2017-05-16 City Council - Full Agenda-18951.
2.
3.
4.
5
7
o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
MAY 16,2017,7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
PRESENTATIONS
1. Public Works Proclamation (5 min.)
2. National Police Week (5 min.)
3. Parks Special Presentation (10 min.)
4. Snohomish Health District Quarterly Report (15 min)
5. Snohomish County Tourism Bureau Presentation (15 minutes)
AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARING
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2017
2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2017
3. Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit.
4. Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Timothy Rowlands ($900.00).
5. Amendments to Diversity Commission code provisions
6. Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with BHC Consultants for the Dayton
Street Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
7. Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Tetra Tech for the Lift Station
#1 Basin and Flow Study
8. Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Complete Streets Grant Agreement with the
Transportation Improvement Board (TIB)
9. Reject all construction bids for the 238th Street Walkway Project (Edmonds Way to SR99)
10. Business License Renewal Late Fee Reversal Policy
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Unit Lot Subdivision Code Amendment (AMD20170003) (30 min.)
8. ACTION ITEM
1. Agreement with Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD) and the Edmonds School
District ESD) related to the issuance of permits and approvals for the new Madrona K-8 School (5
min.)
9. STUDY ITEMS
Edmonds City Council Agenda
May 16, 2017
Page 1
1. Council Committee Meeting Procedures (20 min.)
10. REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEES
1. Council Committee Reports (10 min.)
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(1).
14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
May 16, 2017
Page 2
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Public Works Proclamation (5 min.)
Staff Lead: Mayor Earling
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
Since 1960, the American Public Works Association has sponsored National Public Works Week. Across
North America, our more than 29,000 members in the U.S. and Canada use this week to energize and
educate the public on the importance of public works to their daily lives: planning, building, managing
and operating at the heart of their local communities to improve everyday quality of life.
Staff Recommendation
Narrative
This year National Public Works Week celebrates the vital role public works plays in connecting us all
together. As the cornerstone of civilization, public works provides, maintains, and improves the
structures and services that assure a higher quality of life for our communities. Its streets, roads,
bridges, and public transportation keep us linked together from coast to coast, and its clean water and
sanitation services keep us healthy and allow our communities to grow and prosper.
Attachments:
PW_2017
Packet Pg. 3
ljrjjrf amuf 1101H
OAbr
City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor
Reconizing the Substantial Contributions
Made by Public Works
WHEREAS, the many services provided to our community by the Department of Public
Works & Utilities play an integral role in the quality of life of all our citizens; and
WHEREAS, the health, safety, and comfort of all members of our community are vitally
dependent on each of these systems, programs, and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the support and understanding of an informed citizenry is crucial to the
effective operation and design of quality public works systems and engineering
programs for potable water distribution, wastewater sewage collection and
treatment, stormwater drainage, public facilities, vehicle fleets, and street
construction, maintenance, and traffic control; and
WHEREAS, the essential services of the city of Edmonds Department of Public Works & r
Utilities includes the operations, maintenance, repairs, design and construction N
of all of the aforementioned public works systems and facilities; and 3:
a
WHEREAS, the quality and efficacy of these systems, programs and facilities depend
wholly upon the team efforts and technical skills of our public works personnel; E
and U
2
r
WHEREAS, City of Edmonds Department of Public Works & Utilities employees strive to Q
always go the extra length to provide much more than basic, routine service
and readily respond to emergencies that arise at all times of all days; and
WHEREAS, the extraordinary efforts of our diverse public works employees are deserving of
acknowledgement for their many contributions to our citizen's quality of life;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, David O. Earling, Mayor, wish to recognize the outstanding work of the
City of Edmonds Department of Public Works & Utilities personnel who consistently provide high
quality service to our citizens by proclaiming the week of May 21 - 27, 2017 as Public Works Week
in the City of Edmonds.
r
Davt(l O. Earling, Mayor
May 16, 2017
Packet Pg. 4
4.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
National Police Week (5 min.)
Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead}
Department: Police Services
Preparer: James Lawless
Background/History
The City has historically recognized the week in which May 15th falls a National Police Week via Mayoral
Proclamation.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
In 1962, President Kennedy proclaimed May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day and the
calendar week in which May 15 falls, as National Police Week. Established by a joint resolution of
Congress in 1962, National Police Week pays special recognition to those law enforcement officers who
have lost their lives in the line of duty for the safety and protection of others.
In recognition of this, Mayor Earling has designated Police Week in the City of Edmonds during the
Council meeting immediately preceding the designated week. This week also coincides with the
Edmonds Police Department's annual awards ceremony, recognizing the positive contributions made by
department staff and citizens during the preceding year.
This year's proclamation is attached.
Attachments:
NPW_2017
Packet Pg. 5
O
City of Edmonds * Office of the Mayor
National Police Week 2017
To recognize National Police Week 2017 and to honor the service and sacrifice of those law
enforcement officers killed in the line of duty while protecting our communities and safeguarding our
democracy.
WHEREAS, in 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation which designated May 15th
as Peace Officer Memorial day and the week in which that date falls as Police Week;
and
WHEREAS,
in 1994, President William J. Clinton signed Public Law 1030322, a joint resolution of
0
the 103rd Congress directing that the flag of the United States by flown at half-staff
—
on all government buildings on May 15; and
a
WHEREAS,
there are approximately 900,000 law enforcement officers serving in communities
o
across the United States, including 55 sworn members of the Edmonds Police
Department; and
Z
WHEREAS,
there were 51,000+ assaults against law enforcement officers in 2016, resulting in
N
N
approximately 14,500 injuries; and
..
ti
WHEREAS,
since the first recorded death in 1791, 20,000+ law enforcement officers in the
r
N
United States have made the ultimate sacrifice and been killed in the line of duty; and
WHEREAS,
the names of these dedicated public servants are engraved on the walls of the
a
Z
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, D.C.; and
E
WHEREAS,
394 new names of fallen heroes are being added to the National Law Enforcement
Officers Memorial this spring, including 143 officers killed in 2016 and 251 officers
r
killed in previous years; and
Q
WHEREAS,
the service and sacrifice of all officers killed in the line of duty will be honored during
the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund's 29th Annual Candlelight Vigil,
on the evening of May 13, 2017; and
WHEREAS.
May 15 is designated as Peace Officers Memorial Day, in honor of all fallen officers
and their families;
NOW THEREFORE, I, David O. Earling, Mayor, do hereby proclaim May 14-20, 2017, as Police Week
in the City of Edmonds, and publicly salute the service of law enforcement officers in our community
and in communities across the nation.
V
Da;hd O. Farling, Mayor
May 16, 2017
Packet Pg. 6
4.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Parks Special Presentation (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Carrie Hite
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Preparer: Carrie Hite
Background/History
None
Staff Recommendation
Council receive the presentation and join the Mayor in thanking Renee McRae for her service to
Edmonds.
Narrative
At the Washington Recreation and Parks Association Conference in early May, Renee McRae was
recognized with a Distinguished Service Award for her 30 years of service in Parks and Recreation and to
the Edmonds community. This will be presented to Renee at this special presentation.
Packet Pg. 7
4.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Snohomish Health District Quarterly Report (15 min)
Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty
Department: Community Services
Preparer: Patrick Doherty
Background/History
City Council approved an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with the Snohomish Health District to provide a $1
per capita financial contribution ($41,000) to the District in 2017. Pursuant to that ILA, the District is
required to provide a quarterly update report to the City Council on or before May 31, 2017, August 31,
2017, November 30, 2017, and February 28, 2018.
Staff Recommendation
No action required.
Narrative
Pursuant to the ILA, Snohomish Health District Interim Administrator Jeff Ketchel will present the
District's first quarterly report at the 5/16/17 Council meeting.
Packet Pg. 8
4.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Snohomish County Tourism Bureau Presentation (15 minutes)
Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty
Department: Economic Development
Preparer: Patrick Doherty
Background/History
The City of Edmonds provides an annual contribution of $6,400.00 to the Snohomish County Tourism
Bureau to promote tourism to the Edmonds and vicinity. Each year the Tourism Bureau provides annual
update to City Council, highlighting accomplishments over the past year and goals and objectives for the
upcoming year.
Staff Recommendation
No action required.
Narrative
Amy Spain, Executive Director of the Snohomish County Tourism Bureau, will be making this
presentation to City Council.
Packet Pg. 9
6.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2017
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
05-09-2017 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 10
6.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
MAY 95 2017
Elected Officials Present
Mike Nelson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Tom Mesaros, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Mayor Dave Earling
Staff Present
Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources
Director
1. CALL TO ORDER/CONVENE IN JURY MEETING ROOM
At 6:45 p.m., the City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Earling in the
Council Chambers, 250 5ch Avenue North, Edmonds.
2. CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS FOR APPOINTMENT TO A CITY BOARD OR
COMMISSION
The City Council then adjourned to the Jury Meeting Room to interview Tyler Nebeker, a
candidate for appointment to the Edmonds Salary Commission.
ADJOURN
At 6:57 p.m. the interview concluded and the meeting was adjourned.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 9, 2017
Page 1
Packet Pg. 11
6.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2017
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
05-09-2017 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 12
6.2.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
May 9,2017
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Thomas Mesaros, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir
Scott James, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE Q
T
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council o
Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PRESENTATION
1. PROCLAMATION FOR NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION MONTH
Mayor Earling recognized several members of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) in the
audience. He read a proclamation declaring May 2017 as Historic Preservation Month and calling upon
public officials, educators, business owners, property owners, and all people of Edmonds to join in
celebrating the history preserved in unique building and structures and strive to protect and preserve
Edmonds' heritage.
HPC President Tim Raetzloff accepted the proclamation, commenting the HPC is different than the
Historic Society and focuses on preserving and maintaining older buildings in Edmonds by working with
home owners and building owners. The HPC hopes to preserve the City's history rather than have older
buildings demolished. He thank the City for the proclamation and introduced Historic Preservation
Commissioners Steve Waite, Sandy Albery, Emily Scott, and Larry Vogel and the HPC staff liaison,
Planning Manager Rob Chave.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 9, 2017
Page 1
Packet Pg. 13
6.2.a
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Shannon Lair, a 12-year member of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
explained she attended the April 25, 2017 Council meeting in support of the City maintaining its current
apprenticeship utilization language in Public Works contracts. She was saddened when it failed but angry
about some of the reasons. She recalled Councilmember Tibbott, who spoke in favor of the change, stated
few other surrounding cities had apprenticeship programs. The Public Works Director also spoke about
apprenticeship programs. She asserted both were likely using the wrong terminology and consequently
provided misinformation. A majority of surrounding cities do have apprenticeship utilization language in
their Public Works contracts. Apprenticeship utilization and responsible bidder language is what the City
has in its contracts; apprenticeship programs are what labor unions and contractors have. It was also
mentioned that smaller contractors who may have apprentices would have to lay off one or more of their
journeypersons. She asserted if the contractor was following the rules of the contract he was bidding on,
he would already have apprentices in his employment. Apprentices save money as they are cheaper labor
and do the grunt work while learning the craft. Contractors who are not using apprentices are also likely
not using journeymen, but rather have employees who may not earn union wages. Contractors refusing to
use apprentices also often do not hire women and minorities and may use undocumented workers, paying
them less than minimum wage under the table, discrimination at its worst. Responsible bidder and
apprenticeship utilization language helps drive out discrimination. Making a livable wage promotes the
economy and the City. People eat, drink, fuel their vehicles and often buy groceries in areas where they
work. The misinterpreted terminology may or may not have changed the outcome of the vote, but she felt
the need to clarify so when the language is next evaluated, it is done properly.
Larry Vogel, Edmonds, expressed his personal appreciation for the proclamation for Historic N
Preservation Month. He has been honored to serve on the HPC for ten years, three years as chair and the 2
last two as vice chair. It has been a fantastic experience and through his involvement, he has gained a W
deep appreciation for the City's heritage, history, and cultural appurtenances. Edmonds is blessed to have c
a rich, multi -faceted cultural history and he was honored to have a part in helping preserve it and increase
the public's awareness. c
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Mesaros requested Item 6.4, Confirm Salary Commission Appointment, be removed
from the Consent Agenda as the Council was not prepared to act.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 2, 2017
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
3. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM
7. STUDY ITEM
1. UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENT (AMD20170003)
Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed the proposed Unit Lot Subdivision Code Amendment:
• Application for a code amendment
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 9, 2017
Page 2
Packet Pg. 14
6.2.a
o Application from private party
o Amendment would add "unit lot subdivision" as an option in the subdivision code
o Process is Type V
■ Planning Board public hearing and recommendation
■ City Council public hearing and decision (potential ordinance amending ECDC)
Unit Lot Subdivision
o Doesn't change underlying zoning
o Doesn't change applicable design, height or bulk considerations
o External project setbacks are preserved
o Provides for an alternative form of ownership for multifamily projects (as opposed to
condominiums)
o Requires homeowners association and agreements for maintenance of common areas or
facilities, and building exteriors for multi -unit buildings
Mr. Chave displayed an aerial view of an existing, standard multifamily project which has a "parent lot"
for the overall project development. He displayed an aerial view of the same development with unit lot
subdivision where each unit is identified via the subdivision and owned by an individual. If the buildings
are attached, a common maintenance agreement would be required and the overall homeowners
association (HOA) would be responsible for maintaining internal drives, common and open space, etc. He
summarized unit lot subdivision was an alternative to condominiums or someone owning the overall
development and renting units. The recommendation is to include unit lot subdivision in the City's code.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the aerial view of an existing, standard multifamily project.
Mr. Chave explained if unit lot subdivision was used, each lot would contain a dwelling unit. ti
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the benefit of unit lot subdivision versus condominium. Mr.
Chave responded the genesis was issues that occurred with condominiums a number of years ago such as
difficulty obtaining insurance. For example, problems with Dryvit and other products on building
exteriors that failed and subsequent issues with responsibility, etc. Builders and developers found E
insurance got in way of dividing up ownership which created problems for the multifamily market. Unit
a�
lot subdivision preserves the option for individual ownership which people want, but removes a
development from the condominium process. The Planning Board's recommendation requires common
maintenance agreements as protections. One of the benefits of unit lot subdivision is an owner is not a
common owner of the entire development. For example in a fourplex, the ownership is focused on those
four units. Unit lot subdivision potentially makes it easier to divide up ownership in a logical manner c
while still providing for maintenance and ownership of the common areas. 0
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the downside to unit lot subdivision. Mr. Chave answered
he did not see a downside; it is an alternative form of ownership which is a good thing as long as
protections are in place such as an HOA and maintenance agreements.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why this did not go through the new committee structure. Mr. Chave
answered when there is a recommendation from the Planning Board, the recommendation is to the entire
Council. If the recommendation is forwarded to a committee, there is only review by 2-3
Councilmembers. The Council could forward unit lot subdivision to a committee but recommendations to
full Council have always come to the Council first.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why this would apply citywide when it was only for Westgate. Mr.
Chave answered unit lot subdivision is not specific to Westgate, it would apply to multifamily
development citywide. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the applicant's name is Westgate Woods but
it is not specific to Westgate. Mr. Chave agreed.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 9, 2017
Page 3
Packet Pg. 15
6.2.a
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how problems with common areas such as the roof or decks would be
addressed if there was no condominium budget, meetings, etc. Mr. Chave said HOA and maintenance
documents would identify responsibility and authorize the ownership group to assess individual owners to
provide ongoing maintenance. Councilmember Buckshnis observed there would still be annual meetings,
budgets, etc. like a condominium. Mr. Chave agreed it would be similar. Councilmember Buckshnis
referred to the four-plex example and asked what happens if there are three great owners and one who is
not. Mr. Chave answered they are all responsible which is the reason for the agreements. Councilmember
Buckshnis asked if that was strictly spelled out in the code. Mr. Chave assured it was.
Council President Mesaros asked if developments have to apply to use unit lot subdivision. Mr. Chave
answered yes, just like any subdivision; a short subdivision for four units or less or the full subdivision
process for more than four units.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the statement that external project setbacks are preserved which he
assumed meant the outer perimeter of the parent lot. Mr. Chave answered yes. Councilmember Teitzel
observed within the parent lot there could be zero lot line setbacks. Mr. Chave agreed, explaining that was
unclear in the code unless unit lot subdivision was allowed.
Councilmember Teitzel recalled a statement in the packet that unit lot subdivision could help create more o
affordable housing and keep the cost of units down. Mr. Chave said that was in the applicant's materials. >
Individual single family lots tend to be larger while multifamily tends to be smaller ownership; to the
degree less land is owned, the land cost is reduced, potentially providing more affordable housing than a
0.
a
standard single family development. It will depend development to development.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the example Mr. Chave provided, explaining Dryvit was a stucco
T
v
material developed in the dry climate in the southwest but failed in the northwest and had to be replaced.
Most condominiums were wrapped during the replacement and it took a long time to fix the problem.
W
Under unit lot subdivision, if a multifamily project used Dryvit, she asked if there would there need to be
16 individual insurance claims, lawsuits, etc. She recognized unit lot subdivision would be an advantage
for the builder but questioned the advantage for the owner. Mr. Chave answered the overall advantage for
the owner was individual lot ownership. He would think as a group, the owners could get together to seek
m
a remedy if a common product/installation were used. Worst case, the groups of owners in each duplex,
fourplex, etc. could seek to recover damages. Unit lot subdivision distributes the ownership as well as the
responsibility.
c
V
Councilmember Johnson remarked it also distributes the risk, commenting most people who bought
condominiums that used Dryvit were not aware of the problem. Mr. Chave answered most of those were
o
larger buildings with flats. The unit lot subdivision process would not apply to those buildings; a unit lot
subdivision cannot be used for stacked flats in a large building. Unit lot subdivision can only be used if
N
the ownership goes all the way to the ground. Councilmember Johnson commented Dryvit could be used
c
on any building.
c
Councilmember Johnson observed this was a proposal from an individual and she was interested in the
d
benefit to the homeowners. Mr. Chave commented the HOA provides some protections and collective
z
ownership responsibilities would apply.
a
Councilmember Tibbott commented there are more than six units in the aerial photograph of the
development used in the example. Mr. Chave clarified the code allows up to six units per building; the
aerial photograph illustrates multiple buildings. There is not a limit of six units in the overall
development. Councilmember Tibbott asked if a 24,000-square foot lot in the RS-12 zone could utilize
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 9, 2017
Page 4
Packet Pg. 16
6.2.a
unit lot subdivision. Mr. Chave answered no, a standard subdivision would be required in an RS zone.
Unit lot subdivision only applies to multifamily zones or zones that allow multifamily development.
Councilmember Tibbott observed there appeared to be some open space shown in the example and asked
if that would be a qualification in the parent lot. Mr. Chave answered it depends, it could be established as
a separate tract but if it is under common ownership, the ownership, maintenance, etc. would be addressed
in the subdivision documents. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was any requirement for open space.
Mr. Chave answered only what was required in multifamily zones which includes setbacks and there is
typically some open space within the development in addition to drive aisles, etc. All the areas that serve
the overall development would be classified as common areas and would be owned and maintained by the
overall HOA. That would be considered in the review of the unit lot subdivision
Councilmember Tibbott inquired about percentage of lot coverage. Mr. Chave said that would be the
same as the underlying multifamily zone. Councilmember Tibbott said open space and adequate parking
would be beneficial and did not want that eliminated. Mr. Chave said a standard multifamily development
would look like one big lot, drive aisles, exterior setback, maybe some open space, etc. Unit lot
subdivision does not change that, does not give any bonuses or anything other than the ability to
subdivide the ownership within that multifamily development. He summarized the development standards
for a unit lot subdivision are exactly the same as a standard multifamily development, only the ownership
is different.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to Section 20.75.045.I, "An application for final Unit Lot plat will not be Q
accepted until all foundations, including common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face
of the final plat by the land surveyor of record." Mr. Chave explained this was requested by the applicant ti
after researching codes in other jurisdictions. In this type of subdivision, the lines are very specifically
drawn. If the subdivision was done up front, there is the chance that the party wall between the units
might not exactly align with the subdivided line. Having the foundations including common wall
foundations done first ensures the location of the subdivision line and provides confidence for the
subdivider that what is proposed aligns on the ground. Councilmember Tibbott observed it also provides
protection for the new owner that their property lines are certain.
Councilmember Tibbott commented one of the public comments provided to the Planning Board offered
critiques for unit lot subdivision, addressing some of the potential downfalls. Those were answered via
the proposed code, anticipating some of the potential problems. He commented the Planning Board
process illustrates the City's forward thinking and ability to provide protection for homeowners. He
referred to a picture of a triplex in the packet and described meeting one of the homeowners who was
thrilled with the opportunity to buy house. When asked how she liked having a home that she shared with
the neighbors, the homeowner said it was fantastic and went on to describe features of the home, private
backyard, etc. Councilmember Tibbott summarized unit lot subdivision is an opportunity for
homeownership for the "missing middle." He was in support of the proposal.
Councilmember Nelson asked if unit lot subdivision was condominiums but without the problems. Mr.
Chave answered to some degree; the problems with condominiums are somewhat anecdotal.
Unfortunately in the past there were more problems obtaining condominium insurance due to physical
problems with specific products. Councilmember Nelson asked if new condominiums were being built in
Edmonds. Mr. Chave answered they are still built but this provides another option. Councilmember
Nelson commented condominiums may not be utilized to the fullest due to the problems in the past. Mr.
Chave answered many of those problems are historical. Builders are still occasionally interested in
another option for dividing up ownership. Not everyone wants to be in a condominium association, some
prefer to own their own plot of land. There is also a difference in scale, large buildings will still be
condominiums; this type of ownership makes more sense in an individual building with up to six units.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 9, 2017
Page 5
Packet Pg. 17
6.2.a
Councilmember Nelson referred to the applicability section which states unit lot subdivision is applicable
in the following zones: Multiple Residential, General Commercial, and Westgate Mixed Use, noting that
may have precipitated Councilmember Buckshnis' earlier question about applicability citywide. Mr.
Chave clarified it was not tailored for Westgate. Councilmember Nelson asked how unit lot subdivision
would look in General Commercial. Mr. Chave answered townhouses are allowed in Westgate and unit
lot subdivision would make sense in an area where townhouses are allowed. Unit lot subdivision would
not be allowed in General Commercial where there is commercial on the ground floor and residential
above. Unit lot subdivision would only apply to multifamily areas of Westgate; Westgate includes a
myriad different types of buildings and uses.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the language in the packet about affordable housing. She
asked whether that would depend on the builder's intent or would a percentage be required to be
affordable housing. Mr. Chave answered there was nothing in the proposal regarding affordable housing,
that was a separate issue. Unit lot subdivision is a way to provide smaller scale homeownership without
large lots which add to the cost. Some people like this type of development and for them, it is more
affordable than a traditional single family home on a larger lot. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas wanted
to ensure it was clear that affordable housing would not be required; it was only affordable if whoever
built it wanted it to be affordable.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she owns a townhouse like this in Charlotte. As part of a six-plex,
it was affordable and made sense for her family. There is a HOA and the same rigmarole with pest a
inspectors, etc. like in a condominium. Mr. Chave commented in a development like depicted in the
example, he anticipated there would be a HOA for the entire development rather than for each building. ti
0
N
8. ADJOURN TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS ,,,
Mayor Earling explained the Council has decided to hold committee meetings on the second and fourth
Tuesdays. There are three committees: Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee meets in the Jury
Meeting Room, the Finance Committee meets in Council Chambers and the Public Safety & Personnel
Committee meets in the Police Training Room.
The Council adjourned to committee meetings at 7:42 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 9, 2017
Page 6
Packet Pg. 18
6.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit.
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #225423 through #225555 dated May 11, 2017 for $672,212.58.
Approval of payroll direct deposit dated May 8, 2017 for $1,087.55.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit.
Fiscal Impact
Claims $672,212.58
Payroll - Employee direct deposit $1,087.55
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non -approval of expenditures.
Attachments:
claim cks 05-11-17
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 05-11-17
payroll summary 05-08-17
Packet Pg. 19
6.3.a
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page: 1
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
o
a
m
Amoun
225423 5/11/2017 073947 A WORKSAFE SERVICE INC
241818
PRE -EMPLOYMENT D&A TESTING
L
1 PRE -EMPLOYMENT D&A TEST FC
001.000.64.576.80.49.00
55.0( 0-
Total
55.0(
a
225424 5/11/2017 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
15-48410
AMHARIC INTERPRETER COURT 0•
AMHARIC INTERPRETER COURT 0•
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
173.0' �
15-48747
MANDINKA INTERPRETER COURT
m
MANDINKA INTERPRETER COURT
U
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
177.Z E
15-49152
KOREAN INTERPRETER COURT 04
0
KOREAN INTERPRETER COURT 04
-
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
184.2z
15-49679
ARABIC INTERPRETER COURT 04/1
>
ARABIC INTERPRETER COURT 04/1
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
164.4E a
15-50068
ARABIC INTERPRETER COURT 04/:
Q
ARABIC INTERPRETER COURT 04/;
ao
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
164.4E to
Total:
863.41 N
225425 5/11/2017 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
384282
PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST COW
r
PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONI
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
137.2E o
384332
MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI
rn
MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
87.8,
385891
WWTP: 5/9/17 PEST CONTROL SEF
U
5/9/17 PEST CONTROL SERVICE
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
73.0(
10.3% Sales Tax
E
t
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
7.5,
Total : 305.6' Q
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 20
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
225426 5/11/2017 072189 ACCESS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 2014155
225427 5/11/2017 076032 ALVAREZ, EVA
225428 5/11/2017 070976 AMERESCO INC
5/1 REFUND
7
225429 5/11/2017 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 204623-1742
225430 5/11/2017 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
225431 5/11/2017 073573 ANIXTER
1701062
23K-150068
23K-150923
6.3.a
Page: 2
PO # Description/Account
0
Amoun m
STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 05/01/�
STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 05/01/2
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
90.0(
Total:
90.0( o
L
5/1 REFUND
f°
a
5/1 REFUND
001.000.239.200
500.0(
Total :
500.0( Y
U
WWTP: 3/1-3/31/17 PROJ C431 PH
m
Construction Services
E
423.100.76.594.39.65.10
242,053.5E
Retainage
423.100.223.400
-11,022.4E 0
WWTP: 3/1-3/31/17 PROF SERV-C4
76
3/1-3/31/17 PROF SERV-C431 PH 5
0
423.100.76.594.39.41.10
61,669.3E 0-
Total :
292,700.4, Q
APA DUES MICHELE SZAFRAN
c00o
APA dues- Michele Szafran
N
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
338.0( r-
Total :
338.0( `-
r
WWTP: NPDES TESTING
�n
NPDES testing
N
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
180.0(
Total:
180.0( E
PM: PARK PAD LOCKS
U
PM: PARK PAD LOCKS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
188.3(
10.3% Sales Tax
t
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
19.3E
PM: LATCH PROTECTORS FOR FA( Q
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 21
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 3
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
0
Amoun
225431
5/11/2017
073573 ANIXTER
(Continued)
PM: LATCH PROTECTORS FOR FA(
L
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
124.5(
10.3% Sales Tax
o
L
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
12.8:
Total:
345.0i 0-
225432
5/11/2017
069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
1990139379
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
c�a
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
Y
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
33.3 1 y
10.3% Sales Tax
U
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
3.4z E
1990150065
WWTP: 5/3/17 UNIFORMS, TOWEL;
0
wwtp uniforms
,-
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
5.6, 0
wwtp mats & towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
115.9£ o
10.3% Sales Tax
a
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
0.5£ Q
10.3% Sales Tax
00
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
co
11.91,
1990150066
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
N
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
r-
r
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
52.2-1 r
1990150067
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
,n
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
33.3
10.3% Sales Tax
E
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
3.4�
Total:
260.0,
225433
5/11/2017
064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC
S 088267
ALERTON SYSTEM - PW - PM CON'
r
a0i
Alerton System - PW - PM Contract
E
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
t
2,866.5(
10.3% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
295.2E
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 22
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 4
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
Description/Account
0
Amoun
225433 5/11/2017 064807 064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC (Continued)
Total:
3,161.7E
a�
L
225434 5/11/2017 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 93855
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
�a
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
o
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
91.5'
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
a
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
91.5'
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
c�a
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
94.2 1 Y
UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage
y
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
327.1 z U
UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage
E
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
327.1 z .2
10.1 % Sales Tax
,-
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
9 2z 0
10.1 % Sales Tax
>
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
9 2z
10.1 % Sales Tax
a
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
9.5< Q
93962
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
00
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
N
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
126.6E
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
r-
r
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
126.6E r
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
,n
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
130.4E N
UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
452.4E E
UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
452.4E
10.1 % Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
12.7E
10.1 % Sales Tax
t
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
12.7E
10.1 % Sales Tax
Q
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 23
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 5
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
0
Amoun
225434 5/11/2017 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued)
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
13.1 £
94039
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
o
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
L
89.9� >+
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
a
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
89.9�
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
f°
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
92.7< Y
UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
320.4� u
UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage
E
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
320.4£ 2
10.1 % Sales Tax
4-
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
9.0� c
10.1 % Sales Tax
>
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
0
9.0� "
CL
10.1 % Sales Tax
Q
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
9.3E ..
94106
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
00
to
UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing
N
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
23.0E ...
UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing
r
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
23.0E TL
UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
23.7, N
UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
101.6E E
UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage
.@
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
101.6E U
10.1 % Sales Tax
c
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
2.3< E
10.1 % Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
2.3< a°
10.1 % Sales Tax
Q
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 24
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 6
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
225434
5/11/2017
070305
AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
(Continued)
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
2.3�
Total:
3,508.4E
225435
5/11/2017
069076
BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC
COE417
PRE -EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND
3x WA STATE CHECKS
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
30.0(
Total:
30.0(
225436
5/11/2017
066891
BEACON PUBLISHING INC
26501
AD EDMONDS BEACON
AD EDMONDS BEACON
130.000.64.536.20.41.40
176.0(
Total:
176.0(
225437
5/11/2017
075147
BOMAR TACTICAL TRAINING GROUP
124
INV#124 - EDMONDS PD (SWAT)
SPECIALTY FRAME (SWAT)
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
1,600.0(
Freight
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
400.0(
Total:
2,000.0(
225438
5/11/2017
075342
BORUCHOWITZ, ROBERT
APRIL 2017
JAN - APR 2017 PUBLIC DEFENSE
JANUARY 2017 COSTS
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
270.8<
FEBRUARY 2017 COSTS
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
908.3:
MARCH 2O17 COSTS
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
141.E ,
APRIL 2017 COSTS
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
2,225.0(
Total:
3,545.8:
225439
5/11/2017
067391
BRAT WEAR
21625
INV#21625 - EDMONDS PD - JONE:
JUMPSUIT W/ ITEMS - JONES
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
515.0(
JUMPSUIT W/ITEMS - SHOEMAKE
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 25
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 7
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
0
Amoun
225439
5/11/2017
067391 BRAT WEAR
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.70.24.00
515.0( T
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
53.0E o
10.3% Sales Tax
L
>+
001.000.41.521.70.24.00
c�
53.0z 0-
Total:
1,136.0$
225440
5/11/2017
075874 BULGER SAFE & LOCK
WO-072220
FAC MAINT - REMAINING FEES AF1
N
Fac Maint - Remaining fees after Maii
y
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
485.7( U
Total:
485.7( E
225441
5/11/2017
074442 CAPITAL ONE
8941
PW - FIRST AID CLASS MEETING S
U
PW - First Aid Class Meeting Supplies
o
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
76.5< 76
Total:
76.5:o
Q.
225442
5/11/2017
069722 CARR, RALPH E
05042017
JURY SERVICE 05/04/2017 7Z3897E
Q
JURY SERVICE 05/04/2017 7Z3897E
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
Go
10.0( w
MILEAGE FOR JURY SERVICE
N
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
6.6< r-
Total :
16.6. r
r
225443
5/11/2017
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
RN04171014
SPRAY PARK CARBON DIOXIDE &
SPRAY PARK: CARBON DIOXIDE
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
13.2:
GYMNASTICS: HELIUM
E
001.000.64.571.28.45.00
13.2z 2
RN04171015
WWTP: 4/30/17 CYLINDER RENTAL
U
4/30/17 nitrogen, oxygen, carbon
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
67.0( E
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
6.9( 1°
Total:
100.3, Q
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 26
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
225444 5/11/2017 065519 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
LPDAMT0001
225445 5/11/2017 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 3211
225446 5/11/2017 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO
56304
225447 5/11/2017 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC MAY-17
225448 5/11/2017 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING APRIL 2017
225449
5/11/2017
076024 DABBS, BRYAN
05042017
225450
5/11/2017
006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
3324830
PO # Description/Account
INV LPDAMT0001 - WSP TRACK FE
WSP TRACK FEE - FALK, ROTH, ST
001.000.41.521.10.49.00
Total
AHA DUES 7/17-6/18
AHA DUES 7/17-6/18
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
Total
CITY CODE SUPPLEMENT UPDATE
EDMONDS CITY CODE SUPPLEMEI
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
EDMONDS CDC SIPPLEMENT UPDj
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
Total
C/A CITYOFED00001
May-17 Fiber Optics Internet Connect
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
Total
DRY CLEANING MAR/APRIL - EDMC
CLEANING/LAUNDRY MAR/APR 20'
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
Total
JURY SERVICE 05/04/2017 7Z3897E
JURY SERVICE 05/04/2017 7Z3897E
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
MILEAGE FOR JURY SERVICE
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
Total
BUSINESS RECRUITMENT ADS FOI
6.3.a
Page: 8
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 27
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
225450 5/11/2017 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE (Continued)
225451 5/11/2017 074444 DATAQUEST LLC 2188
225452 5/11/2017 076033 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 05042017
225453 5/11/2017 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 17-2667.1
225454 5/11/2017 007253 DUNN LUMBER
PO # Description/Account
Business recruitment advertising Apri
001.000.61.558.70.41.40
Total
INV 2188 EDMONDS PD - APRIL 20'
TWO PRE -HIRE CREDIT CHECKS -
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
Total
WITNESS FEE JURY TRIAL 7Z3897t
WITNESS FEE JURY TRIAL 7Z3897!
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
Total
E6FB.TO 17-03.SERVICES THRU 4/;
E6FB.TO 17-03.Services thru 4/23/17
422.200.72.594.31.41.00
Total
4627864 PM: PORTLAND CEMENT
PM: PORTLAND CEMENT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4680339 PM: PRESSURE TREATED HEM/FIR
PM: PRESSURE TREATED HEM/FIR
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4682988 PM: CONCRETE MIX
PM: CONCRETE MIX
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total:
6.3.a
Page: 9
0
Amoun m
a�
L
675.0( 13
675.0( o
L
a
c
40.0( cu
40.0( Y
U
m
t
U
E
83.4E
83.4E
0
0
L
1,454.4E m
1,454.4E Q
0
to
0
N
86.8(
r
8.6E
0
101.91
E
10.1E 0
U
r
c
m
29.8E E
t
2.9� +°
240.4E Q
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 28
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
225455 5/11/2017 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
225456
225457
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
1-72332 CEMETERY: BATTERY
CEMETERY: BATTERY
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
5/11/2017 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 002145
002152
002159
002165
002170
5/11/2017 062190 EDMONDS POLICE DEPT APR 17 DET BUY FUND
Total
YOST POOL PROJ: KNIFE BLADE,
YOST POOL PROJ: KNIFE BLADE,
125.000.64.594.75.65.00
YOST POOL PROJ: PRO CYLINDER
YOST POOL PROJ: PRO CYLINDER
125.000.64.594.75.65.00
PM: YOST WRENCH
PM: YOST WRENCH
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM: CAULK
PM: CAULK
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM: SPRINKLERS
PM: SPRINKLERS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
APRIL 2017 DETECTIVE BUY FUND
BEEHIVE ESPRESSO - CASE 17-57
001.000.41.521.21.49.00
METH BUY - CASE 17-5940
001.000.41.521.21.49.00
BIKINI BARISTA- CASE 17-5768
6.3.a
Page: 10
0
Amoun m
U
a�
L
106.6E
0
L
10.9E
cu
117.6E 0-
c
38.3, y
t
U
E
60.0E .2
U
4-
0
23.9�
0
L
2.4 1 a
El
Go
5.9� o
N
0.6, r
104.90
10.8' U
247.2!
c
m
4.0( E
�a
60.0( Q
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 29
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
225457 5/11/2017 062190 EDMONDS POLICE DEPT
225458 5/11/2017 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER
225459 5/11/2017 047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT
225460 5/11/2017 067945 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.21.49.00
PARKING AT KING COUNTY
001.000.41.521.21.43.00
Tota I :
2017-05-01
05/17 RECREATION SERVICES COP
05/17 Recreation Services Contract F
001.000.39.569.10.41.00
Total:
312 000 093
ES REF # 94513310 7
Q1-17 Unemployment Claims
001.000.39.517.78.23.00
Q1-17 Unemployment Claims
422.000.72.531.90.23.10
17-022012-RDU-05
225461 5/11/2017 075505 ENGINEERED PROCESS CONTROLS 9225
225462 5/11/2017 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH755069
EDH755202
Total:
INV#17-022012-RDU-05 - EDMOND;
REPORT BOWER-DEMAIO #
001.000.41.521.11.41.00
Total
WWTP: GAUGE PRESSURE TRANS
GAUGE PRESSURE TRANSMITTER
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total
LEGAL NOTICE AMD201560004
Legal Notice AMD20150004
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
CITY NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING T1
6.3.a
Page: 11
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 30
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
225462
5/11/2017
009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
(Continued)
CITY NOTICE - TOWNHOUSE SUBS
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
EDH755210
CITY ORDINANCE 4067
CITY ORDINANCE 4067
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
EDH755582
LEGAL ADS PLN20170017
LEGAL ADS PLN20170017
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
Total:
225463
5/11/2017
076025 EVERETT, FLOYD
05042017
JURY SERVICE 05/04/2017 7Z3897E
JURY SERVICE 05/04/2017 7Z3897E
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
MILEAGE FOR JURY SERVICE
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
Total:
225464
5/11/2017
063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C
33837
FS 17 - INSTALL GAS FURNACE
FS 17 - Install Gas Furnace
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Total:
225465 5/11/2017 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU44117 WWTP: PLT FILTERS
Filters
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
WAMOU44218 PM: TIEDWN
PM: TIEDWN
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
6.3.a
Page: 12
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 31
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 13
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
0
Amoun m
225465
5/11/2017 066378 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
(Continued)
Total:
171.3,
a�
L
225466
5/11/2017 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
5168276
YOST POOL PLUMBING SUPPLIES
YOST POOL PLUMBING SUPPLIES
o
125.000.64.594.75.65.00
164.1: ">%
Total:
164.1'a
225467
5/11/2017 011900 FRONTIER
206-188-0247
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY
�
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY
�
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
263.4, u
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY
t
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
U
263.4' E
425-745-5055
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHOI`
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHOI`
001.000.64.571.29.42.00
124.7� o
FAC MAINT IP LINE (10 + TAX)
76
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
11.0< 0
425-774-1031
LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCI
Q-
LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRAI
a
Q
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
47.4E Go
425-776-1281
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH(
0
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH(
v
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
54.7, r�
425-776-2742
LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCI
r
r
LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACC
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
26.4( o
425-776-5316
425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII
N
425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
101.11 .E
Total:
892.35 f°
225468
5/11/2017 072515 GOOGLE INC
3364282909
BILLING ID# 5030-2931-5908
Google Apps - Apr-2017 Final invoice
m
E
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
1.0(
Total:
1.0(
a
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 32
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 14
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
225469
5/11/2017
074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS
731980
OLD PW - SECURITY
Old PW - Security
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
55.0(
Total:
55.0(
225470
5/11/2017
012560 HACH COMPANY
10425468
WWTP: ROSOLIC ACID & DRIERITE
ROSOLIC ACID & DRIERITE DESSI(
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
355.1(
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
41.6 1
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
40.8(
Total:
437.6:
225471
5/11/2017
076026 HAGI, AHMED
05042017
JURY SERVICE 05/04/2017 7Z3897E
JURY SERVICE 05/04/2017 7Z3897E
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
10.0(
MILEAGE FOR JURY SERVICE
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
4.2(
Total:
14.21
225472
5/11/2017
074428 HAMILTON PRINTING SYSTEMS
1132
EXPO TSHIRTS
EXPO TSHIRTS
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
975.0(
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
100.4<
Total:
1,075.4;
225473
5/11/2017
076027 HAMSTRA, JOHN
05042017
JURY SERVICE 05/04/2017 7Z3897E
JURY SERVICE 05/04/2017 7Z3897E
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
10.0(
MILEAGE FOR JURY SERVICE
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
2.6(
Total:
12.61
225474
5/11/2017
010900 HD FOWLER CO INC
C401720
WATER RETURNS WITH RESHELF
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 33
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
225474 5/11/2017 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC (Continued)
Water Returns with reshelf fees
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
14437117
WATER - TAPPING MACHINE REPAI
Water - Tapping Machine Repairs
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
14459659
WATER - PARTS FOR 8117 206TH A
Water - Parts for 8117 206th Air Vac
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Water Inventory #548 W-SETTERBY
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
Water - Meter Boxes, Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
14491602
WATER - PARTS
Water - Parts
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Total:
225475 5/11/2017 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 7064877
WWTP: SAW
Saw
423.000.76.535.80.35.00
10.0% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.35.00
8085540
WWTP:SOAP, DUCT TAPE,SCOTCF
SOAP, DUCT TAPE,SCOTCHBLUE,�
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
6.3.a
Page: 15
0
Amoun m
U
a�
L
-752.4( 13
0
L
c�
615.8z 0-
c
60.3E f°
U
m
t
456.7, u
E
2,646.4' T
1,023.8( 0
145.0E Q.
a
259.3E Q
00
to
0
N
199.2(
r
20.5,
4,674.8, o
3.7(
m
E
t
146.2,
a
15.0(
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 34
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher
225475
225476
225477
225478
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Date Vendor Invoice
5/11/2017 067862 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued)
5/11/2017 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2937234B
2949756
2953037
2953081
2953113
5/11/2017 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10024104
5/11/2017 061844 INTL CONF OF POLICE CHAPLAINS 48971
6.3.a
Page: 16
0
PO # Description/Account Amoun
Total:
201.9E
a�
L
INSTALL OF JOANNE'S DESK
Install of JoAnne's Desk
o
423.000.75.535.80.35.00
164.7( ">%
OFFICE SUPPLIES
f°
a
Office Supplies- Bldg
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
49.8z ca
11X17 HAMMERMILL COPY PAPER
N
Hammermill Copy Paper 11x17 - 2 rei
y
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
49.0z
10.3% Sales Tax
E
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
5.0E
WEEKLY PLANNER FOR CITY CLEF
WEEKLY PLANNER
0
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
16.8, >
10.3% Sales Tax
o
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
1.7< a
AAA BATTERIES CITY CLERKS OFF
Q
AAA BATTERIES
co
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
16.9, o
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
1.7z T
Total :
305.81 r
PM: CABLE TIES, WASH BRUSH, P(
'n
0
PM: CABLE TIES, WASH BRUSH, P(
N
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
59.8(
10.3% Sales Tax
E
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
6.1(
Total :
65.9E
c
INV 48971 EDMONDS PD - GAYDOr
m
E
MEMBERSHIP - KEN GAYDOS
001.000.41.521.10.49.00
125.0(
a
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 35
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
225478 5/11/2017 061844 061844 INTL CONF OF POLICE CHAPLAINS (Continued)
225479 5/11/2017 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 4433
225480 5/11/2017 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY
13115183-00
225481 5/11/2017 075646 K-A GENERAL CONST CONTRACTOR E6MA.Pmt 2
225482 5/11/2017 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 300153707
225483 5/11/2017 067568 KPG INC
225484 5/11/2017 016600 KROESENS INC
4-4117
44003
6.3.a
Page: 17
Description/Account
0
Amoun m
Total:
125.0(
a�
L
FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNEC
10.3% Sales Tax
o
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
51.5(
May-17 Fiber Optics Internet Connect
a
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
500.0( -0
Total:
551.5( m
PLAZA- FILTERS WITH DISCOUNT!
U
Plaza - Filters with discounts
m
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
U
103.7, E
Total
E6MA.PMT 2 THRU 3/31/17
0
E6MA.Pmt 2 thru 3/31/17
6
132.000.64.594.76.65.00
82,378.6, c
E6MA.Ret 2
0.
132.000.223.400
-3,734.3( Q
Total :
78,644.31
00
to
INV#300153707 ACCT#100828 - EDI
N
10 CASES MULTI USE COPY PAPEF
..
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
234.7( r
HANDLING FEE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
55.0(
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
24.1 ,
Total:
313.81, E
E3DD.SERVICES THRU 4/25/17
U
E3DD.Services thru 4/25/17
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
1,369.1 <
Total :
1,369.1:
�a
INV#44003 ACCT#1320 - EDMONDE
Q
HI-GLO COMM BARS 2 STARS
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 36
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 18
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
225484
5/11/2017
016600 KROESENS INC
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
37.0(
HI-GLO COMM BARS 3 STARS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
37.0(
HI-GLO OMM BARS NO STARS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
55.5(
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
13.3z
Total:
142.81
225485
5/11/2017
068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY
4017-182
PM: BLADE
PM: BLADE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
82.3,
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
8.4£
Total:
90.8(
225486
5/11/2017
074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO
017426 00
PM: STAPLES
PM: STAPLES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
33.1 £
10.3% Sales Tax
00 1.000.64.576.80.3 1.00
3.4.
Total
225487 5/11/2017 072320 MACK, LINDA AQ33567 SICK LEAVE BUYBACK REFUND
for time -loss 3/29/17-4/11/17
001.000.41.521.71.11.00
Total
225488 5/11/2017 075769 MAILFINANCE INC N6518368 LEASE#N16073348 UB FOLDING M
Lease#N16073348 UB Folding Mach
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
Lease#N16073348 UB Folding Mach
423.000.75.535.80.48.00
Lease#N16073348 UB Folding Mach
422.000.72.531.90.48.00
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 37
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 19
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
0
Amoun m
225488
5/11/2017
075769 MAILFINANCE INC
(Continued)
Late fee (non Tax) for 1/26/17 invoice
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
10.6<
Late fee (non Tax) for 1/26/17 invoice
p
423.000.75.535.80.48.00
10.6:
Late fee (non Tax) for 1/26/17 invoice
0-
422.000.72.531.90.48.00
10.6.
