SM0826 HE Decision.pdfnc'.1S9",
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of }
}
City of Edmonds }
Parks and Recreation Department }
}
For a Shoreline Substantial Development }
Permit. }
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
NO. SM -2008-26 (162nd Street Park)
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for a shoreline substantial development permit to develop a neighborhood park at
16113 75th Place West is GRANTED, subject to conditions.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request:
The City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Department (Applicant) requested a shoreline
substantial development permit (SSDP) to develop a neighborhood park at the northwest corner
of 75th Place West and 162nd Street SW. The street address of the subject property is 16113 75th
Place West, Edmonds, Washington.
Hearing Date:
The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner viewed the site and conducted an open record hearing
on the request on July 3, 2008. The record closed on July 31, 2008.
Testimony:
At the open record hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Gina Coccia, Planner, City of Edmonds
2. Brian McIntosh, Director of Parks and Recreation Department, City of Edmonds
3. Jaime Hawkins, Capital Projects Manager, City of Edmonds
4. Philip Ruggiero
5. Al Ansari
6. Alvin Rutledge
Exhibits:
At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted into the record:
I. Staff Report dated June 24, 2008
2. Zoning and Vicinity Map
3. Aerial Vicinity Map
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
162nd Street Park, No. SM -2008-26 page I of 11
• Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
I ,k i
4. Shoreline Environment Map
5. Shoreline Permit Application received April 4, 2008
6. Project Narrative, with Geotechnical Report dated January 23, 2007 and Capital
Improvement Project Description
7. Construction Document Set received April 14, 2008 (Sheets L-1 through L-16)
8. Comment form from Fire Department dated April 28, 2008 (no comment), comment form
from Public Works Department dated April 21, 2008 (no comment), comment form from
Engineering Department dated. April 18, 2008 (no comment), and comment form from
Parks and Recreation Department dated April 14, 2008
9. Revised Geotechnical Report dated May 30, 2008
10. Notice of Application and Hearing Examiner Hearing, with affidavits of mailing, posting,
and publication
11. Excerpts from Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan dated May 2008,
including Existing Plan Map, Recommended Plan Map, page 4-2, page 4-3, page 5-1,
page 5-2, and pages 6-1 through 6-4
12. Determination of Nonsignificance dated May 7, 2008, with Environmental Checklist and
letter from Snohomish County PUD received May 28, 2008
13. Letter from Chien Dinh Nguyen received May 21, 2008, with list of adjacent properties;
and City response to Mr. Nguyen's letter
14. Letter from Philip Ruggiero dated June 5, 2008
15. Letter from Bob Boston, WUTC, dated June 30, 2008
16. Geotechnical Addendum dated July 14, 2008 (received July 21, 2008)
17. Email from Gina Caccia dated July 22, 2008 (re: review of Geotechnical Addendum)
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the
Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions:
FINDINGS
1. The Applicant requested an SSDP to develop a neighborhood park at the northwest
corner of 75th Place West and 162nd Street SW. The street address of the subject property
is 16113 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington (Tax Account Nos. 00513105900800
and 00513105901000). Exhibit 1, pages 1-2; Exhibits 2, 5, 6, and 7.
2. The subject property is undeveloped City land that is approximately one-half acre in area.
Land uses to the north, south, and east of the subject property are residential.
Immediately adjacent to the west boundary of the subject property is 76th Place West, a
public street. West of and parallel to 76th Place West is the Burlington Northern Railroad
right-of-way, High-speed trains operate on a daily basis along the railway, and according
to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, the number of trains using
the railway will be increasing soon. West of the railroad right-of-way is Puget Sound, and
a pier known as Meadowdale Marina. The dilapidated pier has been closed for several
years; however, there is a private railroad crossing providing access to the pier from 76th
Place West, which is west of the subject property. There is no public railroad crossing in
the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Exhibit 1, pages 2 and 4; Exhibits 2, 3,
and 15; Testimony of Mr. Ruggiero.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
162"d Street Park, No. SM -2008-26 page 2 of 11
3. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property is Single Family Urban I.
The Parks, Recreation and Open Space element of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the
subject property as a recommended park site. The City has planned for this park since it
acquired the subject property in 1991. Exhibit I1; Testimony of Mr. McIntosh.
4. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space element of the Comprehensive Pian contains
objectives that are relevant to the application, including Parks and Open Space. Objective
2 ("Develop a well-connected neighborhood park system that is conveniently located to
most residents in Edmonds") and Shoreline Use and Access Objective 3 ("Provide visual
access to the water where possible by developing viewpoints where topography, BNSF
Railroad, or other features prevent direct access"). The Comprehensive Plan 'identifies a
need for six additional neighborhood parks within the Edmonds planning area, and
recommends that the City improve existing park sites such as the 162"d Street site.
Exhibit 1, page 4; Exhibit 11,
5. The proposed neighborhood park is designed to provide a site from which visitors can
enjoy views of Puget Sound. The Applicant proposes to provide an overlook with
interpretive handrail along 75th Place West. For visitors who wish to enter the park, the
Applicant proposes to provide a relatively level lawn area in the central portion of the
site, which would include a grouping of rock sailboats for sunbathing and playing, a
hillside slide, a rock climbing area, a swing set, and a children's play structure. A loop
trail would be provided to connect the various features of the park, with connections to
75t11 Place West, 76th Place West, and 162"d Street SW. The Applicant proposes up to 1
miles of sidewalk improvements along 75th Place West, including along the park's
frontage, for enhanced pedestrian access. Exhibits 6, 7, and 9.
6. The subject property is overgrown with grasses and blackberry. As part of the
development of the park the Applicant proposes to clear the existing vegetation and
landscape the site. The landscaping would include a central lawn area surrounded by a
variety of shrubs and trees. Exhibit 1, page 3; Exhibit 7.
7. The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -20). Neighborhood parks
are a primary permitted use in the. RS zones. Exhibit 1, page 4.
8. Based on City mapping, the western edge of the subject property might be within 200 feet
of the Puget Sound shoreline.' Exhibit 1, pages 5 and 7; Exhibits 3 and 4; Testimony of
Ms. Coccia. Consequently, the City has determined that the use is subject to the
requirements of the State Shoreline Management Act and the City of Edmonds Shoreline
Master Program. The subject property is within a "Suburban Residential 1" shoreline
designation, which is described as "the upland area adjacent to the east of the eastern
boundary of the "urban railroad" environment which is zoned RS -20." Exhibit 1, page 5;
ECDC 23.10.105. Public parks are allowed in the Suburban Residential 1 shoreline with
approval of a shoreline substantial development permit. ECDC 23.10.120.
1 No precise measurement was provided. The SSDP was requested as a precaution. Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
162'd Street Park, No. SM -2008-26 page 3 of 11
9. The Shoreline Master Program contains regulations for public parks. The primary
requirement is that park structures do not exceed 25 feet in height as measured from
average grade. Based on the plans presented (elevations were not provided for all
proposed structures), it does not appear that any structure would exceed 25 feet in height.
The rock sailboats, for example, would only be nine feet tall. Exhibit 1, page 5; Exhibit 7.
10. The Shoreline Master Program requires all uses "to provide sufficient off-street parking
spaces in order to accommodate the reasonably anticipated number of vehicles that will
be coming to the subject property", and references ECDC 17.50 for specific parking
standards. ECDC 23.10.140. ECDC 17.50 does not have a parking requirement for
neighborhood parks, and the Applicant does not propose any off-street parking spaces.
Exhibit 1, page 6; Exhibit 7. However; the proposed frontage improvements on 75th Place
West would include a parking strip for parallel parking. In addition, there is an existing
gravel parking strip along 76th Place West. The proposed pedestrian improvements are
designed to encourage visitors to walk to the park. Exhibits 6 and 7; Testimony of Mr.
McIntosh.
11. In public comment on the application, one of the objections to the park related to the
potential increase in traffic in the vicinity of the park, and the potential increase in
parking demand. Even without the proposed park improvements, visitors are attracted to
the water views and to the potential (but illegal) beach access provided from 76th Place
Weston the west side of the subject property. Based on the observations of the City and
of neighborhood residents, as many as ten cars can be observed parked in the vicinity at
any one time. The neighbors are concerned that additional vehicle traffic would result in
cars parked in or in front of residential driveways. The City does not anticipate that the
park improvements would generate a significant amount of additional traffic, in that the
primary users would be people coming from the surrounding neighborhood. Exhibits 6,
12, 13, and 14; Testimony of Mr. Ruggiero; Testimony of Mr. Hawkins.
