Annual Rental fees
Sewer - Propane Tank Annual Rental fees
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 60.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 5.70
Total :65.70
121330 9/16/2010 071590 TOWEILL RICE TAYLOR LLC Edmonds-Aug2010 Hearing Examiner services August 2010.
Hearing Examiner services August 2010.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 3,600.00
Expenses for August 2010.Edmonds-Aug2010EXP
Expenses for August 2010.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 18.55
Total :3,618.55
121331 9/16/2010 070767 UNITED RENTALS NW INC 89578195-001 Sewer - Fin Forms 4x8x3/4"
Sewer - Fin Forms 4x8x3/4"
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 525.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 49.88
Total :574.88
121332 9/16/2010 043935 UPS 0000w74w19360 INV 0000W74W19360 EDMONDS PD
SHIPPING - GRAFFITI CAM
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 17.91
FUEL SURCHARGE
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 0.99
Total :18.90
121333 9/16/2010 062693 US BANK 1070 INV#1070 09/06/10 - THOMPSON -EDMONDS PD
UPS PACKAGE PICK UP 8/29/10
38Page:
Packet Page 98 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121333 9/16/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 5.28
UPS PACKAGE PICK UP 9/3/10
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 5.28
UPS CHG TO SHIP PKG 9/3/10
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 247.86
INV#3181 09/06/10 - BARD - EDMONDS PD3181
PARKING FOR NEW WORLD MTG
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 6.00
FOOD/FINGER PRINTING CLASS
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 5.99
REGISTRATION/WSCPA-DAWSON
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 100.00
REGISTRATION/LATENT PR-MOORE
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 375.00
INV#3512 09/06/10 -TRAINING-EDMONDS PD3512
FOOD/ADV. SWAT - LIM 8/26
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 8.93
MEAL/ADV. SWAT - LIM 8/27
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 12.76
FOOD/ADV. SWAT - LIM 8/27
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 10.72
FOOD/ADV. SWAT - LIM 8/28
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 12.00
FOOD/ ADV. SWAT - LIM 8/26
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 31.45
MEAL/ADV. SWAT - LIM 8/29
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 13.61
FOOD/ADV. SWAT - LIM 8/29
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 9.36
FOOD/ADV. SWAT - LIM 8/30
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 13.19
FOOD/ADV. SWAT - LIM 8/31
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 14.24
MEAL/ADV. SWAT - LIM 8/30
39Page:
Packet Page 99 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121333 9/16/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 27.00
LODGING/ADV. SWAT - LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 418.95
FEDEX CHG PKG-DNA SAMPLES
001.000.410.521.210.490.00 25.26
INV#3520 09/06/10 TRAINING - EDMONDS PD3520
LODGING/SS/RIID - FROLAND
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 77.35
MEAL/SS/RIID-SUTTON/YAMANE/FRO
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 177.64
LODGING/SS/RIID - SUTTON
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 77.35
LODGING/SS/RIID - YAMANE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 77.35
Total :1,752.57
121334 9/16/2010 062693 US BANK 090310 POSTAGE FOR MAILING PASSPORTS
POSTAGE FOR MAILING PASSPORTS
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 59.00
Total :59.00
121335 9/16/2010 062693 US BANK 2462 HP-UPS-CDW-CODESECTOR-PRINTERTECHS-TIGER
HP parts for Det/Sgt printer
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 34.71
UPS return freight charges
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 19.93
CDW-Officejet Pro 8000 for Ops at WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.310.42 130.89
Avangate-TeraCopy Pro, TigerDirect-APC
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 363.63
PrinterTechs.com-HP LaserJet 4100 fuser
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 128.00
CDW-G-4GB flash drive for P/R
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 15.53
Late Payment Charge from 8/6/10
40Page:
Packet Page 100 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121335 9/16/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 8.86
SHOPLET.COM4986
TRIMMERS, ORGANIZER,CD-R DISKS, SHELF
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 131.32
Total :832.87
121336 9/16/2010 062693 US BANK 3330 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS
SISTER CITY - YOST POOL ADMISSIONS
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 22.00
SISTER CITY - ZOO ADMISSIONS
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 247.50
FRAMES FOR SISTER CITY
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 50.23
CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS8669
WOTS POSTCARDS
117.100.640.573.100.490.00 185.06
DIGITAL PRINTS
123.000.640.573.100.490.00 118.75
FRANCES CHAPIN/MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
117.100.640.573.100.490.00 125.00
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 287.71
FRAMING FOR MAYOR'S PHOTO
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 55.25
DISCOVERY PROGRAM SUPPLIES
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 31.90
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 55.78
BOWLING FEES FOR SR. CAMPERS
001.000.640.575.530.490.00 105.00
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 171.49
TICKETS
117.100.640.573.100.490.00 135.00
DISCOVERY PROGRAM SUPPLIES: BARN OWL
41Page:
Packet Page 101 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121336 9/16/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 36.14
MINI GOLF FEES FOR SR. CAMPERS
001.000.640.575.530.490.00 206.96
2-DISC SET FOR RHYTHMIC TEAM PROGRAM
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 46.00
BASKETBALL NETS, ETC.
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 26.21
AD FOR CEMETERY IN MYEDMONDSNEWS.COM
130.000.640.536.200.440.00 344.00
BIRD FEST SUPPLIES/HEAVY WEIGHT PAPER
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 28.66
DAVE TIMBROOK: TRAINING CONFERENCE
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 258.24
PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 11.65
2011 CALENDARS FOR RENEE MCRAE AND
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 41.46
Total :2,589.99
121337 9/16/2010 062693 US BANK 3306 INTERFACE CABLE
INTERFACE CABLE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 164.82
Total :164.82
121338 9/16/2010 062693 US BANK 3462 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD
Misc recorded documents
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 144.00
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 341.00
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 341.00
Total :826.00
121339 9/16/2010 062693 US BANK 3546 BlueAnt Wireless - Speaker Phones for
BlueAnt Wireless - Speaker Phones for
42Page:
Packet Page 102 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121339 9/16/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 99.99
BlueAnt Wireless - Speaker Phones for
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 99.99
BlueAnt Wireless - Speaker Phones for
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 99.99
USPS - Sewer - Return Postage to Cues
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 51.99
USPS - Fac Maint - L&I Safety Tape
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 5.72
USPS - Sewer - Return Postage to Cues
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 79.90
Total :437.58
121340 9/16/2010 062693 US BANK 1000 Click to Mail - Bag Ban Postcard 2 -
Click to Mail - Bag Ban Postcard 2 -
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 148.74
Seminar registration for Jerry Shuster
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 395.00
H18424 Hanna Instruments for Jerry
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 253.00
Detergents for Jerry Shuster.
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 143.47
Ammonia (nitrogen) test strips for
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 53.14
Hanna Instruments HI 70300M Electrode
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 117.99
Grainger wash bottles for Jerry Shuster.
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 11.51
Total :1,122.85
121341 9/16/2010 062693 US BANK 3389 Plaque for Student Rep Graham Marmion
Plaque for Student Rep Graham Marmion
001.000.110.511.100.490.00 24.04
Refreshments for Council Meetings
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 45.91
43Page:
Packet Page 103 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :69.951213419/16/2010 062693 062693 US BANK
121342 9/16/2010 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 226688 Sewer - Manhole Nets
Sewer - Manhole Nets
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 137.70
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 14.29
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 14.44
Total :166.43
121343 9/16/2010 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 0080114 utility locates Aug 2010
utility locates Aug 2010
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 87.09
utility locates Aug 2010
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 87.09
utility locates Aug 2010
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 89.72
Total :263.90
121344 9/16/2010 073068 VALLEY BANK 9 C/A 348 OUR PROJECT C-311
RETAINAGE PROSPECT CONTR.
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 6,105.50
Total :6,105.50
121345 9/16/2010 073416 VAN DER VIEREN, MONICA CON 091110 BIRD FEST SPEAKER
Bird Fest speaker
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 60.00
Total :60.00
121346 9/16/2010 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 23406102 Temp Miranda Peers week ending 8/22/10.
Temp Miranda Peers week ending 8/22/10.
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 416.00
Temp, Miranda Peers for week ending23449544
Temp, Miranda Peers for week ending
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 416.00
Temp Miranda Peers for week endin23494690
44Page:
Packet Page 104 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121346 9/16/2010 (Continued)069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP
Temp Miranda Peers for week endin
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 166.40
Total :998.40
121347 9/16/2010 072841 VS VISUAL STATEMENT INC 21213 INV#21213 - EDMONDS PD
UPGRADE TO EDGEFX ULTIMATE
001.000.410.521.710.350.00 708.75
Total :708.75
121348 9/16/2010 066627 WASH ST CODE REVISOR 2010 REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON
2010 RCW
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 230.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 21.85
Total :251.85
121349 9/16/2010 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I11001617 INV#I11001617 EDM301
BACKGROUND CHECKS 08/2010
001.000.000.237.100.000.00 154.00
Total :154.00
121350 9/16/2010 073415 WILD BIRD FEEDERS & MORE LLC CON 091110 BIRD FEST SPEAKER
Bird Fest speaker
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 60.00
Total :60.00
121351 9/16/2010 070717 WSU URBAN & PESTICIDE SAFETY HARRIS0913 PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION TRAINING
PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION TRAINING:
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 100.00
Total :100.00
Bank total :521,065.12138 Vouchers for bank code :front
521,065.12Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report138
45Page:
Packet Page 105 of 602
09/16/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
8:36:37AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
46Page:
Packet Page 106 of 602
AM-3372 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/21/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Donna L. Breske ($5,000.00).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Donna L. Breske
6621 Foster Slough Road
Snohomish, WA 98296
($5,000.00)
Attachments
Breske Claim for Damages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 09/15/2010 02:47 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 01:50 PM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 09/15/2010 02:33 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/16/2010
Packet Page 107 of 602
Packet Page 108 of 602
Packet Page 109 of 602
AM-3380 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/21/2010
Time:
Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Interlocal Agreement with SERS for Low Cost Dark Fiber.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Mayor be authorized to sign "Interlocal Agreement Implementing Dark Fiber Optic Facilitation
Agreement".
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
A major regional Public Safety project involving all Snohomish County Police and Fire Departments, as
well as the County Sheriff, is underway to replace and unify the 911 and Police/Fire/EMS record system.
The vendor supplying the new system is called "New World." As part of the "New World" effort,
Snohomish Emergency Radio System (SERS) pursued a 30-year Irrevocable Right of Use (IRU)
agreement with Blackrock to connect the County data center, and the region's two 911 centers with
diverse redundant fiber routes. As part of the negotiations, SERS asked Blackrock to also connect any
cities it passed through to the county "Meet-Me" room as part of the deal.
The terms that were eventually reached by SERS and Blackrock require Blackrock to connect the two 911
centers, provide interconnectivity within the county and provide six cities (Arlington, Edmonds,
Lynnwood, Marysville, Mill Creek, and Mukilteo) three years free use of fiber that Blackrock owns in
those cities. The term of the agreement is 30 years. Per the agreement, at the end of 3 years, those
affected cities could combine their resources to pay an additional $300,000+ one-time fee and they would
also be given a 30-year IRU. If the Cities chose not pursue an IRU, each city would start paying the
$500/mo for the Blackrock connection at the end of 3 years.
As the intermediary step, Edmonds has the opportunity to enjoy the use of Blackrock fiber for 3 years.
However, in order for this to occur the City needs to enter into an interlocal with SERS to take advantage
of this opportunity and to release SERS from financial liability.
Currently the City is paying about $500/mo for a fiber connection to the County. This connection is used
for our video arraignment, other communications needs, and in the future the "New World" project.
Signing of this agreement will save the City $500/mo for 3 years or a total of $18,000. Furthermore,
assuming we will use this fiber for 30 years, a greater savings can occur if we participate in the
acquisition of the 30yr IRU with the other cities. The savings over 30yrs would be greater than $130,000,
assuming $50,000 as our 1/6 share for 30 years versus a total of $180,000 for a month to month
arrangement.
Fiscal Impact
Packet Page 110 of 602
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010-2012 Revenue:Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
Suggest shift savings of approximately $2,000 in 2010 and $12,000 for the following two years to pay for
a portion of City of Edmonds long term 30 year IRU.
Attachments
SERS Interlocal - Low Cost Fiber
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 02:16 PM
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 09/16/2010 03:18 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 03:30 PM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 09/16/2010
Final Approval Date: 09/16/2010
Packet Page 111 of 602
Packet Page 112 of 602
Packet Page 113 of 602
Packet Page 114 of 602
Packet Page 115 of 602
Packet Page 116 of 602
AM-3378 Item #: 2. F.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/21/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Council President Steve Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance amending the Edmonds City Code, Title 10, to add a new Chapter 10.95 Citizens’ Tree Board.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
During the September 7, 2010 Edmonds City Council Meeting, the Council voted unanimously to adopt
an ordinance to form a Tree Board (see attached minutes).
Attachment: September 7, 2010 Edmonds City Council DRAFT Minutes
Narrative
This ordinance has been placed on the Consent Agenda for approval.
Attachment: Tree Board Ordinance
Attachments
Sept 7 2010 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
Proposed Ordinance - Citizen's Tree Board
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 01:43 PM
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 09/16/2010 01:49 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 01:50 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/16/2010 10:33 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/16/2010
Packet Page 117 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 17
Carlo Boley, Edmonds, expressed support for the creation of a Citizens Tree Board to provide oversight
to the process of tree removal. He has helped organize a community greenbelt cleanup and removal of
invasive species around the former Woodway Elementary and Madrona Schools. He envisioned the Tree
Board could provide support for such efforts. He noted one of the goals of the Mayor’s Climate Protection
Agreement is to reduce the City’s carbon emissions by 7% below 1990 levels by 2012; protecting trees is
one way to achieve this goal.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, asked whether the City could still collect taxes that funded the water and
sewer bonds after the bonds were paid off. He concurred with Ms. Shippen’s request that the Mayor and
Council should ask the ferry system how they plan to spend $26 million in Edmonds. Next, he objected to
the Planning Department’s efforts to incorporate PRD regulations into the subdivision ordinance.
Observing that a PRD is a special type of zoning that provides protection for neighborhoods, he urged the
Council to instruct the Planning Board to discontinue that effort. He summarized if PRDs were
eliminated, there would not be any perimeter requirements.
Sheri Cam, Edmonds, a Floretum Garden Club Member, Snohomish County Master Gardener,
Backyard Habitat, Plant Amnesty Member, and Heritage Tree Foundation promoter in Seattle, expressed
support for establishing a Tree Board in Edmonds. She encouraged Edmonds to also establish a Heritage
Tree Program.
6. UPDATE FROM PLANNING BOARD ON PRD/SUBDIVISION STUDY, PRD PERIMETER
BUFFER ORDINANCE AND PLANNING BOARD NEEDS/PRIORITIES.
Council President Bernheim observed the Planning Board indicates they plan to review the perimeter
buffer issue next week and hold a public hearing in late October. He suggested the Council review the
Planning Board’s Work Plan and he will schedule discussion of the Work Plan on a future agenda.
7. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED “TREE
BOARD.”
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this topic was discussed at the Community Services/
Development Services Committee. The Tree Board is proposed in support of Tree City USA as well as to
undertake proactive efforts. If and when the Tree Board begins to review City regulations, they will need
Council approval because that effort will require substantial staff time. The Tree Board will do a lot of
their work because there will not be any staff directed to that effort. He requested the Council clarify
whether the Council President or Mayor would appoint the alternate and how replacement members
would be appointed. The standard process is for the Mayor to make appointments which are then
confirmed by the Council.
Council President Bernheim explained there is a question regarding the number of members. As
proposed, there would be 7 members; it has been suggested there be up to 15 members. Another issue is
appointment to staggered terms. He suggested if the Council approves the formation of the Tree Board,
half the members be appointed to a full term and half appointed to a half term to provide some rotation.
Mr. Chave relayed Mr. Snyder’s suggestion that the sunset clause in Section 2 be eliminated.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the Tree Board would be staffed. Mr. Chave explained it would be
similar to the Historic Preservation Commission where staff does what they can. Historic Preservation
Commissioners do their own research. There is also no funding for minute taking for the Tree Board; they
would be expected to elect a Secretary who would prepare minutes.
Councilmember Wilson asked if a Tree Board was required to become a Tree City USA. Mr. Chave
answered it was one of the requirements.
Packet Page 118 of 602
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 18
Councilmember Wilson commented there was no other commission structured like this in the City; even
the Historic Preservation Commission has a Council liaison. There was no provision for a
Councilmember to participate on the Tree Board. Mr. Chave answered that was typical for most boards
and commissions; there is not a direct Council liaison.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the Tree Board could be structured to ensure the Board integrated the
Council’s vision. Mr. Chave commented most boards and commissions periodically report to the Council.
Providing staff and a minute taker for the Tree Board was a budget issue.
Mr. Snyder commented the Tree Board was being created to develop a tree ordinance designed to
preserve and protect trees. If the tree ordinance affected the zoning code, review and public hearing by the
Planning Board would be required. Although the Tree Board would be subject to the Open Public
Meetings Act, there are no public hearing requirements. Mr. Chave viewed the Tree Board as a fact-
gathering advisory body. The Tree Board could also serve as a sounding board when the tree regulations
are reviewed in the future.
Councilmember Wilson supported having 7 members appointed by Councilmembers. He suggested rather
than having half the members serve 3 years and half serving 4 years, the terms be 2 years and 4 years. He
did not feel it was necessary to appoint an alternate. Although he supported the formation of a Tree Board
and a tree ordinance and protecting and preserving as many trees as possible, he did not want to protect
and preserve 100% of the trees in Edmonds.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES:
1. KEEP THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS AT 7.
2. REVISE THE LAST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH A ON PAGE 2 TO READ,
“SUBSEQUENT TO THE INITIAL APPOINTMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
RENEWAL/REPLACEMENTS, WHEN REQUIRED, WILL BE MADE BY THE FULL
COUNCIL.”
3. CHANGE 3 YEAR TERMS TO 2 YEAR TERMS.
4. REMOVE THE PROVISION REGARDING AN ALTERNATE MEMBER.
5. REMOVE THE SUNSET CLAUSE IN SECTION 2.
Councilmember Wilson suggested clarifying in Section 10.95.010B that the terms correlate to the terms
of Councilmembers. Council President Bernheim agreed. Mr. Snyder suggested the ordinance be revised
in accordance with Council direction and scheduled on the Council’s next Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Peterson referred to Section 10.95.010B that states each member may seek renewal for
one additional term. He clarified if a person were appointed to a 2 year term, they could seek renewal for
one additional term, a total of 6 years. Council President Bernheim agreed, noting subsequent to the initial
appointments, all terms would be 4 years.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether other boards and commissions had term limits. Mr. Snyder
answered there were on some.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
In response to Ms. Shippen, Mayor Cooper explained Mr. Clifton’s communication with the Washington
State Ferries (WSF) was at his request and there have been several telephone conversations subsequent to
the email Ms. Shippen referred to. Staff is pressing WSF but the answer they give is the answer they give
and there was little more that could be done other than make the City’s position clear. He suggested the
Packet Page 119 of 602
{WSS820599.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 -
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
9/14/10
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE,
TITLE 10, TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 10.95 CITIZENS TREE
BOARD
, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council developed a sustainability agenda during
their 2009 retreat; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council enacted Resolution 1129 to adopt the
United States (US) Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the 73rd Annual US
Conference of Mayors; and
WHEREAS, old growth forests have been heavily logged in the Pacific Northwest
section of the US resulting in a significant loss of native conifers, and native deciduous trees
including big leaf maples and red alders are in decline; and
WHEREAS, urban forests provide habitat for wildlife, including migratory birds;
and
WHEREAS, urban forests lessen the effects of storm events by slowing the rate of
surface water runoff and thus reducing the need for construction and maintenance of flood
control structures; and
WHEREAS, tree roots stabilize steep slopes minimizing the amount of soil
erosion; and
Packet Page 120 of 602
{WSS820599.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 -
WHEREAS, urban forests improve air and water quality and sequester carbon;
and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council finds it to be in the public interest to
establish a Citizens’ Tree Board, one of the four steps to becoming certified as a Tree City
USA® by the US Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry
Program; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds City Code, Title 10, is hereby amended by the adoption
of a new Chapter 10.95 Citizens’ Tree Board
10.95.010 Board created - membership
to read as follows:
10.95.020 Officers of Board - meetings - forum.
10.95.030 Powers and duties.
10.95.010 Board created - membership.
A. There is hereby created a Citizens’ Tree Board consisting
of up to seven (7) members plus one (1) alternate. Citizens must
be Edmonds residents. It is recommended the Board include
citizens from throughout the City (representing different
watersheds and neighborhoods). Additionally, those with
professional or hobbyist interest/experience in urban forestry,
horticulture, and habitat enviroscaping are preferred; these may
include arborists, botanists, horticulturists, native plant experts,
master gardeners, wildlife experts, and related. The members shall
be appointed in the following manner: Within thirty (30) days
after this ordinance is passed, the City shall draft and publish an
announcement seeking applicants for board membership. The
standard City of Edmonds Citizen Board and Commission
Application will be used. Prospective board members will have
thirty (30) days to submit their application. Initially, each
Councilmember will appoint one (1) Tree Board member within
thirty (30) days following the close of the application period. The
alternate member shall be appointed by the Council President or
Mayor (as determined by the Council). The selections shall be
made based on the qualifications described per the applications;
Packet Page 121 of 602
{WSS820599.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 -
Councilmembers may also interview applicants at their discretion.
Subsequent to the initial appointments, recommendations for
renewal/replacements, when required, will be made by the Council
President or Mayor (
as determined by the and approval of by the
full Council.
B. The term of appointment shall be four (4) years. However,
initially, to ensure transitional consistency 4 (four) three (3)
members shall be appointed to 4 (four) four (4) year terms and 3
(three) four (4) members (plus the alternate) shall be appointed to
three (3) two (2) year terms. Councilmembers whose terms expire
in 2011 shall appoint members to initial two (2) year terms.
Councilmembers whose terms expire in 2013 shall appoint
members to initial four (4) year terms. Thereafter, appointments
shall coincide with the terms of newly elected Councilmembers.
Each member, at his or her discretion, may seek renewal for one
additional term.
10.95.020 Officers of bBoard - meetings - forum.
Members of the Commission shall meet and organize by election,
from the members of the Board, a chair and vice chair and other
officers as may be determined by the Board. It shall be the duty of
the chair to preside at all meetings. The vice chair shall perform
this duty in the absence of the chair. A majority of the filled
positions on the Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction
of business. The Board is expected to meet monthly or as
otherwise agreed to by the Board. The regular public meeting of
the Board shall be held at such time or place as may be determined
by the chair or a majority of the members of the Board.
10.95.030 Powers and duties.
A. The Board is empowered to advise and make
recommendations to the Mayor and City Council and, as
appropriate, to the Planning Board and other boards or
commissions of the /City on such matters including but not limited
to:
1. Developing a tree ordinance designed to preserve and
protect existing trees, encourage planting of additional trees,
safeguard trees on parcels where construction or renovation is
occurring or planned to occur, and encouraging the Edmonds
citizenry to become active stewards of the urban forest.
Packet Page 122 of 602
{WSS820599.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 4 -
2. Increasing community outreach and education regarding
the value of trees, proper selection of trees, and correct methods
for planting of and caring for trees.
3. Working with civic, religious, and citizen groups to
organize invasive plant removal and native vegetation planting in
accord with the Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services.
4. Coordinating with other citizen groups to specific projects.
5. Facilitate relevant grant applications supporting ecology
and watershed protection projects.
6. Sponsoring an annual Arbor Day Event.
7. Working towards achievement of Tree City USA® status.
B. The Board shall provide an annual report to the City
Council in December of each year.
Section 2. Sunset Clause. The provisions of this ordinance will not be subject to
a sunset clause. This ordinance may be repealed or amended by act of the Edmonds City
Council.
Section 3.Section 2. Effective Date
APPROVED:
. This ordinance, being an exercise of a
power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall
take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting
of the title.
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSONMIKE
COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 123 of 602
{WSS820599.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 5 -
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 124 of 602
{WSS820599.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 6 -
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
EDMONDS CITY CODE, TITLE 10, TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 10.95 CITIZENS TREE
BOARD, 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 ________________, 2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 125 of 602
AM-3360 Item #: 2. G.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/21/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Brian McIntosh
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization of Resolution to submit grant application for 2011 Snohomish County CDBG Public
Facilities & Infrastructure Projects Funding for Senior Center Siding Replacement and Waterproofing.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize Mayor to sign Resolution to submit with CDBG grant application.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
As part of the Snohomish County Development Block Grant (CDBG) application process a City Council
Resolution authorizing application for these funds is required. Funding is distributed through the CDBG
by the federal office of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) following receipt and evaluation of the
grant application and in person interviews with a project evaluation panel. This application will request
$156,170 in funding assistance to replace siding and provide waterproofing for outer walls that have
deteriorated.
Attachments
CDBG HUD Resolution
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 02:16 PM
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 09/16/2010 03:18 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 03:30 PM
Form Started By: Brian McIntosh Started On: 09/08/2010 05:11 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/16/2010
Packet Page 126 of 602
RESOLUTION NO._______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR
2011 HUD BLOCK GRANT FUNDING
________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Edmonds has historically applied for Community
Development Block Grant (HUD) Funds; and,
WHEREAS, The Snohomish County CDBG Consortium announces the availability of 2011
funds for non-housing capital projects through the CDBG program; and,
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Edmonds owns the South County Senior Center
located at 220 Railroad Avenue and leases the facility at a nominal cost to the South County
Senior Center, a non-profit program for senior citizen activities and services; and,
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Edmonds has recognized the Senior Center Siding
Replacement & Waterproofing Project for application of CDBG Grant funding: and,
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Edmonds considers it in the public interest to
support and submit application for CDBG project for the South County Senior Center.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
The Mayor is hereby authorized to make formal application to the Snohomish County
Community Development Block Grant Consortium for funding assistance.
Section 2.
The CDBG Grants funding assistance so received shall be used for siding replacement
and waterproofing at the South County Senior Center, 220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds,
Washington.
Section 3.
This resolution shall form part of a formal application to the Snohomish County
Community Development Block Grant Consortium.
RESOLVED this 21st
day of September, 2010.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
MAYOR, MIKE COOPER
ATTEST / AUTHENTICATED;
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:__________
_________________________ PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ________
CITY CLERK, SANDY CHASE RESOLUTION NO.______________________
Packet Page 127 of 602
AM-3371 Item #: 3.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/21/2010
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Michael Clugston
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing 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
Approve the changes recommended by the Planning Board on 7/28/10 and contained in Exhibit 4, and
direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for Council approval.
Previous Council Action
Council approved a major update to the land use permit processing procedures in the ECDC in June 2009.
In 2010 Council approved interim ordinances #3775 and #3783 to reassume closed record administrative
appeal reviews for certain land use projects (Exhibits 1 and 2). This topic was reintroduced to the
Council as indicated in the meeting minutes of 8/16/10 (Exhibit 8).
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 128 of 602
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 redlined
Exhibit 4 - Title 20 clean
Exhibit 5 - 7/28/10 PB minutes
Exhibit 6 - 7/28/10 PB memo and attachments
Exhibit 7 - 6/9/10 PB memo and attachments
Exhibit 8 - 8/16/10 Council minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Planning Department Rob Chave 09/16/2010 05:48 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/17/2010 08:46 AM
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 09/17/2010 09:00 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/17/2010 09:01 AM
Form Started By: Michael Clugston Started On: 09/15/2010 12:03 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/17/2010
Packet Page 129 of 602
Packet Page 130 of 602
Packet Page 131 of 602
Packet Page 132 of 602
Packet Page 133 of 602
Packet Page 134 of 602
Packet Page 135 of 602
Packet Page 136 of 602
Packet Page 137 of 602
Packet Page 138 of 602
Packet Page 139 of 602
Packet Page 140 of 602
Packet Page 141 of 602
Packet Page 142 of 602
Packet Page 143 of 602
Packet Page 144 of 602
Packet Page 145 of 602
Packet Page 146 of 602
Packet Page 147 of 602
Packet Page 148 of 602
Packet Page 149 of 602
Packet Page 150 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 1
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
Deleted: APPLICATIONS
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 151 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 2
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.