10.3% Sales Tax
f°
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
19.9z
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.48.00
19.9z U
10.3% Sales Tax
E
422.000.72.531.90.48.00
19.9Z TU
N6518369
E-CERTIFIED 05/29/2017 - 08/28/20'
N16073501 E-CERTIFIED 05/29/201
o
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
M
192.0( c
10.3% Sales Tax
M
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
19.7( Q
Total:
884.2(
00
225489
5/11/2017
075921 MALONE, JAKE
5/2 GYM ATTENDANT
5/2/17 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDA
to
5/2/17 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDA
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
33.0( r
Total:
33.0( r
225490
5/11/2017
019582 MANOR HARDWARE
795846-00
PM: VESTS
o
PM: VESTS
Y
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
159.8( U
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
16.6, Z
Total:
176.4,
m
225491
5/11/2017
020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
26932940
WWTP: BATTERIES
E
BATTERIES
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
0
66.4( "
Q
Freight
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 38
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 20
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
225491
5/11/2017
020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
(Continued)
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
36.5�
26976562
WWTP: GAUGE CASES,LINE REGU
GAUGE CASES,LINE REGULATOR,(
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
195.8E
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
47.6E
Total:
346.45
225492
5/11/2017
075746 MCMURRAY, LAURA
5432 FELDENKRAIS
5432 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION
5432 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
288.0(
Total:
288.0(
225493
5/11/2017
069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD
16904
LARGE FORMAT SCANNING
Large Format Scanning:-
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
57.9'
Total:
57.9'
225494
5/11/2017
020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC
257130
WWTP: 5/5/17 PROPANE
Propane
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
29.6 1
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
3.0(
Total:
32.7;
225495
5/11/2017
075891 MONTROSE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
INV1051339
WWTP: 80% PROGRESS CHGA/26-
80% PROGRESS CHGA/26-4/27/17
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
11,120.0(
Total:
11,120.0(
225496
5/11/2017
068025 NATIONAL PEN CORPORATION
109246474
WOTS PENS
WOTS PENS
117.100.64.573.20.31.00
440.9(
Total:
440.9(
225497
5/11/2017
070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
10085681
NAVIA BENEFITS APR17
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 39
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
225497 5/11/2017 070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
225498
225499
225500
5/11/2017 075770 NEOFUNDS BY NEOPOST
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
12251158
5/11/2017 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S7854252.001
S7854252.002
S7865845.001
5/11/2017 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 102140
6.3.a
Page: 21
0
PO # Description/Account Amoun m
15X PARTICIPANT FEE
L
001.000.22.518.10.49.00
75.0(
GONAVIA COMMUTER MIN FEE
p
L
001.000.22.518.10.49.00
25.0(
Total:
100.0( Q-
7900044080303286 POSTAGE 4/09/:
c�a
POSTAGE ADDED TO MAIL MACHIN
Y
001.000.25.514.30.42.00
2,121.8( aa)
Total:
2,121.W U
E
WWTP: A-B SQUARE MM STD (CRE
A-B SQUARE MM STD --
.2
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
162.0( 0
Freight
76
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
9.2E o
10.3% Sales Tax
a
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
17.6z Q
WWTP: CREDIT FOR DELIVERY FE
co
Freight
c
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
-9.2E
10.3% Sales Tax
r-
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
r
-0.9', r
WWTP: TERMINAL BLOCK
TERMINAL BLOCK
o
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
415.0( Y
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
42.71 •�
Total :
636.41
WWTP: 5/2/17 SODIUM BISULFITE
r
m
5/2/17 Sodium Bisulfite
E
423.000.76.535.80.31.54
622.0:
10.3% Sales Tax
Q
423.000.76.535.80.31.54
64.01
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 40
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
225500 5/11/2017 066391 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC (Continued)
225501 5/11/2017 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 733
225502
225503
000 00 735
Description/Account
PB MINUTES 4/26/17
PB Minutes 4/26/17
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
ADB MINUTES 5/3/17
ADB MINUTES 5/3/17
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
Total
Total:
5/11/2017 065720 OFFICE DEPOT 923653703001 P&R: LAM POUCHES, POLY JACKE'
P&R: LAM POUCHES, POLY JACKE'
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
924363434001 P&R: LAM POUCHES, ENVELOPES;
P&R: LAM POUCHES, ENVELOPES;
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
5/11/2017 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER April, 2017
Total
COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANS
Emergency Medical Services & Traun
001.000.237.120
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
001.000.237.130
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.237.150
State Patrol Death Investigation
001.000.237.330
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.237.180
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.237.200
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
6.3.a
Page: 22
0
Amoun m
686.1: U
a�
L
=a
0
350.0(
c�
a
560.0( c�a
910.0( Y
U
m
t
U
E
82.3z 'Fu
U
8.4( o
0
0
63.6 1 a
Q
6.5(
00
161.0E c
N
r
1,162.8E
0
25,824.9� Y
117.0( E
60.4:
c
m
5,611.3< E
t
353.2:
Q
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 41
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 23
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
0
Amoun m
225503 5/11/2017 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
(Continued)
001.000.237.250
2,326.6,
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.237.260
458.7z o
Accessible Communities Acct
L
>+
001.000.237.290
c�
33.3: 0-
Multi-Model Transportation
001.000.237.300
33.3: f°
Hwy Safety Acct
001.000.237.320
95.8E
Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis
U
001.000.237.170
29.7( E
WSP Hwy Acct
R
U
001.000.237.340
342.91 o
Total:
36,450.41 6
225504 5/11/2017 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT
0000130
PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST S\
0
L
PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST S\
a
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
16.7E Q
0001520
CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW
00
CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW
o
130.000.64.536.50.47.00
N
40.4(
0001530
CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH :
r
CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH :
r
130.000.64.536.50.47.00
22.9( ,n
0002930
SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR104
SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR104
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
18.5(
0021400
FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / MI
FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / MI
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
257.8:
0026390
PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TF
m
PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TF
E
t
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
18.5E
Total:
375.0� Q
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 42
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 24
Bank code :
usbank
0
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun m
225505
5/11/2017
072539 OTAK INC-WASHINGTON
41700142
E6DA.SERVICES THRU 4/7/17
E6DA.Services thru 4/7/17
L
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
14,170.9,
Total:
14,170.9; o
225506
5/11/2017
027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
18-Tl008773
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51
f°
a
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
96.0(
18-Tl008801
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51
Y
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
m
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
96.0( U
18-Tl008835
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51
E
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
96.0( u
2-01005390-01
SPRAY PARK TOPSOIL
0
SPRAY PARK TOPSOIL
0
132.000.64.594.76.65.00
338.3( o
10.3% Sales Tax
a
132.000.64.594.76.65.00
34.8, Q
Total:
661.11 00
co
0
225507
5/11/2017
065051 PARAMETRIX INC
04-21268
WWTP: 1/29-2/25/17 ON CALL PH 3
v
1/29-2/25/17 ON CALL PH 3 TSK 3
r*-
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
r
1,606.2E r
04-21269
WWTP: 1/29-2/25/17 ON CALL PH 5
1/29-2/25/17 ON CALL PH 5 TSK 5
0
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
1,897.5( Y
04-21380
WWTP: 2/26-4/1/17 PROJ C412 PLC
2/26-4/1/17 PROJ C412 PLC/SCADA
E
423.100.76.594.39.41.10
33,710.31
Total:
37,214.1;
c
225508
5/11/2017
075250 PARK, KAILI
5/6 FACE PAINTING
5/6/17 FACE PAINTING AT WATERSI
m
E
5/6/17 FACE PAINTING AT WATERSI
001.000.64.571.23.41.00
45.5(
a
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 43
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 25
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
225508
5/11/2017
075250
075250 PARK, KAILI
(Continued)
Total:
45.5(
225509
5/11/2017
073871
PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC
23226
INV 23226 EDMONDS PD - APRIL 2(
WEB -BASED PEP TEST
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
20.0(
Total:
20.0(
225510
5/11/2017
069633
PET PROS
0014895-IN
INV#0014895-IN CUST#07-EDMONI
NUTRI CHKN/RICE DOG FOOD
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
45.5�
NUTRI LAMB/RICE DOG FOOD
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
47.4�
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
9.6£
Total:
102.7E
225511
5/11/2017
007800
PETTY CASH
050917
FEB 17 THRU APRIL 2017
MILEAGE AND PARKING FOR CONF
512.000.31.518.88.43.00
22.1
REFRESHMENTS STATE OF THE CI
001.000.21.513.10.49.00
8.9 1
PARKING FOR SEMINAR AND MOIS
001.000.62.524.20.49.00
29.9:
PARKING FOR SEMINAR - CHUCK P
001.000.62.524.20.49.00
14.0(
Total:
75.0$
225512
5/11/2017
008350
PETTY CASH
5/8 PARKS PETTY CASH
5/8/17 PARKS PETTY CASH
COLLEY: FRED MEYER, DISCOVEF<
001.000.64.571.23.31.00
9.7z
COLLEY: JOANN, DISCOVERY CAN
001.000.64.571.23.31.00
9.9E
COLLEY: DOLLAR TREE: DISCOVEI
001.000.64.571.23.31.00
8.4�
LEACH: FASHION UNLIMITED, SEW
001.000.64.571.23.41.00
13.1 E
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 44
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
225512 5/11/2017 008350 PETTY CASH (Continued)
225513 5/11/2017 071983 PICKLEBALL STUFF LLC 19187
225514 5/11/2017 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
225515 5/11/2017 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT
PO # Description/Account
COLLEY: CASH & CARRY,EARTH D
001.000.64.571.23.31.00
COLLEY: FRED MEYER, EARTH DA
001.000.64.571.23.31.00
COLLEY: HOBBY LOBBY, DISCOVE
001.000.64.571.23.31.00
STEELE-SMITH: BARTELLS, HAIR T
001.000.64.571.28.31.00
CHAPIN: BARTELLS, WOTS SUPPL
117.100.64.573.20.31.00
Total
BALLS FOR LATE SPRING LEAGUE
BALLS FOR LATE SPRING LEAGUE
001.000.64.571.25.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.25.31.00
Total
L801836 DAYTON ST PLAZA PANEL
DAYTON ST PLAZA PANEL
132.000.64.594.76.65.00
L833585 DAYTON ST PLAZA: ENCLOSURE, f
DAYTON ST PLAZA: ENCLOSURE, f
132.000.64.594.76.65.00
L875986 PM: LIBRARY PLAZA 23W CFL
PM: LIBRARY PLAZA 23W CFL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total:
309770 INV#309770 - EDMONDS PD
TSR X26P XPPM POWER MAG
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
BLADE TECH X26P HOLSTERS-LH
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
6.3.a
Page: 26
0
Amoun m
a�
L
7.5( 'D
0
11.6:
a
3.3(
14.4.
m
t
10.41 u
88.71 .E
U
4-
0
39.6( >
0
L
4.0£ a
43.61 Q
o
to
0
N
31.9E T
r
223.4� o
30.7< •E
286.1 i
r
c
m
E
413.0z
�a
206.0( Q
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 45
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 27
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
225515 5/11/2017 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT (Continued)
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 63.7(
225516 5/11/2017 064088 PROTECTION ONE
31146525
225517 5/11/2017 075989 PUGET SOUND GAS WORKS LLC BLD20170594
225518 5/11/2017 070955 R&R STAR TOWING
225519 5/11/2017 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC
225520 5/11/2017 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197
122227
122857
1704069
3-0197-0800478
Total
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 12
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
Total
PERMIT FEE REFUND, DUPLICATE
PERMIT FEE REFUND, DUPLICATE
001.000.257.620
Total
INV#122227 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 2011 MERCEDES #BDG3377
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
INV#122857 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 2001 VOLVO #BEB5370
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
Total
E3FE & E6FA.SERVICES THRU 4/21
E3FE.Services thru 4/21/17
422.200.72.594.31.41.00
E6FA.Services thru 4/21/17
422.200.72.594.31.41.00
Total
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 46
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
225520
5/11/2017 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
3-0197-0800897
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
3-0197-0801132
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
3-0197-0829729
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
Total:
225521
5/11/2017 076031 ROOD, SABRINA
4/28 REFUND
4/28 REFUND
4/28 REFUND
001.000.239.200
Total:
225522
5/11/2017 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO
627575
INV#627575 CUST#1733 - EDMOND
FOF GREEN MKG CARTRIDGES .Z
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
FOF YELLOW MKG CARTRIDGES 9
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
6.3.a
Page: 28
0
Amoun m
152.7E
=a
0
L
30.3.
a
115.2(
115.2( Y
U
m
t
115.2( u
E
115.2( 2
115.1� 0
0
0
Q.
162.0E Q
Go
to
69.5: N
990.7; "
r
r
74.0(
74.0(
E
573.6(
m
2,338.0( E
�a
299.8� Q
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 47
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
225522 5/11/2017 067802 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO (Continued)
225523 5/11/2017 076028 SANDERS, NANCY 05042017
225524 5/11/2017 076029 SCHOLL, MARCUS
225525 5/11/2017 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC
225526 5/11/2017 070495 SEPULVEDA, PABLO
225527 5/11/2017 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
225528 5/11/2017 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY
05042017
40440
40515
19558
Description/Account
Total:
JURY SERVICE 05/04/2017 7Z3897E
JURY SERVICE 05/04/2017 7Z3897E
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
MILEAGE FOR JURY SERVICE
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
Total
JURY SERVICE 05/04/2017 7Z3897E
JURY SERVICE 05/04/2017 7Z3897E
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
MILEAGE FOR JURY SERVICE
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
Total
WWTP SHAREPOINT MIGRATION F
WWTP Sharepoint migration remote
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
ONSITE COMPUTER SUPPORT
Onsite computer support 4/28/17
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
Total
SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT OE
SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT OE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
Total
1215-5 CITY HALL - PAINT
City Hall - Paint
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
5498 SKYHAWKS
Total
5498 SKYHAWKS GRASSHOPPER
6.3.a
Page: 29
0
Amoun m
3,211.4$
a�
L
=a
0
10.0(
c�
a
7.3E
17.3E c�a
U
m
t
U
10.0( E
M
0.4:
10A. 0
0
L
Q.
1,755.0( Q
Go
to
581.2E N
2,336.2. 1,
r
Lh
104.9: N
104.91
E
U
33.9E
m
3.5( t
37.4E
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 48
a
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
225528 5/11/2017 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY (Continued)
225529 5/11/2017 075590 SMARSH
5498 SKYHAWKS GRASSHOPPER
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
5500 SKYHAWKS 5500 SKYHAWKS RABBITS INSTRU
5500 SKYHAWKS RABBITS INSTRU
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
Total
INVO0224818 04-17 NETGUARD MONTHLY SERVI
NetGuard Monthly Service Building
001.000.62.524.20.42.00
NetGuard Monthly Service City Clerk
001.000.25.514.30.42.00
NetGuard Monthly Service Communit
001.000.61.557.20.42.00
NetGuard Monthly Service Court
001.000.23.512.50.42.00
NetGuard Monthly Service Developm,
001.000.62.524.10.42.00
NetGuard Monthly Service Engineerir
001.000.67.518.21.42.00
NetGuard Monthly Service Facilities
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
NetGuard Monthly Service Finance
001.000.31.514.23.42.00
NetGuard Monthly Service Human Re
001.000.22.518.10.42.00
NetGuard Monthly Service Informatioi
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
NetGuard Monthly Service Mayor's 0-
001.000.21.513.10.42.00
NetGuard Monthly Service Parks
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
NetGuard Monthly Service Police
001.000.41.521.22.42.00
6.3.a
Page: 30
0
Amoun m
a�
L
158.0( 'D
0
c�
355.5( 0-
513.5(
U)
U
m
30.0( U
E
6.0( 2
U
4-
6.0( 0
6.0( 0
Q.
a
6.0( Q
o
to
90.0( N
54.0( r
6.0( ,n
0
6.0(
E
30.0( 'W
z
6.0(
am
E
12.0(
�a
234.0( Q
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 49
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
225529 5/11/2017 075590 SMARSH
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
225530 5/11/2017 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 1797
6.3.a
Page: 31
0
PO # Description/Account Amoun m
NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
36.0(
NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water
o
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
3.0(
NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water
0-
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
3.0(
NetGuard Monthly Service PW Sewei
f°
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
30.0(
NetGuard Monthly Service PW Storm
m
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
t
6.0( u
NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street
E
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
18.0(
NetGuard Monthly Service PW Fleet
c
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
6.0( Fu
NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admir
c
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
2.1( Q.
NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admir
°-
Q
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
0.6(
NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admir
coo
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
2.1( N
NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admir
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
0.6( r
NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admir
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
0.6( o
NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street
N
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
6.0(
NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street
E
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
6.0( f°
NetGuard Monthly Service WWTP
r
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
30.0(
Total:
642.0( E
t
APR 2017 PUBLIC DEFENSE COST;
APR 2017 PUBLIC DEFENSE COST;
Q
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 50
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
225530 5/11/2017 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC
(Continued)
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
Total:
225531 5/11/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
2002-7495-9
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2003-2646-0
HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON
HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2004-9315-3
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2006-6395-3
ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M
ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2009-1385-3
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND X
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND X
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
2010-5432-7
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 f
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 f
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2011-0356-1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2011-8789-5
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2015-0127-7
LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F
LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
2015-3292-6
LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S-
LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S-
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
2017-1178-5
STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @
STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @
6.3.a
Page: 32
0
Amoun m
U
23,493.0E
23,493.05
0
c�
a
16.5E
17.7, y
t
E
27.5. 'M
0
236.8: >
0
L
Q
a
22.6 , Q
0
to
0
45.6E
r
r
31.0E
0
25.0E U
U
19.0'
m
E
t
265.6E 0M
Page: 32
Packet Pg. 51
a
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 33
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
0
Amoun m
225531 5/11/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued)
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
722.6(
2019-2991-6
WWTP: 3/31-4/21/17 FLOW METER
3/31-4/21/17 FLOW METER 23219 7,
0
423.000.76.535.80.47.62
L
16.5' >+
2020-7719-4
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
a
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
c
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
499.7E f°
2021-3965-5
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100
m
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
21.2: U
2021-9128-4
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212'
E
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212"
2
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
16.5E 4-
2022-5063-5
9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M
9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M
0
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
17.7z
2022-8909-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME
a
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME
Q
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
57.8( 00
2023-5673-9
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W
o
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W
N
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
22.4E r
2024-9953-9
LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST
r
LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
670.1 z o
2025-2918-6
STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @
STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
3,161.2E 'E
2025-2920-2
STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4
STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
123.8E
2025-7615-3
STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C
STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 15,470.2: Q
2025-7948-8 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2
Page: 33
Packet Pg. 52
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 34
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
0
Amoun m
225531 5/11/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2
L
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
323.9,
2025-7952-0
WWTP: 4/1-4/30/17 ENERGY MGMT
0
4/1-4/30/17 WWTP ENERGY MANA,
L
>+
423.000.76.535.80.47.61
c�
9.4 , 0-
2047-1489-3
STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150'
STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150'
f°
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
4.9E Y
2047-1492-7
STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2
STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2
U
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
110.6( E
2047-1493-5
STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40
�°
STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
0
58.3E _
2047-1494-3
STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10
0
STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10
0
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
14.8z a
2047-1495-0
STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2
Q
STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2
GGo
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
125.5: N
2053-0758-0
DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING
DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING
r
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
143.9� r
2207-9275-8
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME
,n
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
146.9'
Total:
22,446.71 E
225532 5/11/2017 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
2017-3671
INV#2017-3671 SNO CO JAIL - MAR
U
416.83 HOUSING DAYS @ $96.13
r
001.000.39.523.60.51.00
c
40,069.81
46.08 BOOKINGS @ $118.23
E
E
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 5,448.0z
122 MED/SPEC @ $55.25 Q
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 6,740.5(
Page: 34
Packet Pg. 53
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 35
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
0
Amoun m
225532
5/11/2017
063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
(Continued)
15.08 MENTAL HEALTH @ $133.39
L
001.000.39.523.60.51.00
2,011.5,
10.75 VIDEO COURT @ $115.50
0
001.000.39.523.60.51.00
1,241.6,
2017-3692
INV 2017-3692 EDMONDS PD MAR(
0-
INMATE HOSPITALIZATION 12/16
c
001.000.39.523.60.41.00
421.5( f°
INMATE PHARMACEUTICALS 3/17
Y
U
001.000.39.523.60.31.00
133.6:
2017-3692
CREDIT MEMO 2017-3692 MAR 201
U
INMATE PHARCEUTICAL CREDIT - I
E
001.000.39.523.60.31.00
-9.5( 2
Total:
56,057.2( c
225533
5/11/2017
006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY
70408
PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES
0
PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES
0
L
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
633.0( a
CLERKS CONSTRUCTION WASTE
Q
001.000.66.518.30.49.00
173.0( ao
ILLEGAL DUMP -COUCH
to
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
N
5.0( "
Total:
r
811.0(TL
225534
5/11/2017
070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER
April 2017
Crime Victims Court Remittance
Crime Victims Court Remittance
o
001.000.237.140
592.1, Y
Total:
592.1,
225535
5/11/2017
076034 SOLOSKI, CHRISTOPHER
4/27 FIELD ATTENDANT
4/27/17 ADULT SOFTBALL FIELD AT
2
4/27/17 ADULT SOFTBALL FIELD AT
U
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
49.5( m
Total:
49.5( E
t
225536
5/11/2017
038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
103587
PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC
PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC
Q
Page: 35
Packet Pg. 54
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 36
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
225536
5/11/2017
038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
(Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
938.3:
Total:
938.3E
225537
5/11/2017
068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE
46301
FS 20 - BAY DOOR REPAIR
FS 20 - Bay Door Repair
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
600.5E
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
61.8(
Total:
662.4'
225538
5/11/2017
076030 STONE, AMY
05042017
JURY SERVICE 05/04/2017 7Z3897F
JURY SERVICE 05/04/2017 7Z3897F
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
10.0(
MILEAGE FOR JURY SERVICE
001.000.23.512.50.49.20
3.2'
Total:
13.2'
225539
5/11/2017
074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC
3173
SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR APF
Social media services for April 2017
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
300.0(
Total:
300.0(
225540
5/11/2017
040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC
18152997
YOST POOL PROJ: SCREWS, NUTS
YOST POOL PROJ: SCREWS, NUTr
125.000.64.594.75.65.00
58.5�
Total:
58.55
225541
5/11/2017
076036 TAYLOR, LISA ILENE
5/6 WATERSHED FUN FA
5/6/17 WATERSHED FUN FAIR
5/6/17 WATERSHED FUN FAIR
001.000.64.571.23.41.00
125.0(
5/6/17 WATERSHED FUN FAIR
421.000.74.537.90.49.00
125.0(
Total:
250.0(
225542
5/11/2017
027269 THE PART WORKS INC
INV10644
YOST POOL: SHOWER SEAT
YOST POOL: SHOWER SEAT
Page: 36
Packet Pg. 55
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
225542 5/11/2017 027269 THE PART WORKS INC
225543 5/11/2017 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY
225544 5/11/2017 073310 UNISAFE INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
125.000.64.594.75.65.00
INV11080
YOST POOL THERMOMETER
YOST POOL THERMOMETER
125.000.64.594.75.65.00
INV12317
YOST POOL: VALVE HAWS
YOST POOL THERMOMETER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
41046
FLEET - UNIT 959 - KEYS
Fleet - Unit 959 - Keys
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Fac Maint Unit 95 Keys
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
PS - Keys
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
PS Keys
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
699169
225545 5/11/2017 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 7040129
WWTP: NITRILE GLOVES
NITRILE GLOVES
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
Total:
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
6.3.a
Page: 37
0
Amoun m
833.0 1
=a
0
L
326.7�
a
c
339.1( f°
1,499.0:
m
t
U
E
19.3( 'cv
17.0( 0
14.91 o
Q.
a
5.3( Q
0
1.9� o
N
3.8: r
62.3 i r
0
1,078.8(
1,078.8( .�
r
c
m
113.6( E
t
113.6(
a
Page: 37
Packet Pg. 56
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
225545
5/11/2017
044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR
(Continued)
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
Total:
225546
5/11/2017
068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE
201128311
INV 201128311 BLEA 752 - ASHLEY
BLEA CLASS 752 - SAUNDERS
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
Total:
225547
5/11/2017
075155 WALKER MACY LLC
P3282.03-1
CIVIC FIELD DEMO PROPOSAL
CIVIC FIELD DEMO PROPOSAL
125.000.64.594.75.65.00
Total:
225548
5/11/2017
071359 WASSER CORPORATION
INV000009308
WWTP: BROWN PAINT
MC -LUSTER 100 BROWN PAINT
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total:
225549
5/11/2017
047665 WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION
300013203
WWTP: PRANDOLPH 6/1/17-5/31/1E
PRANDOLPH 6/1/17-5/31/18 MEMBE
423.000.76.535.80.49.00
PRANDOLPH 6/1/17-5/31/18 MAGA2
423.000.76.535.80.49.00
Tota I :
225550
5/11/2017
075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
10083356
FAC MAINT - LOTION SOAP
Fac Maint - Lotion Soap
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10085335
FAC MAINT - TT, TOWELS, FRESHE
6.3.a
Page: 38
Page: 38
Packet Pg. 57
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
225550
5/11/2017
075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
(Continued)
Fac Maint - TT, Towels, Freshener,
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10089837
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10091929
FAC MAINT - LINERS, TOWELS, LIG
Fac Maint - Liners, Towels, Liquid
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total:
225551
5/11/2017
072627 WEST SAFETY SERVICES INC
7001759
MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT
Monthly 911 database maint
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
Total:
225552
5/11/2017
076014 WESTERN ARTS ALLIANCE
200004343
EAC AD
EAC AD
117.100.64.573.20.41.40
Total:
225553
5/11/2017
064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS
19652
FLOWER PROG: HEMLOCK, FUCH;
FLOWER PROG: HEMLOCK, FUCH:
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
19659
FLOWER PROG: FESCUE
FLOWER PROG: FESCUE
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
6.3.a
Page: 39
Page: 39
Packet Pg. 58
vchlist
05/11 /2017 9:22:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
225553 5/11/2017 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS
225554
225555
5/11/2017 063008 WSDOT
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
19882
E2AD.WSDOT
5/11/2017 076035 WSU SNOHOMISH CO EXTENSION APR 2017
133 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
133 Vouchers in this report
PO # Description/Account
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
CEMETERY: RHODODENDRON
CEMETERY: RHODODENDRON
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
Total
E2AD.WSDOT REIMBURSEMENT F,
E2AD.WSDOT Reimbursement of Ov
112.000.333.20.205.13
Total
WELLNESS WSU GARDEN EVENT
WSU GARDEN EVENT FOR WELLN
001.000.22.518.10.49.00
Total
Bank total
Total vouchers
6.3.a
Page: 40
0
Amoun m
U
101.7(
=a
0
L
19.7E
a
2.0:
3,921.4: N
U
m
t
U
397.1 E
397.11
0
0
75.0( L
75.0( Q
Q
672,212.51
00
to
672,212.51 N
r
r
O
N
Y
V
E
V
Page: 40
Packet Pg. 59
a+
a
6.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineerin
Accounting
Project
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
STM
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
c484
E51FE
STR
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
c424
E3DC
STM
183rd PI SW Storm Repairs
c491
E61FE
SWR
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
c390
E2GB
SWR
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
c398
E3GA
STR
2014 Chip Seals
c451
E4CB
STM
2014 Drainage Improvements
c433
E41FA
STM
2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
STR
2014 Overlay Program
c438
E4CA
WTR
2014 Waterline Overlays
c452
E4CC
STM
2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
c466
E51FA
STR
2015 Overlay Program
c463
E5CA
SWR
2015 Sewerline Overlays
i007
E5CC
SWR
2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
c441
E4GA
STR
2015 Traffic Calming
c471
E5AB
WTR
2015 Waterline Overlays
c475
E5CB
WTR
2015 Waterline Replacement Program
c440
E4JB
STR
2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
i016
E6DC
STR
2016 Overlay Program
i008
E6CA
SWR
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
c469
E5GA
SWR
2016 Sewerline Overlays
i010
E6CC
WTR
2016 Water Comp Plan Update
c460
E4JC
WTR
2016 Waterline Overlays
i009
E6CB
WTR
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
c468
E5JA
STR
2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
i022
E7DA
STR
2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
i023
E7DB
STR
2017 Overlay Program
i018
E7CA
SWR
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
i013
E6GA
SWR
2017 Sewerline Overlays
i020
E7CC
STR
2017 Traffic Calming
i021
E7AA
WTR
2017 Waterline Overlays
i019
E7CB
WTR
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
i014
E6J13
SWR
2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project
c492
E6GC
WTR
2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project
c493
E6JC
Revised 5/11/2017 Packet Pg. 60
6.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineerin
Accounting
Project
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
STR
220th Street Overlay Project
c462
E4CD
STM
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
c486
E6FB
WTR
224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
c418
E3J13
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STR
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
c425
E3DD
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
STM
3rd Ave Rain Gardens
i012
E6FC
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1 CA
STR
9th Avenue Improvement Project
c392
E2AB
FAC
AN Upgrades - Council Chambers
c476
E5LA
STR
ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
c426
E3DE
STR
ADA Transition Plan
s016
E6DB
STR
Bikelink Project
c474
E5DA
PRK
City Spray Park
c417
E4MA
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
c456
E4GB
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
STR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
E5J13
STM
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
c374
E1 FM
PM
Dayton Street Plaza
c276
E7MA
STM
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
c472
E5FC
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
STM
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
c380
E2FC
General
Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
c478
E5DB
FAC
ESCO III Project
c419
E3LB
PRK
FAC Band Shell Replacement
c477
E6MB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
E5KA
STR
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
c342
E1AA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
E8MA
STR
Hwy 99 Access Management Improvements
s014
E6AA
STR
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
c405
E2AD
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
s011
E5GB
Revised 5/11/2017 Packet Pg. 61
6.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineerin
Accounting
Project
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
STM
LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
c434
E4FB
SW R
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
STR
Minor Sidewalk Program
i017
E6DD
STM
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
c378
E21FA
STM
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
i011
E61FA
STM
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
c410
E3FE
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E7FA
STM
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
c376
E1 FN
STM
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
c408
E3FC
FAC
Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
c444
E4LA
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
E5FD
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
STR
SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
c427
E3AB
STR
SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
c454
E4DB
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
E5NA
STM
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7FB
STM
Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
c429
E3FG
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STM
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
c379
E2FB
STM
SW Edmonds-1 05th/l 06th Ave W Storm Improvements
c430
E3FH
STR
Trackside Warning System
c470
E5AA
STR
Train Trench - Concept
c453
E4DA
STR
Transportation Plan Update
c391
E2AA
STM
Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
c467
E5FB
UTILITIES
Utility Rate Update
s013
E6JA
PRK
Veteran's Plaza
c480
E6MA
STM
Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
c459
E4FF
STM
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
E5HA
PRK
Yost Park Spa
c494
E6MC
Revised 5/11/2017 Packet Pg. 62
6.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
STR
_ E1AA
c342
Fi1&.QQrneL§.JRoundabgut (212th Street SW @ 84t
STR
E1CA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
unset Walkway Improvements
STM
ElFM
c374
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
c376
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STR
E2AA
c391
Transportation Plan Update
venue provement Project
STR
E2AD
c405
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
MELE2FA
c318
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM
E2FB
c379
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
E2FC
d P
Edmonds J J116kility Study
SWR
E2GB
c390
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
04 Corrido sportation Stu
STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Avg
STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
DA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
c410
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
STM
E3FG
_ c429
Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
E3FH
� �dmq j;105th/106th Av
SWR
E3GA
c398
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR
E3,
224th Waterline Relocation (201
FAC
E3LB
c419
ESCO III Project
STR
E4CA
c438
2014 Overlay Program
STR
E4CB
c451
2014 Chip Seals
2014 Waterline Overlays
STR
E4CD
c462
220th Street Overlay Project
c453
Train Trench - Concept
STR
E4DB
c454
SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
E4FA
STM
E4FB
c434
LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM
E4FD
c436
2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
Revised 5/11/2017 Packet Pg. 63
6.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Funding Number
STM E4FE
STM E4FF
Protect
Accounting
Number
c455
c459
Protect Title
Dayton Street StormwatggWp
Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
' SWW
E4GA
IWO15
Sewerline Replacement Proje
SWR
E4GB
c456
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
WTR
2015 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR
E4JC
c460
2016 Water Comp Plan Update
c444
Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
PRK
E4MA
c417
City Spray Park
Edmonds Fichin-
STR
E5AA
c470
Trackside Warning System
STR
01 affic Calmi
STR
E5CA
c463
2015 Overlay Program
WTR
L
2015 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E5CC
i007
2015 Sewerline Overlays
5DA
Bikelink Projec
General
E5DB
c478
Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
E5FA
c466
015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM
E5FB
c467
Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
E5FC
rovements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM
E51FD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
STM
r
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
SWR
E5GA
c469
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
SWR
E5GB
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
16 Waterline Replaceme
WTR
E5JB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR
E5KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re-coatin
FAC
E5LA
c476
AN Upgrades - Council Chambers
UTILITIE
ails Update
STR
E6AA
s014
Hwy 99 Access Management Improvements
STR
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR
E6CA
i008
2016 Overlay Program
Revised 5/11/2017 Packet Pg. 64
6.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
WTR
E6CB
i009
2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E6CC
i010
2016 Sewerline Overlays
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STR
E6DB
s016
ADA Transition Plan
STR
E6DC
i016
A016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM
E6FB
c486
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
3rd Ave Rain Gardens
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
1
SWR
E6GA
i013
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
SWR
E6GB
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase
SWR
E6GC
c492
2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project
UTILITIES
s013
Utility Rate Update
WTR
E6JB
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
E6JC
2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK
E6MA
c480
Veteran's Plaza
E6MB
c477
FAC Band Shell Replacement
PRK
E6MC
c494
Yost Park Spa
STR
&MULA
i021
STR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR
i018
2017 Overlay Progra
WTR
E7CB
i019
2017 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E7CC
2017 Sewerline Overlays
STR
E7DA
i022
2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
017 Minor Sidewalk Program"
STM
E7FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
c495
torm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
Dayton Street Plaza
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
Revised 5/11/2017 Packet Pg. 65
6.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
PM
E7MA
c276
Dayton Street Plaza
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor:
.y
STR
E1AA
c342
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue
W) a
STR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
a�
STR
E1CA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
L
STM
E1 FM
c374
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
0
L
STM
E1FN
c376
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
a
STM
E2FA
c378
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
c
M
STM
E2FB
c379
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System Y
STM
E2FC
c380
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
SWR
E2GB
c390
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
E
STR
E2AA
c391
Transportation Plan Update
STR
E2AB
c392
9th Avenue Improvement Project
0
'E
SWR
E3GA
c398
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
0
a
STR
E2AD
c405
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
a
STM
E3FC
c408
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
Go
STM
EYE
c410
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
0
Pk
ti
PRK
E4MA
c417
City Spray Park
7
WTR
E3J13
c418
224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
T
L6
0
FAC
E3LB
c419
ESCO III Project
STR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
m
E
STR
E3DC
c424
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
?
0
L
STR
E3DD
c425
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
a
a�
STR
E3DE
c426
ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
w
STR
E3AB
c427
SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
m
STM
E3FG
c429
Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
a
m
STM
E3FH
c430
SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM
E4FA
c433
2014 Drainage Improvements
CD
STM
E4FB
c434
LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
U
STM
E4FC
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
Q
STM
E4FD
c436
2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STR
E4CA
c438
2014 Overlay Program
WTR
E4JB
c440
2015 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR
E4GA
c441
2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
Revised 5/11/2017
Packet Pg. 66
6.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
FAC
E4LA
c444
Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
N
a
STR
E4CB
c451
2014 Chip Seals
a�
WTR
E4CC
c452
2014 Waterline Overlays
L
STR
E4DA
c453
Train Trench - Concept
0
L
STR
E4DB
c454
SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
a
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
M
SWR
E4GB
c456
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
Y
STM
E4FF
c459
Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
WTR
E4JC
c460
2016 Water Comp Plan Update
E
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
STR
E4CD
c462
220th Street Overlay Project
0
STR
E5CA
c463
2015 Overlay Program
0
STM
E5FA
c466
2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
a
STM
E5FB
c467
Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects Go
WTR
E5JA
c468
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
0
Pk
ti
SWR
E5GA
c469
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
7
STR
E5AA
c470
Trackside Warning System
T
L6
0
STR
E5AB
c471
2015 Traffic Calming
STM
E5FC
c472
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
m
E
WTR
E5KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
?
0
L
STR
E5DA
c474
Bikelink Project
a
a�
WTR
E5CB
c475
2015 Waterline Overlays
w
FAC
E5LA
c476
AN Upgrades - Council Chambers
m
PRK
E6MB
c477
FAC Band Shell Replacement
a
m
General
E5DB
c478
Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM
E5FD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
CD
PRK
E6MA
c480
Veteran's Plaza
U
WWTP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
Q
WTR
E5JB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STM
E5FE
c484
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
STR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STM
E6FB
c486
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
Revised 5/11/2017
Packet Pg. 67
6.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
STM
E6FE
c491
183rd PI SW Storm Repairs
SWR
E6GC
c492
2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR
E6JC
c493
2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK
E61VIC
c494
Yost Park Spa
STM
E7FB
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
STR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
SWR
E5CC
i007
2015 Sewerline Overlays
STR
E6CA
i008
2016 Overlay Program
WTR
E6CB
i009
2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E6CC
i010
2016 Sewerline Overlays
STM
E6FA
i011
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM
E61FC
i012
3rd Ave Rain Gardens
SWR
E6GA
i013
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
E6JB
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
STR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR
E6DC
i016
2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
STR
E7CA
i018
2017 Overlay Program
WTR
E7CB
i019
2017 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E7CC
i020
2017 Sewerline Overlays
STR
E7AA
i021
2017 Traffic Calming
STR
E7DA
i022
2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR
E7DB
i023
2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STM
E71FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
STM
E7FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
UTILITIES
E5NA
solo
Standard Details Updates
SWR
E5GB
s011
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
UTILITIES
E6JA
s013
Utility Rate Update
STR
E6AA
s014
Hwy 99 Access Management Improvements
STR
E6DB
s016
ADA Transition Plan
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
Revised 5/11/2017 Packet Pg. 68
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
6.3.b
Protect Engineerin
Accounting
Project
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
FAC
AN Upgrades - Council Chambers
qq
c476
E5LA
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Reh
AL
E41VIB
FAC
ESCO III Project
c419
E31-13
Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
General
Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
c478
E5DB
Dayton greet Plaza
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
E81VIA
City Spray Park
E4MA
PRK
FAC Band Shell Replacement
c477
E61VIB
�an'sdWa
INAA
PRK
Yost Park Spa
c494
E61VIC
STM12thlWpe
&Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
c484
STM
183rd PI SW Storm Repairs
c491
E6FE
STM
2214 Drainage Improvements
3
STM
2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
STM
2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
c46
STM
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
c486
E6FB
STM
3rd Ave Rain Gardens
i012
E6FC
STM
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
c374
E1 FM
TM
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
TM
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study=
c380
E2FC
STM
LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
c434
E4FB
albot Road provement
c378
STM
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
i011
E6FA
STM
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
c410
_
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
MOVD
Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
STM
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
c376
E1 FN
STM
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
c408
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
E5FD
Dr�rement t. SW
c495
_
STM
Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
c429
E3FG
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
Revised 5/11/2017 Packet Pg. 69
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
6.3.b
Funding Protect Title
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
SW Edmonds-i5th/106th Ave W Storm Improvement
STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
Video Assessment of Stormwater Li
STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
SIV 15th St. SV*Valkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR 2014 Chip Seals
2014 Overlay Program
STR 2015 Overlay Program
SJ& 2015
STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
2016 Overlay Program 1�
STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
dewalk Program
STR 2017 Overlay Program
STR 201Wraffic Calming
Protect Engineerin
Accounting Project
Number Number
c379 E2FB
c430
c467 E5FB
c45
c435 E4FC
cJ
c451
E4CB
c43
E4CA
c463 E5CA
c471
i016 E6DC
i008
i022 E7DA
i023
i018 E7CA
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
STR 228th St. S\OLCorridor Improvements
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
W76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project
urb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STR ADA Transition Plan
Bikelink Project I
STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
2th
STR Hwy 99 Access Management Improvements
wy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STR Minor Sidewalk Program
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c485 E6DA
Xc36
c392 E2AB
s016 E6DB
i015
E6AB
s014
E6AA
i017
E6DD
c454 E4DB
c354 ow
Revised 5/11/2017 Packet Pg. 70
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
6.3.b
Funding
Proiect Title
STR
Trackside Warning System
rench - ConceQM
STIR
Transportation Plan Update
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
SWR
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
ML
15 Sewerline Overlays
SWR
2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
Moor2016
Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
SWR
2016 Sewerline Overlays
SWR
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
Protect
Engineerin
Accounting
Proiect
Number
Number
c470
E5AA
c453
c391 E2AA
c390 E2GB
c398 E3GA
i007
c441 E4GA
c46 A
i010 E6CC
E6GA
SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i02o E7CC
_ 2018/19 Sewerline Replacen Aroje-`
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
Lif�1 B
UTILITIES Standard Details U
Utility Rate U
c456 E4GB
c488
s011 E5GB
AM61 E4G(�M
solo E5NA
E6JA
WTR
2014 Waterline Overlays
c452 E4CC
TR
EEKE5CB
WTR
2015 Waterline Replacement Program
c440 E4J13
TR
2016 Water Comp Plan Update11111110
WTR
2016 Waterline Overlays
i009 E6CB
(VTR
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
Im E5JA
WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays
T
aterline Replacement&roje=
WTR 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
IW
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
e Modifications
iol9 E7CB
c493 E6JC
c482 E5,113
c446 E4HA
c481
Revised 5/11/2017
Packet Pg. 71
Hour Type Hour Class
170 REGULAR HOURS
191 REGULAR HOURS
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 860 (05/08/2017 to 05/08/2017)
Description
COUNCIL BASE PAY
FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS
Hours
Amount
0.00
0.00
1,000.00
220.36
0.00 $1,220.36
Total Net Pay: $1,087.55
6.3.c
r
O
Q.
m
U
w
L
0
L
a
c
m
t
U
E
.2
U
w-
O
R
O
L
Q
Q
Q
00
w
0
N
00
O
LO
O
fC
E
E
7
N
O
L
CU
Q
r.+
d
E
t
yr
a
05/11/2017 Packet Pg. 72
6.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Timothy Rowlands ($900.00).
Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead}
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Linda Hynd
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Timothy Rowlands by minute entry.
Narrative
Timothy Rowlands
9102 236th St. SW
Apt. C
Edmonds, WA 98026
($900.00)
Attachments:
Rowlands Claim for Dam ages_Redacted
Packet Pg. 73
6.4.a
ECE . VEr CITY OF EDMONDS 'AV D
MAY 5 2017 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM
Date Claim Form 3,6
Ci,DM(A)s CITY CLj � eceived izy City
6 / J 6i 1(l
J
Please take note that I who currently resides at 9,f�rc �� -�f` �L/
-sf mailing address 2102 936,tlt
home phone ork phone # , and who resided at e- [X-S
�Wo n►Cr_ (,; l , �'�� 5�2� .S at the time of the occurrence whose date of birth is �' is claiming damages
against C;--il,. n - s�rt__� _-____^ 1 S in the sum of $ o 0 "�" arising out of the following circumstances listed below.
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: _ !/, TIME: --/ ,Z(J yvl
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: az ztI` '
DESCRIPTION:
_ yy Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or
/l F r7 5f M s , f �� I't7r� r Il rF 1I sn �. v1 l A 1 I' r r' rz 7� nn , . I N. L .
5 ttwl �t��TnA4 A, IJ4 iI i H {aittach an extra sheet fof'additional inforlIGion, if needed)
2. Provide a list of witnesses. if applicable, to the occurrence including na es, addresses, and phone numbers.
._ 7 'i � tom' ' ['
JAA
.T ketvc- C O& l6 i •,�r .� �� 5CVc, e, i �►4/0-j%e.Y� q %K f" c �c:�t�I� Sri[ 55G�L'c, 46
3 _ jJ Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, in cries. losses, andlor estimates for repair.
l l,.VYc: M'wt � r)(d-"s � eH e Azv)UP C:4 �t 1 Y1G' G QitC'. 01t a UAB (�/A-/ ✓ev
4- Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes No
If so, please provide the name of the insurance company:
and the policy #:
* " ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY
License Plate # Ec q [_� Driver License #
Type Auto:
DRIVER:
Address:
Phone#:
Passengers:
Name:
Address:
Fonn Revised 05/06/14
'70
iodel)
OWNER:
Address:
Phone#:
Name:
Address:
s"
Page I of 2
a�
at
R
L
0
E
2
U
Cn
O
N
Packet Pg. 74
. " NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED "
DV
6.4.a
MAY e 201
l'.0 I.l"s rnrrffn, —
I, / 1 M 094 Ko7a fyietJ eLh)3 , being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above
described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that any
information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may be subj to disclo repursuant t W 4 .56.
c
x A ,.,.,A
x
Signature of Claimant(s)
State of Washin to jj
County of� o z2 h4i d ,
c�
A+- E
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that l l nVW4s.the person who appeared before me, and said
person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowedged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and o
purposes mentioned in the instrument. 0
E
d ted: 7 cc
U
4-P---- Notary Public CD
ature State of Washington N
TOMIKO SUHARA
Title MY COMMISSION EXPIRES -0
My appointment expires: � ' Oct.06, 2018 a)
Please present the completed claim form to:
Fenn Revised 05/06/14
City Clerk's Office
City of Edmonds
121 51h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA, 98020
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 75
ABSOLUTE ALTO BODY, INC -
LYN NWOOD
King 5 "Best of Western Washington"
17830 HWY 99, LYNNWOOD, WA 98037
Phone: (425) 745-5856
FAX: (425) 745-4295
Estimate
Workfile ID:
IRECErv, >,
MAY 201r
"D+.. NL/NDS CITY Ca
t YA
ISO Number:
Customer:
Insurance:
Adjuster:
Estimator:
TROY PETERSON
ROWLANDS, TIM
Phone:
Create Date:
5/5/2017
9102 236TH ST SW C
Claim:
EDMONDS, WA 98026
Loss Date:
(425) 318-2353
Deductible:
_
rn
a�
c�
2006 HYUN TIBURON GT 2D CPE 6-2.7L-FT BURG
f°
VIN: KMHHN65F16U205022
Interior Color:
Mileage In:
Vehicle Out:
L
0
License: 364 7JC
Exterior Color: BURG
Mileage Out:
E
State: WA
Production Date:
Condition:
Job #:
2
U
Line Ver Operation
Description
Qty
_ Extended
Part
Labor
Type
Pain+
CD
c
Price $
Type
N
1 E01
FRONT BUMPER
2 E01 Repair
Bumper cover
5.OT
Body
2
m
U
3 E01
Add for Clear CoatCD
1
4 E01
R&I License Plate
0.2T
Body
w
I
5 E01 Refinish
Tint Color
0
N
d
6 E01 Remove/Replace
Hazardous Waste Disposal
1
5.00T
Other
tM
7 E01 Remove/Replace
Flex AddItive
1
10.00T
A/M
cEa
8 E01
RADIATOR SUPPORT
9 E01 Remove/Replace
Splash shield
1
36.82T
OEM
0.3T
Body
r
Estimate Totals Discount $ Markup $ Rate $ Total Hours Tota C
Parts 51 i
Labor, Body
58.00
5.5
319 i
Labor, Refinish
58.00
4.1
237
Material, Paint
35.00
4.1
143 13
Material, Shop
5.00
5.0
25 S
Subtotal
777. E
--
s
c
Sales Tax
80
Grand Total
—
_
857. �
Net Total
857.
Estimate Version
Tota
T = Taxable Item, RPD = Related Prior Damage, AA = Appearance Allowance, UPD = Unrelated Prior Damage, PDR = Palntless Dent Repair, A/M = Aftermarket, Rechr = Rechromed, Raman =
Remanufactured, OEM = New Original Equipment Manufacturer, Recor = Re -cored, RECOND = Recondltloned, LKQ = Like Kind Quality or Used, Dlag = Diagnostic, Elec = Electrical, Mech =
Mechanical, Ref - Reflnlsh, Struc = Structural
5/5/2017 9:04:08 AM Packet Pg. 76
Estimate
RO Number:
2006 HYUN TIBURON GT 2D CPE 6-2.7L-FI BURG
Original 857.
e, �j])
Insurance Total $:
857
D �1
Received from Insurance $:
0
44AY 62011
Balance due from Insurance $:
857
xxrr(
���'I"'o CM
Customer Total $:
0
Received from Customer $:
0
Balance due from Customer $:
0
N
a�
c�
E
c�
L
0
E
2
U
rn
uO
0
54
T - Taxable Item, RPD r Related Prior Damage, AA = Appearance Allowance, UPD = Unrelated Pi for Damage, PDR = Paintless Dent Repair, A/M = Aftermarket, Rechr = RechrQmed, Reman
Remanufactured, OEM = New Original Equipment Manufacturer, Recor - Re -cored, RECOND = Reconditioned, LKQ = Like Kind Quality or Used, Diag = Diagnostic, Elec = Electrical, Mech =
Mechanical, Ref = Refinish, Struc = Structural I
5/5/2017 9:04:08 AM Packet Pg. 77
�1v JED
�1AY 1017
T-V CLM
Customer: ROWLANDS, TIM
Insured: ROWLANDS, TIM
Type of Loss:
Point of Impact:
Owner:
ROWLANDS, TIM
(425) 409-4684 Business
PROFESSIONAL COLLISION -
LYNNWOOD
lynnwood@pcdents.com
19006 HIGHWAY 99, LYNNWOOD, WA 98036
Phone: (425) 774-7371
FAX: (425) 744-9844
Preliminary Estimate
Written By: Jason Schoon
Policy #:
Date of Loss:
Inspection Location:
PROFESSIONAL COLLISION - LYNNWOOD
19006 HIGHWAY 99
LYNNWOOD, WA 98036
Repair Facility
(425) 774-7371 Business
2006 HYUN Tiburon GT Automatic 2D CPE 6-2.7L Gasoline MPI
VIN: KMHHN65F16U205022 Interior Color:
License: Exterior Color:
State: Production Date:
TRANSMISSION
Automatic Transmission
Overdrive
POWER
Power Steering
Power Brakes
Power Windows
Power Locks
Power Mirrors
Heated Mirrors
DECOR
Dual Mirrors
Tinted Glass
Console/Storage
CONVENIENCE
Air Conditioning
Intermittent Wipers
Tilt Wheel
Cruise Control
Rear Defogger
Keyless Entry
Alarm
Climate Control
RADIO
VEHICLE
Workfile ID:
Federal ID:
Claim #:
Days to Repair: 3
Insurance Company:
Mileage In:
Mileage Out:
Condition:
AM Radio
FM Radio
Stereo
Search/Seek
CD Player
Cassette
SAFETY
Drivers Side Air Bag
Passenger Air Bag
Anti -Lock Brakes (4)
4 Wheel Disc Brakes
Front Side Impact Air Bags
6.4.a
77961636
91-1978945
Job Number:
Vehicle Out:
Job #:
SEATS
Bucket Seats
Leather Seats
WHEELS
Aluminum/Alloy Wheels
PAINT
Clear Coat Paint
OTHER
Fog Lamps
Rear Spoiler
Power Trunk/Gate Release
N
a�
co
E
co
0
E
2
U
rn
LO
0
N
5/5/2017 8:50:07 AM 061580
Packet Pg. 78
RECEIVED
6.4.a
Preliminary Estimate Mg pD 2017
Customer: ROWLANDS, TIM EI)MOM)S CITY Uahlob Number:
2006 HYUN Tiburon GT Automatic 2D CPE 6-2.71- Gasoline MPI
Line
Oper
Description Part Number
Qty Extended
Price $
Labor
Paint
1
FRONT BUMPER
2
O/H bumper assy
2.2
3
R&I
R&I bumper cover
Ind.
4
* Rpr
Bumper cover
U
2.6
Note: Strip and repair lower half of the bumper around the
front, plastic weld crack on left side included.
5
Add for Clear Coat
1.0
6
# Refn
Tint color
0.5
N
7
#
Flex additive, per bumper
1 8.00
c�
E
8
#
Hazardous Waste Disposal Fee
1 5.00
ca
SUBTOTALS
13.00
8.2
4.1
O
E
ESTIMATE TOTALS
2
Category
Basis
Rate
Cost $
U
Parts
13.00
Ln
Body Labor
8.2 hrs
@
$ 55.00 /hr
451.00
0
N
Paint Labor
4.1 hrs
@
$ 55.00 /hr
225.50
Paint Supplies
4.1 hrs
@
$ 32.00 /hr
131.20
U
Subtotal
820.70
m
Sales Tax
$ 820.70
@
10.4000 %
85.35
WI
Grand Total 906.05
IT IS A CRIME TO KNOWINGLY PROVIDE FALSE, INCOMPLETE, OR MISLEADING INFORMATION TO AN INSURANCE
COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAUDING THE COMPANY. PENALTIES INCLUDE IMPRISONMENT, FINES, AND
DENIAL OF INSURANCE BENEFITS.
5/5/2017 8:50:07 AM 061580 Page 2
Packet Pg. 79
Preliminary Estimate
TRUE V ED
6.4.a
MAY 20)17
Customer: ROWLANDS, TIM
2006 HYUN Tiburon GT Automatic 2D CPE 6-2.71L Gasoline MPI
EMON S CITY (1,El ob Number:
Estimate based on MOTOR CRASH ESTIMATING GUIDE and potentially other third party sources of data. Unless
otherwise noted, (a) all items are derived from the Guide AER1033, CCC Data Date 5/1/2017, and potentially other
third party sources of data; and (b) the parts presented are OEM -parts manufactured by the vehicles Original
Equipment Manufacturer. OEM parts are available at OE/Vehicle dealerships. OPT OEM (Optional OEM) or ALT OEM
(Alternative OEM) parts are OEM parts that may be provided by or through alternate sources other than the OEM
vehicle dealerships. OPT OEM or ALT OEM parts may reflect some specific, special, or unique pricing or discount.
OPT OEM or ALT OEM parts may include "Blemished" parts provided by OEM's through OEM vehicle dealerships.
Asterisk (*) or Double Asterisk (**) indicates that the parts and/or labor data provided by third party sources of data
may have been modified or may have come from an alternate data source. Tilde sign (—) items indicate MOTOR
Not -Included Labor operations. The symbol (<>) indicates the refinish operation WILL NOT be performed as a
separate procedure from the other panels in the estimate. Non -Original Equipment Manufacturer aftermarket parts
are described as Non OEM, A/M or NAGS. Used parts are described as LKQ, RCY, or USED. Reconditioned parts are
described as Recond. Recored parts are described as Recore. NAGS Part Numbers and Benchmark Prices are
provided by National Auto Glass Specifications. Labor operation times listed on the line with the NAGS information
are MOTOR suggested labor operation times. NAGS labor operation times are not included. Pound sign (#) items
indicate manual entries.