12. A public safety concern was raised in public comment on the application. Currently,
visitors to the site illegally cross the railroad tracks at the private crossing to the west of
the subject property in order to access the beach. The private crossing does not provide
any lights, gates or other devices to warn when a train is coming. Although there is a
small, temporary barricade of concrete scrap between the road right-of-way and the
private crossing to deter vehicles from attempting to cross the tracks, there is no barricade
to prevent pedestrian access to the tracks.2 Neighborhood residents Mr. Ruggiero and Mr.
Ansari have observed visitors not only crossing the tracks, but also walking on and
playing on the tracks. This trespassing occurs on a regular basis, and such activity has
been reported to police on multiple occasions. There have been three train -related deaths
in the immediate vicinity of the subject property due to the trespassing. The City has a
"no beach access" sign installed at the top of 162nd Street SW. The only sign at the actual
crossing is a small BNSF "no trespassing" sign. Mr. Ruggiero requested that the City
2 The Hearing Examiner observed these conditions during a site visit, and such observations were confirmed by
witness testimony and the submitted exhibits. See e.g., Testimony of Mr. McIntosh; Testimony of Mr. Ruggiero;
Exhibit 3 (aerial photograph).
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
162"a Street Parr No. SM -2008-26
page 4 of 11
fence the railroad right-of-way and/or install more prominent signs. Exhibit 14;
Testimony of Mr. Ruggiero; Testimony of Mr. 4 nsari.
13. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) commented on the
pedestrian trespass issue, expressing concern that the park would attract more people to
the illegal beach access and would increase the risk of accident. WUTC recommended
construction of a fence to prevent pedestrian access, with a locking gate for use by the
private individuals needing access to the Meadowdale Marina. Exhibit 15.
14. Although the Applicant acknowledged the trespassing problem, it objected to any fence
or sign requirements. The Applicant emphasized that it could not landlock the
Meadowdale Marina parcel, even though the marina has not been used for years and the
pier is gated to prevent access. The Applicant submitted that it is the railroad's
responsibility to prevent trespassing on its right-of-way. Testimony of Mr. McIntosh.
15. The Shoreline Master Program contains policies and regulations applicable to public
access to the shoreline. The Shoreline Master Program defines "shoreline public access"
as "the physical ability of the general public to reach and touch the water's edge and/or
the ability to have a view of the water and the shoreline from upland locations." ECDC
23.10.045(B)(420). According to this definition, the proposed park would provide
shoreline public access because it would provide the public with a place from which to
view the shoreline. The park would provide amenities to support viewing the shoreline,
such as an interpretative overlook off 75tzi Place West, and benches, tables, and play
structures. Exhibits 6 and 7.
16. The Shoreline Master Program's public access policies encourage .the City to provide for
limited off-street parking or a public transportation connection when using public land to
provide public access to shoreline areas, to develop signage to identify unique scenic
opportunities, to provide public pedestrian access for neighborhood use, to include
provisions for disabled and physically impaired persons, and to provide for public safety.
ECDC 23.10.075. The proposed park would include enhanced pedestrian access to the
site, interpretive signage, and an ADA entry to the interior of the park. The park also
includes the feature of a staircase with landings from the upper to lower portions of the
park to provide visitors with an alternative to the steep gradient (22 percent) of 162"d
Street West. Exhibits d and 7.
17. The public access regulations require shoreline substantial development to provide public
access under certain circumstances. An applicant "need not" (but is not prohibited froze)
providing public access when certain conditions are present, such as unavoidable safety
hazards and significant and undue conflict with adjacent uses. ECDC 23.10.145.
18. The Shoreline Master Program has policies on recreation. Some of these policies are
similar to those relating to public access, and some have already been satisfied by the
City's acquisition of the site for development of a park. One of the policies encourages
the City to develop public information and education programs to help prevent the
violation of private property rights and the abuse of the shoreline. ECDC 23.10.080.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
162"d Street Park, No. SM -2008.26
page 5 of 11
19. The subject property slopes downward from 75th Place West to 76h Place West. The
steepest portion of the slope is along the eastern property boundary. The subject property
is within the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area, as described
in a report entitled "Landslide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds,
Washington." This area experienced large-scale ground movement between 2,000 and
3,000 years ago. Evidence of the slide, which was approximately 3,200 feet long and up
to 650 feet wide, is still visible above 75th Place West. No large-scale earth movements
have occurred in modern times; however, smaller slides have occurred in recent years,
including one in January of 1997. There is an active slide area in the northeast portion of
the subject property, which has been monitored for several years. The toe of the slide is at
the base of the steep portion of the slope. Exhibit 9, pages 3, 4, and 8.