Packet Page 152 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 3
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
I
TYPE
II
TYPE
III-A
TYPE
III-B
TYPE
IV-A
TYPE
IV-B
TYPE
V
Zoning
Compliance
Letter
Outdoor
Dining
Essential
Public
Facilities
Final formal
plats
Site
specific
rezone
Development
agreements
Lot Line
Adjustment
Formal
interpretation of
the text of the
ECDC by the
Director
Technological
impracticality
waiver for
amateur radio
antennas
Design
review (where
public hearing
by
Architectural
Design Board
is required)
Final
Planned
Residential
Development
Zoning text
amendments;
area-wide
zoning map
amendments
Shoreline
substantial
development,
Comprehensive
plan
amendments
Formatted: Centered
Deleted: 20.01.001 Procedures for
processing development project permits.¶
¶
Deleted: A.For the purpose of
development project permit processing,
all development project permit
applications shall be classified as one of
the following as addressed and referenced
in ECDC 20.01.003: Type I, Type II,
Type III or Type IV. Legislative
decisions are Type V actions, and are
addressed in ECDC 20.01.005.
Exclusions from the requirements of
development project permit application
processing are contained in ECDC
20.01.003(B).
Deleted: [incorporated and expanded
in 20.01.000]
Inserted: [incorporated and expanded
in 20.01.000]
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: ¶
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 Deleted: Development Services
Director or his/her designee (hereinafter Deleted: development
Deleted: Development project permit
application framework
Deleted: Decisions
Deleted: Statement of zoning
restrictionDeleted: Modification to landscape
plans Inserted:
Deleted: Plat vacations and alterations
Deleted: / contract
Deleted: Boundary line adjustments, l
Deleted: Architectural
Deleted: ,
Deleted: lot combination
Deleted: or designated staff
Comment: Edmonds doesn’t have site
plan review Comment: Home occ is with business
license or III-B Comment: Edmonds doesn’t have site
plan Deleted: Permitted uses not requiring
site plan reviewDeleted: Home occupation permit
Deleted: Site plan/major amendments
to site plans
... [4]
... [1]
... [5]
... [2]
... [8]
... [7]
... [9]
... [6]
... [3]
... [10]
Packet Page 153 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 4
shoreline
conditional
use, shoreline
variance
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Conditional
use permits
(where public
hearing by
Hearing
Examiner is
required)
Annexations
Minor
Amendments
to Planned
Residential
Development
SEPA
determinations
Variances Development
regulations
Minor
Preliminary
Plat
Amendment
Revisions to
shoreline
management
permits
Staff design
review,
including signs
Administrative
variances
Preliminary
formal plat
Preliminary short
plat
Preliminary
Planned
Residential
Development
Sales
Office/Model
(17.70.005)
Land
clearing/Grading
Home
Occupation
Permit (where
public hearing
by Hearing
Examiner is
required.)
Shoreline
Exemptions
Land Use Permit
Extension
Requests
Final Short
Plat
Guest House
Critical Area
Determinations
[moved to 20.01.007 Exemption from development project permit application
processing]
B. Decision Table.
Formatted: Font: 11 pt
Formatted: Strikethrough
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
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 154 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 5
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT
APPLICATIONS
(TYPE I – IV) LEGISLATIVE
TYPE
I
TYPE
II
TYPE
III-A
TYPE
III-B
TYPE
IV-A
TYPE
IV-B
TYPE
V
Recommendation
by:
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planning Board Planning Board
Final decision
by:
Director Director Hearing
examiner
Hearing
examiner
/ ADB
City
council
City
council
City
council
Notice of
application:
No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Open record
public hearing or
open record
appeal of a final
decision:
No Only if
appealed,
open
record
hearing
before
hearing
examiner
Yes,
before
hearing
examiner
to render
final
decision
Yes,
before
hearing
examiner
or board
to render
final
decision
No Yes, before
Planning Board
which makes
recommendation
to council
Yes, before
Planning Board
which makes
recommendation
to council
Closed record
review:
No No No Yes,
before
the
council
No Yes,
before
the
council
Yes, or council
could hold its
own hearing
Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
[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
Deleted: 20.01.004 Joint public
hearings.
Deleted: section
Deleted: –
Deleted: ¶
¶
A.Administrator’s Decision to Hold
Joint Hearing. The director may combine
any public hearing on a development
project permit application with any
hearing that may be held by another local,
state, regional, federal, or other agency,
on the proposed action, as long as: (1) the
hearing is held within the city limits; and
(2) the requirements of subsection C of
this section are met.¶
¶
B.Applicant’s Request for a Joint
Hearing. The applicant may request that
the public hearing on a permit application
be combined as long as the joint hearing
can be held within the time periods set
forth in this title. In the alternative, the
applicant may agree to a particular
schedule if that additional time is needed
in order to complete the hearings.¶
¶
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 Deleted: 20.01.005 Decisions.
Deleted: section
Deleted: ¶
¶
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.¶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, II, III or IV permit, the
procedures in this title shall be followed
in development project permit processing,
except as provided in ECDC
20.01.003(B)
... [11]
... [12]
... [13]
Packet Page 155 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 6
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).
Deleted: development
Deleted: development project
Deleted: development project
Deleted: 20.01.004
Packet Page 156 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 7
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:
1 A form which lists the requirements for a completed application;
2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the
application;
3. The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards
which may apply to approval of the application; and
4. The city’s design guidelines.
D. Neither the discussions at the conference nor the information on the form
provided by the director to the applicant under ECDC 20.02.001(C) shall bind the city in
any manner or prevent the city’s future application or enforcement of all applicable
codes, ordinances and regulations.
E. Requests for preapplication conferences for all other types of applications
will be considered on a time-available basis by the director.
20.02.002 Permit application requirements.
Deleted: TYPE I – IV
Deleted: Development project permit
Deleted: 20.02.004
Deleted: Notice of application.
Deleted: development project
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
provided by the city at the conference.
Deleted: The director
Deleted: Development project permit
Packet Page 157 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 8
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
Deleted: Applications for development
project permits shall be submitted on
forms provided by the director.
Deleted: ,
Deleted: as applicable:
Deleted: development project permit
Deleted: Statement
Deleted: addressing all
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: development project permit
Deleted: city
Deleted: That t
Deleted: That t
Deleted: development project permit
Deleted: director’s
Deleted: development project permit
Packet Page 158 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 9
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 20.03.002]
20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications.
Deleted: for the development project
permit,
Deleted: development project permit
Deleted: Development project
Deleted: found
Deleted: the application requires
Deleted: for
Deleted: 20.02.004 Notice of
application.
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: ¶
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
... [14]
Packet Page 159 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 10
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.
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 160 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 11
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;
Formatted: Don't keep with next
Deleted: Public notice
Deleted: 20.03.003 Optional public
notice.
Deleted: ¶
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. ¶
¶
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 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
conformance with the regulations in this Deleted: Public n
... [16]
... [15]
Packet Page 161 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 12
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:
Deleted: Notice of application for Type
II, Type III and Type IV development
project permits shall be provided by
posting, publishing and mailing.¶
Deleted: A
Deleted: by the applicant
Packet Page 162 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 13
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
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.
Deleted: by the applicant
Deleted: 30
Deleted: 15
Deleted: 15
Deleted: after the end of the notice
period
Deleted: 5.Notice boards shall be
constructed and installed in accordance
with specifications promulgated by the
director. The format and content of the
notice must be pre-approved by the
director, and contain at least the project
location, description, type of permit(s)
required, comment period dates, and a
location where the complete application
may be reviewed.¶
Deleted: B.Published Notice. Notice
of application shall be published in the
city’s official newspaper (or if one has
not been designated, in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City). The
format and content of the notice must be
pre-approved by the director, and contain
at least the project location, description,
type of permit(s) required, comment
period dates, and a location where the
complete application may be reviewed.¶
Deleted: C.Mailed Notice. Notice of
application shall be mailed to the
following: (1) owner of the property
involved if different from applicant; and
(2) owners of real property, as shown by
the records of the county assessor, within
300 feet of the boundaries of the
property(ies) involved in the application.
The format and content of the notice of
application must be pre-approved by the
director, and contain at least the project
location, description, type of permit(s)
required, comment period dates, and a
location where the complete application
may be reviewed.¶
Packet Page 163 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 14
. [separated out Shoreline permits and moved to 20.03.005]
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.
C. Mailed Notice. Mailed notice of the public hearing shall be provided as
follows:
1. The notice of the public hearing shall be mailed to:
Deleted: D
Deleted: Shoreline Master Program
(SMP) Permits.
Deleted: ¶
¶
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 Deleted: 20.03.003 Optional public
notice. The director, in his or her sole
discretion, may:¶
¶
A.Notify the public or private groups
with known interest in a proposal or type
of proposal; ¶
¶
B.Notify the news media;¶
¶
C.Place notices in appropriate regional
or neighborhood newspapers or trade
journals;¶
¶Deleted: 004
... [18]
... [17]
Packet Page 164 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 15
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.
Deleted: c
Deleted: or within two miles of the
boundary of a state or municipal airport
Deleted: General
Packet Page 165 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 16
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).
Deleted: (A)
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 166 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 17
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:
Packet Page 167 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 18
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.
Packet Page 168 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 19
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.
Deleted: development project permit
Deleted: the director
Packet Page 169 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 20
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.
Deleted: development project
Deleted: its
Deleted: development project
Deleted: development project permit
Packet Page 170 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 21
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
Packet Page 171 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 22
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]
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. ¶
¶
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 172 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 23
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 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 20.01.004]
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.
Deleted: 001
Deleted: - Miscellaneous
Deleted: 001
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 173 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 24
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.
Deleted: development
Packet Page 174 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 25
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.
Packet Page 175 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 26
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
Packet Page 176 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 27
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:
Deleted: development project permit
Deleted: - Miscellaneous
Deleted: development project
Packet Page 177 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 28
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
(B)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion period shall apply;
3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is
being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time
period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by Chapter 20.15A 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
Deleted: particular insufficiencies
Deleted: development project
Deleted: development project
Packet Page 178 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 29
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.
Deleted: city planning
Deleted: (which shall be the same as
the administrative appeal fee)
Deleted: requestor
Packet Page 179 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 30
G. Hearing Examiner’s Action on Request. The hearing examiner shall
consider the request for reconsideration without a hearing, but may solicit written
arguments from parties of record. A decision on the request for reconsideration shall be
issued within 10 business days after receipt of the request for reconsideration by the city.
1. The time period for appeal shall recommence and be the same for
all parties of record, regardless of whether a party filed a motion for reconsideration.
2. Only one request for reconsideration may be made by a party of
record. Any ground not stated in the initial motion is waived.
3. A decision on reconsideration or a matter that is remanded to the
hearing examiner by the City Council is not subject to a motion for reconsideration.
H. Limitations on Hearing Examiner’s Reconsideration. The hearing
examiner shall consider the request for reconsideration based on the administrative record
compiled on the application up to and including the date of the hearing examiner’s
decision. The hearing examiner may require or permit corrections of ministerial errors or
inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record and the hearing examiner’s
decision. The reconsideration decision issued by the hearing examiner may modify,
affirm or reverse the hearing examiner’s decision.
I. Notice of Final Decision on Reconsideration. The director shall issue a
notice of final decision on reconsideration in the manner set forth and to the persons
identified in ECDC 20.06.009.
J. Further Appeals. If no administrative appeal is allowed of the hearing
examiner’s decision, and a request for reconsideration was timely filed, then any judicial
appeal must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the decision on reconsideration, as
provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW.
Packet Page 180 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 31
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
Deleted: development project
Packet Page 181 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 32
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.
Deleted: development project
Packet Page 182 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 33
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
Deleted: The appellant
Packet Page 183 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 34
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.
Deleted: below
Deleted: below
Deleted: A
Deleted: , or the director’s designee,
Deleted: (or designee)
Deleted: below
Packet Page 184 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 35
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.
Deleted: reconsideration
Packet Page 185 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 36
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. Provisions for affordable housing, if applicable;
6. Parks and common open space preservation;
7. Phasing;
Deleted: and general provisions
Deleted: and general provisions
Deleted: consider, and
Deleted: ,
Deleted: consider
Deleted: B.A development agreement
shall be consistent with the applicable
policies and goals of the city of Edmonds
comprehensive plan and applicable
development regulations.
Packet Page 186 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 37
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.
Packet Page 187 of 602
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 188 of 602
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 189 of 602
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, II, III or IV permit, the procedures in this title shall be
followed in development project permit processing, except as provided in ECDC
20.01.003(B)
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 190 of 602
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 191 of 602
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 192 of 602
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 193 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 1
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
Packet Page 194 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 2
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.
Packet Page 195 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 3
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
I
TYPE
II
TYPE
III-A
TYPE
III-B
TYPE
IV-A
TYPE
IV-B
TYPE
V
Zoning
Compliance
Letter
Outdoor
Dining
Essential
Public
Facilities
Final formal
plats
Site
specific
rezone
Development
agreements
Lot Line
Adjustment
Formal
interpretation of
the text of the
ECDC by the
Director
Technological
impracticality
waiver for
amateur radio
antennas
Design
review (where
public hearing
by
Architectural
Design Board
is required)
Final
Planned
Residential
Development
Zoning text
amendments;
area-wide
zoning map
amendments
Shoreline
substantial
development,
Comprehensive
plan
amendments
Packet Page 196 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 4
shoreline
conditional
use, shoreline
variance
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Conditional
use permits
(where public
hearing by
Hearing
Examiner is
required)
Annexations
Minor
Amendments
to Planned
Residential
Development
SEPA
determinations
Variances Development
regulations
Minor
Preliminary
Plat
Amendment
Revisions to
shoreline
management
permits
Staff design
review,
including signs
Administrative
variances
Preliminary
formal plat
Preliminary short
plat
Preliminary
Planned
Residential
Development
Sales
Office/Model
(17.70.005)
Land
clearing/Grading
Home
Occupation
Permit (where
public hearing
by Hearing
Examiner is
required.)
Shoreline
Exemptions
Land Use Permit
Extension
Requests
Final Short
Plat
Guest House
Critical Area
Determinations
[moved to 20.01.007 Exemption from development project permit application
processing]
B. Decision Table.
Packet Page 197 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 5
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT
APPLICATIONS
(TYPE I – IV) LEGISLATIVE
TYPE
I
TYPE
II
TYPE
III-A
TYPE
III-B
TYPE
IV-A
TYPE
IV-B
TYPE
V
Recommendation
by:
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planning Board Planning Board
Final decision
by:
Director Director Hearing
examiner
Hearing
examiner
/ ADB
City
council
City
council
City
council
Notice of
application:
No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Open record
public hearing or
open record
appeal of a final
decision:
No Only if
appealed,
open
record
hearing
before
hearing
examiner
Yes,
before
hearing
examiner
to render
final
decision
Yes,
before
hearing
examiner
or board
to render
final
decision
No Yes, before
Planning Board
which makes
recommendation
to council
Yes, before
Planning Board
which makes
recommendation
to council
Closed record
review:
No No No Yes,
before
the
council
No Yes,
before
the
council
Yes, or council
could hold its
own hearing
Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
[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
Packet Page 198 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 6
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).
Packet Page 199 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 7
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:
1 A form which lists the requirements for a completed application;
2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the
application;
3. The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards
which may apply to approval of the application; and
4. The city’s design guidelines.
D. Neither the discussions at the conference nor the information on the form
provided by the director to the applicant under ECDC 20.02.001(C) shall bind the city in
any manner or prevent the city’s future application or enforcement of all applicable
codes, ordinances and regulations.
E. Requests for preapplication conferences for all other types of applications
will be considered on a time-available basis by the director.
20.02.002 Permit application requirements.
Packet Page 200 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 8
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
Packet Page 201 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 9
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 20.03.002]
20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications.
Packet Page 202 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 10
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.
Packet Page 203 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 11
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;
Packet Page 204 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 12
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 205 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 13
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
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.
Packet Page 206 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 14
. [separated out Shoreline permits and moved to 20.03.005]
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.
C. Mailed Notice. Mailed notice of the public hearing shall be provided as
follows:
1. The notice of the public hearing shall be mailed to:
Packet Page 207 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 15
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.
Packet Page 208 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 16
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).
Packet Page 209 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 17
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:
Packet Page 210 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 18
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.
Packet Page 211 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 19
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 212 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 20
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.
Packet Page 213 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 21
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
Packet Page 214 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 22
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 215 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 23
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 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 20.01.004]
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.
Packet Page 216 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 24
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.
Packet Page 217 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 25
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.
Packet Page 218 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 26
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
Packet Page 219 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 27
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:
Packet Page 220 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 28
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
(B)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion period shall apply;
3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is
being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time
period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by Chapter 20.15A 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 221 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 29
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.
Packet Page 222 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 30
G. Hearing Examiner’s Action on Request. The hearing examiner shall
consider the request for reconsideration without a hearing, but may solicit written
arguments from parties of record. A decision on the request for reconsideration shall be
issued within 10 business days after receipt of the request for reconsideration by the city.
1. The time period for appeal shall recommence and be the same for
all parties of record, regardless of whether a party filed a motion for reconsideration.
2. Only one request for reconsideration may be made by a party of
record. Any ground not stated in the initial motion is waived.
3. A decision on reconsideration or a matter that is remanded to the
hearing examiner by the City Council is not subject to a motion for reconsideration.
H. Limitations on Hearing Examiner’s Reconsideration. The hearing
examiner shall consider the request for reconsideration based on the administrative record
compiled on the application up to and including the date of the hearing examiner’s
decision. The hearing examiner may require or permit corrections of ministerial errors or
inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record and the hearing examiner’s
decision. The reconsideration decision issued by the hearing examiner may modify,
affirm or reverse the hearing examiner’s decision.
I. Notice of Final Decision on Reconsideration. The director shall issue a
notice of final decision on reconsideration in the manner set forth and to the persons
identified in ECDC 20.06.009.
J. Further Appeals. If no administrative appeal is allowed of the hearing
examiner’s decision, and a request for reconsideration was timely filed, then any judicial
appeal must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the decision on reconsideration, as
provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW.
Packet Page 223 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 31
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
Packet Page 224 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 32
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.
Packet Page 225 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 33
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
Packet Page 226 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 34
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.
Packet Page 227 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 35
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.
Packet Page 228 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 36
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. Provisions for affordable housing, if applicable;
6. Parks and common open space preservation;
7. Phasing;
Packet Page 229 of 602
Council Discussion Draft 8-16-10 37
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.
Packet Page 230 of 602
APPROVED AUGUST 12th
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
July 28, 2010
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
John Reed, Vice Chair
Kevin Clarke
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Mike Clugston, Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
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.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
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 20.08, EXCLUDING
20.05. (FILE NUMBER AMD 20100013)
Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Board discussed the proposed updates at their meetings of April 14th and 28th, 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 231 of 602
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 28, 2010 Page 2
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 III-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, which 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 be 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
Packet Page 232 of 602
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 28, 2010 Page 3
Council Members are 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 to 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.
Packet Page 233 of 602
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 28, 2010 Page 4
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 err 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 construction 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 MEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO AND CHAIR 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 summarized 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
basis of health effects. However, there are a variety of changes proposed to both chapters to tighten siting and aesthetic
Packet Page 234 of 602
AI-3228 Item #: 6. a.
Planning Board Agenda
Date: 07/28/2010
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.
Page 1 of 2Print Agenda Item
8/9/2010http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3228&rev=0&mode=External...
Packet Page 235 of 602
Attachments
Attachment 1 - 6/9 PB minutes exceprt
Attachment 2 - June 2009 permit matrix
Attachment 3 - proposed Title 20 text
Page 2 of 2Print Agenda Item
8/9/2010http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3228&rev=0&mode=External...
Packet Page 236 of 602
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2010 Page 15
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.B
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.B, 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.
Packet Page 237 of 602
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2010 Page 16
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
Packet Page 238 of 602
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2010 Page 17
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.
Packet Page 239 of 602
{BFP724405.DOC;1/00006.900150/}
2
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 III-B TYPE IV-A Type IV-B TYPE V
Statement of
zoning
restriction
Modification
to landscape
plans
Plat vacations
and
alterations
Essential
Public
Facilities
Final plats Site specific /
contract
rezone
Development
agreements
Boundary
line
adjustments,
lot line
adjustment,
lot
combination
Formal
interpretation
of the text of
the ECDC by
the Director or
designated
staff
Shoreline
substantial
development,
shoreline
conditional
use, shoreline
variance
Architectural
Design
review
Final
Planned
Residential
Development
Zoning text
amendments;
area-wide
zoning map
amendments
Permitted
uses not
requiring site
plan review
Home
occupation
permit
Preliminary
Planned
Residential
Development
Comprehensive
plan
amendments
Special use
permits
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Conditional
use
Annexations
Minor
amendments
to Planned
Residential
Development
Draft
environmental
impact
statement /
SEPA
determinations
General
variances,
and sign
permit
variances,
Development
regulations
Minor
Preliminary
Plat
amendment
Revisions to
shoreline
management
permits
Site
plan/major
amendments
to site plans
Master Plan
Minor design
review
Administrative
variances
Preliminary
plats
Sign permits Short plat
Land clearing/
grading
Packet Page 240 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 1
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 20.01
TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMITS APPLICATIONS
Sections:
20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions [new]
20.01.001 Procedures for processing development project permits.Types of Actions
20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type.
20.01.003 Development project permit application Permit type and decision
framework.
20.01.004 Joint public hearings. [move to 20.06.001]
20.01.005 Decisions. [incorporated with 20.01.001]
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted.
20.01.007 Exemptions from development project permit application
processingExempt 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
Attachment 3
Packet Page 241 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 2
legislative action the deadline shall run until the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday,
or holiday or closed day.
20.01.001 Procedures for processing development project permits.
A. For the purpose of development project permit processing, all
development project permit applications shall be classified as one of the following as
addressed and referenced in ECDC 20.01.003: Type I, Type II, Type III or Type IV.
Legislative decisions are Type V actions, and are addressed in ECDC 20.01.005.
Exclusions from the requirements of development project permit application processing
are contained in ECDC 20.01.003(B). [incorporated and expanded in 20.01.000]
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. [incorporated in 20.01.000]
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
Packet Page 242 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 3
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 Services Director or his/her
designee (hereinafter the “director”) director shall determine the proper procedure for all
development project applications. Questions concerning the appropriate procedure shall
be resolved in favor of the higher numbered procedure.
B. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves
two or more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered
procedure required for any part of the application or may be processed individually under
each of the application procedures identified in ECDC 20.01.003. The applicant may
determine whether the application will be processed collectively or individually. If the
applications are processed individually, the highest numbered type procedure shall be
undertaken first, followed by the other procedures in sequence from the highest
numbered to the lowest.
C. Decisionmaker(s). Applications processed in accordance with subsection
B of this section which have the same procedure number, but are assigned to different
hearing bodies, shall be heard collectively by the highest decisionmaker; the city council
being 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 frameworkPermit Type and
Decision Framework.
A. DecisionsPermit Types.
Packet Page 243 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 4
TYPE
I
TYPE
II
TYPE
III-A
TYPE
III-B
TYPE
IV-A
TYPE
IV-B
TYPE
V
Statement of
zoning
restrictionZoning
Compliance
Letter
Modification
to landscape
plans
Outdoor
Dining Plat
vacations and
alterations
Essential
Public
Facilities
Final formal
plats
Site
specific
/
contract
rezone
Development
agreements
Boundary line
adjustments, lLot
Line
Adjustment, lot
combination
Formal
interpretation
of the text of
the ECDC by
the Director or
designated
staff
Technological
impracticality
waiver for
amateur radio
antennas
Architectural
Design
review (where
public hearing
by
Architectural
Design Board
is required)
Final
Planned
Residential
Development
Zoning text
amendments;
area-wide
zoning map
amendments
Permitted uses
not requiring site
plan review
Home
occupation
permit
Shoreline
substantial
development,
shoreline
conditional
use, shoreline
variance Site
plan/major
amendments
to site plans
Shoreline
substantial
development,
shoreline
conditional
use, shoreline
variance
Comprehensive
plan
amendments
Special use
permits
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Conditional
use permits
(where public
hearing by
Hearing
Examiner is
required)
Conditional
use permits
(where public
hearing by
Hearing
Examiner is
required)
Annexations
Minor
Amendments to
Planned
Residential
Development
SEPA
determinations
Variances General
Variances and
sign permit
variances
Development
regulations
Minor
Preliminary Plat
Amendment
Revisions to
shoreline
management
permits
Draft
environmental
impact
statement
Master Plan
Staff design
review,
including signs
Administrative
variances
Preliminary
formal plat
Preliminary
formal plat
Packet Page 244 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 5
Sign permits Preliminary
Short short plat
Preliminary
Planned
Residential
Development
Preliminary
Planned
Residential
Development
Sales
Office/Model
(17.70.005)
Land clearing/
Grading
Home
Occupation
Permit (where
public
hearing by
Hearing
Examiner is
required)
Home
Occupation
Permit (where
public hearing
by Hearing
Examiner is
required)
Shoreline
Exemptions
Land Use
Permit
Extension
Requests
Final Short Plat Guest House
Critical Area
Determinations
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. [moved to 20.01.007]
CB. Action TypeDecision Table.
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT
APPLICATIONS
(TYPE I – IV) LEGISLATIVE
TYPE
I
TYPE
II
TYPE
III-A
TYPE
III-B
TYPE
IV-A
TYPE
IV-B
TYPE
V
Recommendation
by:
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planning Board Planning Board
Final decision
by:
Director Director Hearing
examiner
Hearing
examiner
/ ADB
City
council
City
council
City
council
Notice of
application:
No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Open record
public hearing or
open record
appeal of a final
decision:
No Only if
appealed,
open
record
hearing
Yes,
before
hearing
examiner
to render
Yes,
before
hearing
examiner
or board
No Yes, before
Planning Board
which makes
recommendation
to council
Yes, before
Planning Board
which makes
recommendation
to council
Packet Page 245 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 6
before
hearing
examiner
final
decision
to render
final
decision
Closed record
review:
No No No Yes,
before
the
council
No Yes,
before
the
council
Yes, or council
could hold its
own hearing
Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
20.01.004 Joint public hearings. [moved section to 20.06.001 – Open Record Public
Hearings]
A. Administrator’s Decision to Hold Joint Hearing. The director may
combine any public hearing on a development project permit application with any
hearing that may be held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, on the
proposed action, as long as: (1) the hearing is held within the city limits; and (2) the
requirements of subsection C of this section are met.
B. Applicant’s Request for a Joint Hearing. The applicant may request that
the public hearing on a permit application be combined as long as the joint hearing can be
held within the time periods set forth in this title. In the alternative, the applicant may
agree to a particular schedule if that additional time is needed in order to complete the
hearings.
C. Prerequisites to Joint Public Hearing. A joint public hearing may be held
with another local, state, regional, federal or other agency and the city, when:
1. The other agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so;
2. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencies’
adopted notice requirements as set forth in statutes, ordinances, or rules;
3. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed
project from the applicant in enough time to hold its hearing at the same time as the city
hearing; or
4. The hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the city.
20.01.005 Decisions. [moved section to 20.01.001]
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.
Packet Page 246 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 7
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.
4. Implementation. City council decision shall be by ordinance or
resolution and shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance or resolution.
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted.
Nothing in this chapter or the permit processing procedures shall limit the
authority of the city council to make changes to the city’s comprehensive plan, or the
city’s development regulations as part of the annual revision process.
20.01.007 Exemptions from development project permit application
processingExempt projects.
A. Whenever a permit or approval in the Edmonds Community Development
Code has been designated as a Type I, II, III or IV permit, the procedures in this title shall
be followed in development project permit processing, except as provided in ECDC
20.01.003(B)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
Packet Page 247 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 8
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 development project permit decision;
2. Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.140, optional consolidated
development project permit review processing (ECDC 20.01.002(B));
3. Joint public hearings (ECDC 20.01.00420.06.001);
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).
Packet Page 248 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 9
Chapter 20.02
TYPE I – IV DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Sections:
20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference.
20.02.002 Development project permit Permit application requirements.
20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application.
20.02.004 Notice of application. [moved to 20.03.002]
20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications.
20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference.
A. Prior to filing applications for development project permit Type III actions
requiring a preliminary plat or site plan review and Type III and IV actions, the
applicants are encouraged to participate in may request a preapplication conference. The
purpose of the preapplication conference is to merely acquaint the applicant with the
requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code.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. Applicant shall be
responsible for verifying the accuracy of information provided by the city at the
conference. 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”)The director shall provide the applicant with the following during the
conference:
1 A form which lists the requirements for a completed application;
2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the
application;
3. The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards
which may apply to approval of the application; and
4. The city’s design guidelines.
D. Neither the discussions at the conference nor the information on the form
provided by the director to the applicant under ECDC 20.02.001(C) shall bind the city in
any manner or prevent the city’s future application or enforcement of all applicable
codes, ordinances and regulations.
Packet Page 249 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 10
E. Requests for preapplication conferences for all other types of applications
will be considered on a time-available basis by the director.