Some 2017 vehicles contain minor changes from the previous year. For those vehicles, prior to receiving updated
data from the vehicle manufacturer, labor and parts data from the previous year may be used. The CCC ONE
estimator has a list of applicable vehicles. Parts numbers and prices should be confirmed with the local dealership
The following is a list of additional abbreviations or symbols that may be used to describe work to be done or parts to
be repaired or replaced:
SYMBOLS FOLLOWING PART PRICE:
m=MOTOR Mechanical component. s=MOTOR Structural component. T=Miscellaneous Taxed charge category
X=Miscellaneous Non -Taxed charge category.
SYMBOLS FOLLOWING LABOR:
D=Diagnostic labor category. E=Electrical labor category. F=Frame labor category. G=Glass labor category.
M=Mechanical labor category. S=Structural labor category. (numbers) 1 through 4=User Defined Labor Categories
OTHER SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS:
Adj.=Adjacent. Algn.=Align. ALU=Aluminum. A/M=Aftermarket part. Bind=Blend. BOR=Boron steel.
CAPA=Certified Automotive Parts Association. D&R=Disconnect and Reconnect. HSS=High Strength Steel.
HYD=Hydroformed Steel. Incl.=Included. LKQ=Like Kind and Quality. LT=Left. MAG=Magnesium. Non-Adj.=Non
Adjacent. NSF=NSF International Certified Part. 0/H=Overhaul. Qty=Quantity. Refn=Refinish. Repl=Replace.
R&I=Remove and Install. R&R=Remove and Replace. Rpr=Repair. RT=Right. SAS=Sandwiched Steel.
Sect=Section. Subl=Sublet. UHS=Ultra High Strength Steel. N=Note(s) associated with the estimate line.
CCC ONE Estimating - A product of CCC Information Services Inc.
The following is a list of abbreviations that may be used in CCC ONE Estimating that are not part of the MOTOR
CRASH ESTIMATING GUIDE:
BAR=Bureau of Automotive Repair. EPA=Environmental Protection Agency. NHTSA= National Highway
Transportation and Safety Administration. PDR=Paintless Dent Repair. VIN=Vehicle Identification Number.
5/5/2017 8:50:07 AM
061580
Pa e 3
Packet Pg. 80
CIE'd' ED
MAY 6 Z017
6.4.a
Date: 5/ 5/2017 08:38 AM
Estimate ID: 3528
Estimate Version: 0
Preliminary
Profile ID: Mitchell
ED ONDS CITY a"
John's Auto body & Collision
20500 Hwy 99, Lynnwood, WA 98036
(425)771-8911
Fax: (425) 776-4792
Damage Assessed By: Alam Park
Classification: None
Deductible: UNKNOWN
Owner: Timothy Rowlands
Telephone:
Cell Phone: (425) 409-4684
Mitchell Service: 910724
Description: 2006 Hyundai Tiburon GT
Body Style: 2D Cpe Drive Train: 2.7L Inj 6 Cyl 4A FWD
VIN: KMHHN65F16U205022
OEM/ALT: O Search Code: None
Options: PASSENGER AIRBAG, POWER LOCK, POWER WINDOW, POWER STEERING, REAR WINDOW DEFOGGER
AIR CONDITION, CRUISE CONTROL, TILT STEERING COLUMN, AM/FM STEREO, DRIVER AIRBAG
HEATED EXTERIOR MIRROR, LEATHER SEAT, ANTI -LOCK BRAKE SYS., FOG LIGHTS
ALUM/ALLOY WHEELS, LEATHER STEERING WHEEL, CO PLAYER
POWER ADJUSTABLE EXTERIOR MIRROR, AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION, CASSETTE PLAYER
AUTO AIR CONDITION, TRIP COMPUTER, FIRST ROW BUCKET SEAT, SIDE AIRBAGS
KEYLESS ENTRY SYSTEM, REAR BENCH SEAT, REAR SPOILER
Line Entry Labor Line Item
Item Number Type Operation Description
1 000014 BDY OVERHAUL
2 001714 BDY REPAIR
3 REF REFINISH
4 936012 ADD'L COST
5 936014 ADD'L COST
6 REF ADD'L OPR
7 ADD'L COST
Front Bumper
Frt Bumper Cover Assy
Frt Bumper Cover
Frt Bumper Cover
Additional Costs & Materials
Hazardous Waste Disposal
Flex Additive
.__Additional Operations
Clear Coat
Additional Costs & Materials
Paint/Materials
* - Judgment Item
# - Labor Note Applies
C - Included in Clear Coat Calc
Part Type/
Part Number
Existing
Dollar Labor
Amount Units
2.7 #
4.0* #
C 2.6
5.00
5.00
1.0
108.00
ESTIMATE RECALL NUMBER: 0510512017 08:34:45 3528
Mitchell Data Version: OEM: APR_17_V
r'nninht lr:l 1 QQd - )nl7 Mitrhnll Intarnatinnal
Packet Pg. 81
RECEWED
MAY 2017
EDm(pmS C
Estimate Totals
D�a771
Date: 51 5/2017 08:38 AM
Estimate ID: 3528
Estimate Version: 0
Preliminary
Profile ID: Mitchell
Add'1
Labor Sublet
I. Labor Subtotals Units Rate
Amount Amount
Totals
II. Part Replacement Summary
Amount
Body 6.7 54.00
0.00 0.00
361.80 T
Refinish 3.6 54.00
0.00 0.00
194.40 T
Total Replacement Parts Amount
0.00
Taxable Labor
556.20
Labor Tax
@ 10.400 %
57.84
y
ca
Labor Summary 10.3
614.04
E
ca
111. Additional Costs
Amount
IV. Adjustments
Amount
p
4-
Taxable Costs
118.00
Customer Responsibility
0.00
E
Sales Tax
@ 10.400%
12.27
U
Total Additional Costs
130.27
CD
Paint Material Method: Rates
o
Init Rate = 30.00 , Init Max Hours
= 99.9, Add] Rate = 0.00
cV
I. Total Labor:
614.04
II. Total Replacement Parts:
0.00
III. Total Additional Costs:
130.27
Gross Total:
744.31
IV. Total Adjustments:
0.00
Net Total:
744.31
This is a preliminary estimate.
Additional changes to the estimate may be required for the actual repair.
ESTIMATE RECALL NUMBER: 05/05/2017 08:34:45 3528
Mitchell Data Version: OEM: APR_17_V
(` Packet Pg. 82
nrnirinht fr.) 1QQd _ �n17 Mitchell International
6.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Amendments to Diversity Commission code provisions
Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty
Department: Community Services
Preparer: Patrick Doherty
Background/History
The Diversity Commission is established pursuant to ECC Chapter 10.65, which contains provisions
regarding required attendance and appointment to fill vacancies.
Two provisions in particular are at issue:
1. Sec. 10.65.020(D) states the following:
In the event that any commissioner resigns or fails to attend three consecutive commission meetings,
that position will be deemed vacant, and a subsequent appointment will be made by a vote of the
seated commission, subject to council confirmation.
The Diversity Commissioners have discussed this provision and believe that additional provisions should
be added: 1) that no more than four meetings may be missed in a year; and 2) reference to "excused
absences" as set out in ECC 1.05.010(B), which reads as follows:
1.05.010(B). The chairperson of the particular board, commission or committee may excuse any
member from attendance at any particular meeting or meetings for reasons that are (1) work related,
(2) due to illness or death in the family, or (3) extended vacations in excess of two weeks in length;
provided, however, each such excused absence shall be so noted by the chairperson at the meeting
from which the member is being excused and such fact shall be recorded in the minutes along with the
reason given for the excused absence by the member. Excused absences shall not be counted for
purposes of removal from office, but only if so noted in the minutes as set forth herein. In the absence
of the chairperson, the member acting in the chairperson's behalf, such as vice -chairperson or pro tem,
shall make the determination of whether the absence is excused, and announce the same for recording
in the minutes of the meeting from which the member is excused.
2. Sec. 10.65.020(F) states the following:
Members may be removed by the mayor with the approval of city council after a public hearing before
the city council, for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Any vacancy on the
commission shall be advertised, and the new appointee shall be selected from the applications received.
Any appointment to a position vacated other than by the expiration of the term of the appointment
shall be to fill the unexpired portion of the term.
Packet Pg. 83
6.5
The Diversity Commissioners wish to be able to interview and/or appoint from recently received
applications when a new vacancy arises, without having to readvertise. There have been recent
incidents when vacancies have been advertised, new appointments have been made, only to be
followed very shortly by a new vacancy. With willing, qualified, recently interviewed applicants in the
wings, they would like to be able to expedite the appointment process and select from these recent
applicants.
The City Council Public Safety and Personnel Committee reviewed this item at its 519117 meeting and
forwarded it to the 5116117 City Council Consent Agenda for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Approval.
Narrative
The attached draft Ordinance contains proposed amendments to Chapter 10.65 that would fulfill the
Diversity Commissioners' proposed actions regarding member attendance and filling of new vacancies.
The specific changes, recommended by a consensus of the Diversity Commission at its 5/3/17 regular
meeting, are itemized below:
Sec. 10.65.020(B) would be revised to read:
In the event that any commissioner resigns or fails to attend three consecutive commission meetings, or
four total commission meetings in one calendar year, without such absences being excused (pursuant to
ECC 1.05.010(B)), that position will be deemed vacant, and a subsequent appointment will be made by a
vote of the seated commission, subject to council confirmation.
Sec. 10.65.020(F) would be revised to read:
Members may be removed by the mayor with the approval of city council after a public hearing before
the city council, for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Vacancies ARY on the
commission shall be advertised, and the new appointees shall be selected from the applications
received, except that commissioners may elect to interview and/or appoint from applicants received in
response to an advertised vacancy within three months prior to any new vacancy. Any appointment to a
position vacated other than by the expiration of the term of the appointment shall be to fill the
unexpired portion of the term.
Attachments:
2017-05-9 Ordinance - Diversity Commission code changes
Packet Pg. 84
6.5.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.65 OF THE
EDMONDS CITY CODE TO MODIFY PROVISIONS
RELATED TO ATTENDANCE AND NEW APPOINTMENTS
FOR THE EDMONDS DIVERSITY COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, Chapter 10.65 establishes the Edmonds Diversity Commission and contains
provisions related to attendance requirements and the filling of vacancies; and
WHEREAS, the Diversity Commission wishes to encourage regular and frequent
attendance by its members; and
WHEREAS, the Diversity Commission wishes to make timely and efficient new
appointments to fill emerging vacancies; and
WHEREAS, the Diversity Commission recommended the amendments to Edmonds City
Code Chapter 10.65, detailed below, at their regular meeting of May 3, 2017;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Subsection D of section 10.65.020 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled,
"Appointment, membership and terms of appointment," is hereby amended to read as follows
(new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strikethrough):
10.65.020 Appointment, membership and terms of appointment.
D. In the event that any commissioner resigns or fails to attend three consecutive commission
meetings, or four total commission meetings in one calendar year, without such absences being
excused (pursuant to ECC 1.05.010(B)), that position will be deemed vacant, and a subsequent
appointment will be made by a vote of the seated commission, subject to council confirmation.
Packet Pg. 85
6.5.a
Section 2. Subsection F of section 10.65.020 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled,
"Appointment, membership and terms of appointment," is hereby amended to read as follows
(new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strikethrough):
10.65.020 Appointment, membership and terms of appointment.
F. Members may be removed by the mayor with the approval of city council after a public
hearing before the city council, for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
Vacancies Any vaeaney on the commission shall be advertised, and the new appointees shall be
selected from the applications received, except that commissioners may elect to interview and/or
appoint from applicants received in response to an advertised vacancy within three months prior
to any new vacancy. Any appointment to a position vacated other than by the expiration of the
term of the appointment shall be to fill the unexpired portion of the term.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect
thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
M.
JEFF TARADAY
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
Packet Pg. 86
6.5.a
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Pg. 87
6.5.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2017, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.65 OF THE
EDMONDS CITY CODE TO MODIFY PROVISIONS
RELATED TO ATTENDANCE AND NEW
APPOINTMENTS FOR THE EDMONDS DIVERSITY
COMMISSION.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2017.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
4
Packet Pg. 88
6.6
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with BHC Consultants for the Dayton Street
Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On April 5, 2016, Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Professional Services Agreement with BHC
Consultants for the Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project (3d to 9th Ave.)
On May 9, 2017, staff presented this item to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee and it was
forwarded to the May 16th consent agenda for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign the Supplemental Agreement.
Narrative
The City completed a drainage study for the North Shellabarger Sub basin. The results of the study show
that various drainage pipe improvements will be needed in order to address drainage issues along
Dayton St and throughout the rest of the study's basin. In addition, Water and Sewer comprehensive
plans completed in 2010 and 2013 respectively show the need for replacement and/or upsizing of
utilities in the downtown core either due to age, increased maintenance needs and/or additional flow
needs. Since there is a need to replace/upgrade most of the utilities along the Dayton St alignment, City
staff has concluded that a comprehensive utility replacement project be completed along Dayton St
from 3rd to 9th.
The supplement adds the following tasks:
Design and specifications of sidewalk improvements for missing link located on Dayton Street
between 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue.
Bid documents related to the work described above.
The total cost of Supplement #1 is $29,220 and will be funded via a Transportation Improvement Board
(TIB) complete streets grant. The Supplemental Agreement is attached.
Attachments:
BHC Supplemental Agreement
Packet Pg. 89
Original Contract No. 6785
Supplemental Agreement 1 No.
CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING
1215T"_
AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA - 425-771-0220 - FAX MAYOR
Website: www.edmondswa.gov +'
C
d
i o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 0)
as
Engineering Division
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9t" Ave)
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and
BHC Consultants, LLC, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying
agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as
Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9tn Ave) project, dated May 3, 2016;
and
WHEREAS, additional tasks to the original Scope of Work have been identified; NOW,
THEREFORE,
In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties
thereto as follows:
1. The underlying Agreement of May 3, 2016 between the parties, incorporated by
this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects:
1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement
shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the
stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if
herein set forth.
1.2 The $496,800 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement
and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, is hereby amended to include an additional
not to exceed amount of $29,220 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this
supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is
increased to a new total not -to -exceed amount of $526,020 ($496,800 plus $29,220).
1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost
reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached
Exhibit B to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in
full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein.
Packet Pg. 90
6.6.a
DONE this
CITY OF EDMONDS
Bv:
Mayor David O. Earling
day of , 20
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC
By:
Title:
S:\Staff\Megan\Engineering AdminTROJECTS\E5JB.Dayton St. Utility Replacement 3rd to 9th\BHC.Supp l.doc Packet Pg. 91
6.6.a
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 20 , before me, the under -signed, a
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally
appeared , to me known to be the of
the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to
be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the
seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
SAStaffNegan\BngineeringAdmin\PROJECTST5JB.DaytonSt. Utility Replacement 3rdto9th\BHC.Suppl.doc Packet Pg. 92
6.6.a
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF EDMONDS
DAYTON STREET UTILITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT
(3RD AVE to 9th AVE)
AMENDMENT NO. 1 SCOPE OF CONSULTANT SERVICES
March 27, 2017
PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
The City of Edmonds informed the Consultant that the City had recently received funds for sidewalk
improvements along Dayton Street between 7th Avenue South and 8th Avenue South. This amendment is
for the design services to prepare plans, specifications, and an engineer's opinion of probable
construction costs for those proposed sidewalk improvements as well as updating the Storm Water
Compliance Report to include the new improvements. The sidewalk improvements will be included as
part fo the construction documents for the Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project. This amendment
includes the following revisions to Tasks 020 and 040.
TASK 020 — DESIGN
The following efforts are added to the scope of services for Task 20.
1. Update Storm Water Compliance Report
The Consultant will review the storm water requirements applicable to the project for the additional
sidewalk improvements and coordinate with other team members, as required, to address Minimum
Requirement #5, Onsite Storm Water Management, for LID BMPs. The Consultant will then update
the Storm Water Compliance Report to incorporate Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 from the
Department of Ecology's 2014 Storm Water Management Manual for Western Washington.
2. Final Design and Preparation of Bid Documents:
The Consultant will prepare and deliver design plans, specifications, opinions of probable
construction cost, and bid documents for the proposed sidewalk improvements along Dayton Street
between 71h Avenue South and 8th Avenue South in accordance with the attached scope from KPG
(Exhibit A-1) and as shown on the attached Exhibit A-2 as part of the deliverables for the remainder of
the project. The fee estimate is based on the following drawing/sheet list:
• One Detail Sheet
• One Site Preparation Sheet
• One Sidewalk Restoration Plan and Profile Sheet
• 1 Driveway Plan and Profile Sheet
Deliverables
Revised Storm Water Compliance Report (2 hard copies, 1 PDF).
60% and 90% Design Submittal: Half size (11 "xl7") Drawing Set, Specifications and Opinion of
Probable Construction Cost (Two hard copies of each, 1 PDF of each)
Bid Document Submittal: Signed Half size (11 "xl7") and signed full size (22"x34") Drawing Sets,
signed Specifications, and Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (One hard copy of each, 1 PDF
of each)
March 27, 2017 Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 93
6.6.a
City of Edmonds
Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project
Amendment No 1 Scope of Services
Project Assumptions
Exhibit A
• The topographic survey previously provided by the City is sufficient for grading driveways at
private properties.
• The proposed sidewalk improvements will encroach into the street, remaining completely within
the existing right of way.
• No temporary construction easements will be required to complete the design and construction of
the proposed sidewalks.
• The City shall be responsible for obtaining rights -of -entry as necessary, for sidewalk
improvements to match into existing grades at the edge of the right-of-way.
• City standard details and WSDOT standard plans will be supplemented with project specific
details as required.
• Specifications will be based on the 2016 WSDOT/APWA Standard Specifications, using the City's
General Special Provisions (GSPs) provided by the City.
TASK 040 — PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The following efforts are added to the scope of services for Task 040.
1. Project Management:
Provide project management, coordination and administration throughout the project in support of the
additional activity. In addition, this task is amended to include the Consultants efforts to develop the
contract amendment.
Deliverables
• Amendment No. 1 scope and budget.
Project Assumptions
• The 60% submittal schedule will be adjusted to reflect the timing of the additional activity, but the
targeted 90% submittal date for the original scope will remain the same.
Budget
The budget for Amendment No. 1 is $29,220 (see Exhibit B for detail), raising the total project budget to
$526,020.
Schedule
Given the timing of this amendment, the target date for the 60% design submittal may need to be
adjusted to accommodate the additional activities. The Consultant will increase the previously planned
effort to maintain the targeted 90% design submittal date. The Consultant will commence design
activities for the proposed sidewalk upgrades immediately upon receipt of a signed contract amendment
or other agreeable written authorization.
Attachments:
• Exhibit A-1: KPG, Inc. Scope of Services (dated March 20, 2017)
• Exhibit A-2: Limits of Proposed Sidewalk (dated March 2017)
• Exhibit B: Amendment No. 1 Budget (dated March 27, 2017)
March 27, 2017 Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 94
6.6.a
Exhibit A-1
BHC Consultants
Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project
Supplement No. z — Final design Services for Side walk improvements
Scope of Work
A. Background Information
The City of Edmonds has received funds for sidewalk in -fill improvements between 7''' Avenue S and 8"'
Avenue S. This supplemental agreement is for final design services to prepare plans, specifications, and
engineer's estimate for the sidewalk improvements between 7" and 8" Avenue, including updating the
Stormwater Compliance Report to include evaluating the new improvements with the thresholds set
forth by the DOE 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW).
Project Assumptions:
Topographic survey provided is sufficient for grading driveways at private properties
No temporary construction easements will be required
City shall provide rights -of -entry for sidewalk improvements to match into existing grades at the
right-of-way line
Task 1— Management f Administration / Coordination
1,2 The Consultant shall prepare and attend up to two (2) additional team meetings with BHC
andyor the City during the development of the proposed sidewalk improvements.
1.3 The Consultant shall provide internal quality assurance/quality control (QAJQC) reviews of all
work products prior to submittal for City review.
Task 3 — Stormwater Compliance Report
3.3 The Consultant shall review the stormwater requirements applicable to the project for the
additional sidewalk improvements between 7'" and 814 Avenue S and coordinate with Landau
Associates for Minimum Requirement #5, ❑n-Site Stormwater Management, far LI❑ BMPs.
3.4 The Consultant shall update the Stormwater Compliance Report to incorporate Minimum
Requirements #1- #S from the DOE SWMMWW, 2014.
Task 3 Deliverables
r Revised Stormwater Compliance Report (2 hard copies, 1 PDF) for sidewalk improvements
Task 4 — Final Design Review
4.1 The Consultant will prepare 60% Plans (scale 1"=20') to be included in BHC plan set for review
and approval by the City. Plans will be formatted to provide sufficient detail for convenient field
layout of all proposed facilities. City standard details and WSDOTstandard plans will be
supplemented with project specific details as required. Plan information will include;
City of Edmonds
Dayton Street Utility
Rehabilitation Project
Supplement No. 1 Sidewalk Improvements
KPG Scope of Work
REV. March 20, 2017
Packet Pg. 95
Exhibit A-1
6.6.a
❑ Details
❑ Site Preparation Plans
• Sidewalk Restoration Plans
R Driveway Plans
4.2 The Consultant will prepare 90% Plans to be included in 6HC plan set for review and approval by
the City. Plans will be formatted to provide sufficient detail for convenient field layout of all
proposed facilities. City standard details and WSDOT standard plans will be supplemented with
project specific details as required. It is anticipated that the final design drawings will include the
following sheets:
❑ 1 Detail sheet
❑ 1 Site Preparation Sheet
❑ 1 Sidewalk Restoration Plan and Profile Sheets
❑ 1 Driveway Plan and Profile Sheets
❑ 4 Total Sheets
4.3 The Consultant shall prepare Bid Documents for 6HC package to the City.
4.4 The Consultant shall prepare 90% and Final Special Provisions for restoration work to be
incorporated into the project specifications by 6HC far review and approval by the City.
Specifications will be based on 2016 WSDOT/ APWA standard specifications, using City General
Special Provisions (GSPs) provided by the City.
4.5 The Consultant will calculate quantities and prepare construction cost estimates in support of
the 60%, 90% and Final Plans and Specifications.
Task 4 Deliverables
r 60% Review Submittal: Half Size Plans (11"x17") PDF files, CAD files for layouts, Cost Estimate,
PDF file
r 90% Review Submittal: Half Size Plans (11"x17") PDF fifes, CAD files for layouts, Specifications,
word format, Cost Estimate, PDF file
Bid Documents: Half Size Plans (11"x17") PDF files, Full Size (22"x34") PDF files, Specifications,
word format, Cost Estimate, PDF file
City of Edmonds
Dayton Street Utility
Rehabilitation Project
Supplement No. 1 Sidewalk Improvements
2
KPG Scope of Work
REV: March 20, 2017
Packet Pg. 96
Exhibit /f -!
6.6.a
FEE SUMMARY
Project: City of Edmonds
IKPC
t Architecture �
Landscape Archiw Lure
• Civil Enginearing •
Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project
Supplement No. 1 - Final Design Services for Sidewalk Improvements
REV; March 21, 2017
Description Estimated Fee
Task 1 - Project Management 1 Coordination / Administration $2,948.97
Task 3 - Stormwater Assessment Report $3,369.14
Task 4 - Finai Design $15.510.77
Total Estimated Fee $21,828,89
City of Edmonds
Dayton Street Utility Project
Hour and Fee Estimate
KPG
312112 017
Packet Pg. 97
6.6.a
v
a
m M•o
m
v F'4
1+
N
N tV
ry❑
i�
w
If416�
v
Kv
y'm
m
uQ-l��
�
n
�
In w
w+n
hirn ir.
.ryl�
,n
wwwwN0
�R
W
Y 7
�1
N
•}
�
O
x
9
ry rP'r
n n
—
m
N❑
n
00
o
❑ o
c N
v
n
a
u
lA N
I
I
d
IjIII
O a
� h
UL0
u
0
O
QD
O
LO �LY661
�
ro w
T
—yr�
O❑
ter:❑
V
M�iU❑W
�
�
Q C
w0
rh
m
G
yY
77
N
h
W
C o
i
w w
R
_
vi ed
❑.�
00
o
oa
a
❑ cs
c7 0❑
v
o
2
N
pq y)
o
m n
c a
r
m a
N
ry�cv.
v
rvNVN
m
N
� w
i
i
_
n
n v
r.o
rn n
c~
T
N M
❑❑
❑�c
o
Q��aa
N
N
A O
-
S r
=
c3
a
a t•
'O
b
w
ct
v
v
� � m �
. �
w
ui
rs
m
�, dries
o
a
0u
£
E m
w
=
m
E a
+� ❑ �
�
01 may.
m IC
1-
r
b
`dam m
A N
OwC
i
b
ii
S��. m
W
G
L n a
:°
4
a, m
:°
F.
C
_
❑
w
F
o o
m
o. N
n
0.'1a
E
a m
m
r
❑
nc
m
m ti
m
E
vcn
°` N
A
F
ccm==�
Q+
E 3
F
Q
c
d
o
=
m
�❑
m
m
N
7 g m
Lu D m
❑C7
'C
❑
L
w
Q
h
=
S321
pp
9'm
21
eA
w
aN
O
=
Li
NI
I
a
C1
y o
E
3
L
-7 E
d• 0 y
p
V4V4
w m
a m
E:
mi m
h
❑
a
v¢
a`
s r: am
a a`
C.
a�C
r
Y
a
N
ii
^jr
nM
alelv[�v
r
A
N
Packet Pg. 98
e.e.a
k
2
/
S
a
8§
a
s'
§
\$
(m
_!
G
m
k
§
q
§§
K
Ln
j\)
</
]G
\
$
\
k
b
0
-
3
;
E
§
i
E
�
]
�
A
§
/
5
)
§
a o
{2
2
k
�m
n
«
«
§£
a
2;
7
k�
C
/
2
/'
_
a a/}
2
12
\ \ / E
\
W.
0
\
w c�
k�
»
���
m % o
I > \ g %
/�/
/
k'
� Gcm &
co%
o
k9;
¢£�
D3��
e
z
E.
Q: R
]
o %
{
I
in
�
L
.
�
°
_ e
a:
A
}\
-
\»
2,E
$/w
E
00
JG=
Packet Pg. 99
C6
C, ; prefiminary Concepf
kcr-1130
720 L7m 7N'
JOHN
---------------
A&
DAYTON SF.
C71�O
41 A, #TS
OF FlAlObsto slofuj*Gk
736
'i E
I JF
PLAN m
mmmm�lw
D 10 20 Q 60
SC-'.- 14 FEET
e.;A
(k--N�-- ---
Co It
____j
m
Packet Pg. 100
EXHIBIT B - BUDGET
City of Edmonds
Dayton Street Utility Replacement
Amendment No. 1 Budget
16-10445.00
Date: March 27, 2016
2015 Labor Rate
Billing Rate
Proj. Mgr
Tony F.
Project Engr
Jordan Z.
Staff Engr.
Kranti M.
CAD/GIS
Glenn C.
Accounting
Uma P.
$110.00
BHC Total
Subconsultants
Budget
$214.00
$158.00
$142.00
$109.00
$145.00
hours
expenses
cost
KPG
BHC
Markup
Cost
hours cost
hours cost
hours cost
hours cost
hours cost
Task 020: Design
Sidewalk Improvements (7th Ave to 8th Ave;
Subtotal
2.0 $4281
2.0 $428
10.0
$1,580
$1,580
4.0 $568
4.0 $568
4.0
4.0
$436
$436
0.0
$0
$0
20.0
20.0
$60
$3,072
$3,072
$21:829
$21829
$2,183
$27,084
10.0
$60
$2,183
$27,084
Task 040: Project Management
Amendment 1/Coordinate with Team
4.0
$856
6.0
$948
$0
0.0
$0
2.0
$290
12.0
$42
$2,136
$0
$2,136
Subtotal
4.0
$856
6.0
$948
0.0
$0
0.0
$0
2.0
$290
12.0
$42
$2,136
$0
$0
$2,136
Total Budget
6.0
$1,284
16.0
$2,528
4.0
$568
4.0
$436
2.0
$290
32.0
$102
$5,208
$21,829
$2,183
$29,220
Attachment: BHC Supplemental Agreement (2062 : Dayton Street Design (3rd - 9th) - Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement)
6.7
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Tetra Tech for the Lift Station #1 Basin
and Flow Study
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On May 5, 2015, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Tetra
Tech for the Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study.
On May 9, 2017, staff preseneted this item to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee and it was
forwarded to the May 16th consent agenda for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign the Supplemental Agreement.
Narrative
Lift Station #1 is the City's largest sewer lift station and serves over 25% of the City's sewer service area.
The lift station was originally built in 1957 and was upgraded in 2002. The lift station is located in City
right of way north of the Edmonds ferry terminal. Effluent from the lift station is pumped to a gravity
sewer main that flows to Edmonds' Wastewater Treatment Plant. The plant is located in Edmonds at
200 2nd Ave South.
As part of the original scope, Tetra Tech will provide a basin analysis and flow study of Lift station #1.
The analysis will determine:
If load/flows directed to the lift station can be reduced;
If an increase in wet well storage is possible;
If modifications to the existing Sanitary Sewer overflow and associated tie in to the storm
system pipe basin are needed, including assessing the outfall in Puget Sound;
The viability/location of a scalping lift station;
The benefit/possibility of installing/replacing sewer mains so that a larger portion of this basin
drains by gravity directly to the treatment plant;
Schematic level design and construction costs for each alternative.
Supplement #1 adds the following tasks:
Geotechnical investigation services to determine:
O Soil types along the project alignment;
O Determine groundwater levels;
O Recommended project alternatives based on geotechnical boring results.
Packet Pg. 102
6.7
Staff and consultant have agreed upon a scope of services for Supplement #1. The total cost of
Supplement is $49,880. The Supplemental Agreement is attached.
Attachments:
Supplemental Agreement with Tetra Tech
Packet Pg. 103
Original Contract No. 6524
Supplemental Agreement 1 No.
CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING
1215T"AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX425-672-5750 MAYOR
Website: www.edmondswa.gov
0 igg° PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Engineering Division C
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and
Tetra Tech, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying
agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as
Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study project, dated May 7, 2015; and
WHEREAS, additional tasks to the original Scope of Work have been identified; NOW,
THEREFORE,
In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties
thereto as follows: co
J
�l9
1. The underlying Agreement of May 7, 2015 between the parties, incorporated by o
N
this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects:
1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement
shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the
stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if
herein set forth.
1.2 The $173,702 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement
and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, is hereby amended to include an additional
not to exceed amount of $49,880 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this
supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is
increased to a new total not -to -exceed amount of $223, 582 ($173,702 plus $49,880).
1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost
reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached
Exhibit B to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in
full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein.
DONE this day of , 20
Packet Pg. 104
6.7.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
BY:
Mayor David O. Earling
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE :
TETRA TECH, INC.
By: _
Title:
Scott Passey, City Clerk °
c
as
APPROVED AS TO FORM: a
co
I
Office of the City Attorney
0
N
SAStaff\Megan\Engineering AdminTROJECTS\E40C.Lift Station (.Basin & Flow Study\Tetra Tech.Supp (aloe Packet Pg. 105
6.7.a
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 20 , before me, the under -signed, a
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally
appeared , to me known to be the of
the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to
be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the
seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
co
J
CID
O
N
SAStaff\Megan\Engineering AdminTROJECTS\E40C.Lift Station (.Basin & Flow Study\Tetra Tech.Supp Ldoc Packet Pg. 106
6.7.a
Exhibit A
City of Edmonds
Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study
Amendment 1 — Geotechnical Investigation
SCOPE OF WORK
Project Overview
The options analysis undertaken as part of this project identified a gravity sewer alternative which would
convey the current Lift Station #1 basin flows to the Wastewater Treatment Facility and allow removal of
the lift station. A section of the potential diversion gravity sewer would likely require use of a trenchless
installation method. Various trenchless methods considered include microtunnel, open -shield pipe jack
and pilot tube auger bore. The open -shield pipe jack may be more cost effective but is most applicable
with little or no ground water and in suitable soil conditions.
Preliminary review of soils information at the Lift Station #1 site suggest that the water table may be a
below the elevation of the potential diversion sewer. This scope of work provides geotechnical
exploration to better understand the soil conditions and the groundwater elevations. Shannon and Wilson
(S&W) will conduct the investigation as a subconsultant to Tetra Tech as part of this amendment. co
A telephone discussion with the City regarding the general soil and groundwater conditions observed and
implications for feasible trenchless methods is included in the scope. No geotechnical data report is o
included in this scope but can be provided as part of a future design phase if the diversion gravity sewer
alternative is selected.
The tasks and associated subtasks are as follows:
Task 1 - Project Management
Task 1 includes the effort required to manage the project. This task includes monitoring budgets,
preparing and reviewing invoices.
In addition it includes Tetra Tech time for a telephone conversation about the raw geotechnical data
determined by the geotechnical investigations and the implications for the diversion sewer alternative.
Task 1- Assumptions:
1. NA
Task 1- Deliverables:
1. None
412712017 1 Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 107
6.7.a
SCOPE OF WORK— LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDYAMENDMENT 1
Task 2 — Geotechnical Investigation
Subtask 201 — Work Plan
S&W will prepare a Geotechnical Exploration Work Plan that includes:
• Description of the selected drilling methods and sampling procedures.
• A site plan showing the location and designation of the boreholes.
• General description of quality control procedures for each of the field tasks.
• Site plan of the drilling locations showing conceptual drill rig, support vehicle, and traffic control
(as applicable) layout for the City's use in issuing necessary permits.
• Schedule for completing the fieldwork.
Subtask 201- Assumptions:
1. All S&W communication will occur by phone or email. No in -person meetings with Tetra
Tech or the City will be required.
Subtask 201 - Deliverables:
1. Geotechnical Exploration Work Plan
J
Subtask 202 — Geotechnical Investigation
Holt Services, Inc., under subcontract to S&W, will drill four borings to depths of 35 to 45 feet below the N
ground surface (bgs) at approximately the locations shown in Figure 1.
The proposed depths for the individual borings are also shown in the figure. The borings will be
completed using rotosonic drilling methods, and a standpipe well will be installed in each boring.
The following steps will be completed to advance the borings:
• S&W will visit the site, observe any visible obstructions or utilities, and mark boring locations.
• S&W will make the One Call Utility Locate, as required by law.
• For borings that impact parking spaces, S&W will visit the site the day before drilling is
scheduled and set up "No Parking" signs in the affected spaces.
• The proposed locations of borings LS1-1 and LS14 are near existing subsurface utilities.
Therefore, the upper 5 feet of the two boreholes will be vacuum -extracted using a vactor truck.
• Rotosonic coring will be performed using a 4.9-inch outside diameter, 3.85-inch inside diameter
core barrel. Water may be used as a drilling fluid to advance the casing over the sonic core barrel.
Water also may be added to the inside of the casing to mitigate heave. The rotosonic coring will
retrieve continuous core samples, generally in 5-foot lengths (runs). The core will be extruded
from the core barrel into plastic bags. The bottom and top of the core will be observed in the
field, and the core will be boxed and transported to S&W laboratory for further observation,
classification, photographing, and storage.
• In boring LS1-2 at the launch shaft site, S&W will perform Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs), in
general accordance with ASTM D1586 generally at 5-foot depth intervals bgs. The retrieved
412712017 2 Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 108
6.7.a
SCOPE OF WORK— LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDYAMENDMENT 1
samples will be placed in jars sealed with a lid. The samples will be transported to S&W
laboratory, and selected samples, as described below, will be tested.
A standpipe well will be constructed in each boring in accordance with Washington State
Department of Ecology standards. Borings will be capped at the ground surface with a steel flush -
mount monument.
Holt Services, Inc. will containerize and dispose of all investigation -derived waste (IDW) off -site
at an appropriate facility. Site cleanup of staging areas will be to the requirements and to the
satisfaction of the City.
Samples removed from the boreholes shall be logged and collected for geotechnical laboratory analysis
by S&W. S&W will enter all boring log data into S&W gINT boring log database.
Subtask 202 - Assumptions:
All S&W communication will occur by phone or email. No in -person meetings with Tetra
Tech or the City will be required.
2. Proposal assumes free and open access to the boring sites five days per week between the
hours of 0700 and 1900, Monday through Friday.
3. Proposal assumes that the City will apply for and secure, or has secured, all necessary permits
to accomplish the drilling.
4. Traffic control for all borings will consist of traffic cones. Extensive signage and/or flaggers
will not be required. co
5. All IDW will be non -hazardous.
co
6. Survey of the well monument locations is not included in this proposal. N
Subtask 202 Deliverables:
1. None
Subtask 203 — Geotechnical Testing
S&W will perform geotechnical laboratory testing on samples retrieved from the borings. S&W will
prepare draft boring logs following laboratory review of the rotosonic core and disturbed samples. S&W
will perform the following laboratory testing, as appropriate, based on the actual materials encountered:
Up to four Particle Size Analyses in accordance with ASTM D6913 These will be performed on
split -spoon samples from the SPTs or on the retrieved rotosonic core, as appropriate.
• Up to four Atterberg Limits tests in accordance with ASTM D4318 These will be performed on
split -spoon samples from the SPTs or on the retrieved rotosonic core, as appropriate.
Up to 35 Moisture Content Determinations in accordance with ASTM D2216 These will be
performed on split -spoon samples from the SPTs and on the retrieved rotosonic core at
approximately 5-foot intervals, as appropriate.
On two occasions after well installation, S&W will measure the groundwater elevation in the installed 6
groundwater monitoring wells in each of the four borings. Results of these measurements will be Q
documented in the report (as part of a subsequent work phase not in this amendment), and the highest
elevation measured will be depicted on the final boring logs.
412712017 3 Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 109
6.7.a
SCOPE OF WORK— LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDYAMENDMENT 1
The final boring logs, raw test results, and core photos will be transmitted with a letter of transmittal, but
no associated report or letter.
One teleconference between S&W and Tetra Tech to discuss results will occur. S&W will participate in
one telecon with Tetra Tech and the City to discuss the results of the borings, laboratory testing, and
groundwater monitoring, as they relate to trenchless construction feasibility.
Subtask 203 - Assumptions:
All S&W communication will occur by phone or email. No in -person meetings with Tetra
Tech or the City will be required.
2. Groundwater level monitoring will occur on two dates following borehole completion. These
dates will be two weeks and four weeks after borehole completion. If these assumed dates
change, it will affect the delivery schedule of the boring log.
3. No report or letter containing the boring log, associated laboratory data, groundwater
monitoring measurements, or analysis or recommendations is included.
4. Cores will be stored for up to 3 months following testing and can then be delivered to the
City if desired for future reference or can be disposed of.
Subtask 203 - Deliverables:
1. Final Boring logs, raw test results and core photos (Electronic copies)
4/27/2017
co
J
�l9
O
N
Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 110
6.7.a
SCOPE OF WORK— LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDYAMENDMENT 1
412412017
Exhibit C
Shannon & Wilson Proposal Details
[01
r
U)
J
LO
to
O
N
Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 111
6.7.a
'III SH►4NNON 6WIL.SON, INC
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
April 27, 2017
Mr. David Scott
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 51h Avenue, Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
RE: REVISED (REVISION 3) PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL STUDY, CITY OF
EDMONDS SUNSET AVENUE INTERCEPTOR - TRENCHLESS ALTERNATIVE,
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Mr. Scott:
We are pleased to submit our revised proposal to provide geotechnical engineering services for
the Trenchless Alternative of the City of Edmonds (City) Sunset Avenue Interceptor project. We
previously prepared a proposal that presented a scope of services including four rotosonic
borings, associated laboratory testing, and a geotechnical data report. The City then requested a
reduced scope of services for a high-level feasibility assessment. Specifically, the City requested co
a proposal to perform one mud rotary boring, water level monitoring in that boring, and
transmittal of those results. We understand that the City is now requesting a scope that includes N
the initially proposed four rotosonic borings, but no report. This proposal presents our scope of
services and time -and -expense cost estimate for those tasks, as you and Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
(Shannon & Wilson) discussed in our recent telephone conversations regarding this project. In
addition to those conversations, we previously received a plan and profile markup from you
showing the potential pipe alignment (modified to show the exploration location and enclosed as 3
Figure 1). The contract for this work is to be determined.
PROPOSED APPROACH
Our scope of services will include the following tasks:
Task 1: Work Plan
Shannon & Wilson will prepare a Geotechnical Exploration Work Plan that includes:
■ Description of the selected drilling methods and sampling procedures.
■ A site plan showing the location and designation of the boreholes.
■ General description of quality control procedures for each of the field tasks.
400 NORTH 34TH STREET, SUITE 100
P.O. BOX 300303
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103-8636
206-632-8020 FAX: 206-695-6777
www.shannonwilson.com
21-2-63193-001
Packet Pg. 112
6.7.a
Mr. David Scott
Tetra Tech, Inc.
April 27, 2017
Page 2 of 5
SHANNON 6WILSON, INC.
■ Site plan of the drilling locations showing conceptual drill rig, support vehicle, and
traffic control (as applicable) layout for the City's use in issuing necessary permits.
■ Schedule for completing the fieldwork.
Task 2: Geotechnical Investigation
Holt Services, Inc., under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson, will drill four borings to depths of
35 to 45 feet below the ground surface (bgs) at approximately the locations shown in Figure 1.
The proposed depths for the individual borings are also shown in the figure. The borings will be
completed using rotosonic drilling methods, and a standpipe well will be installed in each boring.
The following steps will be completed to advance the borings:
■ We will visit the site, observe any visible obstructions or utilities, and mark boring
locations.
■ We will make the One Call Utility Locate, as required by law.
■ For borings that impact parking spaces, we will visit the site the day before drilling is
scheduled and set up "No Parking" signs in the affected spaces.
■ The proposed locations of borings LS1-1 and LS1-4 are near existing subsurface
utilities according to the drawing provided by Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech).
Therefore, the upper 5 feet of the two boreholes will be vacuum -extracted using a
vactor truck.
■ Rotosonic coring will be performed using a 4.9-inch outside diameter, 3.85-inch
inside diameter core barrel. Water may be used as a drilling fluid to advance the
casing over the sonic core barrel. Water also may be added to the inside of the casing
to mitigate heave. The rotosonic coring will retrieve continuous core samples,
generally in 5-foot lengths (runs). The core will be extruded from the core barrel into
plastic bags. The bottom and top of the core will be observed in the field, and the
core will be boxed and transported to our laboratory for further observation,
classification, photographing, and storage.
In boring LS 1-2 at the launch shaft site, we will perform Standard Penetration Tests
(SPTs), in general accordance with ASTM D1586,1 generally at 5-foot depth intervals
bgs. The retrieved samples will be placed in jars sealed with a lid. The samples will
be transported to our laboratory, and selected samples, as described below, will be
tested.
' ASTM International (ASTM), 2011, Standard test method for standard penetration test (STP) and split -barrel
sampling of soils, D1586-11: West Conshohocken, Pa., ASTM International, Annual book of standards, v. 04.08,
soil and rock (I): D420 - D5876, 9 p., available: www.astm.org.
21-2-63193 -001-L 1-Rev/wp/]k
21-2-63193-001
co
J
c�
0
N
Packet Pg. 113
6.7.a
Mr. David Scott
Tetra Tech, Inc.
April 27, 2017
Page 3 of 5
SHANNON 6WILSON, INC.
A standpipe well will be constructed in each boring in accordance with Washington
State Department of Ecology standards. Borings will be capped at the ground surface
with a steel flush -mount monument.
Holt Services, Inc. will containerize and dispose of all investigation -derived waste
(IDW) off -site at an appropriate facility. Site cleanup of staging areas will be to the
requirements and to the satisfaction of the City.
Samples removed from the boreholes shall be logged and collected for geotechnical laboratory
analysis by Shannon & Wilson. Shannon & Wilson will enter all boring log data into our gINT
boring log database.
Task 3: Geotechnical Testing
Shannon & Wilson will perform geotechnical laboratory testing on samples retrieved from the
borings. Shannon & Wilson will prepare draft boring logs following laboratory review of the
rotosonic core and disturbed samples. Shannon & Wilson will perform the following laboratory co
testing, as appropriate, based on the actual materials encountered: LO
0
N
■ Up to four Particle Size Analyses in accordance with ASTM D6913.2 These will be
performed on split -spoon samples from the SPTs or on the retrieved rotosonic core, as
appropriate.
Up to four Atterberg Limits tests in accordance with ASTM D4318.3 These will be
performed on split -spoon samples from the SPTs or on the retrieved rotosonic core, as
appropriate.
■ Up to 35 Moisture Content Determinations in accordance with ASTM D2216.4
These will be performed on split -spoon samples from the SPTs and on the retrieved
rotosonic core at approximately 5-foot intervals, as appropriate.
On two occasions after well installation, we will measure the groundwater elevation in the
installed groundwater monitoring wells in each of the four borings. Results of these
2 ASTM International (ASTM), 2009, Standard test methods for particle -size distribution (gradation) of soils using
sieve analysis, D6913-04(2009)el: West Conshohocken, Pa., ASTM International, Annual book of standards,
v. 04.09, soil and rock (II), D5877-latest, 34 p., available: www.astm.org.
3 ASTM International (ASTM), 2010, Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of
soils, D4318-10el: West Conshohocken, Pa., ASTM International, Annual book of standards, v. 04.08, soil and
rock (1): D420 - D5876, 16 p., available: www.astm.org.
4 ASTM International (ASTM), 2010, Standard test methods for laboratory determination of water (moisture)
content of soil and rock by mass, D2216-10: West Conshohocken, Pa., ASTM International, Annual book of
standards, v. 04.08, soil and rock (1): D420 - D5876, 7 p., available: www.astm.org.
21-2-63193 -001-L 1-Rev/wp/]k
21-2-63193-001
Packet Pg. 114
6.7.a
Mr. David Scott
Tetra Tech, Inc.
April 27, 2017
Page 4 of 5
SHANNON 6WILSON, INC.
measurements will be documented in a report as part of a subsequent work phase, and the highest
elevation measured will be depicted on the final boring logs.
The final boring logs, test results, and core photos will be transmitted to Tetra Tech with a letter
of transmittal, but no associated report or letter, per your request. We will follow up with one
teleconference with you and one with you and the City to discuss the results of the borings,
laboratory testing, and groundwater monitoring, as they relate to trenchless construction
feasibility.
ASSUMPTIONS
We have prepared the following list of assumptions that we used to develop our cost proposal as
it is currently presented:
■ All communication with Tetra Tech project staff will occur by phone or email. No
in -person meetings with Tetra Tech or the City will be required. co
■ Our proposal assumes free and open access to the boring sites five days per week
between the hours of 0700 and 1900, Monday through Friday.
■ Our proposal assumes that the City will apply for and secure, or has secured, all
necessary permits to accomplish the drilling.
■ Traffic control for all borings will consist of traffic cones. Extensive signage and/or
flaggers will not be required.
■ All IDW will be non -hazardous.
■ Tetra Tech or others will survey the well monument locations after the completion of
drilling. Surveying is not included in this proposal.
■ Groundwater level monitoring will occur on two dates following borehole
completion. We assume these dates will be two weeks and four weeks after borehole
completion. If these assumed dates change, it will affect the schedule outlined below.
■ No report or letter containing the boring log, associated laboratory data, groundwater
monitoring measurements, or analysis or recommendations is included.
ESTIMATED COST
The enclosed Fee Proposal Spreadsheet (Tables 1 through 5) consists of a cost breakdown and a
combined time -and -expense summary for all the proposed tasks. The scope of services will be
performed by Shannon & Wilson and our subcontractors.
21-2-63193 -001-L 1-Rev/wp/lk
21-2-63193-001
Packet Pg. 115
je;uawiddnS a 10 u0i;e;uasWd - L# S-1 : 5;90Z) 439l ej;al 4l!mjuewee.&V 1e1u9wG1ddnS :1u8w40e11V
Mr. David Scott
Tetra Tech, Inc.
April 27, 2017
Page 5 of 5
SCHEDULE
We propose the following schedule to complete the project tasks:
SHANNON WILSON, INC.
■ Submit the Draft Work Plan within two weeks after the notice to proceed.
■ Submit Final Work Plan within seven calendar days after receipt of comments.
■ Complete the Geotechnical Investigations within one week after starting the
explorations.
■ Complete the Laboratory Testing three weeks after the drilling is completed.
■ Submit the boring logs five weeks after the drilling is completed.
Shannon & Wilson has prepared the enclosed "Important Information About Your Geotechnical/
Environmental Proposal" to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our
proposals.
Please contact me if you would like to discuss our proposal. I can be reached at (206) 695-6856
or by email at msk@shanwil.com.
Sincerely,
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Michael S. Kucker, PE
Vice President
MDH:MSK/mdh
Eric: Table 1 — Fee Estimate Summary
Table 2 — Labor Costs
Table 3 — Other Direct Costs
Table 4 — Drilling and Laboratory Testing Schedule
Table 5 — Drilling Estimate
Figure 1 — Proposed Boring Locations
Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Proposal
21-2-63193-001-L1-Rev/wp/lk
21-2-63193-001
co
a
a
Y
U
M
a
6.7.a
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
TABLE 1
FEE ESTIMATE SUMMARY
ESTIMATE OF ARCHITECT -ENGINEER SERVICES Date:
Revised Original
Project: Sunset Interceptor Location: Edmonds Washington
Est. by: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Sheets of Drawing Required: NA
4/27/2017
CONTRACT NO. TBD
City of Edmonds Sunset Avenue Interceptor
Trenchless Alternative
Item a. Total Labor Costs (See Table 2)
DISCIPLINE
Hours
Rate
Total
Principal
6
$ 245.00
$
1,470.00
Project Manager
13
$ 170.00
$
2,210.00
Senior III Geotech
0
$ 151.00
$
-
Senior I Geotech
2
$ 122.00
$
244.00
Geotech Engr IV
0
$ 111.00
$
-
Senior III Geologist
2
$ 151.00
$
302.00
Senior I Geologist
38
$ 122.00
$
4,636.00
Geologist IV
80
$ 111.00
$
8,880.00
Laboratory Technician
19
$ 65.00
$
1,235.00
Drafter/Computer Drafter
0
$ 108.00
$
-
Clerical
12
$ 103.00
$
1,236.00
SUBTOTAL
172
-
1
$
20,213.00
Item a. TOTAL LABOR COST
Item b. Subcontractors, Reproduction, Travel, and Lab Tests (ODCs):
Details: See Table 3
(rounded to the nearest dollar) TOTAL FEE
$
$
$
20,213.00
24,369.23
44,582
Notes:
Engr =
Engineer
Est. =
established
No. =
number
ODCs
= other direct costs
TBD
= to be determined
21-2-63193-001-Ll-Rev-T1-T5/wp/lk 21-2-63193-001
Packet Pg. 117
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
6.7.a
TABLE 2
LABOR COSTS
CONTRACT NO. TBD
City of Edmonds Sunset Avenue Interceptor Trenchless Alternative
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
LABOR COSTS
Subtasks
Hours
Descriptions
Principal
Project
Manager
Senior III
Geotech
Senior I
Geotech
Geotech Engr
IV
Senior III
Geologist
Senior I
Geologist
Geologist IV
Laboratory
Technician
Drafter/Computer
Drafter
Clerical
Total
Hours
Cost
Work Components
Task 1. Work Plan
Geotechnical Exploration Work Plan
Description of the selected drilling methods and sampling procedures.