20.. The proposed site improvements would improve the overall stability of the site. The
Applicant proposes to place fill along the toe of the steep slope below 751h Place West.
The fill is expected to improve the stability of the slope (factor of safety) approximately
17 percent. Exhibit 9, page 8.
21. The Shoreline Master Program contains regulations applicable to site containing critical
areas, including geologically hazardous areas. These regulations require uses on sites
containing critical areas to comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws, and
require the site to be designed so that the hazards from or the impact to the critical area
will be mitigated. The applicable local laws include the regulations set forth in the City's
Critical Areas Ordinance, including ECDC 23.40.090 and 23.80.050 (report
requirements) and ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070 (development standards). The
Applicant's geotechnical engineer has prepared a Geotechnical Report (Revised) dated
May 30, 2008 and an addendum dated July 14, 2008 for the project. Planning staff has
determined that the reports demonstrate compliance with the critical areas standards.
Exhibits 9, 16, and 17; Exhibit 1, page 7.
22. With respect to the development standards set forth in ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070,
the Applicant's geotechnical engineer confirmed that the project would not increase
surface water discharge to, or decrease slope stability on, adjacent properties; would not
adversely impact other critical areas; and would stabilize the landslide on the subject
property. These findings allow alteration of a landslide hazard area or landslide hazard
area buffer. The geotechnical engineer submitted that buffers are not applicable to the
project because the work would include construction of retaining walls and fill placement
to increase the stability of the slope. Exhibit 16; ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070.
23. The Shoreline Master Program contains regulations on filling and land surface
modification. Consistent with the fill regulations, the proposed fill would not destroy any
unique or significant natural area of flora or fauna (see Finding No. 6), would not result
in erosion of the shoreline or undermine the stability of neighboring properties, is
designed to create a public recreation area, and is the minimum necessary to create a
public recreation area. The regulation on fill material can be addressed by a condition of
approval. The regulations on land surface modification are largely duplicative of the fill
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
162"d Street Park, No. SM -2008-26
page 6 of 11
regulations. The exposed surfaces would be revegetated with landscaping. Best
Management Practices would be utilized to prevent erosion during construction.
Stormwater improvements are proposed. Exhibit 1, page 6, Exhibits 6, 7, 9, 12, and 16;
ECDC 23.10.205; ECDC 23.10.210.
24. The City of Edmonds departments that reviewed the application, including the Public
Works, Fire, and Engineering Departments, did not have any comments. Exhibit 8.
25. The City of Edmonds acted as lead agency for review of environmental impacts caused
by the proposal. The City issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on May 7,
2008. One comment letter was received during the 14 -day comment period ending on
May 21, 2008. The comment letter expressed concerns regarding park hours, traffic,
drug/alcohol use, noise, security, trash, and safety (with respect to railroad trespassing,
landslide hazard, and behavior of visitors). The DNS was not appealed. Exhibits 12 and
13; Exhibit 1, page 3.
26. The Applicant and planning staff responded to the noise and security issues raised in the
SEPA comment letter and in public comment offered at the hearing. Uses at the proposed
park would not violate the City's noise standards. The small park would not provide a
baseball field, skateboard facilities, or other amenities known to generate noise. Even
skateboard parks have been tested and found to not exceed the City's noise standards.
.With respect to security, the proposed improvements would improve sight lines into the
park, allowing police to more easily observe visitors' activities. Testimony of Mr.
McIntosh; Exhibit 13.
27. Notice of the open record hearing was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the
site, and posted on site, at the Civic Center, and at the library on May 23, 2008, and .
published in The Herald on May 27, 2008 and June 3, 2008. Exhibit 1, page 3; Exhibit
10.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide applications for shoreline substantial
development permits pursuant to ECDC 20.100.010.
Criteria for Review:
The criteria for review of an S.SDP are set forth in Washington Administrative Code (WAC)
173-27-150. In order to approve the permit, the Hearing Examiner must find that the
development is consistent with:
A. The policies and procedures of the State of Washington Shoreline
Management Act;
B. The State of Washington shoreline regulations (WAC 173-27); and
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner.