20.02.002 Development project permit Permit application requirements.
Applications for development project permits shall be submitted on forms
provided by the director. An application shall consist of all materials required by the
applicable development regulations, and shall include the following general information
as applicable::
A. A completed development project permit 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 theaddressing
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
development project permit application, the city director shall mail or personally deliver
to the applicant a determination which states that either:
1. That tThe application is complete; or
2. That tThe 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 development project permit application is
complete for the purposes of this section when it meets the submission requirements of
ECDC 20.02.002 and the submission requirements of the applicable development
regulations. The determination of completeness shall be made when the application is
sufficiently complete for review, even though additional information may be required or
project modifications may be undertaken subsequently. The director’s determination of
Packet Page 250 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 11
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 development project permit application is incomplete,
the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary information. Within 14 days
after an applicant has submitted the requested additional information, the director shall
make a determination of completeness and notify the applicant in the manner provided in
subsection A of this section.
2. Whenever the applicant receives a notice that the contents of the
application, which had been previously determined under ECDC 20.02.003(A)(1) to be
complete, is insufficient, ambiguous, undecipherable, or otherwise unresponsive of the
information being sought, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary
information. 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), for the
development project permit, the director shall make findings and issue a decision,
according to the Type I procedure, that the application has lapsed for lack of information
necessary to complete the review. The decision shall state that no further action will be
taken on the applications, and that if the applicant does not make arrangements to pick up
the application materials from the planning and/or public works/engineering departments
within 30 days from the date of the decision, the application materials will be destroyed.
4. When the director determines that an application has lapsed because the
applicant has failed to submit required information within the necessary time period, the
applicant may request a refund of the application fee remaining after the city’s
determination of completeness.
E. Director’s Failure to Provide Determination of Completeness. An
development project permit application shall be deemed complete under this section if the
director does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is
incomplete as provided in subsection A of this section.
F Date of Acceptance of Application. Development project permit
applications shall not be officially accepted until complete. When an application is found
determined to be complete, the director shall note the date of acceptance for continued
processing.
Packet Page 251 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 12
G. After acceptance, the city shall begin processing the applications. Under
no circumstances shall the city place any applications on “hold” to be processed at some
later date, even if the request for the “hold” is made by the applicant, and regardless of
the requested length of the “holding” period. This subsection does not apply to
applications placed on “hold” upon determination by the city that the application requires
additional information is required in order to make for a decision.
20.02.004 Notice of application. [moved to 20.03.002]
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 252 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 13
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.
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 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 253 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 14
Chapter 20.03
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Sections:
20.03.001 Responsibility for providing public notice.
20.03.002 Public notice Notice of application.
20.03.003 Optional public notice.[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.
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.
BA. The Development Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the
“director”) is responsible for all public notice requirements. The appellant of a
development project permit decision shall be responsible for all posting, publishing,
mailing and other notification required by the director.
Packet Page 254 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 15
1. No later than 14 days after the required date of posting, publishing
and/or mailing, the appellant shall provide to the director an affidavit attesting that each
required method of notification was carried out in conformance with the regulations in
this and other applicable chapters. For required mail notice, the applicant shall submit a
U.S. Postal Service Certificate of Mailing containing the names and addresses of all
parties provided public notice.
2. When the responsibility of providing notice is on the appellant,
failure to timely or properly file affidavit of notice and certificate of mailing may be
grounds for the director to summarily dismiss the appeal.
20.03.002 Public nNotice 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;
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
Packet Page 255 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 16
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.
Notice of application for Type II, Type III and Type IV development project
permits shall be provided by posting, publishing and mailing.
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.
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 placed by the applicant:
a. At the midpoint of the street fronting the site or as otherwise
directed by the director for maximum visibility;
b. Five feet inside the street property line, except when the board is
structurally attached to an existing building; provided, that no notice board shall be
placed more than five feet from the street without approval of the director;
c. So that the bottom of the notice board is between two and four feet
above grade; and
Packet Page 256 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 17
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 30 14 days prior to the date of any hearing, and at
least 1415 days prior to the end of any required comment period;
c. Removed within 15 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
issuedafter the end of the notice period.
4. Removal of the notice board prior to the end of the notice period
shall be cause for discontinuance of the department review until the notice board is
replaced and remains in place for the specified time period.
5. Notice boards shall be constructed and installed in accordance with
specifications promulgated by the director. The format and content of the notice must be
pre-approved by the director, and contain at least the project location, description, type of
permit(s) required, comment period dates, and a location where the complete application
may be reviewed.
B. Published Notice. Notice of application shall be published in the city’s official
newspaper (or if one has not been designated, in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City). The format and content of the notice must be pre-approved by the
director, and contain at least the project location, description, type of permit(s) required,
comment period dates, and a location where the complete application may be reviewed.
C. Mailed Notice. Notice of application shall be mailed to the following: (1) owner
of the property involved if different from applicant; and (2) owners of real property, as
shown by the records of the county assessor, within 300 feet of the boundaries of the
property(ies) involved in the application. The format and content of the notice of
Packet Page 257 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 18
application must be pre-approved by the director, and contain at least the project location,
description, type of permit(s) required, comment period dates, and a location where the
complete application may be reviewed.
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.
D. Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Permits. [separated out and moved to
20.03.005]
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.
Packet Page 258 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 19
3. Public Comment Period. The public comment period shall be 30
days.
4. The director shall mail or otherwise deliver a copy of the decision
to each person who submits comments or a written request for the decisions.
20.03.003 Optional public notice. The director, in his or her sole discretion, may:
A. Notify the public or private groups with known interest in a proposal or type of
proposal;
B. Notify the news media;
C. Place notices in appropriate regional or neighborhood newspapers or trade
journals;
D. Publish notice in agency newsletters or send notice to agency mailing lists, either
general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas; and
E. Mail notice to additional neighboring property owners.
20.03.004003 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;
Packet Page 259 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 20
8. The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone number
where additional information may be obtained;
9. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence
relied upon by the applicant, and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost
and that copies will be provided at the requestor’s cost; and
10. A statement explaining that a copy of the staff report will be available for
inspection at no cost at least seven days prior to the hearing and that copies will be
provided at the requestor’s cost.
C. Mailed Notice. Mailed notice of the public hearing shall be provided as
follows:
1. The notice of the public hearing shall be mailed to:
a. The applicant;
b. The owner of the subject property, if different from applicant;
c. All owners of real property, as shown by the records of the county
assessor, within 300 feet of the boundaries of the property(ies) involved in the
application; and
cd. 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 or within two miles of the
boundary of a state or municipal airport shall be given to the secretary of transportation;
d. If the owner of the real property which is proposed to be
subdivided owns another parcel or parcels of real property which lie adjacent to the real
property proposed to be subdivided, notice under RCW 58.17.090(1)(b) shall be given to
Packet Page 260 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 21
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 1.03or if one has not been designated, in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City). The format and content of the notice
must be pre-approved by the director.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 of Notice of Public Hearing.
1. Notice shall be mailed, posted and first published not less than 1410 or
more than 30 days prior to the hearing date. Posted notices shall be removed by the
applicant within 15 days following the public hearing.
2. All costs associated with the public notice shall be borne by the applicant of Type
III and Type IV actions, or appellant of Type II actions.
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:
Packet Page 261 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 22
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).
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.
Packet Page 262 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 23
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.
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
Packet Page 263 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 24
E. Mail notice to additional neighboring property owners.
Packet Page 264 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 25
Chapter 20.04
CONSISTENCY WITH
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SEPA
Sections:
20.04.001 Determination of consistency.
20.04.002 Initial SEPA analysis.
20.04.003 Categorically exempt and planned actions.
20.04.001 Determination of consistency.
A. Purpose. Consistency between a proposed development project permit
application, applicable regulations and comprehensive plan shall be determined through
the process described in this section.
B. Consistency. During development project permit application review, the
Development Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the “director”) 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 265 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 26
A. In addition to the land use consistency review, the director shall review the
development project 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 development project permit application, the director
shall determine whether the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and
mitigation measures in the applicable development regulations, comprehensive plan
and/or in other applicable local, state or federal laws provide adequate analysis of and
mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the proposal.
C. If the director bases or conditions his or her approval of the development
project permit application on compliance with the requirements or mitigation measures
described in subsection A of this section, the city shall not impose additional mitigation
under SEPA during project review for the same adverse environmental impacts.
D. A comprehensive plan, development regulation or other applicable local,
state or federal law provides adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, the specific adverse
environmental impacts of a proposal when:
1. The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or
2. The city has designated in the plan, regulation or law that certain levels of
service, land use designations, development standards or other land use conditions
allowed by Chapter 36.70A RCW are acceptable.
E. In deciding whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been
addressed by an existing city plan or development regulation, or by the regulations or
laws of another government agency, the director shall consult orally or in writing with
that agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the director
shall base or condition any project approval on compliance with these other regulations.
F. Nothing in this section limits the authority of the director in reviewing or
mitigating the impacts of a proposed project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental
analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided by Chapter 43.21C RCW.
Packet Page 266 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 27
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
Packet Page 267 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 28
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.
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. [restatement of 20.04.001.C]
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. [restatement of 20.04.001.C]
Packet Page 268 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 29
Chapter 20.06
OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Sections:
20.06.001000 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 - Miscellaneous.
20.06.010 Reconsideration of decision.
20.06.001000 General.
A. An Oopen record public hearing, or simply public hearing, means is a
hearing conducted by an single hearing authorized body or officer authorized to conduct
such hearings that creates the city’s record through testimony and submission of evidence
and information., under procedures prescribed in this Chapter. A public hearing may be
held prior to the city’s decision on a development project permit application; to be known
as this is an "open record predecision hearing." A public record hearing may be held on
an appeal, to be known as an "open record appeal hearing," if no open record predecision
hearing has beenwas held on for the development project permit; this is an "open record
appeal hearing.".
B. Open record predecision hearings on all Type III and IV development
project permit applications and open record appeal hearings on all Type II decision
appeals shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter. Public hearings conducted by
the city hearing examiner shall also be subject to the hearing examiner’s rules.
C. Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated
as set forth in ECDC 20.07.004.
20.06.001 Joint public hearings. [moved from 20.01.004]
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
Packet Page 269 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 30
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.
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 development 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.
Packet Page 270 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 31
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).
Packet Page 271 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 32
The proponent must also prove that any significant adverse environmental impacts have
been adequately mitigated.
B. In an appeal of Type II actions or closed record appeal, the appellant has
the burden of proof with respect to points raised on appeal.
C. In a closed record appeal of the Architectural Design Board, its decision
shall be given substantial deference regarding decision review within its expertise and
contained in its decisions.
20.06.007 Order of proceedings.
The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the nature of the
hearing. The following shall be supplemented by administrative procedures as
appropriate.
A. Before receiving testimony and other evidence on the issue, the following
shall be determined:
1. Any objections on jurisdictional grounds shall be noted on the record and
if there is objection, the hearing body may proceed or terminate the proceeding;
2. Any member disqualifications shall be determined.
B. The presiding officer may take official notice of commonly known and
accepted information, such as:
1. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, officially adopted development standards,
and state law;
2. Public records and facts judicially noticeable by law.
C. Information officially noticed need not be proved by submission of formal
evidence to be considered by the hearing body. Parties requesting official notice of any
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.
Packet Page 272 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 33
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 project
permit application within the time limits provided for in this section, it shall provide
written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of
reasons why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the
notice of decision.
20.06.009 Notice of final decision - Miscellaneous.
A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the
issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided,
that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall
be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a 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 development project permits, the notice
shall contain the requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affected
property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any
program of revaluation.
1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the
applicant, to any person who submitted comments on the application or requested a copy
of the decision, and to the Snohomish County assessor.
2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means
deemed reasonable by the director.
Packet Page 273 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 34
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 insufficienciesdeficiencies and the
procedures set forth in subsection (B)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion
period shall apply;
3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is
being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time
period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by Chapter 20.15A 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
project permit application:
1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development
regulation;
2. Requires siting approval of an essential public facility as provided in
RCW 36.70A.200; or
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
development project permit application described in this chapter. (There shall be no
Packet Page 274 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 35
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 city planning 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 administrative appeal fee), and contain the following information:
1. The name, address and phone number of the requestor;
2. Identification of the application and final decision which is the subject of
the request for reconsideration;
3. Requestor’s statement of grounds for reconsideration and the facts upon
which the request is based;
4. The specific relief requested;
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.
Packet Page 275 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 36
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 requestor 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.
Packet Page 276 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 37
Chapter 20.07
CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Sections:
20.07.001 Appeals of decisions.
20.07.002 Consolidated appeals.
20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions.
20.07.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal.
20.07.006 Judicial appeals.
20.07.007 Resubmission of application.
20.07.001 Appeals of decisions.
A. "Closed record appeal" means an administrative appeal on the record to
the city council, following an open record public hearing on a development project permit
application when the appeal is on the record with no new evidence or information
allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC 20.07.005(B), and only appeal
argument allowed.
B. The right of appeal for all development project permit applications and
Type V land use decisions shall be as described in the matrix set forth in ECDC
20.01.003.
20.07.002 Consolidated appeals.
All appeals of development project permit application decisions, other than
appeals of determinations of significance (“DS”), and exempt permits and approvals
under ECDC 20.01.007, shall be considered together in a consolidated appeal using the
appeal procedure for the highest type permit application.
20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
A. Limited to Parties of Record. Only parties of record may file an
administrative appeal.
B. Definition. The term “parties of record,” for the purposes of this chapter,
shall mean:
1. The applicant;
2. Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the
application;
Packet Page 277 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 38
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 development project 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;
Packet Page 278 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 39
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.
Packet Page 279 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 40
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 below,
with specific references to the administrative record. The appellant shall bear the burden
to demonstrate that the decision below is clearly erroneous given the record.
D. 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, or the director’s designee, of
the general background of the proposed development and the issues in dispute. After the
director’s presentation, the city council may ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to
parties of record, with an opportunity for the director (or designee), appellant and/or
applicant, respectively, to rebut to the response. The city council shall not request
information outside the administrative record.
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
Packet Page 280 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 41
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
reconsideration 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.
Packet Page 281 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 42
Chapter 20.08
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Sections:
20.08.010 Authority and general provisions.
20.08.020 General provisions of development agreements.
20.08.030 Enforceability.
20.08.040 Approval procedure for development agreements.
20.08.050 Form of agreement, council approval, recordation.
20.08.060 Judicial appeal.
20.08.010 Authority and general provisions.
A. The city may consider, and enter into, a development agreement with a
person having ownership or control of real property within the city limits. The city may
also enter consider a development agreement for real property outside of the city limit but
within the urban growth area (UGA) as part of a proposed annexation or a service
agreement.
B. A development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable policies
and goals of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan and applicable development
regulations.
20.08.020 General provisions of development agreements.
A. 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;
Packet Page 282 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 43
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.
Packet Page 283 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 7-28-10 44
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.
Packet Page 284 of 602
AI-3110 Item #: 6. c.
Planning Board Agenda
Date: 06/09/2010
Public hearing on proposed Title 20 updates
Staff Lead/Author:Michael Clugston
Department:Planning
Initiated By:City Staff
Information
Subject/Purpose
Public hearing on proposed updates to land use procedures (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.
Staff Recommendation
Recommend to City Council for a public hearing.
Previous Board Action
The Planning Board discussed the proposed Title 20 updates at their April 14 and April 28
meetings.
Narrative
Since Title 20 was adopted by Council in June 2009, staff has identified several areas that
needed further refinement. These 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. The proposed changes are contained in Attachment 1.
The Board had also asked for additional context regarding appeal activity. Attachment 2
is a summary analysis of appeal activity from 1998-2003. Of note, the rate of those appeals
going to Council was similar for the period of 1998-2003 period (18% or 13 appeals to
Council / 72 total appeals) as for the period of 2005-present (20% or 6 appeals to Council /
29 total appeals).
Attachments 3-6 are the agenda memos and minutes of the April 14 and April 28 meetings.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - proposed Title 20 text
Attachment 2 - Appeals 1995-2003
Attachment 3 - 4/28/10 PB minutes excerpt
Attachment 4 - 4/28/10 PB packet
Attachment 5 - 4/14/10 PB minutes excerpt
Attachment 6 - 4/14/10 PB packet
Page 1 of 1Print Agenda Item
8/9/2010http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3110&rev=0&mode=External...
Packet Page 285 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 1
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 20.01
TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMITS APPLICATIONS
Sections:
20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions [new]
20.01.001 Procedures for processing development project permits.Types of Actions
20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type.
20.01.003 Development project permit application Permit type and decision
framework.
20.01.004 Joint public hearings. [move to 20.06.001]
20.01.005 Decisions. [incorporated with 20.01.001]
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted.
20.01.007 Exemptions from development project permit application
processingExempt 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
Attachment 1
Packet Page 286 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 2
legislative action the deadline shall run until the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday,
or holiday or closed day.
20.01.001 Procedures for processing development project permits.
A. For the purpose of development project permit processing, all
development project permit applications shall be classified as one of the following as
addressed and referenced in ECDC 20.01.003: Type I, Type II, Type III or Type IV.
Legislative decisions are Type V actions, and are addressed in ECDC 20.01.005.
Exclusions from the requirements of development project permit application processing
are contained in ECDC 20.01.003(B). [incorporated and expanded in 20.01.000]
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. [incorporated in 20.01.000]
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
Packet Page 287 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 3
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 Services Director or his/her
designee (hereinafter the “director”) director shall determine the proper procedure for all
development project applications. Questions concerning the appropriate procedure shall
be resolved in favor of the higher numbered procedure.
B. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves
two or more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered
procedure required for any part of the application or may be processed individually under
each of the application procedures identified in ECDC 20.01.003. The applicant may
determine whether the application will be processed collectively or individually. If the
applications are processed individually, the highest numbered type procedure shall be
undertaken first, followed by the other procedures in sequence from the highest
numbered to the lowest.
C. Decisionmaker(s). Applications processed in accordance with subsection
B of this section which have the same procedure number, but are assigned to different
hearing bodies, shall be heard collectively by the highest decisionmaker; the city council
being 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 frameworkPermit Type and
Decision Framework.
A. DecisionsPermit Types.
Packet Page 288 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 4
TYPE
I
TYPE
II
TYPE
III-A
TYPE
III-B
TYPE
IV-A
TYPE
IV-B
TYPE
V
Statement of
zoning
restrictionZoning
Compliance
Letter
Modification
to landscape
plans
Plat vacations
and
alterations
Essential
Public
Facilities
Final formal
plats
Site
specific
/
contract
rezone
Development
agreements
Boundary line
adjustments, lLot
Line
Adjustment, lot
combination
Formal
interpretation
of the text of
the ECDC by
the Director or
designated
staff
Technological
impracticality
waiver for
amateur radio
antennas
Architectural
Design
review (where
public hearing
by
Architectural
Design Board
is required)
Final
Planned
Residential
Development
Zoning text
amendments;
area-wide
zoning map
amendments
Permitted uses
not requiring site
plan review
Home
occupation
permit
Site
plan/major
amendments
to site plans
Shoreline
substantial
development,
shoreline
conditional
use, shoreline
variance
Comprehensive
plan
amendments
Special use
permits
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Outdoor
Dining
Conditional
use permits
(where public
hearing by
Hearing
Examiner is
required)
Annexations
Minor
Amendments to
Planned
Residential
Development
SEPA
determinations
General
Variances and
sign permit
variances
Development
regulations
Minor
Preliminary Plat
Amendment
Revisions to
shoreline
management
permits
Draft
environmental
impact
statement
Master Plan
Staff design
review,
including signs
Administrative
variances
Preliminary
formal plat
Sign permits Preliminary
Short short plat
Preliminary
Planned
Residential
Packet Page 289 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 5
Development
Sales
Office/Model
(17.70.005)
Land clearing/
Grading
Home
Occupation
Permit (where
public hearing
by Hearing
Examiner is
required)
Shoreline
Exemptions
Land Use
Permit
Extension
Requests
Final Short Plat Guest House
Critical Area
Determinations
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. [moved to 20.01.007]
CB. Action TypeDecision Table.
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT
APPLICATIONS
(TYPE I – IV) LEGISLATIVE
TYPE
I
TYPE
II
TYPE
III-A
TYPE
III-B
TYPE
IV-A
TYPE
IV-B
TYPE
V
Recommendation
by:
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planning Board Planning Board
Final decision
by:
Director Director Hearing
examiner
Hearing
examiner
/ ADB
City
council
City
council
City
council
Notice of
application:
No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Open record
public hearing or
open record
appeal of a final
decision:
No Only if
appealed,
open
record
hearing
before
hearing
examiner
Yes,
before
hearing
examiner
to render
final
decision
Yes,
before
hearing
examiner
or board
to render
final
decision
No Yes, before
Planning Board
which makes
recommendation
to council
Yes, before
Planning Board
which makes
recommendation
to council
Closed record No No No Yes, No Yes, Yes, or council
Packet Page 290 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 6
review: before
the
council
before
the
council
could hold its
own hearing
Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
20.01.004 Joint public hearings. [moved section to 20.06.001 – Open Record Public
Hearings]
A. Administrator’s Decision to Hold Joint Hearing. The director may
combine any public hearing on a development project permit application with any
hearing that may be held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, on the
proposed action, as long as: (1) the hearing is held within the city limits; and (2) the
requirements of subsection C of this section are met.
B. Applicant’s Request for a Joint Hearing. The applicant may request that
the public hearing on a permit application be combined as long as the joint hearing can be
held within the time periods set forth in this title. In the alternative, the applicant may
agree to a particular schedule if that additional time is needed in order to complete the
hearings.
C. Prerequisites to Joint Public Hearing. A joint public hearing may be held
with another local, state, regional, federal or other agency and the city, when:
1. The other agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so;
2. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencies’
adopted notice requirements as set forth in statutes, ordinances, or rules;
3. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed
project from the applicant in enough time to hold its hearing at the same time as the city
hearing; or
4. The hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the city.
20.01.005 Decisions. [moved section to 20.01.001]
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.
Packet Page 291 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 7
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.
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted.
Nothing in this chapter or the permit processing procedures shall limit the
authority of the city council to make changes to the city’s comprehensive plan, or the
city’s development regulations as part of the annual revision process.
20.01.007 Exemptions from development project permit application
processingExempt projects.
A. Whenever a permit or approval in the Edmonds Community Development
Code has been designated as a Type I, II, III or IV permit, the procedures in this title shall
be followed in development project permit processing, except as provided in ECDC
20.01.003(B)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
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 development project permit decision;
Packet Page 292 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 8
2. Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.140, optional consolidated
development project permit review processing (ECDC 20.01.002(B));
3. Joint public hearings (ECDC 20.01.00420.06.001);
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).
Packet Page 293 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 9
Chapter 20.02
TYPE I – IV DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Sections:
20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference.
20.02.002 Development project permit Permit application requirements.
20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application.
20.02.004 Notice of application. [moved to 20.03.002]
20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications.
20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference.
A. Prior to filing applications for development project permit Type III actions
requiring a preliminary plat or site plan review and Type III and IV actions, the
applicants are encouraged to participate in may request a preapplication conference. The
purpose of the preapplication conference is to merely acquaint the applicant with the
requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code.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. Applicant shall be
responsible for verifying the accuracy of information provided by the city at the
conference. 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”)The director shall provide the applicant with the following during the
conference:
1 A form which lists the requirements for a completed application;
2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the
application;
3. The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards
which may apply to approval of the application; and
4. The city’s design guidelines.
D. Neither the discussions at the conference nor the information on the form
provided by the director to the applicant under ECDC 20.02.001(C) shall bind the city in
any manner or prevent the city’s future application or enforcement of all applicable
codes, ordinances and regulations.
Packet Page 294 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 10
E. Requests for preapplication conferences for all other types of applications
will be considered on a time-available basis by the director.
20.02.002 Development project permit Permit application requirements.
Applications for development project permits shall be submitted on forms
provided by the director. An application shall consist of all materials required by the
applicable development regulations, and shall include the following general information
as applicable::
A. A completed development project permit 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 theaddressing
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
development project permit application, the city director shall mail or personally deliver
to the applicant a determination which states that either:
1. That tThe application is complete; or
2. That tThe 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 development project permit application is
complete for the purposes of this section when it meets the submission requirements of
ECDC 20.02.002 and the submission requirements of the applicable development
regulations. The determination of completeness shall be made when the application is
sufficiently complete for review, even though additional information may be required or
project modifications may be undertaken subsequently. The director’s determination of
Packet Page 295 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 11
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 development project permit application is incomplete,
the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary information. Within 14 days
after an applicant has submitted the requested additional information, the director shall
make a determination of completeness and notify the applicant in the manner provided in
subsection A of this section.
2. Whenever the applicant receives a notice that the contents of the
application, which had been previously determined under ECDC 20.02.003(A)(1) to be
complete, is insufficient, ambiguous, undecipherable, or otherwise unresponsive of the
information being sought, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary
information. 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), for the
development project permit, the director shall make findings and issue a decision,
according to the Type I procedure, that the application has lapsed for lack of information
necessary to complete the review. The decision shall state that no further action will be
taken on the applications, and that if the applicant does not make arrangements to pick up
the application materials from the planning and/or public works/engineering departments
within 30 days from the date of the decision, the application materials will be destroyed.
4. When the director determines that an application has lapsed because the
applicant has failed to submit required information within the necessary time period, the
applicant may request a refund of the application fee remaining after the city’s
determination of completeness.
E. Director’s Failure to Provide Determination of Completeness. An
development project permit application shall be deemed complete under this section if the
director does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is
incomplete as provided in subsection A of this section.
F Date of Acceptance of Application. Development project permit
applications shall not be officially accepted until complete. When an application is found
determined to be complete, the director shall note the date of acceptance for continued
processing.
Packet Page 296 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 12
G. After acceptance, the city shall begin processing the applications. Under
no circumstances shall the city place any applications on “hold” to be processed at some
later date, even if the request for the “hold” is made by the applicant, and regardless of
the requested length of the “holding” period. This subsection does not apply to
applications placed on “hold” upon determination by the city that the application requires
additional information is required in order to make for a decision.
20.02.004 Notice of application. [moved to 20.03.002]
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 297 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 13
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.
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 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 298 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 14
Chapter 20.03
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Sections:
20.03.001 Responsibility for providing public notice.
20.03.002 Public notice Notice of application.
20.03.003 Optional public notice.[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.
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.
BA. The Development Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the
“director”) is responsible for all public notice requirements. The appellant of a
development project permit decision shall be responsible for all posting, publishing,
mailing and other notification required by the director.
Packet Page 299 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 15
1. No later than 14 days after the required date of posting, publishing
and/or mailing, the appellant shall provide to the director an affidavit attesting that each
required method of notification was carried out in conformance with the regulations in
this and other applicable chapters. For required mail notice, the applicant shall submit a
U.S. Postal Service Certificate of Mailing containing the names and addresses of all
parties provided public notice.
2. When the responsibility of providing notice is on the appellant,
failure to timely or properly file affidavit of notice and certificate of mailing may be
grounds for the director to summarily dismiss the appeal.
20.03.002 Public nNotice 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;
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
Packet Page 300 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 16
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.
Notice of application for Type II, Type III and Type IV development project
permits shall be provided by posting, publishing and mailing.
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.
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 placed by the applicant:
a. At the midpoint of the street fronting the site or as otherwise
directed by the director for maximum visibility;
b. Five feet inside the street property line, except when the board is
structurally attached to an existing building; provided, that no notice board shall be
placed more than five feet from the street without approval of the director;
c. So that the bottom of the notice board is between two and four feet
above grade; and
Packet Page 301 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 17
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 30 14 days prior to the date of any hearing, and at
least 1415 days prior to the end of any required comment period;
c. Removed within 15 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
issuedafter the end of the notice period.
4. Removal of the notice board prior to the end of the notice period
shall be cause for discontinuance of the department review until the notice board is
replaced and remains in place for the specified time period.
5. Notice boards shall be constructed and installed in accordance with
specifications promulgated by the director. The format and content of the notice must be
pre-approved by the director, and contain at least the project location, description, type of
permit(s) required, comment period dates, and a location where the complete application
may be reviewed.
B. Published Notice. Notice of application shall be published in the city’s official
newspaper (or if one has not been designated, in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City). The format and content of the notice must be pre-approved by the
director, and contain at least the project location, description, type of permit(s) required,
comment period dates, and a location where the complete application may be reviewed.
C. Mailed Notice. Notice of application shall be mailed to the following: (1) owner
of the property involved if different from applicant; and (2) owners of real property, as
shown by the records of the county assessor, within 300 feet of the boundaries of the
property(ies) involved in the application. The format and content of the notice of
Packet Page 302 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 18
application must be pre-approved by the director, and contain at least the project location,
description, type of permit(s) required, comment period dates, and a location where the
complete application may be reviewed.
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.
D. Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Permits. [separated out and moved to
20.03.005]
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.
Packet Page 303 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 19
3. Public Comment Period. The public comment period shall be 30
days.