1
2
3
$366
Prepare Activity Hazard Analysis.
1
2
3
$366
Schedule for completing the fieldwork.
2
1
3
$347
Project Management
Task 2. Geotechnical Explorations
Planning
1
1
2
$273
Site visit.
4
4
$444
Call in locates (one).
2
2
$222
Set up "No Parking" signs.
4
4
$444
Subcontractor coordination.
2
2
$244
Field Explorations
Coordination with field personnel (one hour per day for one day).
4
4
$488
Drilling observation (including daily logs).
56
56
$6,216
Prepare Boring Logs
Prepare Revision 0 (Rev. 0) logs.
1
2
2
5
$550
Check field log data (depths, SPT, core recovery, and water levels).
hiput field information and produce Rev. 0 log.
Prepare Rev. 1 Logs
1
19
2
19
4
45
$4,338
Back -check Rev. 0 log.
Review and photograph soil core (assume 70 feet per day).
Collect grab samples from sonic core.
Input information and produce Rev. 1 log.
Prepare Rev. 2 Logs
1
2
2
5
$601
Back -check Rev. 1 logs.
Review laboratory test results and incorporate into logs.
Prepare Rev. 3 Logs
4
4
$488
Back -check Rev. 2 logs.
Review logs for consistency relative to the generalized subsurface profiles.
Final check on geology, syntax, and format.
Transmittal of Boring Log
1
1
1
3
$518
Telephone Discussion with Tetra Tech to Discuss Results
2
2
4
$830
Telephone Discussion with Tetra Tech and City to Discuss Results
2
2
4
$830
Project Management
1
7
1
9
$1,538
Task 3. Geotechnical Testing
Laboratory Testing
Sample Check -in
2
2
$222
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring two observations
8
8
$888
Total Hours
Category Rate
Labor Costs
6
131
2
2
38
801
19
12
172
$ 245.00
$ 170.00
$ 151.00
$ 122.00
$ 111.00
$ 151.00
$ 122.00
$ 111.00
$ 65.00
$ 108.00
$ 103.00
$1,470
$2,210
$244
$302
$4,636
$8,880
$1,235
$1,236
$20,213
Total Labor Costs $20,213
C
N
E
d
d
L
a
C
O
E
a-
lZ
3
4-
0
C
O
R
C
O
N
d
a.
a
21-2-63193-00I-LI-Rev-TI-TS/wp/lk
Packet Pg. 118
6.7.a
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
TABLE 3
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
CONTRACT NO. TBD
City of Edmonds Sunset Avenue Interceptor Trenchless Alternative
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Description Unit Cost Units Quantity I Direct Cost Subtotals
Task 1. Work Plan
Xerox 8 '/2" x 1 F
$ 0.10
each
200
1 $ 20
Xerox 11" x 17"
$ 0.20
each
50
$ 10
Subtotal Task 1. Work Plan
$ 30
Task 2. Geotechnical Explorations
Drilling Subcontractor
$ 21,012
lump sum
1
$ 21,012
GPS Rental
$ 50
day
4
$ 200
Sample Jars (Box of 12)
$ 40
box
1
$ 40
Jar Box Receiving and Handling
$ 10
box
1
$ 10
Sonic Core Receiving and Handling
$ 35
box
33
$ 1,155
Mileage
$ 0.54
mile
288
$ 154
Subtotal Task 2. Geotechnical Explorations
$ 22,571
Task 3. Geotechnical Testing
Particle Size (ASTM D6913)
$ 135.00
each
4
$ 540
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318)
$ 175.00
each
4
$ 700
Moisture Content (ASTM D2216)
$ 16.00
each
33
$ 528
Subtotal Task 3. Geotechnical Testing
S 1,768
Total (Tasks 1 through 3)
$ 24,369
Notes:
= inches
ASTM = ASTM International
GPS = global positioning system
U)
J
O
N
21-2-63193-001-L1-Rev-T1-T5/wp/lk 21-2-63193-001
Packet Pg. 119
SHANNON & WILSON, I
TABLE 4
DRILLING AND LABORATORY TESTING SCHEDULE
CONTRACT NO. TBD
City of Edmonds Sunset Avenue Interceptor Trenchless Alternative
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
DRILLING AND LABORATORY TESTING SCHEDULE
Total Depth
Moisture
Below Ground
Shelby Tube or
Surface
Thick-walled
SPT
Particle Size
Atterberg Limits
Content
Boring
feet
Sam les
Tests
(ASTM D6913
(ASTM D4318)
(ASTM D2216
LS1-1
35
-
-
1
1
1
1
7
9
LS1-2
45
-
9
LS1-3
45
-
-
1
1
9
LS1-4
40
-
-
1
1
8
Totals 165 0 9 4
4
33
Notes:
ASTM = ASTM International
SPT = Standard Penetration Test
TBD = to be determined
T-
it
to
J
LO
co
0
N
t
aD
H
M
m
H
21-2-63193-001-Ll-Rev-T1-T5/wp/]k
2 Packet Pg. 120
SHANNON & WILSON, I
TABLE 5
DRILLING ESTIMATE
CONTRACT NO. TBD
City of Edmonds Sunset Avenue Interceptor Trenchless Alternative
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
DRILLING ESTIMATE
Item
Holt Services, Inc. - February7,
2017 Bid
Unit
&_L2_sL1
Quantity
Extended
Unit Cost
Sonic Drilling
Mobilization Drilling Equipment
$
1,000
1
each
$
1,000.00
Setup/Cleanup
$
450
4
hours
$
1,800.00
Washington State Department of Ecology NOIBoring Log
$
50
4
each
$
200.00
Daily Travel
$
200
2
days
$
400.00
Auger/rotary Drilling 0 to 50 feet
$
40
165
feet
$
6,600.00
Drive Extra Standard Penetration Test Sample
$
100
9
each
$
900.00
2-inch Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Well Construction
$
20
165
feet
$
3,300.00
Investigation -derived Waste Disposal
$
125
4
drum
$
500.00
8-inch Flush Surface Completion
$
300
4
each
$
1,200.00
Vacuum Extract
$
250
6
hours
$
1,500.00
Wooden Core Box - 5 feet of Sample
$
50
33
each
$
1,650.00
Subtotal Cost
$
19,050.00
Sales Tax
10.30%
$
1,962.15
Estimated Cost Per foot
$
127.35
Estimated Production Rate
165 ft/da
Total Days Drilling
1 days
Quoted Price
$
21,012.15
21-2-63193-001-Li-Rev-Ti-T5/wp/lk 2 i Packet Pg. 121
A?j
IM IF j,
- --------- 0-�
7- -------
-=ML
7, Aff
k ill '3F, i%'SF k-ill—d
LSI 2
M N
ti
----------
7 ---- ------ ---- -
t.
04
..........
v..
LS1 I
FIGURE 1
_w_
Edmonft Sunset Avenue Overbok Troll
Topagph. s..ey
Edmonds Sunset Avenue O�HGOk Trail
�1--
Topogmphic S—V
2
Edmonds S`tlunset �ven,
Edmonds Sunset Avenl�a Overlook TIM
To, og,.Phi. sum.
T"
:77 3
6.7.a
SCOPE OF WORK —LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDY AMENDMENT 1
412412017
Exhibit B
Price Proposal
5
Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 123
6.7.a
0 Price Proposal
Labor Plan
Price Summary / Totals
4Resource
Task Pricing Totals
1 49,880
Lift Station #1- Amendment 1- Geotech
Geotechnical Investigations to provide information relevant to trenchless design methods.
Bill Rate >
Prof Area>
22038
175.58
216.69
75.64
SpecifyAdd'I Fees on Setup
49,88( cC
r�
Technology Use Fee
Total Price
Submitted to: City of Edmonds (Attn: Mike DeLilla)
Contract Type: T&M
Pricing
C
by Resource E
� N
o
l
_
vo
m a
o.
a o
_
m
a '
_
o
_
_
—
.E v
a w
Labor
Race Fsc.
Labor
Subs
Travel
Mat'Is &Equip
ODCs
a
Task Pricin (q
Total
Project Phases Tasks
Schedule
>
3 0
>
3
Total
Labor Hrs
From
rnr�
Moths
16
3
a
7
z
o.00%
3,o3z
a6,811
37
49,88, 0
Task 1 Project Management
11
3
a
2
2
1,948
19
C
1,96 O
PM
5
1
z
z
723
19
74 r
Telecon w/City
6
z
z
z
1,225
1,22 yICU
Task 2 Geotechnical Investigation
5
5
1,083
46,811
19
47,91
Task 201 Work Plan
z
z
433
1,451
7
1,85 N
Task 202 Geotechnical Exploration
1
1
217
42,338
4
42,55 L%
Task 203 Geotechnical Testing
z
z
433
3,022
7
3,4E a
J
111.0
to
O
N
t
V
N
H
Totalsl
I
I
I
1
1 161
3
1 a
1 7
=2
0.00%
1 3,032
1 46,811
1
37
1 49,881 R
a
Tetra Tech - Confidential and Proprietary Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 124
6.8
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Complete Streets Grant Agreement with the Transportation
Improvement Board (TIB)
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On May 9, 2017, staff presented this item to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee and it was
forwarded to the May 16th consent agenda for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to sign the grant agreement.
Narrative
The City secured a Complete Streets grant through the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB)
Program in the amount of $250,000. The intent of this program is to fund Complete Streets
improvements for non -motorized transportation / transit users. The selected project is the completion
of a missing sidewalk link on the south side of Dayton St. from 71h Ave to 81h Ave (identified as #1 ranked
project in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan). Upon completion of the project,
Dayton St. will have sidewalks on both sides of the street along this stretch. This project is being
combined with the Utility Improvements project along Dayton St. from 3rd Ave and 91h Ave. The
agreement is approved as to form by the City Attorney.
Attachments:
Complete Streets Grant Agreement
Packet Pg. 125
ffl' �EWashington State Transportation Improvement Board
j) Complete Streets Award Grant Agreement
City of Edmonds
C-P-139(001)-1
Complete Streets Award
STATE OF WASHINGTON
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD
AND
CITY OF EDMONDS
GRANT AGREEMENT
6.8.a
C-P-139(001)-1
THIS GRANT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into between the
WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD ("TIB") and CITY OF
EDMONDS ("RECIPIENT").
WHEREAS, the TIB has developed a grant program, Complete Streets, to provide for the retrofit
of streets and roads ("Project") for eligible cities, towns, and counties to provide access to all
users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, and public transportation riders, and
WHEREAS, the above -identified RECIPIENT is eligible to receive a Project grant pursuant to
ordinance 3842 and that it has the legal authority to receive such grant and to perform the
Project pursuant to the terms of this grant
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to chapter 47.26 RCW, RCW 47.04.320, and WAC 479-10-500
et seq, the above recitals that are incorporated herein as if fully set forth below, and in
consideration of the terms, conditions, and performances contained herein, and the attached
Exhibits, if any, which are made a part hereof,
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. GRANT
TIB agrees to grant funds in the amount of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND 00/100
($250,000) for the Project pursuant to the terms contained herein, and the RECIPIENT agrees
to accept such grant funds and agrees to perform and be subject to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement.
2. PROJECT AND BUDGET
The Project shall provide for the retrofit of identified streets or roads on the RECIPIENT's
approved work plan. In accordance with applicable laws and ordinances, the RECIPIENT
agrees to enter into an agreement with an independent contractor and/or material providers, or
otherwise provide for the Project work plan to be completed by the RECIPIENT's own forces.
The RECIPIENT further agrees that it shall be solely responsible for and shall pay its
independent contractor and/or material providers. If RECIPIENT uses its own forces, it shall be
solely responsible for paying the costs thereof. Under no circumstances shall the TIB be
responsible to any third party for the payment of labor or materials used in completing the
Project work plan. The Project work plan may be amended by the Parties, pursuant to Section
7.
Complete Streets Grant Agreement Page 1 of 5 December 2016
Packet Pg. 126
2 Washington State Transportation Improvement Board C-P-139(001)-1
Complete Streets Award Grant Agreement
3. PROJECT WORK PLAN AND DOCUMENTATION
The RECIPIENT agrees to and shall make reasonable progress and submit timely Project
documentation, as applicable, throughout the term of this Agreement and Project.
Required documents include, but are not limited to the following:
a) Project work plan describing eligible items with estimated costs;
b) Documentation to support all costs expended on the Project work plan; and
c) Project work plan Closeout Form.
4. PAYMENT AND RETURN OF GRANT FUNDS
TIB will pay the full grant award to the RECIPIENT after TIB approves the Project work plan and
the Parties fully execute this Agreement; provided that there are legislatively appropriated funds
available. The RECIPIENT agrees that it shall hold the grant funds in a separate and identifiable
account and only use said funds to pay the actual direct and related indirect costs of the
approved Project work plan. Grant funds not expended on approved Project work plan items
within three years of the date of TIB's Grant approval shall be returned to TIB within ninety
(90) days after receipt of TIB's written notification.
5. USE OF COMPLETE STREETS GRANT FUNDS
RECIPIENT agrees that the grant funds shall only be used to complete the approved Project
work plan. Otherwise, RECIPIENT is subject to the Default and Termination provisions of
Section 9.
6. RECORDS MAINTENANCE
6.1 The RECIPIENT shall maintain books, records, documents, data and other evidence
relating to this Agreement and performance of the Project work plan, including but not limited to
accounting procedures and practices which sufficiently and properly reflect all actual direct and
related indirect costs of any nature expended in the performance of this Agreement.
RECIPIENT shall retain such records for a period of six years after the completion of the Project
work plan and TIB's acceptance of the Project work plan Closeout Form. At no cost to TIB,
these records shall be provided when requested; including materials generated under the
Agreement, and shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection, review or audit by TIB
personnel, the Office of the State Auditor, and federal and state officials so authorized by law,
regulation or agreement.
6.2 If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the six (6) year period,
the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records
have been resolved.
7. REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT WORK PLAN
RECIPIENT may request revisions to the Project work plan, including the addition or removal of
items. Requests must be made in writing, and TIB, in its sole discretion, will determine whether
to accept the proposed revisions. Should the TIB approve a Project work plan revision, the
Parties shall amend this Agreement pursuant to Section 14. The RECIPIENT shall be solely
responsible for all costs incurred in excess of the Agreement grant award.
Complete Streets Grant Agreement Page 2 of 5 December 2016
Packet Pg. 127
2 Washington State Transportation Improvement Board C-P-139(001)-1
Complete Streets Award Grant Agreement
8. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by the Parties and shall continue through
closeout of the grant amount, or amendment thereof, or unless terminated as provided herein.
In no event shall the Agreement term exceed three years, unless extended by Agreement
amendment pursuant to Section 14.
9. NON-COMPLIANCE, DEFAULT AND TERMINATION
9.1 NON-COMPLIANCE
a) In the event TIB determines, in its sole discretion, the RECIPIENT has failed to
comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and applicable rules under
WAC 479-10-500 et seq, TIB shall notify the RECIPIENT, in writing, of RECIPIENT's
non-compliance.
b) RECIPIENT shall provide a written response within ten (10) business days of receipt
of TIB's notice of non-compliance, which shall include either a detailed plan to
correct the non-compliance, a request to amend the Project work plan, or a denial
accompanied by supporting documentation. An agreement to amend the Project
work plan must be pursuant to Section14.
c) RECIPIENT shall have thirty (30) days in which to make reasonable progress toward
compliance pursuant to its Project work plan to correct or implement an amendment
to the Project work plan.
d) Should RECIPIENT dispute non-compliance, TO will investigate the dispute and, in
its sole discretion, TIB may require the RECIPIENT to stop incurring additional
Project work plan costs during the investigation. Should TIB require the RECIPIENT
to stop incurring additional costs to be paid with the grant funds, the RECIPIENT
shall be solely obligated for paying any additional costs incurred by such suspension
of work, contractor claims, or litigation costs; such costs cannot be paid for with grant
funds.
9.2 DEFAULT
RECIPIENT is in default if TIB determines, in its sole discretion, that:
a) RECIPIENT is not making reasonable progress toward correction and compliance
with this Agreement and the Project work plan;
b) TIB denies the RECIPIENT's request to amend the Project work plan; and
c) After investigation, TIB confirms RECIPIENT'S non-compliance.
9.3 TERMINATION
a) In the event of default as determined pursuant to Section 9, TO shall serve
RECIPIENT with a written notice of termination of this Agreement, which may be
served in person, by email or by certified letter. Upon service of notice of termination,
the RECIPIENT shall immediately stop incurring costs chargeable against the grant
funds and/or take such actions necessary as may be directed by TIB to protect TIB's
grant funds.
b) In the event of termination, the RECIPIENT may be liable for damages as authorized
by law including, but not limited to, repayment of all grant funds.
c) The rights and remedies of TIB provided in this Agreement are not exclusive and are
in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.
Complete Streets Grant Agreement Page 3 of 5 December 2016
Packet Pg. 128
2 Washington State Transportation Improvement Board C-P-139(001)-1
Complete Streets Award Grant Agreement
10. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
a) The Parties shall make good faith efforts to quickly and collaboratively resolve any
dispute arising under or in connection with this Agreement. The dispute resolution
process outlined in this Section applies to disputes arising under or in connection with
the terms of this Agreement.
b) Informal Resolution. The Parties shall use their best efforts to resolve disputes promptly
and at the lowest organizational level.
c) In the event that the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute, the Parties shall submit
the matter to non -binding mediation facilitated by a mutually agreed upon mediator. The
Parties shall share equally in the costs of the mediator.
d) Each Party agrees to participate to the fullest extent possible and in good faith in
resolving the dispute in order to avoid delays or additional incurred cost to the Project
work plan.
e) The Parties agree that they shall have no right to seek relief in a court of law in
accordance with Section 11, until and unless the Dispute Resolution process has been
exhausted.
11. GOVERNANCE, VENUE, AND ATTORNEYS FEES
This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of
Washington and venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in the Superior Court for
Thurston County. The Parties agree that each Party shall be responsible for its own attorneys'
fees and costs.
12. INDEMNIFICATION, HOLD HARMLESS, AND WAIVER
12.1 RECIPIENT, shall protect, defend, indemnify, and save harmless the TIB, its officers,
officials, employees, and authorized agents, while acting within the scope of their employment
as such, from any and all costs, claims, judgments, and/or awards of damages (both to persons
and/or property), arising out of, or in any way resulting from, RECIPIENT'S negligent acts or
omissions which may arise in connection with its performance under this Agreement.
RECIPIENT shall not be required to indemnify, defend, or save harmless the TIB if the claim,
suit, or action for injuries, death, or damages (both to persons and/or property) is caused by the
sole negligence of TIB; provided that, where such claims, suits, or actions result from the
concurrent negligence of the Parties, or involves those actions covered by RCW 4.24.115, the
indemnity provisions provided herein shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of
RECIPIENT's own negligence
12.2 RECIPIENT agrees that its obligations under this section extends to any claim, demand
and/or cause of action brought by, or on behalf of, any of its officers, officials, employees or
authorized agents. For this purpose, RECIPIENT, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with
respect to TIB only, any immunity that would otherwise be available to it against such claims
under the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW.
12.3 The obligations of this indemnification and waiver Section shall survive termination of
this Agreement.
13. ASSIGNMENT
The RECIPIENT shall not assign or transfer its rights, benefits, or obligations under this
Agreement without the prior written consent of TIB. The RECIPIENT is deemed to consent to
Complete Streets Grant Agreement Page 4 of 5 December 2016
Packet Pg. 129
2 Washington State Transportation Improvement Board C-P-139(001)-1
Complete Streets Award Grant Agreement
assignment of this Agreement by TIB to a successor entity. Such consent shall not constitute a
waiver of the RECIPIENT'S other rights or obligations under this Agreement.
14. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the Parties. Such amendments shall
not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by persons authorized to bind each of the
Parties.
15. INDEPENDENT CAPACITY
The RECIPIENT shall be deemed an independent contractor for all purposes and the
employees of the RECIPIENT or any of its contractors, subcontractors, and employees thereof
shall not in any manner be deemed employees of TIB.
16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement, together with the Exhibits, if any, the provisions of chapter 47.26 RCW, chapter
479 WAC, and TIB Policies, constitute the entire Agreement between the Parties and
supersedes all previous written or oral agreements between the Parties. RECIPIENT agrees to
abide by all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, and rules when performing
under the terms of this Agreement.
City of Edmonds Transportation Improvement Board
Chief Executive Officer Date Date
Print Name Print Name
Approved as to Form
Bv:
ANN E. SALAY
Senior Assistant Attorney General
NOTE: Any changes to the terms of this Agreement
shall require further approval of the Office of the
Attorney General
Complete Streets Grant Agreement Page 5 of 5 December 2016
Packet Pg. 130
6.9
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Reject all construction bids for the 238th Street Walkway Project (Edmonds Way to SR99)
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On May 9, 2017, staff presented this item to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee and it was
forwarded to the May 16th consent agenda for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Reject all construction bids and re -advertise the project in fall 2017 or early 2018.
Narrative
This project involves the installation of approximately 1000 feet of sidewalk on the north side of 2381n
Street between Edmonds Way (SR 104) and SR99. The project will fill in the gaps in the existing
pedestrian infrastructure, install a mid -block crossing with a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon, and
install minor associated stormwater improvements. The project also includes an alternative bid that
would install a sidewalk in the traffic island at the intersection of 238t" Street and Edmonds Way.
The project costs are being funded by a Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Grant and City
Stormwater funds.
On May 2, 2017, the City received five construction bids for the project. The bids ranged from $505,022
to $846,931. The bids exceed the engineer's estimate of $376,430 and the available project budget.
The bid tabulation summary is attached as Exhibit 1.
Staff recommends rejecting all construction bids and re -advertising the project in fall 2017 or early 2018.
Advertising the project during fall/winter should result in more contractors bidding the project and
receiving lower prices to build the project.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1- Bid Summary
Packet Pg. 131
6.9.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
Es , g90
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
PROJECT No.: E6DA City No.: c485
Bid Date: 5/2/2017
Bid Time: 2:00pm
Engineer's Estimate: $376,430
CONTRACTOR
BID TOTAL
1
Kamins Construction Company
$505 022
2
Welwest Construction
$523,535
3
NPM
$5051022
4
RRJ
$532,765
5
Road Construction NW
$8461931
6
7
c
O
'm
r
t0
O
N
R
E
E
3
co
m
Packet Pg. 132
6.10
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Business License Renewal Late Fee Reversal Policy
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
City of Edmonds business licenses are renewed annually. The City Clerk's office mails out license renewal
notifications in December of each year, and the business license payment is due by January 31 of the
license year. A late fee of $50 is assessed if license payments are received after January 31. Each year,
the Clerk receives several requests from business licensees to waive or reverse a late fee. Currently, the
Clerk's office will only waive a late fee if it receives a return -to -sender envelope, evidencing that the
business never received the renewal reminder.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the proposed license renewal late fee policy on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
Rather than making arbitrary decisions regarding late fee waivers, the Clerk would rather rely on a policy
which provides clear direction regarding when a late fee waiver is warranted. According to the proposed
policy, a late fee may be waived once every three years if the account has been in otherwise good
standing for that period of time, or if the late payment was beyond the control of the customer. It
should be noted that many cities, utility companies and agencies have adopted similar policies; the City
of Edmonds Utilities Department has a similar policy, as does the Department of Revenue. The proposed
policy borrows many of the same provisions as those other policies.
This proposal was presented and discussed at the May 9 Council Finance Committee, where it was
recommended for inclusion on the consent agenda of the next regular Council meeting.
Attachments:
2017 Exhibit A Late Fee Reversal Policy
Packet Pg. 133
6.10.a
Exhibit A
Business License Renewal
Late Fee Reversal Policy
A late payment fee for Business License Customers may be waived one (1) time every 36
months if the account has been in otherwise good standing for that period of time, or if
the late payment was beyond the control of the customer as outlined below.
An exception may be made to this policy if circumstances are beyond control of the
customer. Circumstances beyond the control of the customer must actually cause the
late payment. These reasons are generally those which are immediate, unexpected, or
in the nature of an emergency. Such circumstances result in the customer not having
reasonable time or opportunity to obtain an extension of the due date or otherwise pay.
These instances include but are not necessarily limited to the following:
A. The payment was mailed on time but inadvertently sent to someone else.
B. Erroneous written information given to the customer by an employee caused the
delinquency.
C. The delinquency was directly caused by a death or serious illness of the
customer, or a member of the customer's immediate family.
D. The delinquency was caused by the unavoidable absence of the customer (this
does not include business trips or vacations).
E. The delinquency was caused by the destruction by fire or other casualty of the
customer's home or place of business.
F. The delinquency was caused by an act of fraud, embezzlement, or theft through
no part of the customer.
Each occurance will be considered on a case -by -case basis. Documentation may be
required, and any more than one exception due to emergency during a 36-month period
must be authorized by the Mayor.
The following are examples of circumstances that are generally not considered to be
beyond the control of the customer:
A. Financial Hardship
B. A misunderstanding or lack of knowledge
C. The failure of the customer to receive a notification
D. Reliance upon unpublished, written information from the City that was issued to
and specifically addresses the circumstances of another customer
City of Edmonds Business License Fee Late Payment Reversal Policy - DRAFT
Packet Pg. 134
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Unit Lot Subdivision Code Amendment (AMD20170003) (30 min.)
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Mike Clugston
Background/History
This application was introduced to Council on May 9, 2017.
A private applicant, Westgate Woods LLC, has proposed a code amendment to add a unit lot subdivision
process to the City's existing subdivision ordinance. This process would apply City-wide and is not a site -
specific amendment. It is a Type V legislative decision where the Planning Board holds a public hearing
on the proposal and makes a recommendation to Council. The Planning Board first reviewed the project
at their March 22, 2017 meeting and held a public hearing on April 26, 2017. After their public hearing,
the Planning Board recommended the draft language in Exhibit 1 to Council for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the code language as proposed by the Planning Board in Exhibit 1 and direct the City Attorney
to prepare an ordinance for adoption on a future consent agenda.
Narrative
A unit lot subdivision process would allow for creation of an ownership option for multifamily
development projects as an alternative to condominiums. Just like condominiums, a unit lot subdivision
does not change zoning, density or other bulk requirements for a multifamily project - it simply overlays
property lines on a site. A unit lot subdivision differs from a standard subdivision in that the
development standards for a project are applied to the larger site (parent lot) as opposed to the
individual parcels being created (unit lots).
A unit lot subdivision could be applied over an existing multifamily development (if it met the
requirements) or with a new multifamily proposal. The process could be used in one of several zones -
Multiple Residential, both General Commercial zones, and in portions of Westgate Mixed Use. These
zones allow for multifamily development on the ground floor of a site whereas several other zones such
as Community Business, Planned Business and Neighborhood Business do not - the residential
component in those zones must be above a ground floor commercial use.
Several other local jurisdictions currently have some form of this process including Seattle, Mountlake
Terrace, and Snohomish County. From 2003 to 2008, the City of Edmonds had a similar process known
as townhouse subdivision. That process resulted in several projects in town. However, the City's
process was based on a staff interpretation of the definition of the term 'townhouse' from 2003. During
review of a townhouse project in 2008, the Hearing Examiner at the time identified some
Packet Pg. 135
7.1
inconsistencies between how the townhouse subdivision process was being applied and the
requirements of the subdivision ordinance. After the 2008 project, no further townhouse subdivisions
were approved. Part of the problem with processing additional applications were the concerns
highlighted by the Hearing Examiner and the lack of clear authority and standards in the code.
Staff believes the current proposal will allow for ownership opportunities for some multifamily projects
where they otherwise might not exist while protecting owners within the project with clear
requirements for future maintenance and management. The concerns of the Hearing Examiner
regarding the City's former townhouse subdivision process are also addressed in the current proposal by
clarifying that development standards will be applied to the parent lot rather than the individual unit
lots in a unit lot subdivision.
Seven Exhibits are included with this packet:
1) Subdivision ordinance with draft unit lot language forwarded from the Planning Board
2) Draft minutes from the Planning Board's April 26 public hearing
3) Planning Board's April 26 packet
4) Applicant's powerpoint from April 26
5) Letter of support from Master Builders of King and Snohomish Counties
6) Letter of support from Rob Michel
7) Staff powerpoint from May 9
In Exhibit 1, the applicant's original language was inserted into the existing subdivision ordinance (purple
text). Staff made some additions and clarifications to that (red text). The applicant also proposed two
minor changes on April 26 (blue text).
Attachments:
Ex 1- Draft unit lot language forwarded by PB
Ex 2 - Draft Planning Board minutes April 26
Ex 3 - April 26 Planning Board packet
Ex 4 - Applicant's April 26 PPT
Ex 5 - Master Builders Letter of Support
Ex 6 - Michel letter of support
Ex 7 - Unit Lot Subdivision briefing May 9
Packet Pg. 136
7.1.a
Chapter 20.75
SUBDIVISIONS
Sections:
o
20.75.010
Citation of chapter.
20.75.020
Purposes.
0
o
20.75.025
Scope.
a
20.75.030
Subdivision defined.
c
20.75.035
Compliance required.
as
E
20.75.040
Application.
c
20.75.050
Lot line adjustment —Application.
20.75.055
Lot combination.
0
20.75.060
Required information on preliminary plats.Mh
o
20.75.065
Preliminary review.
20.75.070
Formal subdivision —Time limit.
20.75.075
Modifications.
20.75.080
General findings.
0
J
r
20.75.085
Review criteria.
20.75.090
Park land dedication.
20.75.100
Preliminary approval —Time limit.
0
20.75.105
Repealed.
a.
20.75.107
Preliminary approval —Time limit extension for previously approved short plats.
20.75.110
Changes.
-°'aL
20.75.120
Review of improvement plans.
0Ca
20.75.130
Installation of improvements.
�°
20.75.135
Preparation of final plat.
�
0
20.75.140
Final plat — Required certificates.
CU
20.75.145
Final plat —Accompanying material.
o
20.75.150
Waiver of survey.
20.75.155
Review of final plat.
0
20.75.158
Short plat — Staff review.
L
o
20.75.160
Final plat — Filing for record.
x
20.75.165
Effect of rezones.
w
20.75.170
Further division — Short subdivisions.
c
E
20.75.175
Court review.
0
20.75.180
Development of lots not divided according to this chapter.
Q
20.75.185 Penalties.
Page 1 of 23
Packet Pg. 137
7.1.a
20.75.010 Citation of chapter.
This chapter may be cited as the City of Edmonds Subdivision Ordinance and shall supplement
and implement the state regulations of plats, subdivisions and dedications found in Chapter
58.17 RCW.
20.75.020 Purposes.
The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general
welfare in accordance with state standards to prevent overcrowding of land;
B. To lessen congestion in the streets and highways;
C. To facilitate adequate provisions for water, utilities, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and
recreation areas, sites for schools and playgrounds, and other public requirements;
D. To provide for proper ingress and egress;
E. To require uniform monumenting of subdivisions and accurate legal descriptions of
subdivided lots.
20.75.025 Scope.
This chapter shall apply to all divisions of land for any purpose except those set forth in RCW
58.17.040, including but not limited to:
A. Divisions for cemetery plots or other burial plots;
B. Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or by the laws of descent;
C. Divisions for the purpose of lease when no residential structure other than mobile homes or
travel trailers are permitted to be placed upon the land and the city of Edmonds has
approved a binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with this chapter.
Divisions under subsections A and B of this section will not be recognized as lots for building M
0
purposes unless all applicable requirements of this chapter are met.
r
K
20.75.030 Subdivision defined. w
r
c
as
A. "Subdivision" means a division of land into lots of any size for the purpose of sale. The term E
subdivision includes all resubdivisions of land, short subdivisions, and formal subdivisions.
The term lot includes tracts, parcels, sites and divisions. The term sale includes lease gift or Q
development or any purpose not excepted in this section. When reference to "subdivision"
Page 2 of 23
Packet Pg. 138
7.1.a
is made in this code, it is intended to refer to both "formal subdivision" and "short
subdivision" unless one or the other is specified.
B. "Formal subdivision" means a subdivision of five or more lots.
C. "Short subdivision" means a subdivision of four or fewer lots.
D. "Unit lot subdivision" means a subdivision or short subdivision of land under ECDC
20.75.045 fE)Tt#c Qse--; r,f -;411AwOR9 fee-s,Y,,ni eWReFshmp .,f d,.,,ii;ng , 111-5 A tg ,.,h r rh
h � tied te the 19aFeRt �C9where compliance with the
development standards is evaluated with respect to the parent lot, not the unit lot.
E. "Parent lot" means the lot with legal lot status which ^reates the beYRdaFy of
fe-sestablishes the exterior boundary of a unit lot subdivision.
F. "Unit Lot" means a portion of a parent lot, the fee of which may be independently
transferred uaon recordine of a unit lot subdivision.
20.75.035 Compliance required.
Any person wishing to create a subdivision or lot line adjustment must first comply with this
chapter.
20.75.040 Application.
Applications for subdivisions shall be made to the community development director on forms
provided by the community development department. A subdivision application will be
processed concurrently with any applications for rezones, variances, planned unit
developments, site plan approvals and other similar approvals, that relate to the proposed
subdivision, unless the applicant expressly requests sequential processing. The application shall
contain the following items in addition to those specified in ECDC 20.02.002:
A. A reproducible copy of the preliminary plat and the number of prints required by the
community development department;
B. Title report;
x
w
C. A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior c
boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, E
a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be
combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option; a
Page 3 of 23
Packet Pg. 139
7.1.a
D. The application fee as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC;
E. A proposal for dedication of park land rather than payment of in -lieu fees, if desired by the
applicant;
F. Source of water supply and name of supplier;
G. Method of sewage disposal, and name of municipal system if applicable. Percolation rates
and other information required by the public works department shall be submitted if septic
tanks are to be used;
H. Other information that may be required by the community development director in order to
properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the
environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 3736 § 62, 2009; Ord. 2379 § 1, 1983].
20.75.050 Lot line adjustment — Application.
A. Lot Line Adjustment Defined. A lot line adjustment is an alteration of lot lines between
platted or unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site
or division.
B. Lot Line Adjustment Exempt from Subdivision Review. Except as otherwise provided in this
section, lot adjustments shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter.
C. Lot Line Adjustment Review. All proposals for lot line adjustments shall be submitted to the
Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee for approval. The Edmonds planning
manager or his/her designee shall approve the proposed lot line adjustment unless the
manager or his/her designee certifies in writing that the proposed adjustment will:
1. Create a new lot, tract, parcel, site or division;
2. Reduce the setbacks of existing structures below the minimum required by code or make
existing nonconforming setbacks of existing structures more nonconforming than
before;
3. Reduce the lot width or lot size below the minimum required for the applicable zone;
r
4. Transform a nonbuildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division into a buildable lot, tract, w
parcel, site or division;
as
5. Would otherwise result in a lot which is in violation of any requirement of the ECDC.
r
D. Application. A lot line adjustment application shall be submitted on forms provided by the Q
city and shall at a minimum contain the following information:
Page 4 of 23
Packet Pg. 140
7.1.a
1. One copy of dimensioned plans on the official city of Edmonds lot line adjustment form.
The dimensioned plans shall be prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor
registered in the state of Washington and shall conform to city of Edmonds survey
requirements, as promulgated by the Edmonds planning division. Information on the
plans shall include the following:
a. Legal descriptions of the existing lots and proposed lot line adjustment(s);
b. The location of all existing structures on the subject parcel(s), including dimensioned
setback information from all existing and proposed lot lines and ingress/egress
easements;
c. Locations of all existing ingress/egress and utility easements;
d. Gross lot area for the original parcels and the proposed parcels (gross lot area does
not include any lot area devoted to vehicular ingress/egress easements);
e. The existing zoning of the subject parcel(s);
f. Location of all existing driveways on the subject parcel(s); and
g. The lot lines of adjoining properties for a distance of at least 50 feet.
2. A title company certification which is not more than 30 calendar days old containing:
a. A legal description of the total parcel(s) sought to be adjusted;
b. A list of those individuals, corporations, or other entities holding an ownership
interest in the parcel(s);
c. Any easements or restrictions affecting the property(ies) with a description, purpose
and reference by auditor's file number and/or recording number;
d. Any encumbrances on the property; and
e. Any delinquent taxes or assessments on the property.
E. Fee. The application fee shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
r
K
F. Expiration. An application for a lot line adjustment shall expire one year after a complete w
r
application has been filed with the city. An extension up to an additional year may be
granted by the Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee upon a showing by the
application of reasonable cause. Q
Page 5 of 23
Packet Pg. 141
7.1.a
G. Review. A certified determination of the planning manager or his/her designee may be
appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision as set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
[Ord. 3736 § 63, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 1, 1998].
20.75.045 Unit Lot Subdivision
- Purpose. The unit lot subdivision process provides opportunities for dividing fee simple
ownership of land to create townhouses. rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units
as an alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached
subdivision. Unit lot subdivisions determine compliance with the relevant dimensional
standards of Title 16 by analyzing whether the parent lot complies, but not requiring that
each newly created lot within the unit lot subdivision (the unit lot) comply with those
dimensional standards. A unit lot subdivision does not permit uses or densities that are not
otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which the unit lot subdivision is proposed.
A. Applicability and PwFpesem. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision
of land for single-family dwelling units, townhouse, and rowhouses and may be applied only
in the following zones: Multiple Residential, General Commercial, and Westgate Mixed Use.
A single lot within a unit lot subdivision may contain multiple dwelling units when the unit
lot contains all such dwelling units within one building. On the fer.. of fl-.+r.,Flats are
permitted as an element of a unit lot subdivision only when a single lot within a unit lot
subdivision contains the entire building in which flats are located. Gettage he,;�„
exelusively On zenes that allew nqeFe than ene dwelling unet per let, and enly feF detached
I.,..,aRY I ,.,, ,Y,+ ,f aRY .,+h r Y, + Y,+ f r ,,..+ r* r I,,.,-,,,Y,+r Y,h r Y,+ + +h
e.
r,s*gR eF stFu t wr s Leh as (but Pet le. .,teal + ) av ev rh- RgS g tt rr aR d SOGIO 9 (see
20.75.0415.4 " - esser., .dweliffing units a speeffifically e*El� �.de d frern this seeteen
enly be i.,,-lu.de d when the unit let Gentaens all .dwellong units w4hi., en building. Ilr,., u .,i+
subdMsk)n let may contain multiple dwe!16
B. Association with Site Development — Application Timine. " 1--pit Let Sub dMs;en is a Fnethe d
Af .di"i.di.,�. eWRerrhi., .,f+h h iLdi., T ., .,+ Th .,lip,+i.,.,GaR .,I" h �«. P0Pi+.,
w;tlh PI deuelepmeRtplaR er an ex;St*R9 develeped site. In the case of a vacant lot or a
redevelopment site, a preliminary unit lot subdivision can only be submitted in conjunction
with or subsequent to a development site plan as required by ECDC 20.10, 20.11, 20.12, or
in the case described in ECDC 20.10.020.13.3 submitted in coniunction with or subseauent to
a building permit.
C. Conformance with Standards of the Parent Lot. The parent lot must comply with and is
vested to the aaalicable development standards (ECDC 20.75.030.E) in effect at the time a
Page 6 of 23
x
w
j.i
c
as
E
z
a
Packet Pg. 142
7.1.a
complete application for preliminary unit lot subdivision is submitted. As a result of the unit
lot subdivision. the individual unit lots within the subdivision may be nonconforminE with
respect to the bulk and dimensional standards required by Title 16 ECDC. M
0
0
CD
As with dimensional standards, compliance with access standards, including but not limited
to fire lanes, drive aisles, turn-arounds, and access of/to the parent lot from/to the street o
will be evaluated based on the parent lot's compliance with such requirements, and not
Q
based on whether individual unit lots meet such standards.
d
E
.,help bin to +hn r r,+ In+
n development
,devele ds
'a
a a shall meet Rt stan.daF a .p"c
C
Gnnn 20.75.030.E) ,+ the +i.,,n the nn .,,i+ nli +i.,n as n4n.d nr, result .,f +hn u ni+ L,+
O
E
Q
rdi"icinr. the *nd-i"i.d, ,-Al Iets may Fesul+ ir, .diffnrnr,+ h--IL gpir,.dgr.dq +h;;n +hngn rn.. irn.d h"
d
€CDC T41-e-4-6r.
�°�
C
O
y
A
+e the r o�i+
let fFenq /te the street shall be based the r
Rt en ent
r IaR fer the parent let Rd Re h-,Snrl n ,-+And-aprrl- fnr A -ihrli"i,-iAgin-
n
D. Future Additions and Modifications. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications
r
O
to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parcel lot. Changes
c
D
requiring permitting that affect only the interior of building units will be evaluated for
o
compliance with the requirements only for that unit. Any exterior changes will be evaluated
0
for compliance by considering whether the parent lot would still comply with applicable
a
development standards. Any application for such external changes will require
authorization of all owners of „nit lets wothir, the parepel In}.of affected unit lots or approval
�
L
of the HOA where changes to commonly owned tracts are proposed. Due to EGDG
2
O
let eF many affect the .deyelnr,mnn+ as a •,heln ChaRgeorwqitt*Rg that- -Affeet,
a�
>�
R
7
" the ir,+nri.,r .,f h il.din� r,i+� ,ill hn n -,I''A+n.d Ar, +n , r,li non with the r n+s
C
enly fer that unit. Any exteFinr changes Fn affect the r Rg4t4ng fnr the a
O
n .deyeier,., eRt .,ill be evaluated .,i+hir, +hn of the p nl In+ frAM whir-.
C
�
w
nwneFs ,v, the parer} In+
L
E. Homeowners association ownership of common areas. Any commonly used areas or
r
x
w
facilities within a unit lot subdivision, including but not limited to common access, garage or
c
parking areas, common open space or recreation space, common courtyards, commonly
used stormwater facilities or side sewers and other similar features, must be owned and
a
maintained by a homeowners association with the rieht to assess the individual unit lot
Page 7 of 23
Packet Pg. 143
7.1.a
owners as necessary to properly maintain and repair such areas. Appropriate
documentation regarding the rights of the homeowners association must be submitted for
recording with the final plat. Aceess Easements and -PaF!(* p,. AEsess easements; e�PR
r+.,r,-,nce a ents shall be executed feF use of c.,Y,-,Y,- en garage eF arl(On .
shall be r eF de d on the final I Ir
F. Maintenance Agreements for building exteriors. jount use and ^^Maintenance agreements
must be executed and recorded as an element of the final unit subdivision Dlat or short
plat for maintenance of all building exteriors except in cases where all dwelling units are
detached. Themaintenance agreement smust require equal participation by all
owners within any one building. The weint maintepanee .,,.r,,,,Y,. ent &I+ II and must be
recorded on the final Unit Lot plat. The requirement does not apply to detached single
family dwelling units. Common wall construction must meet currently adopted building
codes.
G. Parking on Different Unit Lots Allowed. Within the parent lot, required parking for a
dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit as
long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the final plat.
H. Notice of Unit Lot on the Final Plat. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot
and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the
application of development standards to the parent lot s#a-M-must be noted on the final
plat.
I. An application for final Unit Lot plat will not be accepted until, at PAiRiP^UPi all foundations,
including common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face of the final plat by
the land surveyor of record.
Review. Unit lot subdivisions of four or fewer lots are arocessed and reviewed as short
subdivisions while five or more lots are formal subdivisions pursuant to ECDC 20.01 and the
requirements of this chapter.
20.75.055 Lot combination.
x
w
A. Lot Combination Defined. A lot combination is the combination of two or more legal, illegal, c
or nonconforming lots into one or more lots, all of which comply with the provisions of this E
z
code in effect at the time of said combination.
Page 8 of 23
a
Packet Pg. 144
7.1.a
B. An application for lot combination shall be signed for by all individuals or entities owning an
interest in the property. The application fee shall be the same as the fee established for lot
line adjustments.
C. Lot combinations shall be approved as a matter of right unless the development services
director finds that the combination of lots would:
1. Not result in legal conforming lot; and/or
2. Not be in compliance with the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. The
director shall, as a part of his decision, determine whether or not the lots, as combined,
negatively impact compliance with the city's urban density requirements as established
pursuant to the State Growth Management Act, comprehensive plan and the Snohomish
County planning policies.
D. The director's decision shall be issued in writing and shall be mailed to all properties within
300 feet of the site. Appeal may be taken from the director's decision within 10 working
days of mailing of the decision and posting thereof in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 64, 2009; Ord. 3296 § 2, 2000].
20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats.
A preliminary plat is a neat and approximate drawing to scale of a proposed division of land,
showing the existing conditions and the general proposed layouts of streets, lots and other
information needed to properly review the proposal. The preliminary plat of a short subdivision
may be referred to as a short plat. A preliminary plat shall be prepared by a professional land
surveyor registered in the state of Washington. The scale used shall be sufficient to show
clearly all details of the proposal. A scale of 50 feet to the inch is preferred; other engineering
scales may be used, if necessary. Preliminary plats for formal subdivisions shall not exceed a
size of 24 inches by 36 inches. Short plats shall be on an 8-1/2-by-11-inch page. The following
information shall be shown on the plat:
A. The name, if any, of the proposed subdivision;
B. Sufficient description to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision;
V.-
C. Name, address, seal and signature of the land surveyor who prepared the map; w
r
c
D. A vicinity sketch;
E. Date prepared or revised, scale, north point, quarter section, section, township and range r
number; Q
Page 9 of 23
Packet Pg. 145
7.1.a
F. Total acreage of the land to be divided, and area in square feet of each proposed lot;
G. Existing zoning, and zoning boundaries, if any;
H. Lot dimensions and numbers;
I. Setback lines required by the existing or proposed zoning, if the proposed lot has an unusual
shape, steep topography, or other unusual limitations on its building site;
J. Any existing property lines within, or adjacent to, the proposed subdivision, and the names of
the owners of adjacent property;
K. Contour lines in areas to be developed shall be at five-foot intervals, or as specified by the
community development director. Ten -foot intervals may be used in areas not to be
developed. All contour lines shall be extended into adjacent property a sufficient distance
to show the topographical relationship of adjacent property to the proposed subdivision;
L. The location, name and width of all existing and proposed street rights -of -way, or easements
within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision, the grade or proposed streets and the
pavement location of existing and proposed streets;
M. The location of all existing structures within the proposed subdivision and within 25 feet of
the proposed subdivision. Public area or areas to be owned in common by the lot owners, if
any;
N. The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in
diameter in areas as requested by the planning director;
O. A preliminary grading plan or profile of proposed roads if more than 500 cubic yards of earth
is to be removed;
P. A preliminary drainage proposal as specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, showing existing and
proposed drainage facilities for the site and the adjacent areas;
Q. A statement of improvements to be installed;
R. The location of known or suspected soil or geological hazard areas, water bodies, creeks and
V.-
areas subject to flooding; w
r
S. Possible future lot lines if any is large enough to allow future division,
E
M
T. Location of existing underground utility lines, sewer and water mains adjacent to or within
r
the proposed subdivision; Q
Page 10 of 23
Packet Pg. 146
7.1.a
U. Other information that may be required by the community development director in order to
properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the
environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 3296 § 1, 2000. Formerly 20.75.055.].
20.75.065 Preliminary review.
A. Responsibility for Review. The community development director, or a designated planning
staff member, is in charge of administering the preliminary review of all subdivisions. The
public works director and the fire department, and other departments if needed, shall
participate in preliminary review by appropriate recommendations on subjects within their
respective areas of expertise.
B. Notice of Hearing.
1. When the director of community services has accepted a subdivision for filing, he shall
set a date of hearing, and give notice of the hearing as provided in ECDC 20.03.003, and
by the following for a formal subdivision:
a. One publication in a newspaper of general circulation within Snohomish County
pursuant to Chapter 1.03 ECC and posting notice in three conspicuous places within
300 feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed formal subdivision not less
than 10 working days prior to the hearing.
b. Mailing to a city if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent or within one mile of the
city's boundary, or the proposed subdivision would use the utilities of the city.
c. Mailing to the county if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to the city -county
boundary.
d. Mailing to the State Department of Highways if a proposed formal subdivision is
adjacent to a state highway right-of-way.
e. The notice must include a legal description and either a vicinity location sketch or a
location description in nonlegal language.
C. Time Limits for Staff Review. Staff review shall be completed within 120 days from the date
of filing. .-
w
D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall review a formal subdivision as a Type
III -A decision in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. E
E. Short Subdivisions — Staff Review. The director of community services shall review a short Q
subdivision as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required).
Page 11 of 23
Packet Pg. 147
7.1.a
F. Appeal of Staff Decision. Any person may appeal to the hearing examiner a Type II decision of
the community development director on a short subdivision under the procedure set forth
in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3817 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 12, 2010;
Ord. 3736 § 65, 2009; Ord. 3211 §§ 4, 5, 1998; Ord. 3112 §§ 17, 18, 19, 1996; Ord. 2379 § 2,
1983].
20.75.070 Formal subdivision —Time limit.
The city council shall make its final decision on a proposed formal subdivision within 90 days of
the date of filing, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. Where applicable, additional
time needed to prepare and circulate an environmental impact statement shall not be included
within said 90 days. [Ord. 3783 § 13, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 13, 2010].
20.75.075 Modifications.
A. Request. Request for a modification to a requirement of this chapter shall be made on the
regular subdivision application form. The applicant shall state reasons to support the
approval of the requested modification.
B. Notice. The notice of the public hearing at which the applicant's proposed subdivision will be
considered shall contain a description of the proposed modification.
C. Consideration. The proposed modification shall be considered in the same manner as the
proposed subdivision. The modification may be approved, or recommended for approval,
only if all of the required findings set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances) can be made
[Ord. 3211 § 6, 19981.