162' Street Park; No. SM -2008-26
page 7of11
C. The City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program.
The City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program contains goals, policies, and regulations that are
applicable to the proposed development. Pursuant to ECDC 23.10.040, the regulations are
mandatory, whereas the goals and polices "are intended to form the policy for shoreline uses,
developments, and activities, as the basis of the regulations ... and to assist the city in
determining whether to grant, modify and grant, or deny each proposed use, development, or
activity." ECDC 23.10.040. The applicable goals and policies are set forth in ECDC 23.10.060,
23.10.075, 23.10.080. The applicable regulations are set forth in ECDC 23.10.120, 23.10.130,
23.10.140, 23.10.145, 23.10.180, 23.10.205, and 23.10.210. Due to the significant length of the
text, the applicable goals, policies, and regulations will not be reproduced in this document.
However, those with particular relevance are discussed in the above Findings.
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. With conditions of approval, the application satisfies the criteria for approval of a
shoreline substantial development permit.
a. The development would be consistent with the Shoreline Management Act
(SMA). The policy of the SMA, as set forth in RCW 90.58.020, is to "provide for
the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all
reasonable and appropriate uses." This policy "contemplates protecting against
adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and
the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public
rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto." RCW 90.58.020. The
proposed development is a reasonable and appropriate use for the suburban
shoreline. The use would improve public views of the water. Most of the
development would be outside of the 200 -foot shoreline boundary and would
have little potential to affect aquatic life. The project includes features to protect
slope stability on the site, including fill placement, stormwater improvements, and
landscaping. Findings 5, 6, 8, 15, 19, 20, 22, and 23.
b. With conditions, the development would be consistent with WAC 173-27. The
regulations of the Department of Ecology contained in WAC 173-27 address the
procedures and permitting requirements applicable to the various types of
shoreline permits. This development is being reviewed under the criteria for
approval for shoreline substantial development permits set forth in WAC 173-27-
150. Additional regulations applicable to shoreline substantial development are as
follows:
WAC 173-27-140 Review criteria_ for all development.
(1) No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the
state shall be granted by the local government unless upon review the use
or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and
provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the master program.
(2) No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or
structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
162"d Street Parr No. SM -2008-26 page 8 of 11
shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number
of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master
program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding
considerations of the public interest will be served.
WAC 173-27-190 Permits for substantial development, conditional use, or
variance.
(1) Each permit for a substantial development, conditional use or variance,
issued by local government shall contain a provision that construction
pursuant to the permit shall not begin and is not authorized until twenty-
one days from the date of filing as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6) and
WAC 173-27-130, or until all review proceedings initiated within twenty-
one days from the date of such filing have been terminated; except as
provided in RCW 90.58.140 (5)(a) and (b).
The requirement of WAC 173-27-140(1) is addressed through the SSDP review
criteria. WAC 173-27-140(2) is satisfied because the proposed structures would
be less than 35 feet tall. The requirement of WAC 173-27-190 is addressed by
ECDC 20.55.060 (no construction until 30 days after decision). This limitation is
incorporated into the conditions of approval. Finding No. 9.
C. With conditions, the proposal would be consistent with the goals, policies and
regulations of the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. Please refer to
Findings 9, 21, 22, and 23 for a discussion of the project's compliance with the
parks, critical areas, filling, and land surface modification regulations. With
respect to the parking regulations, the Hearing Examiner finds the City's evidence
credible that the use would not generate the need for off-street parking. The
proposed park is extremely small and would not provide fields for organized
sports. Street parking opportunities would be improved as a result of the proposed
frontage improvements. Findings 2, 10, 11, 16, and 26.
With respect to the public safety issue that was raised (railroad trespassing), the
Hearing Examiner is limited to the criteria for approval when conditioning or
denying a development application. The primary criteria in this case are the
policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. The location and
amenities of the proposed park are consistent with the Shoreline Master
Program's policies and regulations relating to public access and recreation.
Further, the park is specifically identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Findings 3,
4, 5, 15, 16, 17, and 18. The issue then is whether any mitigation is needed to
address the adjacent railroad tracks. This is a complicated issue because the City
does not own the railroad right-of-way, is not responsible for the trains, and
cannot prevent the pier owner from accessing the private crossing. However, the
Shoreline Master Program contains policies on public safety (ECDC
23.10.075.13.12: "Public access should be designed to provide for public safety
and to minimize impacts to private property ... ") and public education (ECDC
23.10.180.B.7: "Public information and education programs, and attendant.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
162nd Street Parr No. SM -2008-2 6
page 9 of 11
enforcement procedures, should be developed and implemented to help prevent
the violation of private property rights ...") that support requiring some mitigation
to reduce the risk of trespass. Although the City didn't create the hazard, it is
reasonable to require mitigation for attracting more people to the hazard.