4. The director shall mail or otherwise deliver a copy of the decision
to each person who submits comments or a written request for the decisions.
20.03.003 Optional public notice. The director, in his or her sole discretion, may:
A. Notify the public or private groups with known interest in a proposal or type of
proposal;
B. Notify the news media;
C. Place notices in appropriate regional or neighborhood newspapers or trade
journals;
D. Publish notice in agency newsletters or send notice to agency mailing lists, either
general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas; and
E. Mail notice to additional neighboring property owners.
20.03.004003 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;
Packet Page 304 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 20
8. The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone number
where additional information may be obtained;
9. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence
relied upon by the applicant, and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost
and that copies will be provided at the requestor’s cost; and
10. A statement explaining that a copy of the staff report will be available for
inspection at no cost at least seven days prior to the hearing and that copies will be
provided at the requestor’s cost.
C. Mailed Notice. Mailed notice of the public hearing shall be provided as
follows:
1. The notice of the public hearing shall be mailed to:
a. The applicant;
b. The owner of the subject property, if different from applicant;
c. All owners of real property, as shown by the records of the county
assessor, within 300 feet of the boundaries of the property(ies) involved in the
application; and
cd. 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 or within two miles of the
boundary of a state or municipal airport shall be given to the secretary of transportation;
d. If the owner of the real property which is proposed to be
subdivided owns another parcel or parcels of real property which lie adjacent to the real
property proposed to be subdivided, notice under RCW 58.17.090(1)(b) shall be given to
Packet Page 305 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 21
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 1.03or if one has not been designated, in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City). The format and content of the notice
must be pre-approved by the director.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 of Notice of Public Hearing.
1. Notice shall be mailed, posted and first published not less than 1410 or
more than 30 days prior to the hearing date. Posted notices shall be removed by the
applicant within 15 days following the public hearing.
2. All costs associated with the public notice shall be borne by the applicant of Type
III and Type IV actions, or appellant of Type II actions.
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:
Packet Page 306 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 22
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).
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.
Packet Page 307 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 23
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.
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
Packet Page 308 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 24
E. Mail notice to additional neighboring property owners.
Packet Page 309 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 25
Chapter 20.04
CONSISTENCY WITH
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SEPA
Sections:
20.04.001 Determination of consistency.
20.04.002 Initial SEPA analysis.
20.04.003 Categorically exempt and planned actions.
20.04.001 Determination of consistency.
A. Purpose. Consistency between a proposed development project permit
application, applicable regulations and comprehensive plan shall be determined through
the process described in this section.
B. Consistency. During development project permit application review, the
Development Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the “director”) 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 310 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 26
A. In addition to the land use consistency review, the director shall review the
development project 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 development project permit application, the director
shall determine whether the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and
mitigation measures in the applicable development regulations, comprehensive plan
and/or in other applicable local, state or federal laws provide adequate analysis of and
mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the proposal.
C. If the director bases or conditions his or her approval of the development
project permit application on compliance with the requirements or mitigation measures
described in subsection A of this section, the city shall not impose additional mitigation
under SEPA during project review for the same adverse environmental impacts.
D. A comprehensive plan, development regulation or other applicable local,
state or federal law provides adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, the specific adverse
environmental impacts of a proposal when:
1. The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or
2. The city has designated in the plan, regulation or law that certain levels of
service, land use designations, development standards or other land use conditions
allowed by Chapter 36.70A RCW are acceptable.
E. In deciding whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been
addressed by an existing city plan or development regulation, or by the regulations or
laws of another government agency, the director shall consult orally or in writing with
that agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the director
shall base or condition any project approval on compliance with these other regulations.
F. Nothing in this section limits the authority of the director in reviewing or
mitigating the impacts of a proposed project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental
analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided by Chapter 43.21C RCW.
Packet Page 311 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 27
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
Packet Page 312 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 28
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.
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. [restatement of 20.04.001.C]
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. [restatement of 20.04.001.C]
Packet Page 313 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 29
Chapter 20.06
OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Sections:
20.06.001000 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 - Miscellaneous.
20.06.010 Reconsideration of decision.
20.06.001000 General.
A. An Oopen record public hearing, or simply public hearing, means is a
hearing conducted by an single hearing authorized body or officer authorized to conduct
such hearings that creates the city’s record through testimony and submission of evidence
and information., under procedures prescribed in this Chapter. A public hearing may be
held prior to the city’s decision on a development project permit application; to be known
as this is an "open record predecision hearing." A public record hearing may be held on
an appeal, to be known as an "open record appeal hearing," if no open record predecision
hearing has beenwas held on for the development project permit; this is an "open record
appeal hearing.".
B. Open record predecision hearings on all Type III and IV development
project permit applications and open record appeal hearings on all Type II decision
appeals shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter. Public hearings conducted by
the city hearing examiner shall also be subject to the hearing examiner’s rules.
C. Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated
as set forth in ECDC 20.07.004.
20.06.001 Joint public hearings. [moved from 20.01.004]
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
Packet Page 314 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 30
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.
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 development 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.
Packet Page 315 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 31
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).
Packet Page 316 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 32
The proponent must also prove that any significant adverse environmental impacts have
been adequately mitigated.
B. In an appeal of Type II actions or closed record appeal, the appellant has
the burden of proof with respect to points raised on appeal.
C. In a closed record appeal of the Architectural Design Board, its decision
shall be given substantial deference regarding decision review within its expertise and
contained in its decisions.
20.06.007 Order of proceedings.
The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the nature of the
hearing. The following shall be supplemented by administrative procedures as
appropriate.
A. Before receiving testimony and other evidence on the issue, the following
shall be determined:
1. Any objections on jurisdictional grounds shall be noted on the record and
if there is objection, the hearing body may proceed or terminate the proceeding;
2. Any member disqualifications shall be determined.
B. The presiding officer may take official notice of commonly known and
accepted information, such as:
1. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, officially adopted development standards,
and state law;
2. Public records and facts judicially noticeable by law.
C. Information officially noticed need not be proved by submission of formal
evidence to be considered by the hearing body. Parties requesting official notice of any
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.
Packet Page 317 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 33
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 project
permit application within the time limits provided for in this section, it shall provide
written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of
reasons why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the
notice of decision.
20.06.009 Notice of final decision - Miscellaneous.
A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the
issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided,
that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall
be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a 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 development project permits, the notice
shall contain the requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affected
property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any
program of revaluation.
1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the
applicant, to any person who submitted comments on the application or requested a copy
of the decision, and to the Snohomish County assessor.
2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means
deemed reasonable by the director.
Packet Page 318 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 34
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 insufficienciesdeficiencies and the
procedures set forth in subsection (B)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion
period shall apply;
3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is
being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time
period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by Chapter 20.15A 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
project permit application:
1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development
regulation;
2. Requires siting approval of an essential public facility as provided in
RCW 36.70A.200; or
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
development project permit application described in this chapter. (There shall be no
Packet Page 319 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 35
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 city planning 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 administrative appeal fee), and contain the following information:
1. The name, address and phone number of the requestor;
2. Identification of the application and final decision which is the subject of
the request for reconsideration;
3. Requestor’s statement of grounds for reconsideration and the facts upon
which the request is based;
4. The specific relief requested;
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.
Packet Page 320 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 36
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 requestor 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.
Packet Page 321 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 37
Chapter 20.07
CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Sections:
20.07.001 Appeals of decisions.
20.07.002 Consolidated appeals.
20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions.
20.07.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal.
20.07.006 Judicial appeals.
20.07.007 Resubmission of application.
20.07.001 Appeals of decisions.
A. "Closed record appeal" means an administrative appeal on the record to
the city council, following an open record public hearing on a development project permit
application when the appeal is on the record with no new evidence or information
allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC 20.07.005(B), and only appeal
argument allowed.
B. The right of appeal for all development project permit applications and
Type V land use decisions shall be as described in the matrix set forth in ECDC
20.01.003.
20.07.002 Consolidated appeals.
All appeals of development project permit application decisions, other than
appeals of determinations of significance (“DS”), and exempt permits and approvals
under ECDC 20.01.007, shall be considered together in a consolidated appeal using the
appeal procedure for the highest type permit application.
20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
A. Limited to Parties of Record. Only parties of record may file an
administrative appeal.
B. Definition. The term “parties of record,” for the purposes of this chapter,
shall mean:
1. The applicant;
2. Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the
application;
Packet Page 322 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 38
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 development project 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;
Packet Page 323 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 39
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.
Packet Page 324 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 40
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 below,
with specific references to the administrative record. The appellant shall bear the burden
to demonstrate that the decision below is clearly erroneous given the record.
D. 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, or the director’s designee, of
the general background of the proposed development and the issues in dispute. After the
director’s presentation, the city council may ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to
parties of record, with an opportunity for the director (or designee), appellant and/or
applicant, respectively, to rebut to the response. The city council shall not request
information outside the administrative record.
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
Packet Page 325 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 41
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
reconsideration 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.
Packet Page 326 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 42
Chapter 20.08
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Sections:
20.08.010 Authority and general provisions.
20.08.020 General provisions of development agreements.
20.08.030 Enforceability.
20.08.040 Approval procedure for development agreements.
20.08.050 Form of agreement, council approval, recordation.
20.08.060 Judicial appeal.
20.08.010 Authority and general provisions.
A. The city may consider, and enter into, a development agreement with a
person having ownership or control of real property within the city limits. The city may
also enter consider a development agreement for real property outside of the city limit but
within the urban growth area (UGA) as part of a proposed annexation or a service
agreement.
B. A development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable policies
and goals of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan and applicable development
regulations.
20.08.020 General provisions of development agreements.
A. 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;
Packet Page 327 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 43
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.
Packet Page 328 of 602
Planning Board Public Hearing 6-9-10 44
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.
Packet Page 329 of 602
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
f
A
p
p
e
a
l
D
a
t
a
Fo
r
t
h
e
y
e
a
r
s
1
9
9
8
-
2
0
0
3
Ap
p
e
a
l
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
Co
u
n
t
%
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
A
p
p
e
a
l
10
18
.
5
%
De
n
i
e
d
A
p
p
e
a
l
44
81
.
5
%
Su
m
54
10
0
.
0
%
Ye
a
r
(A
l
l
)
Co
u
n
t
o
f
A
p
p
#
Ap
p
e
a
l
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
Ap
p
e
a
l
B
o
d
y
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
A
p
p
e
a
l
De
n
i
e
d
A
p
p
e
a
l
Vo
i
d
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
n
Gr
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
All Decisions
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
4
6
1
2
13
1
8
.
1
%
1
8
.
5
%
H.
E
.
/
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
1
8
9
1
2
.
5
%
1
6
.
7
%
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
5
30
2
13
50
69.4%64.8%
Gr
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
10
44
3
15
72
100.0%100.0%
13
.
9
%
61
.
1
%
4.
2
%
20
.
8
%
Ye
a
r
(A
l
l
)
Co
u
n
t
o
f
A
p
p
#
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
Ap
p
e
a
l
B
o
d
y
Ap
p
e
a
l
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
De
n
i
e
d
SE
P
A
Gr
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
All Decisions
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
A
p
p
e
a
l
4
4
3
0
.
8
%
4
0
.
0
%
De
n
i
e
d
A
p
p
e
a
l
5
1
6
4
6
.
2
%
6
0
.
0
%
Vo
i
d
1
1
7
.
7
%
W
i
t
h
d
r
a
w
n
1
1
2
1
5
.
4
%
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
T
o
t
a
l
6
7
13
100.0%100.0%
H.
E
.
/
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
A
p
p
e
a
l
1
1
1
1
.
1
%
1
1
.
1
%
De
n
i
e
d
A
p
p
e
a
l
8
8
8
8
.
9
%
8
8
.
9
%
H.
E
.
/
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
T
o
t
a
l
9
9
100.0%100.0%
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
A
p
p
e
a
l
2
2
1
5
1
0
.
0
%
1
4
.
3
%
De
n
i
e
d
A
p
p
e
a
l
16
4
10
30
6
0
.
0
%
8
5
.
7
%
Vo
i
d
2
2
4
.
0
%
W
i
t
h
d
r
a
w
n
10
3
13
2
6
.
0
%
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
T
o
t
a
l
30
6
14
50
100.0%100.0%
Gr
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
45
13
14
72
62
.
5
%
18
.
1
%
19
.
4
%
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
33
0
of
60
2
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2010 Page 10
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
Packet Page 331 of 602
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2010 Page 11
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 9th.
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 internet
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.
Packet Page 332 of 602
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
3
3
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
3
4
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
3
5
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
3
6
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
3
7
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
3
8
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
3
9
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
4
0
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
4
1
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
4
2
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
4
3
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
4
4
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
4
5
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
4
6
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
4
7
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
4
8
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
4
9
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
0
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
1
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
2
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
3
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
4
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
5
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
6
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
7
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
8
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
9
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
0
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
1
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
2
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
3
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
4
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
5
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
6
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
7
o
f
6
0
2
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2010 Page 8
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 5th 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.
Packet Page 368 of 602
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2010 Page 9
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.
Packet Page 369 of 602
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
0
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
1
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
2
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
3
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
4
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
5
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
6
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
7
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
8
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
9
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
0
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
1
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
2
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
3
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
4
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
5
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
6
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
7
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
8
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
9
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
9
0
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
9
1
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
9
2
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
9
3
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
9
4
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
9
5
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
9
6
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
9
7
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
9
8
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
9
9
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
0
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
1
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
2
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
3
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
4
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
5
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
6
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
7
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
8
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
9
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
1
0
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
1
1
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
1
2
o
f
6
0
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
1
3
o
f
6
0
2
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 16, 2010
Page 8
the subdivision code and wanted to ensure a future PRD was not able to use the perimeter buffer as their
setback.
Mr. Snyder clarified the Council had already addressed the loophole via the interim ordinance. He
suggested adding to the motion a request for staff and the Planning Board to provide a calendar and work
plan. He clarified a PRD submitted in the next six months could not take advantage of that loophole.
Council President Bernheim responded he did not want the Planning Board to provide their work plan; he
wanted to direct them to act in an expedited manner to return to the Council without delay with the
necessary steps to take action on the perimeter buffer.
MOTION CARRIED (4-1).
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented he enjoyed the Taste of Edmonds but feared the beer garden was
creating a public nuisance and creating liability for the City and the Chamber. His understanding was that
Washington State law prohibited a person who is obviously intoxicated from being served but that that
was not observed at the Taste of Edmonds. When the Taste of Edmonds closes, several intoxicated
individuals appear downtown, posing a danger to themselves and the public. He witnessed a highly
intoxicated middle aged man who attempted to enter several establishments. The police were called and
the man was later tazered and fell, injuring his head. The police responded quickly due to emphasis
patrols in the area but the aid unit took a long time to arrive.
7. 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)
Planner Michael Clugston explained the Planning Board’s recommended several updates to the Land Use
Permit Administration procedures in Title 20. Following the Council’s adoption of changes to the Land
Use Permit Administration Procedures in June 2009, staff recognized several issues that required further
refinement. Since June 2009 the Council passed two interim ordinances reintroducing Council review in
closed record appeals. Those changes are included in the ordinance the Planning Board recommended to
the Council. Other changes include staff reassuming public notice requirements for project permit
applications. The changes adopted in June 2009 made applicants responsible for notification. In practice,
staff found it took more time to help applicants with the process of notification than it had taken
previously when staff was responsible for notification. Other changes include reorganizing and clarifying
text to make it more user friendly. The permit matrix in ECDC 20.01.003 was updated to reflect the two
interim ordinances passed by Council in January 2010 as well as other minor changes to clarify language
in the permit table.
Mr. Clugston explained the language passed in June 2009 included a 90-day time period for applicants to
submit all required information as part of a complete application. There have been several instances when
the 90-day period does not provide enough flexibility for applicants and they have requested an extension
of the 90-day period. The code previously did not allow for an extension. The proposed ordinance adds
the ability to request a 90-day extension via a written request. The final change is a draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) had been included as a Type III-B action in the permit matrix. A draft EIS is not a
permit but a factual document and there are separate written hearing requirements found elsewhere in the
ECDC and State regulations and it is not appropriate to include in the land use matrix.
Packet Page 414 of 602
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 16, 2010
Page 9
Mr. Clugston summarized the intent of the changes is to make the code easier to use and administer and
return the permit types to the way they existed before the Council’s June 2009 decision to reflect the
interim ordinances the Council passed earlier this year.
Observing no comment/questions from the Council, City Attorney Scott Snyder advised staff would put
the proposal in ordinance form in preparation for a public hearing.
Council President Bernheim observed there were a number of proposed changes, most of which are
technical amendments. He agreed with scheduling the ordinance for a public hearing.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule a public hearing.
8. DISCUSSION REGARDING SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD FRANCHISE AND POTENTIAL
COOPERATION ON FIBER INSTALLATION.
Mayor Cooper reported staff and he along with the City Attorney met with Snohomish County PUD
management and an engineer. He recognized Chris Heimgartner, Snohomish County PUD, in the
audience. The intent of this item was to brief the Council on those discussions and seek direction.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Citizens Technology Advisory Committee plans to provide a
presentation to the Council next week regarding fiber optics. Snohomish County PUD is in the process of
stringing fiber optic cable throughout Snohomish County as part of their Smart grid. Some of their
installations in Edmonds are in areas where the City would like to install fiber as well. The PUD made an
offer following their meeting to cooperate in the contracting process to allow the installation of City fiber
in areas where the City planned to make that investment. He requested feedback from the Council
regarding whether they wanted staff to proceed with obtaining estimates and present it to the Council as a
contract on a future agenda.
In the course of this discussion, staff discovered the only electricity franchise the City has granted expired
in 1967. The issue has come up from time to time but there is no new money involved, only the cost of
negotiation. The City and PUD have treated the expired franchise as though it were an existing franchise.
Existing public utilities with franchises have access to the City’s expedited permit review procedures. In
negotiating franchises with Comcast and Verizon, profit-making organizations, the City sought
concessions, payment or access as compensation. There is no executive session privilege for a public
franchise. He sought the Council’s input regarding a liaison or a mechanism for Council to advise the
Mayor and staff during discussion with the PUD.
CIO Carl Nelson explained the City had a design for a fiber optics network done a few years ago. He
displayed a map illustrating the City’s current fiber and where PUD is proposing to install fiber in Phase
2. The proposal is as PUD builds their network and their contractors is in the area, they will assist with
expediting the City’s placement of fiber on the poles along those routes. He identified PUD substations on
the map; their ultimate plan is to interconnect all their substations with fiber. Snohomish County PUD has
offered to assist the City with stringing fiber while they are in the area in order to get the best cost.
Chris Heimgartner, Assistant General Manager, Snohomish PUD, explained he is in charge of all
construction and engineering for the utility. They will have contractors in the area doing installation and
via a single setup. There should be opportunities for cost savings compared to the City contracting
separately for this work. The City’s Public Works Director Phil Williams also requested consideration be
given to antenna space to determine if there is an opportunity for the City to establish sites. Mr. Snyder
commented the City’s fiber effort includes establishing the City’s own Smart grid for water meter
reading.
Packet Page 415 of 602
AM-3375 Item #: 4.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/21/2010
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Review
Committee:
Community/Development Services Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing for the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2011-2016).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program and adopt the Resolution.
Previous Council Action
On September 14, 2010, the 2011-2016 TIP was presented to the CSDS Committee.
Narrative
The Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a transportation planning document that
identifies funded, partially funded, and unfunded projects that are planned or needed over the next six
calendar years. The TIP also identifies the expenditures and secured or reasonably expected revenues for
each of the projects included in the TIP.
RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city update and adopt their TIP prior to adoption of the
budget. A copy of the adopted TIP will be submitted to the Puget Sound Regional Council and
Washington State Department of Transportation.
Potential funding sources for projects in the TIP are secured grants, unsecured grants that may be
awarded in the future and local funds. However, due to a shortfall in transportation funding, the TIP
includes potential revenue from the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) beginning in year 2014. The
TIP is required to be financially constrained the first three years but isn’t required to be financially
constrained the last three years. This future TBD revenue is based on a $40 increase to the current $20
vehicle license fee (approved by the TBD Board in 2009), an increase that will be on the ballot in
November. The TBD revenue is currently the only funding source for many projects listed in this
document, such as:
- 238th Street SW @ 100th Avenue Signal Upgrades
- Main Street @ 3rd Avenue Signal Upgrades
- 76th Avenue W @ 212th Street SW Intersection Upgrades
- Main Street @ 9th Avenue Intersection Improvements (interim solution)
- Walnut Street @ 9th Avenue Intersection Improvements (interim solution)
- 76th Avenue W @ 220th Street SW Intersection Improvements
- Madrona Elementary School Walkway
- Maplewood Drive Walkway
- Traffic Calming Program
Packet Page 416 of 602
A number of unsecured State and Federal transportation grants have been programmed in the TIP. Most
transportation grants are competitive, and our future success in securing grants will depend on other
transportation needs and funding requests in the region.
Staff recommends that Council approve the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program and adopt the
Resolution.
Attachments
Attachment 1-Six-Year TIP
Attachment 2-Resolution
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/16/2010 03:39 PM
Public Works Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 03:46 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 03:46 PM
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 09/16/2010 03:53 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 04:24 PM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 09/15/2010 04:06 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/16/2010
Packet Page 417 of 602
City of Edmonds
Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2011-2016)
Page 1
Grant Opportunity Project (2011-2016)
Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Source 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Preservation/Maintenance Projects:
Annual Street Overlays Grind pavement, overlay Engineering $0 (Federal)
Possible TBD & $0 (State)
Construction $1,500,000 (TBD, unsecured)$500,000 $500,000 $500,000
City Wide Pavement maintenance to Engineering $0 (Federal)
Street improvements increase roadway life Local Funds Only & $0 (State)
Construction $22,500 (Local)$7,500 $7,500 $7,500
Citywide Upgrades to existing signals, for $0 (Federal)
Signal Improvements maintenance & technology, update existing traffic signal Local Funds Only Construction $0 (State)
cabinet elements for maintenance and technology $15,000 (Local)$5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Signal - Cabinet Improvements $0 (Federal)
Upgrade cabinets citywide - conflict monitors, constrollers Local Funds Only Construction $0 (State)
$20,000 (Local)$5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
238th @ 100th Av. Signal Upgrades Rebuild signal system Engineering $0 (Federal)
and install video detection Possible TBD &$0 (State)
Construction $500,000 (TBD, unsecured)$500,000
Dayton St. Overlay Overlay of Dayton St. from Engineering $0 (Federal)
SR-104 to the railroad tracks due to poor quality of Local Funds Only & $90,000 (Local, Fund 412)$90,000
the pavement Construction $30,000 (Local)$30,000
Safety / Capacity Analysis:
212th/84th (5 Corners)Design intersection improvement Engineering $0 (Federal)
Intersection Improvements Possible Grant $247,000 (State, unsecured)$247,000
$39,000 (Local, Traffic Impact Fees)$39,000
ROW acquisition ROW $0 (Federal)
$216,000 (State, unsecured)$216,000
& $34,000 (Loca, Traffic Impact Feesl)$34,000
Construct intersection improvements Construction $0 (Federal)
Local Funds $1,730,000 (State, unsecured)$1,730,000
$270,000 (Local) $270,000
SR 524 (196th St. SW)/Design intersection improvement Possible Grant Design $0 (Federal)
88th Ave W. Intersection $50,000 (State, unsecured)$50,000
Improvements $50,000 (Local, traffic impact fees)$50,000
ROW acquisition &ROW $0 (Federal)
$81,500 (State, unsecured)$81,500
Local Funds $81,500 (Local)$81,500
Construct intersection improvements Construction $0 (Federal)
$308,000 (State, unsecured)$308,000
$308,000 (Local)$308,000
Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrade Engineering $0 (Federal)
Upgrade traffic signal Possible TBD &$0 (State)
Construction $153,000 (TBD, unsecured)$153,000
Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades Possible grant Engineering $0 (Federal)
Upgrade traffic signal &&$130,000 (State, unsecured)$20,000 $110,000
Local Funds Construction $128,000 (Local)$20,000 $108,000
Main St. @ 9th Av. S Restriping of 9th Av. S to (2) northbound Engineering $0 (Federal)
(Interim Solution)and southbound lanes (ex conditions: 1 lane for Possible TBD & $0 (State)
each approach) Construction $10,000 (TBD, unsecured)$10,000
76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Re-design intersection to make traffic signal work $0 (Federal)
Improvements more efficiently and improve the capacity / level Engineering $0 (State)
of service of the intersection.$250,000 (TBD, unsecured)$250,000
ROW acquisition $0 (Federal)
Possible TBD ROW $0 (State)
$600,000 (TBD, unsecured)$600,000
Construct intersection improvements Construction $0 (Federal)
$0 (State)
$2,040,000 (TBD, unsecured)$2,040,000
Packet Page 418 of 602
City of Edmonds
Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2011-2016)
Page 2
Grant Opportunity Project (2011-2016)
Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Source 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Walnut St. @ 9th Av. S Restriping of 9th Av. S to (2) northbound Engineering $0 (Federal)
(Interim Solution)and southbound lanes (ex conditions: 1 lane for Possible TBD &$0 (State)
each approach) Construction $10,000 (TBD, unsecured)$10,000
220th St. SW @ 76th Av. W Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and a Engineering $0 (Federal)
Intersection Improvements through lane. Change EB and WB phases to provide Possible TBD &$0 (State)
protected/permissive LT and Right turn overlap for WB.Construction $173,000 (TBD, unsecured)$173,000
Grant Engineering $307,000 (Federal, secured)$232,000 $75,000
228th St. SW. Corridor Safety Realign highly skewed intersection $0 (State)
to address safety and improve operations;&$89,000 (Local)$78,000 $11,000
includes new signal @ SR99/228th ROW $229,000 (Federal, secured)$229,000
Local Funds $36,000 (Local)$36,000
Improvements Possible TBD Construction $2,986,000 (Federal, unsecured)$2,986,000
&$0 (State)
Possible Grant $466,000 (TBD, unsecured)$466,000
Arterial Street Signal Coordination Coordinate the traffic signals within 1/2 mile of each other Engineering $0 (Federal)
Improvements along 76th Av. W, 212th St. SW, and 220th St. SW Local Funds Only & $0 (State)
Construction $50,000 (Local)$50,000
Non-motorized Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects:
Interurban Trail - 244th to 228th Pave, sign, and connect regional segment from Shoreline Grant $750,000 (Federal, secured)$750,000
to Mountlake Terrace & Construction $577,000 (State, secured)$577,000
Local Funds $0 (Local, Fund 125))
Main St. Pedestrian Lighting from 5th Av.Improve street lighting for pedestrian safety on Engineering $725,000 (Federal, secured)$115,000 $610,000
to 6th Av.Main St. between 5th Av. and 6th Av.Possible Grant & $0 (State)
Construction $0 (Local)
80th Av. W from 188th St. SW to Provide safe and desirable route to Possible Safe Engineering $0 (Federal)
Olympic View Dr. Walkway Routes to &$777,000 (State, unsecured)$30,000 $100,000 $647,000
Seaview Elementary and parks. School grant Construction $0 (Local)
Madrona Elementary School Walkway Improve pedestrian safety with installation of new Engineering $0 (Federal)
Possible TBD & $0 (State)
crosswalks to gain easy access to school. Construction $2,115,000 (TBD, unsecured)$440,000 $1,675,000
2nd Av. S from James St. to Main St.Engineering $0 (Federal)
Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link Possible TBD &$0 (State)
Construction $32,000 (TBD, unsecured)$32,000
Maple St from 7th to 8th Av. Walkway Engineering $0 (Federal)
Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link Possible TBD &$0 (State)
Construction $63,000 (TBD, unsecured)$63,000
Dayton St. from 7th Av. S to 8th Av. S Engineering $0 (Federal)
Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link Possible TBD & $0 (State)
Construction $79,000 (TBD, unsecured)$79,000
Shell Valley Emergency Access Provide emergency access to Shell Valley,Grant Engineering $0 (Federal)
coming from Main St.& &$250,000 (State, secured)$250,000
Local Funds Construction $243,500 (Local, Fund 412)$236,500 $7,000
226th St. SW Walkway Provide safe pedestrian missing link between SR-104 and Federal $139,000 (Federal, secured)$139,000
105th Pl. W, creating safer access to Construction $0 (State)
Sherwood Elementary and residential neighbhoods. Safety Grant $0 (Local)
ADA Curb Ramps Improv.Construct ADA compliant curb ramps where Possible TBD Engineering $0 (Federal)
Citywide (Transition Plan)&&$225,000 (Local) $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
facilities do not exist or don't meet current standards Local Funds Construction $225,000 (TBD, unsecured)$75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Bicycle Route Signing Install signate indicate (3) different bike City loops. Construction $0 (State)
Possible TBD $0 (Local)
$30,000 (TBD, unsecured)$10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Maplewood from Main St. to Provide safe sidewalk, connecting to ex. sidewalk on 200th Engineering $0 (Federal)
200th St. SW Walkway Possible TBD &$0 (State)
St. SW linking to Maplewood Elementary School.&$675,000 (TBD, unsecured)$125,000 $550,000
Meadowdale Beach Rd Walkway $0 (Federal)
Provide safe sidewalk along missing link between Possible TBD Engineering $0 (State)
76th Av. W and Olympic View Dr. $190,000 (TBD, unsecured)$190,000
Wanut St. from 3rd Av. to 4th Av. Engineering $0 (Federal)
Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link Possible TBD & $0 (State)
Construction $220,000 (TBD, unsecured)$220,000
Walnut St. from 6th Av. to 7th Av.Engineering $0 (Federal)
Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link Possible TBD &$0 (State)
Construction $110,000 (TBD, unsecured)$110,000
Packet Page 419 of 602
City of Edmonds
Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2011-2016)
Page 3
Grant Opportunity Project (2011-2016)
Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Source 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
4th Av. Corridor Enhancement Engineering $1,125,000 (Federal, unsecured)$25,000 $100,000 $1,000,000
Walkway Create more attractive and safer corridor along 4th Av.Possible Grant &$0 (State)
Construction $150,000 (Local, Fund 125)$50,000 $100,000
Pedestrian Countdown Signal -Install flashing countdown indicating the number of seconds Engineering $0 (Federal)
Citywide remaining in Flashing Don't Walk Operation Local Funds Only & $0 (State)
at all signalized intersections w/ pedestrian phases Construction $30,000 (Local)$10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Traffic Calming Projects:
Residential Neighborhood Traffic cirlces, speed humps,Design $0 (Federal)
Traffic Calming "Your Speed" signs, etc.Possible TBD &$0 (State)
Construction $125,000 (TBD, unsecured)$50,000 $50,000 $25,000
Traffic Planning Projects:
Transportation Plan Update Engineering $0 (Federal)
Update Transportation Plan in 2015, as required by GMA Local Funds Only &$0 (State)
Planning $200,000 (Local)$200,000
Total $22,305,000 $2,602,500 $803,000 $917,000 $6,110,500 $3,728,500 $8,143,500
Total Federal (Secured)$1,236,000 $685,000 $229,000 $0 $0 $0
Total Federal (Unsecured)$25,000 $0 $0 $3,086,000 $1,000,000 $0
Total State (Secured)$827,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total State (Unsecured)$30,000 $100,000 $647,000 $297,000 $317,500 $2,148,000
Total (TBD, unsecured)$0 $0 $0 $2,386,000 $1,973,000 $5,207,000
Total Local Fund $484,500 $18,000 $41,000 $341,500 $438,000 $788,500
Total Local (Fund 112)$108,000 $11,000 $41,000 $152,500 $404,000 $788,500
Total Local (Fund 125) $50,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0
Total Fund (Fund 412) $326,500 $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Local (Traffic Impact Fees)$0 $0 $0 $89,000 $34,000 $0
Packet Page 420 of 602
- 1 -
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE 2011-2016
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AND
DIRECTING FILING OF THE ADOPTED PROGRAM WITH
THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city and town is
required to adopt a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and file a copy of such adopted
program with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); and
WHEREAS, the TIP identifies all planned projects over the next 6 years, along
with the appropriate funding source; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Transportation Improvement Program is hereby adopted pursuant
to the requirements of RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 to be effective on September 21, 2010 and
to continue in full force and effect until amended. A copy of such Transportation Improvement
Program for the years 2011 to 2016 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this
reference as fully as if herein set forth.
Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby requested and directed to file a certified copy
of the Transportation Improvement Program with the Washington State Department of
Transportation.
Packet Page 421 of 602
- 2 -
RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2010.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
Packet Page 422 of 602
AM-3377 Item #: 6.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/21/2010
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilmembers Plunkett and
Buckshnis
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation regarding 2010 Citizen Levy Committee.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Council endorsed the 2010 Citizen Levy Committee on May 25, 2010
Narrative
City Council hereby directs the 2010 Citizens Levy Committee as follows:
2010 Citizen Levy Committee shall work with the guidance of the City of Edmonds Finance Committee.
The Levy Committee shall report to the Finance Committee at least – but not limited to – once per month.
Council members may, from time-to-time, serve as ex-official members (no voting authority) to the 2010
Citizen Levy Committee. Tonight there will be some presentations based on issues addressed during the
levy committee meetings.
2010 Citizen Levy Committee shall consider:
AUGMENT THE GENERAL FUND
The 2010 Citizen Levy Committee shall help determine what aspects of the city’s General Fund should
be augmented. Areas such: looking at General Fund augmentation, reviewing each department and their
capacity, or separating out areas like parks and recreation or public works to form a separate levy.
Should a General Fund levy have precedent over capital targets of opportunity, and if so what and why?
The levy committee shall take into account past levy information and work from new developing
information as the city budget for 2010 is being prepared and from the final 2010 budget for potential
augmentation.
CAPITAL TARGETS OF OPPORTUNITY
The Levy Committee should also consider (but not be limited to) capital targets of opportunity such as
Yost Pool, Senior Center, Edmonds Woodway, and Civil Play Field (etc.) and determine if capital
acquisition projections should be considered as part of a levy.
Questions could be: What are the targets of opportunity? Would they require a separate ballot proposition
Packet Page 423 of 602
separate from a General Fund levy and be utilized by using a bond? What would be the costs? Can the
targets of opportunity be part of the same ballot proposition with General Fund levy?
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The 2010 Citizen Levy Committee will hold public hearings at every meeting when practicable and – at
the direction of Council President – participate in public meetings with the City Council as budget is
being developed in 2010.
Attachments:
Presentation by Councilwoman Diane Buckshnis
Presentation by Jessie Beyer, 2010 Citizen Levy Committee Member
Attachments
Buckshnis Presentation
Beyer Presentation
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 11:24 AM
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 09/16/2010 11:47 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 12:00 PM
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 09/16/2010 03:18 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 03:30 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/16/2010 09:53 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/16/2010
Packet Page 424 of 602
Wh
a
t
w
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
ab
o
u
t
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
?
Ba
s
e
d
o
n
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
rs
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
’
s
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
(
G
F
O
A
)
an
d
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
c
i
t
y
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
s
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
t
h
e
A
s
s
o
ci
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
C
i
t
i
e
s
(
A
W
C
)
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
:
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
w
o
m
a
n
D
i
a
n
e
B
u
c
k
s
h
n
i
s
a
t
th
e
9
/
2
1
/
2
0
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
1
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
42
5
of
60
2
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
p
a
s
s
e
d
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
3
7
8
9
an
d
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
1
2
6
6
-
m
a
j
o
r
i
t
e
m
s
a
r
e
:
•
C
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
(G
F
O
A
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
o
f
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
a
c
t
u
a
l
G
F
d
o
l
l
a
r
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
t
o
bu
d
g
e
t
a
r
y
i
t
e
m
s
w
i
t
h
n
e
t
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
t
o
e
a
s
i
l
y
r
e
c
o
n
c
i
l
e
w
i
t
h
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
).
•
T
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
s
s
o
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
t
o
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
a
n
d
pl
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
o
n
w
eb
s
i
t
e
f
o
r
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
•
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
t
o
h
a
v
e
n
a
r
r
a
t
i
v
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
n
g
t
r
e
n
d
s
,
dr
i
v
e
r
s
a
n
d
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
.
•
P
r
o
p
e
r
l
a
b
e
l
i
n
g
o
n
d
o
c
u
me
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
p
a
g
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
a
n
d
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
b
u
d
g
e
t
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
to
b
e
p
a
r
t
o
f
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
.
It
i
s
a
N
E
W
D
A
Y
i
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
!
!
!
2
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
42
6
of
60
2
So
m
e
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
:
•
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
b
o
d
y
g
r
a
n
t
s
au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
t
o
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
b
o
d
y
.
•
O
n
c
e
g
r
a
n
t
e
d
-
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
c
a
n
s
p
e
n
d
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
p
t
o
b
u
d
g
e
t
.
•
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
o
f
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
(
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
f
u
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
)
.
•
S
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
c
c
u
r
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
o
f
a
m
o
u
n
t
of
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
a
n
b
e
a
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
.
Wh
a
t
a
r
e
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
?
3
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
42
7
of
60
2
Mo
r
e
B
u
d
g
e
t
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
•
B
u
d
g
e
t
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
“
F
u
n
d
”
l
e
v
e
l
.
•
T
h
e
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
b
o
d
y
c
a
n
t
r
a
c
k
a
t
a
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
,
i
f
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
•
S
t
a
t
e
l
a
w
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
f
u
n
d
a
r
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
h
a
t
bu
d
g
e
t
w
a
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
f
u
n
d
l
e
v
e
l
.
4
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
42
8
of
60
2
Wh
y
A
m
e
n
d
a
B
u
d
g
e
t
?
?
In
a
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,
t
h
e
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
re
a
s
o
n
s
t
o
a
m
e
n
d
a
b
u
d
g
e
t
a
r
e
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
•
R
e
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
/
u
n
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
(e
x
:
g
r
a
n
t
m
o
n
e
y
,
e
t
c
.
)
•
N
o
n
-
D
e
b
a
t
a
b
l
e
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
(R
C
W
3
5
.
3
3
.
0
8
1
)
(e
x
:
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
d
i
s
a
s
t
er
s
,
w
a
r
,
e
t
c
.
)
•
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
o
f
l
e
s
s
e
r
n
a
t
u
r
e
(R
C
W
3
5
.
3
3
.
0
9
1
)
(e
x
:
c
o
u
n
c
i
l
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s
n
e
e
d
,
o
r
d
i
na
n
c
e
m
u
s
t
b
e
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
,
p
u
b
l
i
c
he
a
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
j
o
r
i
t
y
v
o
t
e
p
l
u
s
o
n
e
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
5
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
42
9
of
60
2
Bu
d
g
e
t
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
To
d
a
y
’
s
e
c
o
n
o
m
y
–
n
o
t
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
(p
u
t
t
i
n
g
i
t
m
i
l
d
l
y
)
:
•
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
s
a
r
e
h
a
v
i
n
g
t
o
r
e
-
o
p
e
n
i
n
g
b
u
d
g
e
t
s
t
o
r
e
v
i
s
e
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d
.
•
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
a
r
e
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
to
c
l
o
s
e
l
y
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
.
•
A
s
s
t
a
t
e
d
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
–
b
u
d
g
e
t
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
l
e
v
e
l
ma
y
n
o
t
b
e
t
i
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
•
T
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
m
a
y
e
x
i
s
t
w
h
e
r
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
s
gr
a
n
t
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
t
o
s
p
e
n
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
f
u
n
d
s
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
ex
c
e
e
d
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
6
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
43
0
of
60
2
Re
v
e
n
u
e
I
s
s
u
e
s
?
Y
E
S
Le
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
n
e
e
d
t
o
w
o
r
k
to
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
f
i
g
u
r
e
o
u
t
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
:
•
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
a
n
d
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
c
a
u
t
i
o
n
i
n
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
.
•
P
l
a
c
e
a
n
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
w
a
t
c
h
o
n
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
.
•
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
p
o
l
i
c
y
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
(freezes on
tr
a
v
e
l
,
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
d
i
s
c
r
e
t
i
on
a
r
y
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
,
f
u
r
l
o
u
g
h
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
•
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
p
o
l
i
c
y
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
(r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
b
u
d
g
e
t
s
it
e
m
s
w
h
i
c
h
a
s
o
f
t
o
d
a
y
i
s
no
n
-
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
s
i
n
c
e
o
u
r
b
u
d
g
e
t
c
y
c
l
e
is
e
n
d
i
n
g
:
s
o
i
n
O
c
t
.
th
e
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
b
o
d
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
l
o
o
k
c
l
o
s
e
l
y
a
t
2
0
1
1
b
u
d
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
s
t
o
s
e
e
i
f
r
e
a
li
s
t
i
c
)
.
7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
43
1
of
60
2
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
G
F
O
A
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
C
l
e
a
r
l
y
,
H
o
n
e
s
t
l
y
a
n
d
O
f
t
e
n
•
S
h
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
o
r
e
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
o
f
br
o
a
d
c
a
s
t
i
n
g
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
p
u
b
l
i
c
.
•
S
e
e
k
i
n
p
u
t
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
a
s
e
v
e
r
y
o
n
e
i
s
i
n
t
h
e
sa
m
e
“
b
o
a
t
”
.
A
l
l
h
a
v
e
m
a
d
e
c
u
t
s
-
a
l
l
a
r
e
a
s
k
e
d
t
o
do
m
o
r
e
f
o
r
l
e
s
s
.
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
br
o
a
d
c
a
s
t
t
o
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
s
o
t
h
e
y
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
.
•
D
o
n
’
t
o
v
e
r
-
r
e
a
c
t
–
b
u
t
b
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
.
O
v
e
r
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
ca
n
c
o
m
e
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
d
i
s
a
s
t
e
r
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
t
h
a
t
co
n
t
e
m
p
l
a
t
e
d
r
a
s
t
i
c
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
B
e
i
n
g
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
me
a
n
s
t
h
i
n
k
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
.
gp
p
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
43
2
of
60
2
Wh
y
i
s
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
?
•
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
3
7
8
9
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
v
e
t
t
i
n
g
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
.
•
L
a
b
e
l
i
n
g
/
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
no
t
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
(
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
3
7
8
9
)
.
•
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
a
s
k
e
d
t
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
x
im
a
t
e
l
y
$
9
0
0
K
t
o
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Fu
n
d
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
o
r
t
i
m
i
n
g
t
o
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
.
•
S
t
a
f
f
b
e
l
i
e
v
e
s
t
h
a
t
s
a
m
e
l
o
g
i
c
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
2
0
0
9
b
u
d
g
e
t
am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
l
o
g
i
c
o
f
n
e
w
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
a
s
k
i
n
g
?
•
A
t
t
e
m
p
t
e
d
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
u
t
n
e
w
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
g
i
v
e
n
at
l
a
s
t
m
i
n
u
t
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
a
n
o
t
he
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
ba
s
e
d
o
n
f
i
r
s
t
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
n
l
y
s
o
m
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
r
e
s
o
l
v
e
d
.
•
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
0
B
u
d
g
e
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
6
-
m
o
.
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
s
)
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
s
ch
a
n
g
e
s
?
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
h
a
d
y
e
t
t
o
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
s
e
ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
9
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
43
3
of
60
2
Wh
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
p
l
y
?
•
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
h
a
s
t
h
e
h
i
g
h
e
s
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
i
n
l
o
c
a
l
go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
.
•
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
h
a
s
a
f
i
d
u
c
i
ar
y
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
p
o
s
i
ti
o
n
o
f
t
h
i
s
C
i
t
y
.
•
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
h
a
s
e
v
e
r
y
r
i
gh
t
t
o
a
s
k
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
ex
p
e
c
t
a
n
s
w
e
r
s
i
n
a
t
i
m
e
l
y
m
a
n
n
e
r
.
•
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
m
u
s
t
b
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
e
d
a
n
d
h
a
v
e
co
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
i
n
a
n
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l
r
e
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
.
•
W
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
t
h
e
t
a
x
p
a
y
e
r
s
.
and 10
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
43
4
of
60
2
So
w
h
a
t
d
o
w
e
d
o
n
o
w
?
•
S
t
a
r
t
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
h
a
v
e
a
n
o
p
e
n
d
i
a
l
o
g
.
•
S
h
o
w
m
o
r
e
d
e
t
a
i
l
,
p
r
ov
i
d
e
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
a
b
e
l
i
n
g
,
p
a
g
e
nu
m
b
e
r
s
a
n
d
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
.
•
C
o
m
p
l
y
t
o
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
3
7
8
9
a
n
d
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
1
2
6
6
.
•
G
i
v
e
u
s
t
i
m
e
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
an
d
d
i
g
e
s
t
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
•
R
e
s
t
a
t
e
J
u
n
e
B
u
d
g
e
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
t
o
re
f
l
e
c
t
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
si
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
u
n
d
e
r
st
a
n
d
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
n
c
a
n
m
a
k
e
a
n
in
f
o
r
m
e
d
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
.
•
A
s
k
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
g
u
e
s
s
a
t
o
u
r
l
o
g
i
c
.
•
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
h
a
v
e
t
he
f
i
n
a
l
s
a
y
b
e
f
o
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
t
a
k
e
n
.
11
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
43
5
of
60
2
Governmental Accounting
How it differs from regular financial accounting
1
Prepared by Jessie Beyer
Presented at the 9/21/2010 Edmonds City Council Meeting
Packet Page 436 of 602
Show Me The Budget
Governments operate from the starting point of the
budget.
Budget is legal document binding to the
administrators of the governmental unit.
Typically 2 different budgets
Estimated Revenue Budget –lists revenues to be raised
pursuant to law during budget cycle.
Appropriations Budget –must be enacted into law before
governmental administration has legal authority to incur
liabilities.
2
Packet Page 437 of 602
Funds, Funds & More Funds
Governmental Accounting uses funds to
account for revenues and expenditures as
outlined in the budget.
Most common funds are:
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds (example is Hotel/Motel
Tax fund)
Capital Projects Fund
Debt Service
3
Packet Page 438 of 602
Accrual? Kind of.
Governments record financial information on a
modified accrual basis of accounting.
However they report on the full accrual basis of
accounting.
This is due to several factors:
1st governments can measure tax revenue before it is
collected
2nd an expenditure (not expense) is recorded when the
liability is incurred (think bonds) even if the amount is
known prior to payment is due.
4
Packet Page 439 of 602
What About Profits
Governments are not in the business of
making a profit.
The Budget is the driver and if revenues
exceed expenditures then an increase in Net
Assets is reported and the surplus is generally
added to the budget for the following cycle.
If the reverse is present then you get a ‘Levy
Committee’ to investigate the issue.
5
Packet Page 440 of 602
Why Do They Have To Make It So
Different?
Many of the differences come from the very
different role a government entity fills.
The objectives of governments are more than
financial.
Political
Social Needs
Environmental Protection
Many more users of financial statements
requires more transparency.
6
Packet Page 441 of 602
AM-3381 Item #: 7.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/21/2010
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
The attached amendment is necessary to account for additional revenues/expenditures, interfund and
intrafund adjustments, and final accounting for the sale of the Edmonds Fire Department to Snohomish
County Fire District 1.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2009-2010
Revenue:
Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
The attachment amendment request an additional $7.9 million in expenditure authority, summarized as
follows:
001 - General Fund $717K
411 - Combined Utility $2.0 million
414 - Capital Improvement Reserve $2.2 million
511 - Equipment Rental Fund $1.2 million
Rest of Funds $1.8 million
Attachments
Amendment Backup
Mid Year Budget Amendment Ordinance
08-24-10 Memo to Council
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Packet Page 442 of 602
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 02:16 PM
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 09/16/2010 03:18 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 03:30 PM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 09/16/2010
Final Approval Date: 09/16/2010
Packet Page 443 of 602
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
General Fund Summary
Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)902,405
Increase in revenues that increase ending fund balance
Fire Asset allocation from Fund 511 464,693
Utility Utility Tax Increases from 2009 360,000
Fire Additional FD1 savings - amended during the mid-biennium 12/15/2009 145,230
Revenues that increase ending fund balance 969,923
Decrease in revenues that decrease ending fund balance
TBD 2010 Transportation Benefit District Revenue (120,000)
Police Loss of Mtlk Terr Animal Control Contract (35,820)
Revenues that decrease ending fund balance (155,820)
Decrease in expenditures that increase ending fund balance
Multiple departments 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 Budget review.(336,393)
Police March 13, 2009 police services cuts made for 2010 (119,128)
Expenditures that increase ending fund balance (455,521)
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance
City Clerk Temporary assistance due to extensive public records request 10,588
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 13,898
Fire Department Fire contract adjustment - amended during the mid-biennium 12/15/2009 98,449
Utility Hydrant maintenance 340,000
Non-departmental Transfer to Public Safety Reserve Fund & Facilities Maintenance Fund 700,000
Community Services Carry forward of Verizon/Frontier unspent grant money 8,514
Expenditures that decrease ending fund balance 1,171,449
Revenues & expenditures that do not effect ending fund balance due to offsetting revenues or expenditures
Non-departmental Eliminated Snocom Director Services in 2009 (179,022)
Public Works Admin N. Miller Payout 52,000
Mayor L. Carl Payout 16,800
Community Services HUD EDI pass through grant to Public Facilities District.91,447
Police Equip purchased w/2009 Recovery Act Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Asst Grant 12,876
Multiple Departments Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases & Dept of Energy 76,204
Non-departmental Allocate cable utility tax revenue from franchise revenue 460,000
530,305
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)1,000,580
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\08.10 Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 8/27/201012:44 PM
Packet Page 444 of 602
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
Department Description Category Debit Credit
General Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 893,891
General Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 893,891
General Fund Asset allocation from Fund 511 Sale of Assets 270,000
General Fund Asset allocation from Fund 511 Ending Fund Balance 270,000
General Fund Asset allocation from Fund 511 Sale of Assets 525,238
General Fund Asset allocation from Fund 511 Ending Fund Balance 525,238
General Fund Asset allocation from Fund 511 Interfund Transfer In 1,259,931
General Fund Asset allocation from Fund 511 Ending Fund Balance 1,259,931
General Fund Transportation Benefit District 2010 Revenues for the General Annual Vehicle Fee 120,000
General Fund Transportation Benefit District 2010 Revenues for the General Ending Fund Balance 120,000
General Fund Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increases.Water Utility Tax 360,000
General Fund Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increases.Ending Fund Balance 360,000
Police Animal Control Contract cut in March 2009 Intergovernmental Rev 35,820
General Fund Animal Control Contract cut in March 2009 Ending Fund Balance 35,820
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Interfund Rental 17,184
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Interfund Rental 12,000
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Interfund Rental 160,940
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Interfund Rental 6,000
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Interfund Rental 6,487
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Interfund Rental 4,020
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Interfund Rental 9,720
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Interfund Rental 4,200
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Interfund Rental 48,000
Building 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Interfund Rental 5,343
Engineering 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Interfund Rental 4,346
Planning 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Interfund Rental 1,297
Recreation 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Interfund Rental 4,346
Parks 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Interfund Rental 35,515
Public Works 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Interfund Rental 1,800
Facilities 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Interfund Rental 15,195
General Fund 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review Ending Fund Balance 336,393
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 Salaries 12,000
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 Salaries 79,006
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 Salaries 9,000
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 Benefits 1,000
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 Supplies 3,820
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 Professional Services 3,000
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 Repair & Maintenance 840
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 Miscellaneous 170
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 Interfund Rental 1,217
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 Salaries 7,944
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 Benefits 831
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 Uniforms 300
General Fund March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 Ending Fund Balance 119,128
City Clerk 2010 temporary assistance due to extensive public record request Salaries 6,100
City Clerk 2010 temporary assistance due to extensive public record request Professional Services 4,488
General Fund 2010 temporary assistance due to extensive public record request Ending Fund Balance 10,588
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 Communications 252
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 Repair & Maintenance 131
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 Uniforms 156
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 Professional Services 342
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 Communications 2,095
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 Miscellaneous 802
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 Uniforms 10
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 Professional Services 1,982
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 Communications 238
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 Uniforms 124
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 Professional Services 6,903
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 Communications 248
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 Communications 615
General Fund 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 Ending Fund Balance 13,898
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\08.10 Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 8/27/201012:44 PM
Packet Page 445 of 602
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
Department Description Category Debit Credit
General Fund Hydrant maintenance costs for 2010 Hydrant Maintenance 340,000
General Fund Hydrant maintenance costs for 2010 Ending Fund Balance 340,000
Non-Department Transfer of fire department sales proceeds to Public Safety Interfund Transfer 600,000
Non-Department Transfer of fire department sales proceeds to Public Safety Interfund Transfer 100,000
General Fund Transfer of fire department sales proceeds to Public Safety Ending Fund Balance 700,000
Public Works N. Miller payout Salaries 52,000
Mayor L Carl payout Salaries 16,800
General Fund Sick & Vacation Payouts Benefits 68,800
Community Services Carry forward of Verizon/Frontier unspent grant money Small Equipment 8,514
Community Services Carry forward of Verizon/Frontier unspent grant money Beginning Fund Balance 8,514
General Fund Remove S. Perry services at Snocom Snocom Director Services 179,022
Non-Department Remove S. Perry services at Snocom Snocom Director Salaries 142,800
Non-Department Remove S. Perry services at Snocom Snocom Director Benefits 36,222
Community Services HUD EDI pass through grant to Public Facilities District.Professional Services 91,447
Community Services HUD EDI pass through grant to Public Facilities District.Grant 91,447
Police Equip purchased w/2009 Recovery Act Edward Byrne Memorial Small Equipment 12,876
Police Equip purchased w/2009 Recovery Act Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Asst GrantGrant 12,876
Information Services Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases Supplies 4,523
Information Services Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases Small Equipment 24,705
General Fund Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases Grant 76,204
General Fund Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases Interfund Transfer 27,755
General Fund Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases Interfund Transfer 19,221
General Fund Reallocate cable utility tax revenue from franchise revenue to Utility Tax 460,000
General Fund Reallocate cable utility tax revenue from franchise revenue to Franchise Fee 460,000
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\08.10 Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 8/27/201012:44 PM
Packet Page 446 of 602
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
Street Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)316,088
Decrease in expenditures that increase ending fund balance
2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 Budget review.(63,675)
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)379,763
Building Maintenance Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(185,214)
Increase in revenues that increase ending fund balance
Transfer proceeds from the sale of the fire department to Building Maint Fund 100,000
Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) transfer from General Fund 27,755
Grant revenues and Private Contributions 221,245
Revenues that increase ending fund balance 349,000
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance
Construction projects offset by grant revenues and private contributions 249,273
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(85,487)
Hotel/Motel Tax Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)61,628
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance
Committee approved increase in log cabin maintenance 1,500
Committee approved increase in Log Cabin Visitor Center 2,500
Expenditures that decrease ending fund balance 4,000
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)57,628
REET 2 Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)724,854
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance
Projects anticipated for 2009, actually completed in 2010 552,000
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)172,854
Gifts Catalog Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)13,569
Increase in revenues that increase ending fund balance
Increase in donations 4,000
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance
Project budgeted for in 2008 but actually completed in 2010 6,100
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)11,469
Special Projects Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)3,052
Increase in revenues that increase ending fund balance
Original 2006 projected is expected to get completed in 2010 along with grant reimbursement 239,910
Increase in expenditures that are mostly offset with grant revenue and a small decline in ending fund balance
Project budgeted for in 2008 but actually completed in 2010 242,110
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)852
Fire Donation fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)19,662
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance
Transferred the fire donations fund to Fire District 1 as part of the sale 22,466
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(2,804)
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\08.10 Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 8/27/201012:44 PM
Packet Page 447 of 602
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
Utility Operations Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)2,194,648
Increase in revenues that increase ending fund balance
Storm water revenue increase due to 2009 rate increase 259,000
Hydrant maintenance costs for 2010 340,000
Revenues that increase ending fund balance 599,000
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance
Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council - Odor Control
Project and Energy Efficiency Improvement Project 1,103,183
Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance 200,000
Expenditures that decrease ending fund balance 1,303,183
Revenues that do not effect ending fund balance due to offsetting expenditures
Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increase - transferred to the general fund 726,000
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)1,490,465
Utility Construction Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)1,535,269
Increase in revenues that increase ending fund balance
Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance 200,000
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)1,735,269
WWTP Capital Imp Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(112,675)
Expenditures that do not effect ending fund balance due to offsetting revenues
Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council - Odor Control
Project and Energy Efficiency Improvement Project. Expenditures are offset by
interfund transfer from the utility operations fund & other agency revenues 2,172,176
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(112,675)
Equipment Rental Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)196,041
Increase in revenues that increase ending fund balance
Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) transfer from General Fund 19,221
Decrease in revenues that decrease ending fund balance
Reduce investment interest due to sale of fire department (8,113)
Reduce sale of equipment due to sale of fire department (3,000)
Ruduce interfund transfer due to sale of fire department (220,781)
Revenues that decrease ending fund balance (231,894)
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance
Increase interfund transfers from the 511 fund and to the general fund due to the sale
of the fire department. Need to account for the vehicle money in the 511 Fund 1,259,933
Decrease in expenditures that increase ending fund balance
Fire contract adjustment - amended during the mid-biennium 12/15/2009 (98,449)
Reduce interfund services due to sale of fire department (4,000)
Reduce in Machinery & Equipment due to sale of fire department (160,000)
Expenditures that increase ending fund balance (262,449)
Expenditures that do not effect ending fund balance due to offsetting revenues
Increase interfund transfers between programs in the 511 fund due to the sale
of the fire department. Need to account for the vehicle money in the 511 Fund 192,746
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(1,014,116)
Transportation Benefit District Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)0
Revenues that do not effect ending fund balance due to offsetting expenditures
Annual TBD revenue received and transferred to the general fund 750,000
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\08.10 Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 8/27/201012:44 PM
Packet Page 448 of 602
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
Department Description Category Debit Credit
Street Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 316,088
Street Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 316,088
Street Fund 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 Budget review.Interfund Rental 63,675
Street Fund 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 Budget review.Ending Fund Balance 63,675
Building Maintenance Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 185,214
Building Maintenance Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 185,214
Building Maintenance Transfer of fire department sales proceeds to Public Safety Interfund Transfer 100,000
Building Maintenance Transfer of fire department sales proceeds to Public Safety Ending Fund Balance 100,000
Building Maintenance Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases Interfund Transfer 27,755
Building Maintenance Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases Ending Fund Balance 27,755
Building Maintenance Building maintenance projects offset by grant revenues, private Contributions-private 170,000
Building Maintenance Building maintenance projects offset by grant revenues, private Grant 48,000
Building Maintenance Building maintenance projects offset by grant revenues, private Grant 3,245
Building Maintenance Building maintenance projects offset by grant revenues, private Supplies 31,000
Building Maintenance Building maintenance projects offset by grant revenues, private Professional Services 36,000
Building Maintenance Building maintenance projects offset by grant revenues, private Construction Projects 182,273
Building Maintenance Building maintenance projects offset by grant revenues, private Ending Fund Balance 28,028
Hotel/Motel Tax Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 61,628
Hotel/Motel Tax Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 61,628
Hotel/Motel Tax Increased costs in log cabin maintenance and visitor center Log Cabin Maintenance 1,500
Hotel/Motel Tax Increased costs in log cabin maintenance and visitor center Professional Services 2,500
Hotel/Motel Tax Increased costs in log cabin maintenance and visitor center Ending Fund Balance 4,000
REET 2 Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 724,854
REET 2 Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 724,854
REET 2 Projects anticipated for 2009, actually completed in 2010 Professional Services 104,000
REET 2 Projects anticipated for 2009, actually completed in 2010 Construction Projects 387,000
REET 2 Projects anticipated for 2009, actually completed in 2010 Interfund Services 61,000
REET 2 Projects anticipated for 2009, actually completed in 2010 Ending Fund Balance 552,000
Gifts Catalog Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 8,445
Gifts Catalog Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 8,445
Gifts Catalog Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 757
Gifts Catalog Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 757
Gifts Catalog Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 5,881
Gifts Catalog Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 5,881
Gifts Catalog Fund 2008 donations received were only partially appropriated for in Professional Services 6,100
Gifts Catalog Fund May 2010 donation Donations 4,000
Gifts Catalog Fund 2009 donations received were only partially appropriated for in Ending Fund Balance 2,100
Special Projects Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 3,052
Special Projects Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 3,052
Special Projects Fund Construction projected funded by federal grant through WSDOT.Professional Services 8,000
Special Projects Fund Construction projected funded by federal grant through WSDOT.Construction Projects 234,110
Special Projects Fund Construction projected funded by federal grant through WSDOT.Grant 239,910
Special Projects Fund Construction projected funded by federal grant through WSDOT.Ending Fund Balance 2,200
Fire Donation Fund Fire Donation funds transferred to Fire District 1 Beginning Fund Balance 19,662
Fire Donation Fund Fire Donation funds transferred to Fire District 2 Miscellaneous 22,466
Fire Donation Fund Fire Donation funds transferred to Fire District 3 Ending Fund Balance 2,804
Utility Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 2,194,648
Utility Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 2,194,648
Utility Fund Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increases.Water Utility Tax 430,000
Utility Fund Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increases.Water Utility Tax Payment 430,000
Utility Fund Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increases.Sewer Utility Tax 198,000
Utility Fund Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increases.Sewer Utility Tax Payment 198,000
Utility Fund Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increases.Storm Utility Tax 98,000
Utility Fund Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increases.Storm Utility Tax Payment 98,000
Utility Fund Storm water revenue increase due to 2009 rate increase Storm Water Sales 259,000
Utility Fund Storm water revenue increase due to 2009 rate increase Ending Fund Balance 259,000
Utility Fund Hydrant maintenance costs for 2010 Hydrant Maintenance 340,000
Utility Fund Hydrant maintenance costs for 2011 Ending Fund Balance 340,000
Utility Fund Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council Interfund Transfer 1,103,183
Utility Fund Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council Ending Fund Balance 1,103,183
Utility Fund Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance Interfund Transfer 100,000
Utility Fund Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance Interfund Transfer 100,000
Utility Fund Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance 200,000
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\08.10 Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 8/27/201012:44 PM
Packet Page 449 of 602
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
Department Description Category Debit Credit
Water Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 354,375
Water Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 354,375
Storm Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 120,644
Storm Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 120,644
Sewer Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 2,010,288
Sewer Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 2,010,288
Utility Construction Fund Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance Interfund Transfer 100,000
Utility Construction Fund Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance 100,000
Utility Construction Fund Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance Interfund Transfer 100,000
Utility Construction Fund Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance 100,000
WWTP Capital Impr Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 112,675
WWTP Capital Impr Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 112,675
Capital Improvements Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council Construction Projects 2,172,176
Capital Improvements Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council Interfund Transfer In 1,103,183
Capital Improvements Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council Contributed Capital 503,380
Capital Improvements Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council Contributed Capital 359,517
Capital Improvements Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council Contributed Capital 206,096
Equip Rental Operations Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 304,328
Equip Rental Operations Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 304,328
Equip Rental Replacement Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 229,674
Equip Rental Replacement Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 229,674
Equip Rental Fire App Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 121,387
Equip Rental Fire App Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 121,387
Equipment Rental Sale of fire department assets - record removal of asset and Interfund Transfer 308,263
Equipment Rental Sale of fire department assets - record removal of asset and Ending Fund Balance 308,263
Equipment Rental Sale of fire department assets - record removal of asset and Interfund Transfer 951,670
Equipment Rental Sale of fire department assets - record removal of asset and Ending Fund Balance 951,670
Equipment Rental Sale of fire department assets - record removal of asset and Interfund Transfer 192,746
Equipment Rental Sale of fire department assets - record removal of asset and Ending Fund Balance 192,746
Equipment Rental Sale of fire department assets - record removal of asset and Interfund Transfer 192,746
Equipment Rental Sale of fire department assets - record removal of asset and Ending Fund Balance 192,746
Equipment Rental Reduce fire apparatus budget in 511.200 Investment Interest 8,113
Equipment Rental Reduce fire apparatus budget in 511.200 Sales of Equipment 3,000
Equipment Rental Reduce fire apparatus budget in 511.200 Interfund Transfer 220,781
Equipment Rental Reduce fire apparatus budget in 511.200 Interfund Services 4,000
Equipment Rental Reduce fire apparatus budget in 511.200 Machinery/Equipment 160,000
Equipment Rental Reduce fire apparatus budget in 511.200 Ending Fund Balance 67,894
Equipment Rental Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases Interfund Transfer 19,221
Equipment Rental Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases Ending Fund Balance 19,221
Transportation Ben. Dist Transportation Benefit District 2 year budget for Fund 631. 2010 Annual Vehicle Fee 750,000
Transportation Ben. Dist Transportation Benefit District 2 year budget for Fund 631. 2010 Intergovernmental Serv 750,000
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\08.10 Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 8/27/201012:44 PM
Packet Page 450 of 602
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
The amendment to the following funds was to adjust beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals
LEOFF-Medical Ins Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(7,271)
LEOFF-Medical Ins Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(7,271)
PS Reserve Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)600,000
PS Reserve Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)600,000
Drug Enforcement Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(8,305)
Drug Enforcement Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(8,305)
Street Construction Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(425,738)
Street Construction Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(425,738)
MultiModel Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)51,542
MultiModel Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)51,542
Municipal Arts Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)66,845
Municipal Arts Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)66,845
Memorial Street Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(155)
Memorial Street Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(155)
Employee Parking Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(6,613)
Employee Parking Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(6,613)
Youth Scholarship Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(1,390)
Youth Scholarship Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(1,390)
Tourism Promotional Arts Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)18,603
Tourism Promotional Arts Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)18,603
REET 1 Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(28,034)
REET 1 Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(28,034)
Cemetery Maintenance Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(37,736)
Cemetery Maintenance Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(37,736)
Parks Construction Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)24,007
Parks Construction Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)24,007
Parks Trust Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(5,192)
Parks Trust Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(5,192)
Cemetery Maint Trust Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(4,546)
Cemetery Maint Trust Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(4,546)
Sister City Commission Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(6,537)
Sister City Commission Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(6,537)
LID Control Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(15,646)
LID Control Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(15,646)
LID Guarantee Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(1,183)
LID Guarantee Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(1,183)
Firemen's Pension Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)20,656
Firemen's Pension Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)20,656
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\08.10 Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 8/27/201012:44 PM
Packet Page 451 of 602
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
Department Description Category Debit Credit
LEOFF-Medical Ins Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 7,271
LEOFF-Medical Ins Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 7,271
PS Reserve Fund Transfer of fire department sales proceeds to Public Safety Interfund Transfer 600,000
PS Reserve Fund Transfer of fire department sales proceeds to Public Safety Ending Fund Balance 600,000
Drug Enforcement Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 8,305
Drug Enforcement Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 8,305
Street Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 370,390
Street Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 370,390
Street Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 55,319
Street Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 55,319
Street Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 29
Street Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 29
MultiModel Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 51,542
MultiModel Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 51,542
Municipal Arts Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 32,034
Municipal Arts Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 32,034
Municipal Arts Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 35,337
Municipal Arts Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 35,337
Municipal Arts Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 526
Municipal Arts Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 526
Memorial Street Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 155
Memorial Street Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 155
Employee Parking Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 6,613
Employee Parking Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 6,613
Youth Scholarship Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 1,390
Youth Scholarship Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 1,390
Tourism Promotional Arts Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 18,603
Tourism Promotional Arts Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 18,603
REET 1 Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 28,034
REET 1 Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 28,034
Cemetery Maintenance Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 37,736
Cemetery Maintenance Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 37,736
Parks Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 24,007
Parks Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 24,007
Parks Trust Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 35,834
Parks Trust Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 35,834
Parks Trust Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 839
Parks Trust Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 839
Parks Trust Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 31,481
Parks Trust Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 31,481
Cemetery Maint Trust Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 4,546
Cemetery Maint Trust Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 4,546
Sister City Commission Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 748
Sister City Commission Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 748
Sister City Commission Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 7,285
Sister City Commission Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 7,285
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\08.10 Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 8/27/201012:44 PM
Packet Page 452 of 602
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
Department Description Category Debit Credit
LID Control Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 15,646
LID Control Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 15,646
LID Guarantee Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 1,183
LID Guarantee Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 1,183
Firemen's Pension Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Beginning Fund Balance 20,656
Firemen's Pension Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals Ending Fund Balance 20,656
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\08.10 Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 8/27/201012:44 PM
Packet Page 453 of 602
R:\BUDGET\BUDGET AMENDMENT\2010\SEPTEMBER AMENDING ORDINANCE.DOCX
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3711 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED
TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund
Transfers and increases in appropriations; and
WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is
transferred from one fund to another; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations
and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and
federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2010
Budget; and
WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified;
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 3711 adopting the final budget for the
fiscal year 2010 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in “Exhibit A” adopted herein
by reference.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
Packet Page 454 of 602
2
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY ___
W. SCOTT SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 455 of 602
3
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
ORDINANCE NO. 3711 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND
EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, 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 ________________,2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 456 of 602
4
EXHIBIT“A:” BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND
2010 2010
FUND FUND BEGINNING REVENUE EXPENDITURES ENDING
NO. DESCRIPTION CASH CASH
001 GENERAL FUND 2,175,670 37,253,267 35,164,947 4,263,990
006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 1,927,600 0 0 1,927,600
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 512,176 387,566 465,161 434,581
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 131,976 28,500 74,115 86,361
010 PUBLIC SAFETY EMERGENCY RESERVE 0 600,000 0 600,000
111 STREET FUND 319,008 1,539,574 1,473,557 385,025
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE -184,393 2,172,797 2,332,560 -344,156
113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 51,542 3,000,000 3,000,000 51,542
116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 42,035 412,438 454,473 0
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 374,547 115,540 110,425 379,662
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,570 400 0 17,970
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 181,037 67,530 81,883 166,684
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 93,897 27,500 26,086 95,311
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 17,166 3,464 3,400 17,230
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 50,855 17,483 22,100 46,238
125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 1,570,016 775,356 1,742,000 603,372
126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 442,755 764,397 956,796 250,356
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 172,069 8,361 6,850 173,580
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 3,052 239,910 242,110 852
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 94,066 208,630 151,289 151,407
131 FIRE DONATIONS 22,462 2,800 22,466 2,796
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 24,007 1,784,000 1,784,000 24,007
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 144,281 3,760 0 148,041
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 766,066 31,223 0 797,289
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 11,181 21,400 21,000 11,581
211 LID FUND CONTROL 6,337 107,500 55,300 58,537
213 LID GUARANTY FUND 50,233 2,000 0 52,233
234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 0 452,160 452,160 0
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 6,861,160 14,106,473 17,330,354 3,637,279
412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 1,852,225 6,858,332 6,823,600 1,886,957
414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 51,152 2,782,176 2,743,588 89,740
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 4,709,059 2,138,757 2,892,423 3,955,393
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 284,951 103,782 125,048 263,685
631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 0 750,000 750,000 0
Totals 22,775,758 76,767,076 79,307,691 20,235,143
Packet Page 457 of 602
5
EXHIBIT “B”: BUDGET AMENDMENTS BY EXPENDITURE
Packet Page 458 of 602
1
Hines Jr., Lorenzo
From:Hines Jr., Lorenzo
Sent:Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:27 AM
To:Council
Cc:Cooper, Mike; Clifton, Stephen
Subject:RE: Item #7 about fund appropriation
Hello,
Ihaveafewclarifyingcommentsonthebudgetamendmentinyourpacketsfortonight’s
meeting.Thisamendmentdoesnothaveanyim pactonthe2009fiscalyear.Forthemost
part,wearemerelybringingfo rwardthoseissuesfrom2009thataffectFY2010.Forexample,
thefollowing2009relateditemsareintheGeneralFund(GF)amendment:
UtilityTaxincreasefrom2009 –In2009,anincreaseinthecity’sutilitytaxforwater,
sewer,andstormwaterservices,tookeffect,increa singrevenuestotheGF.Council
passedbudgetamendmentsduring2009toincreasetheutilitytaxrevenuealongwith
theexpendituresthattransferfundsinto thegeneralfund.Thisamendmentwould
increaseutilitytaxrevenuesforFY2010,toremainconsistentwiththeamendments
madeduring2009.
2010BFundeliminationcontribution During2009,theAdministrationsuspended
(andCouncilconfirmed)GF contributionstoFund511,the BFund.Asaresult,theGF
expenditureappropriationwasreducedduring 2009.ThisamendmentreducestheGF
appropriationtoreflect thecontinuationofthis suspensionin2010.
2009FireDepartmentcosts –Anumberof2009firecosts werepaidinthefirstpartof
2010.WhenCouncil passedthemidbienniumon12/15/2009,theentirefirebudget
wasremoved.However,perourpolicy(whichissupportedbytheStateAuditor’s
Office),theCitycanprocessaccountspayableuptoJanuary20thofthefollowingyear
forinclusioninprioryear(2009)expenditures.IftheCityreceivedinvoicesafterthe
cutoffdateforprocessingtheprioryear (2009)payables,theyaretobepaidwith
currentyear(2010)appropr iation.Theamendmentseeks additionalexpenditure
authoritytoreflectthis.
March13,2009PoliceService cutsThisamendmentreflectsthecontinuationofthese
reductioninto2010.
EliminatedSnocomDirectorServicesin2009 –ThedirectorofSnocomretiredin2009.
UnderapriorcontractualarrangementtheCitypaidhissalaryandbenefits,whichwere
laterreimbursedbySnocom.Theamendmentrequestreflectionofthisoccurrencein
Packet Page 459 of 602
2
the2010budget.Theamendmentreduces theexpendituresandrevenueauthority
relatedtothispositionfromthe2010budget.
Equipmentpurchasedw/2009RecoveryActfunds –Thisamendmentcarriesoverour
abilitytoreceiveandexpendthesegrantfunds.
LossofMtlkTerraceAnimalControlcontract –This amendmentreflectsthecontract
lossduring2010.
Onlytwooftheamendmentspresentedtocouncilare reflectedintheJunequarterlyandthey
arebothcalledoutonpage2ofthatreport.Ihavereproducedtheexplanationbelow:
GFrevenuesinthisreportalsoreflectapending budgetadjustmenttotransferfunds
associatedwiththeformerEdmondsFireDepartmentfromFund511/EquipmentRental
FundtotheGeneralFund;theamounttotals$735K.Giventhesignificanceofthis
amount,webelieveitwasnecessarytoincludeitinthisreport.Thishasbeennotedas
Note2inthereport.Thisamountisnotdirectlytraceabletotheamendmentsummary,
itiscomposedonanumberofentrieswhich nettothe$735Kfigure mentionedabove.
TheGFexpenditureappropriationtotal includedinthisreportincludesapending
budgetamendmentof$696,000toreflectdirectionfromtheCounciltotransferthese
fundstothePublicSafetyEmergencyReserve ($596K)andtheBuildingMaintenance
Fund($100K).ThishasbeennotedasNote1i nthereport.Giventhesignificanceofthis
amount,webelieveitwasnecessaryto includeitinthisreport.
Lastly,thisamendmentalsobringsall 2009yearendfundbalancesforwardinto2010,bringing
ourfundbalancesuptodate.Thisisacrit icalactionnecessaryinthedeveloping2011budget.
Thanks,
Lorenzo
Lorenzo Hines Jr.
Director
Finance and Information Services Department
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0240 | Fax: 425.771.0265 |lorenzo.hines@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Packet Page 460 of 602
AM-3369 Item #: 8.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/21/2010
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilwoman Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Extension of sunset date for Citizens Economic Development Commission.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
April 21, 2009 - The Edmonds City Council approved Resolution No. 1198 related to addressing
long-term revenue challenges facing the City of Edmonds.
June 2, 2009 - The Edmonds City Council approved Ordinance 3735 which amended the
Edmonds City Code, Title 10, to add a new Chapter 10.75, thus creating a Citizens Economic
Development Commission.
Following several presentations by members of the 2009 Levy Review Committee, the City
Council approved Resolution No. 1198 which directed staff to create an ordinance forming a
Citizens' Economic Development Commission for the purposes of determining new strategies for
economic development within the City of Edmonds, and identifying new sources of revenue for
the City Council to consider. The City Council approved Ordinance 3735 which established an
Economic Development Commission through December 31, 2010.
Attachment 1: Resolution 1198
Attachment 2: Ordinance 3735
Narrative
As the City Council Liaison with the Economic Development Commission (EDC) it has become
apparent that the Commission will need another year in order to work through the seven items
listed on Resolution 1224. As such, Ordinance 3735 needs to be extended to 12/31/2011.
Attachment 3: Resolution 1224
Attachments
Attach 1 - Resolution CEDC 1198
Attach 2 -Ord 3735 Forming CEDC
Attach 3 Reso 1224
Form Review
Packet Page 461 of 602
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 11:24 AM
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 09/16/2010 11:47 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 01:50 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/13/2010
Final Approval Date: 09/16/2010
Packet Page 462 of 602
Packet Page 463 of 602
Packet Page 464 of 602
Packet Page 465 of 602
Packet Page 466 of 602
Packet Page 467 of 602
Packet Page 468 of 602
Packet Page 469 of 602
Packet Page 470 of 602
AM-3379 Item #: 9.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/21/2010
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Review
Committee:
Community/Development Services Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2016)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Review the Draft Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2016) and provide comments and feedback.
Previous Council Action
On September 14, 2010, the CS/DS Council Committee reviewed a preliminary draft of the Capital
Facilities Plan.
Narrative
The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is a document updated annually and identifies capital
projects for at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a
list of projects that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the
City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital
projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects
are identified within the six-year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan
projects which encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects.
CIP vs. CFP
The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to
different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying
those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital
needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service standards. The CFP is also required to be
consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are
restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP.
The draft 2011-2016 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of
General, Transportation and Stormwater. This year's version of the CFP incorporates the most recent
projects approved in the 2009 Transportation Comprehensive Plan and the 2010 Stormwater
Comprehensive Plan.
The 2011-2016 CIP is attached as Exhibit 2. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks
projects and each project list is organized by the City's financial fund numbers. The CIP document is a
budget planning tool and is being included in the packet for informational purposes only.
A public hearing is scheduled for the CFP at the October 5, 2010 Council Meeting. The purpose of this
presentation is to provide Council with an opportunity to review and comment on the documents prior to
Packet Page 471 of 602
presentation is to provide Council with an opportunity to review and comment on the documents prior to
the public hearing.
The draft CFP and CIP were presented to the Planning Board on September 8, 2010 and a public hearing
is scheduled for the September 22nd Planning Board meeting. Staff will include the comments from the
Planning Board in the council packet for the October 5th meeting.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Complete CFP
Exhibit 2 - Complete CIP
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 01:41 PM
Engineering Robert English 09/16/2010 02:02 PM
Engineering Robert English 09/16/2010 02:02 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/16/2010 03:06 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 03:30 PM
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 09/16/2010 03:32 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 03:34 PM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 09/16/2010 10:54 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/16/2010
Packet Page 472 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT
2011 - 2016
1Packet Page 473 of 602
2Packet Page 474 of 602
CFP
GENERAL
3Packet Page 475 of 602
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
Pa
r
k
s
,
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
,
a
n
d
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G
.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
$5
-
$
2
3
M
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
To
t
a
l
$5
M
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
$5
M
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
RE
E
T
1
/
G
r
a
n
t
s
To
t
a
l
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Li
b
r
a
r
y
/
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
Ci
t
y
G
.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
Gr
a
n
t
s
/
R
E
E
T
2
To
t
a
l
$1
0
-
1
2
M
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
$3
-
$
4
M
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
/
G
r
a
n
t
s
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
To
t
a
l
$4
-
1
0
M
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
/
US
D
O
T
EI
S
St
a
t
e
F
u
n
d
s
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
$1
1
.
8
M
To
t
a
l
$2
.
2
M
$
2
.
0
M
$
2
.
1
M
$
1
.
9
M
$
2
.
1
M
$
1
.
5
M
Un
k
n
o
w
n
To
t
a
l
C
F
P
$1
1
.
8
M
An
n
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$2
.
2
M
$
2
.
0
M
$2
.
1
M
$
1
.
9
M
$
2
.
1
M
$
1
.
5
M
`
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
/
S
n
o
-
I
s
l
e
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
Ex
p
a
n
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
(
S
n
o
-
I
s
l
e
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Pl
a
n
)
.
20
1
4
Ar
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
/
A
r
t
M
u
s
e
u
m
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
n
e
w
c
e
n
t
e
r
f
o
r
t
h
e
A
r
t
'
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
Re
p
l
a
c
e
/
R
e
n
o
v
a
t
e
(C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
s
u
b
l
e
a
s
e
d
o
n
C
i
v
i
c
Pl
a
y
f
i
e
l
d
u
n
t
i
l
2
0
2
1
)
.
Bo
y
s
&
G
i
r
l
s
C
l
u
b
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
20
1
7
-
2
0
2
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
Re
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
20
1
6
20
1
3
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
20
1
5
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
W
S
D
O
T
F
e
r
r
y
/
M
u
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
Re
l
o
c
a
t
e
f
e
r
r
y
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
t
o
M
a
r
i
n
a
Be
a
c
h
.
Re
p
l
a
c
e
/
R
e
n
o
v
a
t
e
d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
n
g
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
i
n
C
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
.
Se
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Re
p
l
a
c
e
a
n
d
e
x
p
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
n
g
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
.
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
/
A
t
h
l
e
t
i
c
C
o
m
p
l
e
x
-
Ol
d
W
o
o
d
w
a
y
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
Pa
r
k
s
&
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
&
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
In
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
E
S
D
#
1
5
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
p
a
r
k
a
n
d
a
t
h
l
e
t
i
c
co
m
p
l
e
x
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Gr
a
n
t
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
Me
e
t
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
n
e
e
d
s
f
o
r
a
n
A
q
u
a
t
i
c
s
Ce
n
t
e
r
(
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
s
t
u
d
y
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
Au
g
u
s
t
2
0
0
9
)
.
Ci
v
i
c
P
l
a
y
f
i
e
l
d
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
(C
i
t
y
h
a
s
l
e
a
s
e
u
n
t
i
l
2
0
2
1
)
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
_
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
_
0
9
1
6
1
0
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
_
C
F
P
9/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0
4Packet Page 476 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Center
at Yost Park
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 –
$23,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study
completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the
consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the
summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of
its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of
Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the
current pool.
SCHEDULE: 2011-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $5m - $23m
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
5Packet Page 477 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Art Center / Art Museum ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A new Art Center/Museum facility will provide and promote
Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts
facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001
and in the 2008 update process.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for
public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority
creates the need to determine feasibility for and potentially construct new visual arts related
facilities.
SCHEDULE: 2011-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
6Packet Page 478 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Boys & Girls Club Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build new Boys & Girls Club facility to accommodate the growing
and changing needs of this important club.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Boys & Girls Club was constructed as a field
house by the Edmonds School District decades ago and is in need of major renovation or
replacement. It is inadequate in terms of ADA accessibility and does not meet the needs of a
modern club.
SCHEDULE: 2011-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
7Packet Page 479 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: unknown
6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire this 8.1 acre property for continued use as an important
community park and site of some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in
downtown Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important
park site for the citizens of Edmonds.
SCHEDULE: 2011-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL unknown
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
8Packet Page 480 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds/Sno-Isle Library ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand building/parking to accommodate additional library needs
and programs. Library improvements identified in Sno-Isle Libraries Capital Facility Plan:
2007-2025
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements will better serve citizens needs requiring
additional space and more sophisticated technology.
SCHEDULE: 2011-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL unknown
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
9Packet Page 481 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic
Complex at the Former Woodway High School
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000,000-
$12,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop regional community park and fully lighted multi-field athletic
complex. Development contingent upon successful partnerships, grants, and regional capital
campaign.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Currently underutilized and under maintained facility with
great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt,
parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000
residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees.
SCHEDULE: 2011-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $10m - $12m
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
10Packet Page 482 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities
Maintenance Building
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the
end of its useful life and is in need of major renovation or replacement.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this
existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City
parks and Capital facilities for the long term.
SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real
estate taxes.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $3m - $4m
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
11Packet Page 483 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4 – 10 mil.
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace and enlarge deteriorating Senior Center building
complex on the City waterfront.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This facility is at the end of it’s useful life. The floors
are continuing to settle which poses significant renovation costs. In addition, the facility
requires structural reinforcement to withstand a major earthquake.
SCHEDULE: Contingent on procuring the necessary funding from grants and other
sources.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $4m -$10m
12Packet Page 484 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,800,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Crossing is multimodal transportation center that will provide
the capacity to respond to growth while providing improved opportunities for connecting various forms
of travel including rail, ferry, bus, walking and ridesharing.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide an efficient point of connection between existing and
planned transportation modes.
SCHEDULE: 2011-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-
2025
Engineering &
Administration
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000
$1,500,000
Right of Way $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $2,200,000 $2,000,000 $2,100,000 $1,900,000 $2,100,000 $1,500,000 Unknown
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 13Packet Page 485 of 602
14Packet Page 486 of 602
CFP
TRANSPORTATION
15Packet Page 487 of 602
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
Sa
f
e
t
y
/
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
T
B
D
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
2
,
1
9
3
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
4
7
,
0
0
0
$
2
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
7
3
0
,
0
0
0
$3
4
3
,
0
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$3
9
,
0
0
0
$
3
4
,
0
0
0
$
2
7
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
5
3
6
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
8
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
T
B
D
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
4
3
9
,
5
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
1
,
5
0
0
$
3
0
8
,
0
0
0
$4
3
9
,
5
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
1
,
5
0
0
$
3
0
8
,
0
0
0
$8
7
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
6
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
,
8
9
0
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
4
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
8
9
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
4
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
$5
3
6
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
3
2
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
9
,
0
0
0
De
s
i
g
n
$
2
,
9
8
6
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
,
9
8
6
,
0
0
0
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$7
8
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
,
0
0
0
$
3
6
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
6
6
,
0
0
0
$4
,
1
1
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$3
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
6
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
4
5
2
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
$1
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
2
2
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
2
2
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
2
2
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
0
2
2
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
2
1
1
,
0
0
0
(
T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
2
1
1
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
2
1
1
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
,
2
1
1
,
0
0
0
20
1
7
-
2
0
2
5
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
.
@
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
o
im
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
.
Ca
s
p
e
r
s
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
o
im
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
.
21
2
t
h
@
8
4
t
h
(
5
C
o
n
e
r
s
)
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
de
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
a
n
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
76
t
h
A
v
.
W
@
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Re
d
u
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
b
y
co
n
v
e
r
t
i
n
g
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
t
o
(
2
)
l
a
n
e
s
f
o
r
bo
t
h
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Ii
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
-
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
LO
S
a
n
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
.
SR
5
2
4
(
1
9
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
)
/
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
22
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
@
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Re
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
e
E
B
l
a
n
e
a
n
d
a
d
d
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
/
p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
v
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
N
B
a
n
d
SB
L
T
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
de
l
a
y
.
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
.
S
(
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
(
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
Re
d
u
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
b
y
co
n
v
e
r
t
i
n
g
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
t
o
(
2
)
l
a
n
e
s
f
o
r
bo
t
h
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
20
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
Im
p
r
o
v
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
t
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
y
st
o
p
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
N
B
an
d
S
B
t
o
a
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
3
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
84
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
(
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
)
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
t
w
o
-
w
a
y
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
t
o
im
p
r
o
v
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
i
s
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
t
o
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
(
5
0
/
5
0
sp
l
i
t
w
i
t
h
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
;
t
o
t
a
l
co
s
t
:
~
2
0
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
)
.
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Re
a
l
i
g
n
h
i
g
h
l
y
s
k
e
w
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
c
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
w
e
a
s
t
-
w
e
s
t
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
R
-
9
9
a
n
d
I
-
5
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
22
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
S
a
f
e
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
_
C
F
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
0
9
0
9
1
0
9/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0
16Packet Page 488 of 602
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
20
1
7
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
3
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
,
9
3
2
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
,
9
3
2
,
0
0
0
$3
,
9
3
2
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$3
,
9
3
2
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
,
0
7
9
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
,
0
7
9
,
0
0
0
$4
,
0
7
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$4
,
0
7
9
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$9
0
6
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$9
0
6
,
0
0
0
$9
0
6
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$9
0
6
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
No
n
-
m
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
$1
,
3
2
7
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
3
2
7
,
0
0
0
De
s
i
g
n
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$1
,
3
2
7
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
,
3
2
7
,
0
0
0
$0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
2
0
1
1
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
7
2
5
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$7
2
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
2
0
1
1
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
7
7
7
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
4
7
,
0
0
0
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$7
7
7
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
4
7
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
,
1
1
5
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
6
7
5
,
0
0
0
$2
,
1
1
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$4
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
6
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
2
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
2
,
0
0
0
$3
2
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$3
2
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
-
2
4
4
t
h
t
o
2
2
8
t
h
Pa
v
e
,
s
i
g
n
,
a
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
se
g
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
t
o
Mo
u
n
t
l
a
k
e
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
Hw
y
.
9
9
@
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Hw
y
9
9
@
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
S
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Wi
d
e
n
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
a
d
d
a
2
n
d
WB
L
T
l
a
n
e
/
w
i
d
e
n
S
R
-
9
9
t
o
a
d
d
a
2n
d
L
T
l
a
n
e
.
2n
d
A
v
e
.
S
f
r
o
m
J
a
m
e
s
S
t
.
t
o
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
s
h
o
r
t
mi
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
o
n
v
e
r
t
a
l
l
-
w
a
y
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
o
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
Ii
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
.
@
1
7
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
s
t
a
l
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
LO
S
a
n
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
.
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Im
p
r
o
v
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
sa
f
e
t
y
o
n
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
5
t
h
a
n
d
6t
h
a
l
o
n
g
w
/
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
al
o
n
g
t
h
a
t
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
Ma
d
r
o
n
a
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
23
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
,
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
s
a
f
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
R
-
10
4
a
n
d
M
a
d
r
o
n
a
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
r
o
u
t
e
t
o
Se
v
i
e
w
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
a
n
d
n
e
a
r
b
y
pa
r
k
s
.
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
5
t
h
A
v
.
t
o
6
t
h
A
v
.
80
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
f
r
o
m
1
8
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
Wi
d
e
n
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
t
o
a
d
d
a
L
T
l
a
n
e
an
d
a
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
L
T
p
h
a
s
e
f
o
r
N
B
a
n
d
S
B
.
Wi
d
e
n
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
a
d
d
a
W
B
ri
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
Co
n
v
e
r
t
a
l
l
-
w
a
y
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
o
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
Ii
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
_
C
F
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
0
9
0
9
1
0
9/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0
17Packet Page 489 of 602
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
20
1
7
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
3
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$6
3
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$6
3
,
0
0
0
$6
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$6
3
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$7
9
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$7
9
,
0
0
0
$7
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$7
9
,
0
0
0
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
De
s
i
g
n
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
4
3
,
5
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$2
3
6
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
0
0
0
$4
9
3
,
5
0
0
To
t
a
l
$4
8
6
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
0
0
0
$1
3
9
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
3
9
,
0
0
0
De
s
i
g
n
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$1
3
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
3
9
,
0
0
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$6
7
5
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
0
,
0
0
0
$6
7
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
6
0
,
0
0
0
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
6
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
T
B
D
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
1
,
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
2
7
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$8
1
2
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$8
1
2
,
0
0
0
$8
1
2
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$8
1
2
,
0
0
0
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
d
.
f
r
o
m
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
t
o
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
li
n
k
.
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
f
r
o
m
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
S
t
o
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Ma
p
l
e
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
7
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
s
h
o
r
t
mi
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
Da
y
t
o
n
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
7
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
s
h
o
r
t
mi
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
Sh
e
l
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
to
S
h
e
l
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
w
i
t
h
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
22
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
be
t
w
e
e
n
S
R
-
1
0
4
a
n
d
1
0
5
t
h
P
l
.
W
,
cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
s
a
f
e
r
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
S
h
e
r
w
o
o
d
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
.
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
f
r
o
m
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
t
o
2
0
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
,
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
ex
.
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
2
0
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
(M
a
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
)
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
h
o
r
t
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
4t
h
A
v
e
.
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
Cr
e
a
t
e
m
o
r
e
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
r
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
a
l
o
n
g
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
h
o
r
t
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
t
o
7
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
23
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
f
r
o
m
1
0
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
t
o
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
r
o
u
t
e
.
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
_
C
F
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
0
9
0
9
1
0
9/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0
18Packet Page 490 of 602
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
20
1
7
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
3
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
2
4
9
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
2
4
9
,
0
0
0
$1
,
2
4
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
2
4
9
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
C
F
P
$1
8
,
8
3
1
,
5
0
0
A
n
n
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$
2
,
4
8
2
,
5
0
0
8
0
3
,
0
0
0
$
91
2
,
0
0
0
$
$
4
,
6
7
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
7
5
1
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
2
1
3
,
0
0
0
$
3
1
,
9
8
8
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
s
So
u
r
c
e
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
-
2
0
2
6
$2
,
2
5
2
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
&
S
t
a
t
e
(
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
9
4
8
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
9
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8
,
2
4
5
,
5
0
0
To
t
a
l
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
&
S
t
a
t
e
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
4
7
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
3
8
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
2
9
7
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
0
3
8
,
0
0
0
$0
$7
,
0
3
3
,
0
0
0
TB
D
/
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
$0
$0
$0
$
1
,
0
9
8
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
3
3
8
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
5
9
7
,
0
0
0
$
3
1
,
9
8
8
,
0
0
0
$1
,
3
0
1
,
0
0
0
Lo
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
$3
6
4
,
5
0
0
$
1
8
,
0
0
0
$
3
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
8
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
5
7
8
,
0
0
0
$0
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
h
o
r
t
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
f
r
o
m
M
a
i
n
S
t
t
o
S
R
-
5
2
4
/
1
9
6
t
h
S
t
.
SW
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Re
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
(
e
x
.
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
:
r
o
l
l
e
d
c
u
r
b
/
u
n
s
a
f
e
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
)
a
l
o
n
g
a
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
w
i
t
h
h
i
g
h
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
n
d
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
sc
h
o
o
l
.
Re
v
e
n
u
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
b
y
Y
e
a
r
84
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
1
8
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
a
n
d
1
8
6
t
h
S
t
.
SW
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
r
o
u
t
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
th
o
s
e
(
2
)
l
o
c
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
.
23
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
f
r
o
m
H
w
y
.
9
9
t
o
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
r
o
u
t
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
n
d
m
i
n
o
r
a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
.
18
9
t
h
P
l
.
S
W
f
r
o
m
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
t
o
7
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
_
C
F
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
0
9
0
9
1
0
9/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0
19Packet Page 491 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 212th St. SW / 84th Ave.
W (5-Corners) Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,536,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The intersection of 84th Ave and 212th is 5 legged, which also
includes Main Street and Bowdoin Way approaches. The intersection is controlled with stop
signs. A roundabout would be constructed with 60-foot radius and yield signs at each
approach. Installation may require the acquisition of right of way on the west side of the
intersection. The center of the roundabout will be landscaped and the outer edge will have a
special pavement treatment to accommodate trucks.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection currently functions at LOS F and delays
during the PM peak hour will worsen over time. A roundabout will improve the LOS and reduce
the need for vehicles to stop during low volume periods. A roundabout would improve the
intersection LOS to B.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2014-2015 and construction for 2016 (pending grant
unding for all phases). f
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$286,000 $250,000
Construction $2,000,000
1% for Art *
TOTAL $286,000 $250,000 $2,000,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
20Packet Page 492 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: SR-524 (196th St. SW)/ 88th
Ave. W Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $879,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave.
W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and
southbound traffic to right-turn-only (prohibiting left-turn and through movements) would also
address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one
concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be
implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are
met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the
intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196th St.
SW.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2014 and construction in 2016 (must meet an MUTCD
traffic signal warrant and get WSDOT approval such 196th St. SW is a State Route.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$100,000 $163,000
Construction $616,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $100,000 $163,000 $616,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
21Packet Page 493 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9th Ave. S –
(Interim solution)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Removal of parking on both sides of 9th Avenue (ex. conditions: 1
lane in each direction) and restriping of 9th Ave. S (2 lanes in each direction).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection is stop-controlled for all approaches and
the existing intersection LOS is E (below the City’s concurrency standards: LOS D). The
improvement will reduce intersection delay and improve the LOS to D.
SCHEDULE: 2014 (pending additional TBD approval)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
22Packet Page 494 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 76th Ave. W @ 212th St.
SW Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,890,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 76th Ave. W to add a northbound left-turn lane for 250’
storage length and a southbound left turn lane for 125’ storage length. Provide protected left
turn phase for northbound and southbound movements. Widen 212th to add a westbound right
turn lane for 50’ storage length.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The
existing intersection LOS is D and F (below City’s concurrency standards) by 2015.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2014, ROW acquisition in 2015, and construction in
2016 (pending additional TBD approval).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$250.000 $600,000
Construction $2,040,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $250,000 $600,000 $2,040,000
* All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
23Packet Page 495 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Walnut St and 9th Ave. S.
– (Interim solution)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Removal of parking on both sides of 9th Avenue (ex. conditions: 1
lane in each direction) and restriping of 9th Av. S (2 lanes in each direction).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection is stop-controlled for all approaches and
the existing intersection LOS is E (below the City’s concurrency standards: LOS D). The
improvement will reduce intersection delay and improve the LOS to C.
SCHEDULE: 2014 (pending additional TBD funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
24Packet Page 496 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $173,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right
turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected-permitted phase for
eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement
during southbound left turn phase.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The
existing intersection LOS is D and E (below City’s concurrency standards) by 2015. The
improvement would improve the LOS to C by 2015.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction scheduled for 2015 (pending additional TBD
approval).
COST BREAKDOWN
* All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$20,000
Construction $153,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $173,000
25Packet Page 497 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW Corridor
Safety Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
$4,354,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) Extend 228th St across the unopened right-of-way to 76th
Avenue West 2) Signalize the intersection of 228th St SW @ SR99 and 228th St. SW @ 76th
Ave. West 3) Construct a raised median in the vicinity of 76th Avenue West.
4) Add illumination between 224th St SW and 228th St SW on SR 99
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The construction of this missing transportation link will
improve both access and safety to the I-5 / Mountlake Terrace Park & Ride lot from SR99.
This east / west connection will reduce demand and congestion along two existing east-west
corridors (220th Street SW and SR104) that currently experience congestion for many hours
a day. Roadway safety will also be significantly improved as SR 99/ 228th Street SW will
become a signalized intersection (already approved by WSDOT) with protected left turn
phasing for both approaches on SR99. The accident-prone left turns from SR99 to 76th Ave.
W. will be restricted with the addition of a raised center island on SR 99. The new traffic
signal will also provide pedestrians and bicycles with a safe, signalized crossing across
SR99, allowing easy access to the Interurban Trail, located ½ mile east of the intersection.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2011 - 2013, ROW acquisition for 2013, and
construction for 2014 (pending grant funding). In 2010, federal grant was secured for the
completion of design and ROW acquisition.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering,
Administration,
and ROW
$310,000 $86,000 $265,000
Construction $3,452,000
1% for Art *
TOTAL $310,000 $86,000 $265,000 $3,452,000
* All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
26Packet Page 498 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76th
Ave. W Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,431,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all
movements).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. By 2015,
the Level of Service will be F, which is below the City’s concurrency standards (LOS D). The
improvement would modify the Level of Service to LOS B.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending TBD
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$286,000
Construction $1,145,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,431,000
27Packet Page 499 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Caspers St. @ 9th Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,022,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop-controlled only
for the northbound movement, on 9th Ave. N.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay as vehicles going northbound
on 9th Ave. N are having difficulty accessing Caspers St.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$204,000
Construction $818,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $,1022,000
28Packet Page 500 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW
to 238th St. SW)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $20,422,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and
sidewalk on each side of the street.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along
this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with
their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any
back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the
project is in Esperance.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$2,042,000
Construction $8,169,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,211,000
29Packet Page 501 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW
intersection improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,932,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220th St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for 325’
storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275’ storage length.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection delay from 72 seconds (w/o
improvement) to 62 seconds (w/ improvement) in 2015.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$786,000
Construction $3,146,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $3,932,000
30Packet Page 502 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW
intersection improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,079,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200’
storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300’ storage length. Provide protected left
turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$815,000
Construction $3,264,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $4,079,000
31Packet Page 503 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174th Ave.
W Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $906,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50’
storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for
eastbound left turns.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers
accessing either street.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$180,000
Construction $726,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $906,000
32Packet Page 504 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Main St. @ 9th Ave.
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop controlled for
all approaches.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service, which is currently LOS E
(below City’s Level of Service standards: LOS D), to LOS B (w/ improvement).
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$220,000
Construction $873,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,093,000
33Packet Page 505 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. @ 9th Ave.
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop controlled for
all approaches.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service, which is currently LOS E
(below City’s Level of Service standards: LOS D), to LOS A.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$220,000
Construction $873,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,093,000
34Packet Page 506 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Interurban Trail – 244th to 228th ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,985,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create a missing link of the Interurban Trail between Shoreline and Mountlake
Terrace. Pave a trail on the existing gravel road on the 74th Ave West right-of-way, between 74th Ave West
and 228th St SW, as well from McAleer Way to 74th Ave. W. Work to include replacement of catch basin
grates, corrections of safety hazards and bike route signage are also included. Bike lanes will be installed
along 76th Ave. W and 228th St. SW from the County line until the connection with the Mountlake Terrace
Interurban Trail as an alternate route.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Routes were rated and prioritized based on value and safety
considerations in the 2000 Bikeway Comprehensive Plan. This bike trail will be part of the Interurban
Regional Trail, which will ultimately extend from Seattle to Everett, to fill a missing link. Goals of the bikeway
plan include promoting bicycle activity, providing safer routes, providing connections to neighboring
jurisdictions, and providing better service to recreational facilities, schools, and businesses for those who
bicycle.
SCHEDULE: construction scheduled for 2011 through secured Federal and State grants
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $1,327,000
1% for Art *
TOTAL $1,327,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
35Packet Page 507 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Main St. Pedestrian
Lighting from 5th Ave. to 6th Ave.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $725,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of installing (11) historic style decorative light
poles along this block (6 on the south side and 5 on the north side), (4) decorative poles with
artist made elements at the top of the pole (2 on both sides), and inlaid street names at the
intersection corners. The visual character of this location will be further enhanced as each new
pole will have a planter basket for summer flowers. New sidewalk and curb gutter will be
installed along both sides of this stretch (total length: approximately 1,200'), to improve
pedestrian safety and remove the sidewalk humps and cracks. New ADA curb ramps or
truncated domes will be installed at all non-compliant curb ramps. The trees will remain but root
barriers will be added to prevent tree roots from impacting the sidewalk in the future.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Increase pedestrian safety and activity along the
Downtown Retail Core at all times of the day.
SCHEDULE: The design is pending a grant through the 2010 Statewide Transportation
Enhancement Program (response scheduled for January 2011). The application requested
100% grant funding for the design and construction.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$115,000
Construction $610,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $115,000 $610,000
36Packet Page 508 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave W from 188th St.
SW to Olympic View Dr. Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $777,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct Walkway on 80th Ave West between 188th St SW and
180th St SW and on 180th St SW between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive (ranked #6 in
Long Walkway list in 2009 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provides safe pedestrian access between Seaview Park,
connecting to Olympic View Drive Walkway and Southwest County Park. Would create an
additional safe walking route for kids attending Seaview Elementary School (188th St. SW).
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2011 (project is dependent on obtaining a grant, with
response scheduled for Spring 2011).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$30,000 $100,000
Construction $647,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000 $100,000 $647,000
37Packet Page 509 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 234th SW / 236th St. SW
Long Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,115,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a walkway on the south side of 236th St. SW from SR
104 to 94th Ave. W., extending northbound on 94th Ave. W to 234th St., westbound on 234th St.
to 97th Ave. W, and finally connecting back to SR 104 on 97th Ave. W (ranked #1 in the list of
Long Walkway projects in the 2009 Transportation Plan)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. The current
pedestrian conditions are unsafe near Madrona Elementary School and along 236th St. SW
because of the limited sight distance issues (curvature of the roadway).
SCHEDULE: Design scheduled for 2014, pending state funding (such as Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety Grant)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$440,000
Construction $1,675,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $440,000 $1,675,000
38Packet Page 510 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 2nd Ave. S from James St.
to Main St. Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $32,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 100’) on 2nd Ave. S
between Main St. and James St. (ranked #1 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: 2016 (pending additional TBD funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $32,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $32,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
39Packet Page 511 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to
8th Ave. S Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $63,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 250’) on Maple St.
between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009
Transportation Plan)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2014 (pending additional TBD
approval).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$10,000
Construction $53,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $63,000
40Packet Page 512 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Dayton St between 7th Ave.
S and 8th Ave. S Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $79,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 250’) on Dayton St.
between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2014 (pending additional TBD
approval)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$10,000
Construction $69,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $79,000
41Packet Page 513 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Shell Valley Emergency
Access
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $627,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: : Construct an emergency access road from the Shell
Valley subdivision to Main Street which will serve as a bikeway and walkway as
well.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Severe grade of the primary road into the Shell
Valley subdivision, results in access problems during winter freezing events. The
proposed access road will provide emergency access for these winter freezing
events and serve as a bicycle pedestrian path the remainder of the year.
SCHEDULE: Design was completed in 2010 and construction is scheduled to begin
in 2011 because of a grant secured ($250,000) and the remaining construction
costs are funded by Fund 112 and 412.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$14,500
Construction $472,000 $7,000
1% for Art *
TOTAL $486,500 $7,000
42Packet Page 514 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 226th St SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $185,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 300’ of walkway) on 226th
St. SW between SR-104 and 105th Pl. A Federal Grant was secured to fund both the
engineering and construction phases of project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Design is close to completion and construction scheduled for 2011.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $139,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $139,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
43Packet Page 515 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway
from Main St. to 200th St. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $675,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct Walkway on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St.
SW (~ 2,700’). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W,
adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #2 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood
Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non-motorized
transportation to walk to / from school.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2015 (project is dependent on obtaining a grant, such
as the “Safe Routes to School”).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$125,000
Construction $550,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $125,000 $550,000
44Packet Page 516 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Beach Rd.
Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $950,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a walkway on Meadowdale Beach Dr. between 76th Ave.
W and Olympic View Dr. (~3,800’). This is one of the last collectors in the City with no sidewalk
on either side of the street (ranked #4 in Long Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation
Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route connecting
a minor arterial w/ high pedestrian activity (Olympic View Dr.) to a collector with sidewalk on the
east side of the street (76th Ave. W). Meadowdale Elementary School is directly north of the
project on Olympic View Dr.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2016 (pending additional TBD approval)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$190,000
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $190,000
45Packet Page 517 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 3rd Ave. S to
4th Ave. S Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $220,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 350’) on Walnut St.
between 3rd Ave. S and 4th Ave. S (ranked #5 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2014 (pending additional TBD
approval)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$20,000
Construction $200,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $220,000
46Packet Page 518 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 6th Ave. S to
7th Ave. S Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $110,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 700’) on Walnut St.
between 6th Ave. S and 7th Ave. S (ranked #4 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2016 (pending additional TBD
approval).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$10,000
Construction $100,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $110,000
47Packet Page 519 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 4th Ave. Corridor
Enhancement
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,500,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Corridor improvements along 4th Avenue to build on concept plan
developed in the Streetscape Plan update (2006).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will
encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will
enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the
downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center
for the Arts. Timing for design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will
assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the project
implementation phase.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2011-2015 (pending grant funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study $25,000 $200,000
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $50,000 $1,000,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $75,000 $200,000 $1,000,000
48Packet Page 520 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from 104th Ave.
W to 100th Ave. W Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $812,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #8 in Long Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install
a 5’ sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW from 104th Ave. W to 100th Ave. W
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating safe
pedestrian access to Hickman Park from 100th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending TBD
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$162,000
Construction $650,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $812,000
49Packet Page 521 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Olympic Ave. from Main St. to
SR-524 / 196th St. SW Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,249,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #3 in Long Walkway project list in 2009 Transportation
Plan. Install new sidewalk on the east side of the street. The ex. sidewalk is unsafe because of
rolled curb.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and create
safe pedestrian access to Yost Park and Edmonds Elementary.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction $1,049,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,249,000
50Packet Page 522 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 189th Pl. W from 80th Ave. W to
78th Ave. W Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked # 7 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan.
Install 5’ sidewalk on either side of the street.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and create
connection to ex. sidewalk on 189th Pl. W. This missing link will create a pedestrian connection from
80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending TBD
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$35,000
Construction $140,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $175,000
51Packet Page 523 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W between 188th St.
SW and 186th St. SW Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan.
Install 5’ sidewalk on the east side of the street to connect to the existing sidewalk to the south.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch, such as school
kids walking to Seaview Elementary.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$35,000
Construction $140,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $175,000
52Packet Page 524 of 602
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to
76th Ave. W Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Long Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan.
Install 5’ sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating safe
pedestrian connection between Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending TBD
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$210,000
Construction $840,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,050,000
53Packet Page 525 of 602
54Packet Page 526 of 602
CFP
STORMWATER
55Packet Page 527 of 602
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
Pa
r
k
s
,
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
,
a
n
d
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G
.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
$5
-
$
2
3
M
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
To
t
a
l
$5
M
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
$5
M
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
RE
E
T
1
/
G
r
a
n
t
s
To
t
a
l
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Li
b
r
a
r
y
/
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
Ci
t
y
G
.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
Gr
a
n
t
s
/
R
E
E
T
2
To
t
a
l
$1
0
-
1
2
M
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
$3
-
$
4
M
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
/
G
r
a
n
t
s
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
To
t
a
l
$4
-
1
0
M
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
/
US
D
O
T
EI
S
St
a
t
e
F
u
n
d
s
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
$1
1
.
8
M
To
t
a
l
$2
.
2
M
$
2
.
0
M
$
2
.
1
M
$
1
.
9
M
$
2
.
1
M
$
1
.
5
M
Un
k
n
o
w
n
To
t
a
l
C
F
P
$1
1
.
8
M
An
n
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$2
.
2
M
$
2
.
0
M
$2
.
1
M
$
1
.
9
M
$
2
.
1
M
$
1
.
5
M
`
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
/
S
n
o
-
I
s
l
e
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
Ex
p
a
n
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
(
S
n
o
-
I
s
l
e
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Pl
a
n
)
.
20
1
4
Ar
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
/
A
r
t
M
u
s
e
u
m
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
n
e
w
c
e
n
t
e
r
f
o
r
t
h
e
A
r
t
'
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
Re
p
l
a
c
e
/
R
e
n
o
v
a
t
e
(C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
s
u
b
l
e
a
s
e
d
o
n
C
i
v
i
c
Pl
a
y
f
i
e
l
d
u
n
t
i
l
2
0
2
1
)
.
Bo
y
s
&
G
i
r
l
s
C
l
u
b
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
20
1
7
-
2
0
2
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
Re
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
20
1
6
20
1
3
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
20
1
5
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
W
S
D
O
T
F
e
r
r
y
/
M
u
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
Re
l
o
c
a
t
e
f
e
r
r
y
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
t
o
M
a
r
i
n
a
Be
a
c
h
.
Re
p
l
a
c
e
/
R
e
n
o
v
a
t
e
d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
n
g
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
i
n
C
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
.
Se
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Re
p
l
a
c
e
a
n
d
e
x
p
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
n
g
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
.
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
/
A
t
h
l
e
t
i
c
C
o
m
p
l
e
x
-
Ol
d
W
o
o
d
w
a
y
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
Pa
r
k
s
&
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
&
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
In
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
E
S
D
#
1
5
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
p
a
r
k
a
n
d
a
t
h
l
e
t
i
c
co
m
p
l
e
x
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Gr
a
n
t
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
Me
e
t
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
n
e
e
d
s
f
o
r
a
n
A
q
u
a
t
i
c
s
Ce
n
t
e
r
(
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
s
t
u
d
y
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
Au
g
u
s
t
2
0
0
9
)
.
Ci
v
i
c
P
l
a
y
f
i
e
l
d
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
(C
i
t
y
h
a
s
l
e
a
s
e
u
n
t
i
l
2
0
2
1
)
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
_
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
_
0
9
1
6
1
0
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
_
C
F
P
9/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0
56Packet Page 528 of 602
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
1BStormwater Project:
Sumps along Friar Tuck Lane
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
23,000
48,000
322,000
5,000
48,000
16,000
462,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015
26,000
55,000
0
6,000
0
18,000
105,000TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
100%
0%
2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
0%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
384,000
0
57,000
0
441,000
100%
2012
Project Name:Southwest Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 ‐ Connect Sumps near Robin Hood Drive
Problem Description:Several sumps (dry wells) in the vicinity of Robin Hood Drive in Southwest Edmonds overflow during
large storm events. Over time, they have become clogged and may cause flooding.
Project Solution:Connect the sumps to the City of Edmonds storm drain system with an overflow pipe that will function
in large storm events to reduce the potential for flooding.
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
Install 1600 ft of new 12 inch dia pipe (600 ft in the public right of way and 1000 ft on private
property). 4 new manholes. 9 connections to the existing storm drain system.
Submitted By:Public Works Department
57Packet Page 529 of 602
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
1CStormwater Project:
Alignment of the proposed storm drain pipe along 238th Street SW. Existing
catch basin sumps in the foreground.
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
25,000
55,000
368,000
5,000
55,000
18,000
526,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26,000
56,000
0
5,000
0
18,000
105,000
0
0
390,000
0
58,000
0
448,000
2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
100%
0%
2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
0%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100%
2012
Project Name:Southwest Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 ‐ Connect Sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park Infiltration
Problem Description:Several sumps (dry wells) along 238th Street SW in Southwest Edmonds are not functioning properly.
They have become clogged and are contributing to area flooding during large storm events.
Project Solution:Connect the sumps to the City of Edmonds infiltration system in Hickman Park to the west.
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
Install 825 ft of new 12 inch dia pipe. Replace 950 ft of aging existing pipe. Reuse existing structures
west of 102nd Place W. 3 new manholes. 12 connections to existing structures.
Submitted By:Public Works Department
58Packet Page 530 of 602
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
2AStormwater Project:
Aerial View of Edmonds Marsh (background) and the Port of Edmonds
(foreground) ‐ Department of Ecology
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
0
0
228,000
0
0
11,000
239,000
0
0
228,000
0
0
11,000
239,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
100%
0%
2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
0%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100%
2012
Project Name:Shellabarger Creek/Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh 100‐yr Flood Plain delineation
Problem Description:Properties around Shellabarger Creek, Willow Creek, Edmonds Marsh, along State Route 104, and
Dayton Street can become flooded during large storm events due to excessive upstream flows, high
tide, and reduced storage capacity in the Marsh due to sedimentation.
Project Solution:Study would update the 100‐yr floodplain delineation for the Edmonds Marsh area to assist the City
and surrounding property owners with planning strategies to protect property from future flooding
and enable stormwater services to be allocated more efficiently. Re‐delineation of the 100‐yr flood
plain will allow the City to properly regulate development in flood prone lands and keep the City in
compliance with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) obligations. By being a part of NFIP, FEMA
makes flood insurance coverage available on buildings and their contents throughout the community
(major public benefit).
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
Includes hydrologic modeling and hydraulic modeling. This project may involve participation from
WSDOT and the Port of Edmonds.
Submitted By:Public Works Department
59Packet Page 531 of 602
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
5Stormwater Project:
Project area along 93rd Place W, South of 224th Street SW
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
0
0
601,000
5,000
90,000
30,000
726,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31,000
5,000
5,000
31,000
72,000
0
0
606,000
0
90,000
0
696,000
2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
100%
0%
2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
0%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100%
2012
Project Name:95th/93rd Place project
Problem Description:The drainage system in the vicinity of 95th PL W, 93rd PL W, and 224th Street SW is inadequate and is
causing flooding problems. This area was annexed into the City from Snohomish County in October
1995.
Project Solution:Construct approximately 4,000 linear feet of new storm drain pipe and new catch basins and connect
to the existing storm drain system.
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
Construct 3,200 ft of storm drain pipe. 15 catch basins. 8 connections to the existing storm drain
system.
Submitted By:Public Works Department
60Packet Page 532 of 602
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
7Stormwater Project:
Lake Ballinger
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
0
0
0
0
0
600,000
600,000
0
0
0
0
0
100,000
100,000
0
0
0
0
0
102,000
102,000
0
0
0
0
0
106,000
106,000
2015
0
0
0
0
0
115,000
115,000TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
100%
0%
2014
0
0
0
0
0
110,000
110,000
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
0%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
0
0
0
119,000
119,000
100%
2012
Project Name:Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
Problem Description:Homes surrounding Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek have flooded during very large storm events.
There are also significant water quality issues in the watershed.
Project Solution:Work independently and with other members of the Greater Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed
Forum to implement the Strategic Action Plan, which was finalized in July 2009.
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
Submitted By:Public Works Department
61Packet Page 533 of 602
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
9Stormwater Project:
Existing stockpiles
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
0
41,000
270,000
0
41,000
14,000
366,000
0
41,000
0
0
0
14,000
55,000
0
0
275,000
0
42,000
0
317,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
100%
0%
2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
0%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100%
2012
Project Name:Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
Problem Description:The Public Works Yard on 210 St SW and the Parks Facility store stockpiles of sand and other aggregate
material for use by the Crews. There is not enough room under the covered part of the yard to store all
this material. Additional covered space is required to prevent this material form washing into the storm
drainage system that ultimately flows to Halls Creek in Mountlake Terrace. Also, washing vehicles can
cause undesired pollutants to enter the storm system. These projects are required under the Federal
and state Clean Water Act.
Project Solution:Provide additional covered space for the material/aggregate piles at both facilities and a vehicle wash
station at the Public Works Yard.
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
12,000 square feet of cover and a vehicle wash station at the Public Works Yard and 6,000 square feet
of cover at the Parks Facility.
Submitted By:Public Works Department
62Packet Page 534 of 602
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
12Stormwater Project:
Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform.
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
29,000
290,000
1,930,000
150,000
290,000
97,000
2,786,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015
0
103,000
757,000
57,000
115,000
77,000
1,109,000TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
25%
0%
2014
32,000
221,000
0
110,000
0
33,000
396,000
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
75%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
1,504,000
0
227,000
0
1,731,000
100%
2012
Project Name:Edmonds Marsh Restoration
Problem Description:Development around the marsh and lack of connectivity with the Puget Sound has resulted in
sedimentation of the marsh and a transition to freshwater species.
Project Solution:Conduct revegetation, replace the flap gate to allow better connectivity with the Puget Sound, and
remove sediment.
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
23 acres of revegetation. Construct new tide gate. Remove sediment.
Submitted By:Public Works Department
63Packet Page 535 of 602
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
13Stormwater Project:
Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source:
http://www.unocaledmonds.info/clean‐up/gallery.php
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
115,000
338,000
2,250,000
100,000
338,000
113,000
3,254,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015
0
67,000
935,000
57,000
141,000
72,000
1,272,000TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
25%
0%
2014
127,000
309,000
0
55,000
0
55,000
546,000
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
75%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
1,712,000
0
257,000
0
1,969,000
100%
2012
Project Name:Daylight Willow Creek in Marina Beach Park
Problem Description:Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh have been significantly impacted by past development and the
piping of the Creek.
Project Solution:Daylight Willow Creek (originally as part of the Edmonds Crossing Project). The new channel would be
lined with an impermeable membrane for the entire length to prevent remnant contamination from
the former fuel tank farm from coming in contact with streamflow. Channel will be overexcavated in
order to protect membrane and provide soil for plant establishment. A railroad trestle is currently
planned to be constructed by Sound Transit / BNSF (costs not included in this estimate). This will
facilitate the future daylighting of the creek that would have its outlet to the Puget Sound near the
historic location of the former Union Oil Company Pier.
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
1,100 linear ft of new creek channel lined with an impermeable membrane. 6‐ft bottom width. 4‐ft
depth. 3H:1V side slopes. Overexcavate to 3 ft depth below channel bottom. Assume moderate
contamination below groundwater table.
Submitted By:Public Works Department
64Packet Page 536 of 602
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
15Stormwater Project:
Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision that will be
addressed by restoration.
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
105,000
836,000
5,573,000
150,000
836,000
279,000
7,779,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015
0
0
2,524,000
0
344,000
0
2,868,000TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
25%
0%
2014
116,000
922,000
1,467,000
165,000
221,000
308,000
3,199,000
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
75%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
2,438,000
0
401,000
0
2,839,000
100%
2012
Project Name:Perrinville Creek High Flow Diversion and Habitat Restoration
Problem Description:Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek basin has led to increased flows in the creek, incision of the creek
bed, and sedimentation in the low‐gradient downstream reaches of the creek.
Project Solution:Construct a high flow diversion pipe that would divert high peak stream flows caused by excessive
stormwater runoff at the intersection of 76th Ave W and Olympic View Drive. The diversion pipe
alignment would extend north along Olympic View Drive, cross through the Snohomish County Park,
cross several private properties, cross Frederick Place and Talbot Road, and the diversion pipe would
discharge to the existing Perrinville Creek high flow bypass pipe that discharges directly into Puget
Sound. The project also include habitat restoration in Perrinville Creek to enhance salmon spawning in
the creek.
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
4,560 ft of 42 inch diameter storm drain pipe (2,800 ft in the public right of way, 1,000 ft on private
property, 700 ft through Snohomish County Park, 30 ft under Frederick Pl and 30 ft under Talbot Rd).
1,000 ft of streambank restoration.
Submitted By:Public Works Department
65Packet Page 537 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2011 - 2016
1Packet Page 538 of 602
2Packet Page 539 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2011-2016)
Table of Contents
FUND DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT PAGE
GENERAL
112 Transportation Public Works 6
113
Multimodal
Transportation
Community
Services
9
116
Building
Maintenance
Public Works
10
125
REET-2
Transportation
Public Works
12
129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 13
412-100 Water Projects Public Works 14
412-200 Storm Projects Public Works 15
412-300 Sewer Projects Public Works 16
414
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Public Works
18
PARKS
125
REET-2 Parks
Improvement
Parks & Recreation
20
126 Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation 50
132
Parks Construction
(Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
54
3Packet Page 540 of 602
4Packet Page 541 of 602
CIP
GENERAL
5Packet Page 542 of 602
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
4
3
o
f
6
0
2
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
4
4
o
f
6
0
2
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
4
5
o
f
6
0
2
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
4
6
o
f
6
0
2
1
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
4
7
o
f
6
0
2
1
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
4
8
o
f
6
0
2
1
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
4
9
o
f
6
0
2
1
3
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
5
0
o
f
6
0
2
1
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
5
1
o
f
6
0
2
1
5
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
5
2
o
f
6
0
2
1
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
5
3
o
f
6
0
2
1
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
5
4
o
f
6
0
2
1
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
5
5
o
f
6
0
2
CIP
PARKS
19Packet Page 556 of 602
2
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
5
7
o
f
6
0
2
2
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
5
8
o
f
6
0
2
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Haines Wharf Park &
Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,500,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a walkway on 76th Ave W / 75th Pl W between
Meadowdale Beach Road and 162nd St. with additional improvements further north.
Develop unique north Edmonds neighborhood park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: A significant sight distance issue and no road
shoulder creates a pedestrian safety problem on 76th Ave West as it winds and turns to 75th
Place West. Despite safety problems this route has significant pedestrian traffic. It will
provide improved pedestrian access and safety to Meadowdale Beach County Park, link via
North Meadowdale Road walkway to Elementary & Middle schools, and Meadowdale
Playfields. Haines Wharf Park will provide unique neighborhood park amenities and a
respite for walkers and cyclists with outstanding views of Puget Sound and the Olympics.
SCHEDULE: 2010
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction $1,500,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,500,000
*all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
22Packet Page 559 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center
Field/Court
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
2.3 acres; zoned public neighborhood park/openspace field
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrades to youth sports field, picnic and playground amenities
and children’s play equipment. Replacement and renovation of amphitheater in 2012 with
improved courtyard area and drainage.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: As a neighborhood park, the Frances Anderson Center
serves the community with various sports, playground and field activities including various
special events. Upgrade and additions essential to meet demand for use.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $0 $0 $30,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $30,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
23Packet Page 560 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Brackett’s Landing
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $25,000
South: Main Street and Railraod Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound
North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park
South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park
through Deed-of-Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench
maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat
improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom
repairs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park,
regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction 0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL 0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
24Packet Page 561 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: City Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $290,000
3rd Avenue South and Howell Way, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
14.5 acres; Community Park / Zoned public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upper lot and other parking improvements. Replacement of upper
and lower playgrounds. Extend walkway paths and other miscellaneous improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Repair and improvements for one of the City’s most
heavily used parks. Play structures in need of replacement.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $0 $210,000 $20,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $210,000 $20,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
25Packet Page 562 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $100,000
6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Park Development
Bleacher/stadium repairs, infield mix, baseball/softball turf repair, retaining wall, fence and
play structure replacement, skate park and facility amenities, tennis and sports courts repair
and resurfacing, irrigation. Regrade and improve track. Upgrade portable restrooms.
Landscape and site furnishing improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $5,000 $10,000 $0 $75,000 $10,000 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000 $10,000 $0 $75,000 $10,000 $0 $0
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
26Packet Page 563 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Hatchery
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $85,000
South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL
23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the
comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water
impacts. Continue to support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway
repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible.
Hatchery repairs as needed. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget
Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh
water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird
sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water
Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant
funds available through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engin. & Admin.
Construction $0 $5,000 $5,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $5,000 $5,000$ $75,000 $0 $0 $0
27Packet Page 564 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $42,000
LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re-tile and
renovate restroom facilities. Electrical upgrade, rail and shelter replacements / renovations.
Work with WDFW on structural repairs of concrete spalling on pier subsurface.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and
enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $2,000 $0 $20,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $2,000 $0 $20,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
28Packet Page 565 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Former Woodway HS
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted
fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges,
user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital
campaign. $10m - $12M project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained
facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled
access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized
area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
29Packet Page 566 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $40,000
89th Place West and 197th Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County
12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and
natural trail system to Maplewood Park. Replace play structure in 2010.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2014
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $40,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $40,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
30Packet Page 567 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $75,000
South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with
federal transportation funds.
WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; Protected through Deed-of-Right RCW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand parking area. Portable restroom upgrades. Repair and
improvements to off-leash area. Replace play structure and install interpretive sign.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional
waterfront park system.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $5,000 $0 $50,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000 $0 $50,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
31Packet Page 568 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $45,000
78th Place W. & 241st. St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Install path from Interurban Trail spur terminal to parking lot. Replace play structure and
improve picnic area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2012
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $0 $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
32Packet Page 569 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse
Grounds
ESTIMATED COST: $60,000
6801 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County
1.3 acres / Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the parking area, wooded area, trail system and
landscaping of exterior clubhouse at Meadowdale Clubhouse site. Replace playground.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset with installation
that provides community use of the facility and north Edmonds programming for day care,
recreation classes and preschool activities.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $20,000 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $20,000 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
33Packet Page 570 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Milltown Plaza Renovation ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $40,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Renovate newly acquired Milltown Plaza with improved landscaping and streetscape
improvements. Located on main pedestrian walking routes.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to Important downtown public
gathering place.
SCHEDULE: 2010
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $40,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $40,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
34Packet Page 571 of 602
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $80,000
83rd Avenue West and 204th St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County
22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement forest study to continue with habitat and forest
improvements, tree planting, wildlife habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking.
Natural trail links under Main Street connecting to Yost Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional
trail connections.
SCHEDULE: 2014
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $80,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $80,000
New additions meet the 1% for the Arts Ordinance requirements
35Packet Page 572 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $21,000
80th Street West and 186th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public; Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC; protected with Deed-
Of-Right
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Re-surface
tennis courts, pathway improvements, and play area maintenance. Renovate restrooms.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play
area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, restroom facilities, basketball court,
parking and tennis courts.
SCHEDULE: 2010, 2014
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $11,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $11,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
36Packet Page 573 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Sierra Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $105,000
80th Street West and 191th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve pathways and interpretive braille signs. Field renovation
to include field drainage for turf repair.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play
area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, portable restroom facilities,
basketball hoops, parking and Braille interpretive trail for the blind.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2013
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $30,000 $75,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000 $75,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
37Packet Page 574 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Yost Park/Pool
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 215,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pool replastering, tile work, and annual anticipated and
unanticipated repairs. Add in-pool play amenities.
Park site improvements and repairs to trails and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping,
parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion control. ADA improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for
environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $45,000 $120,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $45,000 $120,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
38Packet Page 575 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $230,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include library, Senior Center, outdoor
plaza, city park, corner parks, irrigation, planting, mulch, FAC Center, vegetation, tree
plantings, streetscape/gateways/street tree planting, flower basket poles.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide
comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $40,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $40,000
39Packet Page 576 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Paving ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Includes miscellaneous small paving and park walkway
improvements citywide.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvement needs citywide in park system.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0
* all or a portion of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
40Packet Page 577 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park
Improvements / Misc Small Projects
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $265,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Citywide park facility and public landscaping improvements
including signage, interpretive signs, buoys, tables, benches, trash containers, drinking
fountains, backstops, bike racks, lighting, small landscaping projects, play areas and
equipment. Landscape improvements at beautification areas and corner parks, public gateway
entrances into the city and 4th Avenue Corridor from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the
Arts, SR 104, street tree and streetscape improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for citywide park facilities
and streetscape improvements in public areas.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering / Administration
Construction $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
41Packet Page 578 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
.
PROJECT NAME: Sports Field / Playground
Partnerships
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $100,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with locals school, organizations, or neighboring
jurisdictions to upgrade additional youth ball field or play facilities or playgrounds to create
neighborhood park facilities at non-City facilities.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Annual partnerships with matching funds to create
additional facilities.
SCHEDULE: 2010 - 2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000
42Packet Page 579 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Center
at Yost Park
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 –
$23,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study
completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the
consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the
summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of
its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of
Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the
current pool.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
43Packet Page 580 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Interurban Trail
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $200,000
Matching Grant Funds WWRC/ IAC, additional funding from PSRC / CMAQ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Trail Improvements
Major construction improvements to this abandoned interurban railway link including 1.37 miles of
trail, upgraded shared roadway, trail spur to Mathay Ballinger Park, and the creation of Ballinger
Station to house a shelter, kiosk, historical interpretation, water fountain and solar bollards.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Final trail system missing link to connect already completed
sections in Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace through the Ballinger neighborhood of Edmonds.
Increased safety and public enjoyment for recreationalists and bicycle commuters.
SCHEDULE: 2011
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
44Packet Page 581 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved
Trail/Bike Path/Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 30,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the
goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the
comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to
meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path
improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with
engineering funding.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0
* all or part of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
45Packet Page 582 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility
Needs Study
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initiate feasibility study of providing and promoting Cultural / Arts
facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high
priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008
update process.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for
public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority
creates the need to study performance, management and long term potential for arts related
facilities.
SCHEDULE: 2012
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study $15,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $15,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
46Packet Page 583 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Parks, Recreation & Open
Space Comprehensive Plan
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 60,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of the plan is to identify the need for parks, open
space, and recreation facilities in the Edmonds area and to establish policies and implement
strategies to meet those needs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The plan identifies and evaluates existing park and
recreation facilities and programs and develops an approach to ensure their continuation and
expansion.
SCHEDULE: 2014
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study $60,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $60,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
47Packet Page 584 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh
Environmental Master Plan
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL
23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Produce comprehensive environmental master plan for the
Edmonds Marsh. Final document will include an ecological assessment and environmental
impact study with input from the public and local organizations.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh
water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird
sanctuary. Protection is vital. Plan will directly correlate with goals and recommendations
included in WRIA8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. Co-fund the completion of master
plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water
Management Plan.
SCHEDULE: 2012
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study $30,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000
48Packet Page 585 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Forest
Management Study
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hire consultant to develop a plan for best forest management
practices in Pine Ridge Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This forest park is under stress from over-mature trees
especially alder and others. This study will give the Parks Division necessary guidance to
better manage this park to become a more healthy forest and open space.
SCHEDULE: 2013
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study $30,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000
49Packet Page 586 of 602
5
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
8
7
o
f
6
0
2
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved
Capital Projects and Acquisitions
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,846,723
00 (2013-2014), debt retired end of 2014
5
Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $29,777
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on:
City Hall: $417,000 (2010-2012), $312,0
Marina Beach / Library Roof: $182,428
PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $69,18
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST DOBREAKWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
Art 1% for
TOTAL $700,597 $699,312 $697,717 $596,418 $592,564 $279,032 $281,083
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
51Packet Page 588 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open
Space/Land
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $400,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of properties when feasible that will benefit citizens
that fit the definitions and needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Fulfills needs of citizens for parks, recreation and open
space.
SCHEDULE: 2012, 2015
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $200,000
52Packet Page 589 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront/Tidelands
Acquisition
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $200,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire waterfront parcels and tidelands wherever feasible to
secure access to Puget Sound for public use as indentified in the Parks, Recreation & Open
Space Comprehensive Plan
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound
SCHEDULE: 2013
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000
53Packet Page 590 of 602
5
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
9
1
o
f
6
0
2
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 4th Avenue Cultural
Corridor: Planning
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $225,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4th Avenue site design phase 2 for public right of way to build on
phase 1, 2009 design and implementation plan to minimum 30% engineering.
Construction phase to start 2015.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will
encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will
enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the
downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for
the Arts. Timing for 30% design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will
assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the project implementation
phase.
SCHEDULE: 2011, 2014
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study $25,000 $200,000
Engineering & Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $25,000 $200,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
55Packet Page 592 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 4th Avenue Cultural
Corridor
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4th Avenue site development with temporary and/or moveable
surface elements and amenities to begin drawing attention and interest to the corridor and create
stronger visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Possible
projects may include surface art, signage and wayfinding, or low level lighting.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will
encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will
enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the
downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for
the Arts. Timing for 30 & design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will
assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the project implementation
phase.
SCHEDULE: 2011
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction $50,000 $1 M
1% for Art
TOTAL $50,000 $1 M
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
56Packet Page 593 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Dayton Street Plaza ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $132,500
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate small park and plaza at north end of old public works
building, 2nd & Dayton Street. Improve landscaping, plaza, and accessibility.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to public gathering space and
creation of additional art amenities and streetscape improvements in downtown on main
walking route. Financial support from Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, Hubbard Foundation
and Edmonds in Bloom.
SCHEDULE: 2011
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $135,500
1% for Art
TOTAL $135,500
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
57Packet Page 594 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Interurban Trail
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,327,000
Matching Grant Funds WWRC/ IAC, additional funding from PSRC / CMAQ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Trail Improvements
Major construction improvements to this abandoned interurban railway link including 1.37 miles of
trail, upgraded shared roadway, trail spur to Mathay Ballinger Park, and the creation of Ballinger
Station to house a shelter, kiosk, historical interpretation, water fountain and solar bollards.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Final trail system missing link to connect already completed
sections in Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace through the Ballinger neighborhood of Edmonds.
Increased safety and public enjoyment for recreationalists and bicycle commuters.
SCHEDULE: 2011
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$1,327,000
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,327,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
58Packet Page 595 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Parking
Lot/Drainage
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitate South County Senior Center parking lot including
pavement re-surfacing, storm water/drainage management, effective illumination and
landscaping. Seek grant opportunities and partnership opportunities.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety
and better accessibility for Seniors.
SCHEDULE: 2012
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $300,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $300,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
59Packet Page 596 of 602
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: City Park Spray Park
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $150,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate the former site of the City Park wading pool by
constructing a spray park amenity to be used in the summer. These structures have become
very popular in many communities as replacements for wading pools that are no longer
acceptable to increased health department regulations. These installations create no standing
water and therefore require little maintenance and no lifeguard costs. Staff will seek voluntary
donations for construction costs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: These amenities are very popular in all communities where
they have been installed. Using the former wading pool site allows existing plumbing, drainage,
pump house, connecting paths and fencing to be used. This will be a much valued attraction that
will increase the popularity of this much loved park.
SCHEDULE: 2011
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $150,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $150,000
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
60Packet Page 597 of 602
AM-3382 Item #: 10.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/21/2010
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 September 14, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Minutes are attached for the following City Council Committee Meetings:
09-14-10 Community Services/Development Services Committee
09-14-10 Finance Committee
Please note: The minutes for the 09-14-10 Public Safety Committee were not available at the time the
Council packet was prepared. Copies will be provided separately.
Attachments
09-14-10 CSDS Committee Minutes
09-14-10 Finance Committee Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 09/16/2010 03:18 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/16/2010 03:30 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/16/2010 02:08 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/16/2010
Packet Page 598 of 602
M I N U T E S
Community Service/Development Services Committee Meeting
September 14, 2010
Elected Officials Present: Staff Present:
Council Member Strom Peterson, Chair Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Council Member Petso Kernen Lien, Associate Planner
Rob English, City Engineer
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks Director
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
The committee convened at 6:00 p.m.
A. Increasing fines for illegal tree cutting.
Kernen Lien, Associate Planner, presented information on different approaches for how fines for
illegal tree cutting may be assessed and reviewed, including how a number of Tree City USA
communities assessed fines for illegal tree cutting. Remedies for illegal tree cutting range from
restoration – which may be based on the value of what was cut or on a tree-for-tree or some other
ratio of replanting – to fines based on the value of what was removed. Valuation of the tree(s) cut
can be determined by methods described in the Guide for Plant Appraisal authored by the Council of
Tree and Landscape Appraisers, or a simple fine can be applied per tree removed. Fines ranged
from $50 to $3,000 for the Tree City USA communities reviewed, although many seemed to have
basic fines in the $1,000 range. Mr. Lien discussed how the fines may vary depending on where the
illegal tree cutting occurred, for example trees that are located within critical areas or on City
property often have larger fines than trees which are cut on private property without any critical
areas present. In addition, some communities also consider other factors, such as to what extent the
cutting affected the value of the underlying property or the surrounding area.
The City of Edmonds’ current fines for illegal tree cutting are $500 per tree, and are tripled to $1,500
for trees illegally cut within critical areas. The City also has the option to increase permit fees for up
to five times according to the City’s fee schedule adopted under Resolution Number 1192.
ACTION: The Committee indicated a desire to increase the City of Edmonds fines for illegal tree
cutting and asked that code amendments be brought to the full Council for consideration which will
(1) increase the basic fine for illegal tree cutting to $1,000 per tree, and (2) provide for a tripling of
fines if the tree is located on public property or right of way.
B. Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2016).
Rob English, City Engineer, presented information on the draft 2011-2016 Capital Facilities Plan
(CFP) and the projects that are contained in the document. Mr. English also reviewed the draft
2011-2016 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and explained the differences between the CFP and
CIP. Staff requested comments from the Council committee and asked if they had a preference on
whether to include specific projects as part of the presentation to the City Council on September
21st. A public hearing on the CFP is scheduled for the October 5, 2010 Council meeting.
Packet Page 599 of 602
CS/DS Committee Minutes
September 14, 2010
Page 2
2
Councilmember Petso asked if the potential TBD revenue generated by the proposed TBD ballot
measure could be diverted for other purposes besides the capital projects approved by the TBD
Board. Staff replied that this was a policy question for the Board, but the ordinance approved by the
Board specified the additional TBD revenue for the 37 capital projects in the ordinance.
Councilmember Petso requested that the presentation include information on the Edmonds Crossing
WSDOT Ferry/Multimodal project.
ACTION: Staff will present the draft 2011-2016 CFP to Council on September 21st for information
and schedule a public hearing for the October 5, 2010 Council meeting.
C. Briefing on the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2011-2016)
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer, presented the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Mr. Hauss explained that the TIP identifies all the transportation projects that are
planned within the next 6 years, along with the appropriate funding source (secured / unsecured
Federal and State grants and / or local funding). Due to the transportation funding shortfall, the TBD
is also identified as a potential funding source. Since the first 3 years of the TIP are financially
constrained, this potential revenue source isn’t identified until 2014. A short description of each
project programmed for 2011 was presented (Dayton St. Overlay, 228th St. SW Corridor
Improvements, Main St. Pedestrian lighting, Shell Valley Emergency Access, and 226th St. SW
Walkway).
The construction of the 228th St SW Corridor Improvements is estimated at approximately $3.45M in
2014. Since the cost is so high, the Committee members asked if this phase of the project would be
eligible for partial grant funding, instead of 100% TBD funding (as currently identified in the draft
TIP). Staff replied that this is a regional project and the possibility of receiving additional grants was
high. Staff will revise the TIP to show additional federal/state grant funding for this project.
ACTION: Staff will present the proposed Six-year TIP to the Council on September 21, 2010 and a
public hearing is scheduled after the presentation to receive public comments.
The meeting adjourned at _7:00___ p.m.
Packet Page 600 of 602
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2010
6:00 PM
R:\COUNCIL\FINANCE COMMITTEE\09-14-2010\9-14-10 MINUTES.DOCX
Present: Councilmember Bernheim
Councilmember Plunkett
Councilmember Buckshnis
Councilmember Wilson
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
Staff: Al Compaan, Chief of Police
Lorenzo Hines Jr., Director, Finance and Information Services
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Carl Nelson, Chief Information Officer
Public: Ron Wambolt
Don Hall
Darrol Haug
Bruce Wittenberg
Roger Hertrich
Councilmember Plunkett called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
A. Edmonds Chamber of Commerce request for funding
Committee members briefly discussed the request. The committee proposed to invite the
Chamber of Commerce to make a presentation to the committee regarding the funding
request.
B. Non-Represented Compensation Policy (NRC)
Councilman Plunkett clarified that the existing NRC recommendation for next year will
be taken up as a salary ordinance in association with the budget. Tonight’s NRC topic is
in relationship to the future of ongoing NRC policies. The Committee asked Debi
Humann questions to better understand the current policy. The Committee recommended
that full council, with the help of a consultant, review the NRC.
C. Discussion and review of debt service in Funds 125 and 126
Councilman Plunkett asked for information regarding the history and funding
methodology for project debt service supported by fund 126. Mr. Hines referred the
committee to the Director of Parks, who could give them the history behind the projects,
and to the City attorney who could give them the legal requirements of both funds. Mr.
Hines also referred the committee to the REET overview that Mr. Hines provided at the
Council retreat earlier this year. The committee will keep the issue pending further
discussion.
Packet Page 601 of 602
Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2
D. Discussion of Mayor discretionary pay increases for vacant position
Debi Humann discussed the history and the supporting ordinance, which gives the Mayor
this discretion. The committee will keep the issue pending further discussion.
E. Discussion on unexpended wages and benefits
The committee members discussed alternatives for the deposition of unexpended wages
and benefits. The committee forwarded the issue to the full Council for discussion.
F. Interlocal Agreement with SERS for low cost dark fiber
Carl Nelson gave an overview of this issue, explaining the background, history, and the
positive impacts of this agreement. The committee forwarded the issue to the full Council
consent agenda.
G. Public Comments (3-minute limit per person)
Comments were made by the following members of the public in addition to committee
members:
Don Hall
Ron Wambolt
Roger Hertrich
Comments and questions were provided: 1) complimenting the quick length of the
Finance Committee meeting; 2) tardiness of city financial statements; 3) an accounting
issue pertaining to $2 million in the General Fund, raised by Councilman Plunkett at the
September 7, 2010 Council meeting; 4) Mr. Hines’ responses in Topic C, above; and, 5)
using consulting services to revise the NRC.
Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 PM.
Packet Page 602 of 602