20.75.080 General findings.
A proposed subdivision may be approved only if all of the following general findings can be
made for the proposal, as approved or as conditionally approved:
A. Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter (as listed
in ECDC 20.75.020) and meets all requirements of this chapter.
B. Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted city policy, and is in the public interest. x
w
C. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a
modification has been approved as provided for in this chapter. E
D. Flood Plain Management. The proposal meets all requirements of the Edmonds Community Q
Development Code relating to flood plain management. [Ord. 2466, 1984].
Page 12 of 23
Packet Pg. 148
7.1.a
20.75.085 Review criteria.
The following criteria shall be used to review proposed subdivisions:
A. Environmental.
1. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife habitats,
the proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the resources.
Permanent restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid impact.
2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and by
relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography.
3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the land to be
divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as flood plains, steep slopes or
unstable soil or geologic conditions, a subdivision of the hazardous land shall be denied
unless the condition can be permanently corrected, consistent with paragraphs A(1) and
(2) of this section.
4. The proposal shall be designed to minimize off -site impacts on drainage, views and so
forth.
B. Lot and Street Layout.
1. Lots shall be designed to contain a usable building area. If the building area would be
difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special conditions
can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed properly.
2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other
feasible access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or
frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards.
3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance
4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public
facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate.
V.-
C. Dedications. x
w
r
1. The city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public use.
E
M
2. Only the city council may approve a dedication of park land to satisfy the requirements of
r
ECDC 20.75.090. The council may request a review and written recommendation from Q
the planning advisory board.
Page 13 of 23
Packet Pg. 149
7.1.a
3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land for
streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary plat.
D. Improvements.
1. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, pedestrian
walks and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems,
drainage systems and underground utilities.
2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements necessary
to meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the requirements of:
a. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements;
b. Chapter 19.75, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and access.
This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the community
development director, the public works director, and the fire chief.
3. The use of septic systems may be approved if all of the following conditions are met:
a. It is more than 200 feet, multiplied by the number of lots in the proposed subdivision,
from the nearest public sewer main to the nearest boundary of the land to be
divided.
b. The land to be divided is zoned RS-20.
c. The public works director and city health officer determine that soil, drainage and
slope conditions are satisfactory for septic use and that all requirements of WAC
248-96-090 are met.
E. Flood Plain Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set forth in
the Edmonds Community Development Code for flood plain management. [Ord. 3211 § 7,
1998; Ord. 2466, 19841.
20.75.090 Park land dedication.
A. Dedication or In -Lieu of Fee Required. Before or concurrent with the approval of the final r
x
plat of any subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in -lieu of dedication, or w
r
do a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes.
E
B. Proposal of Dedication. Either the applicant or the city may propose dedication of a portion
r
of the land to be divided in order to meet the regulations of this section. Payment of in -lieu Q
fees is required unless dedication is proposed and approved.
Page 14 of 23
Packet Pg. 150
7.1.a
C. Review of Dedications. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed at the same time as the
subdivision proposal. Any short subdivision containing a dedication proposal shall be
reviewed as if it were a formal subdivision.
D. Factors for Review. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, and the Recreational
Walks Plan. Other factors to be considered include size, usability and accessibility of the
land proposed for dedication, and the possibility of coordinating dedication by owners of
adjacent land.
E. In -Lieu Fee. In -lieu park fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
20.75.100 Preliminary approval —Time limit.
A. Approval of a preliminary plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of the time
period established under RCW 58.17.140, unless the applicant has acquired final plat
approval prior to the expiration date established under RCW 58.17.140. The time period for
subdivisions shall commence upon the date of preliminary plat approval by the issuance of a
written decision by the Edmonds hearing examiner. In the event that the decision of the
hearing examiner is appealed to the Edmonds city council and/or Snohomish County
superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the
preliminary plat decision by the city council or judiciary.
B. Approval of a short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of seven years if
preliminary short plat approval is issued on or before December 31, 2013, and five years if
preliminary short plat approval is issued on or after January 1, 2014, unless the applicant
has acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period. The time period for
short plats shall commence upon the issuance of a final, written staff decision. In the event
that the decision of staff is appealed to the Edmonds hearing examiner and/or Snohomish
County superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation
of the preliminary short plat decision by the hearing examiner or judiciary. [Ord. 3925 § 1,
2013].
20.75.105 Extensions of time.
V.-
Repealed by Ord. 3190. [Ord. 2379 § 4, 1983]. w
r
20.75.107 Preliminary approval — Time limit extension for previously approved short plats. a
E
M
Short plats that received preliminary approval on or after January 1, 2006, and would have v
r
expired prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall have their Q
preliminary approvals automatically extended for a period of two years from the effective date
Page 15 of 23
Packet Pg. 151
7.1.a
of the ordinance codified in this section. Preliminary approval of such short plats shall expire
and have no further validity at the end of two years from the effective date of the ordinance
codified in this section, unless the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the
specified time period. Notice of the two-year extension from the effective date of the
ordinance codified in this section shall be provided to the parties of record of such preliminary
short plats. [Ord. 3925 § 2, 2013].
20.75.110 Changes.
A. Preliminary Plats. The community development director may approve as a Type II decision
(Staff decision — Notice required) minor changes to an approved preliminary plat, or its
conditions of approval. If the proposal involves additional lots, rearrangements of lots or
roads, additional impacts to surrounding property, or other major changes, the proposal
shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original application. Application fees shall be
as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
B. Recorded Final Plats. An application to change a final plat that has been filed for record shall
be processed in the same manner as a new application. This section does not apply to
affidavits of correction. [Ord. 3736 § 66, 2009].
20.75.120 Review of improvement plans.
A. Timing. If improvements are required as a condition of preliminary approval of a subdivision,
the applicant shall submit the improvement plan to the director of public works for review
and approval, allowing sufficient time for proper review before expiration of the preliminary
plat approval.
B. Engineered Design. All improvement plans shall be prepared, dated, signed and sealed by a
licensed engineer registered in the state of Washington, unless the public works director
determines that engineer plans are not necessary.
20.75.130 Installation of improvements.
A. Timing and Inspection Fee. The applicant shall not begin installation of improvements until
the public works director has approved the improvement plans, the public works director
and the applicant have agreed in writing on a time schedule for installation of the r
x
improvements, and the applicant has paid an inspection fee, as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. w
r
c
as
B. Completion — Bonding. The applicant shall either complete the improvements before the E
final plat is submitted for city council approval, or the applicant shall post a bond or other v
r
suitable surety to guarantee the completion of the improvements within one year of the Q
approval of the final plat. The bond or surety shall be based on the construction cost of the
Page 16 of 23
Packet Pg. 152
7.1.a
improvement as determined by the director of public works, and shall be processed as
provided in Chapter 17.10 ECDC.
C. Acceptance — Maintenance Bond. The director of public works shall not accept the
improvements for the city of Edmonds until the improvements have been inspected and
found satisfactory, and the applicant has posted a bond or surety for 15 percent of the
construction cost to guarantee against defects of workmanship and materials for two years
from the date of acceptance.
D. Short Subdivision — Deferred Installation. If the community development director determines
that installation of improvements will not be needed at the time of the approval of the final
plat of the short subdivision, the improvements shall be installed or guaranteed by bond
before issuance of any development permit for any lot shown on the preliminary plat. This
condition shall be stated on the final plat, and shall be binding on all later owners of lots
created by the subdivision.
20.75.135 Preparation of final plat.
A final plat is a final, precise drawing of a subdivision which conforms to the approved
preliminary plat, and meets all conditions of the preliminary approval and all requirements of
this chapter. It shall be prepared in accordance with the following:
A. Surveyor. A professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington shall prepare, or
supervise the preparation of, the final plat.
B. Survey. The surveyor shall survey the land to be divided, and as much of the section(s) in
which the land is located as is needed to properly orient the land within the section(s).
C. Monuments. The surveyor shall set monuments at street intersections, lot and block corners,
boundary angle points, points of curbs in streets, controlling corners on the boundaries of
the land, and other points as required by the public works director. The type of monuments
and the method of setting shall be as specified by the public works director.
D. Standards. The public works director shall set standards for the preparation of final plats.
20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates.
r
K
The following certificates shall be shown on the final plat. Subsections A through G of this w
r
c
section shall be signed by the indicated person before the final plat is submitted for review.
Subsection G is required for formal subdivision only.
r
A. Surveyor. The surveyor shall place his seal and signature on the plat along with: Q
Page 17 of 23
Packet Pg. 153
7.1.a
1. A statement certifying that the plat was prepared by him, or under his supervision;
2. A statement certifying that the plat is a true and correct representation of the land
surveyed;
3. A full and correct description of the land to be divided.
B. Owner. The owner shall certify that the subdivision has been made with his free consent and
according to his desires. Owners of other interests shown on the title report shall certify
that they have notice of the subdivision.
C. Dedications. A certificate of dedication by the owner for all areas to be dedicated to the
public, acknowledged by a notary.
D. Waiver of Claims. A statement by the owner waiving all claims for damages against any
governmental authority which may arise from the construction, drainage and maintenance
of required improvements.
E. Waiver of Access. If required by the conditions of the preliminary approval, a waiver by the
owner of direct access to any street from any property.
F. Roads Not Dedicated. A statement or other clear indication by the owner if any street is not
to be dedicated to the public.
G. Health Officer. A statement by the city of Edmonds health officer certifying that the
proposed means of sewage disposal and water supply are adequate.
H. Director of Public Works. The following statements to be signed by the director of public
works:
1. A statement approving the survey date, the layout of streets, alleys and other rights -of -
way, design of bridges, sewage and water system and other structures;
2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city
council, or approving the final plat of a short subdivision.
I. Community Development Director. The following statements to be signed by the community
V.-
development director: w
r
1. A statement that the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat and all
conditions of the preliminary approval;
r
2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city Q
council or approving the final plat of a short subdivision.
Page 18 of 23
Packet Pg. 154
7.1.a
J. City Approval. A statement to be signed by the mayor and city clerk that the city council has
approved the final plat of a formal subdivision or a short subdivision with a dedication.
K. Taxes. A statement to be signed by the county treasurer that all taxes and delinquent
assessments for which the land to be divided may be liable as of the date of the signing of
the statement have been paid.
20.75.145 Final plat — Accompanying material.
The following material shall be submitted to the director of public works with the final plat
A. Review Fee. A review fee for the final plat as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC shall be paid for each
check or recheck of the final plat.
B. Survey Notes. Complete field and computation notes of the plat survey showing the original
or re-established corners with descriptions and the actual traverse showing error of closure
and method of balancing. A sketch showing all distances, angles and calculations required
to determine corners and distances of the plat shall accompany this data. The allowable
error of closure shall not exceed one foot in 5,000 feet.
C. Title Report. A title report showing that ownership and other interests in the land described
and shown on the final plat is in the name of the person signing the owner's certificate.
20.75.150 Waiver of survey.
The director of public works may waive the requirement of a survey for the final plat in the
following circumstances if there will be no adverse effect on the public interest: if the
boundaries of the lot proposed for short subdivision have sufficient existing monuments to
define the proposed lot lines.
If the director of public works waives the survey requirements, the applicant shall prepare a
final plat that meets all other requirements of this chapter and which contains legal
descriptions of each proposed lot. [Ord. 3211 § 9, 19981.
20.75.155 Review of final plat.
A. Submission. The applicant may not file the final plat for review until the required r
improvement plans have been submitted for approval to the director of public works. w
r
c
B. Time Limit. A final plat shall be approved, disapproved or returned to the applicant for E
correction within 30 days of its official filing with the director of public works for review,
unless the applicant agrees to extend the time limit. This time period shall not include Q
required environmental review.
Page 19 of 23
Packet Pg. 155
7.1.a
C. Staff Review. The director of public works and the community development director shall
review the final plat of a formal subdivision. They shall then forward the final plat to the city
council for a Type IV -A decision after having signed the statements required by ECDC
20.75.140 or attaching their recommendation for disapproval.
D. City Council Review. If the city council finds that the public use and interest will be served by
the proposed subdivision and that all requirements of the preliminary approval in this
chapter have been met, the final plat shall be approved and the mayor and city clerk shall
sign the statement of the city council approval on the final plat.
E. Acceptance of Dedication. City council approval of the final plat constitutes acceptance of all
dedication shown on the final plat. [Ord. 3736 § 67, 2009; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994].
20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review.
The community services director, through his/her designees, the director of public works and
the community development director shall conduct an administrative review of a proposed
short subdivision and either sign the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140, if all
requirements of this chapter have been met, or disapprove such action, stating their reasons in
writing. Such administrative action shall be final subject only to right of appeal to the hearing
examiner as a Type II decision under Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Dedication of any interest in property
contained in an approval of the short subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for
formal acceptance on its consent agent; provided, however, that such acceptance shall not stay
any approval, time period for appeal or the effective date of the short subdivision. [Ord. 3736
§ 68, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 10, 1998; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994].
20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record.
The city clerk shall file the final plat or short plat for record with the county auditor, and
arrange for a reproducible copy to be sent to the public works department and the applicant
and a paper copy to be sent to the county assessor and the community development
department. The plat or short plat shall not be considered "approved" until so filed with the
county auditor.
20.75.165 Effect of rezones.
r
K
The owner of any lot in a final plat filed for record shall be entitled to use the lot for the w
r
purposes allowed under the zoning in effect at the time of filing for five years from the date of
filing the final plat for record, even if the property is rezoned; provided that all requirements of
the community development code, other than lot area, are met.
a
Page 20 of 23
Packet Pg. 156
7.1.a
20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions.
A further division of any lot created by a short subdivision shall be reviewed as and meet the
requirements of this chapter for formal subdivision if the further division is proposed within five
years from the date the final plat was filed for record; provided, however, that when a short
plat contains fewer than four parcels, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prevent the
owner who filed the original short plat, from filing a revision thereof within the five-year period
in order to create up to a total of four lots within the original short subdivision boundaries.
[Ord. 2623 § 1, 1987].
20.75.175 Court review.
Any decision approving or disapproving any plat or short plat shall be reviewable for unlawful,
arbitrary, capricious or corrupt action or nonaction by writ of review before the Superior Court
of Snohomish County. The action may be brought by any property owner in the city, who
deems himself or herself aggrieved thereby; provided, that application for a writ of review shall
be made to the court within 30 days from any decision so to be reviewed. The cost of
transcription of all records ordered certified by the court for such review shall be borne by the
appellant.
20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter.
No building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit shall be issued for any lot
unless: (1) the subject property is a lot of record as defined in ECDC 21.55.015; or (2) the
property owner is determined to be an innocent purchaser in accordance with subsection (A) of
this section. Where this section authorizes a lot to be developed even though such lot does not
meet the definition for "lot of record" in ECDC 21.55.015, any development on said lot shall
comply with the city's development regulations, including any applicable development
regulations regarding nonconforming lots.
A. "Lot of Record" Status for Innocent Purchasers. An owner of property may obtain "lot of
record" status for a parcel that does not meet the "lot of record" definition. To obtain this
status, the applicant must submit an affidavit with sufficient supporting documentation to
demonstrate that:
V.-
1. The applicant did not have actual notice regarding the subdivision of the property in w
question. If the applicant had knowledge of the subdivision (e.g., knowledge that two
parcels in question were once part of the same parcel), but not of its illegality, the E
innocent purchase status may not be granted;
r
a
2. The purchase price of the parcel is consistent with an arm's length transaction;
Page 21 of 23
Packet Pg. 157
7.1.a
3. The owner did not purchase the property from a relative;
4. At the time of purchase, there was some existing deed, record or survey showing the
subject parcel as a separate lot; and
5. The parcel had a separate tax ID parcel number prior to the purchase of the property by
the applicant.
B. The innocent purchaser status may be approved subject to conditions of approval requiring
the applicant to make improvements to the property that would likely have been required
by the city had the property been properly subdivided, unless it is determined that such
improvements have already been constructed.
C. An affirmative determination of innocent purchaser and "lot of record" status shall be
recorded with the county auditor. [Ord. 3982 § 3, 20141.
20.75.185 Penalties.
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter relating to the sale, offer for sale, lease or
transfer of any lot is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties of ECC 5.50.020. Each
sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of each separate lot in violation of any provision of this
chapter shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. In addition to these criminal sanctions,
the city shall have the right to bring an action to restrain and enjoin any subdivision, sale or
transfer, compel compliance with the provisions of this chapter and obtain other injunctive
relief. The costs of such action shall be paid by the violator and shall include the city attorney's
fees.
as
a
ECDC 21.30.032 "Flat(s)" means multiple family dwelling unit(s) that are horizontally separated 3
— i.e.: stacked above and/or below each other.
0
ECDC 21.100.040 Townhouse.
L
Townhouse means a multiple dwelling unit meeting the following criteria: r
x
w
A. No dwelling unit overlapping another vertically;
as
B. Common side walls joining units;
r
C. Not more than six dwelling units in one structure; Q
Page 22 of 23
Packet Pg. 158
7.1.a
D. Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual structures as defined in
the zoning code;
Page 23 of 23
Q
Packet Pg. 159
7.1.b
PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE AMENDMENT FOR UNIT LOT SUBDIVISIONS (AMD20170003
Mr. Clugston advised that a private applicant, Westgate Woods LLC, has proposed a code amendment to add a unit lot
subdivision process to the City's existing subdivision ordinance. This is a Type V Legislative Decision where the Planning
Board holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposal. The City Council will
make the final decision. He reminded the Board that they initially reviewed the proposal at their March 22°d meeting.
Mr. Clugston explained that the unit lot subdivision process would create an ownership option for multi -family development
projects as an alternative to condominiums. Just like condominiums, a unit lot subdivision would not change zoning, density
or other bulk requirements for a multi -family project. It would simply overlay property lines on a site. A unit lot
subdivision differs from a standard subdivision in that the development standards for a project are applied to the larger site
(parent lot) as opposed to the individual parcels being created (unit lots). A unit lot subdivision could be applied over an
existing multi -family development or with a new multi -family proposal. The process could be applied in the Multi -family
Residential (RM) and General Commercial (CG) zones and portions of the Westgate Mixed Use zone. All of these zones
allow for multi -family development on the ground floor of a site, whereas several other zones, such as Community Business
(CB), Planned Business (BP) and Neighborhood Business (NB) require that the residential component be above a ground
floor commercial use. The unit lot subdivision would not be applicable to residential development located above ground
floor commercial space.
Mr. Clugston referred to a letter from the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish County expressing support for
the proposed amendment, which would provide an alternative method of lot creation for certain types of RM development.
He also referred to Attachment 1 of the Staff Report, which inserts the applicant's proposed language into the existing
subdivision ordinance, along with additions and clarification made by the City Attorney and staff.
Mr. Clugston highlighted that three new definitions were added in ECDC 20.75.030:
• "Unit Lot Subdivision" means a subdivision or short subdivision of land under ECDC 20.75.045, where
compliance with the development standards is evaluated with respect to the parent lot, not the unit lot.
• "Parent Lot" means the lot with legal lot status, which establishes the exterior boundary of a unit lot subdivision.
• "Unit Lot" means a portion of a parent lot, the fee of which may be independently transferred upon recording of a
unit lot subdivision.
Mr. Clugston reemphasized that the RM development would look exactly the same, regardless of whether it is subdivided or
not. There would be no difference in how the standards are applied for the development of the structures. Only the property
lines would be created through the unit lot subdivision process.
Mr. Clugston explained that the language proposed in ECDC 20.75.045 was altered by staff and the City Attorney to provide
more details and clarify the intent of the unit subdivision process. The changes were not intended to alter the applicant's
overall goal. As a result of concerns raised by the Board at their last meeting, Subsection E was added to require that
homeowner's associations (HOA) be funded to manage the areas on the parent lot that are common to all unit owners in the
development.
Chair Rubenkonig emphasized that a unit lot subdivision would be subject to the subdivision regulations, which is no
different than any other type of development. Mr. Clugston said all RM development must meet the development standards
of the zone, including parking, height, bulk and design. From the sidewalk, the development would not look any different
after the separate lot lines are dropped over it. There would be no physical change.
John Bissell, Harmsen & Associates, Inc., advised that he is present to represent the applicant, Westgate Woods, LLC. He
commended Mr. Clugston for his thorough Staff Report. He recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board Members raised
some concern about why a private property owner was requesting a code amendment. He acknowledged that most code
amendments are generated by staff, but the code also allows any citizen to make an application for a code amendment. He
explained that the proposed change is not controversial. In fact, City staff previously utilized an interpretation to accomplish
Planning Board Minutes
April 26, 2017 Page 5
Packet Pg. 160
7.1.b
this same thing and was considering a code amendment at some point in the future to codify the process. However, the
applicant did not want to wait for the City to move the amendment forward.
Mr. Bissell recalled that, at their last meeting, there were questions about how the unit lot subdivision process would impact a
development. When you think of a subdivision, you think of houses with lots that meet the standard size required for the
zone. A subdivision is simply a method of dividing property so that someone can have a fee simple deed. In the case of RM
development, a unit lot subdivision would simply put lot lines around each of the units. He provided some pictures to
illustrate developments both before and after a unit lot subdivision, emphasizing that there is absolutely no difference. The
developments do not look or function any differently after a unit lot subdivision has been applied, and the exact same code
standards apply. He reiterated that the proposed amendment would not change the built environment in any way.
Mr. Bissell commented that, when proposing code language, it is tricky to get it just right. He noted that staff and the City
Attorney made some adjustments to the language he initially presented. Subsequently, he also made some changes to the
language put forward by the City Attorney and staff in the Staff Report. He advised that staff has reviewed the proposed
changes and indicated support. Specifically, he recommended that:
The last sentence in ECDC 20.75.045.A be changed to read, `A single lot within a unit lot subdivision may contain
multiple dwelling units when the unit lot contains all such dwelling units within one building. Flats are permitted as an
element of a unit lot subdivision only when a single lot within a unit lot subdivision contains the entire building in which
flats are located. " The intent of this provision is to allow a unit lot subdivision to separate buildings with multiple units.
The proposed change makes it clear that the provision could apply to flats, as long as they are located on a single lot. For
example, a property with four buildings, each with six units, could be subdivided into four lots (one for each of the
buildings), and it wouldn't matter if the individual units were townhomes or flats.
• The last sentence in ECDC 20.75.045.D be changed to read, `Any application for such external changes will require
authorization of all owners of affected unit lots or approval of the HOA where changes to commonly owned tracts are
proposed. " It doesn't make sense to require authorization from all owners of unit lots within the parcel lot if an external
change would not impact the other units. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense to require authorization from the
owner if the work will impact his/her unit. It is also appropriate to require authorization from the HOA if a change will
impact all units within the development.
Susan Payne, Edmonds, said she has a background in unit lot subdivisions because she did them for the City of Seattle for
eight years. A lot of questions came up as the process was refined over several years, and attorney's reviewing the
applications were not consistent. From her experience, she urged the Board to carefully consider the following:
• Who will do the consumer protection review, and how will the City ensure that both sellers and buyers have all the
information they need?
• Who will review the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs) for the HOA to make sure there is adequate review
when documents are filed with the assessor's office?
• Are the processes and the decisions that are made transparent? All reviews done by attorneys need to be honest and
somewhat independent.
• Will the City allow unit lots to be further subdivided?
• Is there a definition for the term "flat?"
• What are the review standards for unit lot subdivisions, and will fire protection and emergency access be part of the
process?
• How will the City ensure that there is adequate parking that is easily accessible so that parking for the individual units
will not spill out onto the streets?
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Board Member Lovell commented that most of the questions raised by Ms. Payne pertain to legal or building standard
matters that will be addressed during the design and permitting phase of the project. He asked Mr. Clugston to explain the
review process for a unit lot subdivision. Mr. Clugston said the review process for a unit lot subdivision would be the same
Planning Board Minutes
April 26, 2017 Page 6
Packet Pg. 161
7.1.b
as for a short or regular plat subdivision. The development permit review process would also be the same as any other
project in a CG or RM zone. Applicants would start by applying for design review and the building permits. As the building
permits are moving through the review process, an applicant could apply for a unit lot subdivision. All applications would be
reviewed by staff. As proposed, applicants would be required to submit CCRs as part of the application, and they would be
reviewed by the City Attorney. This would be similar to the process that is used for planned residential developments.
Relative to parking, Mr. Clugston said there would be no specific requirements for parking and ingress/egress attached to a
unit lot subdivision. The parking standards would be based on the zone, and would be the same regardless of whether the
development is subdivided or not. The same is true for ingress and egress requirements. He noted that the City's current
code does not require a lot of guest parking, but this is parking code issue that is unrelated to the unit lot subdivision
provision.
Mr. Clugston advised that it is not likely that a unit lot subdivision could be further subdivided, however, it might be possible
if the initial unit lot subdivision created lots for buildings with multiple units and a subsequent application sought to
subdivide each of the individual units in the building. Regarding the concern about lot line adjustments, Mr. Clugston
explained that these would be internal to the site and do not need to be addressed in the unit lot subdivision provision. ECDC
20.75.045.I will limit the need for subsequent lot line adjustments by requiring that "an application for a final unit lot plat
will not be accepted until all foundations, including common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face of the
final plat by the land surveyor of record. " This provision will require that the foundations be poured and the walls built
before a surveyor identifies the lines on the plat.
Chair Rubenkonig noted that, generally, there is language included on a final plat that addresses the parent lot. Mr. Clugston
referred to ECDC 207.75.045.H, which requires a notice on the final plat that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and
that additional development of the individual lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to
the parent lot. He explained that the unit lot subdivision provision could be used to separate a property into four lots, each
with a six -unit townhome development. A subsequent application could subdivide each of the buildings into six separate
lots. However, no further subdivision would be allowed beyond that point.
Board Member Robles said he was happy to see that language was added to require HOAs and CCRs for maintenance of the
common areas. He said he did not feel comfortable with how the Board's last conversation ended relative to this issue, but he
is comfortable that the proposed new language would address his concerns. He commented that higher density development
tends to bring people closer together and HOAs can provide an internal mitigation system where the community can work out
problems. In the absence of this, the City would have to mitigate the problems. That means that the taxpayers would be
subsidizing the idea of fee simple lots. He suggested that the wording in ECDC 20.75.045.E could be even more inclusive if
it referred to "common issues" in addition to "common properties."
Board Member Lovell asked if Mr. Bissell knows of any specific building or parcel in Edmonds where the provision could be
applied. Mr. Bissell answered that he knows of several properties where the provision could be applicable. Although the
amendment is being proposed by a private property owner, the Board should keep in mind that it could be applied in all other
RM and CG zones, as well as the MU zone at Westgate. To further clarify, Mr. Bissell advised that the provision could only
be utilized by development that is entirely residential. It would not be applicable to mixed -use development that has
commercial space on the ground floor.
Board Member Lovell requested clarification for when the provision could be applied to flats. Mr. Bissell answered that the
provision could be applied to a subdivision that creates lots that contain entire buildings where flats are located. However, it
would not be possible to further subdivide a building with flats into separate lots for each unit. To further clarify, he
explained that a subdivision is a two-dimensional projection that draws a line from the center of the earth up to the sky. If
units are stacked on top of each other, it would be impossible to do a subdivision because you cannot draw a line through the
units below or above. Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed language would allow a development that contains flats to
be subdivided if the vertical boundaries of the flats coincide with each other. Mr. Bissell said that is definitely one option,
but the proposed amendment would not allow this to occur. Board Member Lovell noted that the application materials
provided a drawing of a building that is divided in half and each half was designated as a lot. Mr. Bissell pointed out that the
example was of a townhouse development that had separate entrances for each unit. He advised that the code defines "flats"
as units that are stacked on top of each other and "Townhouses" as units that are side -by -side.
Planning Board Minutes
April 26, 2017 Page 7
Packet Pg. 162
7.1.b
Board Member Lovell referred to the proposed provision that would allow a developer to sell individual buildings to separate
property managers, who would lease out the units within each building. If this were to occur, he asked how a common
construction design defect in all of the buildings within the project could be resolve? Would each building owner be on their
own? Mr. Bissell answered that the entire development (parent lot) would be governed by a single HOA regardless of how it
is subdivided.
Board Member Robles asked if the unit lot subdivision provision would relieve a contractor's liability for construction
defects in any way. Mr. Clugston answered that a contractor's responsibility would remain the same regardless of whether
the lot is subdivided or not. He referred to the last sentence of ECDC 20.75.045.17, which requires all common wall
construction to meet the currently adopted building codes, regardless of how the property is subdivided. The proposed
amendment is not intended to absolve a developer of any responsibility going forward.
Chair Rubenkonig asked if staff and the City Attorney have had an opportunity to review the new language proposed by Mr.
Bissell. Mr. Clugston answered that he had a discussion with Mr. Bissell prior to the meeting relative to the proposed
changes. He said he does not have a problem with the suggested revisions as they seem to be consistent with the intent of the
amendment. He pointed out that the Board could also propose revisions to the draft language as part of its recommendation
to the City Council.
Chair Rubenkonig asked if the Board could table its recommendation to a future meeting if deemed appropriate. Mr.
Clugston agreed that is one option. He said staff is recommending that the amendment be forwarded to the City Council with
a recommendation of approval as presented in the Staff Report and with the applicant's proposed revisions. Chair
Rubenkonig reviewed that, following the Board's recommendation, the City Council will conduct a separate public hearing
prior to making a final decision. The Board's role is to determine if the proposal has enough substance to move it forward to
the City Council.
BOARD MEMBER ROBLES MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT
FOR UNIT LOT SUBDIVISIONS (AMD20170003) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND INCLUDING THE AMENDMENTS PRESENTED
BY THE APPLICANT TO ECDC 20.75.045.A AND 20.75.045.D. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE
MOTION.
Board Member Lovell asked if staff feels confident that the concerns expressed by Ms. Payne during the public hearing are
adequately addressed by the proposed amendment. Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively and reminded the Board that the
amendment would not alter any of the existing development standards that are in place. While issues related to parking and
housing affordability are important, they do not have any impact on the current proposal. The parent lot would be developed
exactly the same whether or not a unit lot subdivision happens. Board Member Lovell thanked Ms. Payne for sharing her
experience working with unit lot subdivisions in Seattle. Her questions were good, and he feels comfortable that they are
addressed in the proposed language.
1 11106u tell I Illero1:R7.1101 Ix"erRe1 lu 1111M wo
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board Members to the extended agenda, but there were no comments.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Rubenkonig reminded the Board that their retreat is scheduled for May 24th. There was some discussion about having
a potluck dinner prior to the retreat, which would start at 7:00 p.m., but no decision was made.
Chair Rubenkonig expressed appreciation to the Board's Student Representative, Malia Clark, for the insightful comments
she provided over the past several months. She noted that Ms. Clark will not be present at the Board's May meetings as she
prepares for graduation. However, she may rejoin the Board in June.
Planning Board Minutes
April 26, 2017 Page 8
Packet Pg. 163
7.1.c
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2017
Public Hearing for Code Amendment for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003)
Staff Lead: Michael Clugston, AICP
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Mike Clugston
Background/History
A private applicant, Westgate Woods LLC, has proposed a code amendment to add a unit lot subdivision
process to the City's existing subdivision ordinance. This is a Type V legislative decision where the
Planning Board holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to City Council regarding the
proposal. The Board first reviewed the project at their March 22, 2017 meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Recommend that the City Council approve the unit lot subdivision language as proposed in Attachment
1.
Narrative
As discussed last month, the unit lot subdivision process would create an ownership option for
multifamily development projects as an alternative to condominiums. Just like condominiums, a unit lot
subdivision does not change zoning, density or other bulk requirements for a multifamily project - it
simply overlays property lines on a site. A unit lot subdivision differs from a standard subdivision in that
the development standards for a project are applied to the larger site (parent lot) as opposed to the
individual parcels being created (unit lots).
A unit lot subdivision could be applied over an existing multifamily development (if it met the
requirements) or with a new multifamily proposal. The process could be used in one of several zones -
Multiple Residential, both General Commercial zones, and in portions of Westgate Mixed Use. These
zones allow for multifamily development on the ground floor of a site whereas several other zones such
as Community Business, Planned Business and Neighborhood Business do not - the residential
component in those zones must be above a ground floor commercial use.
Four attachments are included in the packet:
1) The proposed code amendment language
2) A comment letter from Edith Duttlinger discussed March 22
3) Excerpt minutes from the Board's March 22, 2017 meeting
4) The March 22 agenda memo
In Attachment 1, the applicant's proposed language was inserted into the existing subdivision ordinance
(blue text) and staff made some additions and clarifications to that (red text).
Packet Pg. 164
7.1.c
Based on the Planning Board's comments, it seemed appropriate to require a homeowners association
to be formed in order to manage the common areas and jointly -owned infrastructure on the parent lot,
similar to a condominium (proposed sub E). Interior maintenance of individual unit lots will be the
responsibility of the owner, similar to a typical single family residence. Exterior maintenance will be
subject to a maintenance agreement (proposed sub F).
With the proposed changes to the applicant's original language, staff believes the unit lot process will
provide ownership opportunities for some multifamily projects where they otherwise might not exist
while protecting owners within the project with clear requirements for future maintenance and
management. The concerns of the Hearing Examiner regarding the City's former townhouse subdivision
process are also addressed in the current proposal by clarifying that development standards will be
applied to the parent lot rather than the individual unit lots in a unit lot subdivision.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Applicant's proposed code language with staff changes
Attachment 2 - Duttlinger Comment
Attachment 3 - Excerpt minutes from March 22 Board meeting
Attachment 4 - March 22 PB agenda packet
Packet Pg. 165
7.1.c
Chapter 20.75
SUBDIVISIONS
Sections:
20.75.010 Citation of chapter.
20.75.020 Purposes.
20.75.025 Scope.
20.75.030 Subdivision defined.
20.75.035 Compliance required.
20.75.040 Application.
20.75.050 Lot line adjustment —Application.
20.75.055 Lot combination.
20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats.
20.75.065 Preliminary review.
20.75.070 Formal subdivision —Time limit.
20.75.075 Modifications.
20.75.080 General findings.
20.75.085 Review criteria.
20.75.090 Park land dedication.
20.75.100 Preliminary approval —Time limit.
20.75.105 Repealed.
20.75.107 Preliminary approval —Time limit extension for previously approved short plats
20.75.110 Changes.
20.75.120 Review of improvement plans.
20.75.130 Installation of improvements.
20.75.135 Preparation of final plat.
20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates.
20.75.145 Final plat —Accompanying material.
20.75.150 Waiver of survey.
20.75.155 Review of final plat.
20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review.
20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record.
20.75.165 Effect of rezones.
20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions.
20.75.175 Court review.
20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter.
20.75.185 Penalties.
Page 1 of 23
m
U
M
a
0
m
a�
c
c
a
W
N
.Q
a
M
x
c
a�
E
U
ca
a
Packet Pg. 166
7.1.c
20.75.010 Citation of chapter.
This chapter may be cited as the City of Edmonds Subdivision Ordinance and shall supplement
and implement the state regulations of plats, subdivisions and dedications found in Chapter
58.17 RCW.
20.75.020 Purposes.
The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general
welfare in accordance with state standards to prevent overcrowding of land;
B. To lessen congestion in the streets and highways;
C. To facilitate adequate provisions for water, utilities, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and
recreation areas, sites for schools and playgrounds, and other public requirements;
D. To provide for proper ingress and egress;
E. To require uniform monumenting of subdivisions and accurate legal descriptions of
subdivided lots.
20.75.025 Scope.
This chapter shall apply to all divisions of land for any purpose except those set forth in RCW
58.17.040, including but not limited to:
A. Divisions for cemetery plots or other burial plots;
B. Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or by the laws of descent;
C. Divisions for the purpose of lease when no residential structure other than mobile homes or
travel trailers are permitted to be placed upon the land and the city of Edmonds has
approved a binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with this chapter.
Divisions under subsections A and B of this section will not be recognized as lots for building
purposes unless all applicable requirements of this chapter are met.
20.75.030 Subdivision defined.
A. "Subdivision" means a division of land into lots of any size for the purpose of sale. The term
subdivision includes all resubdivisions of land, short subdivisions, and formal subdivisions.
The term lot includes tracts, parcels, sites and divisions. The term sale includes lease gift or
development or any purpose not excepted in this section. When reference to "subdivision"
Page 2 of 23
Packet Pg. 167
7.1.c
is made in this code, it is intended to refer to both "formal subdivision" and "short
subdivision" unless one or the other is specified.
B. "Formal subdivision" means a subdivision of five or more lots.
C. "Short subdivision" means a subdivision of four or fewer lots.
D. "Unit lot subdivision" means a subdivision or short subdivision of land under ECDC
20.75.045 feTthe-yeses f - Rgfee simple rshin f dwell;n � , n,+�yAhle,- +h
,'kT;tar; d;; rd rp toed to the -parent let (See €-- Q -- �94-55�. where compliance with the
development standards is evaluated with respect to the parent lot, not the unit lot.
E. "Parent lot" means the lot with legal lot status which +o. the h U R char „f
fe-sestablishes the exterior boundary of a unit lot subdivision.
F. "Unit Lot" means a portion of a parent lot, the fee of which may be independently
transferred uaon recordine of a unit lot subdivision.
20.75.035 Compliance required.
Any person wishing to create a subdivision or lot line adjustment must first comply with this
chapter.
20.75.040 Application.
Applications for subdivisions shall be made to the community development director on forms
provided by the community development department. A subdivision application will be
processed concurrently with any applications for rezones, variances, planned unit
developments, site plan approvals and other similar approvals, that relate to the proposed
subdivision, unless the applicant expressly requests sequential processing. The application shall
contain the following items in addition to those specified in ECDC 20.02.002:
A. A reproducible copy of the preliminary plat and the number of prints required by the
community development department;
B. Title report;
C. A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior
boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of,
a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be
combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option;
Page 3 of 23
Packet Pg. 168
7.1.c
D. The application fee as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC;
E. A proposal for dedication of park land rather than payment of in -lieu fees, if desired by the
applicant;
F. Source of water supply and name of supplier;
G. Method of sewage disposal, and name of municipal system if applicable. Percolation rates
and other information required by the public works department shall be submitted if septic
tanks are to be used;
H. Other information that may be required by the community development director in order to
properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the
environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 3736 § 62, 2009; Ord. 2379 § 1, 1983].
20.75.050 Lot line adjustment — Application.
A. Lot Line Adjustment Defined. A lot line adjustment is an alteration of lot lines between
platted or unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site
or division.
B. Lot Line Adjustment Exempt from Subdivision Review. Except as otherwise provided in this
section, lot adjustments shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter.
C. Lot Line Adjustment Review. All proposals for lot line adjustments shall be submitted to the
Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee for approval. The Edmonds planning
manager or his/her designee shall approve the proposed lot line adjustment unless the
manager or his/her designee certifies in writing that the proposed adjustment will:
1. Create a new lot, tract, parcel, site or division;
2. Reduce the setbacks of existing structures below the minimum required by code or make
existing nonconforming setbacks of existing structures more nonconforming than
before;
3. Reduce the lot width or lot size below the minimum required for the applicable zone;
4. Transform a nonbuildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division into a buildable lot, tract,
parcel, site or division;
5. Would otherwise result in a lot which is in violation of any requirement of the ECDC.
D. Application. A lot line adjustment application shall be submitted on forms provided by the
city and shall at a minimum contain the following information:
Page 4 of 23
Packet Pg. 169
7.1.c
1. One copy of dimensioned plans on the official city of Edmonds lot line adjustment form.
The dimensioned plans shall be prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor
registered in the state of Washington and shall conform to city of Edmonds survey
requirements, as promulgated by the Edmonds planning division. Information on the
plans shall include the following:
a. Legal descriptions of the existing lots and proposed lot line adjustment(s);
b. The location of all existing structures on the subject parcel(s), including dimensioned
setback information from all existing and proposed lot lines and ingress/egress
easements;
c. Locations of all existing ingress/egress and utility easements;
d. Gross lot area for the original parcels and the proposed parcels (gross lot area does
not include any lot area devoted to vehicular ingress/egress easements);
e. The existing zoning of the subject parcel(s);
f. Location of all existing driveways on the subject parcel(s); and
g. The lot lines of adjoining properties for a distance of at least 50 feet.
2. A title company certification which is not more than 30 calendar days old containing:
a. A legal description of the total parcel(s) sought to be adjusted;
b. A list of those individuals, corporations, or other entities holding an ownership
interest in the parcel(s);
c. Any easements or restrictions affecting the property(ies) with a description, purpose
and reference by auditor's file number and/or recording number;
d. Any encumbrances on the property; and
e. Any delinquent taxes or assessments on the property.
E. Fee. The application fee shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
F. Expiration. An application for a lot line adjustment shall expire one year after a complete
application has been filed with the city. An extension up to an additional year may be
granted by the Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee upon a showing by the
application of reasonable cause.
Page 5 of 23
Packet Pg. 170
7.1.c
G. Review. A certified determination of the planning manager or his/her designee may be
appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision as set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
[Ord. 3736 § 63, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 1, 19981.
20.75.045 Unit Lot Subdivision
- Purpose. The unit lot subdivision process provides opportunities for dividing fee simple
ownership of land to create townhouses. rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units
as an alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached
subdivision. Unit lot subdivisions determine compliance with the relevant dimensional
standards of Title 16 by analyzing whether the parent lot complies, but not requiring that
each newlv created lot within the unit lot subdivision (the unit lot) comply with those
dimensional standards. A unit lot subdivision does not permit uses or densities that are not
otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which the unit lot subdivision is proposed.
A. Applicability and Pwrn^r^. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision
of land for single-family dwelling units, townhouse, and rowhouses and may be applied only
in the following zones: Multiple Residential, General Commercial, and Westgate Mixed Use.
A single lot within a unit lot subdivision may contain multiple dwelling units when the unit
lot contains all such dwelling units within one building in the form of flats., Gettag^
r,l., r +h-,+ -.IIAIN .,, r. +h-,n Apia cl azollinr. ni+ n r let Rd r,nl., f^r rl^+-4r"^r!
R zeRe
upits r.r fr.r � �ni+r that -.re veFtir•ally reparattedd ..,i+" nr..,I.,.,-,.,r,+ r.f -,n., eRe � �ni+ ev- r r.r
halr..�, orn, olomon+ r,f .nv+hnr ni+ ^ ^n+ fr r r.v+r.rir r nl^rv.r.n+c inhnrnn+ +r. +"^ h iLJinr.
ns*gR r.r structure sur,h as (but net lurn4^d te) eave everh-.nrrr gutters and sidgRg (se
nccr,rrr,r., .J..,r,llinr. ni+r if„ ,IL, r,... I ded
., be incl rJr rJ .yhr.n +h^ ,nitI^+ cn n+ .inc all dwelling ''ni+r ..,i+hin r.n b YilclinrT QRe � �ni+
suhrJi.,irir,n lat n+-,in ,I+inlr, rJ..-e4ing units.
B. Association with Site Development — ADDlication Timine. "
Af rJi.,erJinr. r, WReFwhin r f +hr, h ilrJinr, ^ nn+ Thr, relic ,+ir n caR nl., be
Tti devele;9;TeRt13laR eF aRTexost*Rg develeped site. In the case of a vacant lot or a
redevelopment site. a Dreliminary unit lot subdivision can onlv be submitted in coniunction
with or subsequent to a development site plan as required by ECDC 20.10, 20.11, 20.12, or
in the case described in ECDC 20.10.020.13.3 submitted in coniunction with or subsequent to
a building permit.
C. Conformance with Standards of the Parent Lot. The parent lot must comply with and is
vested to the applicable development standards (ECDC 20.75.030.0 in effect at the time a
complete application for preliminary unit lot subdivision is submitted. As a result of the unit
Page 6 of 23
Packet Pg. 171
7.1.c
lot subdivision, the individual unit lots within the subdivision may be nonconforming with
respect to the bulk and dimensional standards reauired by Title 16 ECDC.
As with dimensional standards, compliance with access standards, including but not limited
to fire lanes, drive aisles, turn-arounds, and access of/to the parent lot from/to the street
will be evaluated based on the parent lot's compliance with such reauirements. and not
based on whether individual unit lots meet such standards.
StandaFGIS, *RGlUdmR9 bUt AA-t ."Mit-P-01 te fire laRes, drive aisles, turp are-Updr-, and-
+n then n+ In+ from /+n the street ,-hall be based A—p +hn r RtS of +hn Sete
nlaR fnr the n-irnn+ In+ nrl nn+ base d nGRI stag arrlr fnr -A r--hrli"icinn
I.
D. Future Additions and Modifications. Subseauent r lattinE actions. additions or modifications
to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parcel lot. Changes
requiring permitting that affect only the interior of building units will be evaluated for
compliance with the requirements only for that unit. Any exterior changes will be evaluated
for compliance by considering whether the parent lot would still comply with applicable
development standards. Anv application for such external chances will reauire
authorization of all owners of unit lots within the parcel lot. -Q- -,te €EDC 20T5-04 q
fn.-++he develnmmen+ a .,hnln ChaRgesFeeweFmRgmi++in..that a4eet nnl"+h
nterwer of building units, y.,ill be evaluated - s to GemnliaRce %yi+h the requiremente nnl" fnr
+I -,+ - -ni+ /fin" nv+nrinr Gh inrrnc m affnr++hn permitting fnr the nrinin aI rdn"nlnmmpn+ of
the paFeet let (EEDC 29.75�3O.E),Ie se Eh Eases, addTtmens Ar rnAHOfOr-at-iA-.psj-tom the
.dn"nlnmmen+,.,ill lac a ,-,I ,ateal ;.,ithin +hn hnM ,n.J ,pros of +hen nl In+ froe. m v.,hire. h +hn�
.,i+hin then n+ In+
E. Homeowners association ownership of common areas. Any commonly used areas or
facilities within a unit lot subdivision, including but not limited to common access, garage or
parking areas, common open space or recreation space, common courtyards, commonly
used stormwater facilities or side sewers and other similar features, must be owned and
maintained by a homeowners association with the right to assess the individual unit lot
owners as necessary to properly maintain and repair such areas. Appropriate
documentation re2ardine the rights of the homeowners association must be submitted for
Page 7 of 23
Packet Pg. 172
7.1.c
recording with the final plat. Aeeess Easerpe.p+_r ^^d °^r'-iRg Aceesss easement
gee a+W w. . tep. - pee agFeements shall be a -+erl fer use Ae f. ee.pnimeR g aFl(i.,9
amen spages fer eett one "e6Icing and ether epen e) p„J ether simiilar feat it
shall herecorded en +h., fi.,-,I 1 1.,i+
F. Maintenance Agreements for building exteriors. Jeipt 1Ce aP44PMaintenance agreements
&I a4must be executed and recorded as an element of the final unit subdivision Dlat or short
plat for maintenance of all building exteriors except in cases where all dwelling units are
detached. The 44PA-maintenance agreement s4a4must require equal participation by all
owners within any one building. The ieiRt .,. a;pteipap,.e agFeement s" ." and must be
recorded on the final Unit Lot plat. The requirement does not apply to detached single
family dwelling units. Common wall construction must meet currently adopted building
codes.
G. Parking on Different Unit Lots Allowed. Within the parent lot, required parking for a
dwellinia unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit as
long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the final plat.
H. Notice of Unit Lot on the Final Plat. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot
and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the
application of development standards to the parent lot s#afkmust be noted on the final
plat.
I. An application for final Unit Lot plat will not be accepted until, at MiRffiRg,,F,., all foundations,
including common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face of the final plat by
the land surveyor of record.
J. Review. Unit lot subdivisions of four or fewer lots are processed and reviewed as short
subdivisions while five or more lots are formal subdivisions pursuant to ECDC 20.01 and the
requirements of this chapter.
20.75.055 Lot combination.
A. Lot Combination Defined. A lot combination is the combination of two or more legal, illegal,
or nonconforming lots into one or more lots, all of which comply with the provisions of this
code in effect at the time of said combination.
B. An application for lot combination shall be signed for by all individuals or entities owning an
interest in the property. The application fee shall be the same as the fee established for lot
line adjustments.
Page 8 of 23
Packet Pg. 173
7.1.c
C. Lot combinations shall be approved as a matter of right unless the development services
director finds that the combination of lots would:
1. Not result in legal conforming lot; and/or
2. Not be in compliance with the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. The
director shall, as a part of his decision, determine whether or not the lots, as combined,
negatively impact compliance with the city's urban density requirements as established
pursuant to the State Growth Management Act, comprehensive plan and the Snohomish
County planning policies.
D. The director's decision shall be issued in writing and shall be mailed to all properties within
300 feet of the site. Appeal may be taken from the director's decision within 10 working
days of mailing of the decision and posting thereof in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 64, 2009; Ord. 3296 § 2, 2000].
20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats.
A preliminary plat is a neat and approximate drawing to scale of a proposed division of land,
showing the existing conditions and the general proposed layouts of streets, lots and other
information needed to properly review the proposal. The preliminary plat of a short subdivision
may be referred to as a short plat. A preliminary plat shall be prepared by a professional land
surveyor registered in the state of Washington. The scale used shall be sufficient to show
clearly all details of the proposal. A scale of 50 feet to the inch is preferred; other engineering
scales may be used, if necessary. Preliminary plats for formal subdivisions shall not exceed a
size of 24 inches by 36 inches. Short plats shall be on an 8-1/2-by-11-inch page. The following
information shall be shown on the plat:
A. The name, if any, of the proposed subdivision;
B. Sufficient description to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision;
C. Name, address, seal and signature of the land surveyor who prepared the map;
D. A vicinity sketch;
E. Date prepared or revised, scale, north point, quarter section, section, township and range
number;
F. Total acreage of the land to be divided, and area in square feet of each proposed lot;
G. Existing zoning, and zoning boundaries, if any;
Page 9 of 23
Packet Pg. 174
7.1.c
H. Lot dimensions and numbers;
I. Setback lines required by the existing or proposed zoning, if the proposed lot has an unusual
shape, steep topography, or other unusual limitations on its building site;
J. Any existing property lines within, or adjacent to, the proposed subdivision, and the names of
the owners of adjacent property;
K. Contour lines in areas to be developed shall be at five-foot intervals, or as specified by the
community development director. Ten -foot intervals may be used in areas not to be
developed. All contour lines shall be extended into adjacent property a sufficient distance
to show the topographical relationship of adjacent property to the proposed subdivision;
L. The location, name and width of all existing and proposed street rights -of -way, or easements
within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision, the grade or proposed streets and the
pavement location of existing and proposed streets;
M. The location of all existing structures within the proposed subdivision and within 25 feet of
the proposed subdivision. Public area or areas to be owned in common by the lot owners, if
any;
N. The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in
diameter in areas as requested by the planning director;
O. A preliminary grading plan or profile of proposed roads if more than 500 cubic yards of earth
is to be removed;
P. A preliminary drainage proposal as specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, showing existing and
proposed drainage facilities for the site and the adjacent areas;
Q. A statement of improvements to be installed;
R. The location of known or suspected soil or geological hazard areas, water bodies, creeks and
areas subject to flooding;
S. Possible future lot lines if any is large enough to allow future division,
T. Location of existing underground utility lines, sewer and water mains adjacent to or within
the proposed subdivision;
U. Other information that may be required by the community development director in order to
properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the
environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 3296 § 1, 2000. Formerly 20.75.055.].
Page 10 of 23
Packet Pg. 175
7.1.c
20.75.065 Preliminary review.
A. Responsibility for Review. The community development director, or a designated planning
staff member, is in charge of administering the preliminary review of all subdivisions. The
public works director and the fire department, and other departments if needed, shall
participate in preliminary review by appropriate recommendations on subjects within their
respective areas of expertise.
B. Notice of Hearing.
1. When the director of community services has accepted a subdivision for filing, he shall
set a date of hearing, and give notice of the hearing as provided in ECDC 20.03.003, and
by the following for a formal subdivision:
a. One publication in a newspaper of general circulation within Snohomish County
pursuant to Chapter 1.03 ECC and posting notice in three conspicuous places within
300 feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed formal subdivision not less
than 10 working days prior to the hearing.
b. Mailing to a city if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent or within one mile of the
city's boundary, or the proposed subdivision would use the utilities of the city.
c. Mailing to the county if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to the city -county
boundary.
d. Mailing to the State Department of Highways if a proposed formal subdivision is
adjacent to a state highway right-of-way.
e. The notice must include a legal description and either a vicinity location sketch or a
location description in nonlegal language.
C. Time Limits for Staff Review. Staff review shall be completed within 120 days from the date
of filing.
D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall review a formal subdivision as a Type
III -A decision in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
E. Short Subdivisions — Staff Review. The director of community services shall review a short
subdivision as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required).
F. Appeal of Staff Decision. Any person may appeal to the hearing examiner a Type II decision of
the community development director on a short subdivision under the procedure set forth
in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3817 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 12, 2010;
Page 11 of 23
Packet Pg. 176
7.1.c
Ord. 3736 § 65, 2009; Ord. 3211 §§ 4, 5, 1998; Ord. 3112 §§ 17, 18, 19, 1996; Ord. 2379 § 2,
1983].
20.75.070 Formal subdivision —Time limit.
The city council shall make its final decision on a proposed formal subdivision within 90 days of
the date of filing, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. Where applicable, additional
time needed to prepare and circulate an environmental impact statement shall not be included
within said 90 days. [Ord. 3783 § 13, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 13, 2010].
20.75.075 Modifications.
A. Request. Request for a modification to a requirement of this chapter shall be made on the
regular subdivision application form. The applicant shall state reasons to support the
approval of the requested modification.
B. Notice. The notice of the public hearing at which the applicant's proposed subdivision will be
considered shall contain a description of the proposed modification.
C. Consideration. The proposed modification shall be considered in the same manner as the
proposed subdivision. The modification may be approved, or recommended for approval,
only if all of the required findings set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances) can be made.
[Ord. 3211 § 6, 1998].
20.75.080 General findings.
A proposed subdivision may be approved only if all of the following general findings can be
made for the proposal, as approved or as conditionally approved:
A. Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter (as listed
in ECDC 20.75.020) and meets all requirements of this chapter.
B. Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted city policy, and is in the public interest.
C. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a
modification has been approved as provided for in this chapter.
D. Flood Plain Management. The proposal meets all requirements of the Edmonds Community
Development Code relating to flood plain management. [Ord. 2466, 1984].
20.75.085 Review criteria.
The following criteria shall be used to review proposed subdivisions:
Page 12 of 23
Packet Pg. 177
7.1.c
A. Environmental.
1. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife habitats,
the proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the resources.
Permanent restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid impact.
2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and by
relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography.
3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the land to be
divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as flood plains, steep slopes or
unstable soil or geologic conditions, a subdivision of the hazardous land shall be denied
unless the condition can be permanently corrected, consistent with paragraphs A(1) and
(2) of this section.
4. The proposal shall be designed to minimize off -site impacts on drainage, views and so
forth.
B. Lot and Street Layout.
1. Lots shall be designed to contain a usable building area. If the building area would be
difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special conditions
can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed properly.
2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other
feasible access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or
frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards.
3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance.
4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public
facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate.
C. Dedications.
1. The city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public use
2. Only the city council may approve a dedication of park land to satisfy the requirements of
ECDC 20.75.090. The council may request a review and written recommendation from
the planning advisory board.
3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land for
streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary plat.
Page 13 of 23
Packet Pg. 178
7.1.c
D. Improvements.
1. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, pedestrian
walks and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems,
drainage systems and underground utilities.
2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements necessary
to meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the requirements of:
a. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements;
b. Chapter 19.75, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and access.
This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the community
development director, the public works director, and the fire chief.
3. The use of septic systems may be approved if all of the following conditions are met:
a. It is more than 200 feet, multiplied by the number of lots in the proposed subdivision,
from the nearest public sewer main to the nearest boundary of the land to be
divided.
b. The land to be divided is zoned RS-20.
c. The public works director and city health officer determine that soil, drainage and
slope conditions are satisfactory for septic use and that all requirements of WAC
248-96-090 are met.
E. Flood Plain Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set forth in
the Edmonds Community Development Code for flood plain management. [Ord. 3211 § 7,
1998; Ord. 2466, 1984].
20.75.090 Park land dedication.
A. Dedication or In -Lieu of Fee Required. Before or concurrent with the approval of the final
plat of any subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in -lieu of dedication, or
do a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes.
B. Proposal of Dedication. Either the applicant or the city may propose dedication of a portion
of the land to be divided in order to meet the regulations of this section. Payment of in -lieu
fees is required unless dedication is proposed and approved.
Page 14 of 23
Packet Pg. 179
7.1.c
C. Review of Dedications. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed at the same time as the
subdivision proposal. Any short subdivision containing a dedication proposal shall be
reviewed as if it were a formal subdivision.
D. Factors for Review. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, and the Recreational
Walks Plan. Other factors to be considered include size, usability and accessibility of the
land proposed for dedication, and the possibility of coordinating dedication by owners of
adjacent land.
E. In -Lieu Fee. In -lieu park fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
20.75.100 Preliminary approval — Time limit.
A. Approval of a preliminary plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of the time
period established under RCW 58.17.140, unless the applicant has acquired final plat
approval prior to the expiration date established under RCW 58.17.140. The time period for
subdivisions shall commence upon the date of preliminary plat approval by the issuance of a
written decision by the Edmonds hearing examiner. In the event that the decision of the
hearing examiner is appealed to the Edmonds city council and/or Snohomish County
superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the
preliminary plat decision by the city council or judiciary.
B. Approval of a short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of seven years if
preliminary short plat approval is issued on or before December 31, 2013, and five years if
preliminary short plat approval is issued on or after January 1, 2014, unless the applicant
has acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period. The time period for
short plats shall commence upon the issuance of a final, written staff decision. In the event
that the decision of staff is appealed to the Edmonds hearing examiner and/or Snohomish
County superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation
of the preliminary short plat decision by the hearing examiner or judiciary. [Ord. 3925 § 1,
2013].
20.75.105 Extensions of time.
Repealed by Ord. 3190. [Ord. 2379 § 4, 1983].
20.75.107 Preliminary approval — Time limit extension for previously approved short plats.
Short plats that received preliminary approval on or after January 1, 2006, and would have
expired prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall have their
preliminary approvals automatically extended for a period of two years from the effective date
Page 15 of 23
Packet Pg. 180
7.1.c
of the ordinance codified in this section. Preliminary approval of such short plats shall expire
and have no further validity at the end of two years from the effective date of the ordinance
codified in this section, unless the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the
specified time period. Notice of the two-year extension from the effective date of the
ordinance codified in this section shall be provided to the parties of record of such preliminary
short plats. [Ord. 3925 § 2, 2013].
20.75.110 Changes.
A. Preliminary Plats. The community development director may approve as a Type II decision
(Staff decision — Notice required) minor changes to an approved preliminary plat, or its
conditions of approval. If the proposal involves additional lots, rearrangements of lots or
roads, additional impacts to surrounding property, or other major changes, the proposal
shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original application. Application fees shall be
as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
B. Recorded Final Plats. An application to change a final plat that has been filed for record shall
be processed in the same manner as a new application. This section does not apply to
affidavits of correction. [Ord. 3736 § 66, 2009].
20.75.120 Review of improvement plans.
A. Timing. If improvements are required as a condition of preliminary approval of a subdivision,
the applicant shall submit the improvement plan to the director of public works for review
and approval, allowing sufficient time for proper review before expiration of the preliminary
plat approval.
B. Engineered Design. All improvement plans shall be prepared, dated, signed and sealed by a
licensed engineer registered in the state of Washington, unless the public works director
determines that engineer plans are not necessary.
20.75.130 Installation of improvements.
A. Timing and Inspection Fee. The applicant shall not begin installation of improvements until
the public works director has approved the improvement plans, the public works director
and the applicant have agreed in writing on a time schedule for installation of the
improvements, and the applicant has paid an inspection fee, as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
B. Completion — Bonding. The applicant shall either complete the improvements before the
final plat is submitted for city council approval, or the applicant shall post a bond or other
suitable surety to guarantee the completion of the improvements within one year of the
approval of the final plat. The bond or surety shall be based on the construction cost of the
Page 16 of 23
Packet Pg. 181
7.1.c
improvement as determined by the director of public works, and shall be processed as
provided in Chapter 17.10 ECDC.
C. Acceptance — Maintenance Bond. The director of public works shall not accept the
improvements for the city of Edmonds until the improvements have been inspected and
found satisfactory, and the applicant has posted a bond or surety for 15 percent of the
construction cost to guarantee against defects of workmanship and materials for two years
from the date of acceptance.
D. Short Subdivision — Deferred Installation. If the community development director determines
that installation of improvements will not be needed at the time of the approval of the final
plat of the short subdivision, the improvements shall be installed or guaranteed by bond
before issuance of any development permit for any lot shown on the preliminary plat. This
condition shall be stated on the final plat, and shall be binding on all later owners of lots
created by the subdivision.
20.75.135 Preparation of final plat.
A final plat is a final, precise drawing of a subdivision which conforms to the approved
preliminary plat, and meets all conditions of the preliminary approval and all requirements of
this chapter. It shall be prepared in accordance with the following:
A. Surveyor. A professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington shall prepare, or
supervise the preparation of, the final plat.
B. Survey. The surveyor shall survey the land to be divided, and as much of the section(s) in
which the land is located as is needed to properly orient the land within the section(s).
C. Monuments. The surveyor shall set monuments at street intersections, lot and block corners,
boundary angle points, points of curbs in streets, controlling corners on the boundaries of
the land, and other points as required by the public works director. The type of monuments
and the method of setting shall be as specified by the public works director.
D. Standards. The public works director shall set standards for the preparation of final plats.
20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates.
The following certificates shall be shown on the final plat. Subsections A through G of this
section shall be signed by the indicated person before the final plat is submitted for review
Subsection G is required for formal subdivision only.
A. Surveyor. The surveyor shall place his seal and signature on the plat along with:
Page 17 of 23
Packet Pg. 182
7.1.c
1. A statement certifying that the plat was prepared by him, or under his supervision;
2. A statement certifying that the plat is a true and correct representation of the land
surveyed;
3. A full and correct description of the land to be divided.
B. Owner. The owner shall certify that the subdivision has been made with his free consent and
according to his desires. Owners of other interests shown on the title report shall certify
that they have notice of the subdivision.
C. Dedications. A certificate of dedication by the owner for all areas to be dedicated to the
public, acknowledged by a notary.
D. Waiver of Claims. A statement by the owner waiving all claims for damages against any
governmental authority which may arise from the construction, drainage and maintenance
of required improvements.
E. Waiver of Access. If required by the conditions of the preliminary approval, a waiver by the
owner of direct access to any street from any property.
F. Roads Not Dedicated. A statement or other clear indication by the owner if any street is not
to be dedicated to the public.
G. Health Officer. A statement by the city of Edmonds health officer certifying that the
proposed means of sewage disposal and water supply are adequate.
H. Director of Public Works. The following statements to be signed by the director of public
works:
1. A statement approving the survey date, the layout of streets, alleys and other rights -of -
way, design of bridges, sewage and water system and other structures;
2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city
council, or approving the final plat of a short subdivision.
I. Community Development Director. The following statements to be signed by the community
development director:
1. A statement that the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat and all
conditions of the preliminary approval;
2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city
council or approving the final plat of a short subdivision.
Page 18 of 23
Packet Pg. 183
7.1.c
J. City Approval. A statement to be signed by the mayor and city clerk that the city council has
approved the final plat of a formal subdivision or a short subdivision with a dedication.
K. Taxes. A statement to be signed by the county treasurer that all taxes and delinquent
assessments for which the land to be divided may be liable as of the date of the signing of
the statement have been paid.
20.75.145 Final plat —Accompanying material.
The following material shall be submitted to the director of public works with the final plat
A. Review Fee. A review fee for the final plat as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC shall be paid for each
check or recheck of the final plat.
B. Survey Notes. Complete field and computation notes of the plat survey showing the original
or re-established corners with descriptions and the actual traverse showing error of closure
and method of balancing. A sketch showing all distances, angles and calculations required
to determine corners and distances of the plat shall accompany this data. The allowable
error of closure shall not exceed one foot in 5,000 feet.
C. Title Report. A title report showing that ownership and other interests in the land described
and shown on the final plat is in the name of the person signing the owner's certificate.
20.75.150 Waiver of survey.
The director of public works may waive the requirement of a survey for the final plat in the
following circumstances if there will be no adverse effect on the public interest: if the
boundaries of the lot proposed for short subdivision have sufficient existing monuments to
define the proposed lot lines.
If the director of public works waives the survey requirements, the applicant shall prepare a
final plat that meets all other requirements of this chapter and which contains legal
descriptions of each proposed lot. [Ord. 3211 § 9, 1998].
20.75.155 Review of final plat.
A. Submission. The applicant may not file the final plat for review until the required
improvement plans have been submitted for approval to the director of public works.
B. Time Limit. A final plat shall be approved, disapproved or returned to the applicant for
correction within 30 days of its official filing with the director of public works for review,
unless the applicant agrees to extend the time limit. This time period shall not include
required environmental review.
Page 19 of 23
Packet Pg. 184
7.1.c
C. Staff Review. The director of public works and the community development director shall
review the final plat of a formal subdivision. They shall then forward the final plat to the city
council for a Type IV -A decision after having signed the statements required by ECDC
20.75.140 or attaching their recommendation for disapproval.
D. City Council Review. If the city council finds that the public use and interest will be served by
the proposed subdivision and that all requirements of the preliminary approval in this
chapter have been met, the final plat shall be approved and the mayor and city clerk shall
sign the statement of the city council approval on the final plat.
E. Acceptance of Dedication. City council approval of the final plat constitutes acceptance of all
dedication shown on the final plat. [Ord. 3736 § 67, 2009; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994].
20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review.
The community services director, through his/her designees, the director of public works and
the community development director shall conduct an administrative review of a proposed
short subdivision and either sign the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140, if all
requirements of this chapter have been met, or disapprove such action, stating their reasons in
writing. Such administrative action shall be final subject only to right of appeal to the hearing
examiner as a Type II decision under Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Dedication of any interest in property
contained in an approval of the short subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for
formal acceptance on its consent agent; provided, however, that such acceptance shall not stay
any approval, time period for appeal or the effective date of the short subdivision. [Ord. 3736
§ 68, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 10, 1998; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994].
20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record.
The city clerk shall file the final plat or short plat for record with the county auditor, and
arrange for a reproducible copy to be sent to the public works department and the applicant
and a paper copy to be sent to the county assessor and the community development
department. The plat or short plat shall not be considered "approved" until so filed with the
county auditor.
20.75.165 Effect of rezones.
The owner of any lot in a final plat filed for record shall be entitled to use the lot for the
purposes allowed under the zoning in effect at the time of filing for five years from the date of
filing the final plat for record, even if the property is rezoned; provided that all requirements of
the community development code, other than lot area, are met.
Page 20 of 23
Packet Pg. 185
7.1.c
20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions.
A further division of any lot created by a short subdivision shall be reviewed as and meet the
requirements of this chapter for formal subdivision if the further division is proposed within five
years from the date the final plat was filed for record; provided, however, that when a short
plat contains fewer than four parcels, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prevent the
owner who filed the original short plat, from filing a revision thereof within the five-year period
in order to create up to a total of four lots within the original short subdivision boundaries.
[Ord. 2623 § 1, 19871.
20.75.175 Court review.
Any decision approving or disapproving any plat or short plat shall be reviewable for unlawful,
arbitrary, capricious or corrupt action or nonaction by writ of review before the Superior Court
of Snohomish County. The action may be brought by any property owner in the city, who
deems himself or herself aggrieved thereby; provided, that application for a writ of review shall
be made to the court within 30 days from any decision so to be reviewed. The cost of
transcription of all records ordered certified by the court for such review shall be borne by the
appellant.
20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter.
No building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit shall be issued for any lot
unless: (1) the subject property is a lot of record as defined in ECDC 21.55.015; or (2) the
property owner is determined to be an innocent purchaser in accordance with subsection (A) of
this section. Where this section authorizes a lot to be developed even though such lot does not
meet the definition for "lot of record" in ECDC 21.55.015, any development on said lot shall
comply with the city's development regulations, including any applicable development
regulations regarding nonconforming lots.
A. "Lot of Record" Status for Innocent Purchasers. An owner of property may obtain "lot of
record" status for a parcel that does not meet the "lot of record" definition. To obtain this
status, the applicant must submit an affidavit with sufficient supporting documentation to
demonstrate that:
1. The applicant did not have actual notice regarding the subdivision of the property in
question. If the applicant had knowledge of the subdivision (e.g., knowledge that two
parcels in question were once part of the same parcel), but not of its illegality, the
innocent purchase status may not be granted;
2. The purchase price of the parcel is consistent with an arm's length transaction;
Page 21 of 23
Packet Pg. 186
7.1.c
3. The owner did not purchase the property from a relative;
4. At the time of purchase, there was some existing deed, record or survey showing the
subject parcel as a separate lot; and
5. The parcel had a separate tax ID parcel number prior to the purchase of the property by
the applicant.
B. The innocent purchaser status may be approved subject to conditions of approval requiring
the applicant to make improvements to the property that would likely have been required
by the city had the property been properly subdivided, unless it is determined that such
improvements have already been constructed.
C. An affirmative determination of innocent purchaser and "lot of record" status shall be
recorded with the county auditor. [Ord. 3982 § 3, 20141.
20.75.185 Penalties.
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter relating to the sale, offer for sale, lease or
transfer of any lot is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties of ECC 5.50.020. Each
sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of each separate lot in violation of any provision of this
chapter shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. In addition to these criminal sanctions,
the city shall have the right to bring an action to restrain and enjoin any subdivision, sale or
transfer, compel compliance with the provisions of this chapter and obtain other injunctive
relief. The costs of such action shall be paid by the violator and shall include the city attorney's
fees.
ECDC 21.30.032 "Flat(s)" means multiple family dwelling unit(s) that are horizontally separated
— i.e.: stacked above and/or below each other.
ECDC 21.100.040 Townhouse.
Townhouse means a multiple dwelling unit meeting the following criteria:
A. No dwelling unit overlapping another vertically;
B. Common side walls joining units;
C. Not more than six dwelling units in one structure;
Page 22 of 23
Packet Pg. 187
7.1.c
D. Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual structures as defined in
the zoning code;
Page 23 of 23
Packet Pg. 188
7.1.c
Clugston, Michael
From: Edith Duttlinger <EDuttlinger@ci.mlt.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 4:21 PM
To: Clugston, Michael
Subject: RE: Edmonds SEPA for townhouse code amendment
Michael,
Thank you. The City of Mountlake Terrace has a fee simple unit lot subdivision provision in code, updated in 2015.
htt www.code ublishin .com WA MountlakeTerrace #! mountlaketerracel7 MountlakeTerracel7O9.html#17.09
We require unit lots to install individual sewer lateral and water service and water meter for each unit, (This can
be difficult to achieve for a party interested in overlaying a fee simple on a pre-existing development. In addition,
preexisting property would need to be brought up to current code such as landscaping and frontage improvements,
which may have changed since original development.)
Our definition for townhomes is two or more units. If Edmonds wants to assure that townhomes occur in units of 3 or
more (vs., the duplex look) it would need to modify the definition. I recommend against allowing flats for fee simple.
Regards,
Edith
Edith L. Duttlinger, Senior Planner
Community dr Economic Development Dept.
City of Mountlake Terrace
6100 219th St SW, Ste 200, P.O. Box 72
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043-0072
Phi 425.744.6279 Fax: 425.775.0420
e-m a i I: ed uttl inger@d. rn ft,wa. u s
website: www.citvofmlt.com
`4 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Clugston, Michael[ma iIto: Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.govl
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 9:46 AM
To: Edith Duttlinger <EDuttlineer@ci.mlt.wa.us>
Subject: FW: Edmonds SEPA for townhouse code amendment
Hi Edith,
Here's the language proposed by the applicant and his application cover letter.
If you need anything else, please let me know.
Mike Clugston, AICP
City of Edmonds I Associate Planner
425-771-0220, x 1330
michael.clu stop edmondswa. ov
General permit assistance, online permits, and Web GIS: http:/./www.edmondswa.gov/handouts.htmi
Packet Pg. 189
7.1.c
and Member Robles recalled that the last time the proposed code amendments were presented, there was a fairly st
co nt from the Board on the viability of a 10-foot activity space given the velocity of the traffic along the c ridor.
However, e does not see that the proposal was adjusted to address this concern. Mr. Shipley pointed out tha evelopers
would be allo d to provide amenity space along up to 50% of the street frontage, and the 10-foot activity s e between the
building and the s et would be separated by a 5-foot right-of-way. However, he agreed that the pedes 'an atmosphere will
not be similar to wha ists in downtown Edmonds. Board Member Robles asked if there are a ncentives to encourage
this type of development, Mr. Shipley pointed out that the proposal would allow buildings be setback between 10 and
20 feet from the street, and a 5- t right-of-way buffer was added to provide an additiona ffer.
Board Member Crank suggested it woaWbe helpful for the consultant to prov' mockups to illustrate how the proposed
amendments would impact both existing an ew development. Mr. Shipl pointed out that existing development would
not be impacted by the proposed amendments, ch only apply to ne evelopment. The only potential impact would be
the proposed amendment that prohibits pole signs. Hbwever, existivL<pole signs would be allowed to remain.
Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the intent is to enco e w development in an existing scene. She asked where the
balance would be between the current look and wh is propose as the new look. She asked how this issue would be
addressed by the Architectural Design Board ( ). Mr. Shipley n d that a lot of the existing development along the
corridor is located towards the back of the 1 , with parking along the str front. New development located closer to the
street could take place on these prope s. Mr. Chave pointed out that the erties along Highway 99 are of varying
shapes, sizes and configurations�e�rsmay
property owners many just want to ref irbi an existing building or add additional
buildings, and other property o want to tear down the existing buildings and r ace them with new development.
The intent is to figure out ay for all of these activities to move forward but at different stag
Board Member C nk said she likes the concept of activity spaces between the buildings and the sfaw, alks. However, she
asked if thewglkways in front of existing buildings would be done as part of a single project or if th-eywould be done
pieceme . Mr. Shipley answered that sidewalks would be done has redevelopment occurs. Mr. Chave adde at the City
has me money for this purpose and it is desirable to enhance the public spaces along the frontage, but a lot mor ding
ill be needed.
CODE AMENDMENTS FOR UNIT -LOT SUBDIVISIONS (AMD20170003)
Mr. Clugston advised that this is an application by a private party, Westgate Woods, LLC, for a code amendment to add a
new section to the subdivision code, which would provide for unit -lot subdivisions. The process would allow for the creation
of a fee -simple ownership option in residential projects in Multi -Family Residential (RM) zones as an alternative to
condominium ownership. He reviewed that from 2003 to 2008, the City had a process known as a "townhouse subdivision,"
which was based on a 2003 staff interpretation (Attachment 6). This process resulted in several projects, two of which are
included in the packet: Cascade Cottages (Attachments 1 and 2) and Cooper's Crest (Attachments 3 and 4). He noted that
the only difference between the before and after photos is the presence of internal lot lines between the individual units. The
developments were designed to meet all of the requirements for the particular RM zone, just like any other RM project, but
the lot lines were created to allow the fee -simple sale of the individual dwelling units.
Mr. Clugston further reviewed that during review of a townhouse project in 2008, the Hearing Examiner identified some
inconsistencies between how the townhouse subdivision process was being applied based on the requirements of the
subdivision ordinance. In particular, the Hearing Examiner noted conflict with three elements: minimum lot area, internal
setbacks and insufficient access within the development. The City Council overturned the Hearing Examiner's decision, but
the project was never built due to the recession, and the permit eventually expired. Since the 2008 decision, no townhouse
subdivisions were approved because of the concerns highlighted by the Hearing Examiner and the lack of clear authority and
standards in the code.
Mr. Clugston advised that the applicant is seeking to codify a fee -simple process for RM projects in the RM zones that is
consistent with the subdivision and zoning ordinances. The applicant's narrative and proposed language was included in the
Staff Report as Attachments 7 and 8. The existing subdivision code is included as Attachment 9, and the current RM zoning
code is Attachment 10. In addition, the City received one comment letter in response to the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) from a planner in Mountlake Terrace, who provided some good insight to consider. He noted that some local
Planning Board Minutes
March 22, 2017 Page 4
Packet Pg. 190
7.1.c
jurisdictions currently have a form of this process in place, including Seattle, Mountlake Terrace and Snohomish County, and
the applicant has worked with a number of these codes. He has reviewed their processes and created a proposed amendment
that takes the best of each one and refines it to meet the City of Edmonds' needs.
Board Member Lovell said he reviewed the material in the Staff Report and felt it would have been beneficial to have a
graphic illustration of a project that meets the criteria outlined in the proposed amendment. His understanding is that the
individual living units would need to be 1,500 square feet in an RM-1.5 zone in order to be divided into fee -simple lots. He
felt that would be a very difficult task to achieve. Mr. Clugston clarified that is not really the intent of the proposed
amendment. He referred to Attachments 1 and 2, which provide aerial views of the Cascade Cottage Project. Attachment 1
shows a regular RM project with detached units. Per the current code for the RM-2.4 zone, each unit needs at least 2,400
square feet of lot area. However, that does not mean that each dwelling unit needs to be that size. It is more a density
number. Attachment 2 show the same aerial photograph, with the lot lines drawn as part of the townhouse process. The
squares are not all 2,400 square feet. The density is based on the entire lot rather than the individual lots. This needs to be
clearly addressed in the proposed amendment.
John Bissell, Harmsen & Associates, Inc., advised that he is present to represent the applicant, Westgate Woods, LLC. He
attempted to explain the concept of unit -lot subdivisions and fee -simple lots, which he agreed is very complicated and
technical. He also explained the difference between a condominium project and a subdivision project. With a subdivision,
lines are drawn over the ground to create separate lots, but that is not the case with a condominium. Only the units, not the
underlying ground, are individually owned. He advised that State law enables jurisdictions to have subdivision laws, but
condominium laws are handled by the State and local jurisdictions are excluded from the process. It is important to
recognize that the processes are different, and the State's condominium statute has created unusual liability for condominium
developers. Small architecture firms and many builders cannot get insurance to design and construct condominiums. When
insurance is available, it is prohibitively expensive. This has resulted in a very low inventory of RM units in Washington
State and rents are skyrocketing. In response to this growing problem, a number of jurisdictions are seeing the unit -lot
subdivision as a solution to continue to implement their comprehensive plans in RM zones using the same density
requirements and built environment as is currently allowed.
Mr. Bissell explained that unless cities amend their codes in some way to support the development standards of the parent lot,
they will end up creating a bunch of smaller lots. Most zoning codes have a minimum lot standard in the RM zones, which
prohibits the creation of separate dwelling units. It is not possible to reach the density the comprehensive plan anticipates by
using the subdivision code given the requirements for setbacks, lot area, etc. He referred to the Cascade Cottages
(Attachments 1 and 2), noting that he was the planner for the project. The project was originally designed to fit the units on
the site without a subdivision. The original plan looked at the exterior boundaries and how individual units could fit on the
site. The units are separated from each other by six feet, as required by the building code, and the project is consistent with
the required street setbacks from 75`h Avenue and 210th Street. The project was approved by the Architectural Design Board
and found to be consistent with the RM development standards. Subsequently, the developer decided to sell the development
as separate lots using the townhouse subdivision provision that was in place at the time. The properties were divided into 16
separate lots. Although none of the individual lots are 2,400 square feet in size, the parent lot is large enough to
accommodate the 16 units based on the density allowed in the RM-2.4 zone. Although the parent lot was subdivided, the
project was still required to meet all of the zoning, density, design, subdivision, and engineering standards that are required
for RM development. He cautioned that any provision that allows for unit -lot subdivision and fee -simple lots should also
include appropriate standards to ensure that the built environment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bissell said he has done consulting work in a number of different cities and for various developers. About 15 years ago,
he contracted with the City of Edmonds to review projects under its unit subdivision code, and he has also been a
development consultant for the City of Seattle and gone through the process as an applicant. The City of Seattle has had a
great deal of success and very few problems with their provision, which provided a good model for him to start with.
However, as well as unit subdivisions are working in other jurisdictions, there are some issues with each of the codes that
have been adopted. These issues have been addressed in the proposed code amendment. He reviewed the issues/problems as
follows:
• There is a new trend in real estate development and investment in which a developer builds a RM site with several
multiple -unit buildings, then sells individual buildings to property management companies for future leasing of the
Planning Board Minutes
March 22, 2017 Page 5
Packet Pg. 191
7.1.c
individual units. This opportunity is not expressly prohibited or permitted by any of the effective codes being used by
other jurisdictions. Because it is not prohibited, it is not considered contrary to the intent of the unit subdivision code
and both Seattle and Snohomish County have permitted it to occur. This option would not violate Edmonds'
Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed amendment expressly permits it as an option to avoid future confusion.
A subdivision is a two-dimensional division of land that implies ownership of everything above and below the two-
dimensional box described in the plat. No portion of any one unit can overhang a portion of another unit. Therefore,
flats are excluded from the provision. While many codes are not clear on this exclusion, the proposed language
expressively excludes them. A unit -lot subdivision includes the exterior of the building, which can create a potential
problem in exterior maintenance because it might be hard to tell who owns what. Because of this, it is possible for
owners to have trouble coming to an agreement over who maintains what. To address this concern, the proposed
amendment includes a section requiring a joint maintenance agreement for the exterior of the buildings.
• Snohomish County's provision is fairly new and has experienced problems because it is too generous with the building
community stakeholders group and does not include enough controls to protect the neighborhoods or county against
problems that can arise. At the same time, the provision cannot be used for detached units. They now believe that was a
mistake and are in the process of amending the provision to allow attached units.
• The City of Redmond's provision is also new and does not consider the relationship between the code and public works
standards. For example, access requirements are not tied to the type of development, but instead to the type of permit.
Therefore, if a RM development is proposed with no unit subdivision, standard drive aisles and fire lanes are required.
But if a subdivision is proposed, the regulations then require the installation of roads meeting a different standard.
Because the use affects the environment and not the type of permit, language was added to clarify which regulation
should apply.
The City of Seattle does not accept unit -lot final plat applications until at least the development foundations are installed
and the surveyor of record has located the foundations to ensure that the recorded lot lines are set on the common wall.
However, this is not a codified requirement in Seattle, and it is not included in the County's provision. He explained that
because foundations are not always installed precisely per plan, this requirement makes sense to him. He contacted four
licensed land surveyors who have experience in constructing foundations, and received a mixed response. He expressed
his belief that requiring the foundations to be installed and verified by the surveyor prior to final plat is more foolproof
than requiring the building to be staked and the inspector to verify. This requirement was included in the proposal.
Mr. Bissell referred to the cover letter he submitted with the application (Attachment 7), which reviews all of the potential
issues and explains how the proposed code amendment would address each one. The proposed language would be added to
the subdivision code to give clear direction. The proposal includes specific requirements, such as maintenance agreements
for the maintenance of the exterior of the building. In addition to minor amendments to correct terms, new definitions would
be added for "unit -lot subdivision," "parent lot," and "flats." A portion of the definition of "townhouse" would also be
amended.
Mr. Bissell referred to the comment letter submitted by Edith Duttlinger, Senior Planner for the City of Mountlake Terrace,
which recommended some potential changes. For example, she strongly recommended that flats not be allowed in
townhouse subdivisions, and the proposal specifically excludes them from the provision and adds a definition for "flats."
Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Clugston to explain how a private individual can propose a development code amendment. Mr.
Clugston answered that the code allows citizens to make application for code amendments, which are Type 5 decisions that
require a public hearing before the Planning Board and a Planning Board recommendation to the City Council.
Board Member Lovell referred to Attachment 5, which describes a townhouse proposal that failed the test as determined by
the Hearing Examiner. He summarized that the proposed amendments are intended to revitalize the ability to do townhouse
development in Edmonds. Mr. Clugston agreed that is the intent. He explained that the City does not currently have a
process for unit -lot or townhouse subdivisions to create fee -simple lots for RM projects. The applicant has applied to amend
the code to add that process within the code and make sure it fits with the rest of the code. He recalled that, with the 2008
project, the Hearing Examiner found a number of issues with the interpretation that staff had been relying on. The
Planning Board Minutes
March 22, 2017 Page 6
Packet Pg. 192
7.1.c
applicant's proposal is intended to address these issues so the process can work. He clarified that the development that was
proposed in 2008 met the code requirements for RM development, but the Hearing Examiner found that subdividing the
property into separate lots did not meet the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. She felt the minimum lot size would
have to be 2,400 square feet based on the RM-2.4 zoning. This issue needs to be made clear in the proposed new language.
Mr. Clugston also explained that drive aisles are typically required for dense RM development, but as soon as you have
access ways that serve five or more lots, the street setbacks outlined in the code would apply. This is something the City's
previous townhouse interpretation did not address. The intent is to have the same development, but allow the parent lot to be
subdivided into separate lots. It is important to make sure that all of the proposed changes are consistent with the existing
code.
Board Member Lovell asked Mr. Bissell to share more information about the new trend of development and investment
where a developer builds a RM site with several multi -unit buildings, then sells individual buildings to property management
companies. He asked if this must be done in order for the concept to function property. If so, what is the maximum of
number of units allowed per building. Mr. Bissell said he is not proposing to alter the existing limit of six units per building.
He suggested it is not so much about the number of units per building but the idea that you could have two buildings, each
with a number of units, and the lot lines would go around the buildings rather than the individual units. He reminded the
Board of his earlier comment that this type of development is a new market trend. While it would not alter the built
environment, it would provide flexibility in the code for different ownership options. Board Member Lovell asked if this
type of development has occurred in other communities, and Mr. Bissell answered affirmatively. He explained that the
demand for apartment units is very high and this is a real change in how the economy of Puget Sound had been working for a
long time. The people who own the buildings and lease them are called "legacy developers." For most of his career, he had
one legacy developer and now he is working with about ten. He said the current market of building owners is not equipped to
own 60 or 80-unit developments. As developers transition from a business model with a 4-year investment cycle to a
business model with a 50 to 60-year investment cycle, this type of development will become more popular.
Board Member Crank asked if the proposal is intended to apply to a specific plot of land or to a specific development
proposal. She also asked how the provision would be applied to future requests of this nature in single-family zones. Mr.
Clugston said the provision is only intended to apply to existing and future RM development, and not single-family
residential zones. Even with the provision, RM development will still have to meet all design standards and the base zoning
requirements. From the outside, the development will look no different whether it is subdivided or not. It is a matter of
ownership of the different pieces of the site. For existing developments, owners can apply for a unit -lot subdivision and
create fee -simple lots to sell off. The provision would apply to both existing and new RM development. It could also be
utilized in other zones in the city where residential development is allowed, such as the CG zone along Highway 99 and the
commercial zones at Westgate.
Mr. Chave summarized that the proposed provision is simply an ownership option, and it does not change zoning, density or
bulk requirements. It simply gives another way to divide up ownership of a piece of property. It may apply to existing
buildings as well as new construction. It is not intended to be a project -specific application. It is a legislative change to the
code that would apply throughout the City.
Board Member Crank asked staff to clarify the Board's role in the process of moving the proposal forward. She noted that a
public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 26`b. Mr. Chave said this presentation was intended to be an introduction to
the proposed provision before going forward with a formal public hearing. The Board is more used to applications that are
quasi-judicial, and this particular proposal is legislative. That means the Board Members are free to ask questions and
discuss the proposal outside of the formal public hearing.
Board Member Robles noted that condominium agreements protect people, as well. For example, one person's behavior or
decision could impact the value of another's property. He asked how the rights of the individual property owners would be
preserved. While he understands the reasons for pulling away from the condominium concept, it is important to recognize
that subdividing into separate units would result in the residents losing their collective power to defend their properties. Mr.
Bissell said that most subdivisions have a homeowner's association that has certain rights, particularly when common areas
are involved. A lot of protection can be obtained through a homeowner's agreement, and he always relies on his attorneys to
write the covenants for his projects. Board Member Robles asked if the code could include a provision that requires the
construction company to maintain a reserve or if it would that be the responsibility of the individual owners. Mr. Chave
Planning Board Minutes
March 22, 2017 Page 7
Packet Pg. 193
7.1.c
expressed his belief that a not all unit -lot subdivisions would have homeowner's associations, and that is why building codes
are so important. Building codes require certain things in a fee -simple setup that are different than for condominiums. The
assumption is that individuals would be in charge of their own lot and not rely on the neighbors or a condominium
association.
Board Member Robles asked if condominiums that are subdivided into fee -simple lots retain their value more or less than the
traditional type of arrangement. Mr. Bissell said that unit -lot subdivisions have been done in Seattle since the early 90s, and
they have held their value as well or better than traditional condominiums. He said he does not believe value will be an issue.
Some people want the condominiums for protection and others prefer not to be in condominium situations.
Board Member Robles observed that property owners purchase property with certain assumptions, and he voiced concern that
they might not always be fully informed. Mr. Chave said the subdivision will be recorded on the legal documents that are
part of the real estate transaction. It will be up to the real estate agent to know this and inform the buyer. This is outside of
the government's control. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the City of Seattle requires that the developer be in charge of
the homeowner's association for one year, and then it becomes the responsibility of the individual owners to govern
themselves. Mr. Bissell agreed there is not clear answer for what the best approach would be.
Mr. Chave referred to the provision in the draft proposal that would require a maintenance agreement for when the units are
in a single building. This agreement will probably not be covenants to the extent of a condominium association, but
maintenance of the buildings that are connected will be covered through the agreement. Typically, with subdivisions, there
are also underlying utilities that have maintenance agreements attached to them, as well.
Vice Chair Monroe asked what Mr. Bissell anticipates will be the counter argument against the proposal. Mr. Bissell said he
does not anticipate a lot of opposition to the proposal. However, when he has been involved in projects that modify the lot
area in some way, the standard objection is that the zoning code says you have to have a certain lot area and you are throwing
that out the window. He tries to point out that the total lot area is the same as if there were no subdivision.
Mr. Chave summarized that the proposal is essentially overlaying smaller ownership over a larger development. Any
agreements for maintenance or agreements that otherwise apply to the development would still be there. All the provision
would do is allow for the transfer of ownership of the units, but it would not absolve the owners from their responsibilities for
maintenance, drainage, internal driveways, etc. It would not change density, either. Vice Chair Monroe emphasized that, as
proposed, the provision would only apply to RM development.
I D111
Chair Rube nig reviewed that the April 12th agenda includes a presentation on the Highway 99 Code A dments. On
April 26th, there be a public hearing on Comprehensive Plan amendments for a proposed chan om Single Family
Urban 1 to Edmonds �to
public hearing on the Townhouse Subdivision Code Ame ent is also scheduled for
April 26th. The Board'stively scheduled for May 24th, pending confirmaf om the Bartell Development
Company that they will bthat evening.
Chair Rubenkonig thanked the Board Members for foe ' to move through the complicated proposal related to the
Townhouse Subdivision Code Amendmen��TS
.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COM
Vice Chair Monroe reported he attended the March 15th to
Development fission meeting, but he did not
have anything substanti report.
meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
March 22, 2017 Page 8
Packet Pg. 194
7.1.c
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/22/2017
Code Amendment for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003)
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here}
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Mike Clugston
Background/History
This application is new to the Planning Board. It is a Type V legislative permit where the Planning Board
will hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council.
Staff Recommendation
Discuss code amendment. Public hearing tentatively scheduled for April 26.
Narrative
This is an application by a private party, Westgate Woods, LLC, for a code amendment to add a new
section to the subdivision code which would provide for Unit Lot subdivisions. The process would allow
for the creation of a fee -simple ownership option in residential projects in multifamily zones as an
alternative to condominium ownership.
Several other local jurisdictions currently have some form of this process including Seattle, Mountlake
Terrace, and Snohomish County. From 2003 to 2008, the City of Edmonds had a similar process known
as townhouse subdivision. That process resulted in several projects in town, two of which are included
in the packet: Cascade Cottages and Cooper's Crest. Each project first went through the typical review
and approval process for new multifamily developments (design review, building permits, construction
and inspections). As opposed to a standard multifamily development, these two projects then went
through the townhouse subdivision process to create fee -simple lots for each of the dwelling units.
Attachments 1 & 2 show Cascade Cottages before and after platting while Cooper's Crest is shown
before and after platting in Attachments 3 & 4. Note that the only difference between the before and
after photos is the presence of the internal lot lines between the individual units. The developments
were designed to meet the requirements for the particular RM zone like any other multifamily project
(before) but then lot lines were created to allow the fee -simple sale of the individual dwelling units
(after).
The City's process was based on a staff interpretation of the definition of the term 'townhouse' from
2003 (Attachment 5). During review of a townhouse project in 2008, the new Hearing Examiner
identified some inconsistencies between how the townhouse subdivision process was being applied and
the requirements of the subdivision ordinance (Attachment 6). The Examiner found conflict with three
elements: minimum lot area, internal setbacks, and insufficient access within the development. On
appeal, City Council overturned the Examiner's decision but the project was never built due to the
Packet Pg. 195
7.1.c
recession and it eventually expired. After the 2008 decision, no further townhouse subdivisions were
approved. Part of the problem with processing additional applications were the concerns highlighted by
the Hearing Examiner and the lack of clear authority and standards in the code.
The current request is seeking to codify a fee -simple process for multifamily projects in the Multiple
Residential zones that is consistent with the subdivision and zoning ordinances. The applicant's
narrative and proposed code language are included as Attachments 7 & 8. The existing subdivision code
is included as Attachment 9 and the current multifamily zoning code is Attachment 10.
Attachments:
Attachment 1- Cascade Cottages no lines
Attachment 2 - Cascade Cottages w lines
Attachment 3 - Cooper's Crest no lines
Attachment 4 - Cooper's Crest w lines
Attachment 5 - Arbor Court decision
Attachment 6 - Townhouse subdivision interpretation
Attachment 7 - Applicant Narrative
Attachment 8 - Applicant's Proposed Code Amendment
Attachment 9 - ECDC 20.75 (Subdivisions)
Attachment 10 - ECDC 16.30 (Multiple Residential Zone)
Packet Pg. 196
,'; City of Edmonds IV dP I ILIC
WINK —
AMP
1 �f
JUL. I
Attachment 1
Legend
- Arc5DE.GI5.5TREE7_CENTERLINE
<all other values>
f.
1
+ 2
4
.kff
,.,Ymo�r.
,.,Ymo�r.
k
i
1:564 O
m I,.
Notes
a
x
Cascade Cottages
(D
23.57 47.0 gee
This map is a usergenerated static output from an 1nt2rnet mappingsiteand is for
2004
!Q
reference only. Data layersthat appearan this map may or may not be accurate,
RM-15
4
GS_1984 Web _Mercator _Auxiliary_Sph ere reliable;
W
p
^'urrent^orothenuise
city,, ---- -
Q
Attachment: Attachment 4 - March 22 PB agenda packet (1995 : Code Amendement for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003))
City of Edmonds IV dP 1 ILIC
1
1
6i
Attachment 2
e
E,w,M� Mdw�n�4.
Legend
Arc5DE.GI S.STREET_CENTE RLI NE
<all other values>
1
2
S: 4
R.
rl I r.
II
i'
k
- —w
1;r � ��' -
�� -��T TKO— i � T .�_ •• �r '_ ..
AX
fl
Ili- Y3 wow
1:564 O Notes
a
x
23.57 Ai.O gee Cascade Cottages
This map is a usergenerated static output from an lntrnet mappingsiteand is for 20P4
!Q
reference only. Data layersthat appear- this map may or may not be accurate, RM-15
VGS_1984 Web _Mercator _Auxiliary_Sph ere T '! •.^^ ^'1^T T^ ^r'1lT r^n ^'urrent^orothenuise reliable; W
City
Attachment: Attachment 4 - March 22 PB agenda packet (1995 : Code Amendement for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003))
City of Edmonds ivi aN i ilic
f
Attachment 3
Notes
Caope so-e�
4702 910 Feet This map isausr generated static oulput from an Internet m2pprngMeand isfor 2008
reference
onfy.D]ata Ealerst h2d appear on t hismap mayor may no[
to
beaccurale, RM-2.4
GS_J984 Web Mercator Auxiliary_�here currenl,orothe i�reli�fe.
Attachment: Attachment 4 - March 22 PB agenda packet (1995 : Code Amendement for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003))
City of Edmonds IV dP 1 Rit!
W-- M&L, LL
}r
.�M
_
t ` }Q14'
do
i` y +1r _ ��• s�
Attachment 4
F4
Legend
Arc5DE.GI5.5TREE7_CENTERLINE
<all other values>
1
2
5; 4
% r1; 1; n
1:1,128 O Notes
a
x
t9 47.02 94.0 ee Cooper's Cress
This map is a usergeneratedstaticoutputfrom an lntrnetmappingsiteand sfor 2006
!Q
i-Jer—eonly.6ata layers that appear an this map mayor may not be accurate, RM-Z4
GS 1984 Web MercaYor_Auxiliary_Sph ere current, orothenvise reliable.
Attachment: Attachment 4 -March 22 PB agenda packet (1995 : Code Amendement for Unit Lot Subdivisions (AMD20170003))
7.1.c
Attachment 5
CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
`-?)C. 189v
In the Matter of the Application of )
Steve Smith Development LLC )
For a Formal Plat for a )
Townhouse Subdivision )
NO. P-2008-16
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for a formal plat to subdivide 1.26 acres into 35 fee simple single-family townhouse
lots and a private driveway access tract in a Multifamily Residential (R-M 21.5) zone at 23800 —
23824 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington is DENTED.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request:
Jean Morgan and John Parsaie of Morgan Design Group LLC, on behalf of Steve Smith
Development LLC (Applicant), requested approval of a formal plat to subdivide 1.26 acres into
35 fee simple single-family townhouse lots and a private driveway access tract in a Multifamily
Residential (R-M 21.5) zone at 23800 — 23824 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington.
_Hearing Date:
The Edmonds Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on May 15, 2008.
The Examiner conducted a site view prior to the hearing.
Testimony:
At the open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Michael Clugston, Planner, City of Edmonds
2. Jean Morgan, Morgan Design Group LLC, Applicant Representative
3. John Parsaie, Morgan Design Group LLC, Applicant Representative
4. Alvin Rutledge
5. Roger Hertrich
Findings Conclusions and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P 2008-16
page 1 of 19
• Incorporated August 11, .1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Packet Pg. 201
7.1.c
Exhibits:
The following exhibits were admitted in the record:
1. Planning Division Staff Report, dated May 6, 2008
2. Preliminary Plat Map, dated received March (illegible), 2008
3. Planning Division Staff Report to City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board,
dated May 30, 2007, with attachments:
1. Land use application (ADB Review only), dated received February 15, 2007
2. Vicinity Map
3. Determination of Non -Significance, issued May 7, 2007
4. Site Plan
5. "Lighting fixtures and building colors" Conceptual plans (2 sheets)
6. Conceptual floor plans and elevations (14 sheets)
7. Landscape plan (3 sheets)
4. Architectural Design Board Public Hearing meeting minutes, June 6, 2007
5. Grading, Drainage, and Street Improvement Plan (1 sheet)
6. Adoption of Existing Environmental Document, dated January 23, 2008
7. Notice of Application and Public Hearing Affidavits of mailing, posting, and
publication
8. Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet, prepared by William Popp Associates,
received November 6, 2007
9. Drainage Report and Calculations, prepared by CG Engineering, dated March 6,
2008
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted in the record, the Hearing Examiner
enters the following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS
1. The Applicant requested approval of a formal plat to subdivide 1.26 acres into 35 fee
simple single-family townhouse lots and a private access easement in a Multifamily
Residential (R M 21.5) zone at 23800 -- 23824 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington.i
Exhibit 2, Site Plan; Exhibit 1, page 2.
2. The subject property is developed with six single -story duplexes (12 units), which would
be demolished and replaced upon approval. The site is relatively flat, sloping gently
towards State Route 104 (SR 104/Edmonds Way), just west of Highway 99. The
property abuts SR 104 to the northeast, with its northeast corner adjacent to the
intersection of SR 104 and 238a' Street SW. The site borders Single -Family Residential
(RS-8) zoning to the west and south and Multifamily Residential (RM-1.5) zoning to the
southeast. The RS-8 property to the west is developed with condominiums, and the RS-8
property to the south contains single-family residential development. The RM-1.5 zoned
1 The legal description of the subject property is a portion of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of
Section 31, Township 27 North, Range 4 E, W.M.; known by Assessor's Parcel Number 004633-010-004-2. Exhibit
2, ,Site Plan, Exhibit 3, Attachment 1, Architectural Design Board application.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Play No. P-2008-16
page 2 of 14
Packet Pg. 202
7.1.c
parcel to the southeast contains multifamily development. Exhibit 2, Site Plan; Exhibit 1,
page 3; Site Visit.
3. No critical areas, floodplain, slopes, unstable soils, or surface waters have been identified
on -site. The project is not proposed within a FEMA-designated flood plain. Exhibit 1,
pages 3, 5.
4. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is "Edmonds
Way Corridor". This commercial land use designation is discussed in the Comprehensive
Plan's Land Use Element, which identifies RM-1.5 zoning as compatible with the land
use designation. Exhibit 3, page 4. The Comprehensive Plan promotes a "design infill"
strategy for meeting population and employment targets set for the City by the County
and State. The proposed project is intended to be design infill development. Exhibit 1,
page 6. The Comprehensive Plan contains the following additional goals and policies
that Planning Division Staff identified as applicable to the proposal:
Residential Develo went Goal B: High quality residential development which is
appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained
and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of
housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic
and aesthetic consideration...:... (Goal B policies omitted)
Residential Development, Goal C: A broad range of housing types and densities
should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all
Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following policies:
C.2. Multiple. The City's development policies encourage high quality site and
building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the
trees, topography, and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy
multiple unit residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided.
Exhibit 1, pages 5-6, citing City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
5. The subject property is located in a Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) zoning district. The
purpose of the RM zones is to reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types,
and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zone,
while still maintaining a residential environment and to provide for those additional uses
which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC)1630, 000. Multiple- and single-family dwelling
units are permitted uses in the zone. ECDC 16.30.010(A).
6. Development standards applicable to the RM 1.5 district require: 1,500 square foot
minimum lot area; 15-foot minimum street and rear setbacks; 10-foot side setbacks;
maximum lot coverage of 45%; and a minimum of two parking spaces per unit. ECDC
16.30.030(A).
Findings Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Nearing Examiner
Arbor Court lownhomes .flat, No. P-2008-16
page 3 of 14
Packet Pg. 203
7.1.c
7. The proposed site plan for townhouse subdivision was submitted to the City of Edmonds
Architectural Design Board (ADB) for review on June b, 2007 under file number ADB-
2007-12. The ADB reviewed the proposal for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
and with the applicable design review criteria in the City's Urban Design Guidelines
found in ECDC 20.10 (Design Criteria) and ECDC 20.12 (Landscaping). Exhibit 3, page
6. The ADB approved the site plan with conditions requiring: compliance with the
maximum building height criteria of the zone; modification of proposed pole lights height
and/or location to comply with setbacks; redesigned "more prominent" front entries to the
buildings; the use of stamped concrete to "provide some type of legend about where
people could park or walk"; retention or replacement of the existing fence and
landscaping in order to provide screening; and identification of the specific types of
bushes to be planted adjacent to buildings 5, b, 7, and 9. Exhibit 4, page 2 ofJrune 6,
2007 ADB Meeting Minutes.
8. The Edmonds Community Development Code defines "townhouse" as follows:
Townhouse means a multiple dwelling unit meeting the following criteria.:
A. No dwelling unit overlapping another vertically;
B. Common side walls joining units;
C. Not more than six dwelling units in one structure;
D. Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual
structures as defined in the zoning code;
E. Lot area per unit for purposes of subdivision may be as small as the
coverage of the individual unit, so long as the overall density meets the
zoning on the site. Portions of the site not subdivided for individual
units shall be held in common by the owners of the individual units.
ECDC 21.100.040.
9. The RM-1.5 zone requires a minimum lot size of 1,500 square feet. ECDC 16.30.030(A).
According to Planning Division analysis, with an overall area of 55,502 square feet the
subject property could contain up to 37 lots of 1,500 square feet each. Exhibit 1, page 4.
The Applicant has proposed 35 lots, ranging from 1,123 to 2,273 square feet. Exhibit 3.
10. The proposed substandard lots are based on a Planning Division policy that allows
townhouse subdivisions to have lots smaller than the minimum lot area required in the
underlying zone as long as the density of the zoning district is satisfied. This policy is
not codified in the development standards for the Multiple Residential zones or in the
subdivision chapter of the Community Development Code, but is a Planning Division
policy. The policy relies on the language of the definition of townhouse in the
Community Development Code at ECDC 21.100.040(E) to modify the minimum
development standards established for specific zones.' Exhibit 1, page 4, Testimony of
Mr. Clugston.
2 Title 21 is the definitions chapter of the Edmonds Community Development Code.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recision
City of Edmonds Nearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page 4 of 14
Packet Pg. 204
7.1.c
1.1. Townhouse lots are defined as allowing shared common side walls joining units, which
are known as zero lot lines. ECDC 21.100.040(B). As proposed, structures would be
setback at least 15 feet from the edge of the SR 104 right-of-way and at least 10 feet from
all other property boundaries? The 35 lots would be divided among 13 buildings, each
containing two or three units (lots), organized as a perimeter ring of units surrounding a
central cluster. Lots with shared walls in common would have zero lot lines, and a
minimum of 10 feet would separate the buildings from each other. All land within the
project would be divided among the lots and be privately owned, including the
landscaping strips around the project perimeter and the internal access driveway, which
would be placed within an easement over all lots. Zero setback is proposed between the
dwelling units and the internal access driveway. Exhibit 2; Testimony of Mr_ Clugston;
Testimony of Ms. Morgan.
12. The project would have a single point of access from SR 104 near the northeast corner of
the site. The proposed internal access serving the 35 lots is characterized as a private
driveway! The width of the proposed internal access easement is 24 or 25 feet (wider
around the corners).' Road classification, applicable development standards, and exact
proposed dimensions/design features are not addressed in the Planning Division staff
report or submitted materials, except for brief information on the Grading, Drainage, and
Street Improvement Plan in the record at Exhibit 5.6 .Exhibit 2, Exhibit 5, Testimony of
Ms: Morgan, Testimony of Mr. Clugston.
13. The site plan depicts "sidewalk" connecting the entrance to each unit with the access
easement. Sidewalk is also shown connecting the private access easement with existing
sidewalk along SR 104. (See Exhibit 2, Plat Map.) Two areas marked as crosswalks
would indicate pedestrian crossing locations between the central building cluster and
sidewalks connected the SR 104 sidewalks, No sidewalks are proposed along the access
easement connecting units and no pedestrian connection is provided between the
perimeter lots not adjacent to the highway and the sidewalk along SR 104, Exhibit 5,
Grading, Drainage, and Street Improvement Plan.
14. The project includes 35 two -bedroom units. According to the City's off-street parking
regulations, two bedroom units require 1.8 off-street parking spaces each, for a total of 63
required parking places. ECDC 17. 50.020(A). However, the RM 1.5 zone requires a
3 The site plan depicts units 6 through 11 as setback 15 feet from the property's southern lot Iine, which would be
consistent with the RM-1.5 rear setback. Exhibit 2; ECDC 16.30.030(A).
4 This characterization is from the Applicant's testimony. Testimony of Ms. Morgan.
5 The site plan states that the width of the "access/utilities easement" between Lots 34 and 7 is 25 feet in width.
Exhibit 2, Site Plan. The dimensions of the proposed access route do not appear elsewhere in the record, and the
Applicant representative testified that the road is 24 feet wide. Testimony ofMs. Morgan.
6 The drainage plane contains a diagram entitled "Parking area pavement section" depicting the layers of proposed
road surface in the easement. The reference to parking in the name of this diagram is not clear, because the `parking
area" on the plan is depicted immediately inside the site access. Exhibit S.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-20088-16 page 5 of 14
I Packet Pg. 205
7.1.c
minimum of two off-street parking spaces per unit, for a total of 70 spaces. ECDC
16.30.030. As proposed, each lot would provide two parking spaces inside an attached
garage, for a total of 70 off-street parking places. Exhibit 2, Site flan, Exhibit 5.
15. The site plan does not include any parking areas outside of garages. The entire internal
access easement would be required to be posted "No Parking: Fire Lane" or similar
cautionary signage. Planning Division Staff reported that, throughout the review process,
the Fire Department (and unspecified others) expressed concerns regarding the lack of
overflow parking, in anticipation that guests would park in the fire lanes. However,
Planning Division Staff determined that the project is not required to provide additional
off-street parking places for guests or delivery vehicles because it meets the Community
Development Code's minimum off-street parking requirements! Exhibit 1, page 6;
Testimony of Mr. Clugston. No Fire Department or other agency comments were
included in the record. '
16. The Applicant representative stated that the private access easement would accommodate
garbage trucks and emergency vehicles. Street parking was reported to be available on
238t' Street SW; however, the number of parking spaces on 23e and the distance
between the various units and available street parking were not known at time of hearing.
Regarding the real -world consideration of guest parking, the Applicant representative
conceded that it could be challenging for guests of residents but noted that the proposal
complies with code requirements. Testimony of Ms. Morgan.
17. The site plan depicts garages facing each other across the 24-foot private access easement
in the following lots: 6 and 35; 7 and. 34; 8 and 33; 13 and 32; 14 and 31; 22 and 30; 23
and 29; 24 and 28; and 25 and 27. Exhibit 2; Exhibit 5.
18. As proposed, each unit's garbage cans would be kept inside the attached garage.
Testimony of Ms Morgan.
19. In November 2007, the Applicant submitted a document entitled "Traffic Impact
Analysis Worksheet" (worksheet).' The traffic worksheet indicates that the 35-unit
project would result in a total of 205 average daily trips, including 19 PM peak hour trips.
Estimating traffic counts from the existing 12 units on -site, the worksheet projected that
the proposed development would result in 126 new average daily trips, including 12 new
PM peak hour trips. The source of the numbers for project trip generation is not provided
(no reference source is cited). The worksheet omits information and analysis regarding:
sight distance assessment at the site entrance; existing and projected levels of service at
area intersections; vehicle storage and queuing within the project or turning into the
project off of SR 104; and local accident history. The worksheet calculates traffic impact
7 The Staff report states: it is anticipated that this inadequacy in the code will be addressed during the current code
rewrite process." Exhibit 1, page 6.
s This traffic worksheet references a project called "Edmonds Townhouses" owned/applied for by North West
Townhomes LLC; however it considers 35 lots with a single point of access to SR 104. Exhibit 8.
Findings, Conclusions, andDecision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Play No. P-2008-16
page 6 of 14
Packet Pg. 206
7.1.c
assessment fees for the new units (35 less the existing 12 = 23 units at $472.24 each) to
be $10,064.52. Timing of payment is not identified. Exhibit 8, Traffic Impact
Worlrsheet.
20. There is no information in the record from the Washington State Department of
Transportation concerning the project's potential impacts to traffic on SR 104 or nearby
Highway 99, and no information concerning state highway standards with which the
project must comply, if any. The traffic impact worksheet indicates: "state mitigation to
be determined." Exhibit 8.
21. The Applicant submitted a stormwater drainage report on March 13, 2008. The drainage
report indicates that, in the existing developed condition, site stormwater runoff drains
north towards SR 104. Existing catch basins and storm pipes along the south and west
property lines capture upstream runoff and convey it to the municipal storm drain in
adjacent rights -of -way. Very little (to zero) off -site runoff enters the subject property
currently. The proposed stormwater improvements would capture and convey
stormwater from new impervious surfaces to a detention pipe that. would release through
a flow control structure to an existing municipal catch basin in 238"' Street SW.
According to the Applicant's drainage report, fill would need to be imported to the
relatively flat site to provide the required 18 inches of cover in order to construct the
required conveyances. The system would be designed to detain the 10- and 100-year
storm events. All site runoff is conveyed in pipes directly to Puget Sound. Filter
technology is proposed to provide water quality control. Erosion and sediment control
practices are proposed during construction. Exhibit 9.
22. A homeowners' association is proposed for management of the access easement and
irrigation for all landscaping on -site. Testimony of Ms: Morgan; Testimony of Mr.
Parsaie.
23. No open space or parkland dedication was required for this project. No analysis of parrs
and recreation impacts was conducted during review of the project. Exhibit 1, page 5,
Testimony of Mr Clugston.
24. All units are proposed to connect to Olympic View Water and Sewer District services.
Exhibit 2. Water and sewer availability were not addressed in the record.
25. In Washington State, ample provision for the education of children is a paramount duty
of the state.' Subdivisions in Washington State are required to make appropriate
provisions for the general welfare of the community, including provisions for schools and
for safe walking conditions for school -aged children. RCW 58.17.110. Edmonds
Community Development Code contains the same requirement. ECDC 20.75.020. The
record does not contain comments from the school district. At the time of hearing it was
not known which school facilities would serve children in the plat. No school impact
fees were assessed for this project. Testimony of Mr: Clugston.
9 Washington State Constitution, Article 9, § 1.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page 7 of 14
Packet Pg. 207
7.1.c
26. The City of Edmonds Planning Division undertook review of the proposal pursuant to the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) at the time of site plan review by the
Architectural Design Board. On May 7, 2007, the Planning Division issued a
Determination of Non -Significance (DNS), which is a determination that the project
would not result in probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The DNS was
not appealed and became final on May 21, 2007. The DNS was based on an earlier
iteration of the project consisting of 35 units in 11 buildings with a smallest proposed lot
size of 1,473 square feet. On January 23, 2008, Planning Staff adopted the May 7, 2007
DNS for the purpose of subdivision review." Exhibit 3, Attachment 3, DNS, Testimony
of Mr. Clugston; Exhibit 6.
27. The open record public hearing on the formal plat was advertised consistent with the
requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Exhibit 7, Testimony of
Mr, Clugston.
28. The City received public comments expressing the following concerns: the Applicant did
not enter the site into a City stormwater plan currently under review; lack of open space
or recreational opportunities on -site; and lack of off-street parking for delivery drivers
and guests. Testimony of Mr. Rutledge, Testimony of Mr. Hertrich.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide formal plat requests pursuant to
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.100.010(B)(5).
Criteria for formal plat review:
Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.080 and ECDC 20.75.085, formal plats may be approved if
the following findings can be entered:
ECDC 20.75.080:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance, ECDC
Chapter 20.75, and meets requirements of the chapter;
B. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, or other adopted city policy, and
is in the public interest;
C. The proposal meets all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, or a modification has been
approved as provided for in ECDC Chapter 20.75;
D. The proposal meets all requirements of the ECDC relating to flood plain management.
10 Neither the May 7, 2007 DNS nor the January 23, 2008 Adoption of Existing Environmental Determination
identify the materials reviewed in reaching the environmental threshold determination. The Applicant's traffic
impact worksheet was submitted in November 2007 and the final stormwater management plan was submitted in
March 2008, after the DNS was issued. Exhibit 3, Attachment 3; Exhibit 6,- Exhibit 8.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page 8 of 14
Packet Pg. 208
7.1.c
ECDC 20.75.085:
A. Environmental.
1. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife
habitats, the proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the
resources. Permanent restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid impact.
2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and
by relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography.
3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the land to
be divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as flood plains, steep slopes or
unstable soil or geologic conditions, a subdivision of the hazardous land shall be
denied unless the condition can be permanently corrected, consistent with paragraphs
A(1) and (2) of this section.
4. The proposal shall be designed to minimize off -site impacts on drainage, views and
so forth.
B. Lot and Street Layout.
1. Lots shall be designed to contain a usable building area. If the building area would be
difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special
conditions can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed
properly.
2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other
feasible access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or
frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards..
3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance.
4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public
facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate.
C. Dedications.
3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land
for streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary plat.
D. Improvements.
1. .Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, pedestrian
walks and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems,
drainage systems and underground utilities.
2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements
necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the requirements
of:
Findings, Conclusions, andDecision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat No. P-2008-16
page 9 of 14
Packet Pg. 209
7.1.c
a. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements;
b. ECDC Chapter 19.25, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and access.
This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the community
development director, the public works director, and the fire chief
E. Flood Plain. Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set
forth in the Edmonds Community Development Code for flood plain management.
The ECDC criteria are similar to those set forth in the state subdivision statute. Section
58.17.110(2) of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) states as follows:
A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or
county legislative body makes written findings that:
a. Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general
welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys,
other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes,
parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all
other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that
assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from
school; and
b. the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such
subdivision and dedication.
DISCUSSION
The Multiple Residential district development standards table contains a column establishing the
minimum lot area per dwelling unit. (See ECDC 16 30.030(A).) Footnote number four in the
minimum lot area column directs the reader to: "See definition of townhouse" On the subject of
lot area, the definition of townhouse says:
Lot area per unit for purposes of subdivision may be as small as the coverage of the
individual unit, so long as the overall density meets the zoning on the site. Portions of
the site not subdivided for individual units shall be held in common by the owners of the
individual units. ECDC 21.100.040(E).
The Applicant's proposal is based on a Planning Division policy allowing substandard lots in
townhouse subdivisions. According to testimony, the Planning Division policy is based on an
uncodifiied interpretation of the townhouse definition to mean that lot area may be reduced below
the minimum established for the particular RM zone to be as small as proposed, so long as
maximum gross density is not exceeded. This policy establishes no minimum lot size. On this
theory, developers could propose 500 square foot or even smaller lots and lump excess site area
into parking lots or other common areas and them would be no grounds for denial if the number
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Tovmhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16 page 10 of 14
Packet Pg. 210
7.1.c
of lots did not exceed the gross density calculated as available to the site. Such a policy assumes
that the local government has no legitimate interest in dictating the smallest residential lot
allowed.
An alternative interpretation of the townhouse definition at ECDC 21.100.040(E) would be that
townhouse lots may be 100% occupied by the residential structure; for example in the RM 1.5
zone, a 1,500 square foot lot would be allowed to be developed with a 1,500 square foot
residential structure. Of note, the lot area subpart of the townhouse definition (quoted above in
this discussion section) assumes that portions of a townhouse project site may not be
encompassed within individual lots. Maximum site coverage (45 % in the RM zones) could be
accomplished by retaining common areas not developed with structures. This alternative
interpretation of the townhouse definition would assume townhouse lots are required to comply
with the minimum lot area.
The Planning Division policy requiring townhouse subdivision exterior setbacks (around the
outer perimeter of the development window) to conform to the underlying zone's standards, but
excusing internal front, rear, and street setbacks, has no basis in the zoning code. By the plain
language of the definition, zero lot lines (called "common side walls joining units" in the
townhouse definition) pertain only to side setbacks in attached dwelling units.
The Planning Division policy creates a new kind of development — the townhouse subdivision —
that is not established in the City Code and grants it similar flexibility as is provided in a planned
residential development (PRD), which is expressly established in the City Code at ECDC 20.35.
In Edmonds, PRD developments may modify the bulk dimensional standards of the underlying
zoning district, subject to requirements to: 1) visually screen denser development from
surrounding land uses and 2) provide a clear benefit to the public in exchange for design
flexibility (among other requirements). Means of providing public benefit stated in the PRD
provisions include, but are not limited to, preservation of on -site natural areas, provision of more
open space or recreational opportunities than are required in the zone, and provision of additional
transportation connections beyond the minimum required. ECDC 20.35. 040 and. 050. The
Planning Division's townhouse subdivision policy would confer the benefits of a PRD (reduced
bulk dimensional standards) without requiring the PRD's clear public benefit, screening, or
review of an application seeking such modifications. The policy places the content of a
definition (from the definitions chapter) in a position of higher importance than the development
standard established in the zoning ordinance. Assuming no minimum lot size was contemplated
by the Code's drafters is inconsistent with the plain language of both the zoning ordinance and
the subdivision ordinance, as well as with the local government's legitimate interest in and
obligation to regulate land use for the general welfare." The RM-1.5 zone already provides the
smallest residential lot and densest residential development permitted in the City, at 29 units per
acre. In order to approve even smaller lots, more explicit direction from the legislative body is
necessary.
' ` See discussion of zoning as a legitimate exercise of police power, generally, in Edmonds Shopping Cm Assocs. v.
City of Edmonds, 117 Wn. App. 344,352 (2003), citing Weden v_ San Juan County,135 Wa.2d 678,692 (1998).
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing _Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16 page 11 of 14
Packet Pg. 211
7.1.c
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. The record does not contain evidence demonstrating consistency with several
requirements established in ECDC 20.75.080 and .085.
A. The record doesn't demonstrate compliance with the purposes of the City's
subdivision ordinance. Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.020:
"The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health,
safety and general welfare in accordance with state standards to prevent
overcrowding of land;
B. To lessen congestion in the streets and highways;
C. To facilitate adequate provisions for water, utilities, sewerage, storm
drainage, parks and recreation areas, sites for schools and playgrounds,
and other public requirements;
D. To provide for proper ingress and egress;
E. To require uniform monumentinp of subdivisions and accurate legal
descriptions of subdivided lots." 2
1. To the extent that the record does not contain evidence of review of the following
items, it is not possible to conclude that the proposal would be consistent with the
purposes of the City's subdivision ordinance: traffic flow within the proposed
development; compliance with City and State road standards regarding ingress/egress
on SR 104 and access easement design; and adequacy of schools and parks/recreation
facilities. The Examiner is also concerned that the proposed 35 substandard units
accessed by a 24-foot wide access easement from a single ingress on SR 104 would
constitute overcrowding.
Findings Nos. 19, 20, 23, and 25.
B. The proposal is not consistent with the zoning ordinance and no modification has
been approved as provided for in ECDC Chapter 20.75.
1. Criteria for subdivision approval explicitly require findings of compliance with the
requirements of the underlying zoning district, specifically with dimensional
standards. ECDC 20. 75. 080(C) and ECDC 20. 75.085(B)(3). The minimum lot area
in the RM-1.5 zone is 1,500 square feet. Of the 35 proposed lots, 17 would be
smaller than 1,500 square feet, with the smallest lot at 1,123 square feet.
'Z These purposes are substantially the same as the purposes stated in the state's subdivision regulations in the
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 58.17.010, which begins with the preamble: "The legislature finds that the
process by which land is divided is a matter of state concern and should be administered in a uniform manner by
cities, towns, and counties throughout the state. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the subdivision of land and
to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state to
prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion... (omitted) " (emphasis added)
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-200846
page 12 of 14
Packet Pg. 212
7.1.c
2. The Community Development Code defines a street as "the public or private right-of-
way or access easement which provides vehicle access to five or more lots." ECDC
21.90.120 (emphasis added). Thus, for subdivision purposes, the proposed access
easement is a street, and street setbacks must be provided on each lot." In the RM-
1.5 zone, the minimum street setback is 15 feet. ECDC 16.30.030(A). The proposed
site plan provides no building setback from street lot lines, placing the access
easement within the required street setback.
3. The subdivision code provides a process for modifications to the development
standards of the underlying zone. The process requires notice, public hearing, and
compliance with variance criteria. ECDC 20.75. 075. The Planning Division's
uncodified townhouse policy nullifies and/or circumvents this process and is
inconsistent with the purposes of the subdivision ordinance.
Findings Nos. 9, 11, and 12.
C. The record does not contain evidence showing the project can comply with the lot
and street layout requirements at ECDC 20.75.085(B), (C), and (D). The record
contains almost no information about the proposed internal access easement and no
analysis of road standards with which it must comply. This access easement is the only
means of vehicular and pedestrian access to 35 dwelling units containing 70 off-street
parking spaces. According to testimony, the access is a `private driveway" comprised of
an easement over privately owned property belonging to each lot. However, as stated
above, it must be considered a street for subdivision lot layout purposes. ECDC
21.90.120. The townhouse definition cannot excuse projects from the requirement of
providing street setbacks consistent with zoning standards. All subdivisions are required
to set aside adequate land for roads, whether private or public. ECDC 20 75. 085(B) (3),
(B) (4), (C) (3), (D) (1), and (D) (2)- As proposed, on garbage day, each unit's garbage cans
would be moved into the access easement, fiirther complicating circulation. Morning
peak hour conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles jockeying to exit garages that face
each other across only 24 feet of roadway immediately adjacent to residential stuctures
are foreseeable, as are guest and delivery vehicle parking in the fire lane. Findings Nos.
9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18.
D. The record contains no evidence upon which findings of compliance with public
works and fire code requirements can be made. Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.085(D)(2),
the Examiner is charged with determining the improvements necessary to meet the
purposes and requirements of Chapter 18, Public Works, and 19.25 Fire Code." No
evidence was offered and no findings may be entered.
13 Pursuant to ECDC 21..90.140, street setback means the minimum distance required by this code for a building or
structure to be set back from the street lot line.
14 ECDC 20.75.085(D)(2)(b) refers to the Fire Code as being found in 19.75, which appears to be a typographical
error.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page 13 of 14
Packet Pg. 213
7.1.c
2. The record contains insufficient evidence to enter findings for consistency with the
public health, safety, and general welfare. No analysis of open space or recreation
impacts, road standards, schools or safe walking for school children, or water and sewer
service availability was presented. The record contains no evidence that WSDOT was
contacted about the new traffic proposed on the state roadway or that regulations relating to
access to the State highway, if any, have been considered. The traffic worksheet in the
record does not consider sight distance, access design requirements, vehicle queuing within
the project, or queuing on SR 104 turning into the project. The project admittedly fails to
address the guest, delivery vehicle, or third vehicle ownership parking that must be
anticipated to accompany a 35-unit development. Parking in the fire lanes is entirely
foreseeable. Based on the record presented, the project would not provide street setbacks
between the structures and the right-of-way, creating 35 substandard lots, of which number
17 would be smaller than the minitpum lot allowed in the zone. The project as presented
cannot be found to be consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Findings Nos. 9,
11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, and 25.
DECISION
Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for a formal plat to subdivide 1.26
acres into 35 fee simple single-family townhouse lots and a private access easement tract in a
Multifamily Residential (R-M 21.5) zone at 23800 --- 23824 Edmonds Way in Edmonds,
Washington is DENIED.
DECIDED this 22"d day of May 2008. .
Findings, Conclusions, curd Diecision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Play No P-2008-16
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners
By:
Sharon A. Rice
page 14 of 14
Packet Pg. 214
7.1.c
rh C. 1 ScJv
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
OFFICE OF THE REARING EXAMINER
Cl[TY OF EDMONDS, WASFMGTON
APPLICANT )
Steve Smith Development LLC }
For a Formal Subdivision
I, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
Case No. P-2008-16
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
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 Washington, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a witness
and make service herein;
3. That on May 22, 20081 did serve a copy of the decision in case CU-2008-09 upon the following
individuals at the addresses below by first class US Mail.
Northwest Townhomes, LLC
1316 NE 80* Street, #203
Seattle, WA 98115
Steve Smith Development, LLC
9500 Roosevelt Way -NE, #300
Seattle, WA 98115
Jean Morgan
Morgan Design Group LLC
11207 Fremont Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98133
Roger Hertrich
1020 Puget Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
Alvin Rutledge
7101 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 " Packet Pg. 215
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
7.1.c
Clerk of the Edmonds City Council
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
City of Edmonds Planning Division
City of Edmonds Building Division
City of Edmonds Engineering Division
City of Edmonds Fire Department
1.21 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
i hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is
true and correct:
1 €-
DATED THIS day of MOLt42008 atu , Washington.
$baron A. Rice
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington
Packet Pg. 216
7.1.c
CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
the 1S9"
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and
appeals. AU person wishing to file or re§pond to a request for reconsideration or an appeal should contact the
Planning Division of the Development Services D artment or an attorne for further rocedural 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
The Hearing Examiner's decision on a preliminary plat may be appealed to the Edmonds City Council
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC (see ECDC 20.105. 010(B) and ECDC
20.100. 010(B) (5)). 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.
TEWE LD TrS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The time limits for reconsideration and appeal run concurrently. For anneals to City Council, 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.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.100, preliminary plat approval shall expire and have no further validity if
the applicant does not obtain final plat approval within five years of the date of decision (or, if
appealed, the date of final confirmation by the appeal body).
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.
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Packet Pg. 217
7.1.c
Attachment 6
y
�- MEMORANDUM
Date: June 12, 2003
To: Interpretations File No. 2003-01
From: Steve Bullock
Subject: Interpretation regarding Townhouse subdivisions:
4
Date Issued/Posted; JUNEX 2003
Effective Date: JULY9 2003 (unless appealed in a timely manner)
The City has received a request far a formal interpretation regarding townhouse subdivisions.
Code Sections:
21 100.040 Townhouse.
f
Townhouse means a multiple dwelling unit meeting the following criteria:
A. No dwelling unit overlapping another vertically;
B. Common side walls -joining units;
C. Not more than six dwelling units in one structure;
D. Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual structures as defined in
the zoning code;
E. Lot area per unit for purposes of subdivision may be as small as the coverage of the
individual unit, so long as the overall density meets the zoning on the site. Portions of the site
not subdivided for individual units shall be held in common by the owners of the individual
units:
21.60.050 Multiple dwelling.
Multiple dwelling means a building or a group of buildings on the same site containing two or
more separate dwelling units. (See also, Dwelling Unit.)
Analysis:
The townhouse section (ECDC 21.100.040) begins by indicating that a townhouse is a "multiple
dwelling" that meets certain listed criteria. The "multiple dwelling" definition (ECDC 21.60.050) makes
clear that dwelling units do not have to be attached in order to be considered multiple dwellings. While
ECDC 21.100.040 sets forth a maximum number of dwelling units. (i.e., six units) that are allowed in a
townhouse building, no minimum number of dwelling units allowed in such a building is specified.
City of Edmonds cap Planning Division
INTERPRETATION 2003. LD00194UN-43
L:ILISRARYTLANNINUECDC INT£RPREATI'ONSVNTERPRETATIONS LOGN1999 -
Packet Pg. 218
7.1.c
Additionally, subsections D and E of ECDC 21.100.040 imply that, in order to individually subdivide
attached units in townhouse subdivisions, internal lot lines will be placed along party or common walls.
However, for detached units in townhouse subdivisions, subsections D and E imply that flexibility exists
to have internal lot lines placed either along the edge(s) of exterior walls of the dwelling units or
anywhere between the dwelling units. For either attached or detached dwelling units in townhouse
subdivisions, subsection E of ECDC 21.100.040 allows (a) residential density to be met for the overall
project site rather than on a lot -by -lot basis for the individual lots to.be created by a proposed subdivision
and (b) lot areas to be as small as the coverage of the proposed individual dwelling units.
ECDC 21.100.040 does not directly discuss building setback reduction or elimination. However, in order
for (a) lot areas to be able to be as small as dwelling unit lot coverage and (b) lot lines to be able to be
placed (i) on common or party walls in the case of attached dwelling units or (ii) along the edge(s) of
exterior walls of the dwelling units in the case of detached dwelling units, individual townhouse lots
must be exempt from building setback requirements except in the case of required setbacks from a
proposed townhouse subdivision's exterior property lines. Nothing in ECDC 21.100.040 suggests that
townhouse subdivisions would be exempt from required setbacks from exterior property lines. In fact,
the language of subsections D and E of ECDC 21.100.040 relating to lot coverage, lot area and density
indicate an intent for a townhouse subdivision development to be considered as a whole with all of the
bulk standards to be measured as if the property was not being subdivided. While the proposed garage
appears to meet the bulk standards for developing an accessory building in the RS-12 zone, the definition
of Accessory Building states that the garage must be incidental to the use of the main building on the
property. Planning staff takes that to mean the garage must be built for andused by the primary use on
the site. It can not be a storage facility for owners or tenants who do not act as the primary users of the
site.
THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING'II�ITERPRETATION�.ARE I lM—BY IS
1. ECDC 21.100.040 authorizes subdivision of multiple family developments provided that none
of the proposed dwelling units in such a development will vertically overlap any of the other
dwelling units.
2. The maximum number of dwelling units per building in a townhouse subdivision is six.
3. Because no minimum number of dwelling units is stated in ECDC 21100.040, a proposed
development of detached dwelling units. may be subdivided as a townhouse subdivision.
4. In order to individually subdivide attached units in townhouse subdivisions, internal lot lines
may be placed along party or common walls.
5. For detached units in townhouse subdivisions, internal lot lines may be placed along the edge(s)
of exterior walls of the dwelling units or anywhere between the dwelling units.
6. Building setbacks need only be measured from a proposed townhouse subdivision's exterior
property lines, not from the proposed interior lot lines.A permit for an accessory building may
not be approved if the accessory building is not going to be used for the most part by the
permitted primary use of the property.
APPEAL PROCEDURES
M
0
0
0
0
N
a
c
a�
E
c
m
E
a�
0
U
c
0
.y
rn
0
J
Y
co
0
m
Y
V
R
!Z
0
m
c
•E
c
c,s
a
cc
N
•i
CL
a
M
x
w
c
d
M
U
0
r
a
Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Sections 20.105.010 and 20.105.020, staff
interpretations of the text of the ECDC are appealable decisions.
Page 2 of 3
INTI;RPRETATION2oo3.1.1>0019-SUN-o3 - Packet Pg. 219
L:UBRARWLANNINGIECDC INT&RPREATIONS%INT£RPRETATIONS LOG11999
7.1.c
Should anyone wish to appeal this interpretation, a written appeal, accompanied by the required appeal
fee (see Planning Division fee handout) must be submitted within 14 calendar days .of the date of
issuance of this interpretation (please see above).
The deadline for filing an appeal of this interpretation is:
A written appeal must contain the following:
1) A reference to the decision being appealed.
2) The name and address of the person appealing, and his or her interest in the matter.
3) The reasons why the person appealing believes the interpretation to be inappropriate.
Concurrence: Cort��,urrence:
Robe Chave, AICP Duane Bowman
Planning Manager Development Services Director
Posted: 1) Edmonds City Hall, 2nd Floor — Development Services Department
2) Edmonds Library
3) Edmonds Post Office
Posting Date: 24 ec)3
Page 3 of 3
INTERPRETATION 2003-1.DOC919-JON-03
LALTHRARYIPLANNTNGMCDCRJTj:RPREAT]ONSSMERPRF.TATj0?%'5 WGU999
Packet Pg. 220
7.1.c
M
O
O
O
r
O
N
a
a
O
U
c
O
.y
3
U)
O
J
C
O
O
N
yr
d
Y
V
R
Q
L
O
m
tm
N
'i
Q
Q
M
K
W
C
N
E
t
v
O
Q
Packet Pg. 221
7.1.c
LAND SURVEYING*tM14MSEN
OCIATES IN
February 3, 2017
City of Edmonds Community Development Department
Planning Division
121 51h Ave N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Request for a Code Amendment to Create a new section
ECDC 20.75.045 Unit Lot Subdivision
And to add Definitions to ECDC 20.75.030
And to Remove ECDC 21.100.040.E
City Planner and Planning Board:
CIVIL ENGINEERING -
61 EC E VE
FEB 0 . lr_ L 7
DEVELOPMENT ShVMROe_:--
M NTER
Attachment 7
In or around 2000, the City adopted an interpretation that Town House subdivision were permitted by the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) because ECDC 21.100.040.E provided instruction as to how to create such a
subdivision. In this interpretation, lots could be created that were non -conforming to standards of ECDC title 16, but
where the development as a whole conformed to the standards of ECDC title 16. Using that interpretation, the City
approved several such subdivisions.
Similar Codes that permit this type of development have been adopted by cities across our region as a response to a
crisis in liability in the State Condominium law. For several reasons, the State condominium statute has created unusual
liability for condominium developers. Small architecture firms and many builders can't get insurance to design and
construct condos. When insurance is available, it is prohibitively expensive. This situation has artificially depressed the
multiple family residential market at a time when our region is experiencing a housing crisis.
In 2008, the then Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds denied an application for a townhouse subdivision and struck },
down the use of the Townhouse Subdivision interpretation. The discontinuance of the interpretation did not stem from a Y
dissatisfaction with the process or results by staff, applicants or City residents. But rather was based on doubt expressed UM
by the Examiner as to the legal adequacy of the use of an interpretation of a definition section to effect complete deviation a
from bulk standards.
c�
0
The solution to the Examiner's decision was either to appeal that decision as incorrect, or withdraw the interpretation and
begin work on a new code to replace the Townhouse Subdivision interpretation and to replace the Townhouse
Subdivision definition that led to said interpretation. Neither the (then) applicant nor the City chose to appeal the
Examiner's decision. li
co
Following said Hearing Examiner decision, the City withdrew the interpretation of Townhouse Subdivision and began to N
pursue a code amendment. The code amendment process has been tied to the overall code revision process. However, Q
that process is large and has inherent issues that are slowing the process. In the meantime developers are having trouble Q
moving forward with townhouse developments due to the problems with the State Condominium Statutes. r�
x
w
In the 1980's the City of Seattle, adopted a Unit Subdivision Code. This code allows the creation of zero lot line lots that;
can be as small as the footprint of a dwelling unit, so long as the overall development meets the bulk and development (D
standards of the parent lot. This code has been very successful and has stood the test of time. Now, with the E
condominium insurance crises, many jurisdictions are seeing the unit lot subdivision as solution to continue implementing 5
M
Q
U:IUSeisgobnlUropboxlProjectsOMestgate Woods)code amendmen[tnarrative ooex
ISLAND COUNTY SNOHOMISH COUNTY SKAGIT COUNTY
840 SE 81h Avenue, Ste. 102 125 East Main Street, Ste. 104 603 South First Street
Oak Harbor, Washington 98277 Monroe, Washington 98272 Mount Vernon, Washington 98273
tel: (360) 675-5973 / fax: (360) 675-7255 tel: (360) 794-7811 / fax: (360) 805-9732 tel: (360) 336-9199 / fax: (360) 982-2637
Anticipate / Understand / Guide / Deliver
www.Harmseninc.com
Packet Pg. 222
7.1.c
Unit Subdivision Code Amendment Narrative
February 3, 2017
their comprehensive plans in multiple family zones. Jurisdictions such as Kirkland, Redmond, and Snohomish County
have adopted similar regulations.
To create this code we propose to add a section to the subdivision code (ECDC 20.75.045). For coordination in the
overall code several other amendments are needed. First ECDC 20.75.030 contains some definitions pertinent to
subdivision. Two new definitions need to be added here. Second ECDC 21.100.040 is the existing definition of
"Townhouse". Subsection E contains the directions for a Townhouse Subdivision. That section would be in conflict and
should be deleted. And finally, since there is a "Townhouse" definition for vertically separated dwelling units, there should
be a "flats" definition for horizontally separated dwelling units. I propose that definition as ECDC 21.30.032.
As well as the unit subdivisions are working in other jurisdictions, there are some issues with each of the codes that have
been adopted. In the proposed code amendment for the City of Edmonds we have addressed these issues:
Issues of concern and addressed within Unit Subdivisions and proposals to address the issues:
1. How many units can be included in one unit lot?
There is a new trend in real estate development and investment. That is for a developer to develop a multiple
family site with several multiple unit buildings, then sell individual buildings to property management companies
for future leasing of the individual units. The option to use the unit subdivision to separate multiple unit buildings
within one development is not expressly prohibited or permitted by any of the effective codes being used by other
jurisdictions. However, since it is not expressly prohibited, and is not contrary to the intent of the Unit Subdivision
code of the Comprehensive Plan both Seattle and Snohomish County have permitted this. In Edmonds, this
option would also not violate the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, we have expressly permitted this option in this
proposal to avoid future confusion.
2. A subdivision is a two dimensional division of land that implies ownership of everything above and below the two
dimensional box described in the plat. Therefore, there can be no portions of any one unit that overhangs a
portion of another unit. This excludes flats. Other codes are not clear in the exclusion of flats except by
interpretation of definitions. We added a section to expressly exclude flats — except in the instance where a unit
lot would contain an entire multiple family building.
3. The point made above in number 2 also creates a potential problem in exterior maintenance. When I asked a
supervisor at the City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD) what is the one thing you would
change with your unit subdivision code, this is it. In point 2 above I described the projection of the two-
dimensional lot lines. When looking at the exterior of a building that is divided in this fashion, it might be hard to
tell who owns what. Because of this, it is possible for owners to have trouble coming to an agreement over who
maintains what. Therefore, I have added a section requiring a joint maintenance agreement for the exterior of the
building(s).
4. A unit subdivision only works if it is associated with a development — either a development proposal or an existing
development. As in no one can apply for a unit subdivision as a standalone the way a standard subdivision is
applied for. This aspect of unit subdivision is not clear in other codes. In Seattle, this is enforced by
interpretation. Snohomish County is still struggling with this issue and is now enforcing it through their Urban
Residential Design Standards section. We created a section for this purpose.
5. In many jurisdictions (Redmond and Snohomish County are examples) access requirements are not tied to the
type of development, but instead to the type of permit. Therefore, if a multiple family development is proposed
with no unit subdivision, standard drive aisles and fire lines are required. However, if a subdivision is proposed,
the regulations then require the installation of roads meeting a different standard. In Redmond's code this conflict
is not addressed, and multiple family developments choosing to use a Unit Subdivision must either construct
roads that are not appropriate for multiple family development (and don't comply with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan), or the applicant must apply for a road deviation — which the City has been approving. This
was not the intent of Redmond's Unit Lot Subdivision. To insure that this result does not occur in Edmonds, we
have added a section to clarify which regulations should apply.
41
m
U
M
a
0
m
a�
c
.E
c
a
co
N
�L
a
a
M
K
W
c
d
E
M
0
M
Q
Packet Pg. 223
Unit Subdivision Code Amendment Narrative
February 3, 2017
7.1.c
6. Both the City of Seattle and Snohomish County have a section discussing that this process creates non-
conforming lots. Neither is explicit about how that impacts the future unit owner. Our proposal is more explicit
about the impacts to future unit lot owners. Seattle required a notice to be recorded on the final Unit Lot Plat to
ensure that future unit lot owners understand this impact. Other jurisdictions do not make this requirement. We
believe that Seattle is right to require the notice to be recorded on the final Unit Lot Plat and have included that
requirement in this proposed code amendment.
The City of Seattle will not accept a Unit Lot final plat application until at least the development foundations are
installed and the surveyor of record has located the foundations to ensure that the recorded lot line is set on the
common wall. Snohomish County does not make this requirement. This requirement is not codified in the Seattle
Code. It appears that Seattle makes this requirement based on experience. As a project manager, I have seen
very few foundations installed precisely per plan, so Seattle's requirement makes sense to me. I asked four
licensed land surveyors who have experience in construction staking what they thought of this. Two of them
agreed that Seattle's condition makes sense. Two of them said that it should be up to the building inspector to
require foundation staking in a unit subdivision. My impression is that requiring the foundations to be installed
and verified by the surveyor prior to final plat is more foolproof than requiring the buildings to be staked and the
inspector to verify. Therefore, I have added a section requiring that, at a minimum, development foundations are
installed and located by the project licensed surveyor prior to the submittal of a final plat application.
House Keeping Amendments:
1. Two Definitions should be added to ECDC 20.75.030: "Unit Lot Subdivision" and "Parent Lot"
2. With this addition, ECDC 21.100.040.E. the portion of the definition of Townhouse that give subdivisional direction
should be removed.
3. ECDC 21.30.032 — Add a definition of "Flat(s)"
Thank you for you considered review of this project. Please contact me at your earliest convenience with any questions
or concerns.
Sincerely
John Bissell, AICP
Planning Director
Harmsen Associates, INC.
Packet Pg. 224
7.1.c
Attachment 8
Unit Subdivision Code Amendments FEB 0
20.75.030 Subdivision defined.
D. "Unit Lot Subdivision" means a subdivision or short subdivision of land for the purpose of
allowing fee simple ownership of dwelling units where the bulk standards are tied to the
parent lot (See ECDC 20.75.045).
E. "Parent Lot" means the lot with legal lot status which creates the boundary of a
development application in which the proposed_or_approved result is multiple lots.
ECDC 20.75.045 Unit Lot Subdivision (A New Section)
A. Applicability and Purpose.
The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision of land for single-family
dwelling units, townhouse, rowhouse, cottage housing exclusively in zones that allow more
than one dwelling unit per lot, and only for detached units and/or for units that are vertically
separated with no element of any one unit over or below any element of any other unit
except for exterior elements inherent to the building design or structure such as (but not
limited to) eave overhangs, gutters and siding (see 20.75.045.F). Accessory dwelling units
are specifically excluded from this section. Flats may only be included when the unit lot
contains all dwelling units within one building. One unit subdivision lot may contain
multiple dwelling units.
B. Association With Site Development — Application Timing:
A unit Lot Subdivision is a method of dividing ownership of the built environment. The
application can only be associated with a development plan or an existing developed site.
In the case of a vacant lot or a redevelopment site, a preliminary unit lot subdivision can
only be submitted in conjunction with or subsequent to a development site plan as required
by ECDC 20.10, 20.11, 20.12, or in the case described in ECDC 20.10.020.B.3 submitted
conjunction with or subsequent to a building permit.
C. Conformance with Standards of the Parent Lot
The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable to the parent lot
(ECDC 20.75.030.E) at the time the permit application is vested. As a result of the unit lot
subdivision, the individual unit lots may result in different bulk standards than those
Packet Pg. 225
7.1.c
required by ECDC Title 16,
Access standards, including but not limited to fire lanes, drive aisles, turn arounds and
access of/to the parent lot from/to the street shall be based on the requirements of the site
plan for the parent lot, and not based on standards for a subdivision.
D. Future Additions and Modifications
Due to 20.75.045.13 future additions, or modifications to the development may affect only
the unit lot, or may affect the development as a whole. Changes requiring permitting that
affect only the interior of building units will be evaluated as to compliance with the
requirements only for that unit. Any exterior changes may affect the permitting for the
original development of the parent lot (ECDC 20.75.030.E). In such cases, additions, or
modifications to the development will be evaluated within the boundaries of the parent lot
from which the unit lot was created. Any application for such changes will require
authorization of all owners within the parent lot.
E. Access Easements and Parking
Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use
of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as but not limited to
recreation space, common courtyard open spaces for cottage housing and other open
space), and other similar features, and shall be recorded on the final Unit Lot plat. .
F. Maintenance Agreements
Joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed and recorded as an element of
the final unit subdivision plat or short plat for maintenance of all building exteriors except in
cases where all dwelling units are detached. The joint maintenance agreement shall
require equal participation by all owners within any one building. The joint maintenance
agreement shall be recorded on the final Unit Lot plat This requirement does not apply to
detached single family dwelling units.
G. Parking on different Unit Lots Allowed:
Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different
unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is
Packet Pg. 226
7.1.c
formalized by an easement on the final plat.
H. Notice of Unit Lot on Final Plat
The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional development of
the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development
standards to the parent lot shall be noted on the final plat.
1. An application for final Unit Lot plat will not be accepted until, at minimum all foundations
are installed and located by the land surveyor of record.
21.30 "F" Terms.
21.30.032 "Flat(s)" means multiple family dwelling unit(s) that are horizontally separated -i.e:
stacked above and/or below each other.
21.100.040 Townhouse.
.................................
Townhouse means a multiple dwelling unit meeting the following criteria:
A. No dwelling unit overlapping another vertically;
B. Common side walls joining units;
C. Not more than six dwelling units in one structure;
D. Coverage shall not exceed the aggregate coverage of the individual structures as defined in the zoning
code;
E. ot area nnr snit as the GOVerage of the individ, -aPjn4-, se
lord as eral-iensily-rneets"-ep,4h"te- Portions t e city ubdivided`#or
indwic#t�akmts shall--he-held A-ssmmoF�4y-th-ewaearef-tfae-iAdiVid "flits-
41
m
U
M
a
L
0
m
a�
c
c
a
(O
N
�L
Q.
Q
M
K
W
r-�
C
N
E
M
U
M
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 227
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page I of 16
7.1.c
Attachment 9
Chapter 20.75
SUBDIVISIONS
Sections:
20.75.010 Citation of chapter.
20.75.020 Purposes.
20.75.025 Scope.
20.75.030 Subdivision defined.
20.75.035 Compliance required.
20.75.040 Application.
20.75.050 Lot line adjustment — Application.
20.75.055 Lot combination.
20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats.
20.75.065 Preliminary review.
20.75.070 Formal subdivision — Time limit.
20.75.075 Modifications.
20.75.080 General findings.
20.75.085 Review criteria.
20.75.090 Park land dedication.
20.75.100 Preliminary approval — Time limit.
20.75.105 Repealed.
20.75.107 Preliminary approval — Time limit extension for previously approved short plats.
20.75.110 Changes.
20.75.120 Review of improvement plans.
20.75.130 Installation of improvements.
20.75.135 Preparation of final plat.
20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates.
20.75.145 Final plat — Accompanying material.
20.75.150 Waiver of survey.
20.75.155 Review of final plat.
20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review.
20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record.
20.75.165 Effect of rezones.
20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions.
20.75.175 Court review.
20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter.
20.75.185 Penalties.
20.75.010 Citation of chapter.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
This chapter may be cited as the City of Edmonds Subdivision Ordinance and shall supplement and
implement the state regulations of plats, subdivisions and dedications found in Chapter 58.17 RCW.
20.75.020 Purposes.
The purposes of this chapter are:
Packet Pg. 228
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 2 of 16
7.1.c
A. To regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in
accordance with state standards to prevent overcrowding of land;
B. To lessen congestion in the streets and highways;
C. To facilitate adequate provisions for water, utilities, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and
recreation areas, sites for schools and playgrounds, and other public requirements;
D. To provide for proper ingress and egress;
E. To require uniform monumenting of subdivisions and accurate legal descriptions of subdivided lots
20.75.025 Scope.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
This chapter shall apply to all divisions of land for any purpose except those set forth in RCW
58.17.040, including but not limited to:
A. Divisions for cemetery plots or other burial plots;
B. Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or by the laws of descent;
C. Divisions for the purpose of lease when no residential structure other than mobile homes or travel
trailers are permitted to be placed upon the land and the city of Edmonds has approved a binding site
plan for the use of the land in accordance with this chapter.
Divisions under subsections A and B of this section will not be recognized as lots for building
purposes unless all applicable requirements of this chapter are met.
20.75.030 Subdivision defined.
A. "Subdivision" means a division of land into lots of any size for the purpose of sale. The term
subdivision includes all resubdivisions of land, short subdivisions, and formal subdivisions. The term
lot includes tracts, parcels, sites and divisions. The term sale includes lease gift or development or
any purpose not excepted in this section. When reference to "subdivision" is made in this code, it is
intended to refer to both "formal subdivision" and "short subdivision" unless one or the other is
specified.
B. "Formal subdivision" means a subdivision of five or more lots.
C. "Short subdivision" means a subdivision of four or fewer lots.
20.75.035 Compliance required.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Any person wishing to create a subdivision or lot line adjustment must first comply with this chapter.
20.75.040 Application.
Applications for subdivisions shall be made to the community development director on forms provided
by the community development department. A subdivision application will be processed concurrently
with any applications for rezones, variances, planned unit developments, site plan approvals and
other similar approvals, that relate to the proposed subdivision, unless the applicant expressly
Packet Pg. 229
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 3 of 16
7.1.c
requests sequential processing. The application shall contain the following items in addition to those
specified in ECDC 20.02.002:
A. A reproducible copy of the preliminary plat and the number of prints required by the community
development department;
B. Title report;
C. A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior boundaries of the
land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land
surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC
20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option;
D. The application fee as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC;
E. A proposal for dedication of park land rather than payment of in -lieu fees, if desired by the
applicant;
F. Source of water supply and name of supplier;
G. Method of sewage disposal, and name of municipal system if applicable. Percolation rates and
other information required by the public works department shall be submitted if septic tanks are to be
used;
H. Other information that may be required by the community development director in order to properly
review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact
of the proposal. [Ord. 3736 § 62, 2009; Ord. 2379 § 1, 1983].
20.75.050 Lot line adjustment — Application.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A. Lot Line Adjustment Defined. A lot line adjustment is an alteration of lot lines between platted or
unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site or division.
B. Lot Line Adjustment Exempt from Subdivision Review. Except as otherwise provided in this
section, lot adjustments shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter.
C. Lot Line Adjustment Review. All proposals for lot line adjustments shall be submitted to the
Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee for approval. The Edmonds planning manager or
his/her designee shall approve the proposed lot line adjustment unless the manager or his/her
designee certifies in writing that the proposed adjustment will:
1. Create a new lot, tract, parcel, site or division;
2. Reduce the setbacks of existing structures below the minimum required by code or make
existing nonconforming setbacks of existing structures more nonconforming than before;
3. Reduce the lot width or lot size below the minimum required for the applicable zone;
4. Transform a nonbuildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division into a buildable lot, tract, parcel, site
or division;
Packet Pg. 230
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 4 of 16
7.1.c
5. Would otherwise result in a lot which is in violation of any requirement of the ECDC.
D. Application. A lot line adjustment application shall be submitted on forms provided by the city and
shall at a minimum contain the following information:
1. One copy of dimensioned plans on the official city of Edmonds lot line adjustment form. The
dimensioned plans shall be prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor registered in
the state of Washington and shall conform to city of Edmonds survey requirements, as
promulgated by the Edmonds planning division. Information on the plans shall include the
following:
a. Legal descriptions of the existing lots and proposed lot line adjustment(s);
b. The location of all existing structures on the subject parcel(s), including dimensioned
setback information from all existing and proposed lot lines and ingress/egress easements;
c. Locations of all existing ingress/egress and utility easements;
d. Gross lot area for the original parcels and the proposed parcels (gross lot area does not
include any lot area devoted to vehicular ingress/egress easements);
e. The existing zoning of the subject parcel(s);
f. Location of all existing driveways on the subject parcel(s); and
g. The lot lines of adjoining properties for a distance of at least 50 feet.
2. A title company certification which is not more than 30 calendar days old containing:
a. A legal description of the total parcel(s) sought to be adjusted;
b. A list of those individuals, corporations, or other entities holding an ownership interest in
the parcel(s);
c. Any easements or restrictions affecting the property(ies) with a description, purpose and
reference by auditor's file number and/or recording number;
d. Any encumbrances on the property; and
e. Any delinquent taxes or assessments on the property.
E. Fee. The application fee shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
F. Expiration. An application for a lot line adjustment shall expire one year after a complete
application has been filed with the city. An extension up to an additional year may be granted by the
Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee upon a showing by the application of reasonable
cause.
G. Review. A certified determination of the planning manager or his/her designee may be appealed to
the hearing examiner as a Type II decision as set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 63,
2009; Ord. 3211 § 1, 1998].
Packet Pg. 231
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 5 of 16
7.1.c
20.75.055 Lot combination.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A. Lot Combination Defined. A lot combination is the combination of two or more legal, illegal, or
nonconforming lots into one or more lots, all of which comply with the provisions of this code in effect
at the time of said combination.
B. An application for lot combination shall be signed for by all individuals or entities owning an interest
in the property. The application fee shall be the same as the fee established for lot line adjustments.
C. Lot combinations shall be approved as a matter of right unless the development services director
finds that the combination of lots would:
1. Not result in legal conforming lot; and/or
2. Not be in compliance with the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. The
director shall, as a part of his decision, determine whether or not the lots, as combined,
negatively impact compliance with the city's urban density requirements as established pursuant
to the State Growth Management Act, comprehensive plan and the Snohomish County planning
policies.
D. The director's decision shall be issued in writing and shall be mailed to all properties within 300
feet of the site. Appeal may be taken from the director's decision within 10 working days of mailing of
the decision and posting thereof in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord.
3736 § 64, 2009; Ord. 3296 § 2, 2000].
20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats.
A preliminary plat is a neat and approximate drawing to scale of a proposed division of land, showing
the existing conditions and the general proposed layouts of streets, lots and other information needed
to properly review the proposal. The preliminary plat of a short subdivision may be referred to as a
short plat. A preliminary plat shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor registered in the state
of Washington. The scale used shall be sufficient to show clearly all details of the proposal. A scale of
50 feet to the inch is preferred; other engineering scales may be used, if necessary. Preliminary plats
for formal subdivisions shall not exceed a size of 24 inches by 36 inches. Short plats shall be on an
8-1/2-by-1 1 -inch page. The following information shall be shown on the plat:
A. The name, if any, of the proposed subdivision;
B. Sufficient description to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision;
C. Name, address, seal and signature of the land surveyor who prepared the map;
D. A vicinity sketch;
E. Date prepared or revised, scale, north point, quarter section, section, township and range number;
F. Total acreage of the land to be divided, and area in square feet of each proposed lot;
G. Existing zoning, and zoning boundaries, if any;
Packet Pg. 232
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 6 of 16
7.1.c
H. Lot dimensions and numbers;
I. Setback lines required by the existing or proposed zoning, if the proposed lot has an unusual
shape, steep topography, or other unusual limitations on its building site;
J. Any existing property lines within, or adjacent to, the proposed subdivision, and the names of the
owners of adjacent property;
K. Contour lines in areas to be developed shall be at five-foot intervals, or as specified by the
community development director. Ten -foot intervals may be used in areas not to be developed. All
contour lines shall be extended into adjacent property a sufficient distance to show the topographical
relationship of adjacent property to the proposed subdivision;
L. The location, name and width of all existing and proposed street rights -of -way, or easements within
or adjacent to the proposed subdivision, the grade or proposed streets and the pavement location of
existing and proposed streets;
M. The location of all existing structures within the proposed subdivision and within 25 feet of the
proposed subdivision. Public area or areas to be owned in common by the lot owners, if any;
N. The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in
diameter in areas as requested by the planning director;
O. A preliminary grading plan or profile of proposed roads if more than 500 cubic yards of earth is to
be removed;
P. A preliminary drainage proposal as specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, showing existing and
proposed drainage facilities for the site and the adjacent areas;
Q. A statement of improvements to be installed;
R. The location of known or suspected soil or geological hazard areas, water bodies, creeks and
areas subject to flooding;
S. Possible future lot lines if any is large enough to allow future division;
T. Location of existing underground utility lines, sewer and water mains adjacent to or within the
proposed subdivision;
U. Other information that may be required by the community development director in order to properly
review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact
of the proposal. [Ord. 3296 § 1, 2000. Formerly 20.75.055.1.
20.75.065 Preliminary review.
A. Responsibility for Review. The community development director, or a designated planning staff
member, is in charge of administering the preliminary review of all subdivisions. The public works
director and the fire department, and other departments if needed, shall participate in preliminary
review by appropriate recommendations on subjects within their respective areas of expertise.
Packet Pg. 233
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 7 of 16
7.1.c
B. Notice of Hearing.
1. When the director of community services has accepted a subdivision for filing, he shall set a
date of hearing, and give notice of the hearing as provided in ECDC 20.03.003, and by the
following for a formal subdivision:
a. One publication in a newspaper of general circulation within Snohomish County pursuant
to Chapter 1.03 ECC and posting notice in three conspicuous places within 300 feet of any
portion of the boundary of the proposed formal subdivision not less than 10 working days
prior to the hearing.
b. Mailing to a city if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent or within one mile of the
city's boundary, or the proposed subdivision would use the utilities of the city.
c. Mailing to the county if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to the city -county
boundary.
d. Mailing to the State Department of Highways if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent
to a state highway right-of-way.
e. The notice must include a legal description and either a vicinity location sketch or a
location description in nonlegal language.
C. Time Limits for Staff Review. Staff review shall be completed within 120 days from the date of
filing.
D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall review a formal subdivision as a Type
III -A decision in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
E. Short Subdivisions — Staff Review. The director of community services shall review a short
subdivision as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required).
F. Appeal of Staff Decision. Any person may appeal to the hearing examiner a Type II decision of the
community development director on a short subdivision under the procedure set forth in Chapter
20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3817 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 65,
2009; Ord. 3211 §§ 4, 5, 1998; Ord. 3112 §§ 17, 18, 19, 1996; Ord. 2379 § 2, 19831.
20.75.070 Formal subdivision — Time limit.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The city council shall make its final decision on a proposed formal subdivision within 90 days of the
date of filing, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. Where applicable, additional time
needed to prepare and circulate an environmental impact statement shall not be included within said
90 days. [Ord. 3783 § 13, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 13, 2010].
20.75.075 Modifications.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A. Request. Request for a modification to a requirement of this chapter shall be made on the regular
subdivision application form. The applicant shall state reasons to support the approval of the
requested modification.
Packet Pg. 234
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 8 of 16
7.1.c
B. Notice. The notice of the public hearing at which the applicant's proposed subdivision will be
considered shall contain a description of the proposed modification.
C. Consideration. The proposed modification shall be considered in the same manner as the
proposed subdivision. The modification may be approved, or recommended for approval, only if all of
the required findings set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances) can be made. [Ord. 3211 § 6,
1998].
20.75.080 General findings.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A proposed subdivision may be approved only if all of the following general findings can be made for
the proposal, as approved or as conditionally approved:
A. Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter (as listed in
ECDC 20.75.020) and meets all requirements of this chapter.
B. Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted city policy, and is in the public interest.
C. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a modification
has been approved as provided for in this chapter.
D. Flood Plain Management. The proposal meets all requirements of the Edmonds Community
Development Code relating to flood plain management. [Ord. 2466, 19841.
20.75.085 Review criteria.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The following criteria shall be used to review proposed subdivisions:
A. Environmental.
1. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife habitats, the
proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the resources. Permanent
restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid impact.
2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and by
relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography.
3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the land to be
divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as flood plains, steep slopes or unstable soil or
geologic conditions, a subdivision of the hazardous land shall be denied unless the condition
can be permanently corrected, consistent with paragraphs A(1) and (2) of this section.
4. The proposal shall be designed to minimize off -site impacts on drainage, views and so forth.
B. Lot and Street Layout.
1. Lots shall be designed to contain a usable building area. If the building area would be difficult
to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special conditions can be imposed
on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed properly.
Packet Pg. 235
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 9 of 16
7.1.c
2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other feasible
access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or frontage streets
may be required to minimize traffic hazards.
3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance.
4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public facilities,
shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate.
C. Dedications.
1. The city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public use.
2. Only the city council may approve a dedication of park land to satisfy the requirements of
ECDC 20.75.090. The council may request a review and written recommendation from the
planning advisory board.
3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land for
streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary plat.
D. Improvements.
1. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, pedestrian walks
and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems, drainage
systems and underground utilities.
2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements necessary to
meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the requirements of:
a. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements;
b. Chapter 19.75, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and access.
This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the community development
director, the public works director, and the fire chief.
3. The use of septic systems may be approved if all of the following conditions are met:
a. It is more than 200 feet, multiplied by the number of lots in the proposed subdivision, from
the nearest public sewer main to the nearest boundary of the land to be divided.
b. The land to be divided is zoned RS-20.
c. The public works director and city health officer determine that soil, drainage and slope
conditions are satisfactory for septic use and that all requirements of WAC 248-96-090 are
met.
E. Flood Plain Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set forth in the
Edmonds Community Development Code for flood plain management. [Ord. 3211 § 7, 1998; Ord.
2466, 1984].
Packet Pg. 236
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 10 of 16
7.1.c
20.75.090 Park land dedication.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A. Dedication or In -Lieu of Fee Required. Before or concurrent with the approval of the final plat of
any subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in -lieu of dedication, or do a
combination of both, for park and recreational purposes.
B. Proposal of Dedication. Either the applicant or the city may propose dedication of a portion of the
land to be divided in order to meet the regulations of this section. Payment of in -lieu fees is required
unless dedication is proposed and approved.
C. Review of Dedications. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed at the same time as the subdivision
proposal. Any short subdivision containing a dedication proposal shall be reviewed as if it were a
formal subdivision.
D. Factors for Review. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, and the Recreational Walks
Plan. Other factors to be considered include size, usability and accessibility of the land proposed for
dedication, and the possibility of coordinating dedication by owners of adjacent land.
E. In -Lieu Fee. In -lieu park fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
20.75.100 Preliminary approval — Time limit.
A. Approval of a preliminary plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of the time period
established under RCW 58.17.140, unless the applicant has acquired final plat approval prior to the
expiration date established under RCW 58.17.140. The time period for subdivisions shall commence
upon the date of preliminary plat approval by the issuance of a written decision by the Edmonds
hearing examiner. In the event that the decision of the hearing examiner is appealed to the Edmonds
city council and/or Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date
of final confirmation of the preliminary plat decision by the city council or judiciary.
B. Approval of a short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of seven years if
preliminary short plat approval is issued on or before December 31, 2013, and five years if
preliminary short plat approval is issued on or after January 1, 2014, unless the applicant has
acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period. The time period for short plats shall
commence upon the issuance of a final, written staff decision. In the event that the decision of staff is
appealed to the Edmonds hearing examiner and/or Snohomish County superior court, the time period
shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary short plat decision by the
hearing examiner or judiciary. [Ord. 3925 § 1, 2013].
20.75.105 Extensions of time.
Repealed by Ord. 3190. [Ord. 2379 § 4, 19831.
20.75.107 Preliminary approval — Time limit extension for previously approved short
plats.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Short plats that received preliminary approval on or after January 1, 2006, and would have expired
prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall have their preliminary
Packet Pg. 237
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 11 of 16
7.1.c
approvals automatically extended for a period of two years from the effective date of the ordinance
codified in this section. Preliminary approval of such short plats shall expire and have no further
validity at the end of two years from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, unless
the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period. Notice of the two-
year extension from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section shall be provided to the
parties of record of such preliminary short plats. [Ord. 3925 § 2, 2013].
20.75.110 Changes.
A. Preliminary Plats. The community development director may approve as a Type II decision (Staff
decision — Notice required) minor changes to an approved preliminary plat, or its conditions of
approval. If the proposal involves additional lots, rearrangements of lots or roads, additional impacts
to surrounding property, or other major changes, the proposal shall be reviewed in the same manner
as the original application. Application fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
B. Recorded Final Plats. An application to change a final plat that has been filed for record shall be
processed in the same manner as a new application. This section does not apply to affidavits of
correction. [Ord. 3736 § 66, 2009].
20.75.120 Review of improvement plans.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A. Timing. If improvements are required as a condition of preliminary approval of a subdivision, the
applicant shall submit the improvement plan to the director of public works for review and approval,
allowing sufficient time for proper review before expiration of the preliminary plat approval.
B. Engineered Design. All improvement plans shall be prepared, dated, signed and sealed by a
licensed engineer registered in the state of Washington, unless the public works director determines
that engineer plans are not necessary.
20.75.130 Installation of improvements.
A. Timing and Inspection Fee. The applicant shall not begin installation of improvements until the
public works director has approved the improvement plans, the public works director and the
applicant have agreed in writing on a time schedule for installation of the improvements, and the
applicant has paid an inspection fee, as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
B. Completion — Bonding. The applicant shall either complete the improvements before the final plat
is submitted for city council approval, or the applicant shall post a bond or other suitable surety to
guarantee the completion of the improvements within one year of the approval of the final plat. The
bond or surety shall be based on the construction cost of the improvement as determined by the
director of public works, and shall be processed as provided in Chapter 17.10 ECDC.
C. Acceptance — Maintenance Bond. The director of public works shall not accept the improvements
for the city of Edmonds until the improvements have been inspected and found satisfactory, and the
applicant has posted a bond or surety for 15 percent of the construction cost to guarantee against
defects of workmanship and materials for two years from the date of acceptance.
D. Short Subdivision — Deferred Installation. If the community development director determines that
installation of improvements will not be needed at the time of the approval of the final plat of the short
Packet Pg. 238
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 12 of 16
7.1.c
subdivision, the improvements shall be installed or guaranteed by bond before issuance of any
development permit for any lot shown on the preliminary plat. This condition shall be stated on the
final plat, and shall be binding on all later owners of lots created by the subdivision.
20.75.135 Preparation of final plat.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A final plat is a final, precise drawing of a subdivision which conforms to the approved preliminary
plat, and meets all conditions of the preliminary approval and all requirements of this chapter. It shall
be prepared in accordance with the following:
A. Surveyor. A professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington shall prepare, or
supervise the preparation of, the final plat.
B. Survey. The surveyor shall survey the land to be divided, and as much of the section(s) in which
the land is located as is needed to properly orient the land within the section(s).
C. Monuments. The surveyor shall set monuments at street intersections, lot and block corners,
boundary angle points, points of curbs in streets, controlling corners on the boundaries of the land,
and other points as required by the public works director. The type of monuments and the method of
setting shall be as specified by the public works director.
D. Standards. The public works director shall set standards for the preparation of final plats.
20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The following certificates shall be shown on the final plat. Subsections A through G of this section
shall be signed by the indicated person before the final plat is submitted for review. Subsection G is
required for formal subdivision only.
A. Surveyor. The surveyor shall place his seal and signature on the plat along with:
1. A statement certifying that the plat was prepared by him, or under his supervision;
2. A statement certifying that the plat is a true and correct representation of the land surveyed;
3. A full and correct description of the land to be divided.
B. Owner. The owner shall certify that the subdivision has been made with his free consent and
according to his desires. Owners of other interests shown on the title report shall certify that they
have notice of the subdivision.
C. Dedications. A certificate of dedication by the owner for all areas to be dedicated to the public,
acknowledged by a notary.
D. Waiver of Claims. A statement by the owner waiving all claims for damages against any
governmental authority which may arise from the construction, drainage and maintenance of required
improvements.
E. Waiver of Access. If required by the conditions of the preliminary approval, a waiver by the owner
of direct access to any street from any property.
Packet Pg. 239
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 13 of 16
7.1.c
F. Roads Not Dedicated. A statement or other clear indication by the owner if any street is not to be
dedicated to the public.
G. Health Officer. A statement by the city of Edmonds health officer certifying that the proposed
means of sewage disposal and water supply are adequate.
H. Director of Public Works. The following statements to be signed by the director of public works:
1. A statement approving the survey date, the layout of streets, alleys and other rights -of -way,
design of bridges, sewage and water system and other structures;
2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city council,
or approving the final plat of a short subdivision.
I. Community Development Director. The following statements to be signed by the community
development director:
1. A statement that the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat and all conditions of
the preliminary approval;
2. A statement recommending approval of the final plat of a formal subdivision to the city council
or approving the final plat of a short subdivision.
J. City Approval. A statement to be signed by the mayor and city clerk that the city council has
approved the final plat of a formal subdivision or a short subdivision with a dedication.
K. Taxes. A statement to be signed by the county treasurer that all taxes and delinquent assessments
for which the land to be divided may be liable as of the date of the signing of the statement have been
paid.
20.75.145 Final plat — Accompanying material.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The following material shall be submitted to the director of public works with the final plat:
A. Review Fee. A review fee for the final plat as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC shall be paid for each
check or recheck of the final plat.
B. Survey Notes. Complete field and computation notes of the plat survey showing the original or re-
established corners with descriptions and the actual traverse showing error of closure and method of
balancing. A sketch showing all distances, angles and calculations required to determine corners and
distances of the plat shall accompany this data. The allowable error of closure shall not exceed one
foot in 5,000 feet.
C. Title Report. A title report showing that ownership and other interests in the land described and
shown on the final plat is in the name of the person signing the owner's certificate.
20.75.150 Waiver of survey.
......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ........ _ ..................
Packet Pg. 240
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 14 of 16
7.1.c
The director of public works may waive the requirement of a survey for the final plat in the following
circumstances if there will be no adverse effect on the public interest: if the boundaries of the lot
proposed for short subdivision have sufficient existing monuments to define the proposed lot lines.
If the director of public works waives the survey requirements, the applicant shall prepare a final plat
that meets all other requirements of this chapter and which contains legal descriptions of each
proposed lot. [Ord. 3211 § 9, 1998].
20.75.155 Review of final plat.
............. .....
A. Submission. The applicant may not file the final plat for review until the required improvement
plans have been submitted for approval to the director of public works.
B. Time Limit. A final plat shall be approved, disapproved or returned to the applicant for correction
within 30 days of its official filing with the director of public works for review, unless the applicant
agrees to extend the time limit. This time period shall not include required environmental review.
C. Staff Review. The director of public works and the community development director shall review
the final plat of a formal subdivision. They shall then forward the final plat to the city council for a Type
IV -A decision after having signed the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140 or attaching their
recommendation for disapproval.
D. City Council Review. If the city council finds that the public use and interest will be served by the
proposed subdivision and that all requirements of the preliminary approval in this chapter have been
met, the final plat shall be approved and the mayor and city clerk shall sign the statement of the city
council approval on the final plat.
E. Acceptance of Dedication. City council approval of the final plat constitutes acceptance of all
dedication shown on the final plat. [Ord. 3736 § 67, 2009; Ord. 2991 § 1, 19941.
20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review.
The community services director, through his/her designees, the director of public works and the
community development director shall conduct an administrative review of a proposed short
subdivision and either sign the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140, if all requirements of this
chapter have been met, or disapprove such action, stating their reasons in writing. Such
administrative action shall be final subject only to right of appeal to the hearing examiner as a Type II
decision under Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Dedication of any interest in property contained in an approval
of the short subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for formal acceptance on its consent
agent; provided, however, that such acceptance shall not stay any approval, time period for appeal or
the effective date of the short subdivision. [Ord. 3736 § 68, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 10, 1998; Ord. 2991 §
1, 1994].
20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record.
The city clerk shall file the final plat or short plat for record with the county auditor, and arrange for a
reproducible copy to be sent to the public works department and the applicant and a paper copy to be
sent to the county assessor and the community development department. The plat or short plat shall
not be considered "approved" until so filed with the county auditor.
Packet Pg. 241
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 15 of 16
7.1.c
20.75.165 Effect of rezones.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The owner of any lot in a final plat filed for record shall be entitled to use the lot for the purposes
allowed under the zoning in effect at the time of filing for five years from the date of filing the final plat
for record, even if the property is rezoned; provided that all requirements of the community
development code, other than lot area, are met.
20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A further division of any lot created by a short subdivision shall be reviewed as and meet the
requirements of this chapter for formal subdivision if the further division is proposed within five years
from the date the final plat was filed for record; provided, however, that when a short plat contains
fewer than four parcels, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prevent the owner who filed the
original short plat, from filing a revision thereof within the five-year period in order to create up to a
total of four lots within the original short subdivision boundaries. [Ord. 2623 § 1, 19871.
20.75.175 Court review.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Any decision approving or disapproving any plat or short plat shall be reviewable for unlawful,
arbitrary, capricious or corrupt action or nonaction by writ of review before the Superior Court of
Snohomish County. The action may be brought by any property owner in the city, who deems himself
or herself aggrieved thereby; provided, that application for a writ of review shall be made to the court
within 30 days from any decision so to be reviewed. The cost of transcription of all records ordered
certified by the court for such review shall be borne by the appellant.
20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter.
No building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit shall be issued for any lot unless:
(1) the subject property is a lot of record as defined in ECDC 21.55.015; or (2) the property owner is
determined to be an innocent purchaser in accordance with subsection (A) of this section. Where this
section authorizes a lot to be developed even though such lot does not meet the definition for "lot of
record" in ECDC 21.55.015, any development on said lot shall comply with the city's development
regulations, including any applicable development regulations regarding nonconforming lots.
A. "Lot of Record" Status for Innocent Purchasers. An owner of property may obtain "lot of record"
status for a parcel that does not meet the "lot of record" definition. To obtain this status, the applicant
must submit an affidavit with sufficient supporting documentation to demonstrate that:
1. The applicant did not have actual notice regarding the subdivision of the property in question.
If the applicant had knowledge of the subdivision (e.g., knowledge that two parcels in question
were once part of the same parcel), but not of its illegality, the innocent purchase status may not
be granted;
2. The purchase price of the parcel is consistent with an arm's length transaction;
3. The owner did not purchase the property from a relative;
4. At the time of purchase, there was some existing deed, record or survey showing the subject
parcel as a separate lot; and
Packet Pg. 242
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 16 of 16
7.1.c
5. The parcel had a separate tax ID parcel number prior to the purchase of the property by the
applicant.
B. The innocent purchaser status may be approved subject to conditions of approval requiring the
applicant to make improvements to the property that would likely have been required by the city had
the property been properly subdivided, unless it is determined that such improvements have already
been constructed.
C. An affirmative determination of innocent purchaser and "lot of record" status shall be recorded with
the county auditor. [Ord. 3982 § 3, 2014].
20.75.185 Penalties.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter relating to the sale, offer for sale, lease or
transfer of any lot is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties of ECC 5.50.020. Each sale,
offer for sale, lease or transfer of each separate lot in violation of any provision of this chapter shall be
deemed a separate and distinct offense. In addition to these criminal sanctions, the city shall have the
right to bring an action to restrain and enjoin any subdivision, sale or transfer, compel compliance
with the provisions of this chapter and obtain other injunctive relief. The costs of such action shall be
paid by the violator and shall include the city attorney's fees.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
are current through Ordinance 4056, passed December 6,
2016.
Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. Users
should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed
subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
Packet Pg. 243
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O75.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 4
7.1.c
Attachment 10
Chapter 16.30
RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
Sections:
16.30.000
Purposes.
16.30.010
Uses.
16.30.020
Subdistricts.
16.30.030
Site development standards.
16.30.040
Site development exceptions.
16.30.000 Purposes.
.........
The RM zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for residential
zones of ECDC 16.00.010 and 16.10.000:
A. To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than
are available in the single-family residential zones, while still maintaining a residential environment;
B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple
residential uses. [Ord. 3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007].
16.30.010 Uses.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. Multiple dwellings;
2. Single-family dwellings;
3. Retirement homes or congregate care facilities, assisted living facilities;
4. Group homes for the disabled, foster family homes and state -licensed group homes for foster
care of minors; provided, however, that halfway houses and group homes licensed for juvenile
offenders are not permitted uses in a residential zone of the city;
5. Boarding houses and rooming houses;
6. Housing for low income elderly in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.25 ECDC;
7. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020;
8. Primary schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R);
9. Local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan,
subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050;
10. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master
plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070.
B. Permitted Secondary Uses.
Packet Pg. 244
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1630.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
Page 2 of 4
7.1.c
1. All permitted secondary uses in the RS zone, if in conjunction with a single-family dwelling;
2. Home occupations, subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.20 ECDC;
3. The following accessory uses:
a. Private parking,
b. Private swimming pools and other private recreational facilities,
c. Private greenhouses covering no more than five percent of the site in total;
4. Commuter parking lots containing less than 10 designated parking spaces in conjunction with
a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. Any
additionally designated parking spaces that increase the total number of spaces in a commuter
parking lot to 10 or more shall subject the entire commuter parking lot to a conditional use permit
as specified in subsection (D)(2) of this section, including commuter parking lots that are located
upon more than one lot as specified in ECDC 21.15.075.
C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Offices, other than local public facilities;
2. Local public facilities not planned, designated, or sited in the capital improvement plan,
subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050;
3. Day-care centers and preschools for 13 or greater children;
4. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums, and assisted living facilities;
5. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the
criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033;
6. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers;
7. High schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R);
8. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of
ECDC 17.100.070.
D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Day-care facilities or preschools of any size to be operated in a separate, nonresidential
portion of a multifamily residential dwelling primary permitted structure operated primarily for the
benefit of the residents thereof;
2. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in conjunction with a
church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. [Ord. 3988
§ 8, 2015; Ord. 3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007].
16.30.020 Subdistricts.
...... ._
Packet Pg. 245
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1630.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
Page 3 of 4
7.1.c
There are established four subdistricts of the RM zone, in order to provide site development
standards for areas which differ in topography, location, existing development and other factors. [Ord.
3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007].
16.30.030 Site development standards.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A. Table.
Minimum Lot Area
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Subdistrict
Per Dwelling Unit3
Street
Side
Rear
Maximum
Maximun
Height
Coverage
(Sq. Ft.)
Setback
Setback
Setback
RM-1.5
1,500
15'
10,
15'
251
45%
RM-EW
1,500
15'
10,
15'
25A
45%
RM-2.4
2,400
15'
10,
15'
261
45%
RM-3
3,000
15'
15'
15,
25,1
45%
1 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated
height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater.
2 RS setbacks may be used for single-family homes on lots of 10,000 square feet or less in all RM zones.
3 See definition of townhouse.
4 The maximum base height of any building fronting on Edmonds Way may be increased to 35 feet if the
following apply to the site and proposed development: Y
U
M
(a) At least two of the following techniques shall be incorporated into the building and/or site's design: a
L
(1) Achievement of at least LEED gold certification or comparable green building certification; m
a�
(2) Inclusion of housing units affordable to persons at low/moderate income as determined by Snohomish
County Tomorrow. The number of affordable units must be at least 15 percent of the gross number of units
proposed; a
W
N
(3) Low impact development (LID) techniques are employed. LID best management practices include, but
a
are not limited to: bioretention/rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil Q
quality and depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water re -use. M
K
w
B. See Parking (Chapter 17.50 ECDC), Design Review (Chapter 20.10 ECDC), and Sign Code
c
(Chapter 20.60 ECDC) for additional standards. The following design standards shall also apply to
E
buildings within the RM-EW zone:
c�
1. Seventy-five percent of a building facade facing a public right-of-way shall be clad with Q
preferred building materials which include natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and
glass. Concrete, laminates, veneers, fiber cement products and the like may be permitted if they
Packet Pg. 246
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1630.html 3/ 15/2017
Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
Page 4 of 4
7.1.c
replicate the appearance of the listed preferred materials. At least 55 percent of building facade
materials must be salvaged, recycled content, bio-based or indigenous.
C. Location of Parking. No parking spaces may be located within the street setback. [Ord. 3943 § 2
(Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007].
16.30.040 Site development exceptions.
.......................... ... ......... ....... ............... ... .
A. Maximum height for accessory structures is 15 feet.
B. Satellite Television Antenna. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC
16.20.050.
C. Setback Encroachments.
1. Eaves and chimneys and bay windows, utility lines and meters, and "similar minor
improvements," etc., may project into a required setback not more than 30 inches.
2. Except as authorized by subsection (C)(3) of this section, uncovered and unenclosed
porches, steps, patios, and decks may project into a required setback not more than one-third of
the required setback, or four feet, whichever is less; provided, that they are no more than 30
inches above the ground level at any point.
3. In the RM — Edmonds Way zone, uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and
decks may occupy up to one-half of the required street setback area along Edmonds Way;
provided, that these structures or uses are located no more than 20 feet above the ground level
at any point.
D. Corner Lots. Corner lots shall have no rear setback; all setbacks other than street setbacks shall
be side setbacks. [Ord. 3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3652 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
are current through Ordinance 4056, passed December 6,
2016.
Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. Users
should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed
subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
u
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1630.html
Packet Pg. 247
3/15/2017
With No Unit Subdivision
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 248
77
a
ispi.; ri -
A
With
r-
No Unit Subdivision
i
E
E
a
0
U
0
�a
0
cn
0
J
r
,z
a
le
x
W
t
V
a
a
Packet Pg. 250
With Unit Su
bdivision
PA MA # ; �7- 1'Fi" '!'En r-
Ad
..�
I —
a
a
w
N
SZ
a
le
x
W
r
Q
Packet Pg. 251
� i. :� �. ' '� :3� Y �.�' ! �' •.,` Ilk
} ?tee. __ :*.,'�-"i • Y' .� .s;,-. -_ .: - .r.
dl
.. '. a 1. - •*.+. _. [_ ., - .. __
-
�.+-"'F.
OW7*
\-00
ill Ii I
7.1.e
MBAKS.COM I 01HO 425.451.7920 I 1Ak 425.646.5985
335 116TH AVENUE SE I BELLEVUE; WASHINGTON 98004
April 24, 2017
Edmonds Planning Board
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Code Amendment for Unit Lot Subdivisions
Dear Board Members,
On behalf of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties I am
writing to express support for the unit lot subdivision code amendments currently before
you.
Unit Lot Subdivisions (also often referred to as Fee Simple) are an important tool to
home builders in creating home ownership opportunities.
The expense and hurdles associated with creating condominiums often precludes a
builder from developing that product.
It is important to note that there is no physical difference in the homes being produced.
In essence, fee simple code is a legal overlay which leads to the same product, but
more efficiently produced and with the benefit of ownership opportunity.
All the standards that citizens of Edmonds value remain unchanged.
Several other jurisdictions in our region have adopted fee simple, unit lot subdivision
codes and have done so successfully.
We thank you for your consideration of unit lot subdivision code changes and
encourage your support.
Sincerely,
AT'�;k�
Mike Pattison
Snohomish County Manager
Packet Pg. 254
7.1.f
Clugston, Michael
From:
Chave, Rob
Sent:
Thursday, April 27, 2017 3:02 PM
To:
Cunningham, Diane; Clugston, Michael
Subject:
FW: Unit Lot Subdivision Code
From: Nordling Rubenkonig, Carreen (Planning Board)
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 2:43 PM
To: Hope, Shane; Chave, Rob
Cc: Nathan Monroe (Planning Board)
Subject: FW: Unit Lot Subdivision Code
From: Carreen Rubenkonig [carreennrubenkonig@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 2:40 PM
To: Hope, Shane; Nordling Rubenkonig, Carreen (Planning Board)
Subject: Fwd: Unit Subdivision Code
Alas, this arrived this morning which was too late for last night's Planning Board meeting.
I believe his comments are relevant to review of the Unit Lot Subdivision Code Amendment by City Council.
Since it was addressed to me personally, I could ask Rob Michel-- or you could --if this letter could be included in the
packet for City Council.
Carreen
Carreen N. Rubenkonig
m
0
425-275-2973
---------- Forwarded message ----------
r
L
a
From: Rob Michel <rwmichel nwlink.com>
°-
Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:28 AM
Subject: Unit Subdivision Code
°
L
To: Carreen Rubenkonig <carreennrubenkoni mail.com>
a�
Hi Carreen:
Z
I am unable to attend the meeting tonight but would like to put some thoughts down for you to consider since I am one
of the very few who had the privilege to develop some unit lot subdivisions in Edmonds. I developed both detached and
co
attached units in the RM 2400 zone. Some of these developments are 10 years old and looking good in the community.
w
1. The Main reason I developed the unit lot subdivision was to provide individual ownership to mostly new young families
r
E
including my niece! Affordable housing for first time home buyers.
Condominiums were the only other way for these first time home buyers to have any kind of individual ownership but the
financing became difficult and more expensive as many condominiums failed to keep up with maintenance and other
Q
regulatory requirements. Condominium associations found themselves dealing with foreclosures and mounting delinquent
monthly dues.
2. Detached homes allowed more air and landscaping between structures in stead of the massive 30 foot tall single
structure. This allowed individual yard area for children to play in a safe environment. Also it gave us the opportunity to
have multiple house styles and paint colors in one development.
Packet Pg. 255
7.1.f
3. Important to have multiple types of development available to make development attractive to developers.
If I think of more I will let you know.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best to you,
Rob
Packet Pg. 256
7.1.g
Unit Lot Subdivision Code
Amendment
Edmonds City Council
May 9, 2017
Packet Pg. 257
7.1.g
Application for a Code Amendment 0
O
9
s
• Application from a private party o
J
• Amendment would add "unit lot subdivision" co
as an option in the subdivision code T
• Process is Type V — Planning Board public0
a
hearing and recommendation 2
0
• City Council public hearing and decision
(potential ordinance amending ECDC) r�
W
z
a
Packet Pg. 258
7.1.g
Unit Lot Subdivision
• Doesn't change underlying zoning
• Doesn't change applicable design, height or bulk
considerations
• External project setbacks are preserved
• Provides for an alternative form of ownership for
multi family projects (as opposed to
condominiums)
• Requires homeowners association & agreements
for maintenance of common areas or facilities,
and building exteriors for multi -unit buildings
Packet Pg. 259
7.1.g
Pr! , , I=
00 174zw
Ji
Packet Pg. 260
s f,
I
11 �• ��F1
ti
0
N
I-
k
11
C
� O
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 261
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Agreement with Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD) and the Edmonds School District ESD)
related to the issuance of permits and approvals for the new Madrona K-8 School (5 min.)
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Public Works & Utilities
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign the attached letter agreement.
Narrative
The construction of the new $40 million+ Madrona K-8 school is scheduled to begin on May 171". Some
issues are still being discussed between OVWSD and the ESD that could affect certain features of the
project. OVWSD and ESD need additional time to reach agreements on those items. The City's role is
primarily to facilitate a process that allows for this additional time. This letter agreement establishes a
process and a sequence that will allow the City to begin issuing construction approvals for the project
while preserving the parties' rights to reach consensus on the outstanding items.
Attachments:
DRAFT Madrona OVWSD-ESD-City Letter Agreement 5-11-17
Packet Pg. 262
8.1.a
May 11, 2017
Ms. Lynne Danielson
General Manager
Olympic View Water and Sewer District
8128 228th Street SW
Edmonds, WA 98026 - 8449
Hon. Dave Earling
Mayor
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dr. Kristine McDuffy
Superintendent
Edmonds School District
20420 68th Ave. W
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Re: Letter Agreement Regarding Madrona School Replacement Project
This letter agreement ("Agreement") is entered into by and between the Olympic View Water
and Sewer District ("OVWSD"), a water and sewer district, the Edmonds School District No. 15
("ESD"), a municipal corporation, and the City of Edmonds ("City"), a municipal corporation,
with regard to the processing and approval of certain plans and permits regarding ESD's
replacement of school facilities for the Madrona K-8 School located at 9300 236th St SW,
Edmonds, WA 98020 the ("School"). OVWSD, ESD and City are each sometimes individually
referred to hereinafter as a "Party" and sometimes collectively referred to hereinafter as the
"Parties.
1. OVWSD approves the water and sewer plans for purposes of issuing the site -civil
permit for the School with full reservation of rights regarding its agreement to serve the School.
2. ESD agrees not to request final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
the School until OVWSD agrees to serve the School.
3. ESD requests that the City not issue the certificate of occupancy for the School until it
has received written notice from OVWSD regarding its agreement to serve the School.
4. City acknowledges receipt of this agreement and agrees to honor ESD's request.
The undersigned representative for each Party certifies that s/he is fully authorized by the Party
s/he represents to enter into this Agreement and to legally bind such Party and its successors in
interest to it.
04550-0837/135539808.2
oo
0
N
Packet Pg. 263
8.1.a
May 11, 2017
Page 2
This Agreement shall be effective as of the date first written above. This Agreement shall be
governed by, subject to and construed under the laws of the State of Washington. This
Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter
hereof, and supersedes all other prior agreements and understandings, oral and written, between
the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. No amendment, modification or waiver of
any provision of this Agreement will be valid unless set forth in a written instrument signed by
all Parties. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed to be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND
EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT
SEWER DISTRICT
NO. 15
Lynne Danielson
Dr. Kristine McDuffy
General Manager
Superintendent
APPROVED TO AS FORM
APPROVED TO AS FORM
Joseph Bennett
Kristine Wilson, Perkins Coie LLP
OVWSD Legal Counsel
ESD Legal Counsel
CITY OF EDMONDS
Dave Earling
Mayor
APPROVED TO AS FORM
Jeffrey Taraday
City Attorney
04550-0837/135539808.2
Perkins Caie LLP
w
0
Packet Pg. 264
9.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Council Committee Meeting Procedures (20 min.)
Staff Lead: Tom Mesaros
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
There have been several questions raised about the role of the Council President in the new committee
structure and the opportunity for Council Members and the Mayor to participate in committee
discussions.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The attached two items seek to resolve the questions raised and clarify the role of the Council President
and participation of other Council Members and the Mayor during committee meetings. Once we have
agreement on these items, and any other items the council may want to change of augment regarding
the committee structure at this time, the City Attorney will craft them into the existing ordinance.
Attachments:
Study Item on Committee Operations 170516
Packet Pg. 265
9.1.a
Edmonds City Council
Considerations for Council Committee Operations
May 16, 2017
Role of the Council President: In addition to the current role as described in the
ordinance, the council president shall be a non -voting ex-officio member of all
council committees. When a committee member is absent, and that committee
member is the chair of the committee, the other committee member will serve as the
committee chair during any meetings of that committee while the chair is absence and
the council president shall serve as a voting member of the committee in place of the
absent committee member. If the committee member absent is not the chair of the
committee, then the council president shall serve as a voting member of the
committee during that council member's absence.
Elected officials participating in other council committee meetings: Council
members and the mayor may participate in any noticed council committee meeting by
joining the discussion and asking questions but are not allowed to vote on committee
business. Only committee members, or the council president substituting for an
absent committee member, are allow to vote on committee business. Presence of a
quorum of the city council at a regular committee meeting does not change the
character of the meeting from a committee meeting to a city council meeting.
Packet Pg. 266
10.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/16/2017
Council Committee Reports (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Council Committee format was recently reinstated. This is an opportunity for the Council to report
on items discussed in their committee meetings. The committee meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
05-09-2017 Finance Committee Minutes
05-09-2017 PPP Committee Minutes
05-09-2017 PSP Committee Minutes
Packet Pg. 267
10.1.a
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
May 9, 2019
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Chair Scott James, Finance Director
Councilmember Dave Teitzel Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Council President Mesaros (intermittent) Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The meeting was called to order at 7:46 p.m. in Council Chambers.
Proposed Business License Renewal Late Fee Reversal Policy
Mr. Passey explained the City receives requests to waive/reverse late fees but does not currently
have a policy. The proposed policy allows staff to waive a late fee once every three years if the
account has been in good standing or the late payment was beyond the control of the customer
(circumstances are outlined in the policy). The State legislature recently passed a bill requiring cities
to partner with the Department of Revenue to administer business licenses.
Mr. Passey responded to questions and discussion followed regarding the number of requests the
City receives and the number of waivers granted, the City's utility billing late fee waiver, similar
cities'/agencies' policies, policies available on MSRC, circumstances that are considered beyond the
business owners' control, reasons waivers are requested, and businesses' responsibility to renew
their business license.
Councilmember Teitzel requested policies from three other cities.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda.
2. Present Draft 2018 Budget Development Calendar to Council
Mr. James reviewed a proposed 2018 draft budget calendar, commenting it was helpful to hear
Council priorities early in the budget season. Discussion followed regarding creating a Risk
Management Committee of directors to understand what is driving claims, the Council making
modifications to the CIP/CFP, department budget formats, facility condition assessment, establishing
a building maintenance budget, developing a financial plan for the City that identifies potential building
expenses, establishing policies based on a Pavement Condition Index and Facility Condition Index,
establishing policies related to long range financial planning, whether a Council budget retreat is an
option, and concern each Councilmember has different priorities.
Committee suggestions included:
• Council identifying priorities and submitting decision packages
• Rather than a Council retreat, add a check -in with the Finance Committee and/or joint meeting
with Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee to review the CIP/CFP
• Ensure each department uses the same budget format
• Fleet Manager Tom Sullivan review the Facility Condition Assessment with the Finance
Committee during the summer
• Review antiquated policies
Packet Pg. 268
10.1.a
05-09-17 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2
Action: Add to extended agenda in August a full Council agenda item to identify priorities and request
Councilmembers submit decision packages to be included in the budget. Staff provide examples of
past Council decision packages
3. Review Council Committee Descriptions and Provide Feedback
The Finance Committee revised the committee description to read as follows:
The committee shall exercise general oversight with respect to city revenues and expenditures
via review of monthly and quarterly financial budgetary reports. The committee shall review all
City financial policies and practices. The committee shall review budget amendments prior to
being presented to Council. Annually the committee shall review audit deficiencies and
progress on correcting them.
Action: Send revised committee description to Council President Mesaros.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
Packet Pg. 269
10.1.b
PARKS, PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
May 9, 2017
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Councilmember Neil Tibbott (Chair) Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Councilmember Kristiana Johnson Rob English, City Engineer
Council President Tom Mesaros (intermittent) Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant
The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m.
1. Report on Construction Bids for the 238th Street Walkway Protect (Edmonds Way to
SR99)
Mr. English described the project, 1,000 feet of new 7-foot sidewalk to fill missing gaps, a lighted mid -
block crossing and ADA curb ramp upgrades as well as an add -alternative for installing an ADA-
compliant sidewalk in the "pork chop" traffic island. Five bids were opened on May 2, 2017; base bids
ranged from $474,000 to $811,000 and bids for the add -alternate ranged from $30,000 to $50,000.
The engineer's estimate for the base bid was $355,000. The low bidder, Kamins Construction, said
the high bids are due to difficulty finding concrete subcontractors because of the amount of work
available. The project is funded in part by a TIB grant and stormwater funds. Staff recommends
rejecting the bids and re -advertising in the fall or early winter when prices may be more competitive.
Staff will also review the engineer's estimate.
Discussion including potential for planting in the traffic island, whether Council President Mesaros was
an ad -hoc member of all committees, whether the project included a planting strip between the
sidewalk and the street, the widened sidewalk, paving costs for upgraded ADA ramps in other areas,
and impact of postponing this project.
Councilmember Johnson objected to Council President Mesaros participating during the committee
meeting.
Action: Schedule rejection of bids on the Consent Agenda
2. Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with BHC Consultants for the Dayton Street
Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
Mr. English explained last fall the City received a $250,000 TIB grant for improvements related to
Complete Streets. Staff identified a 450-foot gap in the sidewalk on the south side of Dayton Street
west of 8th which is the highest prioritized short sidewalk segment in the 2015 Transportation Plan.
This supplement is for HBC to do the design which will be funded by the grant. Mr. Williams
commented the topography will require utilizing some of the street width and will eliminate a couple
parking spaces. Staff contacted several homeowners about trading on -street parking for a sidewalk
and they were agreeable. A brief discussion followed regarding BHC's use of a sub -consultant to
design the sidewalk.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
3. Presentation of a Complete Streets Grant Agreement with the Transportation
Improvement Board (TIB)
Packet Pg. 270
10.1.b
05-09-17 PPP Committee Minutes, Page 2
Mr. English advised this was the Complete Streets Grant Agreement approving the $250,000 grant for
the project described in Item 2.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
4. Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with Tetra Tech for the Lift Station #1 Basin
and Flow Study
Mr. English distributed Alternative 8 — Interceptor Along Sunset Avenue N, explaining the Council
previously approved a contract for a Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study. Lift Station #1 is the City's
largest sewer lift station and serves over 25% of the City's sewer service area. Three alternatives
have been identified, 1) refurbish and make improvements to the existing lift station to provide more
redundancy and possible storage, 2) install a gravity system in 2Id Avenue and reduce size of Lift
Station #1, and 3) install gravity line on Sunset Avenue and decommission Lift Station #1. Benefits of
Option 3 include the ability to eliminate Lift Station #1 and the emergency generator and to improve
reliability. Cost range of the three options is $9-16 million. Tunneling options include microtunnel and
open face drilling; open face drilling is less expensive, but no groundwater can be present. The
$49,880 supplemental agreement will fund additional geotechnical work on the alignment and wells to
monitor groundwater and the information provided will assist with evaluating the alternatives. The cost
will be paid by the sewer utility fund. Staff recommends approval of the supplemental agreement.
Discussion followed regarding areas served by Lift Station #1, the number of other lift stations in the
City, liability associated with tunneling and drilling, maintenance costs and funding a project of this
magnitude.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
5. Review Council Committee Descriptions and Provide Feedback
Mr. Pierce invited Mr. Williams and Mr. English to email him their comments regarding the committee
description. Committee members' suggestions included:
• Add reference to parks, open space and cultural resources/services
• Add reference to collaboration with the Planning Board
• Add reference that the Planning Board also serves as the Parks Board
• Discuss with the full Council whether Planning Board recommendations should go to the
Council or the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee first. Once a decision is made,
add the process to the committee description.
Discussion included the Council President's role in Council committees (Council President Mesaros to
confer with City Attorney) and the reason unit lot subdivision was presented to the full Council instead
of committee.
Councilmember Johnson left the meeting at 8:25 p.m. during the above discussion. She offered to
email her comments regarding the committee description.
Action:
1. Discuss with full Council whether Planning Board recommendations should go to the Council or the
Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee first. Once a decision is made, add the process to
the committee description.
2. Confer with the City Attorney regarding the Council President's role in committee meetings.
3. Provide revised committee description to Council President Mesaros.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Packet Pg. 271
10.1.c
PUBLIC SAFETY & PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING
May 9, 2019
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Councilmember Mike Nelson, Chair) Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Jerrie Bevington. Recorder
Council President Tom Mesaros (intermittent)
The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m.
Amendments to Diversity Commission Code Provisions
Mr. Doherty reviewed proposed changes:
• 10.65.020.D: In the event that any commissioner resigns or fails to attend three consecutive
commission meetings, or four total commission meetings in one calendar year, without such
absences being excused (pursuant to ECC 1.05.010(B)), that position will be deemed vacant,
and a subsequent appointment will be made by a vote of the seated commission, subject to
council confirmation.
• 10.54.020.F: Members may be removed by the mayor with the approval of city council after a
public hearing before the city council, for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
Vacancies "r„ „aGaRGY on the commission shall be advertised, and the new appointee
shall be selected from the applications received, except that commissioners may elect to
interview and/or appoint from applicants received in response to an advertised vacancy within
three months prior to any new vacancy. Any appointment to a position vacated other than by
the expiration of the term of the appointment shall be to fill the unexpired portion of the term.
Discussion followed regarding attendance provisions for other boards and commissions, process for
committees to forward item to Council or Consent Agenda, and ability of Councilmembers to pull
items off the Consent Agenda for further discussion.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
2. Review Council Committee Descriptions and Provide Feedback
Discussion included the origin of the proposed committee descriptions, concern the descriptions were
very formal, and the previous committee descriptions. Committee members revised the description as
follows:
The committee shall exercise oversight of adequate delivery of police and fire protection to the
City. The committee shall coordinate and work with other City agencies and community
organizations to evaluate, explore and develop strategies, policies, and recommendations
aimed at ensuring the public's safety including reducing crime, improving traffic safety,
emergency medical response, fire prevention and suppression, emergency preparedness, and
parking.
The committee shall exercise oversight of matters relating to personnel policies and practices,
compensation and benefits, labor relations and collective bargaining, employee relations,
staffing and organizational structures.
Action: Provide revised committee description to Council President Mesaros.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
Packet Pg. 272