Although a physical barrier would be ideal, this decision includes a condition that
the Applicant install an additional warning sign on the west side of the park or on
the 76t Place West right-of-way in the vicinity of the private crossing. The
Hearing Examiner will leave the specific language to the City's discretion.
Findings 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18.
DECISION
Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for a shoreline substantial
development permit to develop a neighborhood park at 16113 75 1h Place West is GRANTED,
subject to the following conditions:
1. This project is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances and to obtain all
necessary permit approvals.
2. All fill shall be "nondissolving and nondecomposting," and shall not contain organic or
inorganic materials that would be detrimental to water quality.
3. Pursuant to ECDC 20.55.060, "No construction authorized by an approved shoreline
permit may begin until 30 days after the final city decision on the proposal."
4. The Applicant shall provide one sign on the west side of the park or on 76'h Place West in
the vicinity of the private rail crossing that warns visitors not to trespass onto the right-of-
way.
ight-ofway. The specific language shall be at the City's discretion. The City may remove or
modify the sign if the circumstances of the rail crossing change, such as if the use
changes from private to public, or if safety devices or permanent fencesibarricades are
installed.
DECIDED this 11th day of August 2008.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
162" Street Park, No. SM -2008-26
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners
By:
w..
page 10 of 11
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a request for reconsideration or an appeal should
contact the Planning Division of the Development Services Department for further procedural
information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.100.010(G) of the Edmonds Community Development Code. (ECDC) requires the Hearing
Examiner to reconsider his or her decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10)
working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the
attendance register and/or presents testimony, or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of
land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite
specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
APPEALS
Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC contains the appeal procedures for Hearing Examiner decisions. Pursuant to
Section 20.105.040(A), persons entitled to appeal include (1) the Applicant; (2) anyone who has
submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the
hearing; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing. Sections 20.105.020(A) requires
appeals to be in writing, and state (1) the decision being appealed, the name of the project applicant, and
the date of the decision; (2) the name and address of the person (or group) appealing the decision, and his
or her interest in the matter; and (3) the reasons why the person appealing believes the decision to be
wrong. Pursuant to Section 20.105.020(B), the appeal must be filed with the Director of the Development
Services Department within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. The appeal
must be accompanied by any required appeal fee.
TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeal run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed
before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a
decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his or her
decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was
stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day five of the appeal period, an individual
would have nine more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on
the reconsideration request.
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner, request a change
in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
162" d Street Park, No. SM -2008-26 page]] of]]
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 + FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
rn e 189"
In the Matter of the Application of )
City of Edmonds, Parks & Recreation Dept. }
For a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. )
DECLARATION
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
NO. SM -2008-26 {162nd Street Park)
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
I, LeAnna C. Toweill, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
1. That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a
professional services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision
of Hearing Examiner services, and make this declaration in that capacity;
2. That I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States,
a resident of the State of Idaho, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a
witness and make service herein;
3. That on August 11, 2008, I did serve a copy of the decision in case SM -2008-26 upon the
following individuals at the addresses stated and in the manner indicated:
Edmonds City Council
121 - 51h Avenue North — 1st Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
City of Edmonds Planning Division
Attn: Diane Cunningham
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jaime Hawkins, Capital Projects Manager
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Brian McIntosh, Parks Director
City of Edmonds
700 Main Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Chien Dinh Nguyen
10028 Marine View Drive
Mukilteo, WA 98275
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 °
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Philip Ruggiero
P.O. Box 6159
Edmonds, WA 98026
Alvin Rutledge
7101 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
Al Ansari
16008 75th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98026
Bob Boston
WA Utilities and Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 47250
Olympia, WA 98504-7250
Finis Tupper
711 Daley Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Service was made to each party above by:
❑ By facsimile transmission.
❑ By electronic transmission (e-mail).
❑ By mailing to the person named at the address of service via US 1St Class
Mail.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Idaho that the foregoing
is true and correct!
DATED THIS [ day of , 2008 at Boise, Idaho.
LeAnna C. Toweill
